Port Buildings

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings
by
Pradeep Kumar Ramancharla, Terala Srikanth, Chenna Rajaram, Bal Krishna Rastogi, Santhosh Kumar
Sundriyal, Ajay Pratap Singh, Kapil Mohan
Report No: IIIT/TR/2014/-1
Centre for Earthquake Engineering

International Institute of Information Technology
Hyderabad - 500 032, INDIA
March 2014
VACI/IIIT-H/Report: 01
Assessment of Vulnerability of Installation near Gujarat

Coast Vis--vis Seismic Disturbances
Title: Final Report on Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings (VAPB)

Hyderabad
Institute of Seismological Research

Government of Gujarat, India
Ministry of Earth Sciences

Government of India
August 2013
Earthquake Engineering Research Centre

Gachibowli, Hyderabad 500 032, India
Participants
From
International Institute of Information Technology, Hyderabad
Ramancharla Pradeep Kumar
Terala Srikanth
Chenna Rajaram
From
Institute of Seismological Research, Govt. of Gujarat
Bal Krishna Rastogi
Santosh Kumar Sundriyal
Ajay Pratap Singh
Kapil Mohan
Vulnerability Assessment of
Port Buildings
Abstract
Ports are lifeline systems that function as a storage and maintenance facilities for the
transport of cargos and people via water. The port structures are frequently exposed to
failure under severe seismic loading. It was not only observed during 1995 Kobe earthquake
but also during 1989 Loma Prieta and 1999 Kocaeli earthquakes. The scenario is more critical
if the port sites are located within the seismically vulnerable area like Gujarat state of India.
During 2001 Bhuj earthquake, Kandla port building was damaged.
In this report, a study has been carried out to find out the damage of port buildings. For this
purpose Kandla port building has been selected as a typical building and the same is
analyzed and designed as per Indian standards. The port building is modeled using 2D
Applied Element Method (AEM) to perform damage analysis typical port building. In
addition to this other methods have been used to calculate the response of port building
including soil-structure-interaction (Annexure of Port Building). These analyses gave good
insights of structural behavior but their response values are low and hence not considered in
calculating the damage. Method used to estimate the damage is presented in the main part
of this report.
Pushover analysis is done to get base shear vs roof displacement of building using
displacement control method. Using energy dissipation approach, damage is quantified at
every displacement level and normalized to 1. It means when D=0 then building will not
experience any damage and if D=1 means it is complete collapse. The damage states of the
structure were defined as no damage (D<0.2), slight damage (D<0.4), Moderate damage
(D<0.6), severe damage (D<0.8) and complete collapse (D>0.8). A fragility curve has been
developed to quantify the damage of building with respect to different peak ground
accelerations. Based on the fragility analysis of port building the following recommendations
are drawn.
It is found that the damage to the typical port building is 0.16 when it is subjected to a peak
ground acceleration of 0.218g from seismological studies as expected at KHF Mandvi. If the
same building is located at Jodiya which experiences 0.377g the damage would be o.25 and
in case of building located at Jhangi which experiences a peak ground acceleration of 0.396g
from Katch Mainland fault the building would experience a damage of around 0.34 damage.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction.....1
2. Port buildings..1
3. Building details...2
3.1
Geometry....2
3.2
Material...4
3.3
Soil...5
4. Numerical modeling...5
4.1
Finite Element Method.6
4.2
Applied Element Method....8
5. Pushover analysis.....19
6. Fragility analysis for port building (calculation of damage) ..21
7. Conclusions....23
8. References......23
9. Annexures..24
List of figures
1. The actual Kandla port building.3
2. (a) Elevation of port building and (b) column details of port building3
3. Reinforcement details for members (a) column-1 (b) column-2 and (c) beam.4
4. Soil properties at different depths..........5
5. Overview of numerical techniques....6
6. Modified Takeda model..7
7. Modeling of structure in AEM and element shape, contact point and dof .8
8. Quarter portion of stiffness matrix.9
9. Material models for concrete and steel..9
10. (a) Principal Stress determination and (b) Redistribution of spring forces at
element edges..10
11. Modeling of the structure AEM ......19
12. Vulnerability assessment of structure (Amin Karbassi, 2010).20
13. Base shear vs Roof displacement for the port building....21
14. Schematic diagram represents Base shear vs Roof displacement of port building
for calculating damage ..22
15. Spectral accelerations plotted at Mandvi, Jodiya and Jhangi...........22
16. Fragility curve of port building for different PGA values............23
List of tables
1. Port building details ...3
2. Comparison of damage for spectral accelerations obtained from acceleration
response spectra of KHF Mandvi, NKF Jodiya and KMF Jhangi35
1. Introduction
Ports are lifeline systems that function as storage and maintenance facilities for
the transport of cargos and people via water. The port structures are frequently
exposed to failure under severe seismic loading, for example, the Hyogoken Nambu
earthquake of January 17, 1995, had resulted in extended closure of the port of Kobe
(Sixth largest container port in the world; Werner 1998) with extensive cost for repairs.
The failure of particular port can be a major issue of national interest and huge
economic loss. The failure of port facilities during earthquakes is observed during the
Loma Prieta earthquake of 1989, the Kobe earthquake of 1995, and the Kocaeli
earthquake of 1999 (Werner 1998; PIANC 2001; Takahashi and Takemura 2005 etc.). The
scenario is more critical if the port sites are located within the seismically vulnerable
area like Gujarat state of India. During the Bhuj Earthquake of 2001, the liquefaction
failures are reported in nearby port facilities (Madabushi and Haigh 2005; Dash et al.
2008). Many pile supported buildings, warehouses and cargo berths in the Kandla port
area were damaged during the same event. Dash et al. (2008) showed that during Bhuj
earthquake of 2001, 10 m thick loose to medium dense fine saturated sand was liquefied
at Kandla port site and resulted severe damage at the mat-pile foundation which was
supporting customs office tower. During strong shaking under seismic conditions,
liquefaction, lateral spreading, slope instability, soil structure interaction, and sitespecific ground motions are of the major geotechnical concerns for port structures. India
has 12 major ports & 187 (Gujarat-40, Maharashtra-53, Goa-5, Daman & Diu-2,
Karnataka-10, Kerala-13, Lakshadweep Islands-10, Tamil Nadu-15, Pondicherry-1,
Andhra Pradesh-12, Orissa-2, West Bengal-1, Andaman & Nicobar Islands-23) nonmajor ports across 7,517 km long coastline. Some of the port buildings (Jay Kumar and
Deepankar, 2012) are described as follows:
2. Port buildings
Kandla port (latitude: 23.030N, longitude: 70.130E) is a protected natural harbor,
situated in the Kandla Creek and is 90 kms from the mouth of the Gulf of Kachchh,
India. Maharao Khengarji III of Kachchh built an RCC jetty in 1931 where ships with
draft of 8.8 m could berth round the year. In 1955, Kandla was declared as a major port
by the Transport Ministry of Independent India, and almost twelve states of India are
dependent on the Kandla port for bulk cargo handling. Kandla port has 10 berths, 6 oil
jetties, 1 maintenance jetty, 1 dry dock, and small jetties for small vessels with present
cargo handling capacity around 40 million ton per annum (MTPA).
Mundra port (latitude: 22.740N; longitude: 69.710E) is located at 60 km west of
Gandhidham in Kachchh district of Gujarat, India. The port was initiated in 1998 by the

Adani Group as logistics base for their international trade operations when the port
sector in India was opened for private operators. It is an independent and commercial
port with 8 multipurpose berths, 4 container berths, and a single point mooring (SPM),
presently capable of handling of 30 MTPA cargo and has future plan to achieve 50
MTPA by the fast track developments.
Hazira (Surat) port (latitude: 21.130N, longitude: 72.640E) is situated on the west
side of the Hazira (District Surat) peninsula. The major development of the port in the
form of liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal was carried out by Royal Dutch Shell
group. Further developments in the form of construction of private bulk handling
facilities by various manufacturing groups are in progress and considerable amount of
money is invested to accommodate further vessel handling capacity for the future
growth of this port.
Dahej (District: Bharuch) Port (latitude: 21.690N, longitude: 72.5350E) is the most
modern commercial port and storage terminal in the Gulf of Khambhat (Cambay) on
the west coast of India. The Port is capable of handling vessels of 6,000 DWT to 60,000
DWT, and the present Storage Terminal capacity is about 300,000 cubic meters of
hazardous liquid and gaseous chemicals falling in A, B, and General classes. The
location also includes some private ports within the Dahej area including some future
port facilities.
Among all the ports in Gujarat, Kandla port is one of the major ports. The ports
of Kandla, Mundra, Dahej and Hajira are considered in this analysis. The main objective
of this project is to estimate the amount of damage to the port buildings subjected to
various ground accelerations.
3. Building Details
3.1
Geometry of building
Kandla, located at the mouth of the Little Rann of Kachchh on the south eastern
coast of the Kachchh district, is one of the major seaport-city of Gujarat that got affected
during 2001 Bhuj earthquake. This area is located about 50 km from the epicenter of the
2001 Bhuj earthquake. Many pile-supported buildings, warehouses and cargo berths in
the Kandla port area were damaged during the earthquake. The present study analyses
the failure of the 22m high six-floor building called the Port and Customs Office Tower
located very close to the waterfront.
The building was founded on 32 short cast-in-place concrete piles and each pile
was 18m long. The piles were passing through 10m of clayey crust and then terminated
in a sandy soil layer below.
The Port of Kandla is built on natural ground comprising recent unconsolidated

deposits of inter bedded clays, silts and sands. The vertical prole of the region slopes
downwards in the easterly direction towards the coast line at about 12.5m/km. The
water table is about 1.230 m below the ground. Fig. 1 shows the view of the natural
grounds on which the Port of Kandla was built. The tower of the Port and Customs
office considered for the present case study is located very close to Berths IV of the
Kandla Port. The complete building details are given in Table 1.
Y
X
Z
Figure 1: The actual Kandla port building (Selected as a typical building for damage
estimation)
10
Figure 2: (a) elevation of port building and (b) column details of port building.The plan
and elevation details are shown in figure 2.
Table 1: Typical Port building details
Building Member
Building height
Building plan at sill level
Foundation raft
No. of columns
No. of piles
Length of pile
Diameter of concrete pile
Beam dimensions
Slab thickness
Column-1 dimensions
Column-2 dimensions
3.2
Dimension
22 m
9.6 m x 9.8 m
11.45 m x 11.90 m x 0.50 m
12
32
18 m
0.4 m
0.25 m x 0.45 m
0.15 m
0.45 m x 0.45 m
0.25x0.25 m
Material properties
Live load on floor = 2 kN/m2

Live load on roof = 0.75 kN/m2
Floor finishing = 1 kN/m2
Grade of concrete used = M25
Poissons ratio = 0.2
The reinforcement details for members column-1. Column-2 and beam are shown in
figure 3.
(a)
(b)
11
(c)

Figure 3: Reinforcement details for members (a) column-1 (b) column-2 and (c) beam
3.3
Soil properties
The properties of soil at a depth of 40 m are shown in figure 4. The water table is 5 m
below the ground level. The Rayleigh and values are taken as 0.01.
0m
10 m
Soft clay with traces of fine sand, LL=62-68%,

PL=26-28%, Su=10 kPa and =16 kN/m3
Fine sand, N<15 and =17 kN/m3
14 m
Coarse sand, N<15 and =17 kN/m3
22 m
Brown hard clay, LL=54-77%, PL=36-64%,
Su=100 kPa and =8 kN/m3
32 m
Clayey sand, N<50 and =18 kN/m3
42 m
Figure 4: Soil properties at different depths
4. Numerical Modeling
The numerical techniques can be categorize in two ways. The first case assumes that the
material as continnum like finite element method (FEM). The other category assumes
that the material as discrete model like rigid body spring model (RBSM), extended
distinct element method (EDEM) and applied element method (AEM) (Hatem, 1998).
The brief overview of continuum modeling and discrete modeling are discussed in the
subsequent sections.
12

The RBSM performs only in small deformation range. EDEM overcomes all the
difficulties in FEM, but the accuracy is less than FEM in small deformation range. Till
now there is no method among all the available numerical techniques, in which the
behaviour of the structure from zero loading to total complete collapse can be
calculated with high accuracy. Figure 5 represents the overview of numerical
techniques. The overview of FEM and AEM is as follows:
Figure 5: Overview of numerical techniques
4.1
Finite Element Method (FEM)
Finite element method is one of the most important techniques used in the analysis. In
this method, elements are connected by nodes where the degrees of freedom are
defined. The displacement, stresses and strains inside the element are related to the
nodal displacements. The accuracy of the element depends on the size of element. The
analysis can be done in elastic and nonlinear materials, small and large deformations
except collapse behavior. At failure, the location of cracks should be defined before
analysis which is not possible in collapse analysis. The problem becomes much more
complicated when the crack occurs in 3D problems. In this analysis Takeda model is
used. This model has been widely used in the nonlinear earthquake response analysis of
RC structures. The description of model is as follows:
1. The cracking load Pcr, has not been exceeded in one direction. The load is
reversed from the load P in the other direction. The load P is smaller than the
yield load Py. (Unloading follows a straight line from the position at load P to
the point representing the cracking load in the other direction)
2. A load P1 is reached in one direction on the primary curve such that P1 is larger
than Pcr but smaller the yield load Py. The load is then reversed to P2 such that
P2<P1. (Unload parallel to loading curve for that half cycle)
3. A load P1 is reached in one direction such that P1 is larger than Pcr, but not
larger than the yield load Py. The load is then reversed to P3 such that P3>P1.
13

(Unloading follows a straight line joining the point of return and point
representing cracking in the other direction)
4. One or more loading cycles have occurred. The load is zero. (To construct the
loading curve, connect the point at zero load to the point reached in the previous
cycle, if that point lies on the primary curve or on a line aimed at a point on the
primary curve. If the previous loading cycle contains no such point, go to the
previous cycle and continue the process until such a point is found. Then connect
that point to the point at zero load. EXCEPTION: If the yield point has not been
exceeded and if the point at zero load is not located within the horizontal
projection of the primary curve for that direction of loading, connect the point at
zero load to the yield point to obtain the loading slope)
5. The yield load Py is exceeded in one direction. (Unloading curve follows the
slope given by the following equation
Dy
K r = k y
D
0.4
in which, kr = slope of
unloading curve, ky = slope of line joining the yield point in one direction to the
cracking point in the other direction, D = maximum deflection attained in the
direction of the loading and Dy = deflection at yield)
6. The yield load is exceeded in one direction but the cracking load is not exceeded
in the opposite direction. (Unloading follows point 5. Loading in the other
direction continues as an extension of the unloading line up to the cracking load.
Then, the loading curve is aimed at the yield point)
7. One or more loading cycles have occurred. (If the immediately preceding quarter
cycle remained on one side of zero load axis, unload at the rate based on point 2,
3 and 5 whichever governed in the previous loading history. If the immediately
preceding quarter cycle crossed the zero load axis, unload at 70% of the rate
based on point 2, 3 and 5, whichever governed in the previous loading history,
but not at a slope flatter than the immediately preceding loading slope)
This model includes (a) stiffness changes at flexural cracking and yielding, (b)
hysteresis points/rules for inner hysteresis loops inside the outer loop and (c)
unloading stiffness degradation with deformation. The response point moves
toward a peak of the one outer hysteresis loop.
14
Figure 6: Modified Takeda model

The ground motion characteristics and dynamic analysis of the structure will be
discussed in the following sections. The same analysis is also done using Applied
Element Method (AEM). The description of methodology and material modeling are
described as follows:
4.2
Applied Element Method (AEM)
Finite Element Method could not be able to simulate the complete collapse behavior of
structure, whereas, EDEM method follows till structural collapse of the structure, but
accuracy is lesser than FEM. The method which combines the advantages of both FEM
and EDEM is AEM. This is the only method, which can be used for analysis from crack
initiation, crack propagation to till the complete collapse of the structure. Failure of
reinforcement can also be found out from this method, which is important in estimating
damage. In this project, assessment of damage plays a vital role. Pushover analysis is
one of the methods to estimate capacity of structure. To assess damage of port building,
AEM method has chosen for further analysis. A brief overview of AEM is as follows:
Applied element method is a discrete method in which the elements are connected by
pair of normal and shear springs which are distributed around the element edges. These
springs represents the stresses and deformations of the studied element. The elements
motion is rigid body motion and the internal deformations are taken by springs only.
The general stiffness matrix components corresponding to each degree of freedom are
determined by assuming unit displacement and the forces are at the centroid of each
element. The element stiffness matrix size is 6x6. The stiffness matrix components
15

diagram is shown in figure 7. The first quarter portion of the stiffness matrix is shown
in figure 8. However, the global stiffness matrix is generated by summing up all the
local stiffness matrices for each element.
Figure 7: Modeling of structure in AEM and element shape, contact point and dof
Figure 8: Quarter portion of stiffness matrix

The material model used in this analysis is Maekawa compression model (Tagel-Din
Hatem, 1998). In this model, the tangent modulus is calculated according to the strain at
the spring location. After peak stresses, spring stiffness is assumed as a minimum value
to avoid having a singular matrix. The difference between spring stress and stress
corresponding to strain at the spring location are redistributed in each increment in
reverse direction. For concrete springs are subjected to tension, spring stiffness is
assumed as the initial stiffness till it reaches crack point. After cracking, stiffness of the
springs subjected to tension is assumed to be zero. For reinforcement, bi-linear stress
strain relationship is assumed. After yield of reinforcement, steel spring stiffness is
assumed as 0.01 of initial stiffness. After reaching 10% of strain, it is assumed that the
reinforcement bar is cut. The force carried by the reinforcement bar is redistributed
force to the corresponding elements in reverse direction. For cracking criteria (Hatem,
1998), principal stress based on failure criteria is adopted. The models for concrete, both
16

in compression and tension and the reinforcement bi-linear model are shown in figure
9.
Figure 9: Material models for concrete and steel

To determine the principal stresses at each spring location, the following technique is
used in this analysis. The shear and normal stress components at point A are
determined from the normal and shear springs attached at the contact point location
shown in figure 10. The secondary stress 2 from normal stresses and at point B and C
can be calculated by using the equation given below:
x
a
2 = B +
ax
c
a
(1)
The principal tension is calculated as:
P =
1 + 2
2
2
2
+ 1
+
2
(2)
The value of principal stress (P) is compared with the tension resistance of the studied
material. When P exceeds the critical value of tension resistance, the normal and shear
spring forces are redistributed in the next increment by applying the normal and shear
spring forces in the reverse direction. These redistributed forces are transferred to the
element center as a force and moment, and then these redistributed forces are applied to
the structure in the next increment.
It is assuming that failure inside the element is represented by failure of attached
springs (Hatem et al., 2000). If the spring gets failed, then the force in the spring is
redistributed. During this process, springs near the crack portion tend to fail easily.
However, the main disadvantage of this technique is that the crack width cannot be
calculated accurately.
In each increment, stresses and strains are calculated for reinforcement and concrete
springs. In case of springs subjected to tension, the failure criterion is checked.
17
Figure 10: (a) Principal Stress determination and (b) Redistribution of spring forces at
element edges
4.3
Response of structure
In order to begin any physical system, it is necessary to formulate it in a mathematical

form. The general dynamic equation for a structure is as follows:
&& + CU
& + KU = f ( t ) MU
&&
MU
g
(4)
Where [M] is mass matrix; [C] is damping matrix; [K] is nonlinear stiffness matrix; f(t)
is incremental applied load vector U and its derivatives are the incremental
displacement, velocity and acceleration vectors respectively. The above equation is
solved numerically using Newmark's beta (Chopra, 2001) method.
For mass matrix the elemental mass and mass moment of inertia are assumed lumped
at the element centroid so that it will act as continuous system. The elemental mass
matrix in case of square shaped elements is as follows:
2
M 1 D t
M = D 2 t
2
M 3 D 4 t / 6.0
(5)
Where D is the element size; t is element thickness and is the density of material. From
the above equation it is noticed that [M1] and [M2] are the element masses and [M3] is
the mass moment of inertia about centroid of the element. The mass matrix is a diagonal
matrix. The response of the structure is very near to the continuous/distributed mass
system if the element size becomes small. If the damping is present, the response of the
18

structure will get reduced. The damping matrix is calculated from the first mode as
follows:
C = 2mn
(6)
Where is damping ratio and n is the first natural frequency of the structure. For
finding out the dynamic properties such as natural frequencies of a structure requires
eigen values. The general equation for free vibration without damping is:
&& + KU = 0
MU
(7)
For a non trivial solution, the determinant of the above matrix must be equal to zero.
The solution of determinant of matrix gives the natural frequencies of the structure.
The displacement response of the structure is calculated using Newmarks beta method.
Initially the response is calculated with an element size of 0.25 m. As the size of the
element decreases, the response level will get saturate. This means the response will be
same with decreasing the element size further. The structure is modeled in FEM and
AEM and the elevation views are shown in figure 11.
19
Figure 11: Modeling of the structure in AEM
5. Pushover analysis
About 130 RC buildings collapsed during 2001 Bhuj earthquake in Ahmadabad
alone. Nearly 25000 other buildings are designed and constructed in the same manner
in these areas. Though these structures are still standing, serious concerns have been
arisen on their safety during future earthquakes. There are many cities with these types
of structures, their safety cannot be guaranteed, they may be seismically deficient. There
is an urgent need to assess the seismic vulnerability of buildings in urban areas of India
as an essential component of a comprehensive earthquake disaster risk management
policy. Detailed seismic vulnerability evaluation is a technically complex and expensive
procedure and can only be performed on a limited number of buildings. It is
therefore very important to use simpler procedures that can help to rapidly
evaluate the vulnerability profile of different types of buildings, so that the more
complex evaluation procedures can be limited to the most critical buildings.
Pushover analysis is mainly to evaluate existing buildings and retrofit them. It
can also be applied for new structures. RC framed buildings would become massive if
they were to be designed to behave elastically during earthquakes without damage also
they become uneconomical. Therefore the structures must undergo damage to dissipate
seismic energy. To design such a structure, it is necessary to know its performance and
collapse pattern. To know performance and collapse pattern non linear static
procedures are helpful. It is an incremental static analysis used to determine the forcedisplacement relationship, or the capacity curve, for a structure. The analysis involves
applying horizontal loads, in a prescribed pattern, onto the structure incrementally;
pushing the structure and plotting the total applied lateral force and associated lateral
displacement at each increment, until the structure achieve collapse condition. A plot of
the total base shear versus roof displacement in a structure is obtained by this analysis
that would indicate any premature failure or weakness.
Figure 12. Vulnerability assessment of structure (Amin Karbassi, 2010)

20
Now to get the load vs displacement curve for a structure, the structure is
pushed using either load control or displacement control. In this analysis displacement
control is used till complete collapse of the structure. The base shear vs roof
displacement plot is shown in figure 13. In this analysis, no need to specify plastic
hinges. All these effects are incorporated in the analysis. The failure locations, cracking
in concrete and yield of steel are determined automatically. The procedure of failure
pattern is already described in section 4.2. The stiffness of the structure getting reduced
when the first crack starts or the first spring fails. The spring fails when the principle
stress exceeds the limited value. Now the first spring fails at (4.75 m, 18.48 m) which
causes crack in the structure. In this analysis, steel failure is also allowed. When the
structure reaches the peak load value in the load vs displacement curve, it starts coming
down for further increase in the displacement. Base shear of the structure is calculated
w.r.t roof displacement. For each roof displacement, base shear is calculated as the
summation of horizontal forces at the bottom of each column. If the analysis is in load
control, it is necessary to calculate displacement and vice-versa.
Figure 13. Base shear vs Roof displacement for the port building
21
6. Fragility analysis for port building

Now the area under the load vs displacement curve is the total energy dissipated
in the structure. We calculated elastic and inelastic energy of the structure at each and
every displacement. The schematic diagram represents calculation of damage from
pushover curve shown in figure 14. The damage parameter (D) is denoted as the ratio of
inelastic energy to the total energy of the structure. Damage parameter is a dimensional
less quantity. The dissipated energy at point i is inelastic energy in damage
calculation. The dissipated energy till collapse gives rise to total energy in damage
calculation. With these damage values, fragility curve has generated which is in terms
of displacement. It is necessary to convert displacement into acceleration. Following is
the procedure:
Step-1: Spectral accelerations (Sa) are calculated using 4(SD)/T2. Where SD=spectral
displacement and T=time period.
Step-2: The spectral displacement (SD) values are calculated from base shear relation
V = .S a W;
roof = PF.SD. roof ;

roof
SD =
PF. roof
Where, V-base shear, W-seismic weight of structure, PF-participation factor.
Step-3: Fragility curve can be drawn with acceleration and corresponding damage.
22
(9)

Figure 14. Schematic diagram represents Base shear vs Roof displacement of port
building for calculating damage. For the point up to linear (elastic) there is no damage.
At point i it may correspond to moderate (0.5), i+1 may correspond to severe damage
(0.8) while the last point corresponds to total collapse. Total area under the envelope is
Emax while Ei is the area fom origin to i.
KHF Mandvi
PGA = 0.218 g
NKF Jodiya
PGA = 0.377 g
KMF Jhangi
PGA = 0.396 g
Figure 15. Spectral accelerations from response spectra of KHF Mandvi, NKF Jodiya
and KMF Jhangi
Figure 16. Fragility curve of port building for different PGA values
The acceleration response spectrum is drawn at KHF Mandvi, NKF Jodiya and KMF
Jhangi. The PGA values at these stations are 0.218g, 0.377 g and 0.396g respectively.
Figure 16 gives the damage curve of port building for different PGA values of ground
motion. For the structure like Kandla port building, the total damage of the structure
like Kandla port building is at around 0.16, 0.25 and 0.34 for KHF Mandvi (0.218 g),
NHF Jodiya (0.377 g) and KMF Jhangi (0.396 g) response spectra respectively.
23
7. Conclusions
The damage of the structure like Kandla port building is easily identified from fragility
curves for different ground motions. Pushover analysis is done to get base shear vs roof
displacement of building using displacement control method. Using energy dissipation
approach, damage is quantified at every displacement level. A fragility curve has been
developed to quantify the damage of building with respect to different peak ground
accelerations. Based on the fragility analysis of port building the following
recommendations are drawn. It is found that the total damage of the structure like
Kandla port building is at around 0.16, 0.25 and 0.34 for KHF Mandvi (0.218 g), NKF
Jodiya (0.377 g) and KMF Jhangi (0.396 g) response spectra, respectively.
8. References
[1] Tagel-Din Hatem, "A New Efficient Method for Nonlinear, Large Deformation and
Collapse Analysis of Structures", Ph.D Thesis, Civil Engg. Dept., University of Tokyo,
September, 1998.
[2] Anil K Chopra, "Dynamics of Structures-Theory and Applications to Earthquake
Engineering ", Prentice Hall International Series, 1995.
[3] Tagel-Din Hatem and Kimiro Meguro., "Applied Element Method for Simulation of
Nonlinear Materials: Theory and Application for RC Structures", Structural
Eng./Earthquake Eng., JSCE, Vol 17, No.2, 2000.
[4] Steven L.Kramer., "Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering", Pearson Publishers, 1996.
[5] Dash SR, Govindraju L, Bhattacharya S, A case study of damages of the Kandla port
and customs office tower supported on a mat-pile foundation in liquefied soils under
the 2001 Bhuj earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthquake Eng 29: 333346, 2008
[6] Madabushi SPG, Haigh SK, The Bhuj, India earthquake of 26th January 2001. A field
report by EEFIT. Institution of Structural Engineers, London, 2005
[7] PIANC/MarCom WG34, Seismic design guidelines for port structures. International
Navigation Association. A.A. Balkema, Lisse, 2001
[8] Takahashi A, Takemura J, Liquefaction induced large displacement of pile
supported wharf. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25:811825, 2005
[9] Werner SD (ed), Seismic guidelines for ports. Technical Council on Lifeline
Earthquake Engineering Monograph No. 12, ASCE, 1998.
[10] Amin Karbassi, Performance based seismic vulnerability evaluation of existing
buildings in old sectors of Quebec, Ph.D Thesis, University of Quebec, 2010.
24
Annexures of Vulnerability Assessment Port

Buildings
25
Annexure-I
Nonlinear Time History Analysis
A study has been conducted to study the dynamic nonlinear behavior of port building.
The dynamic properties of the building are as follows: The fundamental period of
structure is 0.77 sec and the period of structure from mode-2 to mode-7 are 0.225 s, 0.112
s, 0.072 s, 0.057 s, 0.049 s and 0.038 respectively. The procedure for finding out the
response of the structure is already discussed in the earlier sections. Now the structure
is subjected to several ground motions from different places of Bhuj namely, Kachchh
Mainland Fault: Bharuch, Dholera, Lalpur and Mandvi; Katrol Hill Fault: Bharuch,
Dholera, Lalpur and Mandvi. The geographical locations of Dholera, Bharuch, Lalpur
and Mandvi are (22.25, 72.2), (21.74, 73.01), (22.35, 69.96) and (22.82, 69.35). The
characteristics of ground motions are as follows:
Ground motion characteristics

For engineering purposes, (1) amplitude (2) frequency and (3) duration of the motion
are the important characteristics (Steven L Kramer, 1996). Horizontal accelerations have
commonly been used to describe the ground motions. The peak horizontal acceleration
for a given component of motion is simply the largest (absolute) value of horizontal
acceleration obtained from the accelerogram of that component. The largest dynamic
forces induced in a certain types of structures (very stiff) are closely related to the PHA.
Earthquakes produce complicated loading with components of motion that span a
broad range of frequencies. The frequency content describes how the amplitude of
ground motion is distributed among different frequencies. The frequency content of an
earthquake motion will strongly influence the motion of structure. The broad band
width of the Fourier amplitude spectrum is the range of frequencies over which some
level of Fourier amplitude is exceeded. Generally band width is measured at a level of
1/2 times of maximum Fourier amplitude.
The Fourier transform of an accelerogram &x& (t) is given by,
1
X ( ) =
2
&x&( t ) e
- i t
dt
(10)
Where, &x& (t) is the amplitude of the accelerogram.

The duration of strong ground motion can have a strong influence on earthquake
damage. It is related to the time required for accumulation of strain energy by rupture
along the fault.
26
There are different procedures for calculating the duration of ground motion,
Brackted Duration: It is the time between the first and last exceedances of a threshold
acceleration (usually 0.05 g)
Trifunac and Brady Duration: It is the time interval between the points at which 5%
and 95% of the total energy has been recorded.
In our analysis Bracketed duration is used for calculating the duration of ground
motion. The details of the ground motions are listed in table 2 and the ground motion
records and its Fourier amplitude spectrums are shown in fig 17-24.
Table 2: Details of ground motions
S.No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Region
Katrol Hill
Fault (KHF)
Kachchh
Mainland
Fault (KMF)
Ground
Motion
Bharuch
Mandvi
Lalpur
Dholera
Bharuch
Mandvi
Lalpur
Dholera
Amplitude
(g)
0.012
0.308
0.091
0.013
0.018
0.122
0.086
0.021
Duration
(sec)
21.50
8.48
14.80
11.00
-
Frequency (Hz)
7.0-9.0 (0.110-0.142 sec)
6.3-8.5 (0.110-0.158 sec)
6.2-9.5 (0.105-0.160 sec)
5.8-7.1 (0.140-0.172 sec)
6.7-9.2 (0.108-0.150 sec)
5.5-8.5 (0.117-0.180 sec)
6.2-9.6 (0.104-0.161 sec)
5.8-7.1 (0.140-0.172 sec)
(a)
(b)
Figure 17: Ground motion record of Bhuj earthquake at KHF Bharuch (a) Ground
motion record (b) Fourier amplitude spectrum
27
(a)
(b)
Figure 18: Ground motion record of Bhuj earthquake at KHF Mandvi (a) Ground
(a)
(b)
Figure 19: Ground motion record of Bhuj earthquake at KHF Lalpur (a) Ground motion
record (b) Fourier amplitude spectrum
(a)
(b)
28

Figure 20: Ground motion record of Bhuj earthquake at KHF Dholera (a) Ground
(a)
(b)
Figure 21: Ground motion record of Bhuj earthquake at KMF Bharuch (a) Ground
(a)
(b)
Figure 22: Ground motion record of Bhuj earthquake at KMF Mandvi (a) Ground
29
(a)
(b)
Figure 23: Ground motion record of Bhuj earthquake at KMF Lalpur (a) Ground motion
record (b) Fourier amplitude spectrum
(a)
(b)
Figure 24: Ground motion record of Bhuj earthquake at KMF Dholera (a) Ground
The characteristics of ground motion are given in table 2. Characteristics of ground
motions considered in the study are amplitude, frequency content and strong ground
motion duration. These characteristics play a major role in the calculation of nonlinear
time history response of the structure. For high PGA, the damage to the structure is
high. However, the same PGA if it is occurring at frequency much away from
resonating of the structure, it may not yield significant damage. Also duration of strong
motion plays a vital role. For the purpose of understanding the sensitivity of the
structures response to the given ground motions, these addition work has been carried
out. However, in the final calculation the damage parameter using fragility curve only
PGA is used.
The displacement response of the structure is calculated using Newmarks beta method.
Initially the response is calculated with an element size of 0.25 m. As the size of the
element decreases, the response level will get saturate. This means the response will be
same with decreasing the element size further. The structure is modeled in FEM and
AEM and the elevation views are shown in figure 25 and 26.
30
(a)
(b)
Figure 25: Modeling of the structure (a) AEM and (b) FEM
31
Figure 26: 3D Modeling of the structure in AEM

To find out the behavior of the port building, 8 different ground motions at Dholera,
Bharuch, Lalpur and Mandvi on the faults Kachchh Mainland Fault (KMF) and Katrol
Hill Fault (KHF) generated by Institute of Seismological Research (ISR) are applied to
the structure. For all the ground motions, the response is calculated at the top of port
building. The fundamental period of the structure in first mode is 0.77 sec. The second
and third modes are 0.225 and 0.11 sec respectively. From table 2, the predominant
frequencies range of ground motions is 0.11-0.18 sec which is far from the fundamental
32

period of the ground motion. The third mode frequency of the structure is getting
matched with predominant period of all the ground motions. It means that the structure
is predominantly vibrated in third mode. The responses of the structure for all the
ground motions are plotted in figure 27.
-3
KHFBRCH
x 10
Displacement Response (m)
0
-1
10
15
-3
20
25
30
35
40
25
30
35
40
25
30
35
40
25
30
35
40
25
30
35
40
25
30
35
40
25
30
35
40
25
30
35
40
KHFDHLRA
x 10
0
-1
10
15
-3
20
KHFLAL
x 10
0
-1
10
15
10
15
-3
x 10
20
KHFMAND
0
-1
-3
20
KMFBRCH
x 10
0
-1
10
15
-3
20
KMFDHLRA
x 10
0
-1
10
15
-3
20
KMFLAL
x 10
0
-1
10
15
10
15
-3
x 10
20
KMFMAND
0
-1
20
Figure 27: Displacement response of the port building at different places in Gujarat
Since the structure is modeled in 3D and with vertical irregularity, it has response in all
three directions. The calculated responses are in flexible direction of the building. The
displacement responses of the structure are 2.2E-5, 5.3E-5, 1.5E-4, 6.5E-4, 3.2E-5, 8.3E-5,
1.2E-4 and 2.4E-4 m. From the analysis, the maximum response obtained from KHF
33

Mandvi ground motion is 6.5E-4 m. This is because of high PGA value among all the
ground motions. But, the response of the structure will effect because of frequency not
from PGA. It would experience more response if the fundamental period falls in the
range of predominant period of ground motion. But, in this case, the fundamental
period of the structure is far from the predominant period of the ground motion. The
frequency range of ground motions is 5-10 Hz and the fundamental frequency of the
structure is 1.3 Hz which is far from the frequency range of ground motions. From the
analysis, it is observed that the nonlinear response of the structure is similar to linear. It
means that the structure has not yielded for the ground motions given. The maximum
displacement responses for the ground motions are tabulated in table 3. Since the
responses of structure are very low for given ground motions, it is difficult to determine
damage.
Table 3: Maximum displacement responses for the ground motions
S.No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Region
Katrol Hill Fault
(KHF)
Kachchh Mainland
Fault (KMF)
Ground
Motion
Bharuch
Mandvi
Lalpur
Dholera
Bharuch
Mandvi
Lalpur
Dholera
Max. Displacement
Response (m)
2.2x10-5
6.5x10-4
1.5x10-4
5.3x10-5
3.2x10-5
2.4x10-4
1.2x10-4
8.3x10-5
Annexure-II
Comparison of responses
The same structure is modeled in SAP 2000. The same dynamic equilibrium equation is
used to obtain response of the structure using FEM also. In dynamic analysis, the mass
of the structure is used to compute inertial forces and this mass is obtained from mass
density of the material and volume of the element. The assigned masses to the elements
are actually lumped and transferred at the joints. No mass moments of inertia are
produced for the rotational degrees of freedom. For efficiency and accuracy point of
view, SAP2000 always uses lumped masses. In a joint local co-ordinate system, the
inertial forces and moments at a joint are given as,
34

0
0
F1 u 1

u2
0
F2
u3
F3
=
M1
M 2
Sym

M 3
0
0
r1
0
0
0
r2
0 &u&1

0 &u& 2
0 &u& 3

0 &r&1
0 &r&2

r3 &r&3
(11)
Where second derivatives of u and r are translational and rotational degrees of

freedom at the joints and u1, u2, u3, r1, r2 and r3 are the specified mass values. In this
analysis, Fast Nonlinear Analysis (FNA) method is used, developed by Wilson 1989.
1
x 10
-3
KHFBRCH
0
-1
1
0
x 10
10
15
-3
20
25
30
35
40
25
30
35
40
25
30
35
40
25
30
35
40
25
30
35
40
KHFDHLRA
0
-1
1
0
x 10
10
15
-3
20
KHFLAL
0
-1
1
0
x 10
10
15
10
15
-3
20
KHFMAND
0
-1
x 10
-3
20
KMFBRCH
0
-1
1
0
x 10
10
15
-3
20
KMFDHLRA
0
-1
1
0
x 10
10
15
20
KMFLAL
25
30
35
40
10
15
20
KMFMAND
25
30
35
40
10
15
25
30
35
40
-3
0
-1
1
0
x 10
-3
0
-1
20
35

Figure 28: Comparison of displacement responses of the port building using FEM and
AEM
The displacement responses of the structure are 2.0E-5, 2.5E-5, 1.2E-4, 5.5E-4, 2.8E-5,
4.06E-5, 1.08E-4, and 1.78E-4 m. Figure 28 shows that the displacement response of port
building using both FEM and AEM approaches and they represented with solid line
(AEM) and dashed line (FEM) respectively. From the above approaches, the accuracy of
responses is maintained between 85 to 95%. Table 4 shows the comparison of maximum
displacement responses for different ground motions using above approaches. The
nonlinear displacement response of structure for KHF Mandvi is higher among all the
responses. It is because of higher PGA value. Since Gujarat is under highly seismic area,
the structure is analyzed for zone IV & V.
Table 4: Comparison of maximum displacement responses for the ground motions
using AEM & FEM
S.No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Region
Katrol Hill Fault
(KHF)
Kachchh Mainland
Fault (KMF)
Ground
Motion
Bharuch
Mandvi
Lalpur
Dholera
Bharuch
Mandvi
Lalpur
Dholera
Max. Displacement
Response (m) - AEM
2.2x10-5
6.5x10-4
1.5x10-4
5.3x10-5
3.2x10-5
2.4x10-4
1.2x10-4
8.3x10-5
Max. Displacement
Response (m) - FEM
2.0x10-5
5.54x10-4
1.2x10-4
2.5x10-5
2.85x10-5
1.78x10-4
1.08x10-4
4.06x10-5
Annexure-III
Response due to amplified ground motions
Gujarat state is under seismic zone III, IV and V. The ground motions are generated at
places along the coast line of Gujarat. The upper coastal line of Saurashtra region is
under seismic zone IV and coastal line of Kachchh region is under seismic zone V. As
per IS: 1893-2002, the seismic zone factor for IV and V are 0.24 g and 0.36 g respectively.
To understand the behavior of the structure under these seismic zones, the ground
motions are normalized to 0.24 g and 0.36 g. The normalized ground motions are
applied to the structure. The displacement responses of the structure for 0.24 g and 0.36
g are tabulated in table 5.
36

Table 5: Maximum displacement responses for ground motions normalized to 0.24 and
0.36 g (AEM)
Ground Max. Displacement
Max. Displacement
S.No
Region
Motion Response (m) 0.24g Response (m) 0.36g
1
Bharuch
5.4x10-4
8.0x10-4
2
Mandvi
6.4x10-4
9.6x10-4
Katrol Hill Fault
(KHF)
3
Lalpur
4.4x10-4
6.5x10-4
-3
4
Dholera
1.0x10
1.5x10-3
5
Bharuch
5.3x10-4
8.2x10-4
6
5.5x10-4
8.2x10-4
Kachchh Mainland Mandvi
Fault (KMF)
7
Lalpur
4.1x10-4
6.1x10-4
8
Dholera
1.0x10-3
1.5x10-3
x 10
-3
KHFBRCH - 0.24g
0
-1
0
x 10
10
15
10
15
-3
20
KHFDHLRA - 0.24g
25
30
35
40
25
30
35
40
25
30
35
40
25
30
35
40
1
0
-1
0
x 10
-3
20
KHFLAL - 0.24g
1
0
-1
0
x 10
10
15
10
15
-3
20
KHFMAND - 0.24g
1
0
-1
0
x 10
-3
20
KMFBRCH - 0.24g
0
-1
0
x 10
10
15
20
KMFDHLRA - 0.24g
25
30
35
40
10
15
20
KMFLAL - 0.24g
25
30
35
40
10
15
20
KMFMAND - 0.24g
25
30
35
40
10
15
25
30
35
40
-3
1
0
-1
0
x 10
-3
1
0
-1
0
x 10
-3
1
0
-1
0
3720
-3
KHFBRCH - 0.36g
x 10
1
0
-1
0
10
15
20
KHFDHLRA - 0.36g
25
30
35
40
10
15
20
KHFLAL - 0.36g
25
30
35
40
10
15
20
KHFMAND - 0.36g
25
30
35
40
10
15
25
30
35
40
25
30
35
40
25
30
35
40
25
30
35
40
25
30
35
40
-3
x 10
1
0
-1
0
-3
x 10
1
0
-1
0
-3
x 10
1
0
-1
0
x 10
-3
20
KMFBRCH - 0.36g
0
-1
0
x 10
10
15
-3
20
KMFDHLRA - 0.36g
1
0
-1
0
x 10
10
15
-3
20
KMFLAL - 0.36g
1
0
-1
0
x 10
10
15
10
15
-3
20
KMFMAND - 0.36g
1
0
-1
0
20
Figure 29: Displacement responses of the port building for amplified ground motions
Normalized to 0.24 g and 0.36 g
Since, all the ground motions are normalized to 0.24 g, the PGA value is 0.24 g. It
means, the maximum lateral force applied onto the structure is same. Even though, the
PGA value is same for all ground motions, the displacement responses are different.
Structure effects only because of frequency and not of PGA. Significant structural
damage would occur, if ground motion frequency comes closer to the structures
38

frequency. In this analysis, no structural damage is noticed during time history analysis
after normalization. Because structure vibrates at much lower frequency and ground
motions are at higher frequency. Since the responses of structure are very low for
amplified ground motions, it is difficult to determine damage of structure through
pushover analysis. However, these responses are not used in further analysis.
Annexure-IV
Comparison of amplified 2D & 3D responses
In this section, comparison of FEM, AEM (3D) and AEM (2D) analyses are done. The
responses of amplified ground motion (0.24g) are considered for the purpose of
comparison. The 2D and 3D responses are not coinciding with each other because,
structure has torsion. Torsion comes in the structure due to uneven distribution of mass
at top floor level. The effect of torsion can be clearly seen from figure 30.
Annexure-V
Soil structure interaction analysis of port building
Past earthquake history all over the world shows that the amplification of ground
motion is highly dependent on the local geological, topography and geotechnical
conditions. Many studies have been devoted for the estimation of local site effects. It is
observed that large concentration of damage in specific areas during an earthquake is
due to site dependent factors related to surface geological conditions and local soil.
Generally, the soil layers over the firm bedrock may attenuate or amplify the bed rock
earthquake motion depending upon geotechnical characteristics, their depth and
arrangement of layers (Steven L Kramer, (2003)). Local amplification of the ground is
often controlled by the soft surface layer, which leads to the trapping of the seismic
energy, due to the impedance contrast between the soft surface soils and the underlying
bedrock.
There are several problems in numerical modeling where media is either infinite or
semi-infinite. One of them is modeling of soil underneath the footing. During past few
decades, it is very well recognized that structure resting on soil interacts dynamically
with soil during earthquakes. Modeling of this problem becomes difficult due to the
reason that soil extends up to infinity. A wave that is radiated from the source travels
up to infinity before its amplitude is reduced to insignificant value. One simple solution
39

to carry out the analysis is to model the boundary at infinitely large distance such that
influence of the boundary is not affecting the results in the vicinity of the source.
However, such a system takes huge amount of computation time and resources. For this
reason, many researchers studied the problem by modeling the media incorporating
absorbing boundary condition like viscous boundary condition.
x 10
-3
KHFBRCH
0
-1
0
x 10
10
15
20
KHFDHLRA
25
30
35
40
10
15
20
KHFLAL
25
30
35
40
10
15
20
KHFMAND
25
30
35
40
10
15
20
KMFBRCH
25
30
35
40
10
15
20
KMFDHLRA
25
30
35
40
10
15
20
KMFLAL
25
30
35
40
10
15
20
KMFMAND
25
30
35
40
10
15
25
30
35
40
-3
1
0
-1
0
x 10
-3
1
0
-1
0
x 10
-3
1
0
-1
0
x 10
-3
0
-1
0
x 10
-3
1
0
-1
0
x 10
-3
1
0
-1
0
x 10
-3
1
0
-1
0
20
40

Figure 30: Comparison of AEM-2D, AEM-3D & FEM responses for ground motions
normalized to 0.24 g (solid line with blue-AEM-3D, solid line with black-AEM-2D, dotted line
with green-FEM)
When we deal with SSI, two types of mechanisms take place, those are, a) kinematic
interaction and b) inertial interaction.
a) Inertial interaction: Inertia developed in the structure due to its own vibrations
gives rise to base shear and moment, which in turn cause displacements of the
foundation relative to the free-eld.
b) Kinematic interaction: The presence of stiff foundation elements on or in soil cause
foundation motions to deviate from free-eld motions as a result of ground
motion. Kinematic effects are described by a frequency dependent transfer
function relating the free-eld motion to the motion that would occur on the base
slab if the slab and structure were mass less.
At low level of ground shaking, kinematic effect is more dominant causing increase of
period. Observations from recent earthquakes have shown that the response of the
foundation and soil can greatly influence the overall structural response. There are
several cases of severe damages in structures due to SSI in the past earthquakes (1989
Loma Prieta Earthquake, 1995 Kobe Earthquake).
In this study, we are introducing the effect of soil structure interaction (SSI) for the port
building structure. The length, width and depth of soil are 13.45, 14.0 and 1.0 m
respectively. The young's modulus is taken as 0.21x109 kN/m2, Poissons ratio is taken
as 0.2. Initially the response of the soil is calculated by fixing the viscous boundaries. In
this analysis, all the ground motions normalized to 0.36 g are given to the structure. The
responses are plotted at ground and top of the structure. The displacement responses
for ground and structure due to SSI are shown in figure 31 and 32. By considering SSI,
makes the structure more flexible, stiffness of the structure decreases, resulting into
increase in the natural period of the structure. This increase in the natural period of
structure leads to higher amplitudes in the response of structure. Due to SSI, the
response of structure increases from 8.4E-4 m to 1.0E-3 m when subjected to KHF
Bharuch ground motion. Since the responses of structure and soil are very low for given
ground motions, it is difficult to determine damage of structure through pushover
analysis. However, these responses are not used in further analysis.
41

x 10
-3
KHFBRCH - SSI
0
-1
0
x 10
10
15
-3
20
25
30
35
40
25
30
35
40
25
30
35
40
25
30
35
40
KHFDHLRA - SSI
1
0
-1
0
x 10
10
15
-3
20
KHFLAL - SSI
1
0
-1
0
x 10
10
15
10
15
-3
20
KHFMAND - SSI
1
0
-1
0
x 10
-3
20
KMFBRCH - SSI
0
-1
0
x 10
10
15
20
KMFDHLRA - SSI
25
30
35
40
10
15
20
KMFLAL - SSI
25
30
35
40
10
15
20
KMFMAND - SSI
25
30
35
40
10
15
25
30
35
40
-3
1
0
-1
0
x 10
-3
1
0
-1
0
x 10
-3
1
0
-1
0
20
Figure 31: Responses of the structure due to soil-structure-interaction
42
x 10
-7
KHFBRCH - SSI
0
-1
0
x 10
10
15
-7
20
25
30
35
40
KHFDHLRA - SSI
1
0
-1
0
x 10
10
15
20
KHFLAL - SSI
25
30
35
40
10
15
20
KHFMAND - SSI
25
30
35
40
10
15
25
30
35
40
-7
1
0
-1
0
x 10
-7
1
0
-1
0
x 10
-7
20
KMFBRCH - SSI
0
-1
0
x 10
10
15
20
KMFDHLRA - SSI
25
30
35
40
10
15
20
KMFLAL - SSI
25
30
35
40
10
15
20
KMFMAND - SSI
25
30
35
40
10
15
25
30
35
40
-7
1
0
-1
0
x 10
-7
1
0
-1
0
x 10
-7
1
0
-1
0
20
Figure 32: Responses of the soil due to soil-structure-interaction
43

Port Buildings

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Port Buildings

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Report No: IIIT/TR/2014/-1

Centre for Earthquake Engineering

Assessment of Vulnerability of Installation near Gujarat

International Institute of Information Technology

Institute of Seismological Research

Ministry of Earth Sciences

Earthquake Engineering Research Centre

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Finite Element Method.6

Applied Element Method....8

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

The Port of Kandla is built on natural ground comprising recent unconsolidated

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Live load on floor = 2 kN/m2

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Soft clay with traces of fine sand, LL=62-68%,

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Figure 5: Overview of numerical techniques

Finite Element Method (FEM)

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Figure 6: Modified Takeda model

Applied Element Method (AEM)

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Figure 8: Quarter portion of stiffness matrix

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Figure 9: Material models for concrete and steel

The principal tension is calculated as:

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

In order to begin any physical system, it is necessary to formulate it in a mathematical

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Figure 11: Modeling of the structure in AEM

Figure 12. Vulnerability assessment of structure (Amin Karbassi, 2010)

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

6. Fragility analysis for port building

roof = PF.SD. roof ;

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

and KMF Jhangi

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Annexures of Vulnerability Assessment Port

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Ground motion characteristics

Where, &x& (t) is the amplitude of the accelerogram.

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Figure 26: 3D Modeling of the structure in AEM

Vulnerability Assessment of Port Buildings

Displacement Response (m)

Displacement Response (m)