Dissertation2007 Borg

Istituto Universitario Universit degli
di Studi Superiori Studi di Pavia
EUROPEAN SCHOOL FOR ADVANCED STUDIES IN

REDUCTION OF SEISMIC RISK
ROSE SCHOOL
SEISMIC PERFORMANCE, ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF

WHARF STRUCTURES:
A COMPARISON OF WORLDWIDE TYPOLOGIES.
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Master Degree in
EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
by
RANDOLPH CARL BORG
Supervisor: Dr. CARLO GIOVANNI LAI
May, 2007
The dissertation entitled Seismic Performance, Analysis and Design of Wharf Structures: A
comparison of worldwide Typologies, by Randolph Carl Borg, has been approved in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the Master Degree in Earthquake Engineering.
Dr. Carlo G. Lai
Dr. Rui Pinho

Abstract
ABSTRACT
The economies of many industrialised Nations are based on the export and import of
merchandise and for the flow of travellers in the tourism industry. A relevant portion of this
trade takes place and relies on the efficiency of seaports, many of which are situated in
seismic zones. Ports from worldwide countries namely Italy, Greece, Turkey, USA, China,
Japan and New Zealand were studied for their seismic hazard in relation to their economical
importance. Different worldwide wharf typologies and their related damages are identified.
An assessment was made to identify the most vulnerable wharf structural typology using a
probabilistic approach. The failure modes that contribute most to this vulnerability are also
identified. Analyses and design methodologies were then assessed and related to performance
requirements for both open-type and closedtype wharf typologies. The contribution and
relevance of various national seismic design codes was reviewed. Soil liquefaction was
identified as a major contributor to wharf failure under seismic action. Susceptibility to
liquefaction was reviewed as approached by some of the studied seismic codes. Design
procedures as used in different parts in the world particularly North America, Japan and
Europe were identified for the two groups of port typologies. These were applied to a case
study in Italy referring to a pile-wall wharf structure (Gioia Tauro seaport). Another case
study in Italy referring to a pile-supported wharf (Catania seaport) was used to compare
traditional methodologies based on force, with new approaches based on displacement.
Keywords: port structures; port vulnerability; closed-type wharf; open-type wharf; wharf seismic
design; wharf seismic analysis; quay-wall.
i
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Carlo Lai for his constant support and guidance
throughout the process of the thesis and the thrust he has shown in me.
I would like to thank the Italian Government for awarding me a scholarship through the Foreign Office
of the Government of Malta which supported the tuition part of the masters. I would also like to thank
the Department of Civil Protection of the Italian Government for the provision of a research grant
which covered the phase of the thesis. My studies were partially made possible through their financial
aid.
I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Renata Gentile, from the University of Genoa, Italy for
providing the data relative to Gioia Tauro seaport and Catania seaport in southern Italy. I would like to
thank Prof. M.J.N. Priestley for sharing information about displacement based design of pile supported
wharves. Gratitude is also showed to the ROSE librarian, Manuela Sofia for her patience and help. I
would like to thank also Dr. Liberato Camilleri from the statistics department at the University of
Malta for his advice on probability.
Special thanks go to Marija for sharing this experience with me from far away. Her continuous
support, patience, thrust, and encouragement were essential. I would like to thank my parents for their
continuous and recurring, encouragement and support. I would like to thank my brother Ruben for his
encouragement and insisting on me to take a masters degree.
Thanks are also due to the directors and administration of the Istituto di Cultura Italiana, Malta
particularly Sig. Stivala. I would like to thank all the friends met in due course in Italy for their
friendship, particularly to Luca also for his integrity and advice.
ii
Index
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS....................................................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................iii
LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................viii
LIST OF TABLES..................................................................................................................................1
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................4
1.1 Motivation of the study ..............................................................................................................4
1.2 Scope Of The Study ...................................................................................................................4
2. HISTORICAL, FUNCTIONAL AND ECONOMICAL DEVELOPMENT OF PORTS.................6
2.1 Historical Developments of Ports ..............................................................................................6
2.1.1 Introduction to the Historical development ........................................................6
2.1.2 Prehistory and Early History...............................................................................6
2.1.3 Roman Era. .........................................................................................................7
2.1.4 Modern History...................................................................................................9
2.1.5 Military and Civil Engineer Era..........................................................................9
2.2 Function of Ports......................................................................................................................12
2.3 Economical Development and Importance of Ports.................................................................14
3. SEISMIC RISK AND HAZARD OF PORTS.................................................................................14
3.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................14
3.2 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA) .................................................................14
3.3 Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment (DSHA) ...............................................................16
3.4 Seismic Parameters Required for the Design and Assessment of Port Structures ...................16
3.5 Seismic Vulnerability of Existing Worldwide Ports................................................................17
3.5.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................17
iii
Index
3.5.2 Seismic Hazard Maps .......................................................................................17

3.5.3 Geographic Location and Seismic Hazard of Ports. .........................................20
3.5.4 Economic Risk and Seismic hazard of Ports ....................................................21
3.6 Anomalies in Risk and Hazard Assessments ...........................................................................23
4. DAMAGE AND WHARF PERFORMANCE ................................................................................25
4.1 Performance Criteria and Requirements for Design ................................................................25
4.1.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................25
4.1.2 Earthquake Level Requirements .......................................................................25
4.1.3 Damage Level Requirements ............................................................................26
4.1.4 Seismic Analysis and Performance Requirements: ..........................................27
4.1.5 Performance of Ports in earthquakes ................................................................29
4.2 Different Wharf Typologies.....................................................................................................45
4.2.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................45
4.2.2 Open Type Wharves .........................................................................................46
4.2.3 Closed Type Wharves: Gravity Walls ..............................................................47
4.2.4 Closed Type Wharves: Pile walls. ....................................................................51
4.2.5 Variations and Combinations in Typologies.....................................................53
4.2.6 Elements Constituting Wharf structures ...........................................................54
5. SEISMIC VULNERABILITY OF WHARF TYPOLOGIES .........................................................65
5.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................65
5.2 Sorting of Data.........................................................................................................................65
5.2.1 Logic Trees .......................................................................................................68
5.3 Probability Theorem ................................................................................................................72
5.4 Application Of the Probability Theorem .................................................................................73
5.4.1 Assessment for Serviceability Failure...............................................................73
5.4.2 Assessment for Ultimate failure........................................................................77
5.5 Conclusion ...............................................................................................................................91
6. DESIGN AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES .................................................................................94
6.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................................94
6.2 Simplified Analysis for Closed-Type Wharves .......................................................................98
6.2.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................98
6.2.2 Mononobe-Okabe Method ................................................................................98
6.2.3 Steedman-Zeng Method....................................................................................98
6.2.4 Wood Theory ....................................................................................................99
6.2.5 Richards-Elms Method ...................................................................................100
6.2.6 Whitman-Liao Method....................................................................................101
iv
Index
6.2.7 Choudhury Approach......................................................................................101

6.3 Simplified Static Analysis for Open-Type Wharves..............................................................101
6.4 Simplified Dynamic Analysis for Closed Type-Wharves......................................................101
6.4.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................101
6.4.2 Sliding Block Analysis for Gravity-quay Walls .............................................102
6.4.3 Sliding Block Analysis for Sheet Pile Quay-walls .........................................102
6.5 Simplified Dynamic Analysis for Open Type wharves .........................................................103
6.5.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................103
6.5.2 Response Spectrum Analysis on Pile-Supported Wharves.............................103
6.5.3 Ductility ..........................................................................................................103
6.5.4 Pushover Analysis of Pile Supported Wharves...............................................106
6.5.5 Modal Dynamic Analysis of Pile Supported Wharves ...................................107
6.6 Dynamic Analysis..................................................................................................................107
6.6.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................107
6.6.2 Considerations for Open-Type and Closed Type Wharves.............................107
6.6.3 Finite Difference Method (FDM) and Finite Element Method (FEM)...........108
7. CODES AND GUIDELINES FOR WHARF SEISMIC DESIGN ...............................................110
7.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................110
7.2 General Rules and Seismic Actions: Adaptations from National Codes ...............................110
7.2.1 Turkey (Turkey Seismic Code, 2006).............................................................110
7.2.2 Greece (EAK 2000) ........................................................................................113
7.2.3 Italy (OPCM-3274: 2005)...............................................................................115
7.2.4 China (GBJ 11-89)..........................................................................................117
7.2.5 USA (ASCE-7) ...............................................................................................120
7.3 Design Practice in North America .........................................................................................122
7.3.1 Introduction to Practice for Closed Type Wharves.........................................122
7.3.2 Design of Anchored Sheet Pile Walls with No Excess Pore water Pressures.123
7.3.3 Design of Anchored Sheet Pile Walls with Excess Pore water Pressures ......124
7.3.4 Introduction to practice for Open Type Wharves. ..........................................126
7.4 Design Practice in Japan (OCDI, 2002).................................................................................129
7.4.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................129
7.4.2 Loading conditions and Damage Criteria .......................................................129
7.4.3 Seismic Design of Closed-Type Wharves ......................................................130
7.4.4 Seismic Design of Open-Type Wharves on Vertical Piles. ............................132
7.5 Design Practice in Europe (EN 1998-1:2005, EN 1998-5:2005, EN 1997-1: 2005. .............135
7.5.1 Soil Structure Interaction ................................................................................135
v
Index
7.5.2 Pseudo-Static Analysis for Retaining Structures. ...........................................135

7.5.3 Dynamic Slope Analysis by The Rigid-Block Model.....................................137
7.5.4 Investigations and Identification of Ground ...................................................137
7.5.5 Design Provisions for Pile Supported Structures ............................................138
7.6 Liquefaction ...........................................................................................................................140
7.6.1 Introduction to liquefaction.............................................................................140
7.6.2 Major Types of liquefactions ..........................................................................140
7.6.3 Liquefaction Hazards ......................................................................................140
7.6.4 Liquefaction Susceptibility .............................................................................141
7.6.5 North American Approach: Stability of Rigid Walls Retaining Backfills which
Unger-go Liquefaction....................................................................................143
7.6.6 Liquefaction Considerations In Japan (OCDI, 2002) .....................................144
7.6.7 Liquefaction Considerations In The Eurocode (EN1998-5:2005) ..................146
8. DESIGN EXAMPLES OF A CLOSED-TYPE WHARF AND AN OPEN-TYPE WHARF.........149
8.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................149
8.2 Anchored T-Shaped Pile Wall , Gioia Tauro Port, Italy. .......................................................149
8.2.1 Location of Port and Description of the Original Design ...............................149
8.2.2 Wharf Design Using North American Practice...............................................153
8.2.3 Wharf Design Using Japanese Practice. .........................................................160
8.2.4 Wharf Design Using European Practice .........................................................166
8.2.5 Wall Displacements and Relative Stiffness of Wall .......................................170
8.2.6 Results of The Beam Analysis........................................................................172
8.3 Pile Supported Wharf, Port of Catania, Italy .........................................................................175
8.3.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................175
8.3.2 Force-based design (F.B.D.) Procedure ..........................................................178
8.3.3 Displacement-Based Design (DBD) Procedure ..............................................179
8.3.4 COMPARISON BETWEEN F.B.D. AND D.B.D. ......................................193
9. CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH.........................................................................195
9.1 General...................................................................................................................................195
9.2 Risk, Hazard and Performance...............................................................................................195
9.3 Typologies and Damage ........................................................................................................196
9.4 Design And Analysis .............................................................................................................197
9.5 Validation of Pseudo-Static Approaches for Closed Wharves. .............................................198
9.6 Traditional and Modern Approaches for Open-Type Wharves .............................................198
9.7 Further Research ....................................................................................................................198
REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................200
vi
Index
APPENDIX A.........................................................................................................................................1
APPENDIX B.........................................................................................................................................1
APPENDIX C.........................................................................................................................................1
APPENDIX D.........................................................................................................................................1
APPENDIX E .........................................................................................................................................1
vii
Index
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 2.1. Plan of the remains of the Port of Caesaria, (Freedman, 2003) ...............................8
Figure 2.2. (A) Some concrete blocks used for the construction of the main breakwater. (B)
A wooden box-caisson found at the north side of the main breakwater (Friedman, 2003).
.............................................................................................................................................9
Figure 2.3. Military port cities in the Mediterranean in (Top left) Cagliari , Italy; (Top right)
Grand harbour, Malta; (Bottom Left) Rhodes, Greece; (Bottom Right) Famagusta,
Cyprus (Muenster, 1590 1628). .....................................................................................10
Figure 2.4. Wharf and port activity in the Grand Harbour, Valletta Malta ..............................11
Figure 2.5. Depiction of Port Royal, Jamaica during the Kingston 1692 earthquake, .............11
Figure 2.6. Container Port in Hong Kong, (Hong Kong Marine Department, 2003) ...............12
Figure 2.7. Adossat Cruise line terminal, Barcelona (Port Authority of Barcelona, 2004)......13
Figure 2.8. Bayonne Naval Base, New York, U.S.A. (Global Security, 2003) ........................13
Figure 2.9. Msida Yacht Marina, Malta (Malta Tourism Authority, 2005)..............................14
Figure 2.10. Fishing Port of Mersing, Malaysia. (Tai Vo, 2005) .............................................14
Figure 2.11. Expectations of containerisation. (Ashar, 2002) ..................................................12
Figure 2.12. The end of the traditional functional division of tasks within a chain Example
of a vertical .......................................................................................................................13
Figure 3.1. USA seismic hazard map (USGS,2006)................................................................17

Figure 3.2. Asia seismic Hazard map (GSHAP, 1999).............................................................18
Figure 3.3. Italian Seismic Hazard Map (OPCM-3519, 2006) ................................................18
Figure 3.4. Greek Seismic Hazard Map (EAK, 2000)..............................................................19
Figure 3.5. Turkish seismic hazard map. (METU, 2006) .........................................................20
viii
Index
Figure 3.6. Distribution number of ports normalised by the total over the hazard spectrum. .21
Figure 3.7. Cumulative number of ports at a particular hazard value.......................................21
Figure 3.8. Pearson Statistical model for hazard and container carriage..................................23
Figure 4.1. Performance and design sequence (Pianc, 2001) ...................................................27

Figure 4.2. Cracks at about 30cm below the pile cap (Eidinger, 2001)....................................30
Figure 4.3. Cracks were observed to be more opened on the land side than on the waterfront
side (Eidinger, 2001).........................................................................................................30
Figure 4.4. Failure of joint between platform and column (Eidinger, 2001)...........................30
Figure 4.5. Sand boils in the hinterland (Eidinger, 2001)........................................................30
Figure 4.6. Misalignment of rails on platform (Eidinger, 2001) .............................................30
Figure 4.7. Permanent displacement between joints (Eidinger, 2001) ....................................30
Figure 4.8. San Antonio Port, Chile (PIANC, 2001) ...............................................................31
Figure 4.9. Kalamata Port, Greece (Pianc, 2001) ....................................................................31
Figure 4.10. Port of Algiers, Algeria (Pianc, 2001).................................................................32
Figure 4.11. Caisson wall at the Port of Kushiro, Japan (Pianc, 2001) ....................................32
Figure 4.12. Quay-wall, Port of Kushiro, Japan (Pianc, 2001).................................................33
Figure 4.13. Sheet Pile wall, Port of Kushiro, Japan (Pianc, 2001).........................................33
Figure 4.14. Ground Improvement, Port of Kushiro, Japan, (Pianc, 2001).............................34
Figure 4.15. Taichung Port, Taiwan, (Pianc, 2001)..................................................................34
Figure 4.16. Ohama 2: Akita Port, Japan (Pianc, 2001) ..........................................................35
Figure 4.17. Ohama 1: Akita Port, Japan (Pianc, 2001) ..........................................................35
Figure 4.18. Nakajima wharf: Akita Port, Japan (Pianc, 2001) ...............................................36
Figure 4.19. Hokaida Port, Japan (Pianc, 2001) ......................................................................36
Figure 4.20. Guam, USA (Pianc, 2001)...................................................................................37
Figure 4.21. Port of Oakland, USA (Pianc, 2001) ...................................................................37
Figure 4.22. Port of San Fernando, Philippines (Pianc, 2001) ................................................38
Figure 4.23. APL old Terminal, POLA, USA (Pianc, 2001).................................................38
Figure 4.24. APL new Terminal, POLA, USA (Pianc, 2001) ...............................................39
Figure 4.25. |Port of Eliat, Palestine (Pianc, 2001)..................................................................39
Figure 4.26. Port of Derince, (Pianc, 2001)............................................................................41
Figure 4.27. Staggered block wall construction (Pianc, 2001). ..............................................42
Figure 4.28. Damage to a Quay-wall at the port of Kobe (Nozu et al., 2004).........................42
ix
Index
Figure 4.29. Takahama Pile-Wharf, Kobe, Japan....................................................................43

Figure 4.30. Caisson Wall, Kobe Port, Japan. .........................................................................44
Figure 4.31. Cellular pile wall, Kobe Port, Japan....................................................................44
Figure 4.32. The most popular wharf typologies as used worldwide, classified according to
their structural composition. (Werner, 1998; PIANC, 2001; OCDI, 2002)......................48
Figure 4.33. Examples of cellular Blocks (OCDI, 2002) ........................................................50
Figure 4.34. Cellular steel wall. ...............................................................................................51
Figure 4.35. Sheet-pile wall with box shaped platform (OCDI, 2002)....................................52
Figure 4.36. Variations and combinations of different wharf typologies (Chaney, 1961) ......53
Figure 4.37. Embankments as used in the construction of open type-wharves. ......................54
Figure 4.38. Shape of backfill on a general quay wall (OCDI, 2002) .....................................56
Figure 4.39. Caisson block configuration (OCDI, 2002).........................................................56
Figure 4.40. Wave absorbing caisson (OCDI, 2002)...............................................................57
Figure 4.41. Hybrid Structural members (OCDI, 2002)..........................................................58
Figure 4.42. Example of a Hybrid Caisson Structure (OCDI, 2002).......................................58
Figure 4.43. Relationship between height and Width of L-shaped blocks for seismic action
(OCDI, 2002) ....................................................................................................................59
Figure 4.44. Coupled pile anchor (OCDI, 2002) .....................................................................60
Figure 4.45. Sheet- Pile wall anchorage (OCDI, 2002)...........................................................60
Figure 4.46. Dead-man Wall Anchorage (OCDI, 2002)..........................................................61
Figure 4.47. Variations to standard anchorages (Chaney, 1961).............................................61
Figure 5.1. Logic tree for large diameter pile supported wharves, ..........................................68
Figure 5.2. Failure logic tree for anchored pile supported wharf. ...........................................69
Figure 5.3. Failure logic tree for column supported wharf. .....................................................69
Figure 5.4. Failure logic tree for anchored sheet pile wharves. ...............................................70
Figure 5.5. Failure logic tree for sheet pile unanchored sheet pile wharves, with or without
platform.............................................................................................................................71
Figure 5.6. Failure logic tree for gravity walls including caisson wall, massive wall,
cantilever wall, block wall and cellular block wall typologies. ........................................71
Figure 5.7. Logic tree for the failure of a gravity wall built on rock or stiff soil. ...................72
Figure 5.8. Comparison of wharf typologies for vulnerability failure.....................................91
Figure 5.9. Comparison of failure modes. ...............................................................................92
x
Index
Figure 6.1. Wall geometry and forces for Steedman-Zeng method,........................................99

Figure 6.2. Gravity wall acted upon by gravity and pseudo-static accelerations ..................100
Figure 6.3. Equal Displacement Approach. ...........................................................................104
Figure 6.4. Equal Energy Approach .......................................................................................104
Figure 6.5. Confinement of Reinforced Concrete..................................................................104
Figure 6.6. Moment Curvature response of a concrete section (Petrini, et al., 2004) ...........105
Figure 7.1. Irregularity aspects form Turkish seismic code (2006).......................................113

Figure 7.2. Seismic Response Spectrum (GBJ 11-89)...........................................................120
Figure 7.3. Horizontal pressure components and anchor force acting on sheet pile wall......122
Figure 7.4. Forces acting on sheet-pile wall under different circumstances (Ebeding, et al.,
1992) ...............................................................................................................................125
Figure 7.5. Relationship between seismic coefficient and Peak Ground Acceleration ........130
Figure 7.6. Schematic diagram of the residual water pressure (OCDI, 2002).......................131
Figure 7.7. Virtual Ground Surface (OCDI, 2002)................................................................132
Figure 7.8. Pile Group representation (OCDI, 2002)............................................................133
Figure 7.9. Action on gravity wall with liquefied backfill (Ebeding, et al, 1992).................143
Figure 7.10. Compression Factor of Equivalent N-Value .....................................................145
Figure 7.11. Classification of soil layer with.........................................................................146
Figure 8.1. Plan view of Gioia Tauro seaport in....................................................................149

Figure 8.2. Section (top) and plan (bottom) of side B........................................................150
Figure 8.3. (a) Reinforcement of T-shaped pile. (b) Cast-in-situ coupled anchored piles. (c)
Drilling for concrete piles (TREVI)................................................................................150
Figure 8.4. Finite element mesh of Gioia Tauro ....................................................................151
Figure 8.5. Active earth forces and their respective location ...............................................155
Figure 8.6. EC8: variation of kh and kv with depth..............................................................167
Figure 8.7. Equivalent beam on Winkler foundation............................................................170
Figure 8.8. Spring model of the spring pile wall: P-Y curves of the embedded depth.........171
Figure 8.9. Spring model of the soil-pile wall: Varying stiffness of anchor. .......................171
Figure 8.10. Spring Model of the soil-pile wall: Applied Loads. .........................................172
Figure 8.11. Moment distribution, ........................................................................................173
xi
Index
Figure 8.12. Moment distribution, .........................................................................................173

Figure 8.13. Moment distribution, .........................................................................................173
Figure 8.14. Moment distribution,: ........................................................................................173
Figure 8.15. Displacement distribution,.................................................................................174
Figure 8.16. Displacement distribution,.................................................................................174
Figure 8.17. Displacement distribution:.................................................................................174
Figure 8.18. Moment distribution: .........................................................................................175
Figure 8.19. Displacement distribution:.................................................................................175
Figure 8.20. Port of Catania : old and new projections. ........................................................176
Figure 8.21. Original Design of the open type wharf in the Port of Catania. ........................176
Figure 8.22. Plan of original and proposed segments. ...........................................................177
Figure 8.23. Proposed transverse configuration of the open type wharf at the port of Catania.
.........................................................................................................................................177
Figure 8.24. Moment Curvature of pile deck hinge...............................................................182
Figure 8.25. Moment Curvature of in-ground hinge..............................................................182
Figure 8.26. Bi-linear approximation as for pile-deck section (Priestley, 2000)...................183
Figure 8.27. Moment Curvature Bi-linear approximations for pile-deck hinges for piles A-E.
.........................................................................................................................................184
Figure 8.28. Bilinear and Tri-linear approximations to pre-stressed section moment curvature
characteristics (Priestley, 2005) ......................................................................................185
Figure 8.29. Tri-linear approximations for piles A-E. ............................................................186
Figure 8.30. Variation of dry density.....................................................................................187
Figure 8.31. Variation of effective.........................................................................................187
Figure 8.32. p-y curves for soil springs .................................................................................188
Figure 8.33. Spring model for piles (Priestley, 2006)............................................................189
Figure 8.34. Pushover analysis: .............................................................................................190
Figure 8.35. Pushover analysis: .............................................................................................190
Figure 8.36. Displacement response spectrum. .....................................................................192
Figure 8.37. Force and displacement for the equivalent SDOF system.................................192
xii
Chapter 1. Introduction
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 2.1. The two most seismic European........................................................................................... 13
Table 3.1. The Seismic Hazard Zone Factor, Greece, (EAK, 2000) ..................................................... 19
Table 3.2. The Ranking of important world ports worldwide and ....................................................... 22
Table 3.3 . Pearson Correlation of seismic hazard and container carriage............................................ 23
Table 3.4. Probability of failure in Japanese ports, (Yoneyama, 2000) ............................................... 24
Table 4.1. Acceptable level of damage in ............................................................................................. 26

Table 4.2. Acceptable level of damage and design level (Iai et. al.,1998; Pianc, 2001). ...................... 26
Table 4.3. Design level, performance, and damage criteria(Iai et. al.,1998; Werner, 1998; Pianc, 2001)
...................................................................................................................................................... 28
Table 4.4. Wharf typologies and their constituting elements. ............................................................... 55
Table 5.1. Different failure modes that are possible to occur in the failure of a particular wharf typology.
...................................................................................................................................................... 66
Table 5.2. Failure modes associated to corresponding common wharf elements (EN 1998-1:2005;
OCDI, 2002; Pianc, 2001; Werner, 1998; Ebeding, 1992) ........................................................... 67
Table 5.3. Elements upon which the failure of a wharf typology is dependent..................................... 67
Table 5.4. Probability of serviceability failure of a particular typology by a particular failure mode. . 74
Table 5.5. Probability of a failure mode contributing to serviceability failure of each individual
typology. ....................................................................................................................................... 75
Table 5.6. Probability of a failure mode contributing to serviceability failure of each typology.......... 76
Table 5.7. Probability of ultimate failure of each wharf typology based failure mode occurrences. .... 78
Table 5.8. Probability of a failure mode to contribute to ultimate failure of each typology, given that the
ultimate limit is reached................................................................................................................ 79
Table 5.9. Failure mode to contribution to ultimate failure of each typology....................................... 80
1
Table 5.10. Total paths leading to failure: Pile-supported wharves ...................................................... 81

Table 5.11. Ultimate failure paths: Pile supported wharves.................................................................. 81
Table 5.12. Total paths leading to failure: Pile-supported wharves (Batter Piles) ................................ 83
Table 5.13. Ultimate failure paths: Pile supported wharves.................................................................. 83
Table 5.14. Total paths leading to failure: Anchored Pile-supported wharves...................................... 83
Table 5.15. Ultimate failure paths: Anchored Pile supported wharves ................................................. 83
Table 5.16. Total paths leading to failure: Coulumn -supported wharves............................................. 84
Table 5.17. Ultimate failure paths: Columns supported wharves.......................................................... 84
Table 5.18. Total paths leading to failure: Sheet-pile wharves. ............................................................ 84
Table 5.19. Ultimate failure paths: Sheet Pile walls.............................................................................. 84
Table 5.20. Total paths leading to failure: Stiff-Pile wall wharves. ...................................................... 85
Table 5.21. Ultimate failure paths: Stiff-pile wall................................................................................. 85
Table 5.22. Total paths leading to failure: Pile wall without anchor..................................................... 85
Table 5.23. Ultimate failure paths: Sheet Pile Wall (no anchor)........................................................... 85
Table 5.24. Total paths leading to failure: Gravity walls ...................................................................... 86
Table 5.25. Ultimate failure paths: Gravity walls ................................................................................. 86
Table 5.26Total paths leading to failure: Cellular sheet wall................................................................ 86
Table 5.27. Ultimate failure paths: Cellular sheet wall. ........................................................................ 86
Table 5.28. Total paths leading to failure: wall on rock........................................................................ 86
Table 5.29. Ultimate failure paths: Wall on rock. ................................................................................. 86
Table 5.30. Probability based on failure paths based on failure modes. ............................................... 87
Table 5.31. Probability of a failure mode to contribute to ultimate failure of each typology. .............. 88
Table 5.32. Failure mode contribution to reach ultimate failure of each typology. .............................. 89
Table 5.33. Failure mode contribution to failure weighted with probability based on element failure
paths.............................................................................................................................................. 90
Table 6.1. Simplified analysis: parameters for different wharf typologies .......................................... 95
Table 6.2. Simplified Dynamic analysis: parameters for different wharf typologies........................... 96
Table 6.3. Dynamic analysis: parameters for different wharf typologies............................................. 97
Table 7.1. Site classification in Turkey (a) Period related to class (b) Soil Classification (c) local site
class. (Turkish Seismic Code, 2006) .......................................................................................... 111
Table 7.2. Soil Classification for soil In Greece (EAK, 2000)........................................................... 114
Table 7.3. Soil Class for Greek soil (EAK, 2000) .............................................................................. 114
Table 7.4. Italian seismic zones and corrisponding peak ground acceleration value. ......................... 116
Table 7.5. Response spectrum factors for different soil categories. .................................................... 116
2
Table 7.6. Ground section category based on geological, topographical and geomorphological aspects.
.................................................................................................................................................... 118
Table 7.7. Soil classification in China (GBJ 11-89)............................................................................ 118
Table 7.8. Alternative soil classification for type C and D structures. ................................................ 119
Table 7.9. Site classification in China (GBJ 11-89) ............................................................................ 119
Table 7.10. Soil depth to be considered for liquefaction potential (GBJ 11-89)............................... 119
Table 7.11. Far field and near field effects (GBJ 11-89)................................................................... 120
Table 7.12. Maximum Value of Horizontal Seismic effect coefficient for Seismic checking Cross of
sections. ...................................................................................................................................... 120
Table 7.13. Limit for temporary service requirements of damaged quay-walls (OCDI, 2002). ......... 129
Table 7.14. Limit for functionality requirements of damaged quay-walls (OCDI, 2002)................... 129
Table 8.1. Soil parameters adopted for the design of Gioia Tauro wharf (Side A) ......................... 151
Table 8.2. Variation of soil velocity .................................................................................................... 152
Table 8.3. Soil parameters and coefficients with depth....................................................................... 154
Table 8.4. Computation of moments due to resultant forces............................................................... 159
Table 8.5. Active earth pressure computation. .................................................................................... 162
Table 8.6. Moment about the tie-rod. .................................................................................................. 162
Table 8.7. Computation of resultant moment Msimple....................................................................... 165
Table 8.8. Design friction angles......................................................................................................... 166
Table 8.9. Seismic friction angle for different kv. ........................................................................... 167
Table 8.10. Kae for different kv (1) ............................................................................................ 168
Table 8.11. Kae for different kv (2) ............................................................................................ 168
Table 8.12. Kpe for different kv.................................................................................................. 169
Table 8.13. Action from behind on the pile wall................................................................................ 170
Table 8.14. Performance Criteria for serviceable and ultimate failures. (POLA, 2004) ..................... 178
Table 8.15. Material properties as used for the pre-stressed piles....................................................... 180
Table 8.16. Load distributions of row Piles A to E. ............................................................................ 180
Table 8.17. Moment-curvature at cracking for different axial loads. .................................................. 182
Table 8.18 Pile-Deck Hinge: Moment-Curvature ............................................................................... 183
Table 8.19. Pile deck Hinge:Moment curvature.................................................................................. 184
Table 8.20. Pile-Deck Hinge: Effective stiffness for piles A-E. ......................................................... 185
Table 8.21. In-Ground Hinge: Tri-linear representation for Piles A-E. .............................................. 186
Table 8.22. In-Ground hinge: Effective stiffness for pile A-E. ........................................................... 187
Table 8.23. Pushover analysis of Piles A-E. .......................................................................... 193
3
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Motivation of the study
The economies of many industrialised Nations are based on the export and import of
merchandise. The flow of travellers in the tourism industry is also very important to the
economic input of a nation. Such activities take place and rely on the efficiency of seaports.
Fishing, although on a much lower importance level is also carried out through ports.
Many of such ports are located in zones characterised by moderate to high seismic hazards.
Past earthquakes have damaged port structures leading to large economic and social losses on
national, local and individual scales. Hence it is important that port structures are adequately
designed and built.
A port is constituted in several parts and structures. There are breakwaters whose function is to
shelter ships and boats from wave action. There are wharves which are structures parallel to the
shore at which ships generally moor. Piers are similar to wharves, but are perpendicular to the
shore line. The latter two structures can be open type where the deck is supported by vertical
elements, or closed type, where soil is retained by some kind of wall and the deck lying on the
former. In a port there are also storing areas, office and administration buildings, storage tanks,
and cranes. All these are serviced by underground infrastructure such as electricity, drainage
and water supply. Any damage by an earthquake to any of the above mentioned may lead a port
to work inefficiently. It may take a lot of time to repair the damage at a consequential economic
loss.
A wharf is the structure which links a ship with the ground. This means that a wharf is one of
the most important structures in a port. Structural configurations are not common like building
structures. In case of failure, there would be a definite halt in the port activity apart to the
damage induced to adjacent structures such as cranes and tanks, and the service infrastructure.
1.2 Scope Of The Study

Ports are worldwide spread wherever there is the sea. Different countries, have different
economies, different cultures and hence different port typologies, design approaches. Since
located in different geographical positions, ports and wharves are characterised with different
seismic hazard. This study is an agglomeration of different aspects in the seismic field which
influence the construction industry of ports, particularly wharf structures. An attempt is made
to give a brief picture of ports from different perspectives of seismic risk, design, analysis and
performance. This is tackled in chapters as follows:
Chapter 2: This chapter introduces historical, functional and economical aspects of ports In
order to understand the structure in question, it is first appropriate to understand its aim from a
functional and economic aspect with a chronological perspective into it historical development.
4
Chapter 3. In order to understand the seismic scenario of worldwide ports today, various world
wide ports are compared to their respective seismic hazard. To substantiate what was discussed
in Chapter 2, the economical importance of such ports is assessed with the hazard.
Chapter 4. A series of case studies of wharves around the world that suffered damage during a
particular earthquake are evaluated. The different wharf typologies are identified together with
their elements and respective failure modes. Performance criteria are then identified. Basically
wharf structures are grouped into open-type wharves and closed type wharves. The latter is
divided between gravity walls and pile retaining walls.
Chapter 5. From the information gathered in the previous chapters, adopting a probabilistic
approach, an attempt is made to identify the structural typology that can be most vulnerable to
failure due to its structural/geotechnical configuration. The associated critical failure modes are
also identified.
Chapter 6. The structural and geotechnical methodologies that are used worldwide for the basic
design of wharf structures are identified. There are basically 3 approaches which are related to
the performance required. These approaches are: simplified analysis, simplified dynamic
analysis and dynamic analysis. Each approach is discussed for each typological group: open-
type wharves and closed type wharves which were identified earlier.
Chapter 7. Some codes and guidelines as used in different parts of the world namely Europe,
America and Japan will be compared for different wharf typologies. These design approaches
were also reviewed on how certain critical failure modes such as liquefaction and slope
stability are assessed. Since wharves are very specific structures they are not much addressed in
national codes. Some worldwide national codes were also reviewed for their possible
contribution.
Chapter 8. Two design examples of existing wharf structures are computed to understand better
some of the aspects identified in previous chapters. An open type wharf in the Port of Catania
and a Closed-type wharf in the Port of Gioia Tauro were utilised. The former was used to
discuss different design approaches based on force or displacement. North American,
European, and Japanese codified approaches were used to redesign the pile-retaining wall in
Gioia Tauro. Comparisons were made amongst the results obtained and with the original design
which used a higher design level.
5
Chapter 2. Hitorical Functional and Economical Development of Ports
2. HISTORICAL, FUNCTIONAL AND ECONOMICAL

DEVELOPMENT OF PORTS
2.1 Historical Developments of Ports
2.1.1 Introduction to the Historical development

The aim of this section is to give in site of the historical development of ports through history
and prehistory. In order to investigate the state-off-the art scenario of wharf structures, it is
important to have a look at where all started. This will help understand better the situation
today. This mission through time will also aid to understand expectations of the future since
history repeats itself. Through the historical process, it is understood that innovation in design
methodologies and construction techniques halted when people did not look at past
achievements of their fathers and thought that they had reached the peak. "If I have seen farther
than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants." - Albert Einstein (1879-
1955).
2.1.2 Prehistory and Early History

The history of marine and coastal engineering reaches way back the ancient world bordering
the Persian Gulf, Mediterranean Sea and Red Sea. If assumed to start with maritime traffic,
then coastal engineering started before 3500 B.C. Shipping was fundamental to the
development of communication, trade, culture and civilization settlement. Using labour
intensive force it was possible to build ports with in a similar dimension to megalithic temples
and pyramids. Most of these monumental ports disappeared through history after the downfall
of the Roman empire and the beginning of the dark ages in Europe. Many were destroyed by
negligence, others by earthquakes and were submerged by subsidence or silting. Archeology
shows that most of these ancient ports were well planned with effectively located seawalls and
breakwaters for protection and a quay-wall for loading and unloading ships (Quinn, 1972).
Coastal engineering was oriented into two aspects: port structures and military defence
structures. We have few literature about the knowledge used in the design and construction of
such structures. Vitruvius (27 B.C.) discusses engineering during the Roman empire. Other
latins and Greeks such as Herodotus, Josephs, Pliny, Strabo and Appian provide hints on
coastal engineering. It is evident that ancient engineers were not stupid and gave input of
complex physical phenomena such as wind patterns, and wave effects into their designs. In
fact, the Romans f were the first to introduce the wind Rose (Franco, 1996).
In the Neolithic and early Punic eras, settling civilizations seeked naturally sheltered bays
behind emerging lands, peninsulas islands and lagoons to anchor their ships. Small break
waters were constructed to amplify natural protection. Frost (1963), divides ports in the
Neolithic and early Punic era in 3 categories:
6
Rock cut in offshore reefs adapted to shelter crafts.
Ship anchor chosen is shallow waters. Small vertical walls were constructed serving as
break waters and moles. Such walls generally connected to a fortification of a town.
The ancient Tyre port in Lebanon was such example. This incorporated chains to deny
the access of enemy ships (Franco, 1996)
Harbours constructed in unsheltered waters using construction innovation. These

evolved more during the Roman era where the backing of an empire could inspire
further development in the earlier invented hydraulic cements, and introduction of new
engineering techniques such as arches.
The knowledge for mechanical silt dredging was unknown, yet it was understood that structure
had to be kept clear of silt. Sometimes, the outer parts of the harbour were designed in such a
way as to deflect the silt bearing currents. Silt was also kept clear by allowing a controlled
current to flow through the port. Channels were used as another alternative. Silt was flushed
through them when necessary. In principle, the latter system was used in the construction of
bronze age ports of Tyre and Sidon (Frost, 1963). These ports remained sane for more than a
thousand years meaning that they have been kept clear of silt for such long. Sometimes, the
silting problem was also avoided by diverting the river through channels in such a way that the
flow in the sea was well away from the harbour.
The most sophisticated port of this era was the port of Alexandria in Egypt which started being
constructed in 1800 B.C. The main basin was built to accommodate 400 ships. It was 2.3 km
long, 300 m wide and 6-10m deep. Large stone blocks were used in the many breakwaters and
docks in the harbours. Between 300 100 B.C., the port was reconstructed in monumental
scale by Alexander the great. 270 B.C. A 1.5km breakwater joined and incorporated the island
of Pharos with the port. This had two openings which divided the basins having a quay frontage
of 15km. Alexandria Port incorporated a 130m high lighthouse tower designed by architect-
engineer Sostratus.. The port also had multi-storey buildings constructed out of solid stone
blocks which were cemented with a hydraulic mixture of melted lead. The lighthouse and port
was damaged by an earthquake about 692 A.D. It was completely destroyed by a series of
earthquakes during the 14th century A.D. after giving guidance and shelter to ships for 1500
years.
The port of Itanos, Greece was destroyed by an earthquake in795A.D. The port city had taken
the name after Phoenician Itanos. He established a colony for trading of purple and glass
industry (Kairates, 2000). The ancient port city of Herakleon (original Greek name for the later
Arabic name Candia) was destroyed by earthquakes in 1508, in 1810 and in 1856, the city was
destroyed by earthquakes. Most of the Greek ports incorporated large statues on the breakwater
at the entrance of the port.
2.1.3 Roman Era.

Romans learned or improved construction techniques underwater of walls. Metal joints and
clamps were used to fasten blocks. The Greeks used to construct rubble mound breakwaters.
The Romans used vertical and composite stone-concrete block walls. These were fast and
required little maintenance. The development of dredges also helped. They also used water-
surface breakwaters to break waves before they actually reached the main breakwater. Vents
7
were also observed to reduce wave impact. In many cases they solved the problem of silting by
replacing sealed solid piers with open-piled jetties. Hence, Romans gave a port structure a
different identity and separated the infrastructure from the previously military fortified port
(Franco, 1996). Once the Roman empire was established, the holiday concept was introduced
hence ports, harbours and shores took a different image other than military. Such shores or
ports were at Latium and Capania.
Figure 2.1. Plan of the remains of the Port of Caesaria, (Freedman, 2003)
One of the major ports of the Roman Empire was that of Caesaria (Heller, 2006). For this port
(Figure 2.1). Sluice gates and flushing channels were carved in rock in order to control the flow
of water and hence the settling of silt by means of closable wooden doors (Friedman, 2003).
Pozzolana was used as a hydraulic concrete. This consisted in a mix of volcanic ash, lime,
rubble and water which produced a hydraulic compound as described by Vitruvius in De
Architectura Volume II in 25B.C. In the construction process, caissons were prepared on shore
and were then installed as compartments on small artificial islands spaced along the quay and
break water plan for the port. Wooden bottomless formwork was used for the construction of
the quay wall and breakwater (Friedman, 2003). Conglomerate blocks were poured in this
formwork (Figure 2.2.a), which was supported on a bed of stone rubble. Where needed, a
platform of hydraulic concrete mixed with rubble poured in the formwork was found. On these
rested tumbled stone blocks (Figure 2.2.b).
8
Figure 2.2. (A) Some concrete blocks used for the construction of the main breakwater. (B) A wooden
box-caisson found at the north side of the main breakwater (Friedman, 2003).
2.1.4 Modern History

During the dark and Middle ages, little was achieved on port technology improvement. Threat
of war caused coastal towns to be abandoned, and may harbours got destroyed due to lack of
maintenance. The little innovations occurred in England where coastal engineering was applied
to reclaim marshes and prevent inland flooding (Keay, 1942). Sea dikes were built in the
Netherlands (Bijeker, 1996) to increase the agricultural land. Many ports were constructed in
areas involved in the crusades such as Constantinople. Yet, the improvements in technology
were few. It was only in the Renaissance era (1400 1600 A.D.) that scientific and
technological reawakened. The basis of design and construction remained the same there was
development if mechanical equipment and hydraulic sciences (Franco, 1996). Leonardo da
Vinci (1465 1519) was a net contributor in this advancement.
2.1.5 Military and Civil Engineer Era

After the Renaissance, little improvements were made on the Roman approach to port design
and construction. Advancements were made in ship construction. Global navigation was then
possible followed by migration, conflicts, piracy and colonisation. French military engineers
were front runners in the innovation of fortresses and port fortresses. Such a name was
Sebastien le Prestre de Vauban (1633 1707). Port fortresses (Figure 2.3) incorporated
extensive harbour and coastal works including excavation of channels and basins, and erection
of store houses and workshops at ports. Coastal cities and ports also started incorporating a
small dock for the shelter of ships in case of an emergency.
9
Figure 2.3. Military port cities in the Mediterranean in (Top left) Cagliari , Italy; (Top right) Grand
harbour, Malta; (Bottom Left) Rhodes, Greece; (Bottom Right) Famagusta, Cyprus (Muenster, 1590
1628).
The planning concept started taking a sequential shape similar to that we have today in
construction:
General scheme layout,
Detailed description of different parts referring to drawings
Cost estimates and environmental considerations established by an authority,
Special features and work advances.
It was then that the term Engineer started being used. The city of Valletta in Malta was one of
the first fortified port cities to be designed and constructed according to such plan scheme. It
was designed by Italian engineer Laparelli. Yet, its incorporated dock (mandraggio) was not
finished due to technical and financial problems. Figure 2.4 is a painting which depicts the
activity on a wharf surrounding this city.
During the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, advances in mathematics and navigation, and the
advent of the steam engine in search for new lands and trade routes. The expansion of the
British empire, political, industrial, social and economic revolutions contributed to the
revitalisation of sea trade and renewed the interest in port work. One of the conquered
countries, Jamaica suffered an earthquake in 1692 in Kingston which destroyed Port Royal.
The earthquake had an intensity X on the Modified Mercalli scale. Two thirds of Port Royal
plunged and submerged beneath the sea due to the widespread failure of water saturated
unconsolidated sands(Wiggins-Grandison et al., 2001). A number of landslides were also
recorded.
10
Figure 2.4. Wharf and port activity in the Grand Harbour, Valletta Malta
during the 17th and 18th Centuries, (Probst, 1760).
Figure 2.5. Depiction of Port Royal, Jamaica during the Kingston 1692 earthquake,
(Wiggins-Grandison et al., 2001).
The dimensions of ships increased, routes became longer and hence the necessities and port
requirements also started taking different and larger dimensions. The two world wars helped in
technological investments for military reasons, after which such investments were applied in
ports for the economic sector (Quinn, 1972). After these wars, the world trade started focusing
more on global competition relying on efficiency, quality and time economy. This had to be
done in proportion to the quality of ports as a major means of transport with which trade is
made. This encouraged the development of new trade centres with new ports. These had to be
efficient and of quality proportional to the scale of the economy.
11
The design and construction methodologies of ports had to compliment the efficiency levels.
Hence, focus on hazards such as earthquakes that could hinder such level started being given
prominence. These are accounted for in the design and construction with the help of technology
particularly information technology, and new and detailed methodologies of design and
construction. Codification and standardisation helped this development and aided quality to be
regularised, repeatable and reproducible from region to region.
2.2 Function of Ports

Ports can be divided in commercial ports, cruise terminal ports, ferry ports, fishing ports, yacht
marinas, dock yard port, military port and coast guard port. Generally, a port serves for more
than one of these functions and is divided in sections (PMHW, 1998). The most common types
of port are commercial ones. By the term commercial it is understood the transport of goods
and any trade materials. These are economically important and deal with hazard and bulky
ships, hence the structural design level is high. Figure 2.6 shows the port of Hong-Kong, which
has also become the worlds largest commercial port (ESPO, 2005). Statistics (ESPO, 2005)
indicate that 35% of ports handle liquid merchandise, 25% dry bulk, 15% containers, 20% with
Ro-Ros and the remaining 5% is divided among other merchandise. These percentages are
average values and can vary in different regions of the world due to different requirements.
Figure 2.6. Container Port in Hong Kong, (Hong Kong Marine Department, 2003)
Cruise liner terminals (Figure 2.6) and ferry ports are second important to commercial ports.
They are most important in the tourism industry. The design level against natural hazards such
as earthquakes has to account especially for life safety and security. Although life safety and
security is also important for other ports, in cruise liner terminals the number of people using
the terminal, port structures and port facilities are more. In Europe, the most two seismic
countries Italy and Greece, are also the two most European countries which traffic the largest
number of sea passengers (Table 2.1; ESPO, 2005).
12
Table 2.1The two most seismic European

countries, Greece and Italy, traffic the largest
number of sea passengers (ESPO, 2005)
Information on military ports (Figure 2.7) is very limited due to secrecy reasons. Although the
economic income from military ports minimal, many countries invest in them. In fact many
research on construction innovation of port typologies is related to such ports (PMHW, 1998).
For national defence and security purposes, governments equip and design such ports with the
highest serviceability levels, targeting good quality and best performance under emergencies.
Similarly, coast guard ports have to remain serviceable during emergencies, particularly after
earthquakes. First aid assistance has to arrive to or come from such ports. Hence, the structures,
services and connection facilities have to remain serviceable (Werner, 1998).
Figure 2.7. Adossat Cruise line terminal, Figure 2.8. Bayonne Naval Base, New York, U.S.A.
Barcelona (Port Authority of Barcelona, 2004) (Global Security, 2003)
13
Yacht marinas (Figure 2.9) are also important for the tourism industry and their importance
depends on the quality of yachts which they receive. Generally, the importance of the marina
increases or decreases in proportion with the qualities offered (Chainey, 1961). This means that
the design level always compliments the economic risk. Yacht marinas shelter smaller size
ships and hence of a certain delicacy compared to military or container ships. Hence, if the port
is required to remain functional after an earthquake, the serviceable design has to deal with the
construction details of such ports. The number of fishing ports around the world is also very
large. The construction techniques in such ports are generally traditional (Figure 2.10).
Advancements in construction techniques depend more on the national resources (Chainey,
1961; ESPO, 2005). Unfortunately, poor countries depend on such industry more than others.
Figure 2.9. Msida Yacht Marina, Malta (Malta Figure 2.10. Fishing Port of Mersing, Malaysia.
Tourism Authority, 2005) (Tai Vo, 2005)
2.3 Economical Development and Importance of Ports

The economies of many countries are based on trade i.e. the import and export of goods, and
tourism. A relevant portion of these activities take place and rely on the efficiency of ports. The
economic logistics in the past saw sea shipment as the fastest means of transport from land to
land. As a result, large economic cities such as Venice, Genova and later cities like New York,
developed round sheltered sea. Rivers were used as a fast way to feed from to the hinterland.
This led to the development other cities along river banks. With time, other fast means of
transport developed to compliment the economic growth and logistics. As economies grew,
and logistics got complicated, the necessity of efficiency and strategic importance of the means
of transport increased. As a result, ports were required to work efficiently. The economies of
countries are affected negatively by natural hazards such as earthquakes. It is in such occasions
that ports are expected to work more efficient in order not to hinder the economy of the region
involved any further. As a result, after an earthquake, ports structures are expected to remain
serviceable with minimal structural damage. A port should serve as a way of escape for people
from the region. It should be able to receive and host any aid from other regions and keep the
flow of trade.
In the last decades, the economic logistics have been changing rapidly due to political
developments and changes in the type of trade which has become Information Technology
oriented. The economic growth of East Asia particularly China also transformed the patterns of
14
world trade. The Chinese economic boom is reflected onto the liner service schedules of major
shipping lines (ESPO, 2005). The China effect has also resulted in changes to the ranking of
the worlds largest container ports (Table 3.2). Chinas top ten container ports posted a growth
of 34% in 2003 reaching 40 million TEU. Average annual growth at container ports in
mainland China amounted to 61 per cent in the period 1998-2003. Since China exports using
containers only 5% of its cargo, at present, the container business is expected to increase
dramatically during the next 10 years (ESPO, 2005). This increases the necessity to have
efficient ports designed to remain serviceable in case of a hazard particularly in this region of
the world.
The geography of the world has not changed a lot in the last decades. Since the Panama canal is
small, and the rate of ship flow and the size of ships is increasing, alternative roots or other
means of merchandise transport are often being used (ESPO, 2005). As a result, the importance
of ports that were in certain roots decreased and those of others increased. Consequently,
certain ports are either over designed or under designed relative to their present importance.
The design level should be proportional to the economic importance of the port and has to take
account of the changes of future logistics, else ports have to be upgraded (Werner, 1998;
ESPO, 2005). The need of larger ships is increasing worldwide since they are more
economical. Upgrade of mooring facilities and serviceability limit design has to be also in this
sense.
Figure 2.11. Expectations of containerisation. (Ashar, 2002)
As shown in Figure 2.11, the expectations of a port facility particularly container ports, change
with time demanding larger ports with higher service levels (Ashar, 2002). This means that the
civil engineering design limit targets also have to change to accommodate the serviceability
functions and necessities of the port system, upon which its economy relies. It is important to
account and anticipate the limit requirements of the future and not base them just on current
practices and requirements. Most codes practices suggest a port structure lifespan of 50 years
(EN1998:Part1; EAK 2000; Pianc, 2001). Figure 2.11 shows that serviceability expectancies
change at a faster rate. This has to be accounted in the design.
The logistics of a port are also changing according to the logistics of the economy needs and
advances in technology. The essence of shipping lines existence is gradually shifting from
pure shipping operations to integrated logistics solutions (Figure 2.12). Hence, the success of a
port includes the efficiency of hinterland operations (Notteboom, 2000). From a civil
engineering point of view, the logistics of limit design have to change accordingly. This means
12
that it is not enough to design a port structure for a large serviceability and ultimate limits.
Other infrastructure that connects the port to other transport networks have to be designed for
the same level in order to keep the system serviceable after an earthquake (Werner, 1998). The
logistics of limit sequence has therefore to be accordingly.
Figure 2.12. The end of the traditional functional division of tasks within a chain Example of a vertical
integration strategy by a shipping line, (Notteboom 2000).
On a micro scale, there are a lot communities whose economic logistics are very small and deal
only with the maritime transport operation. Such communities are generally found in third
world countries, small islands and fishing villages. As previously seen, the port infrastructure
in such ports has remained traditional and simplistic. In case of natural hazards such as
earthquakes, such micro-communities are severely damaged both socially and economically.
13
Chapter 3. Seismic Risk and Hazard of Ports
3. SEISMIC RISK AND HAZARD OF PORTS

3.1 Introduction
Seismic hazard is defined as the probable level of ground shaking associated with the
recurrence of earthquakes (Giardini et al., 2003). It is not related to the port structure but to the
geographical position of the site. For our study we are concerned with coastal regions where
ports are constructed. The seismic hazard assessment of a particular coast site is the first step
for the design of a port at this site, or if a port already exists, it is the first step in the evaluation
of its seismic risk. The latter is obtained by combining the seismic hazard with local soil
conditions and vulnerability factors of the port structure in question such as the typology,
value, age, population density, economic importance and function. If frequent earthquakes with
an elevated magnitude occur in remote areas, pose no risk even though the seismic hazard is
high. On the other hand, moderate magnitude earthquakes in densely occupied areas or regions
can entail small hazard but high risk.
The results of a seismic hazard assessment will indicate levels of chosen ground motions that
are likely or are not likely to be exceeded in specified exposure times over recurrence periods
of earthquakes (Giardini et al., 2003). Most codes and guideline map provide hazard maps
based on a 10% probability of exceedence or 90% probability of non-exceedence of some
ground motion parameters for an exposure time of 50 years and corresponding to a return
period of 475 years (NZS 1170.5:2004; GSHAP, 1999; EAK, 2000; METU, 2006; OPCM-
3519, 2006; USGS, 2006). The Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) is the most ground motion
parameter used. The PGA is a short period ground motion parameter that is proportional to the
force. There are two methodologies upon which a site hazard can be investigated; Probabilistic
Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA) and Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment (DSHA).
The maps given by associations, guidelines and codes are based on such methodologies, more
recently on PSHA..
3.2 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA)

This methodology has been prominently developed during the last 20 years since it allows for
uncertainties in parameters such as size, distance, location, and recurrence rate of the
earthquakes. The methodology can be sumerised as follows:
Identification and characterization of earthquake sources and distribution of potential

rupture. Uniform probability distribution is assigned to source zones. These are
combined with source and geometry to obtain a probability distribution of the distance
between the source and the site.
14
Characterisation of the temporal distribution of earthquakes. This is done through a

recurrence relationship specifying the average rate at which an earthquake of a certain
size will be exceeded.
Using predictive relationships, the ground motion produced by earthquakes of any size
at the site occurring at any point in each source zone is determined. The uncertainty
evoked by the predictive relationship is accounted for in the following step.
Combination of uncertainties such as earthquake size, location and ground motion

parameter prediction in order to obtain the probability that the ground motion parameter
will be exceeded during a particular time period.
For the modern probabilistic seismic hazard assessment, the basic elements include:
Earthquake catalogues, earthquake source models, strong seismic ground motion, and the
seismic hazard probability itself.
The earthquake source is one of the uncertainties. Its special geometry can be a point source,
areal source or a volumetric source. For the purpose of hazard assessment, uniformity has to be
established by approximations from each diversity. Another uncertainty is the earthquake size
that will characterize the hazard. A recurrence law describes and relates the recurrence of an
earthquake with its time interval of occurrence. Such law is the basic Guttenberg-Richter law:
log m = a b m
where lm is the mean annual rate of exceedence of magnitude m, 10a is the mean yearly number
of earthquakes of magnitude greater than or equal to zero and b is a description of the relative
likelihood of small or large earthquakes. There were many variations of such law proposed by
Merz and Cornell. It is difficult to establish which is the most precise or whether they are
correct or not since they are all based only on a data base 50-60 years old which relatively
short. The return period is given by:
1
TR =
m
For predictive relationship uncertainties, the standard deviation of the logarithm of the
predicted parameter is usually computed. Temporal uncertainties are created since it is required
to define probabilities of various hazards occurring in a given time period. It is generally
assumed that earthquakes occur randomly and hence simple probabilistic models can be
assumed. This is inconsistent with the elastic rebound theory that states that the occurrence of
an earthquake is related to the time elapsed since the last earthquake and perhaps energy
released. Non-homogeneous Poisson models, renewable models, time-predictable models are
amogst the used models, as alternatives to the simple Poissons model. The latter is only useful
for practical seismic risk analysis except when the seismic hazard is dominated by a single
source for which the time interval since the previous significant event is greater than the
average interval time and when the source is of a strong characteristic time behaviour.
For PSHA probabilistic computations are used to combine the uncertainties. Seismic hazard
curves are frequent tool where they give the annual probability of ecceedence of different
values of ground motion curves. These are obtained for each individual zone. The use of logic
15
trees are sometimes required when the choices of the seismic hazard model are not clear.
Combining hazard curves with temporal uncertainty models, the probabilities of exceedence in
finite time interval are given by :
P[YT > y *] = 1 e
y*T
The deagregation, is then a process by which the mean annual rate of exceedence at a
particular site based the risk of potential earthquakes of different magnitudes is associated with
particular earthquake magnitude and source-site distance, in order to select existing ground
motion records for Response analysis.
3.3 Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment (DSHA)

This is the traditional system to determine the hazard at a site. This system identifies the
occurrence of an earthquake of a certain size occurring at a particular location. The worse
combination characteristic to the site has to be identified. The procedure of DSHA involves:
The identification and characterisation of the earthquake sources which are able to
produce a significant excitation at the site to be investigated. In this procedure, the
source geometry and the potential of each earthquake have to be defined.
For each source zone surrounding the site, site to source parameters such as the shortest
distance (epicentral or hypocentral distance) have to be identified.
By comparing the levels at the site of ground motion parameters produced by the
considered earthquakes, the controlling earthquake is selected. This selection is based
on the earthquakes considered in the first step whose distance is found in the second
step. The controlling earthquake is described in terms of its size and distance from the
site.
The hazard at the site is then defined by the ground motion produced at the site by the
selected controlling earthquake. The parameters describing it are usually Peak Ground
acceleration (PGA), Peak Ground Velocity (PGV) and the response spectrum.
DHSA is a straightforward procedure to evaluate worse conditions and is good when

catastrophic consequences of a port are to be assessed. Yet, it is not associated to the likelihood
occurrence of an event, its location, the level of shaking expected during a period of occurrence
related to the life span of the structure and the uncertainty effects of the resulting ground
motion characteristics (Kramer, 1996). There is a large dose of subjective decisions to be made
particularly in the first step. Such decisions should be backed by structural, seismological,
geological, economical and political experience of the engineer. This can lead to different
selections in the third step. The Maximum Probable Earthquake (MPE) should be targeted.
3.4 Seismic Parameters Required for the Design and Assessment of Port Structures
From the seismic hazard assessment, whether DHSA or PSHA seismic parameters have to be
associated with the structure for its design or if already constructed for its risk assessment.
Characteristic ground motions of the site are generally obtained by the hazard assessment
procedure. The peak acceleration is the most commonly used parameter used to describe a
ground motion. Peak velocity and displacement parameters for the characterization of the
ground motion at the site are other parameters. A port structure has its natural characteristic
frequency, hence it is also of interest the frequency content of the possible excitation. Fourier
16
analysis on the ground motion spectra will give Fourier spectra giving Fourier amplitude vs.
frequency content. Fourier amplitude is maximum in a range bound by the corner frequency
fc and the cutoff frequency fmax. This frequency range is the characteristic frequency range of
the earthquake motion considered. The response spectrum describes the maximum response of
a single degree-of-freedom (SDOF) system to the particular earthquake motion as a function of
natural frequency and damping of the SDOF. The predominant and effective periods can also
be of important characteristic to the port structure.
3.5 Seismic Vulnerability of Existing Worldwide Ports.
3.5.1 Introduction
The seismic vulnerability of existing world wide port structures due to their geographical
location was assessed. The design PGA for 10% probability of exceedence in 50 years of a
number of important ports in USA, Japan, New Zealand and China (PMHW, 1998); and in
some seismic European countries (ESPO,2005) namely Turkey, Italy and Greece was
determined by comparing the geographical position of the ports with their location in the
corresponding hazard maps, as shown in Figures. 3.1-3.5 (GSHAP, 1999; EAK, 2000; METU,
2006; OPCM-3519, 2006; USGS, 2006). For the Italian case, the geographical position of the
ports was compared with the hazard map of the previous edition of the seismic code OPCM-
3274, 2003.
Figure 3.1. USA seismic hazard map (USGS,2006)
3.5.2 Seismic Hazard Maps

The USA hazard map (Figure 3.1) indicates that the west coast is characterized by high seismic
hazard, while the east coast is characterized by moderate to low seismicity (USGS, 2006). The
west coast is characterized by some important ports such the Port of Los Angeles. The coast of
Alaska varies from moderate to high seismicity. Yet, the risk in this region is expected to be
low since the population density and the construction density are very low. The seismicity in
Asia along the coast is very high in South East regions and the islands, particularly Japan
(Figure 3.2)
17
Figure 3.2. Asia seismic Hazard map (GSHAP, 1999)
Figure 3.3. Italian Seismic Hazard Map (OPCM-3519, 2006)

The seismicity in Italy (Figure 3.3) is found to be high in the middle along the island, and
reduces to moderate and low seismicity at the coasts in most of the regions. Yet, where the land
becomes narrow such as in the lower regions such as Calabria, the coast has a high hazard. In
18
this region there are some important ports such as Gioia Tauro. The East and south east coast of
Sicily is characterized by moderate to high seismicity (OPCM-3519, 2006).
In the seismic hazard map represented here (Figure 3.4) from the Greek code EAK 2000
indicates that there are four seismic hazard Zones I IV each having a corresponding ground
seismic acceleration , (Table 3.1). The coastal geography of Greece is very irregular. The
west and south west including Crete varies from moderate to high seismicity. The north-east is
characterised by moderate to low seismicity while the south-east is characterised by low
seismicity. The Greek map shows that the west coast of Turkey is characterised by a hazard of
0.24g (Table 3.5).
Table 3.1. The Seismic Hazard Zone Factor, Greece, (EAK, 2000)
Seismic Hazard
Zone I II III IV
0.12 0.16 0.24 0.36
Figure 3.4. Greek Seismic Hazard Map (EAK, 2000)
The Turkish hazard map (Figure 3.5) is divided in 5 regions. The west coast is characterised by
high seismicity with a value higher than that indicated in the Greek map. The southern coast
ranges from low to moderate seismicity, while the Turkish coastal seismicity in the Marmara
and dead sea vary from moderate to high seismicity (METU, 2006).
19
AO
1 0.4
2 0.3
3 0.2
4 0.1
5 >0.1
Figure 3.5. Turkish seismic hazard map. (METU, 2006)
The seismic hazard on the New Zealand coast is quite variable (NZS 1170.5:2004 and GSHAP,
1999). On the North island, the seismicity varies from high seismicity in the south east coast to
low and moderate in the North West region. The north and north west coast of the southern
island is characterised by high seismicity, and the rest by low seismicity.
3.5.3 Geographic Location and Seismic Hazard of Ports.

In the assessment the number of ports 14 ports were considered for Greece, 19 for Turkey, 24
for Italy, 13 for New Zealand, 116 for USA, 60 for China and 135 for Japan. It was not possible
to consider all ports since the number is infinite, hence the number for each country was based
on that given in the list of P.M.H.W. (1998) which automatically selects the most important
ports for the country. Anyhow, any results in the assessment were normalised in order to
account for this. A list of all ports considered with their respective hazard PGA value is given
in Annex A.
The number of ports at a particular PGA normalised by the respective country total number of
ports of a given was calculated as shown in Figures 3.6 3.7. The Figure shows that in Turkey
the distribution of ports is more in the high seismic regions. The number of ports spread in low
seismic is more than those of moderate seismicity. The Greek normal distribution is similar to a
normal distribution and ports are more spread in the moderate hazard region. Ports in New
Zealand are moderately spread from moderate to high seismic regions. In the USA, ports are
more spread in low seismicity regions. The distribution experiences an exponential shape decay
towards moderate seismicity and increases slightly at higher seismicity. Ports in China are
more spread on the low to moderate seismicity range. The distribution of Japan ports has two
peaks, one on the moderate range and a slightly higher one on the high seismic range. With the
old Italian hazard map OPCM-3274: 2003, the distribution is more uniform and covers a
smaller range in the hazard spectrum than with the more recent hazard map of OPCM-3519,
20
2006. With the latter, two peaks are reached at the lower and at the moderate to high seismic
ranges.
U.S. ports are split over the low and high hazard bands, since the West Coast is affected by
high seismicity whereas the east coast has a low seismic hazard (Figure3.6-3.7). Following the
geographical pattern, the hazard characterising Greek ports lies between and overlapping that
of Italy being the lower one and that of Turkey being the higher one.
Turkey
% No. of Ports vs. Design Ground Acceleration Italy
Italy
0.5 Greece
0.45 New Zealand
USA
Frequency % of ports/ Total
0.4 China
Japan
0.35
no. of ports
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Design Ground Acceleration "a" (g)
Figure 3.6. Distribution number of ports normalised by the total over the hazard spectrum.
Cum ulative Frequency of % of Ports vs. Design Ground

Acceleration
1
0.9
Cumulative frequency of
0.8
ports / number of ports
0.7
0.6 Turkey
0.5 Italy
0.4 Greece
New Zealand
0.3 USA
0.2 China
Japan
0.1
Italy 2004
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Design Ground Acceleration "a" (g)
Figure 3.7. Cumulative number of ports at a particular hazard value.
3.5.4 Economic Risk and Seismic hazard of Ports

The geographical location of the top most important container ports given by ESPO (2005) was
compared to the seismic hazard provided by the seismic hazard maps described earlier
(GSHAP, 1999; EAK, 2000; METU, 2006; OPCM-3519, 2006; USGS, 2006; NZS
1170.5:2004). The list includes 33 ports and it is curious to notice that most of the ports are
Chinese (Table 3.2). The most commercial port is that of Hong Kong and for the year 2003 had
20.45 Million TEU. Yet, its seismic hazard is low.
21
For these ports a non-linear regression between seismic hazard and container carriage volume
was carried-out using Pearson correlation on SPSS V.12 software. As shown in Table 3.3, the
correlation coefficient of the regression is low.
Table 3.2. The Ranking of important world ports worldwide and

their associated seismic hazard (list of ports from ESPO, 2005).
World Hazard 2003 Annual
Ranking Port Country (g) Million TEU Growth
1 Hong Kong China 0.04 20.45 7.8
2 Singapore Singapore 0.08 18.41 3
3 Busan Korea 0.08 10.37 16.5
4 Shanghai China 0.08 11.28 45.2
5 Kaohsiung Taiwan 0.49+ 8.84 8.9
6 Shenzhen China 0.24 10.65 67.4
7 Rotterdam Netherlands 0.04 7.11 2.1
8 Los Angeles USA 0.32+ 7.18 20.2
9 Hamburg Germany 0.02 6.14 12.9
10 Antwerpen Belgium 0.04 5.54 11.6
11 Port Klang Malaysia 0.16 4.8 37.3
12 Long Beach USA 0.32+ 4.66 2.6
13 Dubai Ports Jebel Ali 0.41 4.19* 12.4
14 New York USA 0.08 4.4 12.7
15 Quingdao China 0.16 4.24 45.3
16 Tokyo Japan 0.41 3.2 5.3
17 Bremen Germany 0.02 3.19 16.2
18 Gioia Tauro Italy 0.23 3.15 9.7
19 Manila Philippines 0.41 2.55 8.2
20 Tanjong Priok Indonesia 0.32 2.9* 13.2
21 Lam Chabang Thailand 0.08 3.18 17.6
22 Tanjung Pelepas Malaysia 0.04 3.49 /
23 Jakarta Indonesia 0.32 2.76 /
24 Tianjin China 0.16 3.01 34.1
25 Yokohama Japan 0.49+ 2.47 3.7
26 Algeciras Spain 0.16 2.52 5.5
27 Guangzhou China 0.04 2.76 39.1
28 Kobe Japan 0.41 2.39 7
29 Nhava Sheva India 0.08 1.95* 47.7
30 Nagoya Japan 0.41 2.05 8.7
31 Ningbo China 0.04 2.76 106.7
32 Xiamen China 0.16 2.33 42.1
33 Le Havre France 0.04 1.98 7.6
* 2002 values are used.
The Pearson model indicates that the level of importance of a port would decrease with the
increase of its seismic hazard (see Figure 3.8), however the reliability of this prediction for the
examined data is low as indicated by the correlation coefficient between the seismic hazard and
the commercial supply of the port.
Table 3.3 indicates also that the correlation between seismic hazard and ranking is moderate. It
also shows that the correlation between the annual growth and the ranking is low. The latter
means that ports which are of smaller importance are growing more and at a faster pace and
22
hence in the future a number of ports in high seismic regions will become more economically
important.
Table 3.3 Pearson Correlation of seismic hazard and container carriage

Correlations Million
Seismic TEU Annual
Ranking Hazard 2003 growth
Ranking P.C. 1.000 0.089 -0.794 0.212
S . 0.622 0.000 0.251
N 33.000 33.000 33.000 31.000
Seismic P.C. 0.089 1.000 -0.235 -0.305
Hazard S 0.622 . 0.189 0.095
N 33.000 33.000 33.000 31.000
Million P.C. -0.794 -0.235 1.000 -0.083
TEU 2003 S 0.000 0.189 . 0.656
N 33.000 33.000 33.000 31.000
Annual P.C. 0.212 -0.305 -0.083 1.000
growth S 0.251 0.095 0.656 .
N 31.000 31.000 31.000 31.000
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
P.C. = Pearson
Corrilation S = 2 Tailed significance N = Size of sample
Seismic Hazard Vs Container Carriage Volume

0.50
Seismic
Hazard Observed
(g) 0.40 Power
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00

Year 2003 Container carriage (MillionTEU)
Figure 3.8. Pearson Statistical model for hazard and container carriage.
3.6 Anomalies in Risk and Hazard Assessments

Hazard characterisation can drive to several anomalies in the risk assessment of a particular
port. The hazard changes with time as a function on the advancement of hazard assessment.
The discrepancies between the two Italian distributions indicate this. This can give a sense of
uncertainty since a port is assessed or designed with certain hazard parameters which then
23
change. If the new hazard for the site is increased, does it mean that the port is now under
designed? On the other hand, if the hazard for the site decreases, does it mean that money was
invested in the port for nothing? Although the Italian scenario was considered, this point is
addressed to most of the codes and practices since it is very common. Another anomaly is that
were maps overlap. As shown for the case where the Greek and Turkish map overlap the
hazard for the intersection is not uniform. Which one is better?
Another anomaly rises due to the fact that the occurrence of new earthquakes can change the
hazard or risk scenario. Table 3.4 (Yoneyama, 2000) lists the probabilities of failure of gravity-
type quay walls in Japan for each occurrence year of earthquake. Two failure probabilities for
50-year service life of port structures are calculated for the cases that the Hyogo-ken Nanbu
Earthquake is included (Case A) and excluded (Case B). The 50-year failure probabilities are
thus obtained as 0.1035 and 0.0686 for Cases A and B. This means that the probability of Case
A is 1.5 times larger than that for Case B. This means that the Hyogo-ken Nanbu Earthquake,
which seriously damaged port and harbour facilities, has a significant effect on the risk
(Yoneyama, 2000) .
Table 3.4 Probability of failure in Japanese ports, (Yoneyama, 2000)
24
Chapter 4. Damage and Wharf Performance
4. DAMAGE AND WHARF PERFORMANCE

4.1 Performance Criteria and Requirements for Design
4.1.1 Introduction
In order to meet economic and functional requirements, the design and analysis of a wharf
structure typology particularly in seismic and moderate seismic regions, has to meet
performance requirements in the event of an earthquake. The ground and foundation
deformations and structural deformations have to be compatible and corresponding stress states
as basis of design parameters. This should not be based on equilibrium levels only but should
account also for structural redundancy and hence accepting failure in the sense of acceptable
deformation.
4.1.2 Earthquake Level Requirements

Many building codes provide bases on the capacity to resist a force, but little is provided on the
performance of a structure and the different performance levels a structure can achieve once
this limit is exceeded. In performance based design, levels of design earthquake motions are
defined which correspond to the level of performance or level of damage acceptable of the
structure (Pianc, 2001). Two levels of earthquake motions should be used as design reference
motions (Iai et. al.,1998):
Level 1(L1): the level of earthquake motions that are likely to occur during the life-span of
the structure. This is based on a motion whose probability of exceedence is 50% with a return
period of 75 years for a 50 year life span of structure.
Level 2 (L2): the level of earthquake motions associated with infrequent rare events, that
typically involve very strong ground shaking. This is based on a motion whose probability of
exceedence is 10% with a return period of 475 years for a structure life span of 50 years.
Other to these earthquake levels, other wharf deign guidance suggest the use of further
earthquake levels (Ferrito, 1999):
Level 3: Earthquake with a 5% probability of exceedence in 50 years of wharf exposure,

with a return period of 949 years. This is a very rare event considered for further strength and
ductility precision requirements.
25
Level 4: earthquake with 3 or 2% probability of exceedence in 50 years of wharf

exposure, with a return period of 1641 years. This is a very rare event important for
containment
The latter two earthquake levels are more relevant to port of a particular nature requiring a high
level of performance, such as oil terminals, very important wharves and others dealing with
hazardous materials.
4.1.3 Damage Level Requirements

In case the life span of the structure is different, the return periods should be defined otherwise. Regions
of low seismicity might have a small L1 but a relevant L2. The relevance will also depend on the degree
of performance required which will be defined later. This dual approach helps to ensure performance
requirements particularly in moderate to high seismic regions. This means that damage criteria by due to
a level 2 earthquake may not be sufficient to ensure a degree of safety and serviceability, hence Level 1
will govern. Similarly, if damage criteria is met for a Level 1 earthquake but douse not ensure enough
performance standard, then Level 2 governs (Iai, et al., 1998; Werner, 1998; Pianc, 2001). Hence, this
means it is not necessarily that the strongest earthquake dominates.
The level of damage acceptable is depends on the economic importance, the hazard of materials
handled at the wharf, time and cost affordable to repair structure once damaged to the
acceptable level, and specific needs of the user. Hence the damage can be both structural and
functional (or operational). The latter is caused by the former. There are four acceptable levels
of damage (Table 4.1; Iai et. al.,1998; Pianc, 2001)
Table 4.1. Acceptable level of damage in

performance based design (Iai et. al.,1998; Pianc, 2001)
Table 4.2. Acceptable level of damage and design level (Iai et. al.,1998; Pianc, 2001).
26
Once the earthquake motions and seismic hazard levels are identified, the performance grade of
the structure can be identified by considering also the identified acceptable damage. Pianc
(2001) suggests the use of 4 performance grades (Table 4.2)
Grade S refers to special structures of high economic importance, strategic importance or

potentially used by many people and hence risk human life loss. This can be a wharf structure
(or any port structure) that will be important for assistance after the damage. This grade should
refer also to wharves which handle hazardous material. As previously described for certain
structures which fall under this category need he consideration of Level 3 and 4 earthquakes
(Ferrito, 1999). Grade A refers also to special and important wharves and port structures,
whose relevance is less than those for Grade S. Grade B refers to ordinary structures, while
Grade C refers to easily restorable structures (Werner, 1998; Iai, et al., 1998; Pianc, 2001)
4.1.4 Seismic Analysis and Performance Requirements:

Figure 4.1. depicts the design and analysis process by which performance requirements can be
met in the design and analysis of a particular wharf typology (Iai et al., 1998; Pianc, 2001). The
levels of damage, and performance criteria are selected together with the earthquake levels. The
structure is then analysed and designed. This process is repeated if the damage criteria are not
met.
Figure 4.1. Performance and design sequence (Pianc, 2001)
27
The seismic analysis of a wharf structure involves the assessment of a regional seismicity, the
identification and assessment of geotechnical hazards, and the soil structure interaction analysis
taking into account inertial and kinematic considerations (Werner, 1998; Pianc, 2002;Carvalho
et al., 2004). The earthquake motions at bedrock through the seismic hazard assessment should
be identified. The dynamic soil response should then be analysed in order to evaluate the local
site effect at ground surface. Liquefaction potential or resistance and ground failure should be
analysed. Then a seismic analysis of the port structure should be performed. There are various
types of analysis which could be used for wharf structures. The choice should reflect the
possible damage capabilities. There are three categories of analysis whose detail and precision
relates to the performance requirements of the wharf structure (Table 4.3). The simplified
analysis is the threshold limit and gives an approximation of displacement. With simplified
dynamic analysis it is possible to evaluate the extent of displacement, stress ductility and strain
based on the characteristics of the failure modes. Through dynamic analysis, it is possible to
evaluate the failure mode which governs and identify precisely the displacement, stress,
ductility and strain. As the performance grade increases, the level of analysis increases, where
other simplified methods will be useful as preliminary estimates. Structures with low
performance requirements do not necessarily require sophisticated analysis.
Table 4.3. Design level, performance, and damage criteria(Iai et. al.,1998; Werner, 1998; Pianc, 2001)
Analysis
Simplified
Design Performance Simplified Dynamic Dynamic
Structure Description Earthquake Grade Analysis Analysis Analysis
Critical structure; Grade S

handles hazardous Level 1 Serviceable
materials; economical Level 2 Serviceable
and social importance; Level 3 Repairable
used by many people Level 4 Repairable
Slightly less critical than Grade A
"Grade S"; Structures Level 1 Serviceable
not easily retrofitted. Level 2 Repairable
Grade B
Level 1 Serviceable
ordinary structures, of Near
ordinary importance Level 2 Collapse
Grade C
Easily restorable Level 1 Repairable
ordinary structures Level 2 Collapse
The site response analysis, using simplified analysis is a common procedure applied in codes
and standards (Pianc, 2001). The local effects depend on the deposit thickness and the average
stiffness up to a depth of 30m or up to bedrock, depending on the depth of interest. Based on
this information, the site is then classified applying amplification factors and site response
spectra. From simplified dynamic analysis of site response, acceleration time history which is
suitable as input for the structural analysis, free field response, shear stress and shear strain at
28
specific locations are obtained. In the process, local site effects are evaluated numerically using
equivalent linear models with total stress formulation. The soil layers are idealized as being
perfectly horizontal of an infinite extent in a continuum. For the site response using dynamic
analysis, the input parameters required are time history of bedrock and un-drained cyclic
properties for effective stress analysis. Site response dynamic analysis aims to study the
coupled effect of the soil and the structure. If the area of interaction of the structure is well
above the bedrock, 1D non-linear (effective stress) or 1D equivalent linear (total stress)
analyses could be made (Iai, et al., 1998; Pianc, 2001) In such analysis, liquefaction potential is
also assessed. In the assessment for liquefaction potential for simplified analysis, evaluation is
based on SPT and CPT results. Simplified dynamic analysis for liquefaction potential is based
on the shear stress during design earthquake, cyclic laboratory tests, and SPT and CPT results.
For dynamic analysis, both the structure and the soil are incorporated in 1 model.
For the structural analysis, the methodology adopted depends on the level of analysis required
vis-a-vis the structural typology in question, and are divided in those adequate to closed-
typologies or open typologies as defined in Chapters 2-3.
4.1.5 Performance of Ports in earthquakes

A series of case studies of wharf structures that were damaged in earthquake events will be
discussed in order to understand, and identify different wharf typologies, elements that
constitute them and the associated damage. Unfortunately, most of the literature found deals
only with the failure of port structures. Little is said about the success of structures which are
undamaged after a seismic event.
(a) Gujarat Earthquake, India. The Gujarat earthquake of January 26, 2001 had a magnitude
of Mw=7.7. This earthquake affected in particular the port of Kandla (Figures 4.2-4.7). This is
specialised in the trade of timber, rice, coal and sulphur. The port is situated 40km south of the
epicentre location (Eidinger, 2001). Life safety at the port was little threatened since on that
day most of the workers were on holiday. Some buildings at the port were damaged. The open
ground behind the shore settled uniformly with some sand boils and evidence of lateral ground
deformation and cracking along unsupported waterfront sections. A 50 year old platform
suffered damages as the 2500mm hollow RC piles were cracked by about 30cm below the pile
caps. After the earthquake, in order for the platform to remain serviceable, the loads were
reduced during the operation until it was repaired. Other platforms supported on hybrid RC
columns and steel piles suffered bending cracks. The modern platforms which were 10-15
years performed relatively well. The soil at Kandla port is characterised by thick layers of soft
sands.
(b) San Antonio Port, Chile. The block quay wall (Figure 4.8) in San Antonio Chile suffered
sever damages during the 3rd March, 1985 Chile earthquake. The earthquake had a magnitude
of Ms = 7.8. The total height of the wall measured 14.5m, with the water depth measuring
9.6m. The Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA) evaluated based on strong motion earthquake
records, measured 0.67g. Backfill liquefaction and the strong earthquake motion caused 271m
of the total 452m length of the wall to collapse (Pianc, 2001; Tsuchida et. al., 1986).
29
Figure 4.2. Cracks at about 30cm below the pile cap Figure 4.3. Cracks were observed to be more
(Eidinger, 2001). opened on the land side than on the waterfront side
(Eidinger, 2001).
Figure 4.4. Failure of joint between platform and Figure 4.6. Misalignment of rails on platform
column (Eidinger, 2001) (Eidinger, 2001)
Figure 4.5. Sand boils in the hinterland (Eidinger, Figure 4.7. Permanent displacement between joints
2001) (Eidinger, 2001)
30
Figure 4.8. San Antonio Port, Chile (PIANC, 2001)
(c) Kalamata Port, Greece. The block type quay wall at the port of Kalamata in Greece,
suffered suffered damages during the 13th September, 1986 earthquake. The earthquake
measured a magnitude of Ms = 6.2. The evaluated PGA and Peak Ground Velocities measured
analytically at the surface varied between 0.2 and 0.3 for the acceleration, and in the range of
0.4m/s for the velocity. The wall measured a total height of 11.6m (Figure 4.9). The water
depth measured 9.5m. The wall suffered a horizontal sea ward displacement ranging between
0.2m and 0.1m. It also tilted an angle ranging between 4 and 5 degrees. The wall foundation
was very firm. The backfill settled up to 20cm, but no settlement occurred at distance of
approximately 35m from the wall. The Quay wall also remained serviceable (Pitilakis et. al.,
1989; Werner, 1998; Pianc, 2001).
Figure 4.9. Kalamata Port, Greece (Pianc, 2001)

(d) Port of Algiers, Algeria. A block quay wall measuring a total height of 12.2m with a
water depth of 10m (Figure 4.10), underwent damages during the 29th October, 1989 Chenoua
earthquake. The epicenter measured about 60km from the location of the port (Pianc, 2001).
The wall suffered a horizontal displacement of 0.5m and a vertical displacement of 0.3m,
31
which resulted in tilting of the wall. Nearby grounds suffered ruptures. Coastal roads were
closed due to fallings rock and landslide (Pianc, 2001).
Figure 4.10. Port of Algiers, Algeria (Pianc, 2001)
(e) Port of Kushiro, Japan. The caisson quay wall at the west port district in Kushiro Port
Japan, sufferered seaward displacement and liquefaction of the backfill. The wall was
constructed on firm foundation (Iai et al., 1994). The horizontal displacement measured 0.75m
and the vertical displacement of 0.2m with a resultant tilt of 2%. The wharf measured 12m in
total depth, and 9m in water depth (Figure 4.11). The damage was a consequence of the MJ=7.8
January 15, 1993 Kushiro-Oki earthquake. The surface PGA measured 0.47g and the surface
PGV measured 0.63m/s. These values were based on strong motion earthquake records
evaluation. The construction of the port was completed in 1975 and its design was based on a
seismic coefficient of kh=0.2 (Pianc, 2001; Iai et al., 1994).
Figure 4.11. Caisson wall at the Port of Kushiro, Japan (Pianc, 2001)
During the same earthquake in the same port, the East quay of Kita wharf suffered damage.
The caisson quay-wall (Figure 4.12), designed with a seismic coefficient of kh=0.15 and
32
completed in 1950, underwent a horizontal displacement of 1.9m and a vertical displacement

varying between 0.2 and 0.5m (Iai et al., 1994). The foundation of the wall remained firm. The
displacement was relatively larger when compared to other similar damaged caisson walls due
to a smaller width to height ratio (Pianc, 2001).
Figure 4.12. Quay-wall, Port of Kushiro, Japan (Pianc, 2001)

The south sheet pile quay wall in the fishery part of Kushiro port suffered from backfill
liquefaction (Figure 4.13). This resulted in crack openings in the sheet wall at an elevation of
4m below the water surface (Iai et al., 1994). This led to a 0.4m permanent displacement of the
wall at its top, and a vertical displacement varying between 0.1 and 0.3m (Iai et al., 1994). This
wall was designed with a seismic coefficient of kh=0.2 and its construction was completed in
1980. The SPT-N values varied from bottom to top between 50 and 5. The height of the wall
above the sea bed measured 10.2m. The water depth measured 7.5m. Coupled piles were used
as anchorages.
Figure 4.13. Sheet Pile wall, Port of Kushiro, Japan (Pianc, 2001)
The South Quay, West No.1 wharf in the west port district did not suffer any damage (Figure
4.14). The sheet-pile wall measured a total height above sea bed of 15m of which 12m were
33
under water. Its construction was completed in 1975. The wall did not suffer any liquefaction
and hence no permanent horizontal displacement, vertical displacement or tilting was recorded
(Iai et al., 1994). Gravel mats, gravel drains and sand compaction piles were used as a measure
to prevent liquefaction in the backfill. In this case study, such measures worked perfectly well
(Werner, 1998).
Figure 4.14. Ground Improvement, Port of Kushiro, Japan, (Pianc, 2001)

(f) Taichung Port, Taiwan. The caisson No. 1 Quay wall at Taichung port in Taiwan
measures a total height of 19.2m and a water depth of 13m (Figure 4.15). This wharf suffered
damages during the 21st September, 1999 Ji-Ji earthquake which had a magnitude of Ms=7.7.
Based on strong motion earthquake records, the evaluated PGA measured 0.16g. The wharf
structure was designed with a seismic coefficient of kh=0.15 and was constructed in 1974
(Pianc, 2001). Although constructed on a firm foundation, the horizontal permanent
displacement measured a maximum of 1.5 m, and the vertical displacement measured 0.1m.
The backfill was observed to liquefy, consequently resulting in a backfill settlement up to 1m
(Sugano et. al., 1999).
Figure 4.15. Taichung Port, Taiwan, (Pianc, 2001)

(g) Akita Port, Japan. The 26th May, 1983 Nihonakai-Chubu earthquake in Japan damaged a
number of sheet pile wharves. This earthquake had a magnitude of MJ=7.7. At the location of
34
the port, the evaluated surface PGA measured 0.24g and the evaluated surface PGV measured
0.32m/s (Iai et. al., 1993). Calculations were based on strong motion earthquake records. The
seismic design coefficient adopted for the area was kh=0.10.
Under this earthquake, the Ohama No. 2 sheet pile wharf (Figure 4.16) suffered a horizontal
displacement of 2m at the top, and a vertical displacement ranging between 0.3 and 1.3m. This
was a consequence of backfill liquefaction. Opening of cracks were observed on the wale
anchored sheet pile wall (Iai et al., 1993; Pianc, 2001)
Figure 4.16. Ohama 2: Akita Port, Japan (Pianc, 2001)

On the other hand, Ohama No. 1 sheet pile wharf (Figure 4.17) did not suffer from backfill
liquefaction hence, no permanent vertical or horizontal displacements were observed (Iai et al.,
1993; Pianc, 2001). This wharf shape had similar geometrical dimensions as the previously
described wharf No. 2. Wharf No. 2 was completed in 1976, while wharf No1. in 1970. The
SPT-N values of the backfill of the No 1. varied oscillating between 10 and 50. Yet, for wharf
No. 2, the SPT-N values although varying between 10 and 50, they were only near the 50 at the
bottom and decreased to below 10 at the top (Figure 4.16 and Figure 4.17).
Figure 4.17. Ohama 1: Akita Port, Japan (Pianc, 2001)
35
A crane at the sheet pile quay-wall of Nakajima wharf No.2 at the port of Akita (Figure 4.18)
derailed due to the rocking response. These derailed legs of the crane were during the
earthquake supported on the nearby sand , consequently they sank in the liquefied backfill
resulting in a 20 degrees landward inclination (Tsuchida et al., 1985).
Figure 4.18. Nakajima wharf: Akita Port, Japan (Pianc, 2001)
(h) Hakodate Port, Japan. The 12th July, 1993 Hokkaido-Nansei-Oki earthquake measured a
magnitude of Mj=0.78. Based on strong motion records, the evaluated surface PGA measured
only 0.12g and the surface PGV 0.33m/s. Despite the low value of PGA, the No.6 Quay wall in
the Benton district of the port of Hakodate in Japan (Figure 4.19) suffered significant
deformation due to backfill liquefaction and foundation soil liquefaction. The maximum
permanent displacement was measured to be 5.2m, the vertical displacement 1.6m and the
resulting tilt 15 degrees. The sheet pile wall measured 10.3m from the seabed and the water
depth measured 8m.. It was designed with a seismic coefficient of kh=0.15 and its construction
was completed in 1973 (Inatomi et al., 1994).
Figure 4.19. Hokaida Port, Japan (Pianc, 2001)
36
(i) Commercial Port, Guam, USA. The commercial berths F3 to F6 of the port at Guam in the
USA suffered a permanent horizontal displacement of 0.6m (Comartin, 1995; Pianc, 2001).
This happened as a consequence of the excitation of the 8th August, 1993 Guam earthquake.
The PGA evaluated based on strong motion earthquake records varied between 0.15 and 0.25g.
The quay damaged was of a sheet pile type and was constructed using a three-step dredging
sequence (Figure 4.20). The height of the wall measured 13.2m from the seabed. The water
depth measured 10.5m.
Figure 4.20. Guam, USA (Pianc, 2001)
(j) Port of Oakland, USA. During the 17th October, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake the 7th
Street Terminal pile supported wharf was damaged (Figure 4.21). The earthquake measured a
Magnitude of Ms=7.1. On the evaluation of strong motion records, the PGA calculated for the
site varied between 0.22 and 0.45g. The height of the wharf measured 15.5 from the sea bed,
and the sea depth measured 11m. Square reinforced concrete piles were used. It s cross-section
measured 41x41cm. Tensile failures resulted at or near the tops of most of the rearmost line of
batter piles (Egan et al., 1992; Pianc, 2001)). Liquefaction of backfill also occurred. Hydraulic
sand fill below the dike suffered settlement and is presumed to be the net contributor for the
global failure of the wharf system.
Figure 4.21. Port of Oakland, USA (Pianc, 2001)
37
(k) Port of San Fernando, Philippines. The 16th July, 1990 Luzon earthquake in the
Philippines, with a magnitude of Ms=7.8 damaged the Government pier No. 1 in the San
Fernando port. The pile supported wharf pier, constructed of reinforced concrete square piles
200m long and 19m wide had a concrete deck. Coupled vertical and batter piles were used
(Figure 4.22).
Figure 4.22. Port of San Fernando, Philippines (Pianc, 2001)
The pier of the wharf has undergone longitudinal displacement toward the sea (Japan Society
of Civil Engineers, 1990) due to the displacement and deformation of the pile embedding soil.
Many gaps opened in the longitudinal direction of the concrete deck. The largest gap measured
0.7m. The total gap displacement amounted to 1.5m. Cracks and chipping at pile caps were also
observed. These exposed R.C. steel bars which were either bent or cut. The height of the wharf
pier above seabed in the original design measured 20m.
(l) Los Angeles Port (POLA), USA.
The Northridge earthquake of the 17th January, 1994 with a magnitude of Ms=6.8 produced a
ground surface acceleration (PGA) of 0.25g (Pianc, 2001). The B127, APL Terminal in POLA
(Figure 4.23) suffered from pull-out and chipping of concrete of batter piles at the pile caps
during this earthquake. This pile supported wharf was constructed using 46cm pre-stressed
octagonal concrete piles. Its construction took place in the 1960s. It measured 15m above the
sea bed and the water depth measured 10.5m (Pianc, 2001)
Figure 4.23. APL old Terminal, POLA, USA (Pianc, 2001)
38
During the same earthquake, the 18m deep B126(New) APL terminal in POLA suffered
damages (Figure 4.24). This pile supported wharf was supported on pre-stressed octagonal
piles 61cm in diameter. This was designed with a kh=0.12 and a kv=0.4. Its construction was
completed in 1982. Liquefaction of the backfill was observed. Hairline cracks at the pile caps
of the most landward piles were seen (Pianc, 2001). A horizontal displacement of 8cm relative
to another wharf at an expansion joint was developed. As a result, damage to crane rails was
caused. The maximum horizontal displacement measured 0.1m.
Figure 4.24. APL new Terminal, POLA, USA (Pianc, 2001)

(m) Port of Eilat, Israel. The earthquake on the 22nd November, 1995 earthquake in Israel had
a magnitude of Ms=7.2. The port of Eilat was located 100km away from the epicentre of this
earthquake. The main wharf measured a total height of 13m and a water depth of 10.5m (Figure
4.25). This open-type wharf constitutes in deck slabs on a concrete platform, supported on
46cm diameter octagonal pre-stressed concrete piles. After the earthquake, no piles were
damaged, yet permanent displacements ranging between 5 and 15mm resulted at the expansion
joints (Buslov, 1996; Pianc, 2001).
Figure 4.25. |Port of Eliat, Palestine (Pianc, 2001)
39
(n)Lefkada, Greece, 2003. The earthquake of the 14th August,2003 which took place in
Lefkada damaged a number of ports. The event had a magnitude (Mw) equal to 6.4. The strike
slip event occurred in the Cefalonia Transform Fault. This fault is very active and in recent
history, a number of major events took place within 50km length on the referred fault.
The eastern and southern coast of Lefkada Island has a considerable amount of small harbours
used by the tourist and fishing industry. For most of them, the water depth at the shore varies
between 2.5 and 4.5 metres. Nearly all harbours suffered some kind of damage due to the
event. This included:
Excessive displacement or rotation of quay walls,
Settlement and cracking of retained backfill,
Lateral spreading (in some places ranging even between 30 and 50 metres, and even
higher than the quay wall),
And complete overturning of the system.
Most such failures involved old constructions, not designed to the state-of- the-art of the
conventional practice at the time of the event. Yet, the Lefkada marina is an exception. The
quay-wall had been seismically designed according to the Greek seismic code EAK 2000, the
project had just been completed some time before the event.
The design of the quay-walls was based on displacement concepts according to the Newmark
sliding block analysis. The quality of work carried out project was the highest possible, since
the project was completely constructed under dry conditions due to shallow original water
depths. The quay-wall consisted in rigid 5x5 metres concrete blocks, laying above a 3m deep
rock-fill foundation which replaced the original softer soil. Having an irregular plan layout
compared to the small scale of the project, could have given rise to out-of phase inertial
vibrations of local elements or masses, which induced small permanent deformations, However
small, such deformations proportionate well with the scale of the marina, making them
relatively notifyable with a consequential level of damage.
Before 1995 design peak acceleration for the region was taken as 0.22g, yet due to the high
seismic activity, this was increased to 0.36g. The accelerograms recorded on the 2003 event,
and the derived 5% damping response spectra imply a peak ground acceleration (PGA)
approximately equal to 0.58g, and a dominant period range (Tp) varying between 0.3 and 0.6
seconds., with about 8 cycles having an acceleration equal to 0.30g or more. The fault normal
component (SA) approximating 2.2g at T=1sec.
(o) Izmit, Turkey, 1999. Another earthquake which damaged a number of ports was that
which occurred on the 17th August, 1999 in Izmit, Turkey. This Mw 7.4 earthquake originated
at a depth of 17km and caused a right-lateral strike strip movement on the North Anatolian
Fault. A surface rupture of 60km and a right lateral offset even as large as 2.7m was produced.
This earthquake damaged a number of ports on the Eastern Marmara sea, including
Haydarpasa Port, Tuzla Port, Darica Port, Dernice Port, and Yalova Port.
40
The Port of Haydarpasa port is located in Istanbul, 90 km away from the epicentre. The peak
ground acceleration due to the earthquake considered, at this port was estimated to vary
between 0.05g and 0.1g. The wharf structure consists in cellular quay walls. The mooring water
depths range between 6 and 12 m. Minor damages were observed to the quay wall.
The Port of Tuzla is located 60km from the epicentre of the earthquake in question. The
mooring facilities consist in cellular block type quay wall. The mooring water depths range
between 5.5m and 10m. The cellular-block walls have undergone a permanent outward
horizontal displacement even up to 0.4m, and a backfill settlement of 0.1m.
The ferry Port of Darica situated south east of the Port of Tuzla, large cracks were observed on
the Apron. Yet, the port has always remained operational.
The Port of Derince was the closest to the event. This is the second most important container
port in Turkey after the ports in Istanbul. It receives about 600 ships/yr, transhipping about 2
million tons/yr of cargo. The cellular block walls did not collapse, with Peak ground
accelerations approximately varying between 0.2g and 0.3g (Pianc, 2001). The port is divided
in several berth sections. An important berth is No.6 where it is used for ro-ro operations. It
consists in a number of quay walls of cellular block type with mooring water depths varying
between 7 and 15 m. The foundation soil consists in stiff clay with STP-N values ranging
between 30 and 60 (Iai et. al., 1999). The backfill soil behind the wall consists in fine grained
sandy hydraulic fill (Figure 4.26).
Figure 4.26. Port of Derince, (Pianc, 2001)
Large settlements of the backfill and lateral permanent displacements of the block walls were
observed. Most walls before the earthquake had their blocks staggered from each other forming
angle of 16o with the vertical (Figure 4.27). The width to height ratio of the blocks varied
between 1:3 and 1:4. Similar damages were observed in Berths No.7 (depth = 10m; length
=160m) and No. 8 (depth = 6m; length =120m). The settlement was up to 0.5m and cblock
41
displacement was as large as 0.7m. Boiled fine sands were observed behind berth No.7 quay
walls. The 5 ton capacity crane at berth No. 7 overturned due to rail settlement in the ground
and earthquake induced rocking.
Figure 4.27. Staggered block wall construction (Pianc, 2001).
Berths No. 2 (depth = 7m; length = 82m) and No.4 (depth = 15m; length =400m) did not
undergo any damage, even though the structure consists in a concrete deck supported by steel
battered piles.
The crane on No.6 Gravity quay wall derailed due to rocking response. It tilted toward the
landside due to differential settlement of the backfill. As a result, one of the cranes collapsed
completely (Sugano and Iai, 1999).
The Port of Yalova is located on the opposite side of Istanbul and experienced up to 0.2m of
settlement in some of its marine.
The damage most commonly observed in wharf structures due to the Izmit Earthquake occurred
on concrete cellular block type quay walls. The most common damage was that of lateral
seaward displacement of the blocks due to liquefaction of the backfill. The lack of soil
improvement was a major consequence to liquefaction induction. Yet, the staggering effect of
the quay walls helped to decrease the permanent lateral displacement. The ports in question
were not designed to a performance based criteria, since the structure damage induced effected
the functionality of the ports and harbours. The subsidence nature of the earthquake resulted in
some cases in a decrease in the relative distance between the deck and the water surface,
consequentially limiting the berthing facilities.
Figure 4.28. Damage to a Quay-wall at the port of Kobe (Nozu et al., 2004)
42
(p) Port of Kobe, Japan, 1995. The Grea-hanshin earthquake, also known as the Hyogoken-
Nambu earthquake or Kobe earthquake, of the 17th January, 1995 had a magnitude of MJ=7.2.
The surface PGA measured 0.53g and the surface PGV measured 1.06m/s. These were
evaluated based on strong motion earthquake records.
Large diameter pile supported Takahama wharf in the port of Kobe (Figure 4.28) suffered
horizontal displacement ranging between 1.3 to 1.7m (Iai, 1997). The wharf was constructed on
firm foundation deposit consisting of alternating layers of Pleistocene clay and sandy gravel.
The SPT N-values ranged from 10 to 25 for clay and 30 to 50 or even higher for the sandy
gravel. The firm deposit was overlain by an alluvial sand layer having SPT-N values of about
15, the thickness of which was variable about 2 m on average. Behind the retaining wall, made
of concrete cellular blocks, was a hydraulic backfill of decomposed granite having SPT N-
values of about 10. The deck of the wharf was made of reinforced concrete slabs and beams
supported by steel pipe piles having a diameter of 700 mm. These steel pipes buckled at the
pile heads except for the piles with short out of soil height, located more towards the land.
Cracks were observed at the pile cap to concrete beam connection located most landward.
Bucking was also observed to occur in certain piles also below the mud-line as shown in Figure
4.29. Some of the buckling was located close to the boundary between the layers of alluvial
sand and Pleistocene gravel. The level where the thickness of the piles were reduced through
factory weld joints, happened to be close to the boundary between these two materials. Such
phenomenon was not observed in the longer piles located most seaward. Permanent
displacement of the rubble dike was observed. The backfill behind the retaining structure
settled about 1 m. Hence, such measurements indicate that the movement of the dike and the
retaining wall towards the sea was uniform.
Figure 4.29. Takahama Pile-Wharf, Kobe, Japan.
Another caisson quay wall designed with a seismic coefficient of kh=0.15 and constructed in
1989 suffered severe horizontal displacements ranging between 4.5m and 5.2m. The vertical
displacement varied between 1.5 and 2.2m and the tilt between 4 and 5 degrees. This wharf
43
found on Rokko Island, measured a total height of 18m and water depth of 14m.The backfilling
sand foundation, replacing clay excessively deformed since it was loose. This failure,
contributed to the significant seaward displacement and tilting of the quay wall (Inagaki et al.,
1996). The residual horizontal displacement normalized by the wall height is found to vary
with replaced foundation sand as shown in Figure 4.30. (Inagaki et. al., 1996)
Figure 4.30. Caisson Wall, Kobe Port, Japan.
The cellular pile quay-wall of the Maya wharf No.1 at the port of Kobe (Figure 4.31) suffered
warping due to non-uniform displacements. The net horizontal displacement varied between
1.3m and 2.9m. The vertical displacement varied between 0.6m and 1.3m. Consequently, the
cellular quay wall tilted a maximum angle of 11 degrees (Sugano et al, 1998).
Figure 4.31. Cellular pile wall, Kobe Port, Japan.
44
The damage most commonly observed in wharf structures due to the Izmit Earthquake occurred
on concrete cellular block type quay walls. The most common damage was that of lateral
seaward displacement of the blocks due to liquefaction of the backfill. The lack of soil
improvement was a major consequence to liquefaction induction. Yet, the staggering effect of
the quay walls helped to decrease the permanent lateral displacement. The ports in question
were not designed to a performance based criteria, since the structure damage induced effected
the functionality of the ports and harbours. The subsidence nature of the earthquake resulted in
some cases in a decrease in the relative distance between the deck and the water surface,
consequentially limiting the berthing facilities.
4.2 Different Wharf Typologies
4.2.1 Introduction
Wharves can be classified into Open Type and Closed Type (Figure 4.32) Open type wharves
are constructed in such a way that sea-water can run below the platform which generally rests
on piles or columns embedded in an embankment. Closed type wharves are generally made of a
vertical wall which divides the sea from the shore, and backfilled with soil material and topped
with a concrete deck or platform.
There are three main different typologies of open type wharves (refer to OCDI, 2002; Pianc,
2001 and Werner, 1998):
Large Diameter Pile Supported Wharf,
Small Diameter Pile Supported Wharf,
Column Supported Wharf.
Pile supported piers are very similar to pile supported piers with minor differences,
hence will be briefly described.
Closed type wharves can be divided into two other categories i.e. Pile Walls and Gravity Walls.
The former in principle consist in stiff piles driven in the ground and retain soil whose
resistance is related to the pile stiffness, and embedment of the piles. Anchors are sometimes
used to aid. There are basically three types of pile wall variations (refer to OCDI, 2002; Pianc,
2001 and Werner, 1998):
Sheet Pile Wall,
Stiff Pile Wall,
Sheet Pile with Platform.
Gravity walls consist in heavy walls that resist lateral deformation of the backfill by their
massive weight and shape. The following are different typologies of gravity walls found world
wide (refer to OCDI, 2002; Pianc, 2001 and Werner, 1998):
Caisson Quay-wall,
45
Massive Quay-Wall,
Cantilever Quay-wall,
Block Quay-wall,
Cellular Block Quay-wall,
Quay-wall on Rock
Cellular Steel wall consist in different piles driven one next to the other forming a thick, heavy
enclosure. Hence although partially constructed of piles, their performance is more similar to
gravity quay walls.
4.2.2 Open Type Wharves

The seismic response of the pile supported wharves is highly influenced by the soil structure
interaction during shaking. (Pianc, 2001), failure modes during earthquakes depend on the
magnitude of inertia force relative to the ground displacement. This is highly associated to
geotechnical aspects. Batter piles are considered as the most effective in lateral load resistance
due to mooring, berthing of ships and crane operations (Pianc, 2001). This cannot be repeated
for seismic loading. The batter pile system forms a stiffer frame than normal vertical piles.
Hence during earthquakes, large stress concentrations result on the batter piles resulting in
concrete shear failure. Batter piles must account for displacement demand and ductility.
It is suggested to design wharves without batter piles in seismic regions (Werner, 1998; Pianc,
2001). It is always better, safer, economical and less time consuming to avoid a problem, than
invent it and then try to solve it. If just vertical batter piles are used, then, loads and
displacements are resisted by the bending of vertical piles (Werner, 1998; Pianc, 2001; OCDI,
2002). Moderate permanent displacement of the system is unavoidable during strong
earthquake motion. However, bending failure at the pile head is preferred to batter-pile failure
since the latter is worse repair (Buslov et. al., 1996; Werner, 1998). In the last 20 years batter
piles have still been used due to the innovative detail between the deck and the batter system.
An accessible fuse is used to link the batter pile with the deck, and failure is absorbed by this
fuse (Werner, 1998; Pianc, 2001). Structural damage is more governed by stress-strain states
other than displacement, hence it is important to predetermine the sequence of and position of
ultimate states. Yet, the sequence is less dominant then sheet pile walls since the lateral
resisting structural system is connected in-parallel i.e. the failure of one pile does not
necessarily mean the failure of the others. To increase the ductility of the system, large
diameter steel piles are preferred in Japan to concrete ones.
The damage of the dike system is similar to that of the retained soil in a gravity quay-wall
system. The piles and deck can displace by settling, tilting and moving forwardly. The apron
can undergo differential settlement between the deck and the shore behind. The deck (platform
or apron) can also undergo tilting.
a) Large Diameter Pile Supported Wharf. These consist in a platform simply supported on
large diameter piles, whose diameter vary between 1m and 2m, depending on the size of the
46
wharf, and the type of function (Warner, 1998). Container wharves generally require the larger
diameter of piles for such typology. The piles are generally embedded in dikes or slopes
making piles in transverse sections with different height (Figure 4.32) (The piles used can be
pre-stressed concrete cylinder piles, cast in-drilled holes (CIDH) concrete piles, steel H-shaped
piles, and steel pipe piles. The deck and platform system can be a cast-in-place concrete flat
slab cast-in-place concrete beam and slab structure, long span concrete box girder deck system,
pre-stressed pre-cast concrete panels, pre-cast normally reinforced concrete panels or a
ballasted deck pavement. Sometimes when rock-fill is not economical, a small retaining wall is
constructed replacing a portion of the slope.
(b) Small Diameter Pile Supported Wharf. These consist in a platform moment connected to
small diameter piles, whose diameter vary in the range of 60cm (Priestley et. al., 2006). Such
typologies are found in ports and are used for various functions including container wharves
and cruise liner wharves. The piles generally pre-cast pre-stressed concrete piles are generally
driven in the embankment. A pre-stressed pre-cast slab is then connected to the piles. A 6m x
6m grid is generally used for such typology (Priestley, 2003a)
(c) Column Supported Wharf. Column supported wharves are similar to pile supported
wharves, but instead of having piles, they have columns since the foundation is rock or very
stiff granular material (Pianc, 2001) The columns generally have large diameters (see Figure
4.32). The inclined soil embankment makes the column each with different stiffness due to soil
restrain at varying heights.
(d) Piers. A pier can have the same functions as a wharf, but as a structure it is constructed
perpendicular to the shore. There are three types of piers: finger piers, berthing structures and
public access piers. A pier is designed and constructed according to the latters functional
requirements. Most often, a pier serves as a ship shore link serving for cargo handling and
passenger traffic. In such cases, it can have a width varying between 12m and 16m (Warner,
1998). Most piers consist in a platform made of deck slabs, supported on piles, connected by
pile caps (Figure 4.32). Pier structures are generally founded on embankments. Unlike
wharves, the transverse section continuous with a wharf (the section perpendicular to the shore)
is more uniform. On the other hand, piers have large unsupported lengths. Sometimes, small
constructions or cranes are also found on piers.
4.2.3 Closed Type Wharves: Gravity Walls

(a) Seismic Response. The mass of the wall and the friction at the bottom of the will keep
stability against earth pressures from backfill material. When the quay wall is on rock or firm
ground, the failure modes are generally seaward displacement and tilting .If the backfill and or
the retained material is loose, the system can fail due to the overall deformation of the
foundation. This leads to a large seaward displacement, tilting and settlement of the wall If in
general the width to height ratio of a wall is less than 0.75, tilting failure will surely be a major
cause of failure (Pianc, 2001).
Using backfill with larger angle of friction will reduce the pressure on the wall and hence
increase the stability (OCDI, 2002; OCDI, 2001; Werner, 1998). Such material can be rock-fill.
This reduces the possibility of liquefaction and decreases the displacement. A larger friction
coefficient can be applied at the base of the wall by shifting the centre of mass towards the
47
land. This increases also the stabilising moment component. In practice, this is generally
achieved by filling caissons, cellular blocks or cellular steel wall by a heavier material such as
metal slag in the rear sides or components. In case of block components, calculated inland
offsets are allowed. Cellular elements and blocks are sometimes designed at an inclined angle.
In case of cellular blocks, an asphalt or a rubber mat is used at the interface in order to increase
friction. For caissons or blocks, the bottom surface is given an anti-skid shape.
WHARF TYPOLOGIES
OPEN TYPE CLOSED TYPE
WALL ON ROCK
LARGE PILE SHEET PILE WALL
SUPPORTED WHARF
CAISSON WALL
STIFF PILE WALL
SMALL PILE
SUPPORTED WHARF MASSIVE WALL
ANCHOR TYPOLOGIES :
CANTILEVER WALL
BATTER-PILE ANCHOR
PILE SUPPORTED PIER

SHEET PILE ANCHOR
BLOCK WALL
WALE ANCHOR
PILE
SUPPORTED WHARF (batter PILE WALL (no anchor)
pile/ anchor) CELLULAR BLOCK WALL
CELL TYPOLOGIES
CELLULAR STEEL WALL

SHEET PILE
COLUMN SUPPORTED WITH PLATFORM
WHARF
STEEL SHEET STEEL PLATE
LEGEND: Piles Gravity wall Columns Platform Plate Sheet Pile Full Soil
Partial retention
Figure 4.32. The most popular wharf typologies as used worldwide, classified according to their structural
composition. (Werner, 1998; PIANC, 2001; OCDI, 2002)
48
(b) Performance. The performance of a gravity wall is specifically based on serviceable

considerations. Generally these are safe berthing, safe operation of wheeled vehicles, cargo
handling, flooding, and level of structural damage (Pianc, 2001). Structural damage can include
settlement, displacement, tilting, differential displacement along the line of the shore and the
deformation at the apron which can include, settlement, differential settlement and tilting.
Evidence related to gravity quay walls, indicates that most of the damage is associated with
significant deformation of soft soil deposit which also undergoes liquefaction. Most failed
gravity quay walls do not experience catastrophic collapses (Pianc, 2001), hence, design
methods based on displacements and ultimate stress rates should define the performance.
Concrete block walls is the most gravity wall typology which exhebits complete failure
(Werner, 1998). This is so since as the wall tilts, the angle of friction between the blocks is
overcome. As a result, the blocks slide over each other and hence catastrophic failure occurs.
(c) Cellular Steel wall. For such walls, the resistance against lateral loading such as seismic
loading is provided by the fill friction at the bottom surface of the cell in case the cell is not
embedded in underlying soil, or by the resistance of the foundation subsoil at the cell
embedment.
The performance of such typology is based on its serviceability and the corresponding stresses
and displacements. The failure paths are similar to retaining wall and sheet pile structures.
(d) Caisson Quay-wall. A wedged bottom caisson quay-wall having its bottom slanted
downwards in the onshore direction has an advantage over the normal quay-wall. This is so
since a large resistance force will be achieved against the horizontal load such as earthquake
forces. Yet, careful considerations have to be provided to the large bottom reaction force and
rocking motion during earthquake in the design process.
(e) Massive Quay-wall. The wall consists in a monolithic element made of solid stone or solid
reinforced concrete backfilled with granular material or soil (Figure 4.32). Due to the large
mass of the monolith, pre-cast elements are only used for shallow water depths (OCDI, 2002).
In case of larger depths, the massive monolith is cast-in-situ with the addition of additives to
the concrete. This is very time consuming and hence, in most cases other design quay type
typologies are opted.
(f) Cantilever Wall (L-shaped Block type Quay-wall. This gravity wall consists in a rigid
connected vertical and horizontal element with buttresses at specified intervals along the
longitudinal length of the wall (Figure 4.32). This is backfilled with granular material. The
material falling on the horizontal part of the generally pre-cast wall acts monolithic with the
wall as it provides it aids in the gravity action of the wall (OCDI, 2002).
(g) Block Wall. This consists in a wall retaining soil made of smooth interlocking solid
concrete blocks (refer to Figure 4.32). This has to rest on granular soil; else the foundation of
the wall has to be reinforced with grouting or piles. Such structures are very durable to the
environment and vessel impact. As a construction and design system, it is very simple and can
adapt to various types of foundations. The jointing and binding detail between each block, is
49
very important since sliding can occur due to lateral seismic loading (Warner, 1998). The
interlock is proportional to the vertical loading i.e. the dead weight of the blocks,
(h) Cellular Concrete Block Quay-walls. This system is very similar to the block wall
system, but instead of having solid blocks, the blocks are made of cellular hollow reinforced
concrete casts. These are placed and interlocked on top of each other. The bottom cellular block
is generally a caisson (Figure 4.32). Each cellular layer is filled with compacted sand. The
cellular blocks have various shapes and can be of the rectangular type or of the I-shaped typed
(Figure 4.33). Composite steel and concrete cells are sometimes used. Reinforcement or
intercellular grouting is sometimes used to aid cellular interlock and avoid cellular slippage
(Werner, 1998).
Figure 4.33. Examples of cellular Blocks (OCDI, 2002)
(i) Quay-wall on Rock. This is can consist in caisson wall, block wall, block wall or cellular
concrete block wall which rests on rock. Its main function is to retain the compacted soil
behind (Figure 4.32). Generally such conditions where the sea bed is rock, is characterised by
shallow waters. The block wall typology is generally the most popular for such conditions since
it is a direct and simple construction and design system (OCDI, 2002).
(j) Cellular Steel Wall (Steel Plate or Steel Sheet). Such walls can be made of either web
sheet piles or web plate piles (Figure 4.32), driven in soft soil with vibratory equipment. Shape
has to be mentioned during construction by means of a template. Arc sections are used to fill
the space between the cells in case steel tubes are used (Figure 4.34). The space between the
formed cells is filled with compacted soil. It is important to compact uniformly this soil in
order to avoid liquefaction and settlement inside these cells and hence decrease the design
stiffness of the wall (Warner, 1998). Cellular steel walls are flexible and hence decrease the
dynamic earth pressure, yet are subject to large deformations which can result in a high
interlock tension between the cells leading to catastrophic failure.
50
Figure 4.34. Cellular steel wall.
4.2.4 Closed Type Wharves: Pile walls.

(a) Seismic Response. The damage and failure modes of such walls under seismic action
depend on structural and geotechnical considerations (Pianc, 2001). The structural damage
directly relates to the stress/strain states rather than displacements, generally due to negligence
on the sequence and degrees of ultimate and limit states that occur in the composite sheet pile
wall.
The performance of this typology relies on the serviceability level after an earthquake. This is
measured in terms of stress states and displacements. The criteria for the sheet pile wall and its
apron is similar to that of any other gravity wall described previously (Pianc, 2001). In addition
to this, the structural stability depends on the anchorage system. The structural redundancy of
this system is very low. This means that if one element fails, the alternative load paths are few
(Werner, 1998).
The sequence to reach ultimate states with increasing level of seismic load should follow the
following:
Displacement of anchor according to a damage degree of 1
Yield at sheet pile wall above mud line,
Yield at sheet pile wall below mud line,
Yield at anchor,
Yield at tie- anchor.
If this is not followed, the sheet pile will displace, causing the backfill to displace too. The
anchor fails by differential settlement, ground surface cracking at anchor, pull out of rod, and
pull out of battered pile anchor. Most elements depend on the success of each other i.e. if the
anchor fails, the tie rod will get loose, and hence release the sheet pile. Damage of the
embedded part of a sheet pile wall is difficult to fix or restore after an earthquake due to the
lack of accessibility (Werner, 1998; Pianc, 2001).
51
(b) Steel-Sheet Pile Wall. Such a wall consists in a corrugated steel sheet embedded in the
ground, and on the shore side, retaining soil (Figure. 4.32). As the height of the wall increases,
the embedded depth increases. In such sheet pile walls, the sheet wall acts as a cantilever, and
its support depends entirely on the stiffness of the sheet-pile and the properties of the soil
retained. At a certain stage the design embedded depth is too large. An anchor is therefore
incorporated (Figure 4.32), and the embedded depth is decreased.
The spacing of the tie rod to the anchorage system depends on the wall height, the backfill soil
and the foundation. There are three general types of anchorage typologies. A wale anchor is
used when the retained soil is more granular where enough resistance is supplied by the
interaction between the soil and the small area dead-man wale anchor. Batter pile anchorages
are used with walls in very weak soils. The lateral earth pressure resisted by the bulkhead has
to exceed the passive resistance provided by the shallow anchor blocks. Parallel sheet pile
anchors are used for soils with moderate weakness.
The function of the wall inside the wharf has to act as an earth retaining system, berthing
structure, flood wall and sea wall. Such typologies can be constructed only where sheet driving
is possible, i.e. where the soil is soft.
(c) Stiff Pile Wall. Stiff Pile walls are similar to steel-sheet pile walls (see Figure 4.32),
having walls made of rigid piles instead of sheet piles. These are generally T-shaped or circular
pre-cast concrete piles driven next to each other. The wall is very stiff and rigid when
compared to steel-sheet pile walls and hence larger wall depths can be constructed without the
need of anchorages. Yet, the pressure build-up against this kind of wall, especially the seismic
action is slightly larger when compared to sheet-pile walls having similar conditions. This is a
consequence of the decrease in flexibility of the wall (Werner, 1998).
(d) Sheet-Pile with Platform. Such typology comprises in a platform, a sheet pile earth
retaining wall in front of a relieving platform and relieving platform piles. The relieving
platform is traditionally constructed as an L-shaped structure of cast-in-place reinforced
concrete and is usually buried under landfill material (see Figure 4.32). Sometimes, a box shape
platform (see Figure 4.35) is used to reduce the weight of the platform and the earthquake
forces that act on it. Yet, the latter is not very popular since its construction is more expensive
and its design is not as simple as the L-shaped type.
Figure 4.35. Sheet-pile wall with box shaped platform (OCDI, 2002)
52
4.2.5 Variations and Combinations in Typologies

In practice, a wharf structure can be a combination of different typologies, such as closed-type
characteristics with open-type characteristics (see Figure 4.36). Combinations depend on
different construction techniques, availability of materials and function of wharf or port. As
mentioned earlier, a port is in a continuous state of development. A port and its wharves are in
a continuous state of innovation depending on economical, commercial and space demands.
Hence, extensions, reductions and alterations of wharves are done through its history
depending on necessities.
Figure 4.36. Variations and combinations of different wharf typologies (Chaney, 1961)
On the necessity of restructuring a wharf, due to lack of space and limit of land, land
reclamation is often done. An embankment is constructed at a distance from the existing shore
or wharf (Pianc, 2001). The space in between is temporarily dried from water and filled with
compacted landfill. Recycled construction waste material is generally used. A pile supported
wharf is then constructed on the embankment (refer to Figure 4.37). It is not very popular to
construct sea walls instead of embankments, ending up with a quay wall instead of an open
type wharf. This is so since during construction the water pressure will be too large, that it will
not be economically viable (Chaney, 1961).
53
Open type wharves are sometimes constructed as a direct extension to gravity quay walls or
sheet pile walls, in case the space increment required is not very large. As previously
mentioned, in places where rock backfill is not possible to procure, and the available sand
backfill is soft, a retaining wall is constructed on a smaller dike. Then a pile supported platform
is perforated on piles off the retaining wall (OCDI, 2001).
4.2.6 Elements Constituting Wharf structures

Elements constituting wharf structures can be grouped in 12, as shown in the Table 4.4. Pile
supported anchored wharves have the largest number of elements. Walls on rock are very
simple structures and have the least number of different possible elements.
Figure 4.37. Embankments as used in the construction of open type-wharves.
a) Dikes. Dikes are frequently used in the construction of open type wharves. They are made
of rock stone backfill, and sometimes have sand infill. A dike is a self supportive infill and it
has to be inclined to resist the pressure of the retained soil. The voids between the rock
particles act as wave absorption. During seismic excitation, the excess pressure of the retained
soil has to be discharged in these pores; else lateral displacement will be forced to occur if this
is not enough. It is therefore important that such pores will not be filled with sand (Werner,
1998; OCDI, 2001; Pianc, 2002). In the following chapter, where vulnerability assessment of
wharf typologies is made, for simplification the performance of dikes will be divided upon its
functions i.e. as a slope, retaining soil, and underlying soil.
(b) Retained Material (Backfill). The back fill material used is generally compacted sand.
The material just after the quay wall is generally more granular in order to reduce the earth
pressure due to the increase in the angle of friction (OCDI, 2002). Generally, rubble or cobble
stones are used. The residual water level drops due to an increase in permeability. Moreover,
the pressure build up due to seismic loading is dissipated inside the voids of the more
permeable granular material and hence less pressure exerted on the side walls (Ebeding, 1992).
The granular material also prevents outflow of the landfill material. The backfilling material
can be placed in two ways (Ebeding, 1992; OCDI, 2002); either forming a triangular cross
54
section, or a rectangular cross section (Figure 4.38). For the triangular section, the angle of a
has to be less than the angle of repose of the material. For the rectangular case, when the width
b is larger than the height of the wall, considerations shall be taken as that for a triangular
section. When b equals half the height of the wall, the earth pressure should be taken as the
mean of the pressure exerted by the backfill and reclaimed soil. Otherwise, no reduction shall
be considered. One has to keep in mind that the effective angle of repose changes under seismic
action and hence more conservative considerations have to be taken. When the reclaimed
material is cohesive soil slurry, filter sheets have to divide the latter from the immediate
backfill in order to prevent the cohesive slurry from passing through the void of the backfill
and reach the quay wall. If this is not taken into account, catastrophic results can be obtained
under seismic action as more pressure is distributed on the sides of the wall. Moreover, the
displaced sand will cause voids and hence possibilities for the deck to fail as a result of the
backfill failure.
Table 4.4. Wharf typologies and their constituting elements.

Wharf Type Elements
Total No. of Elements

Underlying Soil
Retained Soil
Gravity Wall
Batter-Piles
Sheet Pile
Columns
Platform
Anchor
Tie rod
Deck
Plate
Piles
Small Diameter Pile

Supported Wharf 1 1 1 1 1 5
Large Diameter Pile
Supported Wharf 1 1 1 1 1 5
Open Type
Pile supported Pier 1 1 1 1 1 5

Pile supported wharves-
battered piles 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Pile Supported Wharf -
Anchored 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Column Supported
Wharf 1 1 1 1 4
Sheet Pile Wall 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Sheet Wall
Stiff Pile Wall 1 1 1 1 1 1 6

Sheet Pile with Platform 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Pile wall (no anchor) 1 1 1 1 4
Closed Type
Caisson Wall 1 1 1 1 4
Massive Wall 1 1 1 1 4
Gravity Wall
Cantilever Wall 1 1 1 1 4
Block Wall 1 1 1 1 4
Cellular Block Wall 1 1 1 1 4
Cellular Steel Wall 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Wall On Rock 1 1 1 3
Possible Occurrence
Definite Occurrence
55
Figure 4.38. Shape of backfill on a general quay wall (OCDI, 2002)
(c) General Caissons. Caissons consist in an outer wall, a bottom slab, a partition wall and a
footing (Figure.4.39). The thickness of the outer wall generally varies between 30 and 60cm for
spacing between partition walls less than 5m. The bottom slab generally measures between 40
and 80 thick, and the partition walls generally vary between 20 and 30 cm. The dimensions of
the caisson members depend on the fabrication facilities, depth of caisson and water, floating
stability, working conditions during towing and installation (including tidal currents, waves and
wind), working conditions after installation (including filling, placing the upper concrete, tidal
currents, waves and wind), differential settlement of the mould, bending and torsion acting on
caisson (OCDI, 2002).
Figure 4.39. Caisson block configuration (OCDI, 2002)
56
The forces acting on the cells are generally the earth pressure, earth pressure of the filling,
residual water pressure wave force, uplift pressure collision force from the drifting objects,
weight of caisson and filling, weight of superstructure, surcharge, and reaction from the fender,
bottom reaction and loads during execution. In addition dynamic incremental earth pressure
and pore water pressure results on the sides of the wall due to seismic action (OCDI, 2002).
The determination of the dynamic water pressure inside the caissons infill is not
straightforward. There is extra magnification of the seismic loading due to the fact that soil
inside the caissons is trapped between rigid walls. Moreover, the top of the caisson is generally
sealed by means of the deck or platform and hence there is no possibility of overflow (OCDI,
2002) and the uplift increases.
(d) Wave-absorbing Caisson. Such caisson (Figure 4.40) has slits in the front wall and
internal water retaining chambers with wave dissipating function. The shapes can be divided
into permeable and impermeable types. The slit can be perforated, horizontal and vertical. The
latter is the most popular. The design method of such elements is yet not established, (OCDI,
2002; Werner, 1998) and hence the characteristics of various structures are applied together
with hydraulic model experiments suited to caissons conditions are performed.
Figure 4.40. Wave absorbing caisson (OCDI, 2002)
(e) Hybrid Caissons. Hybrid caissons (Figure 4.42) are generally a composite structural type
of steel plates and concrete. With this combination of different materials, superior structural
strength properties are achieved. There are two popular types of hybrid caissons (OCDI, 2002).
The first is a composite member with steel plates arranged on one side only (Figure 4.41). The
other is a steel reinforced-concrete (SRC) structure with H-shaped steel embedded inside it
(Figure 4.41). Since this is a composite structure, shear connectors are extremely important.
57
The SRC members shall be designed against bending moment and shear force by taking full
account of the structural characteristics due to differences in the structural type of the steel
frame. The SRC can either be a Full-web type or a Truss web type. The partitions of these
caissons shall be designed to be sufficiently safe against external forces acting on them and to
function as supporting members for sidewalls and base plates (OCDI, 2002). The incremental
loading on the sidewalls due to the soil and water under seismic excitation has to be accounted
also in the design of the partitions as supporting members. In order to secure sufficient strength
at the corners and joints, it is desirable to firmly connect the steel materials on the tensile side
to those of the compressive side (OCDI, 2002). It is also desirable to provide haunches to resist
tensile stresses in concrete at the inside of the joint between the partition and the wall elements.
Concrete or bituminous mats have to cover the outside steel material in order to avoid
corrosion. The inside of the caisson is isolated from the external atmosphere by mean of
concrete lids
Figure 4.41. Hybrid Structural members (OCDI, 2002)
Figure 4.42. Example of a Hybrid Caisson Structure (OCDI, 2002)
(f) Cellular Blocks. These are generally referred to blocks consisting of side walls without
bottom slabs (Pianc, 2001; OCDI, 2002). The loads acting on the blocks are very similar to
those of a caisson. The rear wall is subject to backfill earth pressure and residual water
58
pressure. These are mutually cancelled out by the earth pressure of the inner filling (OCDI,
2002). Yet, for seismic loads, the inside increment of pressure is expected to be larger than that
on the outside due to energy trapped between the walls of the blocks.
The partition wall shall be designed particularly against dislodging failure of the sidewalls from
the partition wall due to the earth pressure of filling and residual water pressure, and their
seismic increment. The design external forces have to be determined for three phases: during
suspension, execution and after construction. Seismic loading applies only to the latter phase
(OCDI, 2002). The first element to be designed is the front wall, followed by the rear wall,
sidewall, partition wall, bottom slab footing and hooks for suspension respectively.
(g) L-shaped Blocks. There is generally one type of L-shaped block. This consists in a bottom
slab, front wall, buttress and footing. The design generally has also to follow this order (OCDI,
2002). Figure 4.43 indicates the width to height ratio of the-L-shaped block under seismic
action. As the design of the seismic coefficient increases, the width increases more than the
height. The dimensions depend also on the capacity of fabrication facility, crane hoisting
capabilities, water depth, tidal range and coping elevation.
Figure 4.43. Relationship between height and Width of L-shaped blocks for seismic action (OCDI, 2002)
Loads acting on L-shaped blocks are not uniform. Sometimes, to ease work, the loads are
mistakenly replaced by point loads (Ebeding, 1992; OCDI, 2002). These will produce weak
points in the strength of the members as the moment and shear distributions will be higher at
certain points and lower at others and will not represent the actual behaviour of the loading on
the structure. Hence, it is more convenient to convert loads into multiple uniform loads.
(h) Anchors. Anchors can be used with pile supported wharves attached to the platform to
resist excessive and differential displacement of the platform from the land behind. Anchors are
also used with pile walls particularly when the wall is too high. Anchors with reference to pile
walls will be discussed since characteristics of anchors with open type wharves are a sub set of
closed type wharves.
59
The type of anchor used depends on the nature of the retained soil, i.e. depending on the
possibility of pile-driving inside it. The typology of the anchorage depends also on the
construction cost, construction period, construction method and the ground height before the
execution of the work (OCDI, 2001). The location of the anchorage shall be set at an
appropriate distance from the pile wall to ensure structural stability of the wall. The stability of
the anchorage work itself depends by its position and the location at which the stability is
achieved varies depending on the structural type (Werner, 1998; OCDI, 2001). The distance
between the anchor and wall should be large enough so as to secure the stability of both
elements. Attention has to be paid when the leg of a crane rests on the cap of the anchorage,
particularly when the relative distance between the wall and the anchor depends on this. There
are 3 anchorage typologies:
Coupled Pile Anchor: For coupled-pile anchorage, the location should be behind the active
failure plane of the sheet pile wall as shown in Figure 4.44. It is assumed that the tension of the
tie rod is resisted only by the axial bearing capacity of the piles. If the tension of the tie rod is
evaluated by both the axial and lateral bearing capacity considering also the bending resistance
of the piles, it is then necessary to locate the anchorage in accordance to the methodology used
for sheet pile anchorage (Ebeding et al., 1992; Werner, 1998; OCDI, 2001).
Figure 4.44. Coupled pile anchor (OCDI, 2002)
Sheet Pile Anchorage: Its location should be determined in such a way that at least a distance
L/3 is outside the passive wedge as shown in Figure 4.45. If the vertical sheet wall is small,
then the location has to follow the example of a concrete wall anchorage. Due to the excessive
distance between the wall and the anchor, sometimes this is not possible.
Figure 4.45. Sheet- Pile wall anchorage (OCDI, 2002)
Dead-man Wall Anchorage (Concrete wall anchorage): The location of such anchorage
(Figure 4.46) should be determined in such a way as to ensure that the active failure plane
60
behind the free height of the wall, and the passive wedge in front of the anchorage do not
intersect (Ebeding et al., 1992; OCDI, 2001)
Figure 4.46. Dead-man Wall Anchorage (OCDI, 2002)
(i) Variations of Anchorages. Depending on the size, function and materials available
anchorages can be made of other material such as wood and with different configurations
(Chainey, 1961; Figure 4.47). The principles of anchorage location determination remain the
same. As shown in the Figure wood is used. Particular attention and protection has to be
supplied at dry-wet interface as wood tend to rotten with time.
Figure 4.47. Variations to standard anchorages (Chaney, 1961)
(j) Tie Rods. For ordinary sheet pile quay-walls whose tie rods run horizontally, an angle of -
15O may be used as the wall friction angle in the determination of the passive failure plane
drawn from the vertical pile anchorage or sheet pile anchorage (OCDI, 2001). The tie rods shall
be designed to ensure that the tie rod tension is transmitted safely to the anchorage work. When
the bending stress caused by settlement of the backfill soil is anticipated, the design shall
consider this phenomenon.
61
(k) Coping. The coping can be designed as a cantilever beam that is fixed at the top of the
sheet pile and subjected to the earth pressure as a load. Yet, it is important to consider also the
tractive forces of vessels and the active earth pressure behind the wall, or the berthing forces of
vessels and the passive earth pressure behind the wall for the parts on which fenders are
installed (OCDI, 2002).
(l) Batter-Piles. Battered piles have similar behaviour to coupled anchored piles. The lateral
earth pressure resisted by the bulk-head should be larger than the passive resistance provided
by shallow anchor blocks. A pile system can be made of either just vertical piles or just batter
pile anchorages in case of some anchorages, or a mixture of both systems. Batter piles are
generally inclined at a ratio horizontal: vertical of 1:4.Batter piles generally performed worse in
earthquakes when compared to vertical piles (Warner, 1998). OCDI (1998) suggests
reconsidering carefully the applicability of wharf platforms incorporating such piles if the
structure is constructed on horizontal ground without slope.
(m) Piles. In old ports, such structures were faced with long term settlement problems and
consolidation of embankment soil fill. This is the case at the Port of Osaka, Japan. In the past,
such embankments were constructed by placing sandy soils through slurry pipes, or end-
dumped from barges, and settle down at the sea bed through standing water without any further
compaction.
Before 1998, the performance of dikes was very poor due to the weak underlying soils, and due
to them being constructed of loose sandy soils. Most embankments were constructed with only
marginal static stability due to the weak soils with which they are constructed. Moderate
earthquakes are enough to induce excessive deformation. Liquefaction of back-land and or
underlying soil foundation is often observed.
The choice of piles should be done in adjunct with that of the deck. One has to keep in mind
that often, it is difficult to align piles while driving them; hence one has to make sure that decks
can accommodate such misalignment. There are various types of piles which are generally used
for wharves. These are:
Pre-stressed concrete piles are generally used for large unsupported lengths. The piles and
deck are moment connected. Mild steel should be used in the piles at the interface between
weak and strong layers of soil and at locations of potential large curvature or large change in
curvature such as liquefiable layers or inter layers. In pre-stressing piles, axial loading increases
the moment capacity and curvature ductility, hence lateral resistance to loading increases.
Some pre-stress is lost with aging.
Large diameter pre-stressed concrete cylinder piles, are found in large diameter pile supported
wharves. The platform is generally simply supported on them. The Stiffness of the pile relative
to the deck is very high, hence if the joint between the pile and the deck had to be moment
connecting, the first plastic hinges will form in the deck which is undesirable. If the stiffness of
the deck is made larger than that of the platform and hence a moment connection can be made
with the initial plastic hinge taking place inside a pile, the depth of the platform would be
uneconomically very large. Such piles can take large vertical loads, such as crane loads. The
embedding soil can provide also adequate bearing capacity. As the diameter of the piles
62
increases, the number of piles decreases and hence the redundancy of the system, which is
undesirable for adequate seismic performance.
Cast in-drilled holes (CIDH) concrete piles are rarely used for wharf purposes. This is so since
in environments at which wharves are constructed, the water table is generally very high, hence
free supporting holes in sand are difficult to dig. Concrete piles should provide adequate
strength and lateral resistance. Lateral loads and overturning moments can produce or increase
the width of cracks. These should not be allowed since corrosion will take place and hence
reduce the long term capacity of the piles, by reducing the effect of confinement over
compression resistance. If the cover is lost, the capacity reduces. Corrosion generally takes
place at the water surface pile interface. A cover thickness larger than 0.25mm should be
adopted (Warner, 1998). The cracking of the concrete cover starts at a displacement ductility of
about 2. Hence, this value should be used as a capacity limit for a Level 1 earthquake.
Steel H-shaped Piles are very popular for soldier-pile walls, i.e. where high bending resistance
is required. Steel H-shaped piles have weak axis strength, therefore they are generally used
when the pile of this kind is fully buried.
Steel Pipe Piles are very commonly used. They are good for long unsupported lengths and are
very ductile piles. These piles are very efficient for lateral resistance. Spiral welding is often
used. Yet, this does not provide adequate bending moment resistance. Steel piles have a
ductility ranging between 20 and 30 (Priestley, 2000). Hence, such piles are recommended for
high magnitude earthquakes inducing large soil movements. If batter piles are unavoidably to
be used, these should be made of steel (Werner, 1998).
(n) Decks and Platforms. There are various types of platforms. The choice depends on the
choice of the piles, the function of the port and the pile deck joint requirements: Decks and
platforms include:
Cast-in-place Concrete Flat Slab deck is good for container wharves, since they provide
adequate diaphragm strength. Hence they are ideal for seismic conditions. Shear at the pile
supports should be given particular attention. Such a slab can accommodate misalignment of
driven piles, and can also take large wheel loads and crane loads. The large diameter pile
spacing adopted with such decks generally varies between 5.5m and 7m (Werner, 1998).
Cast-in-place Concrete Beam and Slab platform is good for any wharf function. The allowance
of misalignment of piles is very limited. It provides excellent diaphragm strength. The beam
width is generally around 300mm. This should be larger than any of the piles diameter.
Long Span Concrete Box Girder Deck System is not very commonly used for wharves. It is
generally used for large spans and when large loads are used. Large spans are generally not
recommended in seismic regions. Spans between pile spacing should be in the range of 6m
when using small diameter piles (Priestley, 2006) Cast-in-place decks of such a system have a
better diaphragm action performance during earthquakes, over pre-cast decks of such a system.
Pre-stressed Pre-cast Concrete Panels are widely used in developed countries mainly for
container wharves, since they speed up construction. Yet, in order to produce adequate
63
performance during seismic action, cast-in-situ topping should be used in order to make a
compact diaphragm of adequate strength.
Pre-cast Normally Reinforced Concrete Panels can accommodate misalignment of piles.

Compared to pre-stressed decks, such decks are thicker and hence heavier. Else, much shorter
spans between piles should be used.
Ballasted Deck Pavement System was used in the past, and is not any more used in the
construction industry. Yet, it is still found in some existing ports. It was popular for container
wharves. This system was very flexible, and hence was not ideal for seismic actions. Additional
piles were generally used.
Deck Pavement for Retaining Walls have a limited significance compared to platforms in open-
type wharves, since its failure will not cause the failure of any other part of the wharf structure
other than any overlying structure such as cranes. Such pavement is designed to resist the
overlying dead and live load.
64
Chapter 5. Seismic Vulnerability of Wharf Typologies
5. SEISMIC VULNERABILITY OF WHARF TYPOLOGIES

5.1 Introduction
It is very difficult to establish the structural typology most vulnerable or prone to failure. An
attempt was made to contact many worldwide port authorities, associations, maritime
authorities and maritime government ministries in order to retrieve information about
worldwide wharf typologies so as to statistically establish the most popular typology used
worldwide and from past historic experience establish what is the structure most prone to
failure and the most common failure mode. Unfortunately, only few of those contacted
responded and the data gathered was not big enough to form a statistical set upon which
probability and statistics theorems could be applied. Thus, using literature, an attempt was
made to retrieve as much data as possible and apply it to probability theorem, in order to
establish the structure most prone to failure and the most common failure mode.
5.2 Sorting of Data

The data which could be retrieved from literature discussed in the previous chapter included the
failure modes associated with each identified wharf typology (Table 5.1). This data is mostly
based on the discussed case histories. From design codes and guides (OCDI, 2002; Pianc, 2001;
EN 1998-1:2005, Ebeding et. al., 1992) the theoretical failure modes against which each
element is designed were identified (Table 5.2). Sheet or plate walls have the largest number of
failure modes, while the platform, deck and tie rod have the least associated failure modes. Pile
supported wharves and sheet pile walls have the largest number of failure modes associated
with them, while column supported wharves have the lowest number of failure modes.
Settlement can take place in most of the elements constituting the port, yet one cannot conclude
it as the most prone failure mode since its occurrence can happen as a consequence of other
failure modes such as liquefaction (Werner, 1998). Also, the latter from the described case
histories in the previous chapter was observed to be more common than settlement. In fact,
Table 5.1 indicates that both liquefaction and settlement equally occur in a same number of
wharf typologies, 17 in all.
65
Table 5.1. Different failure modes that are possible to occur in the failure of a particular wharf typology.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Tensile failure of batter piles
Platform deformation/cracks
Lateral Ground deformation
Bulging of ground at walls

Tie-rod-to-anchor failure
Liquefaction foundation
Seaward displacement
Opening of wall cracks

Settlement of structure
Bucking of steel piles

Settlement of backfill
Liquefaction backfill
Deformation of pile
Pile Deck Hinge
In-ground hinge
Slope instability
Anchor pull-out
Pile cap failure
Kick-out of toe
Sliding blocks
Wall collapse
Deck cracks
Percentage
Total
Wharf Typology / Failure Modes
Small Diameter Pile Supported
Wharf 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 12 5.5
Large Diameter Pile Supported
Wharf 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 6.0
Pile supported Pier 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 13 6.0

Pile supported wharves- battered
piles 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 6.9
Pile Supported Wharf - Anchored 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15 6.9
Column Supported Wharf 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 5.1
Sheet Pile Wall 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 18 8.3
Stiff Pile Wall 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 7.4
Sheet Pile with Platform 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 19 8.8
Pile wall (no anchor) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 6.5
Caisson Wall 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 4.6
Massive Wall 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 4.6
Cantilever Wall 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10 4.6
Block Wall 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 5.1
Cellular Block Wall 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 5.1
Cellular Steel Wall 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 5.1
Wall On Rock 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 3.7
Total presence of failure 17 15 11 11 6 9 17 17 17 3 10 6 17 7 10 8 3 6 3 11 2 11 217 100
66
Table 5.2. Failure modes associated to corresponding common wharf elements (EN 1998-1:2005;
OCDI, 2002; Pianc, 2001; Werner, 1998; Ebeding, 1992)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1
Total Failure and Damage

Deformation of pile/column



Pile Deck Hinge
Slope instability
In-ground hinge
Anchor pull-out
Kick-out of toe
Pile cap failure
Sliding blocks
Wall collapse
Deck cracks
Element of
structure
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11
Sheet Pile
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Piles
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
batter-piles
1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Gravity wall
1 1 1 3
Columns
1 1 1 3
Platform
1 1 1 3
Deck
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10
Plate
1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Retained Soil
1 1 1 1 1 5
Underlying soil
1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Anchor
1 1 1 3
Tie-rod
Total Failure 1 1 1 9 6 5 2 2 7 3 5 1 1 1 7 5 2 1 2 5 1 3
The data above (Tables 5.1 and 5.2) can only give an indication of what is the most prone
structural element, most prone failure mode and most critical structure. It does not include any
information about the failing pattern and hence the structural redundancy of the wharf typology
as it fails. By structural redundancy is understood the ability of the structure to transfer loads
through alternative paths once some of its elements fail. Although it is true that the failure of
the wharf typology is associated to the number of elements and the number of failure modes,
the probability depends on the number of failing paths a structure can take and the ability of the
structure to find alternative loading paths, based on the structural configuration, the number of
elements and their associated failure modes (Table 5.3). For simplifications, dikes and
embankments used in wharf structures are incorporated under retained and underlying soil
(Table 5.2
Table 5.3. Elements upon which the failure of a wharf typology is dependent.
Structural
Failure Paths Elements or Failure modes
Wharf components
Typology Structural
failure Elements or Failure modes
components
Failure Modes
67
5.2.1 Logic Trees

For each wharf typology a logic tree describing all the possible roots of failure of the elements
were identified (Figures 5.1 to Figure 5.7). Each element is then considered to fail by a number
of possible failure modes as described in Table 5.2. In order to account for the performance of
the structure (Chapter 1), each logic tree was divided in 2 describing the serviceability limit
state and the ultimate limit state of the wharf typology. The former was conservatively assumed
to be reached when the first element fails, while ultimate limit failure was assumed to be
reached either when catastrophic failure takes place or when all the elements in the failing path
fail. It is assumed that each failure mode per se can equally occur like any other failure mode
and its possibility of occurrence in a wharf typology is dependent on the number of structural
elements it can develop.
(a) Large diameter pile supported wharves, small diameter wharves and piers. Each element
in such typologies can fail for the structure to reach the serviceability limit. Ultimate failure can
be reached in up to 3 steps (Figure 5.1). Such typologies incorporating batter piles will have an
extra failure path, but no extra step since the failure of a batter pile will only lead to the failure
of the deck and is from past experience (Chapter 1 and 2) independent on the failure of vertical
piles, hence an extra path is not introduced.
(b) Anchored pile supported wharves. Since such typology has extra elements upon which the
success of other elements is dependent, the number of paths to reach ultimate failure can reach
up to 4 steps (Figure 5.2).
Figure 5.1. Logic tree for large diameter pile supported wharves,
Small diameter pile supported wharves and pile supported pier.
(c) Column supported wharf. This is a less complicated typology (Figure 5.3). Serviceable
failure can be reached if any of the 4 elements fail, and ultimate failure can be reached up to a
maximum of 2 steps.
(d) Anchored sheet pile walls. These ((Figure 55.4) have 7 elements with which can initially
fail and lead to the exceedence of the serviceability limit state. The success of most of the
elements depend on that of others, hence reducing the redundancy and increasing the number of
68
failure steps which can lead to the exceedence of the ultimate limit state. This limit can be
reached even up to 5 steps. From the logic-tree diagram, moving from the ultimate failing
element to the preceding failing element, one can observe that failure of the deck can be a
consequence of the sheet pile failure, caused by a failure of the tie rod or anchor, caused by a
failure in the soil. This shows that load is transferred from one element to another by a path in
series (Chapter 1, 2 and 3). These contrasts with the lateral load transfer in pile supported
wharves where in case a pile fails, load can still be transferred through its next parallel pile.
Figure 5.2. Failure logic tree for anchored pile supported wharf.
Figure 5.3. Failure logic tree for column supported wharf.
69
Servicable Failure Ultimate Failure
ANCHOR 6
TIE ROD SHEET PILE / PILE RETAINED SOIL DECK

3 7 / 10 6 3
BATTER PILE
8
ANCHOR 6
TIE ROD SHEET PILE / PILE DECK

3 7 / 10 3
BATTER PILE
8
RETAINED SOIL
6
SHEET PILE / PILE DECK
7 / 10 3
DECK
3
ANCHOR 6
SHEET PILE WITH
PLATFORM TIE ROD SHEET PILE / PILE DECK
3 7 / 10 3
BATTER PILE
8
SHEET PILE WALL
RETAINED SOIL SHEET PILE / PILE DECK
6 7 / 10 3
DECK
3
UNDERLYING SOIL
6
DECK
3
SHEET PILE / PILE

7 / 10 RETAINED SOIL DECK
6 3
ANCHOR 6
TIE ROD RETAINED SOIL DECK

3 6 3
BATTER PILE
8
DECK
3
SHEET PILE / PILE RETAINED SOIL DECK

7 / 10 6 3
ANCHOR 6
TIE ROD RETAINED SOIL DECK

3 6 3
BATTER PILE
8
DECK
3
Figure 5.4. Failure logic tree for anchored sheet pile wharves.
(e) Unanchored sheet pile walls. The chain reaction effect exhibited by anchored sheet pile
walls is less evident in unanchored sheet pile walls, with or without platform which dont have
anchors. This is so since the number of elements forming the chain is less, yet the redundancy
is the same, since the number of alternative paths for load transfer equally reduces.
Serviceability limit can be reached by the failure of 4 elements, while ultimate failure can be
reached in 4 steps (Figure 5.5)
70
Figure 5.5. Failure logic tree for sheet pile unanchored sheet pile wharves, with or without platform.
Figure 5.6. . Failure logic tree for gravity walls including caisson wall, massive wall, cantilever wall, block
wall and cellular block wall typologies.
(f) Gravity walls. These incorporate a minor number of elements than sheet piles and hence the
elements leading to serviceability failure are only 4 and there are only a maximum of 3 steps
which can lead to ultimate failure (Figure 5.6). Quay-walls which rest on stiff soil or rock are
more stable since the underlying soil does not contribute to failure. Serviceability failure can be
reached by the failure of 3 elements while ultimate failure can be reached in 3 steps (Figure
5.7).
The Advantage of closed typed wharves over open type wharves is that they have a structural
element which can resist the failure of the retained soil which is one of the major causes of
failure (Chapter 1 and 2). This is less effective in sheet pile walls since the retaining wall if not
anchored is too flexible or in case of anchorage, the success of the anchor and tie rd system
depends on the performance of this retained material itself. Open-type walls do not have any
71
additional structural element to resist the failure of the backfill other the rock fill and the design
considerations for this material itself.
Figure 5.7. Logic tree for the failure of a gravity wall built on rock or stiff soil.
5.3 Probability Theorem

Up to now, the failure modes have been associated with each wharf typology where the
sequence of element failure of each wharf typology has been identified. The failure modes
identified associated with the failure of elements can be either dependent or independent
events. An event failure mode B, is said to be independent of another failure mode event, say
A, if and only if the probability of B occurring is not affected by the occurrence or non-
occurrence of A. This is equivalent to:
P(A B) = P(A ) P(B)

Conservatively, it was assumed that serviceability limit state is exceeded by the first element
which fails, hence for the serviceability limit state it is considered that each failure mode is
independent of the other. On the other hand, ultimate failure is reached by a series of failing
elements hence the failing modes are dependent except for the initial ones. Others can be
dependent on others but not vice versa. As an example, the underlying soil can fail by
liquefaction and cause settlement of the structure, but the settlement of the structure cannot
cause liquefaction. Hence, the problem for the ultimate limit state is much more complicated
than that for the serviceable limit state in the process to determine the structure most prone to
failure and the most likely failing mode.
It is assumed that for each element that can fail with x number of failing modes, each failing
mode in this sub set has equal probability to occur. Our situation is a problem of conditional
probability. If a failure mode A of element X occurs, given that a successive failure mode
B occurs in element Y in the path of the logic tree (Figure XX a-g), The probability of B
given A will be (Spiegel, 2000; Lipschutz, 2000):
The modes that can cause failure to a particular element are assumed to be mutually exclusive
events. Bayes Theorem can be partially used to obtain the probability of failure of a wharf
structure. Supposing A1, A2, A3,An are mutually exclusive events whose union is the
sample space , i.e. one of the events must occur. Then, if A is any event we get:
72
P(A k ) P(A / A k )
P(A k / A ) =
P(A k ) P(A / A k )
n
k =1
Hence, this gives the probability of various events A1, A2, A3,An which can cause A to
occur and is referred to as the theorem on the probability of causes.
The classical (a priori) approach considers that if a structural system can fail in n different
ways, and there are an h number of failing ways for the whole structural system, then, the
probability of failure of that particular structural system is h/n. Due to the large number of
combinations, limitations and conditions, combinational analysis has to be applied based on the
logic trees (Figure 5.1 to Figure 5.7). In our case, it is important to consider the number of
permutations other than the combinations since we are interested in the sequence of occurrence
of the events. The latter concerns more the computation of the probability dealing with ultimate
limit states instead of probabilities dealing with serviceability limit states.
5.4 Application Of the Probability Theorem

Unfortunately, as seen in the logic trees, due to the fact that there are certain exceptions where
mutually exclusion is not the case, and that the number of failing branches is not uniform along
the steps, hence such theorem is difficult to apply in practice, a methodology based on the a-
priori approach has to be adopted.
5.4.1 Assessment for Serviceability Failure

For the serviceability limit case, it is assumed that each element can fail to reach serviceability
failure. Hence, the failure permutation is equal to the product of the number of occurrences of
the element in the logic tree up to the serviceability limit, and the number of failure modes with
which that element can fail (Appendix C). This is also done for each failure mode individually
in order to investigate the contribution of each failure mode. The sum of each contribution,
gives the number of possibilities with which serviceability limit state can be reached for each
identified wharf typology (Table 5.4). Hence, the probability of serviceability failure of a
particular wharf typology, given that all typologies reach serviceability failure is given by
n/h, where n is the number of paths of a particular typology and h is the total number of
paths of all typologies.
The probability that a particular failure mode will cause serviceability failure is then found as
a weighted average. The probability that each individual typology will reach serviceability
failure by a particular mode is found by dividing the number of occurrences of that mode with
the summation of all mode contributions for that particular wharf typology (Table 5.5). Each
mode probability is then weighted with the probability of exceeding serviceability limit state
of that particular typology found previously (Table 5.4). The contribution of each mode for
each typology to reach serviceability failure is added to give a weighted probability average of
that particular failing mode (Table 5.5). .
73
Table 5.4. Probability of serviceability failure of a particular typology by a particular failure mode.
This is based on the possible number of occurrences of such failure modes in each element along the logic tree paths reaching the serviceability
limit.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22



Deformation of pile
Pile Deck Hinge
In-ground hinge
Slope instability
Anchor pull-out
Pile cap failure
Probability (%)
Kick-out of toe
Sliding blocks
Wall collapse
Deck cracks
Total
Wharf Typology /
Failure Modes
Small Diameter Pile
Supported Wharf 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 21 4.8
Large Diameter Pile
Supported Wharf 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 22 5.0
Pile supported Pier 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 22 5.0
battered piles 1 1 1 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 25 5.7
Anchored 1 1 1 5 4 3 2 2 4 2 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 2 38 8.6
Column Supported Wharf 1 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 14 3.2
Sheet Pile Wall 1 1 1 5 3 3 2 2 4 1 2 1 1 4 3 2 1 1 3 1 42 9.5
Stiff Pile Wall 1 1 1 5 3 3 2 2 4 2 1 1 4 3 2 1 2 38 8.6
Sheet Pile with Platform 1 1 1 5 3 3 2 2 4 1 2 1 1 4 3 2 1 1 3 1 42 9.5
Pile wall (no anchor) 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 24 5.5
Caisson Wall 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 3 1 1 20 4.5
Massive Wall 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 3 1 1 20 4.5
Cantilever Wall 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 3 1 1 20 4.5
Block Wall 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 3 1 1 20 4.5
Cellular Block Wall 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 3 1 1 20 4.5
Cellular Steel Wall 1 1 1 4 2 2 2 2 5 2 2 1 2 2 1 4 1 2 37 8.4
Wall On Rock 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 15 3.4
Total 17 15 17 52 37 19 32 32 54 11 16 5 17 6 23 18 7 6 4 34 7 11 440 100
74
Table 5.5Probability of a failure mode contributing to serviceability failure of each individual typology.
This is based on the possible number of occurrences of such failure modes in each element along the logic tree paths reaching the
serviceability limit.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22



Deformation of pile
Pile Deck Hinge
In-ground hinge
Slope instability
Anchor pull-out
Pile cap failure
Kick-out of toe
Sliding blocks
Wall collapse
Deck cracks
Wharf Typology / Failure
Modes
Wharf 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
Wharf 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
Pile supported Pier 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.13 0.13 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04
piles 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.12 0.12 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.12 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.08
Pile Supported Wharf - Anchored 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.13 0.11 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.05
Column Supported Wharf 0.07 0.07 0.13 0.20 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07
Sheet Pile Wall 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.02
Stiff Pile Wall 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.13 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.05 0.03 0.03 0.11 0.08 0.05 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.00
Sheet Pile with Platform 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.07 0.02
Pile wall (no anchor) 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.13 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.13 0.04
Caisson Wall 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.05 0.05
Massive Wall 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.05 0.05
Cantilever Wall 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.05 0.05
Block Wall 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.05 0.05
Cellular Block Wall 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.10 0.05 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.05 0.05
Cellular Steel Wall 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.11 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.14 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.11 0.03 0.05
Wall On Rock 0.07 0.07 0.13 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.13 0.07 0.07 0.13 0.07 0.07
75
Table 5.6. Probability of a failure mode contributing to serviceability failure of each typology.
This is weighted against the probability failure of each typology, given that each typology exceeds the serviceability limit. This is based on the possible
number of occurrences of such failure modes in each element along the logic tree paths reaching the serviceability limit.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22


Probability failure (%)

Deformation of pile
Pile Deck Hinge
In-ground hinge
Slope instability
Anchor pull-out
Pile cap failure
Kick-out of toe
Sliding blocks
Wall collapse
Deck cracks
Wharf Typology /
Failure Modes
Wharf 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.60 0.60 0.20 0.40 0.40 0.60 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 4.8
Wharf 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.63 0.63 0.21 0.42 0.42 0.63 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 5.0
Pile supported Pier 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.63 0.63 0.21 0.42 0.42 0.63 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 5.0
piles 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.68 0.68 0.23 0.45 0.45 0.68 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.45 5.7
Pile Supported Wharf - Anchored 0.23 0.23 0.23 1.14 0.91 0.68 0.45 0.45 0.91 0.45 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.68 0.68 0.23 0.45 8.6
Column Supported Wharf 0.21 0.21 0.42 0.64 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.00 0.21 3.2
Sheet Pile Wall 0.23 0.23 0.23 1.14 0.68 0.68 0.45 0.45 0.91 0.23 0.45 0.23 0.23 0.91 0.68 0.45 0.23 0.23 0.68 0.23 9.5
Stiff Pile Wall 0.23 0.23 0.23 1.14 0.68 0.68 0.45 0.45 0.91 0.45 0.23 0.23 0.91 0.68 0.45 0.23 0.00 0.45 0.00 8.6
Sheet Pile with Platform 0.23 0.23 0.23 1.14 0.68 0.68 0.45 0.45 0.91 0.23 0.45 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.91 0.68 0.45 0.23 0.23 0.68 0.23 9.5
Pile wall (no anchor) 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.45 0.23 0.23 0.45 0.45 0.68 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.00 0.23 0.68 0.23 5.5
Caisson Wall 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.45 0.23 0.45 0.45 0.68 0.23 0.23 0.68 0.23 0.23 4.5
Massive Wall 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.45 0.23 0.45 0.45 0.68 0.23 0.23 0.68 0.23 0.23 4.5
Cantilever Wall 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.45 0.23 0.45 0.45 0.68 0.23 0.23 0.68 0.23 0.23 4.5
Block Wall 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.45 0.23 0.45 0.45 0.68 0.23 0.23 0.68 0.23 0.23 4.5
Cellular Block Wall 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.45 0.23 0.45 0.45 0.68 0.23 0.23 0.68 0.23 0.23 4.5
Cellular Steel Wall 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.91 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 1.14 0.45 0.45 0.23 0.45 0.45 0.23 0.91 0.23 0.45 8.4
Wall On Rock 0.23 0.23 0.45 0.23 0.23 0.23 0.45 0.23 0.23 0.45 0.23 0.23 3.4
Total 3.8 3.3 3.8 11.6 8.2 4.3 7.1 7.1 12.1 2.5 3.6 1.1 3.8 1.3 5.1 4.1 1.4 0.9 0.9 8.4 1.6 2.5 100
76
5.4.2 Assessment for Ultimate failure

As previously described, ultimate failure deals with dependence of a series of events, the
permutations of which are difficult to find since the logic tree is not continuous and conditions
apply on certain succession of events. From the knowledge gathered and the data gathered, there are
two ways how to approach the problem, where the true answer lies somewhere in between. indicates
that the vulnerability of a wharf structure is proportional to the number of paths which can make it
fail up to an ultimate state. The larger the number of paths, the larger are the problems and the
smaller is the redundancy of the structure. The number of paths depends on the sequence of failure
of the elements, and this sequence depends on the type of failure with which each element fails. The
computational permutations of paths based on failure mode sequence is easy to find. Yet, in practice
many of such sequences are not practical. This is very difficult to identify one by one. The
computational permutations of paths based on element failure sequence is easier but not as precise
since does not take into account the dependence on the failure mode. Hence, a weighted probability
of structure typology failure and failure mode is found by averaging the results of an approach
based on permutations of failing element sequences and the results of an approach based on
permutations of failing mode sequences.
(a) Element Failing Sequence. The failure permutations based on the element failing sequence is
equal to the product of the number of occurrences of the element in the logic tree up to the ultimate
limit, and the number of failure modes with which that element can fail (Appendix C). This is also
done for each failure mode individually in order to investigate the contribution of each failure
mode. The sum of each contribution, gives the number of possibilities with which the ultimate limit
state can be reached for each identified wharf typology (Table 5.7). Hence, the probability of
ultimate failure of a particular wharf typology, given that all typologies reach ultimate failure is
given by n/h, where n is the number of paths of a particular typology and h is the total
number of paths of all typologies.
Based on failing element sequence, the probability that a particular failure mode will cause
ultimate failure is then found as a weighted average. The probability that each individual typology
will reach ultimate failure by a particular mode is found by dividing the number of occurrences of
that mode with the summation of all mode contributions for that particular wharf typology (Table
5.8). Each mode probability is then weighted with the probability of exceeding the ultimate limit
state of that particular typology found previously (Table 5.7). For each failure mode in turn, its
contribution for each typology to reach ultimate failure is added to give a weighted probability
average of that particular failing mode (Table 5.9)
77
Table 5.7Probability of ultimate failure of each wharf typology based failure mode occurrences.
The number of occurrences are given for each element along the failure logic tree at the ultimate state.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Probability Failure (%)


Total different paths

Deformation of pile
Pile Deck Hinge
Slope instability
In-ground hinge
Anchor pull-out
Kick-out of toe
Pile cap failure
Sliding blocks
Wall collapse
Deck cracks
Modes
Wharf 3 4 3 5 5 1 7 7 8 1 3 1 1 7 56 3.5
Wharf 3 4 3 5 5 1 7 7 8 1 3 1 1 1 7 57 3.6
Pile supported Pier 3 4 3 5 5 1 7 7 8 1 3 1 1 1 7 57 3.6
battered piles 1 1 1 11 11 3 2 2 5 3 4 4 3 3 2 56 3.5
Anchored 1 1 1 24 22 12 2 2 12 10 5 6 6 12 12 2 2 2 134 8.4
Column Supported Wharf 3 3 6 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 45 2.8
Sheet Pile Wall 7 1 7 35 25 16 8 8 19 6 11 5 14 21 16 10 5 6 14 6 240 15.0
Stiff Pile Wall 7 1 7 35 25 16 8 8 19 11 5 14 21 16 10 5 0 8 0 216 13.5
Sheet Pile with Platform 7 1 7 35 25 16 8 8 19 6 11 5 14 0 21 16 10 5 6 14 6 240 15.0
Caisson Wall 3 4 3 4 3 7 7 8 1 3 8 1 1 53 3.3
Massive Wall 3 4 3 4 3 7 7 8 1 3 8 1 1 53 3.3
Cantilever Wall 3 4 3 4 3 7 7 8 1 3 8 1 1 53 3.3
Block Wall 3 4 3 4 3 7 7 8 1 3 8 1 1 53 3.3
Wall On Rock 3 3 3 2 3 3 4 1 2 4 1 1 30 1.9
Total 1598 100
78
Table 5.8. Probability of a failure mode to contribute to ultimate failure of each typology, given that the ultimate limit is reached.
This is based on the possible number of occurrences of such failure modes in each element along the logic tree to reach serviceability
failure. Each typology is considered independently.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22



Deformation of pile
Pile Deck Hinge
In-ground hinge
Slope instability
Anchor pull-out
Pile cap failure
Kick-out of toe
Sliding blocks
Wall collapse
Deck cracks
Wharf Typology /
Failure Modes
Wharf 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.02 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.12
Wharf 0.05 0.07 0.05 0.09 0.09 0.02 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.02 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.12
battered piles 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.20 0.20 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.05 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.04
Anchored 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.16 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.09 0.01 0.01
Column Supported Wharf 0.07 0.07 0.13 0.20 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.07
Sheet Pile Wall 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.15 0.10 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.06 0.09 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.03
Stiff Pile Wall 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.16 0.12 0.07 0.04 0.04 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.06 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00
Sheet Pile with Platform 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.15 0.10 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.03 0.05 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.09 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.03
Caisson Wall 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.06 0.15 0.02 0.02
Massive Wall 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.06 0.15 0.02 0.02
Cantilever Wall 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.06 0.15 0.02 0.02
Block Wall 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.06 0.15 0.02 0.02
Cellular Block Wall 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.13 0.13 0.15 0.06 0.15 0.02 0.02
Cellular Steel Wall 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.13 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.13 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.09 0.04 0.05
Wall On Rock 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.10 0.10 0.13 0.07 0.13 0.03 0.03
79
Table 5.9. Failure mode to contribution to ultimate failure of each typology.

This is weighted against the probability failure of each typology. Each typology exceeds the ultimate limit. This is based on the possible number of
occurrences that can cause ultimate failure of such failure modes in each element along the logic tree.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Probability wharf Failure (%)




Deformation of pile
Pile Deck Hinge
In-ground hinge
Slope instability
Anchor pull-out
Pile cap failure
Kick-out of toe
Sliding blocks
Wall collapse
Deck cracks
Modes
Wharf 0.18 0.25 0.18 0.31 0.31 0.06 0.43 0.43 0.49 0.06 0.18 0.06 0.06 0.43 3.4
Wharf 0.19 0.25 0.19 0.31 0.31 0.06 0.44 0.44 0.50 0.06 0.19 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.44 3.6
Pile supported Pier 0.19 0.25 0.19 0.31 0.31 0.06 0.44 0.44 0.50 0.06 0.19 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.44 3.6
piles 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.69 0.69 0.19 0.13 0.13 0.31 0.19 0.00 0.25 0.25 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.13 3.5
Pile Supported Wharf - Anchored 0.06 0.06 0.06 1.50 1.38 0.75 0.13 0.13 0.75 0.63 0.31 0.38 0.38 0.75 0.75 0.13 0.13 8.3
Column Supported Wharf 0.19 0.19 0.38 0.56 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.00 0.19 2.8
Sheet Pile Wall 0.44 0.06 0.44 2.19 1.56 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.19 0.38 0.69 0.31 0.88 1.31 1.00 0.63 0.31 0.38 0.88 0.38 15.0
Stiff Pile Wall 0.44 0.06 0.44 2.19 1.56 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.19 0.69 0.31 0.88 1.31 1.00 0.63 0.31 0.00 0.50 0.00 13.5
Sheet Pile with Platform 0.44 0.06 0.44 2.19 1.56 1.00 0.50 0.50 1.19 0.38 0.69 0.31 0.88 0.00 1.31 1.00 0.63 0.31 0.38 0.88 0.38 15.0
Pile wall (no anchor) 0.25 0.06 0.25 0.81 0.56 0.25 0.31 0.31 0.56 0.25 0.25 0.56 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.56 0.25 6.0
Caisson Wall 0.19 0.25 0.19 0.25 0.19 0.44 0.44 0.50 0.19 0.50 0.06 0.06 3.3
Massive Wall 0.19 0.25 0.19 0.25 0.19 0.44 0.44 0.50 0.19 0.50 0.06 0.06 3.3
Cantilever Wall 0.19 0.25 0.19 0.25 0.19 0.44 0.44 0.50 0.19 0.50 0.06 0.06 3.3
Block Wall 0.19 0.25 0.19 0.25 0.19 0.44 0.44 0.50 0.19 0.50 0.06 0.06 3.3
Cellular Steel Wall 0.25 0.06 0.25 0.88 0.56 0.31 0.31 0.88 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.06 0.63 0.25 0.31 5.7
Wall On Rock 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.13 0.19 0.19 0.25 0.13 0.25 0.06 0.06 1.8
Probability of Mode Occurrence (%) 3.8 2.4 3.8 13.2 10.4 4.4 6.3 6.3 10.5 1.0 3.5 1.3 5.9 1.0 5.8 4.6 1.9 1.1 1.1 7.9 0.6 1.7 100
80
(b) Failure Mode Sequence. The failure permutations based on the failure mode sequence is
equal to the summation of the product of the number of failing modes at each step along each
element failing path constituting the logic tree (Tables 8.10,12,14,16,18,20,22,24,26,28).
Hence, the probability of ultimate failure of a particular wharf typology, given that all
typologies reach ultimate failure is given by n/h, where n is the number of paths of a
particular typology and h is the total number of paths of all typologies (Table 5.30).
In order to investigate the contribution of each failure mode, the product of each failure mode
at a particular step with the number of failure modes at each step along each element failure
path is found (Table 8.11,13,15,17,19,21,23,25,27,29) The sum of each contribution, gives the
number of possibilities with which the ultimate limit state can be reached for each identified
wharf typology (Table 5.30). This sum of these permutations for each failure mode is the
contribution of that particular failure mode to the typology (Appendix C). In this case, the
summation of the these permutations will give a value higher than the total number of
possible permutations since the intersection is repeated twice (Table 5.30).
Based on failing element sequence, the probability that a particular failure mode will cause
ultimate failure is then found as a weighted average. The probability that each individual
typology will reach ultimate failure by a particular mode is found by dividing the number of
occurrences of that mode with the summation of all mode contributions for that particular
wharf typology (Table 5.31). Each mode probability is then weighted with the probability
of exceeding the ultimate limit state of that particular typology found previously (Table 5.30).
For each failure mode in turn, its contribution for each typology to reach ultimate failure is
added to give a weighted probability average of that particular failing mode (Table 5.32).
Table 5.10Total paths leading to failure: Pile-

supported wharves
Ultimate Failure
Paths
Table 5.11. Ultimate failure paths: Pile
Total
supported wharves
6 7 3 126 Large Ultimate Failure Paths
Large diameter
6 7 3 126 diameter Pile 21 18 42
Pile supported supported 21 18 42
6 7 3 126
wharf; Small wharf; Small 21 18 42
6 7 3 126
diameter Pile
7 3 21 dimeter Pile 21 18 42
supported supported
7 3 21 3 7
wharf; Pile wharf; Pile
3 3 3 7
supported supported
3 3 1
pier. pier.
Total 552 1
81
Table 5.13. Ultimate failure paths: Pile

Table 5.12Total paths leading to failure: Pile- supported wharves
supported wharves (Batter Piles) (batter piles)
Pile Ultimate Failure

Ultimate Failure
Supported Paths
Paths Total
21 18 42
6 7 3 126
21 18 42
6 7 3 126
24 18 48
6 8 3 144
24 18 48
6 8 3 144
21 18 42
6 7 3 126
21 18 42
6 7 3 126
Pile 24 18 48
6 8 3 144
Supported 24 18 48
6 8 3 144
Wharves 3 7
7 3 21
Batter Piles 3 7
7 3 21
3 8
8 3 24
3 8
8 3 24
1
3 3
1
3 3
Total 1176
Table 5.14. Total paths leading to failure: Table 5.15. Ultimate failure paths: Anchored
Anchored Pile-supported wharves Pile supported wharves
Ultimate Failure Ultimate Failure
Paths Total Paths
6 7 3 126
21 18 42
6 8 3 144
24 18 48
6 7 3 126
21 18 42
6 8 3 144
24 18 48
6 6 7 3 756
Anchored 126 126 108 252
6 6 8 3 864 Anchored
Pile
6 7 3 126 Pile 144 144 108 288
Supported
6 8 3 144 Supported 21 18 42
Wharf
7 3 21 Wharf 24 18 48
8 3 24 3 7
3 3
3 8
3 3
1
Total 2481
1
83
Table 5.16Total paths leading to failure:

Coulumn -supported wharves Table 5.17. Ultimate failure paths: Columns
Ultimate Failure
supported wharves
Paths Total Ultimate Failure Paths
6 3 18 Column 3 6
6 3 18 S t d Wh f 3 6
Column 3 3 9 3 3
Supported 3 3 9 3 3
Wharf 3 3 1
3 3 1
60
Table 5.18Total paths leading to failure: Table 5.19. Ultimate failure paths: Sheet Pile
Sheet-pile wharves. walls
Ultimate Failure Paths Total Sheet Ultimate Failure Paths
6 10 6 3 171 180 108 180 360
3 10 6 3 86 180 54 90 180
8 10 6 3 229 180 144 240 480
6 6 10 3 171 180 180 108 360
6 3 10 3 86 90 180 54 180
6 8 10 3 229 240 180 144 480
6 10 3 29 30 18 60
6 3 2 3 6
6 6 6 10 3 1029 1080 1080 1080 648 2160
6 6 3 10 3 514 540 540 1080 324 1080

Sheet
6 6 8 10 3 1371 1440 1440 1080 864 2880
Pile
Wall; 6 6 10 3 171 180 180 108 360
Sheet 6 6 3 17 18 18 36
Pile wall 6 10 3 29 30 18 60
with 6 10 6 3 171 180 108 180 360
platform
6 10 6 6 3 1029 1080 648 1080 1080 2160
6 10 3 6 3 514 540 324 1080 540 1080
6 10 8 6 3 1371 1440 864 1080 1440 2880
10 3 2 3 10
10 6 3 10 18 30 60
10 6 6 3 171 108 180 180 360
10 3 6 3 86 54 180 90 180
10 8 6 3 229 144 180 240 480
3 3 1
Total 7719
84
Table 5.20Total paths leading to failure: Stiff- Table 5.21. Ultimate failure paths: Stiff-pile wall
Pile wall wharves. Stiff Ultimate Failure Paths
Ultimate Failure Paths Total 126 108 126 252
6 7 6 3 135 126 54 63 126
3 7 6 3 68 126 144 168 336
8 7 6 3 180 126 126 108 252
6 6 7 3 135 63 126 54 126
6 3 7 3 68 168 126 144 336
6 8 7 3 180 21 18 42
6 7 3 23 3 6
6 3 3 756 756 756 648 1512
6 6 6 7 3 810 378 378 756 324 756
6 6 3 7 3 405 1008 1008 756 864 2016
6 6 8 7 3 1080 126 126 108 252
6 6 7 3 135 18 18 36
Stiff Pile
6 6 3 19 21 18 42
Wall
6 7 3 23 126 108 126 252
6 7 6 3 135 756 648 756 756 1512
6 7 6 6 3 810 378 324 756 378 756
6 7 3 6 3 405 1008 864 756 1008 2016
6 7 8 6 3 1080 3 7
7 3 2 18 21 42
7 6 3 8 108 126 126 252
7 6 6 3 135 54 126 63 126
7 3 6 3 68 144 126 168 336
7 8 6 3 180 1
3 1
Total 6086
Table 5.22Total paths leading to failure: Pile

wall without anchor. Table 5.23. Ultimate failure paths: Sheet Pile
Ultimate Failure Paths Total Wall (no anchor)
6 10 3 180 Ultimate Failure Paths
Sheet 6 3 18 30 18 60
Pile Wall Sheet Pile
6 6 10 3 1080 3 6
and Wall and
6 6 3 108 180 180 108 360
Sheet Sheet pile
6 10 3 180 18 18 36
pile wall wall with
6 10 6 3 1080 30 18 60
with platform
10 3 30 180 108 180 360
platform (No
10 6 3 180 Anchor) 3 10
(No
3 3 18 30 60
Anchor)
Total 2859 1
85
Table 5.24Total paths leading to failure: Gravity

walls
Total
Total 13, Table 5.25. Ultimate failure paths: Gravity walls
Caisson Wall,
11, 14, Ultimate Failure Paths
Massive Wall
Ultimate Failure Paths 12. 15 108 108 108 216
6 6 6 3 648 540 18 18 36
Caisson Wall,
6 6 3 108 108 18 18 36
Massive Wall,
6 6 3 108 90 6 6
Cantilever
6 6 36 30 3 6
Wall, Block
6 3 18 18 1
Wall, Cellular
3 3 3
Block Wall
Total 921 789
Table 5.26Total paths leading to failure:

Cellular sheet wall
Ultimate Failure Table 5.27. Ultimate failure paths: Cellular sheet
Paths Total wall.
Cellular Ultimate Failure
6 6 6 3 648 Sheet Paths
6 6 3 108 108 108 108 216
3 6 6 3 324 18 18 36
Cellular
6 6 3 108 108 54 54 108
Sheet
6 6 36 18 18 36
Wall
6 6
6 3 18
3 6
3 3
1
Total 1245
Table 5.28. Total paths leading to failure: wall Table 5.29. Ultimate failure paths: Wall on rock.
on rock Wall on Ultimate Failure
Ultimate Failure Paths Total Rock Paths
6 6 3 108 18 18 36
Wall
6 3 18 3 6
on
3 3 1
Rock
Total 129
Based on failure mode sequence, the probability that a particular failure mode will cause
ultimate failure is then found as a weighted average. The probability that each individual
typology will reach ultimate failure by a particular mode is found by dividing the number of
occurrences of that mode with the summation of all mode contributions for that particular
wharf typology (Table 5.31). Each mode probability is then weighted with the probability
of exceeding the ultimate limit state of that particular typology found previously (Table 5.30).
For each failure mode in turn, its contribution for each typology to reach ultimate failure is
added to give a weighted probability average of that particular failing mode (Table 5.32).
86
Table 5.30. Probability based on failure paths based on failure modes.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22


Probability Failure (%)

Total different paths

Pile Deck Hinge
In-ground hinge
Slope instability
Anchor pull-out
Pile cap failure
Kick-out of toe
Sliding blocks
Wall collapse
Deck cracks
Wharf
Typology /
Failure Modes
Small Diameter Pile
Supported Wharf 42 42 262 262 78 84 84 165 93 78 92 92 78 474 1.3443
Large Diameter Pile
Supported Wharf 42 42 262 262 78 84 84 165 93 78 92 92 78 78 552 1.5655
Pile supported Pier 42 42 262 262 78 84 84 165 93 78 92 92 78 78 552 1.5655

Pile supported
wharves- battered
piles 90 90 470 470 78 180 180 258 78 78 196 196 78 78 1176 3.3351
Pile Supported
Wharf - Anchored 315 45 1417 1102 645 360 360 690 330 165 386 386 645 645 315 2481 7.0361
Column Supported
Wharf 3 23 3 3 3 3 10 10 3 60 0.1702
Sheet Pile Wall 5670 4575 5670 8643 10245 10245 16998 6753 1890 11390 10533 8643 3780 1890 10245 7719 21.891
Stiff Pile Wall 5670 4575 5670 8643 10245 10245 16998 6753 1890 11390 10533 3780 1890 10245 6086 17.26
Sheet Pile with
Platform 5670 4575 5670 8643 10245 10245 16998 6753 1890 11390 10533 8643 3780 1890 10245 7719 21.891
Caisson Wall 81 54 81 139 79 135 135 195 60 79 195 60 789 2.2376
Massive Wall 81 54 81 139 79 135 135 195 60 79 195 60 789 2.2376
Cantilever Wall 81 54 81 139 79 135 135 195 60 79 195 60 789 2.2376
Block Wall 81 54 81 139 79 135 135 195 60 79 195 60 60 921 2.612
Wall On Rock 21 21 61 43 21 21 39 18 43 39 18 18 129 0.3658
Total 35261 100
87
Table 5.31. Probability of a failure mode to contribute to ultimate failure of each typology.
Ultimate limit is assumed to be reached. This is based on the possible number of different or reccuring failing paths in the logic tree at the ultimate state. Each typology is
considered independently.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22


Pile Deck Hinge
In-ground hinge
Slope instability
Anchor pull-out
Pile cap failure
Kick-out of toe
Sliding blocks
Wall collapse
Deck cracks
Modes
Small Diameter Pile Supported Wharf 0.03 0.03 0.18 0.18 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.05
Large Diameter Pile Supported Wharf 0.03 0.03 0.17 0.17 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05
Pile supported Pier 0.03 0.03 0.17 0.17 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.05 0.05
Pile supported wharves- battered piles 0.04 0.04 0.19 0.19 0.03 0.07 0.07 0.10 0.03 0.03 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.00
Pile Supported Wharf - Anchored 0.04 0.01 0.18 0.14 0.08 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.04 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.04
Column Supported Wharf 0.05 0.38 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.00 0.16 0.16 0.05 0.00
Sheet Pile Wall 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.15 0.06 0.02 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.00
Stiff Pile Wall 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.16 0.06 0.02 0.10 0.10 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.00
Sheet Pile with Platform 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.15 0.06 0.02 0.10 0.09 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.09 0.00
Caisson Wall 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.11 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.05 0.06 0.15 0.05
Massive Wall 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.11 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.05 0.06 0.15 0.05
Cantilever Wall 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.11 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.15 0.05 0.06 0.15 0.05
Block Wall 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.10 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.14 0.04 0.06 0.14 0.04 0.04
Cellular Steel Wall 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.13 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.11 0.03 0.05
Wall On Rock 0.06 0.06 0.17 0.12 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.05 0.12 0.11 0.05 0.05
88
Table 5.32. Failure mode contribution to reach ultimate failure of each typology.
This is weighted against the probability failure of each typology. Each typology exceeds the ultimate limit. This is based on the possible number of
different or reccuring failing paths in the logic tree at the ultimate state.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22




Pile Deck Hinge
In-ground hinge
Slope instability
Anchor pull-out
Pile cap failure
Kick-out of toe
Sliding blocks
Wall collapse
Deck cracks
Modes
Wharf 0.04 0.04 0.24 0.24 0.07 0.08 0.08 0.15 0.09 0.07 0.09 0.09 0.07 1.3
Wharf 0.04 0.04 0.27 0.27 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.17 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.09 0.08 0.08 1.57
piles 0.12 0.12 0.62 0.62 0.10 0.24 0.24 0.34 0.10 0.10 0.26 0.26 0.10 0.10 0.00 3.34
Pile Supported Wharf - Anchored 0.28 0.04 1.28 0.99 0.58 0.32 0.32 0.62 0.30 0.15 0.35 0.35 0.58 0.58 0.28 7.04
Column Supported Wharf 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.17
Sheet Pile Wall 1.06 0.85 1.06 1.61 1.91 1.91 3.18 1.26 0.35 2.13 1.97 1.61 0.71 0.35 1.91 0.00 21.89
Stiff Pile Wall 0.90 0.73 0.90 1.37 1.63 1.63 2.70 1.07 0.30 1.81 1.68 0.60 0.30 1.63 0.00 17.26
Sheet Pile with Platform 1.06 0.85 1.06 1.61 1.91 1.91 3.18 1.26 0.35 2.13 1.97 1.61 0.71 0.35 1.91 0.00 21.89
Caisson Wall 0.14 0.09 0.14 0.24 0.14 0.23 0.23 0.34 0.10 0.14 0.34 0.10 2.24
Massive Wall 0.14 0.09 0.14 0.24 0.14 0.23 0.23 0.34 0.10 0.14 0.34 0.10 2.24
Cantilever Wall 0.14 0.09 0.14 0.24 0.14 0.23 0.23 0.34 0.10 0.14 0.34 0.10 2.24
Block Wall 0.16 0.10 0.16 0.27 0.15 0.26 0.26 0.38 0.12 0.15 0.38 0.12 0.12 2.61
Wall On Rock 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.37
Probability of Mode Occurrence
(%) 4.78 3.61 4.25 5.37 4.19 5.91 8.39 8.39 13.65 1.23 4.63 1.26 8.60 0.91 6.93 4.47 2.01 1.29 0.28 8.53 0.36 0.95 100.0
89
Table 5.33. Failure mode contribution to failure weighted with probability based on element failure paths.
Failure mode contribution for a structure typology to reach ultimate failure, based on the possible number of occurrences of failure modes in each element
along the failure logic tree at the ultimate state. This is weighted against the probability failure of each typology. The latter is based on the possible number
of different or reccuring failing paths in the logic tree at the ultimate state.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22




Pile Deck Hinge
In-ground hinge
Slope instability
Anchor pull-out
Pile cap failure
Kick-out of toe
Sliding blocks
Wall collapse
Deck cracks
Wharf Typology /
Failure Modes
Small Diameter Pile
Supported Wharf 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 2.4
Large Diameter Pile
Supported Wharf 0.1 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 2.6
battered piles 0.1 0.1 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 3.4
Anchored 0.3 0.0 1.4 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.3 7.7
Column Supported Wharf 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.0 1.5
Sheet Pile Wall 0.9 0.7 0.9 1.4 1.6 1.6 2.7 1.1 0.3 1.8 1.7 1.4 0.6 0.3 0.0 1.6 18.5
Stiff Pile Wall 0.8 0.6 0.8 1.2 1.5 1.5 2.4 1.0 0.3 1.6 1.5 0.5 0.3 0.0 1.5 15.4
Sheet Pile with Platform 0.9 0.7 0.9 1.4 1.6 1.6 2.7 0.0 1.1 0.3 1.8 1.7 1.4 0.6 0.3 0.0 1.6 18.5
Caisson Wall 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 2.8
Massive Wall 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 2.8
Cantilever Wall 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 2.8
Block Wall 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.1 3.0
Wall On Rock 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.1
Probability of Mode
Occurrence (%) 4.7 3.4 4.0 6.5 5.6 5.5 8.2 8.2 13.3 1.6 4.4 1.1 8.4 1.4 6.5 4.2 1.7 1.2 0.3 8.2 0.5 1.1 100
90
As previously discussed, due to the problem to identify and exclude the permutations which
are not possible in practice, a weighted average between the probabilities found by failure
mode paths and those found by failure element paths give realistic values (Table 5.33).
5.5 Conclusion
The probability based on vulnerability of wharf serviceability or ultimate failure is shown in
Figure 5.8. This is based on the number of failure combinations possible of each typology
when compared to the other typologies. It is assumed that there is an equal number of port
typologies spread uniformly across the world. This is in practice untrue. In Asiatic countries,
there are more closed-type structures since the nature of the soil is generally not good for the
dike (Werner, 1998) and most of the open type wharves in Asia still incorporate a small
retaining wall to make the dike smaller. It is also the case that closed type structures
outnumber the open-type wharves (Werner, 1998; Pianc, 2001; OCDI, 2002). This is so since
traditionally a closed type wharf is simpler and the structural typology can be applied to
different functions other than ports. Historically, closed type wharves are older. Hence, the
probabilities indicated in Figure 5.8 have to be multiplied by the probability of port typology.
As discussed previously, the latter was not possible to obtained due to the small sample
gathered. Another bias in the computed system is that it was assumed that serviceability
failure reached with the initial failure mode. In practice, this is not always the case.
22.0
Wharf Typologiy:
20.0 Probability of Failure Failure presence
18.0 Servicable f ailure
16.0 Ultimate element f ailure paths

Probability of Failure (%)
14.0
Ultimate f ailure mode paths
12.0
Ultimate f ailure w eighted Average
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Small Diameter Pile Supported Wharf
Wall On Rock
Cellular Block Wall
Large Diameter Pile Supported Wharf
Pile supported Pier
Sheet Pile with Platform

Sheet Pile Wall
Caisson Wall
Massive Wall
Cantilever Wall
Block Wall
Cellular Steel Wall

Column Supported Wharf
Pile Supported Wharf - Anchored
Stiff Pile Wall

Pile supported wharves- battered piles
Pile wall (no anchor)
Wharf Typology
Figure 5.8. Comparison of wharf typologies for vulnerability failure.
91
As shown in Figure 5.8 the structure typology most prone to failure are pile walls, followed
by anchored wharves and gravity walls. The discrepancy between the probability of ultimate
failure and serviceability failure is large for sheet pile walls when compared to other
typologies. This is so since the redundancy of sheet pile walls is small and hence the number
of permutations of failure increases. Gravity walls have a smaller possibility of serviceable or
ultimate failure when compared to open wharves since the former have a structural element
which resist soil failure. Yet, the nature of soil in retaining walls is more prone to failure.
Also, the number of elements of gravity walls are less, hence the number of paths are also
less. In fact, case histories (Chapter 1and 2) indicate that gravity walls are less likely to
experience catastrophic failure. Figure 5.9 also shows that open-type wharves with batter piles
and anchors have the largest possibility of failure amongst other open type wharves due to
reduction in redundancy.
Probability of Failure Modes

14.00 Failure Presence
Servicable failure
12.00
Ultimate element failure
Probability of failure mode (%)
Ultimate failure modes

10.00
Ultimate failure w eighted average
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
Pile Deck Hinge
Deck cracks
In-ground hinge
Sliding blocks
Pile cap failure
Kick-out of toe
Wall collapse
Slope instability

Anchor pull-out

Failure Mode
Figure 5.9. Comparison of failure modes.

The chart above (Figure 5.9), indicates that the most failure modes most likely to occur in the
ultimate failure of a wharf typology are seaward displacement. Although in Chapter 4 it was
observed that these 2 failure modes were frequently observed in case histories, it was more
evident that the most dangerous failure mode is liquefaction. All these 3 failing cases have
equal failure presence probability, yet the ultimate state and serviceability state probability
drop for liquefaction while it increases for settlement and seaward displacement. This is due
to the fact that, liquefaction occurred in elements that failed at the initial steps of the logic
tree, while settlement occurred in successive elements hence, in a larger number of failing
92
mode paths. Hence, Liquefaction can be considered as a more dangerous element as it can
trigger the other two.
Values related failures occurring to specific elements such as kick out of toe, sliding of
blocks, anchor pull out, bucking of steel piles, opening of wall cracks, tensile failure of batter
piles are low dew to the fact that they are limited only to a few number of typologies
93
Chapter 6. Design and Analysis Procedures
6. DESIGN AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES

6.1 Introduction
As discussed in Chapter 3, the analysis methodology to be used is related to the level of
performance required and the hazard to which it is exposed. There are three levels of design
and analysis:
Simplified analysis,
Simplified Dynamic Analysis,
Dynamic Analysis.
As shown in Chapter 3, the higher the level of analysis the more rigorous it gets, but the
accuracy in the output is more since more aspects are directly considered. For each design
level, the methodologies and procedures followed depend on the structural typology, i.e.
whether Closed-Type or Open Type on a general scale. Tables 6.1 to 6.3 outline the design
methodologies, parameter requirements, input requirements and out put characteristics for
each level of design. Certain relevant design issues for each design level are then outlined and
discussed.
National codes are generally guide procedures to the first two levels of analysis, where the
design of gravity quay walls and sheet pile walls is based on pseudo-static force-based design
(FBD) approaches for the design of retaining walls namely after Mononobe-Okabe (1926 -
1929), Steedman Zeng (1990) and Wood (1973), while that of pile supported wharves of
force-based design (FBD) of frame structures.
94
Table 6.1. Simplified analysis: parameters for different wharf typologies
Simplified Analysis
Wharf Type Analysis Type Design Parameters Input Parameters Output
Sheet Wall Platform on piles
Small Diameter Pile Supported Wharf For Pile deck: allowable

Liquefaction and site response
stress level or p-y curves
Open Type
analysis' results / dimentions and

or resistance at elastic Displacement
Large Diameter Pile Supported Wharf Response material properties of piles and
limit of design response threshold of
Spectrum deck / p-y curves or kh-sub /
spectra. For dike or deck and dike
Pile supported Pier parameters as for other retaining
retaining wall, same as
walls.
gravity wall.
Sheet Pile Wall

Same as Gravity walls + properties
Pseudostatic/
of tie rod, sheet pile and anchor
Stiff Pile Wall empirical
such as stress capacities,I, E, A..
ke and kt ; Soil
geometrical extent,
identifying those of
Caisson Wall
Closed Type
liquefiable layer and

amax : Site response analysis
location relative to wall
Massive Wall Pseudo- results/liquefaction potential/ wall Displacement
static/empirical section/ geothecnical parameters c, Threshold limit
Gravity Wall
Cantilever Wall , ub and / water table level.
Block Wall
Same as other gravity
Cellular Block Wall Pseudo-static walls + allowable As for other gravity walls +
Analysis stresses and limits properties and geometry of cell.
Cellular Steel Wall (elastic).
As for mono-cellular or multi-cellular walls
Wall On Rock
Key and
legend c = coefficient of cohesion; = (equivalent) internal angle of friction; ub = friction angle at bottom = friction angle at rear surface of wall; E = Young's Modulus; I = Moment of Inertia; A
= Cross sectional area; M = Moment; = curvature; G = Shear Modulus; K = Bulk modulus; amax = maximum acceleration; vmax = Maximum velocity; at = minimum acceleration; kh-sub
= coefficient of lateral subgrade reaction; PGA = Peak ground acceleration; ke = Equivalent seismic coefficient; kt = threshold seismic coefficient.
95
Table 6.2. Simplified Dynamic analysis: parameters for different wharf typologies
Simplified Dynamic Analysis

Platform on piles
Small Diameter Pile Supported Wharf Deck and

Open Type
Response dike:
Large Diameter Pile Supported Wharf Same as for pseudo-static analysis + limit states such as yield and
spectrum /
ultimate stresses, and corrisponding material parameters.
displacement;
Pushover ductility;
Pile supported Pier
stress
Sheet Wall
Sheet Pile Wall Newmark Type

Same as for gravity walls Same as Simplified Analysis + limit
Analysis Wall
states of yield and ultimate stress +
Stiff Pile Wall
material parameters. displacement
Simplified charts Same as for gravity walls
Using Time histories
Caisson Wall Newmark Type earthquake motions OR
Analysis Using equations:vmax;
Closed Type
amax; at amax : Site response analysis

Massive Wall results/liquefaction potential/ wall
section/ geothecnical parameters c,
Gravity Wall
Wall section / PGA at , ub and / water table level. Wall

Cantilever Wall
Simplified charts bedrock / soil displacement;
properties:SPT-N Values ductility;
Block Wall stress.
Cellular Block Wall Newmark Type Same as for other gravity walls + limit states such as yield and
Analysis ultimate stresses, and corrisponding material parameters of cells.
Cellular Steel Wall
As for mono-cellular or multi-cellular walls
Wall On Rock
Key and
legend c = coefficient of cohesion; = (equivalent) internal angle of friction; ub = friction angle at bottom = friction angle at rear surface of wall; E = Young's Modulus; I = Moment of Inertia; A
= Cross sectional area; M = Moment; = curvature; G = Shear Modulus; K = Bulk modulus; amax = maximum acceleration; vmax = Maximum velocity; at = minimum acceleration; kh-sub
= coefficient of lateral subgrade reaction; PGA = Peak ground acceleration; ke = Equivalent seismic coefficient; kt = threshold seismic coefficient.
96
Table 6.3. Dynamic analysis: parameters for different wharf typologies

Dynamic Analysis
Sheet Wall Platform on piles
Wharf
Open Type
Same as gravity walls + material properties

and dimentions of piles, deck. For non-linear
Wharf
analysis: yield stress, I, A and E. For linear Residual + Peak
Pile supported Pier analysis: yield stress and M- curves. displacements;
failure + response
Column Supported Wharf modes; stress;
Sheet Pile Wall ductility.
F.E.M. or F.D.M.: Same as gravity walls and Pile supported
Stiff Pile Wall Linear or non linear wharves, but with material properties and
2D/3D analysis for dimentions sheet piles, tie-rod and anchor.
Sheet Pile with Platform (a) structural and,
(b)geothecnical Earthquake time histories at the bottom
Caisson Wall
Closed Type
modelling boundary of analysis domain / wall cross

Residual + Peak
Massive Wall (equivalent linear). section / for non-linear analysis: undrained
displacements;
cyclic properties of soil + K and G,
failure + response
Gravity Wall
Cantilever Wall geotechnical parameters as for simplified

modes.
analysis / for equivalent linear analysis: G/Go-
Block Wall and D- curves
Same as other gravity walls and Pile Residual + Peak
Cellular Block Wall displacements;
supported wharves, but with material
Cellular Steel Wall properties and dimentions for the wall cells. failure + response
modes; stress;
Wall On Rock As for mono-cellular or multi-cellular walls ductility.
Key and
legend c = coefficient of cohesion; = (equivalent) internal angle of friction; ub = friction angle at bottom = friction angle at rear surface of wall; E = Young's Modulus; I = Moment of Inertia;
A = Cross sectional area; M = Moment; = curvature; G = Shear Modulus; K = Bulk modulus; amax = maximum acceleration; vmax = Maximum velocity; at = minimum acceleration; kh-
sub = coefficient of lateral subgrade reaction; PGA = Peak ground acceleration; ke = Equivalent seismic coefficient; kt = threshold seismic coefficient.
97
6.2 Simplified Analysis for Closed-Type Wharves
6.2.1 Introduction
Forced based approaches are used for such analysis. These methods are adopted in codes and
guidelines for such designs. Rigid block analysis is applied on gravity, sheet pile, cellular
quay and slope of open type wharves. The earth retaining component and soil are respectively
idealized as structural masses and soil blocks. The earthquake motion is represented by the
PGA. The capacity against seismic action is evaluated based on the threshold acceleration and
seismic coefficient. The geometric extent of liquefaction should be considered in case this is
susceptible. Such methodology is considered as a crude approximation in case of high
performance requirements. Conventional design practices and equivalent seismic coefficient
input representing the ground motion is used together with a factor of safety. These are not
performance based design approaches. Performance based design suggests an evaluation of
response through a combination of responses. No factor of safety should be applied in
evaluating the threshold level of the structure.
6.2.2 Mononobe-Okabe Method

The Mononobe-Okabe (M-O) approach based as a pseudo-static extension of the Coulomb
method is quite simple but approximative. It depends on a positive horizontal coefficient that
causes the total active thrust (Kramer, 1996). Generally, the backfill material is not regular
and hence adaptations to the Mononobe-Okabe equations have to be made according to the
configurations of an irregular free body diagram. Such methodology is not quite correct for
soils experiencing loss in strength during the earthquake such as liquefiable soils. The actual
passive thrust is over predictive. The method will be described in more detail with illustrated
examples as adopted in design practices in the following chapter.
6.2.3 Steedman-Zeng Method

The M-O approach accounts for the dynamic nature of the loads. The Steedman-Zeng (S-Z)
approach account for dynamic response in a simplified way, particularly the phase difference
and amplification effects by using a pseudo-dynamic analysis of seismic earth pressures. The
horizontal acceleration (a) can vary along a depth of wall z (Figure. 6.1), if the horizontal
amplitude at the bottom is ah :
H z
a (z, t ) = a h sin t
v s
The method assumes that the pressure on the wall is due to the mass inside the wedge inclined
at an angle (a). Each mass thin element at depth z of soil unit weight g gives a mass:
(H z)
E m( z) = .dz
g tan
The total inertial force acting on the wall is expressed as:
H
Qh ( t ) = m(z) a (z, t ).dz
0
98
Figure 6.1. Wall geometry and forces for Steedman-Zeng method,

excluding water components (Kramer, 1996).
For a rigid wedge, the above limits to kh W which is the pseudo-static force considered by
the Mononobe-Okabe approximation. The total static and dynamic soil thrust is given by
resolving forces on the wedge:
Q h ( t ) cos( ) + W sin( )
PAE ( t ) =
cos( + )
The total earth pressure distribution is then given by differentiating the total soil thrust:
PAE ( t )
p AE ( t ) =
z
The resultant static thrust acts at a distance h-action=H/3 from the base (Kramer, 1996). The
term of the differentiation representing the dynamic earth pressure increases non-linearly with
depth depending on the ratio of H/l. For low frequency motions, where H/l is small and
hence the backfill moves in phase, the action is at h-action =H/3. For higher frequencies, the
application is higher. Backfill amplification effects can also be accounted by considering ah
as a function of depth. By varying ah linearly from the bottom of the wall to twice the value
at the tip, Steedman and Zeng (1990) showed good agreement with centrifugal results
6.2.4 Wood Theory

In practice, massive walls do not move sufficiently to instigate the shear strength of the soil,
and hence minimum active or maximum passive earth pressures are not developed (Kramer,
1996). This can be true for gravity wall wharf structures on very rigid soil or rock. Wood
(1973) showed that in such cases soil is like being trapped between two walls well spaced
apart, where the dynamic amplification is small for low frequency input motions if the range
of soil behind the wall is long enough. This range of frequencies generally instigate problems.
Wood (1973) showed that wall pressures are obtained from the elastic solution when constant
and uniform horizontal acceleration is applied throughout the soil For rigid walls the dynamic
thrust and overturning moment are expressed as:
99
ah
Peq = H 2 Fp
g
ah
M eq = H 3 Fm
g
Where: ah = amplitude harmonic base acceleration; Fp= dimensionless dynamic thrust factor;
Fm = dimensionless moment factor. The dynamic thrust is applied at a height:
M eq
h eq =
Peq
6.2.5 Richards-Elms Method

The M-O method, the S-Z method and the Wood theorem are force-based approaches which
give adequate information to a certain extent on the stresses, forces and moment on the
gravity or retaining wall structures, but little information is given on the performance of the
structure based on displacement for serviceability purposes. Richard-Elms (1979) method
estimates permanent displacements on an analogy following Newmark sliding block
procedure in determining seismic slope stability (Kramer, 1996).
Figure 6.2. Gravity wall acted upon by gravity and pseudo-static accelerations
(Kramer, 1996; Ebeding 1992; Richard + Elms, 1979).
Under seismic loading, inertial actions and reactions will develop as shown (Figure 6.2).
Yield acceleration is characterized as the acceleration that will just cause the wall to slide and
hence the following equilibrium limit is met, from which the limit yield acceleration can be
computed:
T = Fh + (PAE ) h
N = W + (PAE ) v
Richard-Elms (1979) method considers PAE as being equal to that obtained from the M-O
method. Permanent block displacement is expressed as :
100
v 2max a 3max
d perm = 0.087
a 4y
ay
a max 0.3
where: v max = peak ground velocity; amax = peak ground acceleration; ay = yield acceleration.
6.2.6 Whitman-Liao Method

The Richard and Elms method neglects the dynamic response of the backfill. It also neglects
kinematic factors, tilting effects and vertical acceleration, where larger amplification occurs
when the frequency characteristic to the earthquakes coincide with that of the backfill.
Consideration of vertical accelerations also slightly larger displacements. Taking account of
the above factors, Whitman-Liao (1985) found that permanent displacements were log-
normally distributed with a mean value:
37 v 2max 9.4 a y
d perm = exp
a max a max
6.2.7 Choudhury Approach

The active earth pressure behind a rigid retaining wall is very important for the design of the
wall and the Mononobe-Okabe method, the pseudo static approach is considered as shown.
This gives a linear distribution of seismic earth pressure in an approximate way. Hence
Choudhury (2005) uses the pseudo dynamic method to compute the distribution of seismic
earth pressure on the rigid wall supporting cohesionless soil. Time, phase difference and
planar rupture are considered within the backfill as a function of parameters such as friction
angle, soil friction angle, shear wave velocity, primary wave velocity and horizontal and
vertical seismic accelerations.
6.3 Simplified Static Analysis for Open-Type Wharves

It is suggested (Pianc, 2001) to idealise an open-wharf system compromising a platform
supported by piles to a single degree of freedom (SDOF) or a multi degree of freedom
(MDOF). The earthquake is generally represented by a response spectrum, while the structure
and soil by resonant frequencies and damping factors. The concept of ductility is also used.
The relative displacement is assumed to be negligible.
For such typologies, this level of design is not very recommended since it leaves out
important issues of dynamic aspect such as torsion and longitudinal and transverse
simultaneous effects. These can be very simply be addressed in simplified dynamic analysis.
6.4 Simplified Dynamic Analysis for Closed Type-Wharves
6.4.1 Introduction
In such analysis, the structure is idealized by a sliding block. The displacement of the block is
computed by integrating the acceleration history exceeding the threshold limit for sliding.
101
Time histories are retrieved from simple dynamic analysis of local site effects, and are
represented in the analysis by the PGA and PGV. From the results on a series of non linear
analysis on FDM or FEM models charts can be compiled, upon which structural and
geotechnical conditions can be idealized.
Although here reference is made to closed-type wharves only, sliding block analysis should
also be performed on dikes of pile supported wharves. In such analysis, pile group effects
have to be taken into consideration together with soil-structure interaction (SSI).
6.4.2 Sliding Block Analysis for Gravity-quay Walls

Simple models to evaluate displacements, of gravity walls during earthquakes are based on
sliding block models. The wall stability and backfill is based on lateral earth pressure theory.
The threshold acceleration is determined by a combination of the acceleration on the sliding
block multiplied by a factor of safety. A series of time histories are then selected for sliding
block analysis. More than one time history is selected since the sliding block is very sensitive
to the characteristics of the time history. The level of design ground motion should be
represented in the selected time histories in both duration and frequency. The double
integration of the acceleration exceeding the threshold acceleration, the permanent
displacement will be the summation of each integration. The ground motion intensity relates
with seismically induced deformations. Richard and Elms (1979) and Whitman and Liao
(1985) relate well with this relations when the ratio of acceleration threshold and maximum
acceleration is higher than 0.3 (Steedman, 1998).
The sliding displacement is affected by the vertical component of the input acceleration. Yet,
some parametric studies indicated that this can either increase or decrease by only about 10%
(Pianc, 2001). The displacement computed by the sliding block analysis, depends on certain
parameters which can give a relatively large scatter of results. Whitman and Liao (1985) tried
to account this by performing parametric studies taking account the backfill response,
kinematics of backfill wedge, the wall inclination and the vertical accelerations. Yet, the
actual seismic performance of the gravity wall during earthquake does not meet the
assumptions inherent in sliding block analysis. When the movement of the wall is due to large
soil displacements and when the wall experiences just rocking response, the displacements
expressed by the sliding block analysis are smaller than in practice (Iai, 1998; Pianc, 2001;
Steedman, 1998).
Parametric studies led to charts (Iai, et al., 1999; Pianc, 2001) were developed relating SPT-N
values, with width to height ratio of walls, depth below structure related to height, and seismic
excitation. These indicate that the soil depth/ wall height ratio effects the degree of the
displacement. Soil SPT-N values lower than 15 give relatively high values of wall
displacement.
6.4.3 Sliding Block Analysis for Sheet Pile Quay-walls

In sheet pile walls, the walls flexibility is high, hence the earth pressure on the wall can be
affected. The bottom friction will also be affected. This poses a problem in the theory of
sliding block analysis as described for block walls and hence, rigid block motion of the wall
and backfill has to be assumed (Pianc, 2001). The action is caused by the inertia of the active
soil wedge, while resistance is done by the passive soil wedge and shear along failure surface.
102
Newmarks sliding block approach is used to find the wall displacement. The area behind the
wall of improved soil which is effective is approximately 2 times the total height of the sheet
pile wall (Pianc, 2001).
6.5 Simplified Dynamic Analysis for Open Type wharves
6.5.1 Introduction
This is generally based on a force-based procedure. Recent methodologies such as
displacement based design are discussed in Chapter 9. Simplified dynamic analysis on SDOF
or MDOF (equivalent or real representations) combined with pushover analysis will result in
the ductility or the strain limits and levels of the structure. The dike movement is either
assumed to be negligible if well designed independently, analaysed as a sliding bloke as
previously described. The movement of the deck is the summation of the movement of the
dike and the structural deformation. The failure modes due to combined walls dikes and
slopes can be assumed and combined. With such analysis, the displacement, ductility,
buckling and yield location can be obtained.
6.5.2 Response Spectrum Analysis on Pile-Supported Wharves

A pile supported wharf is idealized as a single degree of freedom (SDOF) having a mass
equivalent to that of the deck/platform and surcharge above it, a stiffness equivalent to that of
the frame formed by the deck and piles as described in the simplified analysis or pushover
analysis, and a damping value. The dynamic response of the SDOF is either obtained through
the response spectra given in design practices and codes, or from spectra computed from time
history computations. A dynamic analysis in which the structure yields, the nonlinear
response is evaluated using linear response spectra and a ductility factor as used in building
codes.
The elasto-plastic response can be assumed by either of 2 assumptions. The first assumption
states that the ultimate displacement of a linear system is equal to the ultimate displacement of
the elasto-plastic system (Figure 6.3). This is non-conservative for short-period structures
(Priestley, 2003) like wharf structures. Hence, many design and building codes namely in
Central and South America and certain Asian countries use the equal energy approach. This
means that the energy absorbed by the elastic system is equal to that absorbed by the
equivalent elasto-plastic system (Figure 6.4).
6.5.3 Ductility
Ductility is the ability of the material to withstand inelastic deformations without excessive
decrease of the capacity. A high material ductility level can lead to a high ductility level of a
section in question, element or the structure in general. This is a good characteristic of steel.
Reinforced concrete requires elevated levels of confinement (Figure 6.5) of the section of
concrete in order to obtain a sufficient or higher level of ductility (Petrini et al, 2004). Hence,
it is given by the ration of ultimate strain (eu) and yielding strain (ey) obtaining ( = eu /ey).
103
Figure 6.3. Equal Displacement Approach. Figure 6.4. Equal Energy Approach
Figure 6.5. Confinement of Reinforced Concrete.
For a section, the ductility is the ability to withstand an elevated level of curvature beyond the
elastic range without excessive decrease in the resisting moment (Figure 6.6). This is
generally characterized by a Moment-Curvature curve (Petrini, 2004). Hence, for an element,
the ductility is defined as the ratio of the ultimate state curvature (Fu) and the curvature at
yielding (Fy) giving ( = Fu /Fy ). For reinforced concrete, the yielding of the section is
related to the yielding of the steel, while the ultimate state depends on the ultimate
compression of the concrete. The higher the confinement, the larger will be this latter value,
and the higher the axial force, the lower will be this ultimate value (Priestley, 2003; Petrini et
al, 2004).
104
Figure 6.6. Moment Curvature response of a concrete section (Petrini, et al., 2004)
For a structural element, the ductility is the ability of the element to withstand displacement
and rotations in the inelastic range without excessive decrease in the force and moment
resistance. Hence, this is defined as the ratio of the displacement at ultimate(Du) against the
displacement at yielding (Dy) of the element giving ( = Du /Dy). The zone of non-linear
behavior is defined as the area where plastic hinge can develop and is characterized by
flexural moment higher than that of the elastic limit. For R.C. elements, the displacement at
yielding is associated with that of the armature, while the ultimate displacement is associated
with the rupture of the reinforcement, instability of the reinforcement, or crushing of concrete
(Priestley, 2003; Petrini, 2004)
The ductility of the structure is based on the displacement capacity of the structure as a
response to lateral seismic loading in a non linear range without excessive decrease in the
resisting force. It is difficult to establish the yielding of the structure. This has to be identified
with an element that yields and gives a significant displacement to the structure. It is
important that the ductility level required by limit state, for a limit state design to be higher
than the actual ductility of the structure. In building design the aspects which aid of better
global ductility include:
Continuous and equal stiffness of vertical elements which resist the lateral
deformation.
High level of redundancy and redistribution once a plastic hinge is formed.
Avoiding brittle failures,
Regularity in mass distribution and stiffnesses to reduce torsional effects,
Reduced masses at relatively higher stiffnesses in order to avoid excessive displacement

which could damage secondary elements.
Plastic hinges to form in the horizontal element other than the vertical element, i.e. the
element resisting the lateral load.
105
Most of the above mentioned points cannot be satisfied in pile supported wharf typologies
since the vertical elements are not equal in height, hence have different stiffnesses. Due to the
sloping dike, there are eccentricities in the centre of mass and centre of stiffness. After
redistribution, it is essential that the plastic hinges do not form in the horizontal element that
is the platform.
6.5.4 Pushover Analysis of Pile Supported Wharves

Elastic and dynamic analysis are able to account for the inelasticity by the implication of the
ductility factor. Yet, these methods are not able account for changes in response as yielding is
reached in each plastic hinge formed (Petrini et al., 2004). Moreover, no information is given
on the inelastic demand of the structure.
The non-linear static Pushover analysis is a methodology in which all these negligencies are
accounted for. The structure is idealized as frame made up of piles and platform deck. Springs
are sometimes added to the piles to represent the soil or sub-grade reaction. Incremental
loading is applied to the structural typology until this is forced to go in the inelastic range and
collapse. The analysis will provide a representation of force displacement relation,
characteristic either to the most critical pile or to the whole structure in general. Such
methodology is very effective when the fundamental mode of vibration is dominant and
secondary modes have small participations else, this has to be accounted for at a later stage
(Petrini et al., 2004).
The methodology proposed in most codes (EN 1998-1:2005; Pianc, 2001; Priestley, 2000) is
based on the assumption that the response of a MDOF system can be related to SDOF system
upon an equivalent period. The pushover analysis for open pile wharves is generally carried
out in two possible ways. The first approach is to run analysis on a pile by pile basis and the
results of the force-displacement summed. Top fixity of each pile is assumed at a distance
above the soffit to model additional flexibility caused by strain penetration (Priestley, 2000).
Springs with bilinear characterisation are generally used along the depth of the embedded part
of the pile to represent the soil. For each pile in turn, pushover analysis becomes unstable
when full inelastic mechanism forms i.e. a plastic hinge forms at the soffit and at some depth
inside the ground. In the other approach, the structure is idealised as a beam-deck framework
with or without soil sub-grade springs to take account of the embedded part of the structure
and the relative stiffness with the soil (Pianc, 2001).
With the increasing load, the sequence of yield is identified. Generally, the first pile to yield is
the is the pile most close to the shore, with the last one being that closest to the sea line. From
the results, the yielding force and displacement are identified. This is considered as the force
after which the structure undergoes a significant displacement. The ductility factor (u) should
then be evaluated from the seismic response of a SDOF based on a non-linear response
analysis through time integration. This can also be done through linear response spectra. The
response ductility is then assessed against the ductility or strain limit criteria.
In such methodology, although the soil effects are somehow taken in consideration, full SSI is
not considered, and hence the relative movement of the dike and ground is not considered.
This should be assessed independently at a later stage.
106
6.5.5 Modal Dynamic Analysis of Pile Supported Wharves

In order to apply this method, a 3d structural model of the structure or a 2d model equivalent
to the 3D structure is required. The difference from static analysis is that the dynamic
characteristics of the structure are taken into account by considering the correct modes of the
structure. From a response spectrum, it is possible to calculate the maximum levels of
excitation and associated displacements (Petrini et al, 2004).
For a wharf segment, the piles falling in that segment are represented by 4 piles, each at each
extremity of the platform segment. These must have equivalent translational and torsional
stiffness. The position and size stiffness of the piles has to be found through equilibrium of
the 2 systems. The weight of the platform is distributed by geometrical area of influence to
each equivalent pile top. Due to the irregular section of a pile wharf, the centre of mass is
more towards the landward side. Hence, the wharf structure can be represented as a 2D model
in plan with piles represented by equivalent springs, joined by stiff diagonals, representing the
platform (Priestley, 2000).Modal analysis is run for the model using any dynamic analysis
program. Generally, the first 3 modes obtained represent the 2 translational directions and the
torsion. Other modes are generally due to slight flexibility of the deck members. Participation
factors are then applied for each mode contribution. The participation of the mode parallel to
the transverse section of a wharf generally has full participation. From the results, the
maximum deformation generally occurs at the extreme pile on the landward side.
6.6 Dynamic Analysis
6.6.1 Introduction
The approach of dynamic analysis is common for both open-type and close type wharves. The
difference between the two will characterized by the soil-structure interfaces and will hence
have a bearing on the choice of the modelling code.
This is based on the soil structure interaction of FEM or FDM models. Earthquake loading is
represented at the base by a time history record for a soil structure system. The structure can
be either linear or non linear depending on the earthquake level vis-a-vis the elastic level of
the structure. The soil is idealized as either an equivalent linear model or effective stress
model. This system is very sensitive to the modelling degree and a large number of factors
which are not always easily available in practice or can be quite expensive. The failure mode
critical to the particular design or analysis case can be retrieved from such analysis. The
strain, stress, displacements and deflections through the analysis can be also easily retrieved,
whose precision degree depends on the input parameters.
6.6.2 Considerations for Open-Type and Closed Type Wharves.

In such analysis, both the response of the structural elements and the soil are assessed
simultaneously, accounting for soil-structure interaction effects. This involves the use of finite
element or finite difference techniques. The structure is idealized as either a linear or a non-
linear model. The choice depends on the level of the earthquake relative to the damage limit
of the structure required. The soil behaviour of the soil is expressed in terms of stress-train
relations. This can either be equivalent linear or using effective stress constitutive models.
This depends on the anticipated strain level in the soil. Such soil structure interaction analysis
107
(SSI) leads to the identification of the failure mode characteristic to the particular wharf
arrangement, and fair results of displacements and stress strain behaviour of soil and
structural components.
The modeling techniques used are similar to used in buildings or bridges. Sheet pile, cellular
walls and pile supported wharves, require an elasto-plastic type non-linear model in order to
allow ductile response. Massive walls, caisson, block walls and other gravity walls are not
very redundant and their inelastic phase depends only on the soil behaviour and hence are
considered as linear models. Special details are required for the modeling of the pile deck
connection in case of pile supported wharves.
For geotechnical considerations, total stress analysis either equivalent linear or non-linear do
not take into account the effects caused by the change in excess pore water pressure or
effective stress during shaking and hence, changes in the soil stiffness and strength are not
accounted. The equivalent linear procedure has been the most widely used technique in
practice for computing the dynamic response of soil deposits, embankments and soil structure
interaction (Pianc, 2001). Yet, with such procedure, the residual displacements of soil-
structure systems are not computed. The shear strain level is also a problem since this is
smaller comparable to the performance criteria of a wharf structure. To account for these
limitations in equivalent linear analysis, in some codes such as FLUSH-L (Ozutsumi et al.,
2000) the shear modulus is reduced in order to account for the effect of excess pore water
pressure. Other codes such as FLAC (ITASCA, 1995) reduce the shear strength in the non-
linear analysis. Total stress computer codes can have a wider range of applicability but the
limitations remain due to the progressive increase in excess pore water pressures which are
not accounted for.
Non-linear effective stress analysis methods are the most ideal for analyzing residual
displacements or evaluation the performance of structures beyond the strain level of 1% in
soil. This can be done through computer codes, which are still under development and not
associated with design codes and practices. Such codes are very sensitive and require
experience. It is possible that with different computer codes for the same wharf, analysis will
yield different results. This is so due to differences in computational and modeling techniques
in the software, including whether it is FEM or FDM. Sensitivity to the interpretation of the
parameters and the ability to model structural elements within the individual code can lead to
differences. When a computer code is used, it is important to refer to benchmark tests and
case studies in order to check whether the code chosen is the most appropriate for the problem
in question, and also to calibrate the input parameters and the degree of modeling required.
6.6.3 Finite Difference Method (FDM) and Finite Element Method (FEM)
Each computer code can either work with a finite difference method (FDM) or finite element
method (FEM). FDM discretization is based upon the differential form of the partial
differential equation to be solved. Each derivative is replaced with an approximate difference
formula (that can generally be derived from a Taylor series expansion). The computational
domain is usually divided into hexahedral cells (the grid), and the solution is obtained at each
nodal point. The FDM is easiest to understand when the physical grid is cartesian, but through
the use of curvilinear transforms the method can be extended to domains that are not easily
represented by brick-shaped elements. The discretization results in a system of equation of the
108
variable at nodal points, and once a solution is found, then we have a discrete representation
of the solution. An example of code which follows FDM is FLAC (ITASCA, 1995).
A finite element method (FEM) discretization is based upon a piecewise representation of the
solution in terms of specified basis functions. The computational domain is divided up into
smaller domains (finite elements) and the solution in each element is constructed from the
basis functions. The actual equations that are solved are typically obtained by restating the
conservation equation in weak form: the field variables are written in terms of the basis
functions, the equation is multiplied by appropriate test functions, and then integrated over an
element. Since the FEM solution is in terms of specific basis functions, a great deal more is
known about the solution than for FDM. On the other hand, the choice of basis functions is
very important and boundary conditions may be more difficult to formulate. Again, a system
of equations is obtained (usually for nodal values) that must be solved to obtain a solution.
PLAXIS is a very widely used code following FEM. One of its advantages and yet a
drawback, is that the soil grid is generated authmatically. This can result in areas with a
higher concentration of nodes than others.
109
Chapter 7. Codes and Guidelines for Wharf Seismic Design
7. CODES AND GUIDELINES FOR WHARF SEISMIC

DESIGN
7.1 Introduction
The number of design practices, codes and guidelines which particularly address the design
and analysis of port structures, particularly wharves on a national basis are quite few.
Adaptations of other codes aimed for other structural typologies have to be used. For open
type wharves, building and bridge codes are used, while for closed type wharves foundation
and retaining wall codes are adapted. This generally leads to the wrongly generalised design
philosophy that open type wharves are structural design problems, while closed type wharves
are geotechnical problems. In practice both are important. In this chapter, adaptations of
seismic rules and seismic actions as used for buildings and general structures in a number of
national codes from world wide countries namely Turkey, Greece, Italy, China and USA will
be made. Then, design procedures as practically used in North America, Japan and Europe
will be discussed for open and closed type general typologies. A brief outline will be made
also on how the problem of liquefaction is addressed on a codified bases.
7.2 General Rules and Seismic Actions: Adaptations from National Codes
7.2.1 Turkey (Turkey Seismic Code, 2006)

Turkish seismic code (2006) has no direct reference to wharf structures, not even in sections
for special structures. The importance factor to be used for industrial structures is 1, while
the importance factor given to structures carrying toxic or hazardous materials, and
transportation terminals required immediately after an earthquake have an importance factor
of 1.5
The Turkish code is not a performance based code. It uses a working stress design procedure
where the allowable stress should be larger than the actual stress, and Ultimate Strength
Design, where the member strength is larger than the required member strength. Both
concepts can be applied for steel structures.
(a) Seismic Action. The strength reduction factors used are 1.5 for concrete and 1.15 for
reinforcing steel and structural steel.
Factors are applied to loads as follows: [(1 x Gravity Load) + (1 x Live Load) + (1 x Seismic
Load)] or [(0.9 x Gravity Load) + (1 x Earthquake Load)]
110
The Seismic Zoning Map of Turkey is based on a hazard with a 10% probability of
exceedence in 50 years.
Port structures whose requirements do not fall within the limit requirements of the code, shall
be designed with their appropriate safety rules and analysis outside the requirements of the
code. Ductility rules are found in chapters 7 and 8 of the Turkish seismic code. A reduction
factor R (equivalent to q in EC8) of 4 can be used when ductility requirement is high, or 2
if ductility required is lower. R can also be determined using:
T
R (T ) = 1.5 + (R table 1.5) ; (0 T TA )
TA
R (T ) = R ; (T > TA )
For seismic loading resisted by framed buildings, the reduction factors are: 4 for low ductility
and 8 for high ductility. Yet, as previously mentioned, port structures shall be analysed and
designed with their specific limit requirements. Such requirements will be verified by
ministerial rules and requirements which will be made specifically for the project.
The elastic seismic loads are defined by a spectral acceleration coefficient [A(T)] which
corresponds to 5% damped elastic acceleration normalised by the acceleration due to gravity
G
A(T ) = A O I S(T )
where AO is defined in Figure 3.5.
I is the importance factor, and S(T) is the coefficient determined based on the structures
natural period and the local site conditions as given in equation
S(T )1 + 1.5 (T / TA ) (0 T TA )
S(T ) = 2.5 (TA < T TB )
S(T ) = 2.5 (TB / T )
0. 8
(T > TB )
(b) Soil Classification. The soil classification is described by Table 12.1 of the Turkish code,
reproduced here as Table 7.3 (a)-(c).
Table 7.1. Site classification in Turkey (a) Period related to class (b) Soil Classification (c) local site class.
(Turkish Seismic Code, 2006)
(a)
111
(b)
(c)
Soil investigation and laboratory tests shall be used in order to get the properties for soil
classification of tables 12.1 and 12.2 in the Turkish code.
For liquefaction potential, all soils falling in Group D category, having a water table less than
10m from the surface, shall be investigated for liquefaction potential.
In the Turkish code, there is a direct reference to the use of batter piles. In-fact, piles having
an inclination larger than 1/6 to the vertical should not be used in seismic Zones 1 and 2.
For a system of vertical and inclined piles with inclination less or equal to 1/6, the top most
layer is deemed to be the one at the tip of the shortest pile. Horizontal and vertical pile
stiffness shall be modelled with equivalent springs under the pile caps.
The allowable soil pressure and allowable horizontal and axial load capacities of piles
specified for static loads may be increased up to 50% for soils classified as Groups (A), (B)
and (C). This applies for the combination where the seismic loads are applied.
112
(c) Irregularity in Plan. The irregularity in plan is a quite common situation in wharf
structures. Such irregularities are described as critical when the projections beyond the re-
entrant corners in both of the two principal directions in plan exceed the total plan dimensions
in the respective direction by more than 20%. The irregularity in elevation is unavoidable due
to the nature of the structure (Figure 7.1).
Figure 7.1. Irregularity aspects form Turkish seismic code (2006)
7.2.2 Greece (EAK 2000)

The Greek code is based on Ultimate Strength Design criteria, where the ultimate member
strength is expected to be larger than the required member strength, and Limit State Design
where the the ultimate lateral strength is larger than the required lateral strength. The strength
reduction factors are taken as 1.5 for concrete and 1.15 for steel. Factors are applied to load
combinations as follows: [(1 x Gravity Load) + ( 1 x Live Load)]. Capacity design of
elements and members is used such that brittle-shear failure modes are avoided.
Plastic response mechanisms of structures checked under seismic action, should follow the
following criteria:
Capacity design: formation of elasto-plastic mechanism in context to the number and

location of plastic hinges.
Available and required local ductility should match.
A minimum serviceability level is ensured and has to correspond to an acceptable degree of

damage depending on the function and importance of the structure and its appendages.
(cl.1.3.2[2])
Four design accelerations () are used for the four seismic zones in which Greece is divided.
This can vary within a structure depending on its importance. Normally important industrial
structures have an importance characteristic of 1, while those structures of high economical
value have an importance factor of 1.15. Structures whose operation after an earthquake is
essential have an importance value of 1.3. Soil amplification factors are also used. There are
5 soil classes as shown in Table. 7.1. In case of a formation having a thickness less than 5 m,
such layer can be attributed to belong to the previous soil class with the exception of soil class
X. A foundation factor is considered on the depth and the stiffness of the foundation.
For soil class A, is taken as 1 while for the other soil classes for structures on pile
113
foundations connected with a common pile cap, the factor taken is 0.8, while in case of pile
cap beams, the factor taken is 0.9. Such factors are considered if the resulting spectral
acceleration is not less than what would result for soil of class B.
For the spectrum for the vertical component, the same equations of the horizontal spectrum
should be used but using A corresponding to the vertical action taken as 0.7 A. This can
be ignored except in cases of pre-stressed concrete structures and beams bearing columns in
zones of seismic hazard III and IV . There are four seismic risk Zones I IV each having
a corresponding ground seismic acceleration A, (Table 3.1). These values are based on 10%
probability of exceedence in 50 years, based on seismological data.
The structural reduction factor q is 3.5 for frame reinforced concrete structures and 4.0 for
moment resisting steel frames. In cases where elastic behaviour is required, q is taken as 1.
Table 7.2. Soil Classification for soil In Greece (EAK, 2000)
Table 7.3. Soil Class for Greek soil (EAK, 2000)
114
The methods of analysis of the seismic response of structures referred are:
(Dynamic) Response Spectrum Method.
Simplified Spectrum Method (Equivalent Static Method)
Other linear or non-linear analysis with time history analysis should only be used as
supplementary checks. Generally, a 3D model is suggested to be used unless justifiable to use
2D models.
A pile supported wharf can resemble also to a bridge structure with the deck of the wharf
comparable to that of the bridge and the wharf piles comparable to the abutments. The
response spectrum method is suggested and the equivalent static load method for very simple
cases.
For abutments fixed or pinned to the deck but not embedded in the soil where T>0.03s, q is
taken as 1.5. Structures moving together with the soil where T<0.03 s, q is taken as 1.0.
7.2.3 Italy (OPCM-3274: 2005)

For design and verification requirement, the Italian code is based on limit state criteria. The
ultimate limit state is defined as the seismic action characterised by a probability of
exceedence of 10% in 50 years, while a serviceability limit state is characterised by a seismic
action characterised by 50% probability of exceedence in 50 years.
(a) Site Classification. There are 5 soil categories. Site A refers to very stiff ground layers
of 5m characterised by shear wave velocity (VS30) larger than 800m/s. Site B refers to sand
deposits, or compact clays with at least 10 m spacing, characterised by a VS30 falling
between 360m/s and 800m/s with penetration resistance NSPT >50 and un-drained cohesion cu
> 250kPa. Site C is characterised with medium density sands or clays of medium
consistency, with layers larger than 10m. For such category, Vs30 should fall between 180 and
360 m/s and 15 < NSPT < 50, 70 <cu<250 kPa. For site category D, the site is characterized
by Vs30 < 180 m/s (NSPT < 15, cu<70 kPa). The material in such site is generally soft loose
sand or cohesive materials with medium consistency. For site category E, the material is
generally alluvium with Vs30 similar to categories C or D, and a depth at least 5-20m,
laying on stiffer denser material with Vs30 > 800 m/s. In addition to these categories, there are
two categories S1 and S2 which require special site investigation. S1 is characterized
by layers at least 10m thick of limes or clays of low consistency with an elevated level of
plasticity (PI>40) and has water content that gives Vs30 <100 m/s and 10 < cu < 20kPa. S2 is
ground which is susceptible to liquefaction, or ground characterized with sensitive clays or
any ground which does not fall with any of the above specified.
The shear velocity, as in EN 1998-1:2005, is defined as:
115
where hi = layer thickness, Vi = shear wave velocity for a shear deformation less than 10-6 of
the ith layer of a total of N in the above 30 m
(b) Seismic Actions. Italy is divided in 4 four seismic zones and the corrisponding peak-
ground accelerations (PGA), defined as the acceleration on rock or hard material for each of
these zones is found in table 7.3. The probability of exceedence of the earthquake is 10% in
50 years. OPCM-3519, (2006) provides more specific hazard maps.
Table 7.4. Italian seismic zones

and corrisponding peak
ground acceleration value.
Zone PGA value ag (g)
1 0.35
2 0.25
3 0.15
4 0.05
The elastic response spectrum of the horizontal component is defined as:
where S is the factor characteristic to the soil category. For structures of importance factor
higher than 1, or inclined at an angle higher than 15o and has a change in level of 30 m, the
seismic action is also amplified by a factor ST = 1.2 -1.4. The product of S*ST cannot be larger
than 1.6. The factor n refers to a viscous damping (x) value other than 5% :
T is the period of vibration of a simple oscillator, and TB, TC and TD refer to different
periods which separate the response spectrum profile given in table 7.4 :
Table 7.5. Response spectrum factors for different soil categories.
116
The maximum horizontal displacement and velocity and displacement are respectively given
as:
For the ultimate limit state, a reduction factor (q) is applied to the elastic response spectra
value. For the serviceability limit state, the response spectrum should be reduced by a factor
of 2.5, unless a specific evaluation is not made.
(c) Loading Combinations. The load combination for both ultimate and serviceability limit
states, the following combination should be used:
where: gI is the importance factor, E is the earthquake action, GK are dead loads, PK is the
value characteristic to pre-compression actions, Y2i is the combination coefficient and QKi is
the value characteristic of live loads. Heavy duty structures are categorized to have Y2i equal
to 0.8.
(d ) Regularity in Plan. Structures must have regularity in plan and must be symmetric. In
case of re-entrant corners, these must not exceed 25% of lengths of respective dimensions.
The length and breadth dimensions must have a ratio less then 4. The diaphragm must be
rigid. Ordinary structures must have an importance factor equal to 1. Structures whose
importance is relative to the consequences it can bring in case of collapse have a factor of 1.2.
Structures whose functionality during and after the earthquake is essential, have an
importance factor equal to 1.4.
7.2.4 China (GBJ 11-89)

The seismic structural system should be determined through comprehensive analysis of the
technical and economic conditions based on: Importance of the building, intensity of the
region, subsoil, foundation, material used, and construction technology.
(a) Structure Classification. There are four classes of structures:
Type A: The structure has special requirements, in which serious consequences will result in
case of damage in an earthquake. Such structures have to be identified by a specific authority.
Type B: Structures which has an important part in the life-line.
Type C: Any structure not included in any of the categories.
Type D: unimportant structures where the failure of such structure will not cause the death or
injure a large umber of people, or will not result in a considerable economic loss.
117
Structures falling Type A shall be designed using ground motion parameters specifically
obtained from specific studies (using deterministic or probabilistic approaches). The ground
sections for the selection of a port development construction site shall be based on table 7.5
Table 7.6. Ground section category based on geological, topographical and geomorphologic aspects.
Identification of Ground Sections

Ground Section category Geological, topographical and geomorphologic
description
favourable to earthquake resistance Stiff soil or dense and homogeneous medium-stiff soil
soil in a wide open area.
Unfavourable to earthquake Soft soil; liquefiable soil; stripe-shaped protruding ridge;
resistance non rocky steep slope; river banks; fracture zone of
fault.
Hazardous to earthquake resistance Places where landslide, subsidence, crack formation of
cracks, mudlock flow.
(b) Soil Classification. The soil at the site shall be classified according to the shear wave
velocity of the soil layer as shown in table. 7.7.
Table 7.7. Soil classification in China (GBJ 11-89)

Classification of Site Soil
Type of site soil Shear-wave velocity of soil layer (m/s)
Stiff soil vs > 500

Medium-stiff site soil 500 vsm > 250
Medium-soft site soil 250 vsm 140
Soft site soil vsm 140
Note: vs = shear wave velocity of the layer. vsm = weighted mean shear wave velocity.
This is based according to the thicknesses of all soil layers within 15m below the upper level
and not greater than the thickness of the overlaying layer.
If it is not possible to measure the shear wave velocity for Type C and D structures, the soil
may be classified according to table 7.8.
118
Table 7.8. Alternative soil classification for type C and D structures.
Classification of Soil
Type of soil Geotechnical Description
Stiff soil Stable rock, dense gravel
Medium-stiff soil
Medium dense or slightly dense gravel; dense or
medium-dense gravel, coarse or medium sand;
cohesive soil and silt with fk>200
Medium-soft soil Slightly dense gravel, coarse or medium sand;
fine silty sand other than that which is loose;
cohesive soil and silt with fk200; fill and with
k130.
Soft soil Muck and mucky soil; loose sand; new alluvial
sediment of cohesive soil and silt; fill land with
fk<130
The site should be classified according to the four categories in table 7.9.
Table 7.9. Site classification in China (GBJ 11-89)

Construction Site Categories
Thickness of overlaying layer at site, dov
Type of site soil (m)
0 0<dov3 3<dov9 9<dov80 dov>80
Stiff site soil I
Medium-stiff site soil I II
Medium-soft site soil I II III
Soft site soil I II III IV
Table 7.10. Soil depth to be considered for liquefaction potential (GBJ 11-89)
Characteristic depth of liquefaction Potential of Soil
(m)
Type of saturated soil Intensity
VII VIII IX
Silt 6 7 8
Sand 7 8 9
The seismic effect coefficient of a building structure shall be determined based on near or far
earthquakes, site category and natural period of structure. The lower limit should not be less
119
than 20% of the maximum value. In checking the cross sections for earthquake resistance, the
maximum value of horizontal seismic effect coefficient shall be taken from Table 7.11.
Table 7.11. Far field and near field effects (GBJ 11-89)
Characteristic Period Value (s)
Site
Near of far field earthquake category
I II III IV
Near Field 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.65
Far Field 0.25 0.4 0.55 0.85
Table 7.12. Maximum Value of Horizontal Seismic effect coefficient for Seismic checking
Cross of sections.
Intensity VI VII VIII IX
max 0.04 0.08 0.16 0.32
The seismic effect coefficient curve for response of structures is then given in given in Figure
7.2.
Figure 7.2. Seismic Response Spectrum (GBJ 11-89).
7.2.5 USA (ASCE-7)

(a) Seismic Actions and Soil Classification. For earthquake loading, the combination is 1.2D
+ 1.0E +f1L where D = dead load, E = earthquake load and L = live load. If other live loads
are not present, then the combination reduces to 0.9D + 1.0E.
The provisions for the code, are strength based design though working stress design is also
permitted within limitations o referenced materials requirements such as steel concrete and
wood. The provisions cover analytical procedures for equivalent lateral force analysis, modal
response analysis, and linear and non-linear response history analysis. Structures are assigned
120
a seismic Group either I, II or III depending on the occupancy category which is related to
occupancy factor (I). Category I has a factor of 1.0, category II, factor equal to 1.25 and
category III, equal to 1.5. The site can be classified in 6 classes. Site A is characterised with a
shear velocity (Vs) higher than 1500m/s and is generally hard rock. Site class B is also rock
characterised with a shear wave velocity falling between 760 and 1500 m/s. Site class C is
characterised with very dense soil and soft rock whose shear velocity fall between 370 and
760 m/s and the field penetration resistance (N) higher than 50. For stiff soil in category D,
the shear velocity shall fall between 190 and 370 m/s, the penetration resistance must be
between 15 and 50 and the un-drained shear strength (su) lower than 50 kPa. For soil depth
larger than 10m, the plasticity index (PI) must also be higher than 20, the moisture content
(w) higher than 40%. When the nature of the soil is unknown, at least class D shall be
assumed. Maps based on maximum ground motions of 0.2 s spectral response acceleration
with 5% critical damping on soil category B are provided. For a period less than To, the
response acceleration is given by:
For periods greater than To but less than Ts, the design spectral response acceleration is equal
to Sa =SDS. For periods greater than Ts, the design spectral response acceleration Sa, shall be
taken as
SDS is defined as the design spectral response acceleration at short periods. SD1 or the response
spectrum, is defined as the design spectral response acceleration at 1-sec period, T is defined
as the fundamental period of the structure, To defined as 0.2 x SD1 /SDS and Ts = SD1 / SDS.
(b) Amplification Factors. These are applied to the response acceleration, depending on the
site category. This can vary from 3.5 for site category E to 0.8 for site category A. For
sites classified as F, site specific tests should be carried out.
Structures are assigned a seismic design category, based on their use, and the design spectral
response acceleration coefficients. There are 4 categories A, B, C and D, with
seismic group D characterised with the highest seismicity larger than 0.5g.
For special moment resisting frame systems either steel or concrete, the response modification
coefficient ( R) should be taken as 8, the system overstrength factor (Wo) as 3 and the
deflection amplification factor as 5.5.
(c) Regularity in Plan. Plan irregularities instigate attention. Torsional irregularities refer to
rigid diaphragms as in wharves. This is defined to exist where the maximum drift at one end
of the structure transverse to an axis is more than 1.2 times the average drift. Extreme
torsional irregularity is defined when the factor is now 1.4. Plan configurations with re-entrant
corners, whose projection beyond the re-entrant is 15% of the plan dimension any direction is
considered as irregular. Diaphragms with abrupt discontinuities or variations in stiffness
121
including those having cut-out or open areas greater than 50% of the gross enclosed
diaphragm area are considered as irregular.
7.3 Design Practice in North America
7.3.1 Introduction to Practice for Closed Type Wharves

The Ebeding and Morrison (1992) will be used as a basis to the general guidelines for North
American Practice for port retaining structures. The international port guidelines by Pianc
(2001) still characterised this document with the norms and practices in North America. This
is done together with other additional guidelines by Werner (1998) and the California Marine
Oil Terminal standard which have been referred along other parts of the thesis. The U.S. Navy
Seismic Design Guidelines (Ferrito, 1997) is more characterised with open type wharves.
Adaptations of building and bridge codes can also be relevant.
The methods put forth shall all be based upon judgement. Three limit states are defined for
different levels of safety. These are gross site instability where site liquefies together with
failure of the edge of the retaining wall; Unacceptable movement of retaining structures
where too much permanent movement takes place even though water front edge remains in
place; Local instability and settlement where site experiences liquefaction but is able to be
contained from flowing.
For the pseudo-static inertia, the seismic coefficients adopted kh and kv are taken smaller than
the PGAs during the design seismic event. In the pseudo-static approach, it is difficult to
account for pseudo static analyses. For gravity walls, a vertical seismic coefficient is used in
situations where the horizontal seismic coefficient is 0.1 or greater. For anchored sheet pile
walls this should be taken as 0.05 or greater. North American guidelines suggest the
computation of 3 solutions: the first assuming an upward acceleration, another with the
acceleration downward, and a third without vertical acceleration. The most reasonable
conservative solution with possible economic feasibility should be adopted (Ebeding et al.,
1992).
Figure 7.3.Horizontal pressure components and anchor force acting on sheet pile wall
(Ebeding et al., 1992)
122
7.3.2 Design of Anchored Sheet Pile Walls with No Excess Pore water Pressures
This is based on the free earth support method applied to submerged or partially
submerged backfills. No excess pore water pressure is assumed within the backfill during
the earthquake. The stability of the structure against block movement is checked. The
design procedure is divided in 10 stages (Figure 7.3).
Static loading design should be performed of the anchored wall using free earth
support method.
Determine the value of kh and kv for the analysis as previously described.
Evaluate PAE, acting at an angle d to the back of the wall. The pore pressure is
determined from steady state flow. For partially submerged soils, the equivalent unit
weight e should be used and computed by using an equivalent horizontal
acceleration and an equivalent seismic inertia angle. For partially submerged backfill,
PAE is redefined in terms of static force (PA) and dynamic active earth pressure
(DPAE). The value of KA is first computed and then the static effective earth pressure
distribution along the back of sheet pile wall. PA is equal to resultant force for this
static effective stress distribution along the back of the wall. DPAE is the difference
between PAE and PA. and acts at 0.6H from the base of the sheet pile. PAE is then
computed with a factor of safety FSp applied to shear strength and friction angles.
For a static free earth support, this should be taken as 1.5, while for dynamic earth
pressure analysis, this should be taken as 1.2. PAE is computed using effective unit
weight. For low to moderate seismicity, PAE acts at a height H/3 where H is the
height of the soil in front of the sheet pile wall at an angle dt. The value of KPE
should be determined using equivalent horizontal acceleration.
The minimum required depth of sheet pile penetration is then determined by applying
moments of the forces and pressures on the wall about the anchor. If the clockwise and
anticlockwise moments are equal, then the assumed penetration depth is adequate. If
the resultant moment of the forces behind the wall is larger than the resultant moment
of the forces in front of the wall, then the depth of embedment has to be increased. If
otherwise, the embedded depth should be decreased. The embedded depth should be
assessed for the economic validation of sheet pile driving and excavation. This is an
iterative procedure, in which the previous 2 steps will be repeated until equilibrium is
reached.
By equilibrium of forces, the tension required in the tie rod per width of wall (TMAX) is
calculated. For the seismic analysis, the anchor force per width of wall is generally
large.
The moment distribution of the moments within the sheet pile from external pressures
along the front and back of the wall is computed. In order to do this, the earth pressure
distributions are converted to concentrated forces (Figure 7.3 and 7.4). An imaginary
section through the wall is made. At this point, the internal shear V is equal sum of
earth pressures, water pressures and anchor force of the free body diagram. The
position of the section which gives maximum moment (MMAX) is found. MMAX is
123
determined by calculating the internal bending moment at the elevation at which the
shear is equal to zero. The design moment (Md) is given by:
Md = MMAX . rd
rd is Rowes moment reduction. The Rowes value changes if the stiffness of the
sheet pile or the embedded depth determined here, are different from that determined
during the static analysis. The value has also to be assessed against the possibility of
flexure development below the dredge line. For static design, the allowable stress is
restricted between 50 and 65 % of the yield strength. Allowable stresses for
earthquake loading may be increased up to 33% above the value specified in static
loading. Hence, the allowable stress in the sheet pile should be restricted to 67-87% of
the yield strength, taking in consideration corrosion effects for the strength capacity.
For the tie-rod design, in static conditions, the design tension (Td) in the tie rods is:
Td = 1.3 . TMAX
The allowable stress is generally restricted to 40-60% of the yield. Corrosion effects
should be taken into account.
The ultimate load on the anchor should be taken as:
Tult = 2.5 . TMAX
The static earth pressure forces PA and PP on the anchor should be taken on the front
and rear of the anchor. The ultimate shear strength should be computed using a friction
angle with the anchor d = 0. For block or wall anchors, the major contribution to
resistance comes from the formation of a passive wedge forming in front the anchor. A
factor of safety varying between 1.2 and 1.5 is used depending on the allowable
displacement. The anchor should be located at a sufficient distance behind the sheet
pile wll so that the effective failure surface behind the sheet pile wall does not
intersect the passive failure surface developing in front of the anchor during shaking.
7.3.3 Design of Anchored Sheet Pile Walls with Excess Pore water Pressures
Excess pore water pressure is formed within submerged portions of the backfill or/and the
foundation of a wall during earthquake excitation. This part of analysis and designed is
limited to the case where excess pore water pressures are less than 30% of the initial
vertical stress. Stability of structure against block movements, should be checked. Steps
for the design of anchored sheet pile retaining submerged backfill:
Static load analysis using free earth support method.
Selection and identification of kh and kv.
The value of PAE is computed at an angle d to the normal of the back of the wall. The
pore pressure is determined from the steady state flow net, while the post earthquake
residual excess pore water pressures are identified as Ushear (Figure 7.4). Effective unit
124
weight should be used. For the determination of KAE, an equivalent horizontal

acceleration should be used. The point of action is determined similar to the case of no
excess pressure as described in the previous part.
Figure 7.4. Forces acting on sheet-pile wall under different circumstances (Ebeding, et al., 1992)
PPE is computed similar to the case of no excess pressure where a factor of safety equal
to 1.2 to shear strength and effective angle of friction is applied. Equivalent
parametric values are considered as described in the previous case.
For the determination of the required depth of sheet pile embedment, the anchor force,
moment distributions, design moments, design tie rod force, design of anchor a similar
procedure to the previous case is adopted, with the incorporation of excess pore water
pressures where necessary.
The residual excess pore water pressures within the submerged backfill and foundation
is redistributed after the earthquake. Consequently, the static stability of any retaining
structure should be evaluated with redistribution of the excess pore water pressures
within the soil.
125
7.3.4 Introduction to practice for Open Type Wharves.

The methodologies used are force based procedures very similar to the other design practices.
In this section, the code for new wharf designs in the important U.S Port of Los Angeles will
be discussed. The methodology is based on performance requirements through displacement
design. This diverges from the traditional force-based approaches and will be discussed
further in (Chapter 9).
(a) Performance Requirements for Open Type Wharves. The POLA structure design is a
performance based design code. Performance criteria are specified for the structure and
materials, based on the direct relation of damage to strain, hence also to displacement. An
optimum design is reached when a maximum strain, derived from a level of damage
acceptable, is just reached for corresponding earthquake intensity. The POLA code suggests
that this can be achieved by methods such as: Direct Displacement-Based Design. Such
method uses directly from the beginning the limit strains, and does not use force-reduction
factors as used in Force-Based Design. Reduction factors dont relate well to damage and
safety.
Two levels which relate damage to a probable intensity earthquake are considered :
OLE: (based on a 72year return period). This is the performance where no significant
structural damage takes place, and that which occurs should be visible and accessible for
repair.
CLE: (based on a 475 year return period). The performance criteria require controlled and
repairable structural damage, where temporary loss of operation is acceptable for a short
while.
NEHRP requires another level of performance, DBE, based on a return period equal to
2500years. This level is less critical than CLE, i.e. the POLA code damage control criterion,
hence CLE governs over DBE.
(b) Structural Limit-State Criteria for Pre-stressed Piles. The structural limit states for pre-
stressed piles is given by:
Pile-head Connection OLE CLE
Concrete compression strain 0.005 0.02
Dowel reinforcement tension strain 0.005 0.05 0.6sm
In-ground plastic hinges
Concrete compression strain 0.005 0.008
Incremental pre-stress strain 0.005
Total pre-stress strain 0.015
126
There are some problems with the normally used Force-Based Design procedure. The Elastic
Modal Analysis doesnt predict well displacements and hence damage potential, while the
Q (or R in some codes) force reduction factor does not result in a design of uniform
safety. Hence, the POLA code is based principally on Displacement Based Design (D.B.D),
i.e. a method where a structure is simplified to an equivalent single degree of freedom
structure. (This will be discussed further in Chapter 8)
The POLA code is based on a pile and R.C. deck system as a ductile moment resisting
frame. It suggests to exclude batter piles, unless these are specifically studied, and with
supporting experiments. The general design should be capacity based with a strong-beam,
weak pile criteria. The connection to the deck should include reinforcement dowels. POLA
coda also suggests a clearance between the ground and the deck higher than 0.61m (24 in.).
The dike should be restricted to displacements such that excessive pile strains will not be
induced. This means that Kinematic action has to be considered between the soil and the
structure.
(c) Ductile Frame. The philosophy for such wharf requires that the deck remains elastic
while ductile plastic hinges form in piles. It is important that in-order to remain operational
after an eventual earthquake, the deck should not be damaged, whereas the pile damage
should be minimal and repairable without affecting the superstructure. Such a philosophy is
more similar to that used in bridges rather than buildings. In the former the pier is allowed to
go in-elastically, but the superstructure should remain elastic, while in the latter plastic hinges
are allowed to form only in beams and at the base of the lower column so that mechanism will
not take place.
(d) Batter Piles. A lateral force on the deck induced by the earthquake will make the two
batter piles supporting it go into opposing stresses. Since at the deck connection the distance
between each battered pile will be small, then the resulting deck shear will be high since this
is inversely proportional to the spacing. As a result, the performance of conventional batter
piles as used in wharf structures has not been good when subjected to earthquake loading. It is
difficult to determine the capacity of:
Pile compression and ductility,
Pile uplift,
Stiffness,
Deck connection shear forces, and
Ductility involving permanent deck deformations.
(e) Pile-deck Connection. In order to have structural efficiency, the pile-deck connection
should be moment resisting. Such provision is best achieved by means of dowels. Exposed
strand system is not recommended since it is difficult to expose the strand during cut-off
without damaging the strand, and generally deck rebars and strands create congestion. The
Piles should be limited to 0.61m (24 in.) of a circular or octagonal shape; else, a moment
127
resisting connection will not form due to low relative stiffness between the piles and the deck.
Hence, high joint shear stresses will result.
The Pile deck connection is traditionally detailed using two systems. The first detail is with
hooks bent out below the top rebar layer. The second detail is with hooks bent inwards above
the top rebar layer. The former will result in joint cracking and cover spalling if the hook is
too low. The joint core under such system is not in compression. The latter detail will result in
joint compression, but it is difficult to place the top rebar layer.
Two other alternatives are pre-fared to the two system details described above. One
incorporates dowels with bulb heads below the top reinforcement layer, lap spliced to headed
bond bars with bars. The other system incorporates simply straight dowels. In both details,
joint spiral confinement should be provided.
(f) Deck-Ground Clearance. The spacing between the deck and the ground should be at
least 0.9-1.1m (3-3.5 ft.), corresponding to the minimum spacing required for formwork.
Jetting-out of sand is not allowed. If the spacing is too low and the soil is stiff, the shear
strength of the pile can be critical. Shear demand will change significantly even with small
errors in soil position.
From analysis it is shown that as the ground-deck spacing increases, both the displacement
capacity and demand increase, with capacity increasing more than demand. This means that
the larger the spacing the better.
The basic structure is suggested to be a R.C. slab deck with 0.61m diameter pre-stressed
vertical piles. The shortest piles should be seismically designed, while seismic design is not
required for the longer piles. This means that there is a reduced number of dowels in the deck
connection and a bigger pitch for the spiral confining transverse reinforcement. The spacing
between each pile is limited to 0.61m and a gap of 75-100 mm is allowed for the shear key.
(g) Material Properties for Plastic Hinges. The expected values of material strength should
be used:
f ' ce = 1.3f ' c
fye = 1.1fy
fpue = 1.05fpu
The materials used which are the reinforcing and/or pre-stressing steel, and concrete
generally have higher strengths then those specified. Concrete strength generally increases
with time due to aging effects. Each batch of concrete also does not have the same strength
where only the minimum matches the grade specified and the average is generally slightly
larger (Neville, 1997). The pre-stressing and reinforcement yield are also enhanced above the
specified minimum. Hence, the consequence of material strength being less than design
values is small but a slight increase in ductility demand is possible. Under such
considerations, capacity design effects will be eased, thus resulting in an improved economy.
This philosophy is based on that of California Bridge Design.
128
7.4 Design Practice in Japan (OCDI, 2002)
7.4.1 Introduction
This is perhaps one of the few national codes which is specifically oriented for the design of
port and wharf structures. As previously discussed, closed type wharf structures are more
common in Asiatic regions, and hence, this code is more oriented towards such structures
though open type wharves are still tackled
7.4.2 Loading conditions and Damage Criteria

For the design of wharf structures loads shall be taken into consideration include: dead weight
of structure, seismic load and surcharge. The latter is divided into static loads, including bulk
cargo, buildings and snow loads, and live loads including train loads, vehicle loads, cargo
handling equipment and side walk load. The static load on a quay wall during an earthquake is
suggested to be taken as half that under service conditions.
As previously discussed, for the design of port and harbour facilities, it is important to
consider the regional seismicity, ground condition at the construction site, importance of
facility and resistance facility. Where investigations on stability of the entire structure,
stability against subsoil sliding, liquefaction and stress within structural elements are tackled
vis--vis ultimate and serviceability failure conditions.
The seismic resistance suggested is through the seismic coefficient method, seismic response
analysis and the seismic deformation method, depending on the type of structure and the
performance requirements. Two earthquake levels are considered: A level 1 earthquake is
characterized with 75-year return period, and A level 2 earthquake with about 475 years
return period. The latter is aimed for important high seismic structures. Tables 7.13 7.14
respectively indicate damage levels for temporary service and functionality services
requirements. These are in association with the level of earthquakes.
Table 7.13. Limit for temporary service requirements of damaged quay-walls (OCDI, 2002).
Table 7.14. Limit for functionality requirements of damaged quay-walls (OCDI, 2002).
129
7.4.3 Seismic Design of Closed-Type Wharves

The methodology is based on the Mononobe-Okabe approach. In this section, loading
characteristics for the design will be discussed. The full methodology will be discussed in
Chapter 9 where it will be illustrated with an example.
For wharf structures with large damping factors and short natural periods such as gravity type
wharves the seismic coefficient method should be adopted. The seismic load shall be taken as:
Seismic load = seismic coefficient x (dead weight + surcharge)
The seismic coefficient is taken as:
Seismic coefficient = regional seismic coefficient x subsoil condition factor x importance

factor
The importance factor varies from 0.8 1.5 referring to normal constructions to important
wharves respectively. The soil factor varies from 0.8 to 1.2 referring to strong soil or weak
soils at shallow depths, to weak soils. For this code, no reference is made to the vertical
seismic coefficient, and in Pianc, (2001) it is referred to as kv = 0. The horizontal seismic
coefficient shall becomputed from:
1/ 3
1a
k h = max ; a max < 0.2g k h = max ; a max 0.2g
g 3 g
These equations relating the actual PGA and seismic coefficients are based on comparison of
real events as shown in Figure 7.5 (Noda et al., 1975; OCDI, 2002).
Figure 7.5. Relationship between seismic coefficient and Peak Ground Acceleration
(Noda et al., 1975; OCDI, 2002)
For closed-type wharves, the earth pressures on the wall is based on the Mononobe-Okabe
method which will be better described as used in this code in the practical example in the
130
following chapter. The angle of friction with the back of the wall is assumed to vary between
15O -20O or half the friction angle of the soil. A seismic coefficient (k) is used for the
computation of pressures above the water table and an apparent seismic coefficient (k) is
defined for soils below the residual water level.
2( t h i + h j + w ) + h
k' =
2[ t h i + ( 10) h j + w ] + ( 10) h
k
where: k = apparent seismic coefficient
gt = unit weight of soil layer above residual water level
g = unit weight of saturated soil layer below the residual water level.
w = uniform external load at ground surface.
hi = thickness of the i-th soil layer above the residual water level.
hj = thickness of the j-th soil layer below the residual water level.
h = thickness of soil layer to calculate earth pressure below the residual water level
k = seismic coefficient.
OCDI (2002) accounts for time delay of water level changes between the sea level and the
residual water level. Referring to Figure7.6, the residual water pressure is given by:
p w = w y where y < hw.
p w = w y w where y > hw.
Where:pw = residual water pressure
gw = unit weight of water.
y = depth from the residual water level
hw = water level difference generally taken as 1/3 -2/3 of the tidal range.
Figure 7.6. Schematic diagram of the residual water pressure (OCDI, 2002)
131
Static water and dynamic water pressures are applied as shown in the example. It is assumed
that dynamic water pressures are induced by stationary water oscillations since a wharf is
generally sheltered. In case, of breakwaters, a scaling factor of 2 should be used.
7.4.4 Seismic Design of Open-Type Wharves on Vertical Piles.

OCDI (2002) recommends that when a pile supported wharf is constructed on ground where
consolidation of soil is expected to occur, then, it is desirable to separate the earth-retaining
section from the pile supported section since the former settles more than the pile-supported
section. It is also suggested to calculate bending moment of piles for both parallel and
transverse directions to the wharf face line. The vertical forces to be considered include static
loads; live loads incorporating train loads, vehicle loads, cargo handling equipment, and side
walk; tractive force of vessel and uplift. The horizontal forces include seismic loads acting on
superstructure, earthquake loads acting on static loads, earthquake loads acting on live loads,
reaction forces of fender and tractive forces of vessel. When an earth-retaining structure is
necessary behind the dike or slope, this should be located in an area behind an imaginary
slope obtained by drawing a straight line from the foot of the actual slope at an angle a
with the horizontal line given by equation:
a = F e
where: a = inclination angle of imaginary slope with the horizontal.
F = internal friction angle of the main material of actual slope.
e = tan-1kh
kh = horizontal seismic coefficient in water.
For steep slopes, the virtual ground surface for each pile used for the computation of lateral
resistance or bearing capacity is equal to o.5 of the vertical distance between the surface of the
slope at each individual pile axis and the bottom imaginary projection of the slope (Figure
7.7)
Figure 7.7. Virtual Ground Surface (OCDI, 2002)
132
The open type wharf is analysed as a rigid frame structure. A fixed point located below the
sea bottom is assumed. This is located at a depth of 1/b below the virtual ground surface.
k h .D
=4
4EI
Where: kh = horizontal subgrade reaction coefficient, (1.5N = where N is the

average N-value up to a depth of 1/b)
D = diameter or width of pile
EI = flexural rigidity of the pile.
Considering rotation of the deck block, with an axis of symmetry perpendicular to the face
line of the wharf with the horizontal action parallel to it, then the horizontal force is:
Where: hi = horizontal force on the i-th pile (Figure 7.8)
KHi = horizontal spring constant of i-th pile
bi = virtual fixed point (Figure 7.8)
EIi = flexural rigidity of the i-th pile.
H = horizontal force acting on the block.
e = distance between line of action and symmetry axis.
xi = distance between block symmetry and i-th pile.
Figure 7.8. Pile Group representation (OCDI, 2002)
The displacement (d), rotation angle (a), and horizontal displacements of the head of
individual piles (Di) are given by:
133
H eH
= ; = ; i = + xi
iK Hi K Hi x i2
i
The pile head moments (Mi) and axial forces (Pi) are given by:
1 1
M i = h i + H i and Pi = h Pi + v Pi
2 i
Mi and Pi are respectively the pile head moment and axial force of the i-th pile, where h
and v stand for horizontal forces and vertical forces respectively, expressed in terms of
shear.
As previously described, the seismic performance for ordinary mooring facilities shall be
examined against Level 1 earthquake, while performance of open type wharves constructed in
high seismic areas shall be assessed against both Levels of earthquake. If the period of the
structure and ground are similar, or close to the characteristics of the seismic motion, then
resonance may occur which has to be accounted. The OCDI (2002) seismic performance
design requirements are more focused on concrete decks supported on vertical steel pipe piles.
For the seismic part of the design and analysis it is suggested to check the virtual fixed point
using simplified or more rigorous procedures such as elasto-plastic analysis or non-linear
dynamic analysis. The simplified method is suggested to be used only when the difference in
stiffness of piles along rows perpendicular to the shore is not large. If batter piles or coupled
piles are involved, the analysis should be at least based on elasto-plastic analysis.
The simplified method is based on Newmarks equal-Energy Principle which is described in

the following section. The displacement ductility factor is determined considering the
progress of damage or failure of the wharf. It is assumed that the displacement ductility
capacity of the wharf segment is governed by the displacement capacity of the steel pipe piles.
For level 1 earthquake, the ductility factor varies from 1 for special class wharves to 2.3 for
ordinary wharves. For level 2 earthquakes, the displacement ductility should be:
ma = 1.25 + 62.5(t/D) < 2.5
where: ma = allowable displacement ductility factor for level 2 earthquake.
t = thickness of steel pipe pile.
D = diameter of steel pipe pile.
In the elasto-plastic analysis, the system should be represented by frame model incorporating
the concrete platform, steel piles and soil. The position of the hinges should be identified. The
load carrying capacity is computed using Newmarks equal energy principle in conjunction
with ductility criteria identified. A trilinear model is used to represent the moment curvature
relationship. The pulling-out bearing capacity of piles should be evaluated with a bilinear-type
elasto-plastic model. The ultimate state of flexural deformation is generally determined by the
plastic buckling of the steel pipe pile. The maximum strain at buckling should be be limited
to:
134
emax = 0.44 t/D
Where: t = thickness of steel pipe pile.
D = diameter of steel pipe pile.
Local buckling should be avoided. The magnitude of the bending moment that produces the
strain at local buckling is nearly equal to that of the fully plastic state.
7.5 Design Practice in Europe (EN 1998-1:2005, EN 1998-5:2005, EN 1997-1: 2005.
7.5.1 Soil Structure Interaction

The Eurocode is one of the few codes which directly addresses the important issue of soil
structure interaction (SSI). With such inclusions more realistic displacements and stresses can
be obtained for a more efficient design. There are two mechanisms with which the structure
and its foundation interact with the soil due to earthquake ground motions:
(a) Inertial Interaction. Due to seismic lateral action, inertia forces are developed in the
structure resulting into a displacement relative to the field. The flexibility of the structure
support is described by frequency dependent impedance functions and radiation damping.
(b) Kinematic Interaction. Embedment of part of the structure in the soil will be different
from the free field motion due to wave scattering, inclination and the embedment itself.
Kinematic effects are critical particularly when there are high-frequency components in the
motion of the foundation with respect to the free field.. the cut-off frequency is a function of
foundation size and soil shear wave velocity.
7.5.2 Pseudo-Static Analysis for Retaining Structures.

In this section, some design parameters and their selection will be discussed. The design
methodology will be discussed in Chapter 9 and will be illustrated with a design example.
(a) Introduction to design Considerations. The method in the Eurocode (EN 1998-5) is based on
the pseudo-static approach as described by Mononobe Okabe. This is based on crude simplifications ,
and hence, designers are encouraged to use non-linear finite element of finite-difference analysis
techniques when a certain level of precision is required. It is important to identify failure modes that
limit the performance of the wharf soil structure system. This is provided in Eurocode 7. A concept of
yielding is used for performance level requirements, where the term wall yielding is adopted to
describe walls that move sufficiently to develop minimum yielding and maximum passive pressures.
For non- yielding walls (clause 7.3.2.1(3)- EN1998-5; Carvalho et al., 2004)
This since based on the Mononobe-Okabe approach, involves the identification of a slip surface. The
horizontal and vertical seismic inertia forces are applied statically with other permanent loads to the
centre of gravity of the ground mass enclosed between the ground surface and the slip surface.
(Clauses 4.1.3.3 (3-6); Carvalho et al., 2004).The factor of safety(FS) is computed from the lowest
ratio of the stabilizing and destabilizing forces through rigid body equilibrium, obtained by changing
the slip surface. This should be higher than unity. It is important that the geometry of the topographic
profile and ground profile to be regular and the ground materials of the slope not prone to develop
pore-pressure increase if they are saturated.
135
(b) Seismic Coefficient. The seismic coefficient is taken as kh = 0.5 in EN 1998-5. This was
selected on empirical basis, yet can be evaluated using permanent slope displacements, given
as a function of ac/amax (Carvalho, et al., 2004). This will give the critical seismic coefficient
of the slope, i.e. the coefficient yielding pseudo-static inertia forces that reduce the factor of
safety to 1. Yet, since the magnitude of most damaging earthquakes in Europe vary between
5.6 and 7.0, pseudo-static stability with kh = 0.5 will result in a factor of safety higher than 1.,
hence as the parameter describing the earthquake increases, the pseudo-static method is not
convenient since the slope might tolerate larger displacements.
(c) Seismic Action. The concept of seismic action is similar to that of ductility with the
associated reduction factor of elastic forces as used in structural analysis (Carvalho et al.,
2004). Similar to the philosophy adopted for the assessment of slopes, as the seismic
coefficients kh and kv increase, the displacement decrease as the safety factor increases more
above 1. Yet, the financial cost increases too. As in OCDI (2001), the horizontal seismic
coefficient equals about half the seismic design acceleration. The magnitude of pseudo-static
seismic action as in clause 7.3.2.2.(4), EN1998-5 can lead to over conservative design of the
wall., hence a reduction factor r should be carefully considered in considering independent
evaluation of the wall permanent displacement.
(d) Earth and Water Pressures. Factored values of the angles of shearing resistance in terms
of effective stress [In the examples made in the following chapter, the factors were not
applied in order to investigate the true nature of differences between the methodologies as
adopted by different codes or practices]. The methodology and pressures are summarised in
Annex E of En 1998-5.Different situations due to drainage conditions are considered
through equivalent angle and the buoyant unit weight g*. The different situations
include, dry backfill, saturated impermeable backfill and saturated permeable backfill. For the
latter situation, the seismic action on soil is independent on the water and vice versa, where a
hydrodynamic pressure is induced. The Force of inertia becomes proportional to the buoyant
unit weight and the hydrodynamic water thrust (Carvalho et al., 2004).
(e) Validity and Limitations of the Earth Pressures. The provisions of EN 1998-5 are true
given that the seismically induced pore pressure (u) remains limited and the soils hazard to
liquefy is low. If the induced pore pressure increases significantly, then:

u ': (tan ')* = 1 'u tan
v
Hence, as the induced pore pressure increases, the effective angle decreases meaning that the
M-O method should not be used in conjunction with shear strength parameters expressed in
total stress (Carvalho et al., 2004). Values of and pressure coefficient (K) increase non-
linearly as kh increases, where a limit is reached when -- become negative. At such
point, the pseudo-static equilibrium of forces on the soil wedge cannot be maintained. In
EN1998-5, reference has been made to take into account the effects of strain localisation into
a shear band and associated strain softening in the shear band. Still, it is suggested to refer to
more advanced FEM or FDM methodologies (Carvalho et al., 2004).
136
7.5.3 Dynamic Slope Analysis by The Rigid-Block Model

This is given in Clause 4.1.3.3(7) as the simplified dynamic method for slope displacement
analysis originally by Newmark. The shear strength along the slip is assumed to be purely
frictional without any degradation with time due to pore pressure increase.
Initially, the least safe slip surface is identified through a static stability analysis with effective
static safety factor Fs > 1. The soil mass to slide is assumed to be within the sliding surface
inclined at an angle . The critical horizontal seismic coefficient for rigid block is
calculated as:
tan
k c = (Fs 1)
1 + tan tan
where f is the angle of shearing resistance. This means that sliding will not take place if the
acceleration of the support is less than kcg. If this is exceeded, sliding will start. A horizontal
acceleration history is selected as required excitation. The vertical acceleration can be ignored
since its influence in such case is modest (Carvalho, et. al., 2004). The block displacement in
a direction which is parallel to the inclined support is given the integration of:
.. ..
x ..( t ) cos( ) x0 x0
..

x(t) = o
k c g for
..
k c or x = 0 for < kc
g cos g g

7.5.4 Investigations and Identification of Ground

The CPT test is a good test to perform when possible since it is able to give continuous
information about liquefaction susceptibility along the whole profile, and can detect effects
due to small scale heterogeneities (Carvalho et al., 2004). EN 1998-5 gives the following
correlation for correction:
c2
Go q
= c1 ' c 0.5
qc ( p )
vo a
where qc is the measured cone tip penetration resistance, Go is the deformation shear
modulus and pa is a reference pressure and c1 and c2 are empirical constants.
Ground investigation is important to detect liquefaction layers and excessive settlement,

identify the ground and any buries irregularities. Shear wave velocity (vs, 30) [as for the Italian
national code, yet values mentioned there can vary for each different European country], NSPT
values or CPT values, and undrained shear strain cu for cohesive soils. Tests are performed
to a depth interval of 30m. Generally, shear wave velocities are determined through SPT or
CPT correlations (clauses 4.2.2.5-6). Among those widely used, there is the Ohta Goto which
is suggested with EC8 guidelines (Carvalho et al., 2004).
v s = C( N (60)) 0.17 z 0.20 f A f G
137
where C = 68.5, z=depth of SPT, fA = soil deposits age factor, fG = soil type factor.
Yet, if the shear wave velocity is measured on site this should be done trough cross hole tests
up to or more than 100m using at least 2 boreholes. The down-hole test is less accurate and
measurement is only limited to the first tens of metres. CPT tests using a seismic probe are
also used. Tests based on the dispensive propagation properties of surface waves can also be
used but are less accurate.
7.5.5 Design Provisions for Pile Supported Structures

In the Eurocode there is no direct reference to pile supported wharves. Adaptations from other
Eurocodes specific to to other structures such as bridges and buildings is made. All chapters
of the code use force-based methodologies. Some considerations will be discussed in this
section.
(a) Soil Considerations for Piles. It is important to classify the flexibility of the pile relative
to the soil in which it is embedded. There are 3 categories: Flexible, semi-flexible and rigid.
The elastic length of the pile in soils where the elastic modulus vanishes at the surface is
given by:
T=(EpJp/k)0.2
Where k=gradient of soil modulus, EpJp = flexural stiffness. Based on the normalised ratio
Zmax (=Lp/T where Lp is the actual length of the pile) the pile is flexible if this ratio is higher
than 5, rigid if less than 2.5 and semi-flexible if lies between the two. EN 1998-5 allows the
use of limiting equilibrium if the pile is rigid. Yet, FEM analysis should be performed in case
head displacements and rotations are required to be more precisely evaluated. EN 1998-1 and
5 is one of the few codes which refers directly to kinematic and inertial interaction effects.
Clause 5.4.2.1(1) suggests that for the seismic verification of pile systems, the pile needs to be
verified only under the effect of inertia forces transmitted from the superstructure. In addition
to this, kinematic effects should be verified. If the horizontal soil pressures are not in the
range of ultimate failure and the horizontal displacement of the head of the pile is limited to
about 10-12mm, the pile-soil interaction should be treated as an elastic problem. This is
possible only if layers at the surface do not experience rupture. This is typical for large
diameter piles (Carvalho et al., 2004). At depths 3.5 x T, inertia forces acting on the pile are
strongly reduced, if the soil is homogeneous.
If the elastic philosophy cannot be applied, p-y curves have to be used in-order to account for
the soil-pile diameter. Such theory is more applied with small diameter piles. In consideration
of kinematic action absence, pseudo-static approach can be used where the transverse
resistance of a long flexible pile is obtained using the theory of a beam loaded at the top and
supported by a deformable medium characterised by a horizontal modulus of sub-grade
reaction. If the soil is classified as type C, D or even E (Clauses 5.4.2.1-6; Carvalho et al.,
2004) and seismicity zones less than 0.1g, the soil pile behaviour will remain elastic. For
profiles of soil type C with large diameter piles, the above can be extended to even higher
values of ground shaking. Pile group effects have to be taken since the amount of piles is
generally large enough.
138
When it is anticipated that the upper layers yield, attention has to be paid at the pile diameter
and soil resistance at this level (Carvalho et al., 2004):
d4y
EpJp + E s y = p
dz 4
where y is the horizontal pile deflection, z is the depth and p is the soil reaction. The soil
Modulus Es is given by Es = p/y = ksD. This is solved through the relationship between soil
reaction and pile deflection derived from the p-y curve:
1 1 1 y
= +
E s E si p lim D
where Esi is the initial tangent modulus (=kizn) and plim is the ultimate soil resistance.
For pile group effects, it is suggested (Carvalho et al., 2004) to assume the coefficient of sub-
grade reaction of each grouped pile equal to that of an isolated pile when the distance is larger
than 2.5D as generally in the case of wharf structures with small diameter pre-stressed piles.
Yet, sometimes this is not the case of other configurations. The coefficient of sub-grade
reaction ks of each pile should be reduced by a factor u.
L
= 1 0.2 2.5 ; L < 2.5D
D
The ultimate lateral soil resistance for piles embedded in cohesionless soils this should simply
be taken as:
'
p u = a tan 2 45 0 + D 'v 0
2
For shore and offshore structures significantly in soft and stiff clays, strain softening effects
may reduce the ultimate soil resistance as considered under static loading due to the cyclic
loading of waves. Yet, it is not sure that this is also the case for earthquake lateral loading
(Carvalho et al, 2004).
If required, kinematic action effects, could be incorporated through pseudo-static approaches.

The soil motion will generate actions which can be idealised as equivalent static soil
deformation relative to the depth of the pile tips. These can be obtained as peak displacements
of a 1-D seismic response analysis of the soil continuum. Distribution of peak displacement is
with depth are obtained in the soil profile when the maximum relative displacement occurs
between the top and bottom. The displacement distribution can then be imposed statically at
the supports or equivalent springs of the beam on the elastic foundation model in addition to
inertia loads acting at the top of the pile.
139
7.6 Liquefaction
7.6.1 Introduction to liquefaction.

As determined in Chapters 1-3, liquefaction is one of the major causes to failure and damage.
It is quite a vast subject and for the purpose of this thesis it will be defined, investigate its
characteristics and discuss methodologies as suggested in codes or practices namely North
America, Japan and Europe on how to determine its susceptibility. Mitigation methods will
also be mentioned.
Liquefaction is the process by which soil deposits loose their strength and appear to flow as
fluids. This phenomenon occurs in saturated soils hence it is quite often observed in ports.
Liquefaction is a term which incorporate in its occurrence a possible number of different
failures. Flow failure is one of such, occurring when the strength of the soil drops below the
level required to maintain stability under static conditions. Such failure can produce very
large movements. Another failure consequence is lateral spreading, where the soil undergoes
lateral incrementing displacements depending on the strength degree of the stress pulses, and
the number of such pulses exceeding the strength capacity of the soil. The third failure mode
resulting from Liquefaction is level-ground liquefaction. Sand boils are formed due to the
presence of high ground water pressures whose dissipation can produce subsidence and
damaging differential settlement, generally to the deck or platform.
When having dry cohesionless soils, there is a tendency for the soil to densify under static or
cyclic loading. If on the other hand, we have saturated cohesionless soils, rapidly loaded
under undrained conditions, as in an earthquake, this densification tendency will result in an
increase of the excess pore pressure and a decrease in the effective stresses.
7.6.2 Major Types of liquefactions

(a) Flow Liquefaction. Such phenomenon occurs when the shear stress required for static
equilibrium of a soil mass is higher than the shear strength of the liquefied state of the soil.
The soil is brought to an unstable state by the earthquake cyclic stresses. The unstable state is
brought such that the strength drops sufficiently allowing static shear stresses to produce flow
failure.
(b) Cyclic Mobility. This failure occurs when the static shear stress gets less than the shear
strength of the liquefied soil. The displacements are of an incremental nature. Cyclic mobility
is the result of both cyclic and static shear stresses. Two modes of ground failure associated
with this phenomenon of liquefaction are Lateral Spreading and Level-Ground Liquefaction.
At the top, horizontal shear stresses are negligible, hence, the lateral deformation is also
negligible. Yet, ground oscillations can be freely produced at the surface, where an upward
flow of water occurs due to the excess pore water pressure created below. This phenomenon
can also occur after the earthquake shaking has stopped, as it depends on hydraulic
equilibrium which is generally reached on a time lag. A Consequence of such phenomenon
oftenly observed in ports is vertical settlement.
7.6.3 Liquefaction Hazards

Liquefaction hazard can be evaluated on basis of three steps. The first thing to check is
whether liquefaction is susceptible or not. If there liquefaction is not susceptible, then there is
no problem, and one can ignore liquefaction hazard in the design and analysis. On the other, if
140
liquefaction is susceptible, then one has to check its possible occurrence and the level of
damage it can induce in the structure and the foundation if the possibility of occurrence is
high.
7.6.4 Liquefaction Susceptibility

One can check susceptibility to flow liquefaction and cyclic mobility through the following
criteria:
Historical Criteria
Geologic Criteria
Compositional Criteria
State Criteria
(a) Historical Criteria. Liquefaction is susceptible to occur at locations where the soil and
ground conditions are similar to places where liquefaction occurred (Kramer, 1996).
Relationships of magnitude and epi-central distance from recorded liquefaction hazard, help
to identify regions with liquefaction possibilities, yet these dont guarantee that liquefaction
cannot occur at larger distances. (Kramer, 1996)
(b) Geologic Criteria. Liquefaction susceptibility depends on the age of the soil deposit, the
environment in which it was deposited and its hydrological environment. Older soils are less
susceptible to liquefaction, hence soils deposited in the Pleistocene age are less susceptible
then those deposited in the Holocene period. The geologic process generally sets soils into
uniform and loose grain size distributions. As a result, fluvial deposits, olluvial and Aeolian
deposits are susceptible to liquefaction when saturated as the case with such soils in coastal or
underwater environments. Alluvial-fan, alluvia-plain, beach, terrace, playa and estuarine
deposits are susceptible with minor possibility. Underwater soils are generally are loosely
deposited since they are only settled through the water. Hydraulic back-fill placed with no or
little compaction is also susceptible.
(c) Compositional Criteria. Liquefaction is a result of excess pore pressure build up, which
causes damage if soil volume changes are possible. Volume change depends on the soil
composition characteristics such as gradation, size and shape. Liquefaction is not just limited
to sands. The phenomenon was also observed in non-plastic fine grained soils and non-plastic
cohesionless coarse grained soils (Ishihara et. al.) On the other hand, flaky fine silts have
sufficient cohesion to inhibit liquefaction. Clays are generally non-susceptible except
sensitive clays which can exhibit strain softening behaviour. Fine-grained soils are susceptible
to liquefaction if (Finn et.al., 1994):
Fraction finer than 0.005mm 10%
Liquid Limit (LL) 36%
Natural water content 33.5%
Liquidity Index 0.75
141
When impermeable soils such as clays, lay above gravely soils, water is prevented from being
dissipated up words. Consequently un-drained conditions and excess pore pressure are
created, with the susceptibility of such soils to be liquefiable.
Poorly graded soils are also more susceptible to liquefaction, since such soils have large void
content giving rise to large volume change as a result of larger excess pore pressure in these
voids. Past field experience shows that most liquefaction occurred in uniformly graded soils.
Soils with rounded particle shape densify more easily than angular particles, hence the former
are more susceptible to liquefaction. In marine environments such as ports, the sea bed is
more characterised by rounded particles due to erosion.
(c) State Criteria: Liquefaction depends also on the soil stresses and density characteristics
at the time of the earthquake, generally termed as the initial state of the soil. The state criteria
are different for flow liquefaction and cyclic mobility.
Casagrande carried out strain controlled tri-axial drained tests on initially loose and initially
dense sand samples. The both kinds of samples tested showed that the density tends to the
same value when subjected to large axial shear strains under the same effective confining
pressure. The void ratio corresponding to this constant density is known as the critical void
ratio (ec). The Critical Void Ratio line is the locus of ec when different confining pressures
are used. This line defines the boundary between loose and dense states of soils. When
subjected to large strains, soils will migrate towards the line by volume changes under drained
conditions, or changes in confining pressure under undrained conditions. Casagrande
hypothesised that liquefied sand has a flow structure where grains rotate in order to reach a
state of minimum frictional resistance.
Castro observed that loose soil samples undergo a peak un-drained strength, at small shear
strain, but then flow to large strains, at low effective confining pressure. On the other hand,
dense soil samples, undergo initial contraction, then dilating under very high constant
effective confining pressure. Samples of intermediate densities have an initial peak strength at
low strains, followed by a strain softening period and then dilation. The change from
contraction to dilation occurs at phase known as the transformation point. This intermediate
behaviour is known as limited liquefaction. A state known as steady state of deformation was
defined by Castro as the state when the soil starts flowing continuously under constant shear
stress, constant effective confining pressure, constant volume and at constant velocity. Such
state does not depend on the soil density only but also on the compressive and extensional
stress paths mostly when the soil is deposited naturally in an anisotropic way (Vaid and
Thomas, 1995, Reimer and Seed ,1992).The steady-state line (SSL) is a line representing the
relationship between effective confining pressure ( ), void ratio (e) and the shear stress ( )
The CVR line which Casagrande defined, is the projection of the SSL on a plane when shear
stress ( ) is constant. The steady-state strength is also used to describe the SSL, since the
effective confining pressure is proportional to the shearing resistance. Soils which fall at a
point above the SSL are susceptible to flow liquefaction, while soils falling below are not
susceptible to flow liquefaction. Yet, cyclic mobility can take place in both soils above or
below the SSL i.e. showing that this is independent on soil density. Soils with rounded
particles tend to have a smaller gradient of the SSL. This is quite difficult to estimate.
142
7.6.5 North American Approach: Stability of Rigid Walls Retaining Backfills which
Unger-go Liquefaction
This is the method for the analysis where the backfill is expected to liquefy. Yet, other more
recent guidelines such as Ferrito et al,(1999) and Pianc (2001), and historic case studies
suggest liquefaction mitigation rather than designing for the case when liquefaction is
susceptible. The method will still be discussed for completion.
The submerged portion of the backfill which is expected to liquefy i.e. where ru = 100%, ad
excess pore water pressure is generated within the underlying foundation soil. Figure 7.9
indicates the resulting actions acting on the gravity wall.
Figure 7.9. Action on gravity wall with liquefied backfill (Ebeding, et al, 1992)
The steps for the stability analysis of the displaced rigid wall with liquefied backfill
are (Ebeding et al., 1992; Pianc, 2001):
Determination of kh and kv characteristic to seismic hazard and the performance

level required.
The forces acting along the back of the wall are:
1 7
HFstatic = t H 2 HFinertia = k h t H 2
2 12
143
For this liquefaction condition, the earth pressure forces acting against the back of the
wall are assumed to be equivalent to fluid forces with a density equal to the total unit
weight of the backfill (gt). The inertia force (HFinertia) acts at a height 0.4H above the
base of the wall. The static force (HFstatic) acts at a height H/3 from the bottom.
By resolving all the resultant forces acting on the wall, the base vertical (N) and
horizontal (T) reactions are determined. The normal force at the wall foundation
interface is determined as :
N = W Ub DU
The point of application XN is determined by resolving moments about a corner at the

base of the wall where the sum of each individual moment about this point has to be
equal to the moment by the normal force (N)
The factor of safety against sliding (Fs)is computed by:
ultimate _ shear _ force

Fs =
shear _ force _ required _ for _ equilibrium
For this computation, the ultimate shear force is taken as:
Tult = N . tandb
The factor of safety against sliding (Fs) to the required factor of safety for the
temporary loading cases which is generally taken between 1.1 1.2.
The stability against overturning is expressed in terms of the base area in compression
(Be) For static design, the ratio of Be/B is taken as 1, i.e. assuming full contact. For
seismic conditions, this ratio is taken as up to 0.75 for soil and 0.5 for rock.
The stability of the wall against bearing capacity is checked.
Considerations of stability for retaining walls relating to the strength loss within looser
foundation materials and post earthquake redistribution of excess pore water pressures.
7.6.6 Liquefaction Considerations In Japan (OCDI, 2002)

(a) Liquefaction Assessment. Liquefaction susceptibility is based upon gradation of the
subsoil. As previously discussed, this is not always considered as a good option as
liquefaction can still occur in gradations which are considered to be not susceptible (Ferrito et
al., 1999; Pianc, 2001; Carvalho, 2004). Once a soil is classified as susceptible, liquefaction
hazard is based on experimental investigations and relations. Using equivalent N-values and
equivalent acceleration:
N 0.019( 'v 65)

( N ) 65 =
0.0041( 'v 65) + 1.0
144
where: ( N ) 65 = equivalent N-value (refers to the correction of 65 kN/m2 overburden

pressure).
N = N-value of the subsoil
sv = effective overburden pressure
max
eq = 0.7 g
'v
where: aeq = Equivalent acceleration
tmax = maximum shear stress
sv = effective overburden pressure
g = gravitational acceleration
When the fines content is large, i.e. when the grain size lower than 75mm is more than 5%,
the N-value has to be corrected. When the plasticity index is >10, or cannot be determined or
fines content <15%, then:
( N) 65
N VALUE =
cN
The value of cN is taken according to Figure 7.10 as related to the equivalent un-corrected
N-value.
Figure 7.10. Compression Factor of Equivalent N-Value

corresponding to fines content (OCDI, 2002)
When the plasticity index lies between 10 and 20, and the fines content is higher than 15%,
the N-value should be set between (N)65/0.5 and N+DN, where:
DN = 8 +0.4 x (Ip -10)
When the plasticity index is larger than 20 and the fines content larger than 15%, then N+DN
should be determined with the corrected equivalent N-value and the equivalent acceleration.
Based on the equivalent acceleration and equivalent N-value, the soil is classified according
to the Figure 7.11 If the range falls within class I, then the soil will be expected to liquefy
145
unless mitigation against liquefaction is done. If the soil is classified as class II, then the
possibility of liquefaction is very high further laboratory cyclic tri-axial tests have to be
performed. For soil class III the possibility of liquefaction is very remote. Yet, it is
suggested to verify such conclusion with cyclic tri-axial tests. Soils falling in class IV will
not liquefy.
Figure 7.11. Classification of soil layer with

equivalent N-Value and equivalent acceleration (OCDI, 2002)
(b) Mitigation and Countermeasures against Liquefaction. It is important to assess the

construction methods of the measures to prevent liquefaction individually for each specific
site condition. This should include dimensions such as area and depth of the countermeasure
depths and specific design of the countermeasure works.
To prevent the occurrence of excess pore water pressure soil compaction, solidification and
replacement are suggested. In order to dissipate the excessive pore water pressure, drain
placement and replacement with coarse sand should be adopted. Combination of
methodologies can be adopted but have to be assessed in relation to the structure typology.
After preventive measures are taken, the site should then be re-assessed against liquefaction
susceptibility and possibility of occurrence as described above.
7.6.7 Liquefaction Considerations In The Eurocode (EN1998-5:2005)

(a) Pore water Pressure Increments due to Cyclic Loading. This takes place in saturated
soils and is accounted for in Clauses 4.1.3.3-4. Such soils experience contractive behaviour
under cyclic seismic loading. ucan be estimated either through tri-axial tests or through
empirical correlations. For cohesion less soils with constant amplitude stress cycles, the pore-
pressure ratio:
146
U = Du / s0 is computed as a function of the number of cycles N1 leading to liquefaction

through:
1 / 2 b =1 / 2 x 0.7
N c
U 1 = 2 / arcsin where N1 = A ( D r )
N1 ' 0
tc represents the cyclic stress amplitude, s0the initial effective stress, Dr the relative
density and A and d are constants. The uniform equivalent shear stress amplitude te is
used at shallow depths z:
e = 0.65S vo (1 0.15z)
vo is the total overburden stress acting at depths z
(b) Potentially Liquefiable Soils. The Eurocode accounts for the susceptibility, hazard and
the risk of liquefaction to be checked. Mitigation measures are also suggested (Carvalho et al.,
2004). For susceptibility the first 15m are considered since no phenomena were observed at
greater depths. Soils are not susceptible if the severity of the ground motion is below a
threshold even if the soil is loose. Susceptibility is also excluded if soil contains a relatively
high proportion of plastic fines. Liquefaction according to EN 1998-5 (clauses 4.1.4.7-8) may
not liquefy if the penetration is high as in dense sands. Liquefaction susceptibility based on
grain size distribution is unsafe.
The hazard verification is the done based on the ratio of seismic demand (L) and capacity (R)
expressed as cyclic shear stresses. Liquefaction is unlikely when R>L.
F ( cy / v 0 )1
'
FL = =
L e / 'v 0
tcy is the cyclic shear stress amplitude that can cause liquefaction in situ in a number of
cycles compatible with the magnitude of the earthquake. so is the vertical effective stress
and te is the equivalent constant-amplitude cyclic shear stress. It is desirable to perform
cyclic tests on undisturbed samples which require special and delicate freezing techniques to
move sample. This is also expensive (Carvalho et al., 2004; Werner, 1998). Alternatively,
specimens with in-site relative densities can be reconstructed at the laboratory. Experiments
on such samples are though less reliable. Empirical methods to estimate the cyclic resisting
ratio are suggested in clauses 4.1.4(9) and Annex 1 of EN 1998-5. This is based by comparing
standard penetration tests (SPT). With limiting values at sites that suffered from liquefaction.
Charts are related also to the magnitude of the earthquake, yet at the magnitude of the
earthquake decreases, the likelihood of liquefaction increases. Hence, to assess the hazard of a
susceptible soil, SPT or CPT tests have to be carried out at these levels. The NSPT values are
normalised to N1(60) and if the FC >5% it has to be transformed to N1(60)CS. . the cyclic stress
ratio is then associated together with the cyclic resistance ratio. The FL value is hence
computed and at least has to be at least more than 1.25. Figure B.1. of EN1998-5 shows that
severe earthquakes on soils with low or moderate FC and values of N1(60) lower than 25-30,
can be unsafe.
147
(c) Measures to Mitigate the Risk. To mitigate the risk of liquefaction, EN 1998-5 suggests
the increase of soil density in order to reduce the occurrence of excessive pore water pressure
by dynamic compaction methods such as heavy tamping vibro-compaction. This can be
assessed by the measurement of the NSPT or CPT. Solidification also helps. This is done by
injecting fluid mixture into the soil known as jet grouting. The introduction of drains by
replacing sands with gravel will increase the soil permeability and hence dissipate the pore
water pressure. Lowering the water table level will increase the confining pressure and hence
modify the in-situ stress conditions.
148
Chapter 8. Design Examples of a Closed Type Wharf and an Open Type Wharf
8. DESIGN EXAMPLES OF A CLOSED-TYPE WHARF AND

AN OPEN-TYPE WHARF
8.1 Introduction
Two design examples are illustrated here. First, being the most typology susceptible to failure,
a pile wall wharf was considered. The design was done using 3 international practices in order
to assess differences between worldwide approaches to similar methodologies. The stiff-pile
wall at a wharf in the Port of Gioia Tauro were considered as the design case study. Secondly,
an open type wharf example was considered. A pile supported wharf at the port of Catania,
Italy was taken as a case-study. For this typology, codified design relies on national codes of
different structures such as bridges and buildings. Hence, instead to investigate designs with
different national building and bridge codes as adapted for wharf structures, it is felt more
appropriate to investigate design of new methodologies and approaches such as displacement
based design (DBD) against the traditional Force based design (FBD).
8.2 Anchored T-Shaped Pile Wall , Gioia Tauro Port, Italy.
8.2.1 Location of Port and Description of the Original Design

The port of Gioia Tauro is located in southern Italy with geographical co-ordinates: latitude
38O 26 North and longitude 15O 53 East. As shown in Figure 8.1, the ports wharf is divided
in 3 sections . Side B was considered for our analysis. The pile wall is made of T-shaped
beams, 29.6 m long including the cap and 3m wide as shown in Figure 8.2. This part of the
wharf was originally designed with a water depth of 13.5m, and in 2005 the water depth was
increased to 16m. The anchorage system consists in a set of 3 coupled piles, 800 mm
diameter, inclined at 16o to the vertical (Scarpelli, 2005)
Side A
Side B
Side C
Figure 8.1. Plan view of Gioia Tauro seaport in

Southern Italy (from Scarpelli, 2005)
149
T-shaped pile Tie-rod Coupled pile anchor
0.00
U1
U2
U3
U4
JET
GROUTING
Transverse
Cross-section
Planimetric
Cross-section
Figure 8.2. Section (top) and plan (bottom) of side B

of the port of Gioia Tauro (Scarpelli et al., 2005)
For the construction, the inclination of the piles was within a limit of 0.8% error. The T-
shaped piles were cast in situ. After excavation, concreting was carried out. Various
procedures were used for the hardening depending on the temperature and concreting time.
For the bored coupled piles, a jetting system was used (Figure8.3).
(a) (b) (c)

Figure 8.3. (a) Reinforcement of T-shaped pile. (b) Cast-in-situ coupled anchored piles. (c) Drilling for
concrete piles (TREVI)
150
The retained soil is divided in 4 layers of sand (U1-U4) whose properties are described in
table 8.1. U1 is normal sand, U2 is sand with lime content, U3 is granular sand and
U4 is fine sand. The upper layer is divided in 2: the part above the tie rod and the part
below the tie rod. Jet grouting was used in front of the wall for 5.5 m width.
Table 8.1. Soil parameters adopted for the design of Gioia Tauro wharf (Side A)
in Southern Italy (data from Scarpelli,2005; Lancellotta, 2001)
sat-
Layer sat-front behind b-front b-behind wet* c' 'k E'
kNm-3 kNm-3 kNm-3 kNm-3 kNm-3 o kN/m2
U1a / 17.00 / 7.00 14.16 0 30 30000
U1a / 17.00 / 7.00 / 0 30 30000
U2 / 19.00 / 9.00 / 0 30 50000
U3 / 18.00 / 8.00 / 0 36 50000
U4 24.46 19.00 14.36 9.00 / 0 36 80000
The original design was based on a seismic action of ag = 0.1g. Yet, during the innovation of
the 2005, verifications were made according to a seismicity characterized by ag=0.28g for
ultimate conditions and ag = 0.19g for serviceable conditions, with a soil factor of 1.25
(OPCM 3274: 2003). This motion is associated with 10% probability of exceedence in 50
years i.e. 475 years return period. The verifications were performed using F.E.M. and Plaxis
as the analysis code as shown in Figure 8.4 (Scarpelli et al., 2005). A surcharge q=10 kPa and
a vertical crane action of 667 kN were applied as live loads.
From the analysis, for the serviceability limit state, the maximum moment obtained was
7956kNm with a maximum displacement of 0.05m. For the ultimate limit state, the maximum
moment obtained was 9729kNm and the maximum displacement of the wall 0.18m.
Figure 8.4. Finite element mesh of Gioia Tauro

cross-section of the wharf structure under study,
(from Scarpelli, 2005)
151
The stiff-pile wall wharf was analysed using the simplified, pseudo-static North American
(PIANC, 2001 and Ebeding, 1992), Japanese (OCDI, 2002) and European approaches (EN
1998-5: 2005; EN 1997-1: 2005; EN 1998-1:2005; OPCM-3274:2005). The pseudo-static
methods provided by these regulations are based on using modified Mononobe-Okabe
relations to compute the seismic earth-pressure. From the site investigations and analysis
available, the retained soil resulted not to be susceptible to liquefaction (Seed et al., 2003;
Scarpelli, 2005) .For our calculations, an equivalent unit weight of the jet-grouted soil was
assumed to be 14.36kNm-3. This was based on:
E ' = 431.5 (f 'c )0.5 106 (Neville, 1997)
The compression strength is 19MPa and an operative strain elastic modulus E=10500MPa
(Scarpelli, 2005). R is the density of the material and fc the compression strength.
The same friction angles considered in the F.E.M. for the original design were also assumed
in the three pseudo-static analysis since the purpose was to compare the results of different
methods of analyses. In factual pseudo-static calculations, the adopted value of the friction
angle should be lower than that measured in the laboratory or that employed in F.E.M.
analysis by factors given in respective codes.
Since, the case study in question is a construction in Europe and in order to have consistency
with the computation, the computation of the seismic input, and the classification of the
ground is only based on the actual design document by Scarpelli (2005) and the design codes
i.e. EN 1998-5: 2005, EN 1998-1:2005 and OPCM-3274:2005. The shear wave velocity
varies with height as indicated in table 8.2.
Table 8.2. Variation of soil velocity

with height (Scarpelli, 2005)
i vi hi
m/s m
1 200 6
2 340 24
The resulting shear wave velocity ns,30 = 298.3m/s1 is then computed using (EN1998-
1:3.1.2(3)):
30
s,30 =
h
i
i =1 i
152
This classifies the soil as Type C. According to OPCM-3519, (2006) the site is
characterised by an ag = 0.223g for ultimate conditions. This is lower then the value
considered in the original design. For the computations of the three analysis of different
practices, the design accelerations were taken as ag = 0.223g for the ultimate limit state
condition and ag = 0.178g for the serviceable limit state condition according to the recent
code. Where required, the original design values were used for comparison. The slope factor
(ST) was taken as 1.1 since the change in level between the wharf and the sea bed is
considerable. The soil factor for a Type C was taken as S = 1.25. The importance factor was
taken gl = 1.2, since Gioia Tauro Port is considered as one of the most important ports in
Italy and Europe. According to EN1995-8:5 clause 7.3.2.2(5), r = 1.
Analyses were carried out for the three practices for both serviceable and ultimate conditions.
The full procedure for the ultimate limit state condition is described. The process for the
serviceable limit state condition is very similar and only the results are produced here for
completeness.
8.2.2 Wharf Design Using North American Practice

For the simplified analysis based on the North American practice, this was based on
provisions as used by Ebeding and Morrison (1992) and Pianc (2001).
(a) Active Earth Pressure and Thrust. The soils adjacent to the wall have varying densities.
According to the Mononobe-Okabe analysis this is required to be uniform. Hence, an
equivalent buoyant unit weight of soil is given as:
wet [(H + D emb ) 2 (H sub + D emb ) 2 ] + b (H sub + D emb ) 2
e =
( H + D emb ) 2
Including the surcharge, the resultant equivalent buoyant unit weight is 10.67kNm3.
Similarly, the equivalent saturated unit weight is obtained to be 18.29 kNm3 using:
wet [(H + D emb ) 2 ( H sub + D emb ) 2 ] + sat (H sub + D emb ) 2

e sat =
( H + D emb ) 2
The following relation was used to find the equivalent height of the surcharge:
q
Hs =
wet
The horizontal seismic coefficient was taken as 0.24 using:
1
1a 3
k h = max
3 g
153
The vertical seismic coefficient was taken as 0.22 using:
kv = 0.5kh
Since the backfill is not dry, then the modified seismic coefficient for wet or saturated soil is 0.41
using:
e sat
k h1 = k h .
e
Considering (1-kv) as indicated by Pianc (2001) for North American practice, the seismic
inertia angle in then found to be 27.02o using:
k
1 = tan 1 h1
1 k ' v1
The friction angle between the wall and the soil (d) was taken as half the friction angle of
each soil layer. This is weighted against the depth of each layer. For each soil layer, the
friction angle is shown in table 8.3.
Table 8.3. Soil parameters and coefficients with depth

d Kae Ka
Soil
U1 15.00 1.01 0.30
U2 15.00 1.01 0.30
U3 18.00 0.77 0.24
U4 18.00 0.77 0.24
The coefficient of active earth pressure is defined by:
cos 2 ( 1 )
K ae = 2
sin( + ). sin( 1 )
cos 1 . cos( 1 + ) 1 +
cos( + 1 )
For each four soil layers, the corresponding computed coefficient of active earth pressure is
given in Table 8.4. Using the average Kae the horizontal dynamic active thrust acting on the
wall was 3198kN/m run of wall. This was calculated using:
( Pae ) x = K ae . 12 . e .(1 kv) ( H + D emb ) 2 . cos
154
The horizontal dynamic active thrust is composed of static thrust (Pa)x and incremental
dynamic thrust (DPae)x:
( Pae ) x = (Pa ) x + ( Pae ) x

The location of the dynamic earth pressure force is given by:
Pae =
[(P ) a x . Pa ] + [(Pae ) x . Pae ]
(Pae ) x
In order to determine the static earth force in the equation above, the coefficient of active
earth pressure (Ka) for each soil layer is given in Table 8.4using:
cos 2
Ka = 2
sin( + ).sin
cos .1 +
cos
(Pa1)x Water level

(Pa2)x (Pa6)x
(Pa3)x
(Pa7)x
(Pa4)x (Pa8)x
pa6
pa1
pa2
pa7
pa3
pa4
(Pa5)x
pa8
(Pa9)x
pa5
pa9
Figure 8.5. Active earth forces and their respective location
155
For the respective soil sections as in Figure8.5, active earth pressure forces and their
respective locations are determined:
(Pa1)x= Ka*0.5*gwetU1*(H-Hsub)^2*cosd = 31 kN/m of wall

(Pa6)x= Ka6*cosd6*b6*H6^2 = 2 kN/m of wall
(Pa2)x= Ka2*cosd2*H2*(g1*H1) = 18 kN/m of wall
(Pa3)x= Ka3*cosd3*h3*(d6*H6+d1*H1) = 110 kN/m of wall
(Pa4)x= Ka4*cosd4*h4*(d6*H6+d1*H1+d7*H7) = 52 kN/m of wall
(Pa5)x= Ka5*cosd5*h5*(d6*H6+d1*H1+d7*H7+d8*H8) = 492 kN/m of wall
pa1 = 0.33H1+H2+H3+H4+H5 = 26.99 m

pa2 = 0.5H2+H3+H4+H5 = 25.15 m
pa3 = 0.5H3+H4+H5 = 21.60 m
pa4 = 0.5H4+H5 = 17.60 m
pa5 = 0.5H5 = 8.30 m
pa6 = 0.33H2+H3+H4+H5 = 24.96 m
pa7 = 0.33H3+H4+H5 = 20.58 m
pa8 = 0.33H4+H5 = 17.26 m
pa9 = 0.33H5 = 5.48 m
The total static active earth pressure is therefore given as:

kN/m of
(Pa)x = (Pa1)x + (Pa2)x + (Pa3)x +(Pa4)x +(Pa5)x +(Pa6)x +(Pa7)x +(Pa8)x +(Pa9)x = 1357 wall
This force acts at 11.06m above the toe and is given by:
pa = S[(Pai)x*xpai] /(Pa)x
Therefore, the incremental dynamic active earth pressure force results to be equal to
1840kN/m of running wall, and is computed from:
(Pae)x = (Pae)x -(Pa)x
The incremental dynamic force (DPae)x acts at xDPae = 17.76m above the pile toe:
156
Pae = 0.6(H + D emb )

The dynamic active earth pressure therefore acts at 14.92m above the pile toe.
(b) Passive Earth Pressure and Thrust. The procedure adopted for the determination of the
passive earth pressure is similar to that adopted for the determination of the active earth
pressures and their locations. The equivalent horizontal seismic coefficient computed to be
0.4 from:
sat
k h 2 = k h .
b
The equivalent vertical seismic coefficient is taken to be half that of the horizontal coefficient,
giving kv2 = 0.2. The seismic inertia angle is then obtained as 24.6o, using:
k
2 = tan 1 h 2
1 k ' v 2
As suggested by Pianc (2001) and Ebeding & Morrison (1992) a factor of safety of F.S.= 1.2
is applied to the passive soil strengths in order to account the partial mobilisation of passive
resistance:
tan tan
* = arctan * = arctan
F.S. F.S.
The factored internal angle of friction and friction angle between soil and wall, for the passive
soil layer (U4) are F* = 37.4o and d* = 18.0o respectively. The passive earth pressure
coefficient is then found to be Kpe = 5.61 using:
cos 2 ( * 2 )
K pe = 2
sin( * + *).sin( * 2 )
cos 2 . cos( 2 + *)1
cos( * + 2 )
The horizontal passive earth pressure is then (Ppe)x = 2876kN/m run of wall given by:
( Ppe ) x = K pe . 12 . b .(1 k v ).(D emb ) 2 . cos *

This force acts at approximately one-third of depth of embedment from the pile-toe Ppe =
3.23m:
Ppe 13 .D emb
(c )Hydrodynamic force. Since for both sides of the wall, the water level is assumed to be
equal with no residual water pressures, the hydrostatic water force was assumed to cancel. A
157
hydrodynamic force (Pwd = 358kN/m run of wall) acts on the wall due to the submerged
height (Hsub):
Pwd = 127 .k h . w .(H sub ) 2

This hydrodynamic force acts at xPwd = 16.1m above the tip of the pile toe, and is given by:
Pwd = ( 52 .H sub ) + D emb

The moment imbalance against the active moment is obtained as MTIE-ROD = 25750kNm. The
value is generally much smaller. Here it is high due to the improved ground in-front of the
wall. The moment imbalance is given by:
M TIE ROD = [(Ppe ) x .(H tp Ppe )] [(Pae ) x .(H tp Pae )] [Pwd .(H tp Pwd )]
(d) Tie-rod Force (TFES). By resolving the forces in the horizontal direction, the tie-rod
tension is obtained TFES = 679kN/m run of wall:
TFES = (Pae ) x + Pwd (Ppe ) x

(e) Maximum Bending Moment. The shear stress is equal to zero at a level z below the
water level. At this point, the maximum bending moment also occurs. The distribution of the
active earth pressure is unknown, hence, for the computation of the maximum bending
motion, the calculation separated into:
Static active earth pressure.
{ }
( Pa ) x = [ 12 . wet .D w ] + [ wet .D w . ] + [ 12 b . 2 ] .K a . cos
2
this results in:
(Pa)x = 1.14z2 + 14.76z + 28.79 kN/ m run of wall
Incremental dynamic active earth pressure:
The pressure at the top is ptop = 110.2kN/m per m run of wall. The pressure at the bottom is
pbottom = 27.6kN/m per m run of wall. These are computed from:
(Pae ) x
p top = 1.6.
H + D emb
( Pae ) x
p bottom = 0.4.
H + D emb
The incremental dynamic active earth pressure is then given by:
158
p top p bottom
(Pae ) x = [p top .(D w + )] 12 .(D w + )2
H + D emb
This is substituted and simplified as:
(DPae)x = -1.4z2 + 99.3z + 409 kN/m of wall run
The hydrodynamic pressure is related by:
Pwd = 127 .k h . w . 2
By substitution, this is simplified as:
Pwd = 1.4z2
Using equilibrium principles, the summation of all these forces in the horizontal direction will
be equal to zero:
( Pa ) x + ( Pae ) x + Pwd TFES = 0

Hence, by substituting and resolving the above equation the shear is zero and moment is
maximum at z = 10.98 below the fluid level.
The moments acting about the tie-rod in elevation of z are the summed. This gives the
maximum moment (MFES) in the sheet pile wall. The computation of the moments is given
in table 8.4. Here, the 9 zones used as in Figure 8.5 are simplified in 3 due to the rigorous
computation in solving in terms of z.
Table 8.4. Computation of moments due to resultant forces
Moment
Horiz Lever arm about tie
Horizontal Force Force about tie rod rod
(kN/ m of kNm /m of
wall) m wall
(Pa1)x 28.8 0.9 25.9
(Pa2)x 162.1 7.7 1247.2
(Pa3)x 136.9 9.5 1303.8
(DPae)x 850.9 4.3 3618.9
Pwd 168.5 8.8 1481.4
S MFES 7677.1
159
For flexible sheet pile walls, it is required to apply Rowes moment reduction, using the
flexibility number r and allowable stress. Since, in our case the pile is stiff, this step is
inappropriate and hence conservatively it is better not to apply the rule.
(H + D emb )4
=
E.I
(f) Design of tie-rods and anchors. According to Ebeding and Morrison (1992) a design
factor of 1.3 should applied to the resultant tension in the tie-rods, obtaining Tdesign = 882
kN/m of wall run:
T design = 1.3 TFES

Assuming a tie-rod spacing of 1.5 i.e. 2 rods per each pile element, them the diameter of the
tie rod is required to be Ftie-rod = 10.53cm, from:
Td

0 .6
tie rod = 4
y

The location of the anchor is determined as shown in Chapter 3-4, and using seismic active
(aae) and passive (ape) angles of failure:
tan( 1 ) + c1
ae = 1 + arctan
1 + [tan( + 1 ).(tan( 1 ) + cot( 1 ))]
tan( * 2 ) + c 2
pe = * + 2 + arctan
1 + [tan( * + 2 ).(tan( * 2 ) + cot( * 2 ))]
c1 = tan( 1 ).[tan( 1 ) + cot( 1 )][
. 1 + tan( + 1 ). cot( 1 )]
c 2 = tan( * 1 ).[tan( * 1 ) + cot( * 1 )][

. 1 + tan( + 1 ). cot( * 1 )]
8.2.3 Wharf Design Using Japanese Practice.

The method in the Japanese practice OCDI (2002) is based on the analysis of a beam
embedded in Winkler foundation and similar to Rowes approach to sheet pile walls. It
involves the determination of the active earth pressure thrust, passive earth pressures and
thrust and hydrostatic forces. Then simple beam analysis is carried out followed by
corrections if necessary.
(a) Active Earth Pressure and Thrust. As suggested by OCDI(2002), the friction angle
with the back of the wall is assumed to be
160
12 = 15o
The coefficient of seismicity was obtained to be 0.26 for factored amax = 0.35 using the
relation:
1
1a 3
k h = max
3 g
The vertical seismic coefficient was taken as zero as suggested by OCDI (2002). In order to
obtain the earth pressures, for partially submerged soil the overlying soil layer is idealised as a
surcharge to the soil layer of interest (Table 8.5). The modified seismic coefficients are
obtained in table 8.5 using:
2( i h i + sat ; j h j + q sur ) + sat ; j h

k h = kh
2[ i h i + ( 10) h j +q sur ] + ( sat ; j 10) h
The coefficient of active earth pressure is given by:
cos 2 ( 1 )
K ae = 2
sin( + ). sin( 1 )
cos 1 . cos( 1 + ) 1 +
cos( + 1 )
where the seismic inertia angle is given by:
1 = tan 1 [k h1 ]
From the above computation, using the equation below, the earth pressures at different levels
are given in Table 8.5, where i refers to the respective soil layers considered.
q cos
p ae i = K ae i cos i h i + sur
cos( )
Using the equation below, the total active thrust is given by the summation of the areas
enclosed by the respective earth pressures on top and bottom of each soil layer. The total
thrust results to be 2261kN/m. The moment about the tie-rod is given in Table 8.6.
Pae = 12 {( p ae ) top + (p ae ) bottom }i h i
161
Table 8.5. Active earth pressure computation.

Thickness
Soil Elevation (hi) ijsat ij ihi kh' 1 Kaecos pae
3 3 O O 2 O 2
(m) (m) (kN/m ) (kN/m ) ( ) ( ) (kN/m ) ( ) (kN/m )
U1 3.9 3.9 14 17 30 15 0 0.26 14 0.49 5
U1 0 3.9 14 17 30 15 55 0.26 14 0.49 32
U1 0 1.1 7 17 30 15 55 0.25 14 0.48 32
U1 -1.1 1.1 7 17 30 15 63 0.25 14 0.48 35
U2 -1.1 6 9 19 30 15 63 0.23 13 0.47 34
U2 -7.1 6 9 19 30 15 117 0.23 13 0.47 60
U3 -7.1 2 8 18 36 15 117 0.36 20 0.51 65
U3 -9.1 2 8 18 36 15 133 0.36 20 0.51 73
U4 -9.1 6.9 9 19 36 15 133 0.32 18 0.46 66
U4 -16 6.9 9 19 36 15 195 0.32 18 0.46 95
U4 -16 9.7 9 19 36 15 195 0.35 19 0.49 100
U4 -25.7 9.7 9 19 36 15 282 0.35 19 0.49 143
Table 8.6. Moment about the tie-rod.

Distance below
Thickness (pae)top (1/2)(pae)top.hi tie-rod elevation Moment
Elevation (hi) (pae)bottom (1/2)(pae)bottom.hi (zi) about tie-rod
2
(m) (m) (kN/m ) (kN/m) (m) kN/m of wall
3.9 3.9 5 10 -0.4 -4
0 3.9 32 63 0.9 56
0 1.1 32 17 2.6 45
-1.1 1.1 35 19 2.9 57
-1.1 6 34 103 5.3 544
-7.1 6 60 179 7.3 1304
-7.1 2 65 65 10.0 643
-9.1 2 73 73 10.6 772
-9.1 6.9 66 228 13.6 3106
-16 6.9 95 328 15.9 5209
-16 9.7 100 485 21.4 10403
-25.7 9.7 143 692 24.7 17070
(b) Passive Earth Pressure and Thrust. The passive earth pressure coefficient obtained is
0.51 and is given by:
sat
k h 2 = k h .
b
162
The seismic inertia angle obtained is 27.25o:
2 = tan 1 [k h 2 ]
The coefficient passive earth pressure obtained is 5.65 computed from:
cos 2 ( 2 )
K pe = 2
sin( + ). sin( 2 )
cos 2 . cos( 2 + ) 1
cos( + 2 )
The horizontal passive earth pressure at the toe of the wall is obtained by the equation below,
giving 760kN/m run of wall.
p pe = K pe cos i .D emb
The horizontal passive earth thrust is then given by:
Ppe = 12 p pe D emb
The value obtained is 3687 kN/m and acts at 24.7 m below the tie rod from the equation:
z Ppe [(D w D t ) + H sub ] + 23 D emb

(c) Hydrodynamic Forces. The hydrostatic forces are ignored as the water level is assumed
to be equal on both sides of the wall, hence the hydrostatic forces then cancel each other. The
hydrodynamic forces are given by:
Pwd = 127 .k h . w .( H sub ) 2

The value is 380kN/m run of wall and acts at 11.8m below the tie rod according to:
z Pwd = [(D w D t ) 52 H sub ]
(d) Moment Balance About The Tie-rod.
By taking moments about the tie-rod, the moment imbalance was found to be 47,260 kNm.
M tie rod = (Ppe z pe ) 12 {(p pe ) top (z) top + (p pe ) bottom (z) bottom }i h i Pwd z Pwd
The moment imbalance is therefore high enough.
163
(e) Simple Beam Analysis. Initially the contra flexure is assumed at the mud-line level. The
pile wall is assumed to be a simple beam, spanning between the tie-rod and the mud-line level
for the calculation of the bending moments and the tie-rod force. For this simple beam, active
earth thrust above the mud-line and driving moment are computed as shown in Table 8.6. The
thrust is obtained equal to 1083kN/m of wall run.
( Pae ) mudline = 1
2 {(p ae ) top + ( p ae ) bottom }i h i
above _ mud _ line
The sum of the moment above the mud line is 16172kNm, given by:
M mudline = 12 {(p ae ) top (z) top + (p ae ) bottom (z) bottom }i h i + Pwd z Pwd
above _ mud _ line
The equivalent reaction force exerted by the mud-line support is given by the equation below
giving 889kN/m of wall. Hsimple is the span between the mud-line and the tie-rod being
18.2m.
M mudline
P foundation =
H simple
Using the equation below, the tie-rod force Tsimple is computed to be 575.3 kN/m run of wall
using:
Tsimple = (Pae ) mudline + Pwd Pfoundation

The maximum moment occurs at the zero shear location. The distance z (Table 8.7) below
the tie rod is computed from :
(Pae ) above _ z + (Pwd ) above _ z Tsimple = 0
12 {(p ae ) top + (p ae ) bottom }i h i + 127 k h w H w (z D wt )1.5 Tsimple

0.5
above _ z
Including the fluid pressure, the tension in the rod and moments in table 8.7, the resulting
moment (Msimple) on the pile wall is 3785kNm.
164
Table 8.7. Computation of resultant moment Msimple.

Distance
below
tie-rod Moment
Thickness (1/2) (pae)top.hi elevation about
Elevation (hi) i ihi kh' Kaecos pae (1/2) (pae)bottom.hi (zi) tie-rod
3 O O 2 2
(m) (m) (kN/m ) ( ) ( ) (kN/m ) (kN/m ) (kN/m) (m) kN/m
3 3.9 14 30 15 0 0.26 14 0.49 0.0 0 -0.4 0
0 3.9 14 30 15 55 0.26 14 0.49 27.1 63 0.9 788
0 1.1 7 30 15 55 0.25 14 0.48 26.7 15 2.6 161
-1.1 1.1 7 30 15 63 0.25 14 0.48 30.4 17 2.9 177
-1.1 6 9 30 15 63 0.23 13 0.47 29.5 89 5.3 726
-7.1 6 9 30 15 117 0.23 13 0.47 54.8 165 7.3 1020
-7.1 2 8 36 15 117 0.36 20 0.51 59.4 59 10.0 210
-9.1 2 8 36 15 133 0.36 20 0.51 67.6 68 10.6 194
-9.1 0.9 9 36 15 133 0.32 18 0.46 61.6 28 11.6 53
-10 0.9 9 36 15 141 0.32 18 0.46 65.3 29 11.9 47
(f) Corrections on the Winkler Beam Analysis. The values obtained of moment and tension
should be adjusted using Rowes method relating the stiffness of the pile with the moment
and tension obtained above. Yet, the provisions applied in OCDI (2002) refer to flexible sheet
pile walls and hence cannot be applied for this case. The correction method will still be
described for completeness. Rowes similarity number is obtained using:
4
H simple k h sub
= k h sub =
EI
where Rowes flexibility number is given by:
(H + D emb )4
=
E.I
The Winkler beam analysis correction results in:
M design
= 4.56470.2 + 0.1329
M simple
Tdesign
= 2.3174 0.2 + 0.5514
Tsimple
D emb
= 5.0916 0.2 0.2591
H simple
165
8.2.4 Wharf Design Using European Practice

(a) Parameters and Seismic Coefficients. Following the approach of EN 1997-1 factors are
applied to soil parameters in order to reduce the soil shear strength. The factor applied g
according to clause 2.4.7.3(4) and Appendix A is 1.25.Hence, the design internal friction
angle and friction angle with wall are given in Table 8.8, by computing:
tan ' k
' d = tan 1

'
tan k
d = tan 1

'
= 23 ' k
Table 8.8. Design friction angles.
'k d 'd
o o o o
Soil Layer
U1 30 20 16 25
U2 30 20 16 25
U3 36 24 20 30
U4 36 24 20 30
U4 (jet-grout) 43 29 24 37
The horizontal seismic coefficient is taken as kh = 0.37 and the vertical seismic coefficient as
kv = +/- 0.18, by computing:
S ST S I a gR
kh =
r gr
k v = 0.5 k h ; if avg/ag > 0.6
Eurocode 8 (EN 1998-5, 2005) suggests that, when the height of the wall is larger than 10 m
(Carvalho et. al., 2004), the value of the horizontal seismic coefficient kh should be
determined as an average of the amplified acceleration. This is done through a local site
response analysis i.e. considering the variation of PGA with depth. In this example a linear
variation of PGA was assumed with depth (Figure 8.9). From extrusion of the shear wave
velocity, stiff ground Type A was assumed at 40m below the top of the wharf and soil
above Type C. Hence, as shown in kh and kv were considered to vary linearly with
depth based on the assumed linear amplification of PGA with depth. During further
166
computations, instead of working with the average kh and kv, computations are made using
the kh and kv value at respective levels. This is so since the depth of the wall is nearly 30
m and is comparable with the depth used for soil classification. Hence, the amplification at a
particular point along the depth is not simply a singular factor and therefore the seismic
contribution of the wedge at a particular depth varies.
Variation of kv and kh with depth

0.4
kh
kv
kv or kh value
0.3
0.2
0.1
0 10 20 30 40
Depth (m)
Figure 8.6. EC8: variation of kh and kv with depth
(b) Earth Pressure and Seismic Force Due To The Backfill. For the computation of the
earth pressures, three cases were considered: 1-kv, 1+kv and when kv = 0. After all
computations and considerations, the worse practical scenario was then considered for design.
For medium and dense sand, the seismic inertia angle ( ) is computed in Table 7.9 for the 4
soil layers given by:
k
= tan 1 h
1m kv
Table 8.9. Seismic friction angle for different kv.
Using: 1-kv 1+kv kv = 0

o o
Soil Layer () () (o)
U1 23.8 17.0 19.8
U2 22.2 16.2 18.7
U3 21.2 15.6 18.0
U4 18.8 14.3 16.2
167
Based on Mononobe-Okabe relations, the active earth pressure coefficient is computed using:
If ' d
sin 2 ('d + )
K ae = 2
sin('d + d ). sin('d )
cos . sin .sin( d ) 1 +
2

sin( d ). sin( + )
Giving Table 8.10:
Table 8.10. Kae for different kv (1)
Kae Using: 1-kv 1+kv kv = 0

Soil Layer
U1 / 0.70 0.82
U2 / 0.67 0.76
U3 / 0.54 0.60
U4 / 0.51 0.56
If > ' d
sin 2 ( + 'd )
K ae =
cos sin 2 sin( d )
Giving (Table 8.11) :
Table 8.11. Kae for different kv (2)
Kae Using: 1-kv 1+kv kv = 0

Soil Layer
U1 1.43 / /
U2 1.38 / /
U3 1.38 / /
U4 1.30 / /
For the assumption of no shear resistance between the soil and the wall, based on Mononobe-
Okabe relations, the passive earth pressure coefficient is computed using:
168
sin 2 ('d + )
K pe = 2
sin 'd .sin('d + )
cos . sin . sin( + ) 1
2

sin( + ). sin( + )
Giving Table 8.12:
Table 8.12. Kpe for different kv
Kpe: Using: 1-kv 1+kv kv = 0

Soil Layer
U1 / 1.88 /
U2 / 1.91 /
U3 / 2.48 /
U4 / 2.54 /
(c) Dynamic Fluid Pressure. This is given by:
E wd = 127 .k h . w .( H sub ) 2
Yet, since kh was assumed to vary with depth due to the considerable depth considered, the
Ewd was computed as the area enclosed by the pressure diagram given by:
q wd ( z) = 78 k h w h Tot z
(d) Rresultant Action. Hence, the Ewd results to be equal to 468kN/m run of wall. Had an
average kh been used in the computation, Ewd would have only been 365kN/m run of wall.
For simplification, the residual water pressure was assumed to be negligible, and hence the
hydrostatic water pressures cancel out. Still, no reference in the EN1998-5:2005 on residual
water pressure, since the code is general. The pressure from on the wall from behind is given
by:
Ed = [
1
2 b ]
(1 k v ) K ae (D emb + H) 2 + E ws + E wd
This is computed (Table 8.13) for the various values of Kae using different applications of
the vertical seismic coefficient kv. Similarly, the Passive earth pressures (PPe) is computed to
be 2135kN/ m run of wall.
169
Table 8.13. Action from behind on the pile wall
Ed
kN/m run of wall

1-kv 6388
1+kv 2273
kv = 0 2780
8.2.5 Wall Displacements and Relative Stiffness of Wall

Rowes correction could not be applied for the corrections of the maximum moments
following Japanese and North American practices since the stiffness of the pile wall is
relatively high. Still, the relative stiffness of the wall needs to be accounted for the
computation of displacements. Moreover, no direct relations are given in EN1998-5:2005 for
the computation of moments. The Carvalho et al, (2004), computes the actual moments by
applying the static and pseudo-static forces on a model. Hence, a finite element model of the
T-shaped beam was built using Ruaomoko2D (Carr, 2005), where the wall was modelled as
an Euler-Bernoulli beam on a Winkler foundation with elastic-perfectly plastic springs
(Carvalho et. al, 2004, EN 1998-5: 2005) as shown in Figure 8.7. An input file of the model is
included in Appendix D.
Spring Equivalent To Batter

Pile system and Anchorages.
Stiffness K = 38,500kN/m
19 Springs represnting
jet-grouted soil
Figure 8.7. Equivalent beam on Winkler foundation

model of the pile-wall and soil system.
170
The springs were modelled (Finn, 2005) using non linear stiffness obtained by bilinear
approximations of P-Y curves (see Figure 8.8) of the soil along the passive side of the
embedded depth of the wall (Martin, 2005). The tie-rod anchor was modelled by a spring with
stiffness value of 38,500 kN/m, equivalent to that of the battered piles-soil system (Scarpelli
et al, 2005). By varying this equivalent stiffness from infinity to zero (see Figure 8.9), the
maximum bending moment outside the embedded depth was observed to increase as the
stiffness increases and displacement decreases.
P - Y Curves: Bilinear Approx.

6000
9.7m
5000
Soil resistance (kN/m)
4000
3000
2000
1000
0.0m
0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025

Deflection (m)
Figure 8.8. Spring model of the spring pile wall: P-Y curves of the embedded depth.
Max. out-of-ground: Displacement vs. Moment

K =OO
9000
K =60,000kN/m
M ax. M o m en t
K =38,500kN/m
7000
(kN m )
K =15,000kN/m
5000 K =0 kN/m
Displacement (m)
3000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Figure 8.9. Spring model of the soil-pile wall: Varying stiffness of anchor.
171
As shown by Figure 8.10, the loads from the computations using North American, Japanese
and European practice were applied as distributed loads. The beam was also analysed using
North-American and Japanese prescriptions and corresponding seismic loads. Figures 16 and
17 show the bending moment and displacement distributions along the depth of the wall that
were obtained.
Applied Load vs Depth

0
0 50 N. Amr 100
-5 OCDI
EC8
Depth (m)
-10
-15
-20
Applied load (kN)
Figure 8.10. Spring Model of the soil-pile wall: Applied Loads.
Some extra analysis were carried out. For the North American case, analysis were also
carried out not just with distributed load but also with the point loads as obtained in the static
analysis. This very frequently done in practice for simplification. In order to investigate the
behaviour of the Winkler beam as used in the static-analysis, an analysis was run fixing as a
pin joint the tie-rod. For the European analysis, all the three conditions of loading using kv
were carried out. Analysis corresponding to the 3 practices were carried out also for the
serviceability level loading.
8.2.6 Results of The Beam Analysis

Figures8.11 to Figure 8.17 indicate results for analysis computed by loads corresponding to
the ultimate limit state. From the analysis carried out, Figure 8.11 and Figure 8.15 indicate the
analysis run corresponding to loading from North American practice. On fixing the tie-rod,
from lateral movement, the maximum moment is close to that computed using static analysis.
Yet, being an approximately uniform distribution of load, the fact that in practice the wall is
not laterally fixed at the tie-rod results in a decrease in the maximum moment. The
displacement practically remains the same, yet the position of the maximum shifts. On using
concentrated loads, a very high displacement and maximum moment are obtained. Yet, such
values are misleading as the displacement and moment distributions are wrong.
For the analysis based on loads retrieved from European practice, the critical moment and
displacement distributions (Figure 8.12 and Figure8.16) are obtained for kv = 0, 1+kv and
1-kv. It is observed that the latter is dominant. Figure 8.14 and Figure 8.17 show that from
the analysis using loads computed by the Japanese practice, the moment and displacements
172
are very low. This is due to the different distribution of applied loads. The maximum moment
of the analysis is higher than that computed from the simplified analysis before (Figure 8.13)
North Am erican Practice: Mom ent vs Depth Japanese Practice: Mom ent vs Depth
0 0
-5500 -2500 500 3500 6500 9500 -5500 -2500 500 3500 6500 9500
-5 -5
-10 -10
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
-15 -15
Mmax from
Mmax from
static
-20 -20 static
analysis
analysis
=7677kNm
=3785kNm
-25 -25
US: UDL. Fix
US: PT free
US: UDL free OCDI
-30 -30
Mom ent (kN/m ) Mom ent (kN/m )
Figure 8.11. Moment distribution, Figure 8.13. Moment distribution,

N. American practice, (ULS). Japanese practice, (ULS).
European Practice: Mom ent vs Depth Mom ent vs Depth

0 0
-5500 -2500 500 3500 6500 9500 -5500 -2500 500 3500 6500 9500
-5 -5
-10 -10
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
-15 -15
Mmax from
-20 F.E.M.
-20
=9729kNm
EC8: (1+kv)
US: UDL free

-25 EC8: (kv=0) -25 OCDI
EC8: a=0.28g
EC8:(1-kv) EC8:(1-kv)
-30 -30
Mom ent (kN/m ) Mom ent (kN/m )
Figure 8.12. Moment distribution, Figure 8.14. Moment distribution,:

European practice, (ULS). Comparison. (ULS).
173
North Am erican Practice:Displacem ent vs European Practice: Displacem ent vs Depth

Depth 0
0 -0.03 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
-0.03 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15
-5
-5
-10
-10
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
-15
-15
-20
-20
US: UDL. Fix
-25 -25
US: PT free
EC8: (1+kv)
EC8: (kv=0)
US: UDL free
EC8:(1-kv)
-30 -30
Displacem ent (m ) Displacem ent (m )
Figure 8.15. Displacement distribution, Figure 8.16. Displacement distribution,

N. American practice, (ULS). European practice, (ULS).
Displacem ent vs Depth

0
-0.03 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21
-5
-10
Depth (m)
-15
Dmax from
-20 FEM
analysis
=0.18m
-25 US: UDL free

OCDI
EC8: a=0.28g
EC8:(1-kv)
-30
Displacem ent (m )
Figure 8.17. Displacement distribution:

Comparison, (ULS).
174
Figures 8.14 and 9.17 compare the analysis for loadings computed from the three different
practices considered. Figures 8.18 and 8.19 compare the analysis for loadings computed from
the three different practices considered corresponding to the serviceability condition. As
previously described, since the hazard changed from the time of the design, to the latest
edition of OPCM-3519, (2006), for the European case which is closest to the F.E.M results
(red graph), an analysis was carried out using loading distribution corresponding to the hazard
as used in the original design. This is represented by the black graphs. These show that the
European case is closest to the F.E.M. analysis carried out in the design by Scarpelli (2005).
For the ultimate condition, the displacement is underestimated, while for the serviceable
condition, the maximum is slightly overestimated. For both Japanese and North American
cases, the predictions are much underestimating in both moment and displacement for both
serviceable and ultimate conditions.
Moment vs Depth Displacement vs Depth

0 0
-5500 -2500 500 3500 6500 9500 -0.03 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.09
-5 -5
-10 -10
D ep th (m )
D ep th (m )
-15 -15
Mmax from
F.E.M. Dmax from
-20 -20
=7956kNm FEM
analysis
=0.075m
US: UDL free
-25 -25 US: UDL free
OCDI
EC8: a=0.28g OCDI
EC8:(1-kv) EC8: a=0.28g
EC8:(1-kv)
-30 -30
Moment (kN/m) Displacement (m)
Figure 8.18. Moment distribution: Figure 8.19. Displacement distribution:

Comparison, (SLS). Comparison, (SLS).
8.3 Pile Supported Wharf, Port of Catania, Italy
8.3.1 Introduction
The Port of Catania is situated on the island of Sicily in southern Italy at coordinates 37_31
north and 15_06 east (Figure 8.20). The area is very seismic and is characterised by many
faults. The hazard map of OPCM-3519, (2006) rates the area with a PGA = 0.22g for 10%
probability of exceedence in 50 years. Extensions of the port started in 2005 (Figure 8.20).
The extensions are divided in two parts: one constituting pile supported wharves and the other
175
closed-type wharves mainly sheet pile walls and block walls. Since sheet pile and closed type
wharves were considered in the Gioia Tauro port example, focus was here made on pile
supported wharves.
Figure 8.20. Port of Catania : old and new projections.
The original configuration of the pile supported wharf extension consisted in platform
segments approximately 52.8m by 26m supported on 1.5m diameter steel pipe piles (Ceraulo
et al, 2005) as shown in Figure 8.21.
26.0 m
8.0 m
1
2
Figure 8.21. Original Design of the open type wharf in the Port of Catania.
Large diameter piles are not able to provide moment-resisting connections to the wharf deck
since the deck depth requirement would be too large. Hence, the piles act as vertical
cantilevers with the only possibility of hinging against seismic resistance to occur in-ground
(Priestley, 2005). The method adopted for the design follows FBD procedures which rely on
176
non port specific codes such as building codes and bridge codes. The wharf was redesigned
using developing methodologies such as DBD, and compared to a general FBD methodology
used for the original design.
Figure 8.22. Plan of original and proposed segments.
For our analysis, a segment of 5 rows of piles (A-E) by 9 was considered Figure 8.22. The
span between piles in both directions is of 6m. 600 mm piles are used with 16x15mm
strands, and 10x32mm dowels at the pile deck hinge. The cover was taken to be 75mm. Spiral
transverse reinforcement of diameter 13mm was considered with 60mm pitch. The
unconfined concrete compressive strength was taken as 45Mpa, dowel tensile strength
460Mpa, pre-stressing ultimate strength 1860Mpa and spiral reinforcement 460Mpa. These
values include overstrength factors where necessary. The Port of Los-Angeles code (POLA,
2004) was adopted using direct displacement based design (DDBD) for the criteria explained
in Table 8.14
26.0 m
6.0 m
A B C D E
Dowel:
D = 32mm
No. = 10
fy = 460Mpa
Concrete:
f'c = 45Mpa
12.0 m
Cover:
c = 75mm
Prestress:
fpu' =1860Mpa
f-in = 1062Mpa
No.= 16
1
2
Figure 8.23. Proposed transverse configuration of the open type wharf at the port of Catania.
177
Table 8.14. Performance Criteria for serviceable and ultimate failures. (POLA, 2004)
Performance Criteria
OLE CLE
PILE HEAD: Conc. Comp. strain : 0.005 0.02 (eqn. Priestley,2006)
dowel reinf. Tension strain: 0.01 0.05 0.06sm
IN-GROUND: Conc. Comp. strain : 0.005
dowel reinf. Tension strain: 0.005 (eqn. Priestley,2006)
total prestress strain: 0.015
8.3.2 Force-based design (F.B.D.) Procedure

The general FBD procedure as similarly used in the original design of the pile supported
wharf is outlined. This procedure as described below is based on a single mode transverse
analysis. In this approach, it is assumed that standard piles of known strength are used. Yet,
this is not always the case; hence iteration is sometimes required to obtain this strength
(Priestley, 2000; Priestley 2003; Priestley 2005):
1. The wharf structure is divided into segments by movement joints. Each segment is
considered separately.
2. An initial pile distribution is assumed.
3. The seismic weight W is determined.
W = M.g
4. The structure stiffness Kx is determined as:
R
Kx = niKi
i =1
5. where: x = distance between each pile (ideally kept uniform as much as

possible)
i = Row number
R = Total number of rows in the segment
n = Number of piles per distance x
6. The segment period of the segment structure is found as an initial estimate in the
transverse direction as:
W
T = 2
g.Kx
7. For the period (T) obtained, the acceleration response of the structure (Sa(T)) is
obtained from the design Acceleration Response Spectrum.
178
8. An average approximate transverse displacement is determined:
T2
trans = .Sa ( T ).g
4 2
9. Displacement is amplified for torsion and simultaneous X/Y excitation effects.
dem = DMF.trans
10. Displacement demand is compared with Displacement Capacity obtained from
pushover analysis of the critical pile.
11. If displacement capacity is not higher than displacement demand ( cap > dem ), then
the pile configuration is changed and the design is redone until this condition is
achieved.
8.3.3 Displacement-Based Design (DBD) Procedure

(a) Introduction. There are several DBD procedures namely Direct Displacement Based
Design (DDBD) and Equivalent Displacement based Design (EDBD). Few literature is found
on the applicability of EDBD to wharf structures. DDBD is more developed in the application
to pile supported wharves (POLA, 2004; Priestley, 2006)
The process of DDBD (Priestley, 2006) involves that the structural system be reduced in a
single degree of freedom. This has to account for the eccentricity between the centre of
stiffness and the centre of mass. Longitudinal and transverse effects are considered
simultaneously. The design is based on the transverse response since the response is uniform
and yet taking into account the eccentricity. A critical pile has first to be identified. This is
generally the corner pile on the landward side (row E). The free heights of each pile row are
then identified and damage capacity calculated through moment curvature analyses of
sections and pushover analysis of piles. This is carried out for both upper and lower bound
properties of soil. From the damage level and capacity, the ductility demand of the system is
obtained. From equivalent viscous damping of the system, damage capacity, and effective
period, the effective stiffness of the system is obtained. This will give the design force which
is then compared to the force capacity of the system.
(b Axial Forces. For the analysis of the wharf and pile sections inside the ground and at the
pile deck hinge, input data as shown in Table 8.15 was considered (Furiozzi et al., 1998).
Using a concrete density of 24kN/ m3, pipe loading 1.68kN/ m2, surcharge of 10kN/ m2 and
dead load of deck equal to 21.6kN/m2, (Furiozzi et al., 1998), the loads are distributed on pile
rows A to E as shown in Table 8.16.
179
Table 8.15. Material properties as used for the pre-stressed piles
Pile diameter D= 600 mm

cover = 75 mm
Prestress 1 strand A = 138.6 mm2
No. = 16
total A = 2217.6 mm2
fpu = 1860 Mpa
f-initial = -1062 MPa
Dowel D= 32 mm
fy = 460 Mpa
fye =1.1fy 506 Mpa
1 x Area = 804.2496 mm2
No. = 10
area tot. = 8042.496 mm2
Es 200000 Mpa
transverse R. D= 13 mm
s= 60 mm
fy = 460 Mpa
Concrete f'c 45 Mpa
Table 8.16. Load distributions of row Piles A to E.

Vertical Vertical
loading loading
Dead load Dead load Live load Seismic at Pile- at In- N values for
deck piles piles Load deck ground moment curvature
kN kN kN kN kN kN kN
Pile A 518 86 40 120 560 580 700
Pile B 778 66 60 31 840 900 900
Pile C 778 45 60 0 840 900 900
Pile D 778 25 60 -31 840 900 900
Pile E 518 20 40 -120 530 650 530
From initial moment curvature trial analysis, the moment capacity of the critical hinge i.e. the
pile deck hinge was estimated to be 800kNm. From simple moment redistributions, shear
forces in the deck are obtained from which, the seismic axial forces were obtained as shown
in Table 8.16. The axial load for the moment curvature analysis was based on the loading at
180
the top of the piles in each of the row from A-E (Table 8.16). For the moment curvature
analysis axial loads, N = 0, 530, 700 and 900 kN were therefore considered.
The centre of mass was found to act at m=13.2 m from the landward edge. This was
computed by taking moments of the dead loads about a distance m from the landward side
and applying equilibrium.
(c ) Ultimate Concrete Strain Capacity. Using the data from the input tables above, the
volume density of the spiral confinement to the volume of concrete is computed as rs =
0.0202:
4 A sp
s =
D's
where D is the diameter of confined concrete, and s is the pitch. The equivalent confinement
pressure is given by fl = 4.65Mpa
f l = 0.5. s f yh
The effective value is then given as fl = 4.19Mpa:
f 'l = K e .f l ; where K e =0.9

The ultimate confined stress of concrete is then given fcc = 69.0Mpa.
1.4. s .f yh . su
cu = 0.004 +
f 'cc
The ultimate concrete strain capacity is then given as ecu = 0.023. This is less than the
maximum permitted value.
7.94 f 'l 2f 'l

f 'cc = f 'c 1.254 + 2.254 1 +

f ' c f ' c
Using a combination of CIRCMAN and RESPONSE-2000, moment-curvature analysis was

performed for the in-ground and pile deck sections of piles using different values of loading
as shown above. Two analysis codes were used since CIRCMAN does not take into account
pre-stress, while RESPONSE-2000 does not take into account confinement. Hence, by
combining the two analysis codes, adequate moment-curvature analysis could be performed.
(d) Cracking Moment and Curvature. The section modulus for the piles 600m diameter was
found to be z= 0.021mm3:
D 3
z=
32
The tension strength is provided by ft = 4.23Mpa (Collins et al., 1997):
181
f ' t = 0.63 f ' c

The modulus of elasticity of normal weight concrete is given as Ec = 29171MPa (Collins et.
al, 1997):
E c = 3320 f 'c + 6900

Hence for a concrete area 0.28m2, steel area 0.0022m2, tension in cables after pre-stress loss
being 2355kN, the pre-stress in concrete results to be 8395kNm2. The moment and curvature
at cracking for the different axial loads considered are computed in Table 8.17.
Table 8.17. Moment-curvature at cracking for different axial loads.
Axial
P Area stress fcr Mcr Fcr
(kN) kN/m^2 kN/m^2 kNm (1/m)

0 282744 0 9191 195 0.00105
530 282744 1874 11066 235 0.001264
650 282744 2299 11490 244 0.001313
700 282744 2476 11667 247 0.001333
900 282744 3183 12374 262 0.001414
Figure 8.24 and Figure8.25 show the moment curvature analysis for all loading conditions, for
both pil- deck section and in-ground section. For the in-ground hinge, the soil confinement
can inhibit the falling branch of the moment curvature analyses after peak moment is
achieved, since this strength reduction is a result of cover spalling. This is in the process to be
confirmed experimentally (Priestley, 2006).
Pile-deck: Moment Curvature Analysis In-Ground: Moment Curvature Analysis

1000
1000
800
800
Moment (kNm)
M om ent (kNm )
600
600
400
400
900 kN
200
900 kN 700 kN
200
700 kN 500kN
500kN
000kN
000kN
0
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Curvature (1/m) Curvature (1/m)
Figure 8.24. Moment Curvature of pile deck Figure 8.25. Moment Curvature of in-ground
hinge. hinge.
182
(e) Bi-Linear Approximation of Pile-Deck Hinge Area. The moment curvature analyses are
then simplified by bilinear and tri-linear approximations. The 1.2 m below the pile-deck
connection, is considered as the developing length of pre-stressing. Hence, the pile
characteristics are governed by the dowel connection (Priestley, 2000). For the pile-deck
section moment curvature, a bilinear approximation was performed as shown in Figure 8.26.
The calculations for each different axial load (N) are shown in Appendix E. Since spalling
causes reduction of strength, which is then regained at high curvatures, in the elasto-plastic bi-
linear approximation, 97% of serviceability moment is considered (Priestley, 2000).
Mu
MN
c = 0.004 c = cu
My or or
s = 0.015 s = 0.6 su
Moment
c = 0.002
0 .65 M d
or
s = y = fy / E s
M cr
y = 'y ( M N / M y )
cr 'y y u
Figure 8.26. Bi-linear approximation as for pile-deck section (Priestley, 2000)
From the analysis, the serviceable and ultimate state conditions of the section are produced in
table 8.18. Interpolation was carried out where necessary in order to find the state conditions
for each pile row A-E.
Table 8.18 Pile-Deck Hinge: Moment-Curvature

ultimate and serviceable conditions of sections.
Pile Serviceability State Ultimate state.
Row N Ms Fs Mu Fu
kN kNm 1/m kNm 1/m
0 674 0.0244 740 0.1173
E 530 755 0.0222 827 0.1103
A 560 758 0.0217 829 0.1099
700 775 0.0216 840 0.1080
B,C,D 840 804 0.0211 845 0.1064
900 816 0.0209 847 0.1080
183
For simplification, the piles were divided into 2 groups based on similar loading values (N) as
indicated in Table 8.19 and Figure8.27.
Table 8.19. Pile deck Hinge:Moment curvature
ultimate and serviceable conditions for Piles A-E
Pile
Pile A,E B,C,D
N = 560 N = 840
F M F M
1/m kNm 1/m kNm
0.0000 0 0.0000 0
0.0077 623 0.0081 666
0.0094 758 0.0097 804
0.1099 829 0.1064 845
M-C: Pile-Deck
900
800
700
600
Moment (kNm)
500 Pile A, E
Pile B,C,D
400
300
200
100
0
0.0000 0.0200 0.0400 0.0600 0.0800 0.1000 0.1200
Curvature (1/m )
Figure 8.27. Moment Curvature Bi-linear approximations for pile-deck hinges for piles A-E.
(f) Effective stiffness
The gross moment of inertia of the piles is 0.0068m4 given by:
.D 4
Ig =
64
Youngs Modulus of concrete is given as Ec = 29171MNm2. Then for each load condition N,
using also interpolation for the loads characteristic to piles from A-E, the effective moments
of inertia were found as shown in Table 8.20, using:
184
Mn
E c I eff =
y
Table 8.20. Pile-Deck Hinge: Effective stiffness for piles A-E.

Pile N Ieff %Igross
Row kN m^4
A 560 0.00277 0.4075
B,C,D 840 0.00283 0.4165
E 530 0.00277 0.4075
(g) Tri-Linear Approximation of In-ground Hinge Area. For normal free sections, the
following relations are generally used for the determination of the tri-linear approximations
(Priestley, 2000):
M 0.002 M cr
E c I cr =
0.002 cr
M M cr
y = cr + N
E c I eff
The tension capacity of the flexural strength is solely provided by the pre-stressing. The soil
provides extra confinement. Hence, tri-linear approximations were carried out as shown in
Figure 8.28. The full calculations for each load N are provided in Appendix E.
Moment
EI = 0
Md
0 .35 EI yield EI 0.65 Ms

EI =
EI 0.65 Ms 0.65 EI yield
0 .65 M d
EI = EI yield
EI = EI 0.65 Md
0.65 y = M d / EI yield u
Curvature
= 0.65 M d/ EI 0.65 Md
Figure 8.28. Bilinear and Tri-linear approximations to pre-stressed section moment curvature
characteristics (Priestley, 2005)
185
For simplification pile rows were grouped in 3. Interpolation of the trinomial approximations
was carried out where necessary for the respective axial loads N of the pile rows A-E.
Figure 8.29 and Tables 8.21 show the tri-linear representing rows A-E.
Table 8.21. In-Ground Hinge: Tri-linear representation for Piles A-E.
Pile B, C, D: N=
900kN
initial 0.0000 Minitial 0
0.65 0.0044 M0.65 548
'y 0.0052 My 567
y 0.0160 Mn 843
u 0.1001 Mu 843
Pile E: N= 650kN
0.65 0.0043 M0.65 528
'y 0.0056 My 552
y 0.0198 Mn 812
u 0.1090 Mu 812
Pile A: N= 580kN
0.65 0.0041 M0.65 512
'y 0.0041 My 512
y 0.0207 Mn 787
u 0.1134 Mu 787
M-C: In-ground Hinge

900
800
700
600
Moment (kNm)
Pile E
500 Pile A
Pile B,C,D
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
Curvature (1/m)
Figure 8.29. Tri-linear approximations for piles A-E.
186
(h) Effective Stiffness. The effective stiffness was found for the cracking and the part up to
yielding as shown in table8.22:
Table 8.22. In-Ground hinge: Effective stiffness for pile A-E.
Pile
row Ieff / Ig I0.65 / Ig
B,C,D 0.1284 0.6241
A 0.0838 0.6241
E 0.0926 0.6241
(i) Spring Model for the Pushover Analysis. Figures 8.30 and Figure 8.31 show soil
properties along the profile of the segment in question (Ceraulo, 2005). An average is
considered for these results and analysis is carried out also for both upper and lower bounds
(Finn, 2005; Martin, 2005). These were considered as the upper and lower standard deviations
to the average. For simplicity, only the computations for the average case will be produced
here. For the whole section the effective unit weight varies between 11-12kN/m3, while the
saturated unit weight between 19 -20kN/m3. The dry density (Dr) varies between 64 and 70
(Davis et al., 1987; Lancellotta, 2001; Ceroni, 2002; Ceraulo, 2005).
Dr' vs. Depth ' vs. Depth

Dr'
'
60 65 70 75 80 85
0
33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
1 0
2 1
3 2
4 3
5 4
6 5
7 6
8 7
9 8
10 9
11 10
12 11 sample1
12
Dep th (m)
13 sample1
D ep th (m )
13 sample7
14
15 sample7 14 sample8
16 sample8
15
17 16 average
18 average 17
19 18 +1 std
20 +1 std 19 -1 std
21 -1 std
20
22 21
23
22
23
24 24
25 25
26 26
27 27
28 28
29 29
30 30
Figure 8.30. Variation of dry density Figure 8.31. Variation of effective

with depth (Ceraulo, 2005) friction angle with depth (Ceraulo, 2005)
The springs p-y curves were determined using API-LRFD, 1997. The lateral bearing capacity
pu is given by the smallest of pus and pud referring to shallow or deep soils:
187
pus = (C1.H + C2.D).g.H
pud = C3.D.g.H
where: pu is the ultimate resistance, g is the effective soil weight; H is the depth; F
is the angle of friction; C1, C2, C3 are coefficients determined from charts; D is the
average pile diameter. Lateral soil-deflection (p-y) relationship, at any depth H is given by:
kH
P = A p u tanh y
A pu
Where, A is constant equal to 0.9 for cyclic loading conditions, and k is the initial modulus
of sub-grade reaction determined from charts relating to dry density and effective angle of
friction. Figure 8.32 shows the computed p-y curves at various depths required for the soil
springs.
p-y curves for soil springs

12000
10000
Resistance :p (kN/m)
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08
Deflection: y (m )
Figure 8.32. p-y curves for soil springs
The number of soil-springs used for the tally to 46. The first starts at 0.15m below the dike
surface. For the first 4m, springs are spaced at 30cm intervals since in this range, the change
in deflection is high. The deck can be modelled as infinitely rigid. Since the strain in the
dowels does not drop to zero, a special rigid connection is added for a distance Lsp above
the soffit level of the platform. Lsp is computed to be 0.32m using (Figure 8.33):
L sp = 0.022 f y d bl
wheredbl is the dowel diameter.
188
F
Lsp
G ro u n d
In e la s tic P ile
m e m b e rs fo r 4 m
In e la s tic s o il-S p rin g s
s p a c e d 0 .3 m
Figure 8.33. Spring model for piles (Priestley, 2006)
(j) Pushover Analysis. A model is constructed for each pile A to E where a pushover analysis
is performed on each pile using RUAUMOKO-2D (Carr, 2005). The model and input file of
the pile in row E is included in Appendix E. Table 8.23 show the pushover analysis of each
pile A-E. From the bilinear representation of the total shear force contributed from piles A to
E, where the yielding displacement corresponds to Dy = 0.062m.
(k) Displacement Limits on Pile-top Hinge. From the moment curvature analysis and
pushover analysis of critical pile E, yielding occurs at My = 760kNm and Dy = 0.0475m at a
distance 1.33 above the ground (Figure 8.34 and Figure 8.35), Fy being 0.0094/m. For the
serviceability condition, from moment curvature analysis, serviceability curvature Fs =
0.0217/m. The plastic hinge length is given by Lp = 0.648 (Priestley, 2000):
L p = (0.08L + L sp ) 0.044f y d bl
The serviceable curvature rotation is then given as ps = 0.008 radians, computed from:
ps = ( s y ) L p
The serviceable displacement is then given as Ds = 0.076m computed from:
s = y + ps L
For the damage ultimate condition, Fu = 0.11/m from moment curvature analysis. The
ultimate rotation angle is pu = 0.065 radians, given by:
189
pu = ( u y ) L p
The ultimate displacement is then given as Du = 0.281m by computing:
u = y + pu L
(l) Displacement Limits on In-ground Hinge. Similar to the procedure used for the
determination of displacement limits for pile-deck hinge, the displacement limits on in-ground
hinge were determined by assessing moment curvature and pushover results for the critical
pile, being pile row E (Figure 8.34 and Figure 8.35). The yielding moment was obtained as
My = 551kNm with a displacement of 0.12m at a depth of 2.25m (this is relatively high as a

depth value). For a serviceability curvature, Fs = 0.0094/m, the rotation was obtained as ps =
0.000043 radians, and the displacement (Ds) being 0.12m. For damage control conditions, Fu
pu
= 0.11/m, = 0.067radians and Du = 0.36m.
Pile E: Depth vs Moment Pile E:Displacement vs Depth

-800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
2
1
-1
-2
D ep th (m )
D ep th (m )
-4
-3
-6
In-Ground Hinge -5
-8 Pile-deck hinge
Pile-Deck Hinge
In-ground Hinge
-10 -7
Moment (kNm) Displacement (m)
Figure 8.34. Pushover analysis: Figure 8.35. Pushover analysis:

Moment vs depth (Pile E) Displacement vs depth (Pile E)
(m) Eccentricity. The centre of mass previously found 13.27m from row E. For each force
of pile a to E from the pushover analysis corresponding to Dy = 0.062m, the centre of stiffness
was found to be ct = 4.65. This is measured from pile E and computed using:
T =
n i Vi i
n i Vi
190
Hence, the eccentricity, being the distance between the centre of mass and centre of stiffness
is obtained e = 7.62m.
(n) Equivalent Displacement and Ductility. For a wharf segment 52.8m long, the centre of
mass design displacement for pure transverse response is computed, Dt = 0.15m from:
cr
t =
1 + 6e / L
The expected displacement ductility demand of the system at the centre of mass is computed,
msys = 2.32:
t
sys =
1 .2 y
Dy is the yield displacement from the bilinear approximation of the pushover analysis of
the critical pile.
(o) Effective Period. The equivalent viscous damping is then determined to be xe = 17.02,
computed from:
e = 5.0 + 35(1 sys

0.5
)
From gross section properties, the stiffness was computed to be K = 11300kN/m from the bi-
linear computation of the pile at roe E. The weight for that part of the segment is
W=3874kN. The period with gross properties is then given as T = 1.17 sec:
W
T = 2
K g
From EN1998-1:2005, for ground Type C, with amplification factor S = 1.15; hazard PGA
for 10% probability of exceedence in 50 years equal to agr = 0.22; response spectra parameters
Tb(s) = 0.2, Tc(s) = 0.6, Td(s) = ; and slope factors St = 1.2 and importance factor gi = 1, an
displacement response spectrum for the wharf structure was constructed by computing
(Priestley, 2003; EN 1998-1: 2005):
n
T2 10
T , = 2 .aT ,5.g ; n = 0.25
2
T
T ,5 = 4 5+
.aT , 5.g
4 2
The value n is characterised for far field or near field conditions to the seismic event. Near
field condition was considered since the site is surrounded by faults which are in the range of
less than 30km away. Figure 8.36 shows the displacement response computed.
191
Displacemnt Response Spectrum

0.2
t =0.15m
Displacement Sd(T)
0.15
0.1
[m]
0.05
teff =1.69s
0
0 1 2 3 4
Period "T" [seconds]
Figure 8.36. Displacement response spectrum.
For a displacement Dt = 0.15 and damping xe = 17.02%, from the response spectrum, the
effective period was found to be Teff = 1.69 seconds.
(p) Lateral Strength. The lateral strength (Figure 8.37) is then computed as F = 8208kN,
given by:
F = k ss t
From the force-displacement responses, the number of piles required to provide strength F
is determined. The assumed configuration i.e. 5 rows of piles spaced 6 m transversely and
longitudinally was found to be adequate. Yet, since cranes are incorporated at on the deck,
particularly above roe E, it is suggested to reduce the longitudinal spacing to 3m. This
preliminary design based on pure transverse displacement should be revised for the system
ductility. If this is different, a new configuration should be studied and damping, effective
period, effective period and design lateral force recomputed, until the criteria is satisfied.
Other checks for shear keys and anchorages should be made.
F
Force (kN)
= (t / y)
kss
ki
y t
Displacement (m)
Figure 8.37. Force and displacement for the equivalent SDOF system.
192
Table 8.23. Pushover analysis of Piles A-E.

Displacement Pile E Pile D Pile C Pile B Pile A Total Force
(m) kN kN kN kN kN kN
0.000 -3 0 2 -2 0 -2
0.005 43 13 9 1 1 67
0.020 162 50 29 10 6 255
0.030 228 74 41 15 8 366
0.045 306 109 59 23 12 508
0.050 308 120 64 25 13 531
0.060 317 143 75 30 16 581
0.07 327 165 85 35 18 630
0.080 337 186 95 39 20 677
0.090 346 199 104 43 22 715
0.105 361 204 117 49 25 755
0.12 370 207 124 52 27 781
0.125 380 209 132 56 29 806
0.13 380 211 135 57 29 813
0.145 381 215 142 62 32 831
0.15 381 217 142 63 32 835
0.155 381 218 142 65 33 838
0.17 381 221 142 67 34 845
0.18 381 226 142 70 36 854
0.20 381 226 142 73 37 859
0.205 381 226 142 75 38 862
0.215 381 226 142 76 39 864
0.23 381 226 142 78 39 866
0.235 381 226 142 79 40 867
0.250 381 226 142 80 40 869
0.260 381 226 142 80 40 870
0.27 381 226 142 80 40 870
0.280 381 226 142 80 40 870
8.3.4 COMPARISON BETWEEN F.B.D. AND D.B.D.

The force based design procedure uses a 5% elastic damping and relies on
relationships between elastic and inelastic displacement which are generally invalid.
On the other hand the Displacementbased design procedure uses equivalent viscous
damping to represent elastic and hysteretic damping.
Yielding of reinforced concrete elements is independent of the axial load on the

member and the reinforcement ratio. This is observed from Moment-Curvature
relations (Priestley, 2003). Such independence suggests that the effective member
stiffness is proportional to the member strength. Generally in Force-Base design, the
stiffness is determined before the design strength of the element and strength is then
distributed in proportion to this stiffness. Yet, the stiffness considered is not correct
and hence the strength distribution is also not correct, since the effective period will be
wrong. Else, iterations are required in order to converge to an effective stiffness
193
giving an adequate period and strength distribution. In absence of such iterations, 3-D
modal analysis is generally required. Such analysis is sophisticated and time
consuming which tends to complicate the design instead of simplifying.
The use of reduction factors in F.B.D. instigate overstrength problems as

underestimate of strain hardening and actual strength of concrete (Priestley, 2003a)
F.B.D. does not represent well the inelastic development in different members at
different levels, since the pile stiffness is not uniform.
F.B.D. inadequately represents wharf structures since dual load paths exist where the
deck has to remain exclusively elastic, while some of the supporting piles have to go
inelastic.
The base shear Vb obtained by D.D.B.D. is lower than that obtained by F.B.D. On the
other hand, the ultimate displacements obtained by D.D.B.D are by far higher than
those obtained by F.B.D. procedure. Yet, this depends also on the damage criteria
followed.
The centre of moment displacement is independent on twist, then F.B.D.

underestimates displacements of piles other than the critical. This confirms that F.B.D.
has stiffness inadequacies, since as mentioned before, are assumed before the design.
F.B.D assumes strength dependence which is also not true.
In the D.D.B.D. procedure many assumptions are required to be done in order to

simplify the structure and convert the system into an equivalent SDOF. Under such
circumstances, it is easy to make mistakes.
194
9. CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH

9.1 General
An attempt has been made to briefly agglomerate data about the typologies of wharf
structures adopted in worldwide seaports. Their expected level of damage and seismic
vulnerability inferred from observations of past case studies was assessed. An attempt was
made to correlate the level of importance of a given seaport and its associated seismic hazard
information retrieved from standard macro-zonation studies available for a few countries
including US, Japan, China and in Europe; Greece, Turkey and Italy.
A thorough literature review on a series of case studies of damaged ports throughout the
world was carried out in order to identify damages which are characteristic to different wharf
typologies. Adopting a probabilistic approach, a system was developed to identify failure
modes characteristic to typologies and assess typologies against each other based on this
criteria. Performance levels and characteristics were taken into consideration.
A brief assessment of various seismic criteria as adopted by certain national codes was made.
This followed by an assessment of various analyses and design methodologies depending on
the level of performance and damage required. To substantiate this, codified procedures from
Japan, North America and Europe were described. New emerging methodologies such as
DBD were discussed against traditional methodologies. Practical design examples using
codified pseudo static approaches on the Port of Gioia Tauro were used to investigate
Japanese, North American and European approaches to closed type wharves. The analysis on
the open wharf at the Port of Catania was used to further investigate and compare different
approaches towards design. Throughout the research many aspects were identified to be of
importance. Such were liquefaction, settlement and pile group action. These were sufficiently
discussed without special emphasis since each requires stand alone thorough investigations,
and hence would have misguided the generalising aim of the study.
9.2 Risk, Hazard and Performance.

History has shown that ports have always been an important asset in the civilization and
economical aspects of a society. Economic logistics have driven into the importance
efficiency of ports, particularly under natural hazards particularly earthquake. Hence, this led
to the shift in design philosophy i.e. it is not enough to design a structure against catastrophic
failure, but design against a performance level under an expected event or hazard
characteristic to the area.
195
As observed, in Chapter 1, overlapping hazard maps with different hazard maps, and codified
hazard maps that change the hazard of a site with time, can inject a level of uncertainty at
such early stage of the design when hazard is used as an input for the analysis of the
performance required. From the assessment of hazard associated to ports of worldwide
countries was observed that most of the ports are located in moderate seismic regions.
The most important worldwide ports are located in China, whose coast varies from low to
high seismicity with the latter covering only a small part. From the Pearson correlation
analysis, it was observed that most important ports are in moderate to low seismicity. Yet, the
emerging fast growing ports are more distributed in higher seismic regions.
It is important to keep in mind that though a port can be in a moderate to low seismic area, its
risk can still be high if its design level is lower than the damage criteria. Assessment was
based on the presumption that the ports design and construction methodologies are on the
same level. This is in practice not true and can be observed as previously shown from
anomalies between different codes of practice.
9.3 Typologies and Damage

From the investigated case-histories, ports are classified into open-type and closed type. The
latter is divided between pile retaining walls and gravity walls. The simplified configurations
of typologies were identified to be 17. These include similar typologies but with different
performance due to that minor difference. The basic elements constituting a wharf could be
grouped in 12 simplified members. 22 types of damages were identified, on which the
occurrence of some depends on that of another damage type or failure. It was also observed,
that closed type wharves are more popular in Asia, while open type wharves in America.
From the probabilistic approach, the typologies most prone to failure are sheet pile walls for
both serviceability and ultimate conditions. Yet, the discrepancy with other typologies for the
ultimate conditions is more. This is due to the fact that the structural redundancy once a
particular element fails is very low. The structural success of an element depends on that of
another, and once an element fails the performance of other elements automatically becomes
critical. The weighting of certain failure modes such as the pile-deck hinge in pile supported
wharves depends on the detailing level and the type of anchorage system used. This means
that issues other then the nature of the damage could be relevant.
The most failure modes that are most prone to be present in case of failure are settlement and
seaward displacement. Yet, these are dependent in some cases on the occurrence of
liquefaction. This makes liquefaction as the catalyst to damage and other induced failures.
The relevance of other failure modes such as kick-out of toe, anchor pullout and sliding
blocks was observed to be very small. These can be characteristic to specific elements of
limited typologies only. Their significance can therefore be relatively higher to their specific
typologies. Although a wall is found in most of the typologies considered, its collapse at
ultimate condition was observed to be low. This can be due to the fact that it is one of the few
singular elements that resist directly to lateral displacement.
196
9.4 Design And Analysis

The design approach of open type wharves in the practical field is more considered as
structural oriented, while that of closed type wharf is more geotechnical. Yet its important that
for such structures, soil structure interaction be considered. EN1998-1:2005 is one of the few
codes which directly refer to kinematic and inertial effects
From a design practice point of view, nearly all national codes lack specific address to port
structures, and seismic assessment and considerations, and general analysis and design have
to follow practices specific for other particular structures such as bridges and buildings. These
can be un-appropriate since the criteria requirements can differ. For instance, the design of a
pile supported wharf considers the pile deck element as a frame. This requires that plastic
hinges form initially inside the pile at the pile-deck hinge, then inside the ground in the pile.
Yet, had a building code that is adapted for the design of an open type wharf is based on the
presumptions that plastic hinges form initially in all the sides of the beams. This goes against
the requirement philosophy for pile supported wharf frames.
Provisions of seismic coefficients and factors such as importance factor do not cover
generally the category for ports. Soil amplification factors are generally related or aimed for
constructions on level soil or with a slight inclination, with a characteristic soil depth of 30m
in a lateral continuum. Port structures consist in a soil dis-continuum with a structural
elevation comparable to the depth considered by codes for soil amplification. Such anomalies
make the possible use and adaptation of national codes questionable.
The OCDI (2002) is one of the few national codes specifically on port structures. It accounts
for many details required to be taken in consideration for the design. On the other hand, it
lacks a certain level of generalisation, where certain address to problems such as load
combinations are too specific and does not allow divergence.
Hence, it is importance to have national codes that refer to port structures, else the choice can
only be other more rigorous solutions based on F.E.M. or F.D.M. Yet, such advanced
analyses are not always easy to perform, since they depend on the level of input parameters
that is needed and that is able to be retrieved. Moreover a high level of experience and
engineering judgement may be required in the choice of the best code that is most adequate to
solve the problem, and the modelling degree. EN 1998-1 and 5 (2005) is too generalized and
no reference is made to port or wharf structures. Bits and pieces have to be combined from
different parts of codes. This can make it easy to neglect certain important issues. For the
North American practices being more oriented towards open-type wharves, innovation of
design methodologies such as DBD is particularly targeted to such typologies. A case in point
is the POLA code.
The Eurocode is one of the few codes that directly refer to Soil Structure interaction. With
such measures displacements and stresses can be better estimated, and hence control better
failure characteristics.
197
9.5 Validation of Pseudo-Static Approaches for Closed Wharves.

The pseudo-static method adopted by Eurocode 8 (EC8) describes well the maximum bending
moment obtained from advanced finite element analysis of the original modification design of
the wharf in Gioia Tauro. The displacements are slightly under predicted for the ultimate case
. The seismic loads computed according to Japanese practice (OCDI, 2002) were too low and
the bending moment and displacement patterns compare well with the corresponding charts
from EC8 for the case kv=0. For the Japanese practice, kh increases with depth, however
being a function of PGA kh is expected to decrease with depth. For the North American
practice (PIANC, 2001), it is observed that the predicted maximum bending moment is higher
than that obtained by following Japanese practice, probably because the factor (1-kv) was
taken into account. Its loading pattern however do not reach the values predicted by EC8. The
maximum moment and displacements obtained when point loads were used on the
RUAUMOKO model show that they are comparable to those obtained from the original
design by Plaxis. The distributions are then wrong. On keeping the tie-fixed for the
computation on Winklers beam, the lateral deflection is smaller than the actual, while the
moments are slightly larger.
9.6 Traditional and Modern Approaches for Open-Type Wharves

The main advantage of DBD is that it deals directly with damage criteria and capacity
requirements, while in FBD, damage criteria is dealt with at the end through a number of
iterative processes. In DBD a high level of engineering judgment is required particularly in
determining the various damage levels which are critical. This can be rigorous. The essence of
DBD is to find an equivalent SDOF for the system. Some relations for the computation in
DBD methodology rely on experimental work of specific configurations. In case the
configuration is not regular and has to incorporate special elements such as retaining walls,
the problem to determine the equivalent single degree of freedom is more difficult.
In FBD a force reduction factor is applied to the design elastic force based on equal ductility
demand. The resultant force is then distributed in each pile in proportion to their respective
stiffness. This is inappropriate since in practice seaward piles, having larger free lengths are
less stiff and hence remain elastic. Single mode or multi-mode analyses are not adequate to
determine forces in shear keys between adjacent segments. This is so since these forces
depend on displacements and forces of adjacent segments, and response forces.
9.7 Further Research

Prevention is better then cure. It is always best to avoid problems rather then invent
them and solve them afterwards. Hence, it is best to avoid batter piles and sheet pile
walls. Yet, when this is not possible or no alternatives exist, these should be used with
the most effective ways. Further studies on redundancy improvement of such typology
and structural element should be made.
Although, corrosion mitigation methodologies are frequently suggested and described

by codes, it would be interesting to also investigate the aging degree of the materials
vis--vis capacity reduction and demand issues and criteria.
198
The guidelines by Pianc (2001) and Werner (1998) are appropriate for wharf design
and assessment. Retrofitting methodologies and guidelines for existing wharf
structures should be developed.
Liquefaction and mitigation techniques should be studied and investigated specifically

for port where elevation changes exist and the soil is not a continuum. This has to be
assessed with the different wharf typologies.
Investigations on methodologies on how SSI can be incorporated in codes.
Furthermore, investigations on the distribution and quantity of the wharf structure

typologies should be made in order to determine the most critical issues. On such
issues, particular focus could be given to further improve the design.
199
Appendix A
REFERENCES
API-LRFD [1997] Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing Fixed
Offshore Platforms-Load and Resistance Factor Design American Petroleum Institute,
Washington D.C.
ASCE-7 [2002] Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures, American Society of
Civil Engineers.
Ashar, A [2002] Revolution now, Containerisation International.
Bentz, E. [2001], Response-2000: 2D Sectional analysis of beams and columns, University of Toronto,
Canada.
Bijeker, E.W. [1996] History and Heritage in coastal Engineering in the Netherlands. History and
Heritage of Coastal Engineering, N.C. Kraus, ed., Coastal Engineering Research Council,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, pp. 390-412.
Buslov, V.M. [1996] Evaluating earthquake damage to concrete wharves, Concrete International,
pp. 50-54.
Carr, A.J., [2005] Ruaumoko 2D: Dynamic Analysis of 2-D In-elastic Structures, University of
Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
Carvalho, E., Elnashai, A., Faccioli, E., Fardis, M., Pinto, P. & Plumier, A. [2004] Designers Guide
to EN 1998-1 and EN 1998-5 Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance,
Thomas Telford, U.K.
Ceraulo, L., [2005] Relazione Geologica, Studi Geognostici e Prove di Laboratorio:B & F Design
Document of Catania Port, Catania Port Authority.
Ceroni, E. [2002] Micropali pali di fondazione, sottopassi e tunnel, plinti bassi quadrati, Dario
Flaccovio, Italy.
Choudhury, D. and Singh, S. [2005] New approach for estimation of static and seismic active earth
pressure. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering; Ref. No. GEGE2259, Springer, The
Netherlands .
Collins, M.P. and Mitchell, D. [1997] Prestressed Concrete Structures, Response Calculations,
Canada.
Comatin, C.D. (ed.) [1995] Guam earthquake of August 8, 1993 Reconnaissance Report,
Earthquake Spectra; Supplement B to Vol. 11, EERI.
Day, R.W. [2002] Geotechnical earthquake Engineering handbook, Mc-Graw and Hill, New York.
EAK [2000] Greek Antiseismic Code, OASP/SPME.
Ebeding, R.M. & Morison, E.E. [1992] The Seismic Design of Waterfront Retaining Structures, US
Army Corps of Engineers, Technical Report ITL-92-11, Washington D.C.
200
Appendix A
Egan, J.A., Hayden, R.F., Scheibel., Otus, M. and Seventi, G.M. [1992] Seismic repair at Seventh
Street Marine Terminal, Grouting, Soil Imporovement and Geosynthetics, Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 30, ASCE, pp. 867-878.
Eidinger, J.M., [2001] Gujarat (Kutch) India Earthquake of January 26, 2001. Technical Council on
Lifeline Earthquake Engineering
EN 1997-1: 2005. Eurocode 7 Geotechnical design Part 1: general Rules, Commission of the
European Communities.
EN 1998-1:2005. Eurocode 8- Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance- Part 1: General rules,
seismic actions and rules for buildings, European Communities Commission.
EN 1998-5:2005. Eurocode 8- Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance-Part 5: Foundations,
Retaining structures and Geotechnical aspects, European Communities Commission.
Englekirk, R.E., (2003). Seismic Design of Reinforced and Precast Concrete Buildings. Wiley &
Sons INC., USA
ESPO, [2005] Factual Report on the European Port Sector, European Seaports Organisation,
Brussels.
Ferrito, J., Dickenson, S., Priestley N., Werner, S. and Taylor C. [1999] Seismic Criteria For
California Marine Oil Terminals, Naval Facilities Engineering Centre Shore facilities Department
Structure Division, California.
Finn W.D.L. [2005] A Study of Piles during Earthquakes. Issues of Design and Analysis, Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering, 3: 141-234.
Franco, L. [1996] History of Coastal Engineering in Italy, History and Heritage of Coastal
Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.
Friedman, Z. [2003] Caesarea Maritima, The NAVIS II project, European Commision Directorate
General X, Brussels.
Furiozzi, B., Messina, C. & Paolini L., [1998] Prontuario con Software Didattico per Il Calcolo di
Elementi Strutturali, Le Monnier, Italy.
Gazetas, G.,Anastasopoulos, I., Dakoulas, P. [2005] Failure of Harbour Quay wall in the Lefkada
2003 Earthquake, (Personal communication).
GBJ 11-89 Code for Seismic Design of Buildings, National Standards of The Peoples Republic of
China.
Giardini, D., Jimenez, M.J., and Gruenthal, G. [2003] European-Mediterranean Seismic Hazard
Map. European Seismological commission, International Geological Correlation Program, ESC-
SESAME.
Global Security, [2003] Photograph: Bayonne Naval Base, New York, Global Security
Organisation, http://www.globalsecurity.org
GSHAP, [1999] Global Seismic Hazard Assessment Program (GSHAP) in Continental Asia, Global
Seismic Hazard Assessment Program, Switzerland, http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/GSHAP/
Heller, C. [2006] Diving into History in King Harods Harbour, Reuters.
Hong Kong Marine Department [2003] Photograph: Hong Kong Container Port, The Government of
the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, http://www.mardep.gov.hk
Iai, S. and Ichii, K. [1998] Performance Based Design for Port Structures., Proceedings of the 30th
Joint Meeting of the U.S.-Japan Cooperative Program in Natural Resources Panel on Wind and
Seismic Effects, NIST SP 931, U.S. Department of Commerce.
201
Appendix A
Iai, S. and Kameoka, T. [1993] Finite element analysis of earthquake induced damage to anchored
sheet pile quay walls, Soils and Foundations; Vol:33(1): 71-91.
Iai, S., Matsunaga, Y., Morita, T., Miyata, M., Sakurai, H., Oishi, H., Ogura,H., Ando, Y., Tanaka, Y.,
and Kato, M. [1994] Effects of remedial measures against liquefaction at 1993 Kushiro-Oki
earthquake, Proc. 5th US-Japan Workshop on Earthquake Resistant Design of Lifeline Facilities
and Countermeasures against Soil Liquefaction, NCEER-94-0026, National Center for
Earthqauake Engineering Research, pp. 135-152.
Inagaki, H., Iai, S., Sugano, T., Yamazaki, H., and Inatomi, T. [1996] Performance of caisson type
quay walls at Kobe port, Soils and Foundations, Special issue on Geotechnical Aspects of the
January 17 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake, pp. 119-136.
Inatomi, T.,Uwabe, T., Iai, S., Kazama, M., Yamazaki, H., Matsunaga, Y., Sekiguchi, S., Mizuno, Y.
& Fujimoto, Y., [1994].Damage to Port Facilities by the 1993 Hokkaido-Nansei-Oki
Earthquake, Technical Note of the Port and Harbour Research Institute.
INGV, [2006] Italian Seismic Hazard Data, Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e,Vulcanologia, Italy,
http://www.zonesismiche.mi.ingv.it
ITASCA [1995] FLAC Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua, Users Manual, Itasca Consulting
Group, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Japan Society of Civil Engineer, [1990] Preliminary Report of JSCE, Reconnaissance Team on July
16, 1990 Luzon Earthquake.
Kairates, K. [2000] The 147 Cities of Ancient Crete, http://Kairates.com.gr/myweb
Keay, T.B. [1942] Coast Erosion in Great Britain, General Question of Erosion and Prevention of
Damage; and the Drainage of Low-Lying Lands, Shore and Beach, Vol. 10, No.2, pp. 66-68.
Kramer, S.L., (1996). Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey
Lancellotta, R. [2001] Geotecnica, Zanichelli, Italy.
Lipschutz, S. [2000] Theory and Problems of probability, Schaum Outline Series.
Malta Tourism Authority, [2005] Photograph: Imsida Yacht Marina, Malta Tourism Authority,
http://www.visitmalta.com.
Martin G. [2005]. POLA Code: Presentation on Geotechnical Aspects. Container Wharf Seismic
Code Workshop, Port of Los Angeles, California.
Middle-East Technical University (METU), [2006] Turkish Seismic Hazard Map, Government of
Turkey, www.deprem.gov.tr ; www.metu.edu.tr.
Muenster, S. [1590-1630] Painting: Fortified ports in the Mediterranean., Basle.
Neville, A.M. [1997] Properties of Concrete, Longman Series, London.
Noda, S., Uwabe, T. & Chiba, T. [1975] Relation between seismic coefficient and ground
acceleration for gravity quay wall, Report of Port and Harbour Research Institute; 14(4): 67 -111.
Notteboom, T. [2000] De invloed van ruimtelijke en logistieke ontwikkelingen in het voorland-
achterlandcontinum op de positie en functie van zeehavens, Ph.D. thesis, RUCA.
Nozu, A., Koji, I., Sugano, T., (2004). Seismic Design of Port Structures, Journal of Japan
association for Earthquake Engineering; Vol. 4, No. 3 (Special Issue).
NTZS1170.5:2004. Structural Design Actions, Earthquake Actions, Council of Standards, New
Zealand.
NZS 1170.5:2004. Structural Design Action. Part 5: Earthquake Actions New Zealand. Standards
New Zealand.
202
Appendix A
OCDI [2002] Technical Standards and Commentaries for Port And Harbor Facilities in Japan,
Overseas Coastal Area Development Institute, Japan.
OPCM-3274, [2003] Norme Techniche per il Progetto, La Valutazione e lAdeguamento Sismico
Degli Edifici, Italian Government Gazette.
OPCM-3274, [2005] Norme Techniche per il Progetto, La Valutazione e lAdeguamento Sismico
Degli Edifici, Italian Government Gazette.
OPCM-3519, [2006] Criteri Generali per lIndividuazione Delle Zone Sismiche e per la Formazione e
laggiornamento degli elenchi delle medesime zone, Italian Government Gazette.
Ozutsumi, O., Yuu, K., Kiyama, M. & Iai, , S. [2000] Residual deformation analysis of sheet-pile
quay wall and backfill ground at Showa-Ohashi site by simplified method, Proc. 12th World
Conference on earthquake Engineering, Auckland.
Petrini, L., Pinho, R. & Calvi, G.M. [2004] Criteri di Progettazione Antisismica degli Edifici, IUSS
Press, Pavia, Italy.
PIANC [2001] Seismic Design Guidelines for Port Structures, International Navigation Association,
A.A. Balkema Publishers, Tokyo.
Pitilakis, K. & Moutsakis, A. [1989] Seismic analysis and behaviour of gravity retaining walls the
case of Kalamata harbour quaywall, Soils and foundations; 29(1): 1-17.
PMHW, [1998] World Ports Harbours and Marinas, Ports Marinas Harbours Worldwide,
http://www.portfocus.com, (2006)
POLA [2004] Code for Seismic Design, Upgrade and Repair of Container Wharves, Post of Los
Angeles, California, USA.
Port Authority of Barcelona [2004]. Photograph: Adossat cruise liner wharf, Port Authority Service,
Port of Barcelona, http://www.apb.es
Poulos, H.G. and Davis, E.H. [1987] Analisi e progettazione di fondazioni su Pali, Dario Flaccovio
(Italian edition)
Priestley, M.J.N. [2003]a Seismic Criteria for California Marine Oil Terminals: Volume 3 Design
example, TR-2103-SHR, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center.
Priestley, M.J.N. [2003]b Myths and Fallacies in Earthquake Engineering, Revisited, IUSS Press,
Pavia, Italy.
Priestley, M.J.N. [2005]. POLA Code: Presentation on Structural Aspects. Container Wharf Seismic
Code Workshop, Port of Los Angeles, California.
Priestley, M.J.N. [2006] Direct Displacement Based Design: Wharves and Piers, (personal
communication)
Probst, G.B., (1760), Painting: Prospect des Meer Hafens der Insul Malta., Augsburg.
Quinn, A. [1972] Design and Construction of Ports and Marine Structures, Second Edition, McGraw-
Hill, New York.
Richards, R. & Elms, D. [1979] Seismic Behaviour of Gravity Retaining Walls, Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division; ASCE 105(GT4):449-464.
Scarpelli, G. [2005] Lavori Di Escavo Del Canale e Del Bacino Di Espnsione del Porto. Design
document of Gioia Tauro Port, Gioia Tauro Port Authority.
Seed, H.B., [2003] Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering: a unified and consistent
framework. Keynote Presentation, 26th annual ASCE Los Angeles Geotechnical Spring Seminar,
Spiegel, M.R. [2000] Theory and Problems of Probability and Statistics, Schaums Outline Series.
203
Appendix A
SPSS V.12, [2003] SPSS: Predictive Analytical Software, SPSS inc., Illinois.
Steedman, R.S. [1998] Seismic Design of Retaining Walls, Geotechnical Engineering Proceedings,.
Institution of Civil Engineers; Vol. 131, pp. 12-22.
Sugano, T. & Iai, S., [1999] Damage to port facilities, The 1999 Kocaeli Earthquake, Turkey
Investigation into Damage to Civil Engineering Structures, Earthquake Engineering Committee,
Japan Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 6-1-6-14.
Sugano, T., Kaneko, H. and Yamamoto, S. [1999] Damage to port facilities, The 1999 Ji-Ji
Earthquake , Taiwan, Investigation into Damage to Civil Engineering Structures, Earthquake
Engineering Committee, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 5-1-5-7.
Tai, Vo. [2005] Photograph: Fishing Port of Mersing, www.trekearth.com
TREVI [2000] Porto Industriale Gioia Tauro, Italy, Construction Brochure.
Tsuchida, H., de La Fuente, R.H., Noda, S., & Valenzuela, M.G. [1996] Damage to port facilities in
Port of Valparaiso and Port of San Antonio by the March 3, 1985 earthquake in middle of Chile,
4as Jordanadas Cileanas de Sismologia e Intenieria Antisismica & International Seminar on the
Chilean March 3, 1985 earthquake.
Tsuchida, H., Noda S., Inatomi, T., Iai, S., Ohneda, H. $ Toyama, S., [1985] Damage to port
Structures by the 1993 Nipponaki-Chubu Earthquake, Technical Note, Port and Harbour Research
Institute, No. 511, 447p.
Turkish Seismic Code, [2006] Specifications for Structures to be Built in Disaster Areas, Ministry of
Public Works and Settlement, Gov. of Republic of Turkey.
USGS, (2006).National Seismic hazard Maps, United States Geological Survey,
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/research/
Werner, S.T. [1998] Seismic Guidelines for Ports, Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake
Engineering, Monograph No.12, ASCE
Whitman, R.V. & Liao, S. [1985]. Seismic design of retaining walls, US Army Corporation of
Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Miscellaneous Paper Gl-85-1
Wiggins-Grandison M., Harris N., Nishenko S., McCann B., and Honeycutt M. [2001] Kingston
Metropolitan Area Seismic Hazard Assessment, Caribbean Disaster Mitigation Project, USAID.
Yoneyama, H., Shiraishi, S. and Uwabe, T. [2000] A Study on Load Factors of Seismic Loads on
Limit State Design Method For Port and Offshore structures in Japan. 8th ASCE Speciality
Conference on Probabilistic Mechanics and Structural Reliability.
204
Appendix A
APPENDIX A
Hazard of Worldwide Ports
The following is a list of various ports and their associated hazard equivalent to 10%
probability of exceedence in 50 years
No. Greek Ports ag ag ag

(g) No. Italian Ports (2006) (2004)
1 Piraeus, 0.16 (g) (g)
2 Thessaloniki, 0.16 1 Ancona, 0.2 0.25
3 Alexandroupolis, 0.12 2 Augusta, 0.25 0.25
4 Volos, 0.24 3 Bari, 0.1 0.15
5 Elefsis, 0.16 4 Brindisi, 0.05 0.05
6 Igoumenitsa, 0.24 5 Cagliari, 0.025 0.05
7 Heraklion, 0.24 6 Catania, 0.2 0.25
8 Kavala, 0.16 7 Civitavecchia, 0.075 0.05
9 Corfu, 0.24 8 Genova, 0.1 0.05
10 Lavrion, 0.12 9 Gioia Tauro, 0.225 0.35
11 Patras 0.24 10 La Spezia, 0.135 0.25
12 Rafina 0.12 11 Livorno, 0.13 0.25
13 Rhodes 0.24 12 Marina Carrara, 0.13 0.25
14 Lefkada 0.36 13 Messina, 0.275 0.35
14 Napoli, 0.175 0.25
15 Olbia, 0.025 0.05
16 Palermo, 0.2 0.25
17 Piombino, 0.05 0.05
18 Ravenna, 0.15 0.15
19 Salerno, 0.125 0.05
20 Savona, 0.075 0.05
21 Taranto, 0.1 0.15
22 Trapani, 0.075 0.25
23 Trieste, 0.15 0.05
24 Venezia. 0.075 0.05
A1
Appendix A
No. Turkish Ports ag

(g) No. USA Ports State ag
1 Istanbul: Karakoy 0.3 (g)
2 Istanbul: Haydorpasa 0.4 1 Adak AK 0.32 .+
3 Izmir 0.4 2 Albany NY 0.04
4 Rize 0.1 3 Anacortes WA 0.32
5 Trabzon 0.1 4 Astoria OR 0.24
6 Sinop 0.1 5 Baltimore MD 0.04
7 Bartin 0.4 6 Baton Rouge LA 0.02
8 Antalya 0.3 7 Beaumont TX 0.02
9 Isterderun 0.4 8 Bellingham WA 0.24
10 Mersin 0.2 9 Benton WA 0.16
11 Samsun 0.2 10 Boston MA 0.08
12 Bandirma 0.4 11 Bremerton WA 0.32
13 Zonguldak 0.3 12 Bridgeport CT 0.04
14 Kusadasi 0.4 Brookings
15 Giresun 0.1 13 Harbour OR 0.32
16 Sile 0.3 14 Brownsville TX 0.02
17 Armutlu 0.4 15 Brunswick GA 0.04
18 Darica 0.4 16 Bucksport ME 0.04
19 Canakkale 0.4 17 Buffalo NY 0.04
18 Burns Harbour IN 0.02
19 Burnside LA 0.02
20 Camden NJ 0.04
New Zealand
21 Charleston SC 0.24
No. Ports ag
22 Chicago IL 0.04
(g)
23 Cleveland OH 0.04
1 Auckland 0.13
24 Coos Bay OR 0.32
2 Bluff 0.15
25 Corpus Christi TX 0.02
3 Lyttelton 0.2
26 Detroit MI 0.02
4 Napier 0.38
27 Duluth MN 0.02
5 Picton 0.16
28 Dutch Harbour AK 0.32 .+
6 Port Nelson 0.27
29 Eastport ME 0.08
7 Port Otago 0.13
30 Erie PA 0.04
8 Port Taranaki 0.18
31 Eureka CA 0.32 .+
9 Tauranga 0.2
32 Everett WA 0.32
10 Timaru 0.15
33 Fall River MA 0.04
11 Wellington 0.4
34 Fourchon LA 0.02
12 Westport 0.3
35 Freeport TX 0.02
13 Whangarei 0.13
36 Galveston TX 0.02
37 Grays Harbour WA 0.32
A2
Appendix A
38 Green Bay WI 0.02 78 Palacios TX 0.02

39 Gulfport MS 0.02 79 Palm Beach FL 0.02
40 Hilo Harbour HI 0.32 80 Panama City FL 0.02
41 Homer AK 0.32 .+ 81 Pascagoula MS 0.02
42 Honolulu HI 0.16 82 Pasco WA 0.16
43 Hood River OR 0.16 83 Pensacola FL 0.02
44 Houston TX 0.02 84 Philadelphia PA 0.08
45 Iberia LA 0.02 85 Pittsburgh PA 0.02
46 Jacksonville FL 0.04 Point Comfort
47 Jeffersonville IN 0.04 86 (Lavaca) TX 0.02
48 Juneau AK 0.32 87 Port Angeles WA 0.32
49 Kalama WA 0.24 88 Port Arthur TX 0.02
50 Kodiak AK 0.32 .+ 89 Port Canaveral FL 0.02
51 Lamberts Point VA 0.02 90 Port Everglades FL 0.02
52 Long Beach CA 0.32 .+ 91 Port Mackenzie AK 0.04
53 Longview WA 0.24 92 Port Manatee FL 0.02
Los Angeles 93 Portland ME 0.08
54 (POLA) CA 0.32 .+ 94 Portland OR 0.24
55 Memphis TN 0.24 95 Portsmouth NH 0.08
56 Miami FL 0.02 96 Portsmouth VA 0.02
57 Milwaukee WI 0.02 97 Providence RI 0.04
58 Mobile AL 0.02 98 Redwood City CA 0.32
59 Monroe MI 0.02 99 Sacramento CA 0.24
60 Morehead City NC 0.02 100 San Diego CA 0.32
61 Morgan City LA 0.02 101 San Francisco CA 0.32 .+
62 Morro Bay CA 0.32 102 Savannah GA 0.08
63 Mount Vernon IN 0.04 103 Seattle WA 0.32 .+
64 New Bedford MA 0.04 Shreveport-
65 New Haven CT 0.04 104 Bossier LA 0.02
66 New Orleans LA 0.02 105 South Louisiana LA 0.02
67 New York NY 0.08 106 St Bernard LA 0.02
68 Newark NJ 0.08 107 Stockton CA 0.16
69 Newport News VA 0.02 108 Tacoma WA 0.32 .+
70 Newport OR 0.32 109 Tampa FL 0.02
71 Nome AK 0.16 110 Texas City TX 0.02
72 Norfolk VA 0.02 111 The Dalles OR 0.16
73 Oakland CA 0.32 .+ 112 Tillamook Bay OR 0.24
74 Ogdensburg NY 0.16 113 Toledo OH 0.04
75 Olympia WA 0.32 114 Vancouver WA 0.24
76 Orange TX 0.02 115 Wilmington DE 0.04
77 Oswego NY 0.04 116 Wilmington NC 0.04
A3
Appendix A
40 Tai Cang 0.04
No. China Ports ag (g) 41 Taizhou 0.24

42 Tang Shan 0.24
1 Basuo 0.08
43 Tianjin 0.16
2 Beihai 0.04
44 Weihai 0.08
3 Changshu 0.04
45 Wenzhou 0.24
4 Changzhou 0.04
46 Xiamen 0.16
5 Chiwan 0.08
47 Xinhui 0.08
6 Dadong/Dandong 0.08
48 Yangjiang 0.24
7 Dalian 0.24
49 Yangpu 0.16
8 Fangcheng 0.02
50 Yangzhou 0.08
9 Fuzhou 0.08
51 Yantai 0.08
10 Guangzhou 0.04
52 Yantian 0.24
11 Haikou 0.16
53 Yingkou 0.16
12 Hong Kong 0.04
54 Zhangjiagang 0.04
13 Hu Lu Tao 0.08
55 Zhangzhou 0.16
14 Huadu 0.04
56 Zhanjiang 0.04
15 Huanghua 0.24
57 Zhapu 0.04
16 Huizhou 0.04
58 Zhenjiang 0.04
17 Jiangyin 0.08
59 Zhoushan 0.04
18 Jinzhou 0.08
60 Zhuhai 0.08
19 Lanshan 0.16
20 Lianyungang 0.24
21 Longkou 0.02
22 Macao 0.04
23 Mawan 0.04
No. Japan Ports ag
24 Nanjing 0.04
(g)
25 Nantong 0.04
1 Abashiri 0.16
26 Ningbo 0.04
2 Akabane 0.41
27 Penglai 0.16
3 Akasaki 0.41
28 Qingdao 0.16
4 Akita 0.33
29 Qinhuangdao 0.16
5 Aomori 0.33
30 Qinzhou 0.02
6 Beppu 0.49
31 Quanzhou 0.08
7 Chiba 0.41
32 Rizhao 0.24
8 Fukaura 0.32
33 Sanya 0.16
9 Fukui 0.41
34 Shanghai 0.08
10 Haboro 0.16
35 Shantou 0.08
11 Hachinohe 0.24
36 Shanwei 0.08
12 Hagi 0.41
37 Shekou 0.24
13 Hakata 0.16
38 Shenzhen 0.24
14 Hakodate 0.24
39 Shidao 0.08
A4
Appendix A
15 Hamada 0.41 56 Mizushima 0.24

16 Hamanaka (Kiritappu) 0.41 57 Monbetsu 0.16
17 Hannan 0.49 58 Mori 0.24
18 Hatsukaichi 0.24 59 Morozaki 0.49
19 Hidaka 0.41 60 Muroran 0.49 .+
20 Himeji 0.33 61 Murotsu 0.41
21 Hirao 0.24 62 Mutsu-Ogawara 0.24
22 Hiroshima 0.24 63 Nagasaki 0.49
23 Hitachi 0.33 64 Nagoya 0.41
24 Hitachinaka 0.02 65 Naha 0.02
25 Hososhima 0.49 66 Nakatsu 0.24
26 Ishikari Bay New Port 0.24 67 Nanao 0.41
27 Ishinomaki 0.33 68 Naoetsu 0.41
28 Iwakuni 0.24 69 Naze 0.02
29 Iwanai 0.24 70 Nemuro 0.41
30 Kagoshima 0.33 71 Niigata 0.33
31 Kamikawaguchi 0.49 72 Noshiro 0.32
32 Kanazawa 0.41 73 Notoro 0.16
33 Kanda 0.49 74 Oarai 0.02
34 Kashima 0.49 .+ 75 Oga 0.33
35 Katahara 0.41 76 Oita 0.49
36 Kawasaki 0.49 .+ 77 Okayama 0.16
37 Kawashimo 0.24 78 Okushiri 0.24
38 Kinuura 0.49 79 Oma 0.32
39 Kisarazu 0.49 .+ 80 Ominato 0.33
40 Kitakyushu 0.16 81 Omosu 0.49 .+
41 Kobe 0.41 82 Omu 0.08
42 Kochi 0.41 83 Onagawa 0.33
43 Kumamoto 0.41 84 Onahama 0.33
44 Kure 0.24 85 Onoda 0.16
45 Kurii 0.41 86 Osaka 0.41
46 Kushiro 0.49 .+ 87 Otaru 0.24
47 Maizuru 0.41 88 Otsu 0.41
48 Masuda 0.41 89 Rebun 0.16
49 Matsue 0.41 90 Rishiri 0.16
50 Matsumae 0.33 91 Rumoi 0.16
51 Matsuyama 0.33 92 Saigo 0.41
52 Mikawa 0.24 93 Saiki 0.49
53 Mishima Kawanoe 0.24 94 Sakai 0.41
54 Mitajiri Nakanoseki 0.24 95 Sakaide 0.24
55 Miyazaki 0.41 96 Sakata 0.33
A5
Appendix A
97 Sendai 0.33 Kudamatsu

98 Setana 0.24 118 Tokyo 0.41
99 Shibushi 0.41 119 Tomakomai 0.24
100 Shichiri-Nagahama 0.33 120 Tomari 0.41
101 Shichirui 0.33 121 Tottori 0.41
102 Shimizu 0.49 .+ 122 Toyama 0.41
103 Shimonoseki 0.41 123 Tsuruga 0.41
104 Shingu 0.49 124 Ube 0.33
105 Shiraoi 0.24 125 Uno 0.24
106 Shiriya Misaki 0.24 126 Urakawa 0.33
107 Soma 0.32 127 Wakayama 0.49 .+
108 Soya 0.16 128 Wakkanai 0.16
109 Sukumo Bay 0.49 129 Yanai 0.33
110 Susaki 0.41 130 Yatsushiro 0.41
111 Tajiri 0.41 131 Yodoe 0.41
112 Takamatsu 0.24 132 Yoichi 0.24
113 Takuno 0.41 133 Yokkaichi 0.41
114 Teshio 0.16 134 Yokohama 0.49 .+
115 Teuri 0.24 135 Yokosuka 0.49 .+
116 Todohokke 0.24
117 Tokuyama 0.24
A6
Appendix B
APPENDIX B
Assessment of Port Typologies and Damage
The Following is a list of port authorities that was compiled in order to retrieve information about port
structures and any related damages in recent history.
B1
Appendix B
website Port Name Country e-mail telephone fax description

http://www.tcdd.gov.tr/liman/izmir.htm Izmir turkey izmirliman@tcdd.gov.tr 0-232-463 16 00 0-232-463 22 48 Port authority
http://www.armamarine.com/port_of_istanbul_haydarpasa
.html Istanbul turkey arma@armamarine.com .+90-212-249-2197 / Port authority
.+90-212- Genreal
http://www.economou.gr/site/branches.nsf/Sets/Istanbul Istanbul turkey eisaist@eisa.com.tr .+90-212-2529855 2930624 company
Tekirdag.istanb .+90-282-261-20- .+90-282-262-
http://www.akport.com.tr/ ul turkey akport@akport.com.tr 25 91-62 authority
http://www.jwdliftech.com/home.html Oakland USA Liftech@liftech.net 1-510-832-5606 1-510-832-2436 Company
Istanbul/hydarp haydarpasaliman@tcdd.gov. 90-216-345 17 Port
http://www.tcdd.gov.tr/tcdding/haydarpasa_ing.htm asa turkey tr 90-216-348 80 20 05 management
Government
http://www.tdi.com.tr/ / turkey bilgi@tdi.gov.tr (0212) 251 50 00 (0212) 251 50 00 Ministry of Ports
90-262-239 73 00; Port
http://www.tcdd.gov.tr/tcdding/derince_ing.htm dernice turkey derinceliman@tcdd.gov.tr 90-262-239 90 21 / Management
90-232-463 16 00;
90-232-463 22 52;
90-232-464 77 84; 90-232-463 22 Port
http://www.tcdd.gov.tr/tcdding/izmir_ing.htm Izmir turkey izmirliman@tcdd.gov.tr 90-232-464 77 83 48 management
90-266-718 75 30; 90-266-713 60 Port
http://www.tcdd.gov.tr/tcdding/bandirma_ing.htm Bandirma turkey bandirmaliman@tcdd.gov.tr 90-266-713 49 66 11 management
90-362-233 22 93; 90-362-445 16 Port
http://www.tcdd.gov.tr/tcdding/samsun_ing.htm Samsun turkey samsunliman@tcdd.gov.tr 90-362-445 16 56 26 management
90-324-233 32 72;
90-324-238 25 30; 90-324-238 25 Port
http://www.tcdd.gov.tr/tcdding/mersin_ing.htm Mersin turkey mersinliman@tcdd.gov.tr 90-324-232 53 02 31 management
90-326-614 00 44;
iskenderunliman@tcdd.gov.t 90-326-614 00 47; 90-326-613 24 Port
http://www.tcdd.gov.tr/tcdding/iskenderun_ing.htm Iskenderun turkey r 90-326-613 31 94 24 management
http://www.cerrahogullari.com.tr/index.htm / turkey info@cerrahogullari.com.tr +90 212 251 49 17 +90 212 251 50 Shipping agency
B2
Appendix B
52
93 306 88 00; 93 93 306 88 11; 93
http://www.apb.es/en/PORT/Directory Barcellona spain / 306 88 03 306 88 14 Port authority
Port safty and
http://www.apb.es/en/PORT/Directory Barcellona spain barcelon@sasemar.es 93 223 47 33 93 223 46 13 security
mon.vanderostyne@pianc- International Port
http://www.pianc-aipcn.org/ Brussels Belgium aipcn.org 32 16 23 54 25 32 16 23 54 25 Authority
http://www.olp.gr/main_eng.htm Pireus Greece olp@apopsinet.gr 31 210 4550229 31 210 4550310 Port Authority
http://www.thpa.gr/ Thessaloniki Greece info@thpa.gr +30 2310593129 +30 31 0 510500 Port authority
construction
http://www.attikat.gr / Greece info@attikat.gr / / Company
Karen Funnell; +64 4 495 3890
N.zealan karen.funnell@centreport.co
http://www.centreport.co.nz Wellington d .nz +64 4 495 3820 Port Authority
Alex Avramoglou;
http://www.avramar.gr Pireus Greece avramar@ath.forthnet.gr +3210/42 20 541 +3210/42 20 543 Shipping agency
Ministry of
environment and
http://www.minenv.gr Athens Greece service@dorg.minenv.gr / / public works
Construction
+30 210 3617 109, +30 210 3616 company
http://www.steat.gr/statement.asp?lang=en Athens Greece info@steat.gr +30 210 3617 321 124 association
Hitachi; Oarai;
http://www.pref.ibaraki.jp/bukyoku/doboku/kowan/sitetop1/ Kashima;Hitachi
ENGLISH/en-hitachi.htm naka Japan kowan5@pref.ibaraki.lg.jp +81 29 301 4536 +81 29 301 4538 Port Authority
George
http://users.civil.ntua.gr/gazetasg/en/index.html Gazetas Greece gazetas@ath.forthnet.gr / 30210-6007699 Professor
Malta EU-Info
/ Malta EU-INFO. Malta info.forum@gov.mt 2590 9192 / centre
http://www.anken.go.jp/english/result.html Tokyo japan (online) .+81-424-91-4512 .+81-424-91- Gov
B3
Appendix B
4512 organisation:
National Institute
of Industrial
safety
Public Works
Research
www.pwri.go.jp ibaraki-ken japan www@pwri.go.jp .+81-29-879-6700 / institute
Cold region port
and harbour
http://www.kanchi.or.jp/e/intro.htm / Japan cpc@kanchi.or.jp .+81-11-747-1688 .+81-11-747-146 research centre
Mr. Hiroshi Ueda;Mr. Yoshio
Takeuchi OCDI:The
Mr. Takao Hirota overseas coastal
Mr. Haruo Okada Area
Mr. Yukio Nishida; .+81-3-3580- development
http://www.ocdi.or.jp/en/index.html Tokyo japan tokyo@ocdi.or.jp .+81-3-3580-3271 3657 institute of japan
Port
President. Akira Okamoto; Development
http://www.ypdc.or.jp/contents/en/08e_data Yokohama Japan info@ypdc.or.jp 45-671-7291 / Corporation
Port
development
http://www.nptc.or.jp/en/introduction/index.html / Japan nptc@nptc.or.jp 052-398-1033 052-398-1035 corpo of Nagoya
Hiroyasu Kawasaki; Port of Tokyo
http://www.tptc.or.jp/eng/index.html Tokyo Japan tptc@tptc.or.jp / / Corporation
Port of osaka
http://www.optc.or.jp/index.html Osaka Japan opc@optc.or.jp (06)6615-7211 (06)6615-7210 corporation
81 (078)265- Port Of Kobe
http://www.kptc.or.jp/index_e.html Kobe Japan shionkou@kptc.or.jp 81 (078)231-4672 6376 Corporation
Kazuyuki Nishikawa.; Public
www.scopenet.or.jp Tokyo Japan scope00@scopenet.or.jp 03-3503-2081 03-5512-7515 corporation for
B4
Appendix B
ports and
infrastructure
Ministry of
http://www.mlit.go.jp/english/2006/2006_pamphlet/index.h infrastructure
tml Tokyo Japan webmaster@mlit.go.jp?? .+81-3-5253-8111 / and transport
International
association of
ports and
http://www.iaphworldports.org/link/membersites.htm / / info@iaphworldports.org / / harbours
Chief executive=Roy j weaver=+64 274
N weaver= 343634; general=
http://www.porttaranaki.co.nz/contacts/contacts.htm New Plymouth Zealand rweaver@porttaranaki.co.nz; +64 6 7510200 +64 6 7510886 Port authority
david.coker@maritimenz.go
vt.nz; chairman= susie
staley;
N security@maritimenz.govt.n Maritime ministry
http://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/ New Plymouth Zealand z +64 4 473 0111 +64 4 494 1263 New zealand
info@portofnapier.co.nz; Jim macdonald=+64 macdonald=974
N Macdonald (security); 021 248 7782; 4434; harris=974
http://www.portofnapier.co.nz/; Zealand Human res.= Lynne Harrison harris= 974 4403 4418 Port authoroty
reception=+64 9
366 0055; Chief
executive
officer=Geoff
Vazey=+64 9 366
0055; general Vazey=+64 9
wharves= Jim 367 5455;
sec officer= Howard=+64 21 howard=+64 9
gladmanm@poal.co.nz ; 925 817; Human 367 5450; j
N bradshawk@poal.co.nz res=jon baxter=+64 baxter = +64 9 Port Authority
http://www.poal.co.nz zealand <bradshawk@poal.co.nz> 9 309 1234 367 5455 Auckland
B5
Appendix B
Yrd. Do.
Dr. evket
ZDEN at 0(262) 335 11 48 -
http://mf.kou.edu.tr/dept.asp?b_kodu=11 Kocaeli univ turkey sevketozden@yahoo.com 1250 Professor
Association of
american port
http://www.aapa-ports.org/education/index.html / USA info@aapa-ports.org 703.684.5700 703.684.6321 authorities
Louis Baumard ;Andy
Stimpson both on: European
information@emsa.eu.int .+351 21 1209 Maritime Safety
http://www.emsa.europa.eu/ Lisbona E.U. <information@emsa.eu.int> .+351 21 1209 200 210 Agency
Port Safety:
Roel.Hoenders@espo.be;
Port
Policy;Lieselot.Marinus@es
po.be; General secretary:
Patrick.Verhoeven@espo.be European Sea
;Statistics office: Fax: Ports
www.espo.be Brussels E.U. Cecile.Overlau@espo.be; Tel: 32.2.736.34.63 32.2.736.63.25 Organisation
http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/portal/page?_pageid=1090,3
0070682,1090_33076576&_dad=portal&_schema=PORT
AL Brussels E.U. / / / /
http://www.die.gov.tr/ENGLISH/index.html
B6
Appendix C
APPENDIX C
In this section, 10 tables will be provided for different port typologies and variations. Certain
typologies with similar behaviour were grouped together. The tables show the number of
failure paths computed for each structural element corresponding to each failure mode which
can likely occur. This computation is done for serviceable conditions, and ultimate conditions.
For the ultimate condition two situations were considered a described in Chapter 5: one
considering paths based on failure modes and the other on elements.
C1
Appendix C
Piles
Deck
Platform
Wharf Type
Retained Soil
Underlying soil
supported Pier
Serviceable Possibilities
Pile supported wharves
Ultimate Possibilities (elements)

without battered piles; Pile
Ultimate Possibilities (Failure modes)

1
1
1
1
1
Servicable Paths
.(3)
.(2)
.(1)
4
3
3
1
1
Ultimate Paths (Elements)
Paths
42
42
92
92
78
Ultimate Paths (Failure modes)
3
1
1
1
42
42
42
4
1
1
2
42
42
42
3
1
1
3
42
42
42
5
3
1
1
1
4
262
262
262
5
3
1
1
1
5
Pile Deck Hinge
262
262
262
1
1
1
6
78
78
78
In-ground hinge
7
2
1
1
7
84
84
84
Slope instability
7
2
1
1
8
84
84
84
8
3
1
1
1
9
165
165
165
10

1
1
1
12

3
1
1
92
92
92
13
Deck cracks
1
1
1
92
92
92
14
Pile cap failure

1
1
1
78
78
78
16

17
18
Anchor pull-out
19
Kick-out of toe
1
1
7
2
84
84
84
20

21
Sliding blocks
22
Wall collapse
C2
5
6
3
3
7
57
21

Appendix C
Piles
Deck
Platform
Wharf Type
batter-piles
Retained Soil
Underlying soil
Serviceable Paths
with battered piles
Ultimate Paths (elements)

Pile supported wharves
1
1
1
1
1
1
Servicable Paths
1
1
4
4
3
3
Paths
90
90
78
78
196
196
1
1
1
1
90
2
1
1
1
90
3
1
1
1
4
3
1
1
1
1
11
470
5
3
1
1
1
1
11
Pile Deck Hinge
470
6
3
1
1
1
78
In-ground hinge
7
2
2
1
1
Slope instability
180
8
2
2
1
1

180
9
5
3
1
1
1
1
258
10

3
1
1
1
1
1
12
78

4
1
1
13
Deck cracks
196
4
1
1
14
196
Pile cap failure

3
1
1
1
16
78

17
18
Anchor pull-out
19
Kick-out of toe
2
2
1
1
20

21
Sliding blocks
22
Wall collapse
C3
5
6
3
3
8
7
56
25

Piles
Deck
Anchor
Appendix C
modes)
Platform
wharf
Wharf Type
(elements)
Batter-piles
Retained Soil
anchored
Ultimate Paths
Underlying soil
Serviceable Paths
Pile supported
Ultimate Paths (Failure

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Servicable Paths
2
1
0
6
6
5
5
Paths
45
315
315
386
386
165
165
1
1
1
1
315
2
1
1
1
45
3
1
1
1
315
4
5
1
1
1
1
1
24
1417
5
4
1
1
1
1
22
Pile Deck Hinge
1102
6
3
1
1
1
12
In-ground hinge
645
7
2
2
1
1
Slope instability
360
8
2
2
1
1
360
9
4
1
1
1
1
12
690
0
10

2
1
1
5
1
1
12

165
6
1
1
13
Deck cracks
386
6
1
1
14
386
Pile cap failure

654
3
1
1
1
16
12
645

2
1
1
17
315
2
1
1
18
Anchor pull-out
315
0
19
Kick-out of toe
2
2
1
1
20

360
0
21
Sliding blocks
0
22
Wall collapse
6
5
6
3
3
8
7
38
134

C4
Appendix C
Deck
Platform
Columns
Wharf Type
Retained Soil
Serviceable Paths
1
1
1
1
Servicable Paths
3
3
3
3
Paths
3
3
10
10
1
3
3
1
1
2
3
3
3
1
1
4
1
1
6
2
20
5
9
3
1
1
1
23
Pile Deck Hinge
6
In-ground hinge
7
3
3
1
1
Slope instability
8
3
3
1
1

9
3
3
1
1
10

3
3
1
1
12

3
1
1
13
10
Deck cracks
3
1
1
14
10
3
3
1
1
15
Pile cap failure

16

17
18
Anchor pull-out
19
Kick-out of toe
3
3
1
1
20

21
Sliding blocks
22
Wall collapse
6
3
3
3
C5
45
15

Deck
Tie-rod
Anchor
Appendix C
Wharf Type
Sheet Pile
(elements)
Batter-piles
Platform
Wall with
Retained Soil
Ultimate Paths
Ultimate Paths
Underlying soil
(Failure modes)
Serviceable Paths
and Sheet Pile
Sheet Pile Wall
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Servicable Paths
5
5
1
7
5
6
14
Paths
2700
2700
6528
8091
2700
4863
16253
1
7
1
1
##
2
1
1
1
6528
3
7
1
1
8091
4
5
1
1
1
1
1
35
###
5
3
1
1
1
25
Pile Deck Hinge
23816
6
3
1
1
1
16
In-ground hinge
10263
7
8
2
1
1
Slope instability
14619
8
8
2
1
1
14619
9
4
1
1
1
1
##
19
6
1
1
10

4863
2
1
1
5
1
1
##
12

1
1
##
13
14
Deck cracks
14
4
1
1
1
1
15
21
Pile cap failure

12963
3
1
1
1
16
16

###
2
1
1
17
10
5400
5
1
1
##
18
Anchor pull-out
6
1
1
##
19
Kick-out of toe
3
1
1
1
20
14

###
0
21
Sliding blocks
6
1
1
##
22
Wall collapse
C6
3
6
5
6
3
8
42
11

240
soil
Soil
Piles
Deck
Pile
Paths
Paths
Paths
Stiff
Wall
Tie-rod
Anchor
modes)
(Failure
Ultimate
Ultimate
Retained
Wharf Type
(elements)
Underlying
Batter-piles
Serviceable
Appendix C
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Servicable Paths
5
5
1
7
5
6
14
Paths
1890
1890
4575
5670
1890
4863
11390
1
7
1
1
5670
2
1
1
1
4575
3
7
1
1
5670
4
5
1
1
1
1
1
35
21923
5
3
1
1
1
25
Pile Deck Hinge
18143
6
3
1
1
1
16
In-ground hinge
8643
7
8
2
1
1
Slope instability
10245
8
8
2
1
1
10245
9
4
1
1
1
1
19
16998
10

2
1
1
5
1
1
12

1890
1
1
13
14
Deck cracks
11390
14
4
1
1
1
1
15
21
Pile cap failure

10533
3
1
1
1
16
16

8643
2
1
1
17
10
3780
5
1
1
18
Anchor pull-out
1890
0
19
Kick-out of toe
8
2
1
1
20

10245
21
Sliding blocks
0
22
Wall collapse
C7
3
6
5
6
3
8
7
38

216
Appendix C
Deck
modes)
Wharf Type
Sheet Pile
anchor)
(elements)
Retained Soil
Ultimate Paths
Underlying soil
Pile wall (no
Serviceable Paths
Ultimate Paths (Failure

1
1
1
1
Servicable Paths
1
4
9
4
Paths
408
441
953
273
1
4
1
1
441
2
1
1
1
408
3
4
1
1
441
4
2
1
1
13
1226
5
9
1
1
Pile Deck Hinge
953
6
4
1
1
In-ground hinge
273
7
5
2
1
1
Slope instability
849
8
5
2
1
1
849
9
9
3
1
1
1
949
4
1
1
10

273
4
1
1
12

9
1
1
13
Deck cracks
953
14
4
1
1
15
Pile cap failure

273
4
1
1
16

273
17
18
Anchor pull-out
1
4
1
19
Kick-out of toe
273
9
3
1
1
1
20

1122
21
Sliding blocks
4
1
1
22
Wall collapse
273
C8
5
6
3
96
24
10

Appendix C
Wharf Type Paths 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22




Servicable Paths
Pile Deck Hinge
In-ground hinge
Slope instability
Anchor pull-out
Pile cap failure
Kick-out of toe
Sliding blocks
Wall collapse
Deck cracks
Caisson Wall,
Massive Wall,
Cantilever
Wall, Cellular
Block Wall,
Block Wall.
Gravity wall 1 1 132 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Deck 1 3 79 1 1 1 3
Retained Soil 1 3 153 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Underlying soil 1 4 126 1 1 1 1 1 5
Serviceable Paths 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 3 1 1 3 1 1 20
Ultimate Paths
(elements) 3 4 3 4 3 7 7 8 1 3 8 1 1 53
Ultimate Paths
(Failure modes) .(11) 81 54 81 139 79 135 135 195 60 79 195 60 60
Ultimate Paths
(Failure modes) .(12) 81 54 81 139 79 135 135 195 60 79 195 60 60
Ultimate Paths
(Failure modes) .(13) 81 54 81 139 79 135 135 195 60 79 195 60 60
Ultimate Paths
(Failure modes) .(14) 81 54 81 139 79 135 135 195 60 79 195 60 60
Ultimate Paths
(Failure modes) .(15) 81 54 81 139 79 135 135 195 60 79 195 60 60
C9
Piles
Deck
Wall
Appendix C
Wharf Type
Sheet Pile
(elements)
Gravity wall
Retained Soil
Ultimate Paths
Ultimate Paths
Underlying soil
(Failure modes)
Serviceable Paths
Cellular Sheet
1
1
1
1
1
1
Servicable Paths
1
4
5
4
4
1
Paths
126
207
187
186
186
108
1
4
1
1
207
2
1
1
1
126
3
4
1
1
207
4
4
1
1
1
1
14
667
5
9
2
1
1
Pile Deck Hinge
373
6
5
2
1
1
In-ground hinge
294
7
5
2
1
1
Slope instability
333
8
5
2
1
1
333
9
5
1
1
1
1
1
14
741
5
2
1
1
10
294 Opening of wall cracks

1
5
2
1
12

5
1
1
13
Deck cracks
187
14
5
2
1
1
15
Pile cap failure

294
5
2
1
1
16

294
17
18
Anchor pull-out
1
1
1
19
Kick-out of toe
108
4
1
1
1
1
20
10

627
4
1
1
21
Sliding blocks
186
5
2
1
1
22
Wall collapse
294
5
6
3
6
7
37
10

106
C10
Appendix C
Deck
Wharf Type
Gravity wall
Retained Soil
Wall on Rock
Serviceable Paths
1
1
1
Servicable Paths
3
2
1
Paths
21
43
18
3
1
1
1
21
2
3
1
1
3
21
3
2
1
1
4
61
2
1
5
43
Pile Deck Hinge
6
In-ground hinge
3
1
1
7
21
Slope instability
3
1
1
8
21
4
2
1
1
9
39
1
1
1
18
10
12

2
1
1
43
13
Deck cracks
14
15
Pile cap failure

16

17
18
Anchor pull-out
19
Kick-out of toe
4
2
1
1
39
20

1
1
1
18
21
Sliding blocks
1
1
1
18
22
Wall collapse
6
3
6
30
15

C11
Appendix D
APPENDIX D
Design Example: Stiff-Pile Wall
Ruaumoko (Carr,2005) Model and input file for Gioia-Tauro Pile wall. All parameters for each
corresponding element are listed.
Frame 19 0.33 -23.05 111

00000000000 20 0 -22.75
!Principal analysis options: STATIC ANALYSIS 21 0.33 -22.75 111
107 106 22 0 0 0 9.81 5 5 0.001 30 1.0 22 0 -22.45
!Frame control parameters 23 0.33 -22.45 111
0 5 50 0 1 1.5 0.7 0.1 24 0 -22.15
!Output intervals and plotting controlled parameters 25 0.33 -22.15 111
5 5 0.0001 0 0 26 0 -21.85
!Iteration control and wave velocities 27 0.33 -21.85 111
28 0 -21.55
NODES 29 0.33 -21.55 111
!n x y fixity slaving output 30 0 -21.25
1 0 -29.60 000 31 0.33 -21.25 111
2 0 -28.53 32 0 -20.95
3 0.33 -28.53 111 33 0.33 -20.95 111
4 0 -27.46 34 0 -20.65
5 0.33 -27.46 111 35 0.33 -20.65 111
6 0 -26.39 36 0 -20.35
7 0.33 -26.39 111 37 0.33 -20.35 111
8 0 -25.32 38 0 -20.05
9 0.33 -25.32 111 39 0.33 -20.05 111
10 0 -24.25 40 0 -19.9
11 0.33 -24.25 111 41 0 -19.75
12 0 -23.95 42 0 -19.45
13 0.33 -23.95 111 43 0 -19.15
14 0 -23.65 44 0 -18.85
15 0.33 -23.65 111 45 0 -18.55
16 0 -23.35 46 0 -18.25
17 0.33 -23.35 111 47 0 -17.95
18 0 -23.05 48 0 -17.65
D1
Appendix D
49 0 -17.35 99 0 -2.35
50 0 -17.05 100 0 -2.05
51 0 -16.75 101 0 -1.7 010
52 0 -16.45 102 0 -1.4
53 0 -16.15 103 0 -1.1
54 0 -15.85 104 0 -0.8
55 0 -15.55 105 0 -0.5
56 0 -15.25 106 0 0
57 0 -14.95 107 0.33 -1.7 111
58 0 -14.65
59 0 -14.35 ELEMENT
60 0 -14.05 ! N Sect I J i j output
61 0 -13.75 1 1 2 3
62 0 -13.45 2 2 4 5
63 0 -13.15 3 3 6 7
64 0 -12.85 4 4 8 9
65 0 -12.55 5 5 10 11
66 0 -12.25 6 6 12 13
67 0 -11.95 7 7 14 15
68 0 -11.65 8 8 16 17
69 0 -11.35 9 9 18 19
70 0 -11.05 10 10 20 21
71 0 -10.75 11 11 22 23
72 0 -10.45 12 12 24 25
73 0 -10.15 13 13 26 27
74 0 -9.85 14 14 28 29
75 0 -9.55 15 15 30 31
76 0 -9.25 16 16 32 33
77 0 -8.95 17 17 34 35
78 0 -8.65 18 18 36 37
79 0 -8.35 19 19 38 39
80 0 -8.05 20 20 1 2
81 0 -7.75 21 20 2 4
82 0 -7.45 22 20 4 6
83 0 -7.15 23 20 6 8
84 0 -6.85 24 20 8 10
85 0 -6.55 25 20 10 12
86 0 -6.25 26 20 12 14
87 0 -5.95 27 20 14 16
88 0 -5.65 28 20 16 18
89 0 -5.35 29 20 18 20
90 0 -5.05 30 20 20 22
91 0 -4.75 31 20 22 24
92 0 -4.45 32 20 24 26
93 0 -4.15 33 20 26 28
94 0 -3.85 34 20 28 30
95 0 -3.55 35 20 30 32
96 0 -3.25 36 20 32 34
97 0 -2.95 37 20 34 36
98 0 -2.65 38 20 36 38
D2
Appendix D
39 20 38 40 89 20 89 90
40 20 40 41 90 20 90 91
41 20 41 42 91 20 91 92
42 20 42 43 92 20 92 93
43 20 43 44 93 20 93 94
44 20 44 45 94 20 94 95
45 20 45 46 95 20 95 96
46 20 46 47 96 20 96 97
47 20 47 48 97 20 97 98
48 20 48 49 98 20 98 99
49 20 49 50 99 20 99 100
50 20 50 51 100 20 100 101
51 20 51 52 101 20 101 102
52 20 52 53 102 20 102 103
53 20 53 54 103 20 103 104
54 20 54 55 104 20 104 105
55 20 55 56 105 20 105 106
56 20 56 57 106 21 107 101
57 20 57 58
58 20 58 59 PROPS
59 20 59 60 1 SPRING
60 20 60 61 1 0 0 0 369411 0 0 0.001
61 20 61 62
62 20 62 63 2 SPRING
63 20 63 64 1 0 0 0 318257 0 0 0.001
64 20 64 65
65 20 65 66 3 SPRING
66 20 66 67 1 0 0 0 267243 0 0 0.001
67 20 67 68
68 20 68 69 4 SPRING
69 20 69 70 1 0 0 0 216569 0 0 0.001
70 20 70 71
71 20 71 72 5 SPRING
72 20 72 73 1 0 0 0 106668 0 0 0.001
73 20 73 74
74 20 74 75 6 SPRING
75 20 75 76 1 2 0 0 42852 0 0 0.001 0.001
76 20 76 77 495 -872 872 -872 872 -872
77 20 77 78
78 20 78 79 7 SPRING
79 20 79 80 1 2 0 0 39024 0 0 0.001 0.001
80 20 80 81 438 -289 289 -289 289 -289
81 20 81 82
82 20 82 83 8 SPRING
83 20 83 84 1 2 0 0 35242 0 0 0.001 0.001
84 20 84 85 385 -247 247 -247 247 -247
85 20 85 86
86 20 86 87 9 SPRING
87 20 87 88 1 2 0 0 31515 0 0 0.001 0.001
88 20 88 89 335 -209 209 -209 209 -209
D3
Appendix D
2.5E7 1.04E7 1 1 1.81 0

10 SPRING
1 2 0 0 27854 0 0 0.001 0.001
287 -174 174 -174 174 -174 WEIGHTS 0
107 1 1 1
11 SPRING
1 2 0 0 24272 0 0 0.001 0.001 LOADS ! Loads representing gravity loads
244 -142 142 -142 142 -142 ! n Fx Fy Mz
1 0
12 SPRING 2 421.6624518
1 2 0 0 20784 0 0 0.001 0.001 4 192.5706638
203 -114 114 -114 114 -114 6 209.5768902
8 226.5831166
13 SPRING 10 323.7704749
1 2 0 0 17410 0 0 0.001 0.001 12 64.78529552
165 -87.6 87.6 -87.6 87.6 -87.6 14 66.12214622
16 67.45899693
14 SPRING 18 68.79584764
1 2 0 0 14169 0 0 0.001 0.001 20 70.13269835
131 -65.3 65.3 -65.3 65.3 -65.3 22 71.46954906
24 72.80639976
15 SPRING 26 74.14325047
1 2 0 0 11088 0 0 0.001 0.001 28 75.48010118
100 -46.2 46.2 -46.2 46.2 -46.2 30 76.81695189
32 78.1538026
16 SPRING 34 79.49065331
1 2 0 0 8193 0 0 0.001 0.001 36 80.82750401
72 -30.3 30.3 -30.3 30.3 -30.3 38 81.84471555
40 46.70980241
17 SPRING 41 52.40045566
1 2 0 0 5515 0 0 0.001 0.001 42 91.66539696
48 -17.7 17.7 -17.7 17.7 -17.7 43 90.30124128
44 88.9359234
18 SPRING 45 87.5694079
1 2 0 0 3090 0 0 0.001 0.001 46 86.20165753
26 -8.2 8.2 -8.2 8.2 -8.2 47 84.83263308
48 83.46229321
19 SPRING 49 82.09059428
1 2 0 0 713 0 0 0.001 0.001 50 80.71749022
6 -1.45 1.45 -1.45 1.45 -1.45 51 79.34293226
52 77.96686877
20 FRAME 53 76.58924495
100000 !One-component Giberson beam 54 75.21000264
2.5E7 1.04E7 1 1 1.06 0 ! E G A As I wgt 55 73.82907993
56 72.4464109
21 SPRING 57 71.06192517
1 0 0 0 38500 0 0 0.001 0.001 58 69.67554752
59 68.28719738
22 FRAME 60 66.8967883
100000 61 65.5042273
D4
Appendix D
62 64.10941423 85 34.51341108
63 63.24774087 86 32.85894435
64 34.99795662 87 31.18033987
65 58.81416015 88 29.47167554
66 57.45340815 89 27.72409308
67 56.08942255 90 22.93812557
68 54.72201835 91 17.35361701
69 53.35099215 92 19.34502643
70 52.19676953 93 17.58738972
71 48.45769353 94 15.12358111
72 54.88671046 95 31.08524776
73 53.36517844 96 24.31981033
74 51.83836991 97 22.17394471
75 50.3058727 98 20.02807909
76 48.76721799 99 17.88221347
77 47.22186871 100 15.73634786
78 45.66920479 101 15.64693679
79 44.10850398 102 11.08697235
80 42.53891654 103 8.941106737
81 40.95943131 104 6.79524112
82 39.36882911 105 4.649375503
83 37.76561725 106 2.980368912
84 36.14793484 107 0
D5
Appendix E
APPENDIX E
Design example: Pile-supported wharf, Catania, Italy.
(a) Moment Curvature analysis results
Moment curvature computation and results, and their respective bilinear and tri-linear approximations
at the pile deck cross section, or the in-ground cross section are provided for the various loading cases
(N) considered.
Pile deck cross-section incorporating dowel:

Bilinear Approximation H= 5 es= 0.1
N = 0kN dbl (mm) 32 es= 0.6esu= 0.06
Es 200000
Curvature (1/m) Moment (kNm) fy= 460
initial Minitial 0.000 0 Condition:
'y My 0.008 539 (s =fy/Es =) 0.0023 c =0.002
y(SLS) Mn 0.010 674 (c= 0.004; s= 0.015; whichever first)
u (ULS) Mu 0.117 740 es =0.6esu; ecu, whichever first)
U = y/u = 11.7 ecu= 0.023
M-C: Pile-Deck: P=0kN M-C: Pile-Deck: P=530kN

800 900
700 800
600 700
M o m e n t (kN m )
M om ent (kNm )
600
500
bi-linear bi-linear
500
400 Circman Circman
400
300
300
200 200
100 100
0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
E1
Appendix E

N = 530kN dbl (mm) 32 es= 0.6esu= 0.06
Es 200000
Curvature Moment
(1/m) (kNm) fy= 460
initial Minitial 0 0 Condition:
'y My 0.0078 622 (s =fy/Es =) 0.0023 c =0.002
y (SLS) Mn 0.0094 755 (c= 0.004; s= 0.015; whichever first)
U = y/u = 11.7 ecu= 0.023

N = 700kN dbl (mm) 32 es= 0.6esu= 0.06
Es 200000
'y My 0.0075 629 (s =fy/Es =) 0.0023 c =0.002
U = y/u = 11.64114 ecu= 0.02290162

900 900
800 800
700 700
M o m en t (kNm )
600
M o m en t (kNm )
600
bi-linear bi-linear
500 500
Circman Circman
400 400
300 300
200 200
100 100
0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14

N = 900kN dbl (mm) 32 es= 0.6esu= 0.06
Es 200000
'y My 0.0083 681 (s =fy/Es =) 0.0023 c =0.002
y Mn 0.0099 816 (c= 0.004; s= 0.015; whichever first)
u Mu 0.1057 847 es =0.6esu; ecu, whichever first)
U = y/u = 10.64 ecu= 0.02290162
E2
Appendix E
In ground cross section:

Bilinear Approximation es= 0.1
N = 0kN es= 0.6esu= 0.06
Es 200000
Curvature (1/m) Moment (kNm)
0.65 M0.65 0.0036 451
'y My 0.0062 510 c =0.002
U = y/u = 8.1911532 ecu= 0.0229

800 900
700 800
600 700
Mom ent (kNm )
M o m en t (kNm )
600
500
bi-linear bi-linear
500
400 Circman Circman
400
300
300
200
200
100 100
0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14

N = 530kN es= 0.6esu= 0.06
Es 200000
0.65 M0.65 0.0040 500
'y My 0.0057 526 c =0.002
U = y/u = 5.3968791 ecu= 0.0229

N = 700kN es= 0.6esu= 0.06
Es 200000
0.65 M0.65 0.0044 540
'y My 0.0055 562 c =0.002
U = y/u = 5.6991873 ecu= 0.0229
E3
Appendix E

1000 1000
900 900
800 800
700 700
Moment (kNm)
Moment (kNm)
600 bi-linear 600 bi-linear

500 Circman 500 Circman
400 400
300 300
200 200
100 100
0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

N=900kN es= 0.6esu= 0.06
Es 200000
0.65 M0.65 0.0044 548
'y My 0.0052 567 c =0.002
U = y/u = 6.2510312 ecu= 0.0229
(b)Pushover analysis Model

A Ruaumoko Model and input file for the extreme pile in Row E is provided showing all the
parameters considered for each element.
Frame 10 0.00 -26

2 0 1 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 11 0.33 -26 111
!Principal analysis options: STATIC ANALYSIS 12 0.00 -25
101 100 50 1 1 2 9.81 5 5 0.01 29 1.0 13 0.33 -25 111
!Frame control parameters 14 0.00 -24
20 10 0 1 1 1 10 1 15 0.33 -24 111
!Output intervals and plotting controlled parameters 16 0.00 -23
2 17 0.33 -23 111
!Iteration control and wave velocities 18 0.00 -22
19 0.33 -22 111
NODES 20 0.00 -21
!n x y fixity slaving output 21 0.33 -21 111
1 0.00 -31 111 000 22 0.00 -20
2 0.00 -30 23 0.33 -20 111
3 0.33 -30 111 24 0.00 -19
4 0.00 -29 25 0.33 -19 111
5 0.33 -29 111 26 0.00 -18
6 0.00 -28 27 0.33 -18 111
7 0.33 -28 111 28 0.00 -17
8 0.00 -27 29 0.33 -17 111
9 0.33 -27 111 30 0.00 -16
E4
Appendix E
31 0.33 -16 111 81 0.33 -1.95 1 1 1

32 0.00 -15 82 0.00 -1.65
33 0.33 -15 111 83 0.33 -1.65 1 1 1
34 0.00 -14 84 0.00 -1.35
35 0.33 -14 111 85 0.33 -1.35 1 1 1
36 0.00 -13 86 0.00 -1.05
37 0.33 -13 111 87 0.33 -1.05 1 1 1
38 0.00 -12 88 0.00 -0.75
39 0.33 -12 111 89 0.33 -0.75 1 1 1
40 0.00 -11 90 0.00 -0.45
41 0.33 -11 111 91 0.33 -0.45 1 1 1
42 0.00 -10 92 0.00 -0.15
43 0.33 -10 111 93 0.33 -0.15 1 1 1
44 0.00 -9.5 94 0.00 0.22 0 0 0
45 0.33 -9.5 111 95 0.00 0.59 0 0 0
46 0.00 -9 96 0.00 0.96 0 0 0
47 0.33 -9 111 97 0.00 1.33 0 0 0
48 0.00 -8.5 98 0.00 1.7 000
49 0.33 -8.5 111 99 0.00 2.02 0 1 1
50 0.00 -8 100 -6.0 1.7 0 1 1
51 0.33 -8 111 101 0.33 1.7 0 1 1
52 0.00 -7.5
53 0.33 -7.5 111 ELEMENT
54 0.00 -7 ! N Sect I J i j output
55 0.33 -7 111 1 1 2 3
56 0.00 -6.5 2 2 4 5
57 0.33 -6.5 1 1 1 3 3 6 7
58 0.00 -6 4 4 8 9
59 0.33 -6 111 5 5 10 11
60 0.00 -5.5 6 6 12 13
61 0.33 -5.5 1 1 1 7 7 14 15
62 0.00 -5 8 8 16 17
63 0.33 -5 111 9 9 18 19
64 0.00 -4.5 10 10 20 21
65 0.33 -4.5 1 1 1 11 11 22 23
66 0.00 -4.05 12 12 24 25
67 0.33 -4.05 1 1 1 13 13 26 27
68 0.00 -3.75 14 14 28 29
69 0.33 -3.75 1 1 1 15 15 30 31
70 0.00 -3.45 16 16 32 33
71 0.33 -3.45 1 1 1 17 17 34 35
72 0.00 -3.15 18 18 36 37
73 0.33 -3.15 1 1 1 19 19 38 39
74 0.00 -2.85 20 20 40 41
75 0.33 -2.85 1 1 1 21 21 42 43
76 0.00 -2.55 22 22 44 45
77 0.33 -2.55 1 1 1 23 23 46 47
78 0.00 -2.25 24 24 48 49
79 0.33 -2.25 1 1 1 25 25 50 51
80 0.00 -1.95 26 26 52 53
E5
Appendix E
27 27 54 55 77 47 60 62
28 28 56 57 78 47 62 64
29 29 58 59 79 47 64 66
30 30 60 61 80 47 66 68
31 31 62 63 81 47 68 70
32 32 64 65 82 47 70 72
33 33 66 67 83 47 72 74
34 34 68 69 84 47 74 76
35 35 70 71 85 47 76 78
36 36 72 73 86 47 78 80
37 37 74 75 87 47 80 82
38 38 76 77 88 47 82 84
39 39 78 79 89 47 84 86
40 40 80 81 90 47 86 88
41 41 82 83 91 47 88 90
42 42 84 85 92 48 90 92
43 43 86 87 93 48 92 94
44 44 88 89 94 48 94 95
45 45 90 91 95 48 95 96
46 46 92 93 96 48 96 97
47 47 1 2 97 48 97 98
48 47 2 4 98 49 98 99
49 47 4 6 99 50 98 100
50 47 6 8 100 50 98 101
51 47 8 10
52 47 10 12 PROPS
53 47 12 14 1 SPRING
54 47 14 16 1 0 0 0 886037 0 0 0.001
55 47 16 18 2 SPRING
56 47 18 20 1 0 0 0 832546 0 0 0.001
57 47 20 22 3 SPRING
58 47 22 24 1 0 0 0 784640 0 0 0.001
59 47 24 26 4 SPRING
60 47 26 28 1 0 0 0 741492 0 0 0.001
61 47 28 30 5 SPRING
62 47 30 32 1 0 0 0 702312 0 0 0.001
63 47 32 34 6 SPRING
64 47 34 36 1 0 0 0 666355 0 0 0.001
65 47 36 38 7 SPRING
66 47 38 40 1 0 0 0 632930 0 0 0.001
67 47 40 42 8 SPRING
68 47 42 44 1 0 0 0 601405 0 0 0.001
69 47 44 46 9 SPRING
70 47 46 48 1 0 0 0 571214 0 0 0.001
71 47 48 50 10 SPRING
72 47 50 52 1 0 0 0 541859 0 0 0.001
73 47 52 54 11 SPRING
74 47 54 56 1 0 0 0 512915 0 0 0.001
75 47 56 58 12 SPRING
76 47 58 60 1 0 0 0 484035 0 0 0.001
E6
Appendix E
13 SPRING 421.16 -421.16 421.16 -421.16 421.16 -421.16

1 0 0 0 454947 0 0 0.001 33 SPRING
14 SPRING 1 2 0 0 31888 0 0 0.001
1 0 0 0 425458 0 0 0.001 279.54 -279.54 279.54 -279.54 279.54 -279.54
15 SPRING 34 SPRING
1 0 0 0 395454 0 0 0.001 1 2 0 0 22849 0 0 0.001
16 SPRING 196.86 -196.86 196.86 -196.86 196.86 -196.86
1 0 0 0 364893 0 0 0.001 35 SPRING
17 SPRING 1 2 0 0 20205 0 0 0.001
1 0 0 0 333810 0 0 0.001 171.36 -171.36 171.36 -171.36 171.36 -171.36
18 SPRING 36 SPRING
1 0 0 0 294262 0 0 0.001 1 2 0 0 17605 0 0 0.001
19 SPRING 147.23 -147.23 147.23 -147.23 147.23 -147.23
1 0 0 0 266157 0 0 0.001 37 SPRING
20 SPRING 1 2 0 0 15077 0 0 0.001
1 0 0 0 237577 0 0 0.001 124.55 -124.55 124.55 -124.55 124.55 -124.55
21 SPRING 38 SPRING
1 0 0 0 156550 0 0 0.001 1 2 0 0 12650 0 0 0.001
22 SPRING 103.42 -103.42 103.42 -103.42 103.42 -103.42
1 2 0 0 97148 0 0 0.001 39 SPRING
1408.65 -1408.65 1408.65 -1408.65 1408.65 -1408.65 1 2 0 0 10353 0 0 0.001
23 SPRING 83.92 -83.92 83.92 -83.92 83.92 -83.92
1 2 0 0 95975 0 0 0.001 40 SPRING
1304.29 -1304.29 1304.29 -1304.29 1304.29 -1304.29 1 2 0 0 8216 0 0 0.001
24 SPRING 66.15 -66.15 66.15 -66.15 66.15 -66.15
1 2 0 0 93050 0 0 0.001 41 SPRING
1200.58 -1200.58 1200.58 -1200.58 1200.58 -1200.58 1 2 0 0 6266 0 0 0.001
25 SPRING 50.22 -50.22 50.22 -50.22 50.22 -50.22
1 2 0 0 89549 0 0 0.001 42 SPRING
1097.87 -1097.87 1097.87 -1097.87 1097.87 -1097.87 1 2 0 0 4532 0 0 0.001
26 SPRING 36.23 -36.23 36.23 -36.23 36.23 -36.23
1 2 0 0 85449 0 0 0.001 43 SPRING
996.55 -996.55 996.55 -996.55 996.55 -996.55 1 2 0 0 3038 0 0 0.001
27 SPRING 24.27 -24.27 24.27 -24.27 24.27 -24.27
1 2 0 0 80741 0 0 0.001 44 SPRING
897.03 -897.03 897.03 -897.03 897.03 -897.03 1 2 0 0 1806 0 0 0.001
28 SPRING 14.45 -14.45 14.45 -14.45 14.45 -14.45
1 2 0 0 75433 0 0 0.001 45 SPRING
799.77 -799.77 799.77 -799.77 799.77 -799.77 1 2 0 0 858 0 0 0.001
29 SPRING 6.89 -6.89 6.89 -6.89 6.89 -6.89
1 2 0 0 69551 0 0 0.001 46 SPRING
705.25 -705.25 705.25 -705.25 705.25 -705.25 1 2 0 0 156 0 0 0.001
30 SPRING 1.26 -1.26 1.26 -1.26 1.26 -1.26
1 2 0 0 63149 0 0 0.001
613.97 -613.97 613.97 -613.97 613.97 -613.97 47 FRAME
31 SPRING 1 0 0 13
1 2 0 0 56307 0 0 0.001 29171237 12231127 0.283 0.227 0.001 0
526.47 -526.47 526.47 -526.47 526.47 -526.47 1 0 0.3 0.3
32 SPRING 57 57 812 -812 812 -812
1 2 0 0 46679 0 0 0.001 1.1 551 -551 551 -551
E7
Appendix E
1000
48 FRAME 29171237 12231127 0.283 0.227 3 0
1002
29171237 12231127 0.283 0.072 0.00277 WEIGHTS 0
1 0.0 0.33 0.33 100 1 1 1
57 57 760 -760 760 -760 LOADS ! Loads representing gravity loads
100 0 0 0
49 FRAME SHAPE
1002 99 11000 0 0
29171237 12231127 0.283 0.227 0.00277 0 EQUAKE
1 0 0.3 0.3 3 1 0.1 1.0 0
57 57 150000 -150000 150000 -150000 START
1 0.0 0.0
50 FRAME 2 30 1.0
E8

Dissertation2007 Borg

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Dissertation2007 Borg

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Istituto Universitario Universit degli

di Studi Superiori Studi di Pavia

EUROPEAN SCHOOL FOR ADVANCED STUDIES IN

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE, ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

RANDOLPH CARL BORG

Supervisor: Dr. CARLO GIOVANNI LAI

Dr. Carlo G. Lai

Dr. Rui Pinho

3.5.2 Seismic Hazard Maps .......................................................................................17

6.2.7 Choudhury Approach......................................................................................101

7.5.2 Pseudo-Static Analysis for Retaining Structures. ...........................................135

Figure 3.1. USA seismic hazard map (USGS,2006)................................................................17

Figure 4.1. Performance and design sequence (Pianc, 2001) ...................................................27

Figure 4.29. Takahama Pile-Wharf, Kobe, Japan....................................................................43

Figure 6.1. Wall geometry and forces for Steedman-Zeng method,........................................99

Figure 7.1. Irregularity aspects form Turkish seismic code (2006).......................................113

Figure 8.1. Plan view of Gioia Tauro seaport in....................................................................149

Figure 8.12. Moment distribution, .........................................................................................173

Table 4.1. Acceptable level of damage in ............................................................................................. 26

Table 5.10. Total paths leading to failure: Pile-supported wharves ...................................................... 81

1.2 Scope Of The Study

2. HISTORICAL, FUNCTIONAL AND ECONOMICAL

2.1.1 Introduction to the Historical development

2.1.2 Prehistory and Early History

Rock cut in offshore reefs adapted to shelter crafts.

Harbours constructed in unsheltered waters using construction innovation. These

2.1.3 Roman Era.

2.1.4 Modern History

2.1.5 Military and Civil Engineer Era

General scheme layout,

Detailed description of different parts referring to drawings

Cost estimates and environmental considerations established by an authority,

Special features and work advances.

2.2 Function of Ports

Table 2.1The two most seismic European

2.3 Economical Development and Importance of Ports

Figure 2.11. Expectations of containerisation. (Ashar, 2002)

3. SEISMIC RISK AND HAZARD OF PORTS

3.2 Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA)

Identification and characterization of earthquake sources and distribution of potential

Characterisation of the temporal distribution of earthquakes. This is done through a

Combination of uncertainties such as earthquake size, location and ground motion

3.3 Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment (DSHA)

DHSA is a straightforward procedure to evaluate worse conditions and is good when

3.5 Seismic Vulnerability of Existing Worldwide Ports.

Figure 3.1. USA seismic hazard map (USGS,2006)

3.5.2 Seismic Hazard Maps

Figure 3.2. Asia seismic Hazard map (GSHAP, 1999)

Figure 3.3. Italian Seismic Hazard Map (OPCM-3519, 2006)

Figure 3.4. Greek Seismic Hazard Map (EAK, 2000)

Figure 3.5. Turkish seismic hazard map. (METU, 2006)

3.5.3 Geographic Location and Seismic Hazard of Ports.

Cum ulative Frequency of % of Ports vs. Design Ground

Figure 3.7. Cumulative number of ports at a particular hazard value.

3.5.4 Economic Risk and Seismic hazard of Ports

Table 3.2. The Ranking of important world ports worldwide and

Table 3.3 Pearson Correlation of seismic hazard and container carriage

Seismic Hazard Vs Container Carriage Volume

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00

3.6 Anomalies in Risk and Hazard Assessments

Table 3.4 Probability of failure in Japanese ports, (Yoneyama, 2000)

4. DAMAGE AND WHARF PERFORMANCE