Applied Ocean Research 49 (2015) 72–82

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Ocean Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apor

Dynamic responses of two blocks under dynamic loading using

experimental and numerical studies
H.K. Cihan a,∗ , A. Ergin a , K. Cihan b , I. Guler a
a
Middle East Technical University, Civil Engineering Department, Ocean Engineering Research Center, Turkey
b
Kırıkkale University, Faculty of Engineering, Civil Engineering Department, Turkey

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Block type quay walls are one of the most generally used type of gravity quay walls however seismic risks
Received 13 June 2014 of this kind of structures have not already received the proper amount of attention. In this study, stability
Received in revised form 2 October 2014 of block type quay wall which consists of two concrete blocks is investigated experimentally and numer-
Accepted 26 November 2014
ically. 1 g shaking table tests are used for experimental study. Model scale is 1/10 and model is placed on
Available online 25 December 2014
rigid bed to ignore damage due to foundation deformation. Two different granular materials (Soil 1 and
Soil 2) which have different nominal diameters are used as backfill materials to understand the effect
Keywords:
of nominal diameters on structure’s stability. During the experiments accelerations, pore pressures, soil
Block type quay walls
1 g shaking table tests
pressures and displacements are measured for two blocks under different cycling loadings. Soil pressure
Numerical modeling test results are presented in non-fluctuating and fluctuating components to determine the distribution
Friction coefficient and application point of the fluctuating component on two blocks. By using experiment results, the
friction coefficients between the rubble-block and block-block are determined and compared with rec-
ommended friction coefficients in standards. PLAXIS V8.2 software program is used for numerical study
to determine the material properties.
© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction modes during earthquakes involve seaward displacement, settle-

Block type quay wall is the simplest type of gravity quay wall,
which consists of blocks of concrete or natural stone placed from
the waterside on a foundation including a layer of gravel or crushed
stone on top of each other. After placing, the blocks a reinforced con-
crete cap is placed as cast in situ. Block walls require much building
material however labor necessity is relatively little. The height of
this structure exceeds 20 m. It is important to have a good filter
structure behind the wall to prevent the leakage of soil. This fil-
ter structure should involve thick filling of rock fill material with a
good filter structure (CUR [1]).
Block type quay wall is one of the most important gravity quay
walls which would suffer during earthquakes; however, this truth
is known clearly, seismic risk of this kind of structures have not
studied in depth, yet.
Fig. 1 shows the typical section of block type quay wall.
Blocks maintain their stability through friction between them-
selves and between the bottom block and the seabed. Typical failure
ment, and tilting of blocks.
The evidence of damage to gravity quay walls suggests that
(PIANC [2]):
1. most damage to gravity quay walls is often associated with sig-
nificant deformation of a soft or liquefiable soil deposit, and,
hence, if liquefaction is an issue, implementing appropriate
remediation measures against liquefaction may be an effective
approach to attaining significantly better seismic performance;
2. most failures of gravity quay walls in practice result from exces-
sive deformations, not catastrophic collapses, and, therefore,
design methods based on displacements and ultimate stress
states are desirable for defining the comprehensive seismic per-
formance; and
3. overturning/collapse of concrete block type walls could occur
when tilting is excessive, and this type of wall needs careful
consideration in specifying damage criteria regarding the over-
turning/collapse mode.

The heavy damage was observed on coastal structures such as

refineries, petrochemical plants and ports the Eastern Marmara
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 5326636415. Earthquake occurred on 17 August 1999 with an Mw = 7.4 and
E-mail addresses: hkarakus@yukselproje.com.tr (H.K. Cihan), ergin@metu.edu.tr İzmit Bay and north-west Turkey had been seriously affected from
(A. Ergin), kubilaycihan@gmail.com (K. Cihan), iguler@yukselproje.com.tr (I. Guler). this earthquake. Especially, earthquake was caused crucial damage

0141-1187/$ – see front matter © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2014.11.003
 H.K. Cihan et al. / Applied Ocean Research 49 (2015) 72–82
Fig. 1. Typical section of block type wall.
mostly on block type quay walls at Derince Port in İzmit (Yüksel
et al. [3]).
The design of block type quay walls should be performed
considering stability, serviceability and safety as well as economy.
Conventional seismic design methodology is generally used for
block type quay walls. However, this traditional design method
cannot provide the required design data and also cannot provide
any information about the performance of the structure after
dynamic loading (Karakus [4]).
Sumer et al. [5] prepared an inventory including the observa-
tions of damage to marine structures caused by liquefaction in
August 17, 1999 Eastern Marmara Earthquake. According to this
study, backfills behind quay walls and sheet-piled structures were
almost invariably liquefied; quay walls and sheet-piled structures
were displaced seaward; storage tanks near the shoreline were
tilted; there were cases where the seabed settled, and structures
settled and collapsed. Furthermore, in Tuzla Port, the block type
quay wall was displaced seaward by O (40 cm) and backfill settled
by O (10 cm). There was no direct evidence of liquefaction (i.e., no
sand boils) in this area.
Sadrekarimi et al. [6] investigated both static and dynamic
behavior of hunchbacked gravity quay wall by using the 1 g shaking
table tests for various base accelerations on models with differ-
ent subsoil relative densities. The results revealed that (i) negative
back-slope (elevations below the breaking point of the hunch)
reduces the lateral earth pressure however positive back-slope
(elevations above the breaking point of the hunch) increases the
lateral earth pressure, (ii) relative density of sea bed affected the
movement of the wall significantly, the wall moved more with large
acceleration when the sea bed was softer, (iii) if the model was
exposed to same earthquake again, due to the subsoil densifica-
tion less wall movement was observed, (iv) application point of the
lateral thrust fluctuated within the mid-third of wall’s height (v)
larger the height provided safer area behind the wall.
Sadrekarimi [7] studied seismic displacement of broken-back
quay walls by shaking table model experiments. Sadrekarimi [7]
tried to estimate the sliding displacements of structure by using
an improved sliding block model that incorporates the pseudo-
static method of Mononobe-Okabe for lateral earth pressures.
Chakraborty and Choudhury [8,9] study on the stability of a general
no-vertical waterfront retaining wall supporting inclined backfill
under earthquake forces and combined action of the earthquake
and tsunami forces using limit equilibrium method. The factor of
the sliding was computed using pseudo-dynamic approach.
There are several studies which are conducted by numerical and
model studies in order to understand the stability of gravity quay
73
wall especially for caisson type quay wall under dynamic loading;
Towhata et al. [10], Woodward and Griffiths [11], Ghalandarzadeh
et al. [12], Zeng [13], Madabhushi and Zeng [14], Kim et al. [15,16],
Choudhury and Ahmad [17,18], Lee [19], Moghadam et al. [20],
Maleki and Mahjoubi [21], Na et al. [22], Tiznado and Roa [23],
Torisu et al. [24], Dewoolkar et al. [25].
In this study, a block type quay wall which is composed of
two blocks are used to understand the dynamic response of these
type of structures both experimentally and numerically. By using
1 g shaking test method, block displacements, accelerations, soil
pressures are measured. Additionally, friction coefficients between
block-block and block-rubble are determined and compared with
the values given in literature. Since usage of rock fill material is
suggested behind the wall (CUR [1]), granular materials (Soil 1
and Soil 2) are used as backfill material for the first time in such
type of experiments. And, experimental study is modeled numeri-
cally by using PLAXIS V8.2 software program to define the material
parameters.
2. Experimental set-up
In general, three types of laboratory model studies are available
for evaluating the dynamic response of structures: the real scaled
modeling test, the centrifuge test and 1 g shaking table test.
Real scaled modeling tests investigations are expensive and
require the services of a construction contractor in most of the
cases. Centrifuge tests can be more reliable than the 1 g tests due
to point of reduced stress level which affected the soil behavior
significantly. On the other hand, relatively small model scale is rec-
ommended for the centrifuge tests since it affects the soil grain
size.
In literature, disadvantages of 1 g shaking table tests and solu-
tions suggested are given as;
i. dilatancy of sand and development of excess pore water pres-
sure. This problem can be solved by compacting sand in the model
looser than in the corresponding real-life structure (Torisu et al.
[24]).
ii. It is difficult to simulate the stress–strain behavior of granular
soil over a wide range of strain and different confining stress
levels. According to Towhatam (1995), “the density of sand should
be reduced in the model scale in order to create a similar type
of stress–strain behavior in the lower confining stress level”. “The
value of reduced density is calculated by the formula proposed by
Ghalandarzadeh [12]” (Moghadam et al. [20]).
iii. The boundary effects formed by the physical modeling might
affect the responses of the whole model (Moghadam et al. [20]).
According to Dewoolkar et al. [25], “If the ratio of backfill length to
the wall height is high enough (over 2), then the boundary has no
significant effect on the wall structure response”.
iv. Dissipation of excess pore pressure is faster in the model than
that of prototype when the pore fluid and soil particles in model
and prototype are the same (Yoshimi and Tokimatsu [26]).
According to Ghalandarzadeh [12], “Regarding the fast dissipation
problem, occurring in excess pore pressure, the input shaking is
recommended to be applied in a longer duration time”.
The experimental study is carried out by using 1 g shaking table,
which is available in laboratory as a part of infrastructure. In this
study above given recommendations are considered to overcome
the limitations of this instrument as:
i. granular backfill materials (Soil 1 and Soil 2) are used to reduce
the scale effect and significance of pore pressure generation,
74 H.K. Cihan et al. / Applied Ocean Research 49 (2015) 72–82

Fig. 2. General view of one block experiment set-up.

ii. backfill length to the wall height are taken as high enough (over
2) to reduce the boundary effect.

1 g shaking table tests are carried out at Hydraulics and Coastal

and Harbor Lab., Civil Engineering Faculty at Yıldız Technical Uni-
versity as a part of “Simplified Dynamic Analysis of Block Type Quay
Wall” project sponsored by Scientific and Technological Research
Council of Turkey (TUBITAK).
A series of 1 g shaking table tests are carried out to inves-
tigate the dynamic response of block type quay walls. The one
degree of freedom 1 g shaking table had deck dimensions of
400 cm–100 cm–100 cm with a 4 t load capacity. It is driven by
a 100-kN capacity hydraulic actuator with operator controlling
and PC software. Shaking table is one dimensional in its motion,
thus only longitudinal components of accelerations are obtained
by omitting the transverse and vertical components. As shown in
Fig. 2;
Fig. 3. Raining system and shaking table.
- The blocks are placed on the shaking table between dummies.
Dummies are used to give the side effects from the adjacent blocks
San Pedro, block type quay wall in CUR [1]. This means that nom-
as in the prototype conditions.
inal diameter of the backfill can be taken as 7 cm < Dn50 < 34 cm.
- All the instruments (soil pressure cells, accelerometers, position
In this study the Dn50 of Soil 1 and Soil 2 are selected as 22 cm,
transducers and pore pressure cells) are placed.
10 cm respectively in prototype. Scale factor of model is deter-
- Backfill material is placed behind the blocks. Two different gran-
mined as 1/10 and the general block dimensions are determined
ular backfill materials (Soil 1 and Soil 2) which have different
as 3 m–2 m–2.5 m.
nominal diameters are used as backfill materials
In this study, the law of similitude is developed based on the fac-
- The system is filled with water before starting the experiments
tor considered as most important in the simulation. Iai [27] derived
and the absorbers are used to prevent the end effects due to
a similitude relation with the basic equation governing the equilib-
reflections caused by dynamic loading.
rium and mass balance of the soil skeleton, pore water, pile and
- As it is known that liquefaction is very important subject, in this
sheet pile structures, and external waters such as the sea. The soil
study, it is assumed that soil improvement techniques has to be
density is kept the same for both the prototype and model to sim-
used to improve the existing soil conditions to obtain the satis-
plify scaling parameters in the 1 g model testing. The corresponding
factory conditions for backfill and foundation.
scaling of parameters between the prototype and model used in this
experiment are shown in Table 2.
The raining system is used to prepare the backfill behind the In 1 g shaking table tests, four different types of instruments are
model wall to obtain same relative density for each test. Poros- used; 4 soil pressure cells, 3 accelerometers, 2 pore pressure cells,
ity, initial velocity of soil particles, deposition height and falling 3 position transducers. In Fig. 4, instruments and their placements
height are the major factors affecting the relative density of the are shown.
soil particles prepared by raining method. Falling height is chosen In Fig. 5, maximum acceleration measurements (amax ) for 4 Hz
as 65 cm and is kept constant by lifting the sieve at each stage dur- are presented as an example of acceleration (g) versus time (s) for
ing backfilling (Fig. 3). Relative density of the Soil 1 and Soil 2 are
computed between 60% and 70% respectively. Soil properties are Table 1
given in Table 1. As seen in Table 1, Soil 2 is finer than Soil 1. Soil parameters for backfill and foundation.
Granular materials are used as backfill material to define the
Soil parameters (dry ) (kN/m3 ) () (◦ ) Dn50 (cm)
dynamic response of block type quay walls. In practical, the weight
of the granular material which is used as backfill is given 5–100 kg Soil 1 (backfill) 16 40 2.2
Soil 2 (backfill) 16 40 1.0
for San Antonia Port, block type quay wall, Chile and 1–50 kg for
Foundation 16 40 2.2
Kalamata Port, block type quay wall in PIANC [2] and 3–50 kg for
 H.K. Cihan et al. / Applied Ocean Research 49 (2015) 72–82 75

Fig. 4. Blocks, dummies and equipments.

Table 2 the accelerometers placed at Base (Acc 1), on Block 2 (Acc 2) and
Scaling factors in present model.
on Block 1 (Acc 3). In Tables 3 and 4, maximum Base and Blocks
Items Scaling factors Scaling factors for the present acceleration values and amplification ratios (Block/Base) are shown
in general model (prototype/model) for Soil 1 and Soil 2 with respect to frequencies, respectively as an
Length  10 example (Karakus [28]).
Time 0.5 3.16 During the experiments, it is assumed that (i) at a particular
Acceleration 1 1 instant, both the backfill soil mass and the retaining wall have
Displacement 1.5 31.62
been assumed to shake simultaneously with the same earthquake
Force 3 1000
Density 1 1 intensities (Chakraborty and Choudhury [8,9]), (ii) however it is
Modulus  10 important to consider the pressure due to tsunami wave for design-
ing the waterfront retaining wall (Chakraborty and Choudhury
[8,9]), the wave and current loads on the wall are not taken into

Acc 1 Acc 2 Acc 3

0.26898 g
0.3
0.2
Acc 1 [ g ]

0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3 -0.28055 g
0.6 0.4996 g
0.4
Acc 2 [ g ]

0.2
0.0
-0.2
-0.4 -0.3712 g
0.4 0.35479 g
0.3
0.2
Acc 3 [ g ]

0.1
0.0
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
-0.27263 g
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
s

Fig. 5. Acceleration values of Base (Acc 1), Block 1 (Acc 3) and Block 2 (Acc 2) for 4 Hz.
76 H.K. Cihan et al. / Applied Ocean Research 49 (2015) 72–82

Table 3 - various ground motion sets are used and each ground motion
Maximum accelerations at Base (Acc 1), on Block 1 (Acc 3) and on Block 2 (Acc 2)
results are compared to each other,
for Soil 1 with respect to frequencies.
- soil pressure measurements are checked and compared with the
Frequency (Hz) Base acceleration (g) Ratios previous measurements for two blocks for dry and saturated con-
Block 1/Base Block 2/Base ditions before cyclic loadings.
2 0.07 1 1
3 0.18 1 1 Results of the measurements are compared by repeating the
4 0.28 1.25 1.79 experiments. Total 20 experiments are carried out in laboratory and
5 0.4 1.73 2 8 of them are presented in this manuscript. In case of incompatible
6 0.55 2 2.32
measurements, the experiments are repeated after controlling the
experiment set-up.
Table 4
Maximum accelerations at Base (Acc 1), on Block 1 (Acc 3) and on Block 2 (Acc 2) 3. Results and discussion
for Soil 2 with respect to frequencies.

Frequency (Hz) Base acceleration (g) Ratios 3.1. The excess pore pressure generation

Block 1/Base Block 2/Base

4 0.24
5 0.41
6 0.60
considerations, (iii) water elevation is kept equal on both sides of
the quay wall, and no tidal changes applied, and (iv) all the acting
loads due to mooring, berthing and crane operation and live loads
are not taken into consideration (Karakus [28]).
Systematic and random errors in any experimental study are
the major concerns in achieving the test objectives. It is necessary
to focus on reducing the errors through selection of measurement
methods and equipment. In this study for each experiment,
- the instruments are determined carefully considering the exper-
imental requirements (instrumentation limitations are checked
in the planning of the experiment stage),
- calibrations of the instruments (soil pressure cells, pore pressure
cells, position transducers and accelerometers) are made in the
planning of the experiment stage,
- all the measurements are collected electronically and stored in
computer,
- to reduce the possible vibration affects on acceleration mea-
surements, during the experiments other tests are scheduled at
different times.
The excess pore pressure has significant effects on soil pressure
1.13 1.45 and horizontal displacements on structures under dynamic loading.
1.61 1.70 Kim et al. [16] stated that if the excess pore pressure increases, the
2.98 2.79
backfill soil behaves increasingly like a fluid, thus the mobility of
the soil increases. Zeng [13] emphasized that excess pore pressure
had a significant effect both on the angle of backfill wedge and
horizontal thrust, thus when excess pore pressure developed in the
backfill, comprehensive numerical procedures should be made to
understand the response of gravity quay walls.
On the other hand, experimental, numerical and analytical stud-
ies showed that when permeability increases, the accumulation of
excess pore pressure is reduced. In this study, gravel type backfill
materials (Soil 1 and Soil 2) are used and since gravels are more per-
meable, significant excess pore pressures usually do not generate
for this kind of backfill. The excess pore pressures occurred under
dynamic loading disappears immediately. Pore pressure values at
different location in backfill (Soil 1) for 4 Hz are shown in Fig. 6.
As seen in Fig. 6 as an example (Karakus [28]), pore pressure did
not generate in backfill significantly under cyclic loadings. Similar
observation is obtained for Soil 2 due to high permeability.
3.2. Soil pressure
Four soil pressure cells which are placed to different depths
of block type quay walls are used to determine the soil pres-
sure variation during cyclic loadings. In Fig. 7, a typical total soil

Pore P 1 Pore P 2

30.2 30.0959 10^-3 bar

30.0
29.8
Pore P 1 [ 10^-3 bar ]

29.6
29.4
29.2
29.0
28.8
28.6
28.4
28.2
28.0
27.8
27.6 27.5084 10^-3 bar
27.4
12.4 12.3226 10^-3 bar
12.2
12.0
Pore P 2 [ 10^-3 bar ]

11.8
11.6
11.4
11.2
11.0
10.8
10.6
10.4
10.2
10.0
9.8 9.9401 10^-3 bar
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
s

Fig. 6. Pore pressure values of Pore P1 and Pore P2 located at 28.4 cm and 11.1 cm for 4 Hz.
 H.K. Cihan et al. / Applied Ocean Research 49 (2015) 72–82 77

1.2
1

Pressures (kpa)
Saturated Soil
0.8
0.6
0.4 Total Soil Pressure
0.2
0 Fluctuang Component
-0.2
-0.4 Non-Fluctuang
0 10 20 30 40 Component
Time (s)

Fig. 7. Total soil pressure, non-fluctuating and fluctuating components of total saturated soil pressures for SP2 for 4 Hz for Soil 2.

Table 5 the tilting of the upper block, ˛, is expressed as (Tiznado and Roa
Frequency and the depth where pressure change takes place for Soil 1.
[23]):
Frequency (Hz) Depth (cm)  x − x 
˛ = tan−1
2 1
3 25 (1)
h
4 16
5 25 where h is the concrete block height.
6 17 Measured displacements of blocks experimentally and calcu-
lated tilting values of blocks for Soil 1 and Soil 2 are shown in
Tables 7 and 8 respectively.
pressure measurement for 4 Hz frequency is presented. Soil pres- According to Tables 7 and 8;
sure cells are placed at 5 cm–15 cm below the top of the Block 2 (SP4
and SP3) and 25 cm–35 cm below the top of the Block 2 (SP2 and the horizontal displacement measurements increase for Block 1
SP1). Total soil pressures are separated into a fluctuating compo- and Block 2, while frequency is increasing for Soil 1 and Soil 2,
nent and a non-fluctuating component by using smoothing process the vertical displacement measurements and tilting degree also
(Matlab program is used). Total soil pressure and fluctuating and increase while frequency is increasing for Soil 1 and Soil 2,
non-fluctuating components are shown together in Fig. 7 as an
example (Karakus [28]).
While non-fluctuating component variation with depth is
almost linear, fluctuating component variation changes nonlin-
early. Max. fluctuating components of total soil pressures for Soil 1
increases until a “certain depth” for 3 Hz, 4 Hz, 5 Hz and 6 Hz. After
a certain depth, max. fluctuating components of total soil pressures
decrease. The depth where this change in pressure takes place can
be defined as in Table 5. Application point of the max. fluctuating
components of total soil pressure for Soil 1 is between 0.40 H and
0.63 H 3 Hz, 4 Hz, 5 Hz and 6 Hz (H is the structure height).
Max. fluctuating components of total soil pressures for Soil 2
increase until a “certain depth” for 5 Hz and 6 Hz. After a certain
depth, max. fluctuating components of total soil pressures decrease.
The depth where this change in pressure takes place can be defined
as in Table 6. Application point of the max. fluctuating components
of total saturated soil pressure for Soil 2 is between 0.375 H and
0.65 H for 6 Hz and 5 Hz (H is the structure height).
Maximum fluctuating components variation with depth for Soil
1 for 5 and 6 Hz in Fig. 8a and b and for Soil 2 for 6 Hz in Fig. 8c are
shown as an example (Karakus [28]).

3.3. Displacements and tilting of blocks

Displacement and tilting measurements in the experiments

are defined as described below. Tilting of the block type quay
wall computed on the assumption that almost no settlement will
occur at the firm foundation of the structure (Fig. 9). If the seismic
horizontal movement of the wall is characterized by the horizontal
displacement at the wall base, x2 , and at the wall top, x1 , then

Table 6
Frequency and the depth where pressure change takes place for Soil 1.

Frequency (Hz) Depth (cm)

5 26
6 15
Fig. 8. Maximum fluctuating components variation with depth for Soil 1 and Soil 2.
78 H.K. Cihan et al. / Applied Ocean Research 49 (2015) 72–82

Table 9
Damage level of block(s) for Soil 1 and Soil 2.

Soil type Min. damage Cont. damage

Block (S) Soil 1 (g) Soil 2 Soil 1 Soil 2

Two blocks
Block 1 0.33 0.28 0.44 0.37
Block 2 0.32 0.26 0.43 0.36

the horizontal displacement for Block 2, which is located on Block

1, is greater than the horizontal displacement for Block 1 for Soil
1 and Soil 2,
the horizontal displacement measurements for Soil 2 are greater
than the horizontal and vertical displacement measurements for
Soil 1. However, both backfill material are selected as gravel, Soil
2 is finer than Soil 1.

Levels damage of structure is obtained by d/H from experi-

mental results. d and H define blocks displacement and height
Fig. 9. Displacement and tilting for two blocks.
of block, respectively. Figs. 10 and 11 show the relative displace-
ment/structure height (d/H × 100) and tilting versus PGA (Base) for
Table 7 Soil 1 and Soil 2. When experimental results of level damage of this
Horizontal displacement measurements and tilting values of blocks for each fre-
study is compared with the level damage table given PIANC [2],
quency for Soil 1.
it is seen that minimum and controlled level damage of Soil 2 is
Frequency (Hz) Horizontal disp. Horizontal disp. Tilting (◦ ) critical than Soil 1 in terms of given damage criteria (Table 9). It
block 1 (mm) block 2 (mm)
is observed that Soil 2 slumped down toward the structure more
2 0 0 0 easily. Thus, Soil 2 can push the blocks more strongly. Moreover,
3 0 0.13 0 two blocks are placed without any shear key between blocks and
4 0.68 1.56 0.2
Soil 2 can replace the space between the blocks and can increase
5 8.6 14.34 1.32
6 13.07 51.56 – the slipping condition between the blocks.
The friction coefficient is one of the key parameter for analyzing
of the seismic design of block type quay walls. The stabilities of the
Table 8 block type quay walls are provided by the friction between blocks
Horizontal displacement measurements and tilting values of blocks for each fre- and friction at the bottom of the structure.
quency in tests which Soil 2 was used as backfill material.
Static friction coefficients are calculated by evaluating the 1 g
Frequency (Hz) Horizontal disp. Horizontal disp. Tilting (◦ ) shaking table tests results and tilting tests. The accelerations,
block 1 (mm) block 2 (mm) displacements and soil pressure measurements obtained exper-
4 1.64 3.36 0.39 imentally for Soil 1 and hydrodynamic pressure obtained by
5 13.32 27.94 3.35 Westergaard [29] are used to compute the forces acting on the
6 23.32 141.21 – structure then by using Coulomb Law the static friction coefficient
is calculated.
Coulomb Law governed by Eq. (2):
for 2 Hz, there is no motion for Block 1 and Block 2 for Soil 1,
Ff ≤ Fn (2)
for 3 Hz, there is no motion for Block 1. Block 2, starts to slide for
Soil 1, where, Ff is the force exerted by friction,  is the friction coefficient,
for 5 Hz, sudden increment occurs for horizontal and vertical dis- Fn is the normal force.
placement measurements and tilting degree, The direction of the hydrodynamic pressure is determined
it is not possible to evaluate tilting degree for 6 Hz due to the big considering the worst possible condition with respect to stability of
horizontal displacement measurements. Thus, tilting degree are the wall in sliding mode of failure Chakraborty and Choudhury [8,9].
given for 4 Hz and 5 Hz, As it is seen from Table 10 the calculated static friction coefficients

Blo
ock 2 Block 2
PGA (BASE) PGA (BASE )
ock 1
Blo Block 1
0 0.07 0.14 0.28 0.4 0.555 0 0.24 0.41 0.6
0 0
10 10
d/H*100
d/H*100

20 20

30 30

40 40
So il 1 Soil 2
50 50

Fig. 10. Relative displacement/structure height (d/H × 100) versus PGA (Base) for Soil 1 and Soil 2.
 H.K. Cihan et al. / Applied Ocean Research 49 (2015) 72–82 79

Block 2 PGA (BASE) Block 2 PGA (BASE)

0 0.28 0.4 0 0.24 0.41
0 0
1 1

Rotaon
Rotaon
2 2
3 3
Soil 1 Soil 2
4 4

Fig. 11. Tilting versus PGA (Base) for Soil 1 and Soil 2.

Table 10 in this study, hardening soil model (HS) is used for modeling the
Comparisons of static friction coefficients with the standards.
dynamic behavior of the granular backfill material. The input
Surface Tilting 1 g shaking Turkish regulations OCDI parameters of (HS) are (i) internal friction angle (), (ii) cohesion
tests table tests (2008) (2009) intercept (c), (iii) soil stiffness, and (iv) dilatancy angle ( ). Soil
ref
Block-rubble 0.55 0.57 0.60 0.60 stiffness is defined by the (E50 ), which characterizes the shear
Block-block 0.47 0.47 0.50 0.50 ref
behavior of the soil; (Eoed ), which mainly controls volumetric
ref
behavior; and (Eur ), is the unloading–reloading modulus.
Additionally, simulating friction between block-block, and to
are close to recommended values given in Seismic Specification for
achieve relative displacement between two blocks, a very thin soil
Coast and Harbor Structures, Railway, Airport Constructions [30]
layer is defined as interface. The properties of interface and all other
and OCDI [31].
material properties are summarized in Table 11.
In numerical analysis, an acceleration time history obtained
3.4. Stress–strain analysis from experimental tests for 5 Hz is used as an input motion (Fig. 12).
Numerical distortion of the propagating wave can occur in a
Stress–strain analyses are performed by using PLAXIS V8.2 soft- dynamic analysis as a function of the modeling conditions. Both
ware program. Fifteen node, triangular, 2D plane strain elements the frequency content of the input wave and the wave-speed char-
are used in the Finite element (FE) model. In numerical model runs acteristics of the system will affect the numerical accuracy of wave
are carried out for 10 s duration in accordance with the model char- transmission. Kuhlemeyer and Lysmer [32] showed that for accu-
acteristics and limitations. Thus, comparisons of the displacements rate representation of wave transmission through a model, the
and soil pressure results between numerical and experimental spatial element size, l, must be smaller than approximately one
studies are made for test duration 10 s which corresponding to tenth to one-eighth of the wavelength associated with the highest
almost 30 s duration in prototype. When the experimental results frequency component of the input wave, i.e., Arabloueri et al. [33].
are examined, it is seen that within 10 s the representative hor-
izontal displacement values are reached close to total horizontal min,soil
(l)soil ≤ (3)
displacement values occurred in 30 s thus, duration of numerical 10
model as 10 s is found to be accurate enough to obtain the horizon-  is the wavelength corresponding to the maximum frequency f of
tal displacement. interest. Additionally, to calculate shear velocity of backfill mate-
In order to simulate the behavior of the soil, a suitable soil model rial, following expression is used:
and appropriate design material (soil and concrete) parameters are ref
assigned as input parameters in model. Soil is the most complicated ref Eur
Gur = (4)
material. There are different types of material models which can be 2(1 + vur )
applied for the solution of geotechnical problems for analytical and Gmax
numerical analysis. Geoengineering studies can be divided into two =3 (5)
Gur
groups; (a) limit state analysis which is used for slope, wall stability,
etc., (b) deformation analysis which is used for retaining deflection, Shear wave velocity at pref :
displacements, etc. 
Gmax
The “Hardening Soil Model” is an advanced nonlinear soil model Vs = (6)
and it is recommended for deformation analysis. For this reason, 

Table 11
Material properties used in FE analysis.

Symbol Parameters Units Material type

Backfill Seabed Interface

3
 unsat Unsaturated unit weight kN/m 16 20 16
 sat Saturated unit weight kN/m3 19 22 19
ref
E50 Reference secant Young’s modulus kN/m2 10,000 150,000 60,000
ref
Eoed Reference constraint modulus kN/m2 10,000 148,910 60,000
ref
Eur Reference unloading–reloading modulus kN/m2 30,000 450,000 180,000
◦
 Shear strength angle 40 45 40
◦
Dilatancy angle 10 15 0
ur Poisson rate – 0.3 0.3 0.3
pref Reference stress kN/m2 100 100 100
m Power for stress level dependency – 0.5 0.5 0.5
80 H.K. Cihan et al. / Applied Ocean Research 49 (2015) 72–82

ax [m/s2]
4

-2

-4
0 2 4 6 8 10
Dynamic time [s]

Fig. 12. Input motion used in FE model.

In numerical analysis, Eur of backfill material is chosen as
30,000 kPa and validated by comparing experimental and numer-
ical results. The wave propagation velocity of backfill material is
calculated as 147 m/s. In this case /10 = VS /10 f = 2.94 m, being
VS = 147 m/s and f = 5 Hz. In the analyses of this present work an
average element size is used as 0.12 m.
Damping in a soil layer has a significant influence on its
response. Though there are a lot of researches about defining of
damping parameters, a commonly accepted procedure is not devel-
oped. PLAXIS V8.2, damping parameters are defined by the Rayleigh
damping method. The Rayleigh damping coefficients ˛ and ˇ can
be determined from at least two given damping ratios i that corre-
spond to two frequencies of vibration, ωi . The relationship between
˛, ˇ, ωi and i can be presented as (PLAXIS Manual [34]).
˛ + ˇωi2 = 2ωi i (7)
In this study, to determine damping parameters, acceleration
value at surface of the backfill is recorded. Amplification ratio
between backfill surface and bottom of the tank is used to deter-
mine the first natural frequencies of backfill by using FFT analysis.
The first natural frequency of backfill material is determined as
5.56 Hz. Second natural frequencies of soil layers are taken 10 Hz
based on assumption that soil response is important up to 10 Hz.
Some authors such as Matasovic [35] and Lanzo and Vucetic [36]
recommend the use of a constant viscous damping ratio of 1.5–4%.
In the present research a value of 3% is used. The calculated ˛ and
ˇ values for backfill material are 1.25 and 0.0006, respectively.
Figs. 13–15 show deformed mesh, total displacements and ver-
tical displacements respectively. It is seen that the significant
displacements are occurred behind the blocks and this result is
similar to the results of site investigations. Additionally, maximum
vertical displacement occured behind the wall is 1.3 cm. In Fig. 16,
initial and final backfill surface profiles are shown. This shows that
numerical calculation results are compitable with experimental
results.
Soil pressure results obtained by using the 1 g shaking table tests
results and soil pressure results obtained by using the PLAXIS V8.2
computer program are given in Fig. 17a–d.
Even in the case of maximum deviation of average soil pressures
between experimental and numerical studies for two blocks for
5 Hz are 9% for SP1, 4.8% for SP2, 17% for SP3 and 4.3% for SP4 for
two blocks (Table 12).

Fig. 13. Deformed mesh (scaled up 5 times).

Fig. 14. Contours of total displacement for two blocks for Soil 1.
 H.K. Cihan et al. / Applied Ocean Research 49 (2015) 72–82 81

Fig. 15. Contours of vertical displacement for two blocks for Soil 1 (maximum vertical displacement behind the wall is 1.3 cm).

SP1

Total Saturated Soil

Pressure (kpa)
8
6
4
2 1G

0 PLAXIS
0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s)

a)

SP2
Total Saturated Soil
Pressure (kpa) 8
6
Fig. 16. Backfill surface profile before and after test.
4
1G
2
Table 12 PLAXIS
Maximum deviation of average soil pressures between experimental and numerical 0
0 2 4 6 8 10
studies for two blocks for 5 Hz.
Time (s)
Average soil pressures (kPa)
b)
SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4

PLAXIS 8.2 5.35 4.30 2.37 0.96 SP3

Total Saturated Soil

1 g shaking table tests 4.89 4.10 2.02 0.92 4

Pressure (kpa)

Max. deviation (%) 9 4.8 17 4.3 3

2
1G
1
Displacements obtained experimentally and numerically at the PLAXIS
0
end of 10 s are shown in Table 13. 0 2 4 6 8 10
There are some differences between experimental results and Time (s)
numerical results which can be attributed to:
c)
i. the complexity of the system. Four basic elements, namely: rigid SP4
Total Saturated Soil

blocks, backfill, water, subsoil, are the main parameters forming

Pressure (kpa)

2
a system for block type quays. When such a system is subjected
1.5
to dynamic loading, extremely complex problem is formed due
1
to complicated couplings between these elements and it is too 1G
0.5
difficult to model this complexity in numerically, PLAXIS
0
ii. PLAXIS V8.2 neglects the hydrodynamic force. 0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s)
Although, there is no perfect similarity between obtained
d)
instantaneous soil pressures and displacements at the end of 10 s, it
can be assumed that average total soil pressures and displacements Fig. 17. Comparisons of soil pressure cells (SP1, SP2, SP3, SP4) measurements for
obtained from experimental and numerical studies are compatible. two blocks.

Table 13
Comparisons of displacements results for 5 Hz. 4. Conclusion
Horizontal displacement
results (mm) 1 g model tests have been performed for two blocks structure. To
ignore effect of seabed settlement on total damage, model is placed
Block 1 Block 2
on rigid bed. Two types of granular soils which have different nom-
PLAXIS 8.2 8.0 13 inal diameters are used as backfill materials and their effects on
1 g shaking table tests 6.3 11
structure stability are investigated. Additionally, numerical analy-
Max. deviation (%) 27 18
sis is performed to determine soil parameters.
82 H.K. Cihan et al. / Applied Ocean Research 49 (2015) 72–82
Based on the experimental and numerical results, some conclu-
sions are reached as follows:
a. Finer backfill (Soil 2, Dn50 = 2.2 cm, scale is 1/10) material causes
more damage than coarser material (Soil 1, Dn50 = 1 cm, scale is
1/10). Soil 2 slumped down toward the structure more easily
and the space between the blocks and backfill occurring due to
the sliding of the blocks during dynamic loading can be filled by
Soil 2. Thus, Soil 2 can push the blocks more strongly. The choice
of the backfill material in case of smaller peak ground accelera-
tion (<0.4 g Hz) depends of the cost optimization of the material
however in case of regions where the seismic loading is critical
then the choice of the coarser backfill material is recommended.
b. Variation of fluctuating component of total earth pressure along
soil depth for Soil 1 and Soil 2 is not linear. Application point
of the fluctuating components of total saturated soil pressure
is obtained between 0.40 H and 0.63 H for Soil 1 (coarser) and
0.375 H and 0.65 H (H is the structure height) for Soil 2 (finer).
This result has a practical importance in the seismic design of
block type quay wall.
c. Friction coefficients between block-block and block-gravel are
determined as 0.47 and 0.56 from tilting test and 1 g shaking
test, respectively. These values are compatible with “Technical
Seismic Specifications on Construction of Coastal and Harbor
Structures, Railways and Airports” [30] and “OCDI” [31].
d. Physical model is modeled by using PLAXIS V8.2 software pro-
gram. Numerical results are close to experimental results. Design
parameters obtained in this study will be helpful for the coastal
engineers in the performance based design of block type quay
wall under dynamic loads.
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Yalçın Yüksel for supporting my
experimental studies carried out at Hydraulics and Coastal and Har-
bor Lab., Civil Engineering Faculty at Yıldız Technical University.
I would like to thank to Scientific and Technological Research
Council of Turkey (TUBITAK) sponsored the “Simplified Dynamic
Analysis of Block Type Quay Wall” project (Project Number:
111Y006) which form the basis of my thesis.
References
[1] Center for Civil Engineering research and Codes (CUR). Quay wall handbook.
The Netherlands: CUR; 2005, 717 p., ISBN 0 415 364396.
[2] PIANC. Seismic design guidelines for port structures. Rotterdam: Balkema;
2001.
[3] Yüksel Y, Alpar B, Yalçıner AC, Çevik E, Özgüven O, Çelikoğlu Y. Effects of the
Eastern Marmara Earthquake on marine structures and coastal areas. Proc Inst
Civil Eng: Water Marit Eng 2002;156(WM2):147–51.
[4] Karakus H (M.Sc. thesis) New seismic design approaches to block type quay
walls. Ankara: METU; 2007.
[5] Sumer BM, Kaya A, Hansen NEO. Impact of liquefaction on coastal structures
in the 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey Earthquake. In: Proceedings of the twelfth interna-
tional offshore and polar engineering conference. 2002. ISBN 1-880653-58-3
(Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set).
[6] Sadrekarimi A, Ghalandarzadeh A, Sadrekarimi J. Static and dynamic behav-
ior of hunchbacked gravity quay walls. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2008;28:
99–117.
[7] Sadrekarimi A. Seismic displacement of broken-back gravity quay walls. J
Waterw Port Coast Ocean Eng 2011;137:75–84. © ASCE/March/April.
[8] Chakraborty D, Choudhury D. Stability of non-vertical waterfront retaining
wall supporting inclined backfill under earthquake and tsunami. Ocean Eng
2014;78:1–10.
[9] Chakraborty D, Choudhury D. Stability of non-vertical waterfront retaining wall
supporting inclined backfill subjected to pseudo-dynamic earthquake forces.
Appl Ocean Res 2014;47:174–82.
[10] Towhata I, Ghalandarzadeh A, Sundarraj KP, Vargas-Monge W. Dynamic fail-
ures of subsoils observed in waterfront areas. Soils Found 1996;1:149–60.
[11] Woodward PK, Griffiths DV. Comparison of the pseudo-static and dynamic
behavior of gravity retaining walls. J Geotech Geol Eng 1996;14:269–90.
[12] Ghalandarzadeh A, Orita T, Towhata I, Yun F. Shaking table tests on seismic
deformation of gravity quay walls. Soils Found 1998;38(2):115–32 (Special
Issue on Geotechnical Aspects of the January 17, 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earth-
quake).
[13] Zeng X. Seismic response of gravity quay walls—I: centrifuge modeling. J
Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1998;124(5):406–17.
[14] Madabhushi SPG, Zeng X. Seismic response of gravity quay walls—II: numerical
modeling. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 1998;124(5):418–27.
[15] Kim SR, Kwon OS, Kim MM. Evaluation of force components acting on gravity
type quay walls during earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2004;24:853–66.
[16] Kim SR, Jang IS, Chung CK, Kim MM. Evaluation of seismic displacements of
quay walls. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2005;25:451–9.
[17] Choudhury D, Ahmad SM. Design of waterfront retaining wall for the passive
case under earthquake and tsunami. Appl Ocean Res 2007;29:37–44.
[18] Choudhury D, Ahmad SM. External stability of waterfront reinforced soil struc-
tures under seismic conditions using a pseudo-static approach. Geosynth Int
2009;16(1):1–10.
[19] Lee CJ. Centrifuge modeling of the behavior of caisson-type quay walls during
earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2005;25:117–31.
[20] Moghadam AM, Ghalandarzadeh A, Towhata I, Moradi M, Ebrahimian B, Hajia-
likhani P. Studying the effects of deformable panels on seismic displacement
of gravity quay walls. Ocean Eng 2009;36:1129–48.
[21] Maleki S, Mahjoubi S. A new approach for estimating the seismic soil pressure
on retaining walls. Sci Iran 2010;17(4):273, 284, Sharif University of Technol-
ogy.
[22] Na UJ, Chaudhuri SR, Shinozuka M. Probabilistic assessment for seismic perfor-
mance of port structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2008;28:147–58.
[23] Tiznado F, Roa R. Seismic lateral movement prediction for gravity retaining
walls on granular soils. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2011;31:391–400.
[24] Torisu SS, Sato J, Towhata I, Honda T. 1-g model tests and hollow cylindri-
cal torsional shear experiments on seismic residual displacements of fill dams
from the view point of seismic performance-based design. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
2010;30:423–37.
[25] Dewoolkar MM, Ko HY, Pak RYS. Experimental developments for studying static
and seismic behavior of retaining walls with liquefiable backfills. Soil Dyn
Earthq Eng 2000;19:583–93.
[26] Yoshimi Y, Tokimatsu K. Settlement of buildings on saturated sand during
earthquake. Soils Found 1977;17(1):23–38.
[27] Iai S. Similitude for shaking table tests on soil–structure–fluid in 1g gravita-
tional; 1989.
[28] Karakus H (Ph.D. thesis) Experimental and numerical studies on block type
quay walls under dynamic loading. Ankara: METU; 2013.
[29] Westergaard HM. Water pressures on dams, during earthquake, transactions.
Am Soc Civil Eng 1933;92.
[30] Seismic specification for coast and harbour structures, railway, airport con-
structions. Ankara, Turkey: Ministry of Transportation, Government of Republic
of Turkey; 2008.
[31] The Overseas Coastal Area Development Institute of Japan (OCDI). Technical
standards and commentaries for port and harbor facilities in Japan [Goda Y,
Tabata T, Yamamoto S, Trans.]. Daikousha Printing Co., Ltd.; 2002.
[32] Kuhlemeyer RL, Lysmer J. Finite element method accuracy for wave propaga-
tion problems. J Soil Mech Found Div 1973;99(SM5):421–7.
[33] Arablouei A, Gharabaghi ARM, Ghalandarzadeh A, Abedi K, Ishibashi I. Effects
of seawater–structure–soil interaction on seismic performance of caisson-type
quay wall. Comput Struct 2011;89:2439–59.
[34] PLAXIS V8.2 Manual.
[35] Matasovic N (Ph.D. thesis) Seismic response of composite horizontally-layered
soil deposits. Los Angeles: University of California; 1993.
[36] Lanzo G, Vucetic M. Effect of soil plasticity on damping ratio at small cyclic
strains. Soils Found 1999;39(4):121–41.