Comparative Study of Seismic Fragility Curves for a Pile Supported Wharf Using Capacity Spectrum Method and Time History Analysis

(*) Corresponding author

Authors' affiliations

DOI's assignment:
the author of the article can submit here a request for assignment of a DOI number to this resource!
Cost of the service: euros 10,00 (for a DOI)


In this study, seismic fragility curves are developed for an existing pile-supported wharf located at Mundra, Gujarat using Capacity Spectrum Method and linear Time History Analysis. Curves are developed for three levels of ground shaking i.e. Serviceability Earthquake (SE) with 72 years return period, Design Based Earthquake (DBE) with 475 years return period and Maximum Considered Earthquake (MCE) with 2475 years return period. The wharf is modeled in SAP 2000. Pushover analysis is performed to obtain the capacity curve of the wharf. Damage states are established as per PIANC. Site specific spectrum is constructed using geotechnical report of port site with reference to ASCE7-05 and correspondingly 10 seismic events are selected, normalized and scaled to 0.1g,…1.0g to represent demand. Maximum displacements at deck are obtained to create response matrix. Based on the damage states and the response matrix, fragility curves of the wharf are constructed. It is observed that the port site has much higher ground motions than specified in the Indian standard. The Indian standard thus underestimates the fragility of wharf, stating it to be functional for DBE and MCE. The site-specific spectrum clearly finds the wharf deficient, requiring urgent repairs to be serviceable and to resist future seismic events.
Copyright © 2015 Praise Worthy Prize - All rights reserved.


Seismic Fragility Analysis; Pile Supported Wharf; Site Specific Spectra; Capacity Spectrum Method; Linear Time History Analysis

Full Text:



Gujarat Maritime Board – GMB, Port Sector Outline - Glimpse of Gujarat, Gandhinagar 2014.

IS1893 part-1, Criteria for Earthquake Resistant Design of Structures : Part 1-General provisions and Buildings, Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi, 2002.

IS13920 , Ductile Detailing of RCC Structures Subjected to Seismic Forces, Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi, 1993.

D. Rai, G. Mondal, Need for earthquake-resistant design of harbour structures in India in view of their performance during the 2004 Sumatra earthquake, Current Science, 91 (9), 2006.

PIANC, Seismic Design Guidelines for Port Structures, International Navigation Association ( A.A. Balkema Publishers, Rotterdam, Netherlands, 2001).

Federal Emergency Management Agency – FEMA, HAZUS - MH 2.0: Multi-hazard Loss Estimation Methodology-Technical Manual, Wahington, D.C., 2012.

C.H. Yeh, C.H. Loh, K.C. Tsai, Development of Earthquake Assessment Methodology in NCREE, Proceedings of joint NCREE/JRC workshop, Taipei, Taiwan 2003. NCREE -03-029.

T. Rossetto, A.S. Elnashai, Derivation of vulnerability functions for European-type RC structures based on observational data, Engineering Structures, 25(10), 2003, 1241– 1263.

Applied Technology Council, ATC-13:Earthquake damage evaluation data for California, Redwood City, California, 1985.

S.H. Jeong, A.S.Elnashai, Probabilistic fragility analysis parameterized by fundamental response quantities, Engineering Structures, 29 (6), 2007, 1238–1251.

M.A. Erberik, A.S. Elnashai, Fragility analysis of flat-slab structures’, Engineering Structures, 26(7), 2004, 937–48.

A.J. Kappos, K.C. Stylianidis, K. Pitilakis, Development of seismic risk scenarios based on a hybrid method of vulnerability assessment, Natural Hazards, 17(2), 1998, 177–92.

H.H. Torkamani, K. Bargi, R. Amirabadi, Fragility curves derivation for a pile-supported wharf, International journal of maritime technology , 1( 1),2013, 1 – 10.

M. Shinozuka , M.Q. Feng , J. Lee, T. Naganuma, Statistical analysis of fragility curves, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 126(12), 2000, 1224 -1231.

Mundra Port Development Authority, Detail Project Report of Mundra Port Development - Phase II, Mundra, 2008.

SAP2000, Version 15.0 - Integrated Software for Structural Analysis and Design, Computers and Structures, Inc., Berkeley, CA, 2004.

Applied Technology Council, ATC-40: Recommended methodology for seismic evaluation and retrofitting of buildings, Redwood City, California,1996.

J.S. Chiou, C.H. Chiang, H.H. Yang, S.Y. Hsu ,Developing fragility curves for a pile-supported wharf, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 31, 2011, 830–840.

M. Priestley, Seismic Design Criteria for California Marine Oil Terminals: Volume 3 – Design example, University of San Diego, San Diego, 2000.

J. Shukla, D. Choudhury , Seismic hazard and site-specific ground motion for typical ports of Gujarat, Natural hazards, 60( 2), 2012, 541-565.

International Building Code – IBC, International Code Council, Inc. USA, 2009.

American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE/ SEI 7-05: Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and other Structures, Virginia, 2006.

National Disaster Management Authority – NDMA, Development of Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Map of India: Appendix II - Application of the PSHA Results. Govt. of India. New Delhi, 2011.

Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center – PEER [online] PEER Ground Motion Database, University of California, California. (Accessed April 2013).


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Please send any question about this web site to
Copyright © 2005-2024 Praise Worthy Prize