You are on page 1of 16

# PILED WHARF – SEISMIC

DESIGN EXAMPLE
DISPLACEMENT –BASED SEICMIC DESIGN [PUSHOVER ANALYSIS]

Duyet Nguyen
Dimitrios Pachakis
Helge Frandsen
8 February 2016
SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF PILED WHARVES

##  Design example using displacement based design

[Eurocode 8, ASCE 61-14]

##  Concrete deck on steel piles

2 PILED WHARFSEISMIC
NONLINEAR SEISMICANALYSIS
DESIGN EXAMPLE
METHODS| | 8
27FEBRUARY 2016
October 2015
SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF PILED WHARVES

performance?

##  How can we refine the pile selection using Nonlinear Static

Pushover Analysis?

3 PILED WHARFSEISMIC
NONLINEAR SEISMICANALYSIS
DESIGN EXAMPLE
METHODS| | 8
27FEBRUARY 2016
October 2015
CONTENTS

##  Nonlinear static pushover analysis steps

 Comparison of results

4 PILED WHARFSEISMIC
NONLINEAR SEISMICANALYSIS
DESIGN EXAMPLE
METHODS| | 8
27FEBRUARY 2016
October 2015
Sample structure
6.0m

Berthing load: 1200 kN / bent (7.0m)
Mooring load: 500 kN / bent (7.0m)
Crane load: 4000 kN WL at crane rail pos.
UDL: 40 kN/m2
7.0m

Geotechnical parameters:
γ K Φ
Soil layers
[kN/m3] [kN/m3] [Degree]
Quarry Run 20.0 44,000 40
Sand 19.0 25,500 36

5 PILED WHARFSEISMIC
NONLINEAR SEISMICANALYSIS
DESIGN EXAMPLE
METHODS| | 8
27FEBRUARY 2016
October 2015
Seismic design considerations
 Structure is located in moderate to high seismic area

##  Nonlinear static pushover analysis is used

6 PILED WHARFSEISMIC
NONLINEAR SEISMICANALYSIS
DESIGN EXAMPLE
METHODS| | 8
27FEBRUARY 2016
October 2015
Design cases A B C
35000
D E F

+4.0mCD
 Design PGA :
+0.0mCD

 0.25g
QUARRY RUN
 0.40g 1
1.5
(0.1-400) KG

 0.60g -20.8mCD
-22.8mCD

MEDIUM DENSE TO
DENSE SAND

investigated:
-49.0mCD

## Case 1: Case 2: Case 3:

All pile class: 1/2 All pile class: 3/4 Mixed class: 1/2 + 3/4

7 PILED WHARFSEISMIC
NONLINEAR SEISMICANALYSIS
DESIGN EXAMPLE
METHODS| | 8
27FEBRUARY 2016
October 2015
Modelling
Rigid
C.G. of deck
𝐌𝐌𝐩𝐩
𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐞𝐞𝐞𝐞𝐞𝐞 =
𝚽𝚽𝐘𝐘

Rigid
Lp

element
Pile plug
Lplug

R.C section
properties

Composite section
properties 𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐞𝐞𝐞𝐞𝐞𝐞 = 𝐄𝐄𝐄𝐄
Pile section
Top of soil properties

Pile structural

Soil spring
𝐏𝐏𝐢𝐢
𝐊𝐊 𝐢𝐢 =
𝐘𝐘𝐢𝐢

Pile modelling
Soil – [p-y curves by Reese et al.]

8 PILED WHARFSEISMIC
NONLINEAR SEISMICANALYSIS
DESIGN EXAMPLE
METHODS| | 8
27FEBRUARY 2016
October 2015
Modelling
A B C D E F
35000
3000 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 2000

+4.0mCD

+0.0mCD +1.2

-2.8

## SPRING SPACING: 0.5m

-6.8

20000
STEEL
TUBULAR PILES
QUARRY RUN
-10.8 (0.1-400) KG

20000
20.0m
-14.8
20000

-20.8mCD -18.8
20000

-22.8mCD
20000
Spring 1.0m Spring 0.5m
SPRING SPACING: 0.5m

MEDIUM DENSE TO
20000

## SPRING SPACING: 1.0m

DENSE SAND
30000
26000
22000
18000
SPRING SPACING: 1.0m

14000
10000

-49.0mCD

## Pile bent modelling Model in SAP2000

9 PILED WHARFSEISMIC
NONLINEAR SEISMICANALYSIS
DESIGN EXAMPLE
METHODS| | 8
27FEBRUARY 2016
October 2015
Analysis steps
S1. Run static pushover analysis & display pushover curve
S2. Determine displacement demand [capacity spectrum]
8.0
a - (m/s2) Displacement Response
7.0 Spectra
6.0 Reduced Displacement
Response Spectra
5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0 d - (m)
0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

## S3. Applied DMF factor => ∆D = DMF x ∆0

10 PILED WHARFSEISMIC
NONLINEAR SEISMICANALYSIS
DESIGN EXAMPLE
METHODS| | 8
27FEBRUARY 2016
October 2015
Analysis steps
S4. Re-push model to ∆D & save hinge output
S5. Checking the plastic curvature by interaction diagram
15000
N - kN Plastic curvature

θ p / Lp = Φ p
10000

5000

-5000

-10000

Φ - 1/m
-15000
-0.04 -0.03 -0.02 -0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

11 PILED WHARFSEISMIC
NONLINEAR SEISMICANALYSIS
DESIGN EXAMPLE
METHODS| | 8
27FEBRUARY 2016
October 2015
Results
A B C D E F
35000

+4.0mCD

## Case 1: Class 1/2 +0.0mCD

D813-14.2mm
QUARRY RUN
Case 2: Class 3/4 1
1.5
(0.1-400) KG

D1220-(12.5-20.6)mm
-20.8mCD
-22.8mCD

MEDIUM DENSE TO
Case 3: Mixed class 1/2 + 3/4 DENSE SAND

D1016 – (12.5-17.5)mm

## Limited ductile (EC8-2) -49.0mCD

D1220-(16.0-23.8)mm

12 PILED WHARFSEISMIC
NONLINEAR SEISMICANALYSIS
DESIGN EXAMPLE
METHODS| | 8
27FEBRUARY 2016
October 2015
Results A B C
35000
D E F

Pile weight per bent & Displacement 3000 6000 6000 6000 6000 6000 2000

140 +4.0mCD

120 PGA=0.25g
+0.0mCD
100 115.3
80 93.6
60 79.5 78.3
40 Class Class Mixed EC8-2 1.5 D1220-20.6mm
1
20 1/2 3/4 =>
0
C1-D813 C2-1220 C3-1016 LD-1220 -20.8mCD
D1016D1520-25mm
12.5 => 16.0mm
120 400 ∆ - mm Case 1-D813
W – t/bent Case 1-D813
110 Case 2-D1220 300
Case 2-D1220
100 Case 3-D1016 Case 3-D1016
90 200
80
100
70
PGA/g PGA/g
60 0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

13 PILED WHARFSEISMIC
NONLINEAR SEISMICANALYSIS
DESIGN EXAMPLE
METHODS| | 8
27FEBRUARY 2016
October 2015
Results
-15000 -20000
Static- H
Static- H Static-S
Static-S -15000
-10000 PGA=0.25-H
PGA=0.25-H PGA=0.25-S
PGA=0.25-S -10000
-5000 -5000

0 0

5000
5000
10000
Class 1/2 – D813 Class 3/4 – D1220
10000 15000
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36

-15000 -50000
Static- H
Static- H Static-S
Static-S -40000
-10000 PGA=0.25-H
PGA=0.25-S PGA=0.4g-H PGA=0.4g-S
-30000
-5000
-20000
0 -10000
0
5000
10000
10000
20000
Mixed – D1016 Class 3/4 – D1220/1620
15000 30000
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36

## 14 NONLINEAR SEISMIC ANALYSIS METHODS | 27 October 2015

Conclusions
 Pile design with in-ground plastic hinges is an
economical option, especially for high PGA

##  Using a non-ductile pile section preventing plastic

hinges in the ground, usually leads to the
uneconomical design
 Limiting criteria is typically shear demand in
landward pile / deck connections

##  Using pushover analysis enables specifying

ductile sections for some piles and class 4 for
others

15 PILED WHARFSEISMIC
NONLINEAR SEISMICANALYSIS
DESIGN EXAMPLE
METHODS| | 8
27FEBRUARY 2016
October 2015
Q&A

helge.frandsen@rhdhv.com

16 PILED WHARFSEISMIC
NONLINEAR SEISMICANALYSIS
DESIGN EXAMPLE
METHODS| | 8
27FEBRUARY 2016
October 2015