Presentation IQPC Africa

Seismic Design Aspects of
Underground Structures
Asrat Worku (Dr-Ing)
Gibb International, Nairobi Kenya

(Formerly, Associate Professor at
Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia)
Outline
1. Types of UG Structures Addressed
2. Earthquake Effects on UG Structures
3. Performance of UG Structures to Earthquakes
4. Seismic Design Procedures
5. Seismic Hazard Analysis
6. Seismic Design Load Criteria
7. Ground Motion Parameters
8. Response of UG Structures to Ground Shaking
9. Large Ground Deformations
10. Conclusions
1. Types of UG Structures
The presentation focuses on tunnels
Cut-and-cover tunnels
Bored tunnels
Immersed tunnels
Most issues are applicable to other UG

structures including
Cut-and-cover structures
Portal Structures
Deep Chambers
Waste Repositories (e.g.: nuclear)

Two major effects
1. Ground Shaking (major concern)
Due to seismic waves
2. Ground Failure
Liquefaction
Slope instability
Fault Displacement

Severity in both Effects depends on
Structure geometry
Depth to structure
Soil properties
Structural properties
Ground motion characteristics

On-ground structures
Inertia of the structure and resonance are
important
UG structures
Inertia of structure (gross11kN/m3) is less than the
inertia of surrounding soil - mostly disregarded

Misguided conception exists due to the small
structural inertia
However, seismic design of UG structures is
governed by
Free-field ground motion, and
SSI
(see figures)
Significant
inertia effect
(Kawashima 2006)
Insignificant
inertia effect
Similar
frequency
content
(Kawashima 2006)
3. Observed Performance of UG
Structures to EQ
Documented case histories of EQ damages to UG
structures exist (ASCE, JSCE, Researchers)
In western US
UG structures built as early as 1927
Measured free-field PGA: 0.1g - 0.25g
Observed damages to date are insignificant
(including during Loma Prieta and Northridge)
However, experts warn: maximum anticipated
seismic events not reached
Hashash et al, 2001
Structures to EQ
Daikai Subway Station, Japan, exhibited
severest damages so far:
Existing Conditions
Cut-and-fill, box-type construction

Central columns at 3.5m interval
Box: 17m wide by 7.17m high
Columns: 0.4m by 1.0m in section and 3.82m high
4.8m overburden
No seismic consideration in its design (1962)
Kawashima 2000, 2006
Structures to EQ
Daikai Subway Station: Extent of Damage
Severe damage occurred during 1995 Kobe EQ
35 center columns damaged (See figure)

Roof slab collapsed
Road on the surface settled by 2.5m
Columns with light shear r. bars failed
Columns with additional zigzag r. bars survived
Transverse walls provided at change of station width
were damaged saving the columns
Hashash et al, 2000; Kawashima, 2000, 2006
Structures to EQ
Center column failure
Mechanism of failure
Kawashima 2000, 2006
Structures in General
Less damage than in surface structures
Damages decrease with depth
Cut-and-cover tunnels are more vulnerable than
deep bored tunnels
Structures in rocks are safer than in soils

Stabilization of surrounding soil is more
effective than increasing liner thickness
Hashash et al, 2001
Structures to EQ - General
Damage may be related to PGA and PGV
Strong-motion duration is very important to
fatigue and excessive deformation
Slope stability is important in portal structures
Damages to lined tunnels are less than in
pipelines
Hashash et al, 2001
4. Seismic Design Procedure

Step 1: Defining the Seismic Environment
Step 2: Evaluation of Ground Response to
Shaking
Step 3: Assessment of Structural Behavior
4. Seismic Design Procedure

Step 1: Defining the Seismic Environment
Conducting Seismic Hazard Analysis (SHA)
Establishing Design Criteria
Establishing Design Ground Motion Parameters
4. Seismic Design Load Procedure

Step 2: Evaluation of Ground Response
It involves evaluating
Ground Shaking: the main focus here
Ground Failure
4. Seismic Design Load Procedure

Step 3: Assessment of Structural Behavior
Establishing Seismic Design Loading Criteria
Determination of Response of UG Structures to
Ground Deformation
Any Special considerations
Hashash et al, 2001
5. Seismic Hazard Analysis

Characterizes potential for strong ground
motions for a given region by studying
Extent of active faulting,
Potential for fault motion, and
Recurrence rate
Two approaches available

Deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA)
probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA)
5.1. DSHA
Aims at a particular seismic scenario to
summarize hazard at a site and involves
1. Identification of EQ sources: geometry, potential
(M)
2. Source-to-site distance of each
3. Identification of controlling EQ in terms of a
ground motion parameter: attenuation Relations
are employed for this purpose
4. Definition of seismic hazard in terms of PGA, PGV,
PGD, RS and TH of the design EQ
5.2 PSHA
Accounts for uncertainties in the size, location,
and recurrence rate of EQs probabilistically
1. Identification of EQ sources with probability
distribution of location for each
2. Characterization of seismicity/temporal
distribution
3. Determination of ground motion by all sizes of EQs
with uncertainties considered
4. Combination of uncertainties to establish the
probability that a given ground motion parameter
will be exceeded for a given time period
5.2 PSHA Seismic Hazard Maps (GSHAP)

PGA for 475-years
return period
PGA up to 0.24g
in Africa
The EARS has possibly
the highest hazard
SA may experience
up to 0.16g
5.2 PSHA Seismic Hazard Maps

PGA up to 0.24g
In EARS region
Many vulnerable populous
cities and towns in EARS
region
Capital cities with high
hazard: Asmara, Djibouti,
Addis Ababa, Juba,
Kampala, Bujumbura
5.2 PSHA Seismic Hazard Maps (GSHAP)
According to SABS 2010,

SA may experience
up to 0.1g from EQ
And up to 0.2g from
mining activities
SABS Standards Division, 2010
5.2 PSHA
Generally, site-specific seismic hazard studies are
recommended for major structures in a specific area
A lot has yet to be done in Africa regarding seismic
hazard assessment, especially in EARS region
The lack of awareness among policy makers even
engineers is quite alarming
In contrast to its relatively low seismic hazard, SA
can be cited as a good example in updating seismic
codes (e.g. SABS 2010)

Dual Criteria:
1. MDE: aims at life safety (corresponds to ULS)
In PSHA, 3 5% probability of exceedance in the

life span of the facility (usually 50 years)
Worst combination of DL, LL, EQ to be considered

Dual Criteria:
2. ODE: minimizes economic risk (corresponds to
SLS)
Occurrence: at least once in design life

In PSHA, 40 50% probability of exceedance
Facility should be operational during and after
event with little or no damage
Thus, response must remain elastic

Load Combinations:
1. MDE
U=DL+LL+E1+E2+EQ
Bored tunnels
U=DL+LL+EX+H+EQ

Load Combinations:
2. ODE
U=1.05DL+1.3LL+1.05(E1+E2)+1.3EQ
Bored tunnels
U=1.05DL+1.3LL+1.5EX+H+1.3EQ
7. Design Ground Motion Parameters

Maximum/effective A, V and D are employed to
define MDE or ODE
Damage to UG structures are better correlated to
particle v and u than to a
Most attenuation relations available for A, but
also for V and D
In the absence of site-specific data, available
relations may be used to estimate PGV and PGD
from PGA (see Tables)

(Power et al. 1996)
Mw
Ratio: PGV(cm/s)/PGA(g)
Source-to-site distance (km)
0-20
20-50
50-100
6.5
66
76
86
7.5
97
109
97
6.5
94
102
109
7.5
140
127
155
6.5
140
132
142
7.5
208
165
201
Rock (vs>750m/s)
Stiff soil (200-750m/s)
Soft soil (<200m/s)

(Power et al. 1996)
Mw
Ratio: PGD(cm)/PGA(g)
Source-to-site distance (km)
0-20
20-50
50-100
6.5
18
27
30
7.5
43
56
69
6.5
35
41
48
7.5
89
99
112
6.5
71
74
76
7.5
178
178
178
Rock (vs>750m/s)
Stiff soil (200-750m/s)
Soft soil (<200m/s)
8. Response of UG Structures
Modes of Response (see Figures)
1. Compression-extension
2. Longitudinal bending
3. Ovaling (for circular shapes)
4. Racking (for rectangular)
8. Response of Ground Shaking
Hashash et al 2001
Hashash et al 2001
Hashash et al 2001
8. Response of UG Structures
MAIN Focus: Response to ground shaking
A number of approaches available
1.
2.
3.
4.
Free-field deformation Approach

SSI Approach
Seismic Deformation Method (for soft ground)
Numerical Approaches
8.1 Free-Field Deformation (FFD)

Approach
FFD describes strains due to elastic plane

waves in the absence of structures
It imposes the free-field deformation on the UG
structure
Does not account for SSI
Provides first-order estimate of structural
response
Closed-form relations available
FFD is effective tool for small soil deformations
(low-seismic areas, stiff soils)

Approach Axial and Bending
FFD is based on Newmarks (1968) idealization of

elastic waves (see sketch)
St. John and Zahrah (1987) used this to calculate

axial and curvature strains analytically due to the
three wave types shown schematically (see sketch)
All solutions are available in closed form:

longitudinal, normal and shear strains and
curvature due to P-, S- and Rayleigh waves

Power et al 1996

Power et al 1996

Tunnel modeled as an elastic beam, combined

free-field axial and curvature deformations are
obtained as
For P-waves:
For S-waves:
For Rayleigh waves (compression component):

Approach - Axial and Bending
With increasing r, the curvature contribution

increases
However, this component is generally small
Note:
the apparent wave velocities, VP and VS, fall in

the range of 4-8km/s and 2-4km/s, respectively
These are close to wave velocities in deep rock
than in the shallow soil

Approach Ovaling Deformation
Ovaling
refers to the distortion of circular tunnels (see

Figure)
is caused by waves inducing transverse strains
Is predominantly due to vertically propagating

shear waves

Non-perforated ground
Perforated ground
Wang 1993

In non-perforated ground (see Figure):
In perforated ground (see Figure):
This is an upper bound

The perforated ground scenario
gives 2 to 3 times larger distortion than the nonperforated case
gives an upper bound distortion criterion
Provides a good estimate for thin linings

The non-perforated ground scenario
gives better estimate for lining stiffness

comparable with the medium
For stiffer linings, distortion can even be less

than in the non-perforated case

Approach Racking Deformation
Racking
refers to the distortion of rectangular tunnels (see

Figure)
Associated deformations can be computed from

shear strains available in closed form
Alternatively, numerical site response analysis can

be used

Approach Racking Deformation
8.2 Soil-Structure-Interaction (SSI)

Approach
Accounts for soil-structure interaction
Tunnels are modeled as beams on elastic

foundation (see Figure)
SSI is accounted for quasi-statically through use of

linear springs
No dynamic inertia interaction is considered
The internal forces are as shown (see Figure)

Approach - Model
(After Kawashima 2000)

Approach: Internal Forces
Sectional forces
Circumferential forces
Hashash et al . 2001

The maximum axial strain (due to a 45-degrees

incident shear wave):
A= free-field displacement response amplitude of

idealized sinusoidal shear wave; Q= frictional
force; L=Wave length; Ka= longitudinal spring stif

The maximum bending strain due to a zerodegree incident shear wave:
The maximum shear force:
Kt= transversal spring stiffness; Ic=mom. of

inertia

The spring coefficients:
The wave length:
Where, for an assumed uniform soft soil layer

over rock:

The ground displacement amplitude for a

sinusoidal wave:
For free-field axial strains
For free-field bending strains

A conservative estimate of the total axial strain

is given by
Finally, the structure is designed to sustain

these strains

Approach - Ovaling
The ovaling response of a tunnel is a function

of the compressibility and flexibility ratios, C
and F defined as:
C: a measure of extensional stiffness

F: a measure of flexural stiffness

Approach - Ovaling
Assuming full slip conditions (for soft soils and

severe shaking):
The diametric strain:
Maximum thrust:
(see Figure)
The maximum b. moment:
Where
(See Plots)
K1= Lining response coefficient

Approach Forces due to ovaling

Approach Forces due to ovaling

Approach - Ovaling
For most tunnels, the interface condition is

between the full-slip and no-slip cases
The full-slip case may cause significant

underestimation of Tmax

Approach - Ovaling
The no-slip condition can give maximum

thrust as given by
Where the lining response coefficient is given

by:

Approach - Ovaling
Variation of K2, and thus of Tmax, against C and

F for =0.35 is as plotted (see graph)

Approach - Ovaling

Approach - Ovaling
The normalized lining deflection:
(see Plots)

Approach - Ovaling

Approach - Ovaling
Observations from the plots:
For F<1 (stiff lining in soft soil): The lining will
deform less than the free field
For F>1 (softer lining in stiffer soil): The lining
deforms more than the free field
For F: lining deflection equals that of the
perforated ground

Approach - Racking
Box-type structures are less efficient to transmit
static loads
Thus,
the walls and slabs are thicker and the structure stiffer
SSI is more important than in circular tunnels
Besides, ground deformations may be larger due to

Site amplification at shallow depth
Decreased soil stiffness due to lower overburden
pressure
Different nature of backfill

Approach - Racking
The increased rigidity for statics reduces
structural strains
Hence, design based on free-field strains is too
conservative
Closed-form solutions are not available due to
variable geometric characteristics
The stiffness of the soil in simple shear relative
to the structure is the most important factor
(Wang 1993)

Approach - Racking
It can be easily shown that the soil-to-structure
flexibility ratio is given by (see Figure)
Where W is the width and S1 is the unit racking

stiffness of the structure given by (see Figure)
(Hashash et al 2001)

Approach - Racking
(Hashash et al 2001)

Approach - Racking
For simple structures the racking stiffness can be
determined from ordinary frame analysis
Thus, F for a one-barrel frame with moments of
inertia, IR=IS and IW, for the slabs and walls is
F can similarly be obtained for other common forms

Approach - Racking
FE studies showed the following
F0: structure is rigid; do not rack regardless of
ground distortion
F<1: structure is stiff; do not rack much
F=1: structure and soil are of same stiffness;
structure undergoes free-field distortions
F>1: Structure racking is larger than soil
F: Nearly Zero stiffness of structure; same
deformation as the perforated ground
8.2 Seismic Deformation Method

(After Kawashima 2006)
Emerged out of a 5-year research in Japan

(1972-1977) for UG structures in soft ground
The modeling accounts for SSI
Consists of idealizing the UG structure as
Beam on elastic foundation (for axial and bending
deformations) (see Figure)
Spring-mass modeling
2D FE model for in-plane ovaling/racking
Beam
on elastic foundation
(Kawashima 2006)
Beam
The governing DE neglecting inertia

Axial deformation:
Bending deformation:
The idealized ground deformation (see sketch):
Beam
(Kawashima 2006)
Beam
The wave length based on Guide Specifications:

Where
VS and VSB: shear wave velocities of soil (average) and

rock; L1 and L2 are corresponding wave lengths
TS: fundamental natural period
Beam
The ground surface displacement amplitude:
SV: design velocity response spectrum at bedrock

level
The surface strains are determined by

differentiating the surface deformation, the
amplitudes being
Beam
The ratio of the strain amplitudes:
For a uniform soil over rock, it can be easily

shown that
Thus, for a uniform soil:

The strain ratio varies in the range of
Beam
The deformation of the structure is determined

by solving the DEs
The internal forces for design easily follow from
the constitutive laws

Spring-mass system
Soil mass is included

3D analysis is possible
(Kawashima 2006)
plane 2D FE model
In-
Suitable for ovaling/

racking
Analysis is in 2D
(Kawashima 2006)
9. Large Ground Deformations

Large ground deformations during EQ are
associated with
Liquefaction
Fault displacement
Slope Instability
Since UG structures are commonly long,
They may generally cross soil formations susceptible

to liquefaction
Crossing active faults may not be avoidable
Certain structures like portals ca be susceptible to
slope instability
Hence, considerations for these issues are equally

important as for the ground shaking
10. Conclusions
Knowledge is not as well established as in onground structures
Measured data and studies are fewer
A few state-of-the-art reviews are available
Seismic loadings on UG structures are not as
insignificant as commonly perceived
FFD and SSI are very important considerations
In contrast, structure inertia plays a minor role
10. Conclusions
The FFD Approach is sufficient for anticipated small
ground deformations (case in point: Africa?)
The SSI approach and SDM are also easy to use
For the continent:
FFD, SSI and SDM approaches are recommendable
Complicated numerical modeling do not appear to be
necessary, at least currently
10. Conclusions
Considerations for large ground deformations
are equally important
Adaptation of design guides is not difficult and is
recommendable
Regular follow-up of the global state-of-the-art
is helpful for improvement
Thank You

Presentation IQPC Africa

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Presentation IQPC Africa

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Seismic Design Aspects of

Gibb International, Nairobi Kenya

Most issues are applicable to other UG

2. Earthquake Effects on UG Structures

2. Earthquake Effects on UG Structures

2. Earthquake Effects on UG Structures

2. Earthquake Effects on UG Structures

2. Earthquake Effects on UG Structures

2. Earthquake Effects on UG Structures

Hashash et al, 2001

Cut-and-fill, box-type construction

35 center columns damaged (See figure)

Kawashima 2000, 2006

Structures in rocks are safer than in soils

4. Seismic Design Procedure

4. Seismic Design Procedure

4. Seismic Design Load Procedure

4. Seismic Design Load Procedure

5. Seismic Hazard Analysis

Two approaches available

5.2 PSHA Seismic Hazard Maps (GSHAP)

5.2 PSHA Seismic Hazard Maps

5.2 PSHA Seismic Hazard Maps (GSHAP)

According to SABS 2010,

SABS Standards Division, 2010

6. Seismic Design Load Criteria

In PSHA, 3 5% probability of exceedance in the

Worst combination of DL, LL, EQ to be considered

6. Seismic Design Load Criteria

Occurrence: at least once in design life

6. Seismic Design Load Criteria

6. Seismic Design Load Criteria

7. Design Ground Motion Parameters

7. Design Ground Motion Parameters

Stiff soil (200-750m/s)

Soft soil (<200m/s)

7. Design Ground Motion Parameters

Stiff soil (200-750m/s)

Soft soil (<200m/s)

8. Response of Ground Shaking

8. Response of Ground Shaking

8. Response of Ground Shaking

Free-field deformation Approach

8.1 Free-Field Deformation (FFD)

FFD describes strains due to elastic plane

8.1 Free-Field Deformation (FFD)

FFD is based on Newmarks (1968) idealization of

St. John and Zahrah (1987) used this to calculate

All solutions are available in closed form:

8.1 Free-Field Deformation (FFD)

8.1 Free-Field Deformation (FFD)

8.1 Free-Field Deformation (FFD)

Tunnel modeled as an elastic beam, combined

For Rayleigh waves (compression component):

8.1 Free-Field Deformation (FFD)

With increasing r, the curvature contribution

However, this component is generally small

the apparent wave velocities, VP and VS, fall in

8.1 Free-Field Deformation (FFD)

refers to the distortion of circular tunnels (see

is caused by waves inducing transverse strains

Is predominantly due to vertically propagating

8.1 Free-Field Deformation (FFD)

8.1 Free-Field Deformation (FFD)