Shar oS JOHN WOOT) CONSULTING Earthquake Commission Research Foundation EARTHQUAKE DESIGN PROCEDURES FOR 1 RECTANGULAR UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES EQC Project No 01/470 Prepared: J H Wood Rev B: 17 July 2004 John Wood Consulting 20 A Ngaumetau Road Point Howard LOWER HUTTSummary This regrt presents work undertaken 10 extend the present knowledge of the dynamic ineracton of rectangular underground structures with the surounding oil during earthqukes, nd to develop earthquake design methods for structures such as basement walls, underground ‘aks, subways, uty boxes, highway underpasses, and culver, Rectangular underground structures experience transverse racking deformations due to earthquake induced shear stains inthe surrounding soil. Deformation of the cross-section is usualy more critical in design than the axial or curvature deformations induced along the axis of the structure. A pseudo-dynamic finite element procedure was use to generate the frst ‘mode earthquake-induced shear deformations in a range of soil profiles and to analyse the interaction of typical box structures embedded inthe sol profile, A large number of analyses were undertsken to study the influence of the dept of cover, soil stifness profile relative stiffness of soil and structure, and the geomety of the box section, The accuracy of the plified analysis procedure was verified against published results from more detailed time- history dynamic analyses. [A design procedure developed from the analysis work involves calculating a relative structure to soil stitess rato using the soil shear modulus andthe box section dimensions. Charts are presented to enable the racking deformation induced in the structure by interaction with the soil, and the intemal forces for typical single and mult-barel structures, to be rapidly assessed from the fres-ield shear stain in te soil and the soil-sructurestfness ratio, For desig, the earthquake free-feld shear strain can be estimated from the results presented for the respanse of a numberof typical sol profiles. More sophisticated numerical analyses may be requited for complex major underground structures but the method presented wil assist preliminary design and analysis verification work. Applicaton ofthe simplified design method to several box culverts and pedestrian subway structures shoved thet the internal forces from earthquake induced racking deformations can be large in comparison to actions produced by gravity and water pressure loads. It was concluded tht earthquake-induced deformations need to be considered in the design of most underground rectangular structures,Contents SUMMARY on INTRODUCTION on EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE TO UNDERGROUNGD STRUCTURES. PREVIOUS RESEARCH, |. PROJECT SCOPE nono 65, ANALYSIS METHOD. seen 5:1 Fret-Fetosrman, “ 152. STRUCTURE STFFNESS AND FLBURITY. 8 153. Sou-STRUCTURE INTERACTION 0 RESULTS OF ANALYSES. 61 Cowafsson oF R Vensus Fy RELATIONSHIPS. 2s 832 Inrluence oF Coven Derm 25 85 InrLence oF Laver Deer 28 64 wewence or Eran Fin 20 85 InFWeNce oF STRUCTURE SHAE 22 86 Inrwence oF Sou POISSON'S RATIO 34 657 Forces x BoxSTRUCTURAL MEMBERS WITHOUT SOL IKTERACTON os 858 Forces n BoxSrRUCTURAL MeMGERS WT SOL INTERACTION a7 WORKED EXAMPLES. CONCLUDING COMMENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.. 86 10, REFERENCES. vo4. INTRODUCTION Although many rectangular underground concrete structures have strength reserves that apparently lead to satisfactory performance during earthquakes there is considerable Uncertainty in engineering design communities in both New Zealand and overseas as to how to estimate the magnitude of the dynamic earth pressures or the soil strain deformations the they are subjectod to during earthquakes. ‘Many technical papers and design codes address the design and analysis of buildings and shove ground structures for carthquake resistance. In contrast dite iy significantly les information available for the design of underground structures, Within the pest 30 years, particularly since the availebilty of commercial fnte element software, analysis procedures have gradually evolved for most forms of underground structures, but to date there have been ‘ew published design guidelines and most national and interoatcnal design codes developed for seismically ative countries do not consider underground structures. Analyses and design of large under-ground structures has tended to be carried out on a one-off basis with desig criteria developed for each specifi project, Considering the variability in ground conditions foflen encountered in urban areas and the relatively few large underground stroctures constructed, the lack of the development of s more standardised approach is perhaps not Uuexpecied. However, for many smaller structures such as culverts, services tunnel, and Pedestrian sub-ways, which are becoming more prevalent as urbanisation restricts the constuction of open channels and above ground development, it is not economical to undertake detailed one-off analyses. There is a need for simplified analysis procedures, design guidelines and code design criteria for these structures. Simplified analysis procedures are also helpful for checking the results of the more sophisticated umerical analyses employed for large underground structure, Seismic design of underground structures is cther omitted completely or not covered sdequately in New Zealand design codes. For example, the curent Transit New Zealand Bridge Manual identifies the problem of the seismic design of underground structures for culverts and subways with moderate depths of cover but suggests using an out-of-date analysis procedure know as the “stresses at infinity method”. Many small underground structures exist in urban areas in New Zealand, for example there are about [3 underground subways, box culverts and highway underpasses in the Lower Hutt City area located in sediments close tothe Wellington Fault. None ofthese have been specifically designed for cathquake effects Large underground car-parking. buildings and buildings with significant underground ‘basement structures have been constructed in the major New Zealand cities, For these major underground strictures, seismic effects have usually considered in the design but the analyses have ben based on a simplified theory developed for retaining walls with the wall top atthe ground surface and the foundation assumed to be rigid. When the structure is constructedDpelow the surface in deep soil layers these simplified methods have obvious limitations. ‘Utimate strength analysis refinements are leading to less reserve of strength in more complex box and rectangular sbapes used in large underground structures. Because of these sdvancements, underground structures are becoming more vulnerable to earthquake damage nd itis therefore important to develop rational method of defining the earthquake-induced pressures and deformations. Underground structures are constrained by the surrounding soil or rock and cannot move independently so are not generally subjected to significant dynamic amplification effects ‘They areaffected by the deformation of the surounding ground and not by the inertia forces acting on the structure, In contrast, above-ground structures often have natural frequencies that are within the range of the predominant frequencies of earthquake ground motions resulting in resonant effects with the accelerations acting on the structure amplified wih respect to the ground surface to produce large inertia forces. Constraint effects from the sil ‘on underground structures, and amplification of the ground acceleration on above-ground structures are main factors that have contributed tothe generally better performance in major carthquaies of underground structres than above ground structures. “The earthquake response of underground structures is usully considered with reference tothe following he principal types of deformations: + Axial = Curvature + Racking (restangular cross-sections) or ovaling (cieular cross-sections) [As shown in Figure 1.1, axial and curvatue deformations develop when seismic waves ‘propagate either parallel or obliquely to the longitudinal axis ofthe structure. The general behaviour ofa ong structure subjected vo a component of parallel wave deformation is similar to that oan elastic beam embedded inthe sol. Axial and flexural strains in the structure can be computed by beam theory. In simplified analyses, the structure is assumed to be flexible relative w the surrounding soll or rock snd to reypond wid Ue suuc Ursa pallet ts it the ffee‘eld elastic seismic waves, These simplified analyses are often employed for pipelines that have relatively small cross-sectional areas and forthe preliminary analyses of funnels, When the structure is sti in the longitudinal direction relative to the surrounding soil it will not be compliant with the soil or rock deformations. For this case, interaction cetfets need to be considered by employing either mumerical methods or approximate solutions developed from wave propagation theory for beams on an elastic foundation. Ovaling or racking deformations develop in an underground structure when the seismic waves propagate in a direction perpendicular or witha significant component perpendicular tothe Togituinal axis resulting in distortion ofthe cross-section (see Figure 12). In this cas, and ifthe stucture is relatively long, a plane-stran two-dimensional analysis may be employed.‘Tension Compression Ture! SMT TMT ‘A. Axial Deformation Along Tunnel Positive Curvature a: | “Negative ‘Curvature 8. Curvature Deformation Along Tunnel Figure 1.1. Axial and curvature deformations. (Souree Owen and Schl 1961)~ ‘Tunnel Before eT Wave Maton NN ‘Tunnel During Wave Motion <= Shear Wave Front ‘A. Ovaling Deformation of a Circular Cross Section Te Tunnel During Wave Motion Tunnel Beto ‘Wave Motion “++ Shear Wave Front 'B. Racking Deformation of a Rectangular Cross Section Figure 1.2, Ovaling and racking deformations, (Source Wang, 1999)Aay type of seismic wave propagating in any direction can cause racking or ovaling efornations. However, previous studies indicate tht vertically propagating shear waves are the predominant wave form governing the design of eose-sections for ovaling cracking Before the development of sophisticated numerical methods, research on the earthquake analysis of underpround structures focused on cicular cavities in elastic continua and then ‘advanced to consider lined cavities located within elastic half-spaces. Lined circular shapes ‘were 2 reasonable approximation to typical tunnel crost-sections and could te analysed by analytical theory of elasticity and approximate elasticity methods. Elastic wave theory was also eplied to develop procedures fr assessing the axial and flexural stetns acting normal to the cras-section of long flexible structures. Although the longitudinal analysis of rectangular structures canbe cared out using this same elastic wave theory there are no simple analytical procedures that can be used to analyse the cross-sectional deformations. Consequently it has only been with the rapid advance of mumerical methods in the last decade that satisfactory analysis procedures have been developed for rectangular structures, Prior to this, rectangular cross-sections were designed by assuming that they were subjected to the free-field sol or rock siear strains and by the application of standard structural frame analysis methods Rectangular underground structures are suitable for cutand-cover constustion and are therefre often constructed close to the surface in relatively soft soil, In this situation, the assumption of compatibility with the fre-field shear strains can lead to very conservative esis2. EARTHQUAKE DAMAGE TO UNDERGROUNGD STRUCTURES, Published research on the past performance of underground stractures and openings during earthquakes has been summarised by Wang (1993). Research reports and papers by Dowsing and Rosen (1978), Owen and Scholl (1981), Wang (1985) and Sharma and Judd (1991) are mentioned in his summary. The Sharma and Judd study extended Owen and Schol's work and collected qualitalive dats for 192 reported observations from 85 world- Wide earthquakes, Sharma snd Judd conelated the vulnerability of underground facilities with six factors: overburden cover, rock or soil type, peak ground acceleration (PGA), earthquake magnitude, epicenral distance and type of lining. The main findings from this work were + Damage decreases wit increasing overburden depth, ‘+ More damage occurred in facilities constructed in sol than in competent rock. + Foc PGA’s less than 0.15 only 25% of the eases reported damage. For PGA’ greater ‘than 0.15 g, 69% ofthe eases reported damage. ‘+ More than 50% of the damage reports were for earthquakes with magnitude M exceeding 7. “+ Facilities were most vulnerable when within 25 to 50 km a the epicentre. + The proportion of damaged cases of concrete-ned tunnels was greater than for unlined cases, This was atributed to the poor grourd conditions that originally required the openings to be lined. Of puticular relevance to the present study was the damage to rectangular underground structues in the 1971 San Fernando earthquake. Owen and Schll (1981) reported damage to five eatand-cover conduits, and culverts with reinforced concrete linings, with fake uf Tongidinal construction joins, cracking and formation of plastic hinges at the top and bottom of the walls. Lew etal (1971) reported severe damage 1 box culvert sections ofthe Wilson Canyon flood contol channel. A large underground reinforced concrete reservoir, part cf the Balboa Water Treatment plant, suffered severe damage. The walls, roof sab, floor slab and some ofthe columns ofthis 150 m x 150 mx 11.5 m high reservoir were extensively damaged. It was thought thatthe damage was related to settlement and sliding produced by the ground shaking but soil shear strains and earchquake-induced pressures on the walls were significant factors Priestley etal, 1986) Six underground stations out of the total of 21 subway stations inthe Kobe area were seversly damaged in the 1995 Hyogokon-nanbu earthquake. Sections of tunnels connecting the similar to those made by Penzien (2000) but the derivation ‘method was less rigorous. Nishioka and Unjob (2002) verified expression (5.11) aginst finite element analyses of «twin-barrel structure of varying stifiness fortwo different soi stifness conditions and obtained satisfactory agreementEquation (5.10) from Penzien’s analysis reduces to Equation (5.11) when Poisson's Ratio, ¥=05, Equation (5.11) can therefore be expected to give satisfactory results for some soil properties but may not be satisfactory for soils with low values of v percularly when Fy ‘becomeslarge. 5.33 Wang Interaction Method By undetaking 25 dynamic finite element analyses of typical rectangular structures Wang (1993) stowed tht the relationship between & and F, for rectangular structures was closely represented by the following closed form expression derived for circular tunnels: na Shy (6.12) “TE, 1S, ‘Wang's dynamic finite clement analyses were performed using the computer code FLUSH (0975) «two-dimensional, plane-sein, Site clement rogram using fequeney domsin ‘ohio estmiqu. The analyses wee based on linearly elastic sol properties and an energy hsorbing Boundary was wed on one sie of the mesh to minimise éynamie boundary effects “Two symbetialy generated ground input motions were input tthe rigid kas ofthe mode to simulate erally propagating hear waves. Five diferent single-barel and tin-barel box structures were analysed with beighs varying between 4.6 to 7.9 m and L/H ratios varying from 1 103.5. The soil medium was assumed to be homegenous in 22 of the cases analysed. A soil profile with linearly increasing shear ‘modulus with depth was used for the other thee eases, The soil cover over the structures was limited w a range of 46 to 6.9 m. A soft soil profile depth of 18.3 m was used with an underlying 6.1 m layer of dense soil above the rigid foundation. An average shear modulus taken a the mid-height ofthe structure was used to represent the sol stifness and to calculate the fleitility ratio fr these thee cases. 53.4 Interaction Method Used inthe Present Stmdy Inthe present study. R versus F relationships have beon developed for a range of structures and ste soll conditions by carrying out 200 dynamic inte element analyses. The analysis procedure was similar to that used by Wang but the dynamic analysis process was simplified by underaking a modal analysis and investigating the stra fed in the first mode of each of. the layers investigated, This simpliiction enabled a wide range of the important parameters tobe investigated, Good precision was obtained by using a fine element mesh. Because ofthe <éynamic analysis simplification and the refined mesh it was possible to reliably calculate the force in the members ofthe rectangular box structure.Information on the member forces has not previously been published. Wang proposed approximate methods of ealulating the forces by a frame analysis procedure based on the interaction shear deformation but this method did not properly account for the soil iteration ‘normal stresses on the members “The main assumptions made in the finite element analyse carried ou! in the present project (@) Plane-strain conditions {b) Lineary elastic sil end structure material properties, (6) Dynamic response censtrained to te first shear mode ofthe layer. The rigid fame single-barel and twin-barel box structures with dimensions shown in Figure ‘5.6 und 5:7 were investigated. Properties and dimensions adopted for the analyses were: + Materia Young's medulus =20 GPa, + Material Poisoa’s aio = 0.2 +All members wore assumed to have the same uniform thickness, Thickness values of| 200, 250, 300,350, 490, $00, 600, 700 and 800 mim were used to obtain solutions for & wide range of stuctual flexbiliy, Properties adopted for the sol layer were: + Layer depths 0f 20 mand 50m. ‘+ Uniform and parabolic shear modulus profiles with a value of 40 MPa forthe uniform layer and an average value over the depth of 100 MPa for the parabolic layer (150 MPa at the base ofthe parabolic layer.) + Soil Poisson's ratio= 0.4 ‘+ Depth of cover taken a 5, 10, 15m for both layers. Additional cover depths of 20 m and 45 m wore invesigated for the 50 m layer. The 45 m cover represents limiting ‘case ofthe structure on rigid foundation under a very deep soil layer,Single-Barrel Structure Figure 55 Double-Barrel Structure8, RESULTS CF ANALYSES 6.1 Comparison of R Versus F, Relationships R versus F, curves forthe single and twin-berel structures analysed in the present study are ‘compared withthe numerical results of Wang (1993), and the theoretical relationships given in Equations 5.10 (Penzien, 2000), 5.11 (Nishioka and Unjoh, 2002) and 5.12 (Wang, 1993) in Figue 6.1. A soil Poisson’s Ratio of 0.4 was used in the present analyses and in the evaluation of the theoretical expressions. The depth of cover forthe present analyses as taken as 5 m and the structures were embedded in a 0 m deep soil ayer with a shear modulus increasing parabolialy from zero at the surfice ‘The results in Figure 6.1 show that when th flexibility ratio approaches zero, representing a perfetly rigid structure, the R value also reduces to zero. At Fy = 1, the structure has the seme sifness asthe soil and the structure has a similar racking distortion to the ground | ah facwercwman | a | cele owns wmecectoms | & | Zoey |lapremmed hee natn fancy mf Zao fms as oad [rote ome es ssarnhowey | ade foes noe t | ode ance t | cada fete | cade [ete Lf oh | eon Secon ta Nginenrtrercry | & | sere [sre oun ee Pa eee rene | tes | Joccwcnarorrtnenen | | athan | | lewranwcrmntersenme | | 2am Jowrantmettareune | & | aelen fecunoconmircenee | a | hen lmreneccnntwawcrs | & | atlen : esc Layer Preperes [evrmcmumececa | | ale | [ave shesr modulus over structure ht. is 44.3) a 1G, * GH 3 D*)-YeY3 D7) loerevemaiysoonaec, | w | then |wesqws, tron) sasared Fane ate Propose : crermenencnene | | oan | eae | “came ema. romoe ve ve) orate % | alevmrn focvts tommy eon | awosfemsn feceecsomncg fest am 7 | ad lesen «| a | sine 4 | ones remeron locmemeenenectytce | x | see [cy tt fooree fact [acd teeta 1 | 2aneee van rome | many ra pn me yt“ebte7.4 Continued [oaeiatsa £airtracton Paramoiors teeta ten aan eo | cccng Fem Figue 53 ory 1004 raressrncmcstc | x | ooos rer Easton (53) [sin ee ona pours aan aly lowgriewimescisirsrin | ey | oot et Ineron aan ao | ass Frome 810 (Poa) Suc rele te | cools | arma Jaman atte anes | -tszjaemse equates ea memento me | aszhavmr | egen ey lcoraontacertrtepmonens | Fm | 105) Fem Pe .19 (coresontecoreootonmonante | Fa | 114) Fem Fe 6.20 lcorces oman sttpcomen — | Mc | -t85hmim | a=M Fu Jeeta Ea mem atbrcmcomars | Me | -17Bhavm |e MF ex norco re ta P| tasharm |P=oere Ieprx a tc nah Ne sz} 7a ot) 1-8) [section Flexural Capeety jeniescengnctcanonteintonve | f | 875|uee | rete stapaze 267 equaon (538) lcrcksa mort wal enon Me | toojoemim | m= 20" U6 timate srengn tension on outsge |nenocanert par ogth, A | z282ntvm levee cepmotacen | ots anu t+ 2y1000 lsmomeion wn a scfm [a =(A, 40.8, 1000) luoreciced nexuralcapaciy §— | mt, | 225|aWmrm | no caren made tr lvemate strong tension an ince Iencenan ars poen ag Ae | s2e7fentim tei depict ecm | axel Jaren razvt000 |conreion ith x salem — a Ato. 1000) lUneduced foxurateapecity | my | #20|em/m | een made eal bass larprximate Gravity Lo womeonte [stannic eet ® mle |neonaat lecherous we | tsthavin [wee 24H Cane) [se pesue anbaee & | ashe [penemet ory as ext ove wate Ne] trforrm | rwamasnie of a sx roe Mg | s7}emim | Fam rare ans oe an coe) vost manent totam wat ae |__safenini | rom tome ana [Combined EQ + Grovity Lood J+ mnt wa Ma | -toshiimrm [tenses oninie le +c memer tp hat Me | 222hamrm |Terms oie [e+ aman nten rw Mar_| selmi | Tens on inde [Azproumate vet Displacement [xmas aan caacty Mor | sf | tear ah lover seectonctarsarestyent | 5, | G0lnm | Tetanae tn whan isla nege ems ras cry tae ve | 129 ny jaca alate dicen aARN masa Figure 7.2. Combined earthquake induced + gravity bending moments7.2 Box Subway Example For the second example, the structure analysed in Section 7.1 was modified by reducing the ‘wal thickness to a uniform 300 mam and also the quanity ofthe reinforcing. Other detail of| the structure and sol were maintained the same as used inthe first example. Reinforcement ets for this modified box structure are listed in Table 7.2. The modified structure has dimensions typical of pedestrian subway constructed above the water table, Preliminary analyses indicated tht ths structure would be deformed into the inelastie range For this ease the previous analysis procedure developed fora structure responding elastically needs to be modified ino a tvee-stage analysis procedure. The thee stages are as follows |. The first stage is to calculate the ground motion acceleration required to induce yielding in the structure. The procedure is similar to that described in the first example except that the acceleration level is gradually increased (using the spreadsheet) until the frst plastic hinge develops in the structure (assumed to be the yield level). This analysis is oullined in Table 72, An acceleration of 0.23 g resulted in yield. The comesponding shear displacement ofthe structare wes 5.3 mm, 2, The second stage involves a pushover type frame analysis ofthe structure without the soil to determine the lateral force versus shear deflection relationship into the fall inelastic displacement region. This analysis is required to define the overall structure stiffness or flexibility to use inthe soil-strcture interaction equations when the soil ‘induced deformations exceed the structure yield displacement levels. For simplicity in the present analysis, an elasto-plastic force relationship was assumed in which the structure becomes fully plastic with no rise in the applied Interal force level beyond the yield displacement level, This relationship is illustrated in Figure 73, For these simplifying assumptions, the effective structure flexibility beyond the yield displacement level i the elastic lexibilty multiplied by the ductility factor. 3. The third stage isto calculate the inelastic displacement and the ductility demand on the sructure atthe 04g design ground acceleration. To carry out this stage of the analysis the same spreadsheet used previously forthe frst stage canbe used as shown in Table 73. The procedure isto estimate a ductility factor and then caleulate the structure flexibility. Undertaking the standard soil-strcture interaction analysis with the modified inelastic flexibility provides an estimate of the shear displacement inthe structure. From this displacement and the yield displacement calculated in the frst stage a ductility fitor ean be calculated. This factor is then used to improve the estimated duciliy fetor and the analysis repeated iteratively on the spreadsheet until convergence. The earthquake moments shown in Table 7.3 are incorrect for his inelastic stage ofthe analysis, but for convenience have been left in the table. Correct ‘moments in the box section for inelastic response can only be reliably obiained by a Aetsiled pushover analysis. ‘The procedure above indicates that under the 0.4 design ground acceleration level the displacement ductility demand on the subway box willbe about 2.0. There would be no »‘able 72 Single Bare Box Subway Stucture Example: Ved Displacement Calesaion fem [Sembol|_vave Junie —[Gommentsorfoms seco crore a | Aon Jseorwsamctnectnetoer | Gy | 2ojure tyrant ant [Sot density me -20}uin® severe Geoneic ina [sass nottom | ade a) t | see Feo noone «| cine re ncnre t | oie lt ee | ose Cone Secton ps fangs mt one = | oo cocoa seh «| as renscerr ren » | 0 mierwcrscinectscr | Fe | asd cocuscmarnniocenan | | ham lmriocomntarcarnnr | & | fam nrncanactrsnse |S | tla feencnmeatw new — | as | 20m lretronmentwsnena | Ss | slam late ne Propeion’ lconsenmetencam mone | Ye | ain fccwestonconsone |X | the Jueshorosinowranccent | G | aSslume a.ncunyertiao> ner nay Jswremeversvatwnors. | w | lor |unsen6, 100K [scutes Fran Suess Proprio lent wat roves note te | osorfet lenontc neat | oooiapn leant none haa | conten fate | teemfovmim [keeles s000r va rc were 6 | seazfovnrm |e tnt — | sezzfevmm |=, 0000 ooo eee | tg tc ee a| ns ar i fcr xn ‘ Jan] romeo Jams depsomencicun sor | Tan 0:0 ca ip. fesse nity a fete ig my © | 22%eas)orinim | ronan yo 6 [su romenatoton sr syn‘able72 Continued (cetetates £0 Imeracion Peramtrs Ig restos sesrsvan co | coos Fro Powe r= 10H |-areotedsrancomenstre, | vx | ooos7| Fam Equton (63) fate a rnd cn | o22tle [incase un panto hnge forms marcn ean a Rm | 174 Fem E4510 Penson) Src els lemctre ce | coors eet Ismet A | ocassle — faneee meme tp come ™, sahnmin | aeaon 2) a meme atom ne | ohm |eeaion 8) lcoresonisarctertsorenans | Fe | 1.16 Fem Fowes.19 fcoresoniscetetotomncrens | Fa | 129 Fem Foun 0.29 fcorecesearam ettpeonen | Me Thm | Me= NF fcoroces arom sttotom snes | Me | Sahin |Me= MF Essense ttpatusare | shim |P=Darte ep ae nwa Ne silevin [nos P2C4-n2-yaysil-uy section Fexural Capacty [rewiecrengnateonceintanre | te | 370)tea —|abayatatpage 207 Egon (63) [casing manent wa section mM sofamin [Me= 1078 |utimate strength tension on outside , incemar oe A | zonelomr | cade aset-te-+ayzyt000 censor wan a sofrm [ane 50.88 1000) [Varedced texural capacty | My | 148|kWm/m |e oresen ase mal bah utimate strength tension oa inside Jactcamartareaserminge | Ae | $047|'im ete oof econ | case aunt teseazyto00 fconrossn with ~ ashen | aa (A085 1000) lumeswced ecuralcapecty | My | 78 |kvm/m | no caectn made ane [Arproxmate Gravity Load Moments [stoeeceon ost ® a last socire we anim | we=26@H Le -2uN6 HD [saiceaie obace | sere fees. lorries ox etn wate Ne | asehain | re magne of EO av ae [canyeesmemer to wa My sT}eNm 1m | Fem ere ant esr = coche) (carieesnonaresctomsets | Me | _stahaim in | rome anaes (comained Ea + raw Lox le tomantso rama My | -rtebotmem | rersienon cua [e+ moment it wa das | -1ofetmim | rrsionon oasis [e+ CMomen sonoma Me_| _20hevmin renan nin, [approximate Yield Osplaconent J entoes Meas apcty ae | cope |ata= Mare by | Sahm |tahanaedtn wien nig omeTable. Single-Barel Box Subway Structure Example: Approximate Ductiy Facto Caution {irs [Symboi| Vsive [Units [Comments or Forms {el iput Parmeter sete aen ° ole fot cna arth ove aracre | ale lseornoaunctbacectectiner | G | 200)uPa | Laer snsmests haveparabte vanaf lect | aol [seucure Geometric inputs losses von # 36)n jose ant ovat) u 36) —— + | ose rr soa | ade stress | aoe [Cenente Section puts cir sig ser cre scion Moai. ee | s0vedfues | 4 | store Fa | asd} lournniocarenttersoner | 20m lovmrifocarentberspacna | sofa « 2am Sx | s00lnm [cacuatea Layer Properties Ieritotam tee sive mck | Yo ale INeoreoctancwratowreck | Ys 4) je suarnodikscnreiucure | Gy | 4nehire | = oyevevina Dress oD lsmermnerecyseeases, |v | taslaw | w= SG, 1000) [cacubted Frame Suess Propertis cha wa meen nara 4 | ooots}aten [cna tor moran tna 1 | egostafm mn et mane ne | gosta |stats Ke | tozarfarmim |e sonar 2-12) erste | sozzrbamin |= 1000-4) K 1 acts sazzt{imim |K=1, 10000-4) lasso tn rote 14 luc tity te | ea7e05|n 117m] Fam seuonts4) Jecomtsaieamertsceetecer | ye | 20 Nee suet by tatone loca sae ey ta | v20eo4 esa sor wack oy 4 | 22aeosleran ym exo Le | rad‘abie73 Contes [cateused £< irtpraction Paremetare [4 tee anear aan en | os From Fine 536° = 120 MP lratectasseunameceatrs, | s | o0aer From Ennion) lowgnicmiteetisrearsain | vy | o0ore stuctre sear sn ca | a0cad sree sear etecion ae | 00108)n leamanenstn eames My | t0qhornrm | eauten 62) ec manent atm cer | too} im | eauton 61) (coretonecorenomomana | Fn | 4.6 Fram Pe 619 (coraiontcortetctonmonents | Fy | 1.58] Fem Foe 8.20, (coretesearon stopcamen | My | -t3theemsm | Ma= MF lcorsoseaimm stnotomearwe | Me | -ishim/m | Moe Mira lexivtonenatioceatupstuctre | P| raihimin [PaDest lggrov wile nwa Ne sienin [nya Preet-t2-wayi-t Section Flexural Capacity Jrorsteswergestencemintonre | te | a76ura | riesnystalsege 27 Eastin 536) |cscarg moman al seton ™, salenmin | 10" 16 lutte strength tension on outside . nainecenar sper eh A | olor lta ox at scon | asm |a.=t-te 2 4raytoon [conesson wth a atfem | a= 9085 1900) lUnredveed exwateapacty — | my | 148}eam/m | no coecon ade fern |utimat strength tansion on nie [eniocerentamasermianm Ae | s00entim esacew get cn | 02st anette, 2gsayte00 [Corresan wa = selmm ase cavto 1000) lUnreducedMecwateapeciy, |, 76a m/m | No cacon nada tr axles [Approximate Gravity Load Moments [sores ono » aioe |e=Dye.001 we sslovrm |me=24@ Ht + -2umey) | ssh Wl lewaynataaloce wat Ne | teeforrm | twice megane Ea as re lat coders a | szfoverrn | Fem tame aa ove an = doh) [combined EQ + rity Lows [e+ omer wat Ma | shins [onion inte, Pessctige ome e+ ommerio wa Ma | t98hirm [renner oie Pane nnge ome le Guonsrtoctan at wat Mar | -243)aem/m | tenon nauise. Paic ing ome le +awanerotan sa wa Mar_| _-75}oumim | reson nine, Pac ng ons [Approximate Vit Displacement om tne ad apn Mar | 25mm | Mar= Mam, lsmacatecinstencaue tyes | 5 Salm | Fameasc aye in abe 73 lregues any tr me | 2 Sovtcen nese supconant scoredifficulty in designing to achieve this ievel of structural ductility but a detaifed design of the Joints would be required to prevent serious damage. To obtsin. good levels of ductility the design criteria of Fenwick and Deam (2002) for comers between walls and slabs can be applied Pushover Analyas of Box Structure ‘sage area depecanentd, Figure 7.3 Pushover analCONCLUDING COMMENTS (@ The empirical relationship developed by Wang (1993) for assessing the racking interaction of rectangular section structures with the sunounding soil during earthquakes ‘as verified by undertaking a large number of simplified dynamic Gnite element analyses, and by comparison with analyticl expressions recently published. Agreement between the various relationships was found to be adequate for structural design purposes and in ‘general the design epproach developed by Wang (1993) was found to be applicable under ‘most conditions likely to be encountered in practise (©) The work of Wang was extended by undertaking a large number of simplified dynamic finite element analyses to determine the sensitivity ofthe interaction curves to varilions in the main parameters. ‘This produced a number of chart that can be used in the earthquake design of smaller underground structures, where the site information is unlikely to be known in sufficient detail to warrant more sophisticated analyses. Charts ‘were prepared fr estimating the fre-fcld soil stains and the magnitude of the internal force sctons in the cross-section of the structure. Reliable simple methods of estimating ‘ese parameters have not been previously published (©) The finite element method developed for the present study can also be used to analyse directly large or more complex structures when more detailed site information is hikey to be availabe (@ Application of the Wang design method to several box culverts and pedestrian subway structures showed thatthe intemal forees from earthquake induced raking deformations ‘can be large in comparison to actions produced by gravity and water pressure loads. These earthquake-induced actions need to be considered in the design of most rectengular underground structures (©) A displacement based design approach is required when the structure is loaded beyond vield levels by the earthquake induced ground deformations. The design process inthis case is rather more complex involving the need for » simple pushover anslysis to determine the stuctare postelastic stiffaess or Nexibilty. An example was presented ‘ich outlined a method of determining the ductility demand on the structure when inelastic deformation was significant ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Financial support from the Earthquake Commission Kevearch Foundation to undertake this project is gratefully acknowledged.10, REFERENCES Bransdon DR, (1999), Personal Communication Dowding CH, Rozen A, (1978) "Damage to Rock Tuanels from Earthquake Shaking ‘Jounal ofthe Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 104, No. GT2, February 1978. Fenwick and Dear B (2002) “Design of Opening Corners Benween Reinforced Coneree Walls and Slabs", SESOC Journal (NZ), Vol 16, No 1, April 2003, Hang RN, and Lysmer J, (1981) "Response of Buried Structures to Traveling Waves” Journal f the Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 107, No. GT2, February, 1981 IwatateT, Kobayashi Y.Kusu H and Rin K, (2000), “Imvesigation and Shaking Table Tests of Subway Sructures of the Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake". Proceedings 12" World CConfererce on Barthquake Engineering, Auckland, Kuesel TR, (1969) "Earthquake Design Criteria for Subways”, Journal ofthe Structural Divisions, ASCE, Vol 98, No ST6, June 1969. Lew HS, Leyendecker EV, end Dickers RD, (1971), "Engineering aspects ofthe 1971 San ‘Fernands Farthquake” Building Science Series 40, US Dept of Commerce, NBS. ‘Monsees, and MerstJL, (1991) "Earthquake Considerations in Design ofthe Los “Angeles Metro”, ASCE. Conference on Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, 1991 Nishiyama S, Kawama I, Muroya K, Haya H, and Nishimura A, (2000), “Experimental Study (of Seismic Behavior of Box Type Tunnel Consructed by Open Cutting Method". Proceedings 128 World Conference on Barthguake Engineering, Auckland [NishiokeT, and Unjob $, (2002) “A Simplified Seismic Design Method for Underground Siructares Based on Shear Sain Transmiting Characteristics", SEWC 2002, Yokohama Japan, [Nishioke T, and Unjoh $, (2003) “4 Simplified valuation Method for the Seismic of Undreground Common Usilty Boxes, Proceedings 2003 Pacific Conference on Earthquake gineering, Auckland, (Owen GN, and Scholl, RE (1981) “Earthquake Engineering of Large Underground Structures”, prepared forthe Federal Highway Administration, FHWAIRD-801195, Penzin , (2000) “Seismically Induced Racking of Tunnel Linings”, Earthquake Engineering ‘and Structural Dynamics, Vol 29:683-691. 56PenzienJ, and Wu CL, (1998) “Siresses in Linings of Bored Tunes”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol 27: 283-300, Priestley M JN, Davidson B J, Honey G D, Hopkins D C, Martin R J, Ramsay G, Vessey JV, and Wood J H, (1986), “Seismic Design of Starage Tans”, Recommendation of «Study Group of NZNSEE. Prestey MIJN, Siebel F and Calvi G M, (1996), “Seismic Design and Retrofit of Bridges”, John Wiley & Sons Ine, New York Public Works Research Insiute, (1996) "Report on the Disaster Caused by the 1995 ‘hogoken Nant Earthquake”, PWRI, Missy of Construction, Vol 196, 455-470 ‘Sharma S, and Judd W R, ('991) "Underground Opening Damage from Earthquakes", Engineering Geology, 30,1991. Shepherd R, and Wood J H (1966) "Normal Mode Properties of Multi-Storey Frameworks”, Journal of Sound and Vibraton, Vol 3, No 3, 300-314 ‘Transit New Zealand, (2003) "Bridge Manual", SP/M/O14, Wellington. Wang 1M, (1985 “The Disnibution of Earthquake Damage to Underground Facilities during ‘he 1976 Tangshan Farthquake”, Earthquake Spectr, Vol 1, No 4, 1985, Wang J (1993), "Seismic Design of Turmels”, Monograph 7, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas Inc, New York, June 1993, ‘Wood JH, (1973) “Earthquake Induced Soil Pressures on Structures", FERL 73.05, [Fathquake Engineering Research Laboratory, California Insitute of Technology. ‘Wood J H, snd Jenkins D A,(2000), “Seismic Analysis of Buried Arch Structures”. Proceedings 12 World Con‘rence on Earthquake Engineering, Aveklang, February, 2000,