Simplified Prediction Method for Behavior of Sheet Pile Quay Wall on Liqufied Ground

Kenji Hayashi
Chuo Fukken Consultants Co. Ltd., Japan
Tamotsu Matsui and Kazuhiro Oda
Osaka University, Japan








ABSTRACT

The 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake had caused severe
damages to many structures in the bay area. The damage of the shore
structures were due to the occurrence of the liquefaction. In this paper,
focusing on the sheet pile quay wall, which is a typical type of shore
structures, the seismic behavior of the structures is discussed when the
liquefaction occurs, by applying the dynamic response analysis and the
simplified prediction method which was proposed by the authors.
Firstly, based on the case study by the dynamic response analysis, the
influence of the input earthquake motion on the residual deformation
of sheet pile quay wall is discussed. As a result, It is confirmed that the
residual horizontal displacement of top of sheet pile depends on the
maximum horizontal acceleration and the degree of stiffness of back
fill. Secondly, the applicability limit of the simplified prediction
method were discussed by comparing with the dynamic response
analysis. The simplified analysis is applicable as a prediction method
for seismic behavior of sheet pile quay wall by considering the
influence of the semi-liquefaction.

KEY WORDS: aseismic design; dynamic response analysis;
liquefaction; shore structure; sheet pile quay wall



INTRODUCTION

The 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake had caused severe
damages to many structures. Especially, the damage of the caisson
quay walls and sheet pile quay walls were very heavy in ports and
harbors. The damage were due to the occurrence of the liquefaction
and the earthquake motion over the design seismic coefficient. In this
paper, focusing on the sheet pile quay wall, which is a typical type of
shore structures, the seismic behavior of the structures is discussed
when the liquefaction occurs, by applying the dynamic response
analysis and the simplified prediction method which is proposed by the
authors.

SEISMIC BEHAVIOR OF SHORE STRUCTURES
DURING EARTHQUAKE

There are several types of structure in the sheet pile quay wall.
In this study, the counterfort sheet pile quay wall as the typical type of
sheet pile quay wall is focused. The typical damage of the sheet pile
quay wall is the leaning of the top of sheet pile, the settlement of back
ground and the crack of apron. Fig. 1 shows the typical damage of the
sheet pile quay wall. Three factors (the inertial force, the earth pressure
and the liquefaction) are sought to be the causes of damage to the sheet
pile quay wall during earthquake. Each factor is explained below.

Inertial Force Whenever any earthquake produces a certain
acceleration, the inertial force acts on a structure both in vertical and
horizontal directions. Assuming that the vertical motion of earthquake
has rather small influence on the structures, the inertial force by
horizontal motion has been adopted generally for the aseismic design
of structures. The larger the dead weight of the structure, the larger the
inertial force acting thereon becomes. Therefore, the inertial force is a
factor that greatly contributes to the seismic damage of the gravity type
shore structures, especially.

Earth Pressure The lateral earth pressure acting on the structures is
usually the earth pressure at rest under the static condition. During
earthquakes, however, it becomes a seismic earth pressure that is larger
than the earth pressure at rest. When the liquefaction occurs, it will
become much larger, because the ground is changed to liquefied
condition. Since, in particular, the gravity type quay wall and sheet pile
quay wall must stand against the earth pressure, the earth pressure may
Figure 1 Typical damage of sheet pile quay wall
536
Proceedings of The Twelfth (2002) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference
Kitakyushu, Japan, May 2631, 2002
Copyright 2002 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers
ISBN 1-880653-58-3 (Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)
become a significant factor of seismic damage to these structures.

Liquefaction The liquefaction is closely related to the seismic
damage to shore structures. Most of the seismic deformation of shore
structures in the bay area is attributed to the liquefaction, either
directly or indirectly. The liquefaction generates excess pore water
pressure in the ground, which will cause the shear strength reduction of
the foundation ground, followed by occurring the damage of structures
by settlement of structures or lateral flow of ground. Because the
liquefaction continues after the earthquake, it should also be
considered as a factor that keeps deformation or damage to structures
for a longer time. The damage of structures cannot be ignored even in
the case of semi- liquefaction where excess pore water pressure ratio is
less than the unity.

SIMPLIFIED ANALYTICAL METHOD

In the dynamic response analysis, it is possible to express the
seismic behavior of structure during earthquakes appropriately.
However, it is complicated and cannot be used frequently in the
conventional aseismic design. Therefore, a simplified and reasonable
method for predicting the seismic behavior of structure during
earthquakes is required. The simplified analytical method for the
gravity type quay wall was already proposed by the authors (Matsui et
al. [1998]). In this paper, the applicability of simplified analysis for
seismic behavior of sheet pile quay wall on liquefied ground is
discussed.
In the proposed analytical method, the structure is replaced by a
simplified model, and the ground contacting the structure by a
subgrade spring. The simplified analysis consists of three phases:
phase 1 (before the earthquake), phase 2 (during the time submitting to
inertial force by earthquake motion) and phase 3 (during liquefaction).
The deformation of structure in each phase is analyzed under the
conditions of appropriate loads and subgrade springs of ground,
followed by calculating the final residual deformation by summing up
the deformation in three phases. Table 1 and Fig. 2 show the analytical
conditions and schematic models for the three phases.
As shown in Table 1, the load conditions are dead weight and
earth pressure at rest in phase 1, seismic earth pressure during
earthquakes and inertial force in phase 2, and liquefaction earth
pressure (when back fill is liquefied) in phase 3. The inertial force is
calculated from the horizontal seismic coefficient obtained based on
the maximum acceleration of the horizontal earthquake motion. It is
assumed that the liquefaction earth pressure by the back fill acts only
after the main earthquake motion. This means that the liquefaction
earth pressure and inertial force do not act at the same phase. There are
two types of subgrade springs employed elasto-plastic spring and
liquefied soil spring. The bilinear type subgrade spring for
elasto-plastic condition is used in the non-liquefied ground (phases 1
and 2), while the liquefied soil spring is used in the phase 3. The
rigidity of ground is reduced due to liquefaction to have the reduced
spring constant, which is assumed to be equivalent in the vertical and
horizontal directions.

Table 1. Analytical conditions in simplified analysis
Phase External force Subgrade spring
1
Dead weight
Earth pressure at rest
Elasto-plastic spring
2
Inertial force
Dead weight
Seismic earth pressure
Elasto-plastic spring
3
Dead weight
Earth pressure of liquefied soil
Liquefied soil spring


The constants of subgrade spring are represented as follows:
Spring constant for plastic condition K
p
=
p
K
e
(1)
Spring constant of liquefaction ground K
1
=
1
K
e
(2)
In which, K
e
: Constant of subgrade spring for elastic conditioning,

p
: Reduction ratio of subgrade spring due to yielding

1
: Reduction ratio of subgrade spring due to liquefaction


APPLICABILITY OF SIMPLIFIED ANALYTICAL
METHOD

In this chapter, firstly, through the case study by the dynamic
response analysis, the seismic behavior of sheet pile quay wall in
liquefied ground is evaluated. Secondly, in order to confirm the
applicability of the proposed simplified analytical method, the case
study is performed to compare the results of the simplified analysis and
the dynamic response analysis. The dynamic response analysis is
carried out by FLIP, which is the prediction program of damage due to
liquefaction ( Iai et al. [1992]). It has been elucidated that the seismic
behavior of sheet pile quay wall during earthquake can be expressed
with high accuracy by the dynamic response analysis (Iai et al. [1993]).
The objective structure for evaluating the seismic behavior is a
sheet pile quay wall that showed a large residual deformation in the
1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake. Table 2 and Fig. 3 show the
analytical model and the used parameters, respectively. As for the
ground condition, the back fill of sheet pile is assumed as
homogeneous sand layer. The parameter of ground stiffness is varied
from loose condition as N value equal to 10 to dense condition as N
value equal to 40. The input earthquake motion are used as the
irregular seismic waves for about twelve seconds, which is modified
the maximum acceleration of observed seismic waves at location of



Figure 2 Schematic models for three phases
537

Table 2. Analytical parameter for dynamic response analysis
N-Value
Unit
weight
(kN/m
3
)
Poissons
Ratio

Initial shear
modulus
G
0
(kN/m
2
)
Damping
constant
h
max

10 18 0.33 78,000 0.24
15 18 0.33 90,800 0.24
22 20 0.33 118,000 0.24
28 20 0.33 139,000 0.24
35 20 0.33 162,000 0.24
40 20 0.33 195,000 0.24

Port island in the 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake. The maximum
acceleration of input earthquake motion is varied from 100 gal to 600
gal.
Fig. 4 shows the variation of horizontal and vertical
displacements of the top of sheet pile with the elapsed time, in the case
that the seismic wave having the maximum horizontal acceleration of
500gal at the basement and N value equal to 10. The horizontal
displacement of structure increases greatly during earthquake, while
the settlement of structure increases at the beginning of earthquake
motion till the elapsed time of about 10 seconds, then the rate of
increasing of the settlement is weakened during earthquake. It is clear
that the duration of earthquake motion is closely related to the residual
horizontal displacement.
Fig. 5 shows the variation of the excess pore water pressure at
the back ground of sheet pile with the elapsed time, for the same case
of Fig.4. The excess pore water pressure is increasing after the value is
beginning of earthquake, then becomes constant of about 0.8, which
the condition of semi-liquefaction. The structures caused major
damage in the condition of semi-liquefaction generally.


Figure 3 Analytical model for dynamic response analysis





Figure 5 Variation of excess pore water pressure



Figure 4 Variation of displacement of structure with elapsed time
538
Fig. 6 shows the deformation of sheet pile and ground in the
case of the maximum horizontal acceleration of 500gal and the N value
of 10. As shown in Fig. 6, the top of sheet pile is leaning forward and
the bottom of sea is rising, then the settlement occurs at the back of
sheet pile. The mode of deformation is similar to the real disaster
instance.
Fig. 7 shows the relationships between the horizontal
acceleration at basement and the residual horizontal displacement of
the top of sheet pile. As shown in Fig. 7, the larger the maximum
acceleration of input earthquake motion, the larger the residual
horizontal displacement of the top of sheet pile.
Fig. 8 shows the relationships between the N value and the
residual horizontal displacement of top of the sheet pile. As shown in
Fig. 8, the greater the N value (ground stiffness), the smaller the
residual horizontal displacement of the top of sheet pile.
Next, in order to confirm the applicability of the proposed
simplified analytical method, a case study is performed to compare the
results of the simplified analysis with that of the dynamic response
analysis. The sheet pile quay wall as shown in Fig. 3, which was used
in the dynamic response analysis, is selected as the simplified
analytical model. Table 3 gives the analytical parameters for the
simplified analysis, in which the subgrade spring constant is calculated
as a coefficient of subgrade reaction. The reduced spring constants
both for the elasto-plastic and liquefied soil springs are decided based
on the results of the back analysis of the dynamic response analysis.

Fig. 9 shows the relationships between the N value (ground
stiffness) and the residual horizontal displacement of top of the sheet
pile, in the case of the maximum horizontal acceleration of 100gal. In
the simplified analysis, the residual horizontal displacement of the top
of sheet pile is predicted in assuming only inertial force by earthquake



Figure 6 Deformation of sheet pile and back ground



Figure 7 Relationships between horizontal acceleration at basement
and residual horizontal displacement
Table 3. Analytical parameter for simplified analysis

N-Value
Constant of subgrade
spring for elastic condition
Kp (vertical) (kN/m
3
)
Constant of subgrade
spring for elastic condit
Kp (horizontal) (kN/m
10 11,400 37,800
15 17,000 56,800
22 25,000 83,200
28 31,800 106,000
35 39,700 132,000
40 45,400 151,000






Figure 8 Relationships between N value and residual horizontal
displacement (see Table 2 for G value)


Figure 9 Relationships between N value and residual horizontal
displacement (100 gal case)
539
motion. The reduction ratio of subgrade spring due to yielding is

p
=0.0021 in the simplified analysis, and this is calculated by the
back analysis for the dynamic response analysis, in the case of the N
value of 40, in which case the liquefaction does not occur. As shown in
Fig. 9, the results of the simplified analysis are same as the results of
the dynamic response analysis. Fig. 10 and 11 show the relationships
between the N value (ground stiffness) and the residual horizontal
displacement of the top of sheet pile in the case of the maximum
horizontal acceleration of 300 gal and 500 gal respectively. The
agreement between the two method in these figures is as same as the
above mentioned.
Fig. 12 shows the relationships between the acceleration and
the residual horizontal displacement of the top of sheet pile based on
the simplified analysis and the dynamic response analysis. In Fig. 12,
the case A of the simplified analysis represents complete liquefaction,
while the case B without liquefaction. The reduction ratio of subgrade
spring due to liquefaction is
l
=0.062 in the simplified analysis, and
this is calculated by the back analysis for the dynamic response
analysis with the maximum horizontal acceleration of 600gal to have a
complete liquefaction. In the case A of the simplified analysis, the
residual horizontal displacement of structure is larger than that of the
dynamic response analysis at the small range of horizontal acceleration.
The difference is due to the difference of expressing the liquefaction
between the simplified analysis and the dynamic response analysis at
the case of small horizontal acceleration. That is, the dynamic response
analysis express the actual behavior of seismic structures with good
accuracy prior to the semi-liquefaction condition, that is the
intermediate condition between non-liquefaction and complete
liquefaction at the saturated ground. Therefore, in order to match the
result of the simplified analysis with that of the dynamic response
analysis, consideration of semi-liquefaction state will be necessary in
the simplified analysis. The agreement may be easily obtained by
adjusting the reduction ratio of subgrade spring prior to the
liquefaction adequately.


Figure 12 Relationships between acceleration at basement and
residual horizontal displacement


Figure 10 Relationships between N value and residual horizontal
displacement (300 gal case)




Figure 13 Relationship between horizontal acceleration and
logarithmic reduction ratio of liquefied spring



Figure 11 Relationships between N value and residual horizontal
displacement (500 gal case)
540
Fig. 13 shows the relationship between the horizontal
acceleration and the logarithmic reduction ratio of the liquefied spring

l
adjusted for this case study. As shown in Fig. 13, the reduction ratio
of liquefied spring
l
is changed from 0.4 to 0.05 between
non-liquefaction and complete liquefaction conditions. The similar
results are obtained in the study of the reduction ratio of liquefied
spring
l
for the gravity type structures [ Hayashi et al. (2001)].
Since the simplified analysis includes the same static model of
the seismic intensity method, the external force of the earthquake
motion is obtained by the horizontal seismic coefficient multiplied by
the dead weight usually. It is not easy to simulate the dynamic response
of structures by the static inertial force. However, the simplification of
analytical method for shore structures on liquefied ground is possible
based on the above mentioned results.

CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, in order to confirm the applicability of the
proposed simplified analytical method, the seismic behavior of sheet
pile quay wall in liquefied ground is evaluated firstly, through the case
study with the dynamic response analysis. Secondly, case studies are
performed to compare the results of the simplified analysis and the
dynamic response analysis.
The conclusions based on the results of the dynamic response
analysis are summarized as follows:
(1) The excess pore water pressure generates greatly at the back of
sheet pile in the case that the back ground is loose.
(2) The results of the dynamic response analysis can express the real
disaster of sheet pile. That is the top of sheet pile quay wall leaning
forward, the bottom of sea rising and the settlement at the back of
sheet pile.
(3) The larger the input earthquake motion, the larger the residual
horizontal displacement of the top of sheet pile.
(4) The greater the ground stiffness, the smaller the residual horizontal
displacement of the top of sheet pile.
(5) Horizontal displacement is increasing during earthquake. It is clear
that the duration of earthquake motion is closely related to the residual
horizontal displacement.
The conclusions based on the comparison both the dynamic
response analysis and the simplified prediction method are
summarized as follows:
(1) In the results of the simplified analysis, the greater the ground
stiffness, the smaller the residual horizontal displacement of the top of
sheet pile, as same as the result of the dynamic response analysis.
(2) Both in the simplified analysis and the dynamic response analysis,
the larger the maximum acceleration of input earthquake motion, the
larger the residual horizontal displacement of the top of sheet pile.
(3) The dynamic response analysis can express the behavior of sheet
pile quay wall in the condition of semi-liquefaction. While, the
simplified prediction method can express the behavior of sheet pile
quay wall in the condition of semi-liquefaction to adjust the reduction
ratio of subgrade spring due to liquefaction adequately.

REFERENCES

Hayashi K., Matsui T., Oda K., Imono T. and Miyamoto H. (2001).
"Analytical evaluation for behavior of shore structures on liquefied
area during earthquakes,"Proceedings of 4th International
Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics, Paper Number 7.13
Iai, S., Matsunaga, Y. amd Kameoka, T. (1992). "Strain space plasticity
for cyclic mobility, Soils and Foundations," Vol.32, No.2, pp.1-15
Iai, S. and Kameoka, T. (1993). "Finite element analysis of earthquake
inducede damage to anchored sheet pile quay walls," Soils and
Foundations, Vol.33, No.1, pp.71-91
Matsui, T., Akakuma, M., Hayashi, K., Ishikawa, T., Nakano, T. and
Imono, T. (1998). "Aseismic evaluation against rare big earthquake
for shore structures," Proc. 8
th
International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference, Vol. I, pp. 610-614








541