4th International Conference on
Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering
June 25-28, 2007
Paper No. 1734

SIMULATION OF SEISMIC BEHAVIOUR OF GRAVITY QUAY WALL
USING A GENERALIZED PLASTICITY MODEL
Mahdi ALYAMI1, S. M. WILKINSON2, M. ROUAINIA3 and Fei CAI4
ABSTRACT
Well-documented case histories of damage during earthquake to port structures made of gravity
retaining quay walls during the period (1964-2003) show that the damage is often associated withsignificant deformation of liquefiable soil deposits. Gravity quay walls failures such as these havestimulated much progress in the development of a deformation-based design method for waterfront
structures, such as the effective-stress analysis method. This method has been applied in this paper
based on an elasto-plasiticity constitutive model developed by Pastor et al. (1990) with some minor
modifications which is incorporated into a new FEM code called (UWLC). The simulations of the
proposed model are compared with the published monotonic and cyclic tests for different types ofsand under different initial densities, confining pressures and different Cyclic Stress Ratios (CSR).
Further, the FEM code is evaluated by re-analysing the typical Port Island PC-1 caisson type quay
wall which was damaged by the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake. The results are compared withobserved results which were obtained from the Ministry of Transport, Japan (1997) which includes
seaward displacement, tilting and settlement which are known as typical failure modes of quay walls
due to earthquake. Afterwards, several quay walls systems in different conditions have been analysed
in order to identify the effect of each factor on the residual deformation of gravity quay walls.
Keywords: quay wall, liquefaction, earthquake, harbour, effective stress, constitutive model
INTRODUCTION
Gravity quay walls are the most common type of construction for docks because of their durability,ease of construction and capacity to reach deep seabed levels. The design of gravity quay walls
requires sufficient capacity for three design criteria; sliding, overturning and allowable bearing stressunder the base of the wall. Although the design of gravity quay walls is reasonably well understood forstatic loads, analysis under seismic loads is still in being developed.
During strong ground shaking, the pore water pressure of cohesionless saturated soils builds up. This
increase in pressure not only causes the lateral forces on the wall to increase (which may make thewall fail), but also reduces the effective stress of the soil which may result in liquefaction.
The occurrence of the liquefaction in back fill was the main reason for the damage from earthquakes
to gravity quay walls in 1964 at Nigata Port (Hayashi, et al., 1966) , also in 1993 at Kushiro-oki and in1994 at Hokkaido Toho-oki (Sasajima, et al., 2003) . In addition, liquefaction caused major damage toport facilities in Kobe, Japan, in the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake. Moreover, observations of 24
marine structures in the earthquake in 1999 at Kocaeli, Turkey showed the backfill of quay walls also
1

School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, University of Newcastle, Email: Mahdi.Alyami@ncl.ac.uk
School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, University of Newcastle, Email: S.M.Wilkinson@ncl.ac.uk
3
School of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, University of Newcastle, Email: M. Rouainia@ncl.ac.uk
4
Department of Civil Engineering, Gunma University, Email: cai@ce.gunma-u.ac.jp2liquefied and the quay walls were displaced seaward (Sumer, et al., 2002) . The same observations
were reported in 1999 during the Chi Chi earthquake in Taiwan, (Chen & Hwang, 1999) . The seismic
coefficient method containing Mononobe-Okabe’s formula is usually used in the structural design ofgravity type quay walls to resist earthquake damage but this design method does not take account of
the liquefaction of backfill ground and foundations (Sasajima, et al., 2003) .
Gravity quay walls failures such as these have stimulated much progress in the development of adeformation-based design method for waterfront structures. Much significant experimental andtheoretical research work has been done on the subject (Dakoulas & Gazetas, 2005; Iai, 1998; Iai, etal., 1998; Iai & Sugano, 2000; Ichii, et al., 2000; Inagaki, et al., 1996; Inoue, et al., 2003; Nozu, et al.,
2004; Sugano, et al., 1996) Many advanced constitutive models are being developed and muchdeformation effective stress analysis has been carried out which has analyzed and studied the recorded
cases history of the behaviour of gravity quay walls founded in liquefiable soils. In this study, anelasto-plastisity constitutive model developed by Pastor, et al. (1990) that can simulate the monotonic
and cyclic behaviour of cohesionless saturated soils has been slightly modified and used to investigateliquefiable soils with a wide range of confining pressures and relative densities. The modified
constitutive model has also been incorporated in the FEM code UWLC (Forum 8, Co., 2006). In order
to assess the predictive capability of the proposed model, numerical results have been compared withpublished experimental results for monotonic and cyclic tests using different types of sand under
different initial densities, confining pressures and different Cyclic Stress Ratios (CSR).

In order to identify the effect of each factor on the residual deformation of gravity quay walls,
several quay wall systems in different conditions have been investigated. The research
focused on the analysis of a typical Port Island PC1 caisson type quay wall which wasdamaged by the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake. The results are compared with observed
results which were obtained from the Ministry of Transport, Japan (1997) which include
seaward displacement, tilting and settlement which are known as typical failure modes ofquay walls due to earthquake.
DESCRIPTION OF THE CONSTITUVE MODEL AND METHOD OF ANALYSIS
Martin, et al., (1975) proposed a model for excess pore water pressure build up based on theincremental volumetric strain in drained condition between the shear work and the excess pore waterpressure. Zienkiewicz, et al., (1985) proposed a simple model for transient soil loading in earthquake
analysis, referred to as Mark I, which gives a reasonable prediction of pore pressure changes occurring
during cyclic loading. Pastor, et al., (1985) extended the bounding surface and generalized plasticity
of model Mark I to reproduce the behaviour of sands under both static and transient loading and theyrefer to it as Mark II, in 1986, Pastor and Zienkiwicz described the P-Z Mark III model and modelled
the behaviour of sand in a hierarchical manner and were able to capture important features of soil
behaviour under cyclic loading, such as the progressive decrease in the stiffness of soil with increasing
pore pressure, accumulation of deformation, stress-dilatancy and hysteretic loops. Finally, Pastor, et al.
(1990) outline the theory of generalized plasticity in which yield and plastic potential surface need not
be explicitly defined, and show how a very effective general model describing the behaviour of sands
under monotonic or transient loading can be developed. This model is currently one of the simplest
and yet one of the most effective ones describing the full range of behaviours such as the cyclic
behaviour of soil. In the present study the constitutive model for sand which was developed by Pastor
et al. (1990) was adopted, after some minor modifications.
Model evaluation
To test the validity of the proposed model, simulations are compared with the published monotonic
and cyclic test of different types of sand under different confining pressure and initial relative densities.
The experimental tests are those of Castro, (1969) and Toyota, et al., (2004) .The model requires a
total of 15 parameters which are shown in Table 1. Figure 1 shows a comparison between

experimental and predicted results of the effective stress paths with different relative densities
Dr =27%, Dr =44% and Dr =64% for undrained triaxial test of Banding sand (Castro, 1969) . Figure2(a) compares the stress path during undrained cyclic triaxial test in Toyoura sand (Toyota, et al.,2004) testing a sample with relative density D r =38%, Figure 2(b) compares the Deviator stress verses
Axial strain for the same sample. Figure 3(a) compares the stress path during undrained cyclic triaxial
test in PI Masado sand (Moist placement) (Toyota, et al., 2004) testing a sample with relative density
e=0.58. Overall, the model seems capable of describing soil behaviours under monotonic and cyclicloading in undrained and drained conditions for a wide range of relative densities. From the figures it
can be seen that the model gives excellent agreement with monotonic test results and while differences
between the cyclic results do exist, the model captures the essential range of stress and strain
behaviour. From these results, it is concluded that this soil model applied in the commerciallyavailable finite element code, UWLC, can be employed to assess liquefaction behaviour.
a)b)Figure 1. Simulation of experimental data from Castro, (1969) under monotonic undrained loading: a)stress path and b) stress strain relationship

a)

b)

a)
b)
Figure 2. Simulations of experimental data from Toyota, et al., (2004) of Toyora sand (Moist placement),
cyclic triaxial test: a) stress path and b) stress strain relationship

b)

a)

a)
b)
Figure 3. Simulation of experimental data from Toyota, et al., (2004) of PI Masado sand (Moist
placement), cyclic triaxial test: a) stress path and b) stress strain relationship
Test

Mf

Mg

C

αf

αg

K ev 0Ges 0m v ms

β0

β1

H0

HU 0

Castro(27%)
Castro(44%)
Castro(64%)
Toyota(Toyora)Toyota(PI
Masado)

0.32

1.03

0.8

0.45

0.45

280

600

0.5

0.5

4.2

0.2

1000

0

0.545

1.32

0.9

0.45

0.45

195

300

0.5

0.5

4.2

0.2

560

0.495

1

0.9

0.45

0.45

160

250

0.5

0.5

4.2

0.2

0.77

1.42

0.85

0.45

0.45

220

140

0.5

0.5

6

0.574

1.372

0.9

0.45

0.45

246

120

0.5

0.5

4.45

γ

γU

p0′

0

0

400

0

0

0

400

1900

0

0

0

400

0.3

520

19200

6

4.3

100

0.189

470

6950

6

4.3

100

Table 1. Material parameters used in simulation of figures 1 – 3Case history
Kobe Port is located in an area 6km long and 12km wide, there are two man-made islands, Port Island
and Rokko Island. The soils used for landfill were excavated from the Rokko Mountains to the northwest of Kobe city, this soil is called PI Masado (Ikuo, et al., 1996; Inagaki, et al., 1996; Sugano, et al.,1996) . Figure 4 shows Port Island which is divided into two phases, the first, referred to as phase 1,
was constructed on the northern half of Port Island between 1966 and 1981, the rest is referred to asphase 2; landfilling in the southern half of Port Island was almost complete when the HyogokenNanbu earthquake hit Kobe City in January 1995 (Toyota, et al., 1996) . Kobe Port had significant
ground subsidence as a result of liquefaction during the earthquake; the extent of liquefaction was
intense on Port Island and over 250 caissons type quay walls were damaged there with a repair costexceeding US$11 billion (Ishihara, 1997) . Those walls were constructed on loose saturated
decomposed granite which had been used to replace the alluvial clay layer in order to attain therequired bearing capacity for the foundations. The typical types of damage observed after theearthquake were: seaward displacement, approximately 5m maximum and approximately 3m average;
the walls also settled approximately 1 to 2m and tilted approximately 4 degrees (Ichii, 2004) . Caissontype quay walls in Kobe Port including Port Island and Rokko Island were designed using the pseudostatic method, with limit equilibrium mechanics based on the Mononobe-Okabe method developed by
Okabe, (1924) and Mononobe & Matsuo, (1929) using horizontal seismic coefficients ranging from
0.1 to 0.15 (Inagaki, et al., 1996) .

Figure 4. Plan of Kobe Port, showing the location of the recording station, quay walls and sites forgeotechnical investigation after Inagaki, et al, (1996)

This study focuses on the analysis of typical Port Island caisson quay wall failure during the 1995
Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake; the quay used as a case study is called PC1, constructed in phase one it
is shown in Figure 5. The friction angle used in the design was 30 degrees except beneath the wall
where a friction angle of 40 degrees was used, the factor safety was 1.2. The horizontal seismic
coefficient was 0.1 and the vertical seismic coefficient was zero (Towhata, et al., 1996) . This wall
displaced toward sea approximately 2.75m, settled approximately 1.36m and tilted approximately 3
degrees on average as shown in Figure 6 as obtained by Ministry of Transport, Japan (1997)

Figure 5. Cross section of a quay wall PC1 at Port Island after Inagaki, et al., (1996)

The relative density of the backfill soil was obtained by the Standard Penetration Test (SPT)
conducted by (Inagaki, et al., 1996) and was equal to Dr = 41.67 %.
Case study and effective stress analysis method
The seismic performance of a typical Port Island caisson quay wall PC1 has been modelled using a
dynamic nonlinear effective stress analysis method in order to evaluate the effectiveness of various
soil improvement strategies. The computer program UWLC was used for this study. The UWLC code
is a fully coupled numerical code, which can undertake initial stress analysis, one-dimensional and two
dimensional dynamic finite element analyses based on total and effective stress.

Figure 6. Cross section of the caisson quay wall PC1 in Port Island with observed residual deformation
after Kobe 1995 earthquake, Ministry of Transport, Japan, (1997)

The finite element mesh shown in figure 7 was used for the analysis under plane strain conditions. A
total of 1989 nodes and 644 elements were used. Five materials divided into nine zones were used in
the analysis. The materials and their properties are listed in Table 2. The backfill and foundation layers
are modelled by using the PZ-sand modified constitutive model described earlier; the parameters usedin the calculation were obtained from the unique series of cyclic triaxial tests conducted prior to theearthquake by Nigase et al., (1995) and presented by Ishihara et al., (1996). In their work, undisturbed
frozen samples of Massado soils excavated from the northern section of Port Island were tested withthree relative densities. Since the SPT-N value tests presented by Injaki et al. (1996) showed theaverage density for reclaimed Port Island sand was 41%, as discussed above, the results of the sample
with Dr =37% performed by Nigase et al., (1995) are used in this study. The results of the cycling
loading tests in term of the cycles required to generate cyclic development of 5% double-amplitude
axial strain are computed and compared with the triaxial tests on samples from Port Island conductedby Nigase et al., (1995) are shown in Figure 8 and the parameters are shown in Table 3.
Table 2. Material properties for model after Iai, et al., (1998) and Dakoulas and Gazetas, (2005)

Materials
Land fillbackfill and foundation
Caisson wall
Alluvial clay
Rubble in backfill andfoundation

Density (ton/m3)
1.8
1.8
2.1
1.7
2

Friction angle(o)3737Permeability (m/s)
4*10-5
4*10-530
40

1*10-8
4*10-4

Figure 7. Geometry (in natural scale) and material zones of the Port Island PC1 quay wall; 1 is saturated
backfill soil, 2&3 are submerged backfill and foundation soil, 4&5 are backfill and foundation rubble,
6&7are alluvial clay, 8 is the caisson wall and 9 is the interface

Figure 8. Cyclic stress ratio (CSR) from triaxial tests on samples from Port Island conducted by Nigase etal., (1995) (Ishehara et al., 1996): Comparison with predictions using modified PZ-sand model, Dr =37%
and for dense sand D r ≈ 75%

Table 3. Model parameters for relative density D r =37% and for dense sand Dr ≈ 75%
Materialparameter

Mf

Mg

C

αf

αg

K ev 0 Ges 0 m v ms

β0

β1

H0

HU 0 γ

γU

p0′

Loose

0.58

1.3

0.9

0.45

0.45

340

175

0.5

0.5

6

0.76

680

3000

8

7.1

100

Dense

0.78

1.55

0.9

0.45

0.45

310

175

0.5

0.5

6

0.7

600

2400

8

7.1

100

Practically, whether low water level or high water level is considered as a worst case for designing
quay walls is not of significance as the active earth pressure on the wall is considered to be the failure
force. In the low water level case the active pressure is less than in high water level the reason being
the reduction in the density of backfill soil, on the other hand, the stability weight of the caisson wall
will also be reduced for same reason, equally, the density of soil and the density of caisson will
increase in the high water level case. Therefore, for practical engineering it is known that it is vital todesign the caisson wall for both cases and then the worst case is taken. In this model the low waterlevel is considered in the calculation as recommended by Elsharnobi et al., (2004), because it produces
the worst case concerning stress at rock base level. As a result, the backfill layer is divided into layers,
the top layer is saturated soil with unit weight γ sat . =1.8 ton/m3 and 4m thickness, the submerged soil ismeasured under the water level with submerged unit weight γ sub. =0.8 ton/m3.
The wall is modelled as an elastic model having interface slip elements which are required between
the quay wall model and soil to allow slippage and separation at the base and the back of the caissonwith the friction angle at caisson bottom of 30 degrees and friction angle at the caisson back of 15
degrees. The clay zones are modelled using the Hardian-Drnevish model (HD). The seismic excitation
input file in both horizontal (E-W) and vertical (U-D) directions respectively were recorded by aseismometer installed at a depth of 32m in the northern area of the Port Island site very close to PC1,
adopted by the development Division, Kobe city, in October,1991 reported by Iwasaki & Tai (1996) .
The peak acceleration value recorded reached 540gal (cm/sec2) and 200gal (cm/sec2) as shown in
Figure 9. The digital data were collected from Ishii, (2006).
a)b)

Figure 9. Recorded motions at Kobe Port during the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake a) Horizontal (EW) component, b) Vertical (U-D) component

RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Before the dynamic response analysis and to take the effect of gravity into account, a static analysis
was performed to simulate the initial stress distributions. Figure 10 and Figure 11, below, shows thecomputed stress results for effective residual deformation including seaward displacement, settlement
and tilting for Case 1 which corresponds to a typical quay wall section of PC1 in Port Island where thebackfill, landfill and foundation are liquefiable soils. The figure shows the state 30 seconds after theend of the earthquake. The computed displacement at point A on the seaward side corner of the quay
wall was 3.3m (2.75 m measured), the wall settled vertically by about 0.59m (1.36 m measured) andtilted into the foundation by 4.5 degrees (3 degrees measured),. The major factor which may have
reduced the vertical displacement could be the absence of the effect of shaking parallel the face ofquay wall. However the computed residual deformation results for Case 1 were consistent with fieldobservations shown in Figure 6. Computed accelerations at upper sea side corner of the caisson for aquay wall are shown in Figure 12. Computed distributions of excess pore water pressure ratio for quay

wall are shown in Figure 13. It can be seen from Figure 13 that maximum pore pressures weregenerated in the backfill rather than underneath the wall.

Figure 10. Case 1 computed deformation at the end of earthquake ( t = 30 sec ) of Port Island caisson
quay wall PC1a)b)

Figure 11. Case 1 computed displacements for quay wall after (30 sec); a) Horizontal and b) Vertical
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1 0
-2
-3
-4

b)

5

10

15

Time (sec)

20

25

30

Acceleration (m/sec2)

Acceleration (m/sec2)

a)

3
2
1
0
-1 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-2
-3

Time (sec)Figure 12. Computed accelerations at upper sea side corner of the caisson at (point A) for case 1:a) Horizontal and b) VerticalFigure 13. Case 1 computed distributions of excess pore water pressure ratio for quay wall after (30 sec)

In order to investigate the effect of ground improvement techniques on the liquefaction behaviour of
the wall, Case 2 was analyzed using PZ parameters of dense sand, for both the backfill and foundation
layers. The results are shown in Figure 14. Figure 14 demonstrates that the soil improvement leads toa reduction of the maximum displacement to 0.91m, from the 3.3m of case 1. The settlement at point
A is reduced from 0.59 to 0.25m.

Figure 14. Case 2 computed deformation at the end of earthquake ( t = 30 sec ) of Port Island caisson
quay wall PC1 where the backfill and foundation are non-liquefiable

In Case 3 the effect of the size of the gravity quay wall is investigated. The equivalent regional
horizontal seismic coefficient (Kh) for Kobe region of 0.15 according to the Earthquake ResistanceDesigned Codes in Japan reported by Ichii, (2003), and is presented in order to investigate theeffectiveness of using the regional seismic coefficient in the design. It should be noted that PC1 wasdesigned based on the simplified method which was developed by Okabe, (1924) and Mononobe &Matsuo, (1929) with Kh= 0.1, Kv= 0 and the safety factor = 1.2 (Inagaki, et al., 1996). First, PC1 wasdesigned with Kh = 0.1 by using the simplified method assuming the live load equal to 2 ton/m2. The
results show the required width for the quay wall to be stable in case of Kh= 0.1 was 10 m. Next thesame procedure was used to evaluate the suitable quay wall width in case of Kh= 0.15. The new wall
dimensions were width 11.5 m and height 16.5 m. The computed residual deformation results for Case
3 are shown in Figure 15. In this case the horizontal displacements have reduced by approximately 5%
and settlement has slightly increased by approximately 10% when compared with Case 1 (this isprobably due to the increased mass of the wall). Comparing the results of Case 2 and Case 3 to Case 1,
it is clear that the improved backfill soil of caisson has a more pronounced effect on theperformance of seismic resistance quay walls than increasing the wall width.

Figure 15. Case 3 computed deformation at the end of earthquake ( t = 30 sec ) of redesigned Port Island
caisson quay wall PC1 with Kh= 0.15 where the backfill and foundation are liquefied

In Case 4 the design used in Case 3 with non-liquefiable soil was applied, in order to evaluate theperformance of an idealized seismic design of gravity quay walls. The idealized design was achievedby using the regional seismic coefficient and with assumption that the backfill, landfill and foundationsoils were improved enough to avoid the generation of pore water pressure during the earthquake. The
results from Case 4 are shown in Figure 16. A summary of the major results of the analysis is given intable 4. The displacements in both directions the horizontal and vertical for each case are shown in
Figure 17. Finally the results of Case 1, Case 2 and the observed deformations are summarized in
Figure 18 by drawing the outline of the quay wall. This Figure clearly demonstrates that 1) the
calculated and measured wall movement are similar and 2) that a soil improvement strategies ofincreasing the density of the soil, results in greatly reduced overall movement of the wall.

Figure 16. Case 4 computed deformation at the end of earthquake ( t = 30 sec ) of redesigned Port Island
caisson quay wall PC1 with Kh=0.15 where the backfill and foundation are non- liquefiable

a)

b)

Figure 17. Computed displacement time history at the upper seaward corner of caisson (point A) for allcases: a) horizontal direction and b) vertical direction

Case

Case 1Case 2
Case 3
Case 4

Table 4. Summary of computed results of parameter study for quay wall PC1
Wall
Horizontal
Displacements (m)RotationBackfill andDiminutions
seismic
foundation(degree)(m)coefficientconditions(Kh)
Width Height
Horizontal
Vertical
10
10
11.5
11.5

16.5
16.5
16.5
16.5

0.1
0.1
0.15
0.15

3.3
0.91
3.19
0.83

a)

0.59
0.25
0.68
0.25

4.5
1.5
4.25
1.4

Loose
Dense
Loose
Dense

b)
18

Vertical displacement (m)Vertical displacement (m)1813Case 18

Case 2
Original
caissonObservation
results

3

-4

1

6

11

13

Case 38

Case 4
Original
caissonObservation
results

3

-4

1

6

11

-2

-2

Horizontal displacement (m)Horizontal displacement (m)Figure 18. Comparison between computed deformation with original caisson and observation
deformation: a) case 1 and 2 and b) case 3 and 4

CONCLUSIONSA Two-dimensional effective stress method of analysis based on an elasto-plastic constitutive modelof Pastor (1990) with slightly modifications has been used for the analysis Port Island quay-wall PC1.
The model was first validated by simulating published monotonic and cyclic test results. The resultsof the monotonic testing showed excellent agreement between the physical and numerical experiments.
For the cyclic tests, the simulations were able to capture the general behaviour exhibited in thephysical experiments (i.e. stress and strain histories of the numerical simulations showed comparable
shapes to the physical experiments).
A model of Port Island quay walls was then developed using a finite element package UWLC and theinfluence of the density of the soil and wall dimensions on the liquefaction behaviour of the soil wasinvestigated. Both vertical and horizontal accelerations were applied to the model and the resultscompared to the observed field measurements.
The performance of the quay wall is summarized as follows:1) Computed overall displacement and rotations of the wall were similar to those observed in thefield.
2) Improving the backfill soil of caisson reduces the vertical settlement at the toe of the wall byover 200% while the horizontal displacement is reduced by over 350%.
3) Increasing the width of the wall also reduced the horizontal displacement of the wall (although
not as much as increasing the wall width), while the vertical settlement increased slightly.
Finally, Effective stress analysis is powerful tool can describe the seismic response of port structures
including liquefaction failure modes.
AKNOWLEDGEMNT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the technical support of FORUM 8 for the software used in thiswork. The first author wishes to thank Mr. Hirokazu NAKAMURA for the fruitful discussions
throughout the research.

REFRENCESCASTRO, G. Liquefaction of sands. Ph.D. Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1969
CHEN, C. & HWANG, G. 1999. Preliminary Analysis for Quay wall Movement in Taichung Harbour
During The September 21, 1999,Chi-Chi Earthquake. Earthquake Engineering andEngineering Seismology, 2, 43-54, 1969
CUBRINOVSKI, M. & ISHIHARA, K. Correlation between penetration resistance and relative density ofsandy soil. In: 15th International conference on soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering,
Istanbul, Turkey. pp.393-396, 2001
DAKOULAS, P. & GAZETAS, G. Seismic effective-stress analysis of cassion quay walls: Application to
Kobe. Soils and Foundations, 45, 133-147, 2005

ELSHARNOBY , B., ELKAMHAWY, H., ELNAGGAR,, E.& ALYAMI, M. Enhancing load capacity
performance of Harbor berthes. In: The 20th International Port Conference,
Alexandria, Egypt. pp.Session 4, 1-11, 2004
FORUM8 CO., LTD. Dynamic effective stress analysis for ground (UWLC), Instruction manual for ver.
1.00.00,. 2006
HAYASHI, S., KUBO, K. & NAKASE, A. 1966 .Damage to harbour structures by the Nigata earthquake.
Soils and Foundations, 6, 89-111, 2005
IAI, S. Seismic analysis and performance of retaining structures. In: Proceedings of the 1998
Conference on Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics III. Part 2 (of 2),
Aug 3-6 1998, ASCE, Reston, VA, USA, Seattle, WA, USA. 2, pp.1020-1044, 1998
IAI, S. & SUGANO, T. shaking table testing on seismic performance of gravity quay walls. In: 12
WCEE ,2000
IAI, S., ICHII, K., LIU, H. & MORITA, T. Effective stress analysis of port structures. Special issue ofsoils and foundations, 97-114, 1998ICHII, K. Application of risk density analysis for seismic design: A gravity-type quay wall case. In:
Fourth International Conference on Computer Simulation in Risk Analysis and Hazard
Mitigation, RISK ANALYSIS IV, Sep 27-29 2004, WIT Press, Southampton, SO40 7AA,
United Kingdom, Rhodes, Greece. 9, pp.41-50, 2004ICHII, K.. Personal contact, 2006ICHII, K., IAI, S. & MORITA, T. Performance of the quay wall with high seismic resistance. Journal ofComputing in Civil Engineering ,2000
IKUO, T., GHALANDARZADEH, A., SUNDARRAJ, K. & VARGAS-MONGE, W. 1996. Dynamic failures of
subsoils observed in waterfront areas. Special Issue of Soils and Foundations, 1, 149-160.
NAGAKI, H., IAI, S., SUGANO, T., YAMAZAKI, H. & INATOMI, T. Performance of cassion type quayI
walls at Kope Port. Special issue of soils and foundations, 119-136, 1996

INOUE, K., MIURA, K., OTSUKA, N., YOSHIDA, N. & SASAJIMA, T. Numerical analysis of the earthpressure during earthquake on the gravity type quay wall. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth(2003) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, May 25 2002-May 30 2003,
International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, Honolulu, HI, United States. pp.2095209, 2003
ISHIHARA, K. Geotechnical aspects of the 1995 Kobe earthquake. In: Proc. 14th ICSMEF, Hamburg. 4,
pp.2047-2073, 1997
IWASAKI, T. & TAI, M. Strong Motion records at Kobe Port Island. Special issue of soils andfoundations, 1, 29-40, 1996
MARTIN, G.R., FINN, W.D.L. & SEED, H.B. Fundamentals of liquefaction under cyclic loading. 1 ,01.438-423, 1975
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT. Damage to port and port-related facilities by the 1995 Hyogoken-nanbu
Earthquake. The port and harbour research institute, Japan, 777pp, 1997
MONONOBE, N. & MATSUO, H. On the determination of earth pressure during earthquake.
Proceedings, World Engineering Congress, 9 ,1929
NOZU, A., ICHII, K. & SUGANO, T. Seismic design of port structures. Journal of japan association forearthquake engineering, 4, 195-208, 2004
OKABE, N. Jeneral theory on earth pressure and seismic stability of retaining wall and dam. Journal ofJapan Society of Civil Engineers, 10, 1277-1323, 1924
PASTOR, M., ZIENKIEWICZ, O.C. & LEUNG, K.H. Simple model for transient soil loading in earthquake
analsis.II. non-assocative models for sands. International Journal for Numerical andAnalytical Methods in Geomechanics, 9, 477-498, 1985
PASTOR, M., ZIENKIEWICZ, O.C. & CHAN, A.H.C. Generalized Plasticity and the modelling of soil
behaviour. Int. J. Num. Anal. Meth Geomech., 14, 151-190, 1990
SASAJIMA, T., SAKIKAWA, M., MIURA, K. & OTSUKA, N. In-situ observation system for seismic
behavior of gravity type quay wall. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth (2003) International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, May 25 2002-May 30 2003, International
Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers, Honolulu, HI, United States. pp.2087-209 , 2003.
SUGANO, T., MORITA, T., MITO, M., SASAKI, T. & INAGAKI, H. Case studies of cassion type quay walldamage by 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu eartjquake. In: Eleventh world conference on earthquake
engineering, Elsevier Science Ltd, 1996
SUMER, B.M., KAYA, A. & HANSEN, N.-E.O. Impact of liquefaction on coastal structures in the 1999
Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake. In: Proceedings of the Twelfth (2002) International Offshore andPolar Engineering Conference, May 26-31 2002, International Society of Offshore and Polar
Engineers, Kitakyushu, Japan. 12, pp.504-511, 2002
TOWHATA, I., GHALANDARZADEH, A., SUNDARRAJ, K.P. & VARGAS-MONGE, W. Dynamic failures of
subsoils observed in waterfront areas. Soils and Foundations, 149-160, 1996
TOYOTA, H., IAI, S. & KAZAMA, M. characteristicscharacteristicsPerformance of sandy soils in triaxial
tests. Soils and Foundations, 119-136, 1996
TOYOTA, H., NAKAMURA, K. & KAZAMA, M. Shear and liquefaction characteristics of sandy soils intriaxial tests. Soils and Foundations, 44, 117-126, 2004
ZIENKIEWICZ, O.C., LEUNG, K.H. & PASTOR, M. Simple model for transient soil loading in earthquake
analsis .I. basic model and its application. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
Methods in Geomechanics, 9, 453-476, 1985