POLB WDC Ver 3 0

Port of Long Beach
Wharf Design Criteria
POLB WDC Version 3.0

February 29, 2012
02/29/2012
Table of Contents
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... v
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... vi
List Symbols .................................................................................................................... vii
Acronyms/Definitions ...................................................................................................... xi
1
Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1-1
Geotechnical Considerations ............................................................................... 2-1

2.1
Ground Motions .......................................................................................... 2-1
2.2
Site Characterization ................................................................................... 2-2
2.3
Liquefaction Potential ................................................................................. 2-3
2.4
Slope Stability and Seismically Induced Lateral Spreading ....................... 2-3

2.4.1
Static Slope Stability .................................................................... 2-4
2.4.2
Pseudo-static Seismic Slope Stability .......................................... 2-5
2.4.3
Post-earthquake Static Slope Stability ......................................... 2-5
2.4.4
Lateral Spreading Free-Field .................................................... 2-5
2.5
Settlement ................................................................................................... 2-6

2.5.1
Static Consolidation Settlement ................................................... 2-6
2.5.2
Seismically Induced Settlement ................................................... 2-6
2.6
Earth Pressures ............................................................................................ 2-6

2.6.1
Earth Pressures Under Static Loading ......................................... 2-6
2.6.2
Earth Pressures Under Seismic Loading ...................................... 2-6
2.7
Pile Axial Behavior ..................................................................................... 2-7

2.7.1
Pile Capacity ................................................................................ 2-7
2.7.2
Axial Springs for Piles ................................................................. 2-8
2.7.3
Upper and Lower Bound Springs ................................................ 2-8
2.8
Soil Behavior under Lateral Pile Loading .................................................. 2-9

2.8.1
Soil Springs for Lateral Pile Loading .......................................... 2-9
2.8.2
Upper and Lower Bound Soil Springs ......................................... 2-9
2.9
Soil-pile Interaction .................................................................................. 2-10

2.9.1
Inertial Loading Under Seismic Conditions .............................. 2-10
2.9.2
Kinematic Loading from Lateral Spreading .............................. 2-10
2.10 Ground Improvement ................................................................................ 2-12

3
Structural Loading Criteria ................................................................................ 3-1

3.1
General ........................................................................................................ 3-1
02/29/2012
3.2
Dead Loads (D) ........................................................................................... 3-1

3.2.1
General ......................................................................................... 3-1
3.2.2
Unit Weights ................................................................................ 3-1
3.3
Vertical Live Loads (L) .............................................................................. 3-1

3.3.1
Uniform Loads ............................................................................. 3-1
3.3.2
Truck Loads ................................................................................. 3-2
3.3.3
Container Crane Loads ................................................................ 3-2
3.3.4
Container Handling Equipment Loads......................................... 3-3
3.3.5
Railroad Track Loads ................................................................... 3-4
3.4
Impact Factor (I) ......................................................................................... 3-4
3.5
Buoyancy Loads (BU) ................................................................................ 3-4
3.6
Berthing Loads (BE) ................................................................................... 3-5
3.7
Mooring Loads (M)..................................................................................... 3-5
3.8
Earth Pressure Loads (E) ............................................................................ 3-6
3.9
Earthquake Loads (EQ)............................................................................... 3-6
3.10 Wind Loads on Structure (W) ..................................................................... 3-6

3.11 Creep Loads (R) .......................................................................................... 3-6
3.12 Shrinkage Loads (S) .................................................................................... 3-7
3.13 Temperature Loads (T) ............................................................................... 3-7
3.14 Current Loads on Structure (C)................................................................... 3-7
3.15 Loads Application ....................................................................................... 3-7
3.16 Load Combinations ..................................................................................... 3-8
3.16.1 General ......................................................................................... 3-8
3.16.2 Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) ...................................... 3-8
3.16.3 Service Load Design (SLD) ......................................................... 3-9
4
Seismic Design Criteria ........................................................................................ 4-1

4.1
Introduction ................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2
General Design Criteria .............................................................................. 4-1
4.3
Performance Criteria ................................................................................... 4-2
4.4
Strain Limits................................................................................................ 4-2
4.5
Seismic Analysis ......................................................................................... 4-4

4.5.1
Analysis Methods......................................................................... 4-4
4.5.2
Earthquake Load Combinations ................................................... 4-5
4.6
Structural Model ......................................................................................... 4-7

4.6.1
Modeling ...................................................................................... 4-7
4.6.2
Material Properties ....................................................................... 4-8
4.6.3
Effective Section Properties ....................................................... 4-13
ii

4.6.4
4.6.5
4.6.6
02/29/2012
Seismic Mass ............................................................................. 4-14

Lateral Soil Springs.................................................................... 4-14
Pile Nonlinear Properties ........................................................... 4-14
4.6.6.1 Moment-curvature Analysis ................................................. 4-14
4.6.6.2 Plastic Hinge Length ............................................................ 4-16
4.6.6.3 Plastic Rotation ..................................................................... 4-17
4.7
Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis.......................................................... 4-18
4.8
Irregular Structures and Special Cases ..................................................... 4-19

4.8.1
Irregular Structures .................................................................... 4-19
4.8.2
Special Cases ............................................................................. 4-20
4.8.2.1 Crane-wharf Interaction Analysis ......................................... 4-20
4.8.2.2 Linked-wharf Interaction Analysis ....................................... 4-20
4.9
Demand Analysis ...................................................................................... 4-21

4.9.1
Equivalent Lateral Stiffness Method ......................................... 4-21
4.9.2
Dynamic Magnification Factor (DMF) ...................................... 4-21
4.9.3
Transverse Single Mode Analysis ............................................. 4-23
4.9.4
4.9.3.1 Elastic Stiffness Method ....................................................... 4-23

4.9.3.2 Substitute Structure Method ................................................. 4-24
Three Dimensional Analysis ...................................................... 4-25
4.9.4.1 Super-Pile Model .................................................................. 4-26
4.9.4.2 Modal Response Spectra Analysis........................................ 4-27
4.9.4.3 Nonlinear Time-History Analysis......................................... 4-29
4.10 Structural Capacities ................................................................................. 4-29

4.10.1 Pile Displacement Capacity ....................................................... 4-30
4.10.2 Pile Beam/Deck Joint ................................................................. 4-31
4.10.3 Pile Shear ................................................................................... 4-32
4.10.4 P- Effects ................................................................................. 4-36
4.11 Deck Expansion Joint ............................................................................... 4-36
4.12 Kinematic Loads ....................................................................................... 4-38
4.13 Seismic Detailing ...................................................................................... 4-38
4.14 Peer Review .............................................................................................. 4-39
5
Structural Considerations ................................................................................... 5-1

5.1
Design Standards ........................................................................................ 5-1
5.2
Wharf Geometrics ...................................................................................... 5-1
5.3
Construction Materials ................................................................................ 5-2
5.4
Wharf Components ..................................................................................... 5-3

5.4.1
Wharf Deck .................................................................................. 5-3
5.4.2
Expansion Joints .......................................................................... 5-4
5.4.3
Cut-off Wall ................................................................................. 5-4
5.4.4
Crane Rails ................................................................................... 5-4
5.4.5
Fenders and Mooring Hardware .................................................. 5-5
iii
02/29/2012

5.4.6
5.4.7
5.4.8
5.4.9
5.4.10
5.4.11
5.4.12
5.5
6
Safety Ladder ............................................................................... 5-5

Piling ............................................................................................ 5-5
Guard Timber ............................................................................... 5-6
Trench Cover Plates ..................................................................... 5-6
Cable Trench ................................................................................ 5-6
Inclinometer Tubes/ Motion Instrumentation .............................. 5-6
Dike Scour ................................................................................... 5-6
Structural Analysis Considerations ............................................................. 5-7
References ............................................................................................................. 6-1
iv
02/29/2012
List of Tables
Table 2-1:
Table 3-1:
Table 3-2:
Table 3-3:
Table 4-1:
Table 4-2:
Table 5-1:
Minimum Requirement for Slope Stability Analyses ....................................2-4

Container Crane Vertical Loads.....................................................................3-3
Impact Factors ................................................................................................3-4
Load Combinations ........................................................................................3-9
Strain Limits...................................................................................................4-3
Plastic Hinge Length Equations ...................................................................4-16
Tidal Elevations .............................................................................................5-2
02/29/2012
List of Figures
Figure 2-1: Design Acceleration Response Spectra for Unimproved Ground
Conditions ....................................................................................................2-2
Figure 2-2: Design Acceleration Response Spectra for Improved Ground Conditions .2-2
Figure 2-3: Axial Soil Springs ........................................................................................2-9
Figure 2-4: Sliding Layer Model ...................................................................................2-12
Figure 3-1: Broken Piles Layout .....................................................................................3-2
Figure 3-2: Container Handling Equipment Design Wheel Load ...................................3-4
Figure 3-3: Vessel Berthing ............................................................................................3-5
Figure 3-4: Mooring Line Force......................................................................................3-6
Figure 4-1: Flow Diagram for Seismic Analysis ............................................................4-6
Figure 4-2: Pile Spacing for Modeling of Typical Wharf Strip ......................................4-7
Figure 4-3: Pile-Deck Structural Model Schematic Showing Strain Penetration
Length ...........................................................................................................4-8
Figure 4-4: Stress-Strain Relationship for Confined and Unconfined Concrete ...........4-10
Figure 4-5: Concrete Strength Ratio versus Confining Steel Ratio ..............................4-11
Figure 4-6: Stress-Strain Relationship for Reinforcing Steel........................................4-12
Figure 4-7: Stress-Strain Relationship for Prestressing Steel .......................................4-13
Figure 4-8: Momentcurvature Curve and Idealization for Method A .........................4-15
Figure 4-9: Moment-curvature Curve and Idealization for Method B ..........................4-16
Figure 4-10: Idealized Moment-rotation Curve ..............................................................4-18
Figure 4-11: Pushover Model with p-y Springs ..............................................................4-19
Figure 4-12: Example of Pushover Curve and Plastic Hinge Sequence .........................4-19
Figure 4-13: Horizontal Marginal Wharf Configurations ...............................................4-20
Figure 4-14: Depth to Point of Fixity ..............................................................................4-21
Figure 4-15: Flow Diagram for the Elastic Stiffness Method .........................................4-23
Figure 4-16: Flow Diagram for Substitute Structure Method .........................................4-24
Figure 4-17: Effective System Stiffness for a Wharf Segment .......................................4-25
Figure 4-18: Elevation View of Transverse Wharf Segment ..........................................4-26
Figure 4-19: Super-pile Locations for a Wharf Segment ................................................4-26
Figure 4-20: Wharf Response due to Longitudinal and Transverse Excitations.............4-28
Figure 4-21: Pile Displacement Capacity........................................................................4-31
Figure 4-22: Curvature Ductility Factor versus Curvature Ductility Demand................4-34
Figure 4-23: Transverse Shear Reinforcement Shear Strength Components ..................4-35
Figure 4-24: Axial Load Shear Strength Components ....................................................4-36
Figure 4-25: Share Key Factor versus Wharf Segment Length ......................................4-37
Figure 4-26: Plastic Hinge Formation due to Kinematic Loads......................................4-38
Figure 4-27: Anchorage Details for Pile Dowels ............................................................4-39
Figure 5-1: Beam on Elastic Foundation.........................................................................5-7
vi
02/29/2012
List Symbols
Agross
Asc
Asp
B
BE
BU
C
D
D
Dp
DMF
E
Ec
Eps
Es
Esh
EQ
F
Fi
Fn
Fp
F
H
H
I
Ieff
Igross
Jeff
Jgross
K
Ke
L
LB
Lc
LL
Lp
Ls
Lu
M
Mn
Mo
Gross cross-sectional area

Total cross-sectional area of dowels in the joint
Cross-sectional area of confining steel/ transverse reinforcement
Width of a wharf unit
Berthing loads
Buoyancy loads
Current loads on structure
Dead loads
Diameter of confined core measured to the centerline of the confining steel
Pile diameter
Dynamic magnification factor
Earth pressure loads
Modulus of elasticity of concrete
Modulus of elasticity for prestressing steel
Modulus of elasticity of steel
Confining steel modulus of elasticity
Earthquake loads
Total lateral seismic force of the wharf strip considered at displacement demand
Lateral force per pile in row i from pushover analysis when seismic piles reach
yield displacement
Lateral force determined from pushover curve for iteration n at t,n-1
Prestress compressive force in pile
Total lateral seismic force of a wharf segment at displacement demand
The distance between the center of pile top plastic hinge and the center of pile
in-ground plastic hinge
The distance from the maximum in-ground moment to the center of gravity of
the deck
Impact factor
Effective moment of inertia
Gross moment of inertia
Effective polar moment of inertia
Gross polar moment of inertia
Factor applied to dead load in earthquake load combination
Confinement effectiveness coefficient
Live loads
Lower bound
The distance from the center of the pile top plastic hinge to the point of
contraflexure
Length of the shorter exterior wharf unit
Plastic hinge length
Equivalent depth to point of fixity
Pile unsupported length
Mooring loads
Nominal moment capacity
Pile overstrength moment capacity
vii
02/29/2012
Mp
Pile idealized plastic moment capacity
Mp,in-ground Pile plastic moment capacity at the in-ground plastic hinge including the effect
of axial load due to crane dead load
Pile plastic moment capacity at the top plastic hinge including the effect of axial
Mp, top
load due to crane dead load
My
Moment at first yield
Nu
External axial compression on pile including seismic load
P
Mooring line load
R
Creep loads
RF
Force perpendicular to the fender panel due to berthing load
S
Shrinkage loads
T
Temperature loads
Tcrane
Translational elastic period of the crane mode with the maximum participating
mass
Effective period for iteration n
Tn
Tw
Effective elastic period of the wharf structure based on cracked section
properties
Transverse elastic period of a wharf segment
Twi
U
Total design load in moment, shear forces or axial forces
UB
Upper bound
Va
Shear strength due to axial load
Concrete shear strength
Vc
VF
Fender Shear Force
Vn
Nominal shear strength
Vo
Pile overstrength shear demand
Vp
Pile plastic shear
Vs
Transverse reinforcement shear strength
W
Wind loads on structure
Effective dead load of the wharf strip considered
WDL
WW
Waterside crane wheel load
Landside crane wheel load
WL
X1, X2
Distance from the back of the wharf
c
Depth from the extreme compression fiber to the neutral axis at flexural strength
co
Clear concrete cover plus half the diameter of the transverse reinforcement
dbl
Diameter of dowel reinforcement
dgap
Distance between the top of the pile steel shell and the deck soffit
e
Eccentricity between the wharf center of mass and the center of rigidity
fc
Concrete compression stress
28-day unconfined concrete compressive strength
fc
fcc
Confined concrete compressive strength
fce
Expected compressive strength of concrete
f l
Effective lateral confining stress
Maximum tensile strength of prestressing steel
fpu
Expected maximum tensile strength of prestressing steel
fpue
fpy
Yield strength of prestressing steel
Expected yield strength of prestressing steel
fpye
viii

fs
fue
fy
fye
fyh
fyhe
i
k
ke
ke,n
ki
la
lsp
m
n
ni
p1, p2
s
c
d
p,m
t
t,0
t,n
t,n-1
X1,X2
XL
XT
Y1,Y2
YL
YT
y
ys
02/29/2012
Steel tensile stress

Expected maximum tensile strength of steel
Yield strength of longitudinal reinforcing steel or structural steel
Expected yield strength of reinforcing steel/ structural steel
Yield strength of confining steel/ transverse reinforcement
Expected yield strength of confining steel
Pile row
Curvature ductility factor determined as a function of
System secant stiffness
Effective secant stiffness for iteration n at t,n-1
Transverse elastic stiffness of a wharf segment
Actual embedment length of dowels anchored in the joint
Strain penetration length
Seismic mass of a wharf segment
Iteration number (1, 2, 3,n)
Total number of piles in row i for length LL
Uniform backland load
Center-to-center spacing of confining steel/transverse reinforcement along pile
axis
Approach velocity normal to fender line
Angle between the line joining the centers of flexural compression zones at the
top and in-ground plastic hinges and the pile axis
Axial load shear strength factor
Displacement capacity
Displacement demand
Pile plastic displacement capacity due to rotation of the plastic hinge at the
OLE, CLE, or DE strain limits
Transverse displacement demand
Assumed initial transverse displacement demand
Transverse displacement for iteration n
Transverse displacement for iteration n-1
Combined X-axis displacement demands from motions in the transverse and
longitudinal directions
X-axis displacement demand due to structure excitation in the longitudinal
direction
X-axis displacement demand due to structure excitation in the transverse
direction
Combined Y-axis displacement demands from motions in the transverse and
longitudinal directions
Y-axis displacement demand due to structure excitation in the longitudinal
direction
Y-axis displacement demand due to structure excitation in the transverse
direction
Pile yield displacement
System yield displacement
ix
02/29/2012
c
cc
co
cu
p
pue
pye
s
smd
sh
spall
ye
m
p,dem
p,m
u
y
yi
m
p,m
p,dem
u
y
s
eff,n
Concrete compression strain

Confined concrete compressive strain at maximum compressive stress
Unconfined concrete compression strain at maximum compressive stress
Ultimate confined concrete compression strain
Total prestressing steel tensile strain
Expected ultimate strain for prestressing steel
Expected yield tensile strain for prestressing steel
Steel tensile strain
Strain at maximum stress of dowel reinforcement
Steel tensile strain at the onset of strain hardening
Ultimate unconfined compression (spalling) strain
Expected yield tensile strain for steel
Reduction factor for nominal moment capacity according to ACI-318
Total curvature at the OLE, CLE, or DE strain limits
Plastic curvature at displacement demand
Plastic curvature at the OLE, CLE, or DE strain limit
Ultimate curvature of the section
Idealized yield curvature
Curvature at first yield
Strength reduction factor for shear
System displacement ductility demand at iteration n
Curvature ductility demand
Friction coefficient
Angle of critical shear crack with respect to the longitudinal axis of the pile
Total rotation at the OLE, CLE, or DE strain limits
Plastic rotation at the OLE, CLE, or DE strain limits
Plastic rotation at displacement demand
Ultimate rotation
Idealized yield rotation
Volumetric ratio of longitudinal reinforcing steel
Effective volumetric ratio of confining steel
Effective system damping for iteration n at t,n-1
02/29/2012
Acronyms/Definitions
AASHTO
AC
ACI
AISC
AF&PA
ANSI
AREMA
ASD
ATC
AWS
CALTRANS
CBC
CLE
Cooper E-80
CPT
CQC
c.g.
DCR
DE
DMG
e.g.
FEMA
FHWA
FOS
ft
HL-93
in.
Joint
klf
ksi
LOA
LRFD
MCEER
MHHW
MHW
MLLW
MLW
MSL
mph
M-
NAVD 88
American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials
Asphalt Concrete
American Concrete Institute
American Institute of Steel Construction
American Forest and Paper Association
American National Standards Institute
American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way
Associates
Allowable Stress Design
Applied Technology Council
American Welding Society
California Department of Transportation
California Building Code
Contingency Level Earthquake
Railroad load type per AREMA
Cone Penetration Test
Complete Quadratic Combination
Center of gravity
Demand-to-capacity Ratio
Code-level Design Earthquake
Division of Mines and Geology
For example
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Highway Administration
Factor of Safety
Foot/ Feet
Truck load type per AASHTO
Inch/ Inches
Pile beam/deck joint
Kips per foot
Kips per square foot
Length Overall
Load Resistance Factor Design
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering Research
Mean Higher-High Water
Mean High Water
Mean Lower-Low Water
Mean Low Water
Mean Sea Level
Miles per hour
Moment-curvature analysis
North American Vertical Datum of 1988
xi
02/29/2012
NAVFAC
NCEER
NCHRP
NDS
NEHRP
NGVD 29
NSF
NTHA
N/A
OLE
PCI
PIANC
PGA
POLB
pcf
psf
p-q
p-y
RO-RO
SDC
SLC
SLD
t-z
UCSD
UFC
USACE
WDC
Wharf exterior unit
Wharf interior unit

Naval Facilities Engineering Command
National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
National Design Specification
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
National Geodetic vertical Datum of 1929
National Science Foundation
Nonlinear Time-History Analysis
Not Applicable
Operating Level Earthquake
Prestressed Concrete Institute
International Navigation Association
Peak ground acceleration
Port of Long Beach
Pounds per cubic foot
Pounds per square foot
Pile tip soil springs
Pile lateral soil springs
Roll-on/Roll-off vessels
Seismic Design Criteria
State Lands Commission
Service Load Design
Pile axial soil springs
University of California at San Diego
Unified Facilities Criteria
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Wharf Design Criteria
A wharf structure with an expansion joint at one end
A wharf structure with expansion joints at both ends
xii
02/29/2012
1 Introduction
This document contains design guidelines and criteria for pile supported wharf
construction. It is published by the Port of Long Beach (POLB or Port) to assist
engineering staff of the POLB, as well as consulting firms providing consulting services
related to the design of wharves for the POLB. Any deviation from the criteria listed
herein will require specific prior written approval from the Port.
Design guidelines and reference materials cited throughout this document will be revised
from time to time as required. Updates and revisions occurring during design shall be
followed as directed by the Port.
This document is Version 3.0 of the Port of Long Beach Wharf Design Criteria and it
supersedes the previous Version 2.0 that was published on January 30, 2009 and Version
1.0 that was published in March 2007.
This document was prepared for the POLB under the leadership of Cheng Lai, P.E., S.E.,
Senior Structural Engineer, POLB, and by a team of consultants consisting of Moffatt &
Nichol and Earth Mechanics, Inc. The expert review team included Dr. Nigel Priestley,
Emeritus Professor, Department of Structural Engineering, University of California, San
Diego and Dr. Geoffrey Martin, Emeritus Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Southern California.
1-1
02/29/2012
This page intentionally left blank.
1-2
02/29/2012
2 Geotechnical Considerations
Geotechnical evaluations identified in this section shall use methodologies that are
considered acceptable standards of practice in the industry.
For seismic evaluations, ground motion criteria provided in Section 2.1 shall be used.
Ground motions and response spectra are provided in the Port-Wide Ground Motion
Study, Port of Long Beach, California (Ref. 17), Port-wide Ground Motion Study, Port
of Long Beach, California, Addendum to Final Report (Ref. 18), and Addendum No. 2
to Port-wide Ground Motion Study, Port of Long Beach, California (Ref. 19). No
deviation from these ground motions shall be allowed without prior written approval by
the Port.
These guidelines are specific to pile-supported marginal wharves with engineered sloping
ground conditions located under the wharf structure comprising dredged soils or cut
slopes protected or stabilized by quarry run rock material. Applicability of these
guidelines to other structures may be allowed upon written approval by the Port.
2.1 Ground Motions

Three earthquake levels shall be used in the analysis and design of wharf structures: the
Operational Level Earthquake (OLE), the Contingency Level Earthquake (CLE), and the
Code-level Design Earthquake (DE). The OLE and CLE correspond to different
probabilities of occurrence (different average return periods). The DE corresponds to a
larger and rare earthquake than the OLE and CLE. The three levels of ground motions
are defined below:
Operating Level Earthquake (OLE)
The OLE is defined as the seismic event that produces ground motions associated with a
72-year return period. The 72-year return period ground motions have a 50% probability
of being exceeded in 50 years. The OLE event occurs more frequently than the CLE and
DE events and has a lower intensity.
Contingency Level Earthquake (CLE)
The CLE is defined as the seismic event that produces ground motions associated with a
475-year return period. The 475-year return period ground motions have a 10 percent
probability of being exceeded in 50 years. The CLE event occurs less frequently than the
OLE event, but more frequently than the DE event. The CLE event has a higher intensity
than the OLE event, but lower intensity than the DE event.
Code-level Design Earthquake (DE)
The DE shall comply with the Design Earthquake requirements of the 2010 California
Building Code (Ref. 13) and ASCE 7-05 (Ref. 9). The DE event occurs less frequently
than the OLE and CLE events and has a higher intensity than the other two events.
2-1
02/29/2012
Recommended design acceleration response spectra for OLE, CLE and DE for different
ground conditions are shown in Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2. Further details are provided in
References 17 and 18.
1.2
5% Damping
DE Area I
DE Area II
DE Area III
1.0
DE Area IV
CLE
Spectral Acceleration (g)
OLE
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Period (sec.)
Figure 2-1: Design Acceleration Response Spectra for Unimproved

Ground Conditions
1.2
DE Area I
5% Damping
DE Area II
DE Area III
1.0
DE Area IV
Spectral Acceleration (g)
CLE
OLE
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
Period (sec.)
Figure 2-2: Design Acceleration Response Spectra for Improved

Ground Conditions
2.2 Site Characterization

Site characterization shall be based on site-specific information. Reviewing and
cataloging available geotechnical information from past Port projects shall be performed
to maximize the use of available data and to avoid conducting additional explorations
where information already exists.
The presence of known active faults shall be verified using the available geological
information such as the California Geological Survey (Ref. 21). If a new fault is found at
the project site, a peer review is required per Section 4.14.
2-2
02/29/2012
Adequate coverage of subsurface data, both horizontally and vertically, shall be provided
to develop geotechnical parameters that are appropriate for the project. An adequate
number of explorations should extend to depths of at least 20 feet below the deepest
anticipated foundation depths and should be deep enough to characterize subsurface
materials that are affected by embankment behavior. Particular attention should be given
during the field exploration to the presence of continuous low-strength layers or thin soil
layers that could liquefy or weaken during the design earthquake shaking or cause
embankment failure during dredging or other construction activities. Cone penetration
tests (CPT) provide continuous subsurface profile and, therefore, should be used on large
projects to complement exploratory borings. When CPTs are performed, at least one
boring shall be performed next to one of the CPT soundings to check that the CPT-soil
behavior type interpretations are reasonable for the project site. Any differences between
CPT interpretations and subsurface conditions obtained from borings shall be reconciled
prior to developing geotechnical design parameters.
An appropriate and sufficient number of laboratory tests shall be performed to provide
the necessary soil parameters for geotechnical evaluations. Guidelines for site
characterization can be found in Soil Mechanics (Ref. 28) and Design and
Construction of Driven Pile Foundations (Ref. 20) or other appropriate documents.
2.3 Liquefaction Potential

Liquefaction potential of the soils in the immediate vicinity of or beneath the wharf
structure and associated embankment or rock dike shall be evaluated for the OLE, CLE,
and DE. Liquefaction potential evaluation should follow the procedures outlined in
Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998
NCEER/NSF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils (Ref. 39),
Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117,
Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California (Ref. 24),
Chapter 31F, 2010 California Building Code (Ref. 14), and Liquefaction
Susceptibility Criteria for Silts and Clays (Ref. 12).
If liquefaction is shown to be initiated in the above evaluations, the particular liquefiable
strata and their thicknesses, including zones of liquefaction induced in the backland area,
should be clearly shown on site profiles. Resulting hazards associated with liquefaction
should be addressed, including translational or rotational deformations of the slope or
embankment system and post liquefaction settlement of the slope or embankment system
and underlying foundation soils. If such analyses indicate the potential for partial or gross
failure of the embankment, adequate evaluations shall be performed to confirm such
conditions exist. In these situations, and for projects where more detailed numerical
analyses are performed, a peer review is required per Section 4.14.
2.4 Slope Stability and Seismically Induced Lateral Spreading

The surcharge loading values for different loading conditions and the required minimum
factors of safety values are discussed in Sections 2.4.1, 2.4.2, and 2.4.3 and presented in
Table 2-1. These recommended surcharge loading values may be revised based on
project-specific load information, upon prior written approval by the Port.
2-3
02/29/2012
Table 2-1: Minimum Requirement for Slope Stability Analyses
BACKLAND
pp2a
2
p1pa1
WHARF DECK
X2
X
X1
X
p1 a
(psf)
X1
(ft)
p2a
(psf)
X2
(ft)
Min.
FOSb
Static Condition
250
75
1,200
Remaining
Backland
1.5
Temporary Condition
(See Section 2.4.1)
250
Entire
Backland
1.25
Pseudo-static Seismic Condition
250
75
800
Remaining
Backland
-c
Post-earthquake Static
Condition
250
75
800
Remaining
Backland
1.1
Load Condition
Load values may be revised based on project-specific information, upon prior written
approval by the Port.
b
FOS Factor of Safety.
c
Yield acceleration shall be obtained from the analysis to determine lateral deformations per
Section 2.9.2.
2.4.1 Static Slope Stability

Static slope stability analysis shall be performed for the slope or embankment system.
Backland loading shall be considered in the analyses. Slope stability analyses should
follow guidelines outlined in Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG
Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Landslide Hazards in
California (Ref. 10), or other appropriate documents. Backland loading shall be 250 psf
for the first 75 feet from the back end of the wharf deck and 1,200 psf for the remaining
backland area, see Table 2-1. The long-term static factor of safety of the slope or
embankment shall not be less than 1.5.
For temporary conditions, the static factor of safety shall not be less than 1.25. The
loading considerations shall be based on project-specific information (such as terminal
operation, construction staging, etc.). The surcharge loading value shall not be less than
250 psf for the entire backland area, see Table 2-1.
2-4
02/29/2012
2.4.2 Pseudo-static Seismic Slope Stability

Pseudo-static seismic slope stability analyses shall be performed to estimate the
horizontal yield acceleration for the slope for the OLE, CLE, and DE. During the seismic
event, the backland loading shall be 250 psf for the first 75 feet from the back end of the
wharf deck and 800 psf for the remaining backland area, see Table 2-1.
If liquefaction and/or strength loss of the site soils is likely, residual strength of liquefied
soils, strengths compatible with the pore-pressure generation of potentially liquefiable
soils, and/or potential strength reduction of clays shall be used in the analysis. The
residual strength of liquefied soils should be estimated using guidelines outlined in
Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117,
Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction Hazards in California (Ref. 24),
Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering: A Unified and Consistent
Framework (Ref. 34), or other appropriate documents.
Using a seismic coefficient of one-third of the PGA or 0.15g, whichever is greater, in the
pseudo-static seismic slope stability analyses the factor of safety shall be estimated
without considering the presence of wharf piles. If the estimated factor of safety is greater
than or equal to 1.1, then no further evaluation for deformations or kinematic analysis as
outlined in Sections 2.4.4 and 2.9.2 is necessary.
2.4.3 Post-earthquake Static Slope Stability
The static factor of safety immediately following OLE, CLE or DE event shall not be less
than 1.1 when post-earthquake residual strength of liquefied soils, strengths compatible
with the pore-pressure generation of potentially liquefiable soils, and/or potential strength
reduction of clays are used in the static stability analysis. The backland loading for postearthquake stability analyses shall be 250 psf for the first 75 feet from the back end of the
wharf deck and 800 psf for the remaining backland area, see Table 2-1.
2.4.4 Lateral Spreading Free-Field
The earthquake-induced lateral deformations of the slope or embankment and associated
foundation soils shall be determined for the OLE, CLE, and DE using the peak ground
acceleration at the ground surface (not modified for liquefaction) based on the PortWide Ground Motion Study, Port of Long Beach, California (Ref. 17) and Port-wide
Ground Motion Study, Port of Long Beach, California, Addendum to Final Report (Ref.
18). If liquefaction and/or strength loss of the site soils is likely, residual strength of
liquefied soils, strengths compatible with the pore-pressure generation of potentially
liquefiable soils, and/or potential strength reduction of clays should be used in the
analysis. The wharf piles should not be included in the free-field evaluations.
For the OLE and CLE, initial lateral spread estimates should be made using the Newmark
curves provided in Port-Wide Ground Motion Study, Port of Long Beach, California
(Ref. 17). For the DE, initial lateral spread estimates should be made using the Newmark
displacement curves provided in Seismic Analysis and Design of Retaining Walls,
Buried Structures, Slopes and Embankments (Ref. 36) or other appropriate documents.
Additional analyses may be performed with prior written approval by the Port.
2-5
02/29/2012
2.5 Settlement
2.5.1 Static Consolidation Settlement
Long-term static consolidation settlement of sites that are underlain by continuous or
large lenses of fine-grained soils shall be evaluated. The long-term static settlement
should be estimated following guidelines outlined in Foundation and Earth Structures
(Ref. 27) or other appropriate documents. If long-term settlement is anticipated, the
resulting design impacts shall be considered, including the potential for development of
downdrag loads on piles (See Section 2.7.1).
2.5.2 Seismically Induced Settlement
Seismically induced settlement shall be evaluated. The seismically induced settlement
should be based on guidelines outlined in Recommended Procedures for Implementation
of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction
Hazards in California (Ref. 24) or other appropriate documents. If seismically induced
settlement is anticipated, the resulting design impacts shall be considered, including the
potential development of downdrag loads on piles (See Section 2.7.1).
2.6 Earth Pressures

2.6.1 Earth Pressures Under Static Loading
The effect of static active earth pressures on wharf structures resulting from static loading
of backfill soils shall be considered where appropriate. Backfill sloping configuration, if
applicable, and backland loading conditions shall be considered in the evaluations. The
loading considerations shall be based on project-specific information, with a minimum
assumed surcharge loading value of 250 psf. The earth pressures under static loading
should be based on guidelines outlined in Foundation and Earth Structures (Ref. 27) or
other appropriate documents.
2.6.2 Earth Pressures Under Seismic Loading
The effect of earth pressures on wharf structure resulting from seismic loading of backfill
soils, including the effect of pore-water pressure build-up in the backfill, shall be
considered. The seismic coefficients used for this analysis should be based on the
earthquake magnitudes, peak ground accelerations, and durations of shaking provided in
Port-Wide Ground Motion Study, Port of Long Beach, California (Ref. 17) and Portwide Ground Motion Study, Port of Long Beach, California, Addendum to Final Report
(Ref. 18). Backfill sloping configuration, if applicable, and backland loading conditions
shall be considered in the evaluations. The loading considerations shall be based on
project-specific information, with a minimum assumed surcharge loading value of 250
psf. Mononabe-Okabe equations may be used to estimate earth pressures under seismic
loading, if appropriate. Refer to Foundation and Earth Structures (Ref. 27); Seismic
Analysis and Design of Retaining Walls, Buried Structures, Slopes, and Embankments
(Ref. 36). If Mononabe-Okabe equations are not appropriate, methods outlined in
Seismic Analysis and Design of Retaining Walls, Buried Structures, Slopes, and
Embankments (Ref. 36) or other appropriate methods may be used.
2-6
02/29/2012
2.7 Pile Axial Behavior

These guidelines are based on the assumption that piles are driven into the dense to very
dense soil layer that is generally present throughout the Port area at elevations
approximately -80 feet to -100 feet MLLW and below. If piles are not embedded into this
layer, additional guidelines may be applicable and the geotechnical engineer should
provide recommendations for review and approval by the Port.
2.7.1 Pile Capacity
Axial geotechnical capacity of piles shall be evaluated using the load combinations in
Table 3-3. Guidelines for estimating axial pile capacities are provided in Foundation and
Earth Structures (Ref. 27), Recommended Procedures for Planning, Designing, and
Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms (Ref. 5), and other appropriate documents. A
minimum factor of safety of 2.0 shall be achieved on the ultimate axial capacity of pile
when using the largest of the service load combinations provided in
Table 3-3. In addition, piles supporting the waterside crane rail girder should have a
minimum factor of safety of 1.5 on ultimate axial capacity of pile when using the broken
pile load combinations provided in Table 3-1.
If long-term soil settlement is anticipated (See Section 2.5.1) above the pile tip, the
effects of downdrag on axial geotechnical and structural capacity of piles shall be
evaluated. The geotechnical capacity when evaluating the effects of downdrag loads
should be estimated by considering only the tip resistance of the pile and the side friction
resistance below the lowest layer contributing to the downdrag. Due to the short-term
nature of transient loads (loads other than dead load), the factor of safety for the
downdrag load evaluation may be reduced when downdrag loads are combined with
transient loads. A minimum factor of safety of 1.5 should be achieved when combining
the downdrag with the maximum of the service load estimated using load combination
per
Table 3-3. For the earthquake load case in, an additional 10% of the design uniform live
load should be included, per Section 4.5.2. However, the factor of safety should not be
less than 2.0 when downdrag loads are combined with dead loads only. The geotechnical
engineer should provide the magnitude of the downdrag load and its extent along the pile
to the structural engineer.
An alternate approach to the evaluation of long-term settlement induced downdrag loads
is to estimate the pile top settlement under the downdrag load plus service load and to
design the structure to tolerate the resulting settlement.
If liquefaction or seismically-induced settlement are anticipated (See Section 2.5.2), the
ultimate pile axial geotechnical capacity under seismic conditions shall be evaluated for
the effects of liquefaction and/or downdrag forces on the pile. The ultimate geotechnical
capacity of the pile during liquefaction should be determined on the basis of the residual
strength of the soil for those layers where the factor of safety for liquefaction is
determined to be less than or equal to 1.0. When seismically-induced settlements are
predicted to occur during design earthquakes, the downdrag loads should be calculated,
and the combination of downdrag load and service load should be determined. Only the
2-7
02/29/2012
tip resistance of the pile and the side friction resistance below the lowest layer
contributing to the downdrag should be used in the capacity evaluation. The ultimate
axial geotechnical capacity of the pile should not be less than the combination of the
seismically induced downdrag load and the maximum of the service load combinations.
2.7.2 Axial Springs for Piles
The geotechnical engineer shall coordinate with the structural engineer and develop axial
springs (t-z) for piles. The t-z springs may be developed either at the top or at the tip of
the pile, see Figure 2-3. If the springs are developed at the pile tip, the tip should include
both the frictional resistance along the pile (i.e., side springs [t-z]) and tip resistance at
the pile tip (i.e., tip springs [q-w]), as illustrated in Figure 2-3. If t-z springs are
developed at the pile top, the appropriate elastic shortening of the pile should also be
included in the springs. Linear or nonlinear springs may be developed if requested by the
structural engineer.
During development of the axial soil springs, the ultimate capacity of the soil resistance
along the side of the pile and at the tip of the pile should be used. Normally, it is assumed
that the soil resistance along the side of the pile is developed at very small displacement
(e.g., less than 0.5 inches) while the resistance at the tip of the pile will require large
displacements (e.g., 5% of the pile diameter).
2.7.3 Upper and Lower Bound Springs
Due to the uncertainties associated with the development of axial springs (t-z), such as
the axial soil capacity, load distributions along the pile, and the simplified spring
stiffnesses used, both upper bound (UB) and lower bound (LB) limits should be used for
the axial springs. The UB and LB springs should be developed by multiplying the load
values estimated in Section 2.7.2 by 2 and 0.5, respectively, to be used in the structural
analysis. Different values may be acceptable if supported by rational analysis and/or
testing and upon written approval by the Port.
2-8
02/29/2012
P
Applied
Load
P
Applied
Load
Pile
Pile
t-z
(Side Spring)
qw
q-w
(TipSpring)
(Toe Spring)
q
T-z
(Com posite
Spring)
w
Figure 2-3: Axial Soil Springs
2.8 Soil Behavior under Lateral Pile Loading

2.8.1 Soil Springs for Lateral Pile Loading
For the design of piles under loading associated with the inertial response of the wharf
structure, level-ground inelastic lateral springs (p-y) shall be developed. The lateral
springs within the shallow portion of the piles (generally within 10 pile diameters below
the ground surface) tend to dominate the inertial behavior. Geotechnical parameters for
developing lateral soil springs may follow guidelines provided in Recommended
Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms (Ref. 5) or
other appropriate documents.
2.8.2 Upper and Lower Bound Soil Springs
Due to uncertainties associated with the development of lateral springs (p-y), such as
uncertainties arising from rock properties, rock placement method, and sloping rock dike
configuration, UB and LB p-y springs shall be developed for use in the wharf structure
inertial response analyses. For typical marginal container wharf slope/embankment/dike
system at the Port, the UB and LB springs shall use 2 times and 0.3 times the load values
of the lateral spring developed per Section 2.8.1. Upon written approval by the Port,
2-9
02/29/2012
rational analysis and/or testing may be performed to justify the use of different values.
For other wharf slope/embankment/dike types, the UB and LB springs should be
developed on a site-specific basis.
2.9 Soil-pile Interaction

Two separate load conditions for the piles analysis shall be considered: (1) Inertial
loading under OLE, CLE and DE, and (2) Kinematic loading from lateral ground
spreading. Inertial loading is associated with earthquake-induced lateral loading on the
wharf structure, while kinematic loading refers to the loading on wharf piles from
earthquake induced lateral deformations of the slope/embankment/dike system.
For typical marginal container wharves at the Port (vertical pile wharf configurations
with typical slope/embankment/dike system), the inertial loading condition induces
maximum moments in the upper regions of the pile, and the kinematic loading condition
induces maximum moments in the lower regions of the pile. The locations of the
maximum moments from these two load conditions are sufficiently far apart so that the
effects of moment superposition are normally negligible. Furthermore, maximum
moments induced by the two load conditions tend to occur at different times during the
earthquake. Therefore, for typical marginal container wharves at the Port, these load
conditions can be uncoupled (separated) from each other during design. For other wharf
types, this assumption should be checked on a project-specific basis.
2.9.1 Inertial Loading Under Seismic Conditions
The evaluation of wharf structure response under inertial loading is discussed in Section
4. The lateral soil springs developed following the guidelines provided in Section 2.8
shall be used in the inertial loading response analyses. The wharf structure analysis under
inertial loading can be performed by ignoring the slope/embankment/dike system
deformations (i.e., one end of the lateral soil spring at a given depth is attached to the
corresponding pile node and the other end is assumed fixed).
2.9.2 Kinematic Loading from Lateral Spreading
Kinematic loading from permanent ground deformation in the deep seated levels of the
slope/embankment/dike foundation soils shall be evaluated. The lateral deformations
shall be restricted to such amounts that the structural performance of wharf piles is not
compromised as defined by pile strain limits outlined in Table 4-1. The lateral
deformation of the embankment or dike and associated wharf piles and foundation soils
shall be determined using proven analytical methods as outlined below.
Analysis for kinematic loading may not be required if it can be shown that a previously
conducted dynamic soil-structure interaction analysis of a similar wharf representing a
conservative UB solution results in higher pile curvature demands than the wharf under
consideration, and still satisfies the strain limits for the pile.
Where analysis is required, initial estimates of free-field dike deformations (in the
absence of piles) may be determined using the simplified Newmark sliding block method
using the curves provided in Port-Wide Ground Motion Study, Port of Long Beach,
California (Ref. 17) for the OLE and CLE, as discussed in Section 2.4.4. For the DE,
2-10
02/29/2012
initial estimate of the free-field dike deformations should be made using the curves
provided in Seismic Analysis and Design of Retaining Walls, Buried Structures, Slopes
and Embankments (Ref. 36) or other appropriate documents as discussed in Section
2.4.4. For the 24-inch octagonal, precast, prestressed concrete piles and pile
configurations that are typically used for Port wharf structures, deformations are
generally considered acceptable in terms of pile strain limits and performance criteria
when the permanent free-field dike deformations are less than about 3 inches for the
OLE, less than about 12 inches for the CLE and less than about 36 inches for DE
conditions. Additional kinematic analysis is not required if the free-field dike
deformations are less than these limits.
In cases where dike deformations estimated using the simplified Newmark sliding block
method exceed the above displacement limits, site-response evaluations may be
necessary to revise the free-field dike deformation analyses. Upon written approval by
the Port, one-dimensional site response analyses may be performed to incorporate local
site effects in developing site-specific acceleration time-histories at the base of the sliding
block (within motions) for Newmark analyses. For the OLE and CLE, the firm-ground
time-histories provided in Port-Wide Ground Motion Study, Port of Long Beach,
California (Ref. 17) should be used as the basis for determining input in the siteresponse evaluations. For the DE, time-histories will be provided by the Port. Sensitivity
analyses should also be performed on factors affecting the results. The site-specific timehistories representing the within motions should then be used in the simplified
Newmark sliding block method to revise the dike deformation estimates. If the revised
dike deformations still exceed the acceptable values, more detailed numerical soilstructure interaction evaluations may be necessary.
A full soil-structure interaction numerical analysis for kinematic loading may not be
required if it can be shown by structural analysis that reduced displacement demands
estimated by simplified Newmark evaluations incorporating pile pinning effects are
structurally acceptable, as discussed in the following publications: Recommended LRFD
Guidelines for the Seismic Design of Highway Bridges (Ref. 8) and Seismic Analysis
and Design of Pile Supported Wharves (Ref. 11). The geotechnical engineer should
provide the structural engineer with level-ground p-y springs for the weak soil layer and
soil layers above and below the weak layer using appropriate overburden pressures for
performing a simplified pushover analysis to estimate the OLE, CLE and DE
displacement capacities and corresponding pile shear within the weak soil zone. For the
pushover analysis, the estimated displacements may be uniformly distributed within the
thickness of the weak soil layer (i.e., zero at and below the bottom of the layer to the
maximum value at and above the top of the weak layer). At some distance above and
below the weak soil layer, see Figure 2-4, the pile should be fixed against rotation, and
also against translation relative to the soil displacement. Between these two points (at
least 10Dp from the soil layer), lateral soil springs are provided, which allow deformation
of the pile relative to the deformed soil profile. The geotechnical engineer should perform
pseudo-static slope stability analysis (Section 2.4.2) with the pinning effects of piles
arising from pile shear in the weak zone incorporated and estimate the displacement
demands using simplified Newmark analysis. If the estimated displacement demands are
less than the displacement capacities as defined by the structural engineer, no further
analysis for kinematic loading will be necessary.
2-11
02/29/2012
Top fixed against

rotation
Springs at 0.25Dp for

first 3Dp from
interface, 1Dp or
smaller further out
with uniform
displacement profile
10 Dp
Weak Soil Layer

Springs at 0.25Dp
for first 3Dp from
interface, 1Dp or
smaller further out
10 Dp
Fixed base
Figure 2-4: Sliding Layer Model

In cases where subsurface conditions indicate the presence of continuous, thin (less than
2 feet), liquefiable and/or soft soils beneath the dike that could result in concentrated
deformations within these layers, more detailed numerical analyses may be necessary.
Such analyses shall not be performed without prior written approval by the Port.
If more detailed numerical analyses are deemed necessary to provide input to the
structural engineer, two-dimensional 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. As a minimum, deformation profiles along the length of the various pile rows
should be provided to the structural engineer to estimate strains and stresses in the piles
for the purpose of checking performance criteria. Such analyses should be coordinated
with the structural engineer and shall not be performed without prior written approval by
the Port.
2.10 Ground Improvement

In the event that all the requirements set forth in the above sections cannot be met for a
project, ground improvement measures may be considered to meet the requirements.
Prior written approval from the Port should be obtained before performing ground
improvement evaluations. Ground improvement design recommendations should
incorporate construction considerations including constructability, availability of
contractors and equipment, schedule impact, and construction cost. Alternatives such as
use of additional piles, or accepting greater damage due to larger displacements shall be
considered and discussed with the Port.
2-12
02/29/2012
3 Structural Loading Criteria

3.1 General
All wharves shall be designed for the loading requirements provided in Section 3. Where
loading conditions exist that are not specifically identified, the designer should rely on
accepted industry standards. However, in no case shall other standards supersede the
requirements provided in this document.
3.2 Dead Loads (D)

3.2.1 General
Dead load consists of the weight of the entire structure, including all the permanent
attachments such as mooring hardware, fenders, light poles, utility booms, brows,
platforms, vaults, sheds, service utility lines, and ballasted pavement. A realistic
assessment of all present and future attachments should be made and included.
3.2.2 Unit Weights
Actual and available construction material weights shall be used for design. The
following are typical unit weights:
Steel or cast steel
Aluminum alloys
Timber (untreated or treated)
Concrete, reinforced (normal weight)
Concrete, reinforced (lightweight)
Compacted sand, earth, gravel, or ballast
Asphalt paving
490 pcf
175 pcf
50 pcf
150 pcf
120 pcf
150 pcf
150 pcf
3.3 Vertical Live Loads (L)

3.3.1 Uniform Loads
The wharf shall be designed for a uniform live load of 1,000 psf, except for areas
outboard of the waterside crane rail, which shall be designed for 500 psf. When combined
with crane loading, the uniform live load in all areas should be 300 psf with no uniform
loading within 5 feet of either side of the crane rails. For the design of wharf piles, the
uniform live load may be reduced by 20% (800 psf). All uniform live loads shall be
distributed to produce maximum forces. At predetermined locations, the outboard deck
slab will also be checked for the loads imposed during loading and unloading of container
cranes or other large equipment from their transport vessel. This load will be obtained
from the equipment manufacturer and/or transporting company. Under some loading
circumstances, a specified area may be designed into the wharf structure to accommodate
those extreme loads.
3-1
02/29/2012
3.3.2 Truck Loads

Truck loads shall be in accordance with the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standard Specification for Highway Bridges (Ref.
1). The wharf structure shall be designed for HL-93 truck loads shown in AASHTO,
increased by a factor of 1.25. Lane loads need not be considered for the deck structure.
Impact will be in accordance with Section 3.4. When truck load is transferred through 2.0
feet or deeper ballast fill, the impact factor need not be considered in design.
3.3.3 Container Crane Loads
In the absence of actual crane load data from the manufacturer, the following values shall
be used:
Crane Rail Loads
All crane rail beams and supporting substructures shall be designed for the container
crane loads shown in Table 3-1. These crane rail loads are unfactored, and include crane
dead and live loads. In addition, Table 3-1 shows the load factors for various cases,
allowable stress and factors of safety for pile axial soil capacity. The uniform loading
shown is based on eight wheels spaced at 5.0 feet on center at each corner of the crane.
The factored crane loads shall be used in combination with other loads on the wharf deck,
per
Table 3-3, for the design of the crane rail beam and piles.
The waterside crane rail beam shall be designed to span over interior pile(s) that may be
damaged or broken, refer to Figure 3-1. The load factors associated with a crane moving
over broken piles are shown in Table 3-1.
Wharf
Deck
Broken
Pile(s)
Corner pile for an end or interior wharf segment

Interior waterside crane beam piles
Other piles
Waterside
Crane Beam
Figure 3-1: Broken Piles Layout

Both waterside and landside crane rail beams shall be designed for a lateral load of 3.0
klf applied at the top of rail.
Crane Stowage Pin
Crane stowage pins shall be designed for a horizontal force of 250 kips per rail at each
location for strong wind conditions. For wind load see Section 3.10.
3-2
02/29/2012
Crane Stop Load

Crane stop shall be designed to resist a horizontal runaway wind-blown crane impacting
force of 350 kips per rail applied 6.0 feet above the top of the rail, and in a direction
parallel to the rail.
Table 3-1: Container Crane Vertical Loads
Flexural
Capacityb
Pile Soil
Capacity
Factor of
Safetyc
Crane Rail Loads

Load Case
Normal operationd
One interior pile broken
Load
Factora
WW
Waterside
WL
Landside
50 klf
50 klf
1.3
Mn
2.0
50 klf
N/A
1.3
1.1Mn
1.5
Two adjacent interior piles

N/A
1.2
1.5
20 klf g
Mn
brokene, f
a
These factors represent the combined dead and live load factors applied to the crane loads.
b
Mn is the reduced nominal moment capacity of the crane rail beam or supporting pile head,
calculated based on ACI-318.
c
This factor of safety is for service load design combinations.
d
Crane rail loads are based on 3,000 kips crane dead load with 60 long ton lifting beam,
servicing 22 box wide vessels.
e
Use for exterior waterside crane girder only. If truck lane exists, the broken pile criteria are
not applicable.
f
Only wharf dead load and the waterside crane dead weight rail load specified above need to
be considered for the case of two adjacent interior piles broken.
g
This value represents the crane dead load for moving crane over broken piles only. No crane
operations are permitted.
CL
CL
CL
Truck
Crane
Truck
2'-6"
5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0"
2'-6"
5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0"
2'-6"
5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0"
Truck Truck
Crane
48'-6"
Truck Truck
Crane
48'-6"
CL
Truck Truck
Crane
W
W
2'-6"
5'-0" 5'-0" 5'-0"
Waterside Rail
LL
W
Landside Rail
40'-0"
Crane Wheel Spacing
40'-0"
Crane Load Distribution
3.3.4 Container Handling Equipment Loads

Wharf deck slab shall be designed for container handler wheel loads shown in Figure 3-2.
Wheel loads distribution shall be determined in accordance with AASHTO (Ref. 1). For
equipment with hard rubber wheels or other wheels not inflated, the wheel contact area
shall be designed as a point load. If handling equipment loading needs to be higher than
the load shown in Figure 3-2, load values and distribution shall be provided to the port
for approval.
3-3
02/29/2012
Figure 3-2: Container Handling Equipment Design Wheel Load

3.3.5 Railroad Track Loads
Wharves accessible by freight car shall be designed for railroad loads. Wheel loads shall
correspond to Cooper E-80 designation of American Railway Engineering and
Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) Manual (Ref. 6).
3.4 Impact Factor (I)

The impact factors shown in Table 3-2 shall be applied to uniform live loads and wheel
loads for the design of deck slab, crane beams and pile caps. Impact factors should not be
used for the design of piles and other types of substructures.
Table 3-2: Impact Factors
Impact Factor
(I)
Load
Uniform Loads
0%
Truck Loads
10%
Container Handling Equipment Loads
10%
Railroad Track Loads
20%
3.5 Buoyancy Loads (BU)

Typically, wharf decks are not kept low enough to be subjected to buoyancy forces.
However, portions of the structure, such as utility lines and vaults and bent caps, may be
low enough to be subjected to buoyancy forces. These are essentially uplift forces applied
at the rate of 64 pounds per square foot of plan area for every foot of submergence below
water level.
3-4
02/29/2012
3.6 Berthing Loads (BE)

Berthing loads shall be based on the following vessel characteristics, unless otherwise
specified. The approach velocity called out below includes the factor for abnormal
berthing and assumes a favorable site condition. The berthing energy shall be determined
by the deterministic approach as shown in Guidelines for the Design of Fender Systems,
2002 (Ref. 22).
LOA (Length Overall)
1,300 feet
Maximum Displacement
220,000 metric tons (1 metric ton 2,205 pounds)
Beam
185 feet
Draft (Max)
51 feet
Allowable Hull Pressure
4 kips/square feet
Approach Velocity Normal to Fender Line, v 0.26 foot/second
Approach Angle
5
Fender shear forces may be calculated using a friction coefficient, f = 30%, at the fender
face/ship hull interface. The berthing energy of the rubber fender shall be based on a
fender panel deflected angle of 10. Vessel ship energy shall be resisted by one fender or
dual fenders system. If a dual fender system is used, each fender shall have the capacity
for 75% of the total berthing energy.
Vessel
0.26 foot/second
ft
5
5o
V = 0.425 s
Fender
FenderLine
Line
Figure 3-3: Vessel Berthing

VF f RF
(3.1)
where:
VF
RF
=
=
Fender shear force

Force perpendicular to the fender panel due to berthing load
3.7 Mooring Loads (M)

For the design of the wharf structure, mooring line loads (P) shall be equal to the mooring
hardware capacity. These line loads shall be applied at angles between horizontal and a
maximum of 30 from horizontal in a vertical plane outboard of the wharf face, as shown
in Figure 3-4. These load directions represent possible bow and stern breasting line loads.
In applying these loads to the wharf structure, consideration should be given to bow and
3-5
02/29/2012
stern breasting line separations as well as distances to possible adjacent vessel breasting
lines. Where applicable, mooring line loads shall also be considered adjacent to
expansion joints and/or the end of the structure.
Mooring hardware for container ships shall have a minimum capacity of 200 metric tons.
For other types of vessels, which may require higher mooring hardware capacities, a
more detailed mooring analysis shall be performed. For mooring analysis use 75 mph
design wind speed (30 seconds duration with 25 years return period), for more details
refer to 2010 CBC Section 3103F.5 (Ref. 14).
Face of
Wharf
30 max.
P
Deck
Elevation
Plan
Figure 3-4: Mooring Line Force
3.8 Earth Pressure Loads (E)

Detailed requirements for static and dynamic earth pressure loads are discussed in
Section 2.
3.9 Earthquake Loads (EQ)

Wharf structure shall be designed to resist earthquake motions by considering the
relationship of the site to active faults, the seismic response of the soils at the site, and the
dynamic response characteristics of the total structure and its individual components in
accordance with the Seismic Design Criteria described in Section 4.
To account for the effect of vertical ground acceleration on the pile and deck, upper
bound and lower bound dead load combinations shall be considered with seismic load.
3.10 Wind Loads on Structure (W)

The wind load calculations should be based on 2010 CBC (Ref. 13) and ASCE 7-05 (Ref.
9) with basic wind speed of 85 mph (3-second gust with 50 years return period).
3.11 Creep Loads (R)

Creep is a material-specific internal load similar to shrinkage and temperature, and is
critical only to prestressed concrete construction. The creep effect is also referred to as
rib shortening and shall be evaluated using the PCI Design Handbook (Ref. 31).
3-6
02/29/2012
3.12 Shrinkage Loads (S)

Open wharf deck constructed from concrete components, are subject to forces resulting
from shrinkage of concrete due to the curing process. Shrinkage load is similar to
temperature load in the sense that both are internal loads. For long continuous open wharf
structures, shrinkage load is significant and should be considered. However, on pilesupported wharf structures, the effect is not as critical as it may seem at first, because
over the long time period in which shrinkage takes place, the soil surrounding the piles
will slowly give and relieve the forces on the piles caused by the shrinking deck. The
Prestressed Concrete Institute (PCI) Design Handbook (Ref. 31) is recommended for
design of shrinkage.
3.13 Temperature Loads (T)

Thermal loads in structural elements shall be determined based on a temperature increase
or decrease of 25 F.
3.14 Current Loads on Structure (C)

If site-specific current velocity data is not available, the current load on structure can be
based on current velocity of 1.5 foot per second (Ref. 25). Loads due to tsunami-induced
waves can be determined based on current and wave heights presented in Reference 26.
Tsunami wave heights in shallow water and particle kinematics can also be obtained from
Reference 26. Other structural considerations including uplift and debris impact shall be
considered in the wharf design.
3.15 Loads Application

Concentrated Loads
Wheel loads and outrigger float loads from container handling equipment may be applied
at any point on a wharf deck except outboard of the waterside crane rail. The equipment
may be oriented in any direction, and the orientation causing the maximum forces on the
structural members shall be used in the design. Trucks are permitted to operate outboard
of the waterside crane rail. Power trench covers and utility vault covers outboard of the
waterside crane rail shall be designed for wheel loads of trucks only; no other
concentrated loads shall be used. Loaded containers shall not be stacked on the wharf
deck. However, empties may be stacked inboard of the waterside crane rail, and the
resulting corner casting compression or punching shear forces due to empty containers
stacked six high should be checked.
Simultaneous Loads
Uniform and concentrated live loads should be applied in a logical, practical manner.
Designated uniform live loads and concentrated live loads from pneumatic-tired
equipment shall not be applied simultaneously in the same area. However, a uniform live
load shall be used between crane rails as described in Section 3.3.1. When railroad tracks
are present between crane rails, both crane and railroad track loads shall be applied
simultaneously, and no uniform load between crane rails shall be applied.
3-7
02/29/2012
Loads for Maximum Member Forces

For determining the shear forces and bending moments in continuous members, the
designated uniform and concentrated loads shall be applied to produce the maximum
effect.
Critical Loads
Concentrated loads are generally critical for punching shear and for the design of short
spans such as deck slabs, power trench covers and utility vault covers. Uniform load,
container handling equipment load, crane loads, and railroad track loads are generally
critical for the design of beams, pile caps, and supporting piles.
3.16 Load Combinations

3.16.1 General
Wharf structures shall be proportioned to safely resist the load combinations represented
in
Table 3-3. Each component of the structure and the foundation elements shall be
analyzed for all applicable combinations. For earthquake load combinations refer to
Section 4.
Load Symbols
D
=
Dead Loads
L
=
Live Loads
I
=
Impact Factor
BU =
Buoyancy Loads
BE =
Berthing Loads
M =
Mooring Loads
E
=
Earth Pressure Loads
W =
Wind Loads on Structure
R
=
Creep Loads
S
=
Shrinkage Loads
T
=
Temperature Loads
C
=
Current on Structure Loads
3.16.2 Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
Load combinations and load factors used for load resistance factor design are presented
in Table 3-3. Concrete and steel structural members shall be designed using the load
resistance factor design method. However, concrete structural members shall also be
checked for serviceability (i.e., creep, fatigue, and crack control as described in ACI-318
(Ref. 2), and temporary construction loads. Strength reduction factors shall follow ACI318 (Ref. 2) for reinforced concrete design and AISC (Ref. 4) for structural steel design.
3-8
02/29/2012
3.16.3 Service Load Design (SLD)

Load combinations used for service load design are presented in Table 3-3. The service
load approach shall be used for designing vertical foundation capacity and long-term
vertical wharf loads.
Table 3-3: Load Combinations
LOAD RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN (LRFD)a
Case
I
LOAD COMBINATION FACTORS

D
L+I
BE
R+S+T
BU
1.20
1.60
1.60
1.60
1.20
1.20
1.20
0.90
1.60
1.60
1.20
1.00
1.20
III
1.20
1.00
1.60
1.60
1.60
1.20
1.20
IV
1.20
1.60
1.60
1.60
1.60
1.20
1.20
II
SERVICE LOAD DESIGN (SLD)

Case
LOAD COMBINATION FACTORS

D
L+ I
BE
R+S+T
BU
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
II
1.00
0.75
1.00
0.75
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
III
a
The Load Resistance Factor Design require the strength reduction factors, as
specified in ACI-318 2008. Strength reduction factors shall follow ACI-318
(Ref. 2) for reinforced concrete design and AISC (Ref. 4) for structural steel
design.
b
For the load factor of crane load case see Table 3-1.
c
Reduce load factor to 0.9 for dead load (D) to check members for minimum axial
load and maximum moment.
d
Increase in allowable stress shall not be used.
3-9
02/29/2012
3-10
02/29/2012
4 Seismic Design Criteria

4.1 Introduction
The following criteria identify the minimum requirements for seismic design of wharves.
The criteria, which are performance based, require the displacement capacities of the
structural members to be greater than the displacement demand imposed by the seismic
loads. Where required, structural members are intentionally designed and detailed to
deform inelastically for several cycles without significant degradation of strength under
earthquake demand.
4.2 General Design Criteria

Wharf design shall consider the following items:
Ductile Design
The wharf structure shall be designed as a ductile system. The pile-to-deck interface
forms an integral part of the wharf structure, and shall be designed for ductile behavior.
Structural System
The structural system shall be based on the strong beam (deck), weak column (pile)
frame concept. The pile-deck structural system shall be designed to develop plastic
hinges in the piles and not in the deck. This concept is different from the strong columnweak beam structural system concept that is used for the design of buildings. Capacity
design is required to ensure that the dependable strengths of the protected members
exceed the maximum feasible demand based on high estimates of the flexural strength of
piles plastic hinges.
Pile Connection
The pile shall be connected to the deck with mild steel dowels (Grade 60). Momentresisting connection created by extending the prestressing tendons into the wharf deck
shall not be permitted.
Vertical Piles
An all-vertical (plumb) pile system shall be used, with an appropriate connection at the
pile-to-deck interface to ensure ductile performance of the structure. Battered piles shall
not be used for the design of new wharves without prior written approval from the Port.
Refer to Section 0.0.0.0 for the appropriate use of batter piles.
Crane Rails
Beams supporting crane rails shall be supported by vertical piles only. The gage between
crane rails shall be maintained by structural members or a wharf deck that spans between
the two rails to prevent spreading or loss of gage due to earth movements.
4-1
02/29/2012
Bulkheads
Bulkheads shall be designed for dynamic earth pressures induced during seismic events.
Cut-off wall shall be used to prevent loss of soil from the backland and shall not be
designed to provide seismic lateral resistance.
Slope Stability
A slope stability analysis, including seismic induced movements, shall be performed as
outlined in Section 2.
Utilities & Pipelines
Utilities shall be designed with flexible connections between the backland area and the
wharf capable of sustaining expected wharf movements under CLE response. Flexible
connections shall also be provided across wharf deck expansion joints.
4.3 Performance Criteria

The ground motions levels provided in Section 2.1 shall be used for the seismic design.
The permitted level of structural damage for each ground motion is controlled by the
concrete and steel strain limits in piles defined in Section 4.4. The performance criteria of
the three-level ground motions are defined below:
Operating Level Earthquake (OLE)
Due to an OLE event, the wharf should have no interruption in operations. OLE forces
and deformations, including permanent embankment deformations, shall not result in
significant structural damage. All damage, if any, shall be cosmetic in nature and located
where visually observable and accessible. Repairs shall not interrupt wharf operations.
Contingency Level Earthquake (CLE)
Due to a CLE event, there may be a temporary loss of operations that should be
restorable within a few months. CLE forces and deformations, including permanent
embankment deformations, may result in controlled inelastic structural behavior and
limited permanent deformations. All damage shall be repairable and shall be located
where visually observable and accessible for repairs.
Code-level Design Earthquake (DE)
Due to a DE event, forces and deformations, including permanent embankment
deformations, shall not result in the collapse of the wharf and the wharf shall be able to
support the design dead loads in addition to cranes dead load. Life safety shall be
maintained.
4.4 Strain Limits

The strain limits for the OLE, CLE and DE performance levels are defined by the
following material strains for concrete piles and steel pipe piles. Strain values calculated
in the analysis shall be compared to the following limits:
4-2
02/29/2012
Table 4-1: Strain Limits
Component Strain
Solid
Concrete
Pilea
Hollow
Concrete
Pileb
Design Level
OLE
CLE
DE
Top of pile
hinge concrete
strain
c 0.005
c 0.005 1.1 s 0.025
No limit
In-ground hinge
concrete strain
c 0.005
c 0.005 1.1 s 0.008
c 0.0051.1s 0.012
Deep In-ground
hinge (>10Dp)
concrete strain
c 0.008
c 0.012
No limit
Top of pile
hinge
reinforcing steel
strain
s 0.015
s 0.6 smd 0.06
s 0.8 smd 0.08
In-ground hinge
prestressing
steel strain
p 0 .015
p 0 .025
p 0 .035
Deep In-ground
hinge (>10Dp)
prestressing
steel strain
p 0 .015
p 0 .025
p 0 . 050
Top of pile
hinge concrete
strain
c 0.004
c 0.006
c 0.008
In-ground hinge
concrete strain
c 0.004
c 0.006
c 0.008
Deep In-ground
hinge (>10Dp)
concrete strain
c 0.004
c 0.006
c 0.008
Top of pile
hinge
reinforcing steel
strain
s 0.015
s 0.4 smd 0.04
s 0.6 smd 0.06
In-ground hinge
prestressing
steel strain
p 0 .015
p 0.020
p 0 .025
Deep In-ground
hinge (>10Dp)
prestressing
steel strain
p 0 .015
p 0 .025
p 0 . 050
4-3
02/29/2012

Table 4-1: Strain Limits (Continued)
Design Level
Component Strain
Steel
Pipe
Pilesc
OLE
CLE
DE
Top of pile
hinge concrete
strain
c 0.010
c 0.025
No limit
Top of pile
hinge
reinforcing steel
strain
s 0.015 s 0.6 smd 0.06
In-ground hinge
hollow pipe
steel strain
s 0.010
s 0.025
s 0.035
In-ground hinge
pipe in-filled
with concrete
steel strain
s 0.010
s 0.035
s 0.050
Deep In-ground
hinge (>10Dp)
hollow pipe
steel strain
s 0.010
s 0.035
s 0.050
s 0.8 smd 0.08
For solid round or octagonal piles.

If a hollow concrete pile is in-filled with concrete, the strain limits shall be identical to a solid
concrete pile.
c
Steel pipe pile deck connection shall be accomplished by concrete plug with dowel
reinforcement.
Definitions:
Dp = Pile diameter
c = Concrete compression strain
s = Steel tensile strain
smd = Strain at maximum stress of dowel reinforcement; see Section 4.6.2
p = Total prestressing steel tensile strain
b
4.5 Seismic Analysis

4.5.1 Analysis Methods
Analysis of wharf structures shall be performed for each performance level to determine
displacement demand and capacity. The capacity shall be based on the pile strain limits
defined in Table 4-1. The following analysis methods may be used:
Nonlinear Static Pushover

Equivalent Lateral Stiffness Method
Elastic Stiffness Method
Substitute Structure Method
Modal Response Spectra Analysis
Nonlinear Time-History Analysis
4-4
02/29/2012
The flow diagram in Figure 4-1 shows the typical steps a designer should follow to
complete the seismic analysis and design for a wharf structure. After the design for
service static loads has been completed, the performance design shall be performed for
OLE, CLE and DE. The seismic design may require additional pile rows or a modified
pile layout. A model including the effective section properties, seismic mass, and soil
springs shall be prepared. An Equivalent Lateral Stiffness method may be used for
preliminary design, if desired. Nonlinear static pushover analysis is always required, and
will provide the displacement capacity based on strain limits for all methods. The
structural analysis shall account for wharf torsional plan eccentricity, soil structure
interaction, multi-directional effects of the ground motion and the interaction between
adjacent wharf segments. Displacement demand for regular wharves shall be estimated
by the Elastic Stiffness method, the Substitute Structure method, or Modal Response
Spectra Analysis. For wharves with irregular geometry, special cases, or when
demand/capacity ratios from Modal Response Spectra Analysis are too high, Nonlinear
Time-History methods may be employed for the global model to verify the analysis
results. Nonlinear Time-History analyses, however, shall not be conducted without prior
written approval from the Port.
The maximum pile displacement shall be determined from the demand analysis, and
compared to the displacement capacity. The demand determined using the Elastic
Stiffness and Substitute Structure methods shall be adjusted for torsional effects using the
Dynamic Magnification Factor. If the demand is greater than the capacity, the design
must be revised. If the demand is less than the capacity, the pile shear, the beam/deck pile
joint and P- effects shall be checked. If the simplified kinematic loading and lateral
spreading analysis performed per Section 2.9.2 requirements indicate that the anticipated
pile strains for the estimated deformations are likely to exceed the strain limits per
Section 4.4, kinematic analysis of the deep in-ground hinge shall be performed in
accordance with Section 4.12.
4.5.2 Earthquake Load Combinations
The following load combinations shall be used to determine seismic moment, shear and
axial demands for wharf deck and pile cap, and seismic shear and axial force demands for
piles:
U = (1K) D + 0.1 L + E + EQ
(4.1)
U = (1K) D + E + EQ
(4.2)
where:
U=
K=
Total design load in moments, shear forces or axial forces

(0.5 x PGA / gravity) where PGA is the peak ground acceleration in
feet/second2 and gravity is 32.2 feet/second2
D = Dead Loads
L = Live Loads
E = Earth Pressure Loads
EQ = Earthquake Loads
4-5
02/29/2012

Design for Service
Static Load
(S
S ti
3)
Determine Performance Criteria

(OLE, CLE, DE)
(See Section 4.3)
Calculate effective Section & Material

Properties (Ag, Ieff, Ec, Es)
Soil Springs (Upper Bound, Lower Bound)
Seismic Mass
Nonlinear Properties (M-, p,m, Lp)
(See Section 4.6)
Nonlinear Static
Pushover Analysis
Pile Displacement
Capacity c
(See Section 4.10.1)
(See Section 4.7)
Irregular
Structure or
Special Case
Yes
(See Section 4.8)

No
Check
(Optional)
Preliminary Design:
Equivalent Lateral
Stiffness Method
(See Section 4.9.1)
Elastic Stiffness Method
Substitute Structure
Method
Modal Response Spectra

Analysis
(See Section 4.9.3.2)
Nonlinear Time-History
Analysis
d = t x DMF
(See Section 4.9.2)
Displacement Demand, d
c>d
No
Revise Design
Yes
Component Capacities
Deck Expansion Joint
Kinematic Load
(See Section 4.10)
(See Section 4.11)
(See Section 4.12)
Figure 4-1: Flow Diagram for Seismic Analysis
4-6
Seismic Detailing
Requirements
(See Section 4.13)
02/29/2012
4.6 Structural Model

4.6.1 Modeling
Due to the general uniformity and symmetry along the longitudinal axis of regular
marginal wharves, the wharf may be modeled as a strip for pure transverse analyses. The
number of piles considered in the strip should be modeled to reflect the pile spacing in
each row, as shown in Figure 4-2.
C
L Landside
Piles
CL Waterside
Piles
Strip Width
Figure 4-2: Pile Spacing for Modeling of Typical Wharf Strip

The structural model shall incorporate components for the lateral resisting system. All
members shall be modeled at the center of gravity of the section. A minimum of two
members for the pile unsupported length from the soffit to the first soil spring shall be
used in the modeling. The ratio of the stiffness between the rigid links and the
surrounding elements should be no more than 100 to stabilize the stiffness matrix. Soil
springs shall be used to model soil-structure interaction, and shall be spaced at each layer
to accurately capture the soil behavior. Two distinct models shall be created to model
upper bound and lower bound soil springs; see Section 2.7.3.
The interface between the deck and the pile should not be considered entirely rigid. The
effective top of the pile should be located a distance lsp into the deck to account for strain
penetration. This additional length applies only to displacements. The strain penetration
of the pile section into the deck shall be modeled as a member with properties equivalent
to the top of the pile. The member between the strain penetration and the center of gravity
(c.g.) of the deck shall be a rigid link. The length of the strain penetration member shall
be equal to:
l sp 0.1 f ye d bl
(4.3)
where,
lsp = Strain penetration length (in.)
dbl = The diameter of the dowel reinforcement (in.)
4-7
02/29/2012

fye = Expected yield strength of the longitudinal reinforcement, ksi; see
Section 4.6.2.
Top of Deck
Deck c.g.
Rigid
lsp
16"
Reinforced Concrete
Section Properties
Soffit
Top of Soil
Prestressed Concrete
Section Properties
6"
First Soil Spring
Figure 4-3: Pile-Deck Structural Model Schematic Showing

Strain Penetration Length
For prestressed piles, the reinforced concrete effective section property per Section 4.6.3
shall be used for the first 16 inches of the pile below the soffit to account for
development of the prestressing strands. Below the first 16 inches of the pile, the
prestressed concrete effective section properties shall be used, see Section 4.6.3.
Maximum pile moment shall be considered to develop at the soffit. Maximum in-ground
moment will normally occur at between 50 and 100 inches below the dike surface for 24inch diameter piles. This value depends on the soil stiffness and strength, and the clear
height between the deck soffit and top of dike. To insure adequate precision in modeling
the pile moment profile, it is important that the soil springs be closely spaced in the upper
region of the pile. For typical 24-inch diameter piles it is recommended that the first soil
spring be located 6 inches below the dike surface, then springs be spaced at 12 inches to a
depth of about 126 inches. Below this, the spacing can be increased to 24 inches to a
depth of about 246 inches, then to 48 inches to a depth of about 390 inches. It will not
normally be necessary to model the soil below this depth and the pile can generally be
considered fixed against displacement and rotation at a depth of about 500 inches.
4.6.2 Material Properties
The capacity of concrete components to resist all seismic demands, except shear, shall be
based on the most probable (expected) material properties to provide a more realistic
estimate for design strength.
4-8
02/29/2012
The expected compressive strength of concrete, fce, recognizes the typically conservative
nature of concrete batch design, and the expected strength gain with age. The expected
yield strength for reinforcing steel and structural steel, fye, is a characteristic strength
and represents a low estimate of probable strength of the material, which is higher than
the specified minimum strength. Expected material properties shall be used to assess
capacity and demands for earthquake loads. Seismic shear capacity shall not be based on
the expected material strength, see Section 4.10.3. For determining the demand on
capacity-protected members, an additional overstrength factor shall be used on the
capacity of pile plastic hinges as described in Section 4.10. Except for shear, the expected
seismic material strengths shall be:
fce 1.3 fc
(4.4)
f ye 1.1 f y
(4.5)
f yhe 1 .0 f yh
(4.6)
f pye 1 .0 f py
(4.7)
f pue 1 .05 f pu
(4.8)
Ec 57,000 f ce' ( f ce is in psi)
(4.9)
where,
fc =
28-day unconfined compressive strength
fy =
Yield strength of longitudinal reinforcing steel or structural steel
Yield strength of confining steel
fyh =
fpy =
Yield strength of prestressing steel
fpu =
Maximum tensile strength of prestressing steel
f ce , fye, fyhe, fpye, fpue = Expected material properties
Ec =
Modulus of elasticity of concrete
The following stress-strain curves may be used to determine the deformation capacity of
the structural members. Alternative stress-strain models are acceptable if adequately
documented and supported by test results.
Concrete
The stress-strain curves for both confined and unconfined concrete are shown in Figure
4-4. This model is based on Manders model for confined and unconfined concrete (Ref.
35).
4-9
02/29/2012
Confined
Concrete
Compression Stress,fc
f cc
Unconfined
Concrete
f ce
co co
spall
cc
cu
Compression Strain,c
Figure 4-4: Stress-Strain Relationship for Confined and Unconfined Concrete

Unconfined Concrete:
Unconfined concrete either has no confinement steel or the spacing of the
confinement steel exceeds 12 inches. For these cases:
spall = Ultimate unconfined compression (spalling) strain, taken as 0.005

co
= Unconfined compression strain at the maximum compressive stress,

taken as 0.002
Confined Concrete:
For confined concrete, the following are defined:
cu 0.005 1.1 s 0.025
(4.10)
f cc
1
f ce
cc = co 1 5
(4.11)
7.94 f l
f
2 l
f cc f ce 1.254 2.254 1
f ce
f ce
(4.12)
where for circular core sections,
f l
1
K e s f yh
2
(4.13)
4 Asp
D s
(4.14)
4-10
02/29/2012
cu
cc
f cc
= Ultimate concrete compression strain

= Confined concrete compressive strain at maximum compressive stress
fce
f l
Ke
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
s
fyh
Asp
D
s
= Confined concrete compressive strength

Expected compressive concrete strength of concrete
Effective lateral confining stress
Confinement effectiveness coefficient, equal to 0.95 for circular core
Yield stress of confining steel
Cross-section area of confining steel
Diameter of confined core, measured to the centerline of the confining steel
Center-to-center spacing of confining steel along pile axis
Figure 4-5 plots the ratio of confined concrete compressive strength to expected
concrete compressive strength ( f cc / f ce ) with varying volumetric transverse steel
ratios (s). This graph may be used to determine the confined concrete strength, f cc
for circular core sections.
Confined Concrete Strength Ratio (f ce/ f ce)
2.2
f ce = 5 ksi
fyh = 70 ksi
Ke = 0.95
f ce = 7 ksi
1.8
1.6
f ce = 9 ksi
f ce = 8.45 ksi
1.4
1.2
1
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
Effective Volumetric Ratio of Confining Steel (s)
Figure 4-5: Concrete Strength Ratio versus Confining Steel Ratio
4-11
0.04
02/29/2012
For pile sections with different transverse reinforcement strengths or shapes (i.e.
rectangular stirrups), the confined concrete strength f cc may be approximated by 1.5 f ce
or calculated according to Manders model (Ref. 35).
Steel
The stress-strain curve for reinforcing steel is shown in Figure 4-6. The strain-hardening
equation for this curve is available in References 15, 32 and 33. To control the tensile
properties, A706 reinforcing steel is preferred for pile dowels. The stress-strain curve for
structural steel is similar to this curve (Ref. 15).
Steel Tensile Stress, fs
fue
fye
Es
ye
sh
smd
Steel Tensile Strain, s

Figure 4-6: Stress-Strain Relationship for Reinforcing Steel
Where for ASTM A706 Grade 60 steel (Ref. 16):
Steel tensile strain at the

onset of strain hardening
Strain at maximum stress of

dowel reinforcements
sh =
smd =
0.0150
#8 bars
0.0125
#9 bars
0.0115
#10 & #11 bars
0.0075
#14 bars
0.0050
#18 bars
0.120
#10 bars and smaller
0.090
#11 bars and larger
f ue 1 .4 f ye
fue = Expected maximum tensile strength of steel, equal to 1.4fye

Es = 29,000 ksi
ye = Expected yield tensile strain of steel

4-12
02/29/2012
Prestressing Steel
The stress-strain curve for prestressing steel is shown in Figure 4-7.
fpue
Prestressing Steel
Tensile Stress, fps
fpye
Eps
pye
pue
Prestressing Steel Tensile Strain, ps

Figure 4-7: Stress-Strain Relationship for Prestressing Steel
Eps = Modulus of elasticity for prestressing steel, taken as 28,500 ksi
pye = Expected yield strain for prestressing steel

pue = Expected ultimate strain for prestressing steel, taken as 0.060
fpye = Expected yield strength of prestressing steel, equal to 0.85fpue
fpue = Expected maximum tensile strength of prestressing steel
4.6.3 Effective Section Properties
Elastic analysis assumes a linear relationship between stiffness and strength of structural
members. Concrete members display nonlinear response before reaching their idealized
yield limit state. Section properties shall reflect the cracking that occurs before the yield
limit state is reached. The effective section properties shall be used to determine realistic
values for the structures elastic period and seismic demands.
The effective moment of inertia, Ieff shall be used for the structural model. Ieff can be
determined based on the value of the secant slope of the moment-curvature curve
between the origin and the point of first yield:
E c I eff
My
(4.15)
yi
where:
Ec = Modulus of elasticity of concrete
4-13
02/29/2012
My = Moment at first yield; see Section 4.6.6.1 for definition
yi = Curvature at first yield; see Section 4.6.6.1 for definition

For reinforced concrete piles and the pile/deck connection, the effective moment of
inertia ranges between 0.3-0.7Igross, where Igross is the gross moment of inertia. For
prestressed concrete piles, the effective moment of inertia ranges between 0.6-0.75Igross.
The prestressing steel at the top of the prestressed pile near the pile/deck connection is
not permitted to extend into the deck, therefore, it will not be developed at the deck soffit.
Thus, Ieff of the dowel connection should be used. For the deck section, the effective
moment of inertia is about 0.5Igross. Sections that are expected to remain uncracked for
seismic response should be represented by the gross section properties.
The polar moment of inertia of individual piles is typically an insignificant parameter for
the global response of wharf structure. The effective polar moment of inertia, Jeff, could
be assumed to be equal to 0.2 Jgross, where Jgross is the gross polar moment of inertia.
4.6.4 Seismic Mass
The seismic mass for the seismic analysis shall include the mass of the wharf deck,
permanently attached equipment, and 10% of the design uniform live loads or 100 psf. In
addition, 1/3 of the pile mass between the deck soffit and 5Dp below the dike surface
shall be considered additional mass lumped at the deck. Hydrodynamic mass associated
with piles, where significant, should be considered. For 24-inch diameter piles or less,
hydrodynamic mass may be ignored.
The seismic mass shall also include the larger of: 1) part of the crane mass positioned
within 10 feet above the wharf deck or 2) 5% of the crane mass.
4.6.5 Lateral Soil Springs
Upper and lower bound (UB and LB) lateral soil springs (p-y) shall be used to create two
distinct models to determine the seismic demands and the corresponding capacities. This
recognizes the inherent uncertainties associated with soil-structure interaction. The higher
of the two demand-to-capacity ratios will provide a conservative estimate of compliance
for displacement response. See Section 2 for further discussion on soil spring values.
4.6.6 Pile Nonlinear Properties
4.6.6.1 Moment-curvature Analysis
The plastic moment capacity of the piles shall be calculated by Moment-curvature (M-
analysis using expected material properties. The analysis must be modeling the core and
cover concrete separately, and must model the enhanced concrete strength of the core
concrete. The pile in-ground hinge section shall be analyzed as a fully confined section
due to the soil confinement. Reinforcement and prestressing steel nonlinearity must also
be modeled using material properties as specified in Section 4.6.2. Moment-curvature
analysis provides a curve showing the moments associated with a range of curvatures for
a cross-section based on the principles of strain compatibility and equilibrium of forces.
The analysis shall include the pile axial load and the effective prestressing force.
4-14
02/29/2012
The M- curve may be idealized by an elastic-perfectly plastic curve as follows:

Moment-curvature Curve Idealization - Method A:
The idealized plastic moment capacity, Mp, for typical concrete pile at the POLB
corresponds to the moment associated with an extreme concrete strain of 0.004, as shown
in Figure 4-8. Typically, the M- curve peaks around an extreme concrete strain of 0.004,
has a reduction in moment, and peaks again, depending on confinement, spalling of
concrete cover and strain-hardening of reinforcement. If the second peak on the curve is
less than the Mp value, the moment at the lower second peak should be taken as Mp.
However, for capacity protection analysis, the moment at the higher peak shall be used
for Mp. The elastic portion of the idealized M- curve passes through the curvature at first
reinforcing bar yield of the section or when concrete strain equals 0.002, whichever
occurs first (yi, My), and extends to meet Mp. The idealized yield curvature, y, is
determined as the curvature corresponding to the plastic moment value.
Moment-curvature Curve Idealization - Method B:
For other M- curves of concrete piles different than the typical POLB piles, the momentcurvature relationship may not exhibit the dramatic reduction in section moment capacity
near the cover spalling strain. This may occur for larger diameter concrete piles,
concrete-filled steel pipe piles with concrete plug connections, and hollow steel piles. For
these types, an equal area approach to determine the idealized M- curve is more
appropriate. For this approach, the elastic portion of the idealized M- curve should pass
through the point marking the first reinforcing bar yield or when c = 0.002, whichever
comes first (yi, My). The idealized plastic moment capacity is obtained by balancing the
areas between the actual and the idealized M- curves beyond the first yield point (Figure
4-9).
Actual Moment-curvature
Curve
Moment taken at
c = 0.004
Moment
Mp
Idealized Moment-curvature
Curve
My
Note: Mp is defined as
moment @ c = 0.004 or
moment at second peak,
whichever is lower, except for
capacity protection design, Mp
is defined as moment @ c =
0.004 or moment at second
peak, whichever is higher
First Bar Yield

or c = 0.002
p,m
yi y
Curvature
Figure 4-8: Momentcurvature Curve and Idealization for Method A
4-15
02/29/2012

Idealized Moment-curvature Curve
Actual Moment-curvature
Curve
Mp
Equal Areas
Moment
My
First Bar Yield

or c = 0.002
p,m
yi y
Curvature
Figure 4-9: Moment-curvature Curve and Idealization for Method B
where:
My
yi
y
m
p,m
u
= Moment at first yield (corresponding to yi)

= Curvature at first yield (first rebar yield or c = 0.002)
= Idealized yield curvature
= Total curvature at the OLE, CLE or DE strain limits
= Plastic curvature at the OLE, CLE or DE strain limits
= Ultimate curvature of the section
4.6.6.2 Plastic Hinge Length
The plastic hinge length is needed to convert the moment-curvature relationship into a
force-displacement or moment-rotation relationship for the nonlinear static pushover
analysis. Table 4-2 cross references the equations that should be used to determine pile
plastic hinge lengths for different pile sections.
Table 4-2: Plastic Hinge Length Equations
Section
Top
In-ground
Concrete Pile
4.16
4.18
Hollow Concrete Pile
4.16
4.18
Steel Pipe Pile (hollow with concrete plug

connection)
4.17
4.18
Steel Pipe Pile (infilled with concrete)
4.17
4.18
4-16
02/29/2012
For concrete pile dowel connections, the piles plastic hinge length, Lp (above ground),
when the plastic hinge forms against a supporting member, at deck soffits may be taken
as:
L p 0.08 Lc 0.1 f ye d bl 0.2 f ye d bl
(4.16)
where,
Lc
dbl
fye
= The distance from the center of the pile top plastic hinge to the point of
contraflexure in the pile (in.)
= Diameter of dowel reinforcement (in.)
= Expected yield strength dowel reinforcement (ksi)
For steel pipe sections connected to the deck by a concrete plug with dowels, the plastic
hinge length for the top of pile hinge may be taken as:
(4.17)
L p 0 .3 f ye d bl d gap
where,
dgap =
The distance between the top of the pile steel shell and the deck soffit
The plastic hinge length for in-ground hinges may be calculated as defined in equation
4.18 for piles with 18 to 30 inches in diameter. For piles with larger diameter, reduced
plastic hinge length for in-ground hinges may be used.
Lp 2Dp
(4.18)
where,
Dp
= Pile diameter
4.6.6.3 Plastic Rotation
The pile plastic rotation can be determined as follows:

p , m L p p , m L p ( m y )
(4.19)
where,
p,m = Plastic rotation at the OLE, CLE or DE strain limits

p,m = Plastic curvature at the OLE, CLE or DE strain limits
4-17
02/29/2012
The idealized moment-rotation (M- curve is shown in Figure 4-10.
Mp
Moment
p,m
Rotation
Figure 4-10: Idealized Moment-rotation Curve
u
y
m
= Ultimate rotation
= Idealized yield rotation (y = y Lp)
= Total rotation at the OLE, CLE or DE strain limits
4.7 Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis

Two-dimensional nonlinear static pushover analyses (pushover analysis) shall be
performed for all wharf structures. The pushover curve shall have sufficient points to
encompass the systems initial elastic response and predicted seismic demand. The
pushover curve shall also encompass the OLE, CLE and DE displacement capacities. The
yield displacements and OLE, CLE or DE displacement capacities may be obtained
directly from the pushover analyses when plastic rotation and hinge proper definitions are
included in the model. This analysis method incorporates soil deformation into the total
displacement capacity of the pile. Pushover model shall use effective section properties
and shall incorporate soil stiffness with nonlinear upper and lower bound p-y springs, see
Figure 4-11. The results from the pushover analysis will provide the displacement
capacities for OLE, CLE or DE, as well as the parameters needed for the Elastic Stiffness
and Substitute Structure methods, see Figure 4-12. The pushover curve shall not
experience a significant drop (greater than 20%) in total shear at the target-strain limits
for OLE, CLE or DE.
4-18
02/29/2012
Deck
Dike
Piles
Soil Springs
(p-y)
Figure 4-11: Pushover Model with p-y Springs
Deck
Total Shear
2
5
Plastic Hinge
Plastic
3 Hinges
Dike
4
Piles
Displacement
b) Plastic Hinge Sequence
a) Pushover Curve
Figure 4-12: Example of Pushover Curve and Plastic Hinge Sequence
4.8 Irregular Structures and Special Cases

4.8.1 Irregular Structures
Horizontal irregularity occurs when wharves have unsymmetrical pile and/or dike
layouts, and when wharves have an angle point; see Figure 4-13. Figure 4-13 a) shows a
regular marginal wharf structure. The wharf in Figure 4-13 b) shows an irregular
marginal wharf constructed with a partial dike. Figure 4-13 c) shows two adjacent
wharves with large differences in stiffness, which may occur between two adjacent
wharves with different pile or soil stiffnesses. Figure 4-13 d) shows an irregular wharf
with an angle point.
4-19
02/29/2012
b) Irregular Wharf
with Partial Dike
a) Regular Wharf
k1
k2
c) Irregular Wharf with

Different Adjacent
Stiffnesses: k2>1.2k1
d) Irregular Wharf
with Angle Point
Figure 4-13: Horizontal Marginal Wharf Configurations
Vertical irregularity occurs when soil profiles below the wharf have sharp variations in
lateral soil deformation over short vertical distances under seismic response.
4.8.2 Special Cases
4.8.2.1 Crane-wharf Interaction Analysis
A special case for crane-wharf interaction analysis shall be considered if the crane mass
impacts the wharf behavior as follows:
Tcrane 2Tw
(4.20)
where:
Tcrane = Translational elastic period of the crane mode with the maximum
participating mass
Tw =
Effective elastic period of the wharf structure based on cracked section
properties
For crane-wharf interaction analysis, the displacement demand, d of the wharf shall be
determined using Nonlinear Time-history Analysis per Section 4.9.4.3. This analysis
requires prior written approval by the Port.
4.8.2.2 Linked-wharf Interaction Analysis
A special case for linked-wharf interaction analysis shall be considered for wharf
structures if one of the following requirements is met:
1. LL < 400 feet or LL > 800 feet
2. B < 100 feet or B > 120 feet
3. More than 20% variation in the initial elastic stiffness of the wharf structure along the
wharf length
4-20
02/29/2012
where:
LL = length of the shortest exterior wharf unit
B = width of a wharf unit
For linked-wharf interaction analysis, the displacement demand, d of the wharf shall be
determined using Nonlinear Time-history Analysis per Section 4.9.4.3. This analysis
requires prior written approval by the Port.
4.9 Demand Analysis

4.9.1 Equivalent Lateral Stiffness Method
The Equivalent Lateral Stiffness method uses a wharf model with piles fixed at the
bottom without p-y lateral springs. In this method, the equivalent depth to point of fixity,
Ls, is determined as the depth that produces the same top of pile displacement as that
given by an individual lateral analysis for a given lateral load applied at top of pile. The
equivalent pile length has all soil and associated lateral stiffness removed above its
supported base, as shown in Figure 4-14. For different assumed displacements, different
pile head conditions, free-head or fixed-head, and different subsurface conditions, Ls is
expected to vary from approximately two times pile diameter to approximately fifteen
times pile diameter.
Deck
Dike
Piles
Ls
Point of Fixity
Figure 4-14: Depth to Point of Fixity
This method may not accurately predict pile top and in-ground hinge forces; therefore
this method should only be used for preliminary design.
4.9.2 Dynamic Magnification Factor (DMF)
Most of the seismic lateral resistance of marginal wharves is provided by landward piles
due to long embedment in soil. The seaward piles are mainly used for gravity loads and
might provide about 10% of the overall seismic lateral resistance. This configuration
creates eccentricity between the center of mass and the effective center of rigidity for the
wharf, which will induce torsional response in the structure under longitudinal excitation.
4-21
02/29/2012
Displacement demand of the critical piles at the end of a segment can be determined by
multiplying the displacement demand calculated under pure transverse excitation by
Dynamic Magnification Factor, which accounts for torsional response and simultaneous
longitudinal and transverse excitations, and interaction across expansion joints. An
analytical study utilizing nonlinear time-history analysis was performed to calculate the
DMF (Ref 11) using OLE and CLE ground motions with lower and upper bound soil
springs conditions. The study was performed on 110-ft wide wharf with single segment,
two linked segments and three linked segments. Segment lengths varied between 400
feet, 600 feet, and 800 feet. The study results show that DMF for CLE is always lower
than DMF for OLE. Therefore, DMF for DE may conservatively be assumed to be equal
to DMF for CLE.
Based on the study results, the DMF may be calculated as follows:
Single Wharf Unit:
DMF = 1.80 - 0.05 LL / B 1.10 for OLE

DMF = 1.65 - 0.05 LL / B 1.10 for CLE/DE, UB soil springs
DMF = 1.50 - 0.05 LL / B 1.10 for CLE/DE, LB soil springs
(4.21)
(4.22)
(4.23)
Linked Wharf Exterior Unit:
DMF = 1.55 - 0.04 LL / B 1.10 for OLE

DMF = 1.35 - 0.02 LL / B 1.10 CLE/DE, UB soil springs
DMF = 1.16 - 0.02 LL / B 1.10 for CLE/DE, LB soil springs
(4.24)
(4.25)
(4.26)
Linked Wharf Interior Unit:
DMF = 1.10
(4.27)
where:
LL = length of the shortest exterior wharf unit
B = width of a wharf unit
LB = lower bound
UB = upper bound
Wharf Exterior Unit = a wharf structure with an expansion joint at one end
Wharf Interior Unit = a wharf structure with expansion joints at both ends
The DMF values shall be used for straight wharf units only if all the following conditions
are met, otherwise refer to Section 4.8.2.2 for the requirements of special case analysis:
1. 400 feet < LL < 800 feet
2. 100 feet < B < 120 feet
3. Less than 20% variation in the initial elastic stiffness of the wharf structure along the
wharf length
4. Crane-wharf interaction analysis is not required per Section 4.8.2.1
4-22
02/29/2012
4.9.3 Transverse Single Mode Analysis
Reasonable estimates of displacement demand could be obtained from the Elastic

Stiffness Method using cracked-section elastic stiffness of piles. However, improved
representation of displacement demand could be obtained using the Substitute Structure
Method. If the Elastic Stiffness Method described in Section 4.9.3.1 is used for the wharf
design, the displacement demandto-capacity ratio (DCR) shall be less than or equal to
0.85. If the DCR is larger than 0.85, the Substitute Structure Method described in
Section 4.9.3.2 shall be used for verification.
4.9.3.1 Elastic Stiffness Method
The Elastic Stiffness Method is a single-mode pure transverse analysis of a typical wharf
strip, refer to Figure 4-2. This method uses the transverse elastic stiffness, ki, of wharf
segment determined from the pushover curve to calculate the pure transverse
displacement demand For this method, the damping ratio shall be 5%.
The pure transverse displacement demand shall then be modified with the DMF to
include the influence of simultaneous longitudinal response, interaction across expansion
joints, and torsional effects, to calculate the displacement demand d. The flow chart
shown in Figure 4-15 demonstrates the analysis steps for the Elastic Stiffness Method.
Calculate transverse elastic
stiffness from pushover curve for
a wharf segment, ki
Calculate seismic mass of a wharf
segment, m
Twi 2
m
ki
ki =
Transverse elastic stiffness of a wharf

segment determined from the
pushover analysis
m=
Seismic mass of a wharf segment per

Section 4.6.4
Twi =
Transverse elastic period of a wharf

segment
t =
Transverse displacement demand
DMF = Dynamic Magnification Factor

d =
Read pure transverse displacement

demand, t using displacement
response spectra for 5% damping
Displacement demand
Calculate DMF for the wharf

structure based on Section 4.9.2
d t DMF
Figure 4-15: Flow Diagram for the Elastic Stiffness Method
4-23
02/29/2012
4.9.3.2 Substitute Structure Method
The Substitute Structure Method is a single-mode pure transverse analysis, modified for
simultaneous transverse and longitudinal response interaction across expansion joints and
torsional effects by the DMF to calculate the displacement demand. Figure 4-16
demonstrates the analysis steps to calculate the displacement demand using the Substitute
Structure Method.
This method is an iterative process that uses the effective secant stiffness, ke, of a wharf
segment at the demand displacement determined from the pushover curve, and an
equivalent elastic damping representing the combined effects of elastic and hysteretic
damping to determine the pure transverse displacement demand for each iteration, see
Figure 4-17.
Assume an initial value for pure
transverse displacement demand
t,o ,n = 1
Calculate effective secant stiffness
from pushover curve
for a wharf segment
ke,n=Fn/t,n-1
Calculate seismic mass of a wharf
segment, m
Tn 2
m
k e ,n
t ,n 1
n=
Iteration number (1, 2, 3n)
ke,n =
Effective secant stiffness for iteration n

at t,n-1
Fn =
Force determined from pushover curve

for iteration n at t,n-1
Tn =
Effective period for iteration n
m=
Seismic mass of the wharf segment per

Section 4.6.4
eff,n= Effective system damping at iteration n

t,n =
Transverse displacement demand for

iteration n
DMF = Dynamic Magnification Factor
Read displacement demand, t,n,

from the displacement response
spectra for effective system
damping, eff,n
t ,n
Assumed initial transverse displacement

demand
t,n-1 = Transverse displacement demand for

iteration n-1
Refer to Equations 4.28 and 4.29

to calculate eff,n
t,o =
d =
Displacement demand
100 % 3 %
Calculate DMF for the
wharf segment based on
Section 4.9.2
Yes
No
d t ,n DMF
t ,n t ,n 1 , n n 1
Figure 4-16: Flow Diagram for Substitute Structure Method
4-24
02/29/2012
Pushover Curve Bilinear Approximation
Pushover Curve
Total Shear
ke,n
ke,n-1
ke
t,n-2
ys
t,n-1
Displacement
Figure 4-17: Effective System Stiffness for a Wharf Segment
The effective secant stiffness, ke is the slope of the line that starts from the pushover
curve origin point to the point of the first plastic hinge formed in a pile, refer to Figure
4-17. The system yield displacement, ys, is determined from the intersection of the
elastic and post-yield branches of the bilinear approximation. The Equal Energy
approach should be used to estimate the bilinear approximation of the system pushover
curve. The bilinear curve should be determined at an estimated displacement demand,
t,n-1, for CLE. The system yield displacement will always be larger than the
displacement at first yield of piles. The system displacement ductility demand at iteration
n, n, is determined as follows:
n t , n
(4.28)
ys
The effective system damping at iteration n is then found as follows:
n 1
eff ,n 0.10 0.565
(4.29)
The wharf transverse displacement demand based on pure transverse excitation may be
considered to have converged when 1 t ,n 100 % 3% . Once the transverse

t ,n 1
displacement demand converges, the result shall be modified using the DMF.
4.9.4 Three Dimensional Analysis
Three dimensional demand analyses include Modal Response Spectra Analysis and
Nonlinear Time-History Analysis. A typical wharf segment between expansion joints has
a large number of piles, which may result in unacceptable matrix sizes for analysis. As an
alternative, the structural characteristics of a wharf segment may be modeled by using the
Super-Pile concept, as explained below.
4-25
02/29/2012
4.9.4.1 Super-Pile Model
Four super-piles may be used to represent the combined properties and stiffness of piles
in the model for a regular wharf segment between expansion joints. For the analysis of an
irregular wharf, the super-pile concept should be used with special consideration of the
irregular elements.
The super-pile locations are determined based on the locations of the gravity piles and the
seismic piles, as shown in Figure 4-18. The gravity piles mainly carry vertical loads,
usually carrying less than 10% of the total lateral seismic load, and have less stringent
detailing requirements. Seismic piles also carry vertical loads and provide most of the
lateral seismic resistance with stringent detailing requirements.
Approximate location of
waterside super-pile
Approximate location of
landside super-pile
Deck
G3
G2
S2
Dike
G1
Gravity
(G) Piles
S1
Super-pile
Seismic
(S) Piles
G3
G2
G1
S2
S1
Figure 4-18: Elevation View of Transverse Wharf Segment
LL
CL Waterside
Piles
Row G3
Row G2
Row G1
yW
Row S2
yL
Row S1
C
L Landside Piles
LL
Center of Gravity (CG)
12
LL
12
Center of Rigidity (CR)
Super-Pile
Figure 4-19: Super-pile Locations for a Wharf Segment
4-26
02/29/2012
The super-piles shown in Figure 4-19 are located at distances yL and yW from the center
line of landside pile row S1:
S2
yL
ni Fi yi
iS 1
S2
n F
i S 1
G3
and yW
n F y
i G1
G3
(4.30)
n F
i G1
where:
Distance of landside super-pile from centerline of landside pile row S1
Pile row (i.e. S1, S2, G1-G3 as shown in Figure 4-19 and Figure 4-18)
Total number of piles in row i for length LL
Lateral force per pile in row i from pushover analysis when seismic pile
yield reach displacement
yi = Distance of row i from the landside pile row S1
yW = Distance of waterside super-pile from centerline of waterside pile row S1
yL
i
ni
Fi
=
=
=
=
The super-pile stiffness is calculated from the pushover curve for the piles represented.
The location of the super-pile should be determined based on the elastic response when
the seismic piles reach yield displacement. For compatibility reasons, the gravity piles
should have their stiffness determined at the same displacement. The landside super-pile
stiffness is equal to the stiffness of all piles on the landside of the dike. The remainder of
the total pile stiffness goes to the waterside super-piles. For a regular structure, the two
landside super-piles should have equal stiffness, and the two waterside super-piles should
have equal stiffness. In order to ensure the correct torsional stiffness under longitudinal
response, the super-piles must be located at the center of gyration of the wharf segment.
For a regular wharf segment the super-piles must be located at a distance of L L / 12
from the segment centroid, as shown in Figure 4-19.
The simplified model described above is suitable for both Modal Response Spectral
Analysis and Nonlinear Time-History Analysis.
4.9.4.2 Modal Response Spectra Analysis
This method is essentially a linear response spectrum analysis for a stand-alone wharf
segment. When wharf segments are linked by shear keys at movement joints, Modal
Response Spectral Analysis will not provide adequate representation of shear key forces
or displacement of the movement joint. A three dimensional linear elastic modal response
analysis shall be used with effective section properties to determine lateral displacement
demands.
Sufficient modes shall be included in the analysis such that 90% of the participating mass
is captured in each of the structures principal horizontal directions. For modal
combinations, the Complete Quadratic Combination (CQC) rule shall be used. A
damping ratio of 5% for spectral analysis shall be used unless a higher ratio can be
justified.
4-27
02/29/2012
X
YT
YL
XT
Node
XL
Longitudinal
Excitation
Transverse
Excitation
Figure 4-20: Wharf Response due to Longitudinal and Transverse Excitations
Input response spectra shall be applied separately along two orthogonal global axes
(longitudinal and transverse), see Figure 4-20. Spectral displacement demand shall be
obtained by the maximum of the following two load cases:
Case 1: Combine the displacement demand resulting from 100% of the
longitudinal load with the corresponding displacement demand
from 30% of the transverse load:
X 1 XL 0.3 XT
Y 1 YL 0.3 YT
Case 2: Combine the displacement demand resulting from 100% of the
transverse load with the corresponding displacement demand from
30% of the longitudinal load:
X 2 0.3 XL XT
Y 2 0.3 YL YT
where,
XL =
X-axis displacement demand due to structure excitation in the longitudinal

direction
XT =
X-axis displacement demand due to structure excitation in the transverse
direction
YL =
Y-axis displacement demand due to structure excitation in the longitudinal
direction
YT =
Y-axis displacement demand due to structure excitation in the transverse
direction
X1, X2 = Combined X-axis displacement demands from motions in the transverse
and longitudinal directions
Y1, Y2 = Combined Y-axis displacement demands from motions in the transverse
and longitudinal directions
4-28
02/29/2012
Pile seismic demand, d, is defined as follows:

2
2
d max X 1 Y 1 or
2
2
X 2 Y 2
(4.31)
Nonlinear time-history analysis has shown that the 100% + 30% spectral combination
rule to be non-conservative for wharf structures (Ref. 11). If Modal Response Spectra
Analysis method is used for the wharf design with soil initial lateral stiffness, the
displacement demand to capacity ratio (DCR) shall be less than or equal to 0.85. If the
DCR is larger than 0.85 other analysis methods shall be used.
4.9.4.3 Nonlinear Time-History Analysis
Nonlinear Time-History Analysis (NTHA) is the most accurate method for determining
displacement demand. Since the inelastic characteristics of the piles can be directly
incorporated in the response, the longitudinal and transverse excitation can be
simultaneously applied, and the complexities of the movement joints can be directly
modeled. NTHA must always be used in conjunction with another simplified analysis
approach to verify results. The NTHA results should be within 20% of the results
obtained from another simplified approach such as response spectral analysis. When
modeling reinforced or prestressed concrete piles or steel piles with concrete plugs,
degrading stiffness models such as the Modified Takeda rule (Ref. 35) should be adopted
with =0.3 and =0.5. Elastic damping should be represented by tangent stiffness
damping equivalent to 10% critical damping.
Displacement demands from NTHA shall be based on simultaneous orthogonal
horizontal input motions, as defined in Section 2.1. Multiple time-history records will be
required to achieve a representative displacement demand for the global model.
When three sets of spectrum-compatible time-history records are used, the envelope
value of each response parameter shall be used in the design. When seven sets or more of
spectrum-compatible time-history records are used, the average value of each response
parameter shall be used.
When NTHA methods are used, a peer review shall be conducted per Section 4.14.
4.10 Structural Capacities

For the evaluation of capacity-protected members and actions, such as shear in piles, and
shear and moment in deck beams, and deck slabs, the demand forces shall be determined
from using an amplified strength (overstrength) of pile plastic hinges:
Mo = 1.25Mp and Vo = 1.25Vp
(4.32)
where
Mo =
Mp =
Vo =
Vp =
Pile overstrength moment capacity

Pile idealized plastic moment capacity, which can be calculated by M-
analysis
Pile overstrength shear demand
Pile plastic shear, which can be calculated based on pile plastic moments
or as the maximum shear in the pile from both Upper Bound and Lower
Bound pushover analyses
4-29
02/29/2012
Deck beam and deck slab design moment and shear forces shall be in equilibrium with
pile overstrength moment and shear demands.
The wharf structural elements shall be designed for the induced forces due to the lateral
seismic deformations. For wharf deck, beam and deck slab, and pile beam/deck joint, the
moment, shear and axial demands shall be determined using the load combinations per
Section 4.5.2. Any moment demand caused by dead load and 10% live load need to be
distributed to the entire frame. The pile earthquake moment represents the amount of
moment induced by an earthquake, when coupled with the existing pile dead load
moment and pile 10% live load moment, will equal the piles overstrength moment
capacity.
4.10.1 Pile Displacement Capacity
Pile displacement capacity, c, shall be determined at OLE, CLE and DE using strain
limits provided in Table 4-1 for upper bound and lower bound soil conditions. The
displacement capacity shall be the lesser of displacement capacity at pile top plastic hinge
or at in-ground hinge, determined as follows:
c y p ,m
(4.33)
p ,m p ,m H
(4.34)
where:
c
y
p,m
p,m
H
= Displacement capacity
= Pile yield displacement, determined from pile initial position to the
formation of the plastic hinge being considered (i.e. top hinge or inground hinge)
= Pile plastic displacement capacity due to rotation of the plastic hinge at
the OLE, CLE or DE strain limits
= Plastic rotation at LE, CLE, or DE strain limits, determined per equation
4.19
= The distance between the center of pile top plastic hinge and the center
of pile in-ground plastic hinge
The pile yield displacements, y, of the top and in-ground hinges are obtained from the
pushover analysis. Figure 4-21 shows a graphical representation of the displacement
capacity calculation for a top plastic hinge. The concept is similar for an in-ground plastic
hinge.
For piles with a large unsupported length, Lu and in-ground and top plastic hinges with a
ratio Mp, in-ground /Mp, top > 1.25, the distance from the top and in-ground plastic hinges to
the point of contraflexure becomes uneven. Therefore, the displacement capacity
calculation becomes more complex, and the procedure used above will not provide
accurate results. Thus, a detailed pushover analysis with proper definition of plastic
curvature or rotation limits should be used to determine the displacement capacity.
4-30
02/29/2012
c
Deck Soffit
y p,m
Mp, top
Top of
Soil
Top Plastic
Hinge
Lu
Lp/2
Lc
Point of
Contra-flexure
p,m
Pile
In-ground
Plastic Hinge
p,m
Mp, in-ground
b) Displacement Profile
a) Bending Moment Diagram
Figure 4-21: Pile Displacement Capacity

4.10.2 Pile Beam/Deck Joint
As previously stated, wharves are designed with weak column (pile), strong beam (deck
beam or deck slab) concept. In this capacity, weak column (pile) is required to form
plastic hinges and experience permanent deformation due to seismic load. The nominal
strength capacity of the beam or deck shall be sufficient to ensure the piles have reached
their plastic limit prior to the beam or deck reaching its expected nominal strength. The
beam or deck shear and flexural capacities shall be determined based on ACI-318 using
strength reduction factors. The superstructure flexural capacity shall be greater than the
largest combination of deck dead load moment, deck moment due to 10% of live load,
and pile overstrength moment distributed on each side of the pile beam/deck joint (joint).
Any distribution factors shall be based on cracked section properties.
For the pile beam/deck joint details shown in Figure 4-27, joint shear requirements are
satisfied by providing adequate confinement. The required effective volumetric ratio of
confining steel, s, around the pile dowels anchored in the joint shall be:
0.46 Asc
Dla
s max of
f ye
or 0.016
0.0015 Esh
where:
Asc = Total cross-section area of dowels in the joint
4-31
(4.35)
02/29/2012
D = Diameter of the confined core measured to the centerline of the confining

steel
la = Actual embedment length of dowels anchored in the joint
fye = Expected yield strength of dowels
Esh = Confining steel modulus of elasticity
Less conservative mechanisms for joint shear transfer are suggested in Ref. 32. If an
alternate detail is proposed, joint shear principal stresses shall be checked according to
ACI-318.
4.10.3 Pile Shear
Pile overstrength shear demand, Vo shall be determined by nonlinear pushover analyses

using an overstrength factor of 1.25 including the effect of the axial load on piles due to
crane dead load. In lieu of pushover analysis, Vo may be calculated as follows:
Vo = 1.25 (Mp, top + Mp, in-ground)/H
(4.36)
where
Mp, top =
Pile plastic moment capacity at the top plastic hinge including the
effect of axial load due to crane dead load
Mp, in-ground = Pile plastic moment capacity at the in-ground plastic hinge
including the effect of axial load due to crane dead load
H
= The distance between the center of pile top plastic hinge and the
center of pile in-ground plastic hinge
Steel Piles Shear Capacity
The shear capacity of steel piles shall be determined according to AISC-LRFD or API
provisions, where applicable.
Concrete Piles Shear Capacity
The following applies to concrete piles and steel pipe piles with concrete plug and dowels
connections to the deck. The shear capacity, Vn , shall be calculated using the method
described below.
This method is based on the modified UCSD three-parameter model (Ref. 33) with
separate contributions to shear strength from concrete, transverse reinforcement and axial
load:
Vn (Vc Vs Va ) 0.2 f ce Ae
(4.37)
where,
=
Vn =
Vc =
Strength reduction factor for shear, equal to 0.85 for OLE and CLE and
equal to 1.0 for DE
Nominal shear strength
Concrete shear strength
4-32

Vs
Va
fce
Ae
=
=
=
=
02/29/2012
Transverse reinforcement shear strength

Shear strength due to axial load
Expected compressive strength of concrete
Effective shear area, equal to 80% of gross cross-sectional area for solid
circular and octagonal piles
Concrete Shear Strength, Vc:

Vc k f c' Ae
(4.38)
where:
k
fc
Ae
= Curvature ductility factor, determined as a function of refer to Figure 4-22

= 28-day of unconfined concrete compressive strength (psi)
= Effective shear area, equal to 80% of gross cross-sectional area for solid circular
and octagonal piles
= Curvature ductility demand
The curvature ductility demand, shall be calculated at the demand displacement, and
can be found using the formula below:
P ,dem
1 P ,dem
y
L p y
(4.39)
where:
P,dem = Plastic curvature at displacement demand

y = Idealized yield curvature
P,dem = Plastic rotation at displacement demand
Lp = Plastic hinge length
4-33
02/29/2012
Curvature Ductility Factor (k)
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
Curvature Ductility Demand ( )
Figure 4-22: Curvature Ductility Factor versus Curvature Ductility Demand
Transverse Reinforcement Shear Strength, Vs:

Vs
Asp f yh ( D p c co ) cot( )
2
(4.40)
where:
Asp =
fyh =
Dp =
c =
co =
=
s
Cross-section area of transverse reinforcement

Yield strength of transverse reinforcement
Pile diameter
Depth from the extreme compression fiber to the neutral axis at flexural
strength, see Figure 4-23
Clear concrete cover plus half the diameter of the transverse
reinforcement, see Figure 4-23
Angle of critical shear with respect to the longitudinal axis of the pile,
taken as 30o for existing structures and 35o for new design, see Figure 4-23
Center-to-center spacing of transverse reinforcement along pile axis
4-34
02/29/2012
Vs
Pile
co
Neutral
Axis
Dp
Figure 4-23: Transverse Shear Reinforcement Shear Strength Components

Shear Strength due to Axial Load, Va:
V a ( N u F p ) tan( )
(4.41)
where:
Nu =
Fp =
=
External axial compression on pile including seismic load; compression is

taken as positive, and tension as negative
Prestress compressive force in pile, taken as zero for top plastic hinge
Angle between the line joining centers of flexural compression zones at
top and in-ground plastic hinges and the pile axis, see Figure 4-24
Axial load shear strength factor, taken as 1.0 for existing structures, and
0.85 for new design
4-35
02/29/2012

Axial
Load
Deck Soffit
Deck
Top Plastic Hinge
Compression
Zone
Vp = (Nu + Fp)tan()
(Nu + Fp) Axial force
Pile
Top of Soil
In-ground
Plastic Hinge
Compression Zone
Figure 4-24: Axial Load Shear Strength Components
Alternatively, for piles with curvature ductility, < 2, the pile shear strength may be
calculated according to ACI-318 provisions.
4.10.4 P- Effects
Additional secondary forces due to the effect of dead load and lateral seismic
displacement demand (P- shall be included in the analysis for OLE, CLE and DE. The
P- effects may be ignored when:
F
4 d
WDL
H
(4.42)
where:
F
WDL =
d =
H =
Total lateral seismic force of the wharf strip considered at displacement

demand, determined from pushover curve
Effective dead load of the wharf strip considered
Displacement demand
The distance from the maximum in-ground moment to the center of
gravity of the deck
4.11 Deck Expansion Joint

Modal Response Spectral Analysis does not directly predict shear key forces between
wharf segments at expansion joints. A series of time-history analyses were conducted as
4-36
02/29/2012
part of a research study (Ref. 11) to obtain shear key forces for different wharf
configurations, soil properties and ground motion intensities. The results of the study are
based on a 110-ft wide wharf section with wharf segment length combinations that varied
from 400 feet, 600 feet, and 800 feet. The analysis was conducted using both lower and
upper bound soil conditions and OLE and CLE ground motions.
The study results show that for two linked wharf units, the shear key should be designed
for a seismic shear key force demand, Vsk, as shown below:
F e
Vsk sk
LL
(4.43)
where,
F
=
=
sk =
Total lateral seismic force of a wharf segment at displacement demand,

determined from the pushover curve of an entire wharf segment when the
shear key joins two segments of different lengths, F refers to the shorter
segment
Eccentricity between the wharf center of mass and center of rigidity
Length of the shorter exterior wharf unit
Shear key factor, determined as a function of wharf segment length, refer
to Figure 4-25
Shear Key Factor (sk)
e
LL
Wharf Segment Length (ft)
Figure 4-25: Share Key Factor versus Wharf Segment Length

For wharf section with configurations different than the wharf configurations used in the
research study (Ref. 11), special case analysis per Section 4.8.2.2 needs to be performed
with prior written approval by the port.
The wharf expansion joint shall be designed for the combined effect of seismic
deformation, seismic forces and thermal expansion. For calculating expansion joint shear
capacity according to ACI-318, a reduction factor of 0.85 should be used.
4-37
02/29/2012
4.12 Kinematic Loads

Kinematic loads occurs in piles when the dike begins sliding on a weak soil layer during
an earthquake, inducing bending moments in piles beneath the soil surface. Deep inground plastic hinges may form due to the dike movement, see Figure 4-26.
Section 2 provides screening criteria for kinematic analysis (nonlinear dynamic soilstructure interaction analysis) of the dike. If a kinematic analysis is required, the
geotechnical engineer shall provide displacement profiles for the piles under kinematic
load. The structural engineer shall analyze the piles for the given displacement profiles,
and the material strains in the piles shall not exceed the strain limits provided in Table
4-1. In addition, the shear demand in piles shall not exceed shear capacity determined
according to Section 4.10.3.
For the 24-inch octagonal, precast, prestressed concrete piles and dike configurations that
are typically used at POLB and having an embedment length of at least 20 feet into the
dike, kinematic load should not be considered when the permanent free field
embankment or dike deformation determined per Section 2 are less than 3 inches for
OLE, less than 12 inches for CLE and less than 36 inches for DE.
Deck
Inertial loading
Rock dike
Weak clay or
liquefaction
Weak
zone clay or
liquefaction
zone
Potential inertial plastic

hinge locations
(top and in-ground plastic
hinges)
Pile
Kinematic load
Potential kinematic plastic

hinge locations
(deep in-ground plastic
hinge)
Figure 4-26: Plastic Hinge Formation due to Kinematic Loads
4.13 Seismic Detailing

The details shown in Figure 4-27 are acceptable confinement details for the pile beam/
deck connection. The volumetric ratio of longitudinal reinforcing steel (dowels), shall
be between 1% and 4%. The maximum dowel bar size should be No. 11. The dowels
shall be developed into the pile according to ACI-318 requirements. The effective
volumetric ratio of confining steal, s shall be provided according to Section 4.10.2. The
pile prestressing steel shall be cut-off and removed at the top of the pile.
4-38
02/29/2012
Headed bond bars with bulb ends

for beam depth less than 36
Extra turn top & bottom
for anchorage
Beam/Deck
24 to 48
spirals
2 embedment
Cut pile to expose 1 turns
of spiral and embed in deck
concrete
Cut pile prestressing strands
and remove
24 precast
pile
Dowels with
bulb ends
Extra turn top & bottom

for anchorage
4 maximum
Beam/Deck
48
spirals
Cut pile to expose 1

turns of spiral and embed
in deck concrete
Cut pile prestressing
strands and remove
2 embedment
24 precast
pile
Dowels without
bulb ends
Figure 4-27: Anchorage Details for Pile Dowels
4.14 Peer Review

A peer review of the analysis and design shall be performed by an engineering team
selected by the Port for:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Presence of new faults at the project site

Detailed numerical analysis for liquefaction potential
Irregular wharf structures
Nonlinear time-history analysis
Kinematic analysis (nonlinear dynamic soil-structure interaction analysis)
4-39
02/29/2012
5 Structural Considerations
5.1 Design Standards
Wharf analysis and design shall comply with the provisions of POLB Wharf Design
Criteria and the following codes and standards as applicable. The provisions of POLB
Wharf Design Criteria shall supersede the requirements of all other documents if there
are disagreements.
1. California Building Code (CBC), California Code of Regulations, Title 24,
(Ref. 13).
2. American Concrete Institute (ACI), Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete and Commentary, ACI-318, (Ref. 2).
3. ASCE 7-05, Standard, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures, (Ref. 9).
4. American Institute of Steel Constructions (AISC), Code of Standard Practice for
Steel Buildings and Bridges, (Ref. 4).
5. ANSI/AWS D1.1, Structural Welding Code Steel, (Ref. 7).
6. California Building Code Chapter 31F [For SLC], Marine Oil Terminals, also
known as Marine Oil Terminal Engineering Standards (MOTEMS), (Ref. 14).
7. American Petroleum Institute (API), Recommended Practice for Planning,
Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms Working Stress Design,
(Ref. 5).
8. American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA), National Design
Specifications for Wood Construction and Supplement LRFD/ASD, (Ref. 3).
5.2 Wharf Geometrics

Controls
The wharf controls shall refer to the Control Section of the Design Criteria and
Standard Plans under General Criteria, (Ref. 29) for specific instructions as to survey
controls.
Vertical Datum
The vertical datum for the POLB is based on NGVD 29 (National Geodetic vertical
Datum of 1929), with MLLW elevation = 0.0 feet. The City of Long Beach uses
NGVD 29 with MSL elevation = 0.0 feet. As a reference, tidal elevations are provided in
Table 5-1 for NAVD 88 (North American Vertical Datum of 1988) and NGVD 29.
Monuments
The Project Plans shall show the location and type for installation of baseline
monuments. The Port survey section shall provide the required locations and type of
monuments.
5-1
02/29/2012

Table 5-1: Tidal Elevations
Abbreviation
Elevation (ft)
Description
NGVD 29
a
NAVD 88
---
Highest Observed Water Level
+7.54
+7.16
MHHW
Mean Higher-High Water
+5.43
+5.05
MHW
Mean High Water
+4.71
+4.33
MSL
Mean Sea Level
+2.80
+2.42
MLW
Mean Low Water
+0.95
+0.57
MLLW
Mean Lower-Low Water
0.00
-0.38
---
Lowest Observed Water Level
-2.56
-2.94
The extreme elevations should be used with caution. Irregularities in the

predicted tide (seiches) have been known to cause variations of up to 1.0 feet
Wharf Elevations
Wharf elevations shall be determined to maintain facility operations under all tidal
conditions. Where applicable, the wharf elevation shall also match that of adjacent
facilities, unless directed otherwise by project-specific criteria. Wharf elevations for RORO, barge loading and unloading, and special purpose docks are to be determined by
project-specific criteria.
Crane Rail Elevations
The top of crane rails (except for wheel flange notches) shall be level with the adjacent
deck surface. The top of rail elevation is dictated by drainage conditions for the wharf.
This normally results in a relative elevation difference between the waterside and
landside crane rails, due to deck transverse cross-slope. If cross-section elevations differ,
crane design shall accommodate elevations differential by specifying crane legs to match.
The longitudinal elevation of a crane rail shall be constant.
Typical rail elevations are at +15.0 feet for the waterside crane rail. The landside crane
rail elevation is based on minimum grade requirements, typically 0.75%.
The allowable tolerances for the top of crane rail elevation shall be 1/8 inch, and 1/16
inch for any 10 feet along the rail length.
5.3 Construction Materials

Cement
Portland cement type II modified shall be used.

Reinforcing Steel
Grade 60 reinforcing steel shall be used. Epoxy coating is not permitted without prior
written approval by the Port.
5-2
02/29/2012
Prestressing Steel
270 ksi strands shall be used for piles prestressing steel.

Cast-in-place Concrete
Cast-in-place concrete strength ( f c ) shall be a minimum of 5,000 psi at 28 days.

Minimum concrete cover over reinforcing steel shall be 2 inches for the top of wharf
face, and 3 inches for all other faces.
Non-prestressed Precast Concrete
Precast non-prestressed concrete strength ( f c ) shall be a minimum of 5,000 psi at 28

days. Minimum concrete cover over reinforcing steel shall be 2 inches for the top face,
and 3 inches for all other faces.
Prestressed Concrete Piles
Precast prestressed concrete piles strength ( f c ) shall be a minimum of 6,500 psi at time
of driving, and 4,500 psi at time of prestressing steel stress transfer. Minimum concrete
cover over transverse reinforcing steel shall be 2 inches.
Prestressed Precast Concrete (other than piles)
Precast prestressed concrete strength ( f c ) shall be a minimum of 6,000 psi at 28 days.

Minimum concrete cover over reinforcing steel shall be 2 inches for the top face, and 3
inches for all other faces.
5.4 Wharf Components

5.4.1 Wharf Deck
Beam/Slab
This system consists of a cast-in-place concrete slab supported by cast-in-place beams

(pile caps) that are supported by piles. When beams (pile caps) exist both longitudinally
and transversely, this system is also called a waffle slab.
Flat Slab
The flat slab system consists of a cast-in-place concrete deck supported by piles. The
thickness of the deck slab is normally controlled by slab punching shear capacity to resist
pile reactions. The slab depth in this case can be reduced by the use of capitals or shear
caps under the deck at pile locations.
Flat slab system may have larger seismic mass when compared to a beam/slab system.
Precast Slab Panels
This system consists of precast deck slab panels placed on top of cast-in-place bent caps
supported by piles. The entire system can also be covered with a reinforced cast-in-place
5-3
02/29/2012
topping slab for continuity. Precast deck slabs have the advantage of reducing the amount
of required falsework, which lowers both the construction cost and construction duration.
However, the bent cap beams reduce the construction tolerance of the pile placement (i.e.
misalignment). This can be an important factor in locations of construction nearby or
replacing existing structures, where submerged obstacles can be expected during pile
driving. Additionally, the depth of the bent cap beams with this type of deck can become
relatively large as the pile spacing is increased. This can place portions of the beam in the
tidal zone, potentially increasing the corrosion potential of the superstructure.
Ballasted Decks
Ballasted decks are normally not a preferred system due to their high seismic mass and
associated higher seismic demands. However, this type of system works well when deck
accessories such as railroad tracks are necessary, and a large number of utilities and
pipelines are required. A dropped deck or ballasted section is necessary in utility
corridors, and can be combined with any of the above systems. Ballasted decks are also
useful for non-container and general cargo (break-bulk) wharves where point loads from
odd shaped equipment and freight are operated.
5.4.2 Expansion Joints
Expansion joints are joints between two wharf units with a shear key that allows relative
longitudinal movement (movement parallel to shore) but restricts relative transverse
movement (movement perpendicular to shore). Expansion joints locations are determined
by thermal forces, and are typically placed at a maximum of approximately 800 feet
along the wharf.
The wharf expansion joints shall be designed for the combined effect of seismic
deformation, seismic forces and thermal expansion.
5.4.3 Cut-off Wall
A cut-off wall is a vertical subsurface barrier designed to prevent erosion of backland

materials under the wharf. It is normally constructed along the back edge of the wharf
with a sufficient depth to maintain kick-out stability, while still providing erosion
protection. It can be of either precast or cast-in-place construction. Cut-off wall shall not
be relied on for seismic resistance of the wharf structure.
5.4.4 Crane Rails
Support System
Crane rails shall be supported by a continuous weight distributing sole plate with attached
rail clips, a continuous flexible impact pad, and the appropriate crane rail. The assembly
shall be galvanized and installed in a recessed pocket with an epoxy fill under the sole
plate and asphalt concrete (AC) fill around the rail assembly to match the finished grade
of the wharf deck, with block-outs for wheel flanges. Crane rails shall be continuously
welded at expansion joint.
5-4
02/29/2012
Crane Stops
Crane stops are provided at the ends of the wharf to restrict crane motion beyond their
intended travel limits. The crane stop bumpers shall be positioned per crane
manufacturers recommendation. See Section 3.3.3 for further discussion on crane stops.
Crane stowage pins
The number of crane stowage pins and their location shall be based on operational
considerations. They are typically placed at ends of wharf, and at intermediate points for
long wharves. Consideration should be given to the number of cranes, length of wharf,
location of power source, and distance between stowage pins.
5.4.5 Fenders and Mooring Hardware
Fenders and mooring hardware spacing shall be determined based on operational

requirements and design vessels characteristics. Also, mooring hardware shall be located
to not cause line interference with fenders. Due to the likelihood of bulbous bow vessels,
a minimum distance of 8.5 feet shall be provided between the supporting structure piling
and the face of a compressed fender. This requirement is not applicable to fender piling,
if used.
To minimize additional crane boom reach, the maximum allowable stand off for fenders
shall be considered per crane and vessel configurations. Fenders shall be located along
the wharf face at a distance that will minimize the chance the vessel will contact the
concrete face of the wharf. Vessel dimensions and allowable hull pressure shall also be
considered in positioning and sizing fenders.
Mooring bollards shall be placed at intervals based on multiples of bent spacing, but no
more than 60 feet to avoid hull/wharf strikes. Refer to Section 3.7 for mooring loads.
5.4.6 Safety Ladder
Safety ladders shall be provided at a maximum spacing of 400 feet along the face of the
wharf.
5.4.7 Piling
Clearance
An approximate minimum of 4 feet clearance shall be used between the deck/ beam soffit
and top of dike to allow for adequate post-earthquake inspection and repairs.
Concrete Piles
The Ports standard pile is a 24-inch octagonal precast prestressed concrete pile. Larger
size solid or hollow piles may be proposed for situations where the 24-inch octagonal pile
is not a cost effective solution. The Port prefers to use only one size pile for the entire
structure, varying only the length and prestress level, unless project conditions and/or
cost savings prove otherwise. The use of piles other than the standard 24-inch octagonal
precast prestressed piles is not permitted without a prior written approval by the Port.
5-5
02/29/2012
Steel Piles
The use of steel piles is strongly discouraged due to the corrosion potential and associated
higher maintenance cost. Additionally, corrosion barrier coating systems and
encasements impede routine visual pile inspections. Steel piles should only be used when
project-specific criteria and site circumstances dictate.
Battered Piles
The use of battered piles is not permitted without a prior written approval by the Port.
However, battered piles may be used for isolated structures with low seismic mass, such
as landside anchors, mooring and breasting dolphins.
5.4.8 Guard Timber
On the waterside edges of the wharf deck, a curb or chemically treated guard timber 10inch high by 12-inch wide shall be used. Notches shall be provided on the underside of
the guard timber to permit drainage. The guard timber shall be anchored to the deck slab
using recessed bolts or pins, and should include vessels net anchor rings.
5.4.9 Trench Cover Plates
Galvanized steel checker plate shall be used for trench covers. Special consideration
should be given to the hinge design due to the weight of the plates. The preferred location
of the power trench is on the waterside of the waterside crane rail. The trench cover
plates shall be designed using the applicable load specified in Section 3.
5.4.10 Cable Trench
Trench for crane power cables shall be covered with a continuous flexible material,
fabricated from rubber with inlaid steel reinforcement. The trench shall be a minimum
width and depth to accommodate the crane power cables anticipated at the facility.
5.4.11 Inclinometer Tubes/ Motion Instrumentation
The decision to install inclinometer tubes/ motion instrumentation in the wharf structure
should be made during design, and should be coordinated with other instrumentations
functioning within the Port.
5.4.12 Dike Scour
Submerged slopes shall be protected to withstand the effects of ocean waves, tidal
currents, propeller wash, and vessels wakes. At a minimum, the slope protection shall
consist of an under layer of quarry run rock and an armor layer consisting of nominal 500
pounds armor stone. The submerged slope protection shall at a minimum extend above
all expected water levels and wave run-up elevations. Other approaches to slope
protection shall require prior written approval by the Port.
Design current speed, wave height and other coastal hydrodynamic processes shall be
defined and approved by the Port. Armor design and analysis shall consider the design
water level including sea level rise, design wave conditions, design current speeds, design
currents from propeller and bow thruster wash, design ship wake and any other potential
5-6
02/29/2012
sources of currents and waves such as tsunami (Ref. 37). The design vessel, for vessel
related factors, is provided in Section 3.6. An approach for addressing sea level rise is
given in Ref. 38.
5.5 Structural Analysis Considerations

Materials Properties
For service load analysis such as dead loads, live loads, and wind loads, the material
properties shall be based on the relevant design code, see Section 5.1.
Section Properties
For temperature or creep loads, the effective moment of inertia (Ieff) should be used for
piles, see Section 4.6.3. For all other service loads, gross moment of inertia (Igross) shall
be used.
Beam on Elastic Foundation Model
For modeling the wharf structure frame as beams on elastic foundation, UB and LB t-z
springs shall be used for the analysis including the pile elastic shortening, see Section 2.
To calculate moments in the beam and axial force in the piles, the t-z springs may replace
modeling the piles, as shown in Figure 5-1-a). The piles should be included in the model
to determine moments and shear in the piles, as in Figure 5-1-b).
Beam
t-z Spring
a) Model for Beam Analysis

Beam
Piles
t-z Spring
b) Model for Beam and Pile Analysis

Figure 5-1: Beam on Elastic Foundation
5-7
02/29/2012
5-8
02/29/2012
6 References
1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO),
LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 2007.
2. American Concrete Institute (ACI), Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete and Commentary, ACI 318, 2008.
3. American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA), National Design
Specifications for Wood Construction and Supplement LRFD/ASD, ANSI/
AF&PA NDS 2005, AF&PA, Washington DC, 2005.
4. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Manual of Steel Construction,
13th Edition, 2005.
5. American Petroleum, Institute, Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing
and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms Working Stress Design, API
Recommended Practice 2A-WSD (RP2-WSD), 21st Edition, December 2000.
6. American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA),
Manual for Railway Engineering, 2011.
7. ANSI/AWS, D1.1, Structural Welding Code, Steel 2008 Edition.
8. Applied Technology Council/Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake
Engineering Research, Recommended LRFD Guidelines for the Seismic Design
of Highway Bridges, MCEER/ATC-49, Based on NCHRP 12-49, 2003.
9. ANSI/ASCE 7, Standard, Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures, 2005.
10. Blake, T. F., R. A. Hollingsworth, and J. P. Stewart, J. P. (eds.), Recommended
Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for
Analyzing and Mitigating Landslide Hazards in California, Southern California
Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, February 2002.
11. Blandon, C. A., Seismic Analysis and Design of Pile Supported Wharves, Ph.
D. Dissertation, Rose School, Pavia, Italy, October 2007.
12. Boulanger, R. W. and I. M. Idriss, Liquefaction Susceptibility Criteria for Silts
and Clays, ASCE: Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering
Vol. 132, No. 11, November 2006.
13. California Building Code (CBC) (2010), California Code of Regulations, Title
24, January 2011.
14. California Building Code (CBC) (2010) Chapter 31F [For SLC], Marine Oil
Terminals, January 2011.
15. California Department of Transportation, Guide Specifications for Seismic
Design of Steel Bridges, First Edition, December 2001.
16. California Department of Transportation, Seismic Design Criteria, Version 1.6,
November 2010.
6-1
02/29/2012
17. Earth Mechanics, Inc., Port-Wide Ground Motion Study, Port of Long Beach,
California, Prepared for the Port of Long Beach, August 7, 2006.
18. Earth Mechanics, Inc., Port-Wide Ground Motion Study, Port of Long Beach,
California, Addendum to Final Report, Prepared for the Port of Long Beach,
August 15, 2008.
19. Earth Mechanics, Inc., Addendum No. 2 to Port-Wide Ground Motion Study
Report, Port of Long Beach, California, Prepared for the Port of Long Beach,
April 11, 2011.
20. FHWA, Design and Construction of Driven Pile Foundations, US Department
of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Publication No. FHWANHI05-042, April 2006.
21. Hart, E. W. and Bryant, W. A., Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California,
California Geological Survey Special Publication SP-042, 1992. Revised 1997
(Supplements 1 and 2 Added 1999).
22. International Navigation Association [PIANC], Guidelines for the Design of
Fender Systems: 2002, Working Group No. 33 of the Maritime Navigation
Commission, 2002.
23. Mander, J.P., Priestley, M.J.N, and Park, R., Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for
Confined Concrete, ASCE: Journal of Structural Engineering, Vol. 114, No. 8,
August 1988.
24. Martin, G.R., and Lew, M. (eds.), 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, March 1999.
25. Moffatt & Nichol et al., Alameda Corridor Currents and Tracer Study Revised
Final Report, Prepared for Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority, May 31,
2001.
26. Moffatt & Nichol, Tsunami Hazard Assessment for the Ports of Long Beach and
Los Angeles, Final Report, Prepared for the Port of Long Beach and the Port of
Los Angeles, April, 2007.
27. NAVFAC, Foundation and Earth Structures, Design Manual 7.02, Department
of the Navy, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Alexandria, VA, September
1986.
28. NAVFAC, Soil Mechanics, Design Manual 7.01, Department of the Navy,
Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Alexandria, VA, September 1986.
29. Port of Long Beach, Design Criteria and Standard Plans.
30. Port of Los Angeles, Draft Commentary to the Code for Seismic Design,
Upgrade, and Repair of Container Wharves, July 2004.
31. Prestressed Concrete Institute, PCI Design Handbook, Precast and Prestressed
Concrete, 6th Edition, January 2004.
6-2
02/29/2012
32. Priestley, M.J.N., Seible, F., and Calvi, G.M., Seismic Design and Retrofit of
Bridges, John Wiley & Sons, 1996.
33. Priestley, M.J.N., Calvi G.M., and Kowalski M.J., Displacement-Based Seismic
Design of Structures, IUSS Press, Pavia, ITALY, 2007.
34. Seed, R. B. et al., Recent Advances in Soil Liquefaction Engineering: A Unified
and Consistent Framework, 26th Annual ASCE Los Angeles Section, Spring
Seminar, Long Beach, California, April 2003.
35. Takeda, T., Sozen, M., and Nielsen, N., Reinforced Concrete Response to
Simulated Earthquakes, Journal of the Structural Division, Proceedings of the
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 96, No. 12, December 1970.
36. Transportation Research Board, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, Seismic Analysis and Design of Retaining Walls, Buried Structures,
Slopes, and Embankments, NCHRP Report 611, 2008.
37. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Coastal Engineering Manual, USACE EM1110-2-1100 (6 volumes), Washington, D.C., 2008.
38. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Water Resource Policies and Authorities
Incorporating Sea-Level Change Considerations in Civil Works Programs,
USACE Guidance EC 1165-2-211, Washington, D.C., 2009.
39. Youd, T.L. et al., 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 2001.
6-3
02/29/2012
Bibliography
American Concrete Institute, Guide for the Design and Construction of Fixed
Offshore Concrete Structures, ACI- 357R-84, Reapproved 1997.
American Concrete Institute, Design, Manufacture, and Installation of Concrete
Piles, ACI 543R-00, 2000.
American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC 303-05), Code of Standard Practice
for Steel Buildings and Bridges, 2005.
American Society for Testing and Materials, American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) Standards in Building Codes, 2007.
American Petroleum Institute (API), Recommended Practices 2A RP 2A-LRFD,
1997.
ANSI/AWS, D1.4, Structural Welding Code, Reinforcing Steel 2005 Edition.
Bell J., C. Blandon, and J. Restrepo, Seismic Testing of Existing Full-Scale Pile to
Deck Connections: Precast Prestressed and Steel Pile, Structural Systems Research
Project, UCSD, January 2008.
Blake, T. F., R. A. Hollingsworth, and J. P. Stewart, J. P. (eds.), Recommended
Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117, Guidelines for
Analyzing and Mitigating Landslide Hazards in California, Southern California
Earthquake Center, University of Southern California, February 2002.
Blakely, J.P. and R. Park, Prestressed Concrete Sections with Cyclic Flexure,
Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, 1973.
California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS), Seismic Design Criteria
(SDC), Version 1.6, 2010.
Department of Defense, Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), Design: Piers and
Wharves, UFC 4-152-01, July 2005.
FEMA 4500-1, National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program, NEHRP
Recommended Provisions for Seismic Regulations for New Buildings and Other
Structures, 2003.
Ferritto, J., Dickenson, S., Priestley N., Werner, S., Taylor, C., Burke D., Seelig W.,
and Kelly, S., Seismic Criteria for California Marine Oil Terminals, Vol.1 and
Vol.2, Technical Report TR-2103-SHR, Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center,
Port Hueneme, CA, July 1999.
International Navigation Association [PIANC], Seismic Design Guidelines for Port
Structures, Working Group No. 34 of the Maritime Navigation Commission, A. A.
Balkema Publishers, 2001.
Joen, P. and Park, R., Flexural Strength and Ductility Analysis of Spirally
Reinforced Prestressed Concrete Piles, PCI Journal, July-August 1990.
6-4
02/29/2012
Kawamata Y., C. Blandon, S. Ashford, and J. Restrepo, Seismic Performance of

Container Wharf Piles: Test Results, Structural Systems Research Project, UCSD,
June 2008.
Krier C., J. Restrepo, and C. Blandon, Seismic Testing of Precast Prestressed Pile to
Deck Connections, Structural Systems Research Project, UCSD, January 2008.
Priestley, M.J.N., Seismic Criteria for California Marine Oil Terminals, Vol.3:
Design Example, Technical Report TR-2103-SHR, Naval Facilities Engineering
Service Center, Port Hueneme, CA, May 2000.
Youd, T.L. and Idriss, I.M. (eds.), Proceedings of the NCEER Workshop on
Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils, Salt Lake City, UT, NCEER
Technical Report NCEER-97-0022, Buffalo, NY, 1997.
6-5
02/29/2012
End of POLB WDC Version 3.0
6-6

POLB WDC Ver 3 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POLB WDC Ver 3 0

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

POLB WDC Ver 3 0

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Port of Long Beach

Wharf Design Criteria

POLB WDC Version 3.0

POLB WDC Version 3.0

Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1-1

Geotechnical Considerations ............................................................................... 2-1

Ground Motions .......................................................................................... 2-1

Site Characterization ................................................................................... 2-2

Liquefaction Potential ................................................................................. 2-3

Slope Stability and Seismically Induced Lateral Spreading ....................... 2-3

Settlement ................................................................................................... 2-6

Earth Pressures ............................................................................................ 2-6

Pile Axial Behavior ..................................................................................... 2-7

Soil Behavior under Lateral Pile Loading .................................................. 2-9

Soil-pile Interaction .................................................................................. 2-10

2.10 Ground Improvement ................................................................................ 2-12

Structural Loading Criteria ................................................................................ 3-1

General ........................................................................................................ 3-1

POLB WDC Version 3.0

Dead Loads (D) ........................................................................................... 3-1

Vertical Live Loads (L) .............................................................................. 3-1

Impact Factor (I) ......................................................................................... 3-4

Buoyancy Loads (BU) ................................................................................ 3-4

Berthing Loads (BE) ................................................................................... 3-5

Mooring Loads (M)..................................................................................... 3-5

Earth Pressure Loads (E) ............................................................................ 3-6

Earthquake Loads (EQ)............................................................................... 3-6

3.10 Wind Loads on Structure (W) ..................................................................... 3-6

Seismic Design Criteria ........................................................................................ 4-1

Introduction ................................................................................................. 4-1

General Design Criteria .............................................................................. 4-1

Performance Criteria ................................................................................... 4-2

Strain Limits................................................................................................ 4-2

Seismic Analysis ......................................................................................... 4-4

Structural Model ......................................................................................... 4-7

POLB WDC Version 3.0

Seismic Mass ............................................................................. 4-14

Nonlinear Static Pushover Analysis.......................................................... 4-18

Irregular Structures and Special Cases ..................................................... 4-19

Demand Analysis ...................................................................................... 4-21

4.9.3.1 Elastic Stiffness Method ....................................................... 4-23

4.10 Structural Capacities ................................................................................. 4-29

Structural Considerations ................................................................................... 5-1

Design Standards ........................................................................................ 5-1

Wharf Geometrics ...................................................................................... 5-1

Construction Materials ................................................................................ 5-2

Wharf Components ..................................................................................... 5-3

POLB WDC Version 3.0

Safety Ladder ............................................................................... 5-5

Structural Analysis Considerations ............................................................. 5-7

References ............................................................................................................. 6-1

POLB WDC Version 3.0

Minimum Requirement for Slope Stability Analyses ....................................2-4

POLB WDC Version 3.0

POLB WDC Version 3.0

Gross cross-sectional area

POLB WDC Version 3.0

POLB WDC Version 3.0

Steel tensile stress