CHAPTER 11

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 04/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

New and Existing Marine

oil Terminals

11.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the seismic design and analysis of marine oil terminal
(MOT) wharves and piers. These structures are used to moor tank vessels and
barges and to transfer liquid bulk petroleum products. This chapter addresses only
pile-supported structures. It does not address sheet pile structures or the design or
analysis of offshore multipoint or single-point mooring systems.
The approach described in this chapter derives primarily from the California
Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, Chapter 31F, otherwise known as the Marine
Oil Terminal Engineering and Maintenance Standards (MOTEMS) (2016), which
became state law in California in 2006 and specifically addresses marine oil
terminals. MOTEMS has been used extensively for the seismic evaluation of every
marine oil terminal in California and for the design of several new and replace-
ment marine oil terminal structures. It has also been used as a criteria document
on other projects, especially for seismic design.
In 2014, ASCE created the first edition of ASCE 61, which addresses the
seismic design of industrial piers and wharves without public access. As part of the
California Building Code, MOTEMS is updated regularly and has adopted many
of ASCE 61 provisions.
The approach used in these two documents differs significantly from that of
ASCE 7-16. ASCE 7 provides minimum load criteria for design strength and
allowable stress limits. This is not the same as is commonly used in the port/
harbor industry. Compared with multistory buildings or multispan bridges,
wharves and piers are usually rather simple structures. However, complexity
results from the significant influence of soil-structure interaction and the large
torsional response, resulting from the varying effective pile lengths, from the
landward to the seaward side of the structure. In addition, the interaction of
adjacent wharf segments, separated by “movement joints” with shear keys, further
complicates the structural response.

317

Seismic Evaluation and Design of Petrochemical and Other Industrial Facilities

 318 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND DESIGN OF PETROCHEMICAL

11.2 MOT DESCRIPTIONS

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 04/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

In general, a wharf is considered to be a structure oriented parallel to the shoreline,

while a pier or jetty is perpendicular to the shoreline. A MOT may also include
several separate structures such as mooring or breasting dolphins, loading plat-
forms, and approachways or access trestles. Wharves and piers for MOTs may be
constructed of reinforced concrete, prestressed concrete, steel, or timber. Com-
posite materials are not addressed in this chapter but are sometimes used as
sacrificial piles for vessel impact.

11.3 HISTORICAL PERFORMANCE

Historically, the most widespread cause of seismically induced damage to port

and harbor structures has been the liquefaction of the loose, saturated, sandy
soils that predominate in coastal areas. Embankment deformations may result in
excessive displacement in piles below the mudline. Most “failures” are in fact
excessive deformations that disrupt operations and result in damage that is not
economical to repair, rather than complete structural collapses that become
life-safety hazards, as have been seen in building structures. Werner (1998)
documents the historical performance of port and harbor structures subjected to
earthquakes in detail.
One specific type of damage frequently observed in earthquakes is to battered
piles. Historically, battered piles have been used to resist lateral loads due to
mooring, berthing, and crane operations. However, battered piles tend to stiffen
the pier or wharf system laterally by a significant amount and result in stress
concentrations and shear failure of piles and connections. Structural design of
battered piles requires special detailing to account for displacement demand and
to provide adequate ductility. In areas of high seismicity, designing pile-supported
wharves using only vertical piles is becoming more common.

11.4 STATE OF PRACTICE

Because wharf “failures” are typically the result of excessive deformations, not
catastrophic collapse, the state-of-the-practice analysis and design methodologies
are based on displacement-based methods rather than the conventional force-
based design methods as described in ASCE 7. Structures are typically designed
and analyzed to achieve a specific level of performance considering a minimum of
two levels of earthquake load criteria.
Design of these structures addresses the complexity resulting from the
significant influence of soil-structure interaction and a large torsional response,
caused by varying effective pile lengths from the landward to the seaward side of

Seismic Evaluation and Design of Petrochemical and Other Industrial Facilities

 NEW AND EXISTING MARINE OIL TERMINALS 319

the structure. In addition, the interaction of adjacent wharf segments, separated by

“movement joints” with shear keys, further complicates the structural response.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 04/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Unique load combinations, such as berthing and mooring, may govern the
lateral load design in low seismic regions. UFC 4-152-01 (2017) provides impact
velocities for berthing loads. For seismic demand, the dead load plus earth
pressure on the structure are considered, with a percentage of the live load added
for the maximum dead load case. For the load combinations with mooring and
berthing, the earthquake is not considered.
Geotechnical issues are a prime concern for seismic design of these marine
structures, with pile foundations often penetrating through weak soil layers.
Liquefaction, lateral spreading, and slope stability are all special items that must
be incorporated into the analysis and design. Often, these effects cannot be
avoided, and the effect of the phenomena must be considered in determining both
the structural capacity and demand. In addition, piers and wharves may be close to
major earthquake faults, and existing piers may cross faults.
PIANC (2001) contains an excellent treatise on the issues related to the design
and construction of wharves and piers in active seismic zones, even though other
recommendations in this chapter supersede some of its detailed design procedures
and recommendations.
Significant efforts have been undertaken by groups such as the California
State Lands Commission, which developed MOTEMS and the Port of Los Angeles
(POLA) and the Port of Long Beach (POLB), which funded significant research
and development efforts into their own respective seismic design and wharf design
codes that are used for the seismic design of marine structures at POLA and POLB.
The ASCE 61 Standards Committee continues to work on updates to that
document.

11.5 OVERALL APPROACH

State-of-practice analysis and design methodologies are based on displacements

and ultimate limit state criteria. A multilevel earthquake approach is used, with
varying performance and repairability criteria applicable for each level of earth-
quake. The two levels of earthquake are commonly referred to as Level I and II, or
Operating Level Earthquake (OLE) and Contingency Level Earthquake (CLE).

11.5.1 OLE Performance Criteria

OLE forces and deformations, including permanent embankment deformations,
should not result in significant structural damage. The damage would result in
only temporary or no interruptions in operations. For new structures, the damage
should be visually observable and accessible for repairs.
The OLE return period typically defines an earthquake that is likely to occur
during the lifetime of the structure. MOTEMS uses a 50% probability of exceed-
ance in 50 years, or a 72-year return period event.

Seismic Evaluation and Design of Petrochemical and Other Industrial Facilities

 320 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND DESIGN OF PETROCHEMICAL

11.5.2 CLE Performance Criteria

CLE forces and deformations, including permanent embankment deformations,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 04/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

must not result in collapse of the wharf. Controlled inelastic structural behavior
with repairable damage may occur. There may also be a temporary loss of
operations, restorable within months. For new structures, all damage should be
visually observable and accessible for repairs. The global performance of the
structure should prevent a “major” oil spill.
For MOTs, a “major” oil spill is generally defined as 1,200 barrels of crude/
product. The 1,200 barrels is based on the US Coast Guard’s definition of
Maximum Most Probable Discharge (MMPD) of oil, used for contingency
planning per 33 CFR, Parts 154 and 155. The potential sources of the spill
include the flowing and stored oil in pipelines on the wharf/pier and trestle. For
the flowing oil, the volume to be considered is the product of the flow rate and the
emergency shutdown time to close the system.
The CLE return period typically defines a rare event. MOTEMS uses a 10%
probability of exceedance in 50 years, or a 475-year return period event.

11.5.3 Limit State Criteria

MOTEMS, ASCE 61, POLA, and POLB all define structural limit states in terms of
maximum strain values for the OLE and CLE. These values are specified for the
pile head and in-ground locations. For concrete piles, the values are given for
concrete and reinforcing dowels.

11.5.4 Seismic Analysis

The objective of the structural seismic analysis is to verify that the displacement
capacity of the structure is greater than the demand for both performance levels.
The analysis must consider both inertial loading caused by ground shaking and
kinematic loading caused by movement of soil against the piles, where applicable.
For irregular configurations, a linear modal procedure is recommended for inertial
demand and a nonlinear static procedure for capacity determination. For “regular”
structures, a nonlinear static procedure is recommended for both inertial demand
and capacity determinations. A nonlinear time history procedure could also be
used in lieu of a nonlinear static pushover analysis.
Three-dimensional effects, simultaneous seismic loading in two orthogonal
directions, and the full nonlinear behavior of the soil must be included in the
analysis. The displacement demand of pipelines relative to the structure should be
established to verify their elastic behavior.
The large number of wharf piles, complete with nonlinear soil springs for each
pile, complicates the modeling. Several other factors complicate the behavior:
inelastic soil springs have different stiffnesses in different directions (e.g., upslope
versus. downslope); a significant variation of damping coefficient occurs due to the
inelastic behavior of the soil; and the strength of the piles varies due to sequential
hinging.

Seismic Evaluation and Design of Petrochemical and Other Industrial Facilities

 NEW AND EXISTING MARINE OIL TERMINALS 321

The seismic mass of a wharf or pier structure should be calculated, including

the effective dead load of the structure and all permanently installed loading arms,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 04/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

pumps, mechanical and electrical equipment, mooring hardware, and other

appurtenances. For MOTs, no additional live load is necessary. The additional
hydrodynamic mass of the piles is equal to the mass of the displaced water and is
typically very small, with a generally negligible influence on the results.

11.6 EXISTING MARINE OIL TERMINALS

Existing MOTs may be reevaluated for several reasons, such as

(a) Major damage due to an earthquake, vessel impact, fire, or explosion that
has seriously degraded the condition of the terminal.
(b) Serious long-term degradation underwater.
(c) Planned major reconstruction of a terminal, or a significant change in
operations. Examples include the addition of a large mass on the deck, such
as a vapor control system; or a change in the structural configuration, such
as an irregular structural modification; to an existing symmetric pile
structure. Larger vessels may not necessarily constitute a reason for a
reassessment, if mooring and berthing issues are resolved by sufficient
changes in operations (limiting wind envelope or reduced impact
velocities).
(d) Significant operational life extension of geriatric structures (with more than
50 years of service).
MOTEMS allows reduced seismic criteria to be applied for existing moderate
or low risk facilities, with the risk level based on the exposed volume of oil during
transfer operations, the number of oil transfer operations per year, and the
maximum vessel size.
For a moderate risk facility, the OLE is based on the 65% in 50 year
earthquake (48-year return period), while the CLE is based on the 15% in
50 year earthquake (308-year return period).
For a low risk facility, the OLE is based on the 75% in 50-year earthquake
(36-year return period), while the CLE is based on the 20% in 50-year earthquake
(224-year return period).
Structural and geotechnical information required for a seismic evaluation of
an existing facility should be obtained from drawings reflecting current as-built
conditions, reports, and codes/standards from the period of construction. If
drawings are inadequate or unavailable, a baseline inspection may be necessary.
A comprehensive underwater and above water inspection may also be required,
along with reconstructed baseline information, if structural drawings are
unavailable.

Seismic Evaluation and Design of Petrochemical and Other Industrial Facilities

 322 SEISMIC EVALUATION AND DESIGN OF PETROCHEMICAL

When evaluating existing facilities, component capacities are based on

current conditions calculated as best estimates, accounting for the mean material
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES on 04/17/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

strengths, strain hardening, and degradation over time. The capacity of compo-
nents with little or no ductility, which may lead to brittle failure scenarios, should
be calculated based on lower-bound material strengths.

References
ASCE. 2014. Seismic design of piers and wharves. ASCE/COPRI 61-14. Reston, VA: ASCE.
ASCE. 2016. Minimum design loads and associated criteria for buildings and other
structures. ASCE/SEI 7-16. Reston, VA: ASCE.
33 CFR, Part 154. 2010. Facilities transferring oil or hazardous material in bulk.
Washington, DC: Coast Guard, Dept. of Homeland Security.
33 CFR, Part 155. 2015. Oil or hazardous material pollution prevention regulations for
vessels. Washington, DC: Coast Guard, Dept. of Homeland Security.
MOTEMS (Marine Oil Terminal Engineering and Maintenance Standards). 2016.
California code of regulations, title 24, part 2, chapter 31F, 2016. Sacramento, CA:
California State Lands Commission.
PIANC (World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure). 2001. Seismic design
guidelines for port structures. Lisse, Belgium: A. A. Balkema.
UFC (United Facilities Criteria). 2017. Design: Piers and wharves. UFC 4-152-01.
Washington, DC: US Dept. of Defense.
Werner, S. D. 1998. Seismic guidelines for ports, technical council on lifeline earthquake
engineering. Monograph No. 12. Reston, VA: ASCE.

Seismic Evaluation and Design of Petrochemical and Other Industrial Facilities