Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Technical Standards and Commentaries For Port and Habour Facilities in Japan 2007 (English 2009)

    Uploaded by

    Tung Doan Thanh
    28 views1,024 pages

    Original Title

    Technical Standards and Commentaries for Port and Habour Facilities in Japan 2007 (English 2009)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    28 views1,024 pages

    Technical Standards and Commentaries For Port and Habour Facilities in Japan 2007 (English 2009)

    Uploaded by

    Tung Doan Thanh

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1024
    Ports and Harbours Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) ‘National Institute for Land and infrastructure Management, MLIT Port and Airport Research Institute TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND COMMENTARIES FOR PORT AND HARBOUR FACILITIES IN JAPAN AAA THE OVERSEAS COASTAL AREA DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE OF JAPAN 2009 Copyright © 2009 by ‘Authors and Editors Ports and Harbours Bureau, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourisrn (MLIT) National institute for Land and infrastructure Management, MLIT Port and Airport Research institute ‘Translator and Publisher ‘The Overseas Coastal Area Development institute of Japan 4 owe Bldg, No.16, North Wing, 1-9-20 Akasaka, Minato-ku, Tokyo, 197-0052, Japa ‘Te #81-3-5570-5931, Fax: +81-3-5570-5932, Emall-tokyo@oedionjp. Alright reserved. No part ofthis publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval systems, transmitted in any form or by any means, electric, mechanical, photacapying, recording or otherwise, ‘without the prior written permission ofthe authors, editors and publisher. FOREWORD Foreword ‘This book is a translation of “the Technical Standards and Commentaries for Port and Harbour Facilities in Japan’ (hereinafter called “the Technical Standards”), which summarizes the ministerial ordinance and with the “Technical Standards for Port and Harbour Facilities” established by Japan's Ministry of Land, Jafrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) based on the provisions of the Port and Harbour Law. ‘This translation bas been made with the approval of the authors including the Ports and Harbours Bureau of MLIT, National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management (NILIM; also a part of MLIT), and the Port and Airport Research Institute (PARE; an Independent Administrative Institution) Japan is an island nation with few underground resources. The country comprises approximately 6,800 islands, and has an area of 380,000 square Kilometers and a total coastline of 34,000 km, For this reason, industry, which supports the nation’s economy, has been located in coastal arcas with ports and harbors for ‘convenience in importing raw materials and exporting products. Given these conditions, Japan has constructed, improved and modernized approximately 1,100 ports and harbors s well as approximately 3,000 fishing ports during the past one and a half centuries. Because 99% of trade now depends on ports and harbors, they play particularly important role in Japan. Japan was a closed country for about 220 years, from the early 17th century until the mid-19th century. Following the Meiji Restoration of 1868, modernization progressed rapidly, During the modernization period, ‘young Japanese engineers learned from experienced engincers invited to Japan from abroad, and constructed modeen ports and harbors, such as the Ports of Yokohama and Kobe. public notice articles as well asthe related commentaries and technical nates in conne ‘The first Japanese manual on port and harbor fechnology was releascd in 1943 and was subsequently revised a number of times. Under the 1974 revision ofthe Ports and Harbours Law, “the Technical Standards for Port and Harbour Facilities” are provided in the form of ministerial ordinances. The first edition of the present “Technical Standards” was published by the Japan Port and Harbour Association in 1979 and it has been revised three times as of this writing, An English-language edition of the “Technical Standards” was first published in 1980, and was revised and reissued in 1991 and 2002 corresponding to the revisions of the Japanese “Technical Standards.” Because many ports and harbors in Japan face the open sea, a considerable number of ports are exposed. to waves with heights exceeding 10m, Furthermore, many Japanese ports and harbors have been constructed ‘on thick strata of cohesive soil deposited on the sca bottom. Because Japan is also one of the world’s most carthquake-prone nations, the facilities of ports and harbors are exposed to severe natural disasters of ‘earthquakes and tsunamis, Many efforts for technical development have been undertaken toenabie construction of port and harbor facilities that are both safe and economical under these difficult natural conditions. As a result ofthese efforts, itis fer to say that Fapan possesses the world’s most advanced level of technology for ‘wave-resistant design, carthquake-resistant design of port and harbor facilities, and countermeasures for soft ground ‘The 2007 edition of “the Technical Standards,” in addition to incorporating the most advanced technology, thas fully incorporated the approach based on “performance-based design” in response to worldwide demands that the national standards be based on “performance criteria," as advocated in the TBT Agreement (Agreement ‘on ‘Technical Barriers to Trade). “The Technical Standards” are consistent with the following international standards, and represent a compilation of Japan's world-class knowledge in connection with technology for ports and harbors: 15023469 Bases for design of structures ~ Seismic actions for designing geotechnical works, 18021650 Actions from waves and currents on coastal structures, The system of technical standards in Japan isstructured with “ministerial ordinances” and “public notices” which specify concrete methods in connection with “the Technical Standards” that port and harbor facilities rust satisfy based on the Ports and Harbours Law. They ate supplemented with the “commentaries” and “technical notes” on those ordinances and public notices. Basically, this structure is followed in the English edition. Although there are duplications in various parts ofthe explanation, the reader is asked to understand that such duplications reflect the structure ofthe Standards inthe Japanese version. "Some description on the pperformance-based design and the partial factor and system reliability” are inchided in Annexes as an aid for the reader’s understanding. Because technology in respective countries has been developed to conform to the conditions in each country, there may be aspects of the content of “the Technical Standards” which are difficult for persons from other countries to understand. For parts which can not be clearly understand, we recommend that the reader refer to the reference literature for a more detailed explanation ofthe contents, Those with a keen interest inthe subject may also inquire of the relevant offices of the above-mentioned Ports and Harbours Bureau (MLIT), _NILIM, and PARL It is our sincere hope that “the Technical Standards” will contribute to the development of ports and harbors worldwide and to progress in port and harbor technology. October 2009 Dr: GODA Yoshimi, Dr. TAKAHASHI Shigeo, Dr. YAGYU Tadahiko, and Dr. YAMAMOTO Shuji Supervisors for Editorial Works of the English Edition Acknowledgement ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ‘The publisher, Overseas Coastal Area Development Institute of Japan, sincerely appreciates the persons listed below for their contributions in editing, translating ard publishing this Technicat Standards, ‘Members of the Editing Committee for the Japanese version of the Technical Standards published in 2007 Messrs. GODA Yoshimit, HASHIMOTO Noriaki; HORII Osami, JAI Susuma, ISOSHIMA Shigeo, KAZAMA Toru, KITAZAWA Sosuke, KIYOMIYA Osamu, KOMATSU Akira, KONDOU Kosuke, KOYAMA Akira, KUSAKABE Osamu, ‘MAEDA Susuem MIZOUCHI Toshikazu, NAGAI Toshiliko, ODANI Hiraku, SAHARA Koichi, SHIRAISHI Satoru, ‘TAKAHASHI Shigeo, TAKAYAMA Tomotsuk, TANAKA Hiroyuki, UEDA Shigers, USHIJIMA Ryuichiro, YAMAMOTO Shuji, YOKOTA Hiroshi, “The authors of the Japanese version of che Technical Standards published in 2007 Messrs. : ENDO Kimihiko, FUJIMORI Shugo, PUIIMURA Kiminori, FURUKAWA Keita, GESHI Hiroyuki, HACHIYA Yoshitaka, HAMADA Hidenori, HAMAGUCHI Nobuhiko, HASHIMOTO Noriaki, HASHIZUME Tomoyoshi, HIGASHISHIMA Michio, HIRAISHI Tetsuya, ICHU Koj, ISHIL Ichiro, ITO Akira, IWANAMI Mitsuyasu, IWATA Naoki, KASUGAI Yasuo, KATASE Makoto, KAWAI Hiroyasu, KAWAKAMI Talli, KAWANA Futoshi, KIKUCHI Yoshiaki, KITADUME Masaki, KITAZAWA Sosuke, KOHAMA Ei, Members of the Editing Committee for this Technical Standards (pub Messrs GODA Yoshimit, MATSUMOTO 8: KOYAMA Akira, KOZAWA Keiji, KUNITA Atsushi, KURIYAMA Yoshiaki, MAKITO Teketo, MATSUMOTO Hideo, MATSUNAGA Yasushi, MIYANIMA Shogo, MIYASHITA Ken-ichiro, MIYATA Masafumi, MIYAWAKI Shusaku, MIZUTANI Masahiro, ‘MORISHITA Noriaki, ‘MORIYA Yoichi, MOROBOSHI Kazunobu, MURAOKA Takeshi, NAGAI Toshihiko, ‘NAGAO Takeshi, NAKAMICHI Maseto, NAKAMURA Satoshi, NARUSE Eiji, NISHLZONO Katsvhide, NODA Iwao, NOZU Atsushi, ODA Katsuya, OKAMA Tatsuo, MURAOKA Takeshi, TAKAHASHI Shigeo, OZAKIRyuz0, SAKARA Kol SAKAL Yoichi, SAKAMOTO Akira, SASSA Shi SATO Hidemasa, SHIGA Masto, SHIMOSAKO Ken-ichiro, SHIRAISHI Teteuya, SUGANO Tekahiro, SUMIYA Keiichi, TAKAHASHI Hironao, TAKANO Seiki, TOMITA Takeshi, UOZUMI Satoru, WATABE Kazushige, WATABE Yoichi YAMADA Masso, YAMAII Tora, ‘YAMAZAKI Hicoyuki, YOKOTA Hiroshi, YONEYAMA ¥aruo, ‘YOSHIDA Hideki, YOSHINAGA Hiroshi, YOSHIOKA Takeshi, in 2009) YAMANE Takayuki, Messrs. TTO Hironobu MIYAJIMA Syogo, MIYATA Masafumi, ‘Messrs HIRANO Masayoshi, KATOH Kazumasa, KIBARA Ts KOBUNE Koji NODA Setsua, OHTSU Kobei, * indicates chiefs of committees. NAGAI Toshihiko, NAGAO Takeshi, TUBOKAWA Yukitemo, OKUMURA Tatsuo, OUCHT Hisao, REID Shane SHIOZAWA Toshihiko, TAKAHASHI Kunio, YAGYU Tadahiko*, YAMAMOTO Sinyji, TANIMOTO Katsutoshi, ‘TSUGANE Masanori, UEDA Hitoshi, YAMASAKI Tsuyoshi YOSHIMURA Yasuo, Abbreviations Abbreviations English teem ANSI AP As™u. car co et 1g cu pou DWT FeL Fur FRE oes Hwosr HWE Ho Mo, wee 180 wel sce Let we Ewost MIR Mur MR Msi. wing NOWPHAS ocot PARI Po Puc PERE American National Standards Institute ‘American Petroleum fstute ‘American Society for Testing and Materials California Bearing Retio Consolidated Drained Chart Damm Cevet Customs fe and Queraatine Consolidated Undrained Deviation oF Ou Liar Displacement Tonnage Dead Weight Tonnage, F ‘Container Load Finite Element Analysis rogram for Liquefaction Process Fiber Reinforced Plastic Godel Positioning Sytem igh Water of Ordinary Spring Tide Mean Monthy highest Water Level Injernational Hydrographic Organization Inlernational Martine Organitation International Panel on Climate Change International Organization for Standaidization Japan Petroleum institute Japan Society of Civil Eagineers ‘Less than Container Land Mean monthly dowest Water Level Low Water of Ordinary Spring Tide Minimum Rate of Residual Coretion Coefficient Ministe of Land, Infrastructure, Teansport and Tourisn Meteoclogiel Research Institute Mean Sea Level [National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Managemeit [National Ocean Wave Information Network for Ports and Harbours ‘Overseas Coastal Area Developmeat Institute oF pea Port and Airport Research Istitte Prestressed Concrete Prostessed Hightension Conereto Post and Harbour Research Inaile ABBREVIATIONS uu vice ‘won association Tor watemorne sTansport Lntrastructure Reinforced Concrete Residue of Correlation Coefctnt Radio Isotope Residual Water Level Single Anchor Leg Moring Sand Compaction Pile International System of Unit ‘Stel Framed Reinfored Conerete Sverdrup-Munk-Bretshneiter Mean Set Level of Tokyo Bay, Tokyo Pel ‘Unconsoliated Undrained ‘Very Large Cre Carsor ‘World Trade Organization Symbols 4 Symbols Definitions sectional area (m2) seetionel area of pile points (m2) total surface area ofa pile (m?) width (i, ship breadth (xs) ‘wind coefficient, center of buoyancy ‘compression index drag coefficient lift coefficient coefficient of inertia force ‘coefficient of virtual mass ‘undrained shearing strength (N/m?) coefficient of consolidation (cm?/min) cohesive force (kvm) ‘undrained shearing stcength of original ground (KN/m2) design value of soil cohesive force (kN/mn2) embedded depth of a foundation (a), pile diameter (mm), depth of waterway (m) effective diameter of a drain pile (rr) relative density diameter ofa drain pile (mm) load draft (m), grain size of soil particle (mm) ‘Young's modus ofa pile (N/m) berthing energy of ship (KN m) Aexural rigidity (KN) void ratio coefficient of friction, frequency (Hz) ‘compressive strength of concrete (N/mm?) design value of angle of shearing resistance (2) shearing rigidity (KN m2) Gross Tonnage (9 ‘gravitational acceleration (m/s?) wave height (m), wall height (re) deepwater wave height (m) ‘equivalent deepwater wave height (m) highest one-tenth wave height (m) significant wave height (m) breaking wave height criterion (x) wave height for design verification Ssriagous Po PLPR PD Pa Q 9 % Rn transmitted wave height (m) taximum wave bight (0) wate depth (a), thickness ayer) crown ight of breakwater above water lve! (n) moment of inertia of pile sectional area {m*) ceolfciet of earth pressure coefcion of active earth pressure concent of earth pressre atest, itactioncoetfient refaction coefcent coefcea of pasive earth presse shonling coefficient cocficint of wave transmission seismic coefficient, coefcient of permeability (em) cquvatnt seismic cotfcient cocficient of lateral subgrade reaction (Wem) sxismiccoetBicient for design veifeation wae length (embedded length of pile n) deeper wavelength) perpendicular length (x) ‘moment (em), metacenter cocficint of volume compressibility (mk) N value (Number of blows in 3m thik of sil by Standard Penatation Tes), numberof waves coeficient of bearing capeciy stabiliy oumber of amor blocks ston sharing ati, rai of Young's modulus acting fore 4) buayancy (CN) horizontal wave force (RN) : wl pressure XN) vertical force (RN) overburden pressure (KN/n2) intensity of wave resi (Nn) uplift pressore ating underneath otto of vera wal CN) longsore sediment transport ate (mP) surcharge load (Nn), vate volume (mth) sedlment transport ae per unit wid (ml) enconfned compression strength (HNN) (2) restorability > (1) serviceability. Fig, 1.3.3 shows the performance requirements fr structural responses of port facilities. In the figure, the vertical and horizontal axes show the annual exceedence probability of action and the degree of damage, respectively. The curve in the figure shows the performance of facilities, Except permanent actions, the characteristic values of actions are generally determined depending on their annual occurrence probabilities. Different amounts of action cause different degrees of datnage to facilities. Demage to facilities caused by vatiable or permanent actions With @ relatively high annual exceedence probability is not acceptable. Since protecting facilities from dainage by accidental actions with a very low annual exceedence probability is economically unreasonable, a small amount of ‘damage to facilities caused by accidental actions is acceptable. The following summarize the basie concepts on performance requirements for port facilities: () For permanent and variable actions (with an annual execedence probability of about 0.01 or more), the basic requirement is serviceability. It is assumed that ensuring serviceability slso ensures restarability and safety ‘against permanent and variable actions. ‘@ As foraccidental ations (with an annuel exceedence probability of about 0.01 or less), satisfaction of performance citherof serviceability, restorability, or safety taking account of the expected functionsand significance of facilities. [Except in the cases where facilites are high seismic resistance structure and where damage to facilities affects @ significant influence on human life, property, or social and economic activities, performance ageinst accidental actions is basically not required. It does not, however, deny the necessity of verification against accidental actions ‘conducted by the persons responsible for performance verification in facility owners. ‘The threshold value of 0.01 used in the above Items (I) and (2) is just forthe sake of convenience and untestrictive, Iis only a guide forthe cases where design working life falls within a standard range. For example, when designing a facility having a function of transporting emergency supply materials immediately after a big earthquake, it is required to sctits degree of damage caused by accidental actions small as shown by the facility A in Fig. 1.33 (ensuring serviceability). When designing a facility having a minimum function against accidental actions, itis necessary to set an allowable degree of damage ata relatively large value and make sure that the facility does not suffer fatal damage (ensuring safety). SECRIPCAL SIANNUANLS KIN CURMENIAKtES MOK PUKI AND HARBOUR FACILITIES IN JAPAN inet Dew of danas i 3 & Z 3 ag 3 28 Eon “ i i : seven E q 2 : tg ca Hi Fig. 1.3.8 Conceptual Diegram ofthe Relation Between Design situations and Requited Performance Performance requirements for structural responses ofthe subject facilities of technica! standards given in ministerial ‘ordinances specify, based on the above concepts, the minimum requirements for individual facilities to have from the ‘view point of public welfare. Responsible persons forthe construction, improvement, and maintenance ofthe subjcet {facilites of technical standards can therefore set as necessary performance levels higher than these criteria as the porformance requirements for the facilities, taking account of their surrounding situations and requited functions, Requirements for crest heights, harbour calmness, and ancillary facilities are also given as performance requirements for structural dimensions from the viewpoints of the usability and convenience of facilities. Ministerial ordinances specify performance requirements for structural responses and steuctural factors on a facility-by-facility basis. ‘However, the following performance requirements for constructability and maintenanceability are factors corarnon to all facilites: = Constructabi performance required for constructing facilities, Refer to Part I, Chapter 2, Section 2 Construction of Facilities Subject to the Technical Standards. ~Maintenanceability: performance required for maintaining facilities. Refer to Part I, Chapter 2, Section 3 ‘Maintenance of Facilities Subject to the Technical Standards. 134 Actions Actions ate classified into three categories mainly according to time history in their amounts and their socal ri bbe addressed: permanent, variable, and accidental sctions, considered in the performance verification of port feilites sto ble 1.3.1 shows examples of dominating actions to be Performance verification shall property take account of the effeets of actions on the facility concerned. ‘The return periods of sotions taken into consideration in performance verifiction shall be appropriately set based on the coaracterstics of individual actions, the significance of structures, and the design working life ofthe facility. It should be noted that the return period means the average interval between the occurrence of actions ofa certain amount or ‘more and is different from the design working life. For example, the probability that an action with a return period of 50 years (annual exceedence probability: 1/50 = 0.02) occurs during a design working life of SO years is $~(I~0.02)9 = 0.64 if the past history of actions does not affect the enual probability of exceedence. Actions with a return period either longer or shorter than the design working life also have a certain probability of occurence in the design working fife. When the structure of the facilites under constcuction is different from the one expected atthe time of ‘completion, it is necessary to take account of differences inthe effets of actions onthe structure daring construction, Table 1.3.1 Classification of Dominating Actions [Category Action Permanent |Self weight, earth pressure, cavironmental actions such as temperature sizess, corrosion, action freezing and thawing, etc Variable | Waves, winds, water level (de level, surcharge of cargo or vehicle, action due to ship action —_|berthinglracting, Level 1 earthquake ground motion Se SGatental | Colision with ship or oer object except when berthing, fie, tna, Level eatlnquake action ound motion, accidental waves, ec. -10- PART! GENERAL, CHAPTER 1 GENERAL RULES 1.3.8 Design Situation ‘When conducting performance verification, a design situation, which means a combination of actions taken into account ia the verification shell be defined. They are classified into three categories: permanent, variable (where variable actions are dominating actions), and accidental (where accidental actions are dominating actions) situations. Actions ate generally divided into dominating and non-dominating actions. In the cases where the possibility of simultaneous occurrence of dominating and non-dorinating actions is low, the characteristic values of the non-dominsting actions are likely to be these frequently ocoutring in a design working life with a relatively high annual exccedence probability. It is unreasonable to set all characteristic values of actions with a low possibility of simultaneous occurrence at values with a low annual exceedence probability and to combine them, ‘The general principle on the combination of such actions is called the Turkstres rule In conducting performance verification of por facilites, «design situation may have a numberof situations ia which dominating actions ae different from each other. This dacument hence uses an expression "situation with respect to-—- (dominating action) to distinguish dominating zetions. For example, if dominating actions are variable waves, “variable situation in respect of waves” is writen, References 1) 1802594 : General prineipes on reliability for structures, 1998 2) Minisuy of Land, Infrastructures and Transport: Basis related to Civil Engineering and Architecture Design, Oct. 2002 3) Japan Society of Civil Engineering: Comprenensve design code (drafl-Princple and guide line for the preparation of| structural design based on performance design concopt-, Mas. 2003 4) Japan Association for Earthquake Engincsring: design principle for foundation structures based on performance design concept, Mer. 2006 5) Nagao, Tand Kay of SCE, 2005 performance prescription of the design methed for portend harbour facilites, Oth Annual Meeting 12 Nes SIMHRICIVIAMIES UR PURE AINLY FUAMESUUS FACILITIES IN JAPAN 1.4 Performance Criteria Public Notice Fundamentals of Performance Criteria Article 2 ‘The performance criteria forthe facilities subject tothe Technical Standards as specified inthis Public Notice can be used as the requirements for verification of the performance requirements. The same applies to the performance criteria not specified in this Public Notice but proved to satisfy the performance requirements of the facilites subject to the Technical Standards {Technical Note} Performance criteria are the technical regulations needed to verify performance requirements. Meeting the performance criteria given here is hence considered as meeting performance requirements. Public notices specify Performance criteria on only general facilites of dominating structural types, In constructing, improving, ot ‘maintaining other structural types of the subject fecilites of technical standards, or in assuming specific design situations, therefore, performance criteria shall be properly specified taking account of performance erteria for similar structural types and the surrounding situations of the facilities concerned, Performance criteria given in public notices specify, according to performance requirements, the performance required for facilities o have from the viewpoint of public weifore. Responsible persons for consiructing, improving, or maintaining the subject facilities of technical standards can hence set higher-level codes than those given in public notices, Insuch cases, however, the setting should be appropriately made based on a proper approach suc as lift ele ‘cost minimization. =p PART | GENERAL, CHAPTER 1 GENERAL RULES 4.5 Performance Verification Public Notice Fundamentals of Performance Verification Article 3 | Performance verification of the facilities subject to the Technical Standards shall be conducted using a ‘method which can take account ofthe actions to the facilities, quirements for services, and theuncertainty of the performance of the facilities concerned or other methiods having high reliability. 2 The performance verification ofthe facilities subject to the Technical Standards shall be made in principle by executing the subsequent items taking into consideration the situations in which the facilities concerned will encounter during the design working life: (Appropriately select the actions in consideration of the environmental conditions surrounding the facilities concerned and others. @) Appropriately select the combination of the actions in consideration of the possible simultaneous ‘occurrence of dominant and non-dominant actions, 8) Sclect the materials of the facitities concerned in consideration of their characteristics and the ‘environmental influences on them, and appropriately specify their physical properties. {Commentary} () Fundamentals of Performance Verification © Methods capable of taking account of actions, requirements for services, and the uncertainty of the performance of the facilities concerned ‘The methods capable of taking account of requirements for services and the uncertainty of the facility performance concerned are the performance verification methods capable of properly taking account of the uncertainty of the performance of the facilities concerned such as the uncertainty of actions and strengths caused by the uncertainty inherent to various design parameters such as naturel conditions, material characteristics, and analysis methods, Reliability-based design methods shall be generally used. ‘The performance verification using a reliability design method needs to properly evaluate actions, and the uncertainty inherent to various design parameters relating to the performance of the facilities concerned and properiy set target failure probabilities or reliability indices. ‘The performance verification using the evel 1 reliability-based design method (partial factors method) needs to properly evaluate the uncertainty of design parameters and set the partial factors reflecting target reliability indices. © Other reliable methods Other reliable methods are in principle performance verification methods to specifically and quantitatively evaluate the performance of the facilities concerned. They generally include numerical analysis methods, model test methods, and in situ test methods. If these methods are inappro use, however, methods to indirectly evaluate the performance of the facilities concerned based on past experiences taking account of various conditions such as natural conditions can be interpreted as one of the other reliable methods. © Corrosion of steel products ‘The performance verification of the subject facilities of technical standards shall be carried out properly taking account of the corrosion of steel products according to various conditions such as natural conditions. Since the steel products used for the subject faclitics of technical standards are generally installed in highly corrosive environments, anticorrosion measures shall be taken using anticorrosion methods such as cathodic protection methods, coating methods, etc () Performance Verification Methods and Performance Criteria Performance verification is an act io verify that performance criteria are satisfied. Ministerial ordinances and public notices do not define specifications for verification. Designers conducting performance vetification shall teke responsibility for using reliable methods. ‘Table 1.3.2 summarizes currently available verification methods on structural responses to actions recommended for individual design situations. Reliablity-based design methods are in prineiple applied to the performance verification for permanent and variable situations, and numerical analysis methods are used for accidental situation. If the methods shown in Table 1.3.2 cannot be used due to insufficient technical knowledge, methods, TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND COMMENTARIES FOR PORT AND HARGOUR FACILITIES IN JAPAN based on past experiences may be used, When using the verification methods shown above, note the following: © Reliability-based design methods ‘Theperformanee verification using areliability-based design method needs to properly evaluateactions, strengths, and the uncertainty inherent to various design parameters relating to the performance of the facilities concerned and properly set target failure probabilities or reliability indices. The performance verification using the level | relisbility-based design method (partial factor method) needs to properly evaluate the uncertainty of design parameters and set the partial factors reflecting target reliability indices. © Numerical analysis methods The performance verification using @ numerical analysis method needs to study the applicability of the method concemed from the viewpoints of the behaviors of actual structures in the past and the reproducibility of test resulls and carefully judge the reliability of the method concerned, © Model test methods o in-situ test methods ‘The performance verification using @ model test method or a in-situ test method needs to carefully ‘evaluate the performance of the facilites concerned taking account of differences in response between ‘models and actual structures and of the accuracy of tests and tests. @ Methods based on past experiences ‘When performance verification using a method based on past experiences is unavoidable, it should be noted that the number of actual applications does not necessarily moan high reliability. ‘Table 1.3.2 Performance verification methods recommended for individual Design sfuations Design sitation | ___ Dominating action Performance verification method ‘Self weight, carth pressure, winds, | Reliability-based design method (partial aves, water pressure, action due to | factor method and others) ship berthing/racting, surcharge [Model test method, or in-situ test method Level! earthquake ground motion |Relibility-based design method (partial actor method and others) Se situation [Numerical analysis method (nonlinear seismic response analysis taking account lof dynarnic interaction between the ground and the structure) Model test method Permanent situation Vari (Collision with ship, sunami, ‘Numerical analysis method (method Level 2 earthquake ground motion, |capable of specifically evaluating the Accidental situation accidental waves, ire amount of deformation or degree of damage) Model test method or in-situ test method Taking account of the conformity of technical standards to international standards and the accountability of designers, this document adopts the following methods: for the permanent and variable situations, areliabiity-based design method capable of quantitatively evaluating the stability of facilities; forthe accidental situation, a nutnerical analysis method capable of specifically evaluating, the amount of deformation and the degree of damage caused by actions A typical breakwater with a design working life of about 50 years, for example, needs to have usability against waves with a 50 year return period. Verify the usability by checking thet the probability of faiiure against the sliding, overturning and foundation failure of the breakwater is not higher than the allowable value. Setting this allowable failure probability at a value as low as about 1% shall be considered to ensure the serviceability Jn performance verification for the accidental situation, properly assume actions that have a low possibility of occurrence in the area concerned but are tnignorable to ensure social safety based ‘on disaster cases and scenarios, usc a numerical analysis method to evaluate the responses of the facility concerned to the actions, and judge if the degree of damage falls within a permissible range. Persons responsible for performance verification shall properly set a permissible range of deformation depending on the functions required for the facility after suffering damage from the actions concerned. Other performance verification methods shall include the methods that persons in charge of Me PART | GENERAL, CHAPTER 1 GENERAL RULES nmmnng en ee peat ge oy vying ep gm eg i en ° emo} Pt 2 Shoes rates ‘teed aren ° temo ° immo ° ee) : : pm a5 pied ‘se'yoemg | pono ange ee 290 amy simu ° ° Rompe etapa | sonnus ae ess cme na nudes | ean oem | HORI AS seems 0m e ae apna 2 ee) - ‘so'pomuny | pani apie cee Se aso sonny aa seme ° ° enone | SED ups syst apnea sty e ors dpa. leon sosmia soemecig Ly mee aT snennto iens eteinsereged pessoa sored ousry gue amie ons Gil) eit WeneoyHeA Bue wonenis UB;seG Woes 10) Hue BUA BINNONAG To MySeS HER 10) SPOON VOFEOINNA SUCUIOTIEG PUBS CCT SEL ‘TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND COMMENTARIES FOR PORT AND HARBOUR FACILITIES IN.JAPAN mee asta inn 29 ion pega 2 enw pn ag ° ° 0 euseciciie! gens © pomccom wens ota ERS . sory poste nso ans ‘po woanais pan ° sro depo aye, Taam IE Saray AT ‘So nae oe een eee ene eee sme iaiog {Gre} wai DORROITEA BUR Ween UBHESG Woes 10} pUE SAK, wINSTAS 10 MABE RS Ky SPOUEN VOTRSTUNA POURRA PRTG FET TEL 16 PART i GENERAL CHAPTER 1 GENERAL RULES cet ennetep ani bya min tt a apie n men a road and noes Tauctneneny oatunctamceeognmena 6 avon =e WA Jo 207 nn ype pn et oyone 2p veo S509 Tay OEE roo ee a tse SRE ‘Peereun eee sepa Bs om sco sue pus woap in sone eMSy ea geet one sc vet i] UOREOUHIBA HUE UORETYS UBISOG Ye s0j pur “ed BIN|OnIAG 10 AIDE WOE 70) SPOUIAN UOREDUHOR GOURULOLEG Pee CET EL SELPINICAL 2/ANUANUD ANU LUMIMEN IAKIES KOH PORT AND HARBOUR FACILITIES IN JAPAN seminoma pny ope aH ne gee stn ee pans sna vn wemfo ner seni ometioneny Sigcace pee. 39 soap ens Persea aan, SSr Seon Senos gue wang sSuungoseanye sean ean mee sgdso pen | aay magna cones i YORESIUBA Bue UOhemas UBIs9q YoeR 10} pue "OAL SinITAIS 10 MNlSEa WER 10) SPOON UORIULUA SURO OG PASOS CET HEL = 18 PART | GENERAL, CHAPTER 1 GENERAL RULES performance verification can freely select. ‘Methods of performance verification other than those listed in Table 1.3.2 may be used for the performance verification of the subject facilities of technical standards. The persons in charge may also adopt new verification methods. ‘The methods capable of specifically evaluating the performance of the facility concerned, such as those to probabilistic evaluation of indices like ¢ total amount of deformation incurred during the design working life and the life eyele cost, are especially recommendable from the viewpoint of the reasonable performance verification. There may be a method, for example, to verify the performance ofthe facility concerned taking account of actions corresponding to various return periods as much as possible. A typical example is the method to use @ total amount of deformation incurred during the design working life and the life cycle cost as verification indices and their probabilistic control, From the viewpoint of the reasonable performance verification, such a method should be recommended because itcan specifically evaluate the performance of the facility concerned. Table 1.3.2 has no intention to ‘exclude these methods. ‘The above reliability-besed design methods and numerical analysis approaches have not been establishedas the performance verification methods forall types ofport facilities. They are inapplicable to some facilities. It is therefore necessary to select appropriate performance verification methods for such facilities, taking account of the methods based on the setting used in conventional design ‘methods (methods based on the conventional allowable safety factor method and the allowable stress design method). The methods based on the setting used in conventional design methods are those that use a verification equation in the form of partial factors with no essential change from conventional design methods to allow the latest knowledge and findings to be immediately reflected on performance verification. Table 1.3.3 shows the performance verification methods assumed in this document corresponding to facility-wise and structure type-wise performance criteria given in public notices. ‘The verification ofthe variable situation ofthe cusing the seismic coefficient method needs to calculate seismic coefficients for verification. This document describes the methods of calculating seismic coefficients for verification with the examples of composite breakwaters, gravity-type quaywalls, sheet pile quaywalls with vertical-pite anchorage, sheet pile quaywalls with coupled-pile anchorage, ‘open type wharves on vertical-pils, and the ground improved by the deep mixing method or the sand compaction pile (SCP) method. As exemplified in Table 1.3.4, the methods of calculating seismic coefficients for verification used forthe above types of facilities cam also be applied tothe othr types, taking account of ther structural characteristics. It should be noted that the performance verification ‘methods shown in this document are only examples and it has no intention to restrict the use of other verification methods, @ Astions The performance verification of a subject facility of technical standards needs to take account of its design working life and the performance requirements, and properly set the amounts of actions. The setting of actions needs to take account of various conditions like natural conditions, and as necessary, actions during design working life affected by estuarine hydraulics, littoral drift, ground settlement, ‘ground liquefaction, and environmental actions. For further details on the setting of actions, refer t0 the regulations and corresponding commentaries in Article 5 to Article 20 of the Public notice of the ‘Technical Standards @) Combination of Actions The combination of actions means the types and amounts of actions simultancously considered in performance verification. ‘The setting of the combination of actions needs to properly take account of the design working life ofthe facility concerned, its performance requirements, ete. For the combination of dominating and non-dominating actions assumed in the performance criteria specified in the public notices ofthe technical standards, refer to the tables shown in the commentaries of individual facilities. Tn setting the combination of actions, non-dominating actions can be assumed to have an amount with a relatively large annual exceedence probability and occur frequently in the design working life if the possibility ofthe simultaneous occurrence of dominating and non-dominating actions is low. (@) Selection of Materials Selection of materials needs to properly take account of their quality and durability. Materials used for the subject facilities of technical standards include steel products, concrete, bituminous materials, stone, Wood, other metallic materials, plasties, rubber, coating materials, landfill matcrials (including wastes), recycled materials (slag, coal ash, concrete mass, dredged soil, asphalt concrete mass, shells, tc). Materials conforming to the Japanese Industrial Standards can be assumed to have quality needed to meet the performance requirements ofthe subject facilites of technical standards. JEGHNILAL JANUAKUS AN COMMENTARIES FOR PORT AND HARBOUR FACILITIES IN JAPAN ©) Characteristic Values of Materials Characteristic values of materials mean material properties such as strength, weight per unit volume, friction coefficient, ete, Designers need to properly set the characteristic values of materials based on JIS specification values or other reliable quality data. The setting of the physical characteristics of materials and eross sectional dimensions needs proper consideration of material degradation due to environmental actions Tebie 1.2.4 Mothod of Caleviting the Seismic Coefficient for Veritcation, for Each Facility or Structure Type eile for wh the settod ofcaletating the seismic coefficient for verison is specied ‘ : Const breakwater Sess coeffient for verification | Compnie breakwater (ocular bloc, (Ganson type) considering deformation upright breakwater, sloping breakwater, breakwater atmored with wave-disieting blocks, savy type special breakwater, eison {ype dolphin (nt affected by eatin pressure), ell i Eye dolphin et sfc by earth pressure) Bcakwter with wide | Operating sib coefcem ‘footing on soft ground | (maximum acceleration / zrtvitaonal sczeeatio) ei Gravity ype quaywall Seismic coeticient for vetication | Gravy ype quaywal (shaped block Bods (Caisson type) |considering deformation ‘cellular block), upright wave-dissipating type auaywal, exibedded type clislarbulkead asaya placement ype cellar bleed asaya, qonyals ih rleving platforms, sisson ype clphin ace by earn press, cell typ dopa tected by earth pressure), sravily type revetment, embedded type celular bulkhead revetment, placement type cellular bulkhead revetment, rabble ype revelmient Shes pled | Vertical pile [Seismic cooticent ar verification | Sheet ied queywall chest ple anchorage ipo quay | srehorage” considering deformation concrete wall achorage type), tes standing shee pled quaywall, sheet il qual! vith aking pile anchorages, double sheet pile Facilities to which the method of calculating the Seismic coeficient for verification | snc eoecont for verifeaton eat be applied [quaywall _| ‘Coupled pile | Seismic coefficient for verification | anchorage | considering deformation Open-type | Pier | Seismic coefficient for verification | Open-type wharf on coupled raking piles, jacket wharf on using the response spectrum type piled pier, strutted type pier, detached piled vertical piles pier, pile type dolphin, pile type breakwater, ]quaywalls with sheet pile walls with supporting raking piles to the front, mooring pile Earth- | Seismic coefficient for verification |— retaining _|considering deformation section I Improved | Deep mixing |Seismie coefficient for verification |— | subsoil | method [considering deformation SCP method | Seismic coefRcint for verification | ] considering deformation i é | Wi sega 0 seinen cnt gris, ning jets, rons, coma dies, parapet, seawall ks, water gan, slow dah wharves, an lips, is posible to conser tha sructure type a tke fis esponse chartelrnes ding searie movenale ‘when apying the above methods of eauatng the seize oecet fer version, 20 PANT 1 GENERAL, CHAPTER 1 GENERAL RULES 4.6 Reliabilty-based Design Method 1.6.1 Outline of Reliablty-based Design Method ‘The reliability-based design method is a method in which the possibility of failure of facilities is evaluated using technique based on probability theory, and comprises three design levels corresponding to the eveluation method.” Evaluations are performed by the failure probability Py of the structure at Level 3, highest level, by the reliability index f at evel 2, and by a performance verification equation using partial factors, 7 at level 1, lowest level as shown, in Table 16. ‘When calculating the failure probebility in evaluation by the level 3 relinility-based design method, itis generally necessary to obsain the sinnultaneous probabitity density function based on the limit state function, and to performs multiple integrals on the result. However, conducting of standardization of the simultaneous probability density function, and calculation of high order multiple integrals accompany difficulty, 6o that itis not practical normally. For this reason, techniques such as Monte Cerlo Simulation, MCS, ete, are used in numerical ealeulations of failure probability. ven in such eases, from the viewpoint of reducing the computational load, itis the general practice to apply Variance Reduction Techniques, VT, etc. rather than the primitive crude Moate Carlo simslation. Inthe level 2 reliability-based design method, a reliability index which is relate to the failure probability is used as an evaluation parameter, The reliability index is calculated based on a method such as Frst-Onder Reliability Method, FORM, or the like. On the other hand, inthe level I reliability-based design method, verification is performed by calculating design values, which are the products of the characteristic values and partial factors, and then confirming that the design values of resistance Rq are greater than the design values ofthe effects of actions Sez. Commentaries on the refiabilty-based design method are available in References 3) and) . ‘Table 1.64 Taree Lovels in Rebability-based Design Method Nias SERS | tin ptr cate waves |2OB% Tae pty Level 2 fre Reliability index. vent | 228 Design vee Regardless of the method selected, in order to make an accurate quantitative evaluation of the performance of facilities by the reliabitity-based design method, itis necessary to determine the various indeterminate factors, namely he design parameters which intervene in the performance verification. If this is not achieved, the calculated {ailure probability or reliability index will have no engineering meaning. Furthermore, in order to achiove design rationalization and construction cost reduction by applying the reliability-based design method, itis necessary to strive for improved accuracy in estimations ofthe controlling factors with the greatest effect on the design. This is because, in addition to the average values of the design parameters, ther standard deviations also affect the failure probability Pf of structures. For ths, firstly, itis necessary to designate the controlling factors. For example, evaluation using ty factors is extremely effective asa technique for this. Here, sensitivity factors are indices that express the sensitivity or importance of the various design parameters in the performance ofthe facilities, as described in detail ‘in 1.6.3 Method of Setting Partial Factors, Because reliability indices and sensitivity factors are used in calculation ‘of the partial factors in the level | reliability-based design method, quantitative evaluation of these values has a large ‘engineering significance. 1.6.2 Level 4 Reliablity-based Design Method (Partial Factor Method) ‘The internetional standard SO 2394 “General Principles on Reliability for Structures" and “Basics of Civil Engineering and Architectural Design” (Ministry of Lang, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism) recommend the partial factor method as « standard performance verification method for facilities. Considering conformity to these upper-level standards ad simplicity and convenience in practical desiga work, this document adoprs the level 1 reliility-based design method (partial factor method) as the standard performance verification method. However, this does not restrict the use of the level 2 and level 3 elibility-based design methods for performance verification. Rather, because the pattcl factor method is « simple design method, as described below, adoption of level 2 or evel 3 methods for precise contol of the possibilty of failure is preferable ‘The following summarizes the level | relibilty-based design method as the standard performance verification TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND COMMENTARIES FOR PORT AND HARBOUR FACILITIES IN JAPAN method. ‘The level I rliability-based design method isa method in which characteristic values are multiplied by partial factors in order to calculate design values, and equation (1.6.1) is used to confirm that the design value of resistance Ry is greater than the design value ofthe effect of zetions Sy in order to verify the performance of the facility. Z=R,-5,20 as.) ‘The design values of te efféct of actions Sand resistance Ryare given by equations (1.6.2) and (1.6.3), respectively 54> Sl.524055 0°77) (1.62) (163) aT Tig The design values of the individual design parameters necessary in performance verification such as the wave action, the ground motion, material characteristic, etc, ae caleulated from equations (1.6.4) and (1.6.5). 442%) (1.6.4) WT co where Sig: design value af design perameter sof action effect 7h: patil factor of design parameter g of ation effect sj, :charactristie value of design parameters of action effect 1, = Gesign value of design parameter r of resistance 1% patal factor of design parameter 1 of resistance 1y_ haractritc value of design parameter rof resistance Equations (1.6.6) and (1.6.7) give the design values ofthe simplest action effects and resistance, respectively, when §=J= 1 (eafixes /,/~1 are omitted), Equation (1.6.8) expresses the performance verification equation in that case. Syesgurn (1.6.6) (167) 520 6) 1.6.3 Methods of Setting Partial Factors ‘The above 1.6.2 describes the outline ofthe partial factor method. We describe here the method of setting the partial factors. ‘in the eases where the stochastic variable X’has @ normal distribution, the partial factory, used in the level 1 relabitity-based design method can be calculated from equation (1.6) using the relisbily index and the sensitivity factor deseribed shove yex Q-arbrt it, 69) Br: target rliabitity index coefficient of variation of stochastic variable ‘dy: + average value of stochastic variable X” %q_ : characteristic value of stochastic variable X In the cases where the stochastic variable has a logarithmic normal distribution, the partial factor can bé calculated from equation (1.6.10). -2- PART | GENERAL, CHAPTER 1 GENERAL RULES ox( aril) ts 1610 pata asim “The stochastic variables used in this document have & normal distribution unless otherwise noted 1.6.4. Seiting of Target Safety Level and Target Reliability Index/Partial Factors sue. Methods of In application of relibility-besed design methods, how the target safety level is set is a key setting the target safety level include the following method ®: ® Method based on accident statistics © Method based on the sverage safety level of conventional design criteria aftyfator method, allowable ses method) @ Method based on comparison with other disaster vulverabilities ® Method based on the iavestment effect necessary for avoiding the risk of human loss © Method based on the minimization ofthe lite eycle cost ‘Astudy ofthe applicability of those methods to port and harbour facilites revealed the following: Metiod © based on accident statistics has difficulty inmatching statistics on acidens, which ae often caused by haan eter, sath file probabil, which are caused by varios levels of actions such az waves and earthquakes, wheres Thethod © bored on comparison with oer disaster voerabilities and method © based on the investment effect Tocessry for avoiding te sk of human ess co not heve high applicability to port and harbour fails because they wore proposed for fects witha high possibility oféret human los du to damage to facilities, “Taking these viewpoints ino consideration, this Gocament generally uses method @ based on calibration to conventional design erteria asthe method of sting target safety levels fr cases where the probability distributions Stparametersace nown and verifation methods are compatible with fur mechanisms. However, use of method @ eased on the minimization of life cyle costs not rejected. Wen adopting a method using the ie cycle costes the inde, the cost arising ring the design working li assumed to be 50 years i generally defined as the lifecycle cost, and the possibility of multiple disasters is CeeHlored, Equation (L6H) shows the expected vale ofthe life yee cost. Itshould be noted tha this isa marrow definition of if eye cost, et, Bic =c,+ St (6a) ei R mia 12) Lui (6.12) Ey a vsTPy (613) where ELC: expected value of lif cycle cost C,_ initial construction eost fo Sam number of action interes ‘ign working fe (0 yar) ‘expe number of droge ecerrence cased by ation af aes scoot recovery ater are {soil discount rate Py le prokbilty dvto actions ofitrest Wf Senge ancl osurence ate of ation of terest 1/8) 14 return paid faction of interest a Fig 1.6.1 shows the general concept of this method, Life cycle cost generally shows differnt trends depending ‘on the side of the minisnum value (optimum value). On the right side (dangerous side) of the minimum value the lifecycle cost is sensitive to changes ip failure probability, and rapidly increases as the failure probability increases ‘On the left side (conservative side) of the minimum value, the life cycle east gradvally increases 2s the failure probability decreases. LECHIICAL 3 /ANUAHUS AND COMMENTARIES FOR PORT AND HARBOUR FACILITIES IV JAPAN eal eoretion cot Expected value of ifeeyele cost alle pobbiy Fig. 1.81 Method based on Minimization of Life Cycia Cost In performance verification of mooring facilities for the permanent situation, the probability distributions of Parameters are known and verification methods are compatible with failure mechanisms. Nevertheless, the use of method © is not necessarily appropriate because multiple failure modes exist in each structural type aod there were large differences in the saftty levels for each failure mode due to differences in setting in the conventional design methods.) Furthermore, the safety levels ofthe conventional design methods also varied greatly du tothe autocorrelation of ground strength, which is affected by the sizeof the slip arcas in the ease ofthe circular slip flare mode.) When using method ©, because itis not necessary to consider the action of multiple annual exceedance ‘probabilities in mooring facilites in the permanent situation, the expected total cost expressed by the sum ofthe iat construction eost and the expected value of failure recovery cost is used as an index, and verification is performed by finding the failure probability for minimizing this index 2s the optimum value. In this ease, the ‘expected total cost is given by equation (1.6.14), ETC =C,+P,C, (614) ETC expected total cost “initial construction cost Pr + failure probability due to action of interest Gy cost of recovery after failure ‘The method of setting partial factors used in this document is based on the following concept mn the cases where the probability distributions of parameters are known and verification methods are compatible With failure mechanisms, partial facts are generally determined based om calibration to conventional design ‘methods using the allowable safety factor method and similar approaches, On the other hand, when in performance verification of mooring facilities for the Permanent situation, the probability distributions of parameters are known and the verification methods are compatible with failure mechanisms, but using the partial factors set based on calibration to conventional design methods (allowable safety factor method, allowable stress method, ete) sometimes leads to the setting of excessively safe and uneconomical ross sections. In such cases, this document recomnends the use of partial factors set based on minimization of expected total cost, Jn other cases, where the probability distributions of parameters are unknown or verification approaches are not ‘ecessarily compatible with failure mechanisms, the setting of rarget safety level/partil factors using a probability theory is difficult. Therefore, in ouch cases, tis dacument determines partial factors stochastcely, considering the settings used in conventional design methods (safety factor method, allowable stress method). ‘Table 1.6.2 summarizes the above-mentioned setting methods by type of facility, 24 PART | GENERAL, CHAPTER 1 GENERAL RULES Toble 1.6.2 Mothods of Seting Target Relibilly Indexes/Partial Factors of Major Facilities Facility Design situation Failure mode ‘Method of setting target Variable situation associated with Level 1 earthquake ground motion Embedded length of shest pile Stress of sheet pile | Stress of tie member Stress of anchorage work (bearing capacity) tation relay index/prtal ato | : Method based on | Permanent situation oe ee nization of expected otal cost Gravity type |— eee eee Jah ct ealcvater Sliding of tresiwater body iis eee Deak WES variable situation with respect Qvetuniag of breakwater body | Metbodbared on ecage towaves Seager ctectintiin Ee | icing way JOverttning of wal body Method based on Pesmanent station Bearagcapssty of tsnaon [natin of pede ev ope Extculr sip of foundation ground Breast qnaywal ‘i ae , of wall bods ‘Variable situation associated ees . Method based on setting Overtirning of wall body Sbared onscitng Level carton rund Sct capt ofthe undain {2 cnvetonal ig motion vod onethods Eoxbedded eng of sheet ple aaa Sites ofshet ple Ininimteton expected Stress of tie rods fearaae Pe Permanent situation Cheat slip of foundation ground [total eost Stes ofanchorage work (bearing | Méthodbasodon sting eapecl Sheet piled eee ee NOMS on quaywall ‘Method based on setting i Method based on setting methods ‘used in conventional design used in conventional design [Method based on setting eae n conventional desi Siging Ee ater ee cuter | Peomanent station fev i Skiers | guess oct stat Method bated on aera 90 Brest etey tnelatcovetat ee "Variable situation with respect /Method based on setting ‘olzrel | eathguake ground | Siding Used conventions ain Seton ; methods Method teed on ess file ee yal oie sd |msnuiation sf xpected ‘Variable situation associated | __ Z total cost, ~~ wleton case by pe Mei eed on sting Opensype Bearing eapety of pie ed conventional deen water a fn : vert pis sc on wigs Variable situation associated with respect to Level | Jeerthquake ground motion Stress of pile (edge yield of pile head) Bearing capacity of ple ign methods, Method based on seting methods safety level of conventional a fused in conventional desiga LECTIMICAL 2 /ANLIARLIS ANU CUMMENTARIES FOR PORT AND HARBOUR FACILITIES IN JAPAN References » a » 4 3 o D » Hoshitaoi M. And X. Ishi: reliability Design method of tructures, Kjima Publishing Co, 1986 ‘Naga, U: Structural reliability desig as basic knowledge, Sakaido Publications, 1995 Melchers, RE. : Structural Reliability Analysis and Prediction, John Wiley & Sous, ne, 1999 Haldat, A. and Mahadevan, 8, : Probability, Reiailty and Statistical Methods in Engineering Design, 2nd edition, fohn Wiley & Sons, Inc, 2000 ‘Box, G.E, P and Maller,M.B,: A note onthe generation of normal deviates, Ana, Math, Stat, 29 pp.610-6I1, 1958 Nagao, T.¥, Kedowakt and K. Termochi: Evaluation of Softy of Breakwatrs by the Reliability Based Design Method (lot Report: Study on the Sefty against Sliding), Report of PARI. Vol 34, No 1, 195 Nageo, T, ¥: Kadowoli and K, Terouchi: Overall system stability of a breakwater based on reliability design method (Fest, Report. Discussion on the stbilty apsinst sliding, Proceedings of Structural Eng, Vol. 1A, p.389-400, 2008 Onaki, Rand T. Nagao: Study on Applicaton of clibiity based design method on circular are slip of breakwaters, Proceedings of Ocean Development No. 21, JSCE, pp. 963-968, 2005 ~26~ PART | GENERAL, CHAPTER 1 GENERAL RULES ANNEX 1 Reliability-based Design Method (1) Level 3 Reliabitity-based Design Method In the level 3 reliability-based design method, value of failure probability is assessed directly and cross-sectional

    You might also like