Fragility Functions of Harbor Elements

  • Kalliopi Kakderi
  • Kyriazis Pitilakis
Part of the Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering book series (GGEE, volume 27)


Experience gained from recent strong seismic events has demonstrated the high vulnerability of waterfront structures and port facilities to strong ground shaking and associated phenomena resulting to severe physical damages and important economic losses. The objective of this Chapter is to review and propose fragility curves and methods to assess the seismic vulnerability for the most important components of a harbor system, namely waterfront structures, cargo handling and storage components and infrastructures within the European context in terms of construction practice and seismicity. After a short review, the observed during past earthquakes different failure modes are identified and classified and a detailed taxonomy is proposed with special emphasis to European specific features. Based on the taxonomy and the proposed classification of the different elements at risk, adequate fragility curves are provided.


Peak Ground Acceleration Fragility Curve Vulnerability Curve Sheet Pile Storage Component 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Al-Homoud AS, Whitman RV (1999) Seismic analysis and design of rigid bridge abutments considering rotation and sliding incorporating non-linear soil behaviour. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 18(4):247–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Applied Technology Council (1991) Seismic vulnerability and impact of disruption of lifelines in the Conterminous United States, ATC-25, Redwood City, CAGoogle Scholar
  3. Bardet JP, Oka F, Sugito M, Yashima A (1995) The Great Hanshin earthquake disaster, the January 17, 1995 South Hyogo Prefecture Earthquake. Preliminary investigation report, Department of Civil Engineering, Gifu UniversityGoogle Scholar
  4. Borg RC, Lai CG (2007) Seismic performance, analysis and design of wharf structures: a comparison of worldwide typologies. In: 4th international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, p 1760Google Scholar
  5. EC8 (2002) Euro code, Part 5. European StandardGoogle Scholar
  6. EERI (1990) Loma Prieta earthquake reconnaissance report, chapter 8: lifelines. Earthq Spectra, Sup. to Vol. 6:239–338Google Scholar
  7. EERI (2000) Izmit-Kocaeli earthquake reconnaissance report, chapter 13: performance of waterfront structures. Earthq Spectra, Sup. to Vol. 16:141–162Google Scholar
  8. EERI (2001) Chi-Chi earthquake reconnaissance report, chapter 4: soil liquefaction. Earthq Spectra, Sup. to Vol. 17Google Scholar
  9. Ferritto JM (1997) Seismic design criteria for lifelines. Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center, Technical reportGoogle Scholar
  10. Finn WDL, Wu G, Yoshida N (1992) Seismic response of sheet pile walls. In: 10th WCEE, vol 3, pp 1689–1694Google Scholar
  11. Gazetas G, Dakoulas P, Dennehy K (1990) Empirical seismic design method for waterfront anchored sheet pile walls. In: ASCE specialty conference on design and perform of earth retaining structure, ASCE Geotechn. Special Publ. 25:232–250Google Scholar
  12. Green RA, Ebeling RM (2002) Seismic analysis of cantilever retaining walls, phase I. ERDC/ITL TR-02-3, Information technology laboratory, US army corps of engineering, Engineering Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MSGoogle Scholar
  13. Green RA, Olgun CG, Cameron WI (2008) Response and modelling of cantilever retaining walls subjected to seismic motions. Comput Aided Civil Infrastruct Eng 23(4):309–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Iai S, Kameoka T (1993) Finite element analysis of earthquake induced damage to anchored sheet pile quay walls. Soils Found 33(1):71–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ichii K (2003) Application of performance-based seismic design concept for caisson-type quay walls. Ph.D. dissertation, Kyoto UniversityGoogle Scholar
  16. Ichii K (2004) Fragility curves for gravity-type quay walls based on effective stress analyses. In: 13th WCEE, Vancouver, BCGoogle Scholar
  17. Inatomi T, Zen K et al (1997) Damage to port and port-related facilities by the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake. Technical note of the Port and Harbour Research Institute, p 857Google Scholar
  18. International Navigation Association (PIANC) – Chairman: Iai S (2001) Seismic design guidelines for port structures, Bakelma, 474 pGoogle Scholar
  19. Kakderi K, Pitilakis K (2010) Seismic analysis and fragility curves of gravity waterfront structures. In: Fifth international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics and symposium in Honour of Prof. I. M. Idriss, 6.04aGoogle Scholar
  20. Kakderi K, Raptakis D, Argyroudis S, Alexoudi M, Pitilakis K (2006) Seismic response and vulnerability assessment of Quaywalls. The case of Lefkas. In: 5th national conference of geotechnical and environmental engineering (in Greek)Google Scholar
  21. Kappos A, Panagopoulos G, Panagiotopoulos G, Penelis G (2006) A hybrid method for the vulnerability assessment of RC and URM buildings. Bull Earthq Eng 4(4):391–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ko Y-Y, Yang H-H, Chen C-H (2010) Seismic fragility analysis for sheet pile wharves – case study of the Hualien harbor in Taiwan. In: Fifth international conference on recent advances in geotechnical earthquake engineering and soil dynamics and symposium in Honor of Prof. I.M. Idriss, 6.05aGoogle Scholar
  23. Li Destri Nicosia G (2008) On seismic design and advanced numerical modelling of flexible cantilever walls under earthquake loading. Master thesis, Istituto Universitario di Studi Superiori di Pavia, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  24. Margaris B, Papaioannou Ch, Theodulidis N, Savaidis A, Anastasiadis A, Klimis N, Makra K, Demosthenous M, Karakostas Ch, Lekidis V, Makarios T, Salonikios T, Sous I, Carydis P, Lekkas E, Lozios S, Skourtsos E, Danamos G (2003) Preliminary observations on the August 14, 2003, Lefkada Island (Western Greece) Earthquake. EERI Special Earthquake Report: 1–12, Joint report by Institute of Engineering Seismology and Earthquake Engineering, National Technical University of AthensGoogle Scholar
  25. Na UJ, Shinozuka M (2009) Simulation-based seismic loss estimation of seaport transportation system. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 94(3):722–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Na UJ, Chaudhuri SR, Shinozuka M (2008) Probabilistic assessment for seismic performance of port structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 28(2):147–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Na UJ, Chaudhuri SR, Shinozuka M (2009a) Effects of spatial variation of soil properties on seismic performance of port structures. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(3):537–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Na UJ, Chaudhuri SR, Shinozuka M (2009b) Performance evaluation of pile supported Wharf under seismic loading. In: Tang A, Werner S (eds) 2009 TCLEE conference: lifeline earthquake engineering in a multihazard environment, ASCE, pp 1032–1041Google Scholar
  29. National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) (2004) HAZUS-MH: users’s manual and technical manuals. Report prepared for the FEMAGoogle Scholar
  30. Newmark N (1965) Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Geotechnique 15(2):139–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. OCDI (2002) Technical standards and commentaries for port and harbour facilities in Japan. The overseas coastal area devel. Institute of Japan, 600 pGoogle Scholar
  32. Pachakis D, Kiremidjian AS (2004) Estimation of downtime-related revenue losses in seaports following scenario earthquakes. Earth Spectra 20(2):427–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pasquali R, Lai CG, Corigliano M (2008) Seismic analysis and design of Blockwork-Wharf structures. In: 14th WCEE, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  34. Pathmanathan R, Franchin P, Lai C, Pinto P (2007) Numerical modelling of seismic response of cantilever earth-retaining structures. In: 4th international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, p 1269Google Scholar
  35. Pitilakis K, Moutsakis A (1989) Seismic analysis and behaviour of gravity retaining walls – the case of Kalamata harbour quay wall. Soils Found 29(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Psarropoulos PN, Klonaris G, Gazetas G (2005) Seismic earth pressures on rigid and flexible retaining walls. J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25(7–10):795–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Richards RJ, Elms DG (1979) Seismic behavior of gravity retaining walls. J Geotechn Eng Div, Am Soc Civil Eng 105(GT4):449–464Google Scholar
  38. Soderberg E, Hsieh J, Dix A (2009) Seismic guidelines for container cranes. In: 2009 TCLEE conference, lifeline earthquake engineering in a multihazard environment, Oakland, CAGoogle Scholar
  39. SRM-LIFE (2007) Development of a global methodology for the vulnerability assessment and risk management of lifelines, infrastructures and critical facilities. Application to the metropolitan area of Thessaloniki. Research project, G. Secretariat for Research and Techniques, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  40. Steedman RS, Zeng X (1990) The influence of phase on the calculation of pseudo-static earth pressure on a retaining wall. Geotechnique 40(1):103–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Uwabe T (1983) Estimation of earthquake damage deformation and cost of quaywalls based on earthquake damage records. Technical note of port and harbour Research Institute, 197 pGoogle Scholar
  42. Werner SD (1995) Seismic performance and risk reduction for ports and air transportation systems. Critical issues and state-of-the-art in lifeline earthquake engineering. TCLEE monograph N°7. ASCE:57–69Google Scholar
  43. Werner SD (1998) Seismic guidelines for ports. TCLEE Monograph N°12, ASCE, 366 pGoogle Scholar
  44. Werner SD, Taylor CE, Ferritto JM (1999) Seismic risk reduction planning for ports lifelines. In: 5th U.S. conference on lifeline earthquake engineering, TCLEE, Monograph No. 16Google Scholar
  45. Whitman RV (1990) Seismic design and behavior of gravity retaining walls. In: Special conference on design and construction of earth retaining structures, ASCE, New York. Design and construction of earth retaining structures, ASCE, pp 817–842Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringAristotle UniversityThessalonikiGreece

Personalised recommendations