ASCE Ports 2007 Conference, San Diego, CA Erik Soderberg, Liftech Consultants Inc.

March 28, 2007

Evaluating Seismic Capacity of a Newly Designed Wharf at the Port of Oakland
Erik Soderberg, SE Principal Liftech Consultants Inc. Shahariar Vahdani, Ph.D., SE Principal Fugro West, Inc.

Contributors: Ariyaputhirar Balakrishnan, Fugro West, Inc. John Egan, Geomatrix Consultants Chih-Cheng Chin, Geomatrix Consultants Robert Pyke Tom Griswold, Liftech Consultants Inc. Tom LaBasco, Port of Oakland

1

ASCE Ports 2007 Conference, San Diego, CA Erik Soderberg, Liftech Consultants Inc.

March 28, 2007

Wharf Section
H G F E 124’ D C B A

Spacing

12’

6’

24’

24’

24’

24’

8’

24’

The wharf consists of a cast-in-place concrete deck typically 2’2” thick, thickening to 3’2” at the landside, supported on 24” octagonal prestressed piles at the spacing shown. The cut-off wall is designed to rotate at the wharf connection and does not provide lateral resistance.

2

ASCE Ports 2007 Conference, San Diego, CA Erik Soderberg, Liftech Consultants Inc.

March 28, 2007

Subsurface Conditions
Top Elevation Total Unit Weight Friction Angle Shear Strength (ft) (pcf) (degree) (psf) 1 New Fill 15 125 36 0 2 Mixed Fill 13 125 36 0 3 Clayey Sand Fill 10 125 30 0 4 Clayey Sand Fill (below gwt) 6 130 30 0 5 Bay Mud -2 100 0 see note 6 Loose Clayey Sand -15 130 0 250 7 Medium Dense Clayey Sand -21 135 0 400 8 Very Dense Sand -25 130 45 0 9 Dense Clayey Sand -45 140 38 0 10 Very Dense Sand -60 135 45 0 11 Dense Clayey Sand -65 140 38 0 12 OBM -73 115 0 2500 13 Rock Dike (above gwt) 10 115 42 0 14 Rock Dike (below gwt) 6 120 42 0 Note: 354 psf at Elevation -2, then increases at 9.4 psf/ft Layer Material Type k (pci) 225 225 225 125 30 30 30 125 125 125 125 1000 225 125 Vs (fps) 550/450 550/450 550/450 550/450 350 + 4d 1000 + 5d 1000 + 5d 1000 + 5d 1000 + 5d 1000 + 5d 1000 + 5d 800 + d 600 + 10d 600 + 10d G/Gmax - Damping Fill

YBM SAF

OBM Rock Fill

The soil properties used in our calculations are shown here.

3

4 1.0 3.5 4.6 Spectral Acceleration SA (g) 1. March 28.0 Period (sec) 2.4 0. CA Erik Soderberg. San Diego.5 2.5 3.0 1.8 0. Liftech Consultants Inc.6 0.2 0 0.8 1.0 10% in 50yrs 5% in 50yrs 2% in 50yrs The calculated probabilistic response spectra is shown here for 5% damping 4 .ASCE Ports 2007 Conference.2 1 0.5 1. 2007 Probabilistic Response Spectra 5% Damping 2 1.0 0.

Liftech Consultants Inc. CA Erik Soderberg. March 28. W20 spirals at 2.ASCE Ports 2007 Conference. 2007 Piles: W20 @ 2. 5 .5” Typical Typical 24” octagonal prestressed piling was used.5” on center was used. San Diego. For confinement.

1 2.05 3 5 0.004 0.008 0. San Diego.15 0. These strain limits are set to limit damage. CA Erik Soderberg. 6 .5 1.01 0. For the design earthquake with 475 MRI.5 Collapse 2500 yr MRI Collapse / Design The strain limits used to calculate the response of the piling is shown here.006 0.Top Confined .ASCE Ports 2007 Conference.In-Ground Steel Mild Prestressing 0. standard Port of Oakland strain limits are used.020 1.022 0. March 28.020 0.05 0. 2007 Pile Strain Limits Design 475yr MRI Concrete Unconfined Confined . For the collapse earthquake with 2500 MRI. Liftech Consultants Inc. strain limits where chosen to represent the expected strains at material failure.

CA Erik Soderberg. March 28. San Diego. Liftech Consultants Inc. 2007 Concrete This is a graph of the concrete strains used for the collapse evaluation. 7 .ASCE Ports 2007 Conference.

Liftech Consultants Inc.ASCE Ports 2007 Conference. CA Erik Soderberg. 2007 Steel This is a graph of the steel strains used for the collapse evaluation. 8 . San Diego. March 28.

2007 Moment Curvature – At Dowels Using the chosen stress-strain relationships. Liftech Consultants Inc. The shown moment-curvature is for the upper end of the pile with dowels. San Diego.ASCE Ports 2007 Conference. CA Erik Soderberg. March 28. 9 . moment curvatures were calculated for the piles.

10 . Liftech Consultants Inc. San Diego. CA Erik Soderberg.ASCE Ports 2007 Conference. March 28. 2007 Moment Curvature – Typical The moment curvature for the typical section of the pile with concrete and prestressing strands.

San Diego.LPILE The forces and moments in the piles were calculated using LPILE. Plastic hinge locations and lengths were determined.ASCE Ports 2007 Conference. CA Erik Soderberg. 2007 Pile Response . March 28. Liftech Consultants Inc. 11 .

San Diego. March 28. CA Erik Soderberg. 2007 FEM Model A finite element model of a length of wharf was analyzed. 12 .ASCE Ports 2007 Conference. Liftech Consultants Inc.

CA Erik Soderberg. 13 . San Diego. Liftech Consultants Inc. March 28.ASCE Ports 2007 Conference. 2007 Wharf Deformation with P-Delta A pushover analysis including second order effects was performed.

CA Erik Soderberg. 14 . Liftech Consultants Inc.ASCE Ports 2007 Conference. San Diego. March 28. 2007 Pile Moments The stiffer landside piles provide the most lateral resistance and experience the largest moments.

ASCE Ports 2007 Conference. Plastic hinging near the wharf connection 3. San Diego. the reduction in stiffneses occur as follows: 1. March 28. 2007 Pushover by Pile Row G (4 piles) H (2 piles) This graph shows the calculated lateral force and the displacement at the wharf deck for the various pile rows. Spalling of unconfined shell 2. Liftech Consultants Inc. Plastic hinging slightly below the soil boundary 4. Failure due to the pile breaking at the wharf connection and at the inground plastic hinge 15 . The stiffer landside piles initially resist the most load and have the greatest lateral capacity. CA Erik Soderberg. For each pile row.

0 3.4 1.0 0.ASCE Ports 2007 Conference. March 28.2 0 0.8 0.6 0. MRI = 2500 years 16 .5 1.5 3. 5% damping Collapse = 2% in 50. Liftech Consultants Inc.8 1. CA Erik Soderberg.0 10% in 50yrs 5% in 50yrs 2% in 50yrs The calculated response spectra for the design earthquakes and collapse earthquakes.0 Period (sec) 2.4 0.5 4. 2007 Probabilistic Response Spectra 5% Damping 2 1. San Diego.6 Spectral Acceleration SA (g) 1.0 1.2 1 0.5 2.

the damping increases well above 5%. Notice that at this damping.5 0 0 10 20 30 Displacement (in) 40 50 60 Pushover curve for 5% damping. March 28. 17 . 2007 Demand versus Capacity 5% Damping 2 1. CA Erik Soderberg. Liftech Consultants Inc. Fortunately.ASCE Ports 2007 Conference. as the structure is damaged. the seismic demand exceeds the capacity of the structure and the structure will collapse. San Diego.5 Capacity Acceleration (g) 10% in 50 1 0.

the damage to the structure will result in damping greater than 10%. 18 .5 Capacity Acceleration (g) 10% in 50 1 0. This graph is shown to present the significance of damping on the seismic demand on the structure.5 0 0 10 20 30 Displacement (in) 40 50 60 The same pushover graph but for 10% damping. CA Erik Soderberg. 2007 Demand versus Capacity 10% Damping 2 1. Again. March 28. San Diego.ASCE Ports 2007 Conference. Liftech Consultants Inc.

19 . San Diego. the landside pile rows have formed plastic hinges and are severely damaged. 2007 Demand versus Capacity 15% Damping 2 1. however. Liftech Consultants Inc.5 0 0 10 20 30 Displacement (in) 40 50 60 The same graph shown with 15% damping. the structure does not collapse. CA Erik Soderberg.ASCE Ports 2007 Conference.5 Capacity Acceleration (g) 10% in 50 1 0. For this seismic demand. March 28.

Liftech Consultants Inc.2 -0.2 -0.8 0.6 0.0 -0.8 0.0 -0.2 0.8 0.0 -0.4 Sa (g) Sa (g) 0.3 in 1.8 -1.0 0.0 0. 2007 Hysteretic Damping versus Displacement Hysteretic Loop at Displacement of 3 in 1. March 28.0 0.4 -0.4 -0.6 0.2 0.0 -0.4 Sa (g) 0.6 -0.0 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Displacement (in) 1.ASCE Ports 2007 Conference.8 0. CA Erik Soderberg.6 0.0 0.0 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Displacement (in) -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Displacement (in) So what damping develops in the structure? The following graphs present the hysteretic loops at various wharf deck lateral displacements.6 0.4 -0.2 0.8 -1. 20 .4 0.0 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 Displacement (in) Hysteretic Loop at Displacement of 10 in Hysteretic Loop at Displacement of 6 in 1.2 -0.4 Sa (g) Hysteretic Loop at Displacement of 15.8 -1. San Diego.2 0.6 -0.2 -0.0 0.6 -0.8 -1.4 -0.6 -0.

3 25 20 35 30 41.142 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.2 4. approximately 10% damping is expected.0 0 0. March 28.0 Displacement (in) 10.076 0 100.4 15 0. 15% damping is attained at deck movements slightly above 1”.8 45 1 0.1 0.6 20.235 7.1 0.0 10 5 0.3 1.307 0. Damping (%) 21 .881 0. CA Erik Soderberg.2 46. San Diego. the damping in the structure is significant. At slightly less than 1” of displacement. Liftech Consultants Inc.468 24.0 5.Deck Displacement Port of Oakland 1.8 0.723 G/Gmax 27.818 0. 2007 Damping .2 0.1 40 50 Even at small displacements.ASCE Ports 2007 Conference.

22 . March 28. 2007 Demand versus Capacity 15% Damping Pushover Analysis Results 15% Damping Demand 2 1. Based on our calculations.5 Capacity Acceleration (g) 10% in 50 1 0. we do not expect collapse due to structural deformations in an earthquake with a 2500 year MRI. As shown again.ASCE Ports 2007 Conference. San Diego. CA Erik Soderberg. at damping greater than 15%. collapse does not occur. Liftech Consultants Inc.5 0 0 10 20 30 Displacement (in) 40 50 60 The point of the previous graph is to illustrate that there will be significant damping in the structure at small displacements.

ASCE Ports 2007 Conference. March 28. 2007 Static & Pseudo-Static Slope Stability Circular Type of Failure Surface with a Yield Acceleration of 0.18G 23 . Liftech Consultants Inc. CA Erik Soderberg. San Diego.

ASCE Ports 2007 Conference. Liftech Consultants Inc. CA Erik Soderberg. March 28. San Diego.28G 24 . 2007 Static & Pseudo-Static Stability Analysis Wedge Type of Failure Surface with a Yield Acceleration of 0.

5 -1 100 Velocity (cm/sec) 50 0 -50 -100 -150 -200 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Spectral Acceleration (g) A_2475 Target Motion 2 1.5 0 0.5 1 Displacement (cm) 0. Liftech Consultants Inc.5 0 -0. Velocity. 2007 Spectrum Compatible Ground Motion 1 Acceleartion (g) A_2475 0.5 2.ASCE Ports 2007 Conference. CA Erik Soderberg. March 28.01 0. and Displacement time history of one design ground motion compatible with response spectrum of 2475-yr return period 25 .1 Period (s) 1 10 Acceleration. San Diego.

1 0 0. Liftech Consultants Inc.3 0.8 0.01 Cyclic Shear Strain (%) 0. 2007 Degradation Curves 1 0.0001 0.0001 FILL YBM SAF OBM ROCK FILL 0.001 0.4 0. March 28.001 0.9 0.ASCE Ports 2007 Conference.5 0.2 0. CA Erik Soderberg.6 0.1 1 Modulus degradation and damping curves used in quad4m analysis 26 .01 Cyclic Shear Strain (%) 0.1 1 30 25 FILL YBM SAF OBM ROCK FILL Damping Ratio 20 15 10 5 0 0. San Diego.7 G/Gmax 0.

March 28. Liftech Consultants Inc. San Diego. CA Erik Soderberg.ASCE Ports 2007 Conference. 2007 Two-Dimensional Site Response Analysis 20 0 -20 Elevation (ft) -40 -60 -80 -100 -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 Distance (ft) 150 200 250 300 350 Fill MDCS DCS Failure Surface_1 Fill/above GWT VDS OBM Failure Surface_2 YBM DCS RockDike above GWT Failure Surface_3 LCS VDS RockDike Failure Surface_4 2D quad4m site response analysis with 4 different failure surfaces 27 .

Liftech Consultants Inc. CA Erik Soderberg.6 0 10 20 30 Time (s) 40 50 60 Horizontal equivalent accelerations calculated by QUAD4M for each block 28 .2 -0.6 Block_1 Block_2 Block_3 Block 4 0. March 28.ASCE Ports 2007 Conference.2 HEA (g) 0 -0. 2007 Average Induced Ground Acceleration Equivalent Acceleration under A_2475 Motion 0. San Diego.4 -0.4 0.

26 0.0 0. March 28.30 Block_4 Downslope Yield Acceleration.0 Block_2 Permanent Displacement (ft) Block_3 -4.22 0.20 0.14 0.Decoupled Analyses .24 0.0 Block_1 -5.ASCE Ports 2007 Conference.0 Block_3 0.Input Motion (A_2475) -6.16 0.12 0.0 Block_4 -3.0 Block_1 -2. Ky (g) Calculated permanent deformation vs. Ky 29 . San Diego.18 0.0 Block_2 -1. CA Erik Soderberg. Liftech Consultants Inc.10 0.28 0. 2007 Permanent Displacement for Various Slope Geometry Computed Deformation .

5 2.ASCE Ports 2007 Conference.5 5% in 50 yrs (~950 yrs) 2.2 0.9 0.5 2% in 50 yrs (~2475 yrs) 6 12 Summary of static and dynamic slope stability analyses 30 . San Diego. 2007 Static Slope Stability & Newmark Deformation Static FOS Yield Acceleration (g) Slope Stability Circular Failure 1.6 2% in 50 yrs (~2475 yrs) 0.28 Decoupled Displacements using QUAD4M/Newmark (ft) Ground Motions Circular Failure Wedge Failure 10% in 50 yrs (~475 yrs) 0.18 Wedge Failure 2. March 28.9 ~ 3 0.5 7. Liftech Consultants Inc.2 5% in 50 yrs (~950 yrs) 0. CA Erik Soderberg.5 1 Decoupled Displacements using QUAD4M/Newmark (in) Ground Motions Circular Failure Wedge Failure 10% in 50 yrs (~475 yrs) 1.8 ~ 1.1 0.

2007 Wharf Section H G F E 124’ D C B A Spacing 12’ 6’ 24’ 24’ 24’ 24’ 8’ 24’ The wharf consists of a cast-in-place concrete deck typically 2’2” thick. The cut-off wall is designed to rotate at the wharf connection and does not provide lateral resistance. supported on 24” octagonal prestressed piles at the spacing shown.ASCE Ports 2007 Conference. March 28. CA Erik Soderberg. thickening to 3’2” at the landside. 31 . San Diego. Liftech Consultants Inc.

5 1.0 2.ASCE Ports 2007 Conference.0 1. CA Erik Soderberg. San Diego. March 28. Liftech Consultants Inc.5 Soil Movement (ft) 2.5 3.0 0. 2007 Two-Dimensional Nonlinear FLAC SSI Analysis Kobe Earthquake 2475yr 20 0 -20 Elevation -40 Elevation (ft) Row A Row B Row C Row D -60 Row E Row F Row G Row H -80 -100 -120 -140 0.0 Pile deformation pattern by FLAC-2D analyses 32 .

2007 Pile Curvature – Soil Movement Pile deflections were calculated using the FLAC analysis for multiple design earthquakes with 2500 year MRIs. plastic hinges are expected to form in the piles. March 28. The calculated curvatures shown in the right graph were calculated using the finite difference method. CA Erik Soderberg. Spalling and Hinging Breakage 33 . at several locations. San Diego. The locations of high strain due to soil movement shown here differ enough from the locations of high strain from the dynamic response of the wharf that the two deformations are not considered simultaneously.ASCE Ports 2007 Conference. At only one location is the pile expected to break. Calculated pile deflections for the scaled Kobe earthquake are shown in the graph on the left. As shown. Liftech Consultants Inc.

2007 Thank you This presentation is available for download at www. Liftech Consultants Inc. San Diego.ASCE Ports 2007 Conference. CA Erik Soderberg.liftech. March 28.net 34 .

Copyright 2007 by Liftech Consultants Inc. Anyone making use of the information assumes all liability g arising from such use.. copied. . or used for any other project without written authorization from Liftech Consultants Inc. All rights reserved. The information included in this presentation may not be altered. This material may not be duplicated without the written consent of Liftech Consultants Inc. except in the form of excerpts or quotations for the purposes of review.