See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/295677986

Fragility Curves Evaluation for Broken-Back Block Quay Walls

Article in Journal of Earthquake Engineering · January 2017

DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2016.1142487

CITATIONS READS

16 3,206

2 authors:

Hamid Alielahi Masoud Rabeti Moghadam

74 PUBLICATIONS 539 CITATIONS

Yasouj University
12 PUBLICATIONS 252 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Hamid Alielahi on 17 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Earthquake Engineering

ISSN: 1363-2469 (Print) 1559-808X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueqe20

Fragility Curves Evaluation for Broken-Back Block

Quay Walls

Hamid Alielahi & Masoud Rabeti Moghadam

To cite this article: Hamid Alielahi & Masoud Rabeti Moghadam (2017) Fragility Curves
Evaluation for Broken-Back Block Quay Walls, Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 21:1, 1-22,
DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2016.1142487

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632469.2016.1142487

Accepted author version posted online: 22

Feb 2016.
Published online: 22 Feb 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 60

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ueqe20

Download by: [86.55.124.78] Date: 17 January 2017, At: 11:15

Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 21:1–22, 2017
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1363-2469 print / 1559-808X online
DOI: 10.1080/13632469.2016.1142487

Fragility Curves Evaluation for Broken-Back Block

Quay Walls

HAMID ALIELAHI1 and MASOUD RABETI MOGHADAM2

1
Department of Civil Engineering, Zanjan Branch, Islamic Azad University,
Zanjan, Iran
2
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Yasouj University,
Yasouj, Iran

Fragility curves are recently adopted and implemented in some geotechnical structures, mainly for
waterfront structures to evaluate the seismic vulnerability of them. However, the vulnerability of
broken-back block quay walls, as an efficient waterfront system in the areas with high seismicity, has
not been evaluated. Therefore, in this study, a numerical model was developed and validated against
shaking table tests results. Subsequently, fragility curves were produced for two broken-back block
quay walls. Comparison of damage probability for two types of walls demonstrates the better seismic
performance of the quay wall with larger hunch, especially for the high level of seismicity.

Keywords Broken-Back; Block Quay Wall; Fragility Curve; Seismic Vulnerability; Numerical
Simulation

1. Introduction
Ports are nowadays multipurpose lifeline facilities that contain a wide variety of facili-
ties for passenger operations and transport, cargo handling, and storage. Quay walls are
one of the key elements of port and harbor facilities. However, they have undergone large
displacements during seismic events which results in disastrous damage and economic con-
sequences. Therefore, seismic performance of waterfront quay walls has become a concern
to the waterborne transportation industry. Gravity wharves have been in use for many cen-
turies because of their durability and ease of construction. The block type quay walls are
likely the most ancient gravity retaining structures [Pasquali et al., 2010]. Block type wall
is the simplest type of gravity quay wall, which consists of blocks of concrete constructed
on a layer of gravel or crushed stone [Gijt and Broeken, 2014]. Blocks maintain their stabil-
ity through shear keys implemented between themselves and friction between the bottom
block and the seabed. The design of block type quay walls should be done considering sta-
bility, serviceability, and safety, as well as economy. For a port in an area of high seismicity,
a special configuration of block quay walls can be used, called as broken-back or hunch-
back block quay walls. In a broken-back wall, increasing lateral earth pressures at deeper
elevations of the wall are reduced by the landward-leaning rear face of the wall. While
at shallower elevations, where lateral earth pressures are smaller, the cost and weight of
the wall are reduced by using a seaward leaning rear face. The stability of a broken-back
retaining wall in comparison to that of a vertical-back wall is also improved as the center

Received 28 August 2015; accepted 10 January 2016.

Address correspondence to Hamid Alielahi, Department of Civil Engineering, Zanjan Branch, Islamic Azad
University, Zanjan, 45156-58145, Iran. E-mail: h.alielahi@iauz.ac.ir

1
2 H. Alielahi and M. R. Moghadam

of gravity of the wall is drawn landward [Sadrekarimi, 2011]. However, during previous
earthquakes, block-type gravity quay walls have suffered from significant damage as a
result of their seaward movement and this has led to subsequent damage to the structures
built on their apron. The heavy damage was observed on coastal structures such as refiner-
ies, petrochemical plants and ports during the Kocaeli earthquake (1999) with Mw = 7.4.
The earthquake caused crucial damage mostly on block type quay walls at Derince Port in
Izmit [Karakus, 2007]. Most failures of waterfront structures are associated with outward
sliding, deformation and tilting of quay walls, and settlements at their aprons. Moreover,
the block-type quay walls are also vulnerable to earthquake-induced sliding between lay-
ers of the blocks. This damage has often been accompanied by extensive settlement and
cracking of paved aprons.
Experience obtained from past strong seismic events has demonstrated the dramatic
seismic vulnerability of port structures, high economic losses, and societal impact due to
earthquake damages [Werner et al., 1999]. Therefore, evaluation of the damage probabil-
ities during the seismic events for these vital structures continues to be a concern to the
waterborne transportation industry. A few efforts were made in determining the seismic
vulnerabilities of wharf structures. The use of fragility curves has been deemed an effective
tool for evaluating the seismic vulnerability of a structural member or system. Fragility
curves express the conditional probability of exceeding a certain damage state for a given
ground motion intensity. It is also a useful tool in current performance-based earthquake
engineering to link economic losses to the damage of structures or systems. This approach
is recently adopted and implemented in some geotechnical structures such as express way
embankments [Lagaros et al., 1999; Maruyama et al., 2010; Argyroudis and Kaynia, 2015],
tunnels [Argyroudis and Pitilakis, 2012], retaining walls [Argyroudis et al., 2013], and
waterfront structures [Kakderi and Pitilakis, 2010] such as pile-supported wharves [Chiou
et al., 2011; Yang et al., 2012; Amirabadi et al., 2014, Heidary-Torkamani et al., 2014],
and blockwork wharves [Calabrese and Lai, 2013].
Among the waterfront structures, development of the fragility curves for the pile-
supported wharves has been taken into account by most researchers. Chiou et al. [2011]
proposed a procedure for developing seismic fragility curves for a pile-supported wharf
by establishing the damage states with quantitative criteria. Yang et al. [2012] used a set
of appropriate experimentally based limit states, to develop seismic fragility curves for
vertical-pile-supported wharves common in the western United States. A methodology has
been proposed by Thomopoulos and Lai [2012] to analytically define fragility curves for
pile-supported wharves. More recently, Heidary-Torkamani et al. [2014] developed the
seismic fragility curves for an idealized pile-supported wharf with batter piles through a
practical framework. The seismic performance of the wharf structure was simulated using
FLAC 2D by performing nonlinear time history analyses. Damage states were defined
according to the International Association of Navigation (PIANC) to develop the fragility
curves. Regarding the block quay walls, as the only research, Calabrese and Lai [2013]
derived fragility functions for normal seaward-leaning block-work wharf using artificial
neural networks. The proposed fragility functions take into account different geometries,
liquefaction occurrence, and type of failure mechanism.
For seaports in the areas with high seismicity, broken-back block quay walls are an effi-
cient choice as a waterfront system, demonstrated by the previous researchers. However,
up until now, the vulnerability of this type of quay walls has not been evaluated during
seismic events. Therefore, the current study aims to assess the seismic vulnerability of the
broken-back quay walls. To this end, Pars petrochemical port, located in an area with high
seismicity at the southern Iran was selected as the case study. Two types of the block quay
walls, named Type A and Type B, were designed as the main berthing system for this port.
 Fragility Curves Evaluation for Block Quay Walls 3

Using the numerical simulations by FLAC software, validated against shaking table tests
results, the seismic response of the walls was obtained under earthquake motions with dif-
ferent intensities. Then, fragility curves were developed to assess the seismic vulnerability
of the broken-back block quay walls.

2. Block Quay Walls in Pars Petrochemical Port

Pars petrochemical port was constructed in Pars Special Economic Energy Zone Area
(Asalouyeh) for exploitation of petroleum and gas resources and exportation of the
petrochemical products. Asalouyeh is located in southern Iran on the Persian Gulf. It is
300 km east of the city of Bushehr on the coast of Iran. An aerial view of the port is
illustrated in Fig. 1.
The main characteristics of this port includes: (1) construction of two rubble-mound
breakwaters which have length of 3700 m and depth of 30 m; (2) construction of quay walls
in maximum depth of 14 m by blocks weigh up to 130 ton; (3) construction of a pile and
deck berth in depth of 28 m; (4) reclamation over the area of 13 hectares; and (5) dredging
more than 1,000,000 m3 . Fifteen posts were constructed for berthing of the ships to loading
the petrochemical products, illustrated in Fig. 2. Concrete block quay wall was used as the
main berthing system because of durability and ease of construction in this port.
Waterfront structures in block construction can be built successfully only if load bear-
ing soil is present below the base of the foundation [EAU, 2004]. Precast concrete blocks
were manufactured in the offshore and transported and placed in horizontal rows starting
with the first row of base blocks and gradually building towards the top in a stepped manner
as normally carried out with a masonry wall. The connection between the blocks is provided
with tongue-groove interlocks. A 1.0 m thick rubble and hard ballast layer is placed

FIGURE 1 An aerial view of the Pars petrochemical port.

4 H. Alielahi and M. R. Moghadam

FIGURE 2 Berthing posts of the Pars petrochemical port.

between the foundation subsoil and the block wall [EAU, 2004]. In Pars petrochemical
port project, subsurface investigations explored that the seabed is consisted of a dense to
very dense gravelly layer. On the other hand, susceptibility of this area to the seismic events
is very high based on the local seismic hazard studies. The high seismicity of the area, as
well as the convenient geotechnical condition of the seabed, dictated the block type quay
wall as the main berthing system for this port. Figure 3 depicts the construction process of
the block quay wall in the Pars petrochemical port.
Since the serviceability of the Pars petrochemical port was mainly controlled by the
stability of the berthing systems, especially in the dynamic manner, an extensive experi-
mental research was performed to investigate the seismic behavior of the block quay walls
during earthquakes by 1g shaking table tests. The main findings of the research have been
reflected in Sadrekarimi et al. [2008] and Sadrekarimi [2010, 2011, 2013]. Dynamic perfor-
mance of two block quay walls with different geometries was studied by the experiments.
Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the schematic section of the two block quay walls modeled in
the shaking table tests in prototype scale. Quay wall Type A had a larger hunch than the
wall Type B. Locations of the sensors, used to record the seismic response of the quay wall
and its backfill, are presented. Three accelerometer sensors (ACC1: as input, ACC2: on
the wall and ACC3: within the backfill) with two LVDT sensors were used. The prototype
block quay walls were scaled down by factor of 25 in the model tests.
In this article, in order to develop the fragility curves for the concrete-block quay walls,
the results of these tests were used to calibrate a numerical model using FLAC 2D. The
verified numerical model was used to assess the seismic vulnerability of two broken-back
quay walls and develop the fragility curves for them.

3. Numerical Simulation

3.1. Specification of the Numerical Modeling

The dynamic analyses were conducted as the 2D plane strain elasto-plastic analyses using
the finite difference code FLAC (Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua) [Itasca, 2014].
 Fragility Curves Evaluation for Block Quay Walls 5

FIGURE 3 Construction process of the block quay wall in the Pars petrochemical port.

In the numerical model, shaking table tests were simulated in prototype scale. The conven-
tional elastic-perfectly plastic Mohr-Coulomb constitutive model has been used to model
soil material in the dynamic analyses. Concrete blocks were modeled by linear elastic mate-
rial. Connections between them were considered to be solid since the shear keys provide
a monolithic block wall system. However, an interface element was considered between
the wall and its backfill and foundation allowing for slippage and gapping via a Coulomb
frictional law. Table 1 contains properties of the material used during dynamic analyses in
prototype scale to verify the numerical models.
Element size was defined small enough to allow seismic wave propagation throughout
the analysis. The finite difference mesh of the model, portrayed in Figs. 6 and 7, involves a
grid spacing of 0.5 m × 0.5 m.
During the static analysis, the bottom boundary was fixed in both horizontal and ver-
tical directions and the lateral boundaries were just fixed in the horizontal direction. The
6 H. Alielahi and M. R. Moghadam

FIGURE 4 Cross section of the block quay wall Type A, in prototype scale, modeled in
shaking table tests [Sadrekarimi, 2013].

FIGURE 5 Cross section of the block quay wall Type B, in prototype scale, modeled in
shaking table tests [Sadrekarimi, 2013].

waterfront was simulated through hydrostatic pressures applied to the front side of the wall.
The free-field boundaries, a built-in absorbing boundary condition in FLAC for dynamic
analysis, were applied to the lateral boundaries in the dynamic analysis of the model. The
bottom boundary of the numerical model was assumed as rigid base and an acceleration
time history was applied to the base of the numerical models. The 5% of Rayleigh damping
was considered in the analyses.

3.2. Validation of the Numerical Model

The described model developed in the previous section was used to predict the results of
the shaking table tests. Comparison between the results of the numerical simulations and
shaking table tests was performed for input motions recorded by ACC1 accelerometers in
the tests, depicted in Fig. 8. These acceleration time histories were applied at the base of
the numerical model during the dynamic analyses.
The numerical model results are compared with the shaking table tests records in
Figs. 9 and 10 for the two walls models. As it is observed, the results of numerical model
 TABLE 1 Specification of the materials of the quay wall models in prototype scale
Elastic Parameters Plastic Parameters
Saturated Module of
Unit weight elasticity E Friction angle Cohesion c
Item Material type Behavior γ sat (kN/m3 ) (MPa) Poisson ratio ν (ϕ ◦ ) (kPa)
Backfill Crushed limestone Elasto-plastic 20 25 0.3 24 0
Seabed Silica sand Elasto-plastic 18 400 0.3 40 0
wall toe Quarry stone Elasto-plastic 20 100 0.3 40 0
Concrete Blocks Concrete Elastic 24 2∗ 104 0.2 − −

7
8 H. Alielahi and M. R. Moghadam

FIGURE 6 Numerical model of the block quay wall-Type A.

FIGURE 7 Numerical model of the block quay wall-Type B.

agree well with the results of the shaking table tests for both displacement and acceleration
time histories. This numerical model was used to evaluate the seismic performance of the
block quay walls and develop the fragility curves.

4. Developing the Fragility Curves

Fragility curves represent the conditional probability, for a particular construction, of
exceeding a defined level of damage. Such probability is conditioned to a given level of
ground motion.
Fragility functions can be categorized to four general classes by the method used to cre-
ate them: empirical, judgmental or expert elicitation, analytical, and hybrid [Porter, 2015;
Pitilakis et al., 2014]:
 Fragility Curves Evaluation for Block Quay Walls 9

6 6
Horizontal Acceleration Input motion: Wall Type A Input motion: Wall Type B

Horizontal Acceleration
4 4
2 2
(m/s2)

(m/s2)
0 0
-2 -2
-4 -4
-6 -6
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (sec) Time (sec)

FIGURE 8 Time histories of the input motions applied to the wall models, recorded by
ACC1 accelerometer.
0.4 0.4

Horizontal Displacment (m)

Horizontal Displacment (m)

LVDT1 LVDT2
0.3 0.3
Shaking Table Shaking Table
Numerical Numerical
0.2 0.2

0.1 0.1

0 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (sec) Time (sec)
6 6
Shaking Table Shaking Table ACC3
ACC2
Horizontal Acceleration

Horizontal Acceleration

4
Numerical Numerical
4

2 2
(m/s2)

(m/s2)

0 0

-2 -2

-4 -4

-6 -6
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (sec) Time (sec)

FIGURE 9 Numerical model predictions versus shaking table test results: quay wall-
Type A.

1. Empirical: An empirical fragility function is one that is created by fitting a func-

tion to approximate observational data from the laboratory or the real world
[Merz, 1991]. Empirical fragility curves describing earthquake induced damage in
waterfront structures are proposed in HAZUS [NIBS, 2004].
2. Expert opinion or judgment-based (Expert judgment). Expert judgment fragility
curves are based on expert opinion and experience [ATC, 1985].
3. Analytical: Analytical fragility curves adopt damage distributions simulated from
the analyses of structural models under increasing earthquake loads [Argyroudis
and Pitilakis, 2012; Argyroudis et al., 2013; Argyroudis and Kaynia, 2015].
Analytical methods have also been used for the vulnerability assessment of waterfront
structures [Ichii, 2003 and 2004; Kakderi and Pitilakis, 2010; Chiou et al., 2011; Yang
et al., 2012; Calabrese and Lai, 2013; Heidary-Torkamani et al., 2014]. This kind of anal-
ysis provides a useful insight into the seismic behavior of waterfront structures but cannot
10 H. Alielahi and M. R. Moghadam

0.02 0.9
LVDT1 Shaking Table LVDT2

Horizontal Displacment (m)

0.01
Vertical Displacment (m)
Numerical 0.75
0
Shaking Table
Numerical
0.6
-0.01

-0.02 0.45

-0.03
0.3
-0.04
0.15
-0.05

-0.06 0
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (sec) Time (sec)
6 6
Shaking Table Shaking Table

Horizontal Acceleration (m/s2)

ACC2
Horizontal Acceleration (m/s2)

Numerical Numerical ACC3

4 4

2 2

0 0

-2 -2

-4 -4

-6 -6
0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20
Time (sec) Time (sec)

FIGURE 10 Numerical model predictions versus shaking table test results: quay wall-
Type B.

be easily applied to vulnerability assessment of different wall typologies and foundation

conditions, under different levels of seismic excitation because of time-consuming com-
putations and cost requirements for considering all of these conditions. Among previous
researchers, Ichii [2003, 2004] proposed several analytical fragility curves for the assess-
ment of direct earthquake-induced damage to gravity-type quay walls using simplified
dynamic finite element analysis. Kakderi and Pitilakis [2010] proposed fragility curves for
waterfront/retaining structures for ground shaking without the occurrence of liquefaction,
using available data from past earthquake damages in Europe and worldwide and numerical
analysis of typical cases.

4. Hybrid methods: combine any of the above-mentioned techniques in order to

compensate for their respective drawbacks.

In the current study, fragility curves were developed by the analytical method. The
framework for developing fragility curves for a block quay wall is proposed in the following
steps.

Step 1. Developing a numerical model to predict the seismic response of the block quay
walls, as demonstrated in Sec. 3.
Step 2. Selecting real earthquake ground motions for the fragility analysis.
Step 3. Calculating the seismic responses of the block quay walls subjected to selected
earthquake events, which are scaled to different levels of ground motion intensity.
Step 4. Defining the criteria for damage states of the gravity block quay walls
Step 5. Generating the fragility curves through damage probability analysis based on the
seismic response data and the set damage criteria.
 Fragility Curves Evaluation for Block Quay Walls 11

4.1. Developing a Numerical Model

A robust numerical model, developed in Sec. 3, was implemented to predict the seismic
response of the block quay walls. The validation of the numerical model predictions was
examined with the shaking table tests results.

4.2. Selecting Strong Ground Motions

The seismic hazard study was performed for Asalouyeh site and the seismic ground motion
parameters as well as the specific design spectrum were determined. The normalized
specific design spectrum of Asalouyeh site is shown in Fig. 11. Seven real acceleration
records from different earthquakes were selected for developing the fragility curves. The
earthquake records specification are tabulated in Table 2 [PEER, 2010].
The selected earthquake records were matched to the Asalouyeh site specific spectrum
using SeismoMatch software [Seismosoft, 2013], as illustrated in Fig. 11. Spectral match-
ing is the most commonly proposed earthquake record selection method providing least
variations in the response parameters.
In order to investigate the influence of different levels of earthquake on the structural
collapse fragility, thirteen levels of earthquake intensities are considered: 0.1 g, 0.12 g,
0.15 g, 0.18 g, 0.2 g, 0.3 g, 0.4 g, 0.5 g, 0.6 g, 0.7 g, 0.8 g, 0.9 g, and 1.0 g. For each level, a
set of seven accelerograms was employed, and 91 numerical analyses were performed for
each wall model. For each PGA level, the performance points of the structure due to the
selected earthquake events are calculated.

4.3. Defining the Criteria for the Damage States

Damage criteria for some waterfront structures (gravity quay walls, sheet pile quay walls,
pile-supported wharves, and cellular quay walls) are clearly described according to hori-
zontal displacement, vertical displacement, rotation, and peak response stresses/strains in
PIANC [2001]. The damage criteria and deterministic thresholds for the limit states, pro-
posed by PIANC [2001], as tabulated in Tables 3 and 4, are used to determine damage state
of the gravity block quay walls in a probabilistic framework. However, there are several
documents in the literature [Uwabe, 1983; PIANC, 2001; OCDI, 2002; Ichii, 2003] that

4
Earthquake records-Matched
3.5
Normalized Assalluyeh Design Spectrum
3 Mean Matched
Normalized PSA

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Period (Sec)

FIGURE 11 Selected earthquake records matched to the Asalouyeh site response spec-
trum.
12
TABLE 2 Earthquake records selected for developing the fragility curves
Soil Type
Motion No. Record Station Location Year of Occurrence MW PGA(cm/s2 ) PGV(cm/s) (Eurocode 8)
1 Naghan Naghan Iran 1977 5.9 872 45.15 B
2 Bandar Abbas Bandar Abbas Iran 2008 6.1 491 − B
3 Kocaeli Gebze Turkey 1999 7.4 143 29.2 B
4 Kocaeli Izmit (Koer 768) Turkey 1999 7.4 173.7 − B
5 Northridge Pacoima Dam USA 1994 6.7 425.6 30.6 A
6 Northridge Wonderland USA 1994 6.7 159.5 − A
7 Chi-Chi TCU046 Taiwan 1999 7.6 138.9 29.6 B
 Fragility Curves Evaluation for Block Quay Walls 13

TABLE 3 Acceptable level of damage proposed by PIANC [2001]

Level of Damage Structural Operational
Degree I: Minor or no damage Little or no loss of serviceability
serviceable
Degree II: Controlled damage Short term loss of serviceability
repairable
Degree III: near Extensive damage in Long-term or complete loss of
collapse near collapse serviceability
Degree IV: Complete loss of Complete loss of serviceability
collapse structure

TABLE 4 Minimum requirements for damage criteria for gravity quay walls proposed by
PIANC [2001]
Degree Degree
Item Level of Damage Degree I II III Degree IV
Gravity Normalized residual Less than 1.5–5% 5–10% Larger than
wall displacement (d/H)∗ 1.5% 10%
Residual tilting towards Less than 3–5◦ 5–8◦ Larger than
the sea 3◦ 8◦
∗
d: Residual horizontal displacement on top of the wall, H: Height of the wall.

define the limit states of damages for waterfront structures. Among them, PIANC is a well-
known International Navigation Association, and the proposed damaged criteria by PIANC
are used by other researchers to develop fragility curves for quay walls (e.g., Calabrese and
Lai, 2013; Kakderi and Pitilakis, 2010). In this regard, the limit states proposed by PIANC
(2001) were used in this study.
The failure modes for any gravity quay wall are horizontal sliding, overturning, and
differential settlement of the apron. Therefore, these quantities should be monitored during
the dynamic analyses. Since no suggestion is provided for the acceptability of the settle-
ments values for higher damage states and also, due to the minor rotation of the walls,
only the normalized residual horizontal displacement of top of the walls is addressed as the
damage criteria in the fragility evaluation.

4.4. Calculating the Seismic Responses of the Quay Walls

Figure 12 shows the post-earthquake deformed configuration both in the numerical and
shaking table models of quay wall Type A. As is evident, the numerical model accurately
predicts the deformation mode of the quay wall, observed in the shaking table tests. The
prominent deformation mode of the wall is sliding towards the sea on the very dense sandy
soil foundation. Apron settlement is small immediately behind the broken-back quay wall
and the maximum settlement is occurred at a farther distance. Visual observations from the
model experiments showed that for gravity quay walls on firm seabed foundations, the dom-
inant failure mode during earthquakes is seaward base sliding displacement [Sadrekarimi,
2011]. A similar deformation mode is obtained for quay wall Type B, as depicted in
Fig. 13.
14 H. Alielahi and M. R. Moghadam

FIGURE 12 Post-earthquake deformed configuration both in numerical and shaking table

models of quay wall Type A.

Displacement vectors of the wall models after Chi-Chi earthquake with PGA = 0.5 g
is illustrated in Fig. 14. Failure wedge is formed in the backfill soil while the walls slide
in outward horizontal direction. In the backfill of the wall Type A, the soil on the blocks
moves with the wall as a monolithic system, whereas all parts of the backfill in wall Type
B act as a unique failure wedge and force the wall to move to the outside. In other words,
failure wedge formed behind wall Type B is larger than wall Type A. Therefore, large forces
will impose to the wall Type B from backfill with respect to the wall Type A.
Figure 15 indicates the variation of the residual horizontal displacement of the top of
walls in two of the wall types under different seismic events with various levels of PGA.
Different performance levels based on PIANC [2001]for gravity retaining walls are also
determined on the figure. It can be observed that the wall Type A has better seismic per-
formance respect to the wall Type B for all levels of PGA. For a constant level of PGA,
the average normalized residual horizontal displacement at top of wall, d/H, (d: residual
horizontal displacement on top of the wall, H: height of the wall) for wall Type A is lower
than wall Type B. The better performance of the wall Type A is related to the broken angle
of block quay walls. The broken angle of the wall Type A is steeper than wall Type B.
In this regard, lower soil pressure was imposed by the backfill to the wall Type A and,
subsequently, the wall experienced lower displacements during earthquakes.
 Fragility Curves Evaluation for Block Quay Walls 15

FIGURE 13 Post-earthquake deformed configuration in the numerical model of quay wall

Type B after Chi-Chi earthquake with PGA = 0.5 g.

Residual rotation of the walls during different events is depicted in Fig. 16. As seen,
both of the walls experienced similar rotations but in opposite directions. The wall Type A
is rotated landward whereas the wall Type B is rotated seaward, as observed in the shaking
table tests. The mean rotation of the walls is one degree for highest level of PGA that is
below the level I damage state based on PIANC [2001]. For the walls studied here, sliding
of the wall along its base is determinant because of the firm soil condition beneath the
walls.

4.5. Developing the Fragility Curves

The derivation of fragility curves for gravity quay walls is based on development of a curve
for the computed damage states, in terms of permanent horizontal wall displacement, vs.
increasing seismic intensity, in terms of PGA.
As prescribed in the previous section, the performance points of the quay walls were
calculated under the selected earthquake events. For each PGA level, the residual horizontal
displacement of the block quay wall can be assumed to be a lognormal distribution with
the probability density function (PDF) as follows:
  
1 1 ln x − λ 2
fX (x) = √ exp − 0 ≤ X < ∞, (1)
2π ς x 2 ς

where λ and ς are the two parameters of the lognormal distribution of the random dis-
placement variable X. These parameters can be calculated from the normal distribution
parameters: the mean (μ) and the standard deviation (σ ) of the sample population as
follows:

1
λ = ln μ − ς 2 (2)
2
 
ς 2 = ln 1 + δ2 (3)
16 H. Alielahi and M. R. Moghadam

FIGURE 14 Displacement vectors of the wall models after Chi-Chi earthquake.

σ
δ= . (4)
μ

According to the residual horizontal displacement bound of each defined damage state
(Table 4), the fragility curve for the damage state si is the conditional probability that
the wall has a state of damage exceeding the damage state si at a specific PGA level, as
formulated below:

ln (xi ) − λ
P [S > s |PGA ] = P [X > xi |PGA ] = 1 − , (5)
ς

where F ( . ) is the standard normal cumulative distribution function and xi is the upper
bound for si (i = I,II,III).
Benefiting from Eq. (5), the fragility curves are produced for block quay walls using
the permanent displacement of the walls from the numerical simulation under the selected
ground motion records.
 Fragility Curves Evaluation for Block Quay Walls 17

20 Wall Type A
Wall Type B

Normalized Residual Horiz. Disp. at

Mean-Wall Type A
16 Mean-Wall Type B

Top of Wall (d/H) %

12 DegreeIV: Collapse

8 DegreeIII: Near collapse

4
DegreeII: Repairable

DegreeI: Serviceable
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
PGA (g)

FIGURE 15 Variation of the residual horizontal displacement of the top of walls in two of
the wall types under different seismic events with various levels of PGA.

FIGURE 16 Residual rotation of the walls during different events.

Figures 17 and 18 illustrate the fragility curves developed for quay wall Type A and
B, respectively. The damage probability for each damage state can be obtained at a specific
PGA level.
Comparing the figures, it can be deduced that the quay wall Type A has less seismic
vulnerability than the quay wall Type B. For higher intensity of the ground motions, such
as PGA = 1.0 g, the probability of the collapse state for wall Type B is 100% while for this
level of PGA, the probability of the collapse state for the wall Type A is 30%.
Comparison of the fragility curves in Fig. 19 shows that, as expected, the wall Type B
is more vulnerable than the wall Type A to the seismic events. The quay wall with steeper
broken-back has always lower probability of the damage state. Difference between the
seismic performances of the walls is more prominent in higher damage states. As the dam-
age state increases, the difference of the damage probability is increased between wall Type
A and Type B. As evident from the figure, the maximum difference between the seismic
performances of the walls is occurred in damage state III/IV, corresponding to the areas
with high seismic potential. This finding demonstrates that for the areas with high seismic-
ity, block quay walls with steep broken-back is more suitable than the vertical-back block
18 H. Alielahi and M. R. Moghadam

FIGURE 17 Fragility curve for the block quay wall Type A.

FIGURE 18 Fragility curve for the block quay wall Type B.

quay walls. In other words, the broken-back angle has significant effect on the seismic
performance of block quay walls, especially for the areas with high seismicity.

4.6. Application to a Real Case

The developed fragility curves were implemented to determine the seismic vulnerability of
the two broken back quay walls designed for Pars petrochemical port in Asalouyeh, Iran.
The peak ground acceleration (PGA) values, determined based on PSHA1 for Asalouyeh
site, were 0.23 g and 0.42 g for Level 1 (75 years return period) and Level 2 (475 years
return period) earthquakes, respectively. Level 1 and 2 earthquake motions are typically
defined as motions with a probability of exceedance of 50% and 10% during the life-span

1
Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis
 Fragility Curves Evaluation for Block Quay Walls 19

1.0
Type A
Type B
0.8
P [S > s |PGA]
I/II I/II
0.6
II/III II/III

0.4

0.2 III/IV III/IV

0.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
PGA (g)
FIGURE 19 Comparison of the fragility curves for the two types of the block quay walls.

of a structure, respectively [PIANC, 2001]. In Table 5, damage states of the block quay
walls of Pars petrochemical port are determined for earthquake level 1 and 2 using the
developed fragility curves.
Based on owner/user requirements and the primary function of the quay walls (keep-
ing continues operation of the existing towers and utilities constructed over the backfill as
well as berthing of the ships for loading/unloading the petrochemical products), the per-
formance grade of the quay walls was determined to be Grade A according to PIANC.
In performance-based design, a structure with the performance grade “A” is designed to
meet Serviceable (Degree I) and Repairable (Degree II) levels of damages for level 1 and
level 2 earthquakes, respectively.
According to Table 5, for Level 1 earthquake, the wall Type A performs in serviceable
state with the probability of exceedance about 38%. While, the performance of the wall
Type B will be exceeded from serviceable state with the probability of 88%. For Level

TABLE 5 Damage states of the block quay walls of Pars petrochemical port during
earthquake level 1 and 2
Probability of Exceedance (%) for Damage States
Earthquake I/II II/III III/IV
PGA Serviceable/ Repairable/Near Near Collapse/
Level (g) Wall Type Repairable Collapse Collapse
I 0.23 A 38 0 0
B 88 0 0
II 0.42 A 100 8 0
B 100 58 0
20 H. Alielahi and M. R. Moghadam

2 earthquake, damage state of the quay walls should be Degree II or repairable. For this
level, performance of both of the walls is exceeded from the serviceable state. The wall
Type A is in repairable state with the probability of exceedance about 8%, while the per-
formance of the wall Type B is in repairable state with the probability of exceedance about
58%. Therefore, wall Type A, with steeper broken-back, has better performance than wall
Type B during the earthquake level 1 and 2 and meets the requirements for a structure with
Grade A according to PIANC. Based on the results of this study, for such an area with
high seismicity, instead of vertical-back block quay walls, block quay walls with steep
broken-back is recommended. In other words, the broken-back angle plays pivotal role on
the seismic performance of block quay walls, especially for the areas with high seismicity.

5. Conclusions
The current study aims to assess the vulnerability of broken-back block quay walls during
seismic events and develop the fragility curves for these types of the walls. Prior to develop-
ing the fragility curves, the numerical simulations by FLAC software were performed and
validated with the results of the shaking table tests conducted on two types of the block quay
walls of Pars petrochemical port project. The comparisons proved the reliability of the pro-
posed numerical approach. Then, fragility curves were produced for block quay walls using
the permanent displacement of the walls from the numerical simulation under the selected
ground motion records. The curves present the damage probability for each damage state
at a specific PGA level. Comparison of the damage probability for two types of broken-
back block quay walls demonstrates the better seismic performance of the quay wall with
steeper broken-back angle. It was presented that for the areas with high seismicity, such as
Pars petrochemical port in Iran, the broken back quay walls with steeper broken-back angle
should be preferred to the vertical-back block quay walls. Finally, it is worth mentioning
that the generated fragility curves, developed in the current study, depend strongly on the
specific geometrical and geotechnical conditions. Thus, all curves and tables introduced in
this study are limited to the specific conditions and cannot be used for all broken-back quay
walls.

Acknowledgments
The authors are thankful of Sahel Consulting Engineers (SCE) for providing the data
of Pars petrochemical port project. They also would like to acknowledge Dr. Abbas
Ghalandarzadeh and Dr. Abouzar Sadrekarimi for the shaking table tests conducted at
Tehran University on the block quay walls of the Pars petrochemical port project.

References
Amirabadi, R., Bargi, K., Dolatshahi Piroz, M., Heidary Torkamani, H., and Mccullough, N. [2014]
“Determination of optimal probabilistic seismic demand models for pile-supported wharves,”
Structure and Infrastructure Engineering: Maintenance, Management, Life-Cycle Design and
Performance 10(9), 1119–1145.
Argyroudis, S. and Kaynia, A. M. [2015] “Analytical seismic fragility functions for highway and
railway embankments and cuts,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 44(11),
1863–1879.
Argyroudis, S. and Pitilakis, K. [2012] “Seismic fragility curves of shallow tunnels in alluvial
deposits,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 35, 1–12.
 Fragility Curves Evaluation for Block Quay Walls 21

Argyroudis, S., Kaynia, A. M., and Pitilakis, K. [2013] “Development of fragility functions
for geotechnical constructions: application to cantilever retaining walls,” Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering 50, 106–116.
Applied Technology Council (ATC) [1985] “Earthquake damage evaluation data for California,”
ATC-13, Redwood City, California.
Calabrese, A. and Lai, C. G. [2013] “Fragility functions of block work wharves using artificial neural
networks,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 52, 88–102.
Chiou, J.-SH., CHIANG, Ch.-H., Yang, H.-H. and HSU, Sh.-Y. [2011] “Developing fragility curves
for a pile-supported wharf,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 31, 830–840.
EAU [2004] “Recommendations of the committee for waterfront structures harbours and water-
ways,” 8th ed., Translation of the 10th German Edition, Issued by the Committee for Waterfront
Structures of the Society for Harbour Engineering and the German Society for Soil Mechanics
and Foundation Engineering.
CEN Eurocode 8 [2006] “Design of structures for earthquake resistance,” prEN 1998-5, European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium.
Gijt, J. G. DE and Broeken, M. L. [2014] “Quay walls,” 2nd ed.; SBRCURnet Municipality Rotterdam
Port of Rotterdam, SBRCURnet, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis
Group.
Heidary-Torkamani, H., Bargi, K., Amirabadi, R., and Mccllough, N. J. [2014] “Fragility estimation
and sensitivity analysis of an idealized pile-supported wharf with batter piles,” Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering 61-62, 92–106.
Ichii, K. [2003] “Application of performance-based seismic design concept for caisson-type quay
walls,” Ph.D. dissertation, Kyoto University.
Ichii, K. [2004] “Fragility curves for gravity-type quay walls based on effective stress analyses,” 13th
WCEE, Vancouver, BC.
Itasca [2014] FLAC Version 7.0: Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua-User’s Guide, Itasca
Consulting Group Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Kakderi, K. and Pitilakis, K. [2010] “Seismic analysis and fragility curves of gravity waterfront
structures,” Fifth International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics and Symposium in Honour of Prof. I. M. Idriss, 6.04a.
Karakus, H. [2007] “New seismic design approaches for block type quay walls,” Thesis Submitted
to the Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences of Middle East Technical University,
Ankara, Turkey.
Karim, K. R. and Yamazaki, F. A. [2003] “Simplified method of constructing fragility curves for
highway bridges,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 32, 1603–1626.
Lagaros, N. D., Tsompanakis, Y., Psarropoulos, P. N., and Georgopoulos, E. C. [2009]
“Computationally efficient seismic fragility analysis of geostructures,” Journal of Computers and
Structures 87, 1195–1203.
Maruyama, Y., Yamazaki, F., Mizuno, K., Tsuchiya, Y., and Yogai, H. [2010] “Fragility curves
for expressway embankments based on damage datasets after recent earthquakes in Japan,” Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 30, 1158–67.
Merz, K. [1991] “Generic seismic ruggedness of power plant equipment,” EPRI NP-5223-SL
Revision 1, Electric Power Research Institute, Oakland, California.
National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) [2004] HAZUS-MH: Users’s Manual and Technical
Manuals, Report prepared for the FEMA.
OCDI [2002] “Technical standards and commentaries for port and harbour facilities in Japan,” The
Overseas Coastal Area Development Institute of Japan, Tokyo, Japan.
Pasquali, R., Lai, C. G., and Corigliano, M. [2010] “Some issues in seismic analysis and design of
blockwork wharves,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering 14, 102–130.
PEER [2010] “Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center; PEER Strong Motion Database,”
University of California, Berkeley, California; http://peer.berkeleyedu/ngawest/databases.html.
PIANC [2001] Seismic Design Guidelines for Port Structures, Permanent International Navigation
Association, A.A. Balkema Publishers, the Netherlands.
 22 H. Alielahi and M. R. Moghadam

Pitilakis, K., Crowley, H., and Kaynia, A. [2014] “SYNER-G: Typology definition and fragility func-
tions for physical elements at seismic risk,” Vol 27, Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake
Engineering (Springer Editions, New York).
Porter, K. [2015] A Beginner’s Guide to Fragility, Vulnerability, and Risk, University of Colorado
Boulder and SPA Risk LLC, Denver, Colorado.
Sadrekarimi, A. [2010] “Pseudo-static lateral earth pressures on broken-back retaining walls,”
Canadian. Geotechnical Journal 47, 1247–1258.
Sadrekarimi, A. [2011] “Seismic displacement of broken-back gravity quay walls,” Journal of
Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering ASCE 137(2), 75–84.
Sadrekarimi, A. [2013] “Dynamic behavior of granular soils at shallow depths from 1 g shaking table
tests,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering 17(2), 227–252.
Sadrekarimi, A., Ghalandarzadeh, A., and Sadrekarimi, J. [2008] “Static and dynamic behavior of
hunchbacked gravity quay walls,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 28, 99–117.
Seismosoft [2013] “SeismoMatch v2.1.0: an application capable of adjusting earthquake
accelerograms to match a specific target response spectrum,” http://www.seismosoft.com/
seismomatch-v21.
Thomopoulos, C. and Lai, C. G. [2012] “Preliminary definition of fragility curves for pile-supported
wharves,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering 16(S1), 83–106.
Uwabe, T. [1983] “Estimation of earthquake damage deformation and cost of quay walls based on
earthquake damage records,” Technical Note of Port and Harbour Research Institute.
Werner, S. D., Taylor, C. E., and Ferritto, J. M. [1999] “Seismic risk reduction planning for ports
lifelines,” 5th U.S. Conference on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, TCLEE, Monograph No. 16.
YANG, Ch.-Sh. W., DesRoches, R., and Rix, G. J. [2012] “Numerical fragility analysis of vertical-
pile-supported wharves in the western united states,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering 16,
579–594.

View publication stats