THE PORT OF LOS ANGELES

COMMENTARY TO THE CODE FOR SEISMIC DESIGN, UPGRADE AND REPAIR

OF CONTAINER WHARVES
07/07/04

PART 1: SEISMIC DESIGN OF NEW WHARVES

PART 1: DESIGN OF NEW WHARVES

SCOPE OF APPLICATION:
The scope of application of this code is limited to some of the economically most important structures in
the Port of Los Angeles. Marine structures which are subject to different technical parameters (piers), to
different operational requirements (dolphins) and/or are subject to different jurisdiction (crude oil loading
and unloading platforms, wharves supporting buildings that have a substantial public hazard due to
occupancy or use or wharves supporting essential facilities) are excluded.

LIST OF CONTENTS:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Preface
References
Notations and Definitions
Seismic Mass
General Criteria
Ground motions and Performance Criteria
Structural Limit State Criteria
Analytical Methods
Geotechnical Considerations and Soil-Structure Interaction

1. PREFACE
1.1 Design Considerations and Philosophy
The Seismic Guidelines for Ports (Ref. 8) is a good introduction to the issues related to the design and
construction of wharves and piers in active seismic zones, even if superseded in some detailed design
procedures and recommendations. A more detailed and up-to-date introduction can be found in Seismic
Design Guidelines for Port Structures (Seismic Code, Section 2, References)
Compared to multistory buildings or multi-span bridges, wharves and piers are usually rather simple
structures. Complexity is introduced by the significant influence of soil-structure interaction, the large
torsional response caused by the varying effective pile lengths from the landward to the seaward side of
the structure and from interaction (pounding) between adjacent wharf segments separated by movement
joints with shear keys. The lateral strength and stiffness of the piles also will vary, depending on whether
movement is towards or away from the water.
Historically, the most widespread cause of seismically induced damage to port and harbor structures has
been the liquefaction of loose, saturated, sandy soils that are predominant at ports. The interaction of
piles with sloping embankments is an important consideration, as the embankment is susceptible to
movement under seismic loads. The embankment deformations can cause detrimental deformation of the
piles. For the worst case, embankment failure will always cause pile failure.

Most wharf failures are the result of excessive deformations, not catastrophic collapse; hence the stateof-the-practice analysis and design methodologies are based on displacements. This approach has been
found to be advantageous over the conventional force-based design methods.
A two level seismic design approach is specified to take economical considerations such as risk and lifecycle cost of container wharves into account.
1.2 Life-Safety Considerations.
The POLA Code for Seismic Design of Container Wharves (POLA Seismic Code) meets and exceeds the
current Los Angeles Building Code (LABC) 2002 Edition (Based on CBC 2001 and the UBC 1997). The
LABC requires No Collapse criteria for an earthquake with a probability of 10% in 50 year exceedance
(475 year recurrence period), while the ordinance for POLA Seismic Code Code requires Economically
Repairable criteria, permitting less damage to the structure. Thus POLAs Seismic Code is stricter than
the LABC for buildings in seismic use group I (Neither essential facilities nor those that have a substantial
public hazard due to occupancy or use).
The NEHRP 2000 Provisions, which are used as basis for the seismic requirements of the International
Building Code (IBC), and are sponsored by FEMA, require the use of maximum considered earthquake
(MCE) spectral acceleration maps with 2% in 50 year maps (2500 year recurrence period) as a base;
however, the values obtained from the maps are multiplied by 2/3 in the equation for the design base
earthquake (DBE). When this 2/3 factor is applied, probabilistic values for a Western United States
location are close to the 10% in 50 year value. (NEHRP 2000 Part 2, Commentary, page 422).
When comparing the requirements of the NEHRP provisions with the POLA Seismic Wharf Standards,
both the seismic hazard criteria and the performance criteria must be considered. NEHRP requires the
use of the DBE seismicity, combined with No Collapse performance criteria. POLA requires the use of
475 year seismic criteria, combined with Economically Repairable performance criteria. The different
return periods, and the difference in performance criteria makes comparison difficult, and this difficulty is
increased because both the structural performance of the wharf and the geotechnical performance of the
embankment may be affected in different degrees.
A study was performed for typical wharf and embankment conditions for the Port of Los Angeles (POLA),
using site specific spectra. The study was reviewed by the Technical Advisory Board (TAB). It was
demonstrated that the POLA criteria for a CLE event (475 years recurrence period) combined with
Economically Repairable performance criteria imposes stricter requirements than the NEHRP 2500 year
DBE event and a No Collapse performance criteria for typical marginal container wharves in the Port of
Los Angeles.

2. REFERENCES
For performance based design of concrete container wharves, the details, criteria and methodology of
analysis as recommended in the following references may be used and are deemed to satisfy the
performance-based design requirements. Because the listed references were developed at different times
and represent a progressive development of seismic design practice, the recommendations of reference
(1) shall take precedence. Reference (1) is based on results of the previous developed references and
takes the specific conditions of the Port of Los Angeles into account.
(1) Port of Los Angeles, Pier 400 Strength and Ductility Of Wharf Piles Report #00/01, Seqad Consulting
Engineers, August 2000 by Priestley, M.J.N.
(2) Port of Los Angeles, Dynamic Response of Linked Wharf Segments Report 98/2, Seqad Consulting
Engineers, 1998 by Priestley, M.J.N.

(3) Port of Los Angeles, Pier 400 Anglepoint Dynamic Analysis, November 2001, Priestley Structural
Engineering.
(4) Sritharan, S. and Priestley, M.J.N. Seismic Testing of a Full Scale Pile/Deck
Connection Utilizing Headed Reinforcing Report TR98/14, Dept. of Structural Engineering, UCSD,
August 1998.
(5) Port of Los Angeles, Berth 147 Container Terminal Dynamic Analysis of Wharf/Crane Interaction
Report 97/03, Seqad Consulting Engineers, May 1997 by Priestley, M.J.N
(6) Port of Los Angeles, Berth 144 Container Terminal, Seqad Consulting Engineers, August 1996 by
Priestley, M.J.N.
(7) Port of Los Angeles, Alternative Concepts for Pier 300 Structure. Report 92/04, Seqad Consulting
Engineers, August, 1992, by Priestley, M.J.N.
(8) Seismic Guidelines for Ports, by the Ports Committee of the Technical Council on Lifeline
Earthquake Engineering, ASCE, edited by Stuart D. Werner, Monograph No. 12, March 1998, published
by ASCE, Reston, VA.
(9) Ferritto, J., Dickenson, S., Priestley N., Werner, S., Taylor, C., Burke D., Seelig W., and Kelly, S.,
1999, Seismic Criteria for California Marine Oil Terminals, Vol.1 and Vol.2, Technical Report TR-2103SHR, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, Port Hueneme, CA.
(10) M.J.N. Priestley, May 2000, Seismic Criteria for California Marine Oil Terminals, Vol.3: Design
Example. , Technical Report TR-2103-SHR, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, Port Hueneme,
CA.
(11) Priestley, M.J.N., F.Seible, G.M.Calvi, Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges, John Wiley and
Sons,1996, New York.
(12) Petersen, M.D., Bryant, W.A., Cramer, C.H., Cao, T., Reichle, M.S., Frankel, A.D., Lienkaemper, J.J.,
McCrory, P.A., and Schwartz, D.P., 1996, Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment for the State of
California, California Division Mines and Geology, Open File Report 96-08, 59p.
(13) Caltrans, 2001, Seismic Design Criteria, Version 1.2, December.
(14) Youd, T.L. and Idriss, I.M. (Editors), 1997, Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of
Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Salt Lake City, UT, January 5-6, 1996, NCEER Technical Report
NCEER-97-0022, Buffalo, NY.
(15) Youd, T.L., et al., 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER
and 1998 NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, ASCE, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 10, October.
(16) Martin, G.R., and Lew, M (Editors), March 1999, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of
DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California,
Southern California Earthquake Center, University of Southern California.

3. NOTATION AND DEFINITIONS

Because a multitude of references is called out in the code and in the commentary, it is likely that both
notations and definitions supplied in these documents will not be completely compatible. Because the
code addresses primarily reinforced and prestressed concrete components, the notations and definitions
of ACI 318 shall be used. If additional definitions are required, or some definitions of ACI 318 are revised,

these changes should be explained. See PIANC Seismic Design Guidelines for Port Structures for a
comprehensive list of symbols and description of terms used for performance based design.
3.1 through 3.6: Some definitions are added to clarify the scope of application of this code.
4. SEISMIC MASS
4.1.c. No container storage is allowed on container wharves: for operational reasons, the wharf deck has
to be kept clear for truck traffic. Although the design criteria specify 1000 psf live load for the deck, this is
primarily to substitute for occasional short time heavy loading by concentrated loads. The additional 10%
live load provision provides some reserve for unforeseen circumstances, such as occasional storage of
empty containers on parts of the wharf deck not in operation.
4.1.d. For piles with effective diameter of 2ft or less, hydrodynamic mass is negligible and may be
ignored.
4.2. Extensive studies of crane-wharf interaction (Ref. 5) have shown that the fundamental period of the
crane is normally significantly longer than the elastic fundamental period of marginal container wharves.
As a consequence, it is the second mode of the combined wharf/crane system that is critical to wharf
design in a given response direction. In this second mode, the crane mass reduces the response forces
in the piles, and it is thus conservative to ignore the crane mass, and consider the wharf as a single mass
system. Exceptions may occur with low-profile cranes with significant mass, generally in the form of
ballast, close to the wharf deck level. For multiple cranes, the total mass close to wharf level from all
stowed cranes on one structural wharf unit should be less than 5% of the wharf mass of this unit. Note
that the 5% of the wharf mass is compared only to the crane mass close to the wharf deck, not to the
entire crane mass.

5. GENERAL CRITERIA
5.1 Wharves with ductile, moment resisting frames and vertical piles have proven superior earthquake
performance compared with batter pile wharves without any special ductile connection details. Generally
vertical piles will be 2ft diameter circular or octagonal prestressed piles. Larger diameter piles are
subjected to unacceptable shear forces unless the free space between dike and deck soffit is increased
substantially above normal values. Connection of large diameter piles to 3ft decks has been found to
result in excessive congestion, and to unacceptable joint shear stress levels.
5. 2. Because the wharf deck is designed for very heavy loading and the piles are deliberately kept small
to be able to follow embankment deformations without developing excessive strain, the strong beam,
weak column concept is appropriate. As with bridges, it is desirable that damage to the working surface
(deck) be avoided under seismic response. To ensure that plastic hinges develop only in the piles,
dependable strength of deck members should be based on overstrength capacity of the pile plastic
hinges. The overstrength capacity of plastic hinges should be taken as 1.3 times the nominal flexural
strength, unless based on moment curvature analyses using upper limits to probable material strengths
for concrete and reinforcing. The use of ASTM A706 dowels is recommended.
5.3. Pile-Deck Connection and Deck-Ground Clearance.
Connection by pile dowels
It is important that the connection is properly detailed. Information on practical connection considerations
can be found in PIANC Working Group No. 34 of the Maritime Navigation Commission, International
Navigation Association Seismic Design Guidelines for Port Structures.
Connection by extending the pile prestressing strands

This kind of pile/deck connection is not recommended. Although experimental research has shown it is
possible to develop an adequately strong and ductile pile-deck connection by extending the pile
prestressing strand into the deck, construction in the POLA has indicated difficulties in achieving this type
of connection, because frequently piles will refuse at an elevation higher than specified in the design.
Consequently the piles have to be cut at deck soffit and the prestressing strands exposed before they can
be incorporated into the deck. Experience has shown that exposing the strands by mechanically chipping
off the high strength concrete of the piles without damaging the strands is difficult. Damaged strands must
then be cut off (which is often attempted by burning off the strands) and holes must be drilled into the
piles to substitute mild steel dowels for the strands. This repair procedure by itself often results in further
damage of the remaining undamaged strands, either by the mechanical means used or by open flames or
sparks injuring the prestressing strands. In addition, because of the quantity and close spacing of the
prestressing strands, it was found difficult to run deck reinforcing steel over the piles. This difficulty is
compounded at the crane girders, where closely spaced heavy reinforcing bars in two layers with splices
and closely spaced stirrups interfere with the projecting strands of randomly misaligned piles.
Deck-Ground Clearance
Investigations have shown that the increase of the clearance between the deck soffit and the pile deck
increases the Displacement Capacity/Demand ratio of the wharf significantly and also has the advantage
of reducing the peak shear force. All aspects of structural seismic design are improved by increasing the
clearance for the shore-side piles. See also comments to section 8.4.
5.4. Frequent occurrence of soil liquefaction after earthquakes requires pile foundations for the crane
girders and indicates the need to control the gage of the crane rails by means of rigid connections.
5.5. Cut-off walls or filter fabric at the rear of the wharf are necessary to prevent migration of fines into the
dike. Migration of fines can be caused not only by wave action, but also by soil liquefaction in the
backland adjacent to the wharf after an earthquake. Care is needed in designing the connection between
cut-off wall and deck. If a moment resisting connection is provided, it is likely to be damaged at seismic
excitation levels less than the OLE, which thus violates the OLE performance criteria. Consequently
reliance on the cut-off wall as a structural element resisting lateral forces induced by wharf inertia is not
recommended, and a specially designed hinged connection detail should be provided,
5.6. Erosion of the embankment in the POLA is due primarily to the effect of the propellers and bowthrusters of berthing vessels.
5.7 The performance of a dike-pile wharf system is determined mostly by the system deformation under
seismic shaking. The static factor of safety for a dike is not so significant, particularly as it does not
indicate the reinforcing effect of the piles for the slope stability. The minimum value of the static factor of
safety should therefore be considered only approximately indicative of actual expected dike performance
and should be related to the dike deformation under seismic shaking. In other words, a slightly lower
static factor of safety for the dike may be considered satisfactory in combination with a satisfactory small
seismic ground deformation, while a relatively high static factor of safety should be considered with
caution when combined with predicted large seismic ground deformation. Because the ground
deformation depends on site specific data, and the wharf geometry will determine how much ground
deformation can be tolerated, it is not possible to call out specific limits in the POLA Seismic Code. (See
also 9.4: dike deformation under seismic loading).
5.8. Both ground settlement of the backland behind the wharf and the seaward movement of the wharf
caused by earthquakes make flexible connections necessary. Site specific data must be developed for
individual wharves.
5.9. Wharves are typically designed by analyzing a plane section transverse to the longitudinal berthing
line. These two-dimensional analyses cannot take into account three-dimensional effects of plan
irregularities, effects of seismic shaking not in direction of the principal axis or interaction of adjacent
wharf sections. These issues are discussed in more detail in section 9, Analytical Methods.

Although the code requires consideration of multi-directional effects of ground motion, this will normally
be taken to mean the two horizontal components only. Except in exceptional circumstances, the vertical
accelerations will have no significant impact on structural safety, because of the low axial load level in
piles, and the very high deck strength required for container loading. As a consequence, vertical
accelerations will not normally be considered in design of marginal wharves.
5.10. P-Delta effects are generally not controlling for marginal wharves.
Providing the following equation is satisfied, no further analysis is required:
F/P > 3.3 u / l
Where:
F = Lateral resistance at the design displacement u per unit length of wharf. l = Distance
between locations of pile-top and in-ground hinges, for the piles with minimum ground clearance
(approximately, I = cg +2.2Dp, where cg is the ground clearance between deck soffit and dike,
and Dp is the pile diameter).
P = Axial weight of structure per unit length of wharf
u = Average maximum displacement in the transverse direction in the design level earthquake.
6. GROUND MOTIONS AND PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
6.1 Ground Motion
The two level design earthquake motions are based on the design practice at the West Coast of the
U.S.A. and other areas in the world with similar earthquake characteristics. The seismic hazard and
performance criteria are more stringent than local Building Code life/safety requirements and were
developed to satisfy economic risk criteria of the Port.
The CLE and OLE levels of horizontal ground shaking should be developed based on probabilistic
seismic hazard analyses due to the large degree of variation (or uncertainty) in the observed ground
shaking in the strong motion database. A probabilistic approach can better take into account the
uncertainty parameters in evaluating strong ground motion characteristics for design, including
earthquake magnitude recurrence intervals for source zones and ground motion attenuation relationships.
This philosophy is also consistent with the approach in other major projects for critical structures and is
the approach used to develop the seismic hazard maps for the State of California (Ref. 12).
The probabilistic hazard analyses used to develop uniform risk spectra should assume so called firm
ground soil conditions. Within the POLA, the depth of bedrock-like material (i.e. with shear wave
velocities of about 2,500 fps) is at a large depth (in excess of 1,000 feet), well beyond the range of validity
of site response analysis procedures. Therefore, probabilistic seismic hazard analyses should make use
of soil site attenuation models to establish the level of ground shaking at a so-called firm ground
condition. Additional site response analyses may then be conducted, if necessary, using input motion
based on this firm ground reference condition, coupled with a soil column model (no larger than several
hundred feet) to take into account site-specific surficial soil conditions. It is commonly assumed that the
so-called firm ground condition would be representative of typical alluvial sites within the Los Angeles
basin, which have a shear wave velocity of about 800 to 1,000 feet per second. The very dense sands
found within the majority of the Port and the hard siltstone commonly found in the southwestern part of
the Port can be considered as suitable strata to implement the firm-ground reference motion groundshaking criterion.
If time histories are judged necessary for analyses, they should be developed to be compatible with the
uniform risk spectra. The need for time histories should be evaluated on a project specific basis and time
histories should be approved by the Port.
The development of design spectra for vertical ground accelerations is not required. Whereas the
proximity of the Palos Verdes Fault could result in unusually high vertical component ground
accelerations, such very high shaking effects are typically confined to very short period motions (i.e.

periods less than 0.2 second). Principal wharf deck vibration modes can be expected to have a response
period outside the very short period response range. Furthermore, the very deep soil conditions at Port of
Los Angeles would tend to reduce the intensity of these very high frequency motions. From experience,
capturing the short-period vibration modes can present undue complexities to designers, especially within
the context of a response spectrum analysis design approach, as opposed to a time history analysis
method. In view of the above, less complex engineering design measures are acceptable to
accommodate potential effects of vertical ground motions, such as those favored by Caltrans bridge
designers (Ref. 13). For example a default vertical seismic coefficient of 0.3g (OLE) or 0.5g (CLE)
may be assumed in the design of connections. The vertical and horizontal acceleration should be applied
simultaneously.
6.2 The requirement that all damage shall be located where visually observable and accessible for repairs
means that significant plastic hinging in the piles with spalling of the cover concrete is permitted only
directly below the deck, where the damage can be repaired. Although a limited amount of ductile behavior
is permitted for piles in the ground, at this location no spalling of concrete cover is permitted even for the
CLE. The resulting wharf design provides therefore considerable reserves against structural collapse.

7. STRUCTURAL LIMIT STATE CRITERIA

For constructibility reasons piles are connected to the deck in the Port of Los Angeles by dowels. Note
that, if the steel pipe pile is connected to the deck by a dowel reinforcing bar detail, the connection is
essentially a reinforced concrete connection confined by the pipe steel wall. As such, the limit strains for
reinforced concrete apply.
7.1 Piles may be considered adequately confined, in terms of satisfying this clause, if the confinement is
provided by a continuous spiral with a volumetric confinement ratio exceeding 0.005 related to the
confined concrete core. It is emphasized that this is a minimum acceptable level. Normally much higher
volumetric ratios of confinement will be needed to provide adequate extreme concrete fiber compression
strains for the CLE damage control limit state.
7.1.a.(i) Although many sources in the literature limit the extreme concrete compression strain to 0.004,
the value of 0.005 was adopted for solid octagonal piles. This value, recommended in reference (1), is
based on a full scale test of the pile-deck connection and takes into account the fact that the numerous
piles will provide ample redundancy. Some cosmetic repairs may be required after an OLE, but they can
be performed without disruption of the wharf operations. Since the OLE performance criteria frequently
controls the structural design of the wharf, the selection of this value has therefore significant economic
impact for the wharf design.
7.1.a.(ii) It is essential that the compression strain for hollow concrete piles be limited to 0.004 to prevent
catastrophic implosion failure. This applies to both OLE and CLE for the pile-top hinge. Note that a
structural remedy is to fill up the hollow core with concrete, thus eliminating the danger of implosion
failure. This, however, has major economic impact, it may significantly increase the cost of construction. A
higher strain is permissible in-ground for the CLE case, due to the additional confinement provided by the
soil.
7.1.b.(i) A higher limit for extreme concrete fiber compression strain is permitted due to the confining
pressure of the soil.
7.1.b.(ii) See (i)
7.2 Because the pipe steel wall is confining not only the core concrete, but also the concrete outside the
main reinforcing, the onset of spalling will be delayed and the limit strain can conservatively assumed as
c = 0.008

8. ANALYTICAL METHODS
8.1 Analytical methods to evaluate the earthquake response of the wharf structure to horizontal seismic
loading, should make direct use of the ground motion and performance criteria defined in Section 6.
Geotechnical considerations including aspects related to soil-pile interaction and potential additional pile
loading arising from earthquake induced dike/embankment deformations, are discussed in Section 9.
The development of p-y curves to determine lateral pile stiffness for structural analyses is discussed in
Section 9.5.
Although wharves are basically simple structures, with only one significant response mode in each
principal direction, a number of factors complicate seismic response, including:
High torsional eccentricity in the longitudinal direction
Different pile effective lengths, resulting in sequential hinging with shorter piles developing plastic
hinges before longer piles
Sequential, rather than simultaneous, formation of hinges at the pile top and in-ground locations
(in that order)
Impact and force-transfer across movement joints between adjacent wharf segments
Different pile strengths and displacement capacities in different response directions, resulting
from significant differences in soil strength and stiffness when loaded by pile response in the upslope, down-slope and longitudinal directions.
The typically large numbers of piles in wharf segments, and the complicating factors noted above, would
result in unacceptably complex structural models, if every structural element was modeled by a separate
member. It will also be appreciated that it is difficult, if not impossible to fully capture the response using
elastic modal analysis techniques. Because of this difficulty it is appropriate to use simpler structural
representations. In forming simpler structural models, the following considerations should be made:
Critical design conditions will occur at the short landward-edge piles, at the end of wharf
segments. These will be larger than response displacements of the landward-edge piles in the
body of the segment. Although displacements at the seaward corner of a segment will generally
be slightly larger than at the seaward corner, the displacement capacity of these piles will be
much larger, and hence these piles are not critical.
For normal wharf structures the deck may be considered infinitely rigid, both in-plane and out-ofplane. Trial analyses will indicate that the deck stiffness is so high, even in the out-of-plane
direction, compared to the pile stiffnesses, that the errors resulting from this approximation are
negligible (approximately <2% for deformations).
As a consequence of the above point, the individual pile force-displacement responses may be
independently assessed, based on full fixity at the effective pile top, and results of different piles
added directly to obtain composite force-displacement response.
Since the deck is effectively rigid in-plane, the structural response of a stand-alone wharf
segment can be captured by representing the large numbers of individual piles (possibly several
hundred) by a small number of super piles which each represent the strength and stiffness of a
number of tributary piles (Ref. 2). Typically 4 super piles per wharf segment, each located at
the strength centroid of the tributary piles, will provide adequate accuracy of translational and
torsional response.
Displacements at the super pile locations need to be extrapolated to the wharf corners, to obtain
critical design displacements.
In accordance with Section 5.9, consideration of simultaneous orthogonal excitation in the
longitudinal and transverse directions must be made. This can be done by (a) modal analysis,
combining the actions developed under the design intensity in the proportions 100%H+30%L and
30%H+100%L, where H=horizontal excitation and L=longitudinal excitation, (b) modifying
transverse response by a displacement amplification factor (Ref.2) representing the increase in
displacement of the critical piles resulting from torsional response and simultaneous transverse
and longitudinal response, (c) carrying out inelastic time-history analyses with appropriate
transverse and longitudinal accelerograms applied simultaneously.

The Code specifies a number of analysis options. Brief notes on these follow:
Modal Response Spectrum Analysis: In effect, there are only two significant modes transverse
response, which, provided soil conditions are uniform along the wharf segment, contains no torsional
component, and longitudinal response, which has a high torsional component. Problems with elastic
modal analysis include inability to determine the sequence of plastic hinging. Design forces cannot be
realistically determined by dividing the elastic response forces by a constant force-reduction factor. Also,
when wharf segments are linked by shear keys at movement joints, elastic modal analysis will not provide
adequate representation of shear key forces, or displacement response-modification provided by the
movement joint.
Single-Mode Transverse Analysis: The transverse force-displacement response can be readily
determined by summation of force-displacement response of the individual piles in a characteristic length
of wharf deck, as outlined above. The results can then be modified to include the influence of
simultaneous longitudinal response, and of interaction across movement joints, based on results of
previous inelastic time-history analyses (Ref. 2).
Substitute Structure Analysis: Although reasonable estimates of displacement demand may be obtained
from elastic analyses based on either of the above analysis methods, using initial cracked-section elastic
stiffnesses for the piles, improved representation of displacement demand will be obtained using a
substitute-structure approach. In this method, the lateral force-displacement response is represented
by the effective secant stiffness at maximum design displacement, and an equivalent elastic damping that
represents the initial elastic damping plus the damping resulting from hysteretic response (Ref. 10,11).
Normally this approach will be used in the form of a single-mode transverse analysis, modified for
simultaneous transverse and longitudinal excitation as in the previous paragraph.
Time-history Analysis: Time-history analysis is the most realistic method for determining displacement
response, since the inelastic characteristics of the super piles can be directly incorporated in the
response, the longitudinal and transverse excitation can be simultaneously applied, if desired, and the
complexities of the movement joints can be directly modeled. However, inelastic analyses should only
be attempted by experienced analysts, and should be employed as a checking, rather than design tool.
Results should always be compared with simpler models in a reality check. Generally the inelastic
response should be directly modeled by appropriate hysteretic characteristics (elasto-plastic or bi-linear
elasto-plastic are inappropriate for representing the pile lateral force-displacement response ) in a full
inelastic time-history analysis. Acceptable results can, however, be obtained using elastic time-history
results, based on substitute-structure stiffness and damping.
Pushover analysis is not specifically mentioned as a requirement in code, because it is not necessarily
required for all analytical methods, - in particular for inelastic time history analysis. In practice, it will
almost always be necessary. Results from sophisticated methods of analysis should always be compared
with results from a simplified approach (Equivalent single mode analysis or multi-mode spectral analysis)
to ensure that reasonable results are being obtained.
A force based design procedure may be used for a trial design, but the displacement ductility demand
and capacity must be verified.
To apply seismic ground motions independently in any of two orthogonal directions, a combination of the
effects of 100% of the ground motion in one direction plus 30% of the ground motion in the other direction
may be used. The combination resulting in the maximum displacement should govern. Guidance in how
the combination should be carried out is given above.
8.2 Material Properties for Strength Evaluation: Expected values for concrete and dowel material
strengths are used for determining the flexural strength of piles. In the past it has been the practice to
use specified minimum strengths, and strength reduction factors, as is the case for gravity design. The
purpose of this approach for gravity design was to ensure that the strength would always exceed the
loading. In seismic design this approach is inappropriate, since the actual strength is expected to be

developed in both OLE and CLE excitation, and the use of artificially low estimates of flexural strength will
not avoid this. Using realistic estimates of material strengths (which in the case of the concrete
compression strength includes an allowance for ageing) results in more economic structures, with less
allowance necessary for flexural overstrength when estimating required dependable shear strength.
It is critical that shear failure of the piles cannot occur. This is assured by the use of capacity design
principles, ensuring that the dependable shear strength of the piles exceeds the maximum shear force
corresponding to upper-bound estimates of flexural strength (maximum feasible strength). The maximum
feasible flexural strength may be estimated by multiplying the pile design strength by an overstrength
factor of 1.3, or by determining the moment capacity by moment-curvature analysis, using upper bound
estimates of the dowel and prestressing strengths. In lieu of specific information on the maximum
feasible material strengths for the moment-curvature analysis, the following values may be assumed:
Maximum dowel yield strength:
Concrete compression strength:
Spiral yield strength:
Prestress strand ultimate strength:

fyo = 1.3fy ,
fco = 1.3fc,
fye = 1.0fy,
fpuo= 1.15fpu

Note that the spiral strength and concrete strength are taken as the same values used for the design, and
also for determining the shear strength of the pile. This is necessary for consistency.
8.4 Shear strength of piles: For typical marginal container wharves, the landside rows of piles with the
shortest projection above the dike will control the design. Studies have shown that the maximum shear
demand on piles diminishes and the displacement capacity of piles increases with an increase of the
clear distance between the deck soffit and the dike crest. A minimum distance of 2 feet is required to be
able to observe and repair any pile damage for plastic hinges developing below the deck. A clear space
of up to 4 feet 6 inches will improve the pile displacement capacity, and reduce shear demand, as long as
the increased deck displacement can be tolerated. The increased clear space will also improve access for
inspection and repair, and result in less sensitivity in structural response to errors in elevation of the dike
crest. Note that analyses have shown (Ref.1) that increasing the clear distance between deck soffit and
dike crest increases the critical pile displacement capacity more than the displacement demand. Thus it
will be non-structural considerations which may limit the clearance.
8.7 Modeling Assumptions:
The effect of movement joints (shear keys) on displacements may be addressed by using a
Displacement Modification Factor (DMF). See (Ref. 2). For the exterior movement joints this factor is
approximately 1.15 and is less for the interior joints. Shear key forces cannot be adequately calculated
from elastic analyses. Simplified methods for estimating the shear force levels are available (Ref.2).
More accurate values can be obtained by inelastic time-history analyses.
Where design is based on elastic characteristics, the effect of cracking on section stiffness should be
included, where appropriate. For pile top hinge locations, the effective stiffness should be estimated
from moment-curvature analysis, using the secant stiffness to yield. A similar approach is used for the inground hinge location. Sections which are expected to remain uncracked during seismic response
should be represented by gross section stiffness.
If the substitute structure approach is used, the effective stiffness will be the effective secant stiffness to
maximum expected displacement, rather than the yield stiffness
The interface between the deck and the pile should not be considered rigid. The effective top of the pile
should be located a certain distance into the deck to account for strain penetration. See Ref. (1).
8.8 Joint Shear Force Transfer
Transfer of forces in the pile/deck joint region requires careful attention to detailing. Dowels must not be
bent outwards away from the joint, and specially designed hoop and vertical reinforcement must be
provided in the joint region, unless principal tension stresses are calculated to be less than 3.5vfce.
Maximum nominal compression stress in the joint should not exceed 0.3fce. Full coverage of the various
issues is provided in Ref. (6).

10

9. GEOTECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
9.1 Liquefaction Potential
The simplified procedure for evaluating liquefaction potential as documented in Ref. 14 and Ref. 15
should be regarded as the minimum requirement for evaluating the liquefaction potential of site soils
beneath or in the vicinity of the wharf structure. The procedure is further documented and discussed in
Ref. 16. Whereas this procedure is for level ground conditions, the analysis method can be expected to
be conservative for site soils located beneath the dike/embankment section. Where site-specific timehistory response analyses are used to supplement the above evaluations, the methodology to establish
model parameters and the assumptions used should be clearly documented.
If liquefaction is shown to be initiated in the above evaluations, the particular liquefiable strata and their
thickness (including zones of liquefaction induced in the backland area) should be clearly shown on site
profiles. Potential effects or hazards associated with potential liquefaction should be evaluated including:
1. Flow slides or large translational or rotational failures mobilized by stresses associated with the
dike/embankment system.
2. Limited lateral spreads of the dike/embankment system on the order of feet or less triggered and
sustained by the earthquake ground shaking.
3. Post liquefaction settlement of the dike/embankment system and underlying foundation soils.
Evaluation methods commonly used are described in Ref. 16.
The potential for each of these hazards and mitigation measures to meet the OLE and CLE performance
requirements prescribed in Section 7 need to be addressed. In the case of flow slide potential, further
discussion on the static stability evaluation is given in paragraph 9.2 below. Lateral spread evaluations
are further discussed in paragraph 9.4 below. Design issues related to post-liquefaction settlement are
discussed in paragraph 9.3 below.
9.2 Static Slope Stability
Where the potential for liquefaction is identified in soil strata beneath the dike/embankment or in backland
soils in the vicinity of the wharf structure, post liquefaction undrained shear strengths of the soils should
be estimated and used in the static stability analyses. Guidelines for estimating such strengths are
provided in Ref. 16.
9.3 Settlement
With respect to the dike/embankment wharf structure, the primary concern is settlement induced
downdrag on pile foundations. For typical Port container wharf projects, seismically induced settlement is
not a concern. If a project condition arises where an estimate of seismically induced settlement is
necessary, it should be estimated for both dry and saturated granular soils, although the principal concern
and the greatest settlement can occur following liquefaction in saturated soils. A commonly used
methodology for computing settlements is described in Ref 16.
9.4 Soil-Structure Interaction
For representative dike/embankment pile wharf configurations typically utilized at the Port of Los
Angeles, two uncoupled or separate loading conditions (inertial and kinematic) on wharf piles may be
considered. Inertial loading refers to the earthquake acceleration induced lateral loading on the wharf
structure, while kinematic loading refers to the loading on wharf piles from earthquake induced lateral
deformations of the dike/embankment system. The two loading conditions induce maximum moments in
upper and lower regions of the piles respectively, sufficiently far apart so that the effects of moment
superposition are normally small. Furthermore, the two loading conditions tend to induce maximum
moments at different times during the earthquake.

11

9.4(a) Inertial Loading

For the sake of simplicity, it is justifiable to analyze piles for the inertial response of the wharf deck, based
on the assumption that free-field deformation of the ground in the vicinity of the piles may be ignored.
Piles at the rear of the deck typically control the deck-pile response resulting from inertial loading. The
upper part of these piles is typically embedded in a thick rock dike section (usually over 10 pile-diameters
thick).
The analytical methods to evaluate inertial wharf deck response and resulting pile loading are discussed
in Section 8. The development of p-y curves for piles needed for structural stiffness models, are
discussed in Paragraph 9.5 below. The CLE and OLE design response spectra needed for analyses are
discussed in Paragraph 6.1. Whereas these spectra are representative of so called level firm ground
conditions and ground motions in the upper regions of the dike responsible for inducing the inertial
response of the wharf deck may differ, studies have indicated that the use of the level ground spectra for
design is reasonable. The use of 2D or 3D numerical nonlinear finite element or finite difference site
response analyses of the dike/embankment system to evaluate modifications to level ground response
would be overly complex on a routine design basis (and would be required for both transverse and
longitudinal axes of the wharf) and has been judged unwarranted in most cases.
The philosophy of the Port in relying on firm ground probabilistic spectra for defining ground motions for
wharf design for the inertial loading case, is also consistent with the approach used in other major
projects, particularly since the dike/embankment configuration is not expected to alter the ground motion
at the periods of design interest (i.e. periods greater than 0.5 second). Whereas ground motion in the
high frequency range (periods less than 0.5 second) may be sensitive to wave scattering effects due to
the embankment configuration, these ground motions will also be highly incoherent (e.g. involving
significant out-of-phase motions over short spatial distances) and require a careful review to ensure
technical soundness of the solution. If the need for such more complex analyses is judged necessary,
the methodology used and the results should be approved by the Port.
9.4(b) Kinematic Loading
Kinematic pile loading associated with earthquake induced ground deformation usually arises from
ground deformation on weak soil layer(s) beneath the rock dike. Initial estimates of free field seismic dike
deformations my be determined using the simplified Newmark sliding block method. Deformations are
considered acceptable (in terms of pile performance criteria) when they are less than about 6 inches for
OLE condition and less than about 12 inches for CLE condition. Exceptions may be cases where
subsurface conditions indicate the presence of thin, liquefiable and/or thin, soft soils beneath the dike that
could result in concentrated deformations within these layers. The resulting imposed double curvature of
the piles could be leading to potentially unacceptable pile performance. In such cases, including cases
where dike deformations estimated using the simplified Newmark sliding block method exceeds12 inches,
more detailed evaluations may be necessary as noted below. Conservative calculations based on a
single thin sliding layer indicate that 2ft diameter prestressed piles can sustain displacements of 3 in., and
5 in., at the OLE and CLE cases respectively, without violating limit strain criteria. If displacements are
within these limits, no further analyses will be required, even when a thin sliding layer exists.
Where more complex analyses are necessary to provide input to the structural engineers, twodimensional dynamic soil-structure interaction analysis of the wharf-pile-dike-soil system using numerical
finite element or finite difference analyses should be performed. Sensitivity analyses should also be
performed on factors affecting the results. Deformation profiles along the length of the various rows of
piles can be extracted from the analysis, which then can be used by the structural engineer to estimate
strains and stresses in the piles for the purpose of checking performance criteria.
A full soil-structure-interaction analysis for kinematic loading may not be required if one of the following
conditions is applicable:
1. It can be shown by simplified Newmark dike deformation analysis that the strain demands in the piles
will be structurally acceptable.

12

2. A previously conducted soil-structure-interaction analysis of a similar wharf representing a conservative

upper bound solution results in higher pile curvature demands than for the wharf under consideration and
still satisfies the pile limit strain conditions.
9.5 Soil Behavior Under Lateral Pile Loading
For design of the piles under loading associated with the inertial response of the superstructure, inelastic
lateral springs (p-y) shall be developed. Differing sloping conditions of the ground surface should be
considered for the shallow portion (generally within 10 pile diameters below the ground surface) of the
piles. Both lower and upper bound values should also be provided to cover uncertainty in soil stiffness
and strength properties.
There is a significant degree of uncertainty in p-y curve development in wharf design practice, including
uncertainties arising from: (1) rock properties, (2) how the rock dike is constructed, and (3) sloping rock dike
configuration. In view of these uncertainties, it is recommended that superstructure inertial response
analyses be conducted assuming upper and lower bound p-y stiffness scenarios to ensure the resultant
design is sufficiently robust to accommodate a wide range of potential p-y curve behavior. However, it is also
recommended that design analyses be conducted using a consistent soil support stiffness assumption for
both demand as well as capacity assessment to avoid undue conservatism.
The common assumption that adopting softer p-y curves is conservative will not be valid for all actions.
Soft p-y curves will result in increased displacement demand, which may be critical for services
connecting to the wharf. However, soft p-y curves will also result in increased displacement capacity,
compared to the case when stiff p-y curves are used. Until analyses are carried out, it will not be clear
whether soft or stiff p-y curves create the critical condition for wharf displacements, based on POLA pile
strain limits. However, pile shear forces will be highest for stiff p-y curves, since the pile in-ground plastic
hinge will form closer to the dike surface. For a given pile moment capacity, and a decreased distance
between pile-top and in-ground hinges, the pile shear force will thus be maximized. Failure to recognize
this, and to provide pile shear strength accordingly, could potentially result in pile shear failure. As a
consequence of these considerations, it is important to consider both upper and lower bound p-y
characteristics.
There has frequently been confusion between the concepts of upper/lower bound p-y curves and
upslope/downslope p-y curves. The latter result from considerations of increased soil resistance
(strength and stiffness) in the upper layers, when the pile is deformed into the inclined slope (upslope),
rather than away from the inclined slope (downslope). Although the difference in soil spring
characteristics upslope and downslope can be considerable, the influence in terms of wharf response is
reduced when it is recognized that the pile at some depth below the surface will be moving in the
reversed direction. It would thus be inappropriate to use (say) upslope soil springs for the full height of
pile embedment. Further, the critical piles at the rear of the deck are typically embedded in level ground,
or are close to the dike crest. In such cases the difference between upslope and downslope response
may be minimal. It would thus be unrealistic to analyze a wharf with widely differing upslope and
downslope characteristics, and in the absence of special instructions from POLA, it is recommended that
the same values be used in analysis for upslope and downslope stiffness and strength, with the proviso,
noted in the previous paragraph, that these constant properties should be varied between upper-bound
and lower-bound values.
9.7 Earth Pressures
The effect of passive pressure at the rear of the wharf deck may be taken into account in estimating the
demand displacement of the wharf. An elastic-plastic load-deformation model may be assumed
analogous to the model approach commonly used for bridge abutments. An initial secant stiffness Keff =
Pp/0.02H may be used where H is the height of the wharf backwall able to mobilize passive pressure and
Pp is the total load from ultimate passive backfill pressure (assumed uniformly distributed) per foot of wall.

13

10. DESIGN REVIEW

Independent review is required for nonlinear time history analysis or other complex analysis.
Maximum benefits from an independent design review are attained if this review starts at the beginning of
the project and actively continues through the project. Consequently, a review of the preliminary design
is required to ensure that the design review starts early in the design process. At this time a decision will
be made if results can be obtained with a simpler analysis or how to proceed if complex analyses are
required. A review of the final design is required to ensure quality control. Since relative minor changes in
the assumptions can significantly affect the results, it is imperative that the assumptions used be
appropriate. The provisions require that the designs employing nonlinear analysis methods be subjected
to independent design review in order to provide a level of assurance that the independent judgement
used by the designer when using these methods is appropriate and compatible with those that would be
made by other competent practitioners.

PART 2: UPGRADE AND REPAIR OF EXISTING WHARVES

SCOPE OF APPLICATION:
The scope off application for the Upgrade and Repair of Existing Wharves is not limited to operational
upgrades and seismic upgrades and repairs, but also extends to the repair of all other damage caused by
natural or man-made disasters.

1. REFERENCE
Ports philosophy and intent for Container Wharf Upgrade and Seismic Strengthening are called out in the
referenced paper.

2. GENERAL
This paragraph establishes the right of existing container wharves, dikes and associated structures to
remain in service without mandatory seismic upgrading.

3. UPGRADE CRITERIA
3.1

This paragraph establishes the minimum criteria for seismic upgrading of container wharves.

3.2

The intent of this paragraph is to prevent berthing ships to be damaged by coming into contact
with sharp edges of the underwater bulkhead.

4. REPAIR CRITERIA
4.1

It is important to emphasize that a wharf comprises both the concrete wharf structure and the
engineered embankment elements as one integral system. Failure (excessive movement) of the
embankment or underlying soils will result in failure (excessive damage) of the concrete wharf
structure.

14

Any required strengthening of the embankment will almost always require removal of the
wharf deck and piles and may require the removal of the entire dike, new dredging (sometimes
including replacement of underlying soft soils with dike material) and replacement of dike.
4.2

Wharves are lifeline structures and must be returned into service as soon as possible. This may
require emergency repairs of damaged structures which must serve for a limited time before the
final repairs can be attempted. Emergency repairs do not require to conform to strict code
standards as they will serve only for a limited time.
However, for wharves built after the 80 (Category 3 and 4) that have vertical piles and
conforming dike, the first row pile, or first and second row piles are the seismic resisting
mechanism. The intend is to bring the entire wharves to current seismic design standard if these
piles have major damages that render the integrity of the seismic resisting system.

4.3

It is not feasible to establish standards covering all possible types of damage. The effect of the
actual damage on the wharf performance must be established by a site specific study.
When the wharf structure and/or embankment elements are damaged by a seismic
event, the degradation of the seismic performance shall be investigated. When significant
degradation of seismic performance is demonstrated, the wharf shall be either repaired or
removed and replaced, with a wharf in conformance with the POLA current operational
requirements as well as seismic design criteria.

15