Wang et al.

Dis Prev Res 2023;2:18

DOI: 10.20517/dpr.2023.24
Disaster Prevention
and Resilience

Research Article Open Access

Performance-based seismic design method for

pile-supported wharves with seismic isolation
system
Zhuoxin Wang1, Miao Cao2, Jiaxi Li3, Yao Cui1
1
State Key Laboratory of Coastal and Offshore Engineering, Faculty of Infrastructure Engineering, Dalian University of
Technology, Dalian 116024, Liaoning, China.
2
Faculty of Architecture, Tohoku Institute of Technology, Sendai 9820831, Japan.
3
Key Laboratory of Earthquake Resistance, Earthquake Mitigation and Structural Safety, Ministry of Education, Faculty of
Earthquake Engineering Research & Test Center, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou 510405, Guangdong, China.

Correspondence to: Dr. Yao Cui, State Key Laboratory of Coastal and Offshore Engineering, Faculty of Infrastructure
Engineering, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian 116024, Liaoning, China. E-mail: [email protected]

How to cite this article: Wang Z, Cao M, Li J, Cui Y. Performance-based seismic design method for pile-supported wharves with
seismic isolation system. Dis Prev Res 2023;2:17. https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/dpr.2023.24

Received: 11 Jul 2023 First Decision: 21 Aug 2023 Revised: 13 Sep 2023 Accepted: 20 Sep 2023 Published: 28 Sep 2023

Academic Editor: Chaolie Ning Copy Editor: Fangyuan Liu Production Editor: Fangyuan Liu

Abstract
As the global coastal seismic zone is increasingly active, the pile-supported wharves experience various levels of
damage, which may stop the port operations. The Wharves with Seismic Isolation System (SISW), in which the
isolation devices are placed on the top of the piles, was proposed to release the constraint of the top of piles and to
mitigate damages between the top of piles and the wharf deck. However, current research on SISW was case by
case, and a consistent general design method is lacking. This paper presents the Performance-Based Seismic
Design (PBSD) method for SISW. Here, multiple design levels and the corresponding performance objectives are
proposed. An example project is introduced to explain the proposed PBSD method and verify the designed
performance. The nonlinear time history analysis results demonstrate that the proposed design method effectively
achieves the multi-level seismic objectives for SISW. Moreover, implementing SISW with the PBSD method
achieves higher seismic performance objectives than Non-Seismic-Isolated Wharves, which utilize the same type
of piles. The seismic resilience of wharves in high-intensity seismic regions can be significantly enhanced using the
SISW and corresponding design method.

Keywords: Pile-supported wharf, performance-based seismic design, performance objective, seismic isolation
system, nonlinear time history analysis

© The Author(s) 2023. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, for any purpose, even commercially, as
long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and
indicate if changes were made.

www.dprjournal.com
Page 2 of 21 Wang et al. Dis Prev Res 2023;2:18 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/dpr.2023.24

INTRODUCTION
Pile-supported wharves, consisting primarily of decks and piles, are a fundamental structural system in port
engineering. They possess advantageous characteristics, such as low sand and gravel consumption, minimal
dredging volume, low wave reflection, and favorable mooring conditions. As pivotal maritime
transportation hubs, the construction and operation of pile-supported wharves play a crucial role in
fostering domestic and global trade growth. However, the escalating seismic activity worldwide has led to
varying degrees of damage to wharf pile foundations in previous earthquakes[1-8], as exemplified in Figure 1
for selected cases.

A pile-supported wharf can be approximately treated as a single-degree-of-freedom system, where the

structural mass is primarily concentrated in the deck, which generates seismic forces. At the same time, the
piles provide lateral structural stiffness. Current seismic design codes[2,9-11] typically focus on controlling the
horizontal displacement response of the wharf by designing the pile stiffness and relying on pile ductility to
withstand intense earthquakes. Nevertheless, such design philosophy tends to underestimate the
significance of "short pile failure" [Figure 1B] or "batter pile failure" [Figure 1C] resulting from the stiffness
concentration effect of inboard piles or batter piles. Consequently, this leads to a notable reduction in the
seismic performance of pile-supported wharf structures[12,13]. Moreover, overreliance on the ductile
deformation of piles can induce excessive wharf deformation, leading to structural damage and operational
disruption[1].

To mitigate ductile damage and the stiffness concentration effect in pile foundations, the implementation of
Wharves with the Seismic Isolation System (SISW) [Figure 2] was proposed[7,14-19]. Specifically, isolation
devices are arranged at the top of the piles (pile head or pile cap) to decouple the deformation between the
deck and the piles, thereby reducing the seismic demands on plumb or batter piles during earthquakes.

Mito et al. introduced the concept of placing high-damping rubber bearings at the top of wharf piles
[Figure 2A][14]. Shaking table tests demonstrated substantial reductions in pile deformation and deck
acceleration. Leal et al. aimed to mitigate short pile failure in wharves by installing isolators on the tops of
inboard piles to reduce their stiffness to a level comparable to that of outboard piles[16]. Cost analysis
indicates that SISW reduces expenses by decreasing the depth of pile embedment compared to traditional
wharves.

To mitigate stiffness concentration in batter piles, researchers[7,18] and standards[11] have proposed the
placement of isolation devices at the top or cap of batter piles [Figure 2B]. Brunet et al. introduced the South
Coronel Pier, which remained intact after the 2010 Chile earthquake, utilizing laminated lead core
bearings[7]. Fendy et al. implemented isolators for a marginal wharf with batter piles[18]. The isolation scheme
increased the natural period of the wharf, reducing the seismic demand by avoiding the dominant
frequencies of earthquake waves. In addition to retrofitting existing wharves with isolators, researchers have
also introduced isolated batter piles from a strengthening perspective to enhance the stiffness and energy
dissipation capacity of wharves[15,17].

By adopting the wharves with the SISW, it is possible to control the damage mode of the wharf effectively,
reducing pile damage and avoiding stiffness concentration. However, research on SISW has thus far been
limited to case studies, and a systematic performance-based seismic design (PBSD) method for SISW has
yet to be proposed. Therefore, this study proposes seismic objectives for SISW based on ASCE 61-14[11] and
presents a two-stage PBSD method for SISW. Specifically, the layout and design parameters of the isolation
devices are determined based on the Contingency Level Earthquake (CLE) (10% probability of exceedance
Wang et al. Dis Prev Res 2023;2:18 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/dpr.2023.24 Page 3 of 21

Figure 1. Seismic damage to wharf pile foundations. (A) 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake[3]; (B) 2004 Sumatra earthquake[4]; (C) 2010
Maule earthquake[7].

Figure 2. Wharves with seismic isolation system (SISW).

in 50 years), while the wharf displacement response is examined based on the Maximum Considered
Earthquake (MCE) level (2% probability of exceedance in 50 years). Finally, the effectiveness of the
proposed design method for SISW is demonstrated and validated through a plump-pile wharf design case.
Seismic performance objectives for wharf with seismic isolation system
The ASCE code "Seismic Design of Piers and Wharves (ASCE 61-14)"[11] establishes the minimum seismic
hazard and performance requirements, specifying the performance levels of wharves according to different
design classifications and seismic levels. In line with ASCE 61-14, this study presents the design objectives
for SISW, as outlined in Table 1, with two key differences compared to ASCE 61-14:

The "Design Earthquake (DE)" level in ASCE 61-14 is upgraded to the "MCE" level to enhance the seismic
performance of wharves during rare earthquakes.

Two additional design classifications, namely "H1" and "H2", are introduced to achieve high-performance
design for SISW.

The definitions and quantification criteria for different performance levels of the pile foundation are
referenced from Section 3.9 "STRAIN LIMITS" in ASCE 61-14[11]. These performance levels are categorized
based on the strain limits along pile plastic hinges. For example, the concrete strain limits for reinforced
Page 4 of 21 Wang et al. Dis Prev Res 2023;2:18 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/dpr.2023.24

Table 1. Design objectives for SISW

Operating level earthquake Contingency level Maximum considered

Seismic level
(OLE) earthquake (CLE) earthquake (MCE)
Ground motion probability of 50%/50 years 10%/50 years 2%/50 years
exceedance
Design classification H2 Minimal damage Minimal damage Minimal damage
H1 Minimal damage Minimal damage Controlled and repairable damage
H0* Minimal damage Controlled and repairable damage Life safety protection

[11]
*H0 essentially corresponds to the “High” design classification in ASCE 61- 14 , differing only in the elevation of the “Design Earthquake (DE)”
level to the “Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE)”.

concrete (RC) pile plastic hinges allowed at the pile top and in the ground are 0.005 within the performance
level of "minimal damage" and 0.025 and 0.008, respectively, within "controlled and repairable damage".

In the seismic design of wharves, it is necessary to convert material strains into structural displacements as
design demands under different seismic levels. The pushover analysis could be conducted to obtain the
displacement demands.
Performance-based seismic design for wharf with seismic isolation system
The plump-pile wharf is adopted as the example to introduce the PBSD method for SISW. Firstly, the
design principles based on uniform pile stiffness are introduced. Secondly, a two-stage PBSD method for
SISW is proposed.
Design principles
For pile-supported wharves with sloping embankments [see Figure 2], seismic isolation aims to control the
damage mode of the wharves and prevent stiffness concentration-induced damage in inboard piles.
Therefore, the isolators should be arranged to ensure balanced lateral stiffness of each pile in the transverse
row, thereby distributing the seismic demands evenly among all piles. This principle is referred to as the
"uniform pile stiffness principle" in this study. The arrangement of isolators should start from the inboard
pile, and the number and capacity of isolators should be calculated based on the seismic demands and the
process of uniform pile stiffness principle (the details will be presented in Section "Application of the PBSD
method for wharf with seismic isolation system").

When using isolation devices, the lateral stiffness of the pile foundation (referred to as "isolated piles"
hereafter) decreases significantly due to the hinged connection at the pile top. This increased seismic
deformation in piles reduces the displacement of the isolation devices, which is detrimental to their
performance.

To increase the stiffness and integrity of the isolated piles, rigid connecting beams between the pile tops can
be installed to limit pile top rotation [see Figure 3]. When stiffness of piles is enhanced, the seismic
deformation of the wharf can be concentrated in isolators.

Connecting beams are designed as capacity-protected elements to ensure their elasticity under the MCE
levels. Specifically, when the SISW reaches design displacement, the demands for the moment and shear
force at coupling beam ends can be calculated by structural mechanics. By multiplying by an over-strength
factor (taken as 1.3 in this work), section steel with sufficient capacity can be selected as the main body.
Moreover, the connection strength between the connecting beams and the piles needs to be verified through
welding or bolted connections.
Wang et al. Dis Prev Res 2023;2:18 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/dpr.2023.24 Page 5 of 21

Figure 3. SISW with rigid coupling beam.

The design of isolation devices should meet the following conditions:

(1) Isolation devices should possess sufficient initial stiffness to mitigate detrimental vibrations of the wharf
caused by wind loads, foundation micro-vibrations, or ship berthing forces. The isolation devices should
maintain optimal vertical load resistance at each seismic level. When isolation devices reach the ultimate
horizontal displacement, they should exhibit stability under the most unfavorable axial load.

(2) The mechanical performance of isolation devices should remain stable under aging, creep, temperature
variations, and seawater corrosion. The design of isolation devices should account for short-term and long-
term adverse effects caused by uneven structural settlement and deck shrinkage deformation.
Two-stage design procedure
This study proposes a two-stage PBSD method for SISW, as illustrated in Figure 4. The procedure consists
of two stages: Elastic design under CLE and displacement verification under MCE. The design parameters
of the isolation devices are determined using the linear response spectrum method for the CLE level, while
nonlinear time history analysis is employed to verify the deck displacement for the MCE level.

For wharf seismic design in China, the common practice is to adopt a transverse single-bay elastic frame for
an analysis per response spectrum method. The virtual fixed-point method, outlined in many countries’
specifications[9-11] for simplified pile-soil interaction consideration, is adopted to approximate the soil's
constraint on the piles by determining the point of fixity on each pile.

To provide a practical SISW design approach, this work adopts the transverse single-bay frame with the
virtual fixed-point method for pile-soil interactions. The process for determining the point of fixity of piles
is referenced in[10]. Additionally, in the CLE and MCE design stages, the wharf frame models are elastic and
elastic-plastic, respectively.

Note: For detailed equations related to the physical quantities in Figure 4, one can refer to Section
"Application of the PBSD method for wharf with seismic isolation system".
Page 6 of 21 Wang et al. Dis Prev Res 2023;2:18 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/dpr.2023.24

Figure 4. Performance-based two-stage seismic design method for SISW.

Seismic performance objectives and displacement limits

The design classification and performance objectives for the wharf are determined based on Table 1. Since
SISW offers a well-defined and controllable seismic deformation mechanism, a higher design classification,
such as H1 or H2, can be adopted. Prior to seismic design, the arrangement of wharf piles, section
dimensions, and reinforcements are typically determined during the structural gravity design phase.
Therefore, a numerical model of the wharf can be established for pushover analysis to derive the deck
displacement limits, δCLE and δMCE, for the CLE and MCE levels, respectively, as introduced in Section
"Seismic performance objectives for wharf with seismic isolation system".

CLE level design - determination of isolator parameters

The CLE level design aims to satisfy the displacement limit, δCLE, for SISW. At this stage, a transverse single-
bay elastic frame is adopted for linear response spectrum analysis. Nonlinear isolators are approximated as
an elastic system using an equivalent linearization method. The design parameters of the isolators are
determined based on the principle of uniform pile stiffness.

The specific steps are as follows:

(1)The fundamental period of SISW, Teff, is suggested to be larger than 2.0 times that of the non-seismic-
isolated wharf (NSIW), T0. According to the same design approach conducted in bridge engineering[20-22], it
will ensure that the non-elastic deformation is concentrated on the isolators instead of the substructures.
Wang et al. Dis Prev Res 2023;2:18 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/dpr.2023.24 Page 7 of 21

(2)The equivalent lateral stiffness of SISW, Keff, is distributed among the piles according to the principle of
uniform pile stiffness. The number of isolation devices, n, and the equivalent stiffness of each bearing, kieff-i,
are determined accordingly. As there is flexibility in the distribution of pile stiffness at this stage, several
distribution schemes can be compared comprehensively for optimization.

(3)Iteratively calculate Keff, Teff, ξeff, and the spectral structural displacement, Sd, based on the designed
bearing arrangement until Sd is smaller than δCLE.

(4)Determine the design parameters of the isolation devices based on kieff-i, Sd, and the damping ratio of the
isolation devices, ξieff-i.

MCE level design - verification of structural displacement

After determining the design parameters of the isolation devices that meet the displacement limit for the
CLE level, a nonlinear time history analysis is performed on the SISW model to verify the structural
response under the MCE level, considering the material nonlinearity of the piles and isolation devices.

The nonlinear time history analysis should use three or more sets of seismic records[10]. If fewer than seven
sets of records are used, the maximum response from each set is taken as the structural response. The
average response can be considered if seven or more sets of records are used for analysis.

Capacity Design and Berthing Force Verification

The deck, isolator connections, and steel connecting beams should be designed as capacity-protected
elements by multiplying the calculated peak shear demand from element cross sections by 1.3 at the MCE
level.

Additionally, ship berthing forces for the designated ship type should be verified due to the decrease in
lateral stiffness after wharf isolation.

APPLICATION OF THE PBSD METHOD FOR WHARF WITH SEISMIC ISOLATION SYSTEM
This section presents a case study of a marginal wharf with plump piles in China to illustrate the application
of the PBSD method for SISW. The target response spectra of CLE and MCE are determined by the seismic
exceedance probabilities, the site classification, and the seismic zoning per "Code for Seismic Design of
Water Transportation Engineering (JTS 146-2012)"[10]. Furthermore, for time history analysis, the input
acceleration peak values are modulated to 0.2 g and 0.4 g for CLE and MCE levels, respectively, according
to[10].
Original wharf information
Figure 5 illustrates the cross-section and plan view of the marginal concrete slabs and beams wharf with a
berth for 5,000 tonnes of breakbulk. The wharf is located in a sheltered marine environment. The spacing
between the wharf bays is 6.1 m, with a total length of 317 m and a width of 31.3 m. The soil at the wharf
site consists of silty sand with an elastic modulus of 40 MPa, an effective unit weight of 9.2 kN/m3, an
internal friction angle of 33°, and a cohesion of 20 kPa. The site soil is classified as site category II according
to JTS 146-2012[10]. The silty sand layer is underlain by bedrock.

The wharf is constructed using C40 concrete with a deck thickness of 0.4 m. The crane track and transverse
beams have a width and height of 1.2 m and 1.5 m, respectively. Circular RC cast-in-place piles with a
diameter of 1m are employed for the wharf. The stacking pressure on the wharf surface is 30 kPa, and the
Page 8 of 21 Wang et al. Dis Prev Res 2023;2:18 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/dpr.2023.24

Figure 5. Transverse section and plan view of the original wharf. (A) Transverse section (dimensions in mm, elevation in m); (B) Plan
view (in mm).

gravity design value of the wharf structure is 8,427 kN. The seismic fortification intensity in the located
region is Eight Degrees, according to JTS 146-2012[10]. During the gravity design phase, the preliminary
selection for the longitudinal reinforcement of the pile is 24Φ24, the stirrup selection is Φ10@200 with
HBP300 steel, and the protective layer thickness is 50 mm.
SISW performance levels and displacement limits
In this case, the H1 design classification is adopted based on Table 1, where "Minimal damage" and
"Controlled and repairable damage" are defined for CLE and MCE, respectively.

According to Section "Seismic performance objectives for wharf with seismic isolation system", strain limits
along pile plastic hinges are employed as quantified indicators for different performance levels per ASCE
61-14[11]. However, in SISW seismic design, the deck displacement limits at CLE and MCE levels (δCLE, δMCE)
are required as the design demands. Therefore, it is necessary to convert material strains into structural
displacements by pushover analysis.

The steps are as follows: (1) Conducting pushover analysis by applying increasing horizontal displacements
to the wharf deck; (2) Taking the deck horizontal displacement as the design demand when the plastic hinge
strains of piles reach limits stipulated in ASCE 61-14[11] under a certain performance level.

The numerical modeling method for pushover analysis can be found in Section "FE model introduction",
including element selection, material constitutive, and boundary constraints. The displacement limits for
each pile under different performance levels are determined and presented in Table 2.

According to Table 2, pile E, with the shortest free length in the original wharf, is identified as the most
critical pile regarding seismic shear force and bending moment. For SISW, the shortest non-seismic-isolated
piles become the most critical piles after the seismic isolation of the inboard piles.

In this case, isolating inboard piles C, D, and E is preliminarily determined. Among the non-seismic-
isolated piles, pile B, with a shorter free length than pile A, becomes the most critical pile for SISW.
Therefore, the displacement limits of pile B under different performance levels are utilized as the design
demands of SISW, namely δCLE = 0.151 m and δMCE = 0.392 m.
Wang et al. Dis Prev Res 2023;2:18 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/dpr.2023.24 Page 9 of 21

Table 2. Panel displacement (mm) corresponding to pile performance levels (pile-deck rigid connection)

Performance level Pile A Pile B Pile C Pile D Pile E

Minimal damage 205 151 110 74 46
Controlled and repairable damage 484 392 307 206 124
Life safety protection 756 616 484 315 190

CLE level design

Determination of isolation period (Teff) and structural stiffness (Keff)
The fundamental period of the reference wharf (NSIW), To, is calculated using Equation (1). The designed
mass of the wharf is mo = 860 t, and the lateral stiffness of the piles is ko = 43,742.1 kN/m [Table 3].
Therefore, To = 0.88 s.

Since the period of SISW, Teff, is suggested to be larger than 2.0 times that of NSIW, T0, the initial design
period of the SISW is Teff = 1.76 s, and the equivalent damping ratio ξeff is set to 0.1 initially. The
displacement (Sd) of the CLE level response spectrum for the SISW deck is calculated using Equation (2).

Where C represents the seismic coefficient for the CLE acceleration response spectrum obtained from[10].

The calculation yields Sd = 0.065 m, which is less than the CLE displacement limit δCLE = 0.151 m. The
structural stiffness (Keff) of the SISW is computed using Equation (3), resulting in Keff = 10,947 kN/m.

Where W represents the gravity design value of the wharf structure, which is 8,427 kN.

Stiffness distribution and displacement verification

The primary objective of SISW design is to mitigate the stiffness concentration effect on the inboard piles.
To achieve this, the structural stiffness (Keff) of the SISW is distributed among the piles to balance their
lateral stiffness, thereby determining the number of isolated piles and the equivalent stiffness (kieff-i) of the
isolators. The lateral stiffness adjustment for each SISW pile is presented in Table 3.

As noticed in Table 3, the (lateral) stiffness of Piles C, D, and E demonstrates that placing isolation devices
on their tops ensures uniform stiffness for each pile.

The structural stiffness of the SISW after isolation denoted as K'eff is 12,495.3 kN/m, slightly higher than the
target stiffness Keff = 10,947 kN/m. The wharf period T'eff is recalculated as 1.65 s using Equation (2).
Page 10 of 21 Wang et al. Dis Prev Res 2023;2:18 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/dpr.2023.24

Table 3. Distribution of pile stiffness for SISW (kN/m)

Lateral stiffness Pile A Pile B Pile C Pile D Pile E Sum

Before distribution 2,289.5 3,501.6 5,745.3 10,399.6 21,806.2 43,742.1
i
Isolator stiffness k eff-i - - 2,872.7 2,872.7 2,872.7 -
After distribution 2,289.5 3,501.6 1,915.1 2,250.9 2,538.3 12,495.3

Considering the factors of isolated piles’ quantity and relative stiffness between isolators and piles on the
structural damping ratio, Equation (4) is used to calculate the equivalent structural damping ratio of SISW
(ξeff)[22].

Where ξieff-I represents the damping ratio of the isolation bearing on the ith pile; ξip represents the damping
ratio of the ith pile; Did represents the horizontal design displacement of the isolation bearing on the ith pile,
which can be approximated by the deck spectral displacement Sd; kieff-i is the equivalent stiffness of the
isolation bearing on the ith pile; kip denotes the lateral stiffness of the ith pile. In this case, ξieff-i is assumed as
0.3, and ξip is taken as 0.05.

Using Equation (4), the equivalent damping ratio of the wharf is ξ'eff = 0.132, and the deck displacement is
calculated as S'd = 0.061 m, which is less than the limit of 0.151 m. These results indicate that the spectral
displacement of the SISW falls within the "Minimal damage" range, thus complying with the CLE design
objective.

Calculation of isolator design parameters

Friction pendulum isolators are employed here, considering the inherent self-centering capacity. Moreover,
friction pendulum isolators can adjust stiffness and damping by modifying friction materials and curvature
radius to adapt to the required seismic objectives. The hysteresis model for the friction pendulum isolator is
depicted in Figure 6. Equations (5) and (6) determine the friction coefficient (μi) and curvature radius (Ri) of
the isolation bearing, respectively. The calculated design parameters of the isolation bearing can be found in
Table 4.

Where: μi -Friction coefficient, Ri -Curvature radius, Kii -Initial stiffness, kifps -Secondary stiffness, kieff-i -
Equivalent stiffness, diy -Yield displacement, Did -Design displacement, and Wi -Axial force.
Wang et al. Dis Prev Res 2023;2:18 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/dpr.2023.24 Page 11 of 21

Table 4. Design parameters for friction pendulum isolation devices

Isolator located pile Wi (kN) μi Ri (m) kii (kN/m) kifps (kN/m)

Pile C 1,922 0.04 1.26 9,877.7 1,519
Pile D 1,922 0.04 1.26 9,877.7 1,519
Pile E 1,660 0.05 1.27 8,491.4 1,306

i i
The initial stiffness k i is taken as 6.5 times the secondary stiffness k fps.

Figure 6. Friction pendulum isolator hysteresis model.

MCE level verification

To verify whether the deck displacement D follows the design limit δMCE at the MCE level, a finite element
(FE) model of the SISW, featuring the single-bay frame in accordance with the CLE level design, is created
for time history analysis.

FE model introduction
A transverse single-bay frame of SISW based on the virtual fixed-point method is established using
ABAQUS/Standard[23], as depicted in Figure 7. Adopting the 2-D model consistent with CLE design stage at
MCE level verification contributes to the consistency and practicality of the design method. Additionally,
shows that the 2-D model with the virtual fixed-point method can provide conservative results in nonlinear
seismic analysis[24], indicating safety towards design.

Timoshenko beam elements (B21) are chosen for both the pile foundations and the deck, allowing for the
consideration of shear and bending deformations. Through mesh sensitivity analysis during preliminary
modeling, it was found that using 1,000 mm and 500 mm mesh sizes for the deck and piles ensured both
accurate results and higher computational efficiency.

The mechanical behavior of the friction pendulum system is simulated using the "Connector" featured in
ABAQUS, which defines the force-displacement relationship between the top pile node and the deck node
at all degrees of freedom [Figure 7]. For translational motions between two nodes, nonlinear behavior
[Figure 6] is assigned in the horizontal direction, and the vertical degrees of freedom is restrained. The
rotational motions between two nodes are set to free to simulate the hinge connection at seismic-isolated
pile tops.
Page 12 of 21 Wang et al. Dis Prev Res 2023;2:18 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/dpr.2023.24

Figure 7. Schematic diagram of the numerical model of the SISW. The calculation Equation for "LSP" (pile strain penetration length at
the pile-deck connection) is provided in[11].

The connecting beams on the isolated piles are constrained through the "MPC Beam constraint" in
ABAQUS, binding the degrees of freedom of adjacent pile nodes. Additionally, rigid connections between
nodes are established using "Tie" in ABAQUS to connect the non-seismic-isolated piles and the deck.

For the boundary constraints, the bottom nodes of each pile are coupled to a reference point ("Coupling" in
ABAQUS), and displacement constraints are defined at the reference point. During time history analysis,
the reference point is subjected to horizontal seismic acceleration while other degrees of freedom are
restricted.

The loading protocol consists of two steps. First, a static analysis step is conducted to apply gravity loads to
the wharf. Then, an implicit dynamic analysis step is performed to simulate horizontal unidirectional
seismic acceleration.

The deck and pile foundation are constructed using C40 concrete, which has an elastic modulus of
32,500 MPa, a density of 2.4 × 10-9 t/mm3, and a Poisson's ratio of 0.2. The deck adopts an elastic constitutive
model, while the pile foundation utilizes an elastic-plastic RC constitutive model. The concrete in the pile
foundation follows the Concrete Damage Plasticity (CDP) model in ABAQUS, with the main parameters
specified in Table 5. The stress-strain relationship of the pile foundation concrete adheres to the confined
concrete constitutive equations described in[11].

The reinforcement used in the pile foundation is HBP300 steel with an elastic modulus of 2 × 105 MPa. It
has a yield strength of 300 MPa, an ultimate strength of 632 MPa, and an ultimate tensile strain of 0.14. The
constitutive model employs a bilinear isotropic hardening model.

Input seismic accelerations

Three sets of natural seismic waves are selected from the PEER ground motion database[25] [Table 6]. Only
one horizontal component with higher Peak ground acceleration (PGA) is considered to investigate the
structural responses under unidirectional seismic action. Two factors are considered regarding the wave
selection: (1) Consistency of target spectrum. The acceleration spectra of selected waves, scaled to the MCE
level (PGA = 0.4 g), are compared with the target response spectrum, as depicted in Figure 8. For the NSIW
and SISW models, the errors between waves’ mean Sa and the target spectrum at their fundamental periods
are -3% and 20%, respectively, indicating a good match; (2) Conformance to wharf site category. The wharf
Wang et al. Dis Prev Res 2023;2:18 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/dpr.2023.24 Page 13 of 21

Table 5. Parameters of the CDP model

Dilation angle Eccentricity fbo/fco Kc Viscosity parameter

30° 0.1 1.16 0.667 0.005

fbo and fbo are biaxial compressive strength and uniaxial compressive strength of the concrete, respectively; Kc is the parameter controlling the
projection shape of the concrete yield surface on the deviatoric plane.

Table 6. Selected ground motion records

No. Name Country Year Magnitude PGA (g) Vs30 (m/s) Duration(s)
1 Hollister America 1961 5.6 0.11 335.5 40
2 Kobe Japan 1995 6.9 0.32 312 41
3 Friuli Italy 1976 6.5 0.36 505.23 36

Figure 8. Selected seismic waves and response spectra (MCE level). (A) Seismic waves (PGA = 0.4 g); (B) Acceleration spectra
(ξ = 0.05).

case with site category II, based on JTS 146-2012[10], has a shear wave velocity at a depth of 30 meters (Vs30)
ranging from 265-515 m/s. The Vs30 values for the three selected waves fall within this range.

In the subsequent time history analysis, the seismic motion is scaled to the MCE level to verify the
displacement response of the SISW during large earthquakes. Additionally, a five-second free vibration
period is added after applying the seismic motion to determine the residual displacement of the structure
following the earthquake.

Calculation results
The maximum displacement of the wharf deck under the three seismic waves is 0.154 m [Table 7], which is
smaller than the displacement limit (δMCE = 0.392 m) of the MCE level. This indicates that the SISW achieves
a "controlled and repairable damage" state at the MCE level.

The seismic demands on the protective components of the wharf deck, connecting beams, and isolated piles
were verified, and the results indicate that the demands are smaller than the design load-bearing capacity of
these components.
Page 14 of 21 Wang et al. Dis Prev Res 2023;2:18 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/dpr.2023.24

Table 7. Maximum deck displacement for NSIW and SISW (mm)

Deck displacement limits Maximum deck displacement

Wharf type Hollister Kobe Friuli
Minimal damage Controlled and repairable damage Life safety protection
CLE MCE CLE MCE CLE MCE
NSIW 0-46 46-124 124-190 74.2 119.8 52.1 137.6 25.6 56.0
SISW 0-151 151-392 392-616 70.7 154.1 72.9 147.8 34.7 61.1

In the wharf example, a 5,000-ton class bulk carrier with a full load displacement of 6,700 t is considered.
The design mooring speed is 0.2 m/s. Based on the Chinese Code for Harbor Engineering Loads
(JTS 144-1-2010)[26] and Rubber Fender (HG-T2866-2016)[27], the effective impact energy during ship
berthing is 100.5 kJ. The SC500 super drum-shaped rubber fender is selected, which has an energy
absorption of 147 kJ and a reaction force of 420 kN. The displacement of the wharf under the berthing force
is 0.034 m, which is smaller than the elastic displacement limit of the wharf (0.071 m).

In conclusion, the two-stage seismic design confirms that the reference wharf can meet the seismic
objectives of CLE and MCE levels for design classification H1. This demonstrates the effectiveness of the
PBSD method for the SISW.

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF WHARF WITH SEISMIC ISOLATION SYSTEM

This section establishes a numerical model for an NSIW (with the same model size, pile foundation
material, and modeling method as the SISW) to conduct time history analysis at CLE and MCE levels. The
dynamic response results of the SISW in Section "Application of the PBSD method for wharf with seismic
isolation system" are compared to discuss the differences between them in deck displacement, acceleration,
pile bending moment, and structural energy dissipation.
Deck displacement
Figure 9 and Table 7 show the time histories and peak values of horizontal deck displacements for the two
types of wharves.

The peak displacements of the SISW are generally higher than those of the NSIW. This is primarily due to
the longer fundamental periods of the former. However, since the SISW decouples the motion between the
deck and the inboard piles, the structural ductility and displacement limits are significantly increased.
Combining Table 7 and Table 1, the SISW satisfies the displacement limits for the design classification of
H1 for both CLE and MCE levels. In comparison, the NSIW achieves "Controlled and repairable damage"
and "Life safety protection" at the CLE and MCE levels, respectively, corresponding to the design
classification of H0. This demonstrates that using the same specification of pile foundations, SISW can
achieve higher seismic performance objectives than NSIW.

Furthermore, as shown in Figure 9B, the NSIW experienced a residual displacement of approximately
40mm during the Kobe earthquake due to the ductile deformation of the inboard piles. In contrast, the
SISW, by balancing the lateral stiffness of transverse piles, avoids short pile failure and residual
displacement.
MCE level verification
Figure 10 presents a comparison of the time histories of horizontal displacement for isolated piles and the
deck in the SISW. Table 8 compares the peak horizontal displacement of the two types of components.
Wang et al. Dis Prev Res 2023;2:18 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/dpr.2023.24 Page 15 of 21

Table 8. Maximum horizontal displacement for deck and isolated piles in SISW (mm)

Hollister Kobe Friuli

Components
CLE MCE CLE MCE CLE MCE
Deck 70.7 154.1 72.9 147.8 34.7 61.1
Isolated piles 12.4 28.2 11.3 34.5 6.8 8.0

Figure 9. Comparison of deck displacement.

Figure 10. Comparison of displacement of seismic piles and deck in SISW.

Page 16 of 21 Wang et al. Dis Prev Res 2023;2:18 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/dpr.2023.24

It is evident that through pile head isolation, the displacements of isolated piles and the deck are decoupled.
The maximum displacements of isolated piles at the CLE and MCE levels are 12.4 mm and 34.5 mm,
respectively, falling within the "Minimal damage" limit [Table 2]. This is attributed to the design shear
transmitted to the pile foundation through the isolating bearings, which ensures that the displacement peaks
of isolated piles remain within a controllable range. These findings indicate the effective control of seismic
deformation mechanisms in the wharf through the isolation design.
Deck acceleration
Figure 11 and Table 9 illustrate a comparison of the time histories and peak values of horizontal deck
accelerations for the two types of wharves, respectively. Notably, the deck accelerations of the SISW exhibit
a decrease compared to the NSIW under all seismic wave conditions due to the longer natural period and
higher energy dissipation capacity of SISW. The reduction in deck acceleration reaches 28%-40% for CLE
and 18%-36% for MCE. Decreasing deck acceleration mitigates the seismic inertial effect and reduces the
seismic response of the gantry crane and cargo on the deck.
Pile bending moment
Figures 12 and 13 present the distribution of bending moments in the piles when reaching peak
displacements for the two types of wharves. Table 10 presents their maximum pile bending moments when
reaching peak displacements. In the SISW, all piles remain within the design elastic limits, while the
outboard piles D and E of the NSIW enter the plastic stage during the MCE levels of the Hollister and Kobe
earthquakes. Additionally, the bending moments in non-seismic-isolated piles A and B of the SISW are
higher than the corresponding piles of the NSIW (increasing by a maximum of 43% and 46% for CLE and
MCE, respectively). Conversely, the bending moments in the isolated piles C, D, and E are lower than those
in the corresponding piles of the NSIW (decreasing by a maximum of 65% and 66% for CLE and MCE,
respectively). These findings indicate that by balancing the stiffness of transverse piles, the SISW increases
the proportion of seismic demand shared by the outboard piles, reduces the bending moment demand on
the inboard piles, prevents short pile failure, and promotes balanced resistance of the wharf pile group
against seismic action.
Pile bending moment
According to the Abaqus manual[23], The total energy balance of the wharf FE models can be written as:

Where: ALLWK - External work (available only for the whole model), ALLKE - Kinetic energy, ALLIE -
Total strain energy, ALLVD - Energy dissipated by structural damping, ALLFD - Total energy dissipated
through frictional effects (available only for the whole model).

In Equation (7), the kinetic energy (ALLKE) approaches zero after the earthquake. The frictional energy
dissipated in the model contacts (ALLKE) is also zero, as the model does not consider contact interactions.
Therefore, the input energy to the structure is primarily consumed in the form of internal energy (including
total strain energy, ALLIE, and energy dissipated by structural damping, ALLVD)[28-30]. The total strain
energy ALLIE consumed by wharf models consists of energy dissipated through structural plastic
deformation, including pile hysteresis deformation and isolators' nonlinear sliding.

Figure 14 compares internal energy dissipation (ALLIE + ALLVD) among components for the two types of
wharves at the CLE and MCE levels. In the case of the NSIW, all the seismic input energy is absorbed by the
plastic deformation of the piles, aligning with the occurrence of pile ductile damage [Figure 9]. In contrast,
Wang et al. Dis Prev Res 2023;2:18 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/dpr.2023.24 Page 17 of 21

Table 9. Maximum deck acceleration for two types of wharves (g)

Hollister Kobe Friuli

Wharf type
CLE MCE CLE MCE CLE MCE
NSIW 0.15 0.17 0.13 0.16 0.1 0.14
SISW 0.09 0.13 0.09 0.14 0.07 0.09
Reduction rate (%) 40.9 24.1 28.0 16.4 31.2 32.0

The reduction rate refers to the ratio between the difference in peak accelerations of the two types of wharves and the peak acceleration of the
NSIW.

Table 10. Maximum pile bending moments for the two types of wharves

Pile A Pile B Pile C Pile D Pile E

Seismic inputs Seismic levels
NSIW SISW NSIW SISW NSIW SISW NSIW SISW NSIW SISW
Hollister CLE 503.5 1,137 604.5 1,409 847.9 336.4 1,131 452.6 1,440 507.9
MCE 1,089 1,450 1,254 1,820 1,512 390 1,860 707 2,280 1,210
Kobe CLE 831.9 1,115 954.5 1,201 1,189 501.5 1,608 729.6 2,236 1,004
MCE 1,134 1,508 1,323 1,741 9,783 438.6 14,100 561.3 2,273 880.8
Friuli CLE 406.3 574.1 530.5 686.3 650.3 230.9 781.9 365.9 1,037 578.5
MCE 734.6 1,323 1,013 1,585 1,302 257.5 1,566 410.6 2,066 635

Figure 11. Deck acceleration time histories for two types of wharves.

the pile foundation of SISW accounts for a maximum of 55% and 47% of the total structural energy
dissipation for CLE and MCE, respectively, while the remaining energy is dissipated through friction
pendulum systems. These findings indicate that by concentrating the inelastic deformation of the wharf in
the isolation layer, the SISW dissipates a significant portion of seismic energy through the isolation devices,
significantly reducing ductile damage to the pile foundation.
Page 18 of 21 Wang et al. Dis Prev Res 2023;2:18 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/dpr.2023.24

Figure 12. Comparison of pile bending moments (piles A and B) at the moment of maximum displacement for the two types of wharves.

Figure 13. Comparison of pile bending moments (piles C, D, E) at the moment of maximum displacement for the two types of wharves.
Wang et al. Dis Prev Res 2023;2:18 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/dpr.2023.24 Page 19 of 21

Figure 14. Comparison of energy dissipation between the two types of wharves.

CONCLUSION
In the seismic design of marginal pile-supported wharves, the ductile damage to pile foundations hampers
post-earthquake operation, and the concentration of stiffness in inboard piles or batter piles results in severe
local damage. To mitigate wharf pile damage and stiffness concentration under various seismic levels, this
paper introduces a PBSD method for wharves with the SISW, wherein structural inelasticity is confined to
the isolation layer. Subsequently, a wharf case is designed using the proposed method, and its seismic
performance is numerically investigated. The major conclusions are summarized as follows:

(1) Performance-based seismic objectives for SISW are suggested. Classifications H1 and H2 with "minimal
damage" objectives under CLE and MCE levels, respectively, are introduced to achieve high-performance
seismic design for SISW.

(2) A two-stage PBSD method for SISW is proposed. During the elastic design stage under the CLE level,
the isolators are designed based on the elastic response spectrum method. During the displacement
verification stage under the MCE level, the deck displacement is verified based on the nonlinear time history
analysis.

(3) A design case is presented to show the application for the proposed two-stage PBSD method. The
nonlinear time history analysis results indicate that the SISW showed higher seismic performance than the
NSIW. The SISW avoids "short pile failure" caused by increased stiffness in inboard piles compared to
NSIW. By confining inelastic deformation to the isolation layer, SISW exhibits a higher energy dissipation
capacity than NSIW, effectively controlling ductile damage in pile foundations.

This study proposed a practical PBSD method for SISW. The feasibility of the design method is verified with
the design-based 2-D model, providing the potential for standardized design for SISW. In the future, the
design method's applicability will be validated by 3-D numerical models with multi-directional seismic
inputs[31,32]. Refined pile-soil interaction and the pile-wave interaction will also be considered.
Page 20 of 21 Wang et al. Dis Prev Res 2023;2:18 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/dpr.2023.24

DECLARATIONS
Authors’ contributions
Methodology, software, investigation, formal analysis, writing - original draft: Wang Z
Conceptualization, data curation, supervision, writing - review & editing: Cao M
Validation, investigation: Li J
Conceptualization, funding acquisition, data curation, supervision, writing - review & editing: Cui Y
Availability of data and materials
The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon
reasonable request.
Financial support and sponsorship
This work was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant No.
2021YFB2600703).
Conflicts of interest
All authors declared that there are no conflicts of interest.
Ethical approval and consent to participate
Written informed consent for publication of this paper was obtained from the Dalian University of
Technology and all authors.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2023.

REFERENCES
1. Chang SE. Disasters and transport systems: loss, recovery and competition at the Port of Kobe after the 1995 earthquake. J Transp
Geogr 2000;8:53-65. DOI
2. Burcharth HF, Bernal A, Blazquez R, et al. Seismic design guidelines for port structures. California; 2001. Available from: https://vbn.
aau.dk/en/publications/seismic-design-guidelines-for-port-structures [Last accessed on 26 Sep 2023].
3. Serventi G, Jordan M, Fotinos G, Soderberg E. The design of earthquake damage repairs to wharves before the earthquake occurs.
2004, pp. 1-10. DOI
4. Mondal G, Rai DC. Performance of harbour structures in Andaman Islands during 2004 Sumatra earthquake. Eng Struct 2008;30:174-
82. DOI
5. Werner S, Mccullough N, Bruin W, et al. Seismic performance of port de port-au-prince during the haiti earthquake and post-
earthquake restoration of cargo throughput. Earthq Spectra 2011;27:387-410. DOI
6. Memari M, Fakher A, Mirghaderi R. Improvement of seismic performance of wharves including batter piles. In sixth international
conference of seismology and earthquake engineering, Tehran; 2011. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/
266022293_Improvement_of_Seismic_Performance_of_Wharves_Including_Batter_Piles [Last accessed on 26 Sep 2023].
7. Brunet S, de la Llera JC, Jacobsen A, Miranda E, Meza C. Performance of port facilities in Southern Chile during the 27 February
2010 maule earthquake. Earthq Spectra 2012;28:553-79. DOI
8. Smith-Pardo JP, Bardi JC, Ospina CE. Seismic assessment and retrofitting of a container wharf and container yard following the 27
February 2010 Chile earthquake. In 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Lisboa; 2012, pp. 42-52. Available from:
https://www.iitk.ac.in/nicee/wcee/article/WCEE2012_0370.pdf [Last accessed on 26 Sep 2023].
9. Overseas Coastal Area Development Institute of Japan (OCDI). Technical standards and commentaries for port and harbour facilities
in Japan. Tokyo; 2009. Available from: https://ocdi.or.jp/en/archives/775 [Last accessed on 26 Sep 2023].
10. Ministry of Transport of the People's Republic of China. Code for seismic design of water transportation engineering (JTS 146-2012).
Beijing: China Architecture & Building Press; 2012.
11. American Society of Civil Engineers. Seismic design of piers and wharves (ASCE/COPRI 61-14)-1. Virginia: American Society of
Civil Engineers; 2014. DOI
Wang et al. Dis Prev Res 2023;2:18 https://dx.doi.org/10.20517/dpr.2023.24 Page 21 of 21

12. Razavi SA, Fakher A, Mirghaderi R. An insight into the bad reputation of batter piles in seismic performance of wharves. In 4th
International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Thessaloniki; 2007. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/
publication/264702781_An_Insight_into_the_Bad_Reputation_of_Batter_Piles_in_Seismic_performance_of_Wharves [Last accessed
on 26 Sep 2023].
13. Harn R. Have batter piles gotten a bad rap in seismic zones? (Or everything you wanted to know about batter piles but were afraid to
ask). Ports 2004: port development in the changing world; 2004, pp. 1-10. DOI
14. Mito M, Uwabe T, Kitazawa S, Makabe T, Nakahara T. The shaking table tests and sesmic response analysison the pier with isolation
system. Proc Civil Eng Ocean 2000;16:469-74. DOI
15. Kilborn J, Harn R, Firat Y. Seismic retrofit of piers supported on battered piles using lead-rubber bearings. Ports 2010: building on the
past, respecting the future; 2010, pp. 71-80. DOI
16. Leal J, de la Llera J, Aldunate G. Seismic isolators in pile-supported wharves. Ports 2013: success through diversification, California;
2013, pp. 590-9. DOI
17. Stringer S, Walter C, Pesicka B. An innovative method of enhancing deep water wharf stability. Ports 2013: success through
Diversification, California: 2013; pp. 805-14. DOI
18. Fendy J, Rastandi JI, Prakoso WA, Sjah J. Study of dimension variation effect on a batter piled wharf structure with seismic isolation
systems. Mater Sci Forum 2020;987:10-4. DOI
19. Davidson BJ, Bell DK, George SF. The implementation of seismic isolation in the retrofit of a large wharf. Bull N Z Soc Earthq Eng
2003;36:208-17. DOI
20. Mayes RL, Buckle IG, Kelly TE, Jones LR. AASHTO seismic isolation design requirements for highway bridges. J Struct Eng
1992;118:284-304. DOI
21. Kawashima K. Seismic isolation of highway bridges. J Japan Assoc Earthq Eng 2004;4:283-97. DOI
22. Ye A, Guan Z. Seismic design of bridges, 2nd ed. Beijing: China Communications Press; 2014.
23. Abaqus. Abaqus 6.14 analysis user’s manual. Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp; 2014.
24. Smith-Pardo JP, Firat GY. Lateral load analysis of waterfront structures supported on plumb piles. In Proceedings of the 14th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering; 2008, pp. 12-7. Available from: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Lateral-Load-
Analysis-of-Waterfront-Structures-on-Smith-Pardo-Firat/ecd03039da0810fefaaa8c94596223403ad57e36 [Last accessed on 26 Sep
2023].
25. Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center. PEER ground motion database. Available from: https://ngawest2.berkeley.edu/ [Last
accessed on 26 Sep 2023].
26. Ministry of Transport of the People's Republic of China. Load code for harbour engineering (JTS 144-1-2010). Beijing: China
Communications Press; 2010.
27. Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the People's Republic of China. Rubber fender (HG-T2866-2016). Beijing:
Chemical Industry Press; 2016.
28. Mandal S, Rice J, Elmustafa A. Experimental and numerical investigation of the plunge stage in friction stir welding. J Mater Proc
Technol 2008;203:411-9. DOI
29. Fueyo JG, Cabezas JA, Domínguez M, Antón N, Villarino A. Energy distribution in dowel-type joints in timber structures when using
expansive kits. Forests 2021;12:1200. DOI
30. Quan H, Alderliesten R. The energy dissipation during fatigue crack growth in metallic materials. Eng Fract Mech 2022;269:108567.
DOI
31. Su L, Lu J, Elgamal A, Arulmoli AK. Seismic performance of a pile-supported wharf: three-dimensional finite element simulation.
Soil Dyn Earthqe Eng 2017;95:167-79. DOI
32. Boyke C, Nagao T. Seismic performance assessment of wide pile-supported wharf considering soil slope and waveform duration. Appl
Sci 2022;12:7266. DOI