SEISMIC EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS OF GRAVITY BLOCK … · 2016. 1. 1. · negative or positive...

1

SEISMIC EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS OF GRAVITY BLOCK

TYPE QUAY WALLS: APPLICATION TO PIRAEUS PORT

Panagiota TASIOPOULOU1, Nikos GEROLYMOS

2 and George GAZETAS

3

ABSTRACT

Experience has shown that port facilities, and especially gravity quay walls, are particularly

vulnerable to earthquake related hazards. Motivated by numerous observed cases where gravity quay

walls suffered large displacement and rotation during earthquakes, even in soils not prone to

liquefaction, an illustrative numerical analysis is presented for the response of a typical block-type

quay wall section at Piraeus port in Greece. Utilizing the Byrne's elastoplastic constitutive model, an

effective stress dynamic analysis is performed using as seismic excitation two recorded strong motions

of the seismic environment of Greece. The results emphasize the role of excess pore-water pressure

(negative or positive) build-up during shaking on the evolution of the lateral displacement and tilt of

the quay wall, shedding light on the potential pitfalls that could emerge from a total stress analysis in

which pore-water pressure generation is not directly considered. It is shown that when extensive soil

liquefaction does not take place, the negative pore water pressures develop in the backfill mitigate the

large displacement and rotation of the quay wall.

INTRODUCTION

Gravity quay wall structures have repeatedly suffered substantial outward displacement and rotation

even when subjected to moderate earthquake shaking. (e.g. Pitilakis and Moutsakis, 1989; Egan et al.,

1992; Iai et al., 1994; Suganoand Iai, 1999; Elnashai et al., 2010; Zarzouras et al., 2010). Apparently,

due to their nature, these structures are extremely vulnerable to liquefaction and lateral spreading.

Such phenomena may lead to dramatic horizontal displacements and rotations, resulting not only to

the failure of the structural component itself, but also to damage to a number of inter-connected

elements: extreme deformation or failure of piping systems and utilities. The strong rocking of quay

walls (due only to its inertial forces), when founded on a compliant and weak foundation soil in

combination with the one-sided action of the earth pressures leads to the accumulation of horizontal

displacement and rotation towards the seaside. This effect is rather amplified due to the current design

practice of quay walls: their seismic design against earth pressures unavoidably leads to large

dimensions of the walls (Okabe, 1926). The increase of their dimensions is a self-defeating and

expensive proposition, as it augments the mass of the quay wall, ultimately amplifying the inertial

forces acting on the foundation soil (Zarzouras et al., 2010): a vicious circle that may not serve either

the safety or the economy of the project.

Tilt performance criteria related to container crane operations hamper the use of gravity quay

walls for container wharf operations imposed to seismic loading. Conventional practice for evaluating

1 Phd Student, National Technical University, Athens, Greece, [email protected]

2 Assistant Professor, National Technical University, Athens, Greece, [email protected]

3 Professor, National Technical University, Athens, Greece, [email protected]

2

their seismic stability is based on (i) pseudo-static (force-based) approaches and (ii) oversimplified

sliding block (displacement-based) methods of analysis, similar to those applied for embankments!

The deformation modes that synthesize the response of the quay wall at large displacements and near

failure conditions: sliding, overturning, and bearing capacity mobilization are evaluated separately,

totally neglecting the unavoidable interplay with one another. The state-of-practice assigns higher

factors of safety for overturning and bearing capacity than for sliding, as these are more critical modes

of failure. A key component in the above analyses is the estimation of the seismic active earth

pressure. While the Mononabe Okabe limit equilibrium method is widely used in practice to predict

active and passive earthquake pressures (Ebeling and Morrison, 1992; PIANC, 2001), the method have

limitations, and a generalized limit equilibrium approach has been recommended by the NCHRP 12-

70 Project Report 611 (Anderson et al., 2008). In both methods, however, the influence of soil

liquefaction on the failure mechanisms of the quay wall is completely ignored.

The vital role that quay walls play in the operational capacity of ports, shipyards and other

waterside facilities, increases the pressure to provide more efficient and seismically resilient new

infrastructure or improve the existing facilities through rehabilitation and seismic upgrading.

Optimizing the seismic performance of gravity quay walls requires a deep understanding of the

mechanics that govern their response, and, effective stress analysis is an essential tool that could

provide a valuable insight into this. Evidently, the whole problem is very complex. The dynamic

response of gravity quay walls is strongly affected by non-linear soil behaviour. Development of

excess pore pressures and accumulation of shear and volumetric strains both at the retained soil and

the foundation soil, produces the degradation of the shear strength of the soil which may lead to

liquefaction. The above phenomena are further complicated when accounting for soil-structure

interaction.

The goal of this paper is to investigate the seismic response of block-type gravity quay walls

emphasizing the role of pore-water pressure build-up in the soil behind and in front of the wall. Two

sub-cases are examined: In the first one (hypothetic case) only the hydrostatic conditions are

considered and the possibility of pore-water pressure build up is completely ignored. This case serves

as a reference for evaluating the influence of water flow on the system's response (second--realistic

case). The comparison is attempted at two performance levels, representing: (a) the contingency-level

earthquake (475 years return period) and (b) the ultimate-level earthquake (975 years return period)

with application to a typical gravity quay wall section at Piraeus port in Greece. To this end, the paper

utilizes the rigorous plain strain finite difference formulation of FLAC2D (Itasca, 2000), along with

Byrne's elasto-plastic constitutive model for cyclic stress-strain soil behaviour.

NUMERICAL MODELING

In the framework of the current research program which aims to the upgrade and retrofit of existing

piers in ports within Greece, pier II of Piraeus port, built in 1994-1996 was studied. A typical cross

section of pier II comprising the geometry of the block-type gravity quay wall and the idealized soil

profile is shown in Figure 1. The examined soil profile does not indicate significant liquefaction

potential; perhaps apart from the silty sand layer of medium density situated 3 m below the base of the

quay wall.

The current 2D section was simulated and analysed numerically using the finite difference

code FLAC 2D (Itasca, 2005). The distances of the boundaries from the quay wall are also shown in

Figure 1. Two types of models were dynamically analysed: i) model A where the development of

negative or positive excess pore pressures, Δu, was allowed and properly simulated, and ii) model B

where hydrostatic pressures were applied initially to establish a realistic geostatic field while further

development of Δu during the seismic stage was ignored. Both models incorporated Mohr Coulomb

plasticity model along with appropriate hysteretic damping. Especially, simulation of model A

involves the constitutive law of Byrne (1991) for pore pressure generation which is incorporated in the

standard Mohr-Coulomb plasticity model. The waterfront was simulated through constant hydrostatic

pressure on the quay wall; thus hydrodynamic effects due to sea-water waves were neglected. “Free-

field” conditions were used for the outer boundaries in order to absord wave reflections.

quay wall.

P.Tasiopoulou, N.Gerolymos and G.Gazetas 3

The contact conditions between the blocks of the quay wall as well as between the quay wall

and the adjacent soil were modelled with interfaces allowing for slippage and detachement via a

Coulomb frictional law. Friction coefficients were assumed equal to 0.5 and 0.7 respectively.

The seismic input motions were chosen among the available records from earthquakes in

Greece. The goal was to examine two levels of intensity: a medium and a strong one according to

standards of Greece. To this purpose, the chosen records include Kalamata (1986) with PGA 0.26g

and Lefkada (2003) with PGA 0.42g, depicted in Figure 2, along with their acceleration spectra. The

seismic input motions were applied at the base of the models.

Artificial FillSandy Gravel

φ = 35°Dr = 80%

Silty sand, φ = 30°, Dr = 60%

Gravelly sand, φ = 35°, Dr = 80%

Soft marl, Su = 120 kPa

17.5 m

9.5 m 70 m0 m

2.5 m

17.5 m

20.5 m

25.5 m

32 m

37.5 m

25.5 m

Vs (m/s)

0 250 500

0 250 500

Figure 1. Idealized soil profile and geometry of pier 2 of II of Piraeus port.

-0.5

-0.25

0

0.25

0.5

0 5 10 15 20

α:g

t (sec)

-0.5

-0.25

0

0.25

0.5

0 5 10 15 20

α:g

t (sec)

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

0 1 2 3 4

SA : g

T (sec)

Leukada

Kalamata

Lefkada

Kalamata

Figure 2. Input motions and acceleration spectra.

RESULTS & CONCLUSIONS

The results are presented in Figures 3-13 through the following graphs: (i) time histories of the quay

wall horizontal displacement and rotation, (ii) contours of residual horizontal displacement, shear

strain and excess pore water pressure ratio, and (iii) displacement vectors and deformed finite

difference mesh.

Numerical results of both models are primarily shown for the higher intensity input seismic motion of

Lefkada (2003), in Figures 3 to 7. Examining initially the deformed grid after the end of shaking,

illustrated in Figure 3, it is evident that the quay wall sustained greater outward displacement and

rotation in case of model (b), where any development of Δu due to seismic loading was ignored. This

is due to negative excess water pressure ratio closely behind the quay wall (Dakoulas and Gazetas,

4

2007), as indicated by the contours of excess pore pressure ratio, ru in Figure 4. The excess pore

pressure ratio, ru, is defined as the excess pore pressure Δu, over the initial vertical effective stress,

σ'vo. Figure 4 also indicates significant generation of positive excess pore pressure within the silty sand

layer of Dr =-60%. Nevertheless, it is evident that no liquefaction occurred in the backfill close to the

quay wall.

It should be noted that, for all cases considered, no slippage or detachment occurred between

the blocks of the quay wall, leading to translation of the quay wall as a rigid body. Interestingly, model

B, without Δu, sustained greater outward displacement and rotation compared to model A, with Δu,

for all earthquake motions considered. This is attributed to the extensional seaward deformation of the

backfill soil adjacent to the quay wall resulting in a geometrical imposed dilation (negative excess

pore water pressure), which overshadows the tendency of soil for volumetric contraction (positive

excess pore pressure) due to cyclic loading.

Another remarkable observation, for the strong motion record (Lefkada), is that the permanent

seaward displacement of the backfill extends all the way to the right boundary of model A, with Δu,

approximately 70 m from the quay wall. However, in case of model B, without Δu, the residual

displacements vanish rapidly after the midwidth of model, at a distance approximately 40 m from the

quay wall. On the other hand, for less strong motions (Kalamata), the distribution of backfill

displacements seems to extend to the same distance from the quay wall (Figure 9) despite the larger

outward quay wall displacement of model B, without Δu. These discrepancies in the displacement

pattern render the problem case specific and they could lead to erroneous design assumptions and

displacement-based performance requirements for deformation-sensitive inter-connected elements,

such as piping systems and container cranes, when the effect of excess pore water pressure is not

explicitly taken into account in the analysis.

FLAC (Version 6.00)

LEGEND

11-Apr-14 12:18

step 301622

Dynamic Time 2.0000E+01

-5.639E+00 <x< 1.071E+02

-3.764E+01 <y< 7.514E+01

Grid plot

0 2E 1

Exaggerated Grid Distortion

Magnification = 1.200E+00

Max Disp = 4.690E+00

-2.000

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

(*10 1̂)

0.100 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.900

(*10 2̂)

JOB TITLE : .

(a)

(b)

Figure 3. Deformed grid (blue) on top of undeformed grid (yellow) after the end of Lefkada 2003 seismic

motion: (a) model A with Δu and (b) model B with no Δu.


FLAC (Version 6.00)

LEGEND

11-Apr-14 11:36

step 429697

Flow Time 7.5925E+17


-5.639E+00 <x< 1.071E+02

-3.764E+01 <y< 7.514E+01

EX_ 1 Contours

-1.20E+00

-8.00E-01

-4.00E-01

0.00E+00

4.00E-01

8.00E-01

Contour interval= 2.00E-01

Extrap. by averaging

Grid plot

0 2E 1-2.000

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

(*10 1̂)

0.100 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.900

(*10 2̂)

JOB TITLE : .

FLAC (Version 6.00)

LEGEND

11-Apr-14 11:42

step 429697



-5.639E+00 <x< 1.071E+02

-3.764E+01 <y< 7.514E+01

EX_ 1 Contours

-1.20E+00

-8.00E-01

-4.00E-01

0.00E+00

4.00E-01

8.00E-01



Grid plot

0 2E 1-2.000

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

(*10 1̂)

0.100 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.900

(*10 2̂)

JOB TITLE : .

0.8

0.4

0

-0.4

-0.8

-1.2

ru

Figure 4. Contours of excess pore pressure ratio after the end of Lefkada 2003 seismic motion in case of the

model A where Δu is allowed to develop.

FLAC (Version 6.00)

LEGEND

11-Apr-14 12:50

step 301622


-5.639E+00 <x< 1.071E+02

-3.764E+01 <y< 7.514E+01

Max. shear strain increment

0.00E+00

1.00E-01

2.00E-01

3.00E-01

4.00E-01

5.00E-01

6.00E-01

7.00E-01

8.00E-01



Grid plot

0 2E 1-2.000

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

(*10 1̂)

0.100 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.900

(*10 2̂)

JOB TITLE : .

FLAC (Version 6.00)

LEGEND

11-Apr-14 12:51

step 429697



-5.639E+00 <x< 1.071E+02

-3.764E+01 <y< 7.514E+01


0.00E+00

1.00E-01

2.00E-01

3.00E-01

4.00E-01

5.00E-01

6.00E-01

7.00E-01

8.00E-01



Grid plot

0 2E 1

-2.000

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

(*10 1̂)

0.100 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.900

(*10 2̂)

JOB TITLE : . FLAC (Version 6.00)

LEGEND

11-Apr-14 12:51

step 429697



-5.639E+00 <x< 1.071E+02

-3.764E+01 <y< 7.514E+01


0.00E+00

1.00E-01

2.00E-01

3.00E-01

4.00E-01

5.00E-01

6.00E-01

7.00E-01

8.00E-01



Grid plot

0 2E 1

-2.000

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

(*10 1̂)

0.100 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.900

(*10 2̂)

JOB TITLE : .

00.1

0.20.30.40.50.60.70.8

Shearstain

(a)

(b)

Figure 5. Shear strain contours after the end of Lefkada 2003 seismic motion: (a) model A with Δu and (b)

model B with no Δu.

6

FLAC (Version 6.00)

LEGEND

11-Apr-14 12:30

step 301622


-5.639E+00 <x< 1.071E+02

-3.764E+01 <y< 7.514E+01




Displacement vectors

max vector = 4.690E+00

0 1E 1

-2.000

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

(*10 1̂)

0.100 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.900

(*10 2̂)

JOB TITLE : .

FLAC (Version 6.00)

LEGEND

11-Apr-14 12:32

step 429697



-5.639E+00 <x< 1.071E+02

-3.764E+01 <y< 7.514E+01






0 1E 1

-2.000

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

(*10 1̂)

0.100 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.900

(*10 2̂)

JOB TITLE : .

Max. displacementVector3.4 m

Max. displacementVector4.6 m

(a)

(b)

Figure 6. Deformed grid (blue) and displacement vectors after the end of Lefkada 2003 seismic motion: (a)

model A with Δu and (b) model B with no Δu.

FLAC (Version 6.00)

LEGEND

11-Apr-14 12:50

step 301622


-5.639E+00 <x< 1.071E+02

-3.764E+01 <y< 7.514E+01


0.00E+00

1.00E-01

2.00E-01

3.00E-01

4.00E-01

5.00E-01

6.00E-01

7.00E-01

8.00E-01



Grid plot

0 2E 1-2.000

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

(*10 1̂)

0.100 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.900

(*10 2̂)

JOB TITLE : .

FLAC (Version 6.00)

LEGEND

11-Apr-14 12:51

step 429697



-5.639E+00 <x< 1.071E+02

-3.764E+01 <y< 7.514E+01


0.00E+00

1.00E-01

2.00E-01

3.00E-01

4.00E-01

5.00E-01

6.00E-01

7.00E-01

8.00E-01



Grid plot

0 2E 1

-2.000

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

(*10 1̂)

0.100 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.900

(*10 2̂)

JOB TITLE : . FLAC (Version 6.00)

LEGEND

11-Apr-14 12:51

step 429697



-5.639E+00 <x< 1.071E+02

-3.764E+01 <y< 7.514E+01


0.00E+00

1.00E-01

2.00E-01

3.00E-01

4.00E-01

5.00E-01

6.00E-01

7.00E-01

8.00E-01



Grid plot

0 2E 1

-2.000

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

(*10 1̂)

0.100 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.900

(*10 2̂)

JOB TITLE : .

00.1

0.20.30.40.50.60.70.8

Shearstain

(a)

(b)

Figure 6. Shear strain contours after the end of Lefkada 2003 seismic motion: (a) model A with Δu and (b)

model B with no Δu.


FLAC (Version 6.00)

LEGEND

11-Apr-14 12:24

step 429697



-5.639E+00 <x< 1.071E+02

-3.764E+01 <y< 7.514E+01

X-displacement contours

-3.00E+00

-2.50E+00

-2.00E+00

-1.50E+00

-1.00E+00

-5.00E-01

0.00E+00


Grid plot

0 2E 1-2.000

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

(*10 1̂)

0.100 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.900

(*10 2̂)

JOB TITLE : .

FLAC (Version 6.00)

LEGEND

11-Apr-14 12:26

step 301622


-5.639E+00 <x< 1.071E+02

-3.764E+01 <y< 7.514E+01


-3.00E+00

-2.50E+00

-2.00E+00

-1.50E+00

-1.00E+00

-5.00E-01

0.00E+00


Grid plot

0 2E 1

-2.000

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

(*10 1̂)

0.100 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.900

(*10 2̂)

JOB TITLE : .

FLAC (Version 6.00)

LEGEND

11-Apr-14 12:24

step 429697



-5.639E+00 <x< 1.071E+02

-3.764E+01 <y< 7.514E+01


-3.00E+00

-2.50E+00

-2.00E+00

-1.50E+00

-1.00E+00

-5.00E-01

0.00E+00


Grid plot

0 2E 1-2.000

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

(*10 1̂)

0.100 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.900

(*10 2̂)

JOB TITLE : .

-3

-2

-1

0

HorizontalDisplacement

(m)

(a)

(b)

Figure 7. Horizontal displacement contours after the end of Lefkada 2003 seismic motion: (a) model A with Δu

and (b) model B with no Δu.

(a)

(b)

Figure 8. Deformed grid (blue) on top of undeformed grid (yellow) after the end of Kalamata seismic motion: (a)

model with Δu and (b) model with no Δu.

8

FLAC (Version 6.00)

LEGEND

11-Apr-14 15:56

step 301622


-5.639E+00 <x< 1.071E+02

-3.764E+01 <y< 7.514E+01






0 5E 0

-2.000

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

(*10 1̂)

0.100 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.900

(*10 2̂)

JOB TITLE : .

FLAC (Version 6.00)

LEGEND

11-Apr-14 15:58

step 429697



-5.639E+00 <x< 1.071E+02

-3.764E+01 <y< 7.514E+01



Max Disp = 9.935E-01


scaled to max = 2.000E+00

max vector = 9.935E-01

0 5E 0

-2.000

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

(*10 1̂)

0.100 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.900

(*10 2̂)

JOB TITLE : .

Max. displacementVector

2 m

Max. displacementVector

1 m

(a)

(b)

Figure 9. Deformed grid (blue) and displacement vectors after the end of Kalamata seismic motion: (a) model A

with Δu and (b) model B with no Δu.

FLAC (Version 6.00)

LEGEND

11-Apr-14 15:17

step 429697



-5.639E+00 <x< 1.071E+02

-3.764E+01 <y< 7.514E+01

EX_ 1 Contours

-1.20E+00

-8.00E-01

-4.00E-01

0.00E+00

4.00E-01

8.00E-01



Grid plot

0 2E 1-2.000

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

(*10 1̂)

0.100 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.900

(*10 2̂)

JOB TITLE : .

FLAC (Version 6.00)

LEGEND

11-Apr-14 11:42

step 429697



-5.639E+00 <x< 1.071E+02

-3.764E+01 <y< 7.514E+01

EX_ 1 Contours

-1.20E+00

-8.00E-01

-4.00E-01

0.00E+00

4.00E-01

8.00E-01



Grid plot

0 2E 1-2.000

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

(*10 1̂)

0.100 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.900

(*10 2̂)

JOB TITLE : .

0.8

0.4

0

-0.4

-0.8

-1.2

ru

Figure 10. Contours of excess pore pressure ratio after the end of Kalamata seismic motion in case of the model

A where Δu is allowed to develop.


FLAC (Version 6.00)

LEGEND

11-Apr-14 15:46

step 301622


-5.639E+00 <x< 1.071E+02

-3.764E+01 <y< 7.514E+01


0.00E+00

1.00E-01

2.00E-01

3.00E-01

4.00E-01

5.00E-01



Grid plot

0 2E 1

-2.000

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

(*10 1̂)

0.100 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.900

(*10 2̂)

JOB TITLE : .

FLAC (Version 6.00)

LEGEND

11-Apr-14 15:46

step 301622


-5.639E+00 <x< 1.071E+02

-3.764E+01 <y< 7.514E+01


0.00E+00

1.00E-01

2.00E-01

3.00E-01

4.00E-01

5.00E-01



Grid plot

0 2E 1

-2.000

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

(*10 1̂)

0.100 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.900

(*10 2̂)

JOB TITLE : .

00.1

0.2

0.30.40.5

Shearstain

FLAC (Version 6.00)

LEGEND

11-Apr-14 15:50

step 429697



-5.639E+00 <x< 1.071E+02

-3.764E+01 <y< 7.514E+01


0.00E+00

4.00E-02

8.00E-02

1.20E-01

1.60E-01

2.00E-01



Grid plot

0 2E 1

-2.000

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

(*10 1̂)

0.100 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.900

(*10 2̂)

JOB TITLE : .

FLAC (Version 6.00)

LEGEND

11-Apr-14 15:50

step 429697



-5.639E+00 <x< 1.071E+02

-3.764E+01 <y< 7.514E+01


0.00E+00

4.00E-02

8.00E-02

1.20E-01

1.60E-01

2.00E-01



Grid plot

0 2E 1

-2.000

0.000

2.000

4.000

6.000

(*10 1̂)

0.100 0.300 0.500 0.700 0.900

(*10 2̂)

JOB TITLE : .

0.080.120.160.2

0.040

Shearstain

(a)

(b)

Figure 11. Shear strain contours after the end of Kalamata seismic motion: (a) model A with Δu and (b) model B

with no Δu.

-4

-3.5

-3

-2.5

-2

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

0 5 10 15 20

Quay wallHorizontal

displacement(m)

t (sec)

base of wall (model (a) with Δu)

base of wall (model (b) without Δu)

top of wall (model (a) with Δu)

top of wall (model (b) without Δu)

-1.6

-1.4

-1.2

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0 2 4 6 8 10

Quay wallHorizontal

displacement(m)

t (sec)

Lefkada Kalamata

Figure 12. Time histories of quay wall horizontal displacements.

10

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 5 10 15 20

Quay wallrotation

(°)

t (sec)

Lefkada (model (a) with Δu)

Lefkada (model (b) without Δu)

Kalamata (model (a) with Δυ)

Kalamata (model (b) without Δu)

Figure 13. Time histories of quay wall rotation.

ACKNOWLEGMENT

This research has been co-financed by the European Union (European Social Fund – ESF) and Greek

national funds through the Operational Program "Education and Lifelong Learning" of the National

Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) - Research Funding Program: Thales. Investing in knowledge

society through the European Social Fund, Project ID "UPGRADE".

REFERENCES

Anderson, D. G., Martin, G.A., Lam, I. (Po), and Wang, T. N., (2008), "SeismicAnalysis and Design of

Retaining Walls, Buried Structures, Slopes, and Embankments", Report 611, National

Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Transportation Research Board,

Washington, DC.

Byrne, P. (1991). “A Cyclic Shear-Volume Coupling and Pore-Pressure Model for Sand,”

Proceedings of Second International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical

Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, St. Louis, Missouri, Paper No. 1.24, pp. 47- 55.

Dakoulas P. & Gazetas G. (2007), “Insight to Seismic Earth and Water Pressures Against Caisson

Quay Walls”, Geotechnique, Vol. 57, No. 10.

Ebeling, R.M., and Morrison, E. E., (1992), "The Seismic Design of Waterfront Retaining Structures",

US Navy Technical Report NCEL TR-939, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment

Station, Vicksburg, MS.

Egan J.A., Hayden R.F., Scheibel. L.L., Otus M., Serventi G.M., (1992), “Seismic repair at Seventh

Street Marine Terminal", Grouting Soil Improvement and Geosynthetics, Geotechnical Special

Publication No.30, ASCE, p.p 867-878.

Elnashai A.S., Gencturk B., Kwon O., Al-Qadi I.L., Hashash Y., Roesler J.R., Kim S.J., Jeong S.,

Dukes J., Valdivia A., (2010), “The Maule (Chile) Earthquake of February 27, 2010:

Concequence Assessment and Case Studies”, Mid-America Earthquake Center, Report No. 10-

04, 2010-12-31.

Iai S., Matsunaga Y., Morita T., Miyata M., Sakurai H., Oishi H., Ogura H., Ando Y., Tanaka Y., Kato

M., (1994), “Effects of remedial measures against liquefaction at 1993 Kushiro – Oki

earthquake”, Proc. Fifth U.S. – Japan Workshop on Earthquake resistant design of Lifeline

Facilities and Countermeasures against Soil Liquefaction, National Center for Earthquake

Engineering Research, NCEER-94-0026, p.p. 135-152.

Itasca, (2005) "Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua", Itasca Consulting Group Inc., Minneapolis,

Minnesota.

Okabe S. (1926). General Theory of Earth Pressure. Jnl. Japan Soc. Civil Engrs., Tokyo

PIANC (2001), Seismic Design Guidelines for Port Structures, Int. Navigation Association


Pitilakis K. and Moutsakis A., (1989), “Seismic analysis and behaviour of gravity retaining walls – the

case of Kalamata harbour quaywall”, Soil and Foundations, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 1-17.

Sugano T., and Iai S., (1999), “Damage to port facilities”, The 1999 Kocaeli Earthquake Turkey –

Investigation into Damage to Civil Engineering Structures, Earthquake Engineering Committee,

Japan Society of Civil Engineers, p.p.6-1 – 6-14.

Tasiopoulou P., Gerolymos N., Tazoh T. and Gazetas G.(2013), "Pile-Group Response to Large Soil

Displacements and Liquefaction: Centrifuge Experiments Versus A Physically Simplified

Analysis", Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE , Vol. 139(2),

pp. 223-233.

Zarzouras Or., Gerolymos N., Gazetas G. (2010), “Seismic Response of Caisson Quay-Wall in a

Liquefied Environment. Analysis of a Case History”, Proceedings of the 6th Hellenic

Conference on Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Volos, Greece, September

29–October 1, 2006, Vol. 1, pp. 549–556 (in Greek).

Zhang MH and Gjorv, OE (1991) “Effect of silica fume on pore structure of cement paste,” Cement

and Concrete Research, 21(1):1006-1014

Date post:	09-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

SEISMIC EFFECTIVE STRESS ANALYSIS OF GRAVITY BLOCK … · 2016. 1. 1. · negative or positive...

Documents