Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Improved performance-based seismic coefficient for gravity-type quay walls based on centrifuge test results

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Acta Geotechnica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Verifying the seismic performance of port structures when the force balance limit is exceeded is important for the performance-based seismic design of gravity-type quay walls. Over the last three decades, performance verification methods have been developed that consider the effects of the design earthquake motion, geotechnical conditions, and structural details on the deformation of a quay wall to accurately predict earthquake-induced damage. In this study, representative performance verification methods (i.e., simplified dynamic analysis methods extending from the Newmark sliding block method and performance-based seismic coefficients developed in Japan) were quantitatively assessed with actual cases of earthquake-damaged quay walls and the results of dynamic centrifuge tests previously conducted under various conditions (i.e., different wall heights, earthquake motions and the thickness of subsoil). The dynamic centrifuge test results suggested directions for improving the performance-based seismic coefficients of the representative methods, while their field applicability and reliability were confirmed according to the actual earthquake records.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

modified from Lee et al. [32])

Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Al-Atik L, Sitar N (2010) Seismic earth pressures on cantilever retaining structures. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136(10):1324–1333

    Google Scholar 

  2. Al-Homoud AS, Tahtamoni W (2000) Comparison between predictions using different simplified Newmarks’ block-on-plane models and field values of earthquake induced displacements. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 19(2):73–90

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ambraseys NN (1972) Behaviour of foundation materials during strong earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the Fourth European Symposium on Earthquake Engineering, Vol 7, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Sofia, pp 11–12

  4. Anderson DG, Martin GR, Lam I, Wang JN (2008) NCHRP611: Seismic analysis and design of retaining walls, buried structures, slopes and embankments. Transportation Research Board, Washington DC

    Google Scholar 

  5. Arias A (1970) A measure of earthquake intensity. In: Hansen RJ (ed) Seismic design for nuclear power plants. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge, pp 438–483

    Google Scholar 

  6. Bilotta E, Lanzano G, Madabhushi SG, Silvestri F (2014) A numerical round robin on tunnels under seismic actions. Acta Geotech 9(4):563–579

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bozbey I, Gundogdu O (2011) A methodology to select seismic coefficients based on upper bound “Newmark” displacements using earthquake records from Turkey. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31(3):440–451

    Google Scholar 

  8. Brandenberg SJ, Mylonakis G, Stewart JP (2015) Kinematic framework for evaluating seismic earth pressures on retaining walls. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 141(7):04015031

    Google Scholar 

  9. Cai Z, Bathurst RJ (1996) Deterministic sliding block methods for estimating seismic displacements of earth structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 15(4):255–268

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cakir T (2013) Evaluation of the effect of earthquake frequency content on seismic behavior of cantilever retaining wall including soil–structure interaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 45:96–111

    Google Scholar 

  11. Chaudhary B, Hazarika H, Murakami A, Fujisawa K (2018) Countermeasures for enhancing the stability of composite breakwater under earthquake and subsequent tsunami. Acta Geotech 13(4):997–1017

    Google Scholar 

  12. Deyanova M, Lai CG, Martinelli M (2016) Displacement–based parametric study on the seismic response of gravity earth-retaining walls. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 80:210–224

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dobry R, Idriss IM, Ng E (1978) Duration characteristics of horizontal components of strong-motion earthquake records. Bull Seismol Soc Am 68(5):1487–1520

    Google Scholar 

  14. EN 1998-5 (2004) Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance: Part 5: Foundations, retaining structures and geotechnical aspects. Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN), Brussels

  15. Fukunaga Y, Takenobu M, Miyata M, Nozu A, Kohama E (2016) Validation of present seismic design method for gravity-type and sheet pile quay walls by past earthquake-induced damage data of port facilities and reproduced seismic ground motions. National Institute for Land and Infrastructure Management, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Tokyo (in Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Garini E, Gazetas G, Anastasopoulos I (2011) Asymmetric ‘Newmark’ sliding caused by motions containing severe ‘directivity’ and ‘fling’ pulses. Géotechnique 61(9):733–756

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ghalandarzadeh A, Orita T, Towhata I, Yun F (1998) Shaking table tests on seismic deformation of gravity quay walls. Soils Found 38:115–132

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hatami K, Bathurst RJ (2000) Effect of structural design on fundamental frequency of reinforced-soil retaining walls. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 19:137–157

    Google Scholar 

  19. Iai S, Sugano T (2000) Shake table testing on seismic performance of gravity quay walls. In: Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, New Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Silverstream, pp 1–8

  20. Ichii K, Iai S, Sato Y, Liu H (2002) Seismic performance evaluation charts for gravity type quay walls. J Struc Mech Earthq Eng 19(1):21–31

    Google Scholar 

  21. Inagaki H, Iai S, Sugano T, Yamazaki H, Inatomi T (1996) Performance of caisson type quay walls at Kobe Port. Soils Found 36:119–136

    Google Scholar 

  22. International Navigation Association (INA) (2001) Seismic design guidelines for port structures. A A Balkema Publishers, London

    Google Scholar 

  23. ISO 23469:2005 (2005) Bases for design of structures—Seismic actions for designing geotechnical works. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jibson RW (2007) Regression models for estimating coseismic landslide displacement. Eng Geol 91(2–4):209–218

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kang S, Kim B, Bae S, Lee H, Kim M (2019) Earthquake-induced ground deformations in the low-seismicity region: a case of the 2017 M5.4 Pohang, South Korea, earthquake. Earthq Spectra 35(3):1235–1260

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kim DS, Kim NR, Choo YW, Cho GC (2013) A newly developed state-of-the-art geotechnical centrifuge in Korea. KSCE J Civ Eng 17(1):77–84

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kim DS, Lee SH, Choo YW, Perdriat J (2013) Self-balanced earthquake simulator on centrifuge and dynamic performance verification. KSCE J Civ Eng 17(4):651–661

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kim SR, Jang IS, Chung CK, Kim MM (2005) Evaluation of seismic displacements of quay walls. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25(6):451–459

    Google Scholar 

  29. Kinoshita S (1998) Kyoshin net (K-net). Seismol Res Lett 69(4):309–332

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  31. Lee CJ (2005) Centrifuge modeling of the behavior of caisson-type quay walls during earthquakes. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25:117–131

    Google Scholar 

  32. Lee MG, Ha JG, Manandhar S, Park HJ, Kim DS (2019) Evaluation of performance-based seismic coefficient for gravity-type quay wall via centrifuge tests. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 123:292–303

    Google Scholar 

  33. Lee MG, Jo SB, Ha JG, Park HJ, Kim DS (2017) Assessment of horizontal seismic coefficient for gravity quay walls by centrifuge tests. Géotech Lett 7(2):211–217

    Google Scholar 

  34. Lee SH, Choo YW, Kim DS (2013) Performance of an equivalent shear beam (ESB) model container for dynamic geotechnical centrifuge tests. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 44:102–114

    Google Scholar 

  35. Madabhushi GS, Boksmati JI, Torres SG (2019) Modelling the behaviour of large gravity wharf structure under the effects of earthquake-induced liquefaction. Coast Eng 147:107–114

    Google Scholar 

  36. Meehan CL, Vahedifard F (2013) Evaluation of simplified methods for predicting earthquake-induced slope displacements in earth dams and embankments. Eng Geol 152(1):180–193

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MLIT) (1999) Technical standards and commentaries for port and harbour facilities in Japan. Japan Port and Harbour Association, Tokyo (in Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MLIT) (2007) Technical standards and commentaries for port and harbour facilities in Japan. Japan Port and Harbour Association, Tokyo (in Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport (MOLIT) (2012) Seismic performance evaluation and improvement revision of existing structures (harbours). Korea Infrastructure Safety and Technology Corporation, Incheon (in Korean)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (MOF) (2014) Ports and fishing harbours design code. Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, Sejong (in Korean)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries (MOF) (2018) Comprehensive report for Pohang Port earthquake damage investigation and restoration manual. Korea Port Engineering Corporation, Seoul (in Korean)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Mononobe N, Matsuo H (1929) On the determination of earth pressure during earthquake. In: Proceedings of World Engineering Congress, Vol 9, World Engineering Congress, Tokyo, pp 177–185

  43. Motamed R, Towhata I (2010) Shaking table model tests on pile groups behind quay walls subjected to lateral spreading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136(3):477–489

    Google Scholar 

  44. Nagao T, Iwata N (2007) Seismic coefficients of caisson type and sheet pile type quay walls against the level-one earthquake ground motion. J Struct Eng A 53A:339–350

    Google Scholar 

  45. Nakamura S (2006) Reexamination of Mononobe-Okabe theory of gravity retaining walls using centrifuge model tests. Soils Found 46(2):135–146

    Google Scholar 

  46. Newland DE, Butler GD (2000) Application of time-frequency analysis to transient data from centrifuge earthquake testing. Shock Vib 7(4):195–202

    Google Scholar 

  47. Newmark NM (1965) Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Géotechnique 15(2):139–160

    Google Scholar 

  48. Nishimura S, Takahashi H, Morikawa Y (2012) Observations of dynamic and non-dynamic interactions between a quay wall and partially stabilised backfill. Soils Found 52(1):81–98

    Google Scholar 

  49. Nozu A, Ichii K, Sugano T (2004) Seismic design of port structures. J Jpn Assoc Earthq Eng 4:195–208

    Google Scholar 

  50. Okabe S (1924) General theory on earth pressure and seismic stability of retaining wall and dam. J Jpn Soc Civ Eng 10:1277–1323

    Google Scholar 

  51. Pelekis I, Madabhushi GS, DeJong MJ (2019) Soil behaviour beneath buildings with structural and foundation rocking. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 123:48–63

    Google Scholar 

  52. Rathje EM, Abrahamson NA, Bray JBD (1998) Simplified frequency content estimates of earthquake ground motions. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 124(2):150–159

    Google Scholar 

  53. Richards R Jr, Elms DG (1979) Seismic behavior of gravity retaining walls. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 105:449–464

    Google Scholar 

  54. Santhoshkumar G, Ghosh P (2020) Seismic stability analysis of a hunchbacked retaining wall under passive state using method of stress characteristics. Acta Geotech 15(10):2969–2982

    Google Scholar 

  55. Schofield AN (1980) Cambridge geotechnical centrifuge operations. Géotechnique 30(3):227–268

    Google Scholar 

  56. Tso WK, Zhu TJ, Heidebrecht AC (1992) Engineering implication of ground motion A/V ratio. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 11(3):133–144

    Google Scholar 

  57. Veletsos AS, Younan AH (1997) Dynamic response of cantilever retaining walls. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 123(2):161–172

    Google Scholar 

  58. Wagner N, Sitar N (2016) On seismic response of stiff and flexible retaining structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 91:284–293

    Google Scholar 

  59. Wei YC, Lee CJ, Hung WY, Chen HT (2010) Application of Hilbert-Huang transform to characterize soil liquefaction and quay wall seismic responses modeled in centrifuge shaking-table tests. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(7):614–629

    Google Scholar 

  60. Werner SD (1998) Seismic guidelines for ports. Technical Council on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering (TCLEE). ASCE, New York

    Google Scholar 

  61. Whitman RV, Liao S (1985) Seismic design of gravity retaining walls. Miscellaneous Paper GL-85-1. US Army Engineer Waterway Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS

  62. Zarrabi-Kashani K (1979) Sliding of gravity retaining wall during earthquakes considering vertical acceleration and changing inclination of failure surface. Dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

  63. Zeng X (1998) Seismic response of gravity quay walls. I: Centrifuge modeling. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 124(5):406–417

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This research was part of a project titled “Development of performance-based seismic design technologies for advancement in design codes for port structures” funded by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, Korea. This study was also supported by the Basic Research Project of Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Earthquake Research Center, Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources, Daejeon, Korea

    Moon-Gyo Lee, Hyung-Ik Cho & Chang-Guk Sun

  2. Structural Safety and Prognosis Research Division, Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute, Daejeon, Korea

    Jeong-Gon Ha

  3. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, Korea

    Dong-Soo Kim

Authors
  1. Moon-Gyo Lee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeong-Gon Ha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hyung-Ik Cho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chang-Guk Sun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dong-Soo Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dong-Soo Kim.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lee, MG., Ha, JG., Cho, HI. et al. Improved performance-based seismic coefficient for gravity-type quay walls based on centrifuge test results. Acta Geotech. 16, 1187–1204 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-020-01086-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-020-01086-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation