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

net/publication/344978757

Enhancing the seismic performance of batter piles in pile-supported wharves

using fluid viscous dampers

Conference Paper · May 2018

CITATION READS

1 418

3 authors, including:

Mohammad Ghiasian
University of Miami
11 PUBLICATIONS 32 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Mohammad Ghiasian on 03 November 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Enhancing the seismic performance of batter piles in
pile-supported wharves using fluid viscous dampers

Mohammad Ghiasian1, Ali Fakher2, Mohammad Khanmohammadi3

1- MSc student, School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran
2- Professor, School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran
3- Associate Professor, School of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran

Abstract
Batter piles play an important role in controlling the lateral displacement of the wharves and resisting lateral
loads due to mooring, berthing, and crane operation. However, the batter pile-deck system causes a much
more rigid frame than one with vertical piles. As a consequence, large stress concentrations and shear failure
of batter piles have been observed during strong earthquakes. Therefore, the use of batter piles in the design
of new piers located in regions of high seismicity is discouraged. In this study, a series of nonlinear time-
history analysis was performed to evaluate the seismic response of a typical pile-supported pier equipped
with viscous fluid dampers (FVDs). The obtained results show that FVDs can dissipate a large portion of
seismic input energy and mitigate piles damages. Furthermore, the pile-supported wharf design becomes
more economical since the idea keeps the application of batter piles in the design of new wharves and
retrofitting of existing ones on a safer side.
Keywords: Batter Piles, Pile-Supported Wharves, Fluid Viscous Damper

1. INTRODUCTION

Pile-supported wharves are one of the most prevalent structural systems among different alternatives for
designing new wharves and piers in Iran owing to the availability of appropriate construction equipment,
facilities, and sufficient engineering knowledge in this regard. Among various structural components in pile-
supported wharves, careful attention should be paid to the application of batter piles [1]. A few number of
batter piles provide required lateral stiffness for piers in order to resist lateral loads such as mooring, berthing,
etc. But, poor performance of batter piles has been observed during strong earthquake motions. Fig. 1 shows
some of these damages to the pile-supported wharves equipped with batter piles in the past earthquakes.

(a) (b)
Fig. 1. Example of Pile-supported wharves destructions in the past earthquakes, (a) plastic hinge in pile-deck zone,
Oakland Loma Prieta earthquake, 1989 [2], (b) complete separation of batter pile from the steel cap beam, Chile
earthquake, 2010 [3].

1
2. SOLUTIONS TO ENHANCE BATTER PILES PERFORMANCE

Despite the poor performance of batter piles in past earthquakes, Innovative structural design and detailing of
pile-deck connections has allowed for the continued use of batter piles for pile-supported wharves [1]. The
design concepts incorporate a repairable structural fuse at the pile cap region. Razavi (2007) and Memari (2010)
have studied the poor performance of the batter piles under lateral loads and have proposed a structural fuse-
link that yields in shear and can be replaced after the earthquake [4,5]. The fuse serves as a weak link or load-
limiting device that is strong enough to resist lateral loads during routine port operation, but yields during
strong earthquake motions, and thus these structural elements can act as sacrificial elements and undergo the
damages instead of piles during strong earthquakes. Fig. 2 shows the structural fuse schemes which proposed
by Razavi and Memari.

(a) (b)
Fig. 2. Structural fuse schemes introduced by the previous researchers, (a) Razavi and et al, 2007 [4], Memari and
et al, 2010 [5].

Nowadays passive control methods have gained more attention in order to mitigate natural or man-made
structural vibrations. Mousavi and et al (2013) have proposed a metallic yielding damper that can dissipate a
considerable portion of the input energy and effectively suppress pile drifts and save them from serious
damages during seismic events [6].

Both of metallic yielding dampers and structural fuses have a common disadvantage in which they
tolerate a persistence deformation during strong earthquake motions and should be replaced later. Although
both of these structural elements are relatively cheap, the replacing process is time consuming and can delay
the pier serviceability for days. According to the most marine structures codes, such as OCDI, pile-supported
wharves which are considered as important infrastructures should be designed to remain mainly elastic and
keep their serviceability during crisis situations [7]. Therefore, the existing seismic rehabilitation methods do
not look very effective. As a result, researchers have investigate other innovative ways for example using
seismic isolation systems has been proposed as a new and suitable method in a marine environment [8].

Leal (2013) and Kilborn (2010) have utilized Lead-Rubber Bearing and Rubber Isolators respectively
in order to retrofit the seismic performance of batter piles in piers [9],[10]. The newly constructed pier at the
Port of Coronel incorporated base isolation on the batter piles that supported the section of the pier under the
gantry cranes. The pier had no apparent structural damage, except for some minor cracking on the trestle. In
general, the newer port structures performed well during Chile earthquake (2010), [3]. This base isolation
system is constructed of four lead core rubber seats on the top of four battered piles, connected with a steel
frame. Fig. 3.

2
 (a) (b)
Fig. 3. Isolated Coronel pier, (a) typical view of the pier with base isolated system, (b) close up of the base isolation
system, [3].

The isolators may not capable of restricting large displacements especially in large piers with
considerable height from sea bed. There are some alternatives to reduce isolator’s displacements for example
using supplemental dampers. Viscous dampers are typically used in design of new bridges or in retrofitting of
existing ones when the base isolation systems are not capable of restricting large displacements. In this study,
a partially isolated pier equipped with Fluid Viscous Damper (VFD) is investigated for enhancing seismic
performance of batter piles and reducing large lateral displacement of the pier due to earthquake motions.
To this end, initially seismic performance of a typical pile supported wharf without dampers is
investigated. After that, the same pier is equipped with passive energy dissipation devices following the
conventional strength-based procedure specified in the ASCE 7-10 [11], and the seismic performance of all
models has been evaluated and compared through nonlinear static and dynamic analysis using Sap2000
software.

3. UTILIZATION OF FLUID VISCOUS DAMPER

3.1. FLUID VISCOUS DAMPER

Among the energy dissipation devices, fluid viscous dampers (FVD) have been widely used in vibration control
of various structures like tall buildings, bridges and water tanks as they are cheaper than other energy
dissipation systems such as Tuned Mass Dampers (TMD). Furthermore, the seals in the fluid viscous damper
provide such a leak free service that can tolerate almost in every situation like marine environment regions and
they usually do not require frequent maintenance. Moreover, FVDs are usually constructed of stainless steel
and other extremely durable materials as required to furnish a life of at least 40 years. Fig. 4 shows the longitude
section of a typical FVD [12].

Fig. 4. Typical Viscous Fluid Damper Cross Section [12].

A fluid viscous damper is a velocity dependent device that dissipates seismic energy by pushing fluid
through an orifice, producing a damping pressure which creates a force. These damping forces are 90 degrees
out of phase with the displacement driven forces in the structure. This means that the damping forces do not
increase an elastic structure base shear in the seismic event. This is because of the fact that the maximum base
shear in an elastic structure takes place at their maximum displacement due to their spring performance while
the damping forces occur in maximum velocity or zero displacement. But, it should be noted that this kind of
behavior is limited to linear elastic behavior of structures and the phase difference will be removed

3
approximately for nonlinear behavior of structures. Fluid viscous dampers shall be modeled using a spring and
dashpot in series (Maxwell Model) Fig. 5.

Fig. 5. Maxwell Model for FVD

The force in the fluid viscous device shall be computed in accordance with Eq. 1:

𝐹 = 𝐶0 |𝐷|𝛼 𝑠𝑔𝑛(𝐷) (1)

Where 𝐶0 is the damping coefficient for the device, 𝛼 is the velocity exponent for the device, D is the
relative velocity between end of the device, and sgn is the signum function that, in this case, defines the sign
of the relative velocity term. The exact value for 𝛼 depends upon the shape of the piston head. Values of 𝛼
ranging from 0.3 to 1.0 seem to work best for structural applications. Usually, FVDs are utilized with some
seismic isolation systems such as elastomeric and sliding bearings. There are a considerable numbers of bridges
that have been equipped with these energy dissipation systems in order to be more resistant against earthquake
motions. In this paper, the pile-supported wharf has been equipped with laminated rubber bearings (LRB) and
supplemental fluid viscous dampers.

3.2. ISOLATOR WITH FLUID VISCOUS DAMPERS

Laminated rubber bearings (LRB) are one of the most commonly used means of seismic isolation in structures.
The fundamental components of LRB system are steel and rubber plates built in the alternate layers as shown
in Fig. 6, [13].

Fig. 6. Typical laminated rubber bearing cross section

This system provides the combined features of vertical load support, horizontal flexibility, resorting
force and damping in a single unit. This kind of LRBs exhibits essentially linearly elastic and linearly viscous
behavior at larger shear strains. Fig. 7 shows an idealized force-displacement relation of a laminated-rubber
bearing [14].

4
 Fig. 7. Idealized Hysteretic Force-Displacement Relation of laminated Rubber Bearing, [14]

Where Q is the characteristic strength of the LRB, K e and K p are related to elastic stiffness and post-
yielding stiffness of the bearing respectively, Dy is the yield displacement and Fy is the post yield stiffness.
For more information including the calculation of the mentioned parameters please refer to Fema 356 [14].

The isolation idea shift the period of structures to a higher value so it lead the structures to experience
lower seismic demand than usual ones during the earthquake motions. Fig. 8 shows the seismic effect of
utilizing seismic isolation in response of structures.

Fig. 8. The effect of seismic isolation on structures

As it can be seen, this idea reduces the acceleration and corresponding earthquake energy that a structure
absorbs during earthquake. But, this idea causes a substantial increase in the lateral displacement of structure
in the isolation level that should be control by a supplemental damping systems such as FVDs.

4. NUMERICAL MODELING AND ASSUMPTION

In this study, the seismic performance of three different pile-supported wharf configuration is evaluated. The
first Pier (Model A) is a square whose side length is 25 meters. This pier supported on 16 vertical steel pipe
piles which have 35 meres length. It is assumed that 20 meters of piles have been embedded in the soil which
is quite sand and 15 meters of piles are above the soil. The piles diameters varies between 50 to 60 centimeters
with wall thickness of 10 millimeters. The concrete deck thickness is 50 centimeter and is consists of
rectangular concrete beams with 60 and 40 centimeters sides.

In the second model (Model B), 8 steel batter piles with diameter of 50 centimeters are added to previous
model in order to enhance its seismic performance and satisfying the seismic criteria. Although the second
model performed well in reducing pier lateral displacement during earthquake, the high axial forces that
appeared in batter piles cause severe damages to the batter piles which lead to pile buckling failure. In addition,

5
it is highly probable that shear failure happens in the pile-cap zone due to large amount of stress concentration
in this area. Finally, the third pile supported wharf (Model C) is equipped with 8 laminated Rubber Bearing at
the top of batter piles as well as 8 Fluid Viscous damper between pile caps in order to prevent the mentioned
damages. Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 show the two dimension views of three models that have been sketched in
SAP2000.

Model A Model B Model C

Fig. 9. Two dimension views of three piers

Model A Model B Model C

Fig. 10. Three dimension views of three piers

The performance base seismic design method has been utilized through nonlinear static and time history
analyses to evaluate seismic performance of each pile supported wharves in this research. In this paper, the
plastic hinge method has been used to incorporate nonlinear behavior of the structures in the analyses. The
plastic hinges location has been determined according to the equivalent lateral force procedure results that has
been performed in SAP2000 as well as previous researches on this matter. In other words, the plastic hinges
are assigned to the points with high possibility of plastic hinges formation. The Moment-rotation hinges as
defined in ASCE 41-13 [15] are assigned to both ends of the concrete deck beams and the moment-curvature
hinges with specified length as prescribed in PIANC 2001[1] and ASCE 61-14 [8] are assigned to top and
bottom of the piles. Moreover, the compression and tension axial capacity of piles are calculated pursuant to
API Recommended practice 2A-WSD in order to check bulking behavior of piles [16]. The piles were idealized
as non-linear beams having a bi-linear moment-curvature relationship, as shown in Fig. 11, [1].

6
 Fig. 11. Idealized moment-curvature relationship of piles, [1]
Where:
𝑀𝑦 , 𝜙𝑦 ∶ The yield bending moment and curvature respectively
𝑀𝑃 , 𝜙𝑝 ∶ The plastic hinge moment and curvature respectively

For more information regarding the calculation of above parameters please refer to Seismic Design
Guidelines for Port Structures (PIANC2001), [1].

According to ASCE 61-14, three seismic performance level which are minimal damage, repairable
damage and life safety protection have been utilized to evaluate the seismic performance of piers. These
performance levels are described on the ensuing lines:

Status 1- Minimal damage: Almost all the structural elements have elastic response with minor or no
residual deformation and the structure keeps it serviceability.

Status 2- Repairable damage: Limited inelastic ductile response and residual deformation and it is
expected that repairing of the structure doses not take more than several months

Status 3- Life safety: Ductile response near collapse, but the structure continues to support gravity loads.

Table. 1 provides the maximum material strains allowed within the described performance levels. [8].

Table 1- maximum allowable strains

Performance level Minimal damage Repairable damage Life safety protection

Steel Strain Limit(𝜀𝑠 ) ≤ 0.01 ≤ 0.025 ≤ 0.035

4.1. PILE-SOIL INTERACTION

The P-y modeling approaches are well developed and validated for embankments and pile foundation of
bridges. The p-y approach models the lateral and vertical foundation flexibility with distributed p-y springs
and associated t-z and q-z springs. To utilizing this procedure, lateral soil resistance deflection (p-y) curves
should be constructed using stress-strain data from laboratory soil samples [6]. In absence of experimental data,
the API propose the most appropriate curves for considering pile-soil interaction [16]. Therefore, in this study
API nonlinear curves have been utilized.
Careful attention should be paid to the effects of closely spaced adjacent piles on the load and deflection
characteristics of pile groups [16]. Brown et al. 1988 defined the concept of p-multiplier 𝑓𝑚 that should be
applied to the p-y curve for the single pile to account for the interaction among the piles in a group [17]. They
suggested that the multipliers depend essentially on the spacing and at a spacing above 6–8 diameters in the
direction of the load vector, and 4 diameters in the orthogonal direction, the interaction among piles is
negligible. In this study, the equations that have been developed by Rollins et al. 2006 [18] have been used in
order to take pile group effect into consideration.

𝑠
First Row Piles: 𝑓𝑚 = 0.26 ln ( ) + 0.5 ≤ 1.0 (2)
𝐷

7
 𝑠
Second Row Piles: 𝑓𝑚 = 0.52 ln ( ) ≤ 1.0 (3)
𝐷
𝑠
Third or Higher Row Piles: 𝑓𝑚 = 0.60 ln ( ) − 0.25 ≤ 1.0 (4)
𝐷

Where s=center-to-center spacing between piles in the direction of loading and D is the width or the
outside diameter of the pile. It should be noted that in this method the p-y multipliers are presumed constant
for each row and independent of the number of piles contained in the rows.

4.2. LAMINATED RUBBER BEARING AND VISCOUS FLUID DAMPER MODELING

In this research, the example pile supported wharf including batter piles is equipped with 8 laminated rubber
bearing at the top of the pile caps where one batter and vertical pile reaches each other. In addition, eight fluid
viscous dampers are added and placed between the corner fixed pile caps and the center isolated pile caps at
every exterior frame (Fig. 12). The FVDs act as a supplemental damping system that lead to a substantial
reduction in pier lateral displacement during earthquake.

In this paper, the equivalent lateral force procedure as prescribed in chapter 17 and 18 of ASCE 7-10
[11] has been utilized in order to reach the initial designing of the structure. Furthermore, the characteristic
modeling parameters of laminated rubber bearings and fluid viscous dampers has been achieved according to
Base Isolation of Structures Design [19] and Design Formulations for Supplemental Viscous Dampers to
Building Structures by Hwang [20] respectively. It should be noted that the design procedure of these structural
element is an iteration process that accompanies with try and error and their final performance of these systems
should be determined through a nonlinear dynamic analysis. Moreover, it is noteworthy to say that the dynamic
characteristics of these energy dissipation systems should be carefully evaluated and compared with theoretical
ones through laboratory tests as prescribed in the authentic codes such as ASCE 7-10 before using them in a
real project.

Fig. 12. Configuration of FVDs and LRBs investigated in the present study

8
5. SEISMIC ANALYSIS OF PILE SUPPORTED WHARVES

5.1. NONLINEAR STATIC ANALYSIS

Nonlinear static or pushover analysis is commonly used as a simplified computer method for seismic
performance evaluation of structures. The sequence of the hinges formation, the magnitudes of inelastic
rotation, curvature or any other specified deformation can be easily seen in every steps of the analysis.
Analyzing a bridge pier-pile-soil system by using pushover analysis method and comparing the results with
those of nonlinear dynamic time history analysis have shown that pushover analysis results could properly
predict the pier-pile-soil system response, [21]. As a consequence, this method has been utilized to evaluate
the pile supported pier models in this research.

Despite the fact that this analysis has been widely approved by many scientists, it is not recommended
when the structural response is affected by a considerable number of dynamic modes. The seismic performance
of the example pier in this research is highly similar to a one-degree-freedom structure. As a result, this method
can be utilized within the accepted accuracy. Furthermore, pile supported seismic codes such as PIANC 2001
and ASCE 61-14 have recommended this analysis procedure. In this study, the seismic performance of the pier
has been evaluated though two earthquake levels as described in PPIANC 2001, [1]. The first one (Level 1)
are ground motions with a 50% probability of occurrence in 50 years exposure and the second one are the
ground motions with a 10 percent probability of occurrence in 50 years exposure.

The target displacement demand in both earthquake levels have been calculated according to ASCE 61-
14 and ASCE 41-13. In the beginning, the models are analyzed under gravity loads according to PIANC 2001
and the lateral load pattern was applied in accordance with the first mode of structure which includes more
than 90 percent of the pier mass participation. Table. 2 shows the target displacement and base shear of three
models for each earthquake levels.

Table 2- Base shear and target displacement of the three models in the two considered earthquake levels

Earthquake level Level 1 (75 years)

Pier Model Model A Model B Model C
Base Shear (KN) 796 1015 345
Target Displacement 17.1 10.4 7.8

Earthquake level Level 2 (475 years)

Pier Model Model A Model B Model C
Base Shear (KN) 1485 1860 657
Target Displacement(cm) 34 20.8 15.7

As it is shown in the table 2, model A experience high value of lateral displacement in both earthquake
levels. On the other hand, model B and C demonstrate much better seismic performance due to the fact that
their lateral displacements are about one half of the first model during both earthquake levels. Although the
two latter models meet the maximum allowable drift in accordance with seismic codes such as PIANC 2001
and ASCE 61-14, their complete seismic performance should be evaluated before the final design. As a result,
the complete seismic performance of the three models has been presented against the lateral pattern load in this
paper.
Fig. 13, shows the seismic performance of the three mentioned models under the nonlinear static
analysis. Furthermore, this figure shows the sequence of the hinges formation and their status level which was
described in the previous sections are depicted step by step until 80cm lateral displace for each of the models.
As can be seen from Fig. 13, batter piles demonstrate a poor seismic performance in the model B on the grounds
that two batter piles experienced buckling failure prior the pier performance point in the design earthquake.
Moreover, this mode of failure is considered as a brittle destruction and must not be occur for the most
important infrastructures like pile-supported wharves which should keep their serviceability during the design
earthquake.

9
 Fig. 13. Capacity curves of three models as well as sequence of plastic hinges formation

On the other hand, seismic behavior of the pile supported model A is more ductile and desirable than
the model B, but as mentioned before their lateral displacements are roughly twice compared the two other
models during both earthquake levels. As a result, this pier needs some structural elements in order to enhance
its seismic performance. Seismic performance of the Model C is more preferred than the two previous ones
because of the fact that its target displacement in both earthquake levels is accepted in accordance to the seismic
criteria and also the base shear of the structure has been significantly decreased compared to the Model B with
the help of effective damping due to energy dissipation systems. Moreover, the seismic performance of the pier
became more ductile and any brittle failure was not occurred even in the larger displacements. Finally, as
mentioned before according to PIANC 2001, it is more desirable that plastic hinges formation occurs at the top
of the structures and as it is cleared model C could meet this criterion too.

5.2. NONLINEAR TIME HISTORY ANALYSIS

The nonlinear static analysis demonstrate a good view of structures performance during lateral loads that
applies to them, but this procedure has a static concept and the actual behavior of structures during earthquake
shall be evaluated by a dynamic analysis not to mention that FVDs are considered as velocity dependent devices
and we know that static analysis do not directly take account the velocity.

Inelastic time-history analysis is potentially the most accurate method for estimating the full seismic
response of a pier [1]. Therefore, a series of nonlinear time historic analysis has been performed in order to
ensure the accuracy and precision of the results in the static analysis. All the ground motion records, obtained
from PEER database. It is noteworthy that all accelerometers were matched to the peak acceleration of 0.3g
according to seismicity zone of the pier. The seismic characteristics of these ground motions and their response
spectra are shown in the table (3) and Fig. 14, respectively.

10
 Table 3- Characteristics of selected earthquake records

Earthquake Magnitude PGA(g) Duration year Mechanism Source

record (sec)
Bam 6.6 0.808 50 2003 Strike slip NGA West
Tabas 7.35 0.854 30 1978 Reverse NGA West
Manjil 7.37 0.515 50 1990 Strike slip NGA West

Fig. 14. Spectral acceleration with period of structures in the three earthquake records

As stated before, the primary concerns in seismic performance of pile-supported wharves are related to
high value of axial compression force in batter piles and pier’s base shear which result in buckling failure and
shear failure in pile-deck connection zones respectively. In addition, another prominent seismic criterion that
should be satisfied is the lateral displacement of piers under the earthquakes. As a consequence, these seismic
criteria have been evaluated under three mentioned earthquake records. Fig. 15 depicts the lateral deck
displacement, base shear and maximum axial compression load of batter piles for the three models during the
earthquake records.

As could be seen, the pier which equipped with energy dissipation systems (model C) demonstrate much
better seismic performance than two other ones. First, the lateral displacement of this pier is limited to 20
centimeters which satisfies the maximum allowable drift criterion in accordance to PIANC 2001 [1]. It should
be noted that although the lateral displacement of model B is lower than all the other ones, this model does not
satisfy other important criteria. Furthermore, the base shear of model C is quite lower than the other ones, and
thus the probability of shear failure in the pile-cap zones has been decreased significantly. Finally, the
maximum axial compression in batter piles has been extremely reduced due to use of energy dissipation
systems and the buckling and tensile failure will not occur during the earthquake motions. On the contrary the
axial compression load of batter piles in the model B has exceeded the designed buckling load (calculated
buckling force in according to API = 1290 KN) for batter piles which result in buckling failure.

11
 Bam Earthquake Tabas Earthquake Manjil Earthquake
6
Fig. 15. Comparison between Deck displacement, Base shear and Axial Load of batter piles in three
earthquakes

5. CONCLUSION

Pile-supported wharf structural systems constitute a considerable number of piers in our country and their role
as business infrastructures is of paramount importance. Unfortunately, poor seismic performance of batter piles
in this kind of piers has been observed during past strong earthquakes and these destructions may pose a
significant damage to the country’s economy. Consequently, the aim of this study focused on enhancing
seismic performance batter piles in pile-supported wharves. To this end, two passive energy dissipation systems
have been added to a typical pier and its seismic performance have been evaluated and compared with the
models with no damping systems through a numerical method. Based on the presented analysis results,
conclusion could be drawn on the following lines:

12
 1) According to table 2, lateral displacement of wharf A with only vertical piles is twice compared
the other two models for both earthquake levels and it exceeds maximum allowable drift based
on PIANC 2001. Therefore, it will be needed to increase lateral stiffness of wharf A by
appropriate structural elements. There are several alternatives in order to retrofit of these
structures:

1-1- Adding a considerable number of vertical piles in order to increase lateral stiffness of the pier
which result in a considerable reduction in lateral displacement during earthquakes. However, this
idea can be uneconomical for different applications.

1-2- Using a few number of batter piles in order to increase lateral stiffness of the piers. Although
both of the nonlinear static and dynamic analyses in this research proves that this pier (model B)
experience more smaller lateral displacement than model A, its poor seismic performance such as
bulking (in batter piles) and shear-failures (in pile-cap connection zones) discourages engineers to
utilize this method.

1-3- Using innovative structural design method like adding supplemental damping systems in the
present study in order to dissipate the earthquake energy which resulted in a considerable reduction
in the lateral displacement of the pier (model C) based on the table 2 and Fig. 15. This idea not only
give rise to large decreases in response of the structure, but also it leads the structure to demonstrate
more ductile behavior during earthquake events.

2) Based on Fig. 13, the initial lateral stiffness of wharf C is much more than wharf A. As a result
this idea provides the required lateral stiffness for the structure to resist lateral loads due to
mooring, berthing and crane operation.

3) Several innovative methods have been investigated by researchers to improve the seismic
performance of piers such as using structural fuses or metallic yielding dampers. These devices
act as sacrificial replaceable elements in which the earthquake damages focuses on them and
other essential structural elements will be protected. However, these devices should be replaced
after the earthquake causing a disturbance in serviceability of piers for several days. On the other
hand, the idea of using current supplemental damping systems keeps the pier fully operational
after the earthquake.

6. REFERENCES

1. International Navigation Association, PIANC, (2001), “Seismic Design Guidelines for Port
Structures”, Grafisch Produktiebedrijf Gorter.
2. Harn, Robert E. "Have batter piles gotten a bad rap in seismic zones?(or everything you wanted
to know about batter piles but were afraid to ask)." Ports 2004: Port Development in the
Changing World. 2004. 1-10.
3. Chile Earthquake and Tsunami of 2010 Performance of Coastal Infrastructure, COPRI Chile
Earthquake Investigation Team EDITED BY Billy L. Edge, Ph.D., P.E.
4. Razavi S.A., Fakher, A., and Mirghaderi, S.R. (2007) “Investigation of structural fuse
application for improving seismic performance of pile supported wharves”, Fifth International
Conference of Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, Tehran, Iran. (In Persian)
5. Memari, M., A. Fakher, and S. R. Mirghaderi. "Improvement of seismic performance of
wharves including batter piles."
6. Mousavi, Seyed Amin, and Khosrow Bargi. "Enhancing seismic capacity of pile-supported
wharves using yielding dampers." Journal of Structures 2013 (2013).
7. The overseas coastal area development institute of Japan, et al. Technical standards and
commentaries for port and harbor facilities in Japan. Overseas Coastal Area Development
Institute of Japan, 2009.
8. Seismic Design of piers and wharves (61-14), American Society of Civil Engineers.

13
 9. Leal, Joan, Juan Carlos De La Llera, and Gregorio Aldunate. "Seismic Isolators in Pile-
Supported Wharves." Ports 2013: Success through Diversification. 2013. 590-599.
10. Kilborn, Jeff, Robert Harn, and Yeliz Firat. "Seismic retrofit of piers supported on battered
piles using lead-rubber bearings." Ports 2010: Building on the Past, Respecting the Future.
2010. 71-80.
11. American Society of Civil Engineers. Minimum design loads for buildings and other
structures. Vol. 7. American Society of Civil Engineers, 2010.
12. Taylor, Douglas P. "History, design, and applications of fluid dampers in structural
engineering." TAYLOR Devices Inc (2002).
13. Kunde, M. C., and R. S. Jangid. "Seismic behavior of isolated bridges: A-state-of-the-art
review." Electronic Journal of Structural Engineering 3.2 (2003): 140-169.
14. Council, Building Seismic Safety. "Prestandard and commentary for the seismic rehabilitation
of buildings." Report FEMA-356, Washington, DC (2000).
15. Pekelnicky, R., and C. Poland. "ASCE 41-13: Seismic evaluation and retrofit of existing
buildings." SESOC 2012 Convention. 2012.
16. RP2A-WSD, A. P. I. "Recommended practice for planning, designing and constructing fixed
offshore platforms–working stress design–." Twenty-. 2000.
17. Castelli, Francesco, and Michele Maugeri. "Simplified approach for the seismic response of a
pile foundation." Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 135.10 (2009):
1440-1451.
18. Rollins, Kyle M., et al. "Pile spacing effects on lateral pile group behavior: Analysis." Journal
of geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering 132.10 (2006): 1272-1283.
19. Trevor E Kelly, S.E. Holmes Consulting Group Ltd.” base isolation of structures design
guideline”, July 2001.
20. Hwang, Jenn-Shin, et al. "Design formulations for supplemental viscous dampers to building
structures." Journal of structural engineering 134.1 (2008): 22-31.
21. Sun, Limin, and Chennan Zhang. "Improvement of Pushover Analysis Taking Account of Pier-
Pile-Soil Interaction." Proceedings of 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 2004.

14
View publication stats