Università degli Studi di Pavia

European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk

ROSE SCHOOL

SEISMIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILE SUPPORTED

WHARVES

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

by

Carlos Andres Blandon U

October, 2007
 Università degli Studi di Pavia
European School for Advanced Studies in Reduction of Seismic Risk
ROSE SCHOOL

SEISMIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILE SUPPORTED

WHARVES

A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in

EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING

by

Carlos Andres Blandon U

Supervisors:
Jose I. Restrepo – Univiersity of California, San Diego
Carlo Lai – EUCENTRE, Pavia

October, 2007
 i

ABSTRACT

The significant increase on the maritime trade volume has caused a large demand on the
construction of new port facilities and the expansion of existing terminals worldwide.
Many of these facilities are constructed on earthquake prone areas and in recent
experiences during past earthquakes it has been observed that, in many cases, different
structures in these facilities have suffered severe damage.

Marginal pile supported wharves are widely used as for allowing the loading and
unloading of goods or passengers from the shore to the vessels stationed in deep water.
Even if the structural system of these structures is simple, there are several factors that
make the dynamic analysis and design of the system more complex such as: variable pile
length from the shore line to the waterfront which induces a significant torsional
response when the structure is loaded in the longitudinal direction, the connection
between the piles and the deck requires special considerations given that the piles and
precast elements and the deck is a cast in place element, additionally, there is a significant
soil structure interaction which becomes critical when the soil is susceptible to
liquefaction or lateral spreading.

A set of analyses were carried out in order to check the displacement capacity of the pile
for inertial and kinematic loading based on the material strains in the structural elements.
These strains have been previously defined and are used in practice as performance
criteria for the wharf under seismic loading. Some of the strain values have never been
verified by physical testing; especially those defined for the plastic hinge forming in the
pile section below ground, so a full scale test program was performed to validate the
current values used in design.

Additionally, a set of non linear push over and time history analyses were carried out
using different wharves configurations in order to calibrate a simplified procedure which
allows the analysis of complete wharf systems based on the analysis of a transverse
section transversely loaded. A Dynamic Magnification Factor was obtained to estimate
the displacement demand on the critical corner piles for a bidirectional loaded wharf
based on a section loaded only in the transverse direction.
 iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work would have not been possible with out the support from the faculty and staff from the
Rose School. I am grateful to all of them and to Professor Calvi for the effort they place everyday
for improving the quality of the young school and also for making an amazing effort to bring
student from all over the world no matter race, sex, and economical condition to get the best
possible education in the field of earthquake engineering.

I am also grateful to the staff and faculty at the University of San Diego, for the assistance on my
stay in San Diego. I also have to acknowledge the team effort needed to carry the experimental
program including Professor Scot Ashford, Dr Teerawut Juirnarongrit and the amazing effort
form Grad student Yohsuke Kawamata, from the geotechnical group at UCSD; Max Weismair, Dr
Omar Jaradat from PBS&J who also sponsored my stay at San Diego, Dr Po Lam, Dr Arul
Arumoli and Professor Geoffrey Martin from EMI, professor Niegel Priestley as the structural
advisor from the Port of los Angeles and Peter Yin from the Port of Los Angeles.

I am deeply grateful to Dr Carlo Lai for the support and guidance, for the numerable and valuable
advices given to me and for always opening spaces on his very tight schedule to discuss work and
other important things. I am also especially grateful to Prof Nigel Priestley for the technical and
personal guidance during my studies at ROSE School and also in San Diego. Finally, I express my
sincere gratitude to Prof Restrepo for the continuous, tenacious and dedicate support, friendship
and advice in the academic and personal aspects of my life; His example and advice will last for the
rest of my professional career.

I am grateful to my family for their patience and support in my decision of moving far away to
pursuit a career and to do what I enjoy doing. I am especially thankful to my wife Natalia that
followed my everywhere and encouraged me to keep on going. Thanks to the people I have meet
for their friendship and for making life as a foreign more enjoyable. Thank to my brothers that
encouraged me spiritually and taught me the real life.

Thank to God, for always providing and guiding, for listening, for giving hope and being a strong
tower to run to.
 v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................................................... i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................................................iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ...........................................................................................................................v

LIST OF TABLES.....................................................................................................................................xiii

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................................xv

LIST OF SYMBOLS ...............................................................................................................................xxix

1. INTRODUCTION TO PORT STRUCTURES .................................................................................1

1.1 BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................................1

1.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH .................................................................................2

1.3 OUTLINE .............................................................................................................................................2

1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PORT STRUCTURES ...........................................................................3

1.5 WHARF PERFORMANCE DURING PAST EARTHQUAKES ...............................................................5

1.6 DESIGN PROBLEMS OF PILE SUPPORTED WHARVES ....................................................................8

1.7 SEISMIC CODES FOR WHARF STRUCTURES...................................................................................10

1.8 CAPACITY DESIGN OF WHARVES ..................................................................................................11

1.9 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR PILE SUPPORTED WHARVES ..................................................................12

1.10 DURABILITY REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................................15

2. RELEVANT ASPECTS INFLUENCING THE SEIMIC BEHAVIOUR OF WHARVES ....17

2.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................17
vi Carlos Blandon

2.2 PILE-SOIL INTERACTION ............................................................................................................... 19

2.2.1 Inertial Interaction .............................................................................................................. 20

2.2.2 Kinematic Interaction......................................................................................................... 25

2.3 COUPLED RESPONSE ...................................................................................................................... 27

2.4 HYDRODYNAMIC INTERACTION ................................................................................................... 28

2.5 CRANE-WHARF INTERACTION ...................................................................................................... 31

2.6 IMPACT AND FORCE TRANSFER IN JOINTS .................................................................................. 32

2.7 OTHER PARAMETERS INFLUENCING SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF WHARVES ............................. 33

2.7.1 Effect of soil confinement ................................................................................................. 33

2.7.2 Connection nonlinear behaviour....................................................................................... 35

3. METHODS OF ANALYSIS FOR WHARVES............................................................................... 45

3.1 SIMPLIFIED APPROACHES .............................................................................................................. 45

3.1.1 Equivalent Depth to Fixity ................................................................................................ 45

3.1.2 Force Transfer Approach................................................................................................... 47

3.1.2.1 Layered profile ...................................................................................................... 51

3.1.2.2 Slopping soil.......................................................................................................... 52

3.1.3 Coupled Modal Response Effects..................................................................................... 58

3.1.4 Liquefaction, Slope Stability and Settling......................................................................... 60

3.1.5 Kinematic Loading.............................................................................................................. 61

3.1.6 Inertial Loading ................................................................................................................... 63

3.1.6.1 Equivalent Single Mode Analysis ....................................................................... 64

3.1.6.2 Multi-Mode Response.......................................................................................... 66

3.1.6.3 Substitute Structure Approach............................................................................ 68

 SEISMIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILE SUPPORTED WHARVES vii

3.1.6.4 Time history analyses............................................................................................70

3.1.7 Simplified Transverse Kinematic and Inertial Coupled Interaction .............................71

3.1.8 Displacement Capacity Estimation ...................................................................................75

3.1.9 P-Δ Effects ...........................................................................................................................76

3.2 CONTINUUM BASED APPROACH....................................................................................................77

3.2.1 Analysis Examples ...............................................................................................................77

3.2.2 Pile-Soil Dynamic Analysis.................................................................................................86

3.2.3 Constitutive Modelling of Soils under Earthquake Loading..........................................89

3.2.4 Absorbing Boundaries and Pile Interfaces .......................................................................92

3.2.5 Seismic Input........................................................................................................................94

4. CALIBRATION OF ANALYTICAL MODEL ...............................................................................97

4.1 GENERAL STRUCTURAL MODEL....................................................................................................97

4.2 PILES ..................................................................................................................................................99

4.2.1 Moment curvature .............................................................................................................100

4.2.2 Moment Curvature Model Verification ..........................................................................103

4.3 CONNECTION .................................................................................................................................108

4.4 SOIL CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................................................................111

5. STATIC ANALYSES ..........................................................................................................................115

5.1 ANALYTICAL MODEL ....................................................................................................................115

5.2 MONOTONIC PUSH-OVER .............................................................................................................118

5.2.1 Effect of Pile and Element Length .................................................................................118

5.2.2 P-Y Spring Model Effect ..................................................................................................120

5.2.3 Above Ground Pile Length Effect..................................................................................123

viii Carlos Blandon

5.2.4 Sensitivity Analysis of Soil Properties and Above Ground Pile Length.................... 125

5.2.5 Response of a Wharf Transverse Section ...................................................................... 130

5.3 CYCLIC PUSH OVER ANALYSES ..................................................................................................... 134

5.3.1 Connection......................................................................................................................... 134

5.3.2 Pile....................................................................................................................................... 137

5.3.3 Soil....................................................................................................................................... 139

5.3.4 System Response ............................................................................................................... 141

5.4 3-D FINITE ELEMENT MODEL .................................................................................................... 143

6. TORSIONAL RESPONSE OF WHARF SEGMENTS............................................................... 149

6.1 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 149

6.2 ANALYTICAL MODEL .................................................................................................................... 149

6.3 PROCEDURE ................................................................................................................................... 151

6.3.1 Pile Force- Displacement Response. .............................................................................. 151

6.3.2 Center of stiffness ............................................................................................................. 153

6.3.3 Center of Mass................................................................................................................... 155

6.3.4 Equivalent wharf geometry.............................................................................................. 156

6.3.5 Spring stiffness and nonlinear characteristics................................................................ 158

6.3.6 Linked Segments ............................................................................................................... 161

6.3.7 Soil Springs for deck embankment interaction ............................................................. 162

6.3.8 Pile Hysteretic Properties................................................................................................. 163

6.4 MODELLING OF SEISMICITY ........................................................................................................ 164

6.5 VERIFICATION ANALYSES ............................................................................................................ 167

6.5.1 Super Pile Assumption ..................................................................................................... 167

 SEISMIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILE SUPPORTED WHARVES ix

6.5.2 Super Pile Spring Configuration ......................................................................................170

6.5.3 Effect of Damping Model ................................................................................................174

6.5.4 Effect of loading direction................................................................................................176

6.5.5 Effect of the Upper and Lower Bound on the Displacement Demand ....................178

6.5.6 Input Ground Motion Intensity Effect ..........................................................................181

6.5.7 Effect of Deck-Backwall Interaction ..............................................................................182

6.5.8 Effect of Eccentricity ........................................................................................................184

6.5.9 Load Combination Effect.................................................................................................186

6.5.10 Displacement Averaging Approaches for DMF............................................................189

6.6 EFFECT OF SHEAR KEY STIFFNESS MODEL AND GROUND MOTION INPUT ANGLE ON THE
SHEAR KEY FORCE.................................................................................................................................191

6.7 CASE STUDIES .................................................................................................................................192

6.8 RESULTS OF ANALYSES .................................................................................................................193

7. SLIDING LAYER KINEMATIC ANALYSES .............................................................................205

7.1 MODEL SET UP ...............................................................................................................................206

7.2 ANALYSES .......................................................................................................................................209

7.3 RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................................211

7.4 UPDATED ANALYSES WITH REVISED CONCRETE AND STRAND STRESS-STRAIN

CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................................................................216

8. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM........................................................................................................221

8.1 PREVIOUS WORK ...........................................................................................................................221

8.2 DESCRIPTION TEST PROGRAM .....................................................................................................223

8.2.1 Testing Sequence ...............................................................................................................224

8.2.2 Test set up...........................................................................................................................225

x Carlos Blandon

8.2.3 Construction and installation process ............................................................................ 229

8.3 INSTRUMENTATION ...................................................................................................................... 241

8.3.1 Conventional Sensors ....................................................................................................... 242

8.3.2 Designed Sensors .............................................................................................................. 248

8.3.2.1 Spalling Sensor.................................................................................................... 248

8.3.2.2 Spalling Rubber Bands....................................................................................... 249

8.3.2.3 Sensors verification tests ................................................................................... 251

8.3.2.4 Continuous Sensor ............................................................................................. 254

8.3.3 Sensor Location................................................................................................................. 255

8.3.4 Steel beam Instrumentation and calibration.................................................................. 258

8.3.5 External instrumentation ................................................................................................. 260

8.4 LOAD PROTOCOL AND DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM ................................................................ 262

8.5 PREDICTION ................................................................................................................................... 263

8.6 RESPONSE MONITORING .............................................................................................................. 266

8.7 FREE HEAD PILE TEST ................................................................................................................. 267

8.7.1 Test procedure – Stage I .................................................................................................. 267

8.7.2 Test Results – Stage I........................................................................................................ 269

8.7.2.1 Load-displacement envelope and hysteretic response................................... 269

8.7.2.2 Inground spalling................................................................................................ 271

8.7.2.3 Strains on surface concrete ............................................................................... 272

8.7.2.4 Curvature along test pile.................................................................................... 275

8.7.2.5 Rotation and deflection of pile ......................................................................... 277

8.7.3 Inspection of pile .............................................................................................................. 277

 SEISMIC ANALYSIS AND DESIGN OF PILE SUPPORTED WHARVES xi

8.7.4 Consideration and Discussion..........................................................................................278

8.7.4.1 Load-displacement curve at pile top.................................................................278

8.7.4.2 P-Y springs...........................................................................................................280

8.7.5 Testing Procedure – Stage II............................................................................................280

8.7.6 Test Results-Stage II..........................................................................................................281

8.7.6.1 Force-displacement envelope and hysteretic response ..................................281

8.7.6.2 Pile Rotation curvature and displacement .......................................................284

8.7.6.3 Inground Spalling................................................................................................287

8.7.7 Pile Inspection – Stage II..................................................................................................291

8.8 SYSTEM TEST 1 ...............................................................................................................................297

8.8.1 Testing procedure ..............................................................................................................297

8.8.2 Test Results.........................................................................................................................297

8.8.2.1 Force Vs Top Displacement Response............................................................297

8.8.2.2 Rotation Curvature and Displacement Profile................................................299

8.8.2.3 Pile-cap connection nonlinear behavior...........................................................307

8.8.3 Pile Inspection....................................................................................................................310

8.8.4 In-ground inspection after final excavation ...................................................................313

8.9 SUMMARY OF THE SYSTEM TEST 2 CYCLIC TEST ......................................................................321

8.9.1 Loading History .................................................................................................................321

8.9.2 Hysteresis Cycles................................................................................................................322

8.9.3 Force vs Displacement Envelopes ..................................................................................322

8.9.4 Pile Inspection....................................................................................................................332

8.9.5 In-ground inspection during pile excavation .................................................................339

xii Carlos Blandon

9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION ......................................................................... 349

9.1 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 349

9.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH .......................................................................... 355

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 357

APPENDIX A. Modelling of a Prestressed Section with OpenSees ................................................ 369

Annex B Ground Motions for the DMF Analyses .............................................................................. 376

 xiii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1-1 OVERSTRENGTH VALUES FOR THE SECTION MATERIAL [POLA, 2004] .................... 11
TABLE 1-2 DESIGN EARTHQUAKE MOTIONS [POLA, 2004] ...................................................... 12
TABLE 1-3 MATERIAL STRAIN LIMITS FOR CLE AND OLE [POLA, 2004] .................................. 14
TABLE 4-1 SOIL PROPERTIES ................................................................................................... 113
TABLE 5-1 BILINEAR ENVELOPE CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................. 133
TABLE 5-2 CALIBRATED PARAMETER FOR THE CONNECTION MODEL ..................................... 135
TABLE 5-3 CALIBRATED PARAMETER FOR THE PRESTRESSED PILE SECTION MODEL ................ 138
TABLE 5-4 DEFAULT PARAMETER VALUES FOR THE PRESSURE SENSITIVE SOIL MODEL [ZHANG,
2006]............................................................................................................................... 145
TABLE 6-1 ROCK DIKE THICKNESS ......................................................................................... 152
TABLE 6-2 CENTER OF RIGIDITY PER 6 M SEGMENT ................................................................ 155
TABLE 6-3 SUPER PILE COORDINATES ..................................................................................... 158
TABLE 6-4 IDEALIZED ENVELOPE PROPERTIES FOR A 6 M WHARF STRIP .................................. 159
TABLE 6-5 PERIODS OF VIBRATION ......................................................................................... 168
TABLE 6-6 CORRECTION FACTORS FOR SPRING ARRANGEMENT............................................. 172
TABLE 6-7 DISPLACEMENT RATIO FOR DIFFERENT DAMPING MODELS ..................................... 176
TABLE 6-8 DYNAMIC MAGNIFICATION FACTOR...................................................................... 178
TABLE 6-9 DYNAMIC MAGNIFICATION FACTOR FOR UPPER AND LOWER BOUND SOIL SPRINGS
........................................................................................................................................ 180
TABLE 6-10 DYNAMIC MAGNIFICATION FACTOR FOR VECTORIAL AND DIRECTIONAL AVERAGE
APPROACH ....................................................................................................................... 191
TABLE 6-11 SHEAR KEY FORCE ............................................................................................... 192
TABLE 6-12 ANALYSES CASES................................................................................................. 193
TABLE 6-13 SINGLE SEGMENTS DMF (DISPLACEMENT IN MM) ............................................... 194
TABLE 6-14 LINKED SEGMENTS (2 SEGMENTS) (DISPLACEMENT IN MM) ................................ 195
TABLE 6-15 LINKED SEGMENTS (3 SEGMENTS) (DISPLACEMENT IN MM) ................................ 196
TABLE 6-16 INTERMEDIATE SEGMENTS DMF (3 LINKED SEGMENTS ONLY) (DISPLACEMENT IN
MM)................................................................................................................................. 197
TABLE 7-1 PRESTRESSED SECTION MATERIAL PROPERTIES ....................................................... 208
TABLE 7-2 PLASTIC HINGE LOCATION FOR THE MODEL WITH 0.25 D PILE ELEMENTS .............. 212
TABLE 7-3 PLASTIC HINGE LOCATION FOR THE CASE OF 0.5D PILE SEGMENTS ....................... 214
TABLE 7-4 COMPARATIVE RESULTS AT CLE FOR SLIDING ANALYSIS ....................................... 219
TABLE 8-1 TARGET DISPLACEMENT/LOAD ............................................................................... 267
xiv Carlos Blandon

TABLE 8-2 LOADING HISTORY .................................................................................................298

TABLE 8-3 CURVATURE AVERAGING.......................................................................................303
TABLE 8-4 LOADING HISTORY .................................................................................................321
TABLE 8-5 RECALCULATED DUCTILITY ...................................................................................324
 xv

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1-1 DESCRIPTION OF PORT STRUCTURES (PIER, WHARF AND MARGINAL WHARF) [FORM
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY USA, 1994] ........................................................................... 4
FIGURE 1-2 WHARVES STRUCTURES .......................................................................................... 5
FIGURE 1-3 DAMAGE TO PILE-DECK CONNECTION. [MCCULLOUGH AND SCHLENCHTER, 2000]. 6
FIGURE 1-4 OVERTURNED CRANE [MCCULLOUGH AND SCHLENCHTER, 2000]........................... 7
FIGURE 1-5 LATERAL SPREADING AND OVERTURNING OF RETAINING STRUCTURES
[MCCULLOUGH AND SCHLENCHTER,2000]......................................................................... 7
FIGURE 1-6 DAMAGE TO PORTS. [EQE 2003,1995,1999,1990] ................................................... 8
FIGURE 1-7 OXIDATION PROCESS [HILL AND KOLB, 2001] ...................................................... 16
FIGURE 2-1 RESPONSE OF A LINKED WHARF SEGMENTS FOR ORTHOGONAL EARTHQUAKE
LOADING ........................................................................................................................... 17
FIGURE 2-2 TYPICAL PILE SUPPORTED WHARF SECTION ........................................................... 18
FIGURE 2-3 SOIL STRUCTURE INTERACTION PROBLEM ............................................................. 20
FIGURE 2-4 DEPTH OF PLASTIC HINGE VS NONDIMENSIONAL SYSTEM STIFFNESS (3200<K<48000
KN/M3- BEST FIT CURVE) FOR FREE HEAD PILE [BUDEK, 2000] ......................................... 21
FIGURE 2-5 LOCATION OF INITIAL PLASTIC HINGES .................................................................. 22
FIGURE 2-6 PLASTIC HINGE LOCATION AND MOMENT DISTRIBUTION FROM INERTIAL
INTERACTION .................................................................................................................... 22
FIGURE 2-7 SHEAR FORCE VS HEIGHT FOR FREE HEAD CONDITION [BUDEK, 1997]................... 23
FIGURE 2-8 CAST IN PLACE PILE PLASTIC HINGE LENGHT VS NONDIMENSIONAL SYSTEM
STIFFNESS [BUDEK, 1997] ................................................................................................. 24
FIGURE 2-9 PRESTRESSED PILE PLASTIC HINGE LENGHT VS NONDIMENSIONAL SYSTEM STIFFNESS
[BUDEK, 1997].................................................................................................................. 24
FIGURE 2-10 KINEMATIC INTERACTION ...................................................................................... 26
FIGURE 2-11 KINEMATIC INTERACTION DUE TO RELATIVE SOIL DISPLACEMENT ABOVE AND
BELOW A SLIDING LAYER .................................................................................................. 27
FIGURE 2-12 CORNER PILES WITH EXAGGERATED INCREASED DISPLACEMENT DEMAND DUE TO
ROTATION ......................................................................................................................... 28
FIGURE 2-13 FORCE ON CYLINDERS [CHENG, 2006].................................................................. 29
FIGURE 2-14 NORMALIZED HYDRODYNAMIC ADDED MASS CURVES [GOYAL AND CHOPRA,
1989A] .............................................................................................................................. 31
FIGURE 2-15 CRANE TYPOLOGIES LEFT) HIGH PROFILE CRANES (PORT OF LOS ANGELES)
RIGHT) LOW PROFILE CRANES (PORT OF MIAMI) ............................................................... 32
xvi Carlos Blandon

FIGURE 2-16 SHEAR KEY DETAIL [HOITE, 2001] ....................................................................... 33

FIGURE 2-17 TRANSVERSE VIEW OF A TEST SET UP OF A CONFINED SECTION (BUDECK, 1997) . 34
FIGURE 2-18 TEST RESULTS FOR CONFINED PRESTRESSED PILE WITH EXTERNAL CONFINEMENT
AND TRANSVERSE REINFORCEMENT PS8 [BUDEK,1997]................................................... 36
FIGURE 2-19 HEADED BAR CONNECTION DETAIL [SRITHARAN AND PRIESTLEY, 1998] ............ 37
FIGURE 2-20 CYCLIC BEHAVIOUR OF HEADED BAR CONNECTION [SRITHARAN AND PRIESTLEY,
1998] ................................................................................................................................ 37
FIGURE 2-21 TYPICAL PRESTRESSED CONCRETE PILE MOMENT CONNECTIONS [FROM ROEDER
ET AL, 2002] ..................................................................................................................... 38
FIGURE 2-22 MOMENT – DRIFT CYCLIC BEHAVIOUR OF T-HEADED DOWEL BAR CONNECTIONS
(ROEDER, 2002)................................................................................................................ 39
FIGURE 2-23 MOMENT-CURVATURE IN THE PILE, THE PILE-DECK INTERFACE AND INSIDE THE
DECK FOR THE CASE OF EXTENDED PILE (LEFT) AND WITHOUT THE EXTENSION (RIGHT)... 40
FIGURE 2-24 TYPICAL WHARF TRANSVERSE SECTION ............................................................... 41
FIGURE 2-25 TEST SET UP FOR ROW E PILE DECK CONNECTION [FROM KRIER ET AL, 2006] ...... 42
FIGURE 2-26 DAMAGE ON PILE DECK CONNECTION TESTED BY KRIER ET AL [2006]................. 43
FIGURE 2-27 FORCE – DISPLACEMENT RELATIONSHIP FOR ROW E PILE DECK CONNECTION
CYCLIC TEST ..................................................................................................................... 44
FIGURE 2-28 ANALYTICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MOMENT ROTATION FOR PILE-DECK
CONNECTION ..................................................................................................................... 44
FIGURE 3-1 DEPTH TO FIXITY MODEL AS IN FIG 3-20 [FERRITO EL AL, 1999] ............................ 46
FIGURE 3-2 DEPTH TO FIXITY FOR AN EQUIVALENT CANTILEVER AS A FUNCTION OF SOIL
STIFFNESS AND COLUMN ASPECT RATIO (DEPTH/PILE DIAMETER) FOR CAST IN PLACE PILE-
COLUMNS [BUDECK, 1999]. .............................................................................................. 46
FIGURE 3-3 SOIL-STRUCTURE INTERACTION USING P-Y CURVES (LEFT) AND TYPICAL SHAPE OF A
STATIC P-Y CURVE (RIGHT).............................................................................................. 47
FIGURE 3-4 COEFFICIENTS FOR THE ESTIMATION OF THE MAXIMUM SAND STRENGTH (LEFT) AND
AVERAGE VALUES OF THE INITIAL MODULUS OF SUBGRADE REACTION (RIGHT). .............. 49
FIGURE 3-5 EQUIVALENT DEPTH APPROACH FOR LAYERED PROFILES ........................................ 52
FIGURE 3-6 CENTRIFUGAL TEST MODEL TESTED BY MEZAZIGH................................................ 53
FIGURE 3-7 CORRECTION FACTOR FROM MEZAZIGH’S EQUATION (θ= 29.7°) ........................... 53
FIGURE 3-8 ASSUMED PASSIVE WEDGE TYPE FAILURE: A) GENERAL SHAPE OF WEDGE (B) FORCES
OF WEDGE (C) FORCES ON PILE [REESE ET AL., 1974]........................................................ 55
FIGURE 3-9 CORRECTION FACTOR FOR THE SLOPE CONDITION (LOOSE SAND = 30°, DENSE SAND
OR ROCK FILL=45°)........................................................................................................... 56
FIGURE 3-10. DOWNSLOPE LATERAL RESISTANCE CORRECTION FACTOR [DIAZ ET AL., 1984].. 57
FIGURE 3-11. NEWMARK SLIDING BLOCK METHOD [NEWMARK 1965] ..................................... 62
FIGURE 3-12 RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN YIELD ACCELERATION AND PERMANENT GROUND
DISPLACEMENT (SLIDING BLOCK) [MAKDISI AND SEED, 1978] ......................................... 62
FIGURE 3-13 GEOMETRIC CHARACTERISTIC OF TYPICAL SEGMENTS, PLAN VIEW (LEFT) AND
TRANSVERSE SECTION (RIGHT).......................................................................................... 64
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves xvii

FIGURE 3-14 EQUAL DISPLACEMENT APPROXIMATION.............................................................. 65

FIGURE 3-15 DEFINITION OF ECCENTRICITY .............................................................................. 66
FIGURE 3-16 LOCATION OF SUPER PILES ................................................................................... 67
FIGURE 3-17 SUBSTITUTE STRUCTURE....................................................................................... 68
FIGURE 3-18. SELECTION OF THE DISPLACEMENT FROM THE REDUCED SPECTRUM. .................. 69
FIGURE 3-19 MODEL FOR A LINKED LINEAR SEGMENTS OF A MARGINAL WHARF [BENZONI AND
PRIESTLEY, 2003] ............................................................................................................. 70
FIGURE 3-20 COUPLED KINEMATIC AND INERTIAL INTERACTION MODEL [WILSON ET AL., 2000]
.......................................................................................................................................... 72
FIGURE 3-21 NON-LINEAR P-Y SPRING AS PROPOSED BY BOULANGER [2002].......................... 72
FIGURE 3-22 RESULTS FROM KINEMATIC ANALYSIS USING SIMPLIFIED SOL MODEL [ROTH, 2003]
.......................................................................................................................................... 73
FIGURE 3-23 PLASTIC HINGE DISTRIBUTION FOR KOCAELI-DUZCE 180 GROUND MOTION [FROM
ROTH 2003] ...................................................................................................................... 74
FIGURE 3-24 COUPLE (SOIL AND WHARF) AND UNCOUPLED (WITHOUT WHARF) DISPLACEMENT
PROFILE. [FROM ROTH 2003] ........................................................................................... 74
FIGURE 3-25 PLASTIC HINGE LOCATION AND INFLEXION POINT ................................................ 76
FIGURE 3-26 FINITE MODEL MESH FOR CALIBRATION OF P-Y CURVES FRO SAND [HE ET AL,
2004] ................................................................................................................................ 78
FIGURE 3-27 CALIBRATED P-Y CURVES FOR SAND [HE ET AL, 2004]........................................ 79
FIGURE 3-28 FINITE ELEMENT MESH FOR LAYERED SOIL ANALYSES [YANG AND JEREMIC,
2002] ................................................................................................................................ 80
FIGURE 3-29 CONTACT PRESSURE REDUCTION RATIO – UNIFORM SAND VS SAND WITH SOFT
CLAY LAYER [YANG AND JEREMIC, 2002]......................................................................... 80
FIGURE 3-30 HUMBOLDT BAY MIDDLE CHANNEL BRIDGE [CONTE EL AL, 2002] ..................... 81
FIGURE 3-31 ABUTMENT JOINT [CONTE EL AL, 2002]............................................................... 82
FIGURE 3-32 FINITE ELEMENT REPRESENTATION OF POLA BERTH 147 [MARTIN, 2005] ......... 82
FIGURE 3-33 DEFORMED MESH OF POLA BERTH 147 FOR CLE GROUND MOTION [MARTIN,
2005] ................................................................................................................................ 83
FIGURE 3-34 FINITE ELEMENT CONFIGURATION FOR PARALELL FINITE ELEMENT MODEL OF
BERTH 100 A) 2-D MODEL. B) 3-D MODEL (MODEL ISOMETRIC VIEW AND PLAN VIEW OF
WHARF SECTION) [LU, 2006]............................................................................................. 84
FIGURE 3-35 DISPLACED MESH OF BERTH 100 A) 2-D MODEL. B) 3-D MODEL [LU, 2006]........ 85
FIGURE 3-36 CLOSE VIEW OF WHARF DISPLACED MESH OF BERTH 100. [LU, 2006]................. 86
FIGURE 3-37 FLIP MODEL OF A DAMAGED PILE SUPPORTED WHARF DURING THE HYOGOKEN-
NAMBU EARTHQUAKE [IAI, 2006]..................................................................................... 86
FIGURE 3-38 YIELD SURFACES FOR THE ELASTOPLASTIC MODEL USED FRO PUSH OVER
ANALYSES DRICKER-PRAGER (LEFT) AND VON MISES (RIGHT), YANG AND JEREMIC [2002]
.......................................................................................................................................... 90
FIGURE 3-39 NESTED YIELD SURFACES, DRUCKER-PRAGER (LEFT) AND VON MISES (RIGHT),
[PREVOST, 1985., LU 2006., PARRA ET AL 1996] .............................................................. 91
xviii Carlos Blandon

FIGURE 3-40 HYSTERETIC RESPONSE FOR THE VON MISES MODEL [YANG 2000, YANG ET AL
2003] ................................................................................................................................ 92
FIGURE 3-41 BOUNDARY DASHPOT [ARDUINO, 2003].............................................................. 93
FIGURE 3-42 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS FOR FINITE DIFFERENCE MODEL OF A WHARF SECTION
[MARTIN, 2005]................................................................................................................ 94
FIGURE 3-43 INPUT MOTION SCHEME [ARDUINO, 2003] ........................................................... 95
FIGURE 4-1 REFERENCE EXAMPLE [PRIESTLEY, 2000] .............................................................. 98
FIGURE 4-2 SIMPLIFIED SINGLE PILE MODEL ............................................................................. 99
FIGURE 4-3 PRESTRESSED PILE TRANSVERSE SECTION ............................................................ 100
FIGURE 4-4 NORMALIZED MOMENT CURVATURE RELATIONSHIP FOR PRESTRESSED OCTAGONAL
SECTION (FROM -0.048 P/F’C AG TO 0.08 P/ F’C AG EACH 0.016 P/ F’C AG) ................... 101
FIGURE 4-5 PERFORMANCE LIMITS FOR PRESTRESSED OCTAGONAL PILE ................................ 102
FIGURE 4-6 PERFORMANCE LIMIT EQUATIONS FOR TYPICAL OCTAGONAL PRESTRESSED
SECTIONS ........................................................................................................................ 103
FIGURE 4-7 XTRACT FIBRE MODEL ......................................................................................... 104
FIGURE 4-8 OPENSEES FIBRE MODEL ....................................................................................... 104
FIGURE 4-9 UNCONFINED CONCRETE MODELS ........................................................................ 105
FIGURE 4-10 MOMENT CURVATURE NONLINEAR BEHAVIOUR FOR THE PRESTRESSED PILE
SECTION .......................................................................................................................... 105
FIGURE 4-11 EXPERIMENTAL AND ANALYTICAL MOMENT CURVATURE RELATIONSHIP (MODEL
2) FOR PILE PS9 FROM TEST BY BUDECK [1997] ............................................................. 106
FIGURE 4-12 ESTIMATED AND EXPERIMENTAL CURVATURE FOR BUDECK TEST PS9 FOR
DISPLACEMENT DUCTILITY 3, 4 AND 6. ........................................................................... 107
FIGURE 4-13 PILE-DECK CONNECTION DETAIL ....................................................................... 109
FIGURE 4-14 NORMALIZED MOMENT CURVATURE RELATIONSHIP FOR PILE-DECK CONNECTION
SECTION (FROM -0.048 P/F’C AG TO 0.08 P/ F’C AG EACH 0.016 P/ F’C AG) ................... 109
FIGURE 4-15 PERFORMANCE LIMITS FOR PILE-DECK CONNECTION ACCORDING TO POLA
SEISMIC CODE MATERIAL STRAIN .................................................................................... 110
FIGURE 4-16 PILE-DECK CONNECTION MODEL ....................................................................... 111
FIGURE 4-17 TYPICAL PILE-SUPPORTED WHARF GEOMETRIES; A) SINGLE-LIFT, B) MULTI-LIFT,
AND C) SLIVER ROCK DIKES AS GIVEN BY MCCULLOUGH [MCCULLOUGH,2001] ........... 112
FIGURE 4-18 P-Y CURVES FOR QUARRY-RUN MATERIAL (AT 3 M DEPTH) ............................... 113
FIGURE 4-19 SMOOTHED UPPER AND LOWER P-Y CURVES (AT 3 M) ...................................... 114
FIGURE 5-1 MODEL FOR PSEUDO-STATIC ANALYSES ............................................................... 116
FIGURE 5-2 MULTI LINEAR ELASTIC HYSTERETIC MODEL FOR MONOTONIC ANALYSES ........... 116
FIGURE 5-3 SHOETTLER AND RESTREPO HYSTERETIC RULE [CARR 2005] .............................. 117
FIGURE 5-4 CALIBRATION RESULTS FOR DIFFERENT PILE ELEMENT LENGTHS ......................... 119
FIGURE 5-5 SHEAR VS. DISPLACEMENT PREDICTION FOR CANTILEVER PILE TEST .................. 120
FIGURE 5-6 PUSH OVER RESPONSE PROFILE FOR A LONG PILE MODEL ..................................... 121
FIGURE 5-7 RESPONSE PROFILE FOR DIFFERENT SOIL SPRING CHARACTERIZATION ................. 122
FIGURE 5-8 EFFECT OF THE ABOVE GROUND PILE CLEARANCE ON THE PILE RESPONSE ........... 124
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves xix

FIGURE 5-9 MOMENT ROTATION CHARACTERISTICS FOR THE PILE DECK CONNECTION .......... 125
FIGURE 5-10 CONNECTION ROTATION VS P-Y MULTIPLIER WHEN IN-GROUND HINGE REACHES
CLE ................................................................................................................................ 126
FIGURE 5-11 IN-GROUND PLASTIC HINGE LOCATION ............................................................... 127
FIGURE 5-12 SHEAR FORCE VS P-Y MULTIPLIER ...................................................................... 127
FIGURE 5-13 SHEAR FORCE RATIO VS P-Y MULTIPLIER .......................................................... 128
FIGURE 5-14 PILE TOP DISPLACEMENT VS P-Y MULTIPLIER .................................................... 129
FIGURE 5-15 DISPLACAMENT RATIO VS P-Y MULTIPLIER........................................................ 129
FIGURE 5-16 PLAN VIEW (TOP) AND TRANSVERSE SECTION (BOTTOM) OF BERTH 147 AT PORT OF
L.A ................................................................................................................................. 130
FIGURE 5-17 SHEAR FORCE VS DISPLACEMENT RESPONSE OF INDIVIDUAL PILE ROWS FOR
TYPICAL WHARF TRANSVERSE SECTION AND LEVEL P-Y SPRINGS ................................... 131
FIGURE 5-18 SHEAR FORCE VS DISPLACEMENT RESPONSE OF INDIVIDUAL PILE ROWS FOR
TYPICAL WHARF TRANSVERSE SECTION AND LOWER BOUND P-Y SPRINGS ...................... 132
FIGURE 5-19 SHEAR FORCE VS DISPLACEMENT RESPONSE OF INDIVIDUAL PILE ROWS FOR
TYPICAL WHARF TRANSVERSE SECTION AND UPPER BOUND P-Y SPRINGS ....................... 132
FIGURE 5-20 PUSH OVER RESPONSE OF 6M WIDTH TRANSVERSE SECTION .............................. 133
FIGURE 5-21 NORMALIZED MOMENT VS ROTATION HYSTERETIC RESPONSE FROM SEISMIC
DESIGNED PILE-DECK CONNECTION [KRIER, 2005]........................................................ 135
FIGURE 5-22 CONNECTION MODEL ENVELOPE [CARR 2005].................................................. 136
FIGURE 5-23 CONNECTION MODEL RESPONSE ........................................................................ 136
FIGURE 5-24 MOMENT VS CURVATURE HYSTERETIC RESPONSE IN THE CRITICAL SECTION FOR
TYPICAL PRESTRESSED PILE [BUDECK 1997]................................................................... 137
FIGURE 5-25 PILE MODEL RESPONSE ...................................................................................... 138
FIGURE 5-26 CYCLIC RESPONSE OF SAND (LEFT) AND CLAY (RIGHT) SOILS [FERRITO, 1999] .. 139
FIGURE 5-27 THEORETICAL CYCLIC SOIL MODEL [BOULANGER, 1999]................................... 140
FIGURE 5-28 IMPLEMENTED CYCLIC MODEL WITH NO DRAG (PINCH FACTOR=0.0) ................. 140
FIGURE 5-29 IMPLEMENTED CYCLIC MODEL WITH MODERATE DRAG (PINCH FACTOR=0.5) .... 141
FIGURE 5-30 IMPLEMENTED CYCLIC MODEL WITH FULL DRAG (PINCH FACTOR=1.0).............. 141
FIGURE 5-31 DISPLACEMENT HISTORY ................................................................................... 142
FIGURE 5-32 PILE MODEL RESPONSE (PINCHED SOIL MODEL)................................................. 142
FIGURE 5-33 PILE MODEL RESPONSE (MODERATED SOIL PINCHING)....................................... 142
FIGURE 5-34 PILE MODEL RESPONSE (NO SOIL PINCHING)...................................................... 143
FIGURE 5-35 SOIL PILE FINITE ELEMENT MODEL ................................................................... 146
FIGURE 5-36 ELASTOPLASTIC MATERIAL USED FOR MODELLING THE PRESTRESSING
REINFORCEMENT ............................................................................................................. 146
FIGURE 5-37 PRESTRESSED SECTION FOR SOIL – STRUCTURE ANALYSES ............................... 147
FIGURE 6-1 TRANSVERSE SECTION OF TYPICAL SEGMENTS ..................................................... 150
FIGURE 6-2 2-D EQUIVALENT WHARF SEGMENT MODEL ......................................................... 150
FIGURE 6-3 PUSH OVER MODEL .............................................................................................. 152
FIGURE 6-4 MAXIMUM P-Y SPRINGS FORCE (BEST ESTIMATE) [EMI, 1998]........................... 153
xx Carlos Blandon

FIGURE 6-5 LATERAL FORCE VS DISPLACEMENT FROM PUSHOVER ANALYSIS FOR A 6 M STRIP 154
FIGURE 6-6 CENTER OF MASS AND ECCENTRICITY BASED ON A 6 M WHARF STRIP .................. 156
FIGURE 6-7 RADIUS OF GYRATION CONCEPT ........................................................................... 157
FIGURE 6-8 SUPER PILE LOCATION .......................................................................................... 158
FIGURE 6-9: FORCE-DISPLACEMENT PROPERTIES FOR SUPER-PILES ASSUMING THE BENCHMARK
PROPERTIES FOR A 6 M STRIP OF THE WHARF SEGMENT ................................................... 159
FIGURE 6-10: FORCE-DISPLACEMENT PROPERTIES FOR SUPER-PILES ASSUMING LOWER BOUND
SOIL PROPERTIES FOR A 6 M STRIP OF THE WHARF SEGMENT ........................................... 160
FIGURE 6-11: FORCE-DISPLACEMENT PROPERTIES FOR SUPER-PILES ASSUMING UPPER BOUND
SOIL PROPERTIES FOR A 6M STRIP OF THE WHARF SEGMENT ........................................... 160
FIGURE 6-12 SHEAR KEY RESPONSE ........................................................................................ 161
FIGURE 6-13 IMPACT ELEMENT FORCE DISPLACEMENT HYSTERETIC RULE............................. 162
FIGURE 6-14 MULTI SEGMENT MODEL .................................................................................... 162
FIGURE 6-15 DECK-EMBANKMENT INTERACTION MODEL....................................................... 163
FIGURE 6-16 MODIFIED TAKEDA HYSTERESIS MODEL (SUPER-PILE SPRINGS)........................ 164
FIGURE 6-17 DESIGN ACCELERATION RESPONSE SPECTRA AT CLE AND OLE ........................ 165
FIGURE 6-18 COMPATIBLE SPECTRA FROM ARTIFICIALLY GENERATED RECORDS FOR 5%
DAMPING......................................................................................................................... 166
FIGURE 6-19 REDUCED MODEL USED FOR THE MODAL ANALYSIS ........................................... 168
FIGURE 6-20 REFINED GEOMETRY FOR MODAL ANALYSES ..................................................... 168
FIGURE 6-21 FUNDAMENTAL MODE SHAPE FROM REFINED WHARF MODEL ............................. 168
FIGURE 6-22 CORNER PILES DISPLACEMENT UNDER PURE TRANSVERSAL LOADING ................ 169
FIGURE 6-23 TRANSVERSAL CORNER PILES DISPLACEMENT UNDER ORTHOGONAL LOADING . 169
FIGURE 6-24 LONGITUDINAL CORNER PILES DISPLACEMENT UNDER ORTHOGONAL LOADING 170
FIGURE 6-25 SUPER PILE SPRING ARRANGEMENT.................................................................... 171
FIGURE 6-26 OVERSTRENGTH FOR L SHAPE SPRING ARRANGEMENT....................................... 172
FIGURE 6-27 OVERSTRENGTH FACTORS FOR SPRING ARRANGEMENTS .................................... 172
FIGURE 6-28 TRANSVERSAL AND LONGITUDINAL INPUT MOTION (HL AND HT) FROM ORIGINAL
RECORD ROTATED COMPONENTS H1 AND H2 ................................................................... 173
FIGURE 6-29 DISPLACEMENT RATIO OF CORNER PILE, L AND DELTA SHAPE TO PENTA SHAPE
RATIO .............................................................................................................................. 174
FIGURE 6-30 DISPLACEMENT RATIO AT THE LANDSIDE CORNER PILE ...................................... 175
FIGURE 6-31 WHARF LOADING CASES ................................................................................... 176
FIGURE 6-32 AVERAGED DMF FOR INDIVIDUAL SEGMENT ..................................................... 177
FIGURE 6-33 SHEAR KEY FORCES FOR WHARF LINKED SEGMENTS (FORCES IN KIPS) .............. 178
FIGURE 6-34 MAXIMUM LANDSIDE CORNER PILE DISPLACEMENT FOR LOWER BOUND SOIL
CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................... 179
FIGURE 6-35 MAXIMUM LANDSIDE CORNER PILE DISPLACEMENT FOR UPPER BOUND SOIL
CONDITIONS .................................................................................................................... 180
FIGURE 6-36 SHEAR KEY FORCES FOR 121.5 FT + 121.5 FT WHARF SEGMENTS (FORCE IN KIPS)
....................................................................................................................................... 181
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves xxi

FIGURE 6-37 MAXIMUM LANDSIDE CORNER PILE DISPLACEMENT FOR LOWER BOUND SOIL
CONDITIONS AND OLE GROUND MOTIONS ...................................................................... 182
FIGURE 6-38 2-D EQUIVALENT WHARF SEGMENT MODEL INCLUDING EMBANKMENT DECK
INTERACTION .................................................................................................................. 183
FIGURE 6-39 DMF FOR 121 M WHARF SEGMENT WITH AND WITHOUT DECK SOIL INTERACTION
FOR 0 DEGREES INPUT MOTION ROTATION ....................................................................... 183
FIGURE 6-40 DMF FOR 121 M WHARF SEGMENT WITH AND WITHOUT DECK SOIL INTERACTION
........................................................................................................................................ 184
FIGURE 6-41 EFFECT OF ECCENTRICITY VARIATION ON THE DMF FOR THE 121.5 M SEGMENT 185
FIGURE 6-42 ECCENTRICITY VS DMF FOR THE 121.5 M SEGMENT .......................................... 185
FIGURE 6-43 COMBINED ORTHOGONAL LOADING ................................................................... 186
FIGURE 6-44 DMF VARIATION FOR COMBINED ORTHOGONAL LOADING ................................. 187
FIGURE 6-45 DMF FOR DIFFERENT LOAD COMBINATIONS AND LOAD ANGLES (121.5 M
SEGMENT) ....................................................................................................................... 188
FIGURE 6-46 DMF FOR DIFFERENT LOAD COMBINATIONS AND LOAD ANGLES A) 182.5 M
SEGMENT. B) 243 M ......................................................................................................... 188
FIGURE 6-47 DMF SENSIBILITY FOR INDIVIDUAL SEGMENTS (WHARF LENGTH IN FEET) ......... 199
FIGURE 6-48 DMF SENSIBILITY FOR 2 LINKED SEGMENTS (SYMMETRIC SEGMENTS-WHARF
LENGTH IN FEET) ............................................................................................................. 199
FIGURE 6-49 DMF SENSIBILITY FOR 2 LINKED SEGMENTS (ASYMMETRIC SEGMENTS-WHARF
LENGTH IN FEET) ............................................................................................................. 200
FIGURE 6-50 DMF SENSIBILITY FOR 3 LINKED SEGMENTS (EXTREME SEGMENTS CORNERS -
WHARF LENGTH IN FEET)................................................................................................. 200
FIGURE 6-51 DMF SENSIBILITY FOR 3 LINKED SEGMENTS (INTERMEDIATE SEGMENT CORNERS -
LENGTH IN FEET) ............................................................................................................. 201
FIGURE 6-52 SHEAR KEY FORCE SENSIBILITY FOR 2 LINKED SEGMENTS (SYMMETRIC SEGMENTS)
........................................................................................................................................ 201
FIGURE 6-53 SHEAR KEY FORCE SENSIBILITY FOR 2 LINKED SEGMENTS (ASYMMETRIC
SEGMENTS)...................................................................................................................... 202
FIGURE 6-54 SHEAR KEY FORCE SENSIBILITY FOR 3 LINKED SEGMENTS ................................. 202
FIGURE 6-55 β VARIATION ..................................................................................................... 203
FIGURE 7-1 SIMPLIFIED KINEMATIC MODEL WITH DEPTH TO FIXITY BOUNDARY CONDITIONS . 205
FIGURE 7-2 TRANSVERSE SECTION OF PRESTRESSED PILE ....................................................... 206
FIGURE 7-3 FIBRE SECTION MODEL ......................................................................................... 207
FIGURE 7-4 PILE MOMENT CURVATURE NONLINEAR RELATIONSHIP (W11@76MM) .............. 208
FIGURE 7-5 P-Y CURVES FOR 9 M (30 FT) DEPTH TO THE SLIDING LAYER CASE ....................... 210
FIGURE 7-6 P-Y CURVES FOR THE 15 M (50 FT) DEPTH TO SLIDING LAYER CASE ...................... 210
FIGURE 7-7 MODEL SET UP..................................................................................................... 211
FIGURE 7-8 PILE INTERNAL FORCES PROFILE FOR MODEL WITH 0.25D PILE SEGMENTS ........... 213
FIGURE 7-9 PLASTIC HINGE LOCATION AT CLE FOR 0.25 D PILE SEGMENTS ........................... 213
FIGURE 7-10 DISPLACEMENT PROFILE AT CLE FOR 0.25D PILE SEGMENTS............................. 214
xxii Carlos Blandon

FIGURE 7-11 PILE INTERNAL FORCES PROFILE FOR 0.5 D PILE SEGMENTS ................................ 215
FIGURE 7-12 PLASTIC HINGE LOCATION AT CLE FOR MODEL WITH 0.5 D PILE SEGMENTS ...... 215
FIGURE 7-13 DISPLACEMENT PROFILE AT CLE FOR MODEL WITH 0.5 D PILE SEGMENTS ........ 216
FIGURE 7-14 DISPLACEMENT PROFILE AT CLE....................................................................... 218
FIGURE 7-15 SHEAR FORCE AT THE LIQUEFIED LAYER VS TOP DISPLACEMENT FOR THE MODIFIED
MODEL WITH 304 MM (0.5 D) SEGMENT LENGTH AND SLIDING LAYER AT 15 M (50 FT)
BELOW GROUND .............................................................................................................. 219
FIGURE 7-16 EXTRACTED PILES DAMAGED DURING THE 1964 NIIGATA EARTHQUAKE [HAMADA
2000] .............................................................................................................................. 219
FIGURE 8-1 CENTRIFUGE TESTING OF A WHARF SCALED MODEL [FROM MCCULLOUGH AND
SCHLENCHTER [2000 ...................................................................................................... 222
FIGURE 8-2 FLOW CHART FOR PILE-SOIL INTERACTION TESTING PROGRAM............................ 225
FIGURE 8-3 DETAIL OF PRESTRESSED PILE SECTION ................................................................ 226
FIGURE 8-4 DETAIL OF PRESTRESSED PILE SECTION AT THE CONNECTION OF THE DECK (STRANDS
NOT EXTENDED INTO THE DECK) ..................................................................................... 227
FIGURE 8-5 PLAN VIEW OF PILE SET UP .................................................................................. 228
FIGURE 8-6 TRANSVERSE VIEW OF FREE HEAD SINGLE PILE ..................................................... 228
FIGURE 8-7 TRANSVERSE VIEW OF CONNECTED PILES SET UP.................................................. 229
FIGURE 8-8 BUILDING TEST PILES – PRESTRESSING (UTILITY VAULT AT FONTANA, CA)....... 230
FIGURE 8-9 INSTALLATION OF SENSORS AND EXTENSION OF CABLES (UTILITY VAULT AT
FONTANA, CA) ............................................................................................................... 230
FIGURE 8-10 BUILDING TEST PILES – PRESTRESSING (UTILITY VAULT AT FONTANA, CA) .... 231
FIGURE 8-11 POURING SELF COMPACTION CONCRETE ........................................................... 232
FIGURE 8-12 SOIL PIT EXCAVATION PLAN .............................................................................. 233
FIGURE 8-13 EXCAVATION OF SOIL PIT ................................................................................... 234
FIGURE 8-14 LOCATIONS OF TEST PILES ................................................................................. 234
FIGURE 8-15 PILE INSTALLATION ........................................................................................... 235
FIGURE 8-16 FILLING MATERIAL ............................................................................................ 236
FIGURE 8-17 BACKFILLING OF EXCAVATION.......................................................................... 237
FIGURE 8-18 REINFORCEMENT DETAILS ................................................................................ 238
FIGURE 8-19 PILE-LOAD STUB REINFORCING CONNECTION DETAILS ...................................... 238
FIGURE 8-20 PILE- LOAD STUB CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE .................................................... 239
FIGURE 8-21 BUILDING CONNECTIONS AND LOAD STUBS (CONTINUED)................................. 240
FIGURE 8-22 DETAILS OF CONCRETE SPACER BLOCK ............................................................ 241
FIGURE 8-23 CONCRETE SPACER BLOCK ................................................................................ 241
FIGURE 8-24 MATERIAL STRAIN AND STRAIN GAGE LOCATION ............................................... 242
FIGURE 8-25 STRAIN GAGES ALONG ADDITIONAL #3 REBARS ................................................. 243
FIGURE 8-26 ELEVATIONS OF STRAIN GAGES ALONG TEST PILE FOR SINGLE PILE TEST ......... 243
FIGURE 8-27 ELEVATIONS OF STRAIN GAGES ALONG TEST PILE SYSTEM TEST 1.................... 244
FIGURE 8-28 ELEVATIONS OF STRAIN GAGES ALONG TEST PILE SYSTEM TEST 2.................... 244
FIGURE 8-29 STRAIN GAGE ALONG DOWEL ............................................................................ 245
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves xxiii

FIGURE 8-30 TILTMETER SENSOR WITH HOUSING ................................................................... 245

FIGURE 8-31 INSTALLATION OF A SERIES OF TILTMETERS INSIDE THE INCLINOMETER CASING 246
FIGURE 8-32 LOCATIONS OF INCLINOMETERS FOR SINGLE PILE TEST ..................................... 246
FIGURE 8-33 LOCATIONS OF INCLINOMETERS FOR SYSTEM TEST 1......................................... 247
FIGURE 8-34 LOCATIONS OF INCLINOMETERS FOR SYSTEM TEST 2......................................... 247
FIGURE 8-35 SPALLING SENSOR DEVELOPED AT UCSD ........................................................... 248
FIGURE 8-36 MECHANISM OF SPALLING SENSOR ..................................................................... 248
FIGURE 8-37 SPALLING SENSORS INSTALLED IN TEST PILES .................................................... 249
FIGURE 8-38 MECHANISM OF INSTRUMENTED RUBBER BAND ................................................. 250
FIGURE 8-39 RUBBER BANDS INSTALLED ALONG TEST PILES .................................................. 250
FIGURE 8-40 PLACED GRAVEL TO PROTECT SENSORS .............................................................. 251
FIGURE 8-41 REINFORCED CONCRETE SPECIMEN USED FOR THE SPALLING SENSOR VERIFICATION
........................................................................................................................................ 251
FIGURE 8-42 COMPRESSIVE TEST SET UP.................................................................................. 252
FIGURE 8-43 INSTRUMENTATION SET UP ................................................................................. 253
FIGURE 8-44 TIME HISTORY OF THE SPALLING SENSORS ......................................................... 253
FIGURE 8-45 TIME HISTORY OF THE RUBBER BANDS ............................................................... 254
FIGURE 8-46 LAYERING AND MECHANISM OF THE CONTINUOUS SENSOR (CHEN, 2004).......... 255
FIGURE 8-47 SENSOR LOCATION ON THE SECTION ................................................................... 256
FIGURE 8-48 PLAN VIEW OF SENSOR LOCATIONS .................................................................... 256
FIGURE 8-49 LOCATIONS OF SENSORS DETECTING IN-GROUND SPALLING FOR SINGLE PILE TEST
........................................................................................................................................ 257
FIGURE 8-50 LOCATIONS OF SENSORS DETECTING IN-GROUND SPALLING FOR SYSTEM TEST 1
........................................................................................................................................ 257
FIGURE 8-51 LOCATIONS OF SENSORS DETECTING IN-GROUND SPALLING FOR SYSTEM TEST 2
........................................................................................................................................ 258
FIGURE 8-52 VIEW OF COUPLING STEEL BEAM (W24 X 174) ................................................... 259
FIGURE 8-53 COUPLING STEEL BEAM DETAILS ....................................................................... 259
FIGURE 8-54 INSTRUMENTATION PLAN FOR STEEL BEAM ........................................................ 260
FIGURE 8-55 TEST SETUP PLAN FOR CALIBRATION OF THE STEEL BEAM .................................. 260
FIGURE 8-56 LOCATION OF LINEAR POTENTIOMETERS ON THE LOAD STUB FOR SINGLE TEST . 261
FIGURE 8-57 LOCATION OF LINEAR POTENTIOMETERS ON THE LOAD STUB FOR SYSTEM TESTS
........................................................................................................................................ 261
FIGURE 8-58 LINEAR POTENTIOMETERS AT THE LOAD STUB FOR SYSTEM TEST 1 ................... 261
FIGURE 8-59 LINEAR POTENTIOMETERS AT THE LOAD STUB FOR SYSTEM TEST 2 ................... 262
FIGURE 8-60 LOAD PROTOCOL ................................................................................................. 262
FIGURE 8-61 SHEAR FORCE VS. DISPLACEMENT FOR SINGLE PILE TEST ................................... 264
FIGURE 8-62 SHEAR FORCE VS. DISPLACEMENT PREDICTION FOR UP BOUND, LOW BOUND AND
LEVEL GROUND ............................................................................................................... 265
FIGURE 8-63 STRESS PROFILE FOR THE FREE HEAD PILE FOR UPPER, LEVEL AND LOWER BOUND
SOIL P-Y SPRINGS............................................................................................................ 265
xxiv Carlos Blandon

FIGURE 8-64 CYCLIC SHEAR VS. DISPLACEMENT..................................................................... 266

FIGURE 8-65 ASPECT FOR SINGLE PILE TEST .......................................................................... 268
FIGURE 8-66 APPLIED LOAD/DISPLACEMENT AT THE PILE TOP................................................. 268
FIGURE 8-67 PILE TOP FORCE VS. DISPLACEMENT ENVELOPES ................................................. 269
FIGURE 8-68 HYSTERETIC LOOPS FOR LOW FORCE INTENSITY CYCLES .................................... 270
FIGURE 8-69 HYSTERETIC LOOPS FOR FIRST SET OF LOADS .................................................... 270
FIGURE 8-70 STRAIN DISTRIBUTION ........................................................................................ 271
FIGURE 8-71 STRAIN HISTORY AT 0.9 M BELOW GROUND IN THE EXTREME BARS AUXILIARY BARS
IN TENSION ...................................................................................................................... 272
FIGURE 8-72 PROFILE OF STRAIN AT COVER CONCRETE (TEST 8) ............................................ 273
FIGURE 8-73 PROFILE OF STRAIN AT COVER CONCRETE (TEST 8) (CONTINUED)...................... 274
FIGURE 8-74 PROFILE OF CURVATURE (CYCLES 5 TO 8)........................................................... 276
FIGURE 8-75 PROFILE OF CURVATURE (TEST 8)....................................................................... 276
FIGURE 8-76 PROFILE OF ROTATION AND DEFLECTION DERIVED FROM ROTATION (WHEN
ROTATION AT PILE TOP WAS MAXIMUM) ......................................................................... 277
FIGURE 8-77 DAMAGE DUE TO PILE-ROCK CONTACT ............................................................... 278
FIGURE 8-78 VISUAL INSPECTION OF IN-GROUND PARTS OF TEST PILE..................................... 279
FIGURE 8-79 PREDICTED VS. MEASURED SHEAR-DISPLACEMENT NON-LINEAR ENVELOPE ..... 280
FIGURE 8-80 LOADING PROTOCOL ........................................................................................... 281
FIGURE 8-81 PREDICTED AND MEASURED SHEAR FORCE VS DISPLACEMENT ENVELOPES ........ 282
FIGURE 8-82 MEASURED SHEAR FORCE VS DISPLACEMENT ENVELOPES FOR THE TWO PHASE OF
THE SINGLE PILE TEST ..................................................................................................... 283
FIGURE 8-83 HYSTERETIC RESPONSE (SMALL AMPLITUDE CYCLES) ........................................ 283
FIGURE 8-84 HYSTERETIC RESPONSE ....................................................................................... 284
FIGURE 8-85 ROTATION AND LATERAL DISPLACEMENT PROFILE ............................................. 285
FIGURE 8-86 CURVATURE PROFILES........................................................................................ 286
FIGURE 8-87 CURVATURE PROFILES FROM INCLINOMETERS ................................................... 287
FIGURE 8-88 SPALLING SENSOR TIME HISTORY FOR CYCLE AT 8.7 IN (0.22 M) ........................ 288
FIGURE 8-89 TIME HISTORY FOR SPALLING SENSOR SP-10 (TOP) SP-1 (BOTTOM)................... 289
FIGURE 8-90 CURVATURE PROFILE AT SPALLING..................................................................... 290
FIGURE 8-91 MOMENT VS CURVATURE FOR THE PRESTRESSED SECTION ................................. 290
FIGURE 8-92 CLE CONCRETE STRAIN LIMIT ............................................................................ 291
FIGURE 8-93 TENSION CRACKS BEFORE SPALLING ................................................................... 292
FIGURE 8-94 DETAIL TO THE OBSERVED DAMAGE AT THE INSTANT OF SPALLING .................... 293
FIGURE 8-95 DAMAGE AT MAXIMUM DISPLACEMENT (0.45 M)................................................ 294
FIGURE 8-96 RESIDUAL DISPLACEMENT.................................................................................. 294
FIGURE 8-97 SUBGRADE PLASTIC HINGE (NORTH SIDE).......................................................... 295
FIGURE 8-98 COVER CONCRETE SPALLED AFTER EXCAVATION (NORTH SIDE) ........................ 295
FIGURE 8-99 EXPOSED PILE HINGE AFTER FINAL EXCAVATION ................................................ 296
FIGURE 8-100 SYSTEM TEST 1 SET UP .................................................................................... 297
FIGURE 8-101 HYSTERESIS RESPONSE FOR CYCLE 1 TO 3 ....................................................... 298
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves xxv

FIGURE 8-102 HYSTERESIS RESPONSE FOR CYCLE 4 TO 7 ....................................................... 299

FIGURE 8-103 HYSTERESIS RESPONSE FOR CYCLE 4 TO 10 ..................................................... 300
FIGURE 8-104 ROTATION PROFILE FOR SYSTEM TEST I .......................................................... 301
FIGURE 8-105 CURVATURE PROFILE FOR SYSTEM TEST I FROM INCLINOMETERS ................... 302
FIGURE 8-106 DISPLACEMENT PROFILE FOR SYSTEM TEST I FROM INCLINOMETERS .............. 302
FIGURE 8-107 STRAIN GAGES LOCATION (UNITS IN INCHES).................................................. 303
FIGURE 8-108 CURVATURE PROFILE FOR PILE 3 (LEVEL GROUND PILE).................................. 304
FIGURE 8-109 CURVATURE PROFILE FOR PILE 5 (SLOPE PILE)................................................ 304
FIGURE 8-110 PLASTIC HINGE MIGRATION ............................................................................. 305
FIGURE 8-111 SPALLING SENSOR MEASUREMENT FOR GROUND LEVEL PILE (P3) AT 4M (13.3 FT)
ELEVATION ...................................................................................................................... 306
FIGURE 8-112 SPALLING SENSOR MEASUREMENT FOR GROUND LEVEL PILE (P3) AT 3.8 M (12.5
FT) ELEVATION ................................................................................................................ 307
FIGURE 8-113 SPALLING SENSOR MEASUREMENT FOR SLOPE PILE (P5) AT 10.5 FT ELEVATION
........................................................................................................................................ 307
FIGURE 8-114 RELATIVE PILE-DECK ROTATION FOR CYCLE 5................................................ 308
FIGURE 8-115 EXPERIMENTAL VS ANALYTICAL DOWEL STRAIN-ROTATION RELATIONSHIP FOR
SLOPE PILE (P5)............................................................................................................... 309
FIGURE 8-116. CRACKS AT P3 FOR LOADING CYCLE 3 ............................................................ 311
FIGURE 8-117. CRACKS AT P3 FOR LOADING CYCLE 7 ............................................................ 311
FIGURE 8-118. SOFFIT CONCRETE SPALL AT PILE P5 .............................................................. 312
FIGURE 8-119. COMPLETE DETACHMENT OF THE SPALLED CONCRETE ................................... 312
FIGURE 8-120 CONCRETE CRUSHING DURING CYCLE 8 AT P3................................................ 312
FIGURE 8-121 GROUND SURFACE SINKAGE ............................................................................ 312
FIGURE 8-122 DAMAGE ON PILES AFTER FINAL CYCLE .......................................................... 313
FIGURE 8-123 EXCAVATION SEQUENCE AT 1.52 M (5 FT) FOR P3 (SYSTEM TEST 1, LEVEL PILE
P3) .................................................................................................................................. 314
FIGURE 8-124 EXCAVATION SEQUENCE AT THE NORTH SIDE (FROM 5 FT TO 7.5 FT) (SYSTEM
TEST 1, LEVEL PILE P3).................................................................................................... 315
FIGURE 8-125 PLASTIC HINGE MEASUREMENTS (SYSTEM TEST 1, LEVEL PILE P3) ................... 316
FIGURE 8-126 PLASTIC HINGE INSPECTION (SYSTEM TEST 1, LEVEL PILE P3) .......................... 317
FIGURE 8-127 NORTH SIDE PLASTIC HINGE (SYSTEM TEST 1, LEVEL PILE P3) .......................... 317
FIGURE 8-128 SOUTH SIDE PLASTIC HINGE (SYSTEM TEST 1, LEVEL PILE P3)........................... 318
FIGURE 8-129 EXCAVATION SEQUENCE AT 1.52 M (5 FT) (SYSTEM TEST 1, SLOPE PILE P5)..... 318
FIGURE 8-130 EXCAVATION SEQUENCE AT THE NORTH SIDE (FROM 1.52 M TO 2.28MT) (SYSTEM
TEST 1, SLOPE PILE P5) .................................................................................................... 319
FIGURE 8-131 PLASTIC HINGE MEASUREMENTS (SYSTEM TEST 1, SLOPE PILE P5) ................... 320
FIGURE 8-132 HYSTERESIS RESPONSE FOR CYCLE 1 TO 3 ....................................................... 322
FIGURE 8-133 HYSTERESIS RESPONSE FOR CYCLE 4 TO 7 (NOMINAL DISPLACEMENT DUCTILITY
1.0 TO 3.0)....................................................................................................................... 323
xxvi Carlos Blandon

FIGURE 8-134 HYSTERESIS RESPONSE FOR CYCLE 4 (NOMINAL DISPLACEMENT DUCTILITY 1.0)
TO CYCLE 11 (FINAL PUSH) ............................................................................................. 323
FIGURE 8-135 EXPERIMENTAL AND NUMERICAL LATERAL FORCE VS DISPLACEMENT ENVELOPES
....................................................................................................................................... 324
FIGURE 8-136 ROTATION PROFILE .......................................................................................... 325
FIGURE 8-137 CURVATURE PROFILE ....................................................................................... 326
FIGURE 8-138 DISPLACEMENT PROFILE .................................................................................. 326
FIGURE 8-139 CURVATURE PROFILE FROM STRAIN GAGES FOR LEVEL GROUND PILE (LEFT) AND
SLOPE PILE (RIGHT) ......................................................................................................... 327
FIGURE 8-140 CURVATURE PROFILE FROM STRAIN GAGES FOR LEVEL GROUND PILE (LEFT) AND
SLOPE PILE (RIGHT) ......................................................................................................... 328
FIGURE 8-141 MAXIMUM STRAIN LOCATION (MEASUREMENTS IN FEET) ............................... 329
FIGURE 8-142 GROUND LEVEL PILE SPALLING SENSOR TIME HISTORY AT 3.8 M (12.5 FT)
ELEVATION ..................................................................................................................... 329
FIGURE 8-143 SPALLING SENSOR DISPLACEMENT VS PILE TOP DISPLACEMENT FOR LEVEL
GROUND PILE (P2)........................................................................................................... 330
FIGURE 8-144 SLOPE PILE SPALLING SENSOR TIME HISTORY AT 3.2 M (10.5 FT) ELEVATION 331
FIGURE 8-145 SPALLING SENSOR DISPLACEMENT VS PILE TOP DISPLACEMENT FOR SLOPE PILE
(P4)................................................................................................................................. 331
FIGURE 8-146 SPALLING SENSOR DISPLACEMENT VS PILE TOP DISPLACEMENT FOR SLOPE PILE
(P4) AT 2.9 M (9.6 FT) AND 3.4 M (11.33 FT) ELEVATION FOR DUCTILITIES 6 AND 8. ....... 332
FIGURE 8-147 CRACKS AT P4 AND P2 FOR LOADING CYCLE 1 TO 3......................................... 334
FIGURE 8-148 DAMAGE ON PILES SLOPE PILE (P4) AFTER 5TH CYCLE ...................................... 334
FIGURE 8-149 DAMAGE ON PILE AFTER 6TH CYCLE AT LEVEL PILE (LEFT) AND SLOPE PILE
(RIGHT) ........................................................................................................................... 335
FIGURE 8-150 DAMAGE ON PILE AFTER 7TH CYCLE AT LEVEL PILE (LEFT) AND SLOPE PILE (RIGHT)
....................................................................................................................................... 335
FIGURE 8-151 GROUND SINKING AFTER 8TH CYCLE AT LEVEL PILE (LEFT) AND SLOPE PILE
(RIGHT) ........................................................................................................................... 336
FIGURE 8-152 CONCRETE CRUSHING DURING CYCLE 8 AT LEVEL GROUND PILE (P2)............. 336
FIGURE 8-153 CONCRETE CRUSHING DURING CYCLE 9 AT SLOPE PILE (P4) ........................... 337
FIGURE 8-154 GROUND SINKING AFTER 10TH CYCLE AT LEVEL PILE (LEFT) AND SLOPE PILE
(RIGHT) ........................................................................................................................... 337
FIGURE 8-155 DAMAGE ON PILE AFTER 10TH CYCLE (NOMINAL DISPLACEMENT DUCTILITY 8.0)
AT SLOPE PILE (P4).......................................................................................................... 338
FIGURE 8-156 DAMAGE ON PILE DURING 10TH CYCLE (NOMINAL DUCTILITY 8.0) AT LEVEL PILE
(LEFT) AND SLOPE PILE (RIGHT) ...................................................................................... 338
FIGURE 8-157 CRUSHING OF SLOPE PILE (P4) CONCRETE AFTER FINAL PUSH .......................... 339
FIGURE 8-158 DAMAGE ON PILES AFTER FINAL CYCLE .......................................................... 339
FIGURE 8-159 EXCAVATION SEQUENCE AT 1.52 M FOR P2 (SYSTEM TEST 2, LEVEL PILE P2) . 340
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves xxvii

FIGURE 8-160 B EXCAVATION SEQUENCE AT THE NORTH SIDE (FROM 1.52 M TO 2.3M) (SYSTEM
TEST 2, LEVEL PILE P2).................................................................................................... 342
FIGURE 8-161 PLASTIC HINGE MEASUREMENTS (SYSTEM TEST 2, LEVEL PILE P2) ................... 343
FIGURE 8-162 PLASTIC HINGE INSPECTION (SYSTEM TEST 2, LEVEL PILE P2) .......................... 343
FIGURE 8-163 CLOSE UP PLASTIC HINGE NORTH SIDE (SYSTEM TEST 2, LEVEL PILE P2) ......... 344
FIGURE 8-164 NORTH SIDE PLASTIC HINGE (SYSTEM TEST 2, LEVEL PILE P2) .......................... 344
FIGURE 8-165 EXCAVATION SEQUENCE AT 2.1 M (SYSTEM TEST 2, SLOPE PILE P4)................. 345
FIGURE 8-166 B EXCAVATION SEQUENCE AT THE NORTH SIDE (FROM 1.52 M TO 2.3M) (SYSTEM
TEST 2, SLOPE PILE P4) .................................................................................................... 346
FIGURE 8-167 PLASTIC HINGE MEASUREMENTS (SYSTEM TEST 2, SLOPE PILE P4) ................... 347
FIGURE 8-168 NORTH SIDE PLASTIC HINGE (SYSTEM TEST 2, LEVEL PILE P4) .......................... 347
 xxix

LIST OF SYMBOLS

x cr = Distance to the centre of stiffness

Z = Radius of gyration

A = Cylinder cross sectional area

A = Fraction of a record component (0 to 1.0)

b = Pile diameter,

C = Period-dependent response acceleration coefficient,

Ca = Hydrodynamic mass coefficient.

CD = Hydrodynamic drag coefficient

CG = Minimum ground clearance

CL = Hydrodynamic lift coefficient

CM = Inertial coefficient and is the

D = Pile diameter

e = Wharf eccentricity

EpIp =Pile flexural rigidity

Es =Soil modulus of elasticity,

FD = Hydrodynamic drag force

FE) = Elastic lateral force.

FL = Hydrodynamic lift force

g = Gravity acceleration constant

H = Depth to the point where the P-Y soil curve is being computed
xxx Carlos Blandon

Hi = Compatible response spectrum record component

Ho = Surrounding water depth

Ix = Moment of inertia with respect to x

K = Subgrade reaction modulus

k = Net pile lateral stiffness per unit length of wharf

KC = Keulegan Karpenter number

Keff = Effective stiffness

ki = Pile i stiffness
= Initial stiffness of a bilinear approximation of the force– displacement wharf
Ky
transverse section.
L = Wharf length.

lp = Plastic hinge length

P = Structure axial weight

pi = Modal participation factor

Pu = Maximum lateral load capacity by unitary pile length

r = Initial to post yielding stiffness ratio

ro = Radius of the cylinder under hydrodynamic evaluation

Sa = Pseudo spectral design acceleration

Si = Compatible response spectrum record

SΔi(T) = Displacement design spectra at period T

Teff = Effective secant period

Tw = Wave period.

U = Flow velocity

Um = Maximum velocity of water particles

V = Object volume

VΔ = Wharf segment’s lateral force at maximum displacement

w = Weight of the structure by unit length
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves xxxi

W = Transverse section weight

Wi = Individual weight of a considered wharf section or tributary pile

X: =P-Y spring depth

xi = Distance of row i to landside pile row

Xwi = Distance to reference line

Y: =P-Y spring lateral deflection

z =Distance above the base of the cylinder for hydrodynamic evaluation

ΔH = P-Y spring tributary length

Δmax = Maximum Pile displacement

Δp = Plastic displacement

Δx =Total displacement in the longitudinal direction

Δy =Total displacement in the transversal direction

Δy = Yielding displacement

Δyy = Transverse displacement caused by a load in the transverse direction

Φp = Plastic curvature

Τ = D* is the reference pile diameter (1.83 m)

β = Parameter for estimation of shear key force.

εc = Concrete strain

εps = Prestressing Strand strain

εs = Reinforcing steel strain

φ = Soil internal friction angle

φ' : =Angle of internal friction in sand

φi =Normalized mode facto

φpl = Curvatures at predefined performance level

φy = Yielding curvature

γ' : =Buoyant soil weight, in weight density units

xxxii Carlos Blandon

η = Spectrum reduction factor

μ = Poisson’s ratio of soil

π = EIeff is the effective cracked section flexural stiffness

θ = Slope inclination angle

θp = Plastic rotation

ρ = Fluid density

ξeff = Equivalent damping

ζ = Elastic viscous damping ratio

 1

1.INTRODUCTION TO PORT STRUCTURES

1.1 BACKGROUND

Expansion of global markets has increased the demands of expansion and construction
of new seaports all around the world. These structures have been changing and
improving in order to accommodate not only the increase of merchandise volume but
also the vessel size. All around the world, numerous structures of this type are located in
seismic active regions and unfortunately, there are cases in which they have suffered
significant damage affecting the economy of the region [Tokachi-oki, 2003; Kobe
Earthquake 1995; Turkey ,1999; Loma Prieta, 1989; Philiphines, 1990]

As the common residential and industrial building located in seismic active areas, port
structures have to be also designed to withstand induced shaking produced by
earthquakes. A new trend is to design these structures in accordance with the
performance based design framework. This means that structures used in ports should
be expected to have a defined performance at different shaking intensities. These
performance levels should be well defined according to the importance of the facility and
the risk that the owner and the community are willing to accept when an earthquake
strikes.

From the structural point of view, pile supported wharf structures are formed by simple
elements such as piles, retaining walls, deck, etc. In most cases, the deck plan view has a
rectangular shape. However the complications in the design arise from the complex soil-
structure interaction and the details on specific regions such as the pile deck connection.
In pile supported wharves, the difference of pile length in the transverse direction
induces a large stiffness eccentricity (offset between centre of mass and centre of
strength) which can generate significant torsional response of the structure.

Some efforts have been carried out in order to improve methodologies for the estimation
of the seismic capacity and demand of pile supported wharves. However there still are a
several variables and uncertainties that need to be evaluated and also assumptions that
have to be verified in order to improve the reliability of the seismic design of these
structures.
2 Carlos Blandon

It is important to mention that due to the construction practice in different countries and
also due to the different coastal conditions and uses of the structure; wharves
characteristics (configuration, material, geometry, soil conditions, etc) are variable. In this
study, the typical structural configuration and conditions used in the Port of los Angeles
were used to evaluate different aspects of the seismic behaviour of wharves; however, the
methodology, recommendations and test results give an insight into the general problem
which improves the procedures about the seismic analysis and design of wharves.

1.2 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH

Resent research and studies related on port structures have evolved in the refinement of
analytical methodologies and the creation of design codes for the construction of new
facilities and guidelines for assessment and retrofitting of existing ones. Many of these
methodologies and assumptions still are based on limited studies and test results and
therefore they require additional analytical and experimental work. Therefore, this
research aims to reach the following objectives.

• Review and identify the variables that influence the dynamic behaviour of pile
supported wharves and the problems experienced in past earthquakes.
• Evaluate currently used analysis methodologies for seismic displacement
demands on piles of typical wharves.
• Estimate analytically the dynamic behaviour of characteristic wharves using
improved numerical models.
• Report and analyze results from full scale tests of critical wharf elements aimed
at verifying and validate current assumptions and design values applied in current
practice.

1.3 OUTLINE
Several aspects of pile supported wharfs are covered in this study; in the first chapter
there is a brief description of the structural system and configurations used in the ports
and also a review of damages suffered during past earthquakes. There is also a review of
the actual seismic guidelines applied for the design of different types of port structures.
In chapter two, there is a theoretical review of the different aspects involved on the
dynamic response of the wharf structure. Chapter three describes different analysis
methods used for the evaluation of the different components of the seismic response of
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 3

wharves starting from simple methodologies to advance three dimensional finite element
modelling.

A typical wharf configuration, that was used as the basic model for the analyses carried in
this study, is presented in chapter four. The nonlinear characteristics of the different
component on the systems are also evaluated in this section. In chapter five, the same
wharf components are assembled into a system that is then analyzed using push over
loading. A sensibility study is conducted in this section to evaluate the effect of variables
such as soil strength and above ground height on the pile displacement capacity. Chapter
six evaluates the torsional response of wharves. It also includes the calibration of a factor
that can be applied for a simple estimation of the torsional response. This factor is used
to obtain the displacement demands on the critical piles of the wharf. In chapter seven, a
set of analyses where performed in order to evaluate the effect of the kinematic
interaction on a pile embedded in a profile with a layer susceptible to liquefaction.
Chapter eight describes the test program carried out in a full scale pile-quarry model
constructed at the University of California, San Diego.

The first three chapters are a bibliographical recompilation of the literature related to
issues involved in the dynamic response and analysis of wharves. This extensive review
was necessary in order to reach and be able to evaluate the state of the art in the topics
related to seismic behaviour of wharves. In the following chapters (four to eight),
additional contributions were made in different aspects of the seismic analyses and design
of these structures.

1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PORT STRUCTURES

There are several types of wharf structures used in ports in order to satisfy specific needs
or requirements at each location such as soil conditions, vessel characteristics, traffic
volume, required depth, etc. In this section, there is a brief description of some of the
most common types of structures used and also the damages that have suffered in
different locations affected by earthquakes. The design methodologies and criteria, limit
states and codes will be reviewed briefly in order to know the state at which the seismic
design practice of these structures is at the moment.

Figure 1-1 shows a plan view of some of the most common wharf structures used in
ports but different configurations are also used. There are different structural types at
each kind of facility. This research will focus on marginal pile supported wharves. A
definition of some of the main structures is given in the next paragraphs [Port of Los
Angeles, 2005].
4 Carlos Blandon

Wharves are structures located in waterfront areas used for berthing and mooring of ships.
A container wharf is used for the transfer of containers from the ships to the land using
cranes supported on the wharf. The system can be constructed in sections, which are
connected by joints. Such joints allow relative longitudinal movement but shear keys
restrict the transverse movement. As shown in Figure 1-1, wharves can be constructed at
some distance from the shoreline or right next to it. Those that are constructed as
continuation of the shoreline are called Marginal Wharves. These structures are parallel to
the shoreline and have a minimum of one row of piles located at or shoreward from the
crest of the embankment.

The Embankment is an engineered sloping ground conditions located underneath the

wharf structure comprising dredged soils or cut slopes protected or stabilized. A Dike is
a graded quarry run rock material acting as a retaining structure for dredged soils.

Dolphins are independent structures located in waterfront areas, used to carry lateral loads
associated with berthing, breasting and mooring of ships.

Piers are structures located in waterfront areas that project from the shore into the water
at an angle (often at or close to 90 degrees).

Figure 1-1 Description of port structures (pier, wharf and marginal wharf) [form Department of the
Army USA, 1994]

Wharves can be classified into open type or close type (Figure 1-2). From the seismic
point of view, the open-type (pile-supported) marginal wharves have the characteristic of
having the centre of stiffness or the centre of strength close to the upland edge;
meanwhile, the centre of mass is close to the geometrical centre of the section. This
causes a significant torsional response of the wharf and large ductility displacement
demands on the short piles at the upland side.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 5

Figure 1-2 Wharves structures

In the open type, the embankment is exposed to the erosion caused by the waves, bow
thrusters and propellers of the vessels. Hence, in most of the cases, the embankment is
protected by using permanent cover of rock (rip rap).

The ground level and the embankment level at the shoreline are not generally located at
the same elevation; the elevation of the Rip rap covering the embankment and the dike is
lower than the ground level at the shore line, so the soil at higher elevation is contained
by a cut off wall.

1.5 WHARF PERFORMANCE DURING PAST EARTHQUAKES

Port structures have suffered from slight to extensive damaged during past earthquakes
[Figure 1-3 to Figure 1-6]. In many cases, this has affected considerably the economy of
a region, given that the damages in these facilities take long time to be repaired. For the
case of Kobe, even after the reconstruction of the port, the amount of business was
lower than before the earthquake [Tanaka, 1998].
6 Carlos Blandon

Large damage has occurred in Japan during Tokachi-oki earthquake in 2003, Kobe
Earthquake 1995; in Turkey in august 1999; in USA during Lomaprieta earthquake; in the
Philiphines during Luzon earthquake in 1990 among others.

One of the most common damages occurs at the connection between the pile and the
deck at the piles with the shortest span between the deck and the ground and in battered
piles (Figure 1-3). There are large ductility demands on these connections due to the
lateral displacement of the deck.

Figure 1-3 Damage to pile-deck connection. [McCullough and Schlenchter, 2000]

Damage to cranes is also another cause of functionality loss at ports affected by

earthquakes. Cranes can overturn, derail or structural elements may get severely damaged
due to the excessive relative displacement of the supports (Figure 1-4). Relative
displacement of wharf units can also put out of service the cranes due to the rail
misalignment.

Ground excessive permanent displacements caused by lateral spreading or liquefaction

have cause most of the damages in ports (Figure 1-5). The main construction material
used in these facilities is dredged soil from the site. If poor or no soil improvement is
carried out, this phenomenon has resulted to be catastrophic for port structures.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 7

Figure 1-4 Overturned crane [McCullough and Schlenchter, 2000]

Figure 1-5 Lateral spreading and overturning of retaining structures [McCullough and
Schlenchter,2000].
8 Carlos Blandon

a) Tokachi-oki earthquake in 2003 b) Kobe 1995.

c) Turkey 1999. d) Philiphines 1990.

Figure 1-6 Damage to ports. [EQE 2003,1995,1999,1990]

1.6 DESIGN PROBLEMS OF PILE SUPPORTED WHARVES

As initial part of the project, a bibliographical research was carried out in order to obtain
a general background of the structural systems used in ports and its structural behaviour
under seismic excitation. It was found out that these structures have suffered damages in
different locations, especially in the pile-deck connection and inside the ground. These
were caused due to inertial forces of the deck or the increase of lateral pressure and
permanent displacements caused by total or partial soil liquefaction [Singh,2002],
[Sugano,2000] [McCullough,2000].
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 9

Battered piles have been used extensively because these are stiffer and more efficient to
resist the lateral loads produced by the ships and cranes. However, due to the large
damages suffered by the battered pile-deck connection in past earthquakes, it is becoming
more common to design the wharves using vertical piles with moment resistant
connections [Sugano, 2000]. In spite of this change, it is difficult to avoid damage to
these connections for strong earthquakes. Hence, in order to improve the performance
of the connections some tests have been carried out [Roeder 2002; Sritharan, 1998].
These tests however, had to be complemented in order to reduce the uncertainty of the
behaviour and to produce more reliable recommendations for new designs or retrofit of
existing connections so Krier et al [2006] and Bell et al [2007], carried out additional test
on typical connections used at the Port of Los Angeles.

From the geotechnical point of view, it is likely that piles in old wharfs may be founded
in soil profiles with a layer that may be susceptible to liquefaction. When this
phenomenon occurs, there is an increase of lateral pressure in the piles and depending on
the characteristics of the soil, the pile and the earthquake; it is possible to produce
significantly high ductility demands that can not be resisted by the piles. This problem
may be critical and dangerous given that sometimes it can not be identified after the
earthquake [Iai, 1998].

Previous studies have also shown the difficulty involved in the analysis and design of pile
supported wharves due to the interaction of the soil and the structure [Singh, 2002] and
also due to the limited amount of real test information available in order to design the
connections between the pile and the deck [Roeder, 2002]. The problem is not only due
to the limited knowledge of the problem but also due to the limitation of the tools
available to model it. This is because in general, geotechnical software may have some
drawbacks for modelling the structural part of the problem and structural software in
general has more deficiencies in representing the behaviour of the soil. In both cases, it
is difficult to model the actual action of the liquefied soil on the pile [Singh, 2002].

The displacement capacity depends on the mechanism of inelastic deformation and on

the rotation capacity of the plastic hinges in the mechanism. In marginal wharves, these
plastic hinges form in the pile at the pile/deck connection and at some depth below the
ground. Due to the difficulty of inspecting the inground hinge, the design constrains for
this region are very strict and may become a critical parameter in the design of the
structure or in the design of retrofitting interventions.

In performance based design, the structural performance can be defined based on the
strain of the materials composing the element. Such strain, especially for the inground
pile section, have been defined from test with boundary conditions quite different from
10 Carlos Blandon

those inside the real soil [Budeck 1997], therefore there is a large uncertainty on these
values.

1.7 SEISMIC CODES FOR WHARF STRUCTURES

Port structures in many countries are still designed following the recommendations for
general buildings and bridges. Efforts have been carried out in different countries to
develop design codes for the specific use on port structures. The International
Navigation Association (INA) performed an extended revision of these codes [PIANC,
2001] and it was found out that most of these guidelines require the consideration of the
seismic loading in the designs but no comprehensive guidelines are given.

In the INA report, guidelines from Japan, Spain, Germany, New Zealand, United States
and Europe were compared. It was found that most of these codes have a “dual”
earthquake level defined which consist on different levels of load intensity for frequent
earthquakes and long return period earthquakes. The performance criteria for each of
these load intensities is also defined in most cases; for instance, in Japan and United
States, the performance for the low intensity load requires a serviceability condition
whilst for the high intensity earthquakes it is required that the structure will be repairable.

The damage criteria for wharfs is in most cases defined based on the element or section
inelasticity which is measure based on the ductility displacement for the element or
material strains of the section. In some cases, the ductility accepted at the connection
and at the pile embedded portion are independently defined, which shows the tendency
to have a more severe restriction in embedded section that is practically unfeasible to
repair. This approach is also observed in the seismic design code issued by the Port of
Los Angeles [POLA 2004] in which the allowable strains of the materials at the
connection are larger than those at the critical section below the ground.

The methods for the analyses of wharves include response spectra, pushover analyses,
linear and nonlinear time history analyses which show an evolution on the alternatives
that can be used for estimating the response of the structure. As an improvement of the
existing guidelines, there are examples such as the effort by PIANC [2000] and the Port
of Los Angeles [2004], which have, and are still developing many of the parameters and
techniques for the design of wharves structures. This shows that the actual trend
followed in buildings, from conventional design to performance based design, is also
taking place in wharf design.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 11

1.8 CAPACITY DESIGN OF WHARVES

Capacity design principles are aimed to provide specific regions with enough deformation
capacity. Other region in the structure are made sufficient strong to ensure at least
nominally elastic response. In the case of wharves, the strong beam, weak column
mechanism is preferred. The deck is designed to resist heavy vehicular loading and the
piles are kept small so that these elements can deform with the embankment without
developing excessive strains [POLA, 2004]. To avoid damage, which would compromise
operations, the plastic hinges should form at the columns, so the deck should be designed
to resist the overstrength capacity of the plastic hinges of the piles.

The flexural capacity of the section can be obtained from moment curvature analysis
using material expected properties. However, the section overstrength has to be also
computed to estimate the shear demand on the pile and the moment and shear force
demands on the deck. This capacity can be estimated by applying a factor to the
expected section strength or by carrying out additional moment curvature analysis of the
section using the upper bound values of the materials. The values recommended by
POLA seismic code are given in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1 Upper bound values for the section material [POLA, 2004]

Concrete piles:
Concrete compression strength: fce = 1.3f’c
Dowel yield strength fye = 1.1fy
Spiral yield strength fye = 1.0fy
Prestressing strand ultimate strength fpue = 1.05fpu
Steel pipe piles
Steel strength fye = 1.1fy

Strength reduction factors should not be used for the estimation of the section flexural
strength; given that this is a methodology developed for gravity and vertical loads for
which it must be ensured that the dependable force capacity will always exceed the
factored demand. In seismic design, it is expected that the critical sections will reach the
maximum strength at the performance levels.

The shear force in the piles also depends on the soil stiffness, increasing as the soil
stiffness increases. Hence the shear capacity of the pile, including the capacity reduction
caused by the ductility, has to be larger than the shear demand using moment curvature
with overstrength materials values and the maximum feasible soil stiffness. The axial,
12 Carlos Blandon

shear and flexural forces used to design the deck have to be in equilibrium with the
overstrength capacity obtained from the pile at the plastic hinges.

1.9 DESIGN CRITERIA FOR PILE SUPPORTED WHARVES

In recent years, the design criteria of structures, including port structures, have towards
the use of performance based design. This design philosophy is based on giving different
levels of performance to the structure for different levels of earthquake intensity. Ferrito
et al [1999] and more recently, the Port of Los Angeles design code [POLA, 2004], have
defined two levels of performance for the design of wharf structures.

The earthquakes for these two performance levels have been defined as operative level
earthquake (OLE) and contingency level earthquake (CLE) as given in Table 1-2. For the
OLE performance level, the forces and deformations, including permanent embankment
deformations, should not cause significant structural damage and they should be located
where visually observable and accessible for repairs. If any repair is needed, it should not
interrupt the wharf operations.

Table 1-2 Design Earthquake Motions [POLA, 2004]

Earthquake Level Probability of Exceedance Return Period

Operating Level Earthquake (OLE) 50% in 50 years 72
Contingency Level Earthquake (CLE) 10% in 50 years 475

The forces and deformations for CLE, as defined by the POLA seismic code, including
permanent embankment deformations, may result in controlled inelastic structural
behaviour and limited permanent deformations. All damage has to be repairable and has
to be located where visually observable and accessible for repairs. There may be a
temporary loss of operations, restorable within an acceptable period of time but collapse
of the wharf must be prevented, and life safety must be maintained.

The performance level of the structures is measured by the damage suffered after the
earthquake; so, the structural damage is related to the strain of the materials used to
construct the elements. In order to measure the performance level for the OLE and
CLE, the strains of the concrete (εc), the reinforcing steel (dowels) (εs) and the
prestressing strand (εps) have been defined [POLA, 2004] as shown in Table 1-3.

The strain level used for the OLE does not mean that the material will remain inside the
elastic range. However the width of the cracks has to be very small in order to prevent
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 13

long term corrosion of the reinforcement. The concrete extreme fibre compression strain
may be computed using the following equation [Chai et al., 1994]:

1.4 ρ s f yh ε sm
ε cu = 0.004 + ( 1-1)
f cc'

Where ρs is the effective volume ratio of confining steel, fyh is the yield stress confining
steel, εsm is the strain at peak stress of the confining reinforcement, (0.15 for grade 40 and
0.12 for grade 60). f’cc is the confined strength of concrete approximated by 1.5 f’c.

A higher limit for extreme concrete fibre compression strain is permitted in the subgrade
hinge due to fact that the soil provides significant confining effect in the pile. Some tests
have been carried out trying to simulate the effect of this confinement by using rubber
pads or other devices to represent the soil [Budek, 1997., Maki and Mutsuyoshi, 2004]. It
has been shown that the confinement from the soil can enhance the capacity of the pile
section.

In the same way as strain limit values are defined for the pile materials, the structure
performance is also defined by soil limit deformations for different performance levels.
However, because the soil response depends on the specific conditions of the site and the
geometry of the structure will determine the amount of deformation that can be
tolerated, it is not possible to set specific limit values for the soil. The maximum
deformations allowed for the performance levels have to be defined for each individual
structure however, for simplified procedures which have been conservatively developed
there are some limits that have been suggested to define the embankment performance
state without doing complicated analyses.
14 Carlos Blandon

Table 1-3 Material strain limits for CLE and OLE [Pola, 2004]

Operating Level Earthquake (OLE) Maximum Strain

Solid round or octagonal piles:
At the pile head (reinforced concrete capacity)
Extreme concrete fibre compression strain: εc = 0.005
Extreme tensile strain in dowels: εS = 0.010
In-ground (prestressed concrete capacity)
Extreme concrete fibre compression strain: εC = 0.005
Incremental prestressing strain in strands εS = 0.005
Round hollow piles, both pile head and in-ground
location: εC = 0.004
Extreme concrete fibre compression strain εS = 0.010
Extreme tensile strain in dowels: εpS = 0.005
Incremental prestressing strain in strands
If the interior of the hollow pile is filled with concrete,
all strain limits shall be the same as for solid piles.
Contingency Level Earthquake (CLE)
Solid round or octagonal piles:
At the pile head (reinforced concrete capacity)
Extreme concrete fibre compression strain: Eq 1-1 but 0.005 ≤ εC ≤ 0.020
Extreme tensile strain in dowels:
In-ground (prestressed concrete capacity) εS = 0.050 but < 0.6εsmd
Extreme concrete fibre compression strain: εC by Eq. 1-1 but 0.005 ≤ εC ≤ 0.008
Total prestressing strain in strands: εS = 0.015
Round hollow piles, both pile head and in-ground
location:
At the pile head (reinforced concrete capacity) εc = 0.004
Extreme concrete fiber compression strain εS = 0.025
Extreme tensile strain in dowels
In-ground (prestressed concrete capacity) εc = 0.006
Extreme concrete fiber compression strain εS = 0.015
Total prestressing strain in strands:
If the interior of the hollow pile is filled with concrete,
all strain limits shall be the same as for solid piles.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 15

1.10 DURABILITY REQUIREMENTS

The main reason to control the strain in the subgrade hinge is to prevent spalling of the
concrete so that the reinforcement will not be exposed to the hazardous conditions of
the environment that may lead to excessive corrosion. The corrosion of the reinforcing
steel is an electrochemical process in which the water becomes a voltaic cell, the steel in
contact with the water becomes the anode and the nearby area to the anode becomes the
cathode (Figure 1-7).

Electrons migrate from the anode to the cathode thanks to the conductivity of the bar,
and the iron in the anode is ionized.

Fe(s) -> + Fe2+(aq) + 2e-

The electrons water and the oxygen from the environment produce hydroxide ions.

O2(g) + 2H2O(l) + 4e- -> 4OH-(aq)

The hydroxide is oxidised and precipitates.

Fe2+(aq) + 2OH-(aq) -> Fe(OH)2(s)

Rust is formed by the oxidation of the precipitated material.

4Fe(OH)2(s) + O2(g) -> 2Fe2O3 •H2O(s) + 2H2O(l)

The chlorides that are present in the water or the concrete can speed up the corrosion
procedure because they attack the passive protection of the bar surface exposing the iron
of the steel to the voltaic cell. The danger from this reaction comes from the fact that
the iron from the anode is consumed and the section of the reinforced bar reduces.
Additionally to this section reduction, the rust produced increase the section of the
cathode making this expansive reaction dangerous for the surrounding concrete which
may spall due to this expansive phenomenon.

The review of the corrosion procedure shows that there are several variables specifically
for the piles supporting the wharfs that can speed up or reduce the velocity of the
corrosion. Moisture and oxygen are necessary for the reaction and the chlorides present
in the seawater speedup the corrosion process. The cathode to anode area ratio will also
define the corrosion rate, hence, a crack parallel to the bar is more dangerous that a crack
that just cross the bar. It is probably more efficient to control the stress in the bar rather
than the crack width at the surface of the concrete [Collins, 1997)
16 Carlos Blandon

Figure 1-7 Oxidation Process [Hill and Kolb, 2001]

In wharf structures then, when there is cracking or even spalling very deep into the
ground, the absence of oxygen makes the rate of corrosion very slow. However, when
the crack occurs above the sea level, the potential of corrosion is high because all the
required elements for the reaction are present and the chlorides from the seawater can
speed up the process.
 17

2.RELEVANT ASPECTS INFLUENCING THE SEISMIC

BEHAVIOUR OF WHARVES

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Pile supported wharves could seem in general simple structures conformed by just several
rows of piles and a deck. However, problems in the analysis arise from the complex soil-
structure interaction that dominates the response. Piles and connections may be
subjected to significant moment demands produced by kinematic and inertial interaction.
Definition for these interactions will be given below in the chapter (see section 2.2).

The high torsional eccentricity in the longitudinal direction caused by the different pile
effective length adds complexity to the response. Additionally, the shortest piles develop
plastic hinges before the longer piles; the hinge forms first at the pile deck connection
and then inside the ground. The estimation of the pile capacity is even more complicated
due to the change of soil strength and stiffness for piles loaded in the upslope, downslope
or longitudinal directions. The impact and force-transfer across movement joints between
adjacent wharf segments is not easy to take into account in the models. Hence, torsion,
orthogonal excitation, interaction between segments, soil structure interaction in the
upslope downslope and longitudinal directions and the influence of the axial load have to
be taken into account for the modelling of the wharf response [POLA, 2004] (Figure 2-1
and Figure 2-2).

Earthquake
Loading Stiffness
Earthquake Line
Loading

Eccentricit
Shear Key

Mass Line
Exaggerated
Displaced Wharves

Figure 2-1 Response of a linked wharf segments for orthogonal earthquake loading
18 Carlos Blandon

The problem becomes even more difficult to model due to the fact that many old
embankments where the piles are embedded may be constructed with liquefiable material
with none or poor soil improvement or the profile may have a liquefiable layer. The
partial or total liquefaction of the sloped embankment produces an increase of the lateral
load on the piles that may cause the failure of the structure due to excessive curvature
demands in the pile under ground, or due to excessive permanent displacement of the
embankment. The effects of such displacements are more detrimental when batter piles
are used.

The performance of the structure is generally limited by the performance of the pile with
the shortest free distance between the bottom of the deck and the embankment surface.
However critical situations elsewhere, kinematic interaction and soil displacement are
significant.

Center of Stiffness
Crane Rail Crane Rail
Eccentricity Center of Mass

Figure 2-2 Typical pile supported wharf section

Wharves can be constructed in segments in order to accommodate typical ship lengths.

Consequently the joints between them have to be designed to resist the forces produced
by the response of each segment. This is important for the functionality of the structure
given that generally the wharves are equipped with cranes. Such cranes move on the top
of a rail extended along the wharf’s deck. The cranes may loose the functionality if the
rails are considerably damaged at the joints between two different segments. Another
important issue of the seismic response of the wharves is the structure-crane interaction
given that the crane may overturn during the shaking or the wharf displacements
demands may be increased by the crane.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 19

There are some variables that generally are not included in the analysis such as the vertical
component of the excitation. It has been shown that the effect of this excitation will not
have significant influence on the seismic response because of the low axial load level in
the piles and the high deck strength required for operation. In addition, for marginal
wharves, the P-Delta effects are generally not controlling the design [POLA 2004].

During the seismic excitation, the gap between the deck and the cut off wall may close,
so the soil behind the wall can create a passive pressure that can be taken into account in
estimating the demand displacement of the wharf. This interaction could be expected to
influence the total response of the system but some analyses are required in order to
quantify this effect.

2.2 PILE-SOIL INTERACTION

The interaction of the soil with the piles involves a significant number of variables such
as the geotechnical characteristics of the material in the soil profile, geometry of the
embankment, susceptibility to liquefaction, earthquake intensity, frequency content and
duration, and the pile and connection capacity among others [Roth 2003, Singh,2002]. In
order to model accurately the interaction it is necessary to take into consideration all of
these variables. In practical applications the evaluation of all the mentioned variables
may not be always needed, however to decide which parameters are not important it is
necessary to have an adequate background on what are the effects of each variable [Finn,
2004].

Figure 2-3 provides an illustration of the soil-structure interaction problem. The dynamic
excitation perceived by the superstructure depends on how the free field motion is
modified by the foundation. In the same way, the motion of the foundation depends at
some extent on the response of the superstructure due to the inertial loads.
20 Carlos Blandon

Free-Field Soil – Pile- Structure System

Free Field seismic waves acceleration
Acceleration R, L
mass

Quarry

soil layer

base
seismic waves acceleration
S, P

Figure 2-3 Soil structure interaction problem

2.2.1 Inertial Interaction

The inertial interaction refers to the effects caused in the soil and the piles due to the
inertial forces arising by the accelerated deck’s mass. For the case of pile foundations, the
effect of this interaction disappears as depth increases and the location of the maximum
moment on the pile depends on several variables such as pile fixity condition, above
ground pile height and the relative soil/pile stiffness. The depth at the maximum
moment is a potential location for a plastic hinge, which is a critical parameter for the pile
design. Figure 2-4 shows the results obtained for the location of the plastic hinge by
Budek [2000] from soil-pile nonlinear interaction analyses of a free head pile using
different values of soil stiffness.

The depth of plastic hinge to pile diameter is plotted against a non-dimensional

parameter in which K is the subgrade reaction modulus, D is the pile diameter, D* is the
reference pile diameter (1.83 m) and EIeff is the effective cracked section flexural stiffness.
The depth of the plastic hinge moves closer to the ground surface as the soil gets stiffer
with respect to the pile and also when the above grade pile height increases. This
variation is more accentuated for relatively soft soils, but for relatively strong soils this
variations are less marked.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 21

Figure 2-4 Depth of plastic hinge vs nondimensional system stiffness (3200<K<48000 kN/m3- best
fit curve) for free head pile [Budek, 2000]

Under a hypothetical transverse excitation, the piles of a wharf segment have the same
displacement demand. This is because the deck is rigid enough to warranty equal
displacement on these elements. This means that the larger rotational and curvature
demands are located on the piles with the shortest above grade length, which are those
located closest to the shore line (Figure 2-8). These piles, at the rear of the deck, typically
control the inertial response of the wharf and attract most of the inertial load. Due to the
large demands on these elements, they will be the first to reach the limit state criteria for
the specified performance levels.

The pile head condition of the wharf piles can be assumed to be totally fixed due to the
relatively large deck stiffness compare to the pile. This fixity condition will induce a shift
of the maximum moment and therefore, the plastic hinge length, to a deeper location
compared to the case of the free head condition. For the fix head condition Budeck
[1997] reported a location of the maximum moment located between 2 to 5 pile
diameters approximately (Figure 2-6). Below 10 to 15 pile diameters the effect of the
inertial interaction becomes negligible depending on the stiffness of the soil.
22 Carlos Blandon

Plastic hinges
Shore Line form first at the Crane Rail
shortest piles

Sea Front

Figure 2-5 Location of initial plastic hinges

The piles supporting the deck are significantly long and are embedded in profiles with
different kinds of soil. In general, the dyke made of quarry material (crushed rocks) and
the rip rap (armour rock) protecting the embankment forms the shallowest soil layer of
the profile; and, even if the thickness of this layer varies, it is deep enough so that the
inertial interaction below it is negligible. This means that the inertial interaction will
depend on the properties of the pile, the deck-pile connection and the dyke material.

Moment Profile
Free Head Fix Head
D

2D –
Plastic
Hinge

Figure 2-6 Plastic hinge location and moment distribution from inertial interaction
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 23

The shear demand on the pile is also significantly affected by the same parameters as the
location of the plastic hinge and the maximum moment. As the soil pile relative stiffness
increases and the height above ground decreases the shear force increases (Figure 2-7).
This effect is a strong reason why nonlinear model of the soil are preferred to elastic
models. From analyses carried out by Budek [1997], the depth of the maximum moment
for elastic analysis was 1.4 to 1.5 times the depth of the plastic hinge for the plastic
analyses; hence, when the soil is assumed to be elastic, there is an increase in the depth of
the maximum moment. This increase on depth reduces the shear demand on the pile
which results in the underestimation of the forces for which the pile should be designed.

Figure 2-7 Shear force vs Height for free head condition [Budek, 1997]

The plastic hinge length is also a characteristic that defines the displacement capacity of
the structure and that also depends on the relative properties of the soil and the structure.
It also depends significantly on the properties of the pile and the boundary conditions.
Budeck analyzed cast in place piles and also prestressed concrete piles and it was found
that the plastic hinge length for the cast in place pile is relatively more variable than for
the prestressed pile for the relatively soft soil as shown in Figure 2-8 and Figure 2-9
However, for relatively stiff soils the variation in the two cases reduces or becomes
almost negligible.
24 Carlos Blandon

Figure 2-8 Cast in place pile plastic hinge lenght vs nondimensional system stiffness [Budek, 1997]

Figure 2-9 Prestressed pile plastic hinge lenght vs nondimensional system stiffness [Budek, 1997]
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 25

2.2.2 Kinematic Interaction

The kinematic interaction is the results of the wave front propagating through the pile or
the movement of the soil profile caused by a liquefied layer or lateral spreading. The
surrounding soil induces the pile to deform accordingly and at the same time the pile
restricts the soil movement, which means that the free-field motion in the soil is modified
in the vicinity of the foundation. This effect is accentuated when there are layers with
high impedance contrast or when there is a permanent soil displacement caused by a
significant reduction of the soil effective stress.

For the case of pile foundation, the tendency of the pile to follow the motion of the soil
induces kinematic moments, which depend on the properties of the soil, excitation and
pile properties. For instance, a very flexible pile embedded in a very stiff soil will not
affect significantly the free-field motion; on the contrary, a very rigid pile (caisson or
piers) will modify completely the free-field motion.

In the case of the soft soil- stiff foundation, the soil in the vicinity of the pile will suffer
large non-linear deformations and the there will be large energy dissipation due to the
hysteretic behaviour of the soil. In the opposite case, strong soil and flexible foundation,
the soil will impose the pile to deform accordingly inducing kinematic moments that will
depend on the soil fundamental vibration frequency and the amplitude and frequency
content of the excitation.

The energy going into the foundation is also reduced by the radiation form the pile to the
free-field. This form of damping is called radiation damping and depends on the
frequency of the excitation and on the non-linear behaviour of the soil [Finn 2005]; the
radiation is proportional to the frequency and inversely proportional to the amplitude.

It is common that in practice the effect of the kinematic interaction is neglected; this may
not be correct and the demands on the piles can be significantly underestimated for some
specific cases. As pointed out by Kavvadas and Gazetas [1993], for the case of a free-
head pile, the maximum bending moment in an two layered soil, is located approximately
below or above 2 diameters the interface of the layers due to the kinematic interaction
(Figure 2-10). Centrifuge tests carried out by McCullough and Dickenson [2001], have
shown this effect.
26 Carlos Blandon

Pile

D
S wave
Region of large amplitude in
curvature 2D
demands 2D
S wave
amplitude in

Figure 2-10 kinematic interaction

The kinematic interaction between the soil and the piles has shown to be a considerable
problem mainly when the effective stresses on the soil are reduced significantly causing
lateral spreading or soil liquefaction [Rot el al, 2003]. The mobilized soil case an increase
of pressure on the pile that may cause its failure due to large curvature demands (Figure
2-11). The importance of this phenomenon has already been included in the Eurocode 8.
This code directs that the bending moment due to kinematic interaction has to be
estimated in regions from moderate to high seismicity, when the ground profile is
composed or includes consecutive layers of sharply different stiffness.

In the case of ports, this is an important issue given that the conditions for this
phenomenon to occur are likely to exist. Wharves are generally constructed in reclaimed
lands, which are quite susceptible to liquefaction. Additionally, the embankments where
these structures are constructed have significant inclinations, which increase the potential
of soil sliding during an earthquake. The stability of the embankment can be increased by
using soil improvement techniques such as jet grouting, displacement piles, soil mixing,
stone columns, etc when it is considered necessary.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 27

Plastic
Hinge

Sliding layer Sliding

layer

Figure 2-11 kinematic interaction due to relative soil displacement above and below a sliding layer

2.3 COUPLED RESPONSE

The geometrical layout of the wharves is designed in order to adjust to the shoreline
topography and to provide a berthing platform for vessels of different characteristics. As
result, the longitudinal axis is parallel to the shoreline and is significantly longer than the
transverse axis. The wharves units can be symmetrical or may have irregularities in zones
where shoreline changes direction. The function of the wharf is to allow the transfer of
passengers and merchandise from land to the vessels, hence, the water depth at the
waterfront have to reach a specified depth depending on the size of the vessels. In order
to match this function, the piles at the shore side have a shorter free length between the
deck and the ground level than the piles at the waterfront.

In common practice, the piles used to sustain the deck have all the same size made of
steel or prestressed reinforced concrete. Having all the piles the same size and material,
the shortest piles have larger lateral stiffness than the longer piles, therefore, the centre of
rigidity of the wharf unit will be located closer to the shoreline whilst the centre of mass
will be located along the longitudinal axis, or even closer to the waterfront because of the
additional mass from the longer piles.
28 Carlos Blandon

The eccentricity between the mass and stiffness centre causes a torsional response of the
wharf unit when an earthquake in the longitudinal direction excites the structure. The
displacement demands will be amplified in some of the piles because of the torsion
(Figure 2-12). As the pile is locater further from the centre of stiffness, the dynamic
amplification will be larger; therefore, the demand on the elements at the wharf’s corners
will be the most critical for design purposes. Both shoreline and waterfront corner piles
suffer the largest displacement demand increase but the piles at the shoreline corner are
still the critical elements for design.

Earthquake
Loading

Eccentricity

Displaced Wharf
(Exaggerated)

Piles with increased displacement

demand due to rotation

Figure 2-12 Corner piles with exaggerated increased displacement demand due to rotation

2.4 HYDRODYNAMIC INTERACTION

The interaction between the piles and the surrounding water also generates forces
affecting the dynamic behaviour of the structure. Depending on the characteristics of the
flow or pile movement there are different forces affecting the dynamic response. Most
of the research carried on hydrodynamic interaction refers to the case of fixed cylinders
affected by a flow, which can be steady current or regular waves [Sumer, 1997, Sarpkaya,
1981].

The problem of fixed cylinders and steady currents can be applied to the inverse problem
in which the cylinder is the one moving inside the fluid. In the case of the earthquake
excitation, the pile, which is represented by the cylinder, will move creating a relative
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 29

water flow around it. The flow around the pile exerts a force on the pile, which has two
components (Figure 2-13). The force in the same direction of the flow or inline
component is called drag whilst the force in the transverse direction or cross flow
component is called lift.

Figure 2-13 Force on cylinders [Cheng, 2006]

The mean drag force (FD) and lift (FL) can be evaluated by equations ( 2-1) and ( 2-2)
[Sumer, 1997, Sarpkaya, 1981]. The CD and CL coefficients depend on the Reynolds
number, shape of the cylinder, surface roughness, turbulence of the flow, proximity of
other objects angle of attack, etc. ρ is the fluid density, D is the pile diameter and U is
the flow velocity.

1
FD = C D ρDU 2 ( 2-1)
2

1
FL = C L ρDU 2 ( 2-2)
2

When the pile is affected by regular waves, there is an additional force that results from
the relative acceleration between the pile and the fluid. The in line force is given by
equation ( 2-3), where A is the cross sectional area of the cylinder, CM is the inertial
coefficient and Ca is the hydrodynamic mass coefficient.

1 dU
F = C D ρDU U + C M ρA ( 2-3)
2 dt

C M = Ca + 1 ( 2-4)
30 Carlos Blandon

The hydrodynamic or added mass is defined as the mass of the fluid around an object,
which is accelerated with the acceleration of the object. This mass can be estimated by
the integration of the pressure around the object as shown in equation ( 2-5), where V is
the volume of the object.

m = C a ρV ( 2-5)

Drag and the inertia force are 90 degrees out of phase and the ratio between them can be
estimated as given in eq ( 2-6).

Finertia π 2 C M
= ( 2-6)
Fdrag KC C D

KC is the Keulegan Karpenter number as given by eq ( 2-7), where Um is the maximum

velocity of water particles and Tw is the wave period. For small values of KC number
inertial dominates over drag force.

U mTW ( 2-7)
KC =
D

For a cylinder (e.g., a pile with its axis positioned vertically in the water), the added mass
can be obtained using the set of curves in Figure 2-14. Where mao ( z ) is the
hydrodynamic added mass per unit of height, m ∞o is the mass per unit height of the
water displaced by the cylinder, Ho is depth of the surrounding water, z is distance above
the base of the cylinder, ro is the radius of the cylinder.

This set of curves was obtained for circular sections by closed-form solutions of the
Laplace’s equations which describes the flow dynamics. For irregular section, it is not
possible to obtain this close form solutions, so numerical analyses are used in order to get
the added mass.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 31

Figure 2-14 Normalized hydrodynamic added mass curves [Goyal and Chopra, 1989a]

The hydrodynamic interaction has shown to be important in structures such as caption

towers for which the weight of the displaced water is large enough to have an influence
on the total mass of the structure. For the case of most wharves, the hydrodynamic
interaction can be neglected due to the relative small diameter of the piles and the
considerable weight of the deck.

2.5 CRANE-WHARF INTERACTION

Cranes are sensitive components of the entire wharf system performance given that the
functionality of the entire port facility depends on these structures. During past
earthquakes some cranes have shown to suffer damages due to the shaking of the wharf
deck such element failure or derail after leg uplift (see section 1.5).

As a coupled system, the dynamic response of the crane affects the response of the
wharf; this interaction depends on the relative dynamic properties of the crane and the
wharf such as stiffness, strength and mass. Given that it is possible to have many
combinations, the interaction effect should be evaluated on individual basis for typical
configurations.
32 Carlos Blandon

In container terminals, there are two main crane typologies used. High profile (luffing
boom) cranes have a hinged boom that can be lifted up to clear the ships for navigation.
Low profile cranes shuttle or pull the boom towards and over the ship to allow the trolley
to load and discharge. Lifting capacity of the cranes also varies and allows its
classification. Panamax (able to unload ships capable of passing through Panama Canal),
Post-Panamax (able to unload ships too large to pass through Panama Canal) or Super-
PostPanamax (even larger than PostPanamax) cranes have different mass.

Figure 2-15 Crane typologies Left) High profile cranes (Port of Los Angeles) Right) low profile
cranes (port of Miami)

2.6 IMPACT AND FORCE TRANSFER IN JOINTS

Force transfer joints connect wharf units and its main function is to keep the crane’s rail
aligned between two consecutive units. The relative movement of the units during an
earthquake induces large stresses in shear keys constructed in the joints.

Shear keys can also be design to dissipate energy through ductile behaviour of the
material used to connect the wharf units. Past experiences have shown that the use of
steel shear key beams result in a more expensive design than the standard interlocking
reinforced concrete shear key used in most cases [Hoite et al., 2001]. The additional cost
is due to the steel shear beam and the large amount of reinforcing steel required in the
concrete around the key. However this design may improve the seismic performance by
reducing the damage to other parts of the wharf and the key can be easily replaced
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 33

Figure 2-16 Shear Key detail [Hoite, 2001]

2.7 OTHER PARAMETERS INFLUENCING SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF WHARVES

There are other parameters that may influence the seismic behaviour of the wharves,
particularly the non linear response of the structure. The nonlinear behaviour of the
system is concentrated at the plastic hinges forming at the pile-deck connection and the
inground hinge. In this section, a description of the nonlinear characteristics of these two
locations is made based on existing experimental research.

2.7.1 Effect of soil confinement

Budeck [1997] has shown that the confinement from the soil can diminish the effect of
spalling and could even slightly increase the moment capacity of the section; therefore the
model for the unconfined concrete used in the moment curvature analyses was modified
by increasing the ultimate strain. This modification was verified based on the results of
the test by Budeck.

The test was carried out on set of prestressed precast piles in order to evaluate the effects
of external confinement and to characterize the subgrade plastic hinge that could form in
the shaft of a prestressed pile under a seismic load. Some of the specimens from these
tests have close similarities with the typical section used for the analyses. The effect of
the soil was included into the tests by applying the load through a group of neoprene-
lined saddles which covered 100o of the shaft circumference Figure 2-17.
34 Carlos Blandon

Figure 2-17 Transverse view of a test set up of a confined section (Budeck, 1997)

The section tested was a 610 mm diameter section with 24 prestressing tendons of 13.2
mm diameter with an area of 106 mm2, a ultimate strength of 1860 MPa and nominal
yielding strength of 1302 MPa. The strands were prestressed at 1061 MPa to give a
nominal section prestress 0f 9.3 MPa. The transverse reinforcement consisted of a W11
A82 spiral (diameter of 9.5 mm and nominal yield strength of 565 MPa) with a pitch of
63.5 mm. The tests showed that the transverse reinforcement and the external confined
have a significant effect on the non-linear behaviour of the prestressed section. Some of
the conclusions mentioned by the author are included on the next paragraphs.

The transverse reinforcement has a strong influence on the displacement ductility

capacity up to a volumetric transverse ratio of 0.02 when there is no external
confinement. When this value is exceeded, the flexural capacity of the section is
governed by the tensile strength of the strands rather than the core concrete strength.
When there is external confinement, the flexural capacity of the pile is governed by the
tensile strength of the prestressing tendons even if the amount of transverse
reinforcement is as little as 0.005.

The level of displacement ductility at which spalling occurs is not influenced by the
amount of transverse reinforcement. The test showed that incipient crushing began close
to μ = 2 and spalling occurred at μ = 3. In the confined test, it was observed that the
crushing and spalling also occurred at the same levels of ductility but the spalled concrete
did not fall off because the load applied by the confining pads. It was also evident that
the plasticity spread approximately over a length equal to the pile diameter and the cracks
propagated from 1.8 m to 3.6 m at each side of the centre span.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 35

The moment-curvature for the prestressed section with external confinement and a shear
reinforcement of W11 @ 63.5 mm is shown in Figure 2-18 a. There is a unsymmetrical
response for the push and pull load directions, this was explained by Budek as the effect
of unsymmetrical prestressing given that in the other test this lack of symmetry did not
occur. The interest in these results is because the characteristics of this section are close
to that used for the analyses in section 4.1.

Curvature measured along the critical region of the pile is shown in Figure 2-18 b for
different levels of displacement ductility for the push and pull cycles. It is observed that
the curvature reached during testing was significantly larger than the estimated curvature
and the plastic hinge is concentrated in a shorter span than predicted.

2.7.2 Connection nonlinear behaviour

Joem and Priestley [1975], Shritharan and Priestley [1998], Roeder et al [2002] and Krier
[2006] have carried out test on connections with different specifications and boundary
conditions. In the tests carried out by Shritharan and Priestley the pile was connected to
the deck by headed bars as shown in Figure 2-20. The cyclic behaviour of the connection
showed fat stable loops with reduced strength degradation which is a desirable behaviour
for seismic loads (Figure 2-20). However, it is important to mention that no axial load
was applied.

Roeder [2002] carried out a survey of the type of connections used in different ports in
USA and he found out that each port had almost a unique type of connection different
from the others. The reason for this variation from port to port was cause mainly due to
the uncertainty about the performance of the connection and the need to produce
economical structural designs.

Figure 2-21 shows the most common possible detailing of pile-deck connections. The
first case consist on the outward bent of the longitudinal reinforcement embedded inside
the prestressed pile and into the deck, in many cases, there are no transverse
reinforcement inside the joint. The second detail corresponds to the case when after the
driving of the pile the level of the pile head is lower than the deck level, so it is necessary
to extend the pile head using cast in place concrete. The third case corresponds to the
case where the prestressing reinforcement is embedded inside the deck. In figure d, the
dowels are bent inwards in order to avoid the tensile stresses in the concrete that are
induced when the dowels are bent outwards. In the figure e, the length of the embedded
dowel can be reduced by the use of T-headed bars. The connection in figure f is also
used to reduce the length of embedment using bolt bars and the bonding into the deck is
improved by T-bars over the deck reinforcement. Each one of these connections has a
different hysteretic behaviour and construction advantages and disadvantages.
36 Carlos Blandon

a) Moment-curvature hysteresis loops about test unit midpoint

b) Measured and predicted curvature

Figure 2-18 Test results for confined prestressed pile with external confinement and transverse
reinforcement PS8 [Budek,1997]
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 37

Figure 2-19 Headed bar connection detail [Sritharan and Priestley, 1998]

Figure 2-20 Cyclic behaviour of headed bar connection [Sritharan and Priestley, 1998]
38 Carlos Blandon

a) Outward Bent Dowel b) Extended Outward Bent c) Extended Strand Connections

Connection Dowel Connection

d) Inward Bent Dowel e) Bond Bar Connection f) T-Headed Dowel Bar Connections
Connection
Figure 2-21 Typical Prestressed Concrete Pile Moment Connections [From Roeder et al, 2002]

From the tests performed by Roeder, he observed that: the specimens sustained large
inelastic displacements, the extended piles distributed their plastic deformation over a
greater pile length, precast piles developed uplift from the deck at large deformations and
most of the inelastic deformation occurred as tensile yield and debonding of dowel
reinforcement in the deck section. Axial load increased the connection deterioration at
large inelastic deformation.

Connection if Figure 2-21(f) has almost similar details to that proposed and tested by
Shritharan and Priestley. However, in the test by Roeder, no transverse reinforcement
was used because as the author mentions, some engineers believe that this would
interfere with construction. The reinforcement is detailed in such a way that the bar
anchored to the top deck reinforcement allows forming a concrete-steel truss. Even if
the specimens used for the two mentioned tests are very similar, the results from Roeder
shown in Figure 2-22 and Shritharan and Priestley in Figure 2-20 present some
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 39

differences. Specimen tested by Roeder was carried out in a prestressed pile whilst the
test performed by the other two authors was performed in a cast in place pile.
Additionally, the test by Roeder was carried out with axial load being applied to the pile.
These two differences explain why the test with axial load, prestressed section and no
transverse reinforcement inside the deck suffered larger strength deterioration and
narrower hysteretic cycles.

Figure 2-22 Moment – drift cyclic behaviour of T-Headed Dowel Bar Connections (Roeder, 2002)

Roeder compared the distribution of the inelasticity between the case of the extended pile
(Figure 2-23 left) and the prestressed pile (Figure 2-23 right), finding that most of the
inelasticity was concentrated at different locations in the two tests. In the case of the
extended pile, the inelastic behaviour is concentrated at the pile extension and in the pile-
deck interface but, inside the deck, the behaviour is almost linear. Meanwhile, for the
connection without the extension, most of the inelastic behaviour is concentrated inside
the deck and at the pile-deck interface (Figure 2-23). The tests carried out by Krier
[2006] also showed that most of the inelasticity was concentrated at the interface between
the pile and the deck based on the readings from strain gages located along the
connection dowels.

In most of the cases, the piles can be driven up to the desired level or have to be cut
because they reach rejection before the deck level. However, when the pile has to be
extended to reach the deck level it is important to model the connection accordingly.
40 Carlos Blandon

Figure 2-23 Moment-curvature in the pile, the pile-deck interface and inside the deck for the case
of extended pile (left) and without the extension (right)

The detail of bending the reinforcement outwards has the drawback of inducing large
tensile strains in the joint which may induce excessive joint cracking. The detail by
Shritharan and Priestley is aimed to reduce these joint stresses and ease the construction
of the joint.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 41

Krier carried a cyclic test on a specimen with the same characteristics of the connection
detail proposed by Shritharan and Priestley but Krier tried to represent the boundary
conditions existing at the port site. The test carried out by Shritharan did not involve the
axial load as a variable and in the test by Roeder the specimen was tested upside down
and the gap between the deck and the ground was filled with hydrostone, which would
modify the real boundary conditions. The transverse reinforcement was added for
Krier’s test given that the idea of the original design by Shritharan is to transfer shear in
the joint and enhance the lap splice between the grouted and bolt bars.

Figure 2-24 shows a typical section of a wharf, where pile –deck connections in rows E
and F are detailed to resist the inelastic demands. Connections in the other pile rows are
not expected to have inelastic demands; hence details for this connection can be more
relaxed as for rows E and F. Krier tested two different reinforcement configurations at
the connections, one representing the connections at rows E and F ant the other
representing the rest of the pile-deck connections.

33.5 m

6.1 m 6.1 m 6.1 m 6.1 m 6.1 m

0.61m 0.91mm
0.84
0.61m

1.5 m 3.2 m
6.7 m
10.2 m
13.5 m
1.75
1.0 17.15 m

@ 3.0 m 610 mm prestressed octagonal piles

@ 6.0 m

F E D C B A

Figure 2-24 Typical wharf transverse section

42 Carlos Blandon

The test set up for row E connection, shown in Figure 2-25, was constructed in order to
represent the real boundary conditions of the piles in the actual structure as close as
possible. During the cyclic load produced by an earthquake, the seismic piles will be
subjected to axial loads coming from the shear and moment distribution from the deck.
When the deck is moving in the upslope direction the shortest pile will be subjected to
tension whilst when the deck is moving down slope this pile will be in compression.

δV δV

North South

Figure 2-25 Test set up for row E pile deck connection [From Krier et al, 2006]

Most of the inelastic deformation of the pile deck connection was concentrated at the
plastic hinging of the piles in their top 6 inches below the deck soffit. At large
displacements, 90% of the total deformation was caused by the hinging. The damage in
this region was extensive and the column reinforcement was exposed after the test
finished at a displacement ductility of 16 (Figure 2-26).
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 43

Figure 2-26 Damage on pile deck connection tested by Krier et al [2006]

The cyclic behaviour of the connection showed to be pinched and unsymmetrical for
compression and tension (Figure 2-27). This was expected as the inelastic deformation
concentrated at the pile deck interface, so a pinched response resulted when this large gap
was cyclically opening and closing. The compressive axial load induced large strength
reduction for displacement ductility larger than 4 whilst the tensile axial force helped to
keep the strength capacity constant. Analytical prediction of OLE was accurate; however
no data is available for CLE given that the strain gages in the dowel bars failed before
reaching this performance limit.

The findings from these tests were considered into the analyses performed in section 5.
Based on the result from Krier et al [1996], it was found that the connection inelastic
behaviour was concentrated at the pile deck interface with almost no spreading along the
pile. This was represented in the models by introducing a concentrated spring to model
the connection with the moment rotation characteristics obtained from the test. The
models that required a fibre section were constructed by replacing the stress – strain
nonlinear characteristics of the concrete and steel by stress-deformation models; this
required the integration of strains along the plastic hinge length which in this case was
taken as the strain penetration length given by the second term of Eq ( 3-33). The results
from the analytical model and the test (Figure 2-28) show that the analytical model can
reproduce the real nonlinear behaviour of the connection.
44 Carlos Blandon

Θr = -10 % -8 % -5 % -3 % -1 1% 3% 5% 8% 10 %
180
μΔ= -16 -12 -8 -4 -2 -1 1 2 4 8 12 16

140 OLE T 1.7 % εS M

1.7 % εS T
OLE M

100
Lateral Force (kips)

Measured
response CLE T
60

20

-20

-60 CLE T OLE M

-100
Predicted 1.6 % εS T OLE T 1.6 % εS M
envelope
-140
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Displacement (in)

Figure 2-27 Force – displacement relationship for row E pile deck connection cyclic test

1000
800 Analytical Prediction
600 Experimental Results
400
Moment (KN-m)

200
0
-200
-400
-600
-800
-1000
-0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Rotation (Rad)

Figure 2-28 Analytical and experimental moment rotation for pile-deck connection
 45

3. METHODS OF ANALYSIS FOR WHARVES

The aim of the analysis of the wharves is to estimate with accuracy, based on the available
information, the demands on the different components of the structure in order to make
a design that can achieve the required performance levels. The main variables affecting
the dynamic response of wharves were described in the previous section. These variables
should be taken into account in the analysis of the structure so that the demands can be
reliably estimated; however, in current practice it would be difficult and unnecessary to
include all the mechanism affecting the dynamic response of the wharf into the same
analytical models. Therefore, the mechanisms that have been shown to be negligible are
generally suppressed from the models. There are also some mechanisms that have been
uncoupled into a separate model in order to reduce the complexity of the analysis.

The estimation of the forces and displacement of piles usually requires computer based
methods, which according to Bull [2003], could be divided in continuum based approach
which model the soil as a continuum and the load transfer approach which reduce the
soil to Wrinkler springs. Priestley [2000] also set up a methodology that does not require
the use of a computer. The continuum-based approach is more complicated that the
other methods, which will be mentioned here as simplified approaches. In this section,
the most used procedures and assumptions used for the dynamic analysis of wharves will
be reviewed [Priestley, 2000; Roth et al, 2003; Singh, 2002, Finn, 2005].

3.1 SIMPLIFIED APPROACHES

The three-dimensional response of the entire wharf is in practice estimated based on the
analysis of two-dimensional response of wharf sections and the nonlinear analyses of the
individual piles of a transverse section. The simplest procedure is the modelling the piles
with a cantilever element fixed at a certain depth under the ground. The refinement of
the model increases as springs are included to represent the soil, and as some procedures
are added in order to take into account the effect of the slope.

3.1.1 Equivalent Depth to Fixity

The simplest method that has been used to estimate the forces into the structure is based
on the model of the piles as cantilever elements fixed at certain depth under the ground.
46 Carlos Blandon

In this approach the soil is not directly included in the model, but in order to represent
the flexibility of the soil, the clear height between the deck soffit and the ground level is
increased as shown in Figure 3-1.

One of the main problems of this methodology is the estimation of an adequate stiffness
distribution. Analyses carried out by Priestley [2000] have shown that a variable stiffness
distribution should be used in order to get accurate results.

Figure 3-1 Depth to fixity model as in Fig 3-20 [Ferrito el al, 1999]

Budek [1999] carried out a set of analyses for cast in place and prestressed concrete pile
shafts with different boundary condition: free head and fix head. The depth to fixity is
used to estimate only the inertial interaction and, in the same way as the depth to
maximum moment, it depends on the relative soil structure stiffness and the above
ground height. Figure 3-2 shows the depth to fixity to pile diameter ratio as function of a
non-dimensional parameter and the above ground height for a free head and fix head
condition.

a) Free Head B) Fixed Head

Figure 3-2 Depth to fixity for an equivalent cantilever as a function of soil stiffness and column
aspect ratio (depth/pile diameter) for cast in place pile-columns [Budeck, 1997].
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 47

The moment distribution at the top of the pile, stiffness, displacements and elastic
periods can be calculated accurately if a variable stiffness is used along the pile, however
moments inground are overestimated and the real location of the plastic hinge in the pile
will be formed in a higher position than the fixity depth. It was also shown that this
procedure is not reliable to model the inelastic response of piles with short ground
clearance which is the case of the critical piles in wharves [Priestley 2000].

3.1.2 Force Transfer Approach

In this approach, the soil is represented by springs which are connected to the pile at
different depths. The springs are characterized by a load-soil deformation transfer
function known as P-Y curves which describes the contact pressure at the soil-pile
interface (p) for a given displacement (y) and depth (Figure 3-3). As shown, the
maximum soil strength increases with depth (confining stress increase).

Force (P)

P-Y springs used to

represent the soil
Displacement (Y)

Figure 3-3 Soil-structure interaction using P-Y curves (left) and typical shape of a static P-Y curve
(Right)

The approximation of representing the soil as Wrinkler independent springs distributed

along the pile has shown to be a good approximation to the reality in spite of the
simplicity and assumptions that are made [Pender, 1993]. When the soil is represented by
this approach, it is assumed that the behaviour at one point is independent from the
points close to it, which means that the shear transfer is ignored.

There are different methodologies proposed for defining the characteristics of the P-Y
curves. The most common are those proposed by Reese [1974] and Matlock [1970].
Also the American Petroleum Institute [2000] has proposed a set of equations to
construct the curves.
48 Carlos Blandon

Priestley et al [1996] have also proposed some simplified equations as follows

Pu = 0.5 Z (kip/in)
( 3-1)
Fult = Pu ⋅ ΔH

where Pu is the maximum load by unitary pile length, ΔH is the tributary length of the
spring. Assuming a yield force at 12.5 mm (0.5) in, the elastic spring stiffness is given as:

Fult ( 3-2)
k= (in inches)
0.5

The maximum strength and curve shape given by API for cohesionless soils are given by
equation ( 3-3). The nonlinear envelope of the P-Y curve is described by a tangent
hyperbolic function as shown by equation ( 3-4).

Pus = (C l X + C 2 D) γ ′ X
( 3-3)
Pud = C 3 D γ ′ X

Pu: Ultimate resistance (force/unit length) (s=shallow, d=deep)

γ' : Buoyant soil weight, in weight density units
X: Depth
γ' : Angle of internal friction in sand
Cl : Coefficient determined from Figure 3-4 as a function of φ'
C2 : Coefficient determined from Figure 3-4 as a function of φ'
C3 : Coefficient determined from Figure 3-4 as a function of φ'
D: Average pile diameter from surface to depth
⎛ kX y⎞
P = A pu tanh ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ ( 3-4)
⎝ A pu ⎠

A factor to account for cyclic or static loading continued.

A = 0.9 for cyclic loading.
A = (3.0 - 0.8X/D) ≥ 0.9 for static loading.
Pu: Ultimate bearing capacity at depth X in units of force per unit length
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 49

K: Initial modulus of subgrade reaction in force per volume units. Determined

from Figure 3-4 as a function of angle of internal friction.
Y: Lateral deflection
X: Depth
One of the most important variables used to define the P-Y curves is the initial modulus
of subgrade reaction K. This variable represents the pressure applied to the boundary of
the pile through a loading area divided by the displacement experienced by the loaded
area, so it has units of force per unit volume [Briaud, 2004]. This modulus is not an
intrinsic soil property and depends on the geometric and mechanical properties of the
pile [Bull, 2003].

Figure 3-4 Coefficients for the estimation of the maximum sand strength (left) and average values of
the initial modulus of subgrade reaction (right).

Based on results from continuum analysis, some authors have obtained expression to
estimate the value of the subgrade reaction modulus. Biot [1937] proposed the value of
K as given by Eq ( 3-5) in order to match the maximum moments of an infinite beam
loaded with a concentrated load for the continuous analysis and the springs. Using the
same procedure, Vesic [1961] obtained other expression in Eq ( 3-6) , but in this case, the
displacements of the continuum and the spring model were matched.
50 Carlos Blandon

0.108
0.95 Es ⎡ D 4 Es ⎤
k= ⎢ ⎥ ( 3-5)
1 − μs2 ⎣⎢ ( 1 − μs )E p I p ⎦⎥
2

0.65 Es ⎡ D 4 Es ⎤ 12 ( 3-6)
k= ⎢ ⎥
1 − μs2 ⎣⎢ E p I p ⎦⎥

Where Es is the soil modulus of elasticity, μ is the Poisson’s ratio of soil, D is the pile
diameter, and EpIp is the flexural rigidity of pile.

Bowles [1988] suggested a modification of the equation proposed by Vesic by doubling

the value of K because of the friction between the pile and the soil at the sides. Teerawut
and Ashford [2003] used the average of the lower bound and upper bound solution
obtained by Bowles as given in Eq ( 3-7) and the equation proposed by Carter and Ling
[1988] in eq ( 3-8) in order to evaluate the effect of the pile diameter in the value of the
subgrade reaction modulus.

1.0 Es ⎡ D 4 Es ⎤ 12 ( 3-7)
k= ⎢ ⎥
1 − μs2 ⎣⎢ E p I p ⎦⎥

1.0 Es D ⎡ D 4 Es ⎤ 12 ( 3-8)
k= ⎢ ⎥
1 − μs2 Dref ⎣⎢ E p I p ⎦⎥

Ling proposed that the value of K varied linearly with the pile diameter with respect to a
reference pile of diameter Dref =1.0 m.. Teerawut and Ashford compared the results of
full scale vibration test of piles embedded in weakly cemented sands with analytical
models using the assumptions by Bowles (diameter independent) and Carter (diameter
dependent) and concluded that the diameter has not effect in the subgrade reaction
modulus.

There are different procedures available for the construction of P-Y curves for sandy soil
and clays however it is important to take into account the specific conditions of the
wharves. These structures are generally founded in sloping rock fills or slopes with the
top layer conformed by crushed rock. The effect of the rocks at the top part of the soil
profile and the inclination of the slope, change significantly the P-Y curves obtained from
the equations given for sands [Mezazigh, 1998; McCullough, 2004]. Some methodologies
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 51

proposed in the literature are described here in order to take into account these factors
for the estimation of the P-Y curves.

3.1.2.1 Layered profile

Piles of wharves and piers are driven well depth into the soil crossing layer of soil with
different characteristics. It is also a common practice to construct a dike on the surface
in order to protect the embankment material. The dike is constructed with large size
crushed rocks which have different mechanical properties to the sandy soil from the
embankment.

The P-Y curves of the soil in the bottom layers are obtained following the
recommendations as if there was only a homogeneous unique layer but using a
modification proposed by Georgiadis [1983]. This method is based on the estimation of
an “equivalent depth” of the layers below the top layer.

The equivalent depth (H2) to the top of the second layer is obtaining by adding the
ultimate resistance (Pui) of the top layer (i=1) and equating that to the addition as if the
upper layer was composed of the same material as in the second layer (i=2). In Figure
3-5, the cumulative resistance of the top layer is represented by the continuous tick line,
whilst the dotted thin line shows the cumulative resistance of the soil as if the profile was
all composed by soil B. The equivalent depth that should be used to estimate the P-Y
curves of soil B in the point A (at a depth Z) should be Zeq which will be larger than ZA
in the case that soil B is weaker than soil A.

ZA
F 1= ∫ Pu 1dZ
0 ( 3-9)
Z eq
F 1= ∫ Pu 2dZ
0
52 Carlos Blandon

Soil A Zeq

ZA

A
Soil B

Force Assuming
Profile by Soil B

Force Assuming
Profile by Soil A

Figure 3-5 Equivalent depth approach for layered profiles

3.1.2.2 Slopping soil

Most of the piles supporting the wharf deck are generally embedded in an embankment
with a considerable slope. Depending on the embankment configuration some pile rows
will be located at some distance from the crest and the effect of the slope can diminish in
these rows. It is clear than for a dynamic excitation that causes the deck to move in the
down slope direction, the stiffness of the structure will be smaller than for an excitation
that causes the structure to move in the upslope direction.

There is a lack of references regarding to the effect of the slope in the horizontal stiffness
of the structure and its influence in the soil-pile transfer functions. It is even scarcer the
research conducted using the specific type of soils used for the dike (crushed rocks).

Mezazigh [1998] carried out centrifugal test on dry sands as shown in Figure 3-6 in order
to compare P-Y curves of piles located in horizontal profiles and piles close or at the
slope. He proposed a correction factor (r) for the P-Y curve from horizontal profiles as
given by Eq. (3-10). The correction factor depends on the distance to the crest of the
slope (t), the angle of the slope (θ ) and the pile diameter (B).
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 53

Figure 3-6 Centrifugal test model tested by Mezazigh

17 − 15 tan θ t 1 − tan θ
r= ⋅ + if t ≤ t lim
100 B 2
(3-10)
r = 1 if t > t lim

t lim = 4 ⋅ B (6 ⋅ tan θ − 1)

1.2
Correction Factor (r)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 5 10 15
Distance to the Crest/Pile Diameter

Figure 3-7 Correction factor from Mezazigh’s equation (θ= 29.7°)

Reese [1993] proposed an analytical equation to compute the ultimate soil resistance for
sand when the pile is installed in a horizontal ground surface (Eq. (3-11)) and in a slope
inclined an angle (θ). For this last case he obtained analytical expressions for the ultimate
soil strength in front of the pile (Eq (3-12)) and in the back of the pile (Eq. (3-13)). The
variables in the equations are defined as shown in Figure 3-8
54 Carlos Blandon

⎡ K H tan φ sin β tan β

PUH = γH ⎢ 0 + (b + H tan β tan α + K 0 H tan β (tan φ sin β − tan α ) − K ab )⎤⎥ (3-11)
⎣ tan(β − φ ) cosα tan(β − φ ) ⎦

⎡ K H tan φ sin β tan β

PUθf = γH ⎢ 0
tan (β − φ ) cos α
A1 +
tan ( β − φ
(
)
)
⎤
bD2 + H tan β tan αD22 + K 0 H tan β (tan φ sin β − tan α ) A1 − K a b ⎥ (3-12)
⎣ ⎦

Where:

(
A1 = 4D13 − 3D12 + 1 )
tan β tan θ
D1 =
tan β tanθ + 1

D2 = 1 − D1

cos β − cos2 β − cos2 φ

K a = cos β
cos β + cos2 β − cos2 φ

⎡ K H tan φ sin β tan β

PUθf = γH ⎢ 0 A2 + ( ⎤
bD4 + H tan β tan αD42 + K 0 H tan β (tanφ sin β − tan α ) A 2 − K a b ⎥) (3-13)
⎣ tan(β − φ )cosα tan(β − φ ) ⎦

Where:

(
A2 = 4D33 − 3D32 + 1 )
tan β tan θ
D3 =
1 − tan β tanθ

D4 = 1 + D3
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 55

Figure 3-8 Assumed passive wedge type failure: a) general shape of wedge (b) forces of wedge (c)
forces on pile [Reese et al., 1974]

γ is the unit weight of soil, φ is the angle of internal friction, b is the pile diameter, H is
the depth of the point where the resistance is being computed and θ is the slope angle
measured from the horizontal. Some values can be approximated as given in eq ( 3-14a)

φ
α= ( 3-14a)
2

φ
β = 45 + (3-14b)
2

K 0 = 0.4 (3-14c)
56 Carlos Blandon

⎛ φ⎞
K a = tan 2 ⎜ 45 + ⎟ (3-14d)
⎝ 2⎠

The results obtained for typical loose (φ = 30o) and dense sands (φ = 45o) and a slope of
30o are given in Figure 3-9 in terms of the correction factor (r).

Pu slope
r= (3-15)
Pu Horizontal

0.5
0.48 45
30
0.46
0.44
Pslope/Phorizontal

0.42
0.4
0.38
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.3
0 5 10 15
Depth (m)

Figure 3-9 Correction factor for the slope condition (loose sand = 30°, Dense sand or rock fill=45°)

The material used in the dike has different mechanical properties than plain sand so the
use of data for cohesionless material can only give a rough idea of the behaviour of the
dike material. McCullough and Dickenson [2004] reported the results from tests carried
out at the port of Los Angeles by Diaz et al. [1984] in piles and soils as used in
construction practice. The average diameter (D50) of the rock material (549 mm) is very
close to the pile diameter (610 mm), 20% passing the number 4 sieve and the pile
installed approximately 1.5 meters (5 ft) back from the slope crest. Diaz defined a
modification factor (β) as shown in Figure 3-10, where he compared the ultimate soil
resistance (pu) for cohesionless soil on level surface following the procedure by
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 57

Reese(1993), with the lateral resistance for slopping rockfill (putest) for the test conditions
p
at different displacement levels of the pile head. β = utest
pu Re ese

1.2

1
Correction Factor

0.8

0.6

0.4
1 in
3 in
0.2 5 in
10 in

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Depth/Diameter

Figure 3-10. Downslope lateral resistance correction factor [Diaz et al., 1984]

The reduction of the maximum resistance is significant all along the pile with the
minimum value located at 4.5 m depth (15 ft) which is 7.5 times the pile diameter, but it
is noticeable that at the surface there is no strength reduction. As reported by
McCullough, this could be caused by the fact that when the pile moves horizontally, the
ground has to be lifted in the nearby front region of the pile. The large size of the
material cause some interlocking that is causing the soil strength to increase at the
surface.

The uncertainty associated to the P-Y curves used in design are significantly large and
come from different sources such as the lack of data and understanding of the rock
material, the dike construction and configuration and the effect of the slope. Such
uncertainties are commonly considered by using lower and upper bounds to the possible
values of the P-Y curves so that a wide range of values can be evaluated and selected for
the design of the system.

It is important to notice that the worst case would depend on the design parameter
considered: force or displacement. The use of lower bound soil springs will result on
large displacement demands which may be critical for some systems of the structure, on
58 Carlos Blandon

other hand, the use of upper bound springs will result in a higher shear force given that
the stiffer soil would induce the plastic hinge to form at a shallower depth than in the
case of the lower bound. Some values commonly used in design are a factor of 2.0 for
the upper bound and from 0.3 to 0.5 for the lower bound.

3.1.3 Coupled Modal Response Effects

Section 2.3 discussed the coupled effect caused by the large eccentricity between the
rigidity and mass centres in the longitudinal direction of the wharf. In order to capture
this phenomenon in a model that would include the piles at the same time, it would be
necessary to create a full 3-dimensional model of the entire structure. This task however
would be difficult and unpractical for designing purposes and incompatible with the level
of uncertainty associated with material characterization and earthquake excitation.

Benzoni and Priestley [2003] carried out a set of numerical analysis and compared the
maximum displacement of pile supported wharves using equivalent elastic stiffness and
inelastic hysteretic models. In this research they proposed a Dynamic Magnification
Factor (DMF) to estimate the maximum displacement demands of the critical corner pile
of the wharf (Δmax) based on the transverse response of the structure only.

The same authors developed a simplified equation approximation for the estimation for
the DMF as it is described as follows: The maximum displacement at the corner pile of a
segment, caused by a force in the longitudinal direction, is given in Eq (3-16).

Δmax = ⎛⎜
6Cw ⎞ e
⎟⋅ (3-16)
⎝ k ⎠ L

Where C is the period-dependent response acceleration coefficient, which may be

modified by the ductility, w is the weight of the structure by unit length, k is the net pile
lateral stiffness per unit length of wharf, e is the eccentricity and L the wharf length.

The variables inside the parenthesis can be taken as constants [Benzoni and Priestley,
2003], so for a segment with constant width, the maximum transverse displacement is
expected to reduce as the length of the unit increases. The reduction may be even larger
when the piles in the landward edge yield and the eccentricity between the strength centre
and the mass centre reduces.

The longitudinal displacement caused by a force in the same direction is given by eq

(3-17), hence, the ratio between the longitudinal and transverse direction can be given as
eq (3-18). From these relationships it is possible to obtain the maximum displacement of
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 59

the corner pile (Δmax) based on the transverse displacement caused by a load in the
transverse direction (Δyy).

CwL Cw
ΔL = = (3-17)
kL k

ΔT 6e
= (3-18)
ΔL L

The maximum response is estimated by the combined transverse and longitudinal

response, in a given proportion. In practice, it is common to use 100% in on direction
and 30% in the orthogonal direction. For a 100 % in the longitudinal direction (Δx) and
30 % in the transverse direction (Δy) the DMF is given by equation (3-19).

Δx = 1.0

6e ⎛ e ⎞
Δ y = 0.3 + = 0.3⎜ 1.0 + 20 ⎟
L ⎝ L⎠ (3-19)

2
Δmax ⎛ ⎛ e ⎞⎞
= 1 + ⎜ 0.3⎜ 1.0 + 20 ⎟ ⎟
Δ yy ⎝ ⎝ L ⎠⎠

In the case of 30% Δx and 100% Δy, the ratio between the transverse and maximum
displacements, which is the DMF for this case, is given by equation (3-20).

Δx = 0.3

6e
Δ y = 1.0 + 0.3
L (3-20)

2
Δmax ⎛ e ⎞
= ⎜ 1 + 1.8 ⎟ + 0.09
Δ yy ⎝ L⎠

Analyses carried out by Benzoni and Priestley [2003] suggest a value for the DMF of
about 1.10. This means that the maximum displacement of the corner pile would be 10%
larger under combined orthogonal load than for transverse load only.
60 Carlos Blandon

3.1.4 Liquefaction, Slope Stability and Settling

The dynamic performance of the slope has a direct influence in the piles and therefore in
the performance of the entire structure. Most of the damage or excessive deformations
suffered by wharf, piers, caissons and other port structures, and in general depth
foundations in the waterfront has been caused by the increase of lateral pressure of soil
[Ferrito et al., 1999], which has lead to significant efforts to improve the methods of
analysis for the interaction between the foundations and the soil.

The hazards associated to liquefaction can be the flows or slope failure due to the stresses
associated to the dike/embankment system, lateral spreading during the ground shaking
and post liquefaction settlement of the dike/embankment [POLA, 2004]. These hazards
have to be evaluated in order to verify the stability of the embankment and also to ensure
the expected levels of performance.

Liquefaction potential is analyzed in practice by means of empirical methods developed

from in situ field test results and observations. The factor of safety obtained from the
application of any of these methodologies for specific site conditions will indicate if soil
improvement will be necessary in order to keep the performance of the structure. The
procedure for the estimation of the liquefaction potential may include simple field
observations but in most cases for waterfront structures it will be necessary to carry out
field tests such as standard penetration or cone tests.

The static stability of the embankment has to be analyzed in order to establish that even
if some layers of the profile have liquefied, the slope will not fail. According to the
POLA seismic design code [2004], the factor of safety of the embankment for static slope
stability has to be larger than 1.5. The factor of safety immediately after the contingency
level earthquake (Section 1.9) has to be larger than 1.1 and the post liquefaction
undrained shear strengths of the soils should be used for this static stability analysis.

Additionally, even if static stability is accomplished, it is necessary to estimate the

settlement of the embankment to verify that this will not be excessive, so the down drag
on pile foundation is limited. A set of procedures for the evaluation of liquefaction
potential, stability, settlement and mitigation can be found elsewhere [SCEC, 1999]. As
mentioned by POLA seismic code, the procedure proposed by the Southern California
Earthquake Center (SCEC) is for level ground conditions. However, “for the soils
located beneath the dike/embankment section, the results from these analyses are
expected to be conservative”.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 61

3.1.5 Kinematic Loading

Different methodologies have been proposed for the static and dynamic analysis of the
pile-soil kinematic interaction [Tabesh and Poulos, 1997., Kavvadas and Gazetas, 1993.,
Mylonakis et al, 1997]. There are close form solutions for the displacements of piles
representing the soil as a continuum or using other techniques. However most of them
have significant limitations such as: the solution is only valid if linear behaviour of the
soil is assumed, the solution may become very complex for layered soils, etc. There are
also methods that intend to evaluate the effect on the pile from the wave propagation;
however these are not able to capture the permanent soil deformation which is the most
critical case for the wharf. The permanent soil deformation can be evaluated by using
effective stresses analyses however this procedure requires advanced software and soil
characterization. Such level of refinement is expensive and not always justifiable in
current design practice.

To reduce the level of complexity of the kinematic evaluation, POLA seismic code
proposes the use of a simplified screening analysis using the Newmark sliding block
method [Newmark, 1965] based on the assumption that the most severe case of
kinematic load on the piles is the excessive soil deformation which is mainly concentrated
on weak soil layers beneath the rock dike. As shown in Figure 3-11, the embankment is
represented by a sliding block on an inclined plane. The block slides when the sum of
the static force and the dynamic force due to the block weight exceeds the resisting force.
The equilibrium condition at yielding is defined by the yielding acceleration (ay),, which is
a function of the shear strength of the soil and the failure mechanism or slip surface. The
displacement of the block can be obtained as the double integration of the accelerations
exceeding ay.

The maximum acceptable deformation values proposed by POLA for this method are
152 mm (6 in) for the OLE performance level and 304 mm (12 in) for the CLE. In the
cases when there are thin layers of liquefiable or soft soils these limits are not valid
because the deformation are likely to be concentrated in such layers imposing excessive
curvature demands on the pile. For this case or when the deformations exceed the
maximum acceptable deformation, more detailed evaluations are recommended. For 610
mm (2 ft) diameter piles, the limit criteria are 76 mm (3 in) for OLE and 127 mm (5 in)
for CLE.

Figure 3-12 a and b have been developed in order to estimate the permanent soil
displacement based on the value of the yield acceleration [Martin, 2005]. In part a, the
figure was developed for specific seismic characteristic of the Port of Los Angeles. Part b
of the figure gives an empirical estimation of the maximum displacement based on the
earthquake magnitude and the yielding acceleration to maximum acceleration ratio. In
62 Carlos Blandon

both figures it is possible to observe large uncertainty on the estimation of the

displacements given that relatively slight changes on the yielding acceleration induce
significant changes in the displacement, especially for reduced yield accelerations.

Figure 3-11. Newmark sliding block method [Newmark 1965]

5.0

4.5

4.0

3.5
Displacement (ft)

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30
Yield Acceleration, ky (g)

a) Relative conditions for PORT of los Angeles b) Empirical observations

Figure 3-12 Relationships between yield acceleration and permanent ground displacement (sliding
block) [Makdisi and Seed, 1978]
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 63

3.1.6 Inertial Loading

A refined model for the estimation of the inertial loading would consist of a fully soil
structure coupled time history analysis of 3 dimensional finite element representation of
all the piles connected by the deck. The soil could be represented by solid elements with
constitutive models for the effective stresses characteristics of the soil. However, such
level of refinement would be unpractical for design and difficult to create even for
research purposes. Some examples of this kind of models have been studied by Yang et
al. [2003] and Lu [2006] and are still under development.

The mentioned refinement model can be simplified from three dimensional to two
dimensional models by using several assumptions and techniques which result in reliable
models that can be used in design practice. This reduction is possible, in part, due to the
fact that the deck out of plane stiffness is significantly large compared to the bending
stiffness of the supporting piles so it ensures a fixed head condition of the pile and also
rigid displacements along the deck. The 3-dimensional problem can be represented by a
2 dimensional model of a transverse section and a 2 dimensional model of a plan section
[Priestley 2003] as shown in Figure 3-13. The location of the equivalent pile nodes and
the characterization of the springs representing these equivalent piles are defined based
on the geometry and mechanical characteristics of all the piles of the wharf segment.

The model of the transverse section is used to analyze the pile response taking into
account the soil pile interaction and also the pile deck connection. In this model, the soil
is represented by P-Y curves described in section 3.1.2, which considerably reduces the
analytical effort. The soil springs are closely spaced in order to reproduce accurately the
load on the piles; such functions however have a considerable uncertainty. In order to
overcome design problems arising from the modelling of the soil with the P-Y transfer
functions, designers use a lower and lower bound for the soil capacity and the sensitivity
of the results are analyzed for these bounds.

The plan section model is used to evaluate the response of the system, including the
torsional response caused by the stiffness difference due to the different pile length. The
piles in this model are represented by springs with longitudinal and transverse stiffness;
however, due to the large number of elements in a wharf section Benzoni and Priestley
[2003] suggested a procedure to group them in a few equivalent “super” piles; an example
of this can be found elsewhere [Priestley, 2000]. In this reference, the author also
suggests four methods for the estimation of the displacement demand and capacity of the
system as described in the next sections.
64 Carlos Blandon

Corner Pile at
row F

Segment Edge (Shear key

node for linked segments) Equivalent Piles

Center of Mass

Rigid Connecting
Elements

Pile Equivalent Springs

Equivalent Piles Sea
Front

Corner Pile at
row F

F E D C B A

The effect of the

soil represented
by distributed
Springs

Figure 3-13 Geometric characteristic of typical segments, plan view (left) and transverse section
(right)

3.1.6.1 Equivalent Single Mode Analysis

This method of analysis is based on the push over analyses of a transverse section of the
wharf system combined with a modal analysis using a predefined design spectrum. The
period of the structure is defined as:

Fy
K y=
Δy
( 3-21)
W
T = 2π
gK y
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 65

Where Ky is the initial stiffness of a bilinear approximation of the force (F) –

displacement (Δ) results of the push over analyses for the wharf transverse section. W is
the weight of the transverse section and g is the gravity acceleration constant. The design
pseudo spectral acceleration (Sa) is obtained from the design spectrum at the period
obtained using equation ( 3-21) and finally, the elastic lateral force (FE) is computed as
shown in equation ( 3-22).

FE = Sa ( T )W ( 3-22)

By using the equal displacement approximation, the inelastic design displacement is equal
to the elastic displacement of the system as shown in Figure 3-14. Hence the design
displacement is obtained as given by equation ( 3-23)

FE

Ky

Δd Δ

Figure 3-14 Equal displacement approximation

FE
Δd = ( 3-23)
Ky

This procedure can be extended for the combined transverse and longitudinal response
of the wharf system by using the approximations described in section 3.1.3. The
eccentricity (e) required by equation (3-19) is defined as the difference between the centre
of mass and the centre of strength defined by equation ( 3-24) with reference to a
selected datum as shown in Figure 3-15.

XT =
∑ n iVi x i ( 3-24)
∑ n iVi
66 Carlos Blandon

Where ni is the number of piles in the tributary length of row i, Vi is the shear force on
each pile on row i at a specified displacement which is obtained from the push over
analysis and xi is the distance of row i from the specified datum.

ni for rowF = 2

Row F (Datum)
XT
Row E
e
Row D

Row C

Row B
Row A

Centre of Mass

Figure 3-15 Definition of eccentricity

3.1.6.2 Multi-Mode Response

This method requires the modelling of a plan wharf segment, reducing the large number
of piles by using equivalent “super piles” of equivalent translational and torsional
stiffness. A push over analyses of a transverse section with a defined width is also
required in order to obtain the force – displacement nonlinear behaviour of the
supporting piles for the total system. The results from the push over analysis are then
used to define the geometry and nonlinear properties of the “super pile” springs. The
location of the supper piles in the longitudinal direction corresponds to the radius of
gyration of the wharf section, as given by Eq ( 3-25), in order to ensure a correct
torsional modelling. In the transverse direction, the piles are located at the centre of
strength at both sides of the centreline of the wharf (Figure 3-16).

L
X= ( 3-25)
2 3
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 67

ni for rowF = 2 Super Piles

Row F (Datum for row D to F))

XT (superpile for row F
Row E

Row D

Row C

XT (superpile for row Row B

ABC) Row A (Datum for row A to C)

X
-
L

Figure 3-16 Location of super piles

The stiffness of “super piles” is assigned as the sum of the stiffness of the piles located in
each of the corresponding quadrants of the wharf segment. The weight has to be also
distributed to these equivalent pile elements by applying equilibrium. Once, the model
has been defined and constructed into any dynamic analysis program, it is possible to
obtain the modal response of the system, the participation factor (pi), and the normalized
mode factor (φi).

This method will result in the same answer as the previous method (equivalent single
mode) for the pure transverse response of the wharf. The response under a combined
longitudinal and transverse load can be obtained from the system modal characteristics
and the displacement design spectra at period T (SΔi(T)) as given by equation ( 3-26). The
displacements, from this equation, obtained for all modes in each direction (Δi) are then
combined using SSRS or CQC. However, the complete quadratic combination (CQC)
method should be use when the vibration modes are close one to the other [Wilson et al
1981]. Finally, the displacements obtained at the “super piles” have to be extrapolated to
the exterior elements where the maximum demand will be located.

Δi = pi φi S Δi ( T ) ( 3-26)

Total response of the system (ΔD) is estimated by the combination of the resultant
longitudinal and transverse modal response. There are some efforts that have been
carried out in order to define the proportion of the orthogonal load to be used in the
combination [SEQAD, 1998] for which the equations ( 3-27) and ( 3-28) can be used.
68 Carlos Blandon

Δx = Δxx + 0.3Δxy

Δ y = Δ yx + 0.3Δ yy ( 3-27)

ΔD = Δ2 + Δ2y
x

Δx = 0.3Δxx + Δxy

Δ y = 0.3Δ yx + Δ yy ( 3-28)

ΔD = Δ2 + Δ2y
x

3.1.6.3 Substitute Structure Approach

The transverse response obtained with this method is based on the inelastic push over
analyses of the transverse section, the effective stiffness at maximum response and the
estimation of equivalent elastic damping at the same point following the procedure
proposed by Shibata and Sozen [1976]. This is a trial and error method following the
next steps:

• Assume maximum displacement Δmax

• Estimate effective stiffness (Keff) and period (Teff ) for this assumed displacement
(Figure 3-17)

Fmax
Fy rKo
Ko
Keff
Ko Keff
Fy

Non-linear SDOF Δy Δmax Linear Substitute

Structure

Figure 3-17 Substitute structure.

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 69

• Estimate equivalent damping (ξeff ) for estimated displacement for which

equation ( 3-29) may be used [Kowalsky 1994]. μ is the ductility at Δmax. The
estimation of the equivalent viscous damping is a critical step in this procedure.
Grant el al. [2004] carried out a study on the topic and found that in several cases, the
theoretical equations from the hysteretic envelope overestimate the equivalent.
Grant el al proposed several modifications to the theoretical equations to estimate the
total equivalent viscous damping for different hysteretic rules.

2 ⎧⎪ 3 α −1 1 ⎡ rβμ ⎛ 1⎞ ⎤
ξ eq = ξ o + ⎨1 − μ − ⎢ ⎜⎜ 1 − ⎟⎟ + 1⎥ ⋅
π ⎪⎩ 4 4⎣ γ ⎝ μ⎠ ⎦
( 3-29)
1 ⎡ rβ 2 μ ⎛ 1 ⎞ ⎤ ⎫⎪
2
⎡ ⎛ 1⎞ α −1 ⎤
⎢ 2 − β −
⎜⎜ μ ⎟⎟
1 − μ γ ⎥− ⎢ ⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟ ⎥ ⎬
1
⎣ ⎝ ⎠ ⎦ 4 ⎢⎣ γ ⎝ μ ⎠ ⎥⎦ ⎪⎭

• Obtain displacement from response spectra Δspec. The reduced displacement

response spectra can be obtained by using the reduction factor (η) given by Eq (
3-30) as suggested in Eurocode 8.

5+ξ ( 3-30)
η=
10

• Repeat the procedure until convergence of displacements (Figure 3-18)

5%
Displacement

ξeff
Δspec

Teff
Period

Figure 3-18. Selection of the displacement from the reduced spectrum.

Bidirectional loading is considered by using the dynamic magnification factor which can
be the one given by eq (3-19).
70 Carlos Blandon

3.1.6.4 Time history analyses

This methodology consists in the nonlinear time history analyses of the model
constructed following the steps described for the multi mode analysis. The nonlinear
characteristics of the super pile springs are given by a hysteretic model and the system is
excited with an earthquake record in one direction or two directions simultaneously. This
method was used by Priestley [2000] to study the response of different configurations of
marginal wharves linked segments; one of the models is shown in Figure 3-19.

Figure 3-19 model for a linked linear segments of a marginal wharf [Benzoni and Priestley, 2003]

The inelastic time history analysis is a more complicated approach compared with the
previous methodologies, however these simpler methods have some drawbacks that can
only be overcome using nonlinear analyses. In conventional design, elastic forces are
divided by load reduction factors in order to obtain inelastic design forces. However, in
the case of wharves, this methodology is not correct due to the large difference on
curvature and rotational demand between the piles at the land side and the water side. In
the case of linked segments, these approaches are not reliable for estimating the forces on
the shear key elements which is a function of the relative displacement between
segments.

The single mode analyses and the substitute structure analyses can’t estimate directly the
total response of the system caused by loads in two orthogonal directions, including the
effect on linked segments. A dynamic Magnification Factor (DMF) has been used in
practice to obtain the maximum vectorial displacement based only on the transverse
response of the segment. However, inelastic time history analyses are the only way to
verify these magnification factors.

Inelastic time history analysis is the closest numerical representation of the real physical
phenomenon and the most complete analysis methodology for the estimation of the
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 71

wharf system response including the couple effect and shear key forces. However, this
approach requires time, experience and careful interpretation of the results; Hence, this
method is generally used to calibrate simplify procedure or to analyze complicated
structural systems. “Results obtained following this method should always be compared
with results from simpler analyses” [Priestley 2000].

3.1.7 Simplified Transverse Kinematic and Inertial Coupled Interaction

The dynamic response analysis of the piles is a problem of wave propagation which
included reflection, refraction and attenuation of the waves. The modelling of these
phenomena can be carried out using linear and non-linear approaches however the elastic
approaches have shown to be crude, especially when the inertial effects of the structure
are to be taken into account [Poulos, 1997]. Due to the complexity of the pile soil
interaction, the response of the system is evaluated using some of the methodologies
shown in the previous sections. These approaches are based on the assumption that the
kinematic and inertial interaction can be analyzed as uncoupled phenomena, which means
that for the inertial interaction, the free field deformation of the ground in the vicinity of
the piles may be ignored [POLA, 2004] and the response spectra for design is not
significantly modified by the pile.

Previous analyses show that the induced maximum moments in upper section of the pile
are caused by the inertial interaction [Martin, 2005] whilst the moments at the lower
portion of the pile are induced by the kinematic interaction. These maximum moments
are located apart from each other and it is assumed that the total response can be
obtained by superimposing the results from separate analyses. One additional argument
for recommending this uncoupled approach was that the loading conditions tend to
induce maximum moments at these different locations at different times during the
earthquake. It was observed that the largest effect of inertial interaction was at the
strongest stage of the motion, whilst kinematic interaction was cumulative and the
maximum effect was at the end of the excitation.

The nonlinear analyses of the soil pile interaction can take into account the inertial and
the kinematic interaction. However, to exact modelling of all the variables using finite
elements requires advanced skills, computational capacity and time. Due to the
increasing concern on the effects of the kinematic interaction on the total response of the
system, some authors have developed simplified methodologies and modelling tools for
the coupled analyses of the pile soil interaction using Beam-on-Dynamic-Winkler-
Foundation (BDWF) models as shown in Figure 3-20 [Finn, 2005, Boulager, 2003,
Poulos and Tabesh, 1997, Kavvadas and Gazetas,1993].
72 Carlos Blandon

Figure 3-20 Coupled kinematic and inertial interaction model [Wilson et al., 2000]

The pile and superstructure are connected to a soil column by a set of nonlinear P-Y
springs and dashpots used to model the stiffness and damping of the interaction system.
The definition of the different components of the springs has been studied by Boulanger
et al. [1999, 2003] and Hesham et al. [2000] among others. In general, the spring is
divided in a near field and a far field spring which may model nonlinear behaviour close
to the pile interface, gapping, drag forces, viscous damping, etc. Figure 3-21 shows a
model proposed by Boulanguer [1999].

Figure 3-21 Non-linear P-Y spring as proposed by Boulanger [2002]

The near field is where all the plastic response is concentrated and it is formed by three
components: drag and closure springs in parallel which model the interaction between the
pile and the soil when the gap is open and the third components is a plastic spring to
represent the nonlinear behaviour of the pile and soil when the gap is closed. The far
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 73

field is formed by an elastic spring representing the soil under low strains and a dashpot
in parallel to the spring that is used to consider the radiation damping. Matlock’s [1970]
backbone for soft clay and API’s envelope for sands can be approximated by using
specific values of the constants involved in the equations. It is important to mention that
the slope in which the piles are founded will produce a non symmetrical response of the
structure so it would be necessary to define springs with different characteristics for the
upslope and down slope directions.

The dynamic P-Y curves can be enhanced in order to represent the liquefaction of the
soils given that during liquefaction the soil may flow around the pile reducing the lateral
pressure on them. If the original P-Y curves are used it is possible to overestimate the
imposed demand on the piles [Singht,2002]. Some tests and recommendations have been
proposed by Boulanger [2003] and Arduino [2002].

The analyses of the model shown in Figure 3-20 can be carried out by performing 1D
wave propagation analysis of the soil column and then the soil response is applied to the
structural elements through the nonlinear P-Y springs. This procedure has to be carried
out with caution given that the results can be significantly different according to the
assumptions made and the software capability. Roth [2003] reported results of a set of
coupled kinematic analyses using simple soil models and finite element model of the soil
with the capability of performing effective stress analyses.

The results obtained by Roth [2003] for coupled interaction analyses of a 2 dimensional
section of a wharf showed that the damage (plastic hinge) would occur in the connection
between the shortest pile and the deck, which is a typical expected behaviour for an
uncoupled inertial interaction.

Figure 3-22 Results from kinematic analysis using simplified sol model [Roth, 2003]
74 Carlos Blandon

Additional analyses performed using effective stress model of the soil showed that the
damage would occur at a significantly more extensive locations as shown in Figure 3-23.
Location of the plastic hinges is concentrated at the pile deck connection and the zone
with large stiffness change. Piles also have a pin effect on the embankment as shown in
Figure 3-24. Residual displacements of the embankment are reduced by the presence of
the piles.

Figure 3-23 Plastic hinge distribution for Kocaeli-Duzce 180 ground motion [From Roth 2003]

Figure 3-24 Couple (soil and wharf) and uncoupled (without wharf) displacement profile. [From
Roth 2003]

These results show that in cases when the embankment is susceptible to suffer large
permanent displacements due to large earthquake intensities or deficiency in the
construction, it is necessary to perform detailed analyses using coupled kinematic and
inertial interaction models and tools that allow modelling the effect of pore pressure build
up into the soil. For new design structures, some screening methodologies where
mentioned in section 3.1.5, but when the limits defined for the given performance levels
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 75

can’t be achieved, it is also requires to use more refined analyses, that in most cases
involve modelling of the soil as a continuum using finite element techniques. A further
section describes some of the methodologies that have been used and are under
development for this type of analyses.

3.1.8 Displacement Capacity Estimation

The displacement capacity of the piles is determined by the material strain at a given
performance limit on the critical sections of the element as previously defined in Table
1-3. A rigorous evaluation of the capacity would require a push over analyses of the pile
modelled with significantly small elements in order to capture accurately the plastic hinge
length and the section curvature at each load step. Displacement capacity can be defined
at the instant when one of the materials, which compose the critical section, reaches the
limit value for a performance level. The continuous monitoring of the curvatures and a
more relaxed division of the pile element can be avoided by using a more simple
procedure [Priestley, 2000]; in which the displacement capacity is obtained from the
curvature of the critical section for a performance level, the plastic hinge location, the
yielding displacement and an assumed plastic hinge length.

Yielding displacement (Δy) can be directly obtained from the push over analyses and the
displacement capacity for the defined performance level (Δpl) is obtained by adding the
plastic displacement (Δp) as Eq ( 3-31). Φp and θp are the plastic curvature and rotation
up to (Δpl) and L is the length from the plastic hinge to the inflexion point (pile is in
double bending) as shown in Figure 3-25

( 3-31)
Δ pl = Δ y + θ p L
θ p = (φ pl − φ y ) ⋅ l p ( 3-32)

The curvatures corresponding to yielding (φy) and to the performance levels (φpl) are
defined from the moment curvature analyses of the critical sections based on material
strains. The critical sections to control are the pile/deck connection and in-ground
plastic hinge in the pile. The value of the plastic hinge for the connection can be
estimated according to the expression given by Eq ( 3-33) [Priestley,1993].

l p = 0.08 L + 0.15 f y d b ≥ 0.30 f y d b (units in Ksi, in)

( 3-33)
l p = 0.08 L + 0.022 f y d b ≥ 0.044 f y d b (units in MPa, mm)
76 Carlos Blandon

Wharf Deck
Ground Surface L

Plastic Hinge
L

Figure 3-25 Plastic hinge location and inflexion point

The equation is composed by two terms; the first one which is proportional to the
elements length represents the spreads of plasticity along the element. The second part
of the equation which is a function of the reinforcement characteristics represents the
strain penetration inside the node. The hinge length has to be larger than the strain
penetration at both sides of connection (inside the node and inside the element).

The previous equation has been obtained empirically based on observations from test in
reinforced concrete elements. However, the conditions are different in the case of the
supporting piles due to the fact that the surrounding soil provides a distributed lateral
reaction instead of a concentrated reaction. In section 2.2.1, it was shown that the plastic
hinge length depends on the soil-pile relative stiffness, the above grade hinge and the pile
diameter. These specific conditions for wharves may result in different expression for
the estimation of displacements and plastic hinge length.

3.1.9 P-Δ Effects

Wharves are structures with large redundancy due to the significant amount of piles used
to support the deck; additionally, the design for lateral loads is constrained by the
maximum displacement capacity of the shortest corner piles at the shoreline side. These
two factors indicate that the P-D effects are not a critical condition for typical wharves.

The Port of Los Angeles seismic code requires that Equation ( 3-34) is satisfied so no
further analyses are required. This expression depends on the lateral resistance (F) at
design displacement (Δmax) per unit length of wharf, the axial weight (P) of the structure
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 77

per unit length of wharf, and the distance between locations of pile-top and in-ground
hinges. This distance is estimated as the addition of the pile length with minimum
ground clearance (CG) and 2.2 times the pile diameter (Dp) that is approximately the
depth to the location of the in-ground hinge. For typical wharf pile section, axial loads
and geometry this check will indicate that no further analyses are required.

F Δmax
> 3. 3 ( 3-34)
P CG + 2.2D p

3.2 CONTINUUM BASED APPROACH

The simplified approaches described in the previous section are a useful tool for the
analysis and design of pile supported wharves and in general are preferred in the design
practice for simplicity. However, these methods have limitations when it comes to the
detailed modelling of the complex soil-pile-structure interaction phenomenon. The
dynamic modelling of wave propagation, geometry effects of the slope, residual
deformations from liquefaction or lateral spreading and inertial response have to be
separated in order to use simplified analysis procedures. The use of continuum models
allows combining most of the variables of the problem and even if they are not justifiable
to be used for every design, they constitute an important tool for the modelling of the
real phenomenon that can help to understand and assess the effect of each variable
involved and to verify and to calibrate simplified analysis methodologies.

3.2.1 Analysis Examples

An example of the use of a continuum model for the calibration of a simple methodology
is the work by He et al [2004] who used a finite element model for the calibration of P-Y
springs for sands. The P-Y used for practical applications have been developed
empirically from full-scale test with specific conditions of soil, structural elements and
boundary retrains that are not the same than those found on real designs. The idea of
using finite element models was to take advantage of a versatile methodology that could
help extrapolating the P-Y to different conditions without the need of carrying out costly
and time consuming physical modelling of pile-soil systems with different conditions.

The model was implemented using only 3-D half mesh (Figure 3-26) because of the
symmetry of the problem. The soil was represented with eight-node solid elements, and
the pile was modelled with beam elements. These two, pile and soil, were connected
together by rigid beam elements (1000 time larger than the pile) which represent the
dimension of the pile transverse section. There was no special interface element given
78 Carlos Blandon

that the soil constitutive model is already able to capture the nonlinear behaviour of the
soil at this location.

Based on calibration with a theoretical formulation developed by Abedzadeh and Pak

[2004] and Davies and Budhu [1986], the finite element model mesh was set to 10 pile
diameters in depth and 100 pile diameters in radius. The model was then further tested
with results from a full-scale lateral load pile and it was found that when the nonlinear
behaviour of the soil was used, the finite element mesh could be reduced from 100 to 25
pile diameters radius.

The calibrated finite element model was then used for developing P-Y curves by a push
over analyses for two different lateral load conditions: a load applied at 0.305 (1 ft) above
ground and a load applied at ground level. It was found that the P-Y below some depth
are sensitive to this load condition and as shown in Figure 3-27 they become stronger as
the load is applied closer to the ground level (L1 for the load at 0.3 m above ground and
L2 for the load right at ground level).

Figure 3-26 Finite model mesh for calibration of P-Y curves fro sand [He et al, 2004]
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 79

Figure 3-27 Calibrated P-Y curves for sand [He et al, 2004]

A similar approach was used by Yang and Jeremic [2002] who used the finite element
model to evaluate the response of a lateral loaded pile embedded in layered elastic-plastic
soils. The finite element model was calibrated with results from a centrifugal test by
McVay et al. [1998) and Zhang et al. [1999] and then the P-Y curves developed were
compared with those from the analysis program LPILE [Reese et al, 2000].

The authors used 10 node brick elements for soil, pile and interface based on the fact that
these elements have high accuracy even for high aspect ratios and also they can model
bending of solid piles with two layers of elements. After conducting a sensitivity analysis
with larger number of elements with lower aspect ratios, it was found that the
improvement of the results was not significant so the model shown in Figure 3-28 was
used. The pile is constructed with 4 elements per section with the mechanic properties of
aluminium.

The interface layer was used to allow modelling the effect of different pile installation
procedures: driller or driven. This interface also allows modelling gapping and
controlled, coupled horizontal and vertical stiffness. The final results regarding to the P-
Y springs indicate that, compared to the results from LPILE which is extensively used in
practice, there are some discrepancies on the ultimate pressures in shallow soil layers.
80 Carlos Blandon

0.43 m square
pile

Intercalated
Layer of Clay
or Sand

10 node brick
elements

Figure 3-28 Finite Element Mesh for Layered Soil Analyses [Yang and Jeremic, 2002]

Regarding to the layering, it was found that for the case of sand with an intermediate
layer of clay there was a significant reduction of the contact pressure of the sand
extending well above the interface compared to the uniform sand case Figure 3-29.

Figure 3-29 Contact pressure reduction ratio – Uniform sand vs sand with soft clay layer [Yang and
Jeremic, 2002]
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 81

The continuum models have also been used for the dynamic analyses of entire structural
systems such as bridges and wharves [Conte el al., 2002. Lu, 2006]. Figure 3-30 shows the
finite element geometry and soil mesh of the Humboldt Bay Middle Channel Bridge
modelled with OpenSees and including a variety of sophisticated numerical features for
the different system components. The bridge piers were modelled in 2-D, using
nonlinear material, fibre beam-column elements formulated using a flexibility approach
based on the exact interpolation of the internal forces [Spacone et al. 1996]. The pile
groups were modelled by equivalent linear single piles; the superstructure was represented
by equivalent linear elastic beam-column elements. The joints on the superstructure were
modelled with zero-length elastoplastic gap-hook elements and the abutment wall effect
was modelled using rigid diaphragm constraints (Figure 3-31). In addition, the
constitutive soil model had the capability of conducting effective stresses analyses for the
evaluation of liquefaction and lateral soil spreading.

This refined model is still under development and is being used for probabilistic analyses
in order to observe the change of behaviour of the system for the variation of different
parameters such as seismic input, boundary conditions and soil parameterization.

There are also cases for which continuum models have been used for the analyses of
wharf structures. Martin [2005] used a 2-D model, created in the software FLAC, for the
kinematic analysis of a wharf section at the port of Los Angeles (Figure 3-32). This
software is based on an explicit finite difference formulation and the nonlinear properties
of the soil are modelled by an equivalent nonlinear method.

a) Aerial view

b) FEM model
Figure 3-30 Humboldt Bay Middle Channel bridge [Conte el al, 2002]
82 Carlos Blandon

Figure 3-31 Abutment Joint [Conte el al, 2002]

The main purpose of the model was focused on the geotechnical analyses of the
embankment-pile system in terms of displacement (Figure 3-33), therefore the pile were
set as elastic elements. Additionally, the required grid for modelling the soil is not refined
enough to reach the resolution required for the nonlinear analysis of the pile elements;
note that the discritization length of the elements in the actual model is 2.5 ft (0.76 m);
however, the plastic hinge length for the piles on the model is close to 1 to 1.5 the pile
diameter [Budeck, 1997]. This means that the required length in order to capture the
nonlinearity of the pile should be close to ½ the element diameter which is 2 ft (0.61 m).
The displacement and stresses profile along the pile were used as input data for further
analyses aimed to estimate the curvature demands on the pile however the level of
accuracy on the results leaded to unrealistic curvature profiles on the pile.
Beam
Soil Grid Elements
Design Water Level = El. +5'

0
Pile Elements
(minimum discretization length = 2.5')
-50
Elevation (ft)

-100

-150

-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300

Distance (ft)

Figure 3-32 Finite Element Representation Of Pola Berth 147 [Martin, 2005]
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 83

Maximum
Undeformed structures displacement
= 11.1 inches
0
Deformed shape

-50
Elevation (ft)

-100

-150

-400 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300

Distance (ft)
Notes:
1. Undeformed soil grid not shown for clarity.
2. Magnification factor for plotted displacement = 10.

Figure 3-33 Deformed Mesh of Pola Berth 147 for CLE Ground Motion [Martin, 2005]

One additional example about the use of continua modelling on a specific case of
dynamic analyses of wharves is the one carried by Lu [2006] as part of a research program
about Paralel Finite Element Modelling using the software ParCyclic. Lu modelled a
transverse section of the Berth 100 at the port of Los Angeles using 2-D and 3-D mesh
configurations with different levels of refinement (Figure 3-34). The piles were
embedded in a profile composed by a dense clay layer at the bottom and a medium dense
clay layer at the top. The clay material was modelled as a nonlinear hysteretic material
[Parra 1996; Yang 2000; Yang et al. 2003] with a Von Mises multi-surface [Iwan 1967;
Mroz 1967] kinematic plasticity model. The constitutive model selected allows
representing monotonic or cyclic response of materials whose shear behaviour is
insensitive to the confinement change.

Due to the large number of elements and complexity of the model, the problem was
solved using a parallelized algorithm. The drawback of this was that the pile had to be
modelled with the only element that was available in the algorithm. This was a brick
element with elastic properties and an equivalent stiffness that could not capture the
effect of the pile inelasticity. 20 node brick elements were used for modelling the piles
the deck and soil; some additional damping was also included into the model using a
stiffness proportional damping with a coefficient of 0.003.
84 Carlos Blandon

a)

b)
Figure 3-34 Finite Element Configuration for Paralell Finite Element Model of Berth 100 a) 2-D
model. b) 3-D model (model isometric view and plan view of wharf section) [Lu, 2006].

PIANC [2001] has more examples of soil structure interaction models using effective
stress analyses with the software FLIP (Finite element analysis of Liquefaction Program),
[Iai et al, 1992]. One of these examples was the modeling of a wharf damaged during the
Hyogoken-Nambu earthquake in 1995 (Figure 3-37). The piles were characterized by
elastoplastic beam elements and the soil was modeled with linear springs with a subgrade
reaction modulus of 147 KN/m3. What was surprising is that the kinematic interaction
induced buckling on the pile section embedded in a layer of alluvial sand and in the pile
head of the piles at the sea front, not at the land side which would be the expected
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 85

location to suffer most of the damage according to the current conventional design that
only considers the effect of the inertial interaction.

a)

b)

Figure 3-35 Displaced Mesh of Berth 100 a) 2-D model. b) 3-D model [Lu, 2006]
86 Carlos Blandon

Figure 3-36 Close view of wharf Displaced Mesh of Berth 100. [Lu, 2006]

Figure 3-37 FLIP model of a damaged pile supported wharf during the Hyogoken-Nambu
earthquake [Iai, 2006]

3.2.2 Pile-Soil Dynamic Analysis

The dynamic pile-soil interaction involves numerous variables that have shown to be a
challenge for computer modelling. Some of these variables are the constitutive non-
linear soil models, including the effect of the water pressure build up; the interface
elements between pile and soil, the representation of the boundary conditions of the
continuous media, etc. Some approaches and methodologies used by researchers and
practitioners to tackle these problems are briefly discussed.

One of the first issues observed was the selected numerical method used for the solution
of the dynamic soil-structure interaction problem. As observed on the previous section,
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 87

finite elements and finite differences are the preferred choices; being the finite elements
more the most common alternative. In general, finite elements is a more powerful
method for the problem discretization [Muir, 2004], and the Finite difference method
results to be less complicated for simple problems [Ghershman, 2005]. The seismic code
from the port of Los Angeles suggest the use of finite elements or finite differences when
the soil structure kinematic interaction has a significant effect on the slope and the
structure; it also suggests to perform sensitivity analyses in order to evaluate the factors
affecting the results [POLA 2004].

Each method selected and in fact, each algorithm programmed into the software selected
(commercial or academic) may have different requirements on the parameters that should
be used for the construction and analysis of the model such as time step or size element.
The equation governing the dynamic problem is given as;

mx&&( t ) + cx& ( t ) + kx ( t ) = F( t ) ( 3-35)

Where m, c and k are the mass, damping and stiffness characterizing the system and F(t)
is the external force exiting it. X(t) is the array of displacements that satisfy equilibrium at
each instant of time. The numerical formulation of the equation to be solved can be
given in implicit or explicit form. In the explicit form, the solution at the following time
step (Xt+Δt) can be predicted using the available solution at the present (Xt) and past (Xt-
Δt) steps (Muir 2004).

⎛ 1 1 ⎞ 1 1
⎜ 2 m+ ⎟ x t + Δt = Ft − kx t + 2 m( 2 ⋅ x t − x t − Δt ) + c ⋅ x t − Δt
⎝ Δt 2 Δt ⎠ Δt 2 Δt 2

However this equation is conditionally stable and the time step used for integration
requires that:

2
Δt ≤
ωmax

Where ωmax is the maximum natural frequency of the system.

In a discretized system, for an element of length L the time step should be sufficiently
small so that the information of a wave passing along the element can be captured.
Hence, if the wave is travelling at a velocity (vp), the time step should be:
88 Carlos Blandon

L
Δt ≤
vp

4G
K+
vp = 3
ρ

Where K is the bulk modulus G is the shear modulus and ρ is the density of the material
through which the wave is propagating.

Additionaly to stability, the model has to converge; and in general, the requirements for
convergence will require the time step to be considerably smaller than for stability [Itasca,
2000]. So for codes such as FLAC that use this explicit approach, the time step may
result to be very small if small elements of stiff material are used. One additional
criterion for defining the model mesh in addition to stability and convergence is accuracy.
A suggested procedure found in the literature is to use at least ten elements per
wavelength [Kuhlemeyer and Lysmer, 1973]

The implicit formulation requires information from the future step in order to solve the
predictive equation. On example of implicit scheme is the widely used Newmark
integration scheme.

Δt 2
x t + Δt = x t + Δt ⋅ x& t + [(1 − 2 β )x&&t + 2 β ⋅ x&&t +Δt ]
2
x& t + Δt = x& t + Δt [(1 − γ )x&&t + γ ⋅ x&&t + Δt ]

Substituting these into Eq. ( 3-35)

⎛ m cγ ⎞ m cγ m cγ m cγΔt
⎜⎜ + + k ⎟⎟x t + Δt = Ft + Δt + xt + x + x& − cx& t + x& t + (1 − 2 β )x&&t − cΔt (1 − γ )x&&t + (1 − 2 β )x&&t
⎝ βΔt
2
βΔt ⎠ βΔt 2 βΔt t βΔt t β 2β 2β

Even if this scheme requires more resources to be solved, it is shown to be more

numerically stable than the explicit scheme. In nonlinear analysis, the values of c and k
depend on the properties of the system at the time t+Δt therefore some iterative
techniques are required for the solution of the equation.

Newmark scheme has different variations depending on the value of β and γ selected.
Some common choices are γ =0.5 and β =0.25 which is know as the constant average
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 89

acceleration method. Other option commonly used is γ =0.5 and β =0.25( γ + 0.5)2
which induces a slight artificial damping to the results [Cook et al., 1989]. In this scheme
the time step should be small enough to capture the response at the largest frequency that
is considered to be important [Muir, 2004].

There are several methodologies that have been used for the dynamic modelling of the
soil continuum and that even now are under development. The different approaches
include linear equivalent total stresses, nonlinear total stresses, and effective stresses. The
first approach in based on the shear strength degradation curves and damping as function
of the strain which have been widely used for one-dimensional site response with well
know programs as SHAKE [Schnabel et al., 1972]; however this approach has shown to
have some important limitations such as not being able to compute residual deformations
and the application beyond one percent strain deformation is questionable [PIANC,
2001].

The nonlinear models based on the constitutive modelling of the soil have the capability
to include the residual deformation of the soil in the analyses. However there are two
different mathematical formulations of the numerical analyses of the problem: total
stresses and effective stresses. These two alternatives are related to the ability to include
the effect of the water pressure build up which depending on the soil material will have a
considerable effect its dynamic characteristics.

In current practice, the most common approach has been the total stress analysis using
some techniques to compensate for the water pressure build up. In order to include the
progressive increase of the excess water pressure, the effective stress analysis approach
should be used. However this approach is still under development and is currently used
only for research purposes.

3.2.3 Constitutive Modelling of Soils under Earthquake Loading

The nonlinear dynamic modelling of soil requires the selection of a constitutive model
that can simulate the idealized behaviour of the specific type of soil. These constitutive
rules are composed by three basic parts: yield function, flow rule and hardening rules.
The yield function describes a surface known as “Yield Surface” below which the soil is
elastic. The plastic deformation only occurs when the stress reaches the yield surface.
The description and numerical representation of each of these components for different
type of soil models can be found elsewhere [Prevost, 1985].
90 Carlos Blandon

The constitutive models used for a given analysis may have different levels of refinement
depending on the problem to be modelled. In section 3.2.1 the soil models used for the
different examples had different levels of refinement and properties for the different
soils. The model used by Yang and Jeremic [2002] was a simple elastoplastic model with
a simple Drucker-Prager model for the sand and a Von Mises model for the clay (Figure
3-38). The author mentions that “Drucker–Prager model can overpredict the friction
angle to triaxial extension stress path. However, this influence is limited to the zone
behind the pile, within the interface zone and thus this drawback of the Drucker–Prager
model was neglected”. Based on the results obtained, it was concluded that the 3-D
model with these simple elastic-plastic constitutive rules was enough to estimate the pile
head deflection with good accuracy.

Figure 3-38 Yield surfaces for the elastoplastic model used fro push over analyses Dricker-Prager
(left) and Von Mises (Right), Yang and Jeremic [2002]

The models used by He et al. [2004], Conte et al. [2002] and Lu et al. [2006] are more
refined and based on the multi-surface plasticity concept [Prevost, 1985], which consist
on nested yielding surfaces that allow capturing the variable hardening function of the
plastic soil behaviour. These yielding surfaces have a shape of hyper-cylinders; in the case
of Von-Misses yield surface and conical shape for the Drucker Prager model (Figure
3-39). The yield surfaces may harden kinematically, or isotropically, or in a combination
of both kinds of hardening [Khoei and Jamali, 2004].
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 91

Figure 3-39 Nested yield surfaces, Drucker-Prager (left) and Von Mises (Right), [Prevost, 1985., Lu
2006., Parra et al 1996]

The soil model for the sand or clays can be used to capture features such as: dependence
of soil stiffness and shear strength upon effective pressure, dependence of pore water
pressure on shear loading, reproduction of large cyclic mobility shear strain accumulation
mechanism (used for estimating residual displacement due to lateral spreading in sands).
The features previously described can be achieved by using a purely deviatoric nonlinear
kinematic hardening rule [Prevost, 1985; Elgamal et al., 2001]; and a non-associative flow
rule to describe the soil contractive/dilative (dilatancy) behaviour under shear loading
[Elgamal et al., 2001], with the non-associativity restricted to the volumetric component
of the plastic flow [Prevost, 1985].

The undrained response of the saturated soils is completed by using a “partial solid-fluid
coupling” which consists on embedding the effective-stress soil model within a pore
water linear elastic material model with high bulk modulus [He et al 2004]. In the clay
model is represented by a material whose shear behaviour is insensitive to the
confinement change; only the deviatoric stress-strain response induces plasticity whilst
the volumetric stress-strain response is linear elastic and independent of the deviatoric
response. The nonlinear shear stress-strain back-bone curve (Figure 3-40) is represented
by the hyperbolic relation [Kondner, 1963], defined by the two material constants, low-
strain shear modulus and ultimate shear strength [Lu, 2006].
92

Figure 3-40 Hysteretic response for the Von Mises Model [Yang 2000, Yang et al 2003]

3.2.4 Absorbing Boundaries and Pile Interfaces

The interface between two different types of elements and also the modelling of the
boundaries play an important role on the response of the system and therefore are also
on the reliability of the complete system model.

The pile soil interface has been modelled using different approaches [Mackenzie-
Helnwein, 2006, Iai et al., 2006, Boulanger 1999, Boulanger 2001, Arduino et al., 2001,
Bransby 1999]. The most basic is the direct connection between the soil element and pile
elements, for which the nodes from the pile and the soil mesh are shared or directly
connected with out any interface element between them. This approach however has the
drawback that it may overestimate the pile-soil interaction forces because the relative
movement of the soil around the pile is not allowed. A more refined approach includes a
P-Y spring between the soil and pile nodes which helps to model the relative soil pile
movement and the closing and dragging effect between the pile and soil. This approach
however still requires the characterization of the P-Y curves and it may be even more
complicated for 3-D modelling. A refined alternative that have been used consists on the
modelling of interface or contact elements between the solid and beam elements
[Mackenzie-Helnwein, 2006]. This last approach allows for modelling gap, dragging and,
once programmed, can be easily incorporated into a 3-D model; however this approach is
still is complicated to use and may induce problems on convergence.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 93

Regarding to the modelling of the boundary conditions for dynamic geotechnical

modelling, it is well known that it is required that the model boundaries should not reflect
back the energy travelling out of the analysis domain and instead it should be absorbed by
the boundary. A common approach for allowing energy absorption is by including
normal and tangential dashpots around the entire boundary. These elements are
formulated in such a way that the incident waves produce zero energy being reflected
back into the domain [Zhang et al., 2003].

Figure 3-41 Boundary Dashpot [Arduino, 2003]

Other alternative, among others, to the dashpot elements is modelling a large domain or
infinite elements in which the energy is radiated from the area of interest. In the large
domein case, if the distance to the boundary is adequate, the energy reflected back into
the model is supposed to be negligible. Figure 3-42 shows the model geometry and mesh
for a wharf section in which the boundaries were extended well beyond the area of
interest (wharf section) in order to minimize the effect of wave reflection.
94 Carlos Blandon

Static Conditions = 1000 psf

Seismic Conditions = 600 psf
Container Handling Surcharge = 250 psf
(static and seismic condtions)

75'

Refer Note 2
Refer Note 3

Refer Note 2

Slaved boundary Horizontal Input Motion Slaved boundary

(refer Note 1) (applied to base of model) (refer Note 1)
Notes:
1. A slaved boundary is defined by neighboring gridpoints (at the same elevation)
forced to move as one in the horizontal and vertical directions.
2. Horizontal static forces mobilized from static analysis applied at boundaries.
3. Wharf deck constrained to move in horizontal direction only.

Figure 3-42 Boundary conditions for Finite Difference Model of a Wharf Section [Martin, 2005]

3.2.5 Seismic Input

On the different dynamic models reviewed, it was found that the seismic excitation can
be applied to the model using different techniques. The most common is the application
of forced displacements, velocities or accelerations to the boundary nodes; the bottom
nodes are exited with the seismic input and the lateral nodes are fed with the free field
displacements, velocities or accelerations obtained from unidimensional wave
propagation analyses. When this method is used, it has to be considered that the seismic
motion forced into the bottom nodes do not account for the wave reflection into the
semi –infinite elastic medium below the bottom nodes.

This problem can be overcome by using the methodology proposed by Joyner [1975] for
vertically propagating waves in an underlying elastic medium. The method is based on
the estimation of the shear stress in the interface between the boundary and the
underlying medium in terms of the particle velocity of the incident wave and the
boundary. The method results in an idealization of the seismic input in terms of applied
forces to the bottom nodes and a dashpot (Figure 3-43). Further details on the method
can be found elsewhere [Arudino 2003, Zhang et al., 2003]
Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 95

Figure 3-43 Input motion scheme [Arduino, 2003]

 97

4.CALIBRATION OF ANALYTICAL MODEL

The previous chapters have been dedicated to an extensive recompilation of bibliography

and theory related to the dynamic behaviour of wharves and the methodologies used to
evaluate the different variables involved in this behaviour.

The general configuration, elements mechanical properties and geometry and soil
conditions among others were found to influence the dynamic behaviour of the structure;
however, for evaluation purposes, typical idealized conditions have to be selected for the
system. In this chapter, a typical wharf geometry will be presented and the non linear
mechanical characteristics of the elements and the soil will be discussed.

The aim of this section is to characterize the critical sections (prestressed and pile-deck
section) and soil springs of the analytical model that will be used for the analyses in
further stages of this study.

4.1 GENERAL STRUCTURAL MODEL

There are many possible combinations of connections, piles and soils; therefore, a typical
representative structure of recently designed wharves is going to be used for the analyses
carried out in this chapter. The prototype structure is a typical marginal wharf
constructed at the Port of Los Angles (POLA) as shown in Figure 4-1. This transversal
layout is the result of a previous study that indicated that this alternative would be the
most economical option for construction [Weismair, 2007]. The separation of the piles is
governed by the axial load capacity except at the landside row were the seismic demands
requires additional piles.

The piles used in POLA structures since the 80ist are generally vertical piles, 610 mm
(2ft) diameter circular or octagonal prestressed piles. The use of larger diameter piles have
result to results in excessively large shear forces unless the free space between dike and
deck soffit is increased substantially above values used in current designs. Additionally to
that, the connection of large diameter piles to 0.91 m (3ft) decks has been found to result
in excessive congestion and excessive joint shear stress as reported by the commentaries
on POLA seismic code [POLA, 2004].
98 Carlos Blandon

Models with batter piles were not included in the analyses given that from experiences
gained from the damage suffered by ports all over the world, wharves with ductile,
moment resisting frames and vertical piles have proven superior earthquake performance
compared with batter pile wharves without any special ductile connection details. Hence
the design of wharves has moved to the use of moment resisting connection and batter
piles are not commonly used anymore in seismic zones.

In current practice, seismic design of the structural system is largely simplified by

superimposing the nonlinear response of individual piles. As mentioned in section 3.1.6
this is possible due to the large relative stiffness of the deck compared to the stiffness of
the pile, hence, each element can be modelled as a cantilever pile with the rotation
restrained at the head. The piles from the typical wharf shown in Figure 4-1 [Priestley
2002] can be modelled using different sets of P-Y curves and a fix head condition as
shown in Figure 4-2. As described in the previous chapter, the pile-deck interface can be
modelled with a zero-length moment-rotation spring that captures the concentration of
plasticity at this location.

33.5 m
6.1 6.1 m 6.1 6.1 m 6.1 m
0.9 m
0.9m
0.61m
1.5 m 3.2 m
6.7 m
10.2 m
P-Y Distributed 1.75 13.5 m
spring along 1.0 17.15
embeeded
portion of the

@ 3.0 m @ 6.0 m 610 mm prestressed

octagonal piles

Figure 4-1 Reference Example [Priestley, 2000]

The nonlinear behaviour of the single pile is characterized by contributions from of the
inelastic behaviour of the prestressed pile, the pile-deck connection and the soil-pile
interaction elements. Such behaviour depends on the geometry, material properties and
reinforcement detail.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 99

4.2 PILES

The piles considered in the study are octagonal prestressed piles with a diameter of 24 in
(610 mm). The piles are reinforced with 16 – 0.6 in (15 mm) A416 strands with a total
area of 0.215 in2 (140 mm2). The ultimate strength is 270 Ksi (1860 MPa), yield strength
216 Ksi (1490 MPa) and the stress after losses 153 Ksi (1055 MPa). The effective
prestress in the concrete is 1137 psi (8 MPa). The transverse reinforcement consists of
W20 (13 mm) A82 steel with yield strength of 70 Ksi (480 MPa) and 2.5 in pitch (63.5
mm). The concrete strength is 7.0 Ksi (48 MPa). The concrete cover is 76 mm (3 in)
thick in order to protect the reinforcement from the corrosive marine environment. The
characteristics of the pile are specific for typical constructions at the Port of Los Angeles;
however, the prestressed piles and similar reinforcement arrangements are common
around the United States [Weismair, 2007]. Steel pile pipes are preferred in other
countries as Japan, but these elements are out of the scope of this study.

Sping rotation at pile

head
Ground Level

Soil Springs Fixed at

one end and
connected to the pile
at the other end.

Figure 4-2 Simplified single pile model

100 Carlos Blandon

16 @ 15 mm
Satrands

610 mm

W20 @ 63.5
mm Spiral 76 mm

Figure 4-3 Prestressed pile transverse section

The analysis of the piles is based on moment-curvature characteristics of the section. It is

emphasized the importance of a realistic analysis of the material strain-stress curves
[Ferrito et al., 1999]. This includes the need of differentiating the properties for the core
and the cover concrete due to the effect of the confinement from the transverse steel.
The mild steel reinforcement and the prestressing steel should also be modelled
accurately. The parameters that control the design are the maximum values of the
extreme fibre concrete strain and steel reinforcement strain (mild or prestressing)
according to the performance limits described in section 1.9.

4.2.1 Moment curvature

The non-linear properties of the piles depend on the size, geometry, axial load,
confinement, longitudinal and transverse reinforcement, and concrete properties of the
pile. The section analysis of the pile in terms of moment curvature is used to define the
non-linear characteristics of the pile. Figure 4-4 shows the normalized moment capacity
against the normalized curvature for the typical octagonal section in Figure 4-3. The axial
load was increased gradually from a tension load of 680 KN (150 Kips) (-0.048 P/ f’c Ag)
to a compressive load of 1135 KN (250 Kips) (0.08 P/ f’c Ag) in steps of 225 KN (50
kips) (0.016 P/ f’c Ag), which are expected axial loads based on tests carried out by Krier
[2006]. A subroutine for the software OPENSEES [2001] is included in Appendix A for
the moment curvature analyses of prestressed sections. The results from Opensees were
compared with the results from the fibre based software XTRACT. [Imbesen, 2005]
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 101

Strains on the strands, confined and unconfined concrete are also shown in this figure;
Square points indicate the strain on the strand (1% to 5%), diamond points indicate the
strain at the extreme unconfined concrete fibre (1% and 2%) and circle marks show the
strain at the extreme fibre for the confined concrete. The Mander concrete model [1988]
was used for the moment-curvature analyses and the prestressing steel was also included
into the model.

The moment curvature analysis of the pile shows a sharp moment capacity reduction
once the maximum value has been reached. This is caused due to the expected spalling
of the thick concrete cover that is characteristic for the piles used for the wharves in
order to protect the steel strands from the marine environment. This behaviour is
expected to cause a reduced plastic hinge length given that once the critical section
reaches the maximum moment the curvature demand will be concentrated on the critical
section until it gains moment capacity again.

Analytical Section Capacty

0.09

4% 5%
0.08 1% -2%
3%
-1%
2%
0.07
Normalized Moment (M / D f´c)
3

0.06

0.05 0.5%
-1%

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Normalized Curvature (φ D)

Figure 4-4 Normalized moment curvature relationship for prestressed octagonal section (from -0.048
P/f’c Ag to 0.08 P/ f’c Ag each 0.016 P/ f’c Ag)
102 Carlos Blandon

The performance limits for the in-ground hinge are plotted in Figure 4-5 based on the
material strains described in Table 1-3. It can be observed that OLE and CLE are a
function of the axial load. The initial strain in the prestressing steel for the specific
conditions of the studied piles is estimated to close to 0.55%, so the OLE strain for the
strands is close to 1.05% to 1.1%% (marked by the orange squares in Figure 4-5); hence,
compared with the OLE strains defined by the concrete (orange circles Figure 4-5), it is
clear that the strands define the performance limit according to the requirement for
POLA. The same occurs for CLE in which the performance limit is defined by the 1.5%
strain in the strand.

Based on the moment curvature analyses of the typical octagonal prestressed sections,
Figure 4-6 shows a set of equations that can be used for the estimation of the
performance limit curvature based on the axial load of the section.

0.09

OLE U C CLE st r and

OLE st rand
0.08 CLE U C

0.07
Normalized Moment (M / D f´c )

0.06
3

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
Normalized Curvature (φ D)

Figure 4-5 Performance limits for prestressed octagonal pile

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 103

0.035

Normalized Curvature ( φ *D)

0.03
y = -0.055x + 0.026
0.025
OLEuc
CLEstrand 0.02
CLEuc y = 0.028x + 0.018
Linear (CLEuc) 0.015
Linear (CLEstrand) y = -0.040x + 0.016
0.01
Linear (OLEuc)
0.005

0
-0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1
Normalized Axial load (P/f'c A)

Figure 4-6 Performance limit equations for typical octagonal prestressed sections

4.2.2 Moment Curvature Model Verification

Demand and capacity of the pile are evaluated based on the curvature of sections along
the element. The pile section was modelled using two different finite element programs
(OpenSees, XTRACT), in order to define and verify the nonlinear moment curvature
behaviour of the section and the used software. These programs use fibre analysis;
therefore it is necessary to initially define the nonlinear characteristics of the materials.

Three different materials were used to construct the fibre section: prestressing steel,
confined concrete and unconfined concrete. Two models for the unconfined concrete
were used in an attempt to estimate the effect of the soil surrounding the pile which is
believed to provide some confinement to the cover concrete (Figure 4-9).

The descending branch of the unconfined concrete for model one was represented by
concrete spalling (f’c = 0) at 0.012 strain and for model two the spalling was assumed to
occur at 0.008 strain.

The results from both software are practically identical (Figure 4-10) and it is possible to
observe how the strength degradation is more severe in model two than in model one.
The effect of selecting one of the two models may be considerable in terms of curvature
demands given that an element with the model with the smoother degradation (model 1)
104 Carlos Blandon

can extend the plastic hinge whilst, practically an element represented by a section with
the model 2 will tend to concentrate the curvature demand in a short length.

Figure 4-7 Xtract fibre model

Figure 4-8 Opensees fibre model

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 105

fcu

Model 1

Model 2

0.002 0.008 0.012 εcu

Figure 4-9 Unconfined concrete models

900
800
700
Moment (KN-m)

600 Model 1 - Opensees

500
Model 2- Opensees
400
Model 1-Xtract
300
Model 2-Xtract
200
100
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Curvature (1/m)

Figure 4-10 Moment curvature nonlinear behaviour for the prestressed pile section

The results from the moment curvature characterization of the octagonal section are
validated based on results from tests carried out by Budeck [1997]. By a simple
inspection of these tests, it was decided to use a section with the unconfined model
number two (Figure 4-11). A section with model one for the unconfined concrete has a
smooth strength degradation which is not coherent with the tests results.
106 Carlos Blandon

Only the test on specimen PS9 was selected for the calibration procedure given that the
characteristics of this specimen were very similar to the piles used for the kinematic
analyses of berth 147. In this test, the confinement effect of the soil was simulated by
applying the force to the pile using rubber pads located around the plastic hinge region.

1000
900
800
Moment (KN-m)

700 Analytical
600 Test
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.125 0.15
Curvature (1/m)

Figure 4-11 Experimental and analytical moment curvature relationship (model 2) for pile PS9 from
test by Budeck [1997]

The pile was modelled using OpenSees and the nonlinear behaviour of the pile was
represented by model 2 moment curvature relationship. The pile was discretized using
elements with a length of 0.25 m (10 in) which is equivalent to 0.4 the pile diameter.
Such discritization was enough to closely predict the curvatures measured in the test as
shown in Figure 4-6.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 107

Displacement Ductility = 3 Displacement Ductility = 4

6 6

Analytical Analytical
5 5
TEST TEST

4 4

Depth (m)
Depth (m)

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
Curvature (1/m) Curvature (1/m)

Displacement Ductility = 6
6

Analytical
5
TEST

4
Depth (m)

0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Curvature (1/m)

Figure 4-12 Estimated and experimental curvature for Budeck test PS9 for displacement ductility 3,
4 and 6.

Based on the comparison of the test results and the analytical results, it was verified that
modelling the prestressed pile sections using fibre elements with the software Opensees
can estimate accurately the real nonlinear behaviour of the pile.
108 Carlos Blandon

4.3 CONNECTION

The connection between the piles and the deck is the part of the wharves is one of the
most critical sections of the entire structure. The pile and the deck are generally
connected by a moment resistant joint in which the deck has a flexural stiffness
significantly larger than the pile. High curvature demands are induced into the
connection when the deck moves relatively to the soil during an earthquake, therefore
this is a region that has to be detailed carefully, providing adequate provisions for the
anchorage and controlling the internal stresses at the joint

The typical pile-deck connection used in the analyses consist in 8 #10 dowels (31 mm)
grouted inside the piles and detailed as proposed by Shritharan and Priestley. The pile
section is embedded 2 in (51 mm) inside the deck and the transverse reinforcement is
exposed along this section before casting the deck on top. Prestressing strands are not
embedded inside the deck; hence the dowels are the only reinforcement providing the
strength to the pile/deck connection (Figure 4-13).

The connection with dowels was preferred in the analyses instead of the extension of the
prestressing strands due to construction problems. Frequently, piles will refuse at an
elevation higher than specified in the design so they have to be cut at deck soffit and the
prestressing strands exposed before they can be incorporated into the deck. Exposing the
strands and cutting the concrete without damaging the strands is a difficult complicated
task. If a strand is damaged it has to be replaced, so it is necessary to perforate the pile to
introduce dowels. Additionally to these problems, the close spacing of the strands makes
it difficult to extend the reinforcement inside the deck.

A set of moment curvature analyses for the octagonal section of the connection was
carried out, using the fibre section software Columna [Kuebits, 2002]. The concrete
unconfined strength was 50 MPa (7.0 ksi), the steel yielding strength was 475 MPa (68
ksi), the ultimate steel strength was 680 MPa (97.5 ksi); the Mander model was applied to
obtain the confined concrete nonlinear behaviour. The moment curvature of the pile
section for different levels of axial load is shown in Figure 4-14. The material strains are
also shown in the same figure: steel from 1% to 5%(square marks), Unconfined concrete
for 0.5%, 1% and 2% (diamond mark) and confined concrete 1% (circle marks) give the
moment and curvature at which the corresponding strain is reached in the most critical
fibre.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 109

8-32mm
Dowels

610 mm
76 mm

16 - 15mm strands

Figure 4-13 Pile-Deck connection detail

Analytical Section Capacty

0.08 5%
4% -1%
0.07 1% 0.5% 3%
2%
Normalized Moment (M / D3 f´c)

0.06

0.05
-2%
1% 0.5% 2% -1% 3%
0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Normalized Curvature (f D)

Figure 4-14 Normalized moment curvature relationship for pile-deck connection section (from -
0.048 P/f’c Ag to 0.08 P/ f’c Ag each 0.016 P/ f’c Ag)

The section performance for the OLE (circle marks) and the CLE (square marks) based
on the extreme unconfined concrete fibre (coloured fill) and extreme steel fibre (black
fill), according to the POLA seismic code, are shown in Figure 4-15. In the same way as
110 Carlos Blandon

the prestressed section, the performance limit is a function of the axial load. For OLE,
the performance limit is controlled by the dowel strain whilst for the CLE the extreme
unconfined concrete fibre is the controlling parameter.

Analytical Section Capacty

0.08
5%
1%
0.07 0.5%
Normalized Moment (M / D f´c)

0.06
3

0.05
-2%
1% 0.5%
0.04

0.03

0.02 OLEstrand CLEstrand

OLEuc CLEuc

0.01

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Normalized Curvature (φ D)

Figure 4-15 Performance limits for pile-deck connection according to POLA seismic code material
strain

The test by Krier [2006] showed that most of deformation of the pile occurred at the
pile-deck interface. This indicates that the connection could be well represented by a
moment rotation spring as shown in Figure 4-16. The pile is modelled as shown in
section 4.2 and the deck element is assumed to be an elastic element. The connection
spring is developed from the moment curvature properties of the interface section
(Figure 4-13). The rotation is obtained from the curvature integration along the assumed
plastic hinge length.

The analyses in the next sections involving the pile-deck connection were carried out
using a fibre model; therefore, instead of integrating the curvature, the material stress (σ)-
strain (ε) properties of the materials were transformed into stress (σ) –deformation (δ) by
integration a constant strain along the assumed plastic hinge length. Note that the
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 111

properties of the spring will be dependent on this assumed length so it should be defined
carefully based on experimental results.

δ = ε ⋅l p

The result of this approach is that the section at the connection will act as a moment
rotation spring with the advantage of automatically including the effect of the variation of
the axial load into the analysis.

Fixed rotation connection

Deck Element

Connection Spring

Pile Element

Figure 4-16 Pile-Deck connection model

4.4 SOIL CHARACTERIZATION

The soil profile in which the piles are embedded plays an important role in the response
of the structure. The slope and the material in the infill may change considerably the
global response and the local demands in the piles; therefore, it is necessary to define
some typical profiles to consider in the analysis. Figure 4-17 shows some typical
geometries used in the construction of the embankments.
112 Carlos Blandon

Figure 4-17 Typical pile-supported wharf geometries; a) single-lift, b) multi-lift, and c) sliver rock
dikes as given by McCullough [McCullough,2001]

The configuration and construction materials of pile supported wharves may vary
depending on different factors such as the site of construction, the construction practices
of the region and the availability of materials among others.

In most of the cases, the pile is embedded in the quarry-run material at least 10 diameters
(6 m) and this is the depth range where the inertial interaction is expected to have any
effect on the structure. Below this depth kinematic interaction is more important that the
inertial interaction, therefore the characterization of this quarry material is a key
parameter for the evaluation of the soil-pile inertial interaction at shallow depths.
However, there has been almost no effort in the characterization of this soil and just
some crude approximations are used for estimating the P-Y curves that represent the
quarry-run material.

The P-Y curves suggested in the literature and in the design practice for the quarry-run
material have significant differences. Ferrito et al. [1999] suggest the use of the
methodology proposed by the American Petroleum Institute (API) described in section
3.1.2, for constructing the P-Y curves for the soil. The hyperbolic models obtained from
values suggested from API for dense sands have been also used for the dyke material
characterization. Two different values for the subgrade reaction modulus where found in
the literature as shown in Table 4-1; One was obtained from the recommendations by
Terzaghi according to Figure 3-4. Two different assumptions were used: dry and
submerged conditions. The second value of the subgrade reaction modulus was
suggested by McCullough and Dickenson [2001] and the curve was constructed following
the API recommendations for submerged conditions. Priestley and Calvi [1996] suggest
a simplified “lineal” strength increase with depth with a yield displacement of 12.7 mm
(1/2 in). Some P-Y have also been defined for specific port projects such as the Berth
100 at the Port of Los Angeles which is shown in Figure 4-18 referred as “bilinear -
level”.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 113

Table 4-1 Soil properties

Angle of Weight Subgrade

Soil Type Internal (KN/m³) Reaction Modulus
Friction (φ’) (KN/m³)
Submerged Dense Sand [API, 2004] 40 11.2 42020.5
Dry Dense Sand [API, 2004] 40 21.2 42020.5
Rock Fill (submerged) [McCullough and
45 10.4 24326.0
Dickenson, 2004]

160

140

120

100 API-Submerged Dense Sand

Force(N)

API-Dry Dense Sand

80 McCullough
Bilinear-Level
60 Priestley - Calvi Linear

40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Displacement(mm)

Figure 4-18 P-Y curves for quarry-run material (at 3 m depth)

It is clear that there is a large variability of the P-Y curves depending on the procedure
proposed and the assumption of dry or submerged condition. The hyperbolic curves
proposed by API are significantly stiffer than bilinear curves which could affect response
for small displacements. It is also noticeable the 75% difference on the estimation of the
maximum strength between dry or submerged conditions which may also affect the
stiffness of the structure, the location of the plastic hinge and the shear demands on the
pile.

The variability of the P-Y curves for the soil is considered in the design practice by using
upper and lower bounds given that maximum shear and displacement demands may be
reached for different soil conditions. The upper and lower values suggested by POLA
114 Carlos Blandon

seismic code are defined as 2.0 and 0.3 times the level value respectively as shown in
Figure 4-19. These values are based on a usual geotechnical consideration for which the
soil strength variability is 100% approximately [Lam, 2006]. The lower bound has a larger
reduction that this 100% because it also need to consider the effect of the slope. The
effect of the different selection of P-Y is evaluated in the analyses described in section 5.

300

250

200
Level-Bilinear
Force(N)

150 Level
Lower- Smoothed
100
Upper-Smoothed

50

0
0 10 20 30 40
Displacement(mm)

Figure 4-19 Smoothed Upper and Lower P-Y curves (at 3 m)

 115

5.STATIC ANALYSES

In current practice, it is necessary to look for the most simple but accurate analysis
method to be used as a tool for the design the structure. In the case of wharves, a
common analysis option is the non-linear push over method of a transverse section with
a defined width. This methodology is suggested in design codes [POLA 2004] but this is
not a mandatory procedure. However, in most cases, this is the best methodology to use
for analysis given that this procedure can take into account the nonlinear behaviour of
the modelled elements including the soil and at the same time reduces the complexity of a
dynamic analysis. It is also more reliable than the height to fixity approach which was
several drawbacks [Priestley, 2000].

In this chapter, nonlinear pushover analyses were carried out to evaluate the sensitivity of
the model response to several variables such as: beam column element length, pile length,
soil strength and above grade height. Cyclic push over were also carried out to evaluate
the effect of the hysteresis rule assumed. Finally, some notes were added about an
attempt to model the pile soil interaction using a 3-D finite element model.

5.1 ANALYTICAL MODEL

A set of push-over analyses where carried out on a single fix head pile using different
characterizations of the non-linear soil behaviour using the model shown in Figure 5-1
already discussed in section 4.1. The transverse section of the model, connection
properties and soil springs were shown in section 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4 respectively. One set
of analyses was performed using monotonic loading of the pile head whilst a second set
of analyses were performed using cyclic loading.

The models were constructed using a lumped plasticity methodology with the software
RUAUMOKO 2D [Carr, 2005]. This software has several hysteretic models that can be
used to describe the nonlinear characteristic of the elements that compose the system; for
the monotonic loading, the nonlinear behaviour of the pile section and the connection
was simplified to a multi yield envelope shown in Figure 5-2. The advantage of this
model is that it can be used for the pile connection, the pile section and even the soil by
fitting the smooth nonlinear envelopes with several piecewise linear segments;
additionally, this models allows modelling negative stiffness which is typical for the
connection and pile sections.
116 Carlos Blandon

The multi yielding model load and unload following the same envelope, so it is not
suitable for cyclic analyses. The generic model proposed by Schoettler and Restrepo
[Carr, 2005], shown in Figure 5-3, was used for the case of cyclic pushovers instead of the
multi yielding envelope. This generic model has a trilinear envelope and unloading rules
similar to those programmed in Ruaumoko for model such as Takeda. It also has the
capability of modelling residual strength and pinched cycles.

Increasing
Displacement Ground Level

Figure 5-1 Model for pseudo-static analyses

Force

r1K
rK r 2K

dy D1dy D2dy Deformation

Figure 5-2 Multi linear elastic hysteretic model for monotonic analyses
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 117

Figure 5-3 Schoettler and Restrepo hysteretic rule [Carr 2005]

118 Carlos Blandon

The proposed model using fibres was not implemented in these analyses given that the
axial load was not considered to oscillate in these analyses, instead, the concentrated
plasticity approach implemented in Ruaumoko was used.

5.2 MONOTONIC PUSH-OVER

In the lumped plasticity model, the pile elements are characterized by the moment
curvature nonlinear behaviour of the plastic hinges at the end of the elements. Such
approach was initially applied to the pile deck connection; however, based on the
observation from the tests by Krier [2006], the connection was modelled with a rotational
spring which was defined by a moment-rotation model.

5.2.1 Effect of Pile and Element Length

Rotations and displacements are sensible to the plastic hinge length of the critical section
of the pile; hence, the effect of this variable was analyzed in order to accurately obtain
rotations and displacements based on the curvature characteristics of the section. The
calibration consisted on modelling the pile with elements with elements of different
length and compare the displacements at a given reference curvature of the critical
section.

The pile was then divided in elements of 1, 0.5, 0.25 and 0.1 times the diameter of the
section and the displacement was compared at the instant when the in-ground hinge
reached the curvature corresponding to CLE performance. Figure 5-4 a. shows the
curvature profile for the four cases at the instant that CLE is reached (Red dashed Line).
Note that the figure shows that for all cases, CLE curvature was reached first at the in-
ground hinge, while the curvature on the connection hinge was still below the CLE limit.

This figure shows that the plastic hinge length decreases as the element also decreases
which was also verified from the analyses shown in section 4.2.2. Figure 5-4 b shows the
effect of the element length on the displacement of the pile; and it is clear that the
displacement decreased as the element length decreased. For an element length less than
0.25-D the displacement does not change significantly, therefore the analyses where
carried out with a length element of 0.25-D.

For very small elements, it is possible that some problems of convergence may arise while
performing nonlinear analyses. This situation is even more problematic for the typical
section used for the analyses in this section given the degrading characteristics of the
moment curvature relationship. If such complication arise, it would be possible to
increase the element size up to 0.5D based on the argument that the displacement
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 119

obtained for this size element is just 10% larger than the displacement obtained using
very short elements (0.1 D), which is an acceptable range of variation.

Previous studies have shown that there are numerical reasons that explain the
concentration of the plastic hinge as the element length is reduced [Coleman and
Spacone, 2001]. This effect is known as localization (Figure 5-5). As the element size is
reduced (0.75D to 0.25D) the displacement at the pile top decreases even if the curvature
demand at the inground hinge (φp) is the same for all the cases. This is one of the main
reasons why the equivalent plastic hinge length needs to be obtained from experimental
work.

2
2

1
1

0
0
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
-1
-1

-2
Normalized Depth (Z/D)

-2
Normalized Depth (Z/D)

-3 -3
1-D
1-D
-4 -4 0.5-D
0.5-D
0.25-D
-5 0.25-D -5
0.1-D
-6
0.1-D -6

CLE
-7 -7

-8 -8

-9 -9

-10 -10
Normalized Curvature (φ x D) Displacement (mm)

a) Normalized curvature profile b) displacement profile

Figure 5-4 Calibration results for different pile element lengths

The bending moment at a depth of 10 pile diameters (10D) is just 4% of the maximum
subgrade moment which is located around 6 D below the surface. Additionally, the
displacements and curvatures are negligible below this point. Based on these results, the
120 Carlos Blandon

modelling of the first 10 D (6 m) below ground is enough for an accurate evaluation of

the inertial effects. This depth was used for the analyses carried out in this study. The
depth influenced by the inertial interaction could be also increased by different factors
additional to the soil such as the pile stiffness and the height above the ground; therefore
the results from these analyses are valid for the typical section used. The height of the
pile above the ground was taken as 1D, which is a conservative estimation of the
minimum height of the critical pile row.

5.2.2 P-Y Spring Model Effect

In section 4.4 it was discussed that there are large uncertainties and variety of criteria for
the definition of the P-Y curves, especially for the case of the quarry material which
conforms the most superficial layer of the model shown in Figure 5-1. The response
profiles for the typical pile were obtained for the push over analyses. The soil springs
were set to represent the lower and upper bounds for a characteristic profile in Berth 100
at the Port of Los Angeles. The API recommendations were also used and a bilinear
model proposed by Calvi et al. [1996]

Δ
Δ0.25 Δ0.5D
Δ0.75

Critical
φcs
φp

φp= φ05D = φ075D = φ025D

D

Figure 5-5 Shear vs. Displacement Prediction for Cantilever Pile Test
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 121

0
-1000 -500 0 500 1000
-2

-4

Normalized Depth (Z/D) -6

-8

-10
Low
-12
Bound

-14

-16

-18

-20
Moment (KN-m)

a) Moment profile
2 2

0 0
-25 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
-2 -2

-4 -4
Normalized Depth (Z/D)

Normalized Depth (Z/D)

-6 -6

-8 -8

-10 -10

-12 -12 Low

Low Bound
-14 Bound -14

-16 -16

-18 -18

-20
-20
Displacement (mm) Normalized Curvature (φ x D)

b) Displacement profile c) Curvature profile

Figure 5-6 Push over response profile for a long pile model

The shear, displacement, moments and curvatures were compared at the instant when the
subgrade critical section reached the CLE performance limit. In Figure 5-7, the response
of the pile using the alternative methods from API and the bilinear model are in fact
bounded by the upper and lower values of the soil springs. The response in terms of
forces and curvature is up bounded by the level values of the soil springs and in terms of
displacements, these level values become a lower bound. These results show that by
using these upper and lower bounds it is possible to cover the uncertainty arisen from the
different methodologies for the construction of the P-Y curves.
122 Carlos Blandon

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
-1000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500 750 1000 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
-1 -1
Normalized Depth (Z/D)

Normalized Depth (Z/D)

-2 -2 API- Dense Sand
Bilinear-Level
-3 -3
API- Dense Sand Level
-4 -4 Low Bound
Bilinear-Level
-5 Level -5 Up Bound
Low Bound
-6 -6
Up Bound
-7 -7

-8 -8

-9 -9

-10 -10
Moment (KN-m) Normalized Curvature (φ x D)

a) Moment profile b) Curvature profile

3 3

2 2

1 1

0 0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400
-1 -1
Normalized Depth (Z/D)

Normalized Depth (Z/D)

-2 -2

-3 -3

-4 -4
API- Dense Sand
-5 -5
API-Dense Sand
Bilinear-Level
-6
Bilinear-Level -6
Level
-7 Level
Low Bound -7

-8 Up Bound Low Bound

-8
-9 Up Bound
-9
-10
-10
Displacement (mm) Shear (KN)

c) Displacement profile d) Shear force profile

Figure 5-7 Response profile for different soil spring characterization
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 123

The maximum subgrade moment was located at 3 D below the ground surface for the
upper bound and at 6D for the lower bound. The displacement also show to have large
variability as the value for the upper bound is 20% lower than the displacement for the
level soil springs at the same instant. This difference is even larger for the lower bound
which is 45% larger than the level case. The variability is also significant in terms of
shear, as for the lower bound, this force is 35% smaller than that obtained using level
bound springs and for the upper bound it is 17% larger. It is clear then that the soil
modelling has an important impact on the performance estimation of the pile.

5.2.3 Above Ground Pile Length Effect

It has been discussed that the seismic performance of the port is given by the
performance of the pile with the shortest clearance between the ground and the deck,
which in general are the piles at the back row (landside). These piles have to withstand
the largest ductility and shear demands of the system which are a function of the above
ground height as shown in Section 2.2.1.

The typical minimum above ground pile height ranges between 0.61 m (1 D) to 1.2 m (2
D), which is limited by the minimum required space for inspection of the piles and deck,
and for the maximum allowable displacement of the wharf. Figure 5-8 shows the
moment, curvature, displacement and shear for a pile with above ground height of 0 D,
1D and 2D. The first case is not a typical value for this design variable but it would be
the worst possible scenario that may occur locally at some piles due to construction
problems, therefore it was included to observe the variation of the pile capacity with
respect to typical values for the above ground clearance.

The results show that the location of the maximum moment and hence, the inground
plastic hinge, varies between 4.5 D to 5 D for the specific soil conditions used for these
analyses (lower bound P-Y springs). The increase relative to the pile with 0D above
grade height in terms of displacement capacity at CLE is 18% and 35% for 1-D and 2-D
respectively. The reduction of the shear force is 20% and 40% for the 1-D and 2-D
respectively. Note that due to the slight variation of the critical section depth, the
increase of displacement capacity and reduction of shear demand is approximately in the
same proportion as the increase of length between the deck an the location of the plastic
hinge length for 0D, therefore in design practice it could be possible to estimate the
design values of displacement and shear for different pile heights based on analyses of a
single case of above ground clearance.
124 Carlos Blandon

3 3

2 2-D 2 2-D

1 1-D 1 1-D
0-D
0 0
-1000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500 750 1000 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
-1 -1

Normalized Depth (Z/D)

Normalized Depth (Z/D)

-2 0-D -2

-3 -3

-4 -4

-5 -5

-6 -6

-7 -7

-8 -8

-9 -9

-10 -10
Moment (KN-m) Normalized Curvature (φ x D)

a) Moment Profile. b) Curvature profile

3 3
2-D 2-D
2 1-D 2
1-D
1 0-D 1
0-D
0 0
0 50 100 150 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400
-1
Normalized Depth (Z/D)

-1
Normalized Depth (Z/D)

-2 -2

-3 -3

-4 -4

-5 -5

-6 -6

-7 -7

-8 -8

-9 -9

-10 -10
Displacement (mm) Shear (KN)

c) Displacement profile d) Shear force profile

Figure 5-8 Effect of the above ground pile clearance on the pile response
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 125

5.2.4 Sensitivity Analysis of Soil Properties and Above Ground Pile Length

It is clear that the demand and capacity of the pile is affected by soil properties and the
pile length above ground. Therefore a set of analyses were carried out in order to
evaluate the sensitivity of the pile response to the variation of the soil and pile geometry
variables. The benchmark P-Y curve for a level ground was multiplied by a factor from
0.3 to 2 corresponding to the values of lower and upper bound respectively, in
increments of 0.1. The pile above ground length was varied from 1D to 2D in
increments of D/4 given that these are typical values for this variable. The pile element
was modelled with segments D/4 long with a nonlinear characterization based on
piecewise linear envelope of the moment curvature described in section 4.2.1. The same
procedure was applied to the pile deck connection, but instead of moment curvature, a
moment rotation spring was used.

The pile responses for the cases analysed were compared at the instant when the CLE
performance level is reached. For all the cases, CLE was controlled by the material strain
at the critical section were the in-ground hinge forms. In Figure 5-9, it is shown the
moment rotation characteristics of the pile deck connection section, including the
rotation at which the theoretical OLE and CLE performance levels are reached. CLE is
reached at a rotation of approximately 0.075 rad which is larger than any of the rotational
demands obtained from the push over analyses at in-ground CLE, as given in Figure
5-10. This indicates that the CLE will be controlled by the inground hinge. A maximum
rotational demand of 0.034 was reached which is just 45% of the theoretical connection
capacity.

0.08

0.07
Normalized Moment (M/D³f'c)

0.06 OLET

0.05 CLET

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Rotation (rad)

Figure 5-9 Moment Rotation characteristics for the pile deck connection
126 Carlos Blandon

The location of the critical in-ground pile section varies from 3D to 5.75D from the
ground surface, decreasing as the above ground height increases and as the P-Y multiplier
increases (Figure 5-11). The results are more sensible to a reduction of the P-Y multiplier
than to an increase of this variable. An increase of 50% of the multiplier moves the
plastic hinge 0.5D to the surface, whilst a reduction of 50% moves this point 1D deeper
into the ground.

The variation of the hinge location is reflected in the shear demand action on the pile
(Figure 5-12); the shear force increases as the P-Y multiplier increases and as the pile
above ground height decreases. Despite of the unsymmetrical effect of the soil springs
values on the location of the critical inground section; the effect on the shear force is
rather symmetric around the benchmark value of the level P-Y springs (Figure 5-12).
There is a maximum reduction of 25% on the shear force for the lower bound case (0.3
multiplier) and a maximum increase of 20% for the upper case (2.0 multiplier).

0.035

0.03

0.025
Conection Rotation (rad)

0.02

0.015
1D
1.25D
0.01
1.5D
1.75D
0.005 2D

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
P-Y Multiplier

Figure 5-10 Connection rotation vs P-Y multiplier when in-ground hinge reaches CLE
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 127

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

-2

-2.5

-3
Normalized Depth (Z/D)

-3.5

-4

-4.5

-5
1D
-5.5 1.25D
1.5D
-6
1.75D
-6.5 2D
-7
P-Y Multiplier

Figure 5-11 In-ground plastic hinge location

800

700

600
Shear Force (KN)

500

400
1D
300
1.25D
200 1.5D
1.75D
100 2D

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
P-Y Multiplier

Figure 5-12 Shear force vs P-Y multiplier

128 Carlos Blandon

1.40

1.20
Shear Force Ratio

1D
1.00 1.25D
1.5D
1.75D
2D
0.80

0.60
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
P-Y Multiplier

Figure 5-13 Shear Force ratio vs P-Y multiplier

The displacement is quite sensitive to the variation of the P-Y springs representing the
soil. Figure 5-14 shows the decrease of displacement capacity of the pile top as the
multiplier increases and the pile above ground height decreases. It would be expected to
have a smooth variation of the displacement as well as shear and critical section depth.
However the jumps shown in the figures are due to limits of the pile discritization.

The sensitivity of the results can be appreciated more clearly in Figure 5-15, where it is
evident that the results have a much significant variation when the multiplier is smaller
than the benchmark value (1.0) than for larger values of the multiplier. In the first case,
the displacement capacity can be up to 70% larger than the case of level P-Y springs,
whilst for the second case, the displacement capacity is only reduced up to 25% from the
benchmark value.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 129

0.2

0.18 1D
1.25D
0.16
1.5D
0.14 1.75D
Top Displacement (m)

2D
0.12

0.1

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
P-Y Multiplier

Figure 5-14 Pile top displacement vs P-Y multiplier

1.8

1.6
1D
1.25D
Displacement Ratio

1.4
1.5D
1.75D
1.2 2D

0.8

0.6
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
P-Y Multiplier

Figure 5-15 Displacement ratio vs P-Y multiplier

130 Carlos Blandon

5.2.5 Response of a Wharf Transverse Section

A pushover analysis was performed on a typical transverse wharf section as shown in

Figure 5-16 with the aim of evaluating the relative nonlinear behaviour of the individual
piles and the overall nonlinear behaviour of the wharf transverse section. The piles
previously analyzed were characterized by a moment curvature or rotation – curvature
relationship based on a constant axial load, however, due to the structure configuration
and the horizontal loading, the axial load in some of the piles varies and hence the
nonlinear response of some of the piles also varies.

Figure 5-16 Plan view (top) and transverse section (bottom) of berth 147 at Port of L.A
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 131

In order to take into account the variation of the axial load, the pile was modelled using a
fibre analyses approach, in which the section is divided in fibres and the nonlinear
behaviour of the entire section is defined by the nonlinear behaviour of the fibre material:
confined concrete, unconfined concrete or steel reinforcement.

Figure 5-17, shows the nonlinear shear vs displacement response of individual pile rows
from the transverse wharf section in Figure 2-24, the pile section described in Section 4.1
and the level value of the P-Y springs. Piles in row F, which are those located closer to
the landside and with the shortest above ground pile height, carry the largest portion of
the shear force. Note that the transverse section is 6 m wide and there are three piles on
row F, two in row E and two and a half in row A; therefore, in the wharf system, piles in
row F take 60% of the total shear and row E takes 20%.

600

500
Row A
Shear Force (KN)

400 Row B
Row C
300 Row D
Row E
200 Row F

100

0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Displacement (m)

Figure 5-17 Shear force vs Displacement response of individual pile rows for typical wharf transverse
section and level P-Y springs
132 Carlos Blandon

450

400

350
Row A
Shear Force (KN)

300 Row B
250 Row C
Row D
200
Row E
150 Row F

100

50

0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30
Displacement (m)

Figure 5-18 Shear force vs Displacement response of individual pile rows for typical wharf transverse
section and lower bound P-Y springs

700

600

500 Row A
Shear Force (KN)

Row B
400 Row C
Row D
300
Row E
Row F
200

100

0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Displacement (m)

Figure 5-19 Shear force vs Displacement response of individual pile rows for typical wharf transverse
section and upper bound P-Y springs

The transverse stiffness of the wharf is controlled by the landside pile response given
than most of the stiffness and nonlinear response of the system is concentrated in these
piles (row F and E). Figure 5-20 shows the results of the push over analyses for the level,
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 133

upper bound and lower bound values of the P-Y springs; and also the equivalent bilinear
envelopes adjusted to the smooth shear vs displacement curves for the 6 m width wharf
section. The bilinearization of the smooth curve serves for comparing the dynamic
properties of the system in terms of relative fundamental period of vibration with respect
to the system with the level values of the P-Y springs. Note that the fundamental mode,
in Table 5-1, for the case of the upper bound springs is reduced 9% with respect to the
level benchmark, whilst, for the case of the lower bound, the period increases 17% with
respect to the same reference, showing that the variation is more sensible to reductions
on the soil strength.

Table 5-1 Bilinear envelope characterization

Deformation Lateral Ko r ki/klev Ti/Tlev

(m) Strength
(KN)
Upper Initial 0.028 2550 91071 1.19 0.91
Bound Post
Bilinear 0.25 3000 2027 0.022
yielding
Initial 0.03 2300 76666 1.00 1.0
Level
Bilinear Post
0.25 2671 1686 0.022
yielding
Lower Initial 0.035 1900 54285 0.71 1.17
Bound Post
Bilinear 0.25 2150 1162 0.021
yielding
3500

3000

2500
Shear Force (KN)

2000 Total Level

Total LB
1500 Total UB
Level Bilinear
LB Bilinear
1000 UB Bilinear

500

0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.125 0.15 0.175 0.2 0.225 0.25
Displacement (m)

Figure 5-20 Push Over response of 6m width transverse section

134 Carlos Blandon

The seismic design of the pile has to follow the capacity design principles, in which it is
expected that the plastic hinges at the pile-deck connection or inground will govern the
collapse mechanism and not a fragile shear failure mechanism of the piles. From the
push over analyses it is noted that the shear demand on the pile section is sensible to the
characterization of the soil springs. The shear force increases 13 % for the upper bound
and decreases 24 % for the lower bound with respect to the level case.

5.3 CYCLIC PUSH OVER ANALYSES

The monotonic push over is a practical method for analyzing the non-linear behaviour of
the wharf. However, some more detailed models are required when additional
components of the dynamic response of the structure want to be taken into account. For
instance, modelling the cyclic loading occurring during an earthquake requires the
complete nonlinear cyclic characterization of the different components of the structure,
including the soil. The non-linear characteristics of each component affect the dynamic
characteristics of the structure, such as the structural period and the energy dissipated
which directly affect the design of the entire structure.

For the case of the pile supported wharves, the cyclic behaviour depends on the
nonlinear characterization of the soil-pile interaction, the prestressed pile and the pile-
deck connection. The hysteretic behaviour of the prestressed pile section and the pile
deck connection have been defined based on test of structural elements with typical
characteristics used in port construction as described in section 4.

5.3.1 Connection

The models for the representation of the nonlinear cyclic behaviour of the pile-deck
connection were calibrated based on the results of the tests by Krier et al [2005] and that
have been previously summarized in section 4.3. The normalized moment vs rotation
hysteretic response from the test of the seismic designed connection is shown in Figure
5-21. The cycles are characterized by pinched loops and significant residual
deformations. It also can be noted that the maximum moment reached is not
symmetrical because the variation of axial load applied in the test. The maximum
moment corresponds to positive rotations, where compressive force was applied to the
connection; whilst for negative rotations, the applied axial load was a tensile force
producing a smaller moment capacity. The section also experiments a strength capacity
reduction especially under axial compressive forces due to crushing of the cover concrete
and P-D effects.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 135

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2
M/Mmax

-0.2

-0.4

-0.6

-0.8

-1
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Rotation (rad)

Figure 5-21 Normalized Moment vs Rotation Hysteretic Response from Seismic Designed Pile-
Deck Connection [Krier, 2005]

The initial approach for modelling the cyclic behaviour of the connection was to use the
hysteretic rule developed by Schoettler and Restrepo [Carr 2005] described in section 5.1.
The resulting parameters from the calibration are as follows

Table 5-2 Calibrated parameter for the connection model

Variable Factor Description

Keng 1.0 Proportion of initial stiffness in positive loading. This allows modelling
of unsymmetrical envelopes in positive and negative load directions.
r2 0.025 Bilinear factor in the negative direction.
Fcr 0.49 Fraction of yielding maximum at which cracking occurs
r 0.48 Secant stiffness factor to yield
dult 2.67 Displacement at which maximum strength is reached
a 0.4 Unloading stiffness factor
b 0.05 Reloading stiffness factor
Pinch 0.4 Pinch factor
k 0.015 Controls rate of strength degradation
Fresid 1.80 Residual strength factor as proportion of the cracking load
136 Carlos Blandon

Figure 5-22 Connection Model Envelope [Carr 2005]

A cyclic rotation load history applied to one node of a spring member gave the moment
rotation response shown in Figure 5-23. These cycles show a good approximation to the
response measured in the test by Krier. The strength degradation, pinching and loop
shapes are captured and even if required, it is possible to define unsymmetrical yielding
and maximum forces for the positive and negative loading.

1
0.8
0.6
0.4
M/Mmax

0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Rotation (rads)

Figure 5-23 Connection Model Response

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 137

5.3.2 Pile

The pile calibration is based on experimental results by Budeck [1997], who tested several
prestressed piles (See section 4.2.1) with structural properties close to those used for the
analysis in this study. In general, the moment curvature response of the prestressed
section shows narrow loops with relatively small residual deformation. After reaching a
maximum strength, there is a sudden decrease of the capacity and then a relative
stabilization of the capacity for increasing ductility demands. The sudden reduction of
the strength may be explained by the total or partial loss of the cover concrete which is
significantly thick in these piles 76 mm (3 in). The variation on the ductility capacity
shown in these test come from different amounts of transverse reinforcement inside the
pile and also from external confinement applied to simulate the effect of the surrounding
soil.

Figure 5-24 Moment vs curvature hysteretic response in the critical section for typical prestressed
pile [Budeck 1997]
138 Carlos Blandon

Table 5-3 Calibrated parameter for the prestressed pile section model

Variable Factor
Keng 1.0
r2 0.001
Fcr 0.65
r 0.40
dult 100
a 1.0
b 0.1
Pinch 0.0
k 0.015
Fresid 0.5
A cyclic displacement history was applied to the top of a cantilever pile modelled using
the calibrated parameters shown in Table 5-3. The moment curvature response is plotted
in Figure 5-25 using normalized moment. The selected parameters of unloading and
reloading stiffness were able to represent the narrow loops and slight residual
deformations.

1.5

0.5
M/Mmax

-0.5

-1

-1.5
-0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Curvature (1/m)

Figure 5-25 Pile Model Response

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 139

5.3.3 Soil

The nonlinear model of the soil for dynamic or cyclic deformations is one of the largest
uncertainties of the system model. Most of the references and tests have been performed
on sands or clay materials and there is almost no information on the cyclic behaviour of
the quarry material, hence, the implemented model was based on the recommendations
from the American Petroleum Institute for cohesionless soil [API, 2002]. Even if these
recommendations were calibrated on a different material than quarry run, they are a
starting point for the analyses and predictions of the test program latter described.

If the nonlinear envelope of the force vs displacement is still uncertain, the hysteretic
behaviour of the cyclic response is even more. Experimental results of cyclic tests on soil
and clay are shown in Figure 5-26. These cycles show that for sands there is an
important effect of drag as the loops are wide even for small displacements whilst for the
clay, there is a noticeable pinching effect caused by opening and closing gaps. As an
initial attempt to model the soil, the cyclic hysteresis was defined based on the model
proposed by Boulanger [1999] (Figure 5-27).

Due to the large uncertainty on some of the parameter for this model, such as drag and
gap opening, sensitivity analyses were carried out, suing three different assumptions for
the soil cyclic response, in order to evaluate the effect of these variables. Figure 5-29 to
Figure 5-30 show three different hysteretic soil model for different assumptions of
dragging and gap effects, so as the loop pinching increases, the effect of gapping
increases and as the loop becomes wider the effect of dragging is more accentuated.

Figure 5-26 Cyclic response of sand (left) and clay (right) soils [Ferrito, 1999]
140 Carlos Blandon

Figure 5-27 Theoretical cyclic soil model [Boulanger, 1999]

1.5

0.5
F/Fy

-0.5

-1

-1.5
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Δ/Δ y

Figure 5-28 Implemented cyclic model with no drag (Pinch factor=0.0)

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 141

1.5

0.5
F/Fy

-0.5

-1

-1.5
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Δ/Δ y

Figure 5-29 Implemented cyclic model with moderate drag (Pinch factor=0.5)

1.5

0.5
F/Fy

-0.5

-1

-1.5
-8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
Δ/Δ y

Figure 5-30 Implemented cyclic model with full drag (Pinch factor=1.0)

5.3.4 System Response

A cyclic increasing displacement history was introduced in the model described in Figure
5-1 so that the cyclic response for different amplitudes could be captured. The results for
the different models shown from Figure 5-32 to Figure 5-34 indicate that the soil has an
effect on the “fatness” of the loops. For the dynamic response this means that as the
drag effect increases, there is a larger contribution of damping from this mechanism.
142 Carlos Blandon

0.2
0.15
Displacement (m)

0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time (s)

Figure 5-31 Displacement History

800

600

400
Shear (KN)

200

-200
-400

-600
-800
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

Displacement (m)

Figure 5-32 Pile Model Response (pinched soil model)

800

600

400
Shear (KN)

200

-200

-400

-600

-800
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Displacement (m)

Figure 5-33 Pile Model Response (moderated soil pinching)

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 143

800

600

400
Shear (KN)

200

-200

-400

-600

-800
-0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Displacement (m)

Figure 5-34 Pile Model Response (no soil pinching)

5.4 3-D FINITE ELEMENT MODEL

As a complementary part of the numerical push over analyses carried out on this chapter,
an effort was made to model the soil pile interaction with a more refined numerical
methodology based on a coupled three dimensional nonlinear finite element approach.
These analyses were carried out with the aid of the software OpenseesPL [Lu et al, 2006]
which is a pre and postprocessing software for the OpenSees platform developed for the
modelling of 3-D lateral pile soil interaction.

The capabilities of the geotechnical and structural models included in the software are the
state of the art for nonlinear soil structure analyses. However, during the modelling
process it was found that a significant effort would be required to verify the model and to
improve it in order to reach a point where it could be used for the coupled nonlinear
analyses that were initially planed for this study; additionally, the computational
requirement is also significant and time consuming which makes more difficult the stage
of adjusting and verification of the model. For these reasons, only a brief introduction to
the modelling procedure and some variations of the pile modelling and pile to soil linking
are described here.

The soil was modelled using the multi-surface plasticity concept described in section 3.2.3
for a granular soil. The software allows the use of a different type of soil as interface
element between the pile and the soil profile. This interface is intended to capture local
effects around the pile such as vertical friction and gapping. The pile is modelled with
linear or nonlinear beam elements that can be characterized by a bilinear model or with a
144 Carlos Blandon

fibre approach. The beam element is linked to the soil by rigid linear elements with a
length equal to the pile radius so that the effect of the pile size is also included (Figure
5-35). The soil constitutive model requires several parameters (14) for the complete
characterization. The default values used by the software for different pressure sensitive
materials (cohesionless soil) are shown in Table 5-4. These values are just indicative
values that should be treated with care and additional information should be included
whenever is possible.

$contrac defines the soil contraction or pore pressure buildup, $dilat1 and $dilat2 defines
the soil dilation. $liquefac1, $liquefac2, $liquefac3 control the mechanism of liquefaction-
induced perfectly plastic shear strain accumulation, i.e., cyclic mobility. liquefac1 defines
the effective confining pressure (e.g., 10 kPa) below which the mechanism is in effect.
liquefac2 defines the maximum amount of perfectly plastic shear strain developed at zero
effective confinement during each loading phase. liquefac3 defines the maximum amount
of biased perfectly plastic shear strain accumulated at each loading phase under biased
shear loading conditions; additional references and description can be found elsewhere
[Mazzoni et al, 2006].

The first problem encountered was that the pre-processor did not have the capability of
modelling prestressing of the pile section. After looking for different alternatives, it was
found that the steel reinforcement could be modelled with an elastoplastic material with
an initial strain ($eps0) which is already programmed into the software (Figure 5-36).
This approach was verified in section 4.2.2 and the code program is shown in appendix
A. Due to the symmetry of the problem it was also possible to consider only half of the
transverse section of the pile so the code was modified to model this (Figure 5-37).

Further modifications were implemented in the model regarding to the sequence of

construction and load application. The first stage deals with the gravity loading of the
soil profile. Then a second stage was added for the modelling of the pile and applying the
prestressing. A third stage was included to link the pile and the soil with rigid elements.
The details of this connection may be selected to represent different soil-pile interface
conditions. The pre-processor cerates moment resisting connection between the pile and
the rigid elements; this detail can be used to represent the effect of friction on the pile.
In order to reduce the number of variable in the model, this connection was manually
modified so that no moments were transfer to the pile by using truss elements.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 145

Table 5-4 Default parameter values for the pressure sensitive soil model [Zhang, 2006]

Loose Sand Medium Medium- Dense Sand

(15%-35%) Sand (35%- dense Sand (85%-100%)
65%) (65%-85%)
Saturated soil mass density 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.1
(ton/m3)
Reference low strain Shear 5.5x104 7.5x104 1.0x105 1.3x105
Modulus (kPa, at p'r=80 kPa)
Reference Bulk Modulus 1.5x105 2.0x105 3.0x105 3.9x105
(kPa, at p'r=80 kPa)
Friction Angle at peak shear 29 33 37 40
strength
Octahedral Shear Strain at which 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
max shear strength is reached (at
p'r=80 kPa)
Reference mean effective confining 80 80 80 80
pressure (p'r, kPa)
Pressure Dependent Coefficient 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Phase Transformation Angle 29 27 27 27
contrac 0.21 0.07 0.05 0.03
dilat1 0. 0.4 0.6 0.8
dilat2 0 2 3 5
liquefac1 (kPa) 10 10 5 0
liquefac2 0.02 0.01 0.003 0
liquefac3 1 1 1 0
e 0.85 0.7 0.55 0.45
146 Carlos Blandon

Interface Soil Soil Mesh

Pile-Soil Link
Elements

Pile Element

Figure 5-35 Soil Pile Finite Element Model

Figure 5-36 Elastoplastic material used for modelling the prestressing reinforcement
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 147

Soil Cover Concrete

Prestressing Strands
Confined Concrete

Figure 5-37 Prestressed Section for Soil – Structure Analyses

The modifications previously mentioned were implemented for different mesh

configuration and element sizes. A push over analysis was carried out in these different
finite element models and then the stresses and deformations from the pile and the soil
were obtained. Even if different mesh configurations were tested, it was not possible to
obtain a reliable distribution of moment or shear stresses on the pile. The same occurred
for the soil stresses specifically at the top soil layer right at the nodes connecting the pile
and the soil.

The model shown here is the result of an attempt of implementing several features
simultaneously but it showed to be unsuccessful. Due to time constrains the model could
not be further improved nor simplified to look for reasonable results. In future analyses,
it is recommendable to star with simple features and add the modifications already
implemented step by step as success is obtained at each stage.
 149

6.TORSIONAL RESPONSE OF WHARF SEGMENTS

6.1 BACKGROUND

The dynamic response of wharves is influenced by several parameters including soil pile
interaction, segment length, links between segments, non uniform length of piles, etc.
Including all these variables into a unique model for analysis would require a great effort
and time which would not be practical for design.

The nonuniform length of the piles in the transverse direction induces a torsional
response of the system for lateral excitations except when the excitation is only in the
transversal direction. This phenomenon increases the displacement of the piles,
especially those located at the wharf’s corners. Priestley [2000] proposed several methods
for the evaluation of the maximum response under bidirectional excitation from which
the most practical is based on the magnification of the unidirectional response of the
wharf under transverse excitation using a Dynamic Magnification Factor (DMF).

Previous attempts have been performed in order to validate proposed DMF for segments
or typical configurations of wharf systems [SEQAD, 1999]. This validation is performed
using time history analyses of equivalent wharf systems in which a large number of piles
are represented by a super pile. These super piles are located strategically to reproduce
the same strength and stiffness of the entire system.

The analyses carried out in this chapter extend the findings from previous studies by
using a larger number of synthetic records and wharf configurations for the estimation of
the DMF.

6.2 ANALYTICAL MODEL

Linked wharfs are formed by combinations of segments of similar or different lengths

with a transverse typical section as shown in Figure 6-1. Due to the large number of piles
and the complexity of modelling the complete dynamic behaviour of the structure in 3-D,
the problem is reduced by condensing the piles into a reduced number of “super piles”
[SEQAD, 1999] as shown in Figure 3-2. The nonlinear behaviour of the springs
representing these elements is obtained based on push over analyses carried out on model
150 Carlos Blandon

of a transverse section of the wharf as described in section 5.2.5. The analytical

procedure for the construction of the model is described in section 6.2

33.5 m
3.6m 6.7 m 6.7m 6.7m 6.7m
0.8 m
Pendant 0.25 m 1.2m
Wall 5.4 m

9.51 m
1.75
13.62 m
1.0
16.63m

610 mm
prestressed
octagonal piles

@2m @3 m @6 m @2.4 m

F E D C B A

Figure 6-1 Transverse section of typical segments

Corner Pile
at row F
Segment Edge Super Piles
(Shear key node for Node
linked segments)
Center of
Mass

Rigid Connecting
Elements

Pile Equivalent
Springs Super Piles
Node

Corner Pile
at row F

Figure 6-2 2-D equivalent wharf segment model

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 151

Three typical unit lengths were used for the analyses: 121.5 m (400 ft), 182.5 m (600 ft)
and 243 m (800 ft). Different geometrical configurations were analyzed including cases
with individual and linked unit segments.

6.3 PROCEDURE

The methodology used to obtain the DMF is based on that proposed in the SEQAD
report “Dynamic Analyses of Linked Wharf Segments” [1999]. The steps to follow are
summarized below:

• Estimation of the Pile Force Displacement Response (typical section push over)
• Computation of the Center of Stiffness of the wharf segment
• Computation Center of Mass of the wharf segment
• Construction of the Equivalent Wharf Geometry (Super Piles location)
• Assign Spring Stiffness and nonlinear characteristics
• Define Shear Springs (for multi segment analyses)
• Add Soil Springs (for the case of deck embankment interaction)

6.3.1 Pile Force- Displacement Response.

Nonlinear characterization of pile rows is obtained using a push over analyses of

individual piles with different aboveground span from row A to row F (Figure 6-3). This
simplification can be applied due to the large relative stiffness of the deck, for which the
rotation at the pile top can be considered as restrained. The results from this push over
are the base for the nonlinear envelope characterization of the super pile springs.

The soil-pile interaction is represented by P-Y springs characterized by properties

developed for the Port of Los Angeles [Fugro,1999., EMI, 1998] . These curves were
obtained as a combination from experimental results on a laterally loaded pile at the Port
of los Angeles and from soil mechanics. The strength best estimates of the dike’s rock
and the soil below the dike are shown in Figure 6-4.

Two additional curves defined as a lower bound and an upper bound by applying a factor
of 0.3 and 2.0 to the best estimate values respectively. These factors are based on
conventional geotechnical practice where the variability of the parameters is assumed to
be around 100%. Additionally to this variability, lower bound also is supposed to include
the effect of the downslope [Lam, 2007]. In fact, this shows the large uncertainty
involved in the p-y springs, that even if they were derived from experimental test, there
are a many unknowns that need to be accounted for.
152 Carlos Blandon

The rock dyke thickness is different at each pile row as given in Table 6-1 , therefore the
spring’s maximum force varied along the pile for the different rows.

The pile force vs displacement obtained from the push over analyses (Figure 6-5) show
that the piles carrying the largest lateral load are those with the shortest above ground
clear height (row F). Around 80% of the lateral capacity comes from rows E and F (see
Figure 6-1); hence, the bulk of the wharf lateral stiffness is provided by these two rows.

Push Lateral Load Top fixed against

rotation

Above ground
height

Soil Springs
6m

Fixed base

Figure 6-3 Push Over model

Table 6-1 Rock Dike Thickness

Row Thickness Thickness

(ft) (m)
A 8.50 2.6
B 13.00 4.0
C 17.85 5.4
D 22.50 6.8
E 26.00 7.9
F 22.50 6.8
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 153

Force (KN/mm)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
0 -0.1

Rock
-1.1
Soil Below Dike
-5

-2.1
Depth from Ground Level (ft)

-10 -3.1

Depth (m)
-4.1
-15
-5.1

-20 -6.1

-7.1
-25
-8.1

-30 -9.1
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Rock Spring Maximum Force (Kips/in)

Figure 6-4 Maximum P-Y springs force (Best Estimate) [EMI, 1998]

6.3.2 Center of stiffness

The distance to the centre of stiffness x cr (Figure 6-6), from the pile row F can be
obtained as given by eq ( 6-1).

F
∑ ki x i
x cr = A
F
( 6-1)
∑ ki
A

Where xi is the distance of row i from row F, and ki is the pile stiffness that can be
obtained from the push over analyses. Based on the calculations shown in Table 6-2,
using the values from the pushover analyses with the level bound P-Y, the centre of
rigidity of the wharf is located at 2.1 m (6.88 ft) from row F.
154 Carlos Blandon

Displacement (m)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
450 2000
400
Lateral Force (Kips)

350 Row A
1500
300 Row B

Force (KN)
250 Row C
1000 Row D
200
150 Row E
100 500 Row F
50
0 0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Displacement (in)
a) Best Estimate P-Y

Displacement (m)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
450 2000
400
Lateral Force (Kips)

350 Row A
1500
300 Row B
Force (KN)

250 Row C
1000 Row D
200
150 Row E
100 500 Row F
50
0 0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Displacement (in)
b) Lower Bound P-Y
Displacement (m)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
450 2000
400
Lateral Force (Kips)

350
1500 Row A
300
Force (KN)

Row B
250
1000 Row C
200 Row D
150 Row E
100 500 Row F
50
0 0
0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0
Displacement (in)
b) Upper Bound P-Y
Figure 6-5 Lateral force vs displacement from pushover analysis for a 6 m strip
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 155

Table 6-2 Center of Rigidity per 6 m Segment

xi Ki Ki * xi
Pile Row
m KN/m
F 0.0 33810.4 0.00
E 3.6 14922.2 54436.1
D 10.3 1839.6 19014.1
C 17.0 751.4 12791.6
B 23.7 395.3 9372.8
A 30.4 443.4 13479.9
Sum= 52162.3 109094.5
Xcr (m)= 2.1

6.3.3 Center of Mass

The centre of mass is estimated based on the distribution of the seismic mass on the
wharf segment. In general no container weight is considered given that these are not
stored on the wharf for operational reasons. There is a recommended value of live load
that is considered for occasional short time concentrated loads and for unforeseen
circumstances but given that these are supposed to be applied for relatively short periods
of time they are only considered for gravity load design [POLA 2004]. Other sources of
mass such as the hydrodynamic mass can be neglected for the pile size used in these
structures.

Extensive analytical studies carried out for wharf with the same characteristics that those
modelled in this study [SEQAD, 1997] have shown that the fundamental period of the
crane is normally significantly longer than the elastic fundamental period of marginal
container wharves. It was found then that the second mode of the crane is the critical
mode in the design. However results show that the crane mass reduces the force on the
piles, so ignoring the crane effect is a conservative approach. This may not be the case
for low profile cranes but these are not considered for the analyses performed in this
study.

Based on these assumptions, the wharf weight was estimated equal to 6445 KN / 6 m
(1418 kips/ 20 ft) length which includes self weight from deck and tributary length of
piles, and uniform live load (33% total weight from deck to fixity depth which is taken as
5 times the pile diameter below the dike). The centre of mass is estimated following Eq (
6-2), where Wi is the individual weight of a considered wharf section or tributary pile and
156 Carlos Blandon

Xwi the distance to the reference line (row F generally). Using this equation, the centre of
mass was found to be located 16.9 m (55.77 ft) from row F, so the eccentricity (e) to the
centre of stiffness is 14.86 m (48.89 ft) (Figure 6-6).

∑Wi x wi
x cm = ( 6-2)

∑Wi

1.1 m
Row F
Xcr 3.6 m
X
Xcm 6.7 m Row E
e
6.7 m Row D
33 m
6.7 m Row C

6.7 m Row B
X
Row A
2.5 m
Z Seaside
6m

Figure 6-6 Center of mass and eccentricity based on a 6 m wharf strip

6.3.4 Equivalent wharf geometry

All the wharf piles are condensed into four super piles, one in each quadrant of the
section. The distance between piles in the longitudinal direction is obtained based in the
correct torsional modelling of the system which is satisfied locating the piles at a distance
Z (Figure 6-7) in the longitudinal direction from the symmetry axis equal to the radius of
gyration as shown by equation ( 6-3).

L
Z == ( 6-3)
2 3
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 157

By definition, the radius of gyration is the distance of an infinitesimally height area (A2)
to a parallel axis (x-x) on an original area (A1) for which the moment of inertia with
respect to x (Ix) is equivalent for the two areas as follows.

H 1 L31
I 1x =
12
H 2 L32 2
I 2x = + H 2L2 Z
12
Given that:
I 1x = I 2 x and A1 = A2
Then
2 H 12 − H 22
Z =
12
By definition H 2 → 0 , then equation ( 6-3) is obtained.

L2

L1/2 x-x A2

Z
A1 H2 H1

Figure 6-7 Radius of gyration concept

In the transverse direction, the equivalent springs are located at the stiffness centre of
each quadrant. The stiffness centre for rows A, B and C define the location for super
pile spring at the seafront (XΣKS ) and rows D, E and F define the location for the super
pile spring at the land side (XΣKL). The calculations used to estimate the location of the
super pile in the transverse direction are based on results given in Table 6-2. The
coordinates of the super piles for the unit segments are given in Table 6-3 and shown in
Figure 6-8 setting the zero reference on the seaside corner.
158 Carlos Blandon

ΣKL= KF + KE +KD = 50575.8 KN/m

XΣKL = 1.45 m (From Row F)
ΣKS= KA + KB + KC = 1584.7 KN/m
XΣKS = 22.42 m (From Row F)
Table 6-3 Super pile coordinates

Node Transverse (m) Longitudinal (m)

121.5, 182.5, 243 m 121.5 182.5 243
7 10.38 25.70 38.54 51.39
8 31.32 25.70 38.55 51.39
9 31.32 95.90 143.85 191.81
10 10.38 95.90 143.85 191.81

Wharf boundary

Landside
1.1 m XΣKL
Node 3 Node 4
8 9

XΣKS

1336 in

7 10

X
Node 1 Node 6
2.3 m
Z Seaside 0.6 m
1.2 m 2Z

L
Corner
Super-Pile

Figure 6-8 Super pile location

6.3.5 Spring stiffness and nonlinear characteristics

The super piles are modelled with spring elements characterized by an initial stiffness and
a nonlinear hysteretic model. The initial stiffness is estimated by the combination of the
properties of the piles in each quadrant, based on the results of the push over analyses.
The force-displacement properties of the super piles are provided in Figure 6-9, Figure
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 159

6-10 and Figure 6-11 for lower bound P-Y springs for 121.5 m, 182.5 m and 243 m
segments respectively. The smooth combined force displacement is reduced to an
idealized bilinear curve that represents the envelope of the hysteretic model used for the
time history analyses. Table 6-4 shows the values for these idealized bilinear envelopes.

Table 6-4 Idealized envelope properties for a 6 m wharf strip

Parameter Level Ground Lower Bound Upper Bound

Landside Seaside Landside Seaside Landside Seaside
Fy (KN) 2257.7 196.6 1657.1 177.1 2519.7 193.0
K1 (KN/m) 46949.0 1489.0 27860.8 1345.5 66378.0 1901.6
K2 (KN/m) 2816.6 502.3 1991.3 538.2 2547.5 610.0
r (K2/K1) 0.04 0.34 0.071 0.401 0.038 0.320
Displacement (m)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
800.0
3500
700.0
3000
600.0
Lateral Force( kips )

Lateral Force (KN)

2500
500.0
Landside 2000
400.0
Idealized Landside
1500
300.0 Seaside
Idealized Seaside
1000
200.0

100.0 500

0.0 0
0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0
Displacement ( in )

Figure 6-9: Force-displacement properties for super-piles assuming the benchmark properties for a 6
m strip of the wharf segment
160 Carlos Blandon

Displacement (m)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
800.0
3500

700.0
3000
600.0
Lateral Force( kips )

2500

Lateral Force (KN)

500.0
2000
400.0
Landside 1500
300.0
Idealized Landside
Seaside 1000
200.0
Idealized Seaside
100.0 500

0.0 0
0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0
Displacement ( in )

Figure 6-10: Force-displacement properties for super-piles assuming lower bound soil properties for
a 6 m strip of the wharf segment

Displacement (m)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
800.0 3500
700.0
3000
600.0
Lateral Force( kips )

Lateral Force (KN)

2500
500.0 LandSide
Idealized Land Side 2000
400.0
SeaSide
1500
300.0 Idealized Seaside
200.0 1000

100.0 500

0.0 0
0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0
Displacement ( in )

Figure 6-11: Force-displacement properties for super-piles assuming upper bound soil properties for
a 6m strip of the wharf segment
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 161

6.3.6 Linked Segments

Wharf segments are linked with shear keys. This interface was modelled with a stiff and
elastic unit-length shear spring (Figure 6-12). In addition, the gap between the wharves
was modelled with contact compression only unit-length springs (Figure 6-13). These
springs were placed in the model to capture the impact actions caused by the segment
out-of-plane rotations. A multi segment models used for the analyses carried out is
shown in Figure 6-14.

The stiffness was defined as 17895 KN/mm (100000 Kips/in) based on

recommendations from previous studies [Priestley, 2007]. The expected relative
transverse displacement between adjacent segments at maximum load should be close to
1 mm. The stiffness of the shear key is defined in order to achieve this expected value.
Additionally to this, the stiffness should not induce convergence problems on the
analyses. Very high stiffness values may lead to numerical problems during the nonlinear
dynamic analysis.

ki
Tension
Δ
Compression ki = 17895 KN/mm
ki

Figure 6-12 Shear key response

162 Carlos Blandon

Tension
Δ
Compression
ki = 17895 KN/mm
ki

Figure 6-13 Impact element force displacement hysteretic rule

Shear Key Spring

Impact springs

Figure 6-14 Multi segment model

6.3.7 Soil Springs for deck embankment interaction

The wharf deck and the pendant wall at the landside are in direct contact with the soil fill
behind the wharf. The soil may influence the dynamic response of the structure;
therefore, the mechanical properties of the soil had to be characterized to numerically
evaluate this effect.

The soil from the embankment behind the wharf deck was modelled following the
recommendations given by EMI [1999], in which it was discussed that the passive
pressure on the pendant wall was largely limited by the hinged detail of the deck;
therefore, the maximum passive resistance of the deck face was set at 143.5 KN/m (9.6
kips/ft) length of deck with additional 37.4 KN/m (2.5 kips/ft) from the pendant wall.
The assumed yield displacement at which the maximum pressure is reached was set to 51
mm (2.0 in). Based on this recommendations, for a 6 m (20 ft) tributary length, the
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 163

maximum resistance used was 1089 KN (242 kips) when the wharf is loaded in the
landwards direction; for the seawards direction, the resistance is taken as zero. In the
cycles of loading and unloading, there is no residual deformation until the displacement
exceeds Δy and the loading is elastic. When the displacement exceeds the yielding
displacement a residual deformation (ΔR) occurs after complete unloading. Reloading in
the consecutive cycles will occur only after the residual deformation is exceeded (Figure
6-15).

F Landwards

Δy ΔR Δ

Seaward

Figure 6-15 Deck-Embankment interaction model

6.3.8 Pile Hysteretic Properties

The Inelastic time-history analyses were carried out using the 3-D version of the
computer code Ruaumoko [Carr 2004]. This program has the capability of modelling the
non linear behaviour of the super pile springs with different hysteretic models. There is
no experimental reference of the nonlinear behaviour of the piles in this specific soil
conditions used analyzed in this project, therefore, the selection of the hysteretic model
was made based on the expected behaviour of the elements.

The use of elastoplastic models was discarded due to the large unrealistic residual
deformations that characterize these models. Additionally, the “fat” hysteretic loops of
elastoplastic models would overestimate the hysteretic damping from a reinforced
concrete or prestressed concrete element. The prestressing of the piles would be
expected to reduce the residual deformations so the unload stiffness is expected to be
smaller than the loading stiffness.

The Takeda model [Otani, 1974], was selected to represent the hysteretic behaviour of
the super pile springs (Figure 6-16). The unloading stiffness defined in the software
represents the Emory and Schnobrich rule given as follows.
164 Carlos Blandon

ku = k i / μ α

where ki is the initial loading stiffness, and μ is the displacement ductility. In the absence
of experimental data, the reloading stiffness parameter β was taken as 0.5 which is an
intermediate value between “fat” and “narrow” loops. The envelope of the hysteretic
model was defined to match the idealized bilinear force displacement relationship given
in Table 6-4.

The suggested range of variation of the variable α is between 0 and 0.5. For 0 the
unloading stiffness will be similar to the loading stiffness. The largest suggested value of
α, 0.5, was selected. This value results in the smallest residual deformation. This model
could be updated based on results from the experimental program but at the time of the
analyses, this had not been carried out yet.

Δp
F
β Δp
Fy, ki and r are given
in Table 6-4
Fy

k2=rki ku Tension
ki

Δm Δ
Δy
Compression ki
ki ku =
μα
Δ
μ = m
Δy
Fy

Figure 6-16 Modified Takeda Hysteresis Model (super-pile springs)

6.4 MODELLING OF SEISMICITY

The time seismic analysis of the system is based on previous studied of probabilistic
seismic hazard for the Port of Los Angeles [Martin 2005]. Two seismic levels had been
defined (Operative Level Earthquake and Contingency Level Earthquake) which is a
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 165

design practice at the west coast of the United States and also in other parts of the world
as previously discussed in section 1.7.

According to POLA seismic code [2004] response analyses can be conducted using input
ground motions at the “firm ground” and a soil column with a depth within the range of
site response analyses validity (around 100 m). However, for the specific ground
conditions, even if the spectra at “level firm ground” and the spectra at ground level may
differ, the site response studies showed that the use of “level firm ground” spectra for
design is reasonable [Arumoli, 2007]. This is cause in part that the fact that the quarry
material profiles in which the piles are embedded do not significantly modify the ground
motion applied at the base.

The input motions used in this study are taken as ground motion and were prepared by a
group of geotechnical engineers for the use on the analyses of wharf structures at the
port of Los Angeles. Additional detail about the strong motions can be found elsewhere.
[EMI 2001, Lam and Law 2000, Caltrans Seismic Advisory Board 1996].

The specific design acceleration response spectra for the CLE (probability of excedance
of 10% in 50 years) and OLE (probability of excedance of 50% in 50 years) are given in
Figure 6-17. In order to represent the same level of seismic hazard given by the design
spectra, the non-linear analyses were carried out using seven different spectra compatible
input motions generated from seven different real earthquake records. The artificial
accelerogram for each real earthquake consist of two orthogonal components that have
been defined as H1 and H2; and both of them are spectra compatible as shown in Figure
6-18.

1.6

1.4

1.2
ζ=5%
Acceleration (g)

1.0
OLE
0.8 CLE

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Period (s)

Figure 6-17 Design acceleration response spectra at CLE and OLE [EMI,2001]
166 Carlos Blandon

1.6

1.4

1.2
ζ=5%
Acceleration (g)

1
Target CLE
0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Period (s)

a) Acceleration compatible spectra for CLE

0.9 35

0.8
30
0.7
ζ=5% 25
0.6
Displacement (m)

Displacement (in)

0.5 Target CLE 20

0.4
15

0.3
10
0.2
5
0.1

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Period (s)

b) Displacement compatible spectra for CLE

Figure 6-18 Compatible spectra from artificially generated records for 5% damping [EMI 2001]
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 167

6.5 VERIFICATION ANALYSES

A series of analyses were conducted in order to verify the main assumptions used for the
construction of the numerical model. Additionally, the effect of some variables was also
studied to define if these should be included in the model for the analysis cases evaluated
in the next section. The effect of the following variables or assumptions was analyzed:

• Super pile assumption

• Super pile spring configuration
• Soil spring strength
• Ground motion intensity
• Viscous damping model
• Deck-backwall interaction
• Statistical approach for the combination of displacement to obtain the DMF
• Ground motion input direction
• Shear key stiffness
In some cases, these parameters were evaluated for several ground motion in order to
have enough data for a statistical evaluation that could cover the random nature of the
seismic excitation and that could be used to produce a procedure for a simplified design
procedure.

Before running the non linear time history analyses for the different wharf lengths, some
of the assumptions included in the model were verified including the effect of the “super
piles”, the spring configuration, the effect of the back wall and damping type of damping,
etc.

6.5.1 Super Pile Assumption

The reduction of wharf piles to four super piles strategically located to represent the
dynamic properties of the original structure is one of the main assumption of the model
This approach was validated by comparing the results of a modal analysis of a 121 m
(121.5 ft) wharf segment modelled using the super pile approach (Figure 6-19) with the
results from a model including all the individual piles of the segment (Figure 6-20).

Figure 6-21 shows the mode shape of the first two periods of vibration for the refined
model. Table 6-5 shows that the periods from the two models are practically identical.
168 Carlos Blandon

Land side
Corner Pile
Node Masses Super Pile
Springs

Sea side

Figure 6-19 Reduced model used for the modal analysis

Figure 6-20 Refined geometry for modal analyses

a) First mode

b) Second Mode
Figure 6-21 Fundamental mode shape from refined wharf model

Table 6-5 Periods of vibration

Mode Super Pile Refined Model
1 1.17 s 1.14 s
2 0.94 s 0.93 s
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 169

The assumption of the super piles was further validated by a nonlinear time history
analysis of a 182 m (600 ft) segment. The response of the critical piles for both models
was obtained. The results shown in Figure 6-22 to Figure 6-24 indicate that the response
for pure transversal and also for the combined orthogonal loading, for the two cases,
have a very good match; therefore, the super pile approach shows to be adequate for the
modelling of the entire wharf system.

8
6 Refined
Displacement (in)

4 Super Pile
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (s)

Figure 6-22 Corner Piles displacement under pure transversal loading

Transverse Displacement (Corner Pile 1)

15
10 Refined
Displacement (in)

Super Pile
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (s)

Transverse Displacement (Corner Pile 2)

6
4 Refined
Displacement (in)

Super Pile
2
0
-2

-4
-6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (s)

Figure 6-23 Transversal Corner Piles displacement under orthogonal loading

170 Carlos Blandon

Longitudinal Displacement (Corner Pile 1)

6

4 Refined
Displacement (in)

2 Super Pile

0
-2

-4
-6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (s)

Longitudinal Displacement (Corner Pile 2)

6

4 Refined
Displacement (in)

Super Pile
2

-2

-4

-6
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (s)

Figure 6-24 Longitudinal Corner Piles displacement under orthogonal loading

6.5.2 Super Pile Spring Configuration

The restoring springs that were used to represent the super piles were initially modelled
with two elements in orthogonal direction with a uncouple interaction between them.
This assumption has the problem of overestimating the strength of the system when it is
loaded in the diagonal direction. Therefore, a model with springs located in a delta shape
and other spring arranged in a penta shape (Figure 6-25) were tested in order to evaluate
the inaccuracy of the different spring configurations.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 171

Pile Node 720

1200
720 720

1200 1200
900 720 720

L shape Delta Shape Penta Shape

Figure 6-25 Super pile spring arrangement

The overstrength ratio for each shape was estimated by applying an increasing
displacement to the pile node in different directions from 15 to 360 degrees at intervals
of 5 degrees, obtaining the maximum resisted force at each direction. The ratio between
this maximum force (Fmax) and the theoretical yielding force in each orthogonal direction
(Fyt) is defined as the over strength ratio. For the case of springs in an L shape
arrangement, the over strength ratio reaches 1.4 at an angle of 45 degrees (Figure 6-26).

The same procedure was applied for the springs arranged in a delta and penta shape
(Figure 6-27). The best case is shown to be the case of the penta shape where the over
strength ratio is almost constant in any direction; the delta shape also showed to be
significantly more uniform that the L shape in any direction.

Implementing the penta shape requires significant more work than for the other two
cases, so given that the delta shape showed a significant improvement, this shape was
selected for implementation in the model.

Additionally to the strength, the stiffness was also modified as shown by the factors in
Table 6-6. Note that the objective of using several springs is to reduce the variability of
the over strength factor in all the directions. The correction factor will increase as the
number of springs increases but the uniformity of the over strength factor is the
characteristic that makes a shape better than the other, not the value of the correction
factor.
172 Carlos Blandon

Table 6-6 Correction Factors for Spring Arrangement

Arrangement Strength Factor Stiffness Factor

L Shape 1.3 1.0
Delta Shape 1.85 1.5
Penta Shape 3.1 2.5

Modeled Strength
Envelope by L shape 1.6 900
spring (Fmax) 1.4
1.2
Fx
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2

1800 0 00
Fz

Actual Strength
Envelope (Fyt)

a) Actual Vs Modelled envelope b) Over strength ratio at different angles

Figure 6-26 Overstrength for L shape spring arrangement

900 900
2 3.5
1.8 3
1.6
1.4 2.5
1.2 2
1
0.8 1.5
0.6 1
0.4
0.2 0.5
1800 00 0Series1
0 1800 0 0

a) Delta Shape b) Penta Shape

Figure 6-27 Overstrength factors for spring arrangements
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 173

The effect of the spring arrangement on the critical pile displacement was evaluated by
running a set off nonlinear analyses on a 121 m (400 ft) wharf segment using the three
different spring distributions.

For the nonlinear analyses it was considered that the earthquake excitation could arrive
from any direction. This means that the components (H1 and H2) of the records
described in section 6.4 had to be input to the base of the model in several angles with
respect to the direction of the springs representing the super pile. This was achieved by
obtaining the transversal and longitudinal components (HL and HT) of the original
records rotated components (H1 and H2) for angles between 0 to 345 degrees in intervals
of 15 degrees (Figure 6-28).

One of the seven CLE records presented in section 6.4, was decomposed obtaining a
total of 24 pairs of orthogonal ground motions to be applied to the model.

Earthquake in Transverse
direction

HL Earthquake in Longitudinal
direction

α
H2
H1
HT

Figure 6-28 Transversal and longitudinal Input motion (HL and HT) from original record rotated
components H1 and H2

The result from the five spring arrangement is considered to be the most accurate based
on the slight variability of the over strength ratio, therefore this case is taken as the bench
mark. Figure 6-29 shows the displacement ratio of one of the corner piles at the landside
of the wharf model. These ratios were obtained as the displacement from the L shape
and delta shape models with respect to the displacement of the benchmark model (penta
shape). It can be observed that, compared to the benchmark, the L arrangement
underestimated the value of displacements for most of the load angles, whilst, the delta
arrangement give larger results in average. The results from this last arrangement (delta
shape) however, are within 10% the benchmark except only for the case of 0 and 90
degrees load angle which is slightly larger. It was then considered that the delta
174 Carlos Blandon

arrangement with the respective correction factor for strength and stiffness gives results
with enough accuracy and conservatism and was selected to be used for the rest of the
analyses.
1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

2 Springs

3 Springs

Figure 6-29 Displacement ratio of corner pile, L and Delta shape to Penta shape ratio

6.5.3 Effect of Damping Model

The spring previous analyses were carried out using an initial stiffness proportional
damping of 5% in the first and third modes. Due to the numerical nature of this
damping model, it may induce unrealistic damping forces on the structure artificially
reducing the displacements, therefore an additional verification using secant proportional
damping of 5% was carried out.

The same segment modelled in the previous section and the input motions were used to
run nonlinear time history analyses using the two damping model proposed. The
displacements obtained from the two models at one of the landside corner piles were
compared. Figure 6-30 shows the displacement ratio of the corner pile. The ratio was
estimated as the displacement of the critical pile from the secant stiffness proportional
damping case divided by the displacement from the initial stiffness proportional damping
case.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 175

The results indicate that using the secant stiffness damping is a more conservative
approach than the initial stiffness proportional damping. Based on these results and also
on the fact that the secant proportional damping is closer to the real physical
phenomenon, this approach was used for the analyses cases.

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

Figure 6-30 Displacement ratio at the landside corner pile

Additional verifications were carried out in order to evaluate the effect of the damping on
the displacement ratio. Two separate displacements for the landside corner pile were
obtained from the analyses. One was obtained from an analysis using a combined
loading of the orthogonal component of the selected record (Figure 6-31 a). A second
analysis was carried out using only one of the record components applied in the
transversal direction of the wharf (Figure 6-31 b). The ratio was obtained as the
displacement from the first analyses (orthogonal) divided by the second analysis
(transverse). This ratio is what has been previously mentioned as Dynamic Magnification
Factor.

The following cases were analyzed:

1. Secant stiffness Rayleigh damping with 5% in the first and third modes for CLE.
176 Carlos Blandon

2. Secant stiffness Rayleigh damping with 0.5% in the first and tenth modes
(T<0.05s) for CLE.

3. Secant stiffness Rayleigh damping with 5% in the first and third modes for a
OLE response spectrum compatible record.

4. Initial stiffness damping with 2% for OLE compatible record.

Earthquake in Transverse Earthquake in Transverse
direction direction

L L
Earthquake in
Longitudinal
direction Super Super

Seaside Seaside
a) Orthogonal loading b) Transverse loading

Figure 6-31 Wharf Loading Cases

The results in the Table 6-7 show that for CLE there is no effect of the damping for the
CLE case and a very minor influence for OLE. Based on these observations, the
damping value used for the case studies analyzed was set as 5%

Table 6-7 Displacement ratio for different damping models

CASE EQ Level Damping DMF

1 CLE 5% 2.59
2 CLE 0.50% 2.60
3 OLE 5% 2.54
4 OLE 2% 2.63

6.5.4 Effect of loading direction

In section 6.5.2 it was mentioned that the record components could arrive to the wharf in
any direction. The effect of this variation on the angle of seismic excitation was
evaluated by rotating the original record components and applying the recalculated
transversal and longitudinal ground motions to the wharf.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 177

The procedure mentioned in the previous paragraph was applied to individual segments
121 m, 182 m and 243 m long. The average dynamic magnification factor from the seven
CLE spectrum matching records was obtained for each angle of excitation, from 0 to
3450 each 15 degrees.

As an important annotation, it is mentioned that the displacements used for the averaged
DMF correspond to the maximum absolute values recorded from each of the seven
ground motions and in each of the two wharf piles at the landside corners. The DMF is
independently obtained for the two piles and then the largest one is selected. This
procedure results on a very conservative estimation of the DMF and is probably not the
best approach to average the displacements, however it was used for the verification
analyses because it can be easily computed. The influence of the average approach is
evaluated in a further section.

Figure 6-32 shows the results for the DMF in each direction for the three segment length
analyzed. In every case, there is a slight variation of the DMF caused by the rotation of
the horizontal components. The lowest amplification occurs when the records
components have been rotated 90 degrees whilst the larges amplification occurs when
there is no rotation (around 0 degrees). Table 6-8 shows that, the averaged DMF for
each case decreases as the segment length increases.

Figure 6-32 Averaged DMF for individual segment

178 Carlos Blandon

Table 6-8 Dynamic Magnification Factor

Segment length Maximum DMF

121 m (400 ft) 1.47
182 m (600 ft) 1.31
243 m (800 ft) 1.24
The effect of the loading direction was also evaluated on the maximum shear force
obtained for the linked segments. Three different linked units were analyzed: two 121.5
m, two 182.5 m and two 243 m linked segments. Figure 6-33 shows that there is
practically no influence of the ground motion input angle on the average maximum shear
force for any of the segments evaluated. It also shows that there is also an increase of the
value of the shear force as the length of the wharf increases

400-400
90 600-600
3000
800-800
2500
45 135
2000

1500

1000

500
180
0

Figure 6-33 Shear Key forces for wharf linked segments (forces in kips)

6.5.5 Effect of the Upper and Lower Bound on the Displacement Demand
In section 6.3.5 it was discussed the characteristics of the nonlinear springs used to
represent the super piles. Three different sets of springs were obtained based on the soil
strength properties: upper bound, best estimate, and lower bound. The effect using the
lower bound or the upper bound springs on the DMF is evaluated in this section.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 179

Nonlinear time history analyses were carried out for 121m, 182m and 243m wharf
segments. The DMF was obtained for the seven CLE matched spectrum records (CLE-
S1 to CLE-S7) and no rotation was applied to the input motion.

The maximum displacements obtained at the corner landside piles for the 121 m segment
for the lower bound soil properties are shown in Figure 6-34. The table on the figure
shows the individual results for the combined orthogonal loading and the transversal
loading for the seven CLE spectrum compatible records (CLE-S1 to CLE-S7). The
DMF using the averaged displacements from the seven records was 1.47.

20.0

18.0
Combined
16.0
Transverse
14.0
Displacement (in)

12.0

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
CLE-S1 CLE-S2 CLE-S3 CLE-S4 CLE-S5 CLE-S6 CLE-S7

Combined 18.2 13.4 10.3 12.8 8.1 11.4 9.0

Transverse 7.0 9.7 9.8 6.7 7.1 6.7 9.5
Record

Figure 6-34 Maximum landside corner pile displacement for lower bound soil conditions

The DMF for the case of the upper bound soil properties was estimated as 1.65 based on
the maximum displacements shown in Figure 6-35. This is 12% larger than the case of
the lower bound; however the maximum displacements on the critical element are
significantly smaller than in the previous case. This indicates that even if the DMF is
larger for the upper bound case, the critical case to be considered for design is when the
springs with the lower bound soil properties are used.
180 Carlos Blandon

20.0
18.0
Combined
16.0 Transverse
Displacement (in)

14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0 CLE-S1 CLE-S2 CLE-S3 CLE-S4 CLE-S5 CLE-S6 CLE-S7
Combined 4.7 7.0 4.9 8.1 8.8 8.5 7.4
Transverse 4.9 3.4 6.1 3.8 5.2 3.4 3.1

Record

Figure 6-35 Maximum landside corner pile displacement for upper bound soil conditions

The same procedure was repeated for a 182 m and 243 m segments. The results show
that the DMF, when the upper bound springs are used, increases approx by 19%.

Table 6-9 Dynamic Magnification Factor for upper and lower bound soil springs

Segment Length DMF lower DMF upper Upper/Lower

bound bound DMF ratio
121 m (121.5 ft) 1.47 1.65 1.12
182 m (182.5 ft) 1.31 1.56 1.19
243 m (243 ft) 1.24 1.47 1.19

The effect of the soils springs on the shear force was also evaluated to identify which case
(upper bound or lower bound) governs the design of the shear key. The nonlinear
analyses were also carried out for different input ground motion angles to have a better
comparison of the results. Figure 6-36 confirms that the shear force is significantly larger
for the case of the upper bound soil conditions; for the 121.5 ft linked segments the force
is 50% larger for the upper bound compared to the lower bound.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 181

400-400
600-600
800-800
90 400-400 (Upbound)
2500

2000
45 135

1500

1000

500

0 180

Figure 6-36 Shear Key forces for 121.5 ft + 121.5 ft wharf segments (force in kips)

6.5.6 Input Ground Motion Intensity Effect

The performance based design philosophy requires that the structure meets different
levels of performance for different ground motion intensities. In this study, two different
levels of intensity have been defined: CLE and OLE. The design of the wharf structure
requires the evaluation of the displacement demand on the critical piles located at the
landside corners of the wharf for both, CLE and OLE, therefore, it is necessary to
evaluate if the DMF that will be used in design is different for both performance levels or
if the same value of the magnification factor can be applied in both cases.

From the previous analyses, it has been observed that the wharf segment with the
shortest length (121.5 m) has the largest magnification factor. Hence, the nonlinear
analyses using seven OLE matched spectrum ground motions were carried out for this
segment.

The DMF obtained from the averaged displacements of the seven cases (Figure 6-37) was
1.74 which is 18 % larger than the DMF obtained for the CLE records. This suggests
that for design at OLE level, the DMF used should be larger than for CLE.
182 Carlos Blandon

20.0
18.0 Combined
16.0 Transverse
Displacement (in)

14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
OLE- OLE- OLE- OLE- OLE- OLE- OLE-
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7
Combined 6.3 4.5 4.1 4.6 4.9 2.4 3.1
Transverse 2.5 2.4 2.6 2.2 2.6 2.3 2.6
Record

Figure 6-37 Maximum landside corner pile displacement for lower bound soil conditions and OLE
ground motions

The results from these analyses were further verified by using the CLE ground motion
scaled to match the OLE spectrum at 1 s. These additional analyses also showed that the
DMF for OLE was at least 10% than the DMF for CLE.

6.5.7 Effect of Deck-Backwall Interaction

One additional variable that may influence the response of the wharf segment is the
interaction between the deck and the soil along the interface of the coast line. For the
previous analyses this interaction has been ignored. In order to evaluate the effect or the
soil-backwall-deck interaction the model in Figure 6-38 (121.5 m wharf segment) was
subjected to the seven CLE records (CLE-S1 to CLE-S7) and the orthogonal
components of each record were rotated from 15 to 360 degrees in intervals of 15
degrees. The soil springs were modelled as described in section 6.3.7

Figure 6-39 show the maximum displacements obtained at the landside corner piles for
the case of interaction and no interaction. These show that the passive soil reaction-
wharf interaction can slightly increase or decrease the displacement demand of the critical
pile (corner pile). The DMF shown in Figure 6-40 indicates that the interaction between
the deck and the soil caused practically no change on the DMF; hence, in order to reduce
the complexity of the model, the effect of this interaction can be neglected and the
analyses can be carried out using models without the soil springs.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 183

Soil springs

Figure 6-38 2-D equivalent wharf segment model including embankment deck interaction

Note that in Figure 6-40, the DMF for the case of no interaction is larger than previously
shown in Figure 6-1. This is because the averaging of the displacements was carried out
using the largest displacement from any of the two piles at the landside corners, not at
each pile individually. This generates even more conservative values than the method
used for Figure 6-1.

20
18 Back Wall
16 No Inetraction
Displacement (in)

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
e
S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

S6

S7

ag
er

Record
Av

Figure 6-39 DMF for 121 m wharf segment with and without deck soil interaction for 0 degrees
input motion rotation

The reason for the different approaches for the averaging is that as the analyses were
performed, the postprocessing tools improved and more sophisticated approaches could
be easily implemented for averaging. When the analyses for the soil-backwall-deck
184 Carlos Blandon

interaction were carried out, the postprocessing algorithm was at an earlier stage than
when Figure 6-1 was obtained. The analyses were not repeated because the verification
was made using a comparison of different scenarios but using the same averaging
technique.
2.5

2.0
45 135

1.5

9
1.0

0.5

0.0 180

Deck-Wall Interaction

No Interaction

Figure 6-40 DMF for 121 m wharf segment with and without deck soil interaction

6.5.8 Effect of Eccentricity

The wharf geometry and mass distribution was selected from a typical configuration from
the Port of Los Angeles. However, there is the possibility of having structures with a
different configuration from the one assumed for the analyses. In order to evaluate the
effect of the change of the eccentricity that may be caused by a different mass or stiffness
distribution, the initial wharf model was modified to increase the eccentricity by 10 % and
20% and also for reducing it in the same proportions. Even if the stiffness was modified,
the structural period was maintained within 10% the initial value (benchmark) in order to
keep the transversal displacement as close as possible to the benchmark value and reduce
the variables involved on the verification. The analyses were performed for the 121.5
(400 ft) wharf segment.

The results in Figure 6-41 and Figure 6-42 show that there is a linear variation of the
DMF as a function of the eccentricity. This variation however is below 7% compared
with the benchmark case. This indicates that the DMF for the selected geometry can be
applied with enough accuracy to other cases with slight variation on the mass
distribution.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 185

15.0 Benchmark
10% Increase
10.0 20% Increase
10% Decrease
5.0 20% Decrease

0.0
Orthogonal Transverse
DMF
Displacement (in) Displacement (in)
Benchmark 11.90 8.07 1.47
10% Increase 13.04 8.65 1.51
20% Increase 13.61 8.67 1.57
10% Decrease 10.24 7.17 1.43
20% Decrease 10.51 7.68 1.37

Figure 6-41 Effect of eccentricity variation on the DMF for the 121.5 m segment

1.60

1.55
y = 0.4774x + 0.992
2
R = 0.9918
1.50
DMF

1.45
Analy. Case
Series1
Trend
Trendline
1.40

1.35
0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5
Eccentricity Ratio (Modified/benchmark)

Figure 6-42 Eccentricity vs DMF for the 121.5 m segment

186 Carlos Blandon

6.5.9 Load Combination Effect

The dynamic analyses carried out in the previous sections assumed that the 100% of the
spectrum compatible component excited the structure simultaneously in the two
orthogonal directions. However, in the current design practice of structures, it is
common to reduce one of the components of the record by a fraction. This is based on
the argument that using 100% in two orthogonal directions is a very conservative
assumption and that it is not very likely that one structure may suffer such intensity of
excitation.

A set of analyses were carried out for a 121m wharf segment in order to evaluate the
effect of reducing one of the components of the excitation. The H1 and H2 components
of the seven developed records (S1 to S7) were applied orthogonally. The component in
the longitudinal direction was reduced by a factor (A) from 0 to 1.0 in increments of 0.2.
H1 and H2 were rotated 90 degrees so the amount of analyses was doubled providing
additional information for a statistical evaluation of the data.

The results from this set of combined analyses (Figure 6-44) indicate that there seems to
be a linear variation of the DMF as function of the percentage of the CLE load applied in
the longitudinal direction. Note that the value for the 100 %-100 % combination (1.75)
is the same value obtained for a loading at 0 degrees in Figure 6-40 for the 121 m
segment.

100 % CLE Loading

Fraction of CLE

loading

Seaside

Figure 6-43 Combined orthogonal loading

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 187

2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
DMF

1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
CLE fraction Load in Longitudinal Direction (%)

Figure 6-44 DMF variation for combined orthogonal loading

In order to complement the results given in Figure 6-44 and estimate the effect of the
incidence angle of loading, the same wharf unit model was excited with the time history
record rotated from 15 to 360 degrees in intervals of 15 degrees using two different load
combinations: 100% in component 1 and 0%, 30 % or 60% in component 2. The
rotation of the load is intended to represent the real earthquake phenomena in which the
seismic excitation can arrive from any direction.

The results from these analyses (Figure 6-45) indicate a reduction of the DMF as the
fraction of one of the load components is reduced; however there is a significant effect of
the direction of the load between 30 to 75 degrees where the results show that the
sensibility of the DMF to the load factor is reduced being almost negligible between 45 to
60 degrees.

The trend of having a larger DMF at 0 degrees is kept for all the different combinations.
However, it was also observed that the most critical case is not at 0 degrees but around
60 degrees for the case of factored records. All load combinations show the same trend,
except to the surprising effect at 60 where there practically no reduction of the DMF
factor for the different load combinations. The behaviour was consistent on analyses
carried out in 182 m and 243 m segments as shown in Figure 6-46.

These results show that the use of the traditional combined orthogonal loading using a
fraction of one of the seismic motion components is not applicable to the analyses and
the structure considered in this study. There is a significant effect of the input ground
188 Carlos Blandon

motion angle on the DMF that is not captured when the factored component is applied
at 0 degrees. Based on this argument, no factor was applied to any of the ground motion
components for the analyses carried out in this study.

Figure 6-45 DMF for different load combinations and load angles (121.5 m segment)

2.0 100-100 2.0

100-0
1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0
1
0.5 0.5

1
0.0 0.0

100-100
100-0

Figure 6-46 DMF for different load combinations and load angles a) 182.5 m segment. b) 243 m
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 189

This effect observed from the nonlinear analyses results was verified theoretically by
Priestley [2006] who also found that there was an influence of the angle of incidence on
the DMF.

During the analyses, there was also some concern about the influence of having the
maximum input in both directions occurring at the same time which means a large
correlation between the two components of motion. In order to evaluate this effect,
some analyses were carried out by applying the orthogonal components with a lag of 2
seconds between them. It was found that the maximum response on the critical landside
corner piles remained almost the same as the case with no lag between the two
components showing that in average, there was a small correlation between the records
components.

Based on these results and the nonlinear analyses the cases studies proposed in the next
section were carried out using the 100 % in both directions and with no time lag between
them.

6.5.10 Displacement Averaging Approaches for DMF

The DMF has been calculated from the average of seven spectrum compatible records.
However, as it has been shown in the previous section, the approaches used for averaging
the results leads to different values. The results from six different averaging options will
be discussed in this section.

The inelastic time-history analyses that have been carried out resulted in ΔX (transverse)
and ΔZ (longitudinal) displacements being recorded at each time step. Two different
approaches have been proposed [SEQAD, 1998] to determine the peak average
displacements from these X and Z components.

The first one has been called as vectorial approach and is based on the estimation of the
peak vectorial displacement Δmax,i,j at each time step i and accelerogram pair j:

Δmax, i , j = Δ2Xi , j + Δ2Zi , j ( 6-4)

The absolute maximum displacement (Δmax,j) was obtained from the complete time
history of displacements for the earthquake record considered. The average displacement
for the seven records was then estimated as:
190 Carlos Blandon

7
∑ Δmax, j ( 6-5)
j =1
Δ=
7

The above approach averages the peak displacements for each record, regardless of the
fact that these peaks will occur in different orientations with respect to the global X and
Z axes. However, it may result in a very conservative procedure so a more consistent
approach that has been previously proposed [Priestley 2005] is as follows:

At each time interval i the displacement is calculated from ΔXi and ΔZi at a series of
different orientations from the X axis (in this study, angles at 15o intervals between 0 and
360o were chosen). The maximum value at each averaged azimuth was then obtained
from these resulting displacements. Finally, the maximum of these averaged
displacements in each azimuth was selected as the representative average maximum
displacement of the system for the different records. This has been called as the directional
approach. In a previous study [SEQAD, 1998] this method was argued as being more
appropriated given that if the peak strain at any location in the plastic hinge is the design
parameter, this directional approach is more consistent than the simplified vectorial
approach.

For each of these approaches, three options were evaluated to obtain the averaged value
of the DMF and evaluate the variability of this value as a function of the averaging
methodology used. In the first alternative, the averages were obtained individually for
each of the two lands side corner piles. Then the maximum average from the two piles
was selected to estimate the DMF. In the second case, the maximum displacement from
each analysis in any of the two landside piles was used to obtain the averaged
displacement. For the last case, the displacements were not averaged but the DMF from
each analysis was obtained and then these were averaged.

The results shown in Table 6-10 shows that for most of the cases, the directional
approach gives a lower estimation of the DMF, except for the last case when the DMF
are averaged. The lowest DMF value is obtained in both cases when the maximum
displacement is averaged individually for each landside corner pile. These analyses show
that there is a significant difference of the results so the approach used influence the final
DMF. Based on the mechanics of the problem, the directional averaging on independent
piles was used to obtain the DMF from the time history analyses carried out for the case
studies.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 191

Table 6-10 Dynamic Magnification Factor for vectorial and directional average approach

Combination DMF Notes

Vectorial 1.47 Taking averages of displacements for the orthogonal loading and
transversal loading from the seven records. selecting only one of
the two corner piles for the average
1.68 Taking averages of displacements for the orthogonal loading and
transversal loading from the seven records. Selecting the worst
case in any of the two critical piles.
1.73 Taking average of DMF obtained for each record. The worst pile
is taken in each case.
Directional 1.30 Taking averages of displacements for the orthogonal loading and
transversal loading from the seven records. Selecting only one of
the two corner piles for the average.
1.54 Taking average of DMF for each record and selecting only one of
the two corner piles for the average
1.73 Taking average of DMF obtained from each record and the worst
pile taken in each case.

6.6 EFFECT OF SHEAR KEY STIFFNESS MODEL AND GROUND MOTION INPUT
ANGLE ON THE SHEAR KEY FORCE
The shear key stiffness used for the analyses was defined based on suggestion provided in
previous studies [Priestley 2007]. It assumes that the maximum displacement at this
location should be close to 1mm in.

This approach however show to be quite uncertain and empirical so a sensitivity analysis
was carried out by gradually increasing and decreasing the stiffness used in the model.
Three different analyses were carried out on a 182.5 m + 182.5 m linked wharf to
evaluate the variation on the force on the shear key element as function of its stiffness. It
was found that even a significant variation of 20% above or between 20% and 50%
below the benchmark value of 100.000 kips/in does result in only 0.5 % of force
variation in the element (see Table 6-11), while the relative transversal displacement of
the wharf segments varied from 0.5 mm to 1.2 mm. Hence, the benchmark value of the
stiffness was used for the analyses of the linked segments.
192 Carlos Blandon

Table 6-11 Shear key force

Shear Key Stiffness Shear Force KN

KN/mm (Kips/in) (Kips)
17 895.5 (100000) 10196.8 (2243.3)
14316.4 (80000) 10253.6 (2255.8)
21474.6 (120000) 10148.2 (2232.6)
8947.7 (50000) 10335.4 (2273.8)

6.7 CASE STUDIES

The objective of the time history analyses was to obtain the dynamic magnification factor
and shear key forces for different wharf configuration, soil properties and ground motion
intensity. From the results of these combinations it will be possible to define the critical
cases to be used for the seismic design of wharf with similar characteristics.

A total of 11 different configurations were analyzed, using lower and upper bound soil
characteristics and OLE or CLE spectrum compatible ground motions as listed in Table
6-12. The total length of the units or the linked segments was defined based on possible
combinations that can be actually built to accommodate the length of standard vessels.
The wharf piles were represented by 4 supper piles that are able to capture accurately the
response of the real structure.

The DMF and the shear key forces were obtained as an average from 7 different
spectrum compatible records for each level of design intensity: 7 for OLE and 7 for OLE
performance level. The average for the DMF value was obtained using the directional
approach for which it was necessary to decompose the response of the critical corner piles
in vectorial components rotated from 0 to 345 degrees and average the response from the
different records in each direction. The DMF is the results of the ratio between the
maximum averaged response in one of the vectorial components and the transversal
response under pure transversal excitation.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 193

Table 6-12 Analyses Cases

Case Ground Spring
Length (m)
# Motion Properties
1 121.5 OLE LB
2 121.5 CLE LB
3 182.5 OLE LB
4 182.5 CLE LB
5 243 OLE LB
6 243 CLE LB
7 121.5 + 121.5 CLE UB
8 121.5 + 121.5 OLE LB
9 182.5 + 182.5 CLE UB
10 182.5 + 182.5 OLE LB
11 243 + 243 CLE UB
12 243 + 243 OLE LB
13 243 + 121.5 CLE UB
14 243 + 121.5 OLE LB
15 243 + 182.5 CLE UB
16 243 + 182.5 OLE LB
17 182.5 + 243 + 243 CLE UB
18 182.5 + 243 + 243 OLE LB
19 243 + 182.5 + 243 CLE UB
20 243 + 182.5 + 243 OLE LB
21 243 + 243 + 243 CLE UB
22 243 + 243 + 243 OLE LB

6.8 RESULTS OF ANALYSES

Table 6-13 to Table 6-16 show the results obtained from the analyses; displacements are
given in inches and forces in kips. Additional plots are given at the end of these tables in
order to help understanding the results and the sensitivity to the different variables. In
these plots, the length effect was plotted for the case of CLE intensity and lower bound
springs. The spring effect was plotted for the CLE intensity and upper bound springs
and the Intensity effect was plotted for OLE intensity and CLE soil springs.
194 Carlos Blandon

Table 6-13 Single Segments DMF (Displacement in mm)

Δ
Δt DMF
Case Ground Spring
Length (m) (Combined
# Motion Properties Directional Average
(Pure Transverse
(Δ/Δt)
Average of 7)
of 7)

1 121.5 OLE LB 96.8 62.2 1.56

121.5 OLE UB 66.3 43.2 1.54
2 121.5 CLE LB 265.4 205.0 1.29
121.5 CLE UB 158.8 108.5 1.46
3 182.5 OLE LB 89.9 62.0 1.45
182.5 OLE UB 64.8 43.2 1.51
4 182.5 CLE LB 241.6 203.7 1.19
182.5 CLE UB 148.3 108.0 1.37
5 243 OLE LB 83.6 62.0 1.35
243 OLE UB 59.9 43.2 1.39
6 243 CLE LB 222.3 203.5 1.09
243 CLE UB 138.7 108.2 1.28
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 195

Table 6-14 Linked Segments (2 segments) (Displacement in mm)

Δt
Δ Shear
Case Ground Spring (Pure DMF Key
Length (m) (Combined
# Motion Properties (Δ/Δt) Force
Transverse
Directional
Average of 7)
Average of
(KN)
7)

7 121.5+ 121.5 CLE UB 132.3 108.2 1.22 9279.1

121.5+121.5 CLE LB 223.8 205.7 1.09 6162.3
8 121.5+ 121.5 OLE LB 82.8 62.0 1.34 5195.0
121.5+ 121.5 OLE UB 61.0 43.2 1.42 7461.8
9 182.5+182.5 CLE UB 126.5 108.5 1.17 9491.5
182.5+ 182.5 CLE LB 203.7 204.2 1.00 6657.7
10 182.5+ 182.5 OLE LB 73.7 62.0 1.19 5437.0
182.5+ 182.5 OLE UB 53.3 42.9 1.24 8064.1
11 243 + 243 CLE UB 125.0 108.5 1.15 9727.3
243 + 243 CLE LB 198.1 204.2 0.97 6733.6
12 243 + 243 OLE LB 67.8 62.0 1.09 5533.2
243 + 243 OLE UB 49.8 43.2 1.15 8345.5
13 243 + 121.5 CLE UB 130.6 108.5 1.20 9313.2
243 + 121.5 LB 207.5 205.2 1.01 6493.6
14 243 + 121.5 OLE LB 68.8 62.0 1.11 5253.2
243 + 121.5 UB 51.1 43.2 1.18 7664.1
15 243 + 182.5 CLE UB 116.6 108.5 1.08 9488.2
243 + 182.5 LB 198.9 204.2 0.97 6657.7
16 243 + 182.5 OLE LB 67.8 62.0 1.10 5426.4
243 + 182.5 UB 50.3 43.2 1.16 8119.5
196 Carlos Blandon

Table 6-15 Linked Segments (3 segments) (Displacement in mm)

Δ (Directi Δt Shear
Case Spring onal (Transverse DMF Key
Length (m) G.M.
# Prop. Average Average of (Δ/Δt) Force
of 7) 7) (KN)
17 182.5 + 243 + 243 CLE UB 127.8 108.5 1.18 8414.1
182.5 + 243 + 243 0.0 7987.7
182.5 + 243 + 243 LB 208.5 204.2 1.02 5702.3
182.5 + 243 + 243 0.0 5447.3
18 182.5 + 243 + 243 OLE LB 76.5 62.0 1.23 4635.5
182.5 + 243 + 243 0.0 4614.1
182.5 + 243 + 243 UB 54.1 42.9 1.26 6833.6
182.5 + 243 + 243 0.0 7064.1
19 243 + 182.5 + 243 CLE UB 127.8 108.5 1.18 7830.0
243 + 182.5 + 243 0.0 7776.8
243 + 182.5 + 243 LB 201.7 204.5 0.99 5520.9
243 + 182.5 + 243 0.0 5317.7
20 243 + 182.5 + 243 OLE LB 71.1 62.0 1.15 4475.0
243 + 182.5 + 243 0.0 4565.0
243 + 182.5 + 243 UB 51.1 43.2 1.19 6783.6
243 + 182.5 + 243 0.0 6923.2
21 243 + 243 + 243 CLE UB 127.8 108.5 1.18 8081.8
243 + 243 + 243 0.0 7995.9
243 + 243 + 243 LB 200.9 204.2 0.98 5763.2
243 + 243 + 243 0.0 5535.0
22 243 + 243 + 243 OLE LB 70.9 62.0 1.14 4595.5
243 + 243 + 243 0.0 4631.4
243 + 243 + 243 UB 50.8 42.9 1.18 6863.6
243 + 243 + 243 7089.5
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 197

Table 6-16 Intermediate Segments DMF (3 linked segments only) (Displacement in mm)
Δ Δt
Case Ground Spring (Combined (Pure DMF
Length (m)
# Motion Properties (Δ/Δt)
Directional Transverse
Average of Average of
7) 7)

17 182.5 + 243 + 243 CLE UB 117.6 108.5 1.09

182.5 + 243 + 243 CLE LB 191.0 204.2 0.94
18 182.5 + 243 + 243 OLE LB 63.4 62.0 1.02
182.5 + 243 + 243 OLE UB 42.2 43.2 0.98
19 243 + 182.5 + 243 CLE UB 117.4 108.5 1.08
243 + 182.5 + 243 CLE LB 190.8 204.2 0.93
20 243 + 182.5 + 243 OLE LB 63.8 62.0 1.03
243 + 182.5 + 243 OLE UB 42.2 43.2 0.98
21 243 + 243 + 243 CLE UB 117.3 108.5 1.08
243 + 243 + 243 CLE LB 189.2 204.2 0.93
22 243 + 243 + 243 OLE LB 63.2 62.0 1.02
243 + 243 + 243 OLE UB 41.9 43.2 0.98
The results summarized on the tables were plotted to compare the relative effect of the
length, the spring properties and the ground motion intensity. The first set of bars in
each plot shows the DMF or shear value for the case lower bound springs and CLE input
ground motions. The second set of bars shows one of the two mentioned parameters for
upper bound soil properties and CLE input motions. These were plotted to evaluate the
effect of the springs. The final set of bars show the DMF or shear key forces for the case
of lower bound springs and OLE input ground motion. These last columns were used to
evaluate the effect of ground motion on the results.

Figure 6-47 shows the comparisons for the unitary segments analyzed. The length of the
segments are given in feet, so 121.5 m, 183.5 m and 243 m correspond to 400 ft, 600 ft
and 800 ft respectively.

It is clear that there is a linear decrease of the DMF value as the segment length increases.
The second set of bars shows that the DMF increases when the upper bound soil
conditions are used. The third set shows that the DMF also increases for OLE. This last
observation indicates that for these individual segments it may be required that two
different DMF values are used. Figure 6-48 to Figure 6-50 shows the same trends
observed for the unitary segments even if the DMF for the linked segments is always
smaller than the corresponding case for the single segment.
198 Carlos Blandon

One important observation from the linked segment cases for the lower bound soil
springs and CLE input ground motion is that there is no magnification except for the
121.5 m (400 ft) linked segments case and even for some cases there seem to be a slight
reduction of the transversal response instead of a magnification. It is also noticeable that
for the OLE intensity level and lower bound springs, the DMF is larger for the cases with
three linked segments compared with two linked segments. For the three linked
segments, the results show that the magnification can be reduced if instead of using a unit
of different length in one end it is placed in the middle.

Figure 6-52 shows the DMF results for the intermediate wharf unit from the 3 linked
segments wharf cases. It is clear that the DMF is significantly smaller than for the
extreme segments shown in the previous plot. For the case of lower bound springs and
the CLE input ground motion, the effect of deamplification is larger than for the
previous cases. For the OLE case, the maximum average amplification is just 3%. It is
important to remember that the results come from the averaging of seven different
records and the DMF in each case may not show a factor less than 1.0 however the
results are indicating that the effect of torsion is not significant in these intermediate
segments. Larger values of DMF were obtained using upper bound values and CLE
records; however these cases do not control the design.

In results for the shear key in the two linked segments show that the forces tends to
slightly increase with the unit length. Figure 6-52 also shows that the forces for the upper
bound soil springs are between 60% and 70% larger than for the lower bound soil
springs. The same range was observed for the asymmetric linked units as shown in
Figure 6-53. This shows that the governing case for the shear key forces design is the
upper bound soil springs case.

These two plots also show that for the case of the OLE ground motion, the shear key
forces are just 20% smaller than for the CLE case, even if the ratio of ground motion
intensity for the period of response of the structure is close to a factor of 2.0. This
shows that the shear force generated in the element can reach values close to the
maximum estimated for CLE for much smaller intensity ground motions as OLE.

Figure 6-53 shows that for the dominant case (second set of bars-spring effect) the force
on the shear key for the unsymmetrical wharf segments is governed by the shortest
segment. Comparing with the results in Figure 6-52 for the same case note that for
instance the force for 800 ft + 400 ft (243 m + 121.5 m), is practically the same as for the
case of 400 ft + 400 ft (121.5 m + 121.5 m). The same argument applies for 800 ft + 600
ft (243 m + 182.5 m) and 600 ft + 600 ft (182.5 m + 182.5 m).
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 199

The inclusion of an additional segment (3 linked segments case) induced a reduction of

the shear key force by 15% approximately compared to the maximum force obtained for
the 2 segments linked governing cases as shown in Figure 6-54. There does not seem to
be an appreciable effect of the added segment length and the effect of the earthquake
intensity is still around 20%.

1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
400
1
DMF

600
0.8
800
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Length Effect Spring Effect Intensity Effect
400 1.29 1.46 1.56
600 1.19 1.37 1.45
800 1.09 1.28 1.35

Figure 6-47 DMF sensibility for individual segments (wharf length in feet)

1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00 400 + 400
DMF

0.80 600 + 600

0.60 800 + 800

0.40
0.20
0.00
Length Effect Spring Effect Intensity Effect
400 + 400 1.09 1.22 1.34
600 + 600 1.00 1.17 1.19
800 + 800 0.97 1.15 1.09

Figure 6-48 DMF sensibility for 2 linked segments (symmetric segments-wharf length in feet)
200 Carlos Blandon

1.40

1.20

1.00

0.80 800 + 800

DMF

800 + 400
0.60
800 + 600
0.40

0.20

0.00
Length Effect Spring Effect Intensity Effect
800 + 800 0.97 1.15 1.09
800 + 400 1.01 1.20 1.11
800 + 600 0.97 1.08 1.10

Figure 6-49 DMF sensibility for 2 linked segments (asymmetric segments-wharf length in feet)

1.4

1.2

0.8 600 + 800 + 800

DMF

800 + 600 + 800

0.6
800 + 800 + 800
0.4

0.2

0
Length Effect Spring Effect Intensity Effect
600 + 800 + 800 1.02 1.18 1.23
800 + 600 + 800 0.99 1.18 1.15
800 + 800 + 800 0.98 1.18 1.14

Figure 6-50 DMF sensibility for 3 linked segments (Extreme segments corners - wharf length in
feet)
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 201

1.15

1.1

1.05
600 + 800 + 800
DMF

1 800 + 600 + 800

800 + 800 + 800
0.95

0.9

0.85
Length Effect Spring Effect Intensity Effect
600 + 800 + 800 0.94 1.09 1.02
800 + 600 + 800 0.93 1.08 1.03
800 + 800 + 800 0.93 1.08 1.02

Figure 6-51 DMF sensibility for 3 linked segments (Intermediate segment corners - length in feet)

2500.00

2000.00
Shear Force (Kips)

1500.00 400 + 400

600 + 600
1000.00 800 + 800

500.00

0.00
Length Effect Spring Effect Intensity Effect
400 + 400 1355.70 2041.40 1142.90
600 + 600 1464.70 2088.14 1196.14
800 + 800 1481.40 2140.00 1217.30

Figure 6-52 Shear Key Force sensibility for 2 linked segments (symmetric segments)
202 Carlos Blandon

2500.00

2000.00
Shear Force (Kips)

1500.00 800 + 800

800 + 400
1000.00 800 + 600

500.00

0.00
Length Effect Spring Effect Intensity Effect
800 + 800 1481.40 2140.00 1217.30
800 + 400 1428.60 2048.90 1155.70
800 + 600 1464.70 2087.40 1193.80

Figure 6-53 Shear Key Force sensibility for 2 linked segments (asymmetric segments)

2000.0
1800.0 600 + 800 + 800
1600.0
Shear Force (Kips)

800 + 600 + 800

1400.0 800 + 800 + 800
1200.0
1000.0
800.0
600.0
400.0
200.0
0.0
Length Effect Spring Effect Intensity Effect
600 + 800 + 800 1254.5 1851.1 1019.8
800 + 600 + 800 1214.6 1722.6 984.5
800 + 800 + 800 1267.9 1778.0 1011.0

Figure 6-54 Shear Key Force sensibility for 3 linked segments

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves 203

The results from the time history analyses were compared to the equation ( 6-6) in which
β was taken as 1.3, VΔ is the segment’s lateral force at maximum displacement which can
be obtained from the push over analyses of the transverse section, e is the eccentricity
and L is the segment length. The eccentricity is the same for all the segments, and for the
upper bound P-Y springs this value is found to be 15.0 m (49.5 ft.) From the push over
analyses, the value of VΔ was 2960.1 KN (651.0 kips) for a strip of 6 m (20 ft.)

⎛V e ⎞
V sk = β ⎜ Δ ⎟ ( 6-6)
⎝ L ⎠

Given that the maximum strength increases in the same proportion as the segment
length, the value given by Eq. ( 6-6) will be constant so it won’t be able to capture the
variation on the force observed from the time history analyses. It is interesting however
than for a factor of 1.3, the value obtained from the equation was 2094.0 kips, which is
practically the same value obtained from the time history analyses for the 182.4 m (600 ft)
segment. The value obtained for the parameter β is given as a function of the length
Figure 6-55. the plot shows that even if there is a linear variation of the force as a
function of the wharf length, Eq. ( 6-6) can be taken as a average from three cases
analyzed and could be used for design without incurring in significant error for the
extreme cases of 121.5 m (400 ft) and 243 m (800 ft).

1.40
1.38
1.36
1.34
1.32
1.30
β

1.28
1.26
1.24
1.22
1.20
300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Wharf Segment Lenght (ft)

Figure 6-55 β variation

 205

7.SLIDING LAYER KINEMATIC ANALYSES

Most of the wharf related damages have occurred due to large soil permanent
displacements that in most cases have been caused by liquefaction of soil layers inside the
profile where the piles are embedded (see section 1.5). The aim of this study is to
evaluate the effect of a thin sliding layer on the displacement capacity of a typical pile.

Some previous efforts have been carried out in the past in order to define a methodology
and criteria which would allow the simplification of the design procedure. Priestley
[2005], proposed a procedure based on assumptions of the plastic hinge length, elastic
distance to fixity and plastic hinge location for a 0.6 m (2 ft) sliding layer (Figure 7-1). In
this model, is assumed that a certain distance below and above the layer interface the pile
is not affected by the sliding so it can be modelled as fixed. The ground above the
sliding surface is assumed to be competent and moves as a rigid body on top of the
liquefied layer. This movement forces the pile to deform causing the plastic hinge
formation some distance above and below the sliding layer interfaces.

Elastic Fixity

5 D (3m)
Plastic Hinge

2 D (1.2 m)

Sliding layer 0.6m

2 D (1.2 m)

5 D (3m)

Elastic Fixity

Figure 7-1 Simplified kinematic model with depth to fixity boundary conditions
206 Carlos Blandon

The model represents a critical scenario that would result in a lower bound for the
displacement capacity of the pile. This model however was a first approximation to the
problem and the assumptions made were not further verified with more detail.

This basic model was refined and also the procedure to obtain the displacement capacity
as explained in the next section.

7.1 MODEL SET UP

The octagonal prestressed piles have a 0.6 m (24 in) internal diameter, and are reinforced
with 16 -0.6 in strands (138 mm2). The ultimate strand strength is 1890 MPa (270 Ksi)
and the stress after losses is 1050 Mpa (150 Ksi) giving a effective prestressing force of
2345.5 KN (516 kips). The pile has a cover of 76 mm (3.0 in) to the transverse
reinforcement (Figure 7-2). The concrete has an estimated compressive strength of 49
Mpa (7.0 Ksi). The transverse reinforcement at the depth of the liquefiable layer studied
consists of a W11 with a pitch of 76 mm (3 in) and yield strength of 490 Mpa (70 Ksi).
These characteristics are typical for construction in the Port of Los Angeles; however, the
use of prestressed piles with similar characteristics is a common practice in the port
around United States.

W11@ 76mm

0.61 m
76 mm

16 – 0.6 in strands
(138 mm2)

Figure 7-2 Transverse section of prestressed pile

The nonlinear behaviour of the prestressed section was modelled using a fibre analysis
approach based on the individual nonlinear properties of the concrete and steel (Figure
7-3).
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 207

The concrete model is defined by the compressive strength, strain at compressive

strength, crushing strength and strain at crushing strain following Mander’s concrete
model. Some additional parameters are used to define the unloading stiffness and tensile
hysteretic behaviour. In order to capture the confinement effect of the soil into the
concrete cover, the crushing strain of the material was slightly increased compared to the
value that would be used for bare unconfined concrete. Hence, a strain of 0.008 at zero
stress was used to define the crushing of the unconfined cover concrete of the pile
section. These assumptions are based on the section verification shown in section 4.2.2

The prestressing strands are defined by the Young’s modulus of elasticity, strain at
yielding and initial strain for modelling the prestressing. Table 7-1 shows the parameters
used for the prestressed pile section and additional information on the material model
can be found elsewhere [Mazzoni et al, 2006].

Confined Concrete
Fibre
Unconfined
Concrete Fiber fcc

fcu
εcc

εcu
Prestressing Strand
Fibre

fs

εs

Figure 7-3 Fibre section model

The moment curvature relationship obtained for the modelled section (Figure 7-4) shows
a degradation of strength after the maximum moment capacity has been reached. Such
reduction is noticeable due to the thick unconfined cover concrete which quickly reduces
its strength capacity once the maximum strength is reached. Note that for this analysis
208 Carlos Blandon

approach, it is not necessary to defined different properties for uncraked or cracked

sections given that the stiffness of the section “automatically” adjust itself at each step of
the analysis as each fibre of the section follows the predefined nonlinear stress-strain
model.

Additionally to the fibre model for the flexural behaviour of the pile element, a model to
capture the shear flexibility was also included. The software Opensees has the capability
of creating a section combining the flexural model with fibres and a shear model with a
linear unitary length element. The resulting matrix of the section includes the flexural
and shear components so the final displacement obtained from the analysis has both
components.

Table 7-1 prestressed section material properties

Concrete Compressive Strain at Crushing Strain at

model strength (MPa) compressive Strength crushing
strength (ksi) strength
Confined 59.5 0.005 52.5 0.018
Unconfined 45.5 0.002 3.5 0.008
Steel Model Modulus of Initial strain Strain at
Elasticity (GPa) yielding
Elastoplastic 200.0 0.005 0.008

900
600
800
700 500
Moment (Kips-ft)
Moment (KN-m)

600
400
500
400 300

300 200
200
100
100
0 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04
Normalized Curvature (φ xD)

Figure 7-4 Pile moment curvature nonlinear relationship (W11@76mm)

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 209

7.2 ANALYSES
The pile is modelled using a finite element program where the nonlinear behaviour of the
elements is characterized by the section previously described. The pile is discretized in
152 mm (6 in.) length element and the soil is modelled with P-Y curves defined at each
node above and below the sliding layer using the methodology recommended by API for
a medium dense to dense sands (φ =350). Two different depth of the sliding layer were
used in order to represents different possible cases of kinematic interaction, hence two
different sets of P-Y springs were used. Figure 7-5 and Figure 7-6 show the displacement
vs force nonlinear relationship (P-Y curves) for the 9 m (30 ft) and 15 m (50 ft) depth to
the sliding layer. Due to the large amount of soil spring elements, only some of them
were plotted.

In section 5.2 it was shown that the stresses and rotations on the pile would be very small
for at a depth of 6 m (20 feet) below the ground. This assumption was also applied for
these analyses so a pile length of 6 m above and below the liquefiable layer interfaces (10
D) was used (Figure 7-7). The pile top is allowed to move in the horizontal direction but
rotation is restrained; at the bottom, all degrees of freedom are fixed as shown in Figure
7-7.

The seismic motion is assumed to cause the liquefaction of the liquefiable layer which at
the same time cause the top soil layer to move horizontally as a rigid body. This
movement is represented in the model as an increasing uniform displacement profile
applied to one side of the P-Y springs above the sliding layer interface. The soil profile
below the liquefied layer is assumed to remain steady. This is represented in the model
by restraining the springs below the bottom interface at one end and attaching the other
end to the pile.

A second model was analyzed in order to observe the effect of the pile discritization on
the overall response of the pile. This model was introduced due to the fact that the
nonlinear moment-curvature degrading envelope shown in Figure 7-4 may induce a
“localization” effect [Coleman and Spacone, 2001] on the distribution of the curvature
and hence unrealistically concentrate the plastic hinge length in a very short part of the
element, increasing considerably the curvatures.

The element length and spring spacemen was increased from 0.25 D to 0.5 D and the P-
Y values were adjusted to this length. 0.5 D was estimated to be a reasonable length
based on the results of the tests by Budeck et al [1997] in which the observed plastic
hinge length of a pile with approximately same characteristics as the one analyzed spread
to a maximum of 1 D according to the readings from strain gages placed along the pile
reinforcement. 0.5 D elements will force a minimum plastic hinge length of 1 D which is
210 Carlos Blandon

the value obtained from the tests. Additional tests would be required in order to justify
additional increase of the plastic hinge length.

180 900

160 800

140
Depth (m)
700

120 600
FORCE (Kips)

3.0

FORCE (KN)
100 500 5.4
7.9
80 400 10.3
12.2
60 300
14.0
40 200

20 100

0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
DISPLACEMENT (mm)

Figure 7-5 P-Y curves for 9 m (30 ft) depth to the sliding layer case

250
1100
Depth (m)
1000
200 900 9.0
800 10.2
FORCE (Kips)

700 12.0
Force (KN)

150
13.9
600
15.1
500
100 15.7
400 16.3
300 18.1
50 21.2
200
100
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
DISPLACEMENT (mm)

Figure 7-6 P-Y curves for the 15 m (50 ft) depth to sliding layer case
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 211

Top fixed against

Springs at 0.25D or 0.5 rotation
D with uniform
displacement profile
10 D (3m)

0.6m
Sliding layer

Fixed end springs

spaced each 0.25
D or 0.5 D

10 D (3m)

Fixed base

Figure 7-7 Model Set Up

7.3 RESULTS

The analyses were carried out for two different sets of P-Y springs developed to capture
the effect of the depth of the sliding layer. One set considered such layer at 9 m below
ground whilst the second set was developed for a depth of 15m. Figure 7-8 shows the
internal forces profile along the pile for the analyses performed. Note that, as expected
for the case of 15 m overburden, the profile reflects stiffer soil conditions inducing more
marked moment variation and hence larger shear forces than for the case of 9 m
overburden.

One plastic hinge is formed above the sliding layer and another below the same layer
almost at the same time and at different distance from the interface (Figure 7-9). At the
instant when strains at critical sections reach the CLE limit, the overburden pressure
increase induced a reduction of the displacement capacity of the pile. For the shallowest
depth considered to the sliding layer (9 m) the displacement capacity obtained was 46
mm (1.8 in) whilst for the case of 15 m depth, the capacity was 35.5 mm (1.4 in) which
corresponds to a considerable reduction of 27% (Figure 7-10). Table 7-2 summarizes the
location of the hinges with respect to the ground surface and the sliding layer interface.
212 Carlos Blandon

Table 7-2 Plastic hinge location for the model with 0.25 D pile elements

Sliding Layer Plastic hinge depth Distance to interface Distance between

Depth hinges

9m 8.75 D (5.3 m) 1.25 D (0.76 m) 3.25 D (1.9 m)

12.0 D (7.3 m) 1.0 D (0.61 m)
15 m 9.0 D (18 ft) 1.0 D (0.61 m) 2.75 D (1.7 m)
11.75 (23.5 ft)D 0.75 D (0.45 m)

The plastic hinge on the critical section spreads along a very limited length which can be
explained by the pronounced strength degradation of the moment capacity once the
maximum moment has been reached. For the critical section to gain moment capacity
again and spread the plastic hinge, a large curvature is required. The spread of the hinge,
measured along the sections that exceed yielding curvature, occurred in a length of 0.6 D
to 0.75 D (0.37 m – 0.46m).

The results from the model with element length and spring separation of 0.5 D show
almost no variation on the maximum forces (Figure 7-11), a slight variation in terms of
plastic hinge depth and distance between hinges (Figure 7-12), which is due to the
reduction on the element discritization (Table 7-3). However the main variation is in
terms of displacement capacity; which increases from 45. 7 mm (1.8 in) to 56 mm (2.2 in)
(20%) for the case of 9 m (30 ft) overburden and from 35.6 mm (1.4 in) to 40.6 mm (1.6
in) (14%) in the case of 15 m (50 ft) overburden (Figure 7-13). Even though there is a
relatively considerable increase, the level of magnitude of the displacement capacity is still
very limited compared with the possible deformations caused by the failure of the sliding
layer and the large uncertainties involved with the evaluation these deformations.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 213

-200 0 200 400

-800 -400 0 400 800
0
0

-2
-2

-4
-4

Depth (m)
-6
Depth (m)

-6

-8 -8

9m
9m
-10 15 m -10
15 m

-12 -12

-14 -14
Moment (KN-m) Shear (KN)

Figure 7-8 Pile internal forces profile for model with 0.25D pile segments

-0.05 -0.025 0 0.025 0.05

0

-2

-4
Depth (m)

-6

-8

CLE
-10
9m
15 m
-12

-14
Curvature (1/m)

Figure 7-9 Plastic hinge location at CLE for 0.25 D pile segments
214 Carlos Blandon

0 20 40 60
0

-2

-4
Depth (m)

-6
9m
15 m
-8

-10

-12

-14
Displacement (mm)

Figure 7-10 Displacement profile at CLE for 0.25D pile segments

Table 7-3 Plastic Hinge location for the case of 0.5D pile segments

Sliding Layer Depth Plastic hinge depth Distance to Distance

interface between hinges
9m 9.0 D (5.5 m) 1.0 D (0.6 m) 3.5 D (2.1 m)
12.5 D (7.6 m) 1.5 D (0.91 m)
15 m 9.0 D (5.5 m) 1.0 D (0.6 m) 3.0 D (1.8 m)
12.0 (7.3 m)D 1.0 D (0.6 m)
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 215

-800 -400 0 400 800 -1000 0 1000 2000

0 0

-2 -2

-4 -4

Depth (m)
-6
Depth (m)

-6

-8 -8

9m
9m
-10 15m -10
15 m

-12 -12

-14 -14
Moment (KN-m) Shear (KN)

a) Moment profile b) Shear profile

Figure 7-11 Pile internal forces profile for 0.5 D pile segments

-0.05 -0.025 0 0.025 0.05

0

-2

CLE
-4 9m
15m
Depth (m)

-6

-8 `

-10

-12

-14
Curvature (1/m)

Figure 7-12 Plastic hinge location at CLE for model with 0.5 D pile segments
216 Carlos Blandon

0 20 40 60 80
0

-2

-4
Depth (m)

-6
9m
15m
-8

-10

-12

-14
Displacement (mm)

Figure 7-13 Displacement profile at CLE for model with 0.5 D pile segments

7.4 UPDATED ANALYSES WITH REVISED CONCRETE AND STRAND STRESS-STRAIN

CHARACTERISTICS
The material properties of the cover concrete were defined before the test program
described in the next section had been completed. Based on some findings from the test,
it was decided to carry out additional analyses modifying the properties of the unconfined
cover concrete. The test showed that the cover concrete performance was enhanced by
the soil confinement. Such confinement would increase the displacement capacity of the
pile.

The parameters for these analyses are as follows: the sliding layer was assumed at 15.5 m
(50 ft) depth and the pile was modelled with 0.3 m (12 in - 0.5 D) length elements. The
unconfined concrete strength was taken as 45.5 Mpa (6.5 Ksi).

The main modifications on the model were the confined properties of the core and the
cover concrete. These were estimated based on the unconfined concrete strength and the
confinement provided by the soil and in the case of the core concrete, also the
confinement from the transverse reinforcement which can be estimated as:
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 217

4 Ab 4 × 70.9mm 2
ρl = = = 0.00815
D ' s 457.2 mm × 76.2 mm

f l = 0.5 ρ l f y = 0.5 × 0.00815 × 480 MPa = 1.95 MPa ( 278 psi )

The soil confinement was approximately estimated from the P-Y springs defined at the
depth of maximum moment from the previous analyses. For the location of the
maximum moment above the sliding layer, the soils spring was estimated to reach a
maximum value of 4.5 KN/mm (25 lb/in). Assuming that the force is distributed in the
front of the octagonal piles, the total pressure would be:

4.5KN / mm
fl = = 7.4 Pa ( 1047 psi )
610 mm

Note the relative effect of confinement from the soil with respect to the confinement
from the transverse reinforcement. The steel is providing only 26% in proportion to the
soil confinement. It is also important to mention that using the total width of the
octagonal pile is a conservative approach given that the force would be more
concentrated on the front face of the pile increasing the pressure in this location.

Based on these calculation of confinement, the confined core concrete strength was
defined as 89.2 Mpa (12.7 ksi) and the cover concrete maximum strength was estimated
to be 81.9 Mpa (11.7 ksi).

The steel model was improved to a bilinear steel model from the previous elastoplastic
model. The initial prestress was 1078 MPa (154 ksi), the yielding stress was 1512 MPa (
216 ksi) and the ultimate stress 1981 MPa (283.5 ksi) at 0.06 strain. The modulus of
Elasticity was 204. Gpa (29.000 ksi). The resulting moment curvature relationship is
shown in Figure 7-14.

Based on the test carried out, the strand strain limit was increased to 2.5%. The strands
are assumed to fracture at strains close to 5%. These limits are shown in Figure 7-14.
218 Carlos Blandon

800
1000
700

600 800
Strand 2.5%
Moment (Kips-ft)

Strand 5%

Moment (KN-m)
500
600
400

300 400

200
200
100

0 0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08
Normalized Curvature (φ x D)

Figure 7-14 Displacement profile at CLE

The sliding analysis was carried out suing this last section for the case of the liquefiable
layer located at 15 m below ground. Compared with the previous results, there is a
significant increase on the displacement capacity but also an increase of the shear
demands on the element as listed in Table 7-4. The shear capacity of the pile was
estimated to be close to 1700 KN (380 kips) so it is likely that the pile will fail in shear
before reaching the strand capacity at a displacement of 115 mm (Figure 7-15).

More refined analyses and test would give more insight into this problem, however,
evidence of shear damage in piles from past earthquakes shows that pile extensive
damage does not necessarily affected the structures supported on them. One good
example of this is the damage reported by Hamada [2000] about the evaluation of
extracted piles extracted 25 years after the 1964 Niigata earthquake in Japan. Even if the
piles shows to have suffered extensive damage close to the surface due to lateral
spreading (Figure 7-16), the building on top remained operational until they were
demolished for the construction of a new structure.

In absence of more analytical or experimental studies, the results obtained in this studies
show that for estimated soil displacement below 75 mm (3 in) the pile do not seem to
have significant problems in performance. The pile probably can reach displacements
around 127 mm (5 in) but shear damage may occur.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 219

Table 7-4 Comparative results at CLE for sliding analysis

Case Displacement Shear

Initial model 40.6 mm 1430 KN
Modified Model 85.1 mm 1827 KN
Displacement (mm)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
500
450 CLE Modified 2000
400 Model
Lateral Force (Kips)

Lateral Force (KN)

350
1500
300
250 Strand
CLE Initial Fracture 1000
200
Model
150
100 50 ft- Modified 500
50 50ft

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Displacement (in)

Figure 7-15 Shear force at the liquefied layer vs top displacement for the modified model with 304
mm (0.5 D) segment length and sliding layer at 15 m (50 ft) below ground

Figure 7-16 Extracted piles damaged during the 1964 Niigata earthquake [Hamada 2000]
 221

8.EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM

Performance based design requires a good understanding of the seismic performance of

wharf-foundation-dike systems. Methodologies currently used in practice need to be
validated and improved if necessary. Additional data such as the effective plastic hinge
length, overall force displacement response and energy absorbed under cyclic load are
some of the data required in order to satisfy these needs. The initial stiffness of the
system is a particular variable that should be measured in the experimental efforts, due to
its direct influence on the natural period and the displacement demand. These variables
have to be tied to performance criteria parameters such as material strains and limit
values for defined performance levels.

Unless additional data is obtained, designs based on the available data, will have large
uncertainty. If the current parameters are very conservative, the construction of new
structures or retrofitting of existing wharves may result unnecessarily elevated. Further,
these parameters may be unconservative and excessive damage may occur even under
low intensity earthquakes. The only way to reduce this uncertainty is by carrying out
additional tests in specimens with characteristics similar to real constructions and using
data acquired in these tests to perform simulations.

The design criteria and methodologies for pile supported wharves are based on a limited
number of tests [Diaz, 1984., McCullough and Schlenchter 2000]. Some tools used for
analyses and criteria for design have been taken from structures with boundary
conditions close to the specific case of wharves such as pile foundations for buildings and
bridges [Budeck, 1997]. However, in many cases the boundary conditions, soil
characteristics and pile properties are far different from the real conditions of real
wharves.

In this section, some efforts on laboratory test on wharfs systems and components are
reviewed and finally, a set of laboratory tests are presented. The test description,
instrumentation, construction and set up are also described.

8.1 PREVIOUS WORK

The current POLA seismic code specifies allowable compression strain in the cover
concrete and steel at the connection and in the in-ground plastic hinge. In most cases,
222 Carlos Blandon

the in-ground hinge governs the design due to the strict limit of the material strain. This
values where obtained from laboratory tests carried out by Budeck [1997] as shown in
section 4.2.1. In this test, the confinement effect of the soil was simulated by applying a
circumferential force using rubber pressure pads; however, there is an uncertainty related
to the accuracy of this technique for representing the real effect of the soil.

Diaz [1984] carried out some tests on instrumented octagonal piles placed directly on the
construction site. The monotonic force displacement response was obtained from these
piles and also empirical approximations to obtain the P-Y curves. Even if this test was
performed in conditions very similar to the real construction, the piles pile head was not
fixed and due to the design practice used at that time, no information about the material
strain was measured. In this test only the applied force and displacement were reported,
so no information is available about the stress distribution on the pile.

Extensive research was carried out by McCullough and Schlechter [2000] using centrifuge
testing in scaled models in order to understand the dynamic behaviour of this kind of
structures (Figure 8-1). However, it is not possible to obtain reliable information of the
nonlinear behaviour of the piles in this kind of tests.

Figure 8-1 Centrifuge testing of a wharf scaled model [from McCullough and Schlenchter [2000

Recent geotechnical studies for the Port of Los Angeles (POLA) have included the
pile/soil interaction, sliding of soft clay layers under wharves, and general stability and
liquefaction studies related to wharves [references Muraleetharan,2000].
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 223

8.2 DESCRIPTION TEST PROGRAM

A series of full-scale load testing on single piles in quarry-run material were carried out at
the Soil-Foundation-Structure-Interaction Test Facility at UCSD’s Englekirk Center. All
piles were tested under cyclic loading with an increasing amplitude displacement protocol
until failure. The variables in these tests included pile head fixity condition, clear space
between wharf deck and dike crest, and relative location of piles to slope. All the test
specimens were instrumented with load cells, displacement transducers, steel strain gages,
tiltmeters, and newly developed sensors to measure response of pile during testing.

The main goals of the full-scale lateral loading test on piles were to produce reliable data
which could validate current design assumptions and quantify limit values used in the
POLA seismic code. In order to reach this goal, the primary and the secondary
objectives are the followings in order of importance;

Primary

• Characterization of in-ground hinge (e.g. location, strain levels, particularly those at

which strain cover concrete begins to spall off, plastic hinge length)
• Verification of the hysteresis behaviour of the system
• Verification of P-Y spring values
Secondary

• Evaluation and characterization of difference between various system configurations

(e.g. free and fixed head condition, different clearance between ground surface and
deck, and existence of slope)
• Evaluation of overall system performance and the top hinge properties
The data from the test were used to validate and to refine the in-ground parameters
used for design and analysis including compression strain limits, plastic hinge
length and energy absorption. These parameters have a direct impact on the
displacement capacity and can improve new designs and seismic codes.

In addition to the data, it was also possible to observe the pile performance and
directly determine the moment at which OLE and CLE performance level are
reached.
224 Carlos Blandon

8.2.1 Testing Sequence

The proposed testing sequence for the cyclic lateral loading of the free head pile and the
pile systems are as follows:

• Construction of the full scale specimens

• Prediction for single pile test
• Set up Single Pile Test
• Excavation for visual inspection
• Comparison and update of analytical prediction for system test 1 (after Single
Pile Test)
• Set up System Test 1
• Comparison and update of analytical prediction for system test 2 (after System
Test 1)
• Set up System Test 2
• Proposal of adjustments and parameters for design practice
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 225

1) Construction of specimens 2) Prediction

3) Test Single pile

4) Inspection

5) Comparison Reasonable Update prediction

Test and Prediction for System Test 1

Unreasonable
Revise Analytical
model and Test plan 6) System Test 1

7) Update Prediction
for System Test 2

8) System Test 2

9) Propose Numerical model

and Design parameters

Figure 8-2 Flow Chart for pile-soil interaction testing program

8.2.2 Test set up

A total of five prestressed octagonal piles were constructed and instrumented; these piles
were installed in a quarry material soil with similar characteristics to the material used in
current construction practice. The piles tested are octagonal prestressed piles with a
226 Carlos Blandon

diameter of 2 ft (610 mm), which are widely used in US. The piles are reinforced with 16
– 0.6 in (15 mm) A426 strands with a total area of 0.215 in2 (140 mm2). The ultimate
strength is 270 Ksi (1860 MPa) and the strength after losses is 216 Ksi (1490 MPa). The
effective prestress in the concrete is 1137 psi (8 MPa). The transverse reinforcement
consists of W20 (13 mm) A82 steel with yield strength of 70 Ksi (480 MPa) and 2.5 in
pitch (63.5 mm). The expected concrete strength is 7.0 Ksi (48 MPa).

Figure 8-3 shows two ducts located at the centre of the section which correspond to a
duct used to bring all the instrumentation wiring out of the pile and a duct used for the
installation of additional instrumentation explained afterwards. There are also three # 3
bars that are also placed for instrumentation purposes; however none of these alterations
has a significant effect on the mechanical overall behaviour of the section.

PVC tube Concrete fc’ = 48 MPa

W20 Spiral @ 63.5 mm

76 mm Clearance

Plastic tube

15 mm #3 Instrumented rebars
Prestress strands
610 mm

Figure 8-3 Detail of Prestressed pile section

The section at the pile-deck connection has 8 #10 dowels evenly distributed around the
confined section as shown in Figure 8-4. At the pile-deck connection, the strands are not
continuous; therefore the mechanical characteristics of the section are given by these
dowels. The dowels are installed in ducts that have been already cast during the pile
prefabrication process.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 227

PVC tube Concrete fc’ = 48 MPa

W20 Spiral @ 63.5 mm Corrugated metal
dowel tubes
76 mm Clearance

#10 Dowels

Plastic tube
#3 Instrumented rebars
15 mm
Prestress strands
610 mm

Figure 8-4 Detail of Prestressed pile section at the connection of the deck (strands not extended into
the deck)

The piles were arranged in three set of tests with different boundary conditions and
geometries representing possible variations that occur in practice. Two sets consisted of
interconnected piles and one additional test was performed on a free single head
cantilever pile (Figure 8-5). The above grade pile height was set to be 1 m for the
cantilever pile (Figure 8-6) and the system test 1 and 0.5 m for the system test 2 (Figure
8-7). The former condition represent the common construction practice on the Port of
Los Angeles, whilst the second case was intended to represent a extreme case for which
the shear demand was a concern.

Table 1 Test Program Details

Boundary Clear space between the
Test name Test piles condition at the bottom of cap and dike
pile top crest (H)

Single pile test P1 Free 1.07 m (3.5 ft)

System test 1 P2&P4 Fixed 1.07 m (3.5 ft)

System test 2 P3&P5 Fixed 0.46 m (1.5 ft)

The test on the cantilever pile was intended to serve as a validation for the initial
analytical models and the assumptions currently used for the actual design such as limit
material strains and P-Y soil springs. The pile on test 1 is located on level ground, 3.6 m
from the dyke crest, so it was expected to have almost no influence from the slope. The
228 Carlos Blandon

hydraulic actuator was connected to the load stub and to a steel fibre reinforced concrete
block that filled the gap from the actuator and the reaction wall.

Single Pile
(Free head condition)
Slope
3.6 m
P1
2.4 m
P2 2 System Test
P4
2.4 m (Fix head condition)

P3 P5

610 mm Octagonal Pile

Figure 8-5 Plan view of pile set up

Reaction Wall
Concrete Block Spacer
Actuator

H=1m

0.61 m Octagonal 3.9

Concrete Piles Quarry-Run Material

2.1 m Gravel

Bottom of soil pit

Figure 8-6 Transverse view of free head single pile

For the system tests, the piles were connected with an instrumented steel beam which can
capture the distribution of load on each pile. The horizontal distance between piles was
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 229

defined from real constructions so that the effect of the surrounding piles can also be
capture with some approximation.

The test system 1 was 1.07 m (3.5 m) high between the ground and the pile-cap
connection, whilst the test system 2 was 0.46 m (1.5 ft) high. In the second case, the
distance between the plastic hinge at the connection and the plastic hinge at the critical
inground section, was minimum; therefore the shear force was an upper bound for
design. The aim of this set was to measure the shear force and observe if the piles were
able to reach the performance level without a shear failure. In recent years, the height
between the ground level and the pile/deck connection has been increased in new
constructions in order to reduce the shear demand and improve the displacement
capacity; such practice was represented by the set with a 1.07 m (3.5 ft) clearance.

Reaction Wall
Concrete Block Spacer

Actuator Steel Beam

H = 1.0 m or 1.7 m

0.61 m Octagonal Prestressed 3.6 m

3.3 m
Concrete Piles

Quarry-Run
Material

2.1 m Gravel

Bottom of soil pit

Figure 8-7 Transverse view of connected piles set up.

8.2.3 Construction and installation process

The procedure started with the construction of the prestressed piles in a casting site
located in Fontana, California. Previous to this stage, the instrumentation to be placed
inside the pile had been already prefabricated and was installed before the cast of the
concrete.
230 Carlos Blandon

(a) Prestress strands before prestressing (b) Applying prestressing force on the
strands
Figure 8-8 Building test piles – Prestressing (Utility Vault at Fontana, CA)

Figure 8-9 Installation of sensors and extension of cables (Utility Vault at Fontana, CA)
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 231

(a) Pile Top before spiral extension (b) Extended Spiral

(e) Pile Bottom with extended spiral

Figure 8-10 Building test piles – Prestressing (Utility Vault at Fontana, CA)

Due to the large number of cables and instruments placed inside the pile it was decided
to use a self-compacting concrete mixture instead of using a mixture that would have
required vibration and that may have caused damages to the instruments and wiring.
232 Carlos Blandon

(f) Pouring Self Compaction Concrete

Figure 8-11 Pouring Self Compaction Concrete

In the construction practice, the embankment and dike are constructed first and then the
pile is driven to the required depth. However, for the tests it is not possible to follow the
same procedure because of the sensitivity of the instrumentation inside the pile. The
piles were placed inside a soil pit previously excavated at the site, right in front of an
existing high capacity reaction wall. In order to reproduce at some extent the effect on
the soil of the pile driving, the quarry material was placed inside the pit by layers and
vibrocompacted around the pile. The plans for the excavation are shown in Figure 8-12
and some pictures of the excavation process are shown in Figure 8-13
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 233

Figure 8-12 Soil pit excavation plan

The piles were placed on an excavated footing at the bottom of the soil pit as shown in
Figure 8-14 and Figure 8-15. This foundation was used to facilitate the precise location
of the pile, given that all the system should be aligned within a strict tolerance according
to the hole pattern of the existing reaction wall. Additionally, for the system tests, the fix
head condition induces an axial load on the pile and by constructing the footing it was
intended to prevent the uplift of the pile in tension during the cyclic test. The piles were
aligned by a system of steel beams as shown in Figure 8-15.
234 Carlos Blandon

(a) Placing markers (f) Completed excavation

Figure 8-13 Excavation of soil pit

Figure 8-14 Locations of test piles

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 235

(a) Pile end block (b) Installed pile braced to a temporary

steel beam

(c) Installed piles fixed to steel beam (d) Finished pile end block
Figure 8-15 Pile installation

Two different types of materials were used for the filling of the excavation once the piles
were already placed and the foundations constructed. The main reason for this was the
fact that the large size material (Figure 8-16 b) available close to the construction site was
not enough to fill the entire excavation. Hence, a smaller size gravel (Figure 8-16 a) was
used to fill the first 2.1 m (7 ft) from the bottom. Based on previous analyses, it was
determined that the influence of the material change would be negligible given that the
largest displacements would be concentrated above the gravel, right within the quarry run
layer.
236 Carlos Blandon

(a) Gravel (b) Quarry-run

Figure 8-16 Filling material

Due to the reduced space at the bottom the material had to be placed manually so that a
uniform distribution of the material could be ensured. The filling procedure was also
critical at the location of the rubber bands; so it was necessary to place the gravel around
these instruments with care (see pictures in Figure 8-17).

Once the first stage of filling with the gravel was completed, the quarry material was
placed in layers of 300 mm to 600 mm and then compacted. The initial procedure was
carried out using a tamper but it showed to be ineffective due to the large size of the
material; hence the procedure was modified and a vibroroller was used (Figure 8-17).

The next step on the construction of the test specimens was the construction of the load
stub (Figure 8-18) and the connection with the pile (Figure 8-19). The load stub was
designed to connect the hydraulic actuator or the steel beam to the pile.

The bars were embedded inside the precasted ducts using a grout with a water to cement
ratio not larger than 0.4. This mixture resulted to be fluid enough to fill all the voids into
the duct without the need of adding any water reduction admixture (Figure 8-20). The
prestressed piles were cast with 50 mm (8-2 in) corrugated tubes where the dowels were
installed. The tubes were 1.5 m (5 ft long, leaving adequate developing length for the
dowels.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 237

(a) Backfilling bottom of the pit with gravel (b) Backfilling by hand

(c) Compacting with vibro-roller (d) Finish backfilling

(e) Gap between the pile and quarry-run

Figure 8-17 Backfilling of excavation
238 Carlos Blandon

Figure 8-18 Reinforcement details

Figure 8-19 Pile-load stub reinforcing connection details

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 239

(a) Raising Formwork (b) View of corrugated tube for dowels

(d) Grout material

Figure 8-20 Pile- Load stub construction sequence

Some of the bars in the connection were instrumented with strain gages in order to
obtain the strain history on the critical bars (Figure 8-21-see section 8.3.1)

The horizontal force on the pile was applied by an hydraulic actuator that was connected
to the load stub and to the reaction wall. However, due to the specification of the
excavation and the wall foundation, the distance from the pile head and the reaction wall
was much longer than the hydraulic jack; therefore a “spacer” concrete block had to be
build as shown in Figure 8-22 and Figure 8-23. The block was constructed using steel
fibre reinforced concrete with a steel fibre content of 30 kg/m3.
240 Carlos Blandon

(g) Cleaning the dowel tubes (h) Grouting

(i) Placed strain gage along the dowel (j) Finish installation of the dowels

(k) Just before pouring concrete (l) Completed making load stubs
Figure 8-21 Building connections and load stubs (continued)
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 241

Figure 8-22 Details of concrete spacer block

Figure 8-23 Concrete spacer block

8.3 INSTRUMENTATION

The data from the tests are expected to give information about the performance of the
inground hinge such as location, material strain, plastic hinge length. In order to capture
this data the piles were instrumented extensively with different types of sensors.
242 Carlos Blandon

8.3.1 Conventional Sensors

The material strain along the pile will be measured by strain gages installed in #3 steel
bars inside the confined pile core as illustrated Figure 8-24 and shown in Figure 8-25.
The curvature can be obtained from these data based on an assumption of plane sections.
Given that this information is critical, the strain gages in the steel bars located at the
opposite side of the pile are doubled at each location. The bar at the centre of the
diameter is used to have redundant information that can be used to check the
measurements from the other two bars. The strain gages are placed each 0.30 m (12 in)
in regions where the maximum moment is not expected and each 0.25 m (10 in) in the
region where the maximum moment and hence spalling may occur first based on initial
analytical estimations (Figure 8-26 to Figure 8-28) .

Instrumented #3 steel
auxiliary bar
Prestressing Strand

Load Direction
76 mm

x3
x2 Strain Profile
x1 ε2
ε1
D = 610 mm

Figure 8-24 Material strain and strain gage location

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 243

Figure 8-25 Strain gages along additional #3 rebars

P1

1.0 m
Ground Surface

6@0.3m =1.8 m Loading direction

0.45 m
3.9 m

9@0.25m =2.3 m’

2.1 m
7@0.3=2.1m
Gaged rebars
Bottom line of soil pit
0.9 m

Figure 8-26 Elevations of strain gages along test pile for Single Pile Test
244 Carlos Blandon

P3 P5
Ground Surface
1.0 m’
6@0.3=
5@0.3m= 1.8 m
1.5m

3.6 m 0.46 m’
9@0.25 m
=2.3 m’
9@0.25 m
=2.3 m’

0.46 m’

2.1 m
6@0.3= 5@`0.3 m =5’
Bottom line 1.8 m
of soil pit

09m
1.5 m

Figure 8-27 Elevations of strain gages along test pile System Test 1

P2 P4

1.7 m

Ground Surface 9@0.3m=

6@0.3m 2.7m
=1.8 m
3.3 m
9@0.25m
=2.3 m’ 9@0.25m
=2.3m’

0.45 m
0.45 m
2.1 m
7@0.3=
Bottom line 2.1m 4@0.3m=1
of soil pit .2m’

0.9 m
1.5 m

Figure 8-28 Elevations of strain gages along test pile System Test 2
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 245

Two of the dowels were instrumented with strain gages as shown in Figure 8-29; these
are the bars with the larges strain demand on the section and that controlled the
performance limits at the connection steel. There were two strain gages at the same
elevation in order to ensure an accurate measurement of the bar strain.

Strain gages

Figure 8-29 Strain gage along dowel

Figure 8-24 also shows two ducts located at the centre of the inner core of the section.
One of the ducts is used to extend all the cables from the sensors inside the pile; the
other is used for an inclinometer arrangement which consists on a set of devises located
each 12 in (0.3 m) along the pile (Figure 8-30 to Figure 8-34). This sensor can measure
directly the rotation of the pile at different points. Based on moment curvature analyses,
it was observed that these holes do not have a significant effect.

Groove
Inclinometer Casing

Tiltmeter

Housing

Wheeling System

Figure 8-30 Tiltmeter sensor with housing

246 Carlos Blandon

Figure 8-31 Installation of a series of tiltmeters inside the inclinometer casing

P1

1m
Ground Surface

Quarry-run

3.9 m
23@0.3 m
=6.9 m’

Gravel
2.1 m

0.6 m Bottom line of soil pit

0.9 m Inclinometers inside pile

Figure 8-32 Locations of inclinometers for Single Pile Test

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 247

P3 P5
1.0 m

Ground Surface 4@ 0.6 m 5@ 0.6m

=2.4 m =3.0 m

3.3 m 5@ 0.3 m
=1.5 m’
Quarry-run 7@ 0.3 m
=2.1 m

4@ 0.6 m
Gravel =2.4m 2@ 0.6 m
2.1 m =1.2 m
Bottom line
of soil pit 0.6 m 0.6 m
Inclinometers inside pile
0.9 m
1.5 m Inclinometers outside pile

Figure 8-33 Locations of inclinometers for System Test 1

P2 P4

1m
5@0.6 m
Ground Surface =3.0 m’ 6@ 0.6 m
=3.6 m

Quarry-run
5@ 0.3m
3.3 m =1.5’
7@0.3
=2.1 m

4@ 0.6 m
Gravel =2.4’ 2@ 0.6m
2.1 m
=1.2 m
Bottom line
of soil pit 0.6 m 0.6 m

0.9 m Inclinometers inside pile

1.5 m Inclinometers outside pile

Figure 8-34 Locations of inclinometers for System Test 2

248 Carlos Blandon

8.3.2 Designed Sensors

8.3.2.1 Spalling Sensor

One of the objectives of the test is to capture the onset of spalling instant at the inground
hinge location; hence, it was necessary to design devices that allow detecting it in a
reliable manner. The research team at UCSD designed and tested the spalling sensor
shown in Figure 8-35. This sensor consists on a displacement potentiometer attached to
a base plate which is fixed to the transverse reinforcement inside the pile. The
potentiometer is constrained by an external plate which is temporally attached to the base
plate by thread roads; once the sensor has been placed and the concrete has hardened,
the thread road can be removed. The steel rod, potentiometer and cables are encased in a
steel tube held by the internal and external plates. The potentiometer will be able to
detect when concrete spalls by measuring the relative displacement of the plates (Figure
8-36).

Figure 8-35 Spalling sensor developed at UCSD

Inside plate is
fixed to spiral

Outside plate moves with spalled concrete

Figure 8-36 Mechanism of spalling sensor

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 249

(a) Before pouring concrete

(b) After pouring concrete

Figure 8-37 Spalling sensors installed in test piles

8.3.2.2 Spalling Rubber Bands

A series of instrumented rubber bands were also used to indirectly detect spalling (Figure
8-38). The installation of the rubber bands was a parallel procedure performed during
the filling of the excavation in order to avoid damaging them during the installation. The
instrument consisted on a double layer of flexible rubber and between these layers, two
strain gages were attached in different locations once the band had already been placed
around the pile Figure 8-39.
250 Carlos Blandon

Strain gage
Double
rubber bands

Strain gage elongates

Figure 8-38 Mechanism of instrumented rubber band

(a) Rubber bands along pile (b) Strain gage on rubber band

Figure 8-39 Rubber bands installed along test piles

In order to avoid damages from the direct contact between the quarry material and these
sensors, the interface between the pile and the rock was filled carefully with the same
gravel used to fill the bottom layer of the pit (Figure 8-40).
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 251

Figure 8-40 Placed gravel to protect sensors

8.3.2.3 Sensors verification tests

The recently designed sensor was refined and verified by testing reinforced concrete
cylinders with the sensor embedded as shown in Figure 8-41.

Figure 8-41 Reinforced concrete specimen used for the spalling sensor verification
252 Carlos Blandon

The concrete cylinder was loaded eccentrically in order to induce a compressive failure
and spalling at the location of any of the sensors as shown in Figure 8-42. The test was
carried out in a SATEC 600-kip (2730 KN) compression machine at a rate of 200
Kips/min (900 KN/min). The specimen was located eccentrically to the symmetric axis
of the machine and a sheet of cork was placed at the top and the bottom between the
specimen and the steel plates.

Load cell

Rubber band
with strain gage
Concrete strain gauge

Cables
Specimen
To data acquisition
system

Figure 8-42 Compressive test set up

Two additional types of sensors were added to the concrete cylinder in this test in order
to select additional alternatives to instrument the prestressed piles and have redundant
measures that would allow the detection of the onset of spalling (Figure 8-43).

A couple of concrete strain gages (CS) were placed close to the spalling sensor location;
this gage is designed to capture the average strain on the concrete along the length where
it is installed. Additionally, two rubber bands (RS) were attached around the cylinder at
the top (RST) and bottom (RSB) of the spalling sensor (SS); each band was instrumented
with two strain gages and the surface between the band and the concrete was greased to
reduce friction so that the strain distribution in the rubber was uniform.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 253

1 ft

RST-2 RST-1
CS-2 CS-1
3 ft SS-1
SS-2

RSB-2 RSB-1

Figure 8-43 Instrumentation set up

The results from the sensor calibration tests show that these are able to capture the
changes of the concrete strain as load varies. Figure 8-44 and Figure 8-45 show two
jumps in the readings, at 300 s and 600 s approximately; the first discontinuity at 300 s
was caused by vertical crack propagation from the base and the top to the middle of the
specimen until the cylinder suffered a local failure at the top. As the load increased again,
the size of the cracks gradually increased also and spalling became evident around 600 s
around 800 s, the rubber bands showed a large increase of strain but spalling had already
occurred.

Figure 8-44 Time history of the spalling sensors

254 Carlos Blandon

Figure 8-45 Time history of the rubber bands

In the typical octagonal prestressed pile, the concrete cover thickness is approximately 3
in (76 mm) so; it would be possible that spalling will occur gradually starting at the
external pile face but the steel may not be exposed. The concrete strain gages would
only detect the strain and spalling of the pile surface and it would not be possible to
determine if the steel has been exposed or not. It was decided then, not to use the
concrete strain gages.

8.3.2.4 Continuous Sensor

This sensor was developed by a research team from the University of Missouri, Rolla
under the supervision of Professor G. Chen [2004]. This sensor is basically
communication coaxial cables with a special design of the outer conductor, spirally
wrapped around dielectric or Teflon as illustrated in Figure 8-46. The sensor is able to
detect the location of cracks or measure strains in reinforced concrete structures with the
electrical time domain reflectometry (ETDR).
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 255

Figure 8-46 Layering and mechanism of the continuous sensor (Chen, 2004).

ETDR is a remote sensing technology based on the propagation of electromagnetic

waves in an electrical cable or a transmission line, which functions both as a signal carrier
and a sensor. Using and oscilloscope with an ETDR sampling head a series of low-
amplitude and fast rising step pulses are sent onto the sensor. The signal is reflected
when it founds an electrical property or topology change; the arrival time of the reflected
signal represents the distance from the point of monitoring to the discontinuity while the
intensity of the signal represents the degree of the discontinuity.

8.3.3 Sensor Location

The sensors inside the prestressed pile were located as shown in Figure 8-47; the # 3 steel
instrumented bars were placed close to the prestressing strands in order to have a reliable
measurement of the strain of the strand. The bar at mid height is used to get back up
data for the estimation of the curvature of the section along the pile (Figure 8-24). . Even
if the spalling may occur at any side (front or back) of the pile during the cyclic loading,
the spalling sensor was located only at one side due to the difficulty to place additional
sensors in the casting beds of the prestressed piles. The distributed sensor was placed at
the same side of the spalling sensor in order to have redundancy.

The position of the piles was decided so that the spalling sensor would be located at the
pile face which would be subjected to compression from both bending of the pile and
axial load from the connecting steel beam at the same time. For the free head pile, it was
decide that the sensor should be in compression from the pile bending when the actuator
was pushing. Following these criteria, Figure 8-48 shows that the piles for the system
tests located at the reaction wall side would have the spalling sensor facing the wall,
256 Carlos Blandon

whilst the piles at the slope side would have the spalling sensor facing the slope. The
spalling sensor distribution for the tests are shown in Figure 8-49 to Figure 8-51

Distributed
cable sensors Spalling sensor

Rubber Band
Spiral

Inclinometer

Strand

Rebars with strain gages

Figure 8-47 Sensor location on the section

Loading Direction

Single Pile Test Spalling Sensors

Rubber Bands

Strain Gages

Cable Sensors

System Test 1

System Test 2

Reaction Wall Slope

Figure 8-48 Plan view of sensor locations

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 257

P1

1m
Ground Surface

1m
Quarry-run
0.45 m
14”

3.9 m 8@ 0.25 m 8@ 0.25 m

=2 m

=2 m

Gravel Spalling sensors

2.1m Instrumented rubber bands

Distributed cable sensors
Bottom line of soil pit

0.9 m

Figure 8-49 Locations of sensors detecting in-ground spalling for Single Pile Test

P3
P5

1.0 m

1.2 m 1.7 m

3.3 m 8@0.25 m
9@ 0.25 m =2.0 m
9@0.25 m Quarry-run
=2.3 m 9@0.25 m =2.3 m
=2.3 m

2.1 m
Spalling sensors
Bottom line Gravel Instrumented rubber bands
of soil pit Distributed cable sensors

0.9 m
1.5 m

Figure 8-50 Locations of sensors detecting in-ground spalling for System Test 1
258 Carlos Blandon

P2 P4

1.7m

0.9 m
1.5 m

3.3m 9@0.25 m
9@0.25 m =2.3 m
Quarry-run
=2.3 m 9@0.25 m
9@0.25 m =2.3 m
=2.3 m

2.1m Spalling sensors

Bottom line Gravel Instrumented rubber bands
of soil pit Distributed cable sensors

0.9 m
1.5 m

Figure 8-51 Locations of sensors detecting in-ground spalling for System Test 2

8.3.4 Steel beam Instrumentation and calibration

The steel beam used to connect the piles for the system test 1 and 2 (Figure 8-52) had the
function of providing the fix head condition that the piles would have in the real
construction at the port. The beam was designed remain elastic in the tests (Figure 8-53).

Even if a pair of piles was tested simultaneously, the forces acting on each one of them
was measured so that the individual evaluation of stresses on each pile could be possible.
The beam was then instrumented with a set of strain gages (Figure 8-54) and then
calibrated with a simple test (Figure 8-55) so that the forces form the hydraulic actuator
could be decomposed into each pile based in the strain gage readings.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 259

Figure 8-52 View of coupling steel beam (W24 x 174)

Figure 8-53 Coupling steel beam details

260 Carlos Blandon

< Top > < Bottom >

B-1 B-2 <A> B-7 B-8

B-5 B-6 <B> B-3 B-4

< Side A > < Side B >

B-2 B-1 < Top > B-5 B-6

B-9 B-12
B-10 B-13
B-11 B-14
< Bottom >
B-4 B-3 B-7 B-8

Figure 8-54 Instrumentation plan for steel beam

Reaction Wall
Instrumented Steel Beam

Loading
Direction Jack

Strong Floor

Figure 8-55 Test setup plan for calibration of the steel beam

8.3.5 External instrumentation

The lateral displacement of the pile head was measured with four string potentiometers as
illustrated in Figure 8-56 and Figure 8-57. Additionally, a set of potentiometer were
located at opposite sides of the pile, just below the connection as shown in Figure 8-58
and Figure 8-59 which was used to have a measurement of the curvature and rotation at
the pile-stub interface.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 261

L-1

L-3, L-4
L-2
Actuator

L-1 , L-2
L-4
L-3

Actuator mounting plate

L-1 L-2
L-4
L-3

Figure 8-56 Location of linear potentiometers on the load stub for Single Test

L-1
L-3, L-4
L-2
P2/P3 Steel P4/P5

L-1 , L-2
L-4
L-3
Actuator
Mounting
Plate
L-1 L-2
L-4
L-3

Figure 8-57 Location of linear potentiometers on the load stub for System Tests

Loading
Steel
Load Stub

0.15 0.15

3.5’

Figure 8-58 Linear potentiometers at the load stub for System Test 1
262 Carlos Blandon

Loading
Steel
Load Stub

0.15 m
0.15 m 1.5’

Figure 8-59 Linear potentiometers at the load stub for System Test 2

8.4 LOAD PROTOCOL AND DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM

The specimens were planned to be loaded cyclically as shown in Figure 8-60. There
are two stages of loading, the initial stage is force controlled until the yield displacement
was reached; after that, the load protocol was switched to displacement control. In the
displacement control stage, a trailing displacement cycle was applied every two cycles in
order to capture the response of the structure for this reduced loops and have a better
characterization of the inner hysteretic loops of the system.

1
12
0.75 10
8
0.5
6
Disp Ductility ( Δ /Δ y)

Disp Ductility (Δ /Δ y )

0.25 4
2
0 0
-0.25 -2
-4
-0.5 -6
-8
-0.75
-10
-1 -12
0 2 4 6 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Cycle Cycle

a) Force control stage b) Displacement control stage

Figure 8-60 Load protocol

The estimation of the yielding displacement is based on a set of push over analyses
carried out using assumed P-Y curves and other characteristic values for the pile
materials. It is likely that the assumed values and actual values will be different, hence,
during the load application, the obtained results will be compared with previous analytical
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 263

estimations so that the real load protocol will be as close as possible to the one proposed
in Figure 8-60.

8.5 PREDICTION

The experimental program was preceded by a set of pushover analyses using a simplified
model with pile-soil transfer function (P-Y curves) as those described in section 6.3. The
aim of the predictions was to evaluate the validity of the method to estimate the response
of the system and the demands on the pile. The results from these analyses were also
used to make an estimation of the required capacity for the elements used for testing
such as anchors, connections, connecting beam and actuator. The pile was modelled
using beam column elements with length between 0.25 to 0.75 section diameters in order
to cover for the uncertainty associated to the element length.

The profiles of moment, shear, deformation and curvatures were obtained for the
prestressed pile. These profiles were used to define the location of the sensors inside and
outside the pile based on the variation of the maximum moment location. The top pile
displacement vs shear envelope of the system were the key parameter for the test control
and each load or displacement increment, the load applied by the actuator and the top
pile measured displacement were compared to the estimated values in an attempt to
estimate the following load or displacement increment to be applied to the system.

For the specific case of the cantilever pile, the centre of the section is located 3.6 m (12
ft) from the dike crest; so, the slope is expected to have almost no effect on the soil
reaction. For this reason the properties of the P-Y springs were kept symmetrical for the
pushing and pulling load cycles.

The initial set of analyses performed used the level values of the P-Y soil springs
(multiplier 1.0) and three different element lengths: 0.25 D, 0.5 D and 0.75 D, being D
the section diameter. The main aim of the analyses was to obtain the shear vs.
displacement envelope of the system and also the displacement at which the CLE limit
state would be reached. Figure 8-61 shows that the selection of the element length has an
effect on the envelope and in the location of the CLE displacement. The effect on the
displacement was already explained by the localization phenomenon [Coleman and
Spacone, 2001] as described in 5.2.1. Based on this set of analyses and using a bilinear
approximation of the nonlinear envelope, the yielding displacement is located at 0.025 m
approximately.

The variation on the envelope is due to the distribution of the soil springs which are
located at the same spacing as the pile element length. So, by using longer elements, the
264 Carlos Blandon

predicted stiffness is larger and the displacement for maximum load is reduced. Note
also the strength drop after the maximum value is reached; this is caused by the marked
strength degradation properties of the section due to the considerable thickness of the
cover concrete.

The second set of analyses included the lower bound (used 0.3 as multiplier) and upper
bound (used 2.0 as multiplier) of the P-Y springs. Figure 8-62 shows and increase of 10%
of the maximum shear force for the upper bound and a reduction of 15% for the lower
bound; However, the variation of the CLE displacement or displacement at maximum
force is 50% larger for the lower bound and only 10% lower for the upper bound
compared with the case of the level P-Y springs. This indicates a larger sensitivity of the
displacement response for the reduction of the P-Y multiplier than for the increase.
From the type of material and the location of the free head pile far from the dyke slope, it
is expected to have a displacement vs shear envelope above the estimation with a
multiplier of 1.0 (“level ground”).

The resulting stresses profile from the analytical model shows that the inground hinge
that corresponds to section with the largest moment demand varies between 1.5 m to 2.7
m below the ground level (Figure 8-63).

250 55

45
200
P-Y multiplier Element size
35
Shear (Kips)

150 1-05D
Shear (KN)

1-025D 25
1-075D
100
CLE
15

50
5

0 -5
0 Δy 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Disp (m)

Figure 8-61 Shear force vs. displacement for Single Pile Test
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 265

250 55

45
200

35

Shear (Kips)
Shear (KN)

150 1-05D
0.3-05D 25
100 2-05D
15

50
5

0 -5
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
Disp (m)

Figure 8-62 Shear force vs. Displacement Prediction for up bound, low bound and level ground

2 2

1 1

0 0

-1 -1

-2 -2
Depth (m)

Depth (m)

-3 -3

-4 -4

-5 -5

-6 Level -6
0.3 x Level
-7 -7
2 x Level

-8 -8
-500 -250 0 250 500 750 1000 -300 -200 -100 0 100 200 300
Moment (KN-m) Shear (KN)

Figure 8-63 Stress profile for the free head pile for upper, level and lower bound soil P-Y springs
266 Carlos Blandon

An initial attempt was carried out in order to predict the complete cyclic response of the
free head pile subjected to the cyclic load from the actuator. The results of the analytical
analyses for this loading history, up to ductility 6, are given in Figure 8-64.

Disp (in)
-10 -5 0 5 10
300 66
54
200 42
30
100

Shear (Kips)
18
Shear (KN)

6
0
-6
-0.25 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
-100 -18
-30
-200 -42
-54
-300 -66
Disp (m)

Figure 8-64 Cyclic shear vs. Displacement

8.6 RESPONSE MONITORING

The strain on the prestressing strands was monitored indirectly based on the strain of the
auxiliary #3 steel bars located strategically right beside some of the strands. These
auxiliary bars were installed given that it was not feasible to glue the strain gages directly
to the prestressing strand surface. The strain on the extreme unconfined concrete fibre
was estimated indirectly from the strain gages on the instrumented bars (section 8.3.1).
An automatic spreadsheet was created in order to process the output data from all the
sensors, except the continuous sensor. However, in order to have reliable results, the
readings from the sensors were examined to ensure the functionality of each sensor.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 267

8.7 FREE HEAD PILE TEST

8.7.1 Test procedure – Stage I

The mounting plate, block spacer and reaction wall were tied all tied together with
prestressed bars so that thee entire system would be in contact even on the pulling cycles.
The same procedure was applied for the steel mounting plate and the load stub at the
opposite side of the hydraulic actuator. The actual set up is shown in Figure 8-65. A
Total of 204 cables from all the sensors were extended and connected to the data
acquisition system at the same time that they were tested for functionality.

The target loads and displacements for each cycle of loading are given in Table 8-1, and
the applied load/displacement time histories during test are shown in Figure 8-66 . The
load history was different from the proposed load protocol due to the considerable
difference that was obtained from the actual test compared to the analytical estimation.
The load and displacements were gradually increased in order to have a good defined
nonlinear force vs displacement envelope and also to have a good control of the strain of
the extreme unconfined concrete and evaluate the performance of the pile once the limit
strain of 0.008 had been reached. The estimated strain on the concrete, the history of the
spalling sensors and the rubber bands were constantly monitored using software
implemented on the data acquisition system.

Table 8-1 Target displacement/load

Test number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Target displacement
--- --- --- 0.85 1.3 2.8 1.9 3.6
(in)
Target load (kips) 20 30 40 65 80 --- --- ---
Number of cycles 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2
268 Carlos Blandon

Reaction wall
N

Mounting plates

Actuator

Spacer block
Test pile

Figure 8-65 Aspect for Single Pile Test

100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
75
50
Load (kips)

25
0
-25
-50
-75
-100
4 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
3 Time (sec)
Displacement (inch)

2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
-4
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000
Time (sec)
Figure 8-66 Applied load/displacement at the pile top
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 269

8.7.2 Test Results – Stage I

After the first stage of testing, it was found that most of the sensors placed on the pile
were working properly. Therefore, it was possible to obtain reliable measurements which
could be derived into deformation, strains and stresses on the pile.

8.7.2.1 Load-displacement envelope and hysteretic response

The force displacement nonlinear envelope is characterized by a smooth transition of the
stiffness from the elastic stage to the maximum load stage (Figure 8-67 ). There is a slight
unsymmetrical response between the pushing and pulling envelopes that can be expected
due to the random distribution of the quarry material and the pile-rock contact, but in
practical terms, the response is almost identical in the two directions.

From the initial applied load history, the maximum load was 80 kips at 3.0 in
displacement. The reference system yielding displacement based on a bilinear
approximation of the envelopes was Δy = 1.0 in.

Disp (m)
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
90 400
80
350
70
300
60 Bilinear
A i
Shear (KN)
Shear (Kips)

250
50
200
40
Pushing 150
30
Pulling 100
20

10 50

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Disp (in)
Figure 8-67 Pile top force vs. displacement envelopes

The hysteretic cycles for the small load cycles show well defined quadrilateral hysteretic
loops which are of combined linear and frictional mechanisms of response (Figure 8-68).
This is likely to be caused by the drag between the rock and the pile side surface. As the
load increased, the shape of the hysteretic response keeps the elongated narrow loops
270 Carlos Blandon

typical of prestressed sections (Figure 8-69). Note the large unloading stiffness that tends
to reduce the residual displacements.

Displacement (m)
-0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
50 222.7
40 172.7
30 122.7
20
72.7
Force (Kips)

Force (KN)
10
22.7
0
27.3-
-10
Cycle 1 77.3-
-20
Cycle 2 127.3-
-30
Cycle 3
-40 177.3-
-50 227.3-
-0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Displacement (in)

Figure 8-68 Hysteretic Loops for low force intensity cycles

Displacement (m)
-0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1
100 445.5
80 345.5
60
245.5
40
145.5
Force (Kips)

Force (KN)

20
45.5
0 Cycle 1
-54.5
-20 Cycle 2
Cycle 3 -154.5
-40 Cycle 5
-60 Cycle 6 -254.5
Cycle 7
-80 Cycle 8 -354.5
-100 -454.5
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
Displacement (in)

Figure 8-69 Hysteretic Loops for first set of loads

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 271

8.7.2.2 Inground spalling

The location of the sensors designed to detect spalling had been defined based on
previous estimations of the location of the pile section with the largest moment; however,
from the test results, the soil was significantly stiffer and the location of the critical
section was located above the instrumented region, therefore, the strain gages were the
selected instruments to monitor the strain at the cover concrete (εuc) as defined in Figure
8-70 .

The largest measurements on the strain gages were located at a depth of 3 ft for the push
cycles as shown in Figure 8-71 . Based on these readings, the strain at the extreme
unconfined cover concrete (εuc) was estimated to be 0.0066 which is a value close to the
limit strain of 0.008, however there none of the spalling sensors gave indications of
compressive cracking or spalling.

Instrumented #3 steel
auxiliary bar
Prestressing Strand
Instrumented
Bar # 1 Load Direction
Compresive
Strain
Instrumented
Bar # 3
Tensile
Strain

0.5 m
0.305 Strain Profile
0.108 m ε2 ε3
εuc ε1
D = 0.610 m

Figure 8-70 Strain distribution

272 Carlos Blandon

0.0035
Strain history in bar # 1 at 3 ft

0.003
0.0025
0.002
0.0015
0.001
0.0005
0
-0.0005
-0.001
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Time (s)

0.025
Strain history in bar # 3 at 3 ft

0.02

0.015

0.01

0.005

-0.005
0 300 600 900 1200 1500
Time (s)

Figure 8-71 Strain history at 0.9 m below ground in the extreme bars auxiliary bars in tension

8.7.2.3 Strains on surface concrete

The strain on the extreme unconfined concrete was calculated following the same
procedure described in Figure 8-70 based on readings from the strain gages located along
the pile. The 144 strain gage readings were inspected to ensure that the calculations
would be based on fully functional strain gages. The strain profiles for the maximum
displacement of cycle 8 are shown in Figure 8-72 (a) and Figure 8-72 (b).
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 273

4
3
Displacement (inch)

2 Pushing
southward
1
0
-1 Pulling
-2 northward
-3
-4
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec.)
S N
25 25
Comp. Ten. Comp. Ten.

Tension cracks
20 20
Inspected

15 15
Depth (ft)

Depth (ft)

Quarry-run

10 10

5 5
Gravel

-0.008
0 0
-0.01 0 0.01 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
Strain (south side) Strain (north side)

(a) Push Cycles

Figure 8-72 Profile of strain at cover concrete (Test 8)
274 Carlos Blandon

4
3
Displacement (inch)

2 Pushing
southward
1
0
-1 Pulling
-2 northward
-3
-4
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec.)
S N
25 25

Comp. Ten. Comp. Ten.

Tension cracks
20 20
Inspected

15 15
Depth (ft)

Depth (ft)

Quarry-run

10 10

5 5
Gravel

0 0
-0.01 0 0.01 0.02 -0.01 0 0.01
Strain (south side) Strain (north side)

(b) Pull Cycles

Figure 8-73 Profile of strain at cover concrete (Test 8) (continued)

There is a consistent peak of the tensile and compressive strains at a depth of 0.9 m (3 ft)
for the pushing cycles and at 0.6 m (2 ft) for the pulling cycles. The maximum concrete
strain was reached for the maximum displacement of the pushing cycle.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 275

8.7.2.4 Curvature along test pile

The curvatures (φ) were also obtained from the strain gage readings from the
instrumented bars 1 and 3 as described by the following equation:

ε 3 − ε1
φ=
x 3 − x1

Where ε1 and ε3 are the strains from the bars and x1 and x3 are the corresponding
distances from the pile surface (Figure 8-70 ). The resultant curvature is based on the
averaged strains of functioning strain gages at each elevation.

Figure 8-74 shows the curvatures reached from cycles 5 to 8. Figure 8-75 shows the
curvature profile along the pile for the pushing and pulling maximum displacements of
cycles 8, and as expected from the strain profile, there is a curvature concentration at 0.9
m (3 ft) for the pushing cycles and at 0.6 m (2 ft) for the pulling cycles. The maximum
curvature reached is approximately 0.065/m (0.02/ft) which indicates that the section has
already past the elastic range and has probably reached the maximum nominal moment
capacity.

Curvature (1/m)
-0.065 -0.045 -0.025 -0.005
25
7

Ground Surface
20 6

5
15
Depth (m)
Depth (ft)

10 3

2
Cycle5
5 Cycle6
Cycle7
1
Cycle8
Series5

0 0
-0.02 -0.01 0
Curvature (1/ft)
276 Carlos Blandon

Figure 8-74 Profile of curvature (cycles 5 to 8)

4 A
3
Displacement (inch)

2 Pushing
southward
1
0
-1 Pushing
-2 northward
-3
B
-4
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Time (sec.)
S N
25 25
Point A Point B

Tension cracks
20 20
Inspected

15 15
Depth (ft)

Depth (ft)

Quarry-run

10 10

5 5
Gravel

0 0
-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
Curvature (1/ft) Curvature (1/ft)

Figure 8-75 Profile of curvature (Test 8)

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 277

8.7.2.5 Rotation and deflection of pile

The rotation profile shown in Figure 8-76 was obtained from 25 inclinometers installed
each foot in a down-hole duct located in the centre of the pile section. The displacement
profile was derived from this instrumentation showing a good adjustment to the
displacement measured at the pile top.

20

15
Depth (ft)

Quarry-run

10

1.3 in
1.3 in 2.8 in
2.8 in 1.9 in
5
1.9 in 3.6 in
3.6 in Gravel
Measured displ.

0
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1
Rotation (degrees) Deflection (inch)

Figure 8-76 Profile of rotation and deflection derived from rotation (when rotation at pile top was
maximum)

8.7.3 Inspection of pile

After the completion of the last cycle, the pile was excavated manually to the depth where
the maximum strain on the concrete was reached, which was defined as 0.9 m (3 ft). No
indications of compressive crushing or spalling were seen on the concrete and the only
visible damage to the concrete was caused by the contact stresses between the quarry
278 Carlos Blandon

material and the pile (Figure 8-77). It was possible to see that many of the rocks in direct
contact with the pile were crushed (Figure 8-78) but the concrete was only affected
superficially.

A tensile crack was observed at both sides of the pile; 0.6 m (2ft) at the side in tension for
the pull cycles and at 0.9 m (3 ft) for the pushing cycles. During the inspection, the crack
was closed and difficult to observe.

8.7.4 Consideration and Discussion

8.7.4.1 Load-displacement curve at pile top

Based on the measurements and observation from the test, it was clear that the system
resulted to be significantly stiffer and stronger than initially predicted (Figure 8-79 ).
When compared to the predicted shear force versus displacement envelope using the
level P-Y springs (best estimate), the force measured was larger by a factor of 1.40 to
1.50. Such increase of the shear force on the system could be explained by a moment
capacity increase due to soil confinement and due to the fact that the soil was largely
stronger than initially estimated; therefore, the maximum moment was located at a
shallower depth than expected. This caused the lever arm from the force application to
the plastic hinge to be reduced and consequently the shear force increased.

Damaged
Damaged
Concrete
Concrete

Figure 8-77 Damage due to pile-rock contact

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 279

It was also noticeable that even if the strain on the unconfined concrete had already
exceeded 0.006 spalling of the concrete cover did not occur and the pile lateral force
seemed to be still slightly increasing. This indicated that the moment capacity of the pile
had not shown any reduction and the expected drop of capacity occurs at a larger
curvature or may not occur and the capacity may keep constant instead.

(a) Excavation by hand (b) “Craters” at pile surface

(c) Crushed rocks (d) Tension crack on the south side of

pile
Figure 8-78 Visual inspection of in-ground parts of test pile
280 Carlos Blandon

Disp (m)
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
90
400
80
350
70
300
60

Shear (KN)
Shear (Kips)

250
50
200
40
150
30 1-05D
0.3-05D 100
20 2-05D
Pushing 50
10
Pulling
0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Disp (in)

Figure 8-79 Predicted vs. Measured shear-displacement non-linear envelope

8.7.4.2 P-Y springs

It is clear then that the sub-grade reaction modulus from the soil has to be modified in
order to match the test results. The shallow location of the plastic hinge indicated that
the soil was significantly stiffer and stronger than initially expected at the ground level.
As mentioned in section 3.1.2.2, Diaz [1984] observed that there was an effect of
interlocking that would increase the capacity of the soil at the ground so the strength at
this location would have a value larger than zero even if the effective stress on the soil is
close to zero.

8.7.5 Testing Procedure – Stage II

The first stage of the single pile test showed that the critical section of the prestressed pile
was located higher than expected; therefore the spalling instrumentation had not been
placed in this region. If the test was continued with the same soil conditions, it would
not be possible to capture the instant at which spalling would occur. Given that this test
serves as calibration of the couple system test it was decided to excavate 0.91 m (3ft )
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 281

around the pile which is the depth at which the plastic hinge was forming in the previous
test. This modification increases the above ground pile height and induces the pile failure
in a region where spalling sensors had been installed. This modified set up also serves to
have additional data to confirm the findings from the previous test.

The displacement protocol follows the one showed in Figure 8-80; and it was estimated
using the yielding displacement based on an extrapolation of the results obtained from
the previous test phase and was calculated as 36 mm (1.43 in). Three initial cycles with a
maximum load of 180KN (40 kips) were applied before the displacement controlled stage
shown in Figure 8-80. The load rate was about 2.5 mm/sec (0.1 in/sec) for the cycles
with amplitude below 127 mm (5 in) and then increased to 3.8 mm/sec (0.15 in/sec) for
larger amplitude cycles.

18
15
12
9
Displacement (in)

6
3
0
-3
-6
-9
-12
-15
-18
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Cycle
Figure 8-80 Loading protocol

8.7.6 Test Results-Stage II

The test was carried out until reaching failure of the pile. Force, displacement and
deformation of the pile were obtained from the instruments.

8.7.6.1 Force-displacement envelope and hysteretic response

The force displacement envelope obtained from the cyclic tests followed reasonably well
the estimated envelope even if for the low amplitude loads the pile showed a softer
response than expected for the pushing direction (Figure 8-81).
282 Carlos Blandon

As expected, the soil-pile system showed a more flexible response that the previous test;
however it was surprising that even if the cantilever height was increased, the lateral force
reached in both test was practically the same (Figure 8-82). The observed damage that
occurred right at the ground level seems to indicate that the plastic hinge did not moved
down into the ground as expected and therefore the cantilever length from the pile top to
the plastic hinge did not increased significantly. This can explain why the maximum
lateral force was very close for the two tests.

The hysteretic response of the pile-soil system showed relatively wide loops for small
amplitude cycles which indicated friction forces resulting from the dragging effect
between the quarry material and the pile surface (Figure 8-83). The overall cycles showed
a typical shape of prestressed systems with relatively small residual deformations and
some pinching close to the origin (Figure 8-84). One more feature observed on the
cycles was sudden strength drop after the maximum lateral force had been reached. This
was consistent with the observations from the moment curvature analyses in which there
was a sudden drop of capacity due to strength reduction of the thick cover concrete. For
the consecutive cycle of load the reduction of strength was also a consequence of some
strands that were heard to fracture. Total failure occurred after more strands were heard
to fracture at 15 in (0.38 m) of displacement approximately.

Disp (m)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
90 400
80
350
70
300
60
Shear (KN)
Shear (Kips)

Measured 250
50
200
40
150
30
Prediction
20 100

10 50

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Disp (in)

Figure 8-81 Predicted and measured shear force vs displacement envelopes

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 283

Disp (m)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4
90 400
Test 1
80 Test 2 350
70
300
60
Shear (Kips)

Shear (KN)
250
50 Idealized Bilinear Envelope
200
40 Pushing
Pulling 150
30
Pushing 100
20
Pulling
10 Idealized Yielding 50

0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Disp (in)

Figure 8-82 Measured shear force vs displacement envelopes for the two phase of the single pile test

Displacement (m)
-0.12 -0.09 -0.06 -0.03 0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12
80
350
60
300
40
Lateral Force (Kips)

Lateral Force (KN)

250
20
200
0
150
-20

100
-40

-60 50

-80 0
-5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
Displacement (in)

Figure 8-83 Hysteretic response (Small amplitude cycles)

284 Carlos Blandon

Displacement (m)
-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4
100 450
80 400
60
350
Lateral Force (Kips)

Lateral Force (KN)

40
300
20
250
0
200
-20
150
-40
-60 100

-80 50

-100 0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (in)

Figure 8-84 Hysteretic response

8.7.6.2 Pile Rotation curvature and displacement

The inclinometers showed a marked jump of the rotations between ground level set at
5.1 m (17 ft) in Figure 8-85 and 4.5 m (15ft) which is approximately the same length as
the pile diameter. The displacements obtained from rotations have a close match with
the applied displacement at the top.

The curvature profiles for the maximum displacement at each cycle were computed from
the strains measured along the instrumented auxiliary bars. The curvature profiles 1 to 3
shown in Figure 8-86 were obtained by averaging the curvatures estimated by using
different combinations of the three auxiliary instrumented bars: front-middle, front-
middle-rear and middle rear bars (1,2,3). The profiles indicate that the plasticity was
distributed in a different manner for the push and the pulling cycles.

For the pushing cycles (negative curvature) the curvature shows two concentrated
locations; one at ground surface witch was observed visually and another 0.6 m (2 ft)
below ground which was also inspected. For the pulling cycles (positive curvature), the
maximum curvature for each cycle is smaller than for the pushing load but is more evenly
distributed. Dashed lines on the figure indicate that the reading from the strain gages is
not reliable due to large strains on the bar.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 285

Displacement (m)
Rotation (Rad) -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0
-0.14 -0.12 -0.1 -0.08 -0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0
25
25

7
7

20 20 6
6

5 5
15 15

Depth (m)

Depth (m)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)

4 4

10 3 10 3

2 2
5 5
1 Calculated
Applied 1
1

0 0
0 0
-8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0
-15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0
Rotation (Degrees) Displacement (in)

Figure 8-85 Rotation and lateral displacement profile

Cycle 3 - 1.45 in Cycle 4 - 2.9 in

Normalized Curvature (φ *D) Normalized Curvature (φ *D)

-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02

25 25
1 1
2 7 2 7
3 3

20 6 20 6

5 5
15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (ft)
Depth (m)
Depth (ft)

4 4

10 3 10 3

2 2
5 5
1 1

0 0 0 0
-0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01
Curvature (1/ft) Curvature (1/ft)
286 Carlos Blandon

Cycle 5 - 4.3 in Cycle 6 - 5.8 in

Normalized Curvature (φ *D) Normalized Curvature (φ *D)

-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04

25 25
1 1
2 7 2 7
3 3

20 6 20 6

5 5
15 15
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)

4 4

10 3 10 3

2 2
5 5
1 1

0 0 0 0
-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
Curvature (1/ft) Curvature (1/ft)

Cycle 7 - 8.7 in
Normalized Curvature (φ *D) Final Push - 15.0 in
Normalized Curvature (φ *D)
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
-0.08 -0.04 0 0.04 0.08
25
25
1
2 7 1
3 2 7
3
20 6 20 6

5
5
15
Depth (m)

15
Depth (m)
Depth (ft)

Depth (ft)

4
4

10 3 10 3

2 2
5 5
1 1

0 0 0 0
-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
Curvature (1/ft) Curvature (1/ft)

Figure 8-86 Curvature Profiles

The curvatures were also obtained from the inclinometer; this procedure resulted in
smaller curvatures due to the fact that these were obtained as an average between
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 287

inclinometers, whilst the curvature from strain gages were influenced by concentrated
deformation of the strain gages at the crack location. However, the measurements from
the inclinometers were more reliable than those from the strain gages especially for large
lateral displacements of the pile top.

The curvatures from the inclinometers in Figure 8-87 clearly showed a plastic hinge
forming between the ground surface and 4 ft (1.2 m) below ground. It was also
noticeable that the spread of plasticity increased with increased displacement except for
the last two cycles of displacement. In these cycles there was a sudden decrease of the
curvature around 0.15 m (0.5 ft) and 1.2 m (4 ft) below ground indicating that the plastic
hinge length had reduced.

The large curvatures measured in the test also seem to agree with the fracture of some
strands that were heard to fail during the 8.7 in (0.22 m) displacement cycle.

Normalized Curvature (ΦxD) Normalized Curvature (ΦxD)

-0.12 -0.08 -0.04 0 0.04 0.08 0.12 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02
25 25

7 7

20 6 20 6

5 5
15 15
Elevation (m)
Elevation (ft)

Elevation (m)
Elevation (ft)

4 4

10 3 10 3

1.43 in 1.43 in
2.9 in 2 2.9 in 2
4.35 in 4.35 in
5 5
5.8 in 5.8 in
8.7 in 8.7 in
1 1
Fpush Fpush
Ground Ground
Yield Curv. Yield Curv.
0 0 0 0
-0.06 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01
Curvature (1/ft) Curvature (1/ft)
Figure 8-87 Curvature Profiles from Inclinometers

8.7.6.3 Inground Spalling

One of the main objectives of the test was to verify the functionality of the spalling
sensors and the accuracy to detect the instant at which the cover concrete would spall.
288 Carlos Blandon

Figure 8-88 shows the time history of displacements measured by the spalling sensors
during the 8.7 in (0.22 m) cycle. The figure shows a significant jump on the measurement
for the sensors S10 and S1 which are the closest sensors to the location of the observed
plastic hinge. S10 and S1 are the first consecutive sensors from the ground surface. S10
was initially intended to be located at the deepest location but it was moved to the
shallowest elevation during installation. The sensors were not renumbered to avoid
confusion at the time of data acquisition.

The time history for spalling sensors SP-1 and SP10 showed that the jump of
displacements occurred for the cycle of 8.7 in (0.22 m) at the instant when the drop of
strength occurred (Figure 8-89). This observation confirmed that these sensors were
able to capture the instant at which the concrete cover detached from the section.

The curvature profile at the instant of spalling detected by the instruments is given in
Figure 8-90. The normalized curvature estimated from the strain gages and the location
of the auxiliary bars is in a range between 0.02 and 0.04. Figure 8-91 shows the moment
curvature for a prestressed pile section with similar properties to the one used in the test.
It shows that for the corresponding axial load (black line), the CLE based on a concrete
strain of 0.008 for the section was approximately located around 0.025. Hence, the results
from the test show that assuming a concrete strain of 0.008 is a conservative procedure.
If the results from the couple pile system are consistent, the value of 0.008 can be
validates as a good design parameter.

0.14

0.12

0.1
S1-1
0.08 S1-2
Dispalcement (in)

S1-3
S1-4
0.06
S1-5
S1-6
0.04
S1-7
S1-8
0.02 S1-9
S1-10
0

-0.02

-0.04
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Step

Figure 8-88 Spalling sensor time history for cycle at 8.7 in (0.22 m)
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 289

0.1

0.08 Pile Top

Displacement
0.06
1.4
Dispalcement (in)

2.9
0.04
4.3
5.8
0.02
8.7
15
0

-0.02

-0.04
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Step

0.14

0.12
Pile Top
0.1
Displacement
0.08 1.4
Dispalcement (in)

2.9
0.06 4.3

0.04 5.8
8.7
0.02 15

-0.02

-0.04
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800
Step

Figure 8-89 Time history for Spalling sensor SP-10 (top) SP-1 (bottom)

Figure 8-92 also shows that the value of 0.008 in the cover concrete occurred at the
instant when the reduction of capacity occurred on the lateral force vs lateral
displacement envelope. Even if the value of the curvature at this instant has some
uncertainty given that the strain gages were working at the limit range it seems that this
value can be able to confirm the conservatism of the design strain on the cover concrete.
290 Carlos Blandon

Cycle 7 - 8.7 in
Normalized Curvature (φ *D)

-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04

25
1
2 7
3

20 6

5
15

Depth (m)
Depth (ft)

10 3

2
5

0 0
-0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02
Curvature (1/ft)

Figure 8-90 Curvature profile at spalling

0.09

OLE U C CLE st r and

OLE st r and
0.08
CLE U C

0.07
Normalized Moment (M / D f´c )

0.06
3

0.05

0.04 Estimated curvature

range from test
0.03

0.02

0.01

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05
Normalized Curvature (φ D)

Figure 8-91 Moment vs Curvature for the prestressed section

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 291

Displacement (m)
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
100 450
80 Concrete Strain=0.008 400
60
350
40
300
Load (kips)

Load (KN)
20
250
0
200
-20
150
-40
-60 100

-80 50

-100 0
-10 -5 0 5 10
Displacement (inch)

Figure 8-92 CLE concrete strain limit

8.7.7 Pile Inspection – Stage II

The observed damage above the ground started as an enlargement of the already existing
crack located close to the ground surface. Consecutive increments of displacement
induced additional cracks around 0.5 m (1.6 ft) above the ground (Figure 8-93) but the
cracks closed perfectly after every inversion of displacement and no damage due to
compression was observed.

The tensile crack spread well into the section and became an inclined shear type crack at
the lateral faces of the pile; however the force displacement envelope did not seem to be
affected by this crack. The maximum force on the envelope was reached at a
displacement of 0.17 m (7 in) when it was observed a crushing failure of the concrete
cover at a shallow depth into the quarry (Figure 8-94). The same behaviour was observed
for both pulling and pulling cycles.
292 Carlos Blandon

Figure 8-93 Tension cracks before spalling

A final force until total failure was applied after spalling had been observed in order to
observe the maximum displacement capacity of the system. A rather large displacement
of 0.38 m (15 in) was obtained before the load reduced significantly due to the rupture of
some of the prestressing strands at the plastic hinge location, which means a
displacement reserve of two after spalling occurs (Figure 8-95 and Figure 8-96).

The pile was excavated after the test had been completed in order to verify and observe
the condition of the plastic hinge formed below ground. Figure 8-97 shows the location
of the plastic hinge at 2.4 m (8 ft) from the pile-deck connection which verifies the
reading from the instruments. The cover concrete is still in place even after removing the
quarry material carefully. When the excavation proceeded, the backhoe reached the pile
and the cover concrete spalled completely (Figure 8-98). As a note to the pictures, the
rubber bands used as instrumentation for detecting spalling can be observed around the
plastic hinge.

Additionally to this inspection, more photos of this pile were taken when the final
excavation was completed after all the piles were tested. Figure 8-99 shows the condition
of the plastic hinge at this stage. The damage of the pile at the south side that was not
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 293

exposed in the first inspection but the plastic hinge general conditions were very similar
to those at the north side.

Shear crack

Concrete
crushing

Shear crack

Figure 8-94 Detail to the observed damage at the instant of spalling

294 Carlos Blandon

Figure 8-95 Damage at maximum displacement (0.45 m)

South North

Figure 8-96 Residual Displacement

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 295

Figure 8-97 Subgrade Plastic Hinge (North side)

Figure 8-98 Cover Concrete spalled after excavation (North side)

296 Carlos Blandon

a) Close up of the plastic Hinge at the North side

b) General view of damage at South side c) General view of damage at North-West side

Figure 8-99 Exposed pile hinge after final excavation

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 297

8.8 SYSTEM TEST 1

8.8.1 Testing procedure

The second test on the program was carried out in a system of two piles coupled by a
steel beam, see Figure 8-100. The location of the sensors and the transverse layout of the
test have been already shown in Figure 8-7, Figure 8-33 and Figure 8-50.

Figure 8-100 System Test 1 Set Up

The loading protocol followed was similar to that in the free head pile test (Figure 8-60),
in which the first three cycles were force controlled and then increasing nominal ductility
levels were applied using a displacement control protocol. The test rate was gradually
increased from 0.02 in/sec (0.5 mm/sec) for the nominal ductility of 1.0 to 0.05 in/sec
(1.27 mm/sec) for the nominal ductility of 3 and above. The loading history and the
force reached in each cycle are shown in Table 8-2.

8.8.2 Test Results

8.8.2.1 Force Vs Top Displacement Response

The hysteretic response of the system was stable even for large ductility demand cycles.
The initial response was characteristic of prestressed systems with narrow loops (Figure
8-101). Some residual displacement was observed but it was mostly due to the
298 Carlos Blandon

rearranging of the large size quarry material around the pile. The effect of the soil
rearrangement seemed to be considerable in the initial stiffness. Figure 8-101 shows that
this parameter was reduced 50% approximately from the first cycle to the second cycle.

Table 8-2 Loading History

Cycle Expected System Pushing Pulling

# Ductility or
fraction of Displacement Force Displacement Force
maximum force In. mm Kips KN in. mm Kips KN
1 N/A-0.25 Fy 0.21 5.3 71 323 0.29 7.4 82 373
2 N/A-0.5 Fy 0.63 16.0 109 495 0.59 15.0 161 732
3 N/A-0.75 Fy 1.26 32.0 162 736 1.02 25.9 232 1055
4 1.0 1.46 37.1 204 927 1.39 35.3 247 1123
5 1.5 2.17 55.1 248 1127 2.1 53.3 290 1318
6 2.0 2.86 72.6 266 1209 2.87 72.9 314 1427
7 3.0 4.3 109.2 294 1336 4.23 107.4 346 1573
8 4.0 5.72 145.3 301 1368 5.66 143.8 357 1623
9 6.0 8.54 216.9 312 1418 8.48 215.4 356 1618
10 8.0 11.38 289.1 299 1359 11.31 287.3 335 1523
11 FINAL CYCLE 15.94 404.9 267 1214 13.07 332.0 270 1227

Displacement (m)
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
250 1100
200 900
700
Lateral Force (kips)

150
Lateral Force (KN)

100 500
300
50
100
0
-100
-50 1st cycle -300
-100 -500
2nd cycle
-150 -700
3rd cycle
-200 -900
-250 -1100
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
Displacement (in)

Figure 8-101 Hysteresis response for Cycle 1 to 3

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 299

Due to the cyclic axial load induced by the horizontal load and the effect of the slope, the
maximum force reached during the pulling loading (both piles on level ground
conditions) was 1623 KN (357 kips), whilst for the pushing cycles (P3 in level condition
and P5 in slope ground) reached a maximum force of 1364 KN (300 Kips), see Figure
8-102.

The yield displacement estimated from the low amplitude stage (cycle 1 to cycle 3) was
close to 35.5 mm (1.4 in.) in average in both directions; however after the second stage of
test (Figure 8-103) this parameter was 63.5 mm (2.5 in.) approximately and it is
approximately the same in both directions. This indicates that the actual ductility is 45 %
less than the nominal ductility approximately. The system displacement ductility capacity
reached after the final push was close to 6.3.

Displacement (m)
-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
400 1800

1500
300
1200

200 900
Lateral Force (kips)

600

Lateral Force (KN)

100
300
0 0
-300
-100 4th cycle
-600
5th cycle
-200 -900
6th cycle
-1200
-300
7th cycle -1500
-400 -1800
-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6
Displacement (in)

Figure 8-102 Hysteresis response for Cycle 4 to 7

8.8.2.2 Rotation Curvature and Displacement Profile

The rotations were directly obtained from the inclinometers placed along the pile. The
profile in Figure 8-104 clearly shows the jump on the rotations along the plastic hinge.
The curvature profile obtained from the inclinometer in Figure 8-105 shows a
300 Carlos Blandon

concentration of plasticity at 5.5 ft (1.7 m and 2.75 diameters) below the ground surface
in the ground level pile (P3) for pushing and pulling cycles. The concentration of
plasticity for the pile at the slope (P5) is located 4.5 ft (1.3 m and 2.25 diameters) below
surface for the pulling cycles and at 7.5 ft (2.3 m and 3.75 diameters) for the pushing
cycles.

Displacement (m)
-0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
400
1700

300
1200
200
700
Lateral Force (kips)

Lateral Force (KN)

100
200
0

4th cycle -300

-100 5th cycle
6th cycle
7th cycle -800
-200 8th cycle
9th cycle
10th cycle -1300
-300 Final Push
Series9
-400 -1800
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Displacement (in)

Figure 8-103 Hysteresis response for Cycle 4 to 10

The rotation profile shows that above the mentioned locations of concentrated plasticity
the rotation is quite constant for displacement larger than 145 mm (5.68 in.) The
curvature profile is also showing that there was some effect of the axial force on the
maximum curvature demand given that even if the displacement and soil reaction were
symmetric for the ground level pile (P3), the curvature profile is not for pushing and
pulling. The same could be concluded from the profile for the pile at the slope given
that; in this pile, for the same displacement it would be expected to have a larger
curvature demand on the pulling cycle (left side of Figure 8-105) than for pushing (right
side) however in both directions the maximum curvature was approximately the same.

The displacement profile in Figure 8-106 was obtained from the inclinometers assuming
a linear distribution of rotation between two inclinometers. The applied displacements at
the top and the calculated displacement have a good match for the low level amplitude,
however the displacements are underestimated as the applied displacements increase.
This could be explained in part the increase of the shear deformations on the pile and
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 301

also mainly because at large rotation some of the sensors saturated. The large shear
deformations were evident by the fact that it was not possible to remove the
inclinometers from the pile due to the fracture and horizontal dislocation of the vertical
tube in which the inclinometers were placed.

P3 (Level Ground Pile) P5 (Slope Pile)

25 25

7 7
22.5 22.5

20 20 6
6

17.5 17.5
5 5

15 15

Elevation (m)
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (m)
Elevation (ft)

4 4
12.5 12.5

10 3 10 3
1.52 in
2.13 in. 1.52 in
7.5 2.84 in. 7.5 2.13 in.
4.26 in. 2 2.84 in. 2
5.68 in. 4.26 in.
5 8.52 in. 5 5.68 in.
11.36 in 8.52 in.
Fpush 1 11.36 in 1
2.5 Ground 2.5 Fpush
Ground

0 0 0 0
-7.5 -5.0 -2.5 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 -7.5 -5.0 -2.5 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5
Rotation (Deg) Rotation (Deg)

Figure 8-104 Rotation Profile for System Test I

The curvatures for each of the piles on the system test were also obtained from the strain
gages installed on the three instrumented bars on the pile section. Figure 8-107 shows
the location of the strain gages.

Note that the numeration of the instrumented bars is reversed; in pile 3, bar 1 is at the
north side, whilst for P5 bar 1 is at the south side. This is due to the selected location of
the spalling sensors which are the same side as bar 1. Due to this distribution, the
curvature plots shown for P3 and P5 have inverted signs.
302 Carlos Blandon

-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2

25 25
Normalized Curvature (φxD) Normalized Curvature (φxD)
7 7

20 P3 6 20 6
P5 (Slope Pile)
(Level Ground Pile)

5 5
15 15
Elevation (m)

Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)
Elevation (ft)

4 4

10 1.42 in 3 10 3
1.42 in
2.13 in. 2.13 in.
2.84 in. 2.84 in.
4.26 in. 2 4.26 in. 2
5.68 in. 5.68 in.
5 5
8.52 in. 8.52 in.
11.36 in 1 11.36 in 1
Fpush Fpush
Ground Ground
0 0 0 0
-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10
Curvature (1/ft) Curvature (1/ft)
Figure 8-105 Curvature Profile for System Test I from Inclinometers

-0.45 -0.225 0 0.225 0.45 -0.45 -0.225 0 0.225 0.45

25 25
Displacement (m) Displacement (m)
7 7

20 6 20 6

5 5

15 15
Elevation (m)
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (m)
Elevation (ft)

4 4
1.42
1.42 2.13 in.
10 10 2.84 in. 3
2.13 in. 3
2.84 in. 4.26
4.26 5.68 in.
5.68 in. 8.52 in. 2
2
8.52 in. 11.36
5
5 11.36 Fpush
Fpush Applied Disp 1
1
Applied Disp Ground
Ground
0 0
0 0
-18.0 -12.0 -6.0 0.0 6.0 12.0 18.0
-18.0 -12.0 -6.0 0.0 6.0 12.0 18.0
Displacement (in) Displacement (in)
Figure 8-106 Displacement Profile for System Test I from Inclinometers
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 303

P3 P5
North South

3.5’
Ground Surface
5@1’=5’ 6@1’=6’

1.5’
18.0’ 9@10”=7.5’

9@10”=7.5’

1.5’ Instrumented Bar #1

Instrumented Bar #1

6@1’=6’
5@1’=5’

Bottom line of soil pit

3.0’
5.0’
Note:
Double strain gages on every rebar at each depth

Instrumented Bar #3

Figure 8-107 Strain Gages Location (units in inches)

The plots show three different values of the curvature given that this property was
computed using three different averages of the curvatures obtained combining the
information of different bars as shown in Table 8-3.

Table 8-3 Curvature Averaging

Average # Curvature 1 Curvature 2 Curvature 3

1 Bar 1- Bar 2 Bar 1 - Bar 3 ---------
2 Bar 1- Bar 2 Bar 1- Bar 3 Bar 2- Bar 3
3 -------------- Bar 1- Bar 3 Bar 2 - Bar 3
Only the results for the cycle 9 which corresponds to a displacement of 0.22 m (8.52 in.)
and a nominal ductility of 6 and cycle 10 with a displacement of 0.29 m (11.32 in.) and
nominal ductility of 8 are shown. The results for larger displacements are not reliable due
to the failure of several gages in the plastic hinge zone.

The curvature profile shape from the strain gages agree with the curvature profile
obtained from the inclinometers. The locations of maximum curvature are the same and
there is also asymmetry on the magnitude for pushing and pulling for the level ground
pile (P3).
304 Carlos Blandon

-0.08 -0.04 0 0.04 0.08 -0.08 -0.04 0 0.04 0.08

25 25
Normalized Curvature (φxD)
Normalized Curvature (φxD)
7 7
Cycle 9 - 8.52 in 1
1 Cycle 10 - 11.32 in
2
2
20 3 20 3 6
6

5 5

15 15
Depth (m)

Depth (m)
Depth (ft)

Depth (ft)
4 4

10 3 10 3

2 2

5 5

Slope Side in Slope Side in 1 Slope Side in

Slope Side in 1
Tension at Compresion at Tension at Compresion at
Inground Hinge Inground Hinge Inground Hinge Inground Hinge

0 0 0 0
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
Curvature (1/ft) Curvature (1/ft)
Figure 8-108 Curvature profile for Pile 3 (Level ground pile)

-0.08 -0.04 0 0.04 0.08

-0.08 -0.04 0 0.04 0.08
25
25
Normalized Curvature (φxD)
Normalized Curvature (φxD) 7
7
Cycle 10 - 11.32 in 1
Cycle 9 - 8.52 in 1
2
2
20 3 6
20 6
3

5 5

15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (ft)
Depth (m)
Depth (ft)

4 4

10 3 10 3

2 2

5 5

Slope Side in Slope Side in 1

1 Slope Side in Slope Side in
Compresion at Tension at
Inground Hinge Inground Hinge Compresion at Tension at
Inground Hinge Inground Hinge

0 0 0 0
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
Curvature (1/ft) Curvature (1/ft)

Figure 8-109 Curvature profile for Pile 5 (Slope pile)

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 305

The magnitude of the curvature was, however, close to half to that obtained from the
inclinometers. It is more likely to have a better idea of the magnitude of the curvature
from the inclinometers given that several of the strain gages were reaching limit values of
2.5% and additionally had some residual deformation due to the yielding of the
instrumented bar during the cyclic load.

From initial readings of the strain gages, it was also found that the location of maximum
strains into the pile migrated as the displacement amplitude increased. Only the plastic
hinge at P5 for pushing loading did not seem to have moved. This may explain the
increase of the lateral force capacity of the system. The migration of the plastic hinge can
be explained by the sinking of the ground surface around the pile. The research by
Budeck described in section 2.2.1 showed that the depth to the plastic hinge reduces as
the above ground height increases.

P3 P5

Strain
Gages
3.5’
Ground Surface

Initial location of 7@1’=7’

Plastic Hinge 9@1’=9’
Final location of
Plastic Hinge

9@10”=7.5’
20.0’
9@10”=7.5’

1.5’

1.5’
6@1’=6’
4@1’=4’
Bottom line of soil pit

3.0’
5.0’
Note:
Double strain gages on every rebar at each depth

Figure 8-110 Plastic Hinge Migration

Readings from the spalling sensor showed a large jump in sensors 3 and 4 in both piles,
which may indicate the location where spalling may have occurred. These sensors are
located at 1.8 m (70 in.) and 2.0 m (80 in.) below the ground surface. These readings are
306 Carlos Blandon

coherent with the readings from the strain gages that show the maximum strain in the
pile formed around the same depth.

The location of the plastic hinges estimated from the inclinometer and the strain gages
coincided with the measurements from the spalling sensors. Spalling was detected by the
sensors located at 4.0 m (13.3 ft) and 3.8 m (12.5 ft) elevation in the ground level pile (P3)
(1.4 m (4.7 ft) and 1.7 m (5.5 ft) below ground surface). The time history from these
sensors (Figure 8-111, Figure 8-112) show that there was a spalling crack forming
gradually for a nominal ductility of 3 and larger. The crack is larger at 4.0 m (13.3 ft) and
accumulates at each cycle.

For the pile located at the slope (P5), spalling was detected at the instrument located 3.2
m (10.5 ft) elevation (2.3 m (7.5 ft) below surface). In this case, there was a sudden crack
when the nominal displacement ductility of 4 was reached. The instrument saturated in
the following cycle for a nominal displacement ductility of 6. In this instrument is was
observed that the sudden crack did not appear when the pile was loading but some
instants after the first time the system was being unloaded. This may be an indication
that the pile lost confinement from the surrounding soil and the cover concrete cracked
at that instant. The crack was also detected by the instruments located at 3.45 m (11.33
ft) and 2.94 m (9.66 ft) which indicate that the spalled section extended at least 508 mm
(20 in).

0.3
Nominal Displacement
0.25 Ductility
Spaling Sensor Reading (in)

1
0.2
1.5
2
0.15 3
4
0.1 6

0.05

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Step

Figure 8-111 Spalling sensor measurement for ground level pile (P3) at 4m (13.3 ft) elevation
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 307

0.3

0.25 Nominal Displacement

Spaling Sensor Reading (in)

Ductility
0.2
2
0.15 3
4
0.1 6

0.05

0
0 500 1000 1500
-0.05
Step

Figure 8-112 Spalling sensor measurement for ground level pile (P3) at 3.8 m (12.5 ft) elevation

0.3
Nominal Displacement
0.25 Ductility
Spaling Sensor Reading (in)

1
0.2 1.5
2
0.15 3
4
0.1 6

0.05

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Step

Figure 8-113 Spalling sensor measurement for slope pile (P5) at 10.5 ft elevation

8.8.2.3 Pile-cap connection nonlinear behavior

The strains in the pile-cap interface dowels were monitored using high elongation strain
gages shown in Figure 8-29. At the same location, the rotation was measured using an
inclinometer attached 150 mm (6 in.) below the connection as shown in Figure 8-33. The
308 Carlos Blandon

rotation was also measured using two linear potentiometers as shown in Figure 8-58.
Figure 8-114 shows that there was a good agreement between the measurement from the
inclinometers and the linear potentiometers.

0.006

0.004

0.002
Rotation (deg)

0.000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
-0.002

-0.004

-0.006
P5 Inclinometer
-0.008 P5 Lin. Pot.

-0.010
Time (min)

0.012
0.010
0.008
0.006
Rotation (deg)

0.004
0.002
0.000
-0.002 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

-0.004
P3 Inclinometer
-0.006
P3 Lin. Pot.
-0.008
-0.010
Time (min)

Figure 8-114 Relative Pile-Deck Rotation for cycle 5

The analytical estimation of dowel strain vs rotation was estimated from the moment
curvature envelope of the section assuming a plastic hinge length obtained using equation
( 3-33) which is as follows:

l p = 0.08 L + 0.15 f y d b ≥ 0.30 f y d b (units in Ksi, in)

The results from the analytical estimation were compared with the results from the test as
shown in Figure 8-115. It seems then that the plastic hinge from the equation is not
applicable to the test conditions at least for the cycles in which the strain on the dowels
was measured. After the 7th (4.26 in-108 mm) cycle the strain gages on the dowels
reached saturation and no additional data was obtained in the following cycles.

The difference on the analytical and experimental envelopes show that the plastic hinge
formed is considerably smaller than expected. The fracture of the dowels occurred at the
10th cycle (11.32 in – 287.5 mm); hence, if an 8% strain is assumed for the bar fracture
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 309

and the rotation on the connection is obtained from the inclinometers (Figure 8-104 ), it
is clear that the plastic hinge length is variable, increasing as the rotation at the
connection increases. These observations are consistent with the test by Krier et al
[2006].

3.5

2.5
Strain (%)

2 Dowel 1
Dowel 2
1.5 Analytical

0.5

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Rotation (rad)

6
Strain (%)

4
Dowel 1
3
Dowel 2
2 Analytical

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09
Rotation (rad)

Figure 8-115 Experimental vs analytical dowel strain-rotation relationship for slope pile (P5)
310 Carlos Blandon

8.8.3 Pile Inspection

The main goal of the test was to characterize the behaviour of the inground plastic hinge
and verify the design values in that location used by the Port of Los Angeles; however,
the test also served to observe the behaviour at the pile deck connection and provide a
back up for the test carried out by Krier et al [2006] in connection with properties with
similar characteristics. The pile damage evolution is described for each nominal ductility
level in the following paragraphs.

• Loading cycle 3: The first crack appeared in the level ground pile (P3) when it
was being pushed in the downslope direction and subjected to tension. It formed at
6 in below the pile deck interface in the tension side; one crack more was also
observed around 18 in below the interface (Figure 8-116). The same crack was
observed in the pile at the dyke crest (P5). For the P3 pile, there was also a diagonal
crack at the deck extending from pile deck interface, right at the pile angle, towards
the corner of the cap. This crack was observed during the downslope pushing, that
is, when this pile was in tension.

• Loading cycle 4 (Nominal System Displacement Ductility 1): In this cycle, a

crack was observed at the pile deck interface. The crack width was larger than the
width observed for the crack located at 6 in from the interface. This crack was not
observed before because an expansive foam used during the pile cap construction
had not been removed for the interface (note the orange foam in Figure 8-116)

• Loading Cycle 5 (Nominal System Displacement Ductility 1.5): The width of the
cracks increased and continued spreading around the pile and inclined as they
reached the centre of the section. Incipient crushing of the concrete was noted at the
compressive side of both piles. The diagonal crack in the deck appeared at the land
side (North) of the connection.

• Loading Cycle 6 (Nominal System Displacement Ductility 2.0): Thin crushed

slices of concrete started to spall from the pile at the compressive side in pile P3.
Several parallel diagonal cracks appeared on the deck and reached the edge of the
cap.

• Loading Cycle 7 (Nominal System Displacement Ductility 3.0): The crushed area
of concrete spread 127 mm (5 in) to 152.5 mm (6 in.) below the cap in pile P3
(Figure 8-117). The entire concrete cover at the soffit of the slope pile (P5) spalled
(Figure 8-118) and in the subsequent reduced cycle all the spalled concrete
completely detached from the cap (Figure 8-119).
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 311

• Loading Cycle 8 (Nominal System Displacement Ductility 4.0): The compressive

region on pile P3 showed significant crushing of the cover concrete (Figure 8-120).
Horizontal cracks in the cap at 3 in from bottom showed a noticeable width in pile
P3 and extended ¾ of the total width of the cap.

• Loading Cycle 9 (Nominal System Displacement Ductility 6.0): The extension of

the spalled deck concrete at the bottom increased considerably pile P5 (at the slope
side). The horizontal crack on the cap crossed all the section and was close to falling.
It was observed that due to the cyclic displacement, the rocks moved around the pile
increasing the above grade height. In Figure 8-121, note that the pile had been
painted to the ground level. Now, the ground level was close to 0.3 m (1 ft) deeper
that at the beginning of the test. Due to this increase of the depth, it was possible to
observe cracks that had formed in the pile below ground.

• Loading Cycle 10 (Nominal System Displacement Ductility 8.0): In this cycle, the
damage at the bottom of the deck continued increasing until large concrete sections
detached from both piles leaving the transverse reinforcement, in both pile and deck,
exposed. The rotation was concentrated at the interface. The crack at 152.5 mm (6
in.) and 457 mm (18 in.) in both piles increased gradually in this cycle until the
concrete spalled showing marked crossed cracks indicting shear failure. It was also
possible to hear as some of the dowel failing at the connection.

• Final Push: The system was loaded in both directions until most of the dowels
failed and the lateral load capacity reduced considerably (Figure 8-122). It was
possible to hear several dowel breaking and the plastic hinge extreme deterioration.

Cracks

Figure 8-116. Cracks at P3 for loading cycle 3 Figure 8-117. Cracks at P3 for loading cycle 7
312 Carlos Blandon

Figure 8-118. Soffit Concrete Spall at pile P5 Figure 8-119. Complete Detachment of the
spalled concrete

Figure 8-120 Concrete Crushing During Cycle 8 at P3

Figure 8-121 Ground Surface Sinkage

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 313

Figure 8-122 Damage on Piles after Final Cycle

8.8.4 In-ground inspection after final excavation

Pile 3 was located at the level ground for the system test 1. The excavation sequence is
plotted in Figure 8-123 and Figure 8-124. For pile 3, the pile was in compression at the
north side and in tension at the south side when the displacement was towards the north
(pulling). The first signs of spalling were observed when the excavation reached 1.52m (5
ft) from the initial ground level which is coherent with the locations previously estimated
from the instruments.

The sequence of excavation at the north side is shown in the pictures in Figure 8-124.
The concrete showed vertical cracks and then crushing at the highest portion of the
plastic hinge, which extended 0.76 m (2.5 ft) approximately from 1.52 m (5 ft) to 2.3 m
(7.5 ft) from the initial level ground.

The water used to damp the quarry during the excavation revealed the horizontal tensile
cracks spreading along the pile (Figure 8-125). These appeared 0.3 m (1 ft) from the
original ground surface and spread down to the plastic hinge

The cover concrete was removed manually in order to observe the damage to the
reinforcement. Figure 8-126 shows that the cover could be removed without need of
314 Carlos Blandon

tools. It also can be observed that the spalling sensors were exposed and some of the
visible strands were fractured. From all the piles of the system tests, this was the most
severely damaged, showing exposure of several fractured and buckled strands. The initial
and final condition of the plastic hinge after the cover concrete was removed is shown in
Figure 8-127 and Figure 8-128.

The damage on the pile at the slope P5 at the North side is very similar to the damage
observed in P3. However, at the south side, due to the slope, the plastic hinge formed at
a deeper location in P5. Figure 8-129 to Figure 8-131 shows the condition of this pile
during the excavation. Only one strand was visible after removing the damaged cover
concrete. This strand was partially fractured.

a) South side b) North side

Figure 8-123 Excavation Sequence at 1.52 m (5 ft) for P3 (System test 1, level pile P3)
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 315

Figure 126 a. Excavation sequence at the North side (from 1.52 m to 2.28 m) (System test 1, level
pile P3)

Figure 8-124 Excavation sequence at the North side (from 5 ft to 7.5 ft) (System test 1, level pile P3)
316 Carlos Blandon

a) cracking South side c) plastic hinge North side

d) cracking North side e) close up plastic hinge South side

Figure 8-125 Plastic hinge measurements (System test 1, level pile P3)
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 317

a) manual removal of cover concrete b) exposed sensor and fractured strands

Figure 8-126 Plastic hinge inspection (System test 1, level pile P3)

Figure 8-127 North side plastic hinge (System test 1, level pile P3)
318 Carlos Blandon

Figure 8-128 South side plastic hinge (System test 1, level pile P3)

a) South side b) North side

Figure 8-129 Excavation Sequence at 1.52 m (5 ft) (System test 1, slope pile P5)
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 319

Figure 8-130 Excavation sequence at the North side (from 1.52 m to 2.28mt) (System test 1, slope pile
P5)
320 Carlos Blandon

a) cracking South side c) plastic hinge North side

d) cracking North side e) close up plastic hinge South side

Figure 8-131 Plastic hinge measurements (System test 1, slope pile P5)
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 321

8.9 SUMMARY OF THE SYSTEM TEST 2 CYCLIC TEST

8.9.1 Loading History

The third test on the program was carried out in a system with similar characteristics as
the previous one, however the above ground height was 0.61 m (2 ft) larger. This is 5.5 ft
-1.7 m- from the level ground to the pile deck connection. The location of the sensors
and the transverse layout of the test have been already shown in Figure 8-28 ,Figure 8-34
and Figure 8-51.

The protocol followed was similar to the previous tests (Figure 8-60), in which the first
three cycles were force controlled and then increasing nominal ductility levels were
applied using a displacement control protocol. The test rate was gradually increased from
0.04 in/sec (1.0 mm/sec) for the nominal ductility of 1.0 to 0.08 in/sec (2.0 mm/sec) for
the nominal ductility of 3 and above. The loading history and the force reached in each
cycle are shown in Table 8-4.

Table 8-4 Loading History

Cycle Expected System Pushing Pulling

# Ductility or
fraction of Displacement Force Displacement Force
maximum force In. mm Kips KN in. mm Kips KN
1 N/A-0.25 Fy 0.30 7.6 69 314 0.22 5.6 55 250
2 N/A-0.5 Fy 0.63 16.0 110 500 0.52 13.2 110 500
3 N/A-0.75 Fy 1.35 34.3 160 727 0.97 24.6 161 732
4 1.0 1.47 37.3 188 855 1.38 35.0 200 909
5 1.5 2.10 53.3 200 909 2.37 60.2 248 1127
6 2.0 2.83 71.9 226 1027 3.12 79.2 260 1182
7 3.0 4.33 109.9 250 1136 4.65 118.1 285 1295
8 4.0 5.83 148.0 257 1168 6.15 156.2 293 1332
9 6.0 8.85 224.7 266 1209 9.10 231.1 296 1345
10 8.0 11.80 299.7 250 1136 12.06 306.3 282 1283
11 FINAL CYCLE 17.00 431.8 190 864 15.00 381.0 195 886
322 Carlos Blandon

8.9.2 Hysteresis Cycles

The Hysteresis cycles show a stable behaviour of the system. The initial stiffness
measured from the low amplitude cycles (Figure 8-132) is close to 20.6 KN/mm (115
kips/in) for pushing downslope and 28.6 KN/mm (160 kips/in) for pulling upslope.
There was a strength reduction of 35% approximately between the maximum lateral force
and the force at maximum displacement for the pushing cycle (Figure 8-133 and Figure
8-134). The reduction is larger in the pulling direction due to the cumulative damage of
the previous cycle.

8.9.3 Force vs Displacement Envelopes

The resultant experimental envelope was initially well predicted by the initial theoretical
estimation using the upper bound p-y soil springs. However after 50 mm (2 in) of
displacement, it was observed that the lateral force from the test exceeded the predictions
by 35% approximately.

The initial yield displacement of the system had been estimated from the low level test
(cycles 1 to 3) as 33 mm (1.3 in.) for the pulling loading and 40 mm (1.6 in.) for the
pushing loading. Based on the complete envelope, the yield displacement actual value
was approximately 63.5 mm (2.5 in.) in both directions. Using this updated definition for
the ductility, Table 8-5 shows the values obtained for the test.

Displacement (m)
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
200 900
PUSH
150
CYCLE 1 600
100 CYCLE 2
Lateral Force (Kips)

CYCLE 3
Lateral Force (KN)

300
50

0 0

-50
-300
-100
-600
-150
PULL
-200 -900
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Displacement (in)

Figure 8-132 Hysteresis response for Cycle 1 to 3

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 323

Displacement (m)
-0.125 -0.075 -0.025 0.025 0.075 0.125
300 1400
Nominal Displacement
200 Ductility 1050
1
1.5 700
Lateral Force (Kips)

100

Lateral Force (KN)

2
3 350
0
0
-100
-350
-200
-700

-300 -1050

-400 -1400
-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5
Displacement (in)

Figure 8-133 Hysteresis response for Cycle 4 to 7 (Nominal Displacement Ductility 1.0 to 3.0)

Displacement (m)
-0.5 -0.3 -0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5
300 1600
Nominal Displacement
Ductility
200 1400
1
1200
Lateral Force (Kips)

100 1.5
Lateral Force (KN)

1000 2
0
3
800
-100 4
600 6
-200 8
400
Final Push
-300 200

-400 0
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Displacement (in)

Figure 8-134 Hysteresis response for Cycle 4 (nominal displacement ductility 1.0) to cycle 11 (final
push)
324 Carlos Blandon

Table 8-5 Recalculated Ductility

Cycle Nominal Recalculated

Ductility Ductility
4 1.0 0.6
5 1.5 0.9
6 2 1.2
7 3 1.8
8 4 2.4
9 6 3.6
10 8 4.8
The envelope of lateral force vs displacement in Figure 8-135 shows that the maximum
lateral force was reached at a recalculated ductility of 3.6. The maximum displacement
ductility reached before the fracture of the dowels was 6.7 for the pushing and 5.5 for the
pulling approximately.

Displacement (m)
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
300 1400

1050
200 PUSH Experiemntal Envelope
Upper Bound 700
Lateral Force (Kips)

Lateral Force (KN)

100 Level Ground

350

0 0

-350
-100
-700
PULL
-200
-1050

-300 -1400
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Displacement (in)

Figure 8-135 Experimental and numerical lateral force vs displacement envelopes

The inclinometer data is plotted in the Figure 8-136 for cycles 4 to 10 (nominal ductility
1.0 to 8). The inclinometers were removed before applying the last final cycles given that
in the previous test it was not possible to remove them from the top due to the excessive
damage at the connection. To recover the inclinometer it was necessary to cut the piles
at ground level and retrieve the inclinometer from the bottom.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 325

The inclinometer profile and the curvatures derived from them (Figure 8-136) showed a
clear concentration of plasticity between and elevation of 3.6 m (12 ft) and 3.95 m (13 ft)
(1.8 m and 1.5 m ft below ground) for the pile at ground level and for both pushing and
pulling cycles. For the pile located at the slope, for the pulling cycles, the concentration
of rotation and curvature was located at the same elevation as the previous pile. For the
pushing cycles the concentration was located approximately 0.3m (1 foot) deeper (1.8 m
to 2.1 m below ground).

The inclinometers also showed that concentration for the pile at the slope and for the
pushing cycles seem to have extended more along the pile than for the pile at the ground
level (P2). The displacement profile obtained from the inclinometers matched relatively
well the applied displacements at the top for the initial low amplitude cycles (Figure
8-138), however as the displacement increases, the profile estimated from the
inclinometers tends to underestimate the actual displacement. The difference is even
larger for the pulling cycles.

P2 (Level Ground Pile) P4 (Slope Pile)

27.5 27.5
Pulling Cycles Pushing Cycles 8 Pulling Cycles Pushing Cycles 8
25 25

7 7
22.5 22.5

20 6 20 6

17.5 17.5
5 5
Elevation (m)

Elevation (m)
Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)

15 15

4 4
12.5 12.5

10 1.50in 10
3 3
2.25 in. 1.50in
3.0 in. 2.25 in.
7.5 7.5 3.0 in.
4.5 in.
2 2
6.0 in. 4.5 in.
5 9.0 in. 5 6.0 in.
12.0 in 9.0 in.
1 12.0 in 1
2.5 Ground 2.5
Ground

0 0 0 0
-7.5 -5.0 -2.5 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 -7.5 -5.0 -2.5 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5
Rotation (Deg) Rotation (Deg)

Figure 8-136 Rotation profile

326 Carlos Blandon

-0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2

27.5 27.5
Normalized Curvature (φxD) 8 Normalized Curvature (φxD) 8
25 25

7 7
22.5 22.5
P2 P4 (Slope Pile)
(Level Ground Pile)
20 20 6
6 Pulling Cycles Pushing Cycles
Pulling Cycles Pushing Cycles
17.5 17.5
5 5

Elevation (ft)

Elevation (ft)
Elevation (m)
Elevation (ft)

15 15

4 4
12.5 12.5

1.50in 1.50in
10 3 10 3
2.25 in. 2.25 in.
3.0 in. 3.0 in.
7.5 7.5
4.5 in. 2 4.5 in. 2
5 6.0 in. 5 6.0 in.
9.0 in. 9.0 in.
1 1
2.5 12.0 in 2.5 12.0 in
Ground Ground
0 0 0 0
-0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 -0.10 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10
Curvature (1/ft) Curvature (1/ft)

Figure 8-137 Curvature profile

P2 (Level Ground Pile) P4 (Slope Pile)

-0.45 -0.225 0 0.225 0.45 -0.45 -0.225 0 0.225 0.45

30 30
Displacement (m) Displacement (m)
7 7
Pushing Cycles Pulling Cycles Pushing Cycles
Pulling Cycles

25 25
6 6

20 20 5
5
Elevation (m)
Elevation (ft)
Elevation (m)
Elevation (ft)

4 4
15 15
1.50in
2.25 in.
1.50in
2.25 in. 3 3.0 in. 3
3.0 in. 4.5 in.
10 10
4.5 in. 6.0 in.
6.0 in. 9.0 in. 2
2
9.0 in. 12.0 in
12.0 in 5 Fpush
5
Fpush Applied Disp 1
1
Applied Disp Ground
Ground

0 0 0 0
-18.0 -12.0 -6.0 0.0 6.0 12.0 18.0 -18.0 -12.0 -6.0 0.0 6.0 12.0 18.0
Displacement (in) Displacement (in)

Figure 8-138 Displacement profile

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 327

The curvature profile was also obtained from the strain gages (Figure 8-139 and Figure
8-140). However, the quality of the measurements for cycles later than nominal ductility
4.0 (cycle 8) was not good. Most of the strain gages showed to have failed or the
measured strain was significantly smaller than the strain measured in previous cycles.

The curvature form the strain gages does not seem to coincide with the curvature from
the inclinometers. For the pile at the level ground the critical section seem to have
moved and was not symmetric as observed from the inclinometers. For the pile at the
slope (P4) the critical section was approximately located at the same locations based on
the inclinometers and the strain gages; however, for the pulling cycles it seem that the pile
also had a critical section at the same location of the pushing cycles.

One additional observation was that there seems to be a crack opening at a deep location
for the pushing cycles for both piles. 2.73 m (9 ft) elevation for the level ground pile and
1.8 m (6 ft) for the pile at the slope. The reason for this measurement is unknown given
that based on the initial estimations the location of the critical section should be
considerably higher.

-0.08 -0.04 0 0.04 0.08 -0.08 -0.04 0 0.04 0.08

25 25
Normalized Curvature (φxD) Normalized Curvature (φxD)
7 7
Cycle 7 - 4.5 in Cycle 7 - 4.5 in 1
1
2 2
20 3 6 20
3 6

5 5

15 15
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)

4 4

10 3 10 3

2 2

5 5 Pulling Cycle:
Pushing Cycle: Pulling Cycle: Pushing Cycle:
Slope Side in Slope Side in Slope Side in Slope Side in
Compresion at Tension at 1 Compresion at Tension at 1
Inground Hinge Inground Hinge Inground Hinge Inground Hinge

0 0 0 0
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
Curvature (1/ft) Curvature (1/ft)

Figure 8-139 Curvature Profile from Strain Gages for level ground pile (left) and slope pile (right)
328 Carlos Blandon

-0.08 -0.04 0 0.04 0.08 -0.08 -0.04 0 0.04 0.08

25 25
Normalized Curvature (φxD) Normalized Curvature (φxD)
7 7
1 Cycle 8 - 6.0 in 1
Cycle 8 - 6.0 in
2 2
20 3 6 20 3 6

5 5

15 15

Depth (m)
Depth (m)

Depth (ft)
Depth (ft)

4 4

10 3 10 3

2 2

5 5 Pushing Cycle: Pulling Cycle:

Pushing Cycle: Pulling Cycle: Slope Side in Slope Side in
Slope Side in Slope Side in
1 Compresion at Tension at 1
Compresion at Tension at Inground Hinge Inground Hinge
Inground Hinge Inground Hinge

0 0 0 0
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04 -0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
Curvature (1/ft) Curvature (1/ft)

Figure 8-140 Curvature Profile from Strain Gages for level ground pile (left) and slope pile (right)

The locations for maximum strains measured along the pile are shown in Figure 8-141.
The measurements did not seem to indicate that the location of the maximum strain
moved during the test but formed simultaneously at different locations instead.

The measurements from the inclinometers coincided with the measurements obtained
from the spalling sensors. For the pile at level ground the largest measurement was
obtained at the instrument located at 3.8 m (12.5 ft). For the pile at the slope the
maximum reading was obtained at the instrument located at 3.2 m (10.5 ft) which closely
coincides with the location of maximum curvature obtained from the inclinometers.

For pile (P3) the face with the spalling sensors at the inground hinge was in compression
when the system is pulled towards the reaction wall. The first indications of spalling were
measured for a nominal ductility of 4 (Figure 8-142). The width of the cracking gradually
increased in the next cycles.

At initial stages of spalling, there was almost no increase from the spalling sensor reading
when this face of the pile was in tension (Figure 8-143). Note also that at nominal
ductility 4, the spalling was a cumulative damage effect. Even if the applied displacement
was the same, the sensor reading increased at every cycle. The same occurred for the
consecutive ductility levels but in a smaller proportion.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 329

P2 P4
Strain

5.5’

Ground Surface

7@1’=7’ 9@1’=9’

Maximum Measured
9@10”=7.5’
Steel Strain
18.0’
9@10”=7.5’

1 5’

1.5’
6@1’=6’
Bottom line of soil pit 4@1’=4’

3.0’
Note: 5.0’
Double strain gages on every rebar at each depth

Figure 8-141 Maximum Strain Location (measurements in feet)

Nominal Displacement
0.25
Ductility
Spaling Sensor Reading (in)

0.2 1
1.5
2
0.15
3
4
0.1 6
8
FP
0.05

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Step

Figure 8-142 Ground Level Pile Spalling Sensor Time History at 3.8 m (12.5 ft) elevation
330 Carlos Blandon

0.18
Spalling Sensor Reading (in)

Pull Towards Reaction Wall

0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
8
0.08 6
4
0.06
Push Towards Slope
0.04 Nominal Displacement
Ductility
0.02
0
-15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15
Lateral Displacement (in)

Figure 8-143 Spalling sensor displacement vs pile top displacement for level ground pile (P2)

For the slope pile the spalling sensor are located in the face that is in compression during
the pushing cycles. The overall behaviour of the spalled cover was similar to the previous
case. Initial spalling started at a nominal ductility of 4 until the sensor saturated at
nominal displacement ductility of 8 (Figure 8-144 and Figure 8-145). In this pile the
spalling spread to the consecutive sensors located 254 mm (10 in) above and below (3.44
m and 2.93 m respectively). Figure 8-147 shows the increase of the crack width starting
at a nominal displacement ductility of 6.

The readings from the strain gages at the same elevation than the spalling sensor were
used to estimate the strain at the extreme concrete fibre. For the pile at ground level
(P3), the strain gages at this location seem to be unreliable or damaged; however for the
pile at the slope the strain at the unconfined concrete was around 0.0075. This value was
close to the strain limit provided by the code of 0.008.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 331

0.25

0.2
Spaling Sensor Reading (in)

1
1.5
0.15 2
3
4
0.1 6
8

0.05

0
0 500 1000 1500
Step

Figure 8-144 Slope Pile Spalling Sensor Time History at 3.2 m (10.5 ft) elevation

0.25
Pull Towards Reaction Wall
Spalling Sensor Reading (in)

0.2

0.15
8
6
0.1
4
Push Towards Slope
0.05

0
-15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15
Lateral Displacement (in)

Figure 8-145 Spalling sensor displacement vs pile top displacement for slope pile (P4)
332 Carlos Blandon

0.04
Pull Towards Reaction Wall
Push Towards Slope
0.035
Spalling Sensor Reading (in)

0.03

0.025

0.02

0.015

0.01
9.66 ft
0.005 11.33 ft

0
-15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15
Lateral Displacement (in)

Figure 8-146 Spalling sensor displacement vs pile top displacement for slope pile (P4) at 2.9 m (9.6
ft) and 3.4 m (11.33 ft) elevation for ductilities 6 and 8.

8.9.4 Pile Inspection

• Loading cycle 1 to 3 (force control stage): During these initial cycles thin cracks
were observed for maximum displacement but these closed once the system was
unloaded. During the second cycle, the pile deck interface opened at the pile in
tension (P2) and tension cracks appeared 3 in below the interface in both piles. For
the third cycle, the interface crack is evident in both piles. Additional cracks appear
at 6 in and 18 in below the pile deck interface (Figure 8-147).

• Loading cycle 4 (Nominal System Displacement Ductility 1): At this stage there
was a minor cracking at in the load stub bottom face but there were not significant
changes compared to the previous loading stage.

• Loading Cycle 5 (Nominal System Displacement Ductility 1.5) : In this stage

some cracks appeared in both piles at the cap bottom face and at the level ground
pile (P2) the tensile cracks opened in the pile around 1 ft below the interface at the
face that had remained uncracked (Figure 8-148).

• Loading Cycle 6 (Nominal System Displacement Ductility 2.0): In this stage,

minor crushing started to occur at the level pile (P2) when the pile was in
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 333

compression. Additional the tensile cracks appeared in both piles at 0.45 m (1.5 ft)
to 0.6 m (2.0 ft) below the interface (Figure 8-149).

• Loading Cycle 7 (Nominal System Displacement Ductility 3.0): The cracks

continued extending around the pile and there were some thin slices of concrete
spalling at the interface (Figure 8-150).

• Loading Cycle 8 (Nominal System Displacement Ductility 4.0): Crushing of

concrete was still minor even if it was gradually expanding for the pushing cycles.
For the pulling cycles, the tension cracks at the level pile were evidently concentrated
at the interface, whilst for the pile in the slope (in tension), there was a large crack
opening 76 mm (3 in) below the interface. In this pile a thin piece of concrete cover,
on the compression side, detached from the pile and fell down (Figure 8-152). It was
evident that the soil around the pile was sinking and the aboveground height was
increasing. The crack width on the cap bottom was significantly increasing (Figure
8-151).

• Loading Cycle 9 (Nominal System Displacement Ductility 6.0): There were wide
cracks at the interface and the cap bottom in both piles. Crushing was still expanding
and pieces of concrete were detaching at the compression zone in the pile-deck
interface (Figure 8-153). That the ground level continued sinking (Figure 8-154 )

• Loading Cycle 10 (Nominal System Displacement Ductility 8.0): Horizontal

cracks were evident on the cap 76 mm (3 in.) above the bottom (Figure 8-155). The
compressive damage seems to have reached a limit and the damage was
concentrating on the cracks opening at the cap and at the interface (Figure 8-156).

• Final Push: In this cycle, the crushing of the pile concrete slightly extended
(Figure 8-157) but most of the damage occurred at the cap. The crack on the cap
extended until the inferior cover was lost in the level ground pile (P2). In the slope
pile (P4) the cover was not detached but the residual crack with was considerable.
Some dowels were heard to fracture at the connection (Figure 8-158).
334 Carlos Blandon

Figure 8-147 Cracks at P4 and P2 for loading cycle 1 to 3

Figure 8-148 Damage on Piles slope pile (P4) after 5th cycle
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 335

Figure 8-149 Damage on pile after 6th cycle at level pile (left) and slope pile (right)

Figure 8-150 Damage on pile after 7th cycle at level pile (left) and slope pile (right)
336 Carlos Blandon

Figure 8-151 Ground sinking after 8th cycle at level pile (left) and slope pile (right)

Figure 8-152 Concrete Crushing during Cycle 8 at level ground pile (P2)
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 337

Figure 8-153 Concrete Crushing during Cycle 9 at slope pile (P4)

Figure 8-154 Ground sinking after 10th cycle at level pile (left) and slope pile (right)
338 Carlos Blandon

Figure 8-155 Damage on pile after 10th cycle (nominal displacement ductility 8.0) at slope pile (P4)

Figure 8-156 Damage on pile during 10th cycle (nominal ductility 8.0) at level pile (left) and slope
pile (right)
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 339

Figure 8-157 Crushing of slope pile (P4) concrete after final push

Figure 8-158 Damage on Piles after Final Cycle

8.9.5 In-ground inspection during pile excavation

The condition of the Pile P2, located at the ground level, for the initial 1.52 m (5 ft) is
shown in Figure 8-159. Note that the location of the tensile crack was approximately the
same as for pile P3 from system test 1 shown in the inferior portion of the picture. The
sequence of excavation for the pile is shown in Figure 8-160. The last picture of the
sequence shows that there is a rubber band that is between the cover concrete and the
core concrete. This indicates that the cover was completely detached from the core and
the lower rubber bands were holding the concrete in place. The rubber is used for the
bands is too soft to provide any kind of confinement to the concrete but is has enough
strength just to hold the concrete in place when it was detached from the core.
340 Carlos Blandon

The measurement of the plastic hinge in Figure 8-161 shows that most of the damage
occurred along a length of 0.61 m (2 ft) approximately at both sides of the pile (ruler in
the picture is in metric units). Figure 8-162 shows the condition of the plastic hinge
before and after the manual removal of the cover concrete of the north side plastic hinge.
A close up of the plastic hinge in Figure 8-163 shows the strands exposed and the
fracture of one of them. The spalling sensor at this location is also shown in this picture.
The final condition of both plastic hinges after the rubber bands had been remover is
shown in Figure 8-164. The cover concrete at the south side fell down as soon as the
bands were cut off.

For the pile located at the slope crest (P4), the location of the plastic hinge at the south
side also matched the location previously defined from the instrumentation. Figure 8-165
partially shows the condition of the hinge at this location. Figure 8-166 shows the
sequence of excavation of the north side plastic hinge which was located 0.76 m (2.5 ft)
above the position of the hinge at the south side. This is shown in Figure 8-167a. Note
the distance between the crushed concrete and the large horizontal crack in tension. The
water also marked the spreading of cracking along the pile at the south side separated
each 203 mm (8 in) approximately. The cover concrete was also removed manually from
the north plastic hinge as shown in Figure 8-168. The confining spiral was visible but
there was no sign of damage of the strands.

a) South side
Figure 8-159 Excavation Sequence at 1.52 m for P2 (System test 2, level pile P2)
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 341

Figure 160 a Excavation sequence at the north side (from 1.52 m to 2.3m ) (System test 2, level pile
P2)
342 Carlos Blandon

Figure 8-160 b Excavation sequence at the north side (from 1.52 m to 2.3m) (System test 2, level pile
P2)

a) plastic hinge north side b) cracking north side

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 343

c) close up plastic hinge north side d) close up plastic hinge south side

Figure 8-161 Plastic hinge measurements (System test 2, level pile P2)

a) manual removal of cover concrete b) Plastic hinge condition after cover removal
– North side.

Figure 8-162 Plastic hinge inspection (System test 2, level pile P2)
344 Carlos Blandon

Figure 8-163 Close Up plastic hinge North side (System test 2, level pile P2)

Figure 8-164 North side plastic hinge (System test 2, level pile P2)
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 345

a) South side

Figure 8-165 Excavation Sequence at 2.1 m (System test 2, slope pile P4)

Figure 1-166 a Excavation sequence at the north side (from 1.52 m to 2.3m) (System test 2, slope pile
P4)
346 Carlos Blandon

Figure 8-166 b Excavation sequence at the north side (from 1.52 m to 2.3m) (System test 2, slope pile
P4)

a) cracking south side

 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 347

d) cracking south side e) close up plastic hinge south side

Figure 8-167 Plastic hinge measurements (System test 2, slope pile P4)

Figure 8-168 North side plastic hinge (System test 2, level pile P4)
 349

9.CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

9.1 CONCLUSION
Chapter 1:

This Chapter presented a literature review of the basic structures exiting on ports, the
damages occurred in past earthquakes, the current trend on the philosophy design of
these facilities and the basic principle involved in the problem of corrosion. The findings
from the review are:

The structures in ports are susceptible to suffer structural damages due to the ground
shaking and due to the permanent deformations of the soil caused by liquefaction. Cost
associated with interruption of operation or replacement has been very large so
controlling the damages is a main concern on these structures.

Structural damages suffered by port structures have been extensive and have had a
significant impact in the community. The lack of a distinct design philosophy for these
important structures has contributed largely to the damage observed. Newly developed,
or in development, performance-based seismic design philosophies are aimed at arresting
this impact.

However, the performance criteria for these structures and specifically for pile supported
wharves lack controlled testing in order to provide proper verification for use within a
performance-based design framework.

Corrosion is very likely to occur when the steel reinforcement is exposed to the
environment and the process can be accelerated by the marine conditions. However, if
the reinforcement exposure is submerged and with little oxygen the corrosion speed is
very slow.

Chapter 2:

In this chapter, the different interaction mechanisms involved in the dynamic response of
the structure where identified. The seismic effect on the wharf is decomposed in several
interaction mechanisms. The review of these effect results in the following conclusions:
350 Carlos Blandon

The most critical for the scope of this study are the inertial and kinematic interaction.
Other components are reported to be negligible for the specific cases of this study.

The largest demands due to the inertial interaction are located at the landside corner piles
of the wharf. This is because of (i) the landside piles have the shortest ground to deck
clearance and (ii), the corner piles suffer the largest displacement amplification due to the
marked torsional response of the wharf. A performance-based design method
investigated in this report makes emphasis in the demands on the corner piles

The location of the plastic hinge seems to be function of the boundary pile conditions
and above grade conditions. An experimental study was designed to look at these
variables. This study reports results from testing of full-scale pile-deck quarry dyke
interactions.

Testing showed the effect of soil confinement on the performance of the subgrade plastic
hinge. Other tests also showed that most of the plastic deformation at the connection
occurred at the pile deck interface. These observations were included in analytical models
carried out in the following chapters.

Chapter 3

This section was dedicated to the review of different methodologies used for the
evaluation of the inertial and kinematic interaction. The conclusions of this section are:

From the methodologies reviewed, only a few documented cases are reported on the
complete soil structure coupled nonlinear analysis of 2-D or 3 D reduced models. These
cases showed several difficulties involved in the seismic analyses of wharves including
boundary conditions, soil modelling and characterization, soil-pile interface,
computational capacity, etc. Additional efforts and improvements are still required in this
field before reliable results can be obtained with simple reduced models.

From these simplified methods, it was found that a widely used method is to model the
soil with P-Y springs. Such method can be used to recognize variations caused by layered
soil and presence of slope close to the pile among other factors.

Chapter 4

This section is dedicated to the nonlinear characterization of the soil and the critical
sections of the soil-pile-connection components. The findings from this characterization
are:
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 351

Due to the nature of the wharf response, the structure performance can be reduced by
looking at the most critical piles which are the corner piles. The inelastic behaviour of
these elements is concentrated at the pile-deck section and at the inground plastic hinge.
Critical sections in these elements should be modelled in detail to have a reliable
nonlinear characterization of the wharf critical element that can be used later for the
estimation of the displacement capacity and force demands.

One important result from the section analyses is the fact that the performance limit
should be considered as a function of the axial load. This was observed from the section
analyses results as given strains of the reinforcing steel, prestressing strands, core concrete
and cover concrete are located at different curvatures for different axial loads. The
analyses carried out in this section showed a linear relation between these parameters.

Regarding the characterization of the soil, there is a large uncertainty associated to the
maximum strength and initial stiffness of the P-Y springs. This uncertainty is even larger
for the riprap material used in the dike where the piles are embedded. It is then a good
practice to use bound values of these parameters and evaluate the effect on the demand
and capacity of the wharf piles.

Chapter 5

In this chapter, the displacement capacity and shear demands on a typical pile and
connection was evaluated. Sensitivity analyses were carried out including the most
relevant variables. The conclusions from these analyses are:

The analytical displacement capacity of the soil-pile-connection was function of the beam
column element length used. This effect was due to the localization phenomenon in the
computational model. The discritization of the pile with a large number of small
elements may significantly underestimate the displacement capacity of the pile.

The use of lower and upper bound of the soil maximum strength induces significant
variability on the displacement capacity and shear force demands on the pile. The
location of the plastic hinge length is located between three times the diameter of the pile
for the upper bound to six times the diameter of the pile for the lower bound. This
induces an increase of the displacement by a factor of 2 from the upper bound springs
(minimum displacement capacity) to the lower bound (maximum displacement capacity).
The shear force demands also increase by a factor of 1.5 approximately from the lower
bound (minimum force demand) to the upper bound (maximum force demand). The
variability of the design parameters introduces significant uncertainty when designing for
352 Carlos Blandon

performance-based. In absence of further information the worst case has to be selected

for the design (displacement and shear force).

Pushover analyses of a complete wharf transverse section showed that the landside piles
take most of the lateral force on the structure. These piles also govern the stiffness of the
system. This indicates that the design of the piles and specifically the details at the pile-
deck connection at the back rows can be different from those at the front rows, making
the latter more relaxed.

From all the key parameters for the nonlinear characterization of the soil-pile-deck
system, the soil is the one that shows the largest uncertainties. These uncertainties are
larger for the cyclic characterization of the soil for which there is practically no
information. Additional information about the cyclic soil behaviour and the main
characteristics of the hysteretic response of the system can be obtained from the
experimental program.

There are several problems to the analysis method of the coupled nonlinear pile-soil finite
element interaction. It requires understanding of both geotechnical and structural
features, especially when non linear analyses are intended. For dynamic analyses it also
requires understanding and features of wave propagation and boundary conditions. The
pile and soil interface also plays an important role and is still a challenge that needs to be
solved. The required computational capacity, especially for the 3D modelling is still high
so it limits the use for sensitivity analyses and slows the process of model calibration and
problem solving. When effective stresses analyses are carried out, the soil models still
require a large number of parameters that are not always easy to obtain. All these issues
make the problem of finite element soil structure interaction a time consuming and
demanding procedure. Due to these difficulties it was not possible to continue the
attempt that was initiated but it is possible topic that can be extended in future research.

Chapter 6

In this chapter, the response amplification due to the torsional effect of wharves was
evaluated. The conclusions from this section are:

The model can be significantly reduced by using a set of equivalent piles placed in
predefined locations so that the mass and stiffness of the equivalent system is equivalent
to that of the original system.

The model can also be reduced by representing these equivalent piles as zero-length
springs. In order to capture the symmetric nonlinear properties of the pile (equal
stiffness and strength in all directions), it was demonstrated that an arrangement of
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 353

springs in a delta shape location would give very similar results to more refined spring
distributions. The use of only two springs in orthogonal directions showed to introduce
a bias due to the overstrength induced in the diagonal direction.

The amount of damping used and the amount induced very small variation on the
parameter study which was the Dynamic Magnification Factor. The secant stiffness
proportional damping showed to give a slightly larger magnification factor. The issue of
damping is still a matter of discussion so in future analyses it is suggested to carry out
sensitivity analyses with several options and evaluate the effect of this variable.

The influence of the angle “attack” of the input motion is negligible and using the ground
motion with no rotation is a reasonable conservative case to use in the analyses.

The dynamic magnification factor was a function of the wharf length, soil spring strength,
and ground motion intensity. The lowest values of amplification were obtained for the
case of the lower bound soil strength and CLE motion. The amplification increased
when the upper bound soil strength or the OLE intensity were used. This indicates that
for design based on Dynamic Magnification Factors, the factor used for CLE intensity
earthquake should be different and larger to the factor used for the CLE intensity. The
same should apply for the soil conditions; upper or lower bound.

The application of the design input motion without any reduction factor for one of the
components is not a conservative approach. The design input motion should be applied
both directions.

The largest force on the shear key was found for the case of the CLE intensity and for
the upper bound soil conditions. This force showed also to be a function of the length of
the connected segments; however there is just a small difference between the studied
cases. The equation given for the estimation of this force with a factor of 1.3 is
considered to be adequate and can be used for design.

Chapter 7

This chapter is dedicated to the analytical estimation of the displacement capacity of a

pile embedded in a soil profile with a sliding layer. The conclusions from this section are:

The critical scenarios evaluated in this study showed that the piles can have a shear failure
before rupturing the longitudinal reinforcement. The analyses also show that the shear
force demand and displacement capacity is a function of the depth (confinement stress)
to the sliding layer. So the location of the liquefiable layer is a relevant parameter for
these analyses
354 Carlos Blandon

Displacement with smaller amplitude than that proposed by screening kinematic

procedures can bring the pile into the limits strains defined for CLE. However, there is
evidence, from piles damaged during an earthquake, that support that this kind of damage
may not always cause the exit of operation of the structure. Additional research including
test and refinement of the modelling can be used to verify or modify the analytical model
and also the allowable soil displacements at different performance levels.

Chapter 8

In this chapter, the results and observations from the test carried out are presented. The
conclusions from the test program are:

The lateral force capacity of the pile-soil system is larger than that predicted using the
upper bound soil properties due to the increase of the moment capacity of the pile
section caused by the confinement provided by the quarry material. It is not likely that
for the P-Y springs will be close to the lower bound values.

Boundary condition affects the characteristics of the P-Y springs. For the free head pile,
the soil springs are significantly stronger than the upper bound estimation. The same
occurs for the fix head pile but in a smaller proportion. It is estimated that for the free
head pile there was an interlocking effect of the large angular shaped quarry material that
significantly increased the soil strength at very shallow depth. The same seems to occur
for the fix head pile in a smaller proportion.

Test confirmed that at the CLE strain limit for the cover concrete the integrity of the
element could be considered as undamaged. The strain limit of 0.008 for the cover
concrete is a conservative design parameter for defining the CLE of the prestressed
section. It is also suggested to increase the strand strain limit at CLE to a value of 2.5%.

The plastic hinge length at the hinge forming at the interface is shorter than estimated
from the empirical equations. This means a reduction on the displacement capacity for
the specific performance levels given that the strain limits occurred at a smaller curvature
or rotation.

The above ground height of the tested fixed head piles did not seem to affect the location
of the plastic hinge but the damage on the piles is more severe for the same displacement
demand in the pile with the shortest height. If there are no problems associated to
construction or high tides it would be recommended to use an above ground height close
to 2.5D.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 355

9.2 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

There are several topics that can still be extended to have a better understanding of the
seismic behaviour of pile supported wharves.

The hydrodynamic interaction was found to be negligible for the size of the piles studied.
However, this effect could probably be used as a source from damping to reduce the
seismic response of the structure. Further research could be carried out developing the
idea of including some kind of devices to the structure that can increase the damping
from this hydrodynamic interaction.

In spite of the problems that arose during the attempt of modelling the coupled
nonlinear soil-pile interaction using 3D finite elements, it is suggested that the effort
should be continued. There are still variables that are not well understood and the effect
on the dynamic response of the wharf. .. Given the difficulties and the cost of doing
experimental tests, these have to be complemented with numerical analyses so that the
understanding of the problem will improve and better design methodologies can be
developed.

The results from the experimental program from this study as well as from other studies
suggest a revision of the plastic hinge length of the critical pile-deck connection. It seems
that actual empirical equations may overestimate this variable, which at the same time
would overestimate the displacement capacity of the critical elements of the wharf for the
defined performance levels. Further consideration of this problem is required.

The values of DMF evaluated here are based on typical configurations of marginal wharfs
constructed in the Port of Los Angeles. Different configurations may be used in other
ports based on the needs and topographical conditions of the coast. Additional analyses
would be required for the case of different wharf configurations.

Test results show that there is an apparent interlocking of the riprap that significantly
increased the soil strength at very shallow depth. The effect was more evident for the
free head pile than for the fix head pile. Further research is needed to explain the
significant differences of soil strength obtained in both cases.
 357

REFERENCES

Abedzadeh, F., and Pak, R. Y. S. [2004]. "Continuum Mechanics of Lateral soil-pile interaction."
ASCE J Engrg Mech.

Americal Petrolium Institute, [2000] “Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and
Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms—Working Stress Design” Api Recommended
Practice 2a-Wsd (Rp 2a-Wsd) Twenty-First Edition, December 2000.

Arduino P, Kramer S.L, Li. Ping, Baska D. [2002] “Dynamic Stiffness of Piles in Liquefiable Soils”
Report WA-RD 514.1. Washington State Transportation Center, University of Washington,
October.

Benzoni. G., Priestley. M.J.N. [2003] “Seismic response of Linked Wharf Segments”, Journal of
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 4 (2003) 513-539.

Biot M.A. [1937] “Bending of an infinite beam on an elastic foundation” Journal of Applied.
Mechanics, Vol 12 No 2, 155-154

Boulanger R.W et al [2003] “Pile Foundation in Liquefied and Lateral Spreading Ground During
Earthquakes: Centrifuge Experiments & Analyses” Report No UCD/CGM-03/01. Center
for Geotechnical Modeling. University of California at Davis.

Boulanger R.W., Curras C.J., Kutter B.L., Wildson D.W., Abghari A. [1999] “Seismic Soil-Pile-
Structure Interaction Experiments and Analyses” Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 125, No. 9, September 1999, pp. 750-759 , (doi
10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1999)125:9(750))

Bowles, J. E. [1988]. “Foundation Analysis and Design”, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New
York, NY.

Bransby M. F. [1999] “Selection of P-Y Curves for the Design of Single Laterally Loaded Piles”
Int. J. Numer. Anal. Meth. Geomech., 23, 1909}1926 (1999).

Briaud, J-L., [2004] “Introduction To Soil Moduli” Lecture Notes, A&M University, Texas, 2004
358 Carlos Blandon

Budek M. [1997] “The Inelastic Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Piles and Pile Shafts” PhD
Dissertation, University of California, San Diego, 1997

Budek M., Priestley, M. J. N. and. Benzoni G [2000] “Inelastic Seismic Response Of Bridge
Drilled-Shaft Rc Pile/Columns” Journal Of Structural Engineering Vol. 126, No 4 April
2000, 510-517.

Budek M., Priestley, M. J. N. and. Benzoni G [2004] “The Effect of External Confinement
onFlexural Hinging in Drilled Pile Shafts” Earthquake Spectra, Volume 20, No. 1, pages 1–
24, February 2004; Earthquake Engineering Research Institute

Bull J.W [2003] “Numerical Analysis and Modelling in Geomechanics” London: Spon Press, 2003.

Caltrans [2003] “The Race to Seismic Safety, Protecting California’s Transportation System”
Caltrans Seismic Advisory Board.

Caltrans Seismic Advisory Board [1996] “Guidelines for Generation of Response-Spectrum-

Compatible Rock Motions Time Histories for Application to Caltrans Toll Bridge Seismic
Retrofit Projects”.

Carr A. J., “RUAUMOKO — The Maori God of Volcanoes and Earthquakes,” University of
Canterbury, New Zealand [2005].

Carter, D. P. [1984] "A non-linear soil model for predicting lateral pile response." Rep. No. 359,
Civil Engineering Dept., Univ. of Auckland, New Zealand.

Chai, Y.H., Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F., [1994] “Analytical Model for Steel Jacketed RC Circular
Bridge Columns” Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol 120, No 8, pp 2358-2376

Chen G., Mu H. Sun S., Pommerenke D., Drewniak J.L.,[2004] “Damage Detection of Reinforced
Concrete Beams with Novel Distributed Crack/Strain Sensors.” Journal of Structural Health
Monitoring, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 225-243,.

Chen G., Sun S., Pommerenke D., Drewniak J.L., Greene G.G, McDaniel R.D., Belarbi A., and
Mu H. [2005] “Crack Detection of a Full-Scale Reinforced Concrete Girder with a
Distributed Cable Sensor” Smart Materials and Structures, Vol.14, No. 3, pp.S88-S97.

Collins, M. and Mitchell, D., [1997] “Prestressed Concrete Structures”, 2nd ed. (published by
authors),
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 359

Conte J.P., Elgamal A., Yang Z., Zhang Y., Acero G., Seible F., [2002] “Nonlinear Seismic
Analysis of Bridge Ground System” 15th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference, June 2-
5, 2002, Columbia University, New York, NY.

Conte, J. P., Elgamal, A., Yang, Z., Zhang, Y., Acero, G., and Seible, F. [2002]. "Nonlinear Seismic
Analysis of a Bridge Ground System." Proceedings of the 15th ASCE Engineering
Mechanics Conference, New York, NY.

Cook R.D. [1995] “Finite Element Modelling for Stress Analysis” John Wiley, New York.

D.W. Wilson [1998] “Soil- Pile- Superstructure Interaction in Liquefying Sand and Soft Clay”,
UCD/CGM-98/04, University of California at Davis, USA.

Davies, T. G., and Budhu, M. [1986]. " Non-linear analysis of laterally loaded piles in heavily
overconsolidated clays." Geotechnique, 36(4), 527-538.

Diaz G.M., Patton, B.W., Armstrong, G.L., and Joolazadeh, M. [1984] “Lateral Load Tests of Piles
in Sloping Rock Fill.” Proceedings of the Analysis and Design of Pile Foundations
Conference. J.R. Meyer editor. Held at the ASCE National Convention, San Francisco,
California, Oct 1-5. pp 214-231.

Earth Mechanics Inc. [1998] “ Preliminary Submittal-Recommendations for Laterally Loaded Pile
Evaluations”. EMI Project 98-101.

Earth Mechanics, Inc. (EMI), [2001], “Final Ground Motion and Fault Study Report, West Basin,
Port of Los Angeles, San Pedro, California,” Prepared for Port of Los Angeles, California.

Eduardo Ghershman Análisis por Elementos Finitos

EQE [1990] “The July 16, 1990 Philippines Earthquake” EQE Report, August 1990.

EQE [1999] “Izmit, Turkey Earthquake of August 17,1999 (M7.4)” An EQE Briefing.

EQE. [1989] “The October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake”. EQE Report, October 1989

EQE. [1994] “The January 17, 1994 Northridge, CA Earthquake”. EQE Summary Report, March
1994

Ferritto et al [1999] “Seismic Criteria For California Marine Oil Terminals” Naval Facilities
Engineering Center, Shore Facilities Department, Structures Division.
360 Carlos Blandon

Ferritto J.M. [1997] “Design Criteria for Earthquake Hazard Mitigation of Navy Piers and
Wharves” Technical Report TR-2069-SHR, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center
February 1997

Finn. W.D [2005] “A Study of Piles During Earthquakes: Issues of Design and Analysis” Bulletin
of Earthquake Engineering (2005) 3:141-234

Fugro West Inc. [1999] “ Geotechnical Study Pier 121.5, Stage 2 Phase 1 Container Wharf Port of
los Angeles California” Volume I and II.

Georgiadis M. [1983] “Development of p–y curves for layered soils. In Geotechnical Practice in
Offshore Engineering” (April 1983), Wright SG (ed). American Society of Civil Engineers:
New York, 536–545.

Georgiadis, M. [1983]. ‘‘Development of P-Y curves for layered soils.’’Proc., Geotech. Pract. in
Offshore Engrg., ASCE, New York, 536–545.

Gerolymos N., Gazetas G., [2004] “Phenomenological Model Applied to Inelastic Response of
Soil-Pile Interaction Systems”, Proceedings of the joint 11th International Conference on
Soil Dynamics & Earthquake Engineering (11th ICSD) & 3rd International Conference on
Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, (3rd ICEGE), Vol. 1, pp. 552-557, University of
California, Berkeley, 7-9 January 2004.

Grant. D.N,., Blandon. C.A., Priestley. M.J.N., [2004] “Modelling Inelastic Response in Direct
Displacement-Based Design”. IUSS Press, Pavia, Italy.

Hamada, M [2000] “Performances of foundations against liquefaction-induced permanent ground

displacements”, Paper 1754, Proc. of the 12th World Conference on earthquake engineering,
Auckland, New Zealand.

He L., Yang Z., Lu J., Elgamal A. [2004] “ A three Dimensional Finite Element Study to Obtain P-
Y Curves for Sands” 17th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference, Univeristy of
Delaware, Newark, DE. June 13-16 2004.

Hesham. M, EL Naggar, Bentley K.J [2000] “Dynamic Analysis for Laterally Loades Piles and
Dynamic P-Y Curves”. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 37: 1166-1183.

Hill J.W., Kolb D.K., [2001]“Chemistry for Changing Times”, 9th Ed., Prentice Hall, 2001.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 361

Hoite, S. ,Dahlgren, Thomas. Gerwick, Ben C., Fotinos, George [2001] “Berths 57, 58 And 59
Container Wharf At The Port Of Oakland” Reprinted from Ports ’01 Proceedings of the
Conference American Society of Civil Engineers Held April 29–May 2, 2001 Norfolk, VA

Hutchinson T.C et all [2002] “Inelastic Seismic Response of Extended Pile Shaft Supported Bridge
Structures” Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, PEER 2002/14.

Hutchinson T.C., Boulanger R.W., Chai Y.H., and Idriss I.M. [2002] “Inelastic Seismic Response
of Extended Pile Shaft Supported Bridge Structures”, PEER 2002/14.

Iai S.,Tobita T.,Donahue M., Nakashimi M.,Kaneko H., [2006] “Soil-Pile Interaction in Horizontal
Plane”, Annuals of Disas. Prev. Res. Inst., Kyoto Univ., No. 49 B, (In Japanese).

Iai, S., Matsunaga, Y., and Kameoka, T. [1992 “Strain space plasticity model for cyclic mobility”,
Soils and Foundations, Vol.32, No.2, pp.1-15

Iai,S. (editor) [2001], “Seismic Design Guidelines for Port Structures”, Balkema Publishers, 474 p.

Imbsen [2005] “Cross-sectional structural analysis of components” Imbsen Software Systems,

Sacramento, CA. www.imbsen.com

Itasca [2000 “Flac: fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua” Itasca consulting Group, Minneapolis.

Iwan, W.D. (1967). "On a Class of Models for the Yielding Behavior of Continuous and
Composite Systems." J. Appl. Mech., ASME 34, 612-617.

Kavvadas M., Gazetas G.,[1993] “Kinematic seismic response and bending of free-head piles in
layered soil”, Geotechnique 43, 207-222 (1993).

Khoei A.R., Jamali N. [2004] “On the implementation of a multi-surface kinematic hardening
plasticity and its applications” International Journal of Plasticity, vol 21, Issue 9, September,
1741-1770.

Krier C.J., Restrepo J.I., Blandon C.A. [2006] “Seismic Testing of Full-Scale Precast Prestressed
Pile to Deck Connections” Report No SSRP-06/26, University of California, San Diego,
Department of Structural Engineering.

Kuebitz, K.C., [2002] “Development and calibration of Columna, a Windows®-based

momentcurvature program for columns of arbitrary cross-sections”, Thesis(M.S.) University
of California, San Diego, 2002.
362 Carlos Blandon

Kuhelmeyer R.L., and Lysmer J. [1973] “Finite Element Method accuracy for Wave Propagation
Problems”, Proc ASCE, Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Div, 99 (SM5) 421-427.

Lam, Ignatius Po [2007] Personal communication,

Lam, Ignatius Po., Law, Hubert [2000] “Soil Structure Interaction of Bridges for Seismic
Analysis”, Technical Report MCEER 00 0008, September 25.

Liang Cheng, AMEC4130 Offshore and Coastal Engineering, University of Western Australia.
http://handbooks.uwa.edu.au/units/amec/amec4130

Limin Zhang MM, Lai P. [1999] “Numerical analysis of laterally loaded pile groups in sands”.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering; 125(11):936–946.

Ling, L. F. [1988] "Back analysis of lateral load tests on piles." Rep. No. 460, Civil Engineering
Dept., Univ. of Auckland, New Zealand.

Ling, L. F. [1988]. “Back analysis of lateral load tests on piles.” Rep. No. 460, Civil Engineering
Dept., Univ. of Auckland, New Zealand.

Lu, J. [2006]. Parallel Finite Element Modeling of Earthquake Site Response and Liquefaction,
PhD Thesis, Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San Diego, La
Jolla, CA.

Maki T., and Mutsuyoshi H. [2004] “Effect Of Confining Soil Pressure On Response Behavior Of
Rc Piles Under Ground” 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vancouver,
B.C., Canada August 1-6, 2004, Paper No. 1628

Mander, J.B., Priestley, M.J.N. [1988], “Observed Stress-Strain Behavioir of Confined Concrete”,
Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, Vol 114, No. 8, August, pp 1827-1849.

Martin [2005] “Port Of Los Angeles Seismic Code: Geotechnical Aspects” Port of Los Angeles,
POLA Seismic Code Workshop, San Pedro, September 2005.

Matlock, H., [1970] “Correlations for Design of Laterally Loaded Piles in Soft Clay” Paper No.
OTC 1204, Proceedings, Second Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas,
Vol.1 1970, pp 577-594

Mazzoni S., McKenna F., Scott M.H.,. Fenves G.L, et al. [2006] “Open System for Earthquake
Engineering Simulation User Command-Language Manual” Pacific Earthquake Engineering
Research Center University of California, Berkeley OpenSees version 1.7.3, September.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 363

McCullough N. J., Schlechter S.M. [2000] The Seismic Performance of Pile Supported Wharf
Structures http://ccee.oregonstate.edu/geotech/wharfproject/index.html.

McCullough. N.J, Dickenson. S, Schlechter. S. [2001] “The Seismic Performance of Piles in

Waterfront Applications”, ACSE ports 2001, Norfolk, VA, USA.

McCullough. N.J, Dickenson. S. [2004] “The Behaviour of Piles in Sloping Rock Fill at Marginal
Wharves”. Ports 2004: Port Development in the Changing World (Proceeding of the
conference, May 23-26, Houston, Texas.

McVay M, Zhang L, Molnit T, Lai P. [1998] “Centrifuge testing of large laterally loaded pile
groups in sands”. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering;
124(10):1016–1026.

Mezazigh. S, Levacher.D [1998]. “Laterally Loaded Piles in Sand: Slope Effect on P-Y Reaction
Curves”. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. 35: 443-441.

Mroz, Z. [1967]. "On the Description of Anisotropic Work Hardening." Journal of Mechanics and
Physics of Solids, 15, 163-175.

Muir Wood, D. [2004] “Geotechnical Modelling”, Spon Press, New York, NY.

Muraleetharan, K.K., Arulmoli, K., Foxworthy, J.E., and Wittkop, R.C. [2000]. "Seismic design of
Port of Los Angeles' Pier 400: A geotechnical engineering perspective." Proceedings (in CD
ROM), 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Auckland, New Zealand.

Mylonakis, G., Nikolaou, A. S., and Gazetas, G. [1997]. "Soil-pile-bridge seismic interaction:
kinematic and inertial effects. Part I: soft soil." Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 26, 337–359.
[ISI]

Newmark, N.M., [1965] “Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments” Geotechnique, v.

15, p. 139-160.

Nozu A., Ichii K., Sugano T. [2004] “Seismic Design of Port Structures” Journal of Japan
Association for Earthquake Engineering. Vol 4, No 3 (Special Issue).

OpenSees Development Team (Open Source Project). OpenSees: open system for earthquake
engineering simulations. 1998–2002.

Otani A [1974] “Inelastic analysis of R/C frame structures”. Journal of the Structural Division,
ASCE 100 (ST):1433– 1449.
364 Carlos Blandon

Pam. H.J. [1987] “ Seismic performance of prestressed concrete piles and pile-pile cap
connections” Doctor fo Philosophy Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, University of
Canterbury

Parra, E. [1996]. "Numerical Modeling of Liquefaction and Lateral Ground Deformation

Including Cyclic Mobility and Dilation Response in Soil Systems," PhD Thesis, Department
of Civil Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY.

Parra, E., Adalier, K., Elgamal, A.-W., Zeghal, M., and Ragheb, A. [1996] "Analyses and Modeling
of Site Liquefaction Using Centrifuge Tests." Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco, Mexico, June 23-28.

Paulay, T., Priestley, M.J.N. [1993],“Seismic design of concrete. and masonry structures”, John
Wiley & Sons Inc., New York.

Pender M. J [1993] “Aseismic pile foundation design analysis”, Bulletin of the New Zealand
National Society for Earthquake Engineering (Bull. N.Z. natl. soc. Earthq. eng.) 1993, vol.
26, no1, pp. 49-160 (4 p.3/4).

Peter Mackenzie-Helnwein., Arduino P., Petek K.A. [2006] “Frictional 3D Beam-to-Solid Contact
Formulation for Opensees” OpenSees Days, 14-16 August 2006 UC Berkeley, Richmond
Field Station. http://opensees.berkeley.edu/workshop/OpenSeesDays2006

PIANC. [2001]. Seismic Design Guidelines for Port Structures, International Navigation
Association Working Group No. 34, A.A. Balkema.

Port Of Los Angeles, [2004] “Commentary To The Code For Seismic Design, Upgrade And
Repair Of Container Wharves”

Port Of Los Angeles, [2004]“Code For Seismic Design, Upgrade And Repair Of Container
Wharves”

Poulos H.G, Davis E.H. [1990] “Pile Foundation Analysis and Design”, Robert E Krieger
Publishing Company, Malabar, Florida

Poulos H.G, Tabesh A. [1997] “Dynamic Analysis of Pile Foundations” University of Sydney,
research Report R757.

Prevost J.H., Popescu R. “Constitutive Relations for Soil Materials” Department of Civil
Engineering and Operations Research Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 365

Prevost, J. H. [1985] "A Simple Plasticity Theory for Frictional Cohesionless Soils." Soil Dynamics
and Earthquake Engineering, 4(1), 9-17.

Prévost., J.H. [1987] "Modelling the Behaviour of Geomaterials", , in Short Course on

Constitutive Laws for Engineering Materials: Theory and Applications, The University of
Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, pp. 1-42.

Priestley M.J.N., Calvi G.M., Kowalsky M.J. [2007] “Displacement Based Seismic Design of
Structures” IUSS Press, Italy.

Priestley M.J.N., Seible F., Calvi G.M.,[1996] “Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges”, John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., 1996

Priestley, M.J.N [2000] “Seismic Criteria for California Marine Oil Terminal-Volume 3: Design
Example”. Technical Report TR-2103-SHR, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center.

Priestley, M.J.N [2005] “Port Of Los Angeles Seismic Code: Structural Aspects” Port of Los
Angeles, POLA Seismic Code Workshop, San Pedro, September 2005.

Priestley, M.J.N. [2006] Personal Communication.

Reese LC, Wang ST, Isenhower WM, Arrellaga JA, Hendrix J. LPILE plus 4.0 User Guide, version
4.0 ed. ENSOFT, INC., Austin, TX, USA, October 2000.

Reese LC, Wang ST, Isenhower WM, Arrellaga, JA. [2000] “LPILE plus 4.0 Technical Manual,
version 4.0 ed. ENSOFT, INC”., October.

Resse, L.C. [1974] “Analysis of Lateraly loaded Piles in Sand:, Paper No OTC 2080, Proceedings,
Fifth Annual Offshore Technology Conference, Houston texas, 1974 (GESA Report N0 D-
75-9)

Roeder C.W., Graff R., Soderstrom J.L., Yoo J.H., [2002] “Seismic Performance of Pile-Wharf
Connections” University of Washington PEER 2002/07. 2001

Roth, W.H. et al [2003] “Analyzing the Seismic Performance of Wharves Part 1: Structural
Engineering Approach” (Proceedings of the Sixth U.S. Conference and Workshop on
Lifeline Earthquake Engineering.

Roth. W.H, Dawson, E.M. [2003] “Analyzing the Seismic Performance of Wharves Part 21: SSI
Analysis with Non-linear, Effective-Stress Soil Models” (Proceedings of the Sixth U.S.
Conference and Workshop on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering.
366 Carlos Blandon

Sarpkaya, T. and Isaacson, M.[1981], “Mechanics of wave forces on offshore structures,” Van
NostrandReinhold Company

SCEC [1999] Martin, G.R., and Lew, M (Editors), March 1999, “Recommended Procedures for
Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating
Liquefaction Hazards in California,”Southern California Earthquake Center, University of
Southern California.

Schnabel, P. B., J. Lysmer and H. B. Seed [1972] SHAKE a computer program for earthquake
response analysis of horizontally layered sites, EERC, 72-12.

SEQAD consulting [1997] “Berth 147 Container Terminal – Dynamic Analysis of of

Wharf/Crane Interaction” Report 97/03, for the Port of Los Angeles.

SEQAD consulting [1998] “Dynamic Response of Linked Wharf Segments” Report 98/2 for the
Port of Los Angeles.

Shibata, A. and M.A. Sozen [1976] “ Substitute – structure method for seismic design of R/C”.
Journal of the structural Division, ASCE, New York, USA.

Singh. J.P, Tabatabaie M, French J [2002] “ Importance of Seismological – Geotechnical

Handshake in Performance-Based Design of Waterfront Structures” National Information
Service for Eartqhauek Engineering (NISEE) , University California, Berkeley
http://nisee.berkeley.edu/library/SinghTabatabaieFrench.pdf.

Sritharan, S., Priestley, M.J.N. [1998] “Seismic Testing of a Full Scale Pile/Deck Connection
Utilizing Headed Reinforcing” Report TR98/14, Dept. of Structural Engineering, UCSD,
August.

Sugano, T.[2000] “Port And Harbor”, lecture notes, International Institute of Seismology and
Earthquake Engineering, Tsukuba, Japan.

Sumer, B. M. and Fredsoe, J.[1997] “Hydrodynamics around cylindrical structures”, World

Scientific

Tabesh A., And Poulos H.G [2001] “Pseudostatic Approach For Seismic Analysis Of Single
Piles”, Journal Of Geotechnical And Geoenvironmental Engineering / September 2001 /
757

Tanaka M [1998] “Reconstruction and Revival of the Port of Kobe” Port Technology
International, Issue 8, September.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 367

Teerawut J., Ashford S.[2003] “Effect Of Soil Confinement In Enhancing Inelastic Behavior Of
Cast-In-Drilled-Hole Piles” 16th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference, July 16-18,
University of Washington, Seattle.

Vesic, A. B. [1961] “Bending beam resting on isotropic elastic solid.” J. Engrg. Mech Div., ASCE,
Vol. 87, 35-53.

Wang, S-T., Reese L.C.,[1993] “ COM624P- Laterally Loaded Pile Analysis Program For the
Microcomputer Version 2.0” Federal Highway Administration, Report No FHWA-SA-91-
048, Washington, 1993.

Weismair, M [2007] Personal communication.

Wilson D. W. [2004] “Pile-Superstructure Interaction In Liquefying Sand And Soft Clay” Ph.D.
Dissertation, Center For Geotechnical Modelling, Department Of Civil & Environmental
Engineering, College Of Engineering, University Of California At Davis, Report
No.UCD/CGM-98/04

Wilson, D.W, Boulanger, R.W., and Kutter, B.L. [2000]. “Seismic Lateral Resistance of Liquefying
Sand”. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering., ASCE, 126(10):898-
906.

Yang Z., Jeremic B. [2002] “ Numerical Analysis of pile behaviour under lateral loads in layered
elastic-plastic soils” International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods in
Geomechanics., 2002; 26:1385-1406

Yang, Z. [2000]. "Numerical Modeling of Earthquake Site Response Including Dilation and
Liquefaction," PhD Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics,
Columbia University, New York, NY.

Yang, Z., Elgamal, A., and Parra, E. [2003]. "A Computational Model for Cyclic Mobility and
Associated Shear Deformation." Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 129(12), 1119-1127.

Yang, Z., Elgamal, A., and Parra, E. [2003]. "A Computational Model for Cyclic Mobility and
Associated Shear Deformation." J. Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
129(12), 1119-1127.

Zhang Yuyi., Acero G., Conte J., Yang Z, Elgamal A [2004] “Seismic Reliability Assessment Of A
Bridge Ground System” 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering Vancouver,
B.C., Canada August 1-6, 2004 Paper No. 2978.
368 Carlos Blandon
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 369

APPENDIX A. Modelling of a Prestressed Section with

OpenSees

The moment curvature section of the octagonal section shown in figure A.1 was
computed using Opensees. The prestressing steel was modelled by using the ElasticPP
uniaxial material with an initial strain. The script created allows computing the moment
curvature of a prestressed section by having the geometry, characteristics of the materials,
applied loads and the prestressing force applied to the steel.

The limitation of the model is that the ElasticPP can’t represent the post yielding stiffness
of the steel. This situation was overcome by approximating the yielding strain as the
strain corresponding to the averaged yielding and ultimate force divided by the steel
modulus.

Figure A.1 Prestressed octagonal pile section

370 Carlos Blandon

The section considered is from an octagonal prestressed piles with a inscribed circle of 2
ft (610 mm) diameter, reinforced with 16 – 0.6 in (15 mm) A426 strands with a total area
of 0.215 in2 (140 mm2). The ultimate strength is 270 Ksi (1860 MPa), yield stress 216 Ksi
(1490 MPa) and the strength after losses is 154 Ksi (1062 MPa). The effective prestress in
the concrete is 1137 psi (8 MPa). The transverse reinforcement consists of W20 (13 mm)
A82 steel with yield strength of 70 Ksi (480 MPa) and 2.5 in pitch (63.5 mm). The
concrete strength is 7.0 Ksi (48 MPa).

wipe
model basic -ndm 2 -ndf 3
set E 20.0e9;
set G [expr $E/(2*(1+0.2))]
set R 0.305 ; #Pile Ratio
set A [expr 3.1416 * $R * $R];
set Peff 1062.0e6;
set Pyst 1490.0e6;
set Pult 1860.0e6;
set Pdl 227000.0;
set axialLoad -$Pdl;
analysis
set maxK [expr 0.08];
set secTag 2;
#UNITS IN N, m, Pa.
#Pile Area
#Effective prestress (Pa)
#Strand yielding strength (Pa)
# Strand ultimate strength (Pa)
#Axial Load (N)
# define axial load -- +tension in Mom-curv
#Maximum Curvature
# Number of section evaluated

# Material Properties
set matTagcore 1; # Core Concrete (Mander’s Model)
set fpccore -74.9e6
set epsc0core -0.005
set fpcucore -63.0e6
set epsUcore -0.018
uniaxialMaterial Concrete01 $matTagcore $fpccore $epsc0core $fpcucore $epsUcore
set matTagcover 2 ; # Cover Concrete
set fpccover -49.0e6
set epsc0cover -0.002
set fpcucover -0.0
set epsUcover -0.004
uniaxialMaterial Concrete01 $matTagcover $fpccover $epsc0cover $fpcucover $epsUcover
set matTagsteel 3 ; # Prestressed Steel Model
set Esteel 204000.0e6
set eps0 [expr -$Peff/ $Esteel]; # initial Prestress
set epsyPsteel [expr ($Pyst+$Pult)/(2*$Esteel)]; # See Note *
set epsyNsteel [expr -$epsyPsteel]
uniaxialMaterial ElasticPP $matTagsteel $Esteel $epsyPsteel $epsyNsteel $eps0
set matTagshear 4
uniaxialMaterial Elastic $matTagshear [expr $A*$G]
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 371

puts "Material ok"

# Patch parameters
set id 1
set ri 0
set ro 305.0e-3
set cover 75.0e-3
set coreID 1; #
set coverID 2; #
set steelID 3; #
set numBars 16; #
set barArea 138.7e-6; #
set nfCoreR 10
set nfCoreT 20
set nfCoverR 4
set nfCoverT 20

puts "Section Parameters ok"

source RCcircSection.tcl
RCcircSection $id $ri $ro $cover $coreID $coverID $steelID $numBars $barArea $nfCoreR
$nfCoreT $nfCoverR $nfCoverT
section Aggregator 2 4 Vy -section 1
source MomentCurvature.tcl
puts "Analyzing....."
set startT [clock seconds]
MomentCurvature $secTag $axialLoad $maxK;
set endT [clock seconds]
puts "Execution time: [expr $endT-$startT] seconds."
puts "Analyzing Ok"

#
# *Note: The yielding strength for the analysis was obtained as the
# average of the strand’s yielding strength, ultimate strength
# because the model in opensses is elastoplastic.

RCcircSection PROCEDURE (Extracted from Opensees Manual)

# Formal arguments
# id - tag for the section that is generated by this procedure
# ri - inner radius of the section
# ro - overall (outer) radius of the section
# cover - cover thickness
# coreID - material tag for the core patch
# coverID - material tag for the cover patches
# steelID - material tag for the reinforcing steel
# numBars - number of reinforcing bars around the section perimeter
# barArea - cross-sectional area of each reinforcing bar
# nfCoreR - number of radial divisions in the core (number of “rings")
372 Carlos Blandon

# nfCoreT - number of theta divisions in the core (number of "wedges")

# nfCoverR - number of radial divisions in the cover
# nfCoverT - number of theta divisions in the cover
#
# Notes
# The center of the reinforcing bars are placed at the inner radius
# The core concrete ends at the inner radius (same as reinforcing bars)
# The reinforcing bars are all the same size
# The center of the section is at (0,0) in the local axis system
# Zero degrees is along section y-axis
#
proc RCcircSection {id ri ro cover coreID coverID steelID numBars barArea nfCoreR nfCoreT
nfCoverR nfCoverT} {
# Define the fiber section
section fiberSec $id {
# Core radius
set rc [expr $ro-$cover]
# Define the core patch
patch circ $coreID $nfCoreT $nfCoreR 0 0 $ri $rc 0 360
# Define the cover patch
patch circ $coverID $nfCoverT $nfCoverR 0 0 $rc $ro 0 360
if {$numBars <= 0} {
return
}
# Determine angle increment between bars
set theta [expr 360.0/$numBars]

# Define the reinforcing layer

layer circ $steelID $numBars $barArea 0 0 $rc $theta 360
}
}

MomentCurvature PROCEDURE (Extracted from Opensees Manual)

# MHS
# October 2000
#
# Arguments
# secTag -- tag identifying section to be analyzed
# axialLoad -- axial load applied to section (negative is compression)
# maxK -- maximum curvature reached during analysis
# numIncr -- number of increments used to reach maxK (default 100)
#
# Sets up a recorder which writes moment-curvature results to file
# section$secTag.out ... the moment is in column 1, and curvature in column 2
proc MomentCurvature {secTag axialLoad maxK {numIncr 200} } {
# Define two nodes at (0,0)
node 1 0.0 0.0
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 373

node 2 0.0 0.0

##source rotSpring2Dsection.tcl
# Fix all degrees of freedom except axial and bending
fix 1 1 1 1
fix 2 0 1 0
#pile/deck connection section
# id ndR ndC matID
element zeroLengthSection 1 1 2 $secTag
recorder Node section$secTag.out disp -time -node 2 -dof 3 disp
# Define constant axial load
pattern Plain 1 "Constant" {
load 2 $axialLoad 0.0 0.0
}
# Define analysis parameters
integrator LoadControl 0 1 0 0
system SparseGeneral -piv; # Overkill, but may need the pivoting!

test NormUnbalance 1.0e-6 15; #not converge if increased

numberer Plain
constraints Plain
algorithm Newton
analysis Static
# Do one analysis for constant axial load
analyze 1
puts "Axial loads applied..."
# Define reference moment
pattern Plain 2 "Linear" {
load 2 0.0 0.0 1.0
}
# Compute curvature increment
set dK [expr $maxK/$numIncr]
puts "number increments"
puts $numIncr
# Use displacement control at node 2 for section analysis
#loading
test NormDispIncr 1.0e-6 15;
integrator DisplacementControl 2 3 $dK 1 $dK $dK
analyze $numIncr
}
374 Carlos Blandon

0.07
Normalized Moment (M/f'c D³)

0.06

0.05
P/(Ag f'c)
0.04
0.015
0
0.03
-0.015

0.02

0.01

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
Normalized Curvature (φ x D)

0.08

0.06
Normalized Moment (M/f'c D³)

0.04

0.02

0
-0.008 -0.006 -0.004 -0.002 0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008
-0.02

-0.04

-0.06

-0.08
Normalized Curvature (φ x D)
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 375

0.08

0.06
Normalized Moment (M/f'c D³)

0.04

0.02

0
-0.05 -0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
-0.02

-0.04

-0.06

-0.08
Normalized Curvature (φ x D)
376 Carlos Blandon

Annex B Ground Motions for the DMF Analyses

Magnitude Distance Startup Spectr.

Faulting (Km) Site Motion File Comp.
Earthquake Station PGA PGV PGD PGA PGV PGD
Mechanism Code Name
Motion
No. Event Year (g) (cm/s) (cm) File Name (g) (cm/s) (cm)
1 Imperial 1979 6.5 Strike/Slip Array # 0.7 Deep IMPVALL\H- 0.544 26.4 9.32 H1 0.616 31.8 17.7
Valley 7 Soil Horizontal
E07-UP
Comp

IMPVALL\H- 0.338 47.6 24.68 H2 0.715 29.7 20.4

Horizontal
E07140
Comp
IMPVALL\H- H3 (Vert)
E07230 0.463 109.3 44.74 Comp. 0.469 12.9 10.9
Within
Vert 0.389 12.9 10.9
Comp.

Sylmar -
Olive Deep
2 6.4 H1
View Soil NORTHR\SY Horizontal
Northridge 1994 6.6 Reverse Med FF L-UP 0.535 19.1 8.54 Comp 0.475 39.9 14.2
NORTHR\SY 0.604 78.2 16.05 H2 0.545 27.5 16.2
Horizontal
L090
Comp
NORTHR\SY H3 (Vert)
L360 0.843 129.6 32.68 Comp. 0.608 17.2 15.3
Within
Vert 0.441 17.1 15.3
Comp.
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 377

Rinaldi Deep
H1
3 Receiving 7.1 Narrow NORTHR\RR Horizontal
Northridge 1994 6.6 Reverse Sta Soil S-UP 0.852 50.7 11.65 Comp 0.563 44.6 13.2
NORTHR\RR 0.838 166.1 28.78 H2 0.473 32.1 15.5
Horizontal
S228
Comp
NORTHR\RR H3 (Vert)
S318 0.472 73.0 19.76 Comp. 0.487 19.8 11.7
Within
Vert 0.424 19.5 11.8
Comp.

4 Imperial 1979 6.5 Strike/Slip Bonds 2.5 Deep IMPVALL\H- 0.425 12.2 4.02 H1 0.553 29.2 25.9
Valley Corner Soil Horizontal
BCR-UP
Comp

IMPVALL\H- 0.588 45.2 16.78 H2 0.539 27.6 16.6

Horizontal
BCR140
Comp
IMPVALL\H- 0.775 45.9 14.89 H3 (Vert) 0.501 14.4 9.8
BCR230 Comp.
Within
Vert 0.438 14.2 9.8
Comp.

5 Northridge 1994 6.6 Reverse Van 7.0 Deep 0.270 14.9 6.86 H1 0.513 29.1 9.7
Vert Horizontal
Nuys Soil
Comp
0.450 50.8 7.37 H2 0.476 23.0 11.6
360 Deg Horizontal
Comp
H3 (Vert)
270 Deg 0.400 35.6 12.10 Comp. 0.501 13.7 13.1
Within
Vert 0.354 13.3 13.1
Comp.
378 Carlos Blandon

6 Loma Prieta 1989 6.9 Reverse- Saratoga 13.0 Deep 0.389 26.9 15.15 H1 0.512 28.5 15.7
LOMAP\STG-
Obliqu - Aloha Soil UP
Horizontal
Ave Comp

LOMAP\STG 0.512 41.2 16.21 H2 0.667 21.4 16.1

Horizontal
000
Comp
LOMAP\STG H3 (Vert)
090 0.324 42.6 27.53 Comp. 0.477 18.4 10.4
Within
Vert 0.451 18.1 10.4
Comp.

7 Kobe 1995 6.9 Strike/Slip Takatori 0.3 Deep 0.272 16.0 4.47 H1 0.562 25.8 16.2
Soil TAK-UP Horizontal
Comp
0.611 127.1 35.77 H2 0.533 25.4 16.8
TAK000 Horizontal
Comp
H3 (Vert)
TAK090 0.616 120.7 32.72 Comp. 0.508 14.3 9.1
Within
Vert 0.412 14.2 9.1
Comp.
 379

S1-H1
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
A cceleration [g]

0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Time [sec]

S1-H2
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
A cceleration [g]

0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6
-0.7
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Time [sec]

S2-H1

0.4
0.3
A cceleration [g]

0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Time [sec]

S2-H2
0.5
0.4
0.3
A cceleration [g]

0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Time [sec]
380 Carlos Blandon

S3-H1
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
A cceleration [g]

0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
Time [sec]

S3-H2
0.4
0.3
0.2
Acceleration [g]

0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Time [sec]

S4-H1

0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
A cceleration [g]

0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
Time [sec]

S4-H2
 Seismic Analysis and Design of Wharves 381

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Acceleration [g]

0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32
Time [sec]

S5-H1
0.4
0.3
0.2
Acceleration [g]

0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Time [sec]

S5-H2

0.4
0.3
Acceleration [g]

0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Time [sec]

S6-H1
0.5
0.4
0.3
Acceleration [g]

0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
Time [sec]
382 Carlos Blandon

S6-H2

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
Acceleration [g]

0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
-0.6

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
Time [sec]

S7-H1

0.5
0.4
0.3
Acceleration [g]

0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
Time [sec]

S7-H2

0.5
0.4
0.3
Acceleration [g]

0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.4
-0.5
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34
Time [sec]