Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Tust - Vol - 16 - 4 - 247-293 - Seismic Design and Analysis of Underground Structures PDF
Tust - Vol - 16 - 4 - 247-293 - Seismic Design and Analysis of Underground Structures PDF
247᎐293
Abstract
Underground facilities are an integral part of the infrastructure of modern society and are used for a wide range of
applications, including subways and railways, highways, material storage, and sewage and water transport. Underground facilities
built in areas subject to earthquake activity must withstand both seismic and static loading. Historically, underground facilities
have experienced a lower rate of damage than surface structures. Nevertheless, some underground structures have experienced
significant damage in recent large earthquakes, including the 1995 Kobe, Japan earthquake, the 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan
earthquake and the 1999 Kocaeli, Turkey earthquake. This report presents a summary of the current state of seismic analysis and
design for underground structures. This report describes approaches used by engineers in quantifying the seismic effect on an
underground structure. Deterministic and probabilistic seismic hazard analysis approaches are reviewed. The development of
appropriate ground motion parameters, including peak accelerations and velocities, target response spectra, and ground motion
time histories, is briefly described. In general, seismic design loads for underground structures are characterized in terms of the
deformations and strains imposed on the structure by the surrounding ground, often due to the interaction between the two. In
contrast, surface structures are designed for the inertial forces caused by ground accelerations. The simplest approach is to ignore
the interaction of the underground structure with the surrounding ground. The free-field ground deformations due to a seismic
event are estimated, and the underground structure is designed to accommodate these deformations. This approach is satisfactory
when low levels of shaking are anticipated or the underground facility is in a stiff medium such as rock. Other approaches that
account for the interaction between the structural supports and the surrounding ground are then described. In the pseudo-static
analysis approach, the ground deformations are imposed as a static load and the soil-structure interaction does not include
dynamic or wave propagation effects. In the dynamic analysis approach, a dynamic soil structure interaction is conducted using
numerical analysis tools such as finite element or finite difference methods. The report discusses special design issues, including
the design of tunnel segment joints and joints between tunnels and portal structures. Examples of seismic design used for
underground structures are included in an appendix at the end of the report. 䊚 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Seismic design; Seismic analysis; Underground structures; Tunnels; Subways; Earthquake design
U
Corresponding author. Tel.: q1-217-333-6986; fax: q1-217-265-8041.
E-mail address: hashash@uiuc.edu ŽY.M.A. Hashash..
0886-7798r01r$ - see front matter 䊚 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 8 8 6 - 7 7 9 8 Ž 0 1 . 0 0 0 5 1 - 7
248 Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293
Preface
1. Introduction
ground structure, presenting methods used in the com- by improving the contact between the lining and
putation of strains, forces and moment in the structure. the surrounding ground through grouting.
The report provides examples of the application of 5. Tunnels are more stable under a symmetric load,
these methods for underground structures in Los Ange- which improves ground-lining interaction. Improv-
les, Boston, and the San Francisco Bay Area. ing the tunnel lining by placing thicker and stiffer
This report does not cover issues related to static sections without stabilizing surrounding poor
design, although static design provisions for under- ground may result in excess seismic forces in the
ground structures often provide sufficient seismic resis- lining. Backfilling with non-cyclically mobile mate-
tance under low levels of ground shaking. The report rial and rock-stabilizing measures may improve
does not discuss structural design details and reinforce- the safety and stability of shallow tunnels.
ment requirements in concrete or steel linings for 6. Damage may be related to peak ground accelera-
underground structures. The report briefly describes tion and velocity based on the magnitude and
issues related to seismic design associated with ground epicentral distance of the affected earthquake.
failure such as liquefaction, slope stability and fault 7. Duration of strong-motion shaking during
crossings, but does not provide a thorough treatment of earthquakes is of utmost importance because it
these subjects. The reader is encouraged to review may cause fatigue failure and therefore, large
other literature on these topics to ensure that relevant deformations.
design issues are adequately addressed. 8. High frequency motions may explain the local
spalling of rock or concrete along planes of weak-
ness. These frequencies, which rapidly attenuate
with distance, may be expected mainly at small
2. Performance of underground facilities during seismic
distances from the causative fault.
events
9. Ground motion may be amplified upon incidence
with a tunnel if wavelengths are between one and
Several studies have documented earthquake da- four times the tunnel diameter.
mage to underground facilities. ASCE Ž1974. describes 10. Damage at and near tunnel portals may be sig-
the damage in the Los Angeles area as a result of the nificant due to slope instability.
1971 San Fernando Earthquake. JSCE Ž1988. describes
the performance of several underground structures, The following is a brief discussion of recent case
including an immersed tube tunnel during shaking in histories of seismic performance of underground struc-
Japan. Duke and Leeds Ž1959., Stevens Ž1977., Dowd- tures.
ing and Rozen Ž1978., Owen and Scholl Ž1981., Sharma
and Judd Ž1991., Power et al. Ž1998. and Kaneshiro et
2.1. Underground structures in the United States
al. Ž2000., all present summaries of case histories of
damage to underground facilities. Owen and Scholl
Ž1981. have updated Dowding and Rozen’s work with 2.1.1. Bay Area rapid transit (BART) system, San
127 case histories. Sharma and Judd Ž1991. generated Francisco, CA, USA
an extensive database of seismic damage to under- The BART system was one of the first underground
ground structures using 192 case histories. Power et al. facilities to be designed with considerations for seismic
Ž1998. provide a further update with 217 case histories. loading ŽKuesel, 1969.. On the San Francisco side, the
The following general observations can be made re- system consists of underground stations and tunnels in
garding the seismic performance of underground struc- fill and soft Bay Mud deposits, and it is connected to
tures: Oakland via the transbay-immersed tube tunnel.
During the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake, the BART
1. Underground structures suffer appreciably less facilities sustained no damage and, in fact, operated on
damage than surface structures. a 24-h basis after the earthquake. This is primarily
2. Reported damage decreases with increasing over- because the system was designed under stringent
burden depth. Deep tunnels seem to be safer and seismic design considerations. Special seismic joints
less vulnerable to earthquake shaking than are ŽBickel and Tanner, 1982. were designed to accommo-
shallow tunnels. date differential movements at ventilation buildings.
3. Underground facilities constructed in soils can be The system had been designed to support earth and
expected to suffer more damage compared to water loads while maintaining watertight connections
openings constructed in competent rock. and not exceeding allowable differential movements.
4. Lined and grouted tunnels are safer than unlined No damage was observed at these flexible joints, though
tunnels in rock. Shaking damage can be reduced it is not exactly known how far the joints moved during
by stabilizing the ground around the tunnel and the earthquake ŽPB, 1991..
250 Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293
Fig. 2. Section sketch of damage to Daikai subway station ŽIida et al., 1996..
2.1.2. Alameda Tubes, Oakland-Alameda, CA, USA of the station and at areas where the station changed
The Alameda Tubes are a pair of immersed-tube width acted as shear walls in resisting collapse of the
tunnels that connect Alameda Island to Oakland in the structure ŽIida et al., 1996.. These walls suffered sig-
San Francisco Bay Area. These were some of the nificant cracking, but the interior columns in these
earliest immersed tube tunnels built in 1927 and 1963 regions did not suffer as much damage under the
without seismic design considerations. During the Loma horizontal shaking. In regions with no transverse walls,
Prieta Earthquake, the ventilation buildings experi- collapse of the center columns caused the ceiling slab
enced some structural cracking. Limited water leakage to kink and cracks 150᎐250-mm wide appeared in the
into the tunnels was also observed, as was liquefaction longitudinal direction. There was also significant sepa-
of loose deposits above the tube at the Alameda portal. ration at some construction joints, and corresponding
Peak horizontal ground accelerations measured in the water leakage through cracks. Few cracks, if any, were
area ranged between 0.1 and 0.25 g ŽEERI, 1990.. The observed in the base slab.
tunnels, however, are prone to floatation due to poten- Center columns that were designed with very light
tial liquefaction of the backfill ŽSchmidt and Hashash, transverse Žshear. reinforcement relative to the main
1998.. Žbending. reinforcement suffered damage ranging from
cracking to complete collapse. Center columns with
2.1.3. L.A. Metro, Los Angeles, CA, USA zigzag reinforcement in addition to the hoop steel, as in
The Los Angeles Metro is being constructed in sev- Fig. 3, did not buckle as much as those without this
eral phases, some of which were operational during the reinforcement.
1994 Northridge Earthquake. The concrete lining of According to Iida et al. Ž1996., it is likely that the
the bored tunnels remained intact after the earthquake. relative displacement between the base and ceiling
While there was damage to water pipelines, highway levels due to subsoil movement created the destructive
bridges and buildings, the earthquake caused no da-
mage to the Metro system. Peak horizontal ground
accelerations measured near the tunnels ranged
between 0.1 and 0.25 g, with vertical ground accelera-
tions typically two-thirds as large ŽEERI, 1995..
elements are added until a stable system is established. 3. Engineering approach to seismic analysis and design
The tunnel has an excavated arch section 15 m tall by
16 m wide. Construction has been unusually challeng-
ing because the alignment crosses several minor faults Earthquake effects on underground structures can
parallel to the North Anatolian Fault. The August 17, be grouped into two categories: Ž1. ground shaking;
1999 Koceali earthquake was reported to have had and Ž2. ground failure such as liquefaction, fault dis-
minimal impact on the Bolu tunnel. The closure rate of placement, and slope instability. Ground shaking, which
one monitoring station was reported to have temporar- is the primary focus of this report, refers to the defor-
ily increased for a period of approximately 1 week, then mation of the ground produced by seismic waves propa-
became stable again. Additionally, several hairline gating through the earth’s crust. The major factors
cracks, which had previously been observed in the final influencing shaking damage include: Ž1. the shape,
lining, were being continuously monitored for additio- dimensions and depth of the structure; Ž2. the proper-
nal movement and showed no movement due to the ties of the surrounding soil or rock; Ž3. the properties
earthquake. The November 12, 1999 earthquake caused of the structure; and Ž4. the severity of the ground
the collapse of both tunnels 300 m from their eastern shaking ŽDowding and Rozen, 1978; St. John and
portal. At the time of the earthquake, a 800-m section Zahrah, 1987..
had been excavated, and a 300-m section of unrein- Seismic design of underground structures is unique
forced concrete lining had been completed. The col- in several ways. For most underground structures, the
lapse took place in clay gauge material in the unfin- inertia of the surrounding soil is large relative to the
ished section of the tunnel. The section was covered inertia of the structure. Measurements made by Oka-
with shotcrete Žsprayed concrete. and had bolt anchors. moto et al. Ž1973. of the seismic response of an
Fig. 5 shows a section of the collapsed tunnel after it immersed tube tunnel during several earthquakes show
has been re-excavated. Several mechanisms have been that the response of a tunnel is dominated by the
proposed for explaining the collapse of the tunnel. surrounding ground response and not the inertial
These mechanisms include strong ground motion, dis- properties of the tunnel structure itself. The focus of
placement across the gauge material, and landslide.
underground seismic design, therefore, is on the free-
O’Rourke et al. Ž2001. present a detailed description of
field deformation of the ground and its interaction with
the tunnel performance.
the structure. The emphasis on displacement is in stark
contrast to the design of surface structures, which
2.5. Summary of seismic performance of underground focuses on inertial effects of the structure itself. This
structures led to the development of design methods such as the
Seismic Deformation Method that explicitly considers
The Daikai subway station collapse was the first the seismic deformation of the ground. For example,
collapse of an urban underground structure due to Kawashima, Ž1999. presents a review on the seismic
earthquake forces, rather than ground instability. Un- behavior and design of underground structures in soft
derground structures in the US have experienced ground with an emphasis on the development of the
limited damage during the Loma Prieta and Northridge Seismic Deformation Method.
earthquakes, but the shaking levels have been much The behavior of a tunnel is sometimes approximated
lower than the maximum anticipated events. Greater to that of an elastic beam subject to deformations
levels of damage can be expected during these maxi- imposed by the surrounding ground. Three types of
mum events. Station collapse and anticipated strong deformations ŽOwen and Scholl, 1981. express the re-
motions in major US urban areas raise great concerns sponse of underground structures to seismic motions:
regarding the performance of underground structures. Ž1. axial compression and extension ŽFig. 6a,b.; Ž2.
It is therefore necessary to explicitly account for seismic longitudinal bending ŽFig. 6c,d.; and Ž3. ovalingrrack-
loading in the design of underground structures. ing ŽFig. 6e,f.. Axial deformations in tunnels are gener-
The data show that in general, damage to tunnels is ated by the components of seismic waves that produce
greatly reduced with increased overburden, and da- motions parallel to the axis of the tunnel and cause
mage is greater in soils than in competent rock. Da- alternating compression and tension. Bending deforma-
mage to pipelines Žbuckling, flotation. was greater than tions are caused by the components of seismic waves
to rail or highway tunnels in both Kobe and Northridge. producing particle motions perpendicular to the longi-
The major reason for this difference seems to have tudinal axis. Design considerations for axial and bend-
been the greater thickness of the lining of transporta- ing deformations are generally in the direction along
tion tunnels. Experience has further shown that cut- the tunnel axis ŽWang, 1993..
and-cover tunnels are more vulnerable to earthquake Ovaling or racking deformations in a tunnel struc-
damage than are circular bored tunnels. ture develop when shear waves propagate normal or
Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293 253
Fig. 6. Deformation modes of tunnels due to seismic waves Žafter Owen and Scholl, 1981..
nearly normal to the tunnel axis, resulting in a distor- the response of the ground and the structure to such
tion of the cross-sectional shape of the tunnel lining. shaking. Table 1 summarizes a systematic approach for
Design considerations for this type of deformation are evaluating the seismic response of underground struc-
in the transverse direction. The general behavior of the tures. This approach consists of three major steps:
lining may be simulated as a buried structure subject to
ground deformations under a two-dimensional plane- 1. Definition of the seismic environment and develop-
strain condition. ment of the seismic parameters for analysis.
Diagonally propagating waves subject different parts 2. Evaluation of ground response to shaking, which
of the structure to out-of-phase displacements ŽFig. includes ground failure and ground deformations.
6d., resulting in a longitudinal compression᎐rarefac- 3. Assessment of structure behavior due to seismic
tion wave traveling along the structure. In general, shaking including Ža. development of seismic de-
larger displacement amplitudes are associated with sign loading criteria, Žb. underground structure re-
longer wavelengths, while maximum curvatures are sponse to ground deformations, and Žc. special
produced by shorter wavelengths with relatively small seismic design issues.
displacement amplitudes ŽKuesel, 1969..
The assessment of underground structure seismic Steps 1 and 2 are described in Sections 4 and 5,
response, therefore, requires an understanding of the respectively. Sections 6᎐8 provide the details of Steps
anticipated ground shaking as well as an evaluation of 3a, 3b and 3c.
254 Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293
Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293 255
4. Definition of seismic environment marize the ground motion hazard at a site. This sce-
nario requires the ‘postulated occurrence’ of a particu-
The goal of earthquake-resistant design for under- lar size of earthquake at a particular location. Reiter
ground structures is to develop a facility that can Ž1990. outlined the following four-step process Žsee Fig.
withstand a given level of seismic motion with damage 7.:
not exceeding a pre-defined acceptable level. The de-
sign level of shaking is typically defined by a design 1. Identification and characterization of all earth-
ground motion, which is characterized by the ampli- quake sources capable of producing significant
tudes and characteristics of expected ground motions ground motion at the site, including definition of
and their expected return frequency ŽKramer, 1996.. A the geometry and earthquake potential of each.
seismic hazard analysis is used to define the level of The most obvious feature delineating a seismic
shaking and the design earthquakeŽs. for an under- zone is typically the presence of faulting. Reiter
ground facility. Ž1990. generated a comprehensive list of features
A seismic hazard analysis typically characterizes the that may suggest faulting in a given region. How-
potential for strong ground motions by examining the ever, the mere presence of a fault does not neces-
extent of active faulting in a region, the potential for sarily signify a potential earthquake hazard ᎏ the
fault motion, and the frequency with which the faults fault must be active to present a risk. There has
release stored energy. This examination may be dif- been considerable disagreement over the criteria
ficult in some regions Že.g. Eastern USA. where fault- for declaring a fault active or inactive. Rather than
ing is not readily detectable. There are two methods of using the term ‘active’, the US Nuclear Regulatory
analysis: Ža. the deterministic seismic hazard analysis Commission ŽCode of Federal Regulations, 1978.
ŽDSHA.; and Žb. the probabilistic seismic hazard analy- coined the term capable fault to indicate a fault
sis ŽPSHA.. A deterministic seismic hazard analysis that has shown activity within the past
develops one or more earthquake motions for a site, 35 000᎐500 000 years. For non-nuclear civil infras-
for which the designers then design and evaluate the tructure, shorter timeframes would be used.
underground structure. The more recent probabilistic 2. Selection of a source-to-site distance parameter for
seismic hazard analysis, which explicitly quantifies the each source, typically the shortest epicentralrhypo-
uncertainties in the analysis, develops a range of ex- central distance or the distance to the closest rup-
pected ground motions and their probabilities of occur- tured portion of the fault. Closest distance to rup-
rence. These probabilities can then be used to de- tured fault is more meaningful than epicentral dis-
termine the level of seismic protection in a design. tance especially for large earthquakes where the
ruptured fault extends over distances exceeding 50
4.1. Deterministic seismic hazard analysis (DSHA) km.
3. Selection of a controlling earthquake Ži.e. that
A deterministic seismic hazard analysis involves the which produces the strongest shaking level at the
development of a particular seismic scenario to sum- site., generally expressed in terms of a ground
256 Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293
motion parameter at the site. Attenuation relation- displacement, response spectrum ordinates, and
ships are typically used to determine these site- ground motion time history of the maximum credi-
specific parameters from data recorded at nearby ble earthquake. Design fault displacements should
locations. Several studies have attempted to corre- also be defined, if applicable.
late earthquake magnitudes, most commonly mo-
ment magnitudes, with observed fault deformation A DSHA provides a straightforward framework for
characteristics, such as rupture length and area, the evaluation of worst-case scenarios at a site. How-
and have found a strong correlation. However, the ever, it provides no information about the likelihood or
unavailability of fault displacement measurements frequency of occurrence of the controlling earthquake.
over the entire rupture surface severely limits our If such information is required, a probabilistic ap-
ability to measure these characteristics. Instead, proach must be undertaken to better quantify the
researchers have tried to correlate the maximum seismic hazard.
surface displacement with magnitude ᎏ to varying
results. Empirically based relationships, such as
4.2. Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA)
those developed by Wells and Coppersmith Ž1994.,
can be utilized to estimate these correlations. An-
other, more basic way to evaluate the potential for A probabilistic seismic hazard analysis provides a
seismic activity in a region is through examination framework in which uncertainties in the size, location,
of historical records. These records allow engineers and recurrence rate of earthquakes can be identified,
to outline and track active faults and their release quantified, and combined in a rational manner. Such
of seismic potential energy. The evaluation of fore- an analysis provides designers with a more complete
and aftershocks can also help delineate seismic description of the seismic hazard at a site, where varia-
zones ŽKramer, 1996.. In addition to the examina- tions in ground motion characteristics can be explicitly
tion of historical records, a study of geologic record considered. For this type of analysis, future earthquake
of past seismic activities called paleo-seismology events are assumed spatially and temporally indepen-
can be used to evaluate the occurrence and size of dent. Reiter Ž1990. outlined the four major steps in-
earthquakes in the region. Geomorphic Žsurface volved in PSHA Žsee Fig. 8.:
landform. and trench studies may reveal the num-
ber of past seismic events, slip per event, and 1. Identification and characterization of earthquake
timing of the events at a specific fault. In some sources, including the probability distribution of
cases, radiocarbon Ž 14 C. dating of carbonized roots, potential rupture locations within the source zone.
animal bone fossils or soil horizons near the fea- These distributions are then combined with the
tures of paleoseismic evidence can be utilized to source geometry to obtain the probability distribu-
approximate ages of the events. tion of source-to-site distances. In many regions
4. Formal definition of the seismic hazard at the site throughout the world, including the USA, specific
in terms of the peak acceleration, velocity and active fault zones often cannot be identified. In
these cases, seismic history and geological con- Francisco BART. have begun requiring their facilities,
siderations become critical for hazard analyses. identified as lifelines, to remain operational after MDE
2. Characterization of the seismicity or temporal dis- level shaking.
tribution of earthquake recurrence. Information
obtained from historical data and paleoseismologi- 4.3.2. Operating Design Earthquake
cal studies can help to develop a recurrence rela- The Operating Design Earthquake ŽODE. is an
tionship that describes the average rate at which an earthquake event that can be reasonably expected to
earthquake of certain size will be exceeded. occur at least once during the design life of the facility
3. Determination of the ground motion produced at Že.g. an event with probability of exceedence between
the site by any size earthquake occurring at any 40 and 50%.. In an ODE analysis, the seismic design
source zone using attenuation relationships. The loading depends on the structural performance re-
uncertainty inherent in the predictive relationship quirements of the structural members. Since the ODE
is also considered. design goal is that the overall system shall continue
4. Combination of these uncertainties to obtain the operating during and after an ODE and experience
probability that a given ground motion parameter little or no damage, inelastic deformations must be
will be exceeded during a given time period. kept to a minimum. The response of the underground
facility should therefore remain within the elastic range.
The probabilistic approach incorporates the uncer-
tainties in source-to-site distance, magnitude, rate of
4.4. Ground motion parameters
recurrence and the variation of ground motion charac-
teristics into the analyses. In areas where no active
faults can be readily identified it may be necessary to Once an MDE or ODE is defined, sets of ground
rely on a purely statistical analysis of historic motion parameters are required to characterize the
earthquakes in the region. The details of this proce- design events. The choice of these parameters is re-
dure are beyond the scope of this report. lated to the type of analysis method used in design. At
a particular point in the ground or on a structure,
4.3. Design earthquakes criteria ground motions can be described by three translational
components and three rotational components, though
Once the seismic hazard at the site is characterized, rotational components are typically ignored. A ground
the level of design earthquake or seismicity has to be motion component is characterized by a time history of
defined. For example, in PSHA, the designer must acceleration, velocity or displacement with three sig-
select the probability of exceedance for the sets of nificant parameters: amplitude; frequency content; and
ground motion parameters. Current seismic design phi- duration of strong ground motion.
losophy for many critical facilities requires dual Žtwo-
level. design criteria, with a higher design level 4.4.1. Acceleration, ¨ elocity, and displacement amplitudes
earthquake aimed at life safety and a lower design level Maximum values of ground motion such as peak
earthquake intended for economic risk exposure. The ground acceleration, velocity and displacement are
two design levels are commonly defined as ‘maximum commonly used in defining the MDE and ODE devel-
design earthquake’ Žor ‘safety evaluation earthquake’. oped through seismic hazard analysis. However, experi-
and ‘operational design earthquake’ Žor ‘function eval- ence has shown that effective, rather than peak, ground
uation earthquake’., and have been employed in many motion parameters tend to be better indicators of
recent transportation tunnel projects, including the Los structural response, as they are more representative of
Angeles Metro, Taipei Metro, Seattle Metro, and Bos- the damage potential of a given ground motion. This is
ton Central ArteryrThird Harbor Tunnels. especially true for large earthquakes. The effective
value is sometimes defined as the sustained level of
4.3.1. Maximum Design Earthquake shaking, and computed as the third or fifth highest
The Maximum Design Earthquake ŽMDE. is defined value of the parameter ŽNuttli, 1979.. Earthquake da-
in a DSHA as the maximum level of shaking that can mage to underground structures has also proven to be
be experienced at the site. In a PSHA, the MDE is better correlated with particle velocity and displace-
defined as an event with a small probability of ex- ment than acceleration. Attenuation relationships are
ceedance during the life of the facility Že.g. 3᎐5%.. The generally available for estimating peak ground surface
MDE design goal is that public safety shall be main- accelerations, but are also available for estimating peak
tained during and after the design event, meaning that velocities and displacements. Tables 2 and 3 can be
the required structural capacity under an MDE loading used to relate the known peak ground acceleration to
must consider the worst-case combination of live, dead, estimates of peak ground velocity and displacement,
and earthquake loads. Recently, some owners Že.g. San respectively, in the absence of site-specific data.
258 Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293
permanent deformation, the design focus shifts to the effects due to dead loads of structural components,
transient ground deformation induced by seismic wave L s effects due to live loads, E1 s effects due to verti-
passage. The deformation can be quite complex due to cal loads of earth and water, E2 s effects due to hori-
the interaction of seismic waves with surficial soft de- zontal loads of earth and water and EQs effects due
posits and the generation of surface waves. For engi- to design earthquake motion.
neering design purposes, these complex deformation
modes are simplified into their primary modes. Under- 6.1.2. For bored or mined (circular) tunnel lining
ground structures can be assumed to undergo three
Us D q L q EXq H q EQ Ž2.
primary modes of deformation during seismic shaking:
Ž1. compression᎐extension; Ž2. longitudinal bending; where U, D, L and EQ are as defined in Eq. Ž1.,
and Ž3. ovallingrracking ŽFig. 6.. The simplest mode to EXs effects of static loads due to excavation Že.g.
consider is that of a compression wave propagating O’Rourke, 1984., and H s effects due to hydrostatic
parallel to the axis of a subsurface excavation. That water pressure.
case is illustrated in the figure, where the wave is
shown inducing longitudinal compression and tension. 6.1.3. Comments on loading combinations for MDE
The case of an underground structure subjected to an
axially propagating wave is slightly more complex since 䢇 The structure should first be designed with ade-
there will be some interaction between the structure quate strength capacity under static loading condi-
and the ground. This interaction becomes more impor- tions.
tant if the ground is soft and shear stress transfer 䢇 The structure should then be checked in terms of
between the ground and the structure is limited by the ductility Žits allowable deformation vs. maximum
interface shear strength. For the case of a wave propa- deformation imposed by earthquake. as well as
gating normal or transverse to the tunnel axis, the strength when earthquake effects, EQ, are con-
stress induces shear deformations of the cross section sidered. The ‘EQ’ term for conventional surface
called racking or ovaling. In the more general case, the structure design reflects primarily the inertial effect
wave may induce curvature in the structure, inducing on the structures. For tunnel structures, the
alternate regions of compression and tension along the earthquake effect is governed not so much by a
tunnel. The beam-like structure of the tunnel lining force or stress, but rather by the deformation im-
will then experience tension and compression on oppo- posed by the ground.
site sides. 䢇 In checking the strength capacity, the effects of
earthquake loading should be expressed in terms of
internal moments and forces, which can be calcu-
6. Seismic design loading criteria lated according to the lining deformations imposed
by the surrounding ground. If the ‘strength’ criteria
Design loading criteria for underground structures expressed by Eq. Ž1. or Eq. Ž2. can be satisfied
has to incorporate the additional loading imposed by based on elastic structural analysis, no further
ground shaking and deformation. Once the ground provisions under the MDE are required. Generally,
motion parameters for the maximum and operational the strength criteria can easily be met when the
design earthquakes have been determined, load criteria earthquake loading intensity is low Ži.e. in low
are developed for the underground structure using the seismic risk areas. andror the ground is very stiff.
load factor design method. This section presents the 䢇 If the flexural strength of the structure lining, using
seismic design loading criteria ŽWang, 1993. for MDE elastic analysis and Eq. Ž1. or Eq. Ž2., is found to be
and ODE. exceeded Že.g. at certain joints of a cut-and-cover
tunnel frame., one of the following two design
6.1. Loading criteria for maximum design earthquake, procedures should be followed:
MDE 1. Provide sufficient ductility Žusing appropriate de-
tailing procedure. at the critical locations of the
Given the performance goals of the MDE ŽSection structure to accommodate the deformations im-
4.3.1., the recommended seismic loading combinations posed by the ground in addition to those caused by
using the load factor design method are as follows: other loading effects Žsee Eqs. Ž1. and Ž2... The
intent is to ensure that the structural strength does
6.1.1. For cut-and-co¨ er tunnel structures not degrade as a result of inelastic deformations
and the damage can be controlled at an acceptable
Us D q L q E1 q E2 q EQ Ž1. level.
In general, the more ductility that is provided,
where Us required structural strength capacity, D s the more reduction in earthquake forces Žthe ‘EQ’
Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293 261
term. can be made in evaluating the required speaking, if the members are to experience little to no
strength, U. As a rule of thumb, the force reduction damage during the lower-level event ŽODE., the inelas-
factor can be assumed equal to the ductility Žfac- tic deformations in the structure members should be
tor. provided. This reduction factor is similar by kept low. The following loading criteria, based on load
definition to the response modification factor used factor design, are recommended:
in bridge design code ŽAASHTO, 1991..
Note, however, that since an inelastic ‘shear’ 6.2.1. For cut-and-co¨ er tunnel structures
deformation may result in strength degradation, it
should always be prevented by providing sufficient Us 1.05D q 1.3L q  1Ž E1 q E2 . q 1.3EQ Ž3.
shear strengths in structure members, particularly
in the cut-and-cover rectangular frame. The use of Where D, L, El, E2, EQ and U are as defined in Eq.
ductility factors for shear forces may not be ap- Ž1.,  1 s 1.05 if extreme loads are assumed for E1 and
propriate. E2 with little uncertainty. Otherwise, use  1 s 1.3.
2. Re-analyze the structure response by assuming the
formation of plastic hinges at the joints that are 6.2.2. For bored or mined (circular) tunnel lining
strained into inelastic action. Based on the plastic-
hinge analysis, a redistribution of moments and Us 1.05D q 1.3L q  2 Ž EXq H . q 1.3EQ Ž4.
internal forces will result.
If new plastic hinges are developed based on the where D, L, EX, H, EQ and U are as defined in Eq.
results, the analysis is re-run by incorporating the Ž2.,  2 s 1.05 if extreme loads are assumed for EX and
new hinges Ži.e. an iterative procedure. until all H with little uncertainty. Otherwise, use  2 s 1.3 for
potential plastic hinges are properly accounted for. EX only, as H is usually well defined.
Proper detailing at the hinges is then carried out to The load factors used in these two equations have
provide adequate ductility. The structural design in been the subject of a lot of discussion. The final selec-
terms of required strength ŽEqs. Ž1. and Ž2.. can tion depends on the project-specific performance re-
then be based on the results from the plastic-hinge quirements. For example, a factor of 1.3 is used for
analysis. dead load in the Central Artery ŽI-93.rTunnel ŽI-90.
As discussed earlier, the overall stability of the Project ŽCentral Artery Project Design Criteria, Bech-
structure during and after the MDE must be main- telrParsons Brinckerhoff, 1992..
tained. Realizing that the structures also must have
sufficient capacity Žbesides the earthquake effect. 6.2.3. Comments on loading combinations for ODE
to carry static loads Že.g. D, L, E1, E2 and H
terms., the potential modes of instability due to the 䢇 The structure should first be designed with ade-
development of plastic hinges Žor regions of inelas- quate strength capacity under static loading condi-
tic deformation. should be identified and prevented tions.
ŽMonsees and Merritt, 1991.. 䢇 For cut-and-cover tunnel structures, the evaluation
of capacity using Eq. Ž3. should consider the uncer-
tainties associated with the loads E1 and E2, and
䢇 For cut-and-cover tunnel structures, the evaluation their worst combination. For mined circular tunnels
of capacity using Eq. Ž1. should consider the uncer- ŽEq. Ž4.., similar consideration should be given to
tainties associated with the loads E1 and E2, and the loads EX and H.
their worst combination. For mined circular tunnels 䢇 When the extreme loads are used for design, a
ŽEq. Ž2.., similar consideration should be given to smaller load factor is recommended to avoid unnec-
the loads EX and H. essary conservatism. Note that an extreme load may
䢇 In many cases, the absence of live load, L, may be a maximum load or a minimum load, depending
present a more critical condition than when a full on the most critical case of the loading combina-
live load is considered. Therefore, a live load equal tions. Use Eq. Ž4. as an example. For a deep circu-
to zero should also be used in checking the struc- lar tunnel lining, it is very likely that the most
tural strength capacity using Eq. Ž1. and Eq. Ž2.. critical loading condition occurs when the maximum
excavation loading, EX, is combined with the mini-
mum hydrostatic water pressure, H Žunless EX is
6.2. Loading criteria for operating design earthquake, ODE unsymmetrical.. For a cut-and-cover tunnel, the
most critical seismic condition may often be found
For the ODE ŽSection 4.3.2., the seismic design when the maximum lateral earth pressure, E2, is
loading combination depends on the performance re- combined with the minimum vertical earth load,
quirements of the structural members. Generally E1. If a very conservative lateral earth pressure
262 Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293
coefficient is assumed in calculating the E2, the amplitudes at all locations along the tunnel, differing
smaller load factor  1 s 1.05 should be used. only in their arrival time. Wave scattering and complex
䢇 Redistribution of moments Že.g. ACI 318, 1999. for three-dimensional wave propagation, which can lead to
cut-and-cover concrete frames is recommended to differences in wave amplitudes along the tunnel are
achieve a more efficient design. neglected, although ground motion incoherence ŽSec-
䢇 If the ‘strength’ criteria expressed by Eq. Ž3. or Eq. tion 4.4.3. tends to increase the strains and stresses in
Ž4. can be satisfied based on elastic structural analy- the longitudinal direction. Results of analyses based on
sis, no further provisions under the ODE are re- plane wave assumptions should be interpreted with
quired. care ŽPower et al., 1996..
䢇 If the flexural strength of the structure, using elastic Newmark Ž1968. and Kuesel Ž1969. proposed a sim-
analysis and Eq. Ž3. or Eq. Ž4., is found to be plified method for calculating free-field ground strains
exceeded, the structure should be checked Žfor its caused by a harmonic wave propagating at a given
ductility. to ensure that the resulting inelastic de- angle of incidence in a homogeneous, isotropic, elastic
formations, if any, are small. If necessary, the struc- medium ŽFig. 9.. The most critical incidence angle
ture should be redesigned to ensure the intended yielding maximum strain, is typically used as a safety
performance goals during the ODE. measure against the uncertainties of earthquake pre-
䢇 Zero live load condition Ži.e. L s 0. should also be diction. Newmark’s approach provides an order of mag-
evaluated in Eq. Ž3. and Eq. Ž4.. nitude estimate of wave-induced strains while requiring
a minimal input, making it useful as both an initial
design tool and a method of design verification ŽWang,
1993..
7. Underground structure response to ground St. John and Zahrah Ž1987. used Newmark’s ap-
deformations proach to develop solutions for free-field axial and
curvature strains due to compression, shear and
In this section, the term EQ Žeffects due to design
Rayleigh waves. Solutions for all three wave types are
earthquake . introduced in Section 6 is quantified. The
shown in Table 5, though S-waves are typically associ-
development of the EQ term requires an understand-
ated with peak particle accelerations and velocities
ing of the deformations induced by seismic waves in the ŽPower et al., 1996.. The seismic waves causing the
ground and the interaction of the underground struc-
strains are shown in Fig. 10. It is often difficult to
ture with the ground.
determine which type of wave will dominate a design.
This section describes procedures used to compute
Strains produced by Rayleigh waves tend to govern
deformations and forces corresponding to the three
only in shallow structures and at sites far from the
deformation modes Žcompression-extension, longitudi-
seismic source ŽWang, 1993..
nal bending and ovallingrracking. presented in Section
Combined axial and curvature deformations can be
5.2. A brief summary of design approaches is provided
in Table 6. obtained by treating the tunnel as an elastic beam.
Using beam theory, total free-field axial strains, Ž ab .
7.1. Free field deformation approach are found by combining the longitudinal strains gener-
ated by axial and bending deformations ŽPower et al.,
The term ‘free-field deformations’ describes ground 1996.:
strains caused by seismic waves in the absence of
structures or excavations. These deformations ignore VP a
the interaction between the underground structure and ab s cos 2 q r P2 sincos 2
CP CP Ž5.
the surrounding ground, but can provide a first-order
estimate of the anticipated deformation of the struc- for P y waves
ture. A designer may choose to impose these deforma-
tions directly on the structure. This approach may
overestimate or underestimate structure deformations VS a
ab s sincos q r S2 cos 3
depending on the rigidity of the structure relative to CS CS Ž6.
the ground. for Sy waves
Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293
Strain and curvature due to body and surface waves Žafter St. John and Zahrah, 1987.
VP VP VP 1 aP
P-wa¨ e l s cos2 n s sin2 ␥s sincos s 2 sincos2
CP CP CP CP
VP VP VP 1 aP X
l m s for s 0⬚ l m s for s 90⬚ ␥m s for s 45⬚ s 0.385 2 for s 35⬚16
CP CP 2CP max CP
VS VS VS aS
S-wa¨ e l s sincos n s sincos ␥s cos2 Ks cos3
CS CS CS CS2
VS VS VS aS
l m s for s 45⬚ n m s for s 45⬚ ␥m s for s 0⬚ Km s 2 for s 0⬚
2CS 2CS CS CS
Rayleigh wa¨ e VR P VR P 2 VR P aR P
l s cos2 n s sin ␥s sincos Ks sincos2
Compressional CR CR CR CR2
component VR P VR P VP aR P X
l m s for s 0⬚ n m s for s 90⭈ ␥m s for s 45⬚ Km s 0.385 for s 35⬚16
CR CR 2CR CR2
Shear VR S VR P aR S
n s sin ␥s cos Ks cos2
component CR CR CR2
VR S VR S aR S
n m s for s 90⬚ ␥m s for s 0⬚ Km s 2 for s 0⬚
CR CR CR
2
1 Ž C prC s . y 2
The Poisson’s ratio and dynamic modulus of a soil deposit can be computed from measured P- and S-wave propagation velocities in an elastic medium: ¨ m s or CP
2 Ž C rC . 2 y 1
p s
2 Ž1 y ¨ m . Ž 1 q ¨ m .Ž 1 y 2 ¨ m .
s ( Ž1 y ¨ m . S
C ; Em s CP2
Ž1 y ¨ m .
; and Gm s CS2 , respectively.
Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293 265
Table 6
Seismic racking design approaches Žafter Wang, 1993.
Dynamic earth pressure 1. Used with reasonable 1. Lack of rigorous For tunnels with minimal
methods results in the past theoretical basis soil cover thickness
2. Require minimal 2. Resulting in excessive
parameters and racking deformations
computation error for tunnels with
3. Serve as additional significant burial
safety measures 3. Use limited to certain
against seismic types of ground
loading properties
Free-field racking 1. Conservative for 1. Non-conservative for For tunnel structures with
deformation method tunnel structure stiffer tunnel structure more equal stiffness to ground
than ground flexible than ground
2. Comparatively easy to 2. Overly conservative for
formulate tunnel structures
3. Used with reasonable significantly stiffer than
results in the past ground
3. Less precision with
highly variable ground
conditions
Simplified frame analysis 1. Good approximation of 1. Less precision with All conditions except for
model soil᎐structure interaction highly variable ground compacted subsurface
2. Comparatively easy to ground profiles
formulate
3. Reasonable accuracy
in determining
structure response
Ground shear distortions can be defined in two ways, sometimes by a factor of two or three. This provides a
as shown in Fig. 11. In the non-perforated ground, the reasonable distortion criterion for a lining with little
maximum diametric strain is a function of maximum stiffness relative to the surrounding soil, while the
free-field shear strain only:
⌬d ␥
s " max . Ž8.
d 2
⌬d
s "2␥max Ž 1 y m . . Ž9.
d
Fig. 12. Typical free-field racking deformation imposed on a buried rectangular frame Žafter Wang, 1993..
Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293 267
2
max
a
s
ž L /
A
F
fL
Ž 10 .
E A 2
l c
2 4 El A c
2q
K ž L /
a
Where
Fig. 13. Structure stability for buried rectangular frames Žafter Wang,
1993..
Kas longitudinal spring coefficient of medium axial and bending forces Žmodified from Power et al.,
Žin force per unit deformation per unit length 1996.:
of tunnel, see Eq. Ž14..
As free-field displacement response amplitude of ab s max
a
q max
b
. Ž 13 .
an ideal sinusoidal shear wave Žsee Eqs. Ž17.
and Ž18..
Ac s cross-sectional area of tunnel lining Again, these equations are necessary only for struc-
El s elastic modulus of the tunnel lining tures built in soft ground, as structures in rock or stiff
fs ultimate friction force Žper unit length. between soils can be designed using free-field deformations. It
tunnel and surrounding soil should be further noted that increasing the structural
stiffness and the strength capacity of the tunnel may
The forces and moments in the tunnel lining caused not result in reduced forces ᎏ the structure may
by seismic waves propagating along the tunnel axis are actually attract more force. Instead, a more flexible
illustrated in Fig. 14a. The maximum frictional forces configuration with adequate ductile reinforcement or
that can be developed between the lining and the flexible joints may be more efficient ŽWang, 1993..
surrounding soils limit the axial strain in the lining. 7.2.1.1. Spring coefficients. Other expressions of maxi-
This maximum frictional force, Ž Qmax . f , can be esti- mum sectional forces exist in the literature ŽSFBART,
mated as the ultimate frictional force per unit length 1960; Kuribayashi et al., 1974; JSCE, 1975., with the
times one-quarter the wave length, as shown in Eq. Ž10. major differences involving the maximization of forces
ŽSakurai and Takahashi, 1969.. and displacements with respect to wavelength. JSCE
The maximum bending strain, caused by a 0⬚ incident Ž1975. suggests substituting the values of wavelength
shear wave, is: that will maximize the stresses back into each respec-
tive equation to yield maximum sectional forces. St.
John and Zahrah Ž1987. suggest a maximization method
2 2 similar to the JSCE Ž1975. approach, except that the
max
b
s
ž /
L
A
r Ž 11 . spring coefficients K a and K t are considered functions
E I 2 4
of the incident wavelength:
1q l c ž /
Kt L
16 Gm Ž 1 y m . d
Kt sKa s Ž 14 .
Where Ž 3 y 4m . L
ž 2L / ž E I r /
b et al. Ž1995. provide a discussion of input wavelengths
l c
s max
Ž 12 . for underground structure design. The incident wave-
length of a ground motion may be estimated as:
A conservative estimate of the total axial strain and
stress is obtained by combining the strains from the L s T ⭈ Cs Ž 15 .
Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293 269
Fig. 15. Lining response coefficient vs. flexibility ratio, full-slip interface, and circular tunnel ŽWang, 1993..
where T is the predominant natural period of a shear if ground motion can be attributed primarily to shear
wave in the soil deposit, the natural period of the site waves and the medium is assumed to consist of a
itself, or the period at which maximum displacements uniform soft soil layer overlying a stiff layer ŽSt. John
occur ŽDobry et al., 1976; Power et al., 1996.. and Zahrah, 1987..
Idriss and Seed Ž1968. recommend that: The ground displacement response amplitude, A,
represents the spatial variations of ground motions
4h along a horizontal alignment and should be derived by
Ts , h is the thickness of the soil deposit Ž 16.
CS site-specific subsurface conditions. Generally, the dis-
270 Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293
⌬ structure
Rs . Ž 28 .
⌬ freeyfield
"⌬ d lining
n
s "R n⌬ d freeyfield Ž 29 .
n
12 El I⌬ d lining
T Ž . s y cos2 q ž / Ž 30 .
d 3Ž
1 y l2 . 4
n
6 El I⌬ d lining
M Ž . s y cos2 q
ž / Ž 31 .
d 2 Ž 1 y l2 . 4
n
24 El I⌬ d lining
V Ž . s y sin2 q
ž / Ž 32 .
d 3Ž
1 y l2 . 4
4 Ž1 y ¨m .
"⌬ d lining s "R⌬ d freeyfield Ž 35 . Rs" Ž 39 .
Ž ␣ q 1.
24 El I⌬ d lining 24El I Ž 3 y 4 ¨ m .
T Ž . s y cos2 q
ž / Ž 36 . ␣s . Ž 40 .
d 3Ž
1 y l2 . 4
d 3 Gm Ž 1 y ¨ l2 .
272 Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293
Fig. 17. Normalized lining deflection vs. flexibility ratio, full slip interface, and circular lining ŽWang, 1993..
The solutions of Penzien Ž2000. result in values of cut-and-cover method structures. These tunnels have
thrust and moment that are very close to those of seismic characteristics very different from circular tun-
Wang Ž1993. for full-slip condition. However, value of nels. A box frame does not transmit static loads as
thrust obtained from Wang is much higher compared efficiently as a circular lining, so the walls and slabs of
to the value given by Penzien in the case of no slip Žsee the cut-and-cover frame need to be thicker, and there-
example 3 in Appendix B.. This observation was also fore stiffer. The design of cut-and-cover structures re-
noted by Power et al. Ž1996.. The reason for the quires careful consideration of soil-structure interac-
difference is still under investigation. tion effects because of this increased structural stiff-
ness and the potential for larger ground deformations
7.2.3. Racking deformations of rectangular tunnels due to shallow burial. Seismic ground deformations
Shallow transportation tunnels are usually box shaped tend to be greater at shallow depths for two reasons:
Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293 273
S H
s s 1 . Ž 44.
␥s ⌬rH W
GmW
Fs . Ž 45 .
S1 H
ysis. For some simple one-barrel frames, the flexibility F ) 1.0 The racking distortion of the structure is
ratio can be calculated without a computer analysis. As amplified relative to the free field, though
an example, the flexibility ratio for a one-barrel frame not because of dynamic amplification. In-
with equal moment of inertia for roof and invert slabs stead, the distortion is amplified because the
Ž IR . and moment of inertia for side walls Ž IW . has been medium now has a cavity, providing lower
calculated as ŽWang, 1993.: shear stiffness than non-perforated ground
in the free field.
Gm H 2W HW 2 Fª⬁
Fs q The structure has no stiffness, so it will
24 ž EIW EIR / Ž 46 .
undergo deformations identical to the per-
forated ground.
where Es plane strain elastic modulus of frame.
For a one-barrel frame with roof slab moment of
Analyses have also shown that for a given flexibility
inertia Ž IR ., invert slab moment of inertia Ž II ., and side
ratio, the normalized distortion of a rectangular tunnel
wall moment of inertia Ž IW ., the flexibility ratio is:
is approximately 10% less than that of a circular tunnel
Gm HW 2 ŽFig. 20.. This allows the response of a circular tunnel
Fs ⌿
12 ž EIR / Ž 47 . to be used as an upper bound for a rectangular struc-
ture with a similar flexibility ratio, and shows that
where conventional design practice Ži.e. structures conform to
the free-field deformations. for rectangular tunnels is
Ž 1 q a2 .Ž a1 q 3a2 . 2 q Ž a1 q a2 .Ž 3a2 q 1 . 2 too conservative for cases involving stiff structures in
⌿s Ž 48 .
soft soil Ž F - 1.0.. Conversely, designing a rectangular
Ž 1 q a1 q 6 a2 . 2
tunnel according to the free-field deformation method
leads to an underestimation of the tunnel response
IR when the flexibility ratio is greater than one. From a
a1 s ž / Ž 49 .
II structural standpoint, this may not be of major concern
because such flexibility ratios imply very stiff media and
IR H therefore, small free-field deformations. This condition
a2 s ž /ž / . Ž 50 .
IW W may also imply a very flexible structure that can absorb
greater distortions without distress ŽWang, 1993..
7.2.3.1. Structural racking and racking coefficient. For The racking deformations can be applied to an un-
rectangular structure, the racking ratio Žsee Eq. Ž28.. derground structure using the equivalent static load
defined as the normalized structure racking distortion method such as those shown in Fig. 21. For deeply
with respect to the free-field ground distortion can be buried rectangular structures, most of the racking is
expressed as ŽWang, 1993.: generally attributable to shear forces developed at the
exterior surface of the roof. The loading may then be
⌬
R s structure s
ž⌬ H / s ␥
structure
structure
Ž 51 .
simplified as a concentrated force acting at the roof-wall
connection ŽFig. 21a.. For shallow rectangular tunnels,
⌬ freeyfield
ž⌬ H / ␥
freeyfield freeyfield
the shear force developed at the soilrroof interface
decreases with decreasing overburden. The predomi-
where ␥ s angular distortion, and ⌬ s lateral racking nant external force that causes structure racking may
deformation. gradually shift from shear force at the soilrroof inter-
The results of finite element analyses show that the face to normal earth pressures developed along the
relative stiffness between the soil and the structure that side walls, so a triangular pressure distribution is ap-
replaces it Ži.e. flexibility ratio. has the most significant plied to the model ŽFig. 21b.. Generally, the triangular
influence on the distortion of the structure due to pressure distribution model provides a more critical
racking deformations ŽWang, 1993., for: value of the moment capacity of rectangular structures
at bottom joints, while the concentrated force method
F ª 0.0 The structure is rigid, so it will not rack gives a more critical moment response at the roof-wall
regardless of the distortion of the ground joints ŽWang, 1993..
Ži.e. the structure must take the entire load.. The above discussion applies to tunnel structures in
F - 1.0 The structure is considered stiff relative to a homogeneous soil deposit. If the tunnel structure is
the medium and will therefore deform less. at the interface between rigid and soft layers, the
F s 1.0 The structure and medium have equal analysis has to account for the change in ground mo-
stiffness, so the structure will undergo ap- tion and shear deformation at the interface zone
proximately free-field distortions. between the two soils.
Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293 275
Fig. 20. Normalized structure deflections, circular vs. rectangular tunnels ŽWang, 1993..
7.2.3.2. Step-by-step design procedure. A simplified analysis Žbased in part on Monsees and Merritt, 1988;
frame analysis can provide an adequate and reasonable Wang, 1993.:
design approach to the design of rectangular structures.
The following is a step-by-step procedure for such an 1. Base preliminary design of the structure and ini-
276 Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293
Fig. 21. Simplified frame analysis models Žafter Wang, 1993.: Ža. pseudo-concentrated force for deep tunnels; Žb. pseudo-triangular pressure
distribution for shallow tunnels.
tial sizes of members on static design and ap- sulting deformation should be kept within the
propriate design requirements. elastic range. Small inelastic deformations may or
2. Estimate the free-field shear strainsrdeforma- may not be acceptable depending on the project-
tions, ⌬ free-field , of the ground at the depth of specific performance requirements. Evaluate pos-
interest using vertically propagating horizontal sible mechanisms for MDE. Redistribution of mo-
shear wave. ments in accordance with ACI 318 is acceptable
3. Determine the relative stiffness Ži.e. the flexibility and consideration of plastic hinges is acceptable.
ratio. between the free-field medium and the If plastic hinges develop the flexibility ratio has to
structure. be re-computed and the analysis restarted at step
4. Determine the racking coefficient, R as defined in Ž3..
Eq. Ž51., based on the flexibility ratio Že.g. Fig. 10. The structure should be redesigned if the strength
20.. and ductility requirements are not met, andror
5. Calculate the actual racking deformation of the the resulting inelastic deformations exceed allow-
structure as ⌬ structure s R⌬ free-field . able levels Ždepending upon the performance goals
6. Impose the seismically-induced racking deforma- of the structure ..
tion in a simple frame analysis. 11. Modify the sizes of structural elements as neces-
7. Add the racking-induced internal member forces sary. The design is complete for MDE if ultimate
to the other loading components. If the perma- conditions in the context of plastic design are not
nent structure is designed for ‘at-rest’ earth pres- exceeded at any point for the reinforcement se-
sures, no increase in pressures before or subse- lected in initial static design. Reinforcing steel
quent to an earthquake need to be considered. If percentages may need to be adjusted to avoid
the structure is designed for active earth pres- brittle behavior. Under static or pseudo-static
sures, both active and at-rest pressures should be loads, the maximum usable compressive concrete
used for dynamic loading. strain is 0.004 for flexure and 0.002 for axial
8. If the results from Ž7. show that the structure has loading.
adequate capacity, the design is considered satis-
factory. Otherwise, continue. In addition to racking deformations the design of cut
9. If the structure’s flexural strength is exceeded in and cover structure should also account for loads due
Ž7., check the members’ rotational ductility. Spe- to vertical accelerations and for longitudinal strain
cial design provisions should be implemented if resulting from frictional soil drag. Vertical seismic
inelastic deformations result. For ODE, the re- forces exerted on the roof of a cut-and-cover tunnel
Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293 277
Fig. 22. Simplified three-dimensional model for analysis of the global response of an immersed tube tunnel ŽHashash et al. 1998..
structure may be estimated by multiplying the esti- tunnels with non-circular shapes or non-uniform
mated peak vertical ground acceleration by the backfill properties of circular linings that preclude the use of
mass. simple closed-form solutions.
Numerical analysis methods for underground struc-
7.2.4. Dynamic earth pressure tures include lumped massrstiffness methods and finite
Dynamic earth pressures on cut-and-cover tunnel elementrdifference methods. For analyzing axial and
structures take the form of complex shear and normal bending deformations, it is most appropriate to utilize
stress distributions along the exterior surfaces of the three-dimensional models. In the lumped mass method,
structure. Accurately quantifying these external loads the tunnel is divided into a number of segments
requires rigorous dynamic soil-structure analyses. Žmassesrstiffness ., which are connected by springs rep-
Whitman Ž1990. presents a state-of-the-art review of resenting the axial, shear, and bending stiffness of the
dynamic earth pressures. tunnel. The soil reactions are represented by horizon-
Dynamic earth pressure methods typically assume tal, vertical, and axial springs ŽHashash et al., 1998, Fig.
earthquake loads to be caused by the inertial force of 22., and the analysis is conducted as an equivalent
the surrounding soils. One procedure commonly used static analysis. Free-field displacement time histories
for determining the increase in lateral earth pressure is are first computed at selected locations along the tun-
the Mononobe᎐Okabe method, as suggested by Seed nel length. The time histories must include the effects
and Whitman Ž1970., and the Japanese Society of Civil of wave passagerphase shift as well as incoherence
Engineers ŽJSCE, 1975.. This method calculates the ŽSection 4.4.3.. The computed free-field displacement
dynamic earth pressure by relating it to the soil proper- time histories are then applied, in a quasi-static analy-
ties and a determined seismic coefficient. The sis, at the ends of the springs representing the soil-tun-
Mononobe᎐Okabe method was originally developed nel interaction. If a dynamic, time-history analysis is
for aboveground earth retaining walls, and assumes the desired appropriate damping factors have to be incor-
wall structure to move andror tilt sufficiently for a porated into the springs and the structure.
yielding active earth wedge to form behind the wall. In finite difference or finite element models, the
However, a buried rectangular structural frame will tunnel is discretized spatially, while the surrounding
move together with the ground, making the formation geologic medium is either discretized or represented by
of a yielding active wedge difficult. soil springs. Computer codes available for these models
For rectangular cross-sections under plane strain include FLAC 3D ŽItasca, 1995., SASSI ŽLysmer et al.,
conditions, the Mononobe᎐Okabe method leads to un- 1991., FLUSH ŽLysmer et al., 1975., ANSYS-III
realistic results and is not recommended for typical ŽOughourlian and Powell, 1982., ABAQUS ŽHibbitt et al.,
tunnel sections. In general, the deeper the tunnel em- 1999., and others. Two-dimensional and three-dimen-
bedment, the less reliable the estimated seismic lateral sional finite element and finite difference models may
earth pressures because it becomes increasingly impor- be used to analyze the cross section of a bored tunnel
tant to account for variations in seismic ground mo- or cut-and-cover tunnel ŽFigs. 23 and 24.. In Fig. 24,
tions with depth. Displacementrdeformation con- the finite element method is used to check areas of
trolled procedure, as outlined in previous sections, structure that experience plastic behavior.
should be used for tunnels. In cases where movement along weak planes in the
geologic media Žshear zones, bedding planes, joints.
7.2.5. Numerical methods may potentially cause local stress concentrations and
The complex nature of the seismic soil᎐structure failures in the tunnel, analyses using discrete element
interaction problem for underground structures may models may be considered. In these models, the
require the use of numerical methods. This is especially soilrrock mass is modeled as an assemblage of distinct
true for cut-and-cover structures because of their blocks, which may in turn be modeled as either rigid or
greater vulnerability to seismic damage, and mined deformable materials, each behaving according to a
278 Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293
termination of the required and allowable differential Section 7 assume that the cross section of the tunnel
movements in both the longitudinal and transverse lining is continuous. When a tunnel is excavated using
directions and relative rotation. The joint must also be a tunneling machine, the tunnel lining is usually erected
designed to support the static and dynamic earth and in segments that are secured together by bolts. The
water loads expected before and during an earthquake, segment joint connection must be designed to accom-
and must remain watertight. The differential move- modate anticipated ground deformations. The designer
ments can be computed using closed form solutions or may choose to keep the joint behavior within the
numerical methods. In the case of the San Francisco elastic range or, if inelastic response is anticipated by a
Trans Bay Tube and Ventilation Building, these move- more detailed model of the joint, must consider lining
ments were calculated to be "37 and "150 mm in the ground interaction. Takada and Abdel-Aziz Ž1997. pre-
vertical and longitudinal directions, respectively. De- sent such analysis, showing that under high levels of
tails of the joint used in the SF BART project are ground shaking, plastic extensions of the segment joints
discussed in Douglas and Warshaw Ž1971.. can occur and lead to possible water leakage after a
For the Alameda Tubes retrofit design ŽSchmidt et seismic event.
al., 1998; Hashash et al., 1998., two separate dynamic
soil structure interaction analyses were performed for 8.3. Seismic retrofit of existing facilities
the portal structure and the running tunnel. The tunnel
and the portal building were assumed to move indepen- Retrofitting strategies for ground shaking-induced
dent of one another. A displacement time history was failure depend on the damage mode of the structure. If
computed at the portal building and at the end of the there is concern for the gross stability of the structure,
tunnel where it would join the portal building. The these strategies must involve strengthening of either
portal building-tunnel joint would have to accommo- the structure itself or the adjacent geologic materials.
date the differential displacement that is computed as
the difference between the two displacement time his- 8.3.1. Considerations for circular tunnels
tories. The analyses showed that, as in the case for the One concern for the life of a tunnel structure is the
BART Trans Bay tubes, the longitudinal differential quality of contact between the liner and the surround-
displacements were significantly larger than the trans- ing geologic media. The quality of contact may be
verse displacements. investigated by taking core samples or geophysical
Very large forces and moments will be generated if a techniques, and may be improved by contact grouting
continuous design is used ŽOkamoto et al., 1973; or other means. In some cases, the tunnel is in such
Hashash et al., 1998.. A flexible joint is recommended poor condition or so highly distressed that contact
to permit differential movement between the tunnel grouting will not provide adequate strength improve-
and the portal structure. ment. Some means for strengthening these tunnels may
In any soil-to-rock transition zone, Kuesel Ž1969. include replacing the lining, increasing the lining thick-
recommends that a tunnel structure should not be cast ness by adding reinforced concrete, or adding rein-
directly against any rock or any rock ridge within the forcement with reinforcing bars or an internal steel
soil. A tunnel should be provided with at least 600 mm liner. Increasing lining thickness does not always pro-
of over-excavation filled with soil or aggregate backfill vide an acceptable solution, because increasing the
to prevent a hard point during seismic activity. How- structural stiffness will tend to attract more force to the
ever, this may not always be possible with bored tun- lining. Measures to increase ductility Žability to absorb
nels, and flexible lining would be installed in such deformation. as well as strength may prove to be more
zones. effective ŽPower et al., 1996..
Tunnel portal and vent structures differ from other If excessive axial or bending stresses are predicted,
underground structures in that part of the structure is the retrofit solution may be to provide additional duc-
above ground. The seismic design of these structures tility, rather than strength, to the lining. Thickening the
will have to account for inertial effects such as de- lining will not effectively reduce the longitudinal axial
scribed by Kiyomiya Ž1995. and Iwasaki Ž1984.. The or bending stresses unless the strains transmitted to the
design will also have to account for potential of pound- lining are reduced due to increased soil᎐structure in-
ing between the structure and the connecting tunnel teraction with the thicker lining. Adding circumferen-
due to differential movement. It is preferable that the tial joints along the axis of the tunnel can reduce the
portal or vent structure be isolated from the tunnel stresses and strains in the lining induced by longitudi-
structure through the use of flexible joints. nally propagating waves. The value of adding joints
must be weighed against the expected performance of
8.2. Tunnel segment connection design the liner without joints. Often, reinforcement in the
lining can provide adequate ductility. If joints are in-
The analysis methods for tunnel racking presented in stalled, it is important that they do not become weak
280 Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293
spots where local transverse shear deformation may ber at that joint. The elastic rotation of the other
occur. The ability of the joint to prevent water leakage member may be deducted from the imposed soil
must also be considered ŽPower, et al., 1996; Hashash distortion to determine the maximum end rota-
et al., 1998.. This approach was used in the retrofit tion of the plastically deformed member. If the
design implementation for the Alameda Tubes in the imposed rotation exceeds this value for a single
San Francisco Bay Area. member, the joint may be designed to distribute
plastic yielding to both members of the joint, by
8.3.2. Considerations for cut-and-co¨ er tunnels equalizing their elastic stiffnesses Žthis will only be
If analyses indicate that the cross-section will be necessary in most unusual circumstances . ŽKuesel,
unable to resist imposed racking deformations or 1969.. Shear failure should be prevented in mem-
seismic earth pressures, structural modifications must bers experiencing plastic yielding.
be considered. Some possible strategies include in- 5. The buckling strength of a tunnel lining may be
creasing the ductility of reinforced concrete linings, considered, especially when the lining is thin. De-
adding confining reinforcement at existing linings and sai et al. Ž1997. has undertaken a discussion of
columns, and adding steel plate jackets at joints. The some of these concerns.
addition of joints may be considered to increase longi- 6. Where rigid diaphragms act together with flexible
tudinal flexibility. structural frames, the distortion of the frame may
be prevented adjacent to the diaphragm Žas at the
8.4. Design considerations for structural support members end wall of a subway station.. Special construction
joints may be required in the exterior wall, roof
The design methods described in Section 7 provide and floor slabs adjacent to the diaphragm to ab-
the magnitude of deformations and forces in the struc- sorb this displacement. An alternate would be to
tural support members of underground structures. The increase the reinforcement.
following are some of the issues that the designer may 7. In static design, vertical reinforcing steel on the
consider when developing the detailed designs of the inside face of exterior walls is necessary only in
structural members: the mid height regions of the walls. However,
during seismic racking these walls will experience
1. Earthquake effects on underground structures tension, so the interior reinforcing steel must be
take the form of deformations that cannot be extended into the top and bottom slabs.
changed significantly by strengthening the struc- 8. When structural members that have no direct
ture. The structure should instead be designed contact with the soil are continuous with stiff
with sufficient ductility to absorb the imposed outer structural shell elements that are strained
deformations without losing the capacity to carry beyond their elastic rotation capacity, these inter-
static loads. However, providing sufficient ductility nal members may also suffer plastic rotation. In
is not analogous to eliminating moment resistance such cases, ductile sections or hinges should be
in the frame. Cut-and-cover structures with no designed into the connections between these ele-
moment resistance are susceptible to collapse un- ments. Interior columns, walls, beams, and slabs
der the dynamic action of the soil backfill ŽOwen should be designed to resist dynamic forces nor-
and Scholl, 1981.. mal to their longitudinal axes.
2. Curvature distortion: the ground shaking may 9. Compression struts: the design and detailing of
cause large curvature distortion in tunnel. The axial members in compression should receive spe-
structure can be articulated with transverse joints cial attention at end connections and the effect of
designed to reduce the estimated distortion and racking of the whole structure should also be
reduce straining of the tunnel structure ŽKuesel, attended to. Compressive members acting in
1969.. concert with continuous diaphragms Že.g. floor
3. Elastic distortion capacity: the elastic racking dis- slabs. usually will require special detailing to en-
tortion capacity of a continuous structural frame sure their acting in accordance with design as-
may be calculated as the rotation capacity of the sumptions.
most rigid exterior corner joint of the cell. If the 10. Appurtenant structures: where the imposed
elastic rotation capacity of the most rigid corner ground shearing distortion does not strain the
exceeds the imposed shearing distortion, no fur- main structural frame beyond its elastic capacity,
ther provisions are necessary ŽKuesel, 1969.. all appendages may be treated as rigidly attached
4. Allowable plastic distortion capacity: if the im- Žand may be designed as integral parts of the main
posed shearing distortion exceeds the elastic rota- structure .. Where plastic deformation of the main
tion capacity of the most rigid corner joint, plastic framework is anticipated, major appendages
distortion will be imposed on the less rigid mem- should preferably be designed as loosely attached
Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293 281
weight underground structures is through the use of fault displacement hazard, the predictive relationship
cut-off walls and the isolation principle as described in for ground motion in step 3 of PSHA ŽSection 4.2. is
Schmidt and Hashash Ž1999. and illustrated in Fig. 26. replaced with a displacement attenuation function.
These cutoff walls can be either sheet pile walls or However, unlike the predictive relationships for ground
improved soil such as jet grout columns or stone motion, which are supported by relatively significant
columns ŽSchmidt et al., 1998.. Sheet piles with drain amount of empirical data, the models for fault dis-
capability ŽSPDC. can also reduce the excess pore placement hazard are currently in the initial stages of
water pressure induced by earthquakes ŽKita et al., development. An alternative method related to PSHA
1992.. Shaking table tests run by Tanaka et al. Ž1995. called the displacement approach uses the observations
showed that SPDC prevented uplift in structures that at the specified location of interest to assess the hazard
suffered such damage with ordinary sheet piling. ŽCoppersmith and Youngs, 2000.. By evaluating the
Barrier walls reduce the rise of excess pore water hazard only with the observed frequency and the
pressure both on the bottom part of the underground amount of displacement events, the displacement ap-
structure and in the ground under it. Uplift with longer proach implicitly considers sources of earthquakes and
barrier walls is smaller than that with shorter walls, seismicity. The method reduces the steps normally re-
showing that the barrier walls effectively reduce the quired for PSHA, but is likely to require region-specific
uplift velocity and cumulative vertical displacement of data. Both of these methodologies have been utilized
the underground structure models ŽNinomiya et al., for the assessment of fault displacement hazard at
1995; Schmidt et al., 1998.. It is also more difficult to Yucca Mountain, a potential high level nuclear waste
uplift a wider underground structure. repository ŽCoppersmith and Youngs, 2000..
Once the liquefaction potential is mitigated, the use Design strategies for tunnels crossing active faults
of flexible joints that allow for differential displacement depend on the magnitude of displacement and the
may still be required for tunnel connections. width of the zone over which that displacement is
distributed. If large displacements are concentrated in
8.5.2. Slope instability and lateral spreading a narrow zone, retrofit design will most likely consist of
The only technically feasible way to mitigate slope enlarging the tunnel across and beyond the displace-
instability Žlandsliding. or liquefaction-induced lateral ment zone. This has been discussed in a number of
spreading movements is to stabilize the ground. It is publications, including Rosenbleuth Ž1977., Owen and
doubtful that an underground structure can be de- Scholl Ž1981., Brown et al. Ž1981., Desai et al. Ž1989.,
signed to resist or accommodate these movements un- Rowe Ž1992., and Abramson and Crawley Ž1995., and
less the hazard is localized and the amount of move- has been implemented in the San Francisco BART
ment is small ŽPower et al., 1996.. system and Los Angeles Metro rapid-transit tunnel
system. This method provides adequate clearance for
8.5.3. Underground structures crossing acti¨ e faults repair to roads or rails even when the tunnel is dis-
The general design philosophy is to design the struc- torted by creeping displacements. The Berkeley Hills
ture to accommodate expected fault displacements, and Tunnel for the BART system employs concrete-en-
allow repair of damaged lining afterwards. cased steel ribs, which are particularly suitable because
One of the methods to estimate the fault displace- they provide sufficient ductility to accommodate distor-
ments is to use empirical relationships that express the tions with little degradation of strength. Under axial
expected displacements as function of some source fault displacement, relative slip placing a tunnel in
parameters. Using a worldwide database of source compression tends to be more damaging than slip that
parameters for 421 historical earthquakes, empirical would elongate the tunnel. However, the development
relationships among magnitude, rupture length, rup- of cracks in the lining due to both elongation and
ture width, rupture area, and surface displacement compression may result in unacceptable water inflow.
have been developed ŽWells and Coppersmith, 1994.. When watertightness is a necessity, flexible couplings
Maximum and average surface displacements were cor- may provide an adequate solution ŽWang, 1993.. This
related with both moment magnitude and surface rup- solution was used for the South West Ocean Outfall in
ture length. Correlation between displacement and mo- San Francisco. Further discussion of reinforced con-
ment magnitude appears to be slightly stronger than crete tubes in fault zones is provided by Hradilek
between displacement and surface rupture length. Ž1977..
A relatively new framework for evaluating fault dis- The length over which enlargement is made is a
placement hazard was presented by Coppersmith and function of both the amount of fault displacement and
Youngs Ž2000.. The probabilistic fault displacement the permissible curvature of the road or track. The
hazard analysis ŽPFDHA. is an extension of probabilis- longer the enlarged tunnel, the smaller will be the
tic seismic hazard analysis ŽPSHA., and is composed of post-earthquake curvature ŽPower et al., 1996..
the same elements as PSHA. For the assessment of An enlarged tunnel may also surround an inner
Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293 283
tunnel that is backfilled with frangible backpacking and a portal structure, and to measure racking of
such as cellular concrete. Cellular concrete has rela- rectangular structures such as subway stations.
tively low yield strength to minimize lateral loads on 2. Improved evaluation of the mechanism of the load
the tunnel liner, but has adequate strength to resist transferred from the overburden soil to the ceiling
normal soil pressures and other seismic loads such as slab of a cut and cover structure. Not all of the
minor ground shock and soil loosening load or other inertia force of the overburden soil is transferred
vertical loads above the excavation. It also has stable to the ceiling slab; however, research into the eval-
long-term properties with respect to age hardening, uation of the soil block that provides inertia force
chemical resistance, and creep behavior ŽPower et al., has not yet been undertaken ŽIida et al., 1996..
1996.. 3. Research into the influence of high vertical accel-
If fault movements are small Ži.e. less than a few erations on the generation of large compressive
inches. andror distributed over a relatively wide zone, loads in tunnel linings and subway station columns.
it is possible that the tunnel may be designed to accom- Large vertical forces may have been a factor in the
modate the fault displacement by providing articulation collapse of the Daikai Subway station ŽIida et al.,
of the tunnel liner with ductile joints. This allows the 1996..
tunnel to distort into an S-shape through the fault zone 4. Development of improved numerical models to
without rupture. The closer the joint spacing, the better simulate the dynamic soil structure interaction
the performance of the liner. Design of a lining to problem of tunnels, as well as portal and subway
accommodate fault displacement becomes more feasi- structures. These models will be useful in studying
ble in soft soils where the tunnel lining can more the effect of high velocity pulses generated near
effectively redistribute the displacements. Again, keep- fault sources on underground structures ŽHashash
ing the tunnel watertight is a concern when using joints et al., 1998..
ŽPower et al., 1996.. 5. Evaluation of the significance of ground motion
directivity and ‘fling effect’ on tunnel response.
6. Evaluation of the significance of ground motion
8.6. Seismic design of high le¨ el nuclear waste repositories
incoherence on the development of differential
movement along the length of a tunnel ŽPower et
The methods described in this report can also be al., 1996.. Ground motion incoherence is particu-
used for the analysis of underground openings used in larly important in soft soils and shallow tunnels
nuclear waste repositories ŽNWR.. The main difference where the potential for slippage between the tun-
is in the seismic hazard analysis, whereby the design nel and soil is high.
seismic event corresponds to return periods that are 7. Evaluation of the influence of underground struc-
compatible with the design life of the facility. Stepp tures on the local amplification or attenuation of
Ž1996. presents a report that summarizes many of the propagated ground motion.
specific issues related to seismic design of NWR. 8. Research into the effects of repeated cyclic loading
on underground tunnels ŽSt. John and Zahrah,
1987..
9. Research into the application of non-conventional
9. Research Needs
lining, bolting, and water insulation materials that
can be used for seismic joints and to enhance the
The material presented in this report describes the seismic performance of the tunnel.
current state of knowledge for the design of under-
ground structures. Many issues require further investi-
gation to enhance our understanding of seismic re-
sponse of underground structures and improve seismic
10. In memoriam
design procedures. Some of these issues include:
1. Instrumentation of tunnels and underground struc- Dr Birger Schmidt has been the main motivating
tures to measure their response during ground force behind the development of this report. Dr Birger
shaking. These instruments would include mea- Schmidt, a native of Denmark, passed away on October
surement of vertical and lateral deformations along 2, 2000 after a yearlong fight with cancer. He had a
the length of the tunnel. This will be useful to distinguished career in geotechnical engineering span-
understand the effect of spatial incoherency and ning almost four decades. His many contributions in-
directivity of the ground motion on tunnel re- clude the error-function method for estimating settle-
sponse. Other instrumentation would be useful to ments due to tunneling as well as over 80 technical
measure differential movement between a tunnel publications. He actively contributed to the many ef-
284 Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293
forts of the International Tunnelling Association ŽITA. ␥s : Simple shear strain of a soil element
Working Group No 2: Research. He maintained his ␥: Shear strain
interest and support of this report through the last ␥m : Maximum shear strain
week of his life and emphasized the need to complete ␥max : Maximum free-field shear strain of soil or
this work. rock medium
This report is dedicated to his memory. He has been ␥t : Soil unit weight
a friend and a mentor and will be greatly missed. ab : Total axial stress
: Angular location of the tunnel lining
Youssef Hashash : Radius of curvature
m: Density of medium
11. Addendum max : Maximum radius of curvature
: Simple shear stress of a soil element
The reference of Power et al. Ž1996. has been up- max : Maximum shear stress
dated and will be issued soon as part of a report by the ⌬: Lateral deflection
Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering ⌬ structure : Racking deflection of rectangular tunnel
Research ŽMCEER., Buffalo, NY to the U.S. Federal cross-section
Highway Administration. The update contains many ⌬d free-field : Free-field diametric deflection in non-perfo-
details that are complementary to the material pre- rated ground
sented in this report and contains revised values for ⌬d lining : Lining diametric deflection
Table 2 based on the work of Sadigh and Egan Ž1998.. ⌬ d lining
n
: Lining diametric deflection under normal
loading only
l : Poisson’s ratio of tunnel lining
Acknowledgements
m : Poisson’s ratio of soil or rock medium
The authors of this report would like to acknowledge ⌿: Coefficient used in calculation of flexibility
the review comments provided by many individuals ratio of rectangular tunnels
including members of the International Tunneling As- a1: Coefficient used in calculation of flexibility
sociation Working Group no. 2. The authors would also ratio of rectangular tunnels
like to thank William Hansmire, Jon Kaneshiro, and a2 : Coefficient used in calculation of flexibility
Kazutoshi Matsuo for their careful comments. This ratio of rectangular tunnels
work made use of Earthquake Engineering Research aP : Peak particle acceleration associated with
Centers Shared Facilities supported by the US National P-wave
Science Foundation under Award no. EEC-9701785. aR : Peak particle acceleration associated with
Rayleigh wave
aRP : Peak particle acceleration associated with
Appendix A: List of symbols Rayleigh Wave for compressional compo-
nent
aRS : Peak particle acceleration associated with
␣: Coefficient used in calculation of lining᎐soil Rayleigh Wave for shear component
racking ratio of circular tunnels
aS : Peak particle acceleration associated with
␣ n: Coefficient used in calculation of lining᎐soil
S-wave
racking ratio of circular tunnels under nor-
d: Diameter or equivalent diameter of tunnel
mal loading only
lining
1: Coefficient used in developing loading crite-
f: Ultimate friction force between tunnel and
ria for ODE
surrounding soil
ab : Total axial strain
max
a
: Maximum axial strain caused by a 45⬚ inci- h: Thickness of the soil deposit
dent shear wave r: Radius of circular tunnel
max
b
: Maximum bending strain caused by a 0 de- t: Thickness of tunnel lining
gree incident shear wave A: Free-field displacement response amplitude
l: Longitudinal strain of an ideal sinusoidal S-wave
l m: Maximum longitudinal strain A a: Same as A, used for axial strain calculation
n: Normal strain Ab: Same as A, used for bending strain calcula-
nm: Maximum normal strain tion
: Angle of incidence of wave with respect to Ac: Cross-sectional area of tunnel lining
tunnel axis C: Compressibility ratio of tunnel lining
Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293 285
CP : Apparent velocity of P-wave propagation Ž Qmax . f : Maximum frictional force between lining and
CR : Apparent velocity of Rayleigh wave propaga- surrounding soils
tion R: Lining-soil racking ratio
CS : Apparent velocity of S-wave propagation R n: Lining᎐soil racking ratio under normal load-
CsŽR . : Apparent velocity of S-wave propagation in ing only
soil due to presence of the underlying rock S1: Force required to cause a unit racking de-
CsŽs. : Apparent velocity of S-wave propagation in flection of a rectangular frame structure
soil only T: Predominant natural period of a shear wave
D: Displacement amplitude of soil in the soil deposit
D: Effects due to dead loads of structural com- T Ž .: Circumferential thrust force in tunnel lining
ponents at angle
E: Plane strain elastic modulus of frame Tmax : Maximum thrust in tunnel lining
E1: Effects due to vertical loads of earth and U: Required structural strength capacity
water V Ž .: Circumferential shear force in tunnel lining
E2: Effects due to horizontal loads of earth and at angle
water Vmax : Maximum shear force in tunnel cross-sec-
El : Modulus of elasticity of tunnel lining tion due to shear waves
Em : Modulus of elasticity of soil or rock medium VP : Peak particle velocity associated with P-
EQ: Effects due to design earthquake motion waves
EX: Effects of static loads due to excavation VR : Peak particle velocity associated with
F: Flexibility ratio of tunnel lining Rayleigh Wave
Gm : Shear modulus of soil or rock medium V RP : Peak particle velocity associated with
Rayleigh Wave for compressional compo-
H: Effects due to hydrostatic water pressure
nent
H: Height of tunnel
VR S : Peak particle velocity associated with
I: Moment of inertia of the tunnel lining Žper
Rayleigh Wave for shear component
unit width. for circular lining
VS : Peak particle velocity associated with S-
II : Moment of inertia of invert slabs in a rect-
waves
angular cut-and-cover structure
W: Width of the structure
Ic : Moment of inertia of tunnel lining section
Y: Distance from neutral axis of cross-section
IR : Moment of inertia of roof slabs in a rectan-
to extreme fiber of tunnel lining
gular cut-and-cover structure
IW : Moment of inertia of walls in a rectangular
cut-and-cover structure
K: Free-field curvature due to body or surface Appendix B: Sample calculations
waves
K m: Free-field maximum curvature due to body Design example 1: a linear tunnel in soft ground
or surface waves (after Wang, 1993)
K 1: Full-slip lining response coefficient
K2: No-slip lining response coefficient In this example, a tunnel lined with a cast-in-place
K a: Longitudinal spring coefficient of soil or rock circular concrete lining Že.g. a permanent second-pass
medium support., is assumed to be built in a soft soil site. The
K0: At rest coefficient of earth pressure geotechnical, structural, and earthquake parameters are
Kt: Transverse spring coefficient of soil or rock listed as follows:
medium Geotechnical Parameters:
L: Effects due to live loads
L: Wavelength of ideal sinusoidal shear wave 䢇 Apparent velocity of S-wave propagation, Cs s 110
Lt : Total length of tunnel mrs
M Ž .: Circumferential bending moment in tunnel 䢇 Soil unit weight, ␥t s 17.0 kNrm3
lining at angle 䢇 Soil Poisson’s ratio, m s 0.5 Žsaturated soft clay.
䢇 Soil deposit thickness over rigid bedrock, h s
Mmax : Maximum bending moment in tunnel cross-
30.0 m
section due to shear waves
P: Concentrated force acting on rectangular
Structural Parameters:
structure
Qmax : Maximum axial force in tunnel cross-section
䢇 Lining thickness, t s 0.30 m
due to shear waves
䢇 Lining diameter, ds 6.0 m ª r s 3.0 m
286 Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293
6. Calculate the maximum axial strain and the corre- 9. Calculate the maximum shear force due to the
sponding axial force of the tunnel lining: bending curvature:
2
L ž / Vmax s Mmax ž 2L / s Ž63, 391. ž 120
2
/ s 3319 kN
max s
a
Aa Eq. Ž 12.
El A c 2 2
2q ž /ž /
Ka L 10. Calculate the allowable shear strength of con-
crete during the MDE:
2
s
ž 120 / Ž 0.085. 0.85 ž 'f ⬘
A shear / s Ž0.85.'30
2q
Ž 24, 840, 000.Ž 5.65.
ž 26, 349
2
/ž /
120
2
Vc s
6
c
6 ž 5.652 / Ž1000.
s 2192 kN
s 0.00027 Eq. Ž 10.
where s shear strength reduction factor Ž0.85., f c⬘ s
yield strength of concrete Ž30 MPa., and A shear s
The axial force is limited by the maximum frictional effective shear area s A cr2. Note: Using s 0.85 for
force between the lining and the surrounding soils. earthquake design may be very conservative.
Estimate the maximum frictional force:
fL
Qmax s Ž Qmax . f s s El A c max
a
4
s Ž 24 840 000.Ž 5.65.Ž 0.00027.
s 37 893 kN Eq. Ž 10.
s
ž 4000 / Ž0.12. condition.
Ž 24.8.Ž 10 6 .Ž 5.65. 2 2 Note: in the following calculation, more significant
2q ž / figures are kept throughout each step to show that
3510 4000
formulations of Penzien Ž2000. give the same values as
s 0.00009 Eq. Ž 10. Wang Ž1993..
Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293 289
1. Determine the racking ratio Ž R n . and the displace- Note: maximum T and M occur at s r4.
ment term ⌬ D lining
n
:
Estimate ground motion at depth of tunnel. 3. Determine combined stress and strain from
thrust and bending moment:
a s s 0.9amax s Ž 0.9.Ž 0.5 g. s 0.45 g Table 4
T Ž . M Ž .Y 53.5 Ž 160.6.Ž 0.15.
Assuming stiff soil, s q s q
Al I 0.3 0.0023
Vs s Ž 140 cmrsrg.Ž 0.45 g. s 63 cmrs s 178 q 10474s 10 652 kPa
s 0.63 mrs Table 2
Use formulations of Wang Ž1993. assuming full slip
Vs 0.63 condition.
␥max s s s 0.0021
Cm 300
1. Determine the flexibility ratio Ž F . and full-slip
lining response coefficient Ž K 1 .:
Gm s m Cm2 s ž 1920
1000 /
Ž 250 . s 120 000 kPa
2
Table 5
Em Ž 1 y l2 . r 3
Fs
6 El I Ž 1 q m .
Em s 2Gm Ž 1 q m . s 2 Ž 120 000.Ž 1 q 0.3.
s 312 000 kPa Ž 312 000.Ž 1 y 0.2 2 .Ž 3 3 .
s
6 Ž 24.8.Ž 10 6 .Ž 0.0023.Ž 1 q 0.3.
12 El I Ž 5 y 6m .
␣n s s 18.1767 Eq. Ž 20.
d 3 Gm Ž 1 y l2 .
Ž 12.Ž 24.8.Ž 10 6 .Ž 0.0023.Ž 5 y Ž 6 .Ž 0.3..
s 12 Ž 1 y m . 12 Ž 1 y 0.3.
Ž 6 3 .Ž 120 000.Ž 1 y Ž 0.2 2 .. K1 s s
2 F q 5 y 6m 2 Ž 18.1767. q 5 y 6 Ž 0.3.
s 0.088025 Eq. Ž 34.
s 0.21237 Eq. Ž 24.
4 Ž1 y ¨m . 4 Ž 1 y 0.3.
Rn s s s 2.5735 Eq. Ž 33. 2. Determine the maximum tangential thrust ŽT . and
␣n q 1 0.088025q 1
moment Ž M . due to S-waves:
␥max d
⌬ d lining
n
s R n⌬ d freeyfield s R n 1 Em
2 Tmax s K r␥
6 1 Ž 1 q m . max
Ž 0.0021.Ž 6 .
s Ž 2.5735. s 0.016213 Eq. Ž 29.
2 1 Ž 312 000.
s Ž 0.21237. Ž 3 .Ž 0.0021.
6 Ž 1 q 0.3.
2. Determine the maximum tangential thrust ŽT . and
moment Ž M . due to S-waves: s 53.5 kN Eq. Ž 22.
n
12 El I⌬ d lining
T ž /s 3 cos 2 q ž / 1 Em
4 d Ž 1 y l2 . 4 Mmax s K r 2 ␥max
6 1 Ž 1 q m .
Ž 12.Ž 24.8.Ž 10 6 .Ž 0.0023.Ž 0.016213. Eq. Ž 30.
s
Ž 6 3 .Ž 1 y Ž 0.2 2 .. 1 Ž 312 000. 2
s Ž 0.21237. Ž 3 .Ž 0.0021.
6 Ž 1 q 0.3.
=cos2 ž q s 53.5 kN
/
4 4
s 160.6 kNy m Eq. Ž 23 .
n
6 El I⌬ d lining 3. Determine combined stress and strain from
M ž /s 2 cos 2 q ž /
4 d Ž 1 y l2 . 4 thrust and bending moment:
Ž 6 .Ž 24.8.Ž 10 6 .Ž 0.0023.Ž 0.016213. Eq. Ž 31 .
s T MY 53.5 Ž 160.6.Ž 0.15.
Ž 6 2 .Ž 1 y Ž 0.2 2 .. s q s q
Al I 0.3 0.0023
=cos2 ž q /s 160.6 kNy m
4 4 s 178 q 10474s 10 652 kPa
290 Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293
The above calculation is repeated for no-slip condi- 2. Determine the flexibility ratio F:
tion. The results are summarized in the table below:
Wang Ž1993.
Full Slip No Slip
Penzien Ž2000.
Full Slip No Slip
Gm s m Cm2 s ž 1920
1000 /
Ž 180 . s 62 000 kPa
2
Table 5
Bickel, J.O., Tanner, D.N., 1982. Sunken tube tunnels. In: Bickel, Hoeg, K., 1968. Stresses against underground structural cylinders. J.
J.O., Keusel, T.R. ŽEds.., Tunnel Engineering Handbook, chapter Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE 94 ŽSM4. 833᎐858.
13. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 354᎐394. Hradilek, P.J., 1977. Behavior of underground box conduit in the San
Borja, R.I., Chao, H-Y, Montans, F.J., Lin, C-H., 1999. Non-linear Fernando earthquake. The Current State of Knowledge of Life-
ground response at Lotung LSST site. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. line Earthquake Engineering. ASCE, New York, pp. 308᎐319.
Eng. 125 Ž3., 187᎐197. Hwang, R.N., Lysmer, J., 1981. Response of buried structures to
BRGM, 1998. CyberQuake V. 1.1, User Guide, Orleans, France. traveling waves. J. Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE 107 ŽGT2., 183᎐200.
Brown, I., Brekke, T., Korbin, G., Ž1981.. Behavior of the Bay Area Idriss, I.M., Seed, H.B., 1968. Seismic response of horizontal soil
Rapid Transit tunnels through the Hayward fault. UMTA Report layers. J. Soil Mech. Found. Div., ASCE 94 ŽSM4., 1003᎐1031.
no. CA-06-0120-81-1, USDOT. Iida, H., Hiroto, T., Yoshida, N., Iwafuji, M., 1996. Damage to Daikai
Burns, J.Q., Richard, R.M., 1964. Attenuation of stresses for buried subway station. Soils and Foundations, Special Issue on Geotech-
cylinders. Proceedings of the Symposium on Soil᎐Structure Inter- nical Aspects of the January 17 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu
action, University of Arizona at Tempe, Arizona. Earthquake. Japanese Geotechnical Society, pp. 283᎐300.
Chang, C.Y., Power, M.S., Idriss, I.M., Somerville, P.G., Silva, W., Itasca Consulting Group Inc., 1992. Universal Distinct Element Code
Chen, P.C., 1986. Engineering characterization of ground motion ŽUDEC. ᎏ User’s Manual.
ᎏ task II: observational data on spatial variations of earthquake Itasca Consulting Group Inc., 1995. FLAC 3D , Version 3.3: Fast
ground motion. Report no. NUREGrCR-3805, US Nuclear Regu- Legrangian Analysis of Continua.
latory Commission, vol. 3.
Iwasaki, T., 1984. Earthquake-resistant design of underground
Code of Federal Regulations, 1978. Appendix A, seismic and geologic pipelines in Japan. Proceedings of the US᎐Japan Workshop on
siting criteria for nuclear power plants. Title 10, Energy; Part 100 Seismic Behavior of Buried Pipelines and Telecommunications
Ž10 CFR 100., Reactor Site Criteria. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-
Systems, December 1984, Tsukaba Science City, Japan, pp.
sion, Washington, DC. 164᎐190.
Coppersmith, K.J., Youngs, R.R., 2000. Data needs for probabilistic
JSCE, 1988. Earthquake Resistant Design for Civil Engineering
fault displacement hazard analysis. J. Geodyn. 29, 329᎐343.
Structures in Japan. Japanese Society of Civil Engineers, Tokyo.
Desai, D.B., Chu, C.-T., Redd, R.E., 1997. Impervious tunnel linings
Japanese Society of Civil Engineers, 1975. Specifications for
in a land of shakes. Proceedings of the 1997 Rapid Excavation
Earthquake Resistant Design of Submerged Tunnels.
Tunneling Conference, pp. 45᎐55.
Kaneshiro, J.Y., Power, M., Rosidi, D., 2000. Empirical correlations
Desai, D.B., Merritt, J.L., Chang, B., 1989. Shake and slip to survive
of tunnel performance during earthquakes and aseismic aspects of
ᎏ tunnel design. Proceedings of the 1989 Rapid Excavation and
tunnel design. Proceedings of the Conference on Lessons Learned
Tunneling Conference, June 11᎐14, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
From Recent Earthquakes ᎏ On Earthquakes in Turkey 1999,
Dobry, R., Oweis, I., Urzua, A., 1976. Simplified procedures for
November 8᎐11.
estimating the fundamental period of a soil profile. Bull. Seismol.
Soc. Am. 66, 4. pp. 1293᎐1321. Kawashima, K., 1999. Seismic design of underground structures in
soft ground, a review. Proceedings of the International Symposium
Douglas, W.S., Warshaw, R., 1971. Design of seismic joint for San
on Tunneling in Difficult Ground Conditions. Tokyo, Japan.
Francisco Bay Tunnel. J. Struct. Eng. Div., ASCE 97 ŽST4.,
1129᎐1141. Kita, H., Iida, T., Nishitani, M., 1992. Experimental study on coun-
Dowding, C.H., Rozen, A., 1978. Damage to rock tunnels from termeasures for liquefaction by steel sheet pile with drain.
earthquake shaking. J. Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE 104 ŽGT2., Proceedings of the Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engi-
175᎐191. neering. pp. 1701᎐1706.
Duke, C.M., Leeds, D.J., 1959. Effects of Earthquakes on Tunnels: Kiyomiya, O., 1995. Earthquake-resistant design features of immersed
Paper Presented at the RAND Second Protective Construction tunnels in Japan. Tunneling Underground Space Technol. 10 Ž4.,
Symposium, March 24᎐26. 463᎐475.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute ŽEERI., Ž1990.. Loma Kramer, S., 1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Prentice-
Prieta Earthquake Reconnaissance Report. Earthquake Spectra, Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
EERI, Supplement to vol. 6. Kuesel, T.R., 1969. Earthquake Design Criteria for Subways. J.
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute ŽEERI., Ž1995.. Struct. Div., ASCE ST6, 1213᎐1231.
Northridge Earthquake Reconnaissance Report, vol.s 1 and 2. Kuribayashi, E., Iwasaki, T., Kawashima, K., 1974. Dynamic be-
Earthquake Spectra, EERI, Supplement C to vol. 11. haviour of a subsurface tubular structure. Proceedings of the Fifth
EQE International, 1995. The January 17, 1995 Kobe Earthquake: an Symposium on Earthquake Engineering. India.
EQE Summary Report. Lysmer, J., Ostadan, F., Tabatabaie, M., Tajirian, F., Vahdani, S.,
Finn, W.D.L., Lee, K.W., Martin, G.R., 1977. An effective stress 1991. sassi: A System for Analysis of Soil᎐structure Interaction ᎏ
model for liquefaction. J. Geotech. Eng. Div., ASCE 103 ŽGT6., User’s Manual. Geotechnical Engineering Division, Civil Engi-
517᎐533. neering Department, University of California at Berkeley, and
Gomez-Masso, A., Attalla, I., 1984. Finite element vs. simplified Bechtel Corporation, San Francisco, California.
methods in the seismic analysis of underground structures. Lysmer, J., Udaka, T., Tsai, C.F., Seed, H.B., 1975. FLUSH: A com-
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 12, 347᎐367. puter program for approximate 3-D analysis of soil᎐structure
Hashash, Y.M.A., Park, D., 2001. Non-linear one-dimensional seismic interaction problems. Report no. EERC 75᎐30. Earthquake Engi-
ground motion propagation in the Mississippi Embayment. Eng. neering Research Center.
Geol. 62 Ž1᎐3., 185᎐206. Manoogian, M.E., 1998. Surface motion above an arbitrarily shaped
Hashash, Y.M.A., Tseng, W.S., Krimotat, A., 1998. Seismic soil-struc- tunnel due to elastic SH waves. Geotechnical Earthquake Engi-
ture interaction analysis for immersed tube tunnels retrofit. neering and Soil Dynamics III. ASCE, Seattle, pp. 754᎐765.
Geotech. Earthquake Eng. Soil Mech. III 2, 1380᎐1391. Geotechnical Special Publication no. 75.
ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication no. 75. Matasovic, N., Vucetic, M., 1995. Seismic response of soil deposits
Hetenyi, M., 1976. Beams on Elastic Foundation. University of composed of fully saturated clay and sand layers. Proceedings of
Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan. the First International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical
Hibbitt, Karlsson and Sorensen Inc., ABAQUS User’s Manual. Engineering, JGS, vol. 1. Tokyo, Japan, pp. 611᎐616.
292 Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293
Matsubara, K., Hirasawa, K., Urano, K., 1995. On the wavelength for Penzien, J., 2000. Seismically -induced racking of tunnel linings. Int.
seismic design of underground pipeline structures. Proceedings of J. Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 29, 683᎐691.
the First International Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Power, M.S., Rosidi, D., Kaneshiro, J., 1996. Vol. III Strawman:
Engineering. pp. 587᎐590. screening, evaluation, and retrofit design of tunnels. Report Draft.
Matsuda, T., Samata, S., Iwatate, T., 1996. Seismic response analysis National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo,
for a collapsed underground subway structure with intermediate New York.
columns. The 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake: Investigation Power, M., Rosidi, D., Kaneshiro, J., 1998. Seismic vulnerability of
into Damage to Civil Engineering Structures. Japan Society of tunnels-revisited. In: Ozedimir, L., ŽEd... Proceedings of the North
Civil Engineers Committee of Earthquake Engineering, pp. American Tunneling Conference. Elsevier, Long Beach, CA, USA.
277᎐285. Reiter, L., 1990. Earthquake Hazard Analysis ᎏ Issues and Insights.
Menkiti, C., 2001. Personal Communications. Columbia University Press, New York.
Merritt, J.L., Monsees, J.E., Hendron, A.J., Jr., 1985. Seismic design Rosenbleuth, E., 1977. Soil and rock mechanics in earthquake engi-
of underground structures. Proceedings of the 1985 Rapid Excava- neering. Proceedings of the International Conference on Dynamic
tion Tunneling Conference, vol. 1, pp. 104᎐131. Methods in Soil and Rock Mechanics.
Monsees, J.E., Merritt, J.L., 1988. Seismic modelling and design of Rowe, R., 1992. Tunneling in seismic zones. Tunnels and Tunneling,
underground structures. Numerical Methods in Geomechanics. 24, 41᎐44.
Innsbruck, pp. 1833᎐1842. Sadigh, R.K., Egan J.A., 1998. Updated relationships for horizontal
Monsees, J.E., Merritt, J.L., 1991. Earthquake considerations in peak ground velocity and peak ground displacements for shallow
design of the Los Angeles Metro. Proceedings of the ASCE crustal earthquakes. Proceedings of the 6th U.S. National Confer-
Conference on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering. ence on Earthquake Engineering, May 31᎐June 4, Seattle, WA,
Nakamura, S., Yoshida, N., Iwatate, T., 1996. Damage to Daikai USA.
Subway Station During the 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake Sakurai, A., Takahashi, T., 1969. Dynamic stresses of underground
and Its Investigation. Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Committee pipeline during earthquakes. Proceedings of the Fourth World
of Earthquake Engineering, pp. 287᎐295. Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
Navarro, C., 1992. Effect of adjoining structures on seismic response Schmidt, B., Hashash, Y.M.A., 1998. Seismic rehabilitation of two
of tunnels. Int. J. Numer. Anal. Methods Geomech. 16, 797᎐814. immersed tube tunnels. Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress
NCEER, 1995. Response to the Hyogoken Nambu Earthquake, Jan- ’98, Tunnels and Metropolises. pp. 581᎐586.
uary 17, 1995. Schmidt, B., Hashash, Y., Stimac, T., 1998. US immersed tube retro-
Newmark, N.M., 1968. Problems in wave propagation in soil and fit. Tunnels Tunneling Int. 30 Ž11., 22᎐24.
rock. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Wave Prop- Schmidt, B.S., Hashash, Y.M.A., 1999. Preventing tunnel flotation
agation and Dynamic Properties of Earth Materials. due to liquefaction. Proceedings of the Second International Con-
Ninomiya, Y., Hagiwara, R., Azuma, T., 1995. Rise of excess pore ference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, June 21᎐25.
water pressure and uplift of underground structures due to lique- Lisboa, Portugal, pp. 509᎐512.
faction. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Schnabel, P.B., Lysmer, J., Seed, B.H. 1972. SHAKE ᎏ a computer
Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering. pp. 1023᎐1028. program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered
Nuttli, O.W., 1979. The relation of sustained maximum ground sites. Report no. EERC 72᎐12. University of California, Berkeley,
acceleration and velocity to earthquake intensity and magnitude. CA, USA.
Miscellaneous Paper no. S-73-1, Report 16. US Army Corps of Schwartz, C.W., Einstein, H.H., 1980. Improved design of tunnel
Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. supports: vol. 1 ᎏ simplified analysis for ground᎐structure inter-
Okamoto, S., Tamura, C., Kato, K., Hamada, M., 1973. Behaviors of action in tunneling. Report no. UMTA-MA-06-0100-80-4. US
submerged tunnels during earthquakes. Proceedings of the Fifth DOT, Urban Mass Transportation Administration.
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, vol. 1. Rome, Seed, H.B., Whitman, R.V., 1970. Design of earth retaining struc-
Italy, pp. 544᎐553. tures for dynamic loads. Proceedings of the ASCE Specialty Con-
O’Rourke, T.D., 1984. Guidelines for Tunnel Lining Design. ASCE ference on Lateral Stresses in the Ground and Design of Earth
Technical Committee on tunnel lining design of the Underground Retaining Structures.
Technology Research Council. SFBART, 1960. Technical Supplement to the Engineering Report for
O’Rourke, T.D., Goh, S.H., Menkiti, C.O., Mair, R.J., 2001. Highway Trans-Bay Tube July.
tunnel performance during the 1999 Duzce earthquake. Proceed- Sharma, S., Judd, W.R., 1991. Underground opening damage from
ings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Soil Mechanics earthquakes. Eng. Geol. 30, 263᎐276.
and Geotechnical Engineering, August 27᎐31, 2000. Istanbul, Shi, G.H., 1989. Discontinuous deformation analysis ᎏ a new numer-
Turkey. ical model for the static and dynamics of block systems. Ph.D.
Oughourlian, C.V., Powell, G.H., 1982. ANSR-III: general purpose Thesis. University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.
computer program for non- linear structural analysis. Report no. St. John, C.M., Zahrah, T.F., 1987. Aseismic design of underground
UCBrEERC 82r21. Earthquake Engineering Research Center. structures. Tunneling Underground Space Technol. 2 Ž2., 165᎐197.
Owen, G.N., Scholl, R.E., 1981. Earthquake engineering of large Stepp, J.C., 1996. Seismic and dynamic analysis and design considera-
underground structures. Report no. FHWArRD-80r195. Federal tions for high level nuclear waste repositories. In: Stepp, J.C.
Highway Administration and National Science Foundation. ŽEd.., A Report by the Subcommittee on Dynamic Analysis and
PB, 1991. Trans-Bay Tube Seismic Joints Post-Earthquake Evalua- Design of High Level Nuclear Water Repositories. Structural
tion. Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas Inc. Engineering Institute, ASCE.
Report prepared for the Bay Area Rapid Transit District. Stevens, P.R., 1977. A review of the effects of earthquakes on
Peck, R.B., Hendron, A.J., Mohraz, B., 1972. State of the art in soft underground mines. United States Geological Survey Open File
ground tunneling. Proceedings of the Rapid Excavation and Tun- Report 77᎐313. US Energy Research and Development Adminis-
neling Conference. American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical tration, Reston, VA.
and Petroleum Engineers, New York, pp. 259᎐286. Sweet, J., 1997. Los Angeles Metro Red Line project: seismic analysis
Penzien, J., Wu, C., 1998. Stresses in linings of bored tunnels. Int. J. of the Little Tokyo Subway Station. Report no. CAI-097-100.
Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn. 27, 283᎐300. Engineering Management Consultants.
Y.M.A. Hashash et al. r Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16 (2001) 247᎐293 293
Taipei Metropolitan Area Rapid Transit Systems ŽTARTS. Ž1989.. Ueng, T.S., Lin, M.L., Chen, M.H., 2001. Some geotechnical aspects
Railway Tunnel Investigation ᎏ Sungshan Extension Project. of 1999 Chi-Chi, Taiwan earthquake. Proceedings of the Fourth
ATC Inc. International Conference on Recent Advances in Geotechnical
Takada, S., Abdel-Aziz, M., 1997. A new finite element inelastic Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics. SPL-10.1, 5 p.
model for seismic response analysis of the transverse direction of Wang, J.-N., 1993. Seismic Design of Tunnels: A State-of-the-Art
shield tunnels utilizing the seismic deformation method. Proceed- Approach, Monograph, monograph 7. Parsons, Brinckerhoff,
ings of the Seventh International Conference on Computing in Quade and Douglas Inc, New York.
Civil and Building Engineering, August, vol. 3. Seoul, pp.
Wells, D.L., Coppersmith, K.J., 1994. New empirical relationships
1893᎐1898.
among magnitude, rupture length, rupture width, rupture area,
Tanaka, H., Kita, H., Iida, T., Saimura, Y., 1995. Countermeasure
and surface displacement. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 84 Ž4., 974᎐1002.
against liquefaction for buried structures using sheet pile with
drain capability. Proceedings of the First International Confer- Whitman, R.V., 1990. Seismic design and behavior of gravity retain-
ence on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering. pp. 999᎐1004. ing walls. Design and Performance of Earth Retaining Structures.
Tohda, J., 1996. Photographs of pipeline damage in Kobe. Soils and Cornell University, pp. 817᎐842. ASCE Geotechnical Special Pub-
Foundations, Special Issue on Geotechnical Aspects of the Jan- lication 25.
uary 17 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake. Japanese Geotechni- Yeh, G.C.K., 1974. Seismic analysis of slender buried beams. Bull.
cal Society. Seismol. Soc. Am. 64, 5. pp. 1551᎐1562.