Port Structures PDF

2003 by CRC Press LLC
27

Port Structures

27.1 Introduction

27.2 Seismic Response of Port Structures

Gravity Quay Walls Anchored Sheet Pile Walls
Pile-Supported Wharf Gantry Cranes Breakwaters

27.3 Current Seismic Provisions for Port Structures

Technical Standards for Ports and Harbor Facilities in Japan
U.S. Navy Seismic Design Guidelines Seismic Guidelines for
Ports, American Society of Civil EngineersTechnical Council
on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (ASCETCLEE), Ports
Committee European Prestandard, Eurocode 8 Design
Provisions for Earthquake Resistance of Structures

27.4 Seismic Performance-Based Design

27.5 Seismic Performance Evaluation and Analysis

27.6 Methods for Analysis of Retaining/Earth Structures

Simplied Analysis Simplied Dynamic Analysis
Dynamic Analysis

27.7 Analysis Methods for Open Pile/Frame Structures

Simplied Analysis Simplied Dynamic Analysis
Dynamic Analysis

References

Further Reading

27.1 Introduction

This chapter deals with the seismic performance and design of port structures. Typical port structures
are shown in Figure 27.1. Port structures have sustained major to catastrophic damage in a number of
earthquakes during the past few decades. This damage is not only costly in itself, but represents a major
impact on the regional economy, for which the port is the doorway. Figures 27.2 to 27.8 illustrate port
damage from earthquakes in Chile and Japan, for example.

27.2 Seismic Response of Port Structures

Following is a summary of modes of earthquake damage and deformation/failure for typical port
structures.

27.2.1 Gravity Quay Walls

A gravity quay wall is made of a caisson or other rigid wall put on the seabed, and maintains its stability
through friction at the bottom of the wall. Typical failure modes during earthquakes involve seaward
displacement, settlement, and tilt. For a quay wall constructed on a rm foundation, an increase in earth

Susumu Iai

Port and Airport Research Institute
Yokosuka, Japan

0068_C27_fm Page 1 Monday, August 19, 2002 3:37 PM

27

-2

Earthquake Engineering Handbook

FIGURE 27.1

Typical port structures. (From PIANC. 2001.

Seismic Design Guidelines for Port Structures

, A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam. With permission.)

0068_C27_fm Page 2 Thursday, August 8, 2002 1:48 PM

Port Structures

27

-3

pressure from the backll plus the effect of an inertia force on the body of the wall result in the seaward
movement of the wall, as shown in Figure 27.9(a). If the width-to-height ratio of the wall is small, tilt
may also be involved. Case histories for gravity quay walls subjected to earthquake shaking often belong
in this category. When the subsoil below the gravity wall is loose and excess pore water pressure increases
in the subsoil, however, the movement of the wall is associated with signicant deformation in the
foundation soil, resulting in a large seaward movement involving tilt and settlement, as shown in
Figure 27.9(b). The latter mode of failure is also shown in Figure 27.10, and has received wide attention
since the Kobe, Japan earthquake of 1995.

FIGURE 27.2

Collapse of crane due to quay failure, 1985 M 7.8 Chile earthquake. (Courtesy EQE International)

FIGURE 27.3

Destruction of Port of Aonae due to tsunami, Okushiri Island, 1993 M 7.8 Hokkaid Nansei (Japan)
earthquake. (Photo: C. Scawthorn)

0068_C27_fm Page 3 Friday, August 16, 2002 11:19 AM

27

-4


27.2.2 Anchored Sheet Pile Walls

An anchored sheet pile wall is composed of a wall, anchors, and tie-rods. Each structural component
contributes to the stability of the whole structure. In the ultimate state of stability, it should be decided
whether the wall or the anchor should be the rst to yield. Excessive displacements of the anchor are
undesirable. A small movement of the anchor, however, contributes to reducing the tension in the tie-
rods and the bending moment in the wall. Well-balanced response of the wall and anchor is essential for
achieving a reasonable performance of the anchored sheet pile wall during earthquakes.
A variety of geotechnical conditions can result in a variety of failure modes of an anchored sheet pile
wall. In particular, three failure modes may be identied, depending on the extent of loose, saturated
sandy soils relative to the position and geometry of the wall. If the deformation of a loose deposit mainly
affects the stability of anchors as shown in Figure 27.11(a), the anchors will move toward the sea, resulting
in the seaward movement of the wall. This mode of deformation/failure has been the most frequently

FIGURE 27.4

Damage to container quay and gantry crane, Port of Kobe, 1995

M

W

6.9 Hanshin earthquake. (Photo:
C. Scawthorn)


Port Structures

27

-5

FIGURE 27.5

Detail of Figure 27.4. (Photo: C. Scawthorn)

FIGURE 27.6

Detail of Figure 27.4. (Photo: C. Scawthorn)


27

-6


FIGURE 27.7

Failure of crane boom due to excessive accelerations, Port of Kobe, 1995

M

W

6.9 Hanshin earthquake.
(Courtesy EQE International)

FIGURE 27.8

Failure of crane booms due to excessive accelerations, Port of Kobe, 1995

M

W

6.9 Hanshin earthquake.
(Courtesy EQE International)


Port Structures

27

-7

observed at waterfronts. If the deformation of the loose deposit mainly affects the backll of the wall as
shown in Figure 27.11(b), the earth pressure increase will cause an excessively large bending moment in
the wall, resulting in yielding of the wall. This mode of failure has also been observed during past
earthquakes.
If the deformation of the loose sandy deposit mainly affects the stability of the embedment portion
of the wall, as shown in Figure 27.11(c), a gross instability of the wall at the embedment portion will
exist. This mode of failure, however, can occur only when the anchor is strong and rmly embedded,
and both the wall and tie-rods are very strong. In current design practice, the wall is assumed to be
relatively rmly embedded, and thus is designed for a fraction of the bending moment induced at the
free-earth support conditions. If the conditions shown in Figure 27.11(c) are met, yielding of the wall
or failure of the anchor will most likely precede the instability of the embedment portion. This may be
the reason why there has not been a case history that ts the failure mode shown in Figure 27.11(c).

27.2.3 Pile-Supported Wharf

A pile-supported wharf is composed of a deck supported by a substructure consisting of piles and a dike,
often simply called a wharf. Because the dike is sloped, the piles between the deck and the dike will have
various unsupported lengths. Three causes of failure may be identied for a pile-supported wharf. For
a wharf constructed on a rm foundation having a rigid and stable dike, the seismic inertia force on the
deck will be the main cause of failure, as shown in Figure 27.12(a). The maximum bending moment

FIGURE 27.9

Cross section of caisson quay wall at Port of Kobe. (From PIANC. 2001.

Seismic Design Guidelines
for Port Structures

, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam. With permission.)
(a) On firm foundation
(b) On loose sandy foundation
Loose sandy foundation


27

-8


occurs at the row of pile heads most landward because these piles have the shortest unsupported length.
If there is an excessively large displacement at the top of the dike or the retaining structures, the deck
will be pushed seaward, resulting in a similar mode of failure as shown in Figure 27.12(b). For a wharf
constructed on a loose foundation, the displacement in the dike will directly push the piles seaward, as
shown in Figure 27.12(c). The rst cause of failure has been well taken into account in conventional
seismic design of pile-supported wharves. Increasing attention has been directed toward the effect of
displacement of dikes on pile-supported wharves since the Loma Prieta, CA earthquake of 1989, where
this behavior was observed at the Port of Oakland. The Kobe, Japan earthquake of 1995 again demon-
strated the importance of this mode.

27.2.4 Gantry Cranes

A crane consists of an upper structure for handling cargo and a supporting structure for holding in place
and transporting the upper structure, as shown in Figure 27.13. The crane is generally made of a steel
frame. The supporting structure is either of the rigid frame type or hinged leg type, with supporting
structure resting on rails through the wheels. A crane at rest is xed to rails or to a quay wall with clamps
or anchors, whose strength provides the upper limit for the crane resistance against external forces.
However, clamps or anchors do not support a crane in operation, and the lateral resistance of the crane
against external forces is from friction and from the wheel anges. Typical failure modes during earth-
quakes are derailment of wheels, detachment or pullout of vehicle, rupture of clamps and anchors,
buckling, and overturning. As shown in Figure 27.13(a), widening of a span between the legs due to the
deformation of the quay wall results in derailment or buckling of the legs. Conversely, as shown in Figure
27.13(b), narrowing of a leg span can also occur due to the rocking response of the crane. This is due
to alternating action of the horizontal component of resisting forces from the quay wall during rocking-
type response involving uplifting of one of the legs. Derailment and detachment of the wheel can also
occur due to rocking. As shown in Figure 27.13(c), when differential settlement occurs on a quay wall
below the crane, tilting or overturning of the crane may occur. If the crane has one-hinge type legs, the
derailment can result in tilting and overturning of the crane, as shown in Figure 27.13(d). Though a
clamp or anchor will provide more resistance to motion under the action of external forces, the internal
stresses induced in the crane framework will become larger in comparison to the case with no clamp,
thus allowing for rocking responses. Crane rails are often directly supported either by a portion of a

FIGURE 27.10

Deformation/failure modes of gravity quay walls. (From PIANC. 2001.

Seismic Design Guidelines for
Port Structures

F
a
c
e

L
i
n
e
C
r
a
n
e

R
a
i
l
C
r
a
n
e
R
a
i
l
Ground surface
after the earthquake
Concrete
Caisson
Rubble
Backfill
Backfill Soil
Compaction
Sand Drain
Backfill Sand
for Replacing Clay Layer
Foundation Rubble
Alluvial Clay Layer
14.50
18.50
+4.0
H.W.L.+1.7m
L.W.L.0.0m
4.25.2
3.04.0
1
.
5
2
.
2
34.00~ 36.00
33.00~ 35.00
Unit (m)


Port Structures

27

-9

retaining wall or by the deck of a pile-supported wharf. When the width of the gravity wall is small, or
the quay wall is a sheet pile or cellular type, a separate foundation that often consists of piles is provided
to support the rails. In order to achieve desirable seismic performance of quay walls with cranes, special
consideration is required for the rail foundation, such as providing a dedicated and cross-tied upper
structure to support the rails.

FIGURE 27.11

Deformation/failure modes of sheet pile quay walls. (From PIANC. 2001.

for Port Structures

(a) Deformation/failure at anchor
(b) Failure at sheet pile wall/tie-rod
(c) Failure at embedment


27

-10


27.2.5 Breakwaters

A breakwater is usually made of a rubble mound, a massive structure such as a caisson, or a combination
of both placed on a seabed. Stability against a horizontal external load is maintained by shear resistance
of rubble, friction at the bottom of the caisson, and with associated resistance to overturning and bearing

FIGURE 27.12

Deformation/failure modes of pile-supported wharves. (From PIANC. 2001.

Seismic Design Guide-
lines for Port Structures

(a) Deformation due to inertia force at deck
Loose Subsoil
Firm Layer
Firm Foundation
(c) Deformation due to lateral displacement of
loose subsoil
(b) Deformation due to horizontal force from
retaining wall


Port Structures

27

-11

capacity failure. Typical failure modes expected during earthquakes are shown in Figure 27.14. Break-
waters are generally designed to limit wave penetration and wave overtopping during specic design
storms, and at the same time are designed to resist the related wave actions. It is unlikely that a major
earthquake will occur simultaneously with the design sea state because the two events are typically not
related. Consequently, design storm wave action and an earthquake can be treated as two independent
load situations. Only wave actions from a moderate sea state should be considered together with the
design earthquakes. Decision on this sea state has to be made based on the site-specic, long-term statistics
of the storm. Selection of the appropriate design criteria depends on the functions of the breakwater and
the type of earthquake-induced failure modes. However, for all breakwaters the main criterion is the

FIGURE 27.13

Deformation modes of gantry cranes: (a) widening of span between the legs, (b) narrowing span
between the legs due to rocking motion, (c) tilting of crane due to differential settlement of foundation,
(d) overturning of one-hinged leg crane due to rocking/sliding. (From PIANC. 2001.

Seismic Design Guidelines for
Port Structures



27

-12


allowable settlement of the crest level because it determines the amount of overtopping and wave
transmission. For breakwaters carrying roads and installations, additional criteria for allowable differen-
tial settlement, tilting, and displacement of superstructures and caissons are needed. Shaking of the
breakwater may cause breakage of concrete armor units. Criteria have been proposed with regard to
maximum breakage in terms of number of broken units that may occur while the breakwater remains

FIGURE 27.14

Deformation/failure modes for breakwaters: (a) caisson resting on sea bed, (b) vertically composite
caisson breakwater, (c) horizontally composite caisson breakwater, (d) rubble mound breakwater. (From PIANC.
2001.

Seismic Design Guidelines for Port Structures



Port Structures

27

-13

serviceable [e.g., Zwamborn and Phelp, 1995]. The same criteria may be adopted for the earthquake-
related damage.

27.3 Current Seismic Provisions for Port Structures

The following existing codes and guidelines used at various ports are reviewed with regard to their seismic
design provisions.

27.3.1 Technical Standards for Ports and Harbor Facilities in Japan

A dual-level approach is employed for structures of Special Class of Importance. However, the single-level
approach is adopted for structures of Classes A, B, and C Importance. For structures of Special Class of
Importance, the performance level is specied as follows [Ministry of Transport, Japan, 1999]:
For Level 1 (L1): Minor or no damage, little or no loss of serviceability.
For Level 2 (L2): Minor or little damage, little or short-term loss of serviceability.
For retaining structures of Special Class of Importance: Criteria for structural damage and criteria
regarding serviceability are specied.
The seismic coefcient for use in retaining structures is dened as follows for Special Class structures:
(27.1)
For Class B structures (designed with importance factor of 1.0), the code-specied seismic coefcients
are about 60% of those given by Equation 27.1. For a pile-supported wharf with vertical piles, analysis
is performed based on a simplied procedure and pushover method. The ductility limits for use in the
simplied procedure (discussed later) for L1 earthquake motion are specied. Pushover analysis is
performed for Special Class structures and the strain limits prescribed are:
Level 1 motion: equivalent elastic
Level 2 motion:

max

= 0.44

t

p

/

D

p

, for the embedded portion
Pile-supported wharves with vertical steel piles are designed using response spectra for L1 motion,
computed based on two-dimensional soilstructure interaction analysis for typical pile-supported wharf
cross sections. For L2 motion, time-history analysis should be performed and the results should meet
the ductility limits for L2 earthquake motion. Comprehensive guidelines are shown on liquefaction
potential assessment and implementation of remedial measures [PHRI, 1997].

27.3.2 U.S. Navy Seismic Design Guidelines

The U.S. Navy code [Ferritto, 1997a, 1997b] describes a dual level design and a performance level that
is serviceable under L1 and repairable under L2. The damage criteria are deformation limits for wharf
dikes and ductility limits for piles. The procedure requires a linear or nonlinear dynamic analysis.
California State design is similar to the U.S. Navy design in principle but the ductility requirements are
much more detailed and specied by strain limits. This procedure is still under development and will be
nalized in the form of regulatory guidance.
k
a
g
a g
k
a
g
a g
h
h
= ( )
=
( )
max
max
max
max
.
.
0 2
1
3
0 2
1
3


27

-14


27.3.3 Seismic Guidelines for Ports, American Society of Civil
EngineersTechnical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering
(ASCETCLEE), Ports Committee

This reference represents one of the rst guideline documents developed specically for the seismic
analysis and design of port structures and facilities in North America [Werner, 1998]. In addition to
comprehensive treatment of seismic hazards, seismic design, and analysis in North American engineering
practice, and guidelines for specic port components, this document presents pertinent information on
seismic risk reduction, and emergency response and recovery at ports. It should be noted that the ASCE-
TCLEE guidelines were developed with the primary objective of providing a framework for the estab-
lishment of improved seismic risk evaluation and reduction procedures for ports in the United States.
The recommendations outlined in the guideline document are not to be interpreted as codes, nor are
they intended to supercede local code requirements that may be applicable. The ASCE-TCLEE seismic
guidelines present a dual-level design, consistent with the current state of practice at major ports in the
United States. The multilevel design approach has been adopted at numerous ports in the form of two-
and occasionally three-level design procedures. An example of the two-level approach as applied in the
western United States follows.
Level 1. Under this rst level of design, Operating Level Earthquake (OLE) ground motions are
established, which have a 50% probability of exceedance in 50 years (corresponding to an average
return period of about 72 years). Under this level of shaking, the structure is designed so that
operations are not interrupted and any damage that occurs will be repairable in a short time
(possibly less than 6 months).
Level 2. Under this second level of design, more severe Contingency Level Earthquake (CLE) ground
motions are established that have a 10% probability of exceedance in 50 years (consistent with
most building codes and corresponding to an average return period of about 475 years). Under
this level of shaking, the structure is designed to undergo damage that is controlled, economically
repairable, and not a threat to life safety.
It should be noted that the exposure times adopted for the L1 and L2 events in this example application
may vary regionally due to variations in the rate of seismicity, the type of facility, and economic
considerations. The damage criteria outlined in the guideline document are presented in the form of
general performance-based recommendations. As such, the recommendations address the evaluation
and mitigation of liquefaction hazards and ground failures, deformation limits for retaining structures,
earth structures, and other waterfront components, and ductility limits for piles. In order to evaluate
these earthquake-induced loads and associated deformations, pseudo-static methods of analysis must
often be supplemented with linear and nonlinear dynamic analysis, the level of analytical sophistication
being a function of the intensity of the ground motions, the anticipated soil behavior, and the complexity
of the structure. General guidance on the level of analysis required for a variety of geotechnical and
structural applications is provided (including dynamic soilstructure interaction analyses).

27.3.4 European Prestandard, Eurocode 8 Design Provisions for Earthquake
Resistance of Structures

The methodology of the Eurocode 8 describes in general a dual-level approach; however, in low seismicity
zones (

a

design

0.1

g

) and for well-dened structures in seismic zones with small design ground acceleration
(

a

design

0.04

g

), a single-level approach can be sufcient [CEN, 1994]. The mentioned performance levels are:
No collapse requirement: Retain structural integrity and a residual bearing capacity.
Damage limitation requirement: No damage and associated limitations of use, the costs of which
would be disproportionately high compared with the cost of the structure itself.
Damage criteria in terms of maximum displacements and ductility levels are not specied. For piles,
it is stated that they shall be designed to remain elastic. When this is not feasible, guidance is given for


Port Structures

27

-15

the design of potential plastic hinging and the region it will cover. For the analytical procedure, the
design ground acceleration,

a

design

, tends to coincide with the actual peak acceleration for moderate- to
high-magnitude earthquakes in cases of medium to long source-to-site distances, which are characterized
(on rm ground) by a broad and approximately uniform frequency spectrum, while

a

design

will be more
or less reduced relative to the actual peak for near-eld, low-magnitude events. The

a

design

corresponds
to a reference period of 475 years, or as specied by the national authority.
For retaining structures

k

h

=

a

design

/

r

BC

g

and

k

v

= 0.5

k

h

, where

r

BC

= 2 for free gravity walls with acceptable
displacements (mm)

300

a

design

/

g

;

r

BC

= 1.5 as above with displacements (mm)

200

a

design

/

g

; and

r

BC

= 1
for the rest of the retaining structures.
For retaining structures 10 m or higher, a rened estimate of

a

design

can be obtained by a free-eld
one-dimensional analysis of vertically propagating waves.
For a linear analysis design of pile-supported structures, design spectra are dened as:
(27.2)
where

is design ground acceleration;

0

is spectral acceleration amplication factor for 5% damping;

q

is damping correction factor with reference value

q

= 1 for 5% viscous damping. Values of the parameters

S, k

d

1

, and

k

d

2

are given, depending on the subsoil class specied by shear wave velocity.

27.4 Seismic Performance-Based Design

Performance-based design is an emerging methodology born from the lessons learned from earth-
quakes in the 1990s. The goal is to overcome the limitations present in conventional seismic design.
Conventional building code seismic design is based on providing capacity to resist a design seismic force
but it does not provide information on the performance of a structure when the limit of the force-balance
is exceeded. If we demand that limit equilibrium is not exceeded in conventional design for the relatively
high intensity ground motions associated with a very rare seismic event, the construction or retrotting
cost will most likely be too high. If force-balance design is based on a more frequent seismic event, then
it is difcult to estimate the seismic performance of the structure when subjected to ground motions
that are greater than those used in design.
In performance-based design, appropriate levels of design earthquake motions must be dened and
corresponding acceptable levels of structural damage must be clearly identied. Two levels of earthquake
motions are typically used as design reference motions, dened as follows:
Level 1: The level of earthquake motions that are likely to occur during the life span of the structure.
Level 2: The level of earthquake motions associated with infrequent rare events that typically involve
very strong ground shaking.
The acceptable level of damage is specied according to the specic needs of the users and owners of
the facilities and may be dened on the basis of the acceptable level of structural and operational damage
0 ( ) = +
( ) =
( )
=
[ ]
( )
=
[
T T S T S
T
T
T T T S T S
q
T T T S T
S
q
T
T
T T S T
S
q
T
T
B A
B
B C A
C D A
C
D A
C
:
:
:
.
:
.
1
0 20
0 20
0
0
0
]]

0068_C27_fm Page 15 Monday, August 19, 2002 3:38 PM
27-16 Earthquake Engineering Handbook
given in Table 27.1. The structural damage category in this table is directly related to the amount of work
needed to restore the full functional capacity of the structure and is often referred to as direct loss due to
earthquakes. The operational damage category is related to the amount of work needed to restore full or
partial serviceability. Economic losses associated with the loss of serviceability are often referred to as indirect
losses. In addition to the fundamental functions of servicing sea transport, the functions of port structures
may include protection of human life and property, functioning as an emergency base for transportation,
and as protection from spilling hazardous materials. If applicable, the effects on these issues should be
considered in dening the acceptable level of damage in addition to those shown in Table 27.1.
Once the design earthquake levels and acceptable damage levels have been properly dened, the
required performance of a structure may be specied by the appropriate performance grade S, A, B, or
C, dened in Table 27.2. In performance-based design, a structure is designed to meet these performance
grades.
The principal steps taken in performance-based design are shown in the owchart in Figure 27.15.
Choose a performance grade from S, A, B, or C: This step is typically done by referring to Table 27.1
and Table 27.2, and selecting the damage level consistent with the needs of the users and owners.
Another procedure for choosing a performance grade is to base the grade on the importance of
the structure. Degrees of importance are dened in most seismic codes and standards. This
procedure is presented in Table 27.3. If applicable, a performance grade other than those of S, A,
B, or C may be introduced to meet specic needs of the users and owners.
Dene damage criteria: Specify the level of acceptable damage in engineering parameters such as
displacements, limit stress states, or ductility factors. The details are addressed in the guidelines
[PIANC, 2001].
Evaluate seismic performance of a structure: Evaluation is typically done by comparing the
response parameters from a seismic analysis of the structure with the damage criteria. If the results
of the analysis do not meet the damage criteria, the proposed design or existing structure should
be modied. Soil improvement, including remediation measures against liquefaction, may be
necessary at this stage. Details of liquefaction remediation can be found in the publication of the
Port and Harbour Research Institute, Japan [PHRI, 1997].
TABLE 27.1 Acceptable Level of Damage in Performance-Based Design
a
Acceptable Level
of Damage Structural Operational
Degree I: Serviceable Minor or no damage Little or no loss of serviceability
Degree II: Repairable Controlled damage
b
Short-term loss of serviceability
c
Degree III: Near collapse Extensive damage in near collapse Long-term or complete loss of serviceability
Degree IV: Collapse
d
Complete loss of structure Complete loss of serviceability
a
Considerations: Protection of human life and property, functions as an emergency base for transportation, and
protection from spilling hazardous materials, if applicable, should be considered in dening the damage criteria in
addition to those shown in this table.
b
With limited inelastic response and residual deformation.
c
Structure out of service for short to moderate time for repairs.
d
Without signicant effects on surroundings.
TABLE 27.2 Performance Grades S, A, B, and C
Design Earthquake
Performance Grade Level 1 (L1) Level 2 (L2)
Grade S Degree I: Serviceable Degree I: Serviceable
Grade A Degree I: Serviceable Degree II: Repairable
Grade B Degree I: Serviceable Degree III: Near collapse
Grade C Degree II: Repairable Degree IV: Collapse
Port Structures 27-17
27.5 Seismic Performance Evaluation and Analysis
The objective of analysis in performance-based design is to evaluate the seismic response of the port
structure with respect to allowable limits (e.g., displacement, stress, ductility, and strain). Higher capa-
bility in analysis is generally required for a higher performance-grade facility. The selected analysis
methods should reect the analytical capability required in the seismic performance evaluation.
FIGURE 27.15 Flowchart for seismic performance evaluation. (From PIANC. 2001. Seismic Design Guidelines for
Port Structures, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam. With permission.)
Analysis type:
1. Simplified analysis
2. Simplified dynamic analysis
3. Dynamic analysis
Input:
Earthquake motions
Geotechnical conditions
Initial design or existing structure
Analysis
Output:
Displacements
Stresses
(Liquefaction potential)
Modification of
cross section/
soil improvement
Are damage criteria satisfied?
No
Yes
End of performance evaluation
Acceptable damage:
I Serviceable
II Repairable
III Near Collapse
IV Collapse
Earthquake level:
Level 1 (L1)
Level 2 (L2)
Performance grade:
S, A, B, C
Damage criteria
27-18 Earthquake Engineering Handbook
A variety of analysis methods is available for evaluating the local site effects, liquefaction potential,
and the seismic response of port structures. These analysis methods are broadly categorized based on a
level of sophistication and capability as follows:
Simplied analysis: Appropriate for evaluating approximate threshold limit for displacements and
elastic response limit, and an order-of-magnitude estimate for permanent displacements due to
seismic loading.
Simplied dynamic analysis: Possible to evaluate extent of displacement, stress, ductility, and strain
based on assumed failure modes.
Dynamic analysis: Possible to evaluate both failure modes and the extent of the displacement,
stress, ductility, and strain.
Table 27.4 shows the type of analysis that may be most appropriate for each performance grade. The
principle applied here is that the structures of higher performance grade should be evaluated using more
sophisticated methods. As shown in Table 27.4, less sophisticated methods may be allowed for preliminary
design, screening purpose, or response analysis for low levels of excitation.
The methods for analysis of port structures may be broadly classied into those applicable to retaining/
earth structures, including quay walls, dikes/slopes, and breakwaters, or those applicable to open pile/
frame structures, including a pile/deck system of pile-supported wharves and cranes.
TABLE 27.3 Performance Grade Based on the Importance Category of Port Structures
Performance Grade Denition Based on Seismic Effects on Structures
Suggested Importance
Category of Port Structures
in Japanese Code
Grade S 1. Critical structures with potential for extensive loss of
human life and property upon seismic damage
2. Key structures that are required to be serviceable for
recovery from earthquake disaster
3. Critical structures that handle hazardous materials
4. Critical structures that, if disrupted, devastate economic
and social activities in the earthquake damage area
Special Class
Grade A Primary structures having less serious effects for 14 than
Grade S structures, or 5, structures that, if damaged, are
difcult to restore
Special Class or Class A
Grade B Ordinary structures other than those of Grades S, A, and C Class A or B
Grade C Small, easily restorable structures Class B or C
TABLE 27.4 Types of Analysis Related to Performance Grades
Performance Grade
Type of Analysis Grade C Grade B Grade A Grade S
Simplied analysis: Appropriate for evaluating approximate threshold
level and elastic limit and order-of-magnitude displacements.
Simplied dynamic analysis: Of broader scope and more reliable.
Possible to evaluate extent of displacement, stress, ductility, and strain
based on assumed failure modes.
Dynamic analysis: Most sophisticated. Possible to evaluate both failure
modes and extent of displacement, stress, ductility, and strain.
Note: Black area is standard/nal design. Gray area is preliminary design or low level of excitations.
27.6 Methods for Analysis of Retaining/Earth Structures
27.6.1 Simplied Analysis
Simplied analysis of retaining/earth structures is based on the conventional force-balance approach,
sometimes combined with statistical analyses of case history data. The methods in this category are often
those adopted in conventional seismic design codes and standards. In simplied analysis, retaining/earth
structures can be idealized as rigid blocks of soil and structural masses. The rigid block analysis is typically
applied for gravity, sheet pile, and cellular quay walls, and dike/slope/retaining walls for pile-supported
wharves and breakwaters.
Effects of earthquake motions in simplied analysis are represented by a peak ground acceleration or
an equivalent seismic coefcient for use in conventional pseudo-static design procedures. These param-
eters are obtained from the simplied analysis of local site effects discussed in the previous section. A
capacity to resist the seismic force is evaluated based on structural and geotechnical conditions, often in
terms of a threshold acceleration or a threshold seismic coefcient, beyond which the rigid blocks of soil
and structural masses begin to move. When soil liquefaction is an issue, the geometric extent of lique-
faction must also be considered in the analysis.
27.6.2 Simplied Dynamic Analysis
Simplied dynamic analysis is similar to simplied analysis, idealizing a structure by a sliding rigid block.
In simplied dynamic analysis, displacement of the sliding block is computed by integrating the accel-
eration time history that exceeds the threshold limit for sliding over the duration until the block ceases
sliding.
Effects of earthquake motions are generally represented by a set of time histories of earthquake motion
at the base of a structure. The time histories of earthquake motion are obtained from the simplied
dynamic analysis of local site effects discussed in the previous section. In the sliding block analysis,
structural and geotechnical conditions are represented by a threshold acceleration for sliding. A set of
empirical equations obtained from a statistical summary of sliding block analyses is available. In these
equations, peak ground acceleration and velocity are used to represent the effect of earthquake motion.
In more sophisticated analyses, structural and geotechnical conditions are idealized through a series
of parametric studies based on nonlinear Finite Element Method (FEM)/Finite Difference Method (FDM)
analyses of soilstructure systems. The results are compiled as simplied charts for use in evaluating
approximate displacements.
27.6.3 Dynamic Analysis
Dynamic analysis is based on soilstructure interaction, generally using FEM or FDM. In this category
of analysis, effects of earthquake motions are represented by a set of time histories of earthquake motion
at the base of the analysis domain chosen for the soilstructure system. A structure is idealized as either
linear or nonlinear, depending on the level of earthquake motion relative to the elastic limit of the
structure. Soil is idealized either by equivalent linear or by an effective stress model, depending on the
expected strain level in the soil deposit during the design earthquake.
Fairly comprehensive results are obtained from soilstructure interaction analysis, including failure
modes of the soilstructure system and the extent of the displacement, stress, and strain states. Because
this category of analysis is often sensitive to a number of factors, it is especially desirable to conrm the
applicability by using a suitable case history or a suitable model test result.

27

-20


27.7 Analysis Methods for Open Pile/Frame Structures

27.7.1 Simplied Analysis

Simplied analysis of open pile/frame structures is typically done by idealizing the pile/deck system of
pile-supported wharves or the frame of cranes by a single-degree-of-freedom (SDOF) or multidegree-
of-freedom (MDOF) system. In this analysis, earthquake motions are generally represented by the
response spectrum. Structural and geotechnical conditions are represented by a resonant frequency and
damping factor of the pile/deck system and the cranes. A ductility factor may also be introduced. The
movement of the dike/slope is generally assumed to be negligible. Results of the SDOF/MDOF analysis
are useful to evaluate approximate limit state response of a pile/deck system or a crane.

27.7.2 Simplied Dynamic Analysis

In simplied dynamic analysis of open pile/frame structures, the SDOF or MDOF analysis of pile/deck
structure or cranes is combined with pushover analysis for evaluating the ductility factor/strain limit.
The movement of the dike/slope is often assumed to be negligible but sometimes is estimated by a sliding
block-type analysis. Movement of a pile-supported deck could thereby be estimated by summing up the
dike/slope movement and structural deformation. Soilstructure interaction effects are not taken into
account, and thus there is a limitation in this analysis. Interaction between the pile-supported wharves
and cranes can be taken into account by MDOF analysis. Displacement, ductility factor, strain, and
location of yielding or buckling in the structure are generally obtained as a result of the analysis of this
category. Failure modes with respect to sliding of retaining walls, dikes, and slopes are not evaluated but
assumed and, thus, there is another limitation in this type of analysis.

27.7.3 Dynamic Analysis

Dynamic analysis is based on soilstructure interaction, generally using FEM and FDM. Similar com-
ments to those related to the dynamic analysis of earth/retaining structures apply also to the open pile
structures and cranes.

References

CEN (European Committee for Standardization). 1994.

Eurocode 8: Design Provisions for Earthquake
Resistance of Structures. Part l-l: General Rules Seismic Actions and General Requirements for
Structures

(ENV-199811);

Part 5: Foundations, Retaining Structures and Geotechnical Aspects

(ENV 19985).
Ferritto, J.M. 1997a. Design Criteria for Earthquake Hazard Mitigation of Navy Piers and Wharves,
Technical report TR2069-SHR, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, Port Hueneme.
Ferritto, J.M. 1997b. Seismic Design Criteria for Soil Liquefaction, Technical report TR2077-SHR,
Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, Port Hueneme.
Ministry of Transport, Japan, Ed. 1999.

Design Standard for Port and Harbour Facilities and Commentaries

(in Japanese), Japan Port and Harbour Association (English edition [2001] by the Overseas Coastal
Area Development Institute of Japan), Yokosuka.
PHRI (Port and Harbour Research Institute). 1997.

Handbook on Liquefaction Remediation of Reclaimed
Land

(translated by Waterways Experiment Station, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), A.A. Balkema,
Rotterdam.
PIANC (Permanent International Association for Navigation Congresses). 2001.

for Port Structures

, A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam.

Werner, S.D., Ed. 1998. Seismic Guidelines for Ports, Monograph No. 12, Technical Council on Lifeline
Earthquake Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA.
Zwamborn, J.A. and Phelp, D. 1995. When Must Breakwaters Be Rehabilitated/Repaired? in PORTS
95, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA, pp. 11831194.
Further Reading
Much of this section is based on the authors involvement in the development of the publication Seismic
Design Guidelines for Port Structures [PIANC, 2001], which is highly recommended to the reader, and
the use of material therefrom is gratefully acknowledged.

Port Structures PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Port Structures PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

2003 by CRC Press LLC

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen