JAPAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN
CODES IN JAPAN
January,2000

JAPAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES
OF CIVIL ENGINEERING STRUCTURES IN JAPAN

1. KEY CONCEPTS FOR EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF CIVIL

ENGINEERING STRUCTURES AFTER THE 1995 HYOGOKEN-NANBU
EARTHQUAKE

2. 1996 SEISMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES

JAPAN ROAD ASSOCIATION

3. SEISMIC DESIGN FOR RAILWAY STRUCTURES

RAILWAY TECHNICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, JAPAN

4. EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF PORT FACILITIES

BUREAU OF THE PORTS AND HARBORS, IvuNISTRY OF TRANSPORT

5. BASIC PRINCIPLES OF SEISMIC DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FOR WATER

SUPPLY FACILITIES
JAPAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION

6. RECOMMENDED PRACTICES FOR EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF

GAS PIPELINES
JAPAN GAS ASSOCIATION

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 THE JAPAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS

THE PUBLICATION COMMITTEE

OF
EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES
OF CIVIL ENGINEERING STRUCTURES IN JAPAN

Chairman: Masanori Hamada (r#iseda Unievrsity)

Key Concepts for Earthquake Resistant Design

Members: Shigeki Unjo (Public Works Research Institute, Ministry of Construction)

Highway Bridges

Akihiko Nishimura (Railway Technical Research Institute, Japan)

Railway Structures

Tatsuo Uwabe (Port and Harbor Research Institute, Ministry ot Trensport)

Port Facilities

Seiji U ne (Japan Water Works Association)

Water Supply Facilities

Hiroyuki Yamakawa (Japan Ges Associetion)

Gas Pipelines

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
1. KEY CONCEPTS FOR EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF CIVIL

ENGINEERING STRUCTURES AFTER THE 1995 HYOGOKEN-NANBU

EARTHQUAKE

1.1 Lessons from The 1995 Hyogoken-nanbu (Kobe) Earthquake 1- 1

1.2 Key Concepts for Earthquake Resistant Design 1- 4

1.3 Technical Subjects for Revision of Earthquake Design Code 1- 6

1.4 Diagnosis and Reinforcement of Existing Structures 1- 7

1.5 Future Innovations of Design Codes and Research Subjects 1- 8

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

1. KEY CONCEPTS FOR EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

STRUCTURES AFTERTHE 1995 HYOGOKEN-NANBU EARTHQUAKE

1.1 Lessons from The 1995 Hyogoken-nanbu
(Kobe) Earthquake
At 5:46AM of January 17, 1995, a highly
urbanized area of western Japan was jolted by an
earthquake with a magnitude of M=7.2. This
earthquake affected an extensive area containing
major cities, Kobe and Osaka and their
surrounding satellite cities which constitute the
industrial, commercial and cultural center of
western Japan.
The areas most heavily damaged by this
earthquake extends in a belt-shaped zone along
the causative fault system with a length of 40km,
particularly the zones identified as JMA intensity
scale VII (equivalent to MMI=X). They extend
over the entire east -west length of the most
densely populated part of Hanshin (meaning
Osaka-Kobe) metropolitan region.. Three million
people in this region were seriously affected. A
free-field ground acceleration (pGA) exceeded
800cmfs 2 in Kobe city and its response spectrum
was over 2000cmfs 2 at a damping coefficient of
0.05.
Table.Ll shows loss of human lives, and a

Table 1.1 A Summary of Damage Caused by the 1995 Kobe Earthquake (1995 Kobe Earthquake)
Human* Death: 6306 Missing: 2 Injured: 41,527
Housing and Buildings Totally collapsed houses: 100,300
Half and partially collapsed houses: 214,000
Buildings: 3,700
Bridges ** Road (Hanshin Expressway): 67 Railway: 32
Embankment and Landslides Embankment: 427 Landslides: 367
Water Customers without service: 1.2 million Restoration time: 40 days
Gas Customers without service: 857,000 Restoration time: 85 days
Electricity Customers without service: 2.6 million
Outage of electric power: 2836Mw
Restoration time: 7 days
Telecommunication Customers affected by Switchboard Malfunction: 235,000
Damaged Cable Line: 19,300
Economic Impact Private properties: ¥6.3 trillion
Transportation facilities: ¥2.2 trillion
Lifelines: ¥0.6 trillion
Others: ¥0.5 trillion
Grand total: ¥9.6 trillion

* Toll by Fire Defense Agency May 21, 1995

** Collapsed and Extensively Damaged

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation 1-1
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN
summary of structural and functional disaster by
the Kobe earthquake to houses and buildings,
bridge, lifeline facilities and so on.
The first point to note about damage to civil
engineering structures is that elevated highway
bridge piers were completely destroyed. Although
there had been RC bridge piers damaged by
earthquakes in the past, this was the first
experience of total collapse in Japan. Most of the
seriously damaged piers were designed
accordance with pre-1980 earthquake resistant
design codes. The piers of concrete structures
having low ductility and low ultimate strength,
were shear-fractured, resulting in such major
failures. Damage to RC piers designed
conformance with the current earthquake resistant
design codes after 1980 was not so severe as to
result in bridge collapses.
Figure 1.2 Collapse of Bridge Piers of A
Elevated Highway Bridge (1995 Kobe
Earthquake)
Another point to note is the damage to steel
bridge piers. Many steel bridge piers buckled.
Most steel structures were designed by a method
where stresses in steel structural members fell
within an elastic region. The characteristics of
plastic deformation of steel structures had not
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
January, 2000
been· incorporated into design codes. This is one
of the technical subjects that the earthquake
showed needs to be promptly studied and
implemented.
in
Figure 1.3 Buckling of A Steel Pier of A
in
Bridge (1995 Kobe Earthquake)
Damage to large underground structures,
such as subway structures has also become a focus
ofattention. The severest dainage was caused at a
subway station in the downtown of Kobe city,
which is of box-type RC structure, where
reinforced concrete columns were shear- fractured
and an upper floor deck slab collapsed along with
the overburden soil. Severe damage to other
underground subway stations was also reported.
Besides subway tunnels, which were constructed
by the cut-and-fill method, many mountain
tunnels of railway and highway were also
damaged due to large ground motion in the near
field of the earthquake fault.
Another. typical characteristic of damage to
civil infrastructures caused by the Kobe
earthquake is collapses and large displacements of
quay walls. Numerous collapses of revetments and
quay walls had been reported in past earthquakes,
but most of them had not been designed to
withstand soil liquefaction and had been decaying.
1-2
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

This was the first time when recently constructed of the Shinkansen (bullet trains) shocked not only
quay walls were largely displaced by several civil engineers, but also the general public. RC
meters or collapsed. All the damaged quay walls bridge piers were shear-fractured and collapsed,
had been constructed using concrete caissons. The and girders fell. Fortunately, because the
result of the investigation into cause of the earthquake struck 14 minutes before service hours,
damage to quay walls said that soft clay of the sea no human life was lost. A serious issue has
bed largely amplified the earthquake motion and surfaced of how to assure the safety of high speed
the foundation ground of the caissons, which had
been constructed by replacing the original sea bed
of soft clay with liquefiable gravel sand,
weathered granite, also liquefied besides the filled
ground behind the quay walls.

Figure 1.5 Soil Liquefaction of An Artificial

Island in Kobe (1995 Kobe Earthquake)

trains, including Shinkansen, against earthquakes

caused by inland faults directly below them.
Figure 1.4 Large Movement of Concrete
Soil liquefaction was extensively caused in
Caisson Quay walls (1995 Kobe Earthquake) the artificial islands and alluvial low lands in
Kobe and its neighboring areas, which resulted in
a significant damage to buried pipes and
However, it should be noted that all the
structures of lifeline systems, and many port
so-called earthquake resistant quay walls mostly
facilities. Most of the artificial islands in Kobe
survived. The construction of earthquake resistant
area was reclaimed from the sea by weathered
quay walls has been promoted nationwide, mainly
granite which contained large cobbles and fine
in major ports and harbors, through the lessons
contents. This revealed a need of revision of the
leamed from the damage to quay walls in Akita
method to evaluate the liquefaction potential of
Harbor during the 1983 Nihonkai-Chubu
gravel sand with fine contents.
earthquake. The earthquake resistant quay walls,
The ground behind the quay walls moved
which were designed by adopting a higher seismic
several meters towards the sea, resulting from the
load than that for conventional quay walls, were
large displacement of quay walls. These lateral
constructed to withstand liquefaction.
ground movement damaged the foundation piles
Damage to RC elevated railway bridge piers
of bridges, buildings and industrial facilities.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
1-3
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000
Furthermore, large ground strain due to
liquefaction-induced ground movement ruptured
buried pipes of lifeline systems such as gas, water,
electricity and sewer. A great number of breakages
of buried pipes resulted in the out of service to
numerous customers during a long period. These
liquefaction-induced ground displacement had not
been taken in the consideration in the earthquake
resistant design codes before the 1995 Kobe
earthquake.
Figure 1.6 Fall of A Bridge Girder due to
Movement of its Foundation Caused by
Liquefaction-Induced Ground Displacement
When we learn the lessons from the Kobe
earthquake, we should keep in mind the fact that
some conditional factors mitigated the disaster.
For one example had the earthquake struck the
Shinkansen (bullet train) traveling on elevated
railway bridges one hour later, it would have run
off the rails and caused disastrous train accidents.
The same can be said of the collapse of subway
stations. Concrete slabs along with their
overburden soil collapsed onto subway tracks. If
subway trains had been stopped there or had
smashed into the collapsed sections, additional
serious damage would have resulted.
There were other factors that contributed to
lessening the secondary damage. One important
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
1-4
factor was that the earthquake struck early in the
morning. If the earthquake had struck a few hours
later during the rush hour, the results would have
been much more tragic. Another factor was that
dawn broke over the disaster-stricken area after
the earthquake. The daylight aided the evacuation
of victims and the rescue of people trapped under
collapsed houses. If the earthquake had struck at
midnight, the death toll would have been much
greater.
It is highly important to investigate into the
causes of damage to the structures and to apply
the results in future preventive measures against
earthquakes, but we should also pay our full
attention on the above-mentioned hidden lessons.
1.2 Key Concepts for Earthquake Resistant
Design.
The JSCE (Japan Society of Civil Engineers)
organized a Special Task Committee of
Earthquake Resistance of Civil Engineering
Structures ill March 1995, about two months after
the Kobe earthquake, to discuss various subjects,
such as what an earthquake resistant capability of
civil engineering structures should be in the future
through the lessons from the Kobe earthquake.
The committee first discussed whether the strong
earthquake motions that had occurred in Kobe
area should be taken into account in the future
earthquake resistant design of civil engineering
structures. According to researchers on active
faults, in Japan the return period of the activity of
the earthquake fault is 500 to 2,000 years.
Assuming that the return period of the fault
activity is 1,000 years and the service life of civil
engineering structures is about 50 years, a
probability that the structures would undergo such
strong earthquake motions as those observed at
the Kobe earthquake during the serviceable life is
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

only five percent. The subject of the discussions
by the JSCE committee was how to treat great
disasters with such low probability of occurrence.
The JSCE proposed two key concepts for
earthquake resistant design of civil engineering
structures based on the discussions by the
committee. Those are two levels of ground
motions for earthquake resistant design and so
called performance-based design.
JSCE said that the resistance of civil
engineering structures against future earthquakes
should be examined by taking
consideration such strong earthquake motions as
observed during the Kobe earthquake in addition
to the ordinary earthquake motions that have thus
far been used for earthquake resistant design.
These two earthquake motions are respectively
called Level I and Level IT ground motions.
One of the reasons why JSCE said that the
Level IT ground motion should be taken into
account in the earthquake resistant design is
shown in Figure 1.7. This figure is a list of the
damaging earthquakes in the last century in Japan
and the numbers of casualties, and shows that
inland earthquakes of magnitude 7 and larger such
as the Kobe earthquake, which are surrounded by
squares in the figure, occurred 8 times and have a
probability of occurrence that can not be neglected
in terms of reformation of the design codes.
into the Figurel.7 also shows that the inland
earthquakes such as the Kobe earthquake resulted
in a greater number of causalities in comparison
with the plate boundary earthquakes in the pacific
ocean, if the 1923 Kanto and the 1900
Sanriku-Tsunami earthquake are excepted. In
these two earthquakes, the main causes of the loss

Name of Casualties (H, Kem!)da Kyoto

M D ate
Earthquake 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Kumamoto 5.8 1889. 7.28
~ 8.0 1891.10.28
~
~
Tokyo 6.7 1894. 6.20
20
Shonai 6.8 1894.10.22 7273
Sanriku Tsun. 7.1 1896. 6.15 31
Rikuu 7.0 1896. 8.31
1900
209 ~-------------~~~
Gono 6.4 1909. 8.14

~
Akita·-Senpoku 5.9 1914. 3.15
41
Ch!iiwa-Bay 6.0 1922.12. 8
Great Kanto 7.9 1923. 9. 1 94

~O
ita-t'Tafima 6.5 1925. 5.23
ita Tango 7.5 1927. 3.7
ita Izu 7.0 1930.11.26 ~ C;;;65······ ..·..···..·················J~~!'~!·
~ 1------------
Sanr-iku Tsun. 2925
8.3 1933. 3. 3
Oga-Hanto 7.0 1939. 5.1 r- 272

~
~ 7.4 1943. 9.10 3064

Tonankai 8.0 1944.12.7 27

I
lMikawa

Nanka!
7.1
8.1
1945. 1.13
1946.12.21
- " •••••••••
---..
18~6
...................... 144J
·1961
3769
IFukui I
Tokecbf-oki
Chile EQ Tsun.
7.3
8.1
8.5
1948. 6.28
1952. 3. 4
1960. 5.23
P 29

1'-196a... -i-as - .
Niigata 7.5 1964. 6.16
Tokachr-oki 7.9 1968. 5.16
t::: 26
52
- InlandE.Q.
••••••• ' Plate Boundary (in Pacific Ocean) E.Q.

;;::
Izu Hanto-roki 6.9 1974 5. 9
_ - _ Plate Boundary (Tsunami)
Izu-Oshima 7.0 1978. 1.14 30
Miyagiken-·oki 7.4 1978. 6.12 25
28

~
Nihonkat--Chubu 7.7 1983. 5.26
INagano-Seibu I 6.8
Kushiro-oki
1984. 9.14 r------ 104
29
7.8 1993. 1.15
Hokkaido SI:
Hyogoken S
7.8
7.2
1993. 7.12
1995. 1.17
~ 2. 230 6308"

2000

Figure 1.7 Damaging Earthquakes and Number of Causalities

in Last Century in Japan (c=J: Inland Earthquakes)

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
1-5
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

of human lives were the aftermath fire and the
tsunami, respectively.
However, JSCE's recommendation does not
mean that all structures should be designed and
constructed to sustain Level II earthquake motions.
It states that the earthquake resistant capability,
namely performance level of a structure should be
determined by comparing the importance of the
structure with the probability of occurrence of the
design earthquake motion. For instance, against
earthquake motions having a probability of
occurrence once or twice during the service life of
structures, e.g. Level I earthquake motions, the
earthquake resistant design should stipulate that
the deformation of structure falls within an elastic
limit and that any residual deformation does not
remain after the design earthquake. In contrast to
this, against very rare earthquake motions, e.g.
Level II earthquake motions, the performance
level of a structure should be changed according
to the importance of the structure.
performance of structures after an encounter with
the design earthquake motion can be varied for an
example as follows; i) non-damaged
functional, ii) slightly damaged but functional,
iii) heavily damaged and unfunctional, but
repairable, iv) collapsed and unrepairable.
The degree of importance of a structure is
determined by considering the following items;
i) effects of collapse of structures on human life
and survival, ii) effects on rescue and ambulance
operations and restoration activities immediately
after earthquakes, iii) effects on civic life after
earthquakes, iv) effects on economic activities
after earthquake, and v) effects on reconstruction
works.
The above-mentioned key concepts proposed
by JSCE were adopted in the National Disaster
Prevention Program in Japan which was newly
revised after the Kobe earthquake and were
strongly referred for the revision and development
of the earthquake resistant design codes.
1.3 Technical Subjects for Revision of
Earthquake Design Code
The adoption of the JSCE-proporsed key
concepts for earthquake resistant design raised
following technical subjects to be resolved for the
The code developments.
i) Determination of Level II earthquake ground
motion.
and ii) Evaluation of elasto-plastic behaviors and
ultimate strength of structures against the
Level II ground motion.
iii) Evaluation of residual deformation of earth
structures such as embankments, retaining

Probability of occurrence of
Importance of structure
design earthquake motion

I I
~
Earthquake resistant capability
(Performance Level) of structure

Figure 1.8 Determination of Performance Level (Earthquake Resistant Capability)

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
1-6
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN
walls and quay walls.
iv) Evaluation of liquefaction potential
comparatively stiffer soil against Level II
ground motion
v) Effects of liquefaction-induced large ground
displacement.
How to determine the Level II ground motion
was one of the most important subjects in the
development of the design codes. There were
following three kinds of ideas;
i) Adoption of the maximum ground motion
recorded during past earthquakes including the
Kobe earthquake.
ii) Statistical approach of recorded and calculated
ground motion.
iii) Numerical Analysis of ground motion directly
from the design earthquake fault.
The first idea was introduced for the seismic
design specifications of highway bridges (Chapter
2) and the Level II ground motion was determined
based on the ground motions recorded during the
Kobe earthquake.
The second idea was adopted in the revision
of the design codes for the railway facilities
(Chapter 3) water facilities and gas supply
facilities (Chapters 4, 5).
The third idea where the :design ground
motion was numerically calculated from the fault
movement was also adopted for the railway
facilities and gas supply facilities.
The adoption of the Level II design ground
motion raised another Technical subjects. One is
how to estimate the behaviors of the structures in
the plastic region and their ultimate strength. For
an example, the earthquake resistant design of
steel structures has been generally made by the
allowable stress method. That is, the design is
made, not in a plastic region beyond an elastic
region. Research has hardly been done on the
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
1-7
January, 2000
behaviors of steel structures in plastic region. The
of same can be said of the ultimate strength of buried
steel pipes of lifeline systems. If large ground
strain due to liquefaction-induced lateral ground
flow is incorporated into the earthquake resistant
design of buried pipes, strains of the pipes will
reach a plastic region. But a small amount of data
has been accumulated on the deformation
characteristics in a plastic region and ultimate
strength of buried pipes.
Further, evaluation of the and ductility of
earth structures, e.g. embankments, revetments,
retaining walls, and quay walls, is another subject
which needs research and development.
These above-mentioned technical subjects
have been progressively carried out after the Kobe
earthquake and the outcomes of the researches
was applied for the revision and the development
of the design code.
1.4 Diagnosis and Reinforcement of Existing
Structures
Although the future earthquake resistant
design of civil engineering structures will be
based on the concepts described above, an
additional problem is diagnosis and reinforcement
of existing structures. In large Japanese cities,
such as Tokyo and Osaka, there are countless civil
engineering structures similar to those damaged in
the Kobe area by the Kobe earthquake. Some of
them, e.g. highway bridges, Shinkansen lines,
subways, and quay walls, were constructed earlier
or have decayed more than those damaged in the
Kobe area. The earthquake resistant reinforcement
of these structures becomes an inevitable problem
if disaster preventive measures are taken by
predicting that earthquakes of a similar scale of
the Kobe earthquake will hit these cities.
Therefore, reinforcement of concrete piers of
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000
highways and railways and concrete columns of
subways has been carried out by jacketing the
existing concrete with steel plates casting
additional concrete, and the other methods while
the effectiveness of those reinforcements was
confirmed by loading teats in the laboratory.
However, the diagnosis and the reinforcement of
the foundations of bridges and buildings against
the liquefaction-induced large ground
displacement has hardly been conducted.
As is clear from the damage caused by the
Kobe earthquake, most critical and urgent issue is
the reinforcement of structures on reclaimed lands,
for instance the Tokyo Bay and the Osaka Bay
areas, where in most of cases no soil improvement
has been taken against soil liquefaction, and a
huge number of buildings, bridges, and lifeline
facilities already exist there. It is urgently required
to develop technologies of soil improvement of
existing artificial grounds.
In addition, because reinforcement should be
undertaken in a proper order, it is also necessary
to develop a basic idea to decide the priority of
reinforcement. The previously mentioned
importance level of structures may be referred to
in deciding the priority of the reinforcement. That
is, the effects of structures on human life and
survival and on rescue and ambulance operations
and restoration activities immediately after
earthquake, as well as other effects:
1.5 Future Innovations of Design Codes and
Research Subjects
Most of earthquake resistant design codes for
civil engineering structures have been revised or
newly developed under the JSCE's key concepts
and based on the outcomes from the researches
after the Kobe earthquake. However, the following
technical subjects remains unresolved and needs
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
1-8
more detailed investigations in future.
i) Dynamic failure mechanism of steel and
concrete structures due to severe earthquake
ground motion, eg Level II ground motion,
shall be investigated through static and
dynamic loading tests of structural members
and large size structural models. Outcomes of
these studies are expected to give significant
information to establish new earthquake
resistant design method against extremely
severe earthquake ground motion.
ii) Mechanisms of large deformation and failure of
foundations against strong earthquake ground
motion and large ground deformation shall be
investigated, and effective countermeasures for
foundations against liquefaction and its induced
large ground displacement are required to be
developed.
iii) Mechanisms of occurrence of static large
ground deformation due to liquefaction shall
be studied by large scale shaking table test.
Studies on properties of perfectly liquefied soil
is essential for development of a rational
method for estimation of the ground
displacement. Furthermore, large scale shaking
table test on liquefaction-induced ground
displacement is expected to clarify the
mechanism.
iv)Reasonable techniques are expected to be
developed for diagnosis and reinforcement of
existing structures including foundations.
Furthermore, proper technology shall be
developed for the soil improvement of existing
liquefiable ground.
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

REFERENCES

1) Japan Society of Civil Engineers:

Proposal on Earthquake Resistance for Civil
Engineering Structures, 1996
2) Hamada, M.: Seismic Code Development for
Civil Infrastructures after the 1995
Hyogoken-nanbu (Kobe) Earthquake,
th
Proceedings of the 5 U.S. Conference on
Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, TCLEE,
Monograph No.16, pp922-929, 1999
3) Japan Road Association: Design
Specifications of Highway bridges, Part I
Common Part, Part IT Steel Bridges, Part ill
Concrete Bridges, Part IV Foundations, and
Part V Seismic Design, 1996
4) Seismic Design Code for Railway
Structures, published by MARUZEN,
Oct., 1999. (in Japanese)
5) Japan Water Works Association:
Seismic Design and Construction
Guidelines for Water Supply Facilities,
1997

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
1-9
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
2. 1996 SEISMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES

JAPAN ROAD ASSOCIATION

2.1 Introduction 2- 1
2.2 Damage Features of Bridges in The Hyogo-ken Nanbu Earthquake 2- 1
2.3 Basic Principle of Seismic Design 2- 3
2.4 Design Methods 2- 4
2.5 Design Seismic Force 2- 6
2.6 Evaluation of Displacement Ductility Factor of a Reinforced Concrete Pier 2- 7
2.6.1 Evaluation of Failure Mode 2- 7
2.6.2 Displacement Ductility Factor 2- 7
2.6.3 Shear Capacity 2- 8
2.6.4 Arrangement of Reinforcement 2- 9
2.6.5 Two-Column Bent 2- 11
2.7 Evaluation of Displacement Ductility of a Steel Pier 2- I I
2.7.1 Basic Concept 2- 11
2.7.2 Concrete Infilled Steel Pier 2- 12
2.7.3 Steel Pier without Infilled Concrete 2- 12
2.8 Dynamic Response Analysis 2- 13
2.9 Menshin Design 2- 14
2.9.1 Basic Principle 2- 14
2.9.2 Design Procedure 2- 15
2.9.3 Design of Menshin Devices 2- 15
2.10 Design of Foundation 2- 17
2.11 Design Against Soil Liquefaction and Liquefaction-Induced Ground Flow 2- 17
2.11.1 Estimation of Liquefaction Potential 2- 17
2.11.2 Design Treatment of Liquefaction for Bridge Foundations 2- 17
2.11.3 Design Treatment of Liquefaction-induced Ground Flow for Bridge Foundations 2- 18
2.12 Bearing Supports 2- 18
2.13 Unseating Prevention Systems 2- 19
2.14 Concluding Remarks 2- 20

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN
2.1996 SEISMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES
JAPAN ROAD ASSOCIATION
2.1 Introduction
Highway bridges in Japan had been
considered safe even against extreme
earthquake such as the Great Kanto Earthquake
(M7.9) in 1923, because various past bitter
experiences have been accumulated to
formulate the seismic design method
(Kawashima (1995)). Large seismic lateral
force ranging from O.2g to O.3g has been
adopted in the allowable stress design
approach. Various provisions for preventing
damage due to instability of soils such as soil
liquefaction have been adopted. Furthermore,
design detailings including the unseating
prevention devices have been implemented.
In fact, reflecting those provisions, number
of highway bridges which suffered complete
collapse of superstructures was only 15 since
1923 Great Kanto Earthquake. Based on such
evidence, it had been regarded that the seismic
damage of highway bridges had been
decreasing in recent years.
However, the Hyogo-ken nanbu Earthquake
of January 17, 1995, exactly one year after the
Northridge, California, USA, earthquake,
caused destructive damage to highway bridges.
Collapse and nearly collapse of superstructures
occurred at 9 sites, and other destructive
damage occurred at 16 sites (Ministry of
Construction, 1995a). The earthquake revealed
that there are a number of critical issues to be
revised in the seismic design and seismic
strengthening of bridges in urban areas.
After the earthquake the "Committee for
Investigation on the Damage of Highway
Bridges Caused by the Hyogo-ken nanbu
Earthquake" (chairman : Toshio IWASAKI,
Executive Director, Civil Engineering Research
Laboratory) was formulated in the Ministry of
Construction to survey the damage and clarify
the factors which contributed to the damage.
On February 27, 1995, the Committee
approved the "Guide Specifications for
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
2-1
January, 2000
Reconstruction and Repair of Highway Bridges
which suffered Damage due to the Hyogo-ken
nanbe Earthquake," (Ministry of Construction
1995b) and the Ministry of Construction
noticed on the same day that the reconstruction
and repair of the highway bridges which
suffered damage in the Hyogo-ken nanbu
earthquake should be made by the Guide
Specifications. It was decided by the Ministry
of Construction on May 25, 1995 that the
Guide Specifications should be tentatively used
in all sections of Japan as emergency measures
for seismic design of new highway bridges and
seismic strengthening of existing highway
bridges until the Design Specifications of
Highway Bridges was revised.
In May, 1995, the "Special Sub-Committee
for Seismic Countermeasures for Highway
Bridges" (chairman Kazuhiko
KAWASHIMA, Professor of the Tokyo
Institute of Technology) was formulated in the
"Bridge Committee" (chairman : Nobuyuki
NARlTA, Professor of the Tokyo Metropolitan
University), Japan Road Association, to draft
the revision of· the Design Specifications of
Highway Bridges. The Special Sub-Committee
drafted the new Design Specifications of
Highway Bridges, and after the approval of the
Bridges Committee, the Ministry of
Construction released it November 1, 1996.
This chapter summarizes the damage
feature of highway bridges by the Hyogo-ken
N anbu earthquake and the new Design
Specifications of Highway Bridges issued in
November 1996.
2.2 Damage Features of Bridges in The
Hyogo-ken Nanbu Earthquake
Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake was the first
earthquake which hit an urban area in Japan
since the 1948 Fukui Earthquake. Although the
magnitude of the earthquake was moderate
(M7.2), the ground motion was much larger
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN
than anticipated in the codes. It occurred very
close to the Kobe City with shallow focal
depth.
Damage was developed at highway bridges
on Routes 2, 43, 171 and 176 of the National
Highway, Route 3 (Kobe Line) and Route 5
(Bay Shore Line) of the Hanshin Expressway,
the Meishin and Chugoku Expressway.
Damage was surveyed for all bridges on
National Highways, Hanshin Expressways and
Expressways in the area where destructive
damage occurred. Total number of piers
surveyed reached 3,396 (Ministry of
Construction, 1995a). Fig.2.1 shows Design
Specifications referred to in design of the 3,396
piers. Most of piers (bridges) which suffered
damage were designed according to the 1964
Design Specifications or older Design
Specifications. Although the seismic design
methods have been improved and amended
several times since 1926 based on damage
experience and progress of bridge earthquake
engineering, only a requirement for lateral
force coefficient was provided in the 1964
Design Specifications or older Specifications.
1980 Design 1990 Design
Specifications Specifications
1971 Design
Specifications 1964 or Older
Design Specifications
Fig.2.1 Design Specifications Referred
to in Design of Hanshin Expressway
Fig.2.2 compares damage of piers on the
Route 3 (Kobe Line) and Route 5 (Bay Shore
Line) of the Hanshin Expressway. Damage
degree was classified as As (collapse), A
(nearly collapse), B (moderate damage), C
(damage of secondary members) and D (minor
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
January, 2000
or no damage). Substructures of the Route 3
and Route 5 were designed with the 1964
Design Specifications and 1980 Design
Specifications, respectively. It should be noted
in this comparison that the intensity of ground
shaking in terms of response spectra was
smaller at the Bay Area than the narrow
rectangular area where JMA Seismic Intensity
was vn (equivalent to Modified Mercalli
Intensity of X-XI). The Route 3 was located in
the narrow rectangular area while the Route 5
was located in the Bay Area. Keeping in mind
such difference of ground motion, it is apparent
in Fig.2.2 that about 14% of the piers on Route
3 suffered As or A damage while no such
damage was developed in the piers on the
Route 5.
A
s B
o
(a) Route 3 (b) Route 5
Fig.2.2 Comparison of Damage Degree between
Route 3 and Route 5 (As: Collapse, A : Nearly
Collapse, B : Moderate Damage, C : Damage of .
Secondary Members, D : Minor or No Damage)
Although damage concentrated on the
bridges designed with the older Design
Specifications, it was thought that essential
revision was required even in the recent Design
Specifications to prevent damage against
destructive earthquakes such as the Hyogo-ken
nanbu earthquake. The main points requiring
modifications were;
(1) it was required to increase lateral capacity
and ductility of all structural components in
which seismic force is predominant so that
ductility of a total bridge system be enhanced.
For such purpose, it was required to upgrade
2-2
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000
the "Check of Ductility of Reinforced Concrete
Piers," which has been used since 1990, to a
"Ductility Design Method," and to apply the
Ductility Design Method to all structural
components. It should be noted here that
"check" and "design" is different; the check is
only to verify the safety of a structural member
designed by other design method, and is
effective only to increase the size or
reinforcements if required, while the design is
an essential procedure to determine the size
and reinforcements,
(2) it was required to include the ground
motion developed at Kobe in the earthquake as
a design force in the Ductility Design Method,
(3) it was required to specify input ground
motions in terms of acceleration response
spectra for dynamic response analysis more
actively,
(4) it was required to increase tie
reinforcements and to introduce intermediate
ties for increasing ductility of piers. It was
decided not to terminate main reinforcements at
mid-height for preventing premature shear
failure, in principle,
(5) it was suggested to adopt multi-span
continuous bridge for increasing number of
indeterminate of a total bridge system,
(6) it was suggested to adopt rubber bearings
for absorbing lateral displacement between a
superstructure and substructures. It was
Table 2.1 Seismic Performance Levels
Importance of Bridges
Type of Design Ground Motions Type-A
(Standard
Bridges)
Ground Motions with
Prevent Damage
High Probability to Occur
Ground Motions Type-I
(Plate Boundary
with Low Earthquakes) Prevent
Critical
Probability Type-II Damage
(Inland
to Occur Earthquakes)
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation 2-3
important to consider correct mechanism of
force transfer from a superstructure to
substructures,
(7) it was suggested to include the Menshin
design (seismic isolation),
(8) it was required to increase strength,
ductility and energy dissipation capacity of
unseating prevention devices, and
(9) it was required to consider the effect of
lateral spreading associated with soil
liquefaction in design of foundations at the site
vulnerable to lateral spreading.
2.3 Basic Principle of Seismic Design
Table 2.1 shows the seismic performance
level provided in the revised Design
Specifications in 1996. The bridges are
categorized into two groups depending on their
importance; standard bridges (Type-A bridges)
and important bridges (Type-B bridges).
Seismic performance level depends on the
importance of bridges. For moderate ground
motions induced in the earthquakes with high
probability to occur, both A and B bridges
should behave in an elastic manner without
essential structural damage. For extreme
ground motions induced in the earthquakes
with low probability to occur, the Type-A
bridges should prevent critical failure, while
the Type-B bridges should perform with
limited damage .
Design Methods
Type-B Equivalent Dynamic
(Important Static Lateral
Bndges) Force Methods Analysis
Seismic
Coefficient Step by Step
Method Analysis
or
Limited Ductility Response
Design Spectrum
Damage Method Analysis
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

In the Ductility Design Method, two types
of ground motions must be considered. The
first is the ground motions which could be
induced in the plate boundary-type earthquakes
with magnitude of about 8. The ground motion
at Tokyo in the 1923 Kanto Earthquake is a
typical target of this type of ground motion.
The second is the ground motion developed in
earthquakes with magnitude of about 7-7.2 at
very short distance. Obviously the ground
motions at Kobe in the Hyogo-ken nanbu
earthquake is a typical target of this type of
ground motions are called as Type-I and
Type-Il ground motions, respectively.
The recurrence time of the Type-IT ground
motion may be longer than that of the Type-I
ground motion, although the estimation is very
difficult.
2.4 Design Methods
Bridges are designed by both the Seismic
Coefficient Method and the Ductility Design
Method as shown in Fig.2.3. In the Seismic
Coefficient Method, a lateral force coefficient
ranging from 0.2 to 0.3 has been used based on
the allowable stress design approach. No
change was introduced since the 1990
Specifications in the Seismic Coefficient

( Start )

Design for
Principal
Loads

Seismic Design by
Seismic Coefficient
Method

:heck the Safety by

>--~ Dynamic Response
Anal sis

Unseating
Prevention
Devices

Seismic Design by Dynamic

Response Analysis (Type I
and II Ground Motions

Seismic Design by
Ductility Design
Method (Type J and
II Design Force)

Check the Safety by

Dynamic Response
Analysis (Type I and II
Ground Motion)

End

Fig.2.3 Flowchart of Seismic Design

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation 2-4
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN
Method.
In the Ductility Design Method, assuming a
principle plastic hinge formed at the bottom of
pier as shown in Fig.4(a) and the equal energy
assumption, a bridge is designed so that the
following requirement is satisfied.
Pa > he W (1)
where
he
khe
= -.fZjJ.a-1
W = Wo--c» Wp (3)
in which, Pa = lateral capacity of a pier, he =
equivalent lateral force coefficient, W =
equivalent weight, kne = lateral force
coefficient, jJ. a = allowable displacement
ductility factor of a pier, Wu = weight of a part
of superstructure supported by the pier, Wp =
weight of a pier, and cp = coefficient depending
on the type of failure mode. The cp is 0.5 for a
pier in which either flexural failure or shear
failure after flexural cracks are developed, and
1.0 for a pier in which shear failure is
developed. The lateral capacity of a pier Pa is
defined as a lateral force at the gravity center
of a superstructure.
In the Type-B bridges, residual
displacement developed at a pier after an
earthquake must be checked as
a R<a aa (4)
where
Principal Plastic Hinge
(a) Conventional Design (b) Menshin Design (c) Bridge Supported by A Wall-type Pier
Fig.2.4 Location of Primary Plastic Hinge
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
2-5
January, 2000
OR = CR (jJ. R-l) (l-r) a y (5)
jJ. R = 1/2 {(he' W /Pai+ l ] (6)
in which a R = residual displacement of a pier
after an earthquake, a Ra = allowable residual
displacement of a pier, r = bilinear factor
defined as a ratio between the first stiffness
(yield stiffness) and the second stiffness
(post-yield stiffness) of a pier, CR = factor
depending on the bilinear factor r, jJ. R =
(Z)
response ductility factor of a pier, and a y =
yield displacement of a pier. The a aa should
be 11100 of a distance between the bottom of a
pier and a gravity center of a superstructure.
In a bridge with complex dynamic
response, the dynamic response analysis is
required to check the safety of a bridge after it
is designed by the Seismic Coefficient Method
and the Ductility Design Method. Because this
is only for a check of the design, the size and
reinforcements of structural members once
determined by the Seismic Coefficient Method
and the Ductility Design Methods can only be
increased if necessary. It should be noted
however that under the following conditions in
which the Ductility Design Method is not
directly applied, the size and reinforcements
can be determined based on the results f a
dynamic response analysis as shown in Fig.2.3.
The conditions when the Ductility Design
Method should not be directly used include:
(1) principle mode shapes which contribute to
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

bridge response are different from the ones
assumed in the Ductility Design Methods,
(2) more than two modes significantly
contribute to bridge response,
(3) principle plastic hinges form at more than
two locations, or principle plastic hinges are
not known where to be formed, and
(4) response modes for which the equal energy
assumption are not applied.
In the seismic design of a foundation, a
lateral force equivalent to the ultimate lateral
capacity of a pier Pu is assumed to be a design
force as
h p = Cdf PuIW (7)
in which hp = lateral force coefficient for a
foundation, Cdf = modification coefficient
(=1.1), and W = equivalent weight by Eq.(3).
Because the lateral capacity of a wall-type pier
is very large in transverse direction, the lateral
seismic force evaluated by Eq. (7) becomes in
most cases excessive. Therefore if a foundation
has sufficiently large lateral capacity compared
with the lateral seismic force, the foundation is
designed assuming a plastic hinge at the
foundation and surrounding soils as shown in
Fig.2A(e),
2.5 Design Seismic Force
Lateral force coefficient he in Eq.(2) is
given as
he = cz : heO (8)
in which cz = modification coefficient for zone,
and is 0.7, 0.85 and 1.0 depending on zone, and
heo = standard modification coefficient. Table
2.2 and Fig.2.S show the standard lateral force
coefficients heo for the Type-I and the Type-Il
ground motions. The Type-I ground motions
have been used since 1990 (1990
Specifications), while the Type-Il ground
motions were newly introduced in the 1996

Table 2.2 Lateral Force Coefficient heo in the Ductility Design Method
(a) Type-I Ground Motions
Soil Condition Lateral Force Coefficient fuco
Group I 2J
fuco=0.7 for T < 1.4 hco=0.876T / for T > 1.4
(stiff)
Group II fueo=1.51TI/J fueo=0.85 fueo=1.16T2/J
(fueo > 0.7)
(moderate) for T < 0.18 for 0.18 < T < 1.6 for T> 1.6
I/J fueo= 1.59T2/3
Group III beo=1.51T fueo=1.0
(beo > 0.7)
(soft) for T < 0.29 for 0.29 < T < 2.0 for T> 2.0

(b) Type-Il Ground Motions

Soil Condition Lateral Force Coefficient fueo
4/J
Group I fueo=4.46T/J beo=2.00 beo=1.24T
(stiff) for T < 0.3 for 0.3 < T < 0.7 for T> 0.7
Group II heo=3.22T
/J
heo=1.75 beo=2.23T4/J

(moderate) for T < 0.4 for 0.4 ~ T < 1.2 for T> 1.2

beo=2.57T'3
/3
Group III hco=2.38T beo=1.50

(soft) for T < 0.5 for 0.5 < T < 1.5 for T> 1.5

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
2-6
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

2.5 accelerations excursion is longer in the Type-I

u
..c - - - - - Group I
.Y ground motions than the Type-II ground
....., - - - Group II Type I
c
a;
2 I
-- ~
Group III motions. As will be described later, such a
I --.
U
<;::
- - - - - Group I difference of the duration has been taken into
- Group II Type II
~

a; 1.5 account to evaluate the allowable displacement

a Group 111
U ductility factor of a pier.
a;
U
L-
a
u., 2.6 Evaluation of Displacement Ductility
ro
0.5 Factor of A Reinforced Concrete Pier
L-
a;
.....,
ro
-..l
---
0 2.6.1 Evaluation of Failure Mode
0 2 3 4 In the ductility design of reinforced concrete
Natural Period T (5) piers, the failure mode of the pier is evaluated
Fig.2.S Type I and Type II Ground Motions as the first step. Failure modes is categorized
in the Ductility Design Method to 3 types based on the bending capacity and
shear capacity of the pier as
Specifications. It should be noted here that the 1) Pu < Ps : bending failure
heO at stiff site (Group I) has been assumed 2) Ps < Pu < Pso : bending to shear failure
smaller than the heO at moderate (Group II) 3) PsO < Pu : shear failure
and soft soil (Group III) sites in the Type-I in which Pu == bending capacity, Ps == shear
ground motions as well as the seismic capacity in consideration of the effect of cyclic
coefficients used for the Seismic Coefficient loading, and Pso == shear capacity without
Method. The Type-I ground motions were consideration of the effect of cyclic loading.
essentially estimated from an attenuation The ductility factor and capacity of the
equation for response spectra that was derived reinforced concrete piers are determined
from a statistical analysis of 394 components according to the failure mode as described
of strong motion records. Although the later.
response spectral accelerations at short natural
period are larger at stiff sites than at soft soil 2.6.2 Displacement Ductility Factor
sites, the tendency has not been explicitly The allowable displacement ductility factor
included in the past. This was because damage of a pier j.J. a in Eq.(2) is evaluated as
has been more developed at soft sites than at a u -ay
stiff sites. To consider such fact, the design
j.J. a == 1 + Q:' ay (9)

force at stiff sites has been assumed smaller in which Q:' = safety factor, a
y == yield
than that at soft sites even at short natural displacement of a pier, and a
u = ultimate

period. However being different from such a displacement of a pier. As well as the lateral
traditional consideration, the Type-II ground capacity of a pier Pa in Eq.(I), the a y and
motions were determined by simply taking a u are defined at the gravity center of a
envelops of response accelerations of major superstructure. In a reinforced concrete single
strong motions recorded at Kobe in the pier as shown in Fig.2.4(a), the ultimate
Hyogo-ken nanbu Earthquake. It was displacement a
u is evaluated as
considered appropriate to set realistic ground a u== a y+ (et> u- et> y) Lp(h - Lp/2) (10)
motions. in which et> y = yield curvature of a pier at
Although the acceleration response spectral bottom, et> u == ultimate curvature of a pier at
intensity at short natural period is higher in the bottom, h == height of a pier, and Lp == plastic
Type-II ground motions than in the Type-I hinge length of a pier. The plastic hinge length
ground motions, the duration of extreme is given as

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation 2-7
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

Lp= 0.2h - O.lD (O.lD < Lr < 0.5D) (11) and a = 0.2 and j3 = 0.4 for a rectangular
in which D is a width or a diameter of a pier. pier), and p s = tie reinforcement ratio
The yield curvature ¢ y and ultimate defmed as
curvature ¢ u in Eq.(10) are evaluated 4Ah
assuming a stress-strain relation of
p s = sd
< 0.018 (17)

reinforcements and concrete as shown in in which Ah = area of tie reinforcements, s =

Fig.2.6. The stress (J' e - strain t: e relation of space of tie reinforcements, and d = effective
concrete with lateral confinement is assumed as width of tie reinforcements.
Ee e e{l _ 1 ~)n-l} The ultimate curvature ¢ u is defmed as a
n C ee curvature when concrete strain at longitudinal
(0 < C e < e cc ) reinforcing bars in compression reaches an
(J'e= [
Edes( c e - c cc)
ee - ultimate strain e eu defined as
(c cc < e e < E cu) C ee for Type I ground motions
C ell =
(12) ( 0.2 (J' ee
C ee +
Ee e ee Edes
n= (13)
Ee E ee - (J' ee for Type II ground motions
in which a cc = strength of confined concrete, (18)
Ee = elastic modules of concrete, e cc = strain It is important to note here that the ultimate
at maximum strength, and Edes = gradient at strain c eu depends on the types of ground
descending branch. In Eq.(12), (J' cc, C ee and motions; the c eu for the Type-II ground
Eses are determined as motions is larger than that for the Type-I
a ee = (J' ek + 3.8 a p s (J' sy (14) ground motions. Based on a loading test, it is
C ee = 0.002+0.033 j3 P s (J' sy known that a certain level of failure in a pier
(15)
(J' ek such as a sudden decrease of lateral capacity
(J' ek 2 occurs at smaller lateral displacement in a pier
Edes = 11.2 (16)
p s (J' sy subjected to a loading hysteresis with more
in which (J' ek = design strength of concrete, number of load reversals. To reflect such a
(J' sy = yield strength of reinforcements, a fact, it was decided that the ultimate strain
and j3 = coefficients depending on shape of e eu should be evaluated by Eq.(18),
pier ( a =1.0 and j3 =1.0 for a circular pier, depending on the type of ground motions.

Stress O'c
Stress (}s

I
_____ L _
0.80' cc - - - - -- I
I
I
I
I
I

Strain e,
I
I
I
I
I
r

£cu Strain E.c

(a) Reinforcing Bars (b) Concrete

Fig.2.6 Stress and Strain Relation of Confined Concrete and Reinforcing Bars

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
2-8
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

Table 2.3 Safety Factor a in Eq.(9)

Type of Bridges Type-I Ground Motions Type-II Ground Motions
Type-B 3.0 1.5
Type-A 2.4 1.2

Table 2.4 Modification Factor On Scale Effect for Shear Capacity Shared by Concrete
Effective Width of Section d (m) Coefficient Ce

d ;;:;; 1 1.0
d::::3 0.7
d::::5 0.6
d ~ 10 0.5

Therefore, the allowable ductility factor u a
depends on the type of ground motions; the
u a is larger in a pier subjected to the Type-IT
ground motions than a pier subjected to the
Type-I ground motions.
It should be noted that the safety factor a
in Eq.(9) depends on the type of bridges as
well as the type of ground motions as shown in
Table 2.3. This is to preserve higher seismic
safety in the important bridges, and to take
account of the difference of recurrent time
between the Type-I and the Type-IT ground
motions.
2.6.3 Shear Capacity
Shear capacity of reinforced concrete piers
is evaluated by a conventional method as
Ps :::: Sc + Ss (19)
Sc :::: 10 Cc Ce Cpt reb d (20)
Ss > Aw a sy d (sin e +cos e)
(21)
10 x 1.1Sa
in which Ps :::: shear capacity, Sc :::: shear
capacity shared by concrete, Ss :::: shear
capacity shared by tie reinforcements, t: c =
shear stress capacity shared by concrete, Cc =
modification factor for cyclic loading (0.6 for
Type-I ground motions, 0.8 for Type-II ground
motions), Ce = modification factor for scale
effect of effective width, Cpt :::: modification
factor for longitudinal reinforcement ratio, b, d
:::: width and height of section, Aw :::: sectional
area of tie reinforcement, (J' sy:::: yield strength
of tie reinforcement, e = angle between
vertical axis and tie reinforcement, and a =
spacing of tie reinforcement.
The modification factor on scale effect of
effective width, Ce, was based on the
experimental study of loading tests of beams
with various effective height and was newly
introduced in the 1996 Specifications. Table
2.4 shows the modification factor on scale
effect.
2.6.4 Arrangement of Reinforcement
Fig.2.7 shows suggested arrangement of tie
reinforcement. Tie reinforcement should be
deformed bars with a diameter equal or larger
than 13 mm, and it should be placed in most
bridges at a distance of no longer than 150mm.
In special cases such as the bridges with pier
height taller than 30m, the distance of tie
reinforcement may be increased at height so
that pier strength should not be sharply
decreased at the section. Intermediate ties
should be also provided with the same distance
with the ties to confine the concrete. Space of
the intermediate ties should be less than 1m.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
2-9
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

u u u u
~~ u

p (

~ ~ ~~
(b) Semi-square Section

(a) Square Section

(c) Circular Section (d) Hollow Section

Fig.2.7. Confinement of Core-concrete by Tie Reinforcement

n
Lp Lp

r:
o--6--r--o---(c)}-+----------j--<!o»-O-.....-~-o

LPC o Node
@ Plastic hinge
Lp Plastic Hinge Length
Rigid Member
o o. Elastic Member

Fig.2.S Analytical Idealization of A Two-Column Bent

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation2-10
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN
2.6.5 Two-Column Bent
To determine the ultimate strength and
ductility factor for two-column bents, it is
modeled as the frame model with plastic hinges
at the both end of lateral cap beam and
columns as shown in Fig.2.8. Each elastic
frame member has the yield stiffness which is
obtained based on the axial load by the dead
load of the superstructure and the column. The
plastic hinge is assumed to be placed at the end
part of a cap beam and the top and bottom part
of each column. The plastic hinges are
modeled as spring elements with bilinear
moment-curvature relation. The location of
plastic hinges is half distance of the plastic
hinge length off from the end edge of each
member, where plastic hinge length LP is
assumed to be Eq.(ll).
When the two-column bent is subjected to
the lateral force in the transverse direction,
axial force developed in the beam and columns
is affected by the aoolied lateral force.
Therefore, the horizontal force-displacement
relation is obtained through the static push-over
analysis considering axial force N - moment M
interaction relation. The ultimate state of each
plastic hinges is obtained by the ultimate
plastic angle e pu as
e pu = (¢ uI ¢ y -1) Lp ¢ y (22)
in which ¢ u = ultimate curvature and ¢ y =
yield curvature.
(a) Fracture of Comers
Fig.2.9 Typical Brittle Failure Modes of Steel Piers
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
January, 2000
The ultimate state of the whole two-bent
column is determined so that all 4 plastic
hinges developed reach the ultimate plastic
angle.
2.7 Evaluation of Displacement Ductility of
A Steel Pier
2.7.1 Basic Concept
To improve seismic performance of a steel
piers, it is important to avoid specific brittle
failure modes. Fig.2.9 shows the typical brittle
failure mode for rectangular and circular steel
piers. The followings are the countermeasures
to avoid such brittle failure modes and to
improve seismic performance of steel piers:
1) fill the steel column with concrete
2) improve structural parameters related to
buckling strength
• decrease the width/thickness ratio of
stiffened palates of rectangular piers or the
diameter/thickness ratio of steel pipes
• increase the stiffness of stiffeners
· reduce the diaphragm spacing
· strengthen comers using the comer plates
3) improve welding section at the comers of
rectangular section
4) eliminate welding section at the comers by
using round comers
(b) Elephant Knee Buckling
2-11
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

2.7.2 Concrete Infilled Steel Pier be idealized as reinforcing bars and that only
In a concrete infilled steel pier, the lateral steel section resists axial force. A stress vs.
capacity Pa and the allowable displacement strain relation of steel and concrete as shown in
ductility factor jJ. a in Eqs.(l) and (2) are Fig.2.10 is assumed. The height of infilled
evaluated as concrete has to be decided so that. bucking is
Pu - Py not developed above the infilled concrete.
Pa == Py + --'-'----'-- (23)
(]I

+ O'u-O'y)~
-(1 2.7.3 Steel Pier without Infilled Concrete
jJ.a- (24)
(]I ay Pa A steel pier without infilled concrete must
in which Py and Pu == yield and ultimate lateral be designed with the dynamic response
capacity of a pier, a y and a
u == yield and analysis. Properties of the pier need to be
ultimate displacement of a pier, and (]I == decided based on a cyclic loading test.
safety factor (refer to Table 2.3). The Pa and Arrangement of stiffness and welding at comer
the jJ. a are evaluated idealizing that a concrete must be precisely evaluated so that brittle
infilled steel pier resists flexural moment and failure should be avoided.
shear force as a reinforced concrete pier. It is
assumed in this evaluation that the steel section

ay

o 0
Of.]

'"
~

.....l-<
1;1)

0
iEy iO. 05
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.06· 0.08 0.10
Strain t: s Strain t: s

(a) Steel (Tension Side) (b) Steel (Compression Side)

. E
Ec )
o a= 2a,<!' x 0.00827 (2 0.00827

! ! ! ! t

o 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

Strain t: c

(c) Concrete
Fig.2.10 Stress-Strain Relation of Steel and Concrete

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
2-12
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

2.8 Dynamic Rresponse Analysis modification coefficient for damping ratio

Dynamic response analysis is required in
the bridges with complex dynamic response to
check the safety factor of the static design.
Dynamic response analysis is alas required as a
"design" tool in the bridges for which the
Ductility Design Method is not directly
applied. In dynamic response analysis, ground
matins which are spectral fitted to the
following response spectra are used;
S I = cz ' CD' S I 0 (25)
S II = cz ' CD • SilO (26)
in which S I and S II = acceleration response
spectrum for Type-land· Ty6e-II ground
motions, S I 0 and SilO = standard acceleration
response spectrum for Type-land Type-Il
ground motions, respectively, CZ = modification
coefficient for zone (refer to Eq.(8», and CD =
given as
1.5
CD = + 0.5 (27)
40hi + 1
Table 2.5 and Fig.2.ll show the standard
acceleration response spectra (damping ratio
h=0.05) for the Type-I and Type-Il ground
motions.
It is recommended to use at least three
ground motions per analysis, and take an
average to evaluate the response.
In the dynamic analysis, modal damping
ratios have to be carefully evaluated. To
determine themodal damping aratios, a bridge
may be divided into several sub-strucctures in
which energy dissipating mechanism is
essentially the same. If one can specify a

Table 2.5 Standard Acceleration Response Spectra

(a) Type-I Response Spectra SIO
2
Soil Condition Response Acceleration S10 (gal=cm/sec )

Group I SIO=700 for Ti ~ 1.4 SIO=980!Ti for Ti > 1.4

SJo=1,505T."3 S1O=850 SJO=1,360!Ti

Group II (SJO ~. 700)
for Ti < 0.18 for 0.18 ~ Ti ~ 1.6 for Ti > 1.6
SJO=1,511T."3 SIO=l,OOO SJO=2,000/Ti
Group III (SJO ~ 700)
for T; < 0.29 for 0.29 ~ Ti ~ 2.0 for Ti > 2.0

(b) Type-Il Response Spectra SilO

2
Soil Condition Response Acceleration Suo (gal=cm/sec )
2/3 513
SII0=4,463Ti SII0=2,000 SII0=1,104/Ti
Group I
for Ti ~
0.3 for 0.3 ~ T; ~ 0.7 for Tj > 0.7
13 SJJO=2,371/T/'3
Sno=3,224T/ SII0=1,750
Group I!
for T, < 0.4 for 0.4 ~ Ti ~ 1.2 for T ; > 1.2
213
3no=2,381Ti SII0=1,500 SII0=2,948/T;513
Group III
for Ti < 0.5 for 0.5 ~ Ti ~ 1.5 for T; > 1.5

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
2-13
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

2.5 2.9 Menshin Design

- - - - - Ground I
2.9.1 Basic Principle
, - - • Ground IJ Type I
2 \
Implementation of the Menshin bridges should
-;) , \
,_-"", __ - - Ground III
be carefully decided from not only seismic
-
..
" I .. \ ----- Ground I
;:;
1.5
"I \
- - - Ground II Type U
performance but function for traffic and
'-' :I ,,
\
maintenance point of view, based on the
'-'
< :I \

'-'
r-r-r-r-r-r-it-r-r-r-r-c-:
\
_ _ _ ..J.. _ _
advantage and disadvantage of increasing
~
- -- - - - - - - - ....- , \. <, "-
........... natural period The Menshin design should not
;::
'-'
' ... --....
... -...
--- """'- be adopted at the following conditions;
c::
---~~~~~~~~~~~j 1) sites vulnerable to lose bearing capacity
0 r due to the soil liquefaction and the lateral
0 2 3 4
spreading,
Natural Period (5)
2) bridges supported by flexible columns,
Fig.2.ll Type I and Type II Standard Acceleration 3) soft soil sites where potential resonance
Response Spectra with surrounding soils could be developed by
increasing the fundamental natural period,and
damping ratio of each sub-structure for a given 4) bridges with uplift force at bearings.
mode shape, the modal damping ratio for i-th It is suggested that the design should be
mode, hi, may be evaluated as made with an emphasis on an increase of
n energy dissipating capability and a distribution
L ¢ ij T. hij . Kj' ¢ ij of lateral force to as many substructures as
hi = j=l (28) possible. To concentrate the hysteretic
<t:> iT'K' <t:> i
in which hij = damping ratio of j-th deformation at not piers but bearings, the
substructure in i-th mode, ¢ ij = mode vector fundamental natural period of a Menshin
of j-th substructure in i-th mode, kj = stiffness bridge should be about 2 times or longer than
matrix of j-th substructure, K= stiffness matrix the fundamental natural period of the same
of a bridge, and <t:> i = mode vector of a bridge bridge supported by the conventional bearings.
in i-th mode, and is given as It should be noted that an elongation of natural
cP iT = {¢ u", ¢ iZT , • • • • • • , ¢ inT } (29) period aiming to decrease the lateral force
Table 2.6 shows recommended damping should not be attempted.
ratios for major structural components.

Table 2.6 Recommended Damping Ratios for Major Structural Components

Structural Elastic Response Nonlinear Response

Components Steel Concrete Steel Concrete
Superstructure 0.02 ~ 0.03 0.03 ~ 0.05 0.02 ~ 0.03 0.03 ~ 0.05
Rubber Bearings 0.02 0.02
Mensbin Bearings Equivalent Damping Ratio Equivalent Damping Ratio
by Eq.(26) by Eq.(26)
Substructures 0.03 ~ 0.05 0.05 ~ 0.1 0.1 rv 0.2 0.12 ~ 0.2
Foundations 0.1 ~ 0.3 0.2 rv 0.4

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
2-14
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

2.9.2 Design Procedure reduced, as large as 30%, by the modification

Menshin bridges are designed by both the
Seismic Coefficient Method and the Ductility
Design Method. In the Seismic Coefficient
Method, no reduction of lateral force from the
conventional design is mae.
In the Ductility Design Method, the
equivalent lateral force coefficient kbcm in the
Menshin design is evaluated as
hcm
hem = .["2 jJ. m-1
hcm = hc
CE' (31)
in which hcm =lateral force coefficient in
menshin design, jJ. m = allowable ductility
factor of a pier, CE = modification coefficient
for energy dissipating capability (refer to
Table2.7), and knc = lateral force coefficient by
Eq.(8). Because the hc is the lateral force
coefficient for a bridge supported by the
conventional bearings, Eq.(31) means that the
lateral force in the Menshin design can be
"'K 2(h
L. B i ·u B i . B i + K
coefficient CE depending on the modal damping
ratio of a bridge.
Modal damping ratio of a menshin bridge h
for the fundamental mode is computed as
Eq.(32). In Eq.(32), hsi = damping ratio of i-th
damper, hPi = damping ratio of i-th pier or
abutment, hFui = damping ratio of i-th
foundation associated with translational
displacement, hF e i = damping ratio of i-th
(30)
foundation associated with rotational
displacement, Kn = equivalent stiffness of i-th
pier or abutment, KFui = translational stiffness
of i-th foundation, KF e i = rotational stiffness
of i-th foundation, UBi = design displacement of
i-th Menshin device, and. H = distance from a
bottom of pier to a gravity center of a deck.
In the Menshn design, the allowable
displacement ductility factor of a pier jJ. m in
Eq.(30) is evaluated by
2
hPi'KBi hFui'KBi hFBi'KBi'H
Pi
+ K
Fui
+ TT
..L"'!t..~81
)

h= 2 (32)
KBi KBi KBi'H
L K B j'U B j 2(1 + - -+ - -+ )
KPi KFui KFBj

jJ. m =1 + a u - ay
_---=--_-'---L.- (33)
smaller allowable ductility factor in the
amoy menshin design is to limit the hysteretic
in which a m is a safety factor used in behavior of a pier at the plastic hinge zone so
Menshin design, and is given as that principle hysteretic behavior occurs at the
jJ.m=2a O~ menshin devices as shown in Fig.2.4(b).
where a is the safety factor in the
conventional design (refre to Table 2.3). 2.9.3 Design of Menshin Devices
Eq.(34) means that the allowable displacement Simple devices stable against extreme
ductility factor in the menshin design jJ. m earthquakes have to be used. The bearings have
should be smaller than the allowable to be anchored to a deck and substructures with
displacemnent ductility factor u a by Eq.(2) in bolts, and should be replaceable. The clearance
the conventional design; The reason for the has to be provided

Table 2.7 Modification Coefficient for Energy Dissipation Capability

Damping Ratio for 1st Mode h Coefficient c E

h < 0.1 1.0

0.1 ~ h < 0.12 0.9

0.12 ;;;;;; h < 0.15 0.8
h ~ 0.15 0.7

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
2-15
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

between a deck and an abutment or between The equivalent stiffness KB and equivalent
adjacent decks. damping ratio hs of a Menshin device are
Isolators and dampers must be designed for evaluated as
a desired design displacement us. The design F(UBe) - F(-uBe)
(36)
displacement UB is evaluated as 2UBe
khem Wu ~W
UB :::: (35) hs :::: 2 7C W (37)
K:e
in which hem :::: equivalent lateral force use :::: cs : UB (38)
coefficient by Eq.(3l), KB :::: equivalent in which F(u) :::: restoring force of a device at a
stiffness, and Wu :::: dead weight of a displacement U , UBe :::: effective design
superstructure. It should be noted that because displacement, ~ W = energy dissipated per
the equivalent lateral force coefficient hem cycle, W = elastic strain energy, 'and CB ::::
depends on the type of ground motions, the coefficient to evaluate effective displacement
design displacement us also depends on it. (=0.7).

Vertical Force at Pile Top P

...
P" -
Ultimate
-r-r-
Bearing
_
Capacity
KVE,~~
, kHE
Vertical
Displacement
_ _ _ _ _...L - PT'
Ultimate Pull-out

:
Force

:
,
ti'\~
/:v~
, (b)Vertical Force YS. Vertical
, 1 : I~ Displacement Relation
' I
,
I I
"
I I
' ... _..l I ... _.J 1 _ _ .J

OJ
<.J
(a) Analytical Model
1-0
o
~
c
~<.J Max. Horizontal
.....
~ PHU
Reaction Force EC l:
Mu - ••••••• _.- •••••• --- •••• -.-.------ c
E M.
v:
i---------
P:: o My.-.----
y

B ~ C
o
;'8
c b.O Ma --- C: Crack My - _ . :

o C Y: Yield OJ) Y : Yield

N
'J: :ac U : Ultimate :
c
- Mp: Plastic Moment
"t:l
o OJ C
:I: 0 ' - - - ' - - - - - - - - - ~ OJ
~
Horizontal Displacement o
Curvature Curvature
(c) Horizontal Force vs, (d) Moment vs. Curvature (e) Moment vs. Curvature
Horizontal Displacement Relation of Reinforced Relation of Steel Pipe
Relation Concrete Piles Piles

Fig.2.12Idealized Nonlinear Model of A Pile Foundation

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation 2-16
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN
2.10 Design of Foundation
The evaluation methods of ductility and
strength of foundations such as pile
foundations and caisson foundations was newly
introduced in the 1996 Specifications.
In a pile foundation, a foundation is so
idealized that a rigid footing is supported by
piles which are supported by soils. The flexural
strength of a pier defined by Eq.(7) shall be
applied as a seismic force to foundations at the
bottom of the footing together with the dead
weight superstructure, pier and soils on the
footing. Fig.2.l2 shows the idealized nonlinear
model of a pile foundation. The nonlinearity of
soils and piles is considered in the analysis.
The safety of the foundation shall be
checked so that 1) the foundation shall, not
reach the yield point of a foundation, 2) if the
primary nonlinearity is developed in the
foundations, the response displacement shall be
less than displacement ductility limit, and 3)
the displacement developed in the foundation
shall be less than allowable limit. The
allowable ductility and allowable limit of
displacement were commented as 4 in
displacement ductility, 40cm in horizontal
displacement and a.025rad in rotation angle.
For a caisson type foundation, the
foundation is modeled as a reinforced concrete
column which is supported by soil spring
model and the safety is checked in the same
way as the pile foundations.
2.11 Design Against Soil Liquefaction and
Liquefaction-induced Ground Flow
2.11.1 Estimation of Liquefaction Potential
Since the Hyogo-ken nanbu Earthquake of
1995 caused liquefaction even at coarse sand
or gravel layers which had been regarded
invulnerable to liquefy, a gravel layer was
included in the soil layers that require
liquefaction potential estimation. Soil layers
that satisfies the following conditions is
estimated to be potential liquefaction layers:
1) saturated soil layer which is located within
20m deep under the ground surface and in
which ground water level is within 10m deep.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
2-17
January, 2000
2) soil layer in which fine particle content ratio
Fe is equal orless than 35% or plasticity index
IF is equal or less than 15.
3) soil layer in which mean grain size Dso is
equal or less than 10mm and 10% grain size
DIO is equal or less than Imm.
Liquefaction potential is estimated by the
safety factor against liquefaction FL as
FL = RJL (35)
where, FL = liquefaction resistant ratio, R =
dynamic shear strength ratio and L = share
stress ratio during an earthquake. The dynamic
shear strength ratio R may be expressed as
R = cw Rc (36)
where, Cw = corrective coefficient for ground
motion characteristics (1.0 for Type-I ground
motions, 1.0-2.0 for Type-IT ground motions),
and Rc = cyclic triaxial strength ratio. The
cyclic triaxial strength ratio was estimated by
laboratory tests with undisturbed samples by
in-situ freezing method.
The shear stress ratio during an earthquake
may be expressed as
L = ru kne a via v' (37)
where, ra = modification factor shear stress
ratio with depth, :he = design seismic
coefficient for the evaluation of liquefaction
potential, (J" v = total loading pressure, (J" v'
= effective loading pressure.
It should be noted here that the design
seismic coefficient for the evaluation of
liquefaction potential :he is ranging from 0.3 to
0.4 for Type-I ground motions, and from 0.6 to
0.8 for Type-IT ground motions.
2.11.2 Design Treatment of Liquefaction for
Bridge Foundations
When the liqeufaction occurs, the strength
and the bearing capacity of a soil decreases. In
the seismic design of highway bridges, soil
constants of a sandy soil layer which is judged
liable to liquefy are reduced according to the
FL value. The reduced soil constants are
calculated by multiplying the coefficient DE in
Table2.8 to the soils constants estimated on an
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN
Table 2.8 Reduction Coefficient for Soil Constants due to Soil Liquefaction
Depth from the Present
Range of FL
Ground Surface x (m)
0~x;;;;'10
FL~ 1/3 ----------------------- ----------------- ----------------
10<x ~ 20
a ~x;;;; 10
1/3<FL ~ 2/3 ----------------------- ----------------- ----------------
10<x ~ 20
0 ~x;;;; 10
2/3<FL ~ 1 ----------------------- ----------------- ----------------
10<x ~ 20
assumption that the soil layer does not liquefy.
2.11.3 Design Treatment of
Liqeufaction-Induced Ground Flow for
Bridge Foundations
When the liquefaction-induced ground flow
that may affect bridge seismicity is likely to
occur, this influence was included in the
revised Design Specifications in 1996. The
case in which the ground flow that may affect
bridge seismicity is likely to occur is generally
that the ground is judged to be liquefiable and
is exposed to biased earth pressure, for
example, the ground behind a seaside
protection wall. The effect of
liquefaction-induced ground flow is considered
as the static force acting on structure. This
method premises that the surface soil is of the
non-liqeufiable and liquefiable layers, and the
forces equivalent to the passive earth pressure
and 30% of the overburden pressure are
applied to the structure in the non-liquefiable
layer and liquefiable layer, respectively.
The seismic safety of a foundation is
checked by confirming the displacement at the
top of foundation caused by ground flow does
not exceed an allowable value, in which a
foundation and the ground are idealized as
shown in Fig.2.l2. The allowable displacement
of a foundation may be taken as two times the
yield displacement of a foundation. In this
process, the inertia force of structure is not
necessary to be considered simultaneously,
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
2-18
January, 2000
Dynamic Shear Strength Ratio R
R ~ 0.3· 0.3<R
a 1/6
1/3 1/3
1/3 2/3
2/3 2/3
2/3 1
1 1
because the liquefaction-induced ground flow
may take place after the principle ground
motion.
2.12 Bearing Supports
The bearings are classified into two groups;
the first is the bearings which resist the seismic
force of Eq.(2), and the second is the bearings
which resist the seismic force considered in the
Seismic Coefficient Method. The first and the
second bearings are called as the Type-B
bearings and the Type-A bearings, respectively.
Seismic performance of the Type-B bearings is,
of course, much higher than the Type-A
bearings. In the Type-A bearings, a
displacement limiting device, which will be
described later, has to be co-installed in both
longitudinal and transverse directions, while it
is not required in the Type-B bearings. Because
of the importance .of bearings as one of the
main structural components, the Type-B
bearings should be used in the menshin
bridges.
The uplift force applied to the bearing
supports is specified as
.r
Ru :::: R» -
2
Rhe q + Rvec{ (38)
in which Ru = design uplift force applied to the
bearing support, RD = dead load of
superstructure, Rheq and Rveq are vertical
reactions caused by the horizontal seismic force
and vertical force, respectively. Fig.2.13 shows
the design forces for thebearing supports.
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000
1
.-
_----Jr==F=...Jc..J..
±RV E Q
+ RHEQI
(i- )
Fig.2.13 Design Forces for Bearing Supports
2.13 Unseating Prevention Systems
Unseating prevention measures are required
for the highway. bridges. The measures
required for the highway bridges are as:
1) the unseating prevention systems have to be
so designed that unseating of a superstructure
from their supports can be prevented even if
unpredictable failures of the structural members
occur,
2) the unseating prevention systems are
consisted of providing enough seat length, a
falling-down prevention device, a displacement
limiting device, and a settlement prevention
device,
3) enough seat length must be provided and a
falling-down prevention device must be
installed at the ends of a superstructures against
longitudinal response. If the Type-A bearings
are used, a displacement limiting device has to
be further installed at not only the ends of a
superstructure but each intermediate support in
a continuous bridge, and
4) if the Type-A bearings are used, a
displacement limiting device is requested at
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
2-19
Center of gravity
jh B
--'r-iL..Ji.-!:, r=..-==...-.L.l:.-,
!
I
.:t.... _.
each support against transverse response. The
displacement limiting device is not generally
required if the Type-B bearings are used. But,
even if the Type-B bearing is adopted, it is
required in skewed bridges, curved bridges,
bridges supported by columns with narrow
crest, bridges supported by few bearings per
piers, and bridges constructed at the sites
vulnerable to lateral spreading associated with
soil liquefaction.
The seat length SE is evaluated as
SE = UR +UG > SEM (39)
SEM = 70 + 0.51 (40)
UG =100' C G'L (41)
in which UR = relative displacement (cm)
developed between a superstructure and a
substructure subjected to a seismic force
equivalent to the equivalent lateral force
coefficient he by Eq.(2), UG = relative
displacement of ground along the bridge axis,
SEM = minimum seat length (cm), C G =
ground strain induced during an earthquake
along the bridge axis, and is 0.0025, 0.00375,
and 0.005 for Group-I, II and ill sites,
respectively, L= distance which contributes to
the relative displacement of ground (m), and 1
= span length (m). If two adjacent deck are
supported by a pier, the lager span length
should be 1 in evaluating the seat length.
Inthe menshin deisgn, in addition to the
above requirements, the following
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN
copnsiderations have to be made.
1) To prevent collisions between a deck and an
abutment or between two adjacent decks,
enough clearance must be provided. The
clearance between those structural components
SB shall be evaluated as
UB + LA
between a deck and an abutment
CB"UB + LA
between two adjacent decks
(42)
in which UB = design displacement of menshin
devices (em) by Eq.(35), LA =:: redundancy of a
clearance (generally + 1.5cm), and CB =
modification coefficient for clearance (refer to
Table 2.9). The modification coefficient CB was
determined based on an analysis of the relative
displacement response spectra. It depends on a
difference of natural periods 6. T = T. - T2 (T.
> T2), in which Ti and T2 represent the natural
period of the two adjacent bridge systems.
2) The clearance at an expansion joint LE is
evaluated as
LE = us + LA (43)
in which UB = design displacement of men shin
devices (cm) by Eq.(35), and LA = redundancy
of a clearance (generally -+- 1.5cm).
Table 2.9 Modification Coefficient for Clearance
c. TIT,
o ~~ TlTl < 0.1
0.1 ~ ~ TIT, < 0.8
0.8 ~ ~ T(I\ ~ 1.0
2.14 CONCLUDING REMARKS
The preceding pages presented an outline
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
January, 2000
of the new Seismic Design Specifications of
Highway Bridges issued in 1996 as well as the
damage features of highway bridges in the
Hyogo-ken nanbu earthquake. The Hyogo-ken
nanbu earthquake was the first earthquake
which developed destructive damage in an
urban area since the 1948 Fukui Earthquake.
Because it had been considered that such
destructive damage could be prevented due to
the progress of construction technology in
recent years, it provided a large impact on the
earthquake disaster prevention measures in
various fields. The "Part V Seismic Design" of
the "Design Specifications of Highway
Bridges" (Japan Road Association) was totally
revised in 1996, and the design procedure
moved from the traditional Seismic Coefficient
Method to the Ductility Design Method. The
revision was so comprehensive that the past
revisions in the last 30 years look minor.
Major point of the revision was the
introduction of explicit two-level seismic
design consisting of the Seismic Coefficient
Method and the Ductility Design Method.
Because the Type-I and the Type-Il ground
motions are considered in the Ductility Design
Method, three design seismic forces are totally
used in design. Seismic performance for each
design force was clearly stated in the
Specifications.
The fact that lack of near-filed strong
CB
CB
1
-V2
1
motion records prevented to seriously evaluate
the validity of recent seismic design codes is
2-20
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

important. The Hyogo-ken nanbu earthquake N anbu Earthquake, 1995

revealed that history of strong motion recording
is very short, and that no near-field records
have yet been measured by an earthquake with
magnitude on the order of 8. It is therefore
essential to have enough redundancy and
ductility in a total bridge system. It is hoped
that the revised Seismic Design Specifications
of Highway Bridges contributes to enhance
seismic safety of highway bridges.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Drafting of the revised version of the "Part V

Seismic Design" of the "Design Specifications
of Highway Bridges" was conducted at the
"Special Sub-committee for Seismic
Countermeasures for Highway Bridges" and
was approved by the Bridge Committee, Japan
Road Association. The first and other authors
of this paper served as chairman and
executive members in the Special
Sub-committee. The authors thank ail members
of the Special Sub-Committee and the Bridge
Committee.

REFERENCES
1) Japan Road Association Design
Specifications of Highway Bridges, Part I
Common Part, Part II Steel Bridges, Part
ill Concrete Bridges, Part IV Foundations,
and Part V Seismic Design, 1996
2) Kawashima, K.: Impact of Hanshin/Awaji
Earthquake on Seismic Design and
Seismic Strengthening of Highway
Bridges, Report No. TIT/EERG 95-2,
Tokyo Institute of Technology., 1995
3) Ministry of Construction: Report on the
Damage of Highway Bridges by the
Hyogo-ken N anbu Earthquake, Committee
for Investigation on the Damage of
Highway Bridges Caused by the
Hyogo-ken Nanbu Earthquake, 1995
4) Ministry of Construction: Guide
Specifications for Reconstruction and
Repair of Highway Bridges Which
Suffered Damage due to the Hyogo-ken

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
2-21
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3. SEISMIC DESIGN FOR RAILWAY STRUCTURES

RAILWAY TECHNICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, JAPAN

3.1 Basic Principles of Seismic Design for Railway Structures 3- 1

3.2 Setting of Design Earthquake Motions 3- 3

3.2.1 Setting of Earthquake Motions for Bedrock 3- 3

3.2.2 Setting of Design Earthquake Motions on the Ground Surface 3-11

3.3 Seismic Performance of Structures 3-13

3.3.1 Setting of Seismic Performance Levels for Structures 3-13

3.3.2 Consideration on the Damage Levels of Member, the Stability Levels of

Foundation as well as their Limit Values 3-14

3.4 Concept ofImportance Degree of Structure 3-17

3.5 Evaluation of Surface Ground and Calculation of Displacement and Stress ofStructure3-17

3.5.1 Evaluation of Surface Ground 3-17

3.5.2 Calculation of Responses of Structures 3-24

3.6 Safety (Seismic Performance) Checking of Structures 3-25

3.6.1 Checking Damage Levels of Members 3-27

3.6.2 Checking Stability Levels of Foundation 3-27

3.6.3 An Example of Safety Checking of Pile Foundation 3-27

3.7 Conclusions 3-29

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

3. SEISMIC DESIGN FOR RAILWAY STRUCTURES

RAILWAY TECHNICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, JAPAN

3.1 Basic Principles of Seismic Design for totally and the other side with only cracks in
Railway Structures columns. This situation with different damage
pattern might be mainly due to the difference in
A new code, "Seismic Design Code for
dynamic behavior of the surface ground, which
Railway Structures" (in Japanese), drawn up by
was inferred through the dynamic analysis by
Railway Technical Research Institute, has been
considering both the properties of structures
published recently, which reflects the recent
and ground.
advances in earthquake engineering'{ In the code
some new thought for seismic design have been @As to the damage of cut and cover tunnel, both
bending and shear stresses occurred in columns ,
adopted by drawing the lesson of the Hyogoken-
but since the shear strength was lower than that
Nanbu Earthquake of January 17, 1995 that
of bending which is same as the case of
caused the devastating damage including the
viaducts, the shear failure occurred and caused
large-scale cave-in of many railway structures. In
the collapse under the weight of overburden.
order to introduce a methodology for the seismic
The facts above indicate the following
design that can effectively prevent reappearance
procedures are important to seismic design.
of the kind of damage happened in the Hyogoken-
CDTaking inland earthquakes into account
Nanbu Earthquake, elucidation of the damage
mechanism has been conducted. As the results, ®Evaluating the safety of members by
considering the failure modes of structures
the following causes of the damage are inferred
@The necessary to use dynamic analysis
based on the damage reconnaissance and
methods and consider the dynamic behavior of
analysis".
surface ground in response analysis of
CDMany of the structures damaged possessed the
structures.
seismic capacity that was designed by only
Moreover, the level of design earthquake
considering a horizontal design seismic
motion has become dramatically large because of
coefficient of 0.2. However, the acceleration
consideration of the inland earthquakes.
level of the Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake was
Generally the return period of the intense
far over such a design level and caused the
earthquake may be several hundred years long.'
large damage.
Therefore, it is reasonable to abandon the elastic
®Viaducts of the Shinkansen that suffered
design method and adopt the performance-based
serious damage including the collapsing of
design method in which the seismic performance
structures, were originally designed to be less
of structures is evaluated and the damage of
safety against shear loads than bending loads.
structure is allowable in some extend, but never
This imbalance aggravated the damage degree
the collapse.
of the structures. This was partly due to the
Seismic design of a railway structure should
fact that allowable stress against shear force
therefore be carried out according to the
was set larger in the design code of those days.
following procedures. Firstly, from the
@Some situation of the damage showed a great
viewpoint of damage control, the degree of
gap in the damage degree between two
damage to a structure (seismic performance)
adjoining viaducts, where one side collapsed
should be identified. Secondly, the responses of

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-1
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN
the surface ground are analyzed by inputting the
design earthquake motion in the base ground.
Thirdly, the response waves of the surface
ground are inputted to the structure and the
responses of the structure are analyzed. Finally,
basing on the obtained responses of the structure
the seismic performance can be checked.
There are two types of design earthquake
motion are determined in this code. One is the
so-call L1 earthquake motion, which has a
recurrence probability of a few times during the
service life of the structure. .The other is L2
earthquake motion with high intensity, which is
caused by a near-land-large-scale interplate
earthquake or an inland earthquake near to the
structure. Comparing with Ll earthquake, the
occurrence probability of L2 earthquake is low.
For the earthquake motions, by considering the
damage of members and stability of the
foundations, the seismic performance of a
structure is set to 3 grades corresponding to the
presumed levels of repair or reinforcement that
may be required following an intense earthquake.
In the seismic design, responses of a structure
Setting input
earthquake motion
Evaluation of
surface ground
Calculation of
responses of structures
Examination
of seismic performance
Fig.3.1.1.1 Procedure of seismic design for bridges or viaducts
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-2
January, 2000
resulting from an earthquake should be made to
satisfy the seismic performance objective.
Which performance the structure should be
endowed with basically depends on the
importance of the structure.
As the reasons described above, in order to
check the seismic performance properly, a
dynamic analysis method for calculating the
responses of a structure is generally adopted in
seismic design. However, some times a static
analysis method is also used depending on the
type of structure. The procedure of seismic
design for bridges or viaducts based on the
approaches above is shown in Fig.3.1.1.1.
As what indicated in the figure, there are two
types of approaches can be used for the seismic
design. One is the simplified method (nonlinear
spectrum method) that can be easily applied for
the calculation of the responses of a structure by
i) selecting the soil profile type based on site
geological conditions; ii) using the demand yield
strength spectrum that is calculated with the
earthquake motion corresponding to the soil
profile type selected. The other is the detailed
Selection of Ll , L2 earthquake motions
(Spectrum I, Spectrum II)
Selection of earthquake motions
according to Soil Profile Type
Simplified
dynamic analysis
(Nonlinear spectrum method)
Members : Damage Level
Foundation; Stability Level
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

method (time-history dynamic analysis method)
with which the time history of responses of the
ground and structure can be analyzed detailed.
For a common structure, the
spectrum method is suitable. However if a
structure can not be modeled as a system with
single degree of freedom, as described later, the
detailed analysis method should be applied to.
In the following pages, major procedures for
the seismic design, such as the setting of design
earthquake motions, the analysis
displacements and stresses of structures, and the
checking of structural safety are described.
may happen in most areas of Japan. Consequently,
the motion due to this type of earthquake is also
covered by Spectrum I, therefore this spectrum is
nonlinear regarded as the minimum earthquake motion to be
verified in the seismic design.
® SpectrumII : acceleration spectrum based
on the statistic analysis of the earthquake data
recorded in the past inland earthquakes caused
by active faults.
@ Spectrumill: also representing the
of motions caused by active inland faults, but based
on the analysis of the active faults, if such a
model of active fault is available.

3.2 Setting of Design Earthquake Motions motion from the 3 types above is a difficult, but
important task in the seismic design, because the
3.2.1 Setting of Earthquake Motions for
presumed earthquake may be affected by a great
Bedrock
amount of uncertainty.
(1) Types and Determination of Design It is desirable to determine the design
Spectra earthquake motion for a specific site according to
As what described previously, in order to the risk factors such as the return period of
consider the effects of surface ground to the earthquake from certain seismic faults. However,
responses of a structure, either LIar L2 the return period of earthquake related to an
earthquake motion is set on the surface of inland active fault is not accurate enough at
bedrock. present, when compared with the service life of
Ll earthquake motion has about the same level structure. Therefore, an extreme event associated
as the acceleration spectrum corresponding to the with an inland active fault should be taken into
high quality ground that used to be adopted in account, unless it is evident that the fault will not
the allowable stress design. The maximum value move during the life of structure.
of the response acceleration is 250 gal To determine the design earthquake motion of a
corresponding to the damping coefficient of 5 %. site, the geological and seismological information
L2 earthquake motion is classified into the on inland active faults, historical activities of
following 3 types. earthquakes around the site and interplate
CD SpectrumI acceleration spectrum earthquakes near land must be analyzed
corresponding to the near-land interplate carefully'). A general flowchart is given in
earthquakes of magnitude 8.0 and epicenter Fig.3 .2.1.1.
distance of 30 to 40 kilometers. There are a number of ways to define the design
In addition, the inland active fault, which will earthquake motion. The design earthquake motion
cause an earthquake of magnitude less than 6.5, is is defined below by the response spectra of
difficult to be found since its size is not big acceleration on a free surface of bedrock, the
enough to reach the ground surface. According to shear wave speed of which is over 400m/s. The
the historical earthquakes, this type of earthquake choice of bedrock is to avoid the influences from

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-3
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

local effects of specific site on the ground motion,
such as the amplification due to the soft surface
soil and irregular topography of ground. The
influence due to geological conditions is very
remarkable, as recognized in seismic records, and
can be evaluated by calculating the responses of
surface soil using a proper numerical model of
surface ground with the design earthquake motion
as the incident motion. A corresponding artificial
seismic wave can be generated by adjusting
Fourier amplitudes of the wave according to the
objective response spectra of acceleration and
modeling the phases to reflect the non-stationary
property of earthquake motions.
Which spectrum should be used as the design
earthquake motion depends on the results of
investigation of inland active faults. There could
be three possibilities shown following from the
investigation (Fig.3.2.1.1).
The first (the left route in Fig.3.2.I.1), if there is
no active fault near the site, the earthquake motion
of Spectrum I is to be used as design earthquake

T
No Doubtful

Analysis with No
source model?
Yes,
Computation of ground Determine local
Determine local motions
seismic risk factor ~-----'
seismic risk factor

, ,I Speetrum Il
,
Spectrum TI
Spectrum I modified Determination of
attenuated with modified by risk
by risk factor spectrum ill distance factor

,I

Compared with
odified spectrum

,
,
Artificial wave
I

c?
Fig.3.2.1.1 General flowchart to determine the design earthquake motion

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-4
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

motion after modified by the risk factor of the with each other. Hence, the design earthquake
area. motion is Spectrum IT modified by the risk factor
The second (the middle route in Fig.3.2.1.1), of the area.
there are cases where one or more active faults
(2)Near-Source Earthquake Motions Induced
existing near the site. When the parameters of
by Inland Active Faults
seismic source for the faults can be properly
decided, the design earthquake motion can be There are still many problems to be solved
determined by the fault analysis with source when using a seismic source model of fault to
model (Spectrum III). Otherwise, the earthquake predict the earthquake ground motion at a site for
motion of Spectrum IT attenuated according to the the purpose of seismic design, such as the
distance between the fault and site, will be used as distribution of the asperity on the fault plane, the
the design earthquake motion. Because the power start point of rupture, etc. To consider these
of the motion decreases as the distance between uncertainties of it, it is effective to evaluate the
earthquake motion near inland fault from
attenuated results of Spectrum IT and III should be statistical analyses of near-source strong seismic
compared with that of Spectrum I modified by the records observed in recent years. Below
risk factor of the area, then the larger one will be summarized is a method to determine Spectrum IT
taken as the design earthquake motion. based on strong seismic records.
The third (the right route in Fig.3.2.1.1), there 1) Seismic records
are sites where the existence of active fault is very Table 3.2.1.1 shows the list of records observed
doubtful and difficult to confirm due to very deep in recent earthquakes in the United States and
sedimentary deposit, or there exists a complex Japan, Hyogoken-Nanbu (1995,M7.2), Coyote
tectonic structure beneath the site, such as the Lake (1979, MS.9), Loma Prieta (1989,M7.1),
Kanto area in Japan where three plates encounter Landers (1992, M7.5) and Northridge (1994,

Table 3.2.1.1 Near-source seismic records from recent earthquakes

Max. Ace. (gal) ] "S

tU
LL

Ol
r!:::
Ol .8 a
_ c
-"" Ol '-'
o Ol Ol Ol 0
Ol ""0 o > :.=
No '"
::::>
0- Name of seismic record
""0
3 3
'5>
c.. c>
.>, c;
.c ro
c
ro
Ol
-2:
ro Soil condition
£;
NS EW ~ c -05
C._ 05 ""OOl
C en at the position of seismometer
ffi ....J 0 Ol""O 0 ::::>.0
W ....J
Cij
> 05 eo
o
Ol
'5
0-
UJ U
'"
0

679.8 302.6 135.208 11.64 3.24 GL-83 Vs=450 (m/s)

2 86.0 109.3 134.783 32.75 27.08 GL·100 Vs=460 (m/s)
3 293.9 319.8 135.442 34.57 24.65 GL-97.0 Vs=455 (m/s)
4 Hyogoken- 272.0 306.5 135.240 14.99 6.90 GL·9.5 0.5m (240m/s) layeroverVs=590 (m/s)
5 Nanbu 185.3 200.4 135.427 38.03 25.03 GL-30 Vs=780m/s
6 445.9 425.3 135.296 20.00 12.38 GL-33 Layerof N=18 aboveGL-45
7 683.6 600.9 135.344 29.93 16.88 GLO.O N over63, 1.5m surfacelayerwith N=5
8 510.7 584.2 135.250 16.52 7.53 GLO.O Vs=300m/s, 4msurface layerVs=200m/s
9 Coyote Lake 314.6 408.8 121.484 1.0 GLO.O Rock
10 433.1 401.5 122.06 18.01 12.19 GLO.O Limestone
Loma Prieta
11 426.6 433.6 121.572 26.56 12.21 GLO.O Franciscan Sandstone
12 Landers 268.3 278.4 116.314 16.90 10.79 GLO.O Shallow alluvium over granite bedrock
13 GLO.O Thin alluvium oversiltstone
Northridge
::;] GLO.O IRock

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-5
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

4000

2000

1000
800
600
---.
'"2 400
eo
<::»
::::
0
.~ 200
'-
<1)

a:5
<:)
o 100
~ 80
60

40

20

10
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.80.9 1 Period (sec) 2 3 4 5

Fig.3.2.1.2 Acceleration response spectra of observed records at near-source area of inland earthquakes

M6.7). The records are chosen to satisfy the
following requirements.
CDThe soil condition at the station of seismometer
meets the condition of the aforementioned
bedrock.
®The maximum acceleration is greater than
lOOgal.
@The Closest Distance to Fault is less than 30km.
The list shows that the records of Hyogoken-
Nanbu Earthquake are all within the ground.
Theoretically, deconvolution shall be carried out
to separate the incident wave from the record. The
original records are used here instead, because it
is difficult to get a result that is reasonably closer
to incident wave than original record, as there are
a number of unsolved problems
deconvolution analysis for strong ground motion.
Besides, the influence of the surface soil would
not be too strong since the shear wave speed of
soil at all sites is higher than 450m/s anywhere,
except at the Great Bridge of East Kobe.
The acceleration response spectra of the
selected records are illustrated in Fig.3.2.1.2. It
can be found that the response accelerations vary
from 200(gal) to 3000(gal) in the range of short
period and from tens of gals to lOOO(gal) in the
range of long period. As the soil conditions at the
observation stations have been carefully chosen,
this wide variation may be attributed to the
following.
CDDifferencein the mechanism of seismic sources
®Difference in the propagation of seismic waves
@Influence of irregular topography
The influence of irregular topography can be
in the avoided only by selecting records according to the
geological condition if available. Through a
careful investigation, it is found that the records at
Tarzana, Northridge earthquake (1994, M6.7),

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-6
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

New Kobe substation and Takaratuka, Hyogoken- On the other hand, Ohno et al.7 ) proposed
Nanbu earthquake (1995,M7.2), are influenced another type of attenuation relation based on
strongly by special topography4),S), so that these Equivalent Hypocentral Distance, this is
records are excluded from the statistical analyses. determined by the energy radiated from the finite
As to the influence of the propagation of fault plane.
seismic waves, the profiles in deep ground in the
range of several kilometers as well as the Q factor logS(T) = a(T)Mw -logXeq - b(T)Xeq + c(T) + &(T)
(quality factor) are considered to be very (3.2.1.2)
important, but they are out of the scope of this N 2 2 IN"d
x-eq2 = "d
i..J x:-
I .t...
1
2
I
(3.2.1.3)
study. However, a number of attenuation j=l j=l

functions of ground motion have been proposed,

in which influences on propagation are all where x; denotes the Equivalent Hypocentral
considered in an average sense. By using the Distance; N, Xi, and d, are the number of small

recorded earthquake motions to a same distance
from the seismic source so that the variation of
ground motion due to propagation can be
minimized. The rest variation of ground motion
in statistics is attributed to the properties of the
seismic source or other unclear reasons.
2) Compensation by attenuation function
Among the attenuation functions proposed, the
measurement of the distance between the site and
the seismic source is very important to decide the
near-source strong ground .motion, where the
extent of fault plane must be considered properly.
To satisfy the above requirement, the Closest
Distance to Fault (CDF) has been widely used
recently. The following is an attenuation function
of response spectra of ground motion based on
CDF which is proposed by Fukushima6 ).
logS(T) = aj (T)M~ - az(T)M w + b(T)· R
-log(R +O.025xlOo.4zMw) + [,cj(T)l j
(3.2.1.1)
in which M w , R and T are the moment magnitude,
the Closest Distance to Fault and the period,
respectively; al, az and b are coefficients of
regression; Cj is the coefficients related to site
properties.
site and the center of the area i, and the seismic
moment on the area i, respectively.
The Closest Distance to Fault and Equivalent
Hypocentral Distance given in Table 1 for every
site of record are calculated according to the fault
models published by USGS for earthquakes in
USA and by Irekura for Hyogoken-Nanbu
Earthquake, respectively.
There is an important phenomenon for the
ground motion in near-source area, in that it tends
to saturate as the site is getting close to fault
presumably for the following reasons. Firstly,
most of active fault planes are nearly vertical to
the ground surface. Secondly, the thickness of the
crust of the earth is from 15 to 20km. In
consequence, the size of the fault in the horizontal
direction will increase as the scale of the
earthquake gets larger, so that the affected area
becomes larger too. However, the intensity of
ground motion at the near-source area will not
increase because the energy does not concentrate
but widely spreads on the whole plane of the fault.
Since we need to infer the ground motion right
above the fault, we can omit the influence of the
magnitude while taking into account only the
distance between the site and the fault,
compensating for the observed records by the
aforementioned attenuation relation.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-7
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

After all fault models are examined, the

Equivalent Hypocentral Distance of destination is
taken as 12lan in this study. With the attenuation 1000
800

_=1
600

relation using the value of Equivalent Hypocentral "lO t:<_..... ·"-_"";'''''';;;Mm",-H-.p..:;c~H~~~~~-H

~

Distance, all the acceleration response spectra of .]: 200 ---=~~

~ =~:::::;:
observed records are then compensated, the 3100 _1oI._a.-Jo

~ 80 =:-='~':If]l
results are shown in Fig.3.2.1.3. _··_$o.:r._....
-.~.~"')j

_1o.r.... ,..1
40 _ ••__ e-UCl:ca ..
__ -to_C_UOC"I
__
Because, overall, the compensation from the
~l_.c.u;w

2D =:=~::-c..&)Q H-+-t-++++----1----+":-H
_1.'.t_NS
__ ,.. .....w

attenuation function gives a ground motion closer 10

0.1
_","l,I.~
.4 0.5 o.e 0.70.80.91 Period (sec) 2 4 5

to the fault than original records, all spectra

become larger. The upper limit is about 2000gal, Fig.3.2.1.3 Observed spectra compensated
except those of SGK EW97 and Gilroy#l with the attenuation relation of
Gravilan Coll.EW records. As expected, the Equivalent Hypocentral Distance
np.v1:ltlcm
-_..--.. -- of crrrrrmri monon
--- 0---- ~-
frorn thp.
---- ---- -- staristir-al
~---~---
4000

mean value becomes smaller for all periods. 2DOO .' 1

~'~r~""
i---.~ _.~
When compared with those in the short period, 1000
...... .... "'- '" f· . I
BOO . "

,,,·..•......·i·.
the improvement in the long period is slight, to BOO
...~'., ~" I
,.~~
imply the existence of dominating effects from ...--... mean(Kobe) ", ·1·:··..··. ~..I v-,

the seismic source and the structure in deep

~
-_.. 90% unsurpass (Kobe)
......... mean(US)
", " ~ >-\
ground. =
-
----
-mean
llnsurpass (US)
I
-,

40 90% Unsur ss
Fig.3.2.1.4 compares the statistical results based
2D

on the seismic records of USA and Kobe. They

10
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 OBO.g 1 Pedodfsec) 2 4 5
satisfactorily agree with each other for the period
up to 1.0 second. For the period longer than 1.0 Fig.3.2.1.4 Comparison of the statistical results
second, the records at Kobe give larger response based on the seismic records in USA
spectra This difference would be a major cause and Kobe, respectively
of larger deviation of total statistical results in the
4000
long period range. Meanwhile, it can also be
2000
I
found that the statistical results become smoother
1000
V' ~ J--.....
1'--.. i -
rt- I
as the number of records increases. 800
600
--- I ~
The attenuation function based on CDF is also
used, where the distance of destination is taken as
400

200
<, '" 1"'- "\
1'----.

2lan. The point of 2km from fault is the place 100

80
r-.
1
right above it, because little portion of energy will 60

40

be radiated from the range within 2km from the

20

ground surface, even though the fault reaches and

10
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.70.80.91 4 5
appears on the ground surface. There is not much 0.1

difference between the mean of response spectra Fig.3.2.1.5 Comparison of the statistical
and that based on the Equivalent Hypocentral results using Closest Distance to Fault
Distance, but the values of 90% unsurpassed and equivalent hypocentral distance
probability show a little difference (Fig.3.2.1.5). attenuation relations
This illustrates that the statistical result of ground

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-8
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

motion right above the fault is almost independent 2"'0

of attenuation relation of the Closest Distance to

Fault or the Equivalent Hypocentral Distance.
,,'"
900
800
y ~
I

700 I
~ sao
-,
3) Spectrum for earthquake motion straightly $500

.,g" 400 I
above the inland fault ~
'E 300
-,
In view of the limited number of records :< I
Damping ratio h=5% I
adopted at present as well as unknown properties
of earthquakes in the future, it is wise and '00
0.1 0,2 0.3 0.4
II
0.5 0.6 0.70.80.9 1 Penod (sec) 2 5

reasonable to determine the design seismic motion

according to a certain unsurpassed value, rather
than by taking the envelope of the maximum
values.
To what degree the unsurpassed probability
should be taken is very important but difficult to
determine. It usually depends on a subjective
judgment. For railway structures, the following
considerations are necessary.
CD Railways are means of mass transportation
directly related to the safety of passengers.
@ A failure at one point of a railway system will
affect the whole route, and it is very costly and
impossible to have a bypass for the same
railway.
@The seismic records used are limited possibly
with unknown factors.
In the light of above considerations, a high
unsurpassed probability is strongly expected, but
the value 90% is believed to be acceptable and
adequate when the accuracy of the whole process
of seismic design is taken into account.
It is not difficult to get the value of a certain
unsurpassed probability if we assume that the
response spectra at the given period is normally
distributed. The 90% unsurpassed value is given
in thick dot line in Fig.3 .2.1.3. Due to the
influence of the records at SGK (Hyogoken-
Nanbu earthquake) and Gilroy Gavilan Coll.
(Lama Prieta earthquake), the apparent value near
0.3s in period is over 2000gal, which may be
attributed to some local effects of two sites.
Therefore, we use three straight lines on the log-
Fig.3.2.1.6 Response spectra of acceleration
for design earthquake motion straightly
above an inland fault (Spectrum II)
log plot to define the response spectra of
acceleration for the design earthquake motion
(Fig.3.2.1.6) called Spectrum II. Its values
corresponding to the ranges of period are shown
below.
CDllOOgal at O.ls in period
®1700gal between 0.2s and 0.7s in period
@154galat 5.0s in period.
This spectrum express the motion just above a
fault straightly. Therefore, it's values can be
reduced by the attenuation relationship according
to the distance between the seismic fault and the
site. Here Formula (3.2.1.2) based on the
Equivalent Hypocentral Distance is recommended.
(3)Earthquake Motions due to Near-Land
Interplate Earthquakes
In the codes of seismic design used before the
Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake, the seismic motion
of interplate earthquake was provided. The values
of the response spectra of acceleration for the
design were about 1000gal on a standard ground
surface. In order to treat the earthquakes due to
inland faults and interplates on a same basis, the
same methods for statistical analysis and
compensation carried out so far are applied to the
seismic records of interplate earthquakes. A brief
outline about the determination of Spectrum. I is
summarized bellow.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-9
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

Table 3.2.1.2 Seismic records from recent interplate earthquakes in Japan

<; ....
"o .b =
'" "
<5
~
=
,,~

g 2
~

.8 §
;.0,,-... ~~ " a
<; 2 ::c~
<.l~

§ 2 '"
.~ Direction of
Earthquake No Recorded site Latitude Longitude .b~ o
c~ c ."§ 0 '-
0
records
"o .£c U;
'" Cl
0
0,
c-,
'"
;>-0
.::;
.- ~0 :~
::r: C' 0
~ U P-.

Tokacbi-Oki (May 16,1968) 1 Hacbinohe 40.55 . 141.483 179.4 130 88.6 GL NS,EW
Off NemnroPen. (June 17,1973) 2 Otanoshike Brg. 43.0083 144.271 136.9 163.7 109.7 GL LG
3 Kaihoku Brg. 38.445 141.313 81.6 70.2 56.5 GL LG,TR
Off Miyagi Pref. (June 12,1978)
4 Ofunato- Bochi 39.00 141.733 101.7 86.8 71.6 GL N41W,E41N
W off N Tohoku (May 26,1983) 5 Kamitorizawi Brg. 42.1014 140.563 231 190.8 144.5 GL LG,TR
6 Urakawa 42.158 142.781 151.6 174.4 149.1 GL NS,EW
7 Hanasaki Port 43.2800 145.589 109.4 156.4 131.3 GL N20E,E20S
8 Tokachi Port 42.2889 143.324 106.5 141.7 121.8 GL NS,EW
Kusiro-Oki (Jan. 15, 1993)
9 HirooBrg. 142.2792 143.319 107.5 142.4 122.4 GL LG,TR
10 Otanosbike Brg. 143.0083 144.271 19.8 105.2 100.1 GL LG,TR
11 Chiyocla Brg. 42.9197 143.389 81.5 123.3 108.2 GL LG,TR
12 Muroran Port 42.3167 140.967 153.3 149.0 129.3 GL NS,EW
Hokkaido Nansei-Oki (July 12,1993)
13 Kamitorizawi Brg. 42.1014 140.563 124.6 120.1 91.4 GL LG,TR
Hokkaido Tohoku-Oki (Oct 4,1994) 14 Hanasaki Port 43.2800 145.589 168.4 123 58.5 GL N20E,E20S

1) Seismic records of interplate earthquakes

The recent interplate earthquakes occurred near
Japan are shown in Fig.3.2.1.7, from which over a
hundred records with the maximum acceleration
larger than 100gal have been collected. The
distances between the site of seismometer and the
source are mostly from 100 to 200km
0.1
(Fig.3.2.1.8).
Fig.3.2.1.7 Interplate earthquakes occurred in
From these data, 27 records have been chosen,
Japan recently
according to the following requirements, their
detail information is given in Table 3.2.1.2. 16
~ Hypocentrai distance
14 r---
(DBoth Equivalent Hypocentral Distance and SiI EquivalentHypocentral distance

12 o Closest distance to fault r-----

Closest Faults Distance are within 200
kilometers.
®The soil condition of the observation station is
good.
@There is no unnatural peak existing in the I~ n I ~ ~ ~

Fourier spectra of the records. II 11m ,~ .~~ II~~ n~111 ~ ~

Distance (km)
The acceleration response spectra of those
records are shown in Fig.3.2.1.9. Fig.3.2.1.8 Distribution of distance between
seismometer and seismic source

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-10
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

2) Spectrum compensated for interplate shown in Fig.3.2.1.10, which possesses the

earthquakes following values.
The attenuation relations used for inland (1) 1100gal between O.ls and LOs in period
earthquakes are also used here. As we have to (2) 154gal at 5.0s in period
take the scale of earthquake into consideration For comparison, Spectrum IT is also plotted in
because the earthquake motion to be inferred is at Fig.3.2.1.10. In order to make the design
the site a little far from the seismic source, the simplified, the values of Spectra I are defined as
motion becomes very sensitive to the scale of the same as the Spectrum IT for the period longer
earthquake. than 1.0 second. When compared with the
After investigating the effect of scale of original records in, Fig.3 .2.1.9, the design spectra
earthquake with the different attenuation are larger in the period longer than 0.2 seconds.
functions .based on the Equivalent Hypocentral In general, the vibration of high frequency
Distance as well as the Closest Distance to Fault decreases much quicker due to the damping in
respectively, the final compensated result is structure and soil as ,:veil as the displacement
obtained. Through analysis of the characteristics associated with it is small too. Therefore, the
of this compensated spectrum, the Spectrum I is design, spectra defined here does not
defined by two straight lines in log-log plot as underestimate the actual ground motion for the
seismic design.
Besides, the level of Spectrum I, even when
-S-ZS2NS

multiplied by the smallest risk factor, can cover

~ktro~~~~~ =~~EW
~,,=----"~"-+--+--1 =~~~~
_It!o~n~s
_IXH_W
_OO-l_W
the ground motion due to an earthquake with the
+--f'-,:-"'f-.j =;:~
_P_61Il:tS
_00'-
_ 0 0....
magnitude less than 6.5 which may occur inland
~l&"+'rl--i =~:~;:=~:
-oo-6U>
_oo-ou without making its fault reach the ground surface.
_OO_IIHA
-OO-11lUl
-OQ-11HA.
_OO_11Wl
_CXi_lJlU..
This can be easily verified through the attenuation
-oo-1.ltlB
-!'-ss.,..s
_1"_llol'lW
_~'l"':lltS
function given above, where the depth of a fault
-J,(-I4f38W

center is assumed as 10km from the ground

aa (1.<1 1).5 G.6 U-1l>.8'O.9 1 Period (sec) 2 surface".
Fig.3.2.1.9 Acceleration response spectra of
observed records of interplate 3.2.2 Setting of Design Earthquake Motions
earthquake near Japan on the Ground Surface

While calculating responses of a structure to

'000
I earthquake motions, the structure can be
.... ... ... -
.......... "1"" .....
··j··l modeled as an overall system including the
l~ ,
~:
I
I
surface ground where the foundation is
3500
.9 .400
Spectrum I "' I
embedded, then inputting the previously
] 300
I I·...... Spectrum If <, I
1i I r-, mentioned design earthquake motion into the
.:: 200
r-,
bedrock, and using a dynamic analysis method to
100 I, I , i I I' ,
90
eo
10 I I I I perform a nonlinear analysis which can take the
I I I
60

" 0.1 4 , effect of soil-foundation-superstructure

interaction into account. .This kind of procedure,
Fig.3.2.1.10 Comparison of the spectra
however, at this time is considered overly
between the interplate and inland

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-11
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

3000

2000 G2
l.--/ I
, ,
""'- 2"3
~v-;>~ - -------- -.- -.- "K -
~q5 .
r--,
catlJ)
"-"
;::: ~l~~------ .. ..
........j-.......... -....... I~ I"" _._.u.. ......
r-,
..~z~:.~.~
'G6
.9
....., 1000
~ --"
-
- .-' .' .' .»
. . --
.' -
'

r-, <, -, " ---', , ,

('j
.....
900
800 -~
---
. . - .. .' .- - - ...... <,
-, <,
-, ,"", , ,
-, !'-.-'-'>- ,
-,
,
,,
.- -
(l)
Q)
o
700
.., .... .G7 -, <, ~" ' ., ,
.. .'
- "
--. -
600 '
.... ..
()
-, .
J" Gl".~'~ ~
-, ",
<C , , ,
(l)
UJ
500

--.
.
. -- "GO"" --. "
....' \."........
,,
;::: 400
.- - ,
~~"'"'-."-"
0

""~
0..
UJ
(l) 300
~
,~
~ ~ ~I
200

~
c:;
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 2 4 5

Period (sec)

Fig.3.2.2.1 Design response spectra of acceleration on ground surface for Spectrum II (damping
coefficient of 5%)

complicated and impractical for general use. As Table 3.2.2.1 Soil Profile Types
a general rule, in order to simplify the design
Soil Soil Profile
procedure, the foundation of a structure will be Profile Period (sec) Name/Generic
replaced by supporting springs and the Type Description
superstructure modeled as a multiple mass GO - Hard Rock
system. In this case, the earthquake motions on Gl - Bedrock
the ground surface are needed, which can be
G2 -0.25 Diluvium
calculated from dynamic analysis of the ground.
But, in reality, there are difficulties in this G3 0.25-0.5 Dense Soil
dynamic analysis of surface ground such as G4 0.5-0.75 Dense to Soft Soil
setting of relationships between the strain and G5 0.75-1.0 Soft Soil
shear modulus of ground, damping coefficient of
G6 1.0-1.5 Very Soft.Soil
soil and so on. To overcome such difficulties,
G7 1.5- Extremely Soft Soil
design earthquake motions on ground surface
corresponding to various types of soil profile
were investigate in an amount of parametric to G7. Moreover, the soil profile types indicated
studies. As the results, the acceleration response in the figure are categorized based on the natural
spectra on ground surface due to Spectrum I and periods of ground that are calculated with the
Spectrum II are determined. Fig.3.2.2.1 gives the velocities of elastic shear wave in surface ground.
design response spectra of acceleration on The relations between the soil profile types and
ground surface for Spectrum II, which are the natural periods of ground are summarized in
corresponding to the soil profile types from GO Table 3.2.2.1.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-12
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000
In summary, there are 8 types of soil profile
used in this code. With respect to each soil
profile, the design response spectra
acceleration on ground surface are determined
corresponding to the L1 earthquake motion,
Spectrum I and Spectrum II of L2 earthquake
motion.
3.3 Seismic Performance of Structures
3.3.1 Setting of Seismic Performance Levels
for Structures
Corresponding to the presumed levels of repair
and reinforcement of structures that may be
required after an intense earthquake, the seismic
performance can be categorized into 3 levels as
follows.
CDSeismic Performance I (SPI): capability of
maintaining the original functions without any
repair and no excessive displacement
occurring during an earthquake
Seismic Performance I (SPI)
Capability of maintaining the
original functions without any
repair and no excessive
displacement occurring during an
earthquake
Seismic Performance II (SPII)
Capability of making quick
recovery of the original functions
with repairs after an earthquake
Seismic Performance III (SPill)
Capability of keeping the
overall structure in place without
collapse during an earthquake
Fig.3.3.1.1 Relationship among seismic performance levels, damage levels of member and
stability levels of foundation (bridges and viaducts)
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
@Seismic Performance II (SPIT): capability of
making quick recovery of the original
of functions with repairs after an earthquake
@Seismic Performance ill (SPill): capability of
keeping the overall structure in place without
collapse during an earthquake
These performance levels are mainly defined
by the ease degree of recovery of the structures
after an earthquake. Therefore, the relationship
between the levels of earthquake motions and
seismic performances has been established as
follows.
For L1 earthquakes, the structural seismic
structures designed.
For L2 earthquakes, SPII should be satisfied by
the structures with greater importance, and SP ill
by other structures.
Furthermore, the seismic performance levels
are also connected with the state of damage of
member as well as the stability of foundation
Damage Level 1: no damage
Damage Level 2: damage that may require repair
depending on situation
Damage Level 3: damage requiring repair
Damage Level 4: damage requiring repair, and
replacement of members depending on situation
Stability Levell: no damage (loading smaller than
bearing capacity)
Stability Level 2: damage requiring repair depending on
situation
Stability Level 3: damage requmng repair, and
correction of structure depending on situation
3-13"
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

Reinforcing bar yielding Maintaining yield load

in axial direction

Cracks occurring Skelton curve

Envelop curve
for analysis
of test results

Deformation

Fig.3.3.2:1 Relationship of lateral load-deformation relationship for reinforced concrete

member, with a generai ievei of compressive axiai force

which are constituted in the overall structure.
Since the damage level of member and the
stability level of foundation will influence the
structural seismic performance level much, how
to determine them properly is important. ill this
code, the damage level for each member which
composes a structure is set properly
considering the role played by the member for
the overall structure. ill regard to the stability of
foundation, as it has a big impact
displacement of a structure, it should be
determined by considering the bearing capacity
or the deformation of the foundation involved.
Fig.3.3.1.1 shows the relationships among
seismic performance levels required for bridges
and viaducts, the damage levels of member, and
the stability levels of foundation.
3.3.2 Consideration on the Damage Levels of
Member, the Stability levels of
Foundation as Well as Their Limit
Values
(1)Damage Levels of Member
It is considered appropriate to determine a
damage level to a member by considering the
relation among the property of the member, state
of damage, and repairing methods. Moreover the
relationship between the damage levels and the
displacements on the load-displacement curve
should also be taken into account. As an
example, the following shows how to set the
by damage levels for a member of reinforced
concrete.
ill case the bending failure mode occurs firstly
on under the condition that the exerting compressive
axial force is of a general level, the load-
deformation relation of the member is shown in
Fig.3.3.2.1. It is considered that some physical
phenomena reflecting the stress-strain condition
of the member, as shown in this figure, occur at
the changing points of the envelop curve.
Taking this member's characteristics into
consideration, each damage level of the member
is determined corresponding to the deformation
range as the following.
CDDamage Levell: before the point of B
®Damage Level 2: from B to C
@DamageLevel3:fromC to D
@Damage Level 4: after D
Once the relationship between the damage
level and the deformation is established, the

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-14
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

Table 3.3.2.1 Relationship between the damage levels of member and rotational angles

------------
Limit Value of Rotational Angle

Damage Level 1 eyd : Yielding rotational angle of member

Damage Level 2
emd : Rotational angle of member corresponding to the maximum
deformation resulting from the peak lateral loading

Damage Level 3 end Rotational angle of member corresponding to the maximum

deformation being able to resist the yield lateral load

Damage Level 4
eud: Rotational angle of member for limiting the excessive deformation
in axial direction

p
P y: Yield bearing capacity
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3
. Pm: Maximum bearing capacity
p B COy: Yield displacement
m ...........•................._._..•......_ :.:; _ - - - - - - - . Om: Displacement corresponding to
p y _
A. maximum load
ou : Ultimate displacement

Oy Om Ou
Fig.3.3.2.2 Imagine of load-displacement curve as well as stability levels offoundation

value of deformation becomes a suitable index properly is important. In order to ensure the
for checking the damage level, which may be seismic performance for an overall structure, the
directly calculated from a response analysis. If stability levels of foundation should be
the member's nonlinear behavior is evaluated determined in term of two aspects. One is the
with a mechanical model of bar, generally, the damage levels with respect to the stability of the
rotational angle or the curvature for the section foundation itself. The other is the damage level
of plastic hinge is taken as the index for the to the members constituting the foundation. For
member checking. The relationship between the latter one, the procedure to determine the
them is shown in Table 3.3.2.1. damage levels of member is same as what
described previously. As to the procedure for
(2)Stability Levels of Foundation
determination of damage levels to the foundation
Since the stability levels of foundation have a stability, the following items should be taken into
great impact on the seismic performances of account.
overall structure, how to determine them CDThe effects on the usage property of structure

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-15
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

due to the displacement of foundation the foundation should be less than its yield
®The variation of bearing capacity of the bearing capacity and no excessive
foundation after an earthquake displacement occurs. Stress resultant of
As indexes for evaluating these items, response members composing the foundation should not
ductility ratio as well as residual displacement of exceed yield strength.
foundation should be used. The former is @Stability Level 2: Either subgrade supporting
defined as the ratio of the foundation's seismic the foundation, members composing the
response displacement to yield displacement that foundation or both are deformed plastically, but
is determined by the load-displacement curve of yet maintain sufficient bearing capacity. No
the foundation. Fig.3.3 .2.2 gives a general displacement detrimental to maintenance of the
illustration of the load-displacement curve as structure's functions nor residual displacement
well as the stability levels of the foundation. should be allowable after an earthquake.
Using the indexes of displacement in this figure, @Stability Level 3 : Sufficient bearing capacity
the stability levels of foundation can be should be maintained to protect the structure
determined as follows. from collapse by damage of the bearing
G)Stability Levell: In principle, load acting on subgrade or members.

8 j : Damage parts

Fig.3.3.2.3 Illustration of damaged parts of a rigid frame viaduct

Table 3.3.2.2 An example of the relationship among the limit values of structure's seismic
performance levels, member's damage levels and foundation's stability levels (rigid frame
viaduct)

Structure SPI SPIT SPill

Superstructure Girder and Underground Beam 1 2 3

Damage Level of
Other Beam 1 3 4
Member
Column 1 3 3

Stability Level of Foundation 1 2 3

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-16
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

Besides the values of stability level are set Therefore, how to evaluate the nonlinear effects
corresponding to the types of foundation. of ground and structure becomes an essential
task in seismic design.
(3) Limit Values

Based on the consideration explained above,

3.5.1 Evaluation of Surface Ground
the parts where the damage may occur to a rigid
Characteristics of the surface ground must be
frame viaduct are illustrated in Fig.3.3.2.3, and
carefully analyzed because of its big impact on
an example of the relationship among the limit
the seismic performance of the structure to be
values of structure's seismic performance levels,
built. Generally there are 3 kinds of problems
member's damage levels and foundation's
that may be encountered and difficult to handle
stability levels is shown in Table 3.3.2.2.
in design practice: irregularity in topography or
geology, liquefaction, and soft or very soft soil
3.4 Concept of Importance Degree of
profile. In this section, the consideration and
Structure
analysis approaches adopted in the code to deal
Determination of the importance degree of a with these special kinds of surface ground are
railway structure requires consideration various described.
factors, for example, the possible influences on
human life, society, neighborhood, operating (1) Irregular Surface Ground

speeds and timetable of trains, and the difficulty
degree of recovery in case of damage. Based on
this concept, greater importance has been given
to the following structures.
(DStructures of the Shinkansen bullet lines and
those of passenger railway lines in major
metropolitan cities
@Structures whose recovery after an earthquake
is considered very difficult, for example a cut
and cover tunnel, etc.
3.5 Evaluation of Surface Ground
Calculation of Displacement and Stress
of Structure
According to what shown in Fig.3.1.1.1, the
procedure for seismic design of a viaduct is,
inputting the L2 earthquake motions on the
From the past damage reconnaissance after
earthquakes, it is often observed that severe
damage happened on a ground with irregularity in
topography or geology. The cause for this
phenomenon is obvious that the superposition of
reflection waves resulting from the irregularities
of surface ground make the response amplified.
At this time even though there are some analysis
methods with rigorous numerical models may
evaluate such irregularity effects precisely, the
necessary of large amount of precise input
and
I Groundmodel for 2D analysis I
Inclination e

'I """'_"""-,. II
bedrock firstly, evaluation of surface ground,
calculation of response of the structure and
evaluation of its seismic performance. In this
case, since the L2 earthquake motions are so
intense, both the ground and the structure are Fig.3.5.1.1 Ground models used for 10 and 20
expected to behavior strongly nonlinearly. analyses

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-17
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

parameters makes such analysis impractical for
general use. Therefore, a simplified method that
can estimate the amplification of earthquake
motion caused by irregularity and satisfy the
accuracy for seismic design is needed.
The incident wave is input at the bottom of the
hard layer and the response analysis method used
in the investigation is FEM. The time-history

1) Ground models l,x=<sU( , ,

I~~I~ iT> ,-
.,"
,. <
Since ground motion amplification is affected
I"(}In H " , .,,'.. '.
by various factors, such as the scale of irregular ,
•••••••
,,"

shape and the characteristics of input motion, etc. .. '.

,
...'"' .: .-: ,'., ... "

, -:
,
it is almost impossible to take all the factors into ~bv
AUlm '.' ...'.
account in the response analysis of surface ground. 6Qlin
... TT ..:
,.,
,' .. <
.:

For this reason, a ground model with rather .: "

simple irregularity is considered in this ••••••••

, , ... '. .' ,. :
, ... ' ... ,.. , ... .:... ,
'·"1"'"
investigation. As what illustrated in Fig.3.5.1.1, ",". IT
there are. two types of models prepared for 160:in ... , ' ....
"
"

analysis, one is the two-dimensional (2D), and the <. ,

.'.
. '.,' '. "~ .
20
other is the one-dimensional (1D). For 2D Time(s) H~m)
analyses, the property of surface ground is
Fig.3.5.1.2 Responses of horizontal
modeled by the 3 key parameters: the inclination
acceleration obtained from 20-FEM
angle ((J) of hard layer (bedrock), the thickness
analysis (normalized by peak value of
(If) of soft layer, and the impedance ratio (IC ) of
input wave)
the two layers. In ID analyses, all conditions
such as the properties of soil profile and the
thickness of soft and hard layers are set equal to
those of the corresponding 2D models as shown in
the Fig.3.5.1.1.

2) Effects of geological irregularity

In order to elucidate the mechanism of
amplification of earthquake motion due to the
geological irregularity, some numerical
investigations have been conducted as follows.
Firstly, the responses of 2D and 1D modeled
grounds were calculated, respectively. Then the
differences of the response between the 2D and
ID models were extracted by subtracting the 10 15 20
H=20(m)

Time(s)
results of 1D from those of2D. These differences
represent the effects of geological irregularity, Fig.3.5.1.3 Responses of horizontal
because the responses due to the laterally acceleration obtained by subtracting
propagating waves that rebound on the inclined values of 10 from 20 (normalized by
boundary of hard layer are included in the results peak value of input wave)
of2D.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-18
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

response acceleration on the ground surface 3) Simplified methodology for evaluation of

calculated by 2D FEM are shown in Fig.3.5.1.2, geological irregularity
whose incident wave is a SH Ricker wavelet with
CDFormulae for estimating ground motion
a predominant period of O.8sec that is the same as
Based on the results of numerical investigation
the fundamental resonance period of the soft layer.
above, the influence of the irregularity upon the
Since the soft layer is rather thick, the
earthquake motion on the ground surface is
amplification property of the irregular ground is
possible to be modified with the following
obvious with the normalized peak value of 2.4 in
expressions.
the vicinity of the edge of basin (x=40m). The
duration time of response becomes longer at G(CtJ, x) = F(CtJ)+ a .F(w)- e-imAt
places remote from the edge of basin, These =F(CtJ). ~ +a .e-i~t}= F(w)·r;(w)
characteristics are attributed to both the thickness
(3.5.1.1)
of soft layer and the irregularity in geology. Then,
f'(t) (3.5.1.2)
the responses purely caused by the irregularity can a=-,-,
f(t)
be obtained by subtracting the results of ID from
Where,
those of 2D (See Fig.3.5.1.3). The response
G(CtJ,x) the Fourier spectra of earthquake
waves shown in Fig.3.5.1.3 are caused by a
motion on the surface of irregular
laterally propagating wave that is generated at the
ground;
edge of the basin. Since the phase velocity of this
a: the amplitude ratio between the
wave is nearly equal to that of Raleigh wave, the
horizontally propagating wave
major component included in the laterally
l' (t) and the vertically
propagating wave is presumed to be Raleigh wave.
propagating SH wave J(t);
From these results of the numerical investigations,
the Fourier spectra of SH wave
a phenomenon is revealed that the earthquake
J(t) ;
motions on the surface of the ground with
LJ.t the delay time between J' (t) and
irregularity are synthesized from two parts, one is
J(t) ;
the SH wave propagating directly form the
bedrock, the other one is Raleigh wave ®Determination of a andLJ. t
propagating horizontally. It is easy to be conjectured that the coefficient
a: and LJ. t in Formula (3.5.1.1) are dependent on

Fig.3.5.1.4 Definition of the parameters for irregular ground

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-19
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

the properties of geometry and material of the formulae. Fig.3.5.1.5 gives the comparison of
irregular ground. Through an amount of Fourier amplitudes calculated by 2D-FEM and the
parametrical studies, the relationship among a results of Gem, x) obtained by the empirical
and the geometrical parameters e (the inclination formula (3.5.1.1). As to the time-history
angle of hard layer), H (the thickness of soft responses of acceleration, the comparisons
layer), and the material parameter K (the between the two methods are shown in Fig.3.5.1.6.
impedance ratio of soft and hard layers) is The good agreement between them proves that the
empirically expressed as the following". accuracy degree of the empirical formulae is
sufficient to the level of seismic design.
x
a = 0.3 exp( - 7~OJxJr xexp(-O.44X) Accordingly, in practice it is adequate to apply the
simplified methodology for general use.
(3.5.1.3)

Where, X =xIH represents the normalized

distance from the origin at the edge point as 1500 x=20(m)
shown in Fig.3.5.1A.
With the same procedures the empirical formula
---2D FEM
.- Proposed method .-+.. ,.
-t-t-t-tf-l

for delay time,.,d t is obtained as follows. :iJ.000 I-······..;-·~ ..

eeo
...
.2:
a
o
r;.;. 500 1-'-"';-'.".
(3.5.1A)

Where, as illustrated in Fig.3.5.1.4, the

o'---'--'--'--'-'---'---"-''-=-'.......
meanings of the main parameters are as the 0.1 0.5 1 5 10
Frequency(Hz)
following.
Fig.3.5.1.5 Comparison of Fourier amplitudes
Vb shear velocity of the hard layer;
shear velocity of the soft layer; between the 2D-FEM and the empirical

travelling velocity of the method (x=20 m)

horizontally propagating wave
1500 , - - - - - . , - - - - - . , - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - ,
within the range where the hard :; tx=O(m)----.: 1\ --;;---J - - . . _
.=9 ~. . I !lA1 .n "" , -i\l\rl~
layer slants; ~ 0 ;..,/ .. V..... ~ '1/ V :
--
--
CJ!...OJ) : phase velocity of the Raleigh wave; ·1500 ~~~= method

fr~-l
CDAdequacy of the simplified methodology
In the code, the simplified methodology
described above is proposed for evaluation of the
ground irregularity in general use. According to
this methodology, in a general case a 2D response rS}--+~__4~
'1500~' . .
analysis of irregular ground can be omitted and 10 Time(sec)
20

the irregularity effect is taken into account by

Fig.3.5.1.6 Comparison of time-history
modifying the response of ID analysis with the
responses between the 2D-FEM and
empirical formulae. Therefore, it is necessary to
the empirical method (x=O, 20, 40 m)
grasp the calculation accuracy of the empirical

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-20
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

(2) Liquefied Surface Ground Since the intense level of the earthquakes which
occurred before the Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake
Liquefaction is a very serious problem to
was not so high, the relative density of the soil
consider in seismic design. During the past
profile incurred liquefaction was low.
earthquakes, there were an amount of damages to
Accordingly the relationship between R and N c
infrastructures caused by liquefaction or
was obtained based on experimental results that
subsequent lateral flow. Therefore, for the
correspond to the values of relative density below
ground with liquefaction possibility, if any
60%. Furthermore, this relationship was
financially feasible measure is available, such as
determined independent to the relative density of
ground improvement that can prevent
soil profiles.
liquefaction to happen, it should be implemented.
After the Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake, the
If not, the overall structure, including the
intensity level of design earthquake as well as the
superstructure, should be taken care of
density level of the soil profile needed
comprehensive measures to prevent collapse or
1-.~_1-.1 ••
liquefaction judgement arc promoted 1.1J.bll-'- s-
other disastrous damage against excessive
Therefore, the hitherto applied relationship
response the structure may incur due to
liquefaction or lateral flow.
In this code, the procedures for liquefaction o~
judgment as well as decrease in coefficient of ~10 ~
~
•
...
Or<SQ'X;
Dr=::70$
2.S .Or-SO'!.

~ + '1\
\
subgrade reaction to consider the effect of • Or-9O$

2.0

~ r-, + 4ill
liquefaction and subsequent lateral flow are -,
determined.
.€.~ 1.5
:r. --::::I:-l"
- + I
~\~ • +
+
. I
1.0

1) Liquefaction judgement
In liquefaction judgement for railway structure
O.S
•
,.~
•
!, r-t-
--
design, the following expression is applied. 0.0
1
I10
I
100 1000
Nnber of cycle(Nc)

( 3.5.1.5)
Fig.3.5.1.7 Relationship between the ratio of
liquefaction strength (R) and the
Where,
number of cycles (Nc)
FL factor of liquefaction resistance;
R ratio of liquefaction strength;
L maximum shear stress ratio;
3.0
\[1\ ~ I
2.5 DA-"""2Q%
The ratio of liquefaction strength (R) is ~I\
DA=5~ 1\
2.0

determined by correcting the standard values of t!.~ 1.5 '---......

~ ~
liquefaction strength ratio that are obtained from DA=5~
I--
1.0

cyclic triaxial tests or in-site tests. In this t - - t--t-

0.5
correction the concept of accumulated damage
0.0
index is introduced to reflect the irregularity effect 1 10
NootIer of. eyels(Ne)
100 1000

of earthquake motion. Therefore, the relationship

Fig.3.5.1.8 Relationship between the ratio of
between R (ratio of liquefaction strength) and N,
liquefaction strength and the number of
(number of alternative cycles of earthquake
cycles (DA=10% to15%)
motion) becomes required.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-21
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

between R and N; corresponding to the low

relative density is considered too conservative, in
ground surface
which it mistakenly leads to judgement that even
+ - - ground surface properties
soil at a high relative density free from for- seismic design

liquefaction will liquefy.

On the other hand, the influence of liquefaction
on the dynamic response of structure is taken into
account by reducing the coefficient of subgrade
reaction according to the situation ofliquefaction.
Accordingly, the decrease in coefficient of Structures are designed by seismic defomation method.

subgrade reaction should be formulated varying

with the degree of liquefaction and the depth from
ground surface.
Fig.3.5.1.7 shows the relationship between R
and N, corresponding to different relative density
obtained from cyclic triaxial tests of dense sandy
- - ground surface properties
soil. This result reveals a fact that the sandy soil for seismic design

with relative density below 50% its relationship

between R and N, can be considered independent
to relative density, but if the density over the
value of 50% the relationship should
determined by taking the effect of relative density
into account.
So far, the double amplitude (DA) of axial strain
used as index for liquefaction judgement is set to
5% as the critical value. This is proper to L1
design earthquake motion, but for L2 earthquake
the critical value of DA is promoted to 10% or
15% by considering the structural seismic
performance levels and the return period of
earthquake'?',
In the strain range of 10 to 15%, dense soil will
show cyclic mobility or positive dilantancy,
recover the effective stress and present high
stiffness against cyclic shear stresses. In this
situation, the dynamic shear strength
becomes larger as shown in Fig.3.5.1.8, which
means that the soil will not liquefy.
2) Reducing the coefficient of subgrade
reaction as the effect of liquefaction
Basing on some researches, in this code the
_ range to reduce the coefficient
of subgrade reaction
Ground surface properties for se iseric design set up the
shallowest layer to reduce the coefficient of subgrade reaction.
be
20<P,
_ _ ground surface pruper-t.ies
for seismic design
~ range to reduce the coefficient
~ of subgrade reaction
Ground surface properties for seismic design set up the
deepest layer to reduce the coefficient of subarsde reaction.
Fig.3.5.1.9 Range to reduce the coefficient of
subgrade reaction and ground surface
properties for seismic design
ratio
range for lowering the coefficients of subgrade
and the parameters concerning ground properties
is judged by using the liquefaction coefficient, an
index of the degree of liquefaction, for different
values of liquefaction resistance given by the

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-22
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

equation .(3.5.1.6), where the weighting 3) Liquefaction-induced lateral flow

coefficient for the depth is set to reflect the effect
on structures.
= Jor (1 - FL )wdz
20
PL (3.5.1.6)
W =1O-0.5z
in which PL is the liquefaction potential; FL is
the factor of liquefaction resistance; and z is the
depth in meters.
Fig.3.5.1.9 shows the range to reduce the
coefficient of subgrade reaction and ground
surface properties for seismic design by referring
to the calculation result of the liquefaction
potential of a few ground models. This
formulation considers sudden changes of ground
condition for liquefaction.
Moreover, this covers soft ground at the
liquefaction potential of less than 5, and structures
are designed by the seismic deformation method.
Because the ground strain considered by the
seismic deformation method is 0.1 %, this is a case
of liquefaction potential of less than 5. Namely,
this is a state where the strain has risen a little in
excess pore water pressure in Fig.3.5.1.10. It is
the state of just before liquefaction.
From mechanism elucidation of foundations
damaged by liquefaction-induced lateral flow of
ground in past earthquakes, it is understood that
loads existing at foundation are composed of drag
force due to liquefaction layer and load due to
ground displacement of non-liquefaction layer.
However, this kind of investigation needs precise
analysis models and sophisticated technology for
numerical computation. It is impractical for
seismic design, especially, estimating the drag
force is very difficult.
Since the most important task in seismic design
structure, the methods for evaluating the drag
force and the load due to ground displacement in
this code, are determined based on the
consideration that the calculated response
displacements of structure can fit well to those
obtained by experiments. The illustration of this
concept is shown in Fig.3.5.1.11, where the
effects of the lateral flow are expressed with the
loads exerted to the upper and lower parts of the
foundation, respectively. The upper part load is
transferred equivalently from the displacement of
the non-liquefaction layer through the spring
constants of subgrade. The lower part load is due
to the lateral flow of liquefaction layer.
Displacements of structure calculated with this
model are a little bit larger than those obtained in
experiments. Therefore, this design methodology
is considered in the safety side.

(3) Surface Ground with Soft Soil Profile

The amplification property of surface ground

with soft soil profile has been testified in many
past earthquakes. This property will cause big

o
effects on structure design. For this reason,
-4 ~2 -1 0 1
10 10 10 10 10
Shear strain (%)
response analysis of surface ground under an
intense earthquake should be conducted carefully
Fig.3.5.1.10 Relationship between excess
and precisely.
pore water pressure and shear strain
For dynamic analysis of surface ground, a shear

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-23
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

stress-strain model used should be satisfied to the
following conditions.
The model,
(Dcan express the stress-strain relationship ('" "-'
r ) for various geo-materials ranging
clay to hard rock over a wide pre-failure strain
range;
®has a minimum possible number of parameters
to describe the model, each possessing clear
physical meaning;
@can express the damping-strain relationship (h
"-' r ) over a wide strain range obtained from
laboratory tests;
@)can reflect the concept of failure strength;
@can easily be applicable to seismic design.
In this code, a model of shear stress-strain
satisfy the conditions above is proposed.
model fits dynamic deformation characteristics
obtained from laboratory tests, such as
r , hr- r relationships over a wide strain range,
and reflects failure limit stress r
the adequacy of the model was examined by
model ground test with shaking table.
3.5.2 Calculation of Responses of Structures
Dynamic analysis should be the main method
for seismic design of bridges. In this case, how
to setting the nonlinear behavior for structural
from soft
members is very important. In the code, the
member's non-linearity is prescribed according
to what shown in Fig.3.3.2.1 and Fig.3.3.2.2. In
addition to the skeleton curves, the hysteresis
loops for determining damping constant are also
required. In the code, they are given with respect
to the types of material and foundations.
Moreover, it is very convenient to use nonlinear
spectrum method (the simplified dynamic
analysis method as shown in Fig.3.1.1.1) to
calculate the ductility ratio of structure for a
general case.
This
Fig.3.5.2.1 gives an example of the demand-
yield-seismic-coefficient spectrum that is applied
G/Gmax~
in nonlinear spectrum method. The spectrum is
applicable to a general structure, and the
» Furthermore,
procedure for making out it is: i) modeling the
structure to a single-degree-of-freedom system,
ii) calculating the maximum nonlinear response
displacement of the structure under the design
earthquake motion; iii) plotting the relationship

(" .... ,
! j

load as lateral flow of non-Iiqufaction layer

model of analysis

non effective
ranp of lateral flow
I non-Iiquifaction layer

Fig.3.5.1.11 Illustration of design methodology for lateral flow induced by liquefaction

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-24
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

between the yield seismic coefficient and the
natural period corresponding to each ductility
ratio.
For such structures as multiple-spanned
bridges, structures with long natural periods, or
new types of bridges whose behavior cannot be
expressed with the system of single degree of
freedom, detailed dynamic analysis method using
the model of multiple degrees of freedom should
be chosen.
With regard to foundation structures, dynamic
response analysis should also be chosen as main
way for design. In case of surface ground with
soft soil profile, the ground displacement
resulting from an earthquake is generally beyond
negligible levels, especially when the earthquake
is intense the ground displacement may cause
severe damage to a deep foundation embedded.
In this code, therefore, it is prescribed that the
effect on deep foundation due to
displacement should be taken into account by
using so-called seismic deformation method.
Until now only this code has the stipulation,
and in other codes deep foundations are designed
merely against seismic inertial force. However,
ground displacement caused by an earthquake
will generate curvature of deep foundation and
subsequently bending moment along its whole
length, which makes stress resultant increase
within the foundation's members. Therefore the
design method considering only initial force is at
unsafe side, especially in case of intense
earthquakes.
The seismic deformation method prescribed in
the code is a cost-effective one that can
conveniently combine the both effects coming
from the inertial force of superstructure and the
displacement of ground according to relationship
between the natural periods of structure and
ground.
3.6 Safety (Seismic Performance) Checking
of Structures
In checking seismic performance of a structure,
ground
the prescribed procedure in the code specifies
that responses calculated as in Section 3.5 should
satisfy the limit values of the member's damage
levels and the foundation's stability levels, both
mentioned in Section 3.3. The flowchart for

InputWave: L2 Earthquake Motion; Objective Structure: Surperstructures of RC or SRC

-c
Q)
'(3

~o
o
o

:~ 0.5 -------------------_-----~--§--§~~~
~ ----------------------------------------pT~rOr i . '

(j) ---------------------------:---------------,----------,--------,------r-----'- -, Nonlinear Behavior: Clough model

>=
~ I-----------------------~-------------.L-------j--------L-----:-----f--..L ~::s:x~::::~;~~~:~~::~~g 0.1 . Stif ness:
~ I Type of Soil Profile: G3 i i ' Initial Damping Coefficienth=0.04/T, (0.10~h~0.20)
j

0.1 1 i
0.1 0.5 1 5
Equivalent Natural Period (sec)

Fig.3.5.2.1 An example of Demand-Yield-Seismic-Coefficient Spectrum (Earthquake Motion:

Spectrum II, Surface Ground: G3 Type)

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-25
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

Setting design earthquake motion and soil profile

•Modeling structure foranalysis

i.-
Static nonlinear analysis (Pushoveranalysis): ~ Setting nonlinear property for
Lateral load-displacement relationship """"" members and subgrade

~
Grasping seismic performance of structure
(khy : yield seismic coefficient; Teq: equivalent natural period; deformation property)

~
Calculating response of structure; Demand-yield-seismic-coeff cient spectrum
Ductility ratio I~ or Detailed dynamic analysis method

~
Checking seismic performance of structure
(Members: damage level; Foundation: stability level)

Fig.3.6.1.1 Procedure of seismic performance checking for bridges and viaducts

such a procedure is shown in Fig.3.6.1.1. curve. Such critical steps include the steps
Static nonlinear analysis method (pushover where the structural capacities reach to the limit
Analysis method), in the code, is stipulated to values of yield, maximum and ultimate. The
apply in the checking process. The procedure of ultimate displacement can be determined by
pushover analysis is, i) modeling overall comparing the calculated displacement with the
structure (from superstructure to foundation) to a limit values listed in Table 3.3 .2.1. For the
frame structure, and sub grade supporting the superstructure and foundation, when the
foundation to a system composed of springs; ii) member's capacity of whichever reaches to the
setting the strengths and deformation behaviors limit value of ultimate state, the displacement is
for the structural members and the subgrade determined as the ultimate displacement for the
reaction according to what described previously; overall structure.
iii) calculating the displacement of structure by Therefore, if the value of the ultimate
increasing seismic load step by step and plotting displacement determined as above is larger than
the relationship between the seismic load and the response displacement calculated by a dynamic
displacement. In this way, the failure process of analysis method, it means that the structural
the overall structure can be grasped by indicating seismic performance designed satisfy the
the various critical steps in the load-displacement objective of seismic performance level, and a

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-26
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

safety judgement is obtained. Furthermore, the
judgement of each member's damage level and
foundation's stability level should be conducted
by checking the deformation state of the step in
the pushover analysis, whose displacement is as
same as that calculated by the dynamic analysis
method. The main contents about this checking
are described as follows.
the allowable values of residual displacement
should be limited within a small range.
All the items above are checked according to
the results obtained by the static nonlinear
analysis.
3.6.3 An Example of Safety Checking of Pile
Foundation

3.6.1 Checking Damage Levels of Members (1) Seismic Performance Levels of Pile
Foundation
In checking the damage levels of members
made of concrete, failure mode should be judged The seismic performance levels of pile
at first, namely, if shear stress calculated is foundation are determined by the stability levels
smaller than shear strength when bending or pue foundation, The stability levels of pile
strength is reached, the failure mode is defined as foundation are determined by considering the
bending failure mode, inversely shearing failure strength and deformation properties of subsoil and
mode. In the code, it is stipulated that the real pile members. Table 3.6.3.1 shows the definition
strength of reinforcing bar should be used in the of the state of pile foundation corresponding to
failure mode judgement. the seismic performance.
In case of bending failure mode, the damage (2) Pushover Analysis
levels can be judged with the deformation results
calculated from static nonlinear analysis. For the
case of shearing failure mode, however, the Table 3.6.3.1 State of pile foundation corresponding
judgement can only be conducted according to to the seismic performance levels
the strength. That is to say the deformation
Seismic Stability
behavior of the member with shearing failure
Performance Level of State of Pile Foundation
mode should be set to linearity in the overall Level Foundation
structural model for the static nonlinear analysis.
SPI Level 1 Pile foundation do not yield.

3.6.2 Checking Stability Levels of

Although pile foundation
Foundation SPII Level 2 yields, it maintains a
sufficient bearing capacity.
In the code, the following items are stipulated
for the checking of stability levels of foundation. Although pile foundation
reaches the ultimate state,
CDThe response ductility ratio of foundation; SPill Level 3
super structure does not
®The damage levels of the members composing collapse.
the foundation;
@The residual displacement of foundation.
The residual displacement above is taken as a
1) Structural analysis model
main index for checking the Seismic
In the pushover analysis, super structures and
Performance II. That is to say in order to make
pile foundations are modeled as a overall
quick recovery of the function for train operation,
structural system (Fig.3.6.3.1), which includes the

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-27
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

nonlinear properties of both the subgrade and

structures. The springs expressing the subgrade Ell i------
reaction are attached to the nodal points, and the
i EIs
parts connecting the pile to the spread footing and Elr LKhf
I

the pile to the embedded lateral beams are il

assumed to be rigid. i !
Elp i K.h Elp

I
2) Characteristics of ground resistance
The property of ground resistance of pile I
foundation is assumed to be represented by an
elasto-plastic model (bilinear type). Fig.3.6.3.2 Kv : Vertical subgrade reaction of pile point
Ksv : Vertical subgrade reaction of pile surface
shows an example of the ground resistance model K.h : Horizontal resisitance of pile
.Khf : Horizontal resisitance of footing
that becomes plastic when the subgrade reaction
of each ground resistance reaches the upper limit. (a) Pier type (b) Rigid frame type

Fig.3.6.3.1 Structural model for viaducts

3) Yield point of pile foundation
Yield point of a pile foundation is established
Vertical subgrade reaction Vertical subgrade reaction
according to the load-displacement curve of an of pile point of pile skin
Indentation side
overall structure, where the displacement Rp f--~---
Indentation side

increases rapidly mainly because of the subgrade

reaction reaching the upper limit values or the
liw
stiffness of pile members decreasing due to the Displacement
of pile point
Displacement
of pile skin
Pulling side
strength yielding. However, the yield point where Pulling side
---'----I-U n h
the displacement rapidly increases in the 1000-
displacement curve varies for different types of (a) Vertical at pile tip (b) Vertical on pile surface
foundations. This makes it difficult to judge the Horizontal resiaitance of
pile I
yield point from i) the degree to which the Effective resistance
earth pressure Rp: Design point bearing capacity
of single pile
subgrade reaction exceeds the upper limit values Re: Design skin friction capacity
of single pile
and ii) the number of members damaged over the Pe : Effective resistance earth pressure
0'---'-------
total number of members. Iih
Horizontal displacement

In order to investigate the causes of yield point,

some common prototype pile foundations were (c) Horizontal on pile surface
chosen for trial designing. As a result, it was Fig.3.6.3.2 Models for ground resistance
confirmed that the yield point appears when i) the
subgrade reaction yields at the outermost edge of
the indentation in side of pile group and ii) half of criterions. In this case, the yield point can be
the total number of pile members yields. determined by taking into account the causes
In the code, therefore, it is stipulated that the which intensify the displacement rapidly in the
yield point of pile foundation with a common load-displacement curve.
shape can be determined as the point when it
reaches one of the states shown in Table 3.6.3.2.
If a pile foundation has too many piles, it is
difficult to determine the yield point by these

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-28
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

Table 3.6.3.2 Yield point definition for pile foundation of the foundation. Table 3.6.3.3 gives the limit
values of response ductility ratio corresponding to
When the vertical resistance of pile various stability levels for cast-in-place pile,
Subgrade in the
head atthe outermost edge reach the
indentation-in which are prescribed in the code. Furthermore,
upper limit value of design vertical
side of pile group
capacity the limit values of ductility ratio are based on the
results of loading experiments. If there is the
When the vertical resistance of the
Subgrade in the
head of a half (ignoring fractions) of sufficient strength left for pile members, the limit
pulling-out side of
total piles reach the upper limit of values can be determined by other methods while
pile group
design pull-out resistance
taking the damage process into account.
When the strength of a half (ignoring
Pile members
fractions) ofthe total piles yield Table 3.6.3.3 Stability Levels and Limit Values of
Ductility Ratio
Limit value of ductility factor
(3)Response Analysis of Pile Foundation
jL L
To check the stability levels of pile foundation, Stability Stability Stability
the response values of pile foundation due to the level 1 level 2 level 3
design earthquake motion should be calculated Cast-In-
1 5 8
Place Pile
firstly. Then the stability level can be determined
by comparing the response values with the
2) Damage levels of members
indexes of ductility, damage level and response
In the seismic design, it is necessary to confirm
displacement. The response analysis should be
that the demanded damage level of each pile
conducted by using the dynamic analysis method
member is satisfied. Referring to some studies'",
which is chosen by the designer out of the
it is understood that even when the damage level
following by taking into account the ground and
of one part of a pile group exceeds the damage
structure conditions.
level 1 or 2, the strength remaining for the overall
CDNon-linearspectra method
structural system is enough. Therefor, in the code,
®Analysis method with springs supporting
the limit values for the damage levels of pile
foundation
members have been relaxed.
@Analysis method considering the soil-pile-
structure interaction 3) Response displacement
For the method CD or ® above, the procedure of It is confirmed that the values of response
pushover analysis is needed. But for the method displacement or residual displacement should be
@, only the member's properties and the less than the limit values corresponding to various
properties of ground resistance as illustrated in stability levels.
Fig.3.6.3.2 are needed.
3.7 Conclusions

(4) Checking Stability Levels of Pile The outline of the new seismic design code for
Foundation railway structures has been described above.
Because of the limited space in this article, only
1) Response ductility ratios the basic principles and some.important advances
In the code, the safety checking of pile for the seismic design are introduced.
foundation is stipulated to check the ductility ratio The adequacy of seismic design methodology

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-29
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

should be confirmed through precise analysis of of earthquake resistance of civil engineering

real damage examples incurred in past structures, Japan
earthquakes. The methodologies introduced here 4) "Report on the investigation of disaster of
are based on the results of damage analyses Earthquake in Hanshin-Awaji", Committee on the
concerning to the Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake. investigation of disaster of Earthquake in
Since these damage analyses are still being Hanshin-Awaji, The Japanese Geotechnical
conducted by each organization, currently, some Society. (in Japanese)
new knowledge or consideration may be 5) Gotou, Y, Ejiri, J.: "The characteristics of
obtained in the near future. Consequently, by amplification at the Tarzana observation station in
absorbing that information, the current seismic Northridge earthquake", Proceedings of
design methodology can become as perfect as Amplification of Ground Motion on Soft Ground
possible. Symposium, Japan, 1994.
Moreover, the methodology for seismic design 6) Yoshimitsu Fukushima: "Empirical prediction for
L_~____ __.4-L__ _ 1.: __ .4-_..1 1-. ~_ _.& _.&...... .J _ _ .l.': J:1 __ .l._..J __ "-L ...: __ l
ucco.urcs 1 <1Wc;l I,;VllljJlll,;<1lc;U Uc;l,;<1U1\C' Vi. 1\UVllg gIVUllU lllVUVll lCJ.lCl,;lCU Vll WCVIC'U'-'''-l

consideration of the both non-linearity corning
from the structures and the subgrade. In order to
avoid meaningless complication, the described
approaches taken in the seismic design are the
essential ones that can express the damage levels
of structures. Therefore, by using
approaches the state of damage to designed
structures during an intense earthquake can be
predicted corresponding to the
performance levels.
At last, there is a notice that the precision of
the input parameters concerning structures and
subgrade and the computing accuracy should be
appropriate to the execution of computer. Even
though the level of design method is promoted, a
design using incorrect input data can not be
considered as a good one.
REFERENCES
1) Seismic Design Code for Railway Structures,
published by MARUZEN, Oct,
Japanese)
2) Akihiko Nishimura: "Earthquake resistant design
for Railway Structures", Quarterly Report of
RT.RI., VOl.37, No.3, pp.128-138, 1996.
3) "Proposal on Earthquake Resistance for Civil
Engineering Structures", Special task committee
backgrounds of source and propagation of seismic
wave", ORr Report 93-07, Ohsaki Research
Institute, March 1994. (in Japanese)
7) Susumu 0000, Katsuya Takahashi: "Evaluation
of strong-motion attenuation relation using near-
these source data in California", Proceedings of the 9th
Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium, 1994.
(in Japanese)
seismic 8) Haibo Wang, Akihiko Nishimura:
"Determination of design seismic motion by
considering inland and interplate earthquakes",
Quarterly Report of RT.RI., Vol.40, No.3 ,
pp.130-138, 1999.
9) Yoshitaka Murono, Akihiko Nishimura:
"Characteristics of Local Site Effects on Seismic
Motion, --Non-linearity of Soil and Geological
Irregularity--", Quarterly Report of R T.RI.,
Vo1.40, No.3, pp.139-l45, 1999.
lO)Ryo Sawada, Akihiko Nishimura: "Design
Method of Structure Considering Liquefaction and
Subsequent Lateral Flow" , Quarterly Report of
1999. (in
RT.RI., VolAO, No.3, pp.146-l51, 1999.
11)Kimura, Okoshi, et al : An Experimental Study
on The Ductility of Pile Foundations, Journal of
Study Engineering, Vol.44A, 1998.3 (in Japanese)

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
3-30
4. EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF PORT FACILITIES

BUREAU OF THE PORTS AND HARBORS, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT

4.1 History or Revisions of Design Codes 4- 1

4.2 Damage to Port Facilities by Past Earthquakes 4- 3
4.2.1 Gravity Type Quaywalls 4- 3
4.2.2 Sheetpile Bulkheads 4- 4
4.2.3 Pile Supported Piers 4- 6
4.2.4 Breakwaters 4- 6
4.3 Evaluation of Seismic Performance 4- 7
4.3.1 General 4- 7
4.3.2 Seismic Performance Requirement for Port Facilities 4- 7
4.3.3 Pseudo-static Method 4- 8
4.3.4 Earthquake Response Analysis 4- 9
4.3.5 Seismic deformation method 4- 16
4.4 Earthquake Load 4- 18
4.4.1 Design Seismic Coefficient 4- 18
4.5 Lateral Earth Pressure and Water Pressure during Earthquake 4- 22
4.5.1 General 4- 22
4.5.2 Apparent Seismic Coefficient (Seismic Coefficient of Submerged Soil Layer) 4- 22
4.5.3 Dynamic Water Pressure During Earthquake 4- 22
4.6 Liquefaction Prediction/Determination Method 4- 22
4.6.1 General 4- 22
4.6.2 Grain Size Distribution and SPT-N Value 4- 22
4.6.3 Undrained Cyclic Triaxial Test and Seismic Response Analysis (Sensitive
Assess Method) 4- 24
4.7 Seismic Design of High Seismic Resistant Quaywalls 4- 25
4.7.1 Evaluation of Seismic Performance of High Seismic Resistant Facilities 4- 26
4.7.2 Design Seismic Coefficient of High Seismic Resistant Quay Walls 4- 26
4.8 New Seismic Design of Open Piled Piers 4- 31
4.8.1 General 4- 31
4.8.2 Seismic Performance Requirements 4- 31
4.8.3 Design Earthquake Forces 4- 32
4.8.4 Structural Analysis Procedures 4- 32

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN
4. EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF PORT FACIILITIES
BUREAU OF THE PORTS AND HARBOURS MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT
4.1 History of revisions of design codes
Having been established in 1951, the Port and
Harbour Law in Japan has been revised many
times so far. The important revision in view of
the design of port and harbour facilities was made
in 1974, in which it was noticed that the port and
harbour facilities must be constructed, maintained
and rehabilitated in accordance with the Techni-
cal Standard of Port and Harbour Facilities. In
1975 the engineering requirement was established
as the Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport and
it was prescribed in the ordinance that the faciliti-
es in ports and harbours must be stable against
the loads such as earthquake loads, dead weights,
wave forces, impacts due to ships andso on.
The Technical Standard of Port and Harbour
Facilities was established in 1973 as the order of
the Director General of Bureau of the Ports and
Harbours, Ministry of" Transport, in which the
details on earthquake resistant design, such as
design procedures, factor of safety and allowable
stresses, were specified.
In 1979 the Technical Standard of Port and
Harbour Facilities and its Commentary was com-
piled under the supervision of the Bureau of the
Ports and Harbours, Ministry of Transport, and
has been revised in every ten years after the 1979
edition.
Seismic stability of the port and harbour
structures was to be examined only by the
pseudo-static method in the 1979 edition and
1989 edition of the Technical Standards. The
pseudo-static method is called the seismic coeffi-
cient method, and the earthquake load is obtained
by the multiplication of the design seismic coeffi-
cient and the vertical load. The design seismic
coefficient is obtained by the multiplication of the
regional seismic coefficient, the factor for subsoil
condition, and the importance factor. Those three
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4-1
January, 2000
factors were classified into three groups respec-
tively, with the regional seismic coefficient
ranging from 0.05 to 0.15, the factor for subsoil
condition ranging from 0.8 to 1.2, and the im-
portance factor ranging from 0.5 to 1.5. The re-
sultant value, the design seismic coefficient, was
rounded off to the nearest 0.05 or 0.00. As to the
design of the reinforced concrete structures, al-
lowable stress method was applied.
Significant modification had not been made as
to the earthquake resistant design procedures ever
since the first edition thus far, however, the pro-
cedure of assessing the liquefaction potential was
not stated in the 1973 edition, and was firstly
stated in the 1979 edition.
In 1999, the order of the Director General of
Bureau of the Ports and Harbours was repealed
for variety of reasons, and the Ministry of Trans-
port notified the new detailed Technical Standard.
In the new Technical Standard, some significant
revisions have been made based on the outcome
of the recent research after the 1995 Hyogoken-
Nambu earthquake. Those are summarized as
follows:
(1) Principles of design
The concept of performance-based design
has been introduced. The principles are:
CDAil the structures must be stable against
the level 1 earthquake motions whose re-
turn periods are about 75 years.
® High seismic resistant facilities should
keep the required performance against the
level 2 earthquake motions whose retum
periods are over some hundred years.
(2) Seismic coefficient method
CD The regional seismic coefficient and the
importance factor have been modified,
while the factor for subsoil condition has
remained as it was. The number of region-
al groups for the regional seismic coeffi-
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

cient has come up to five, coefficient motions has been introduced.

ranging from 0.08 to 0.15. Range of the
importance factor has become from 0.8 to
1.5. In addition, the resultant value has
been considered down to three decimal
places.
(2) The equation for the apparent seismic
coefficient, which is the seismic coeffi-
cient used for the calculation of earth
pressure below groundwater level, has
been modified.
® Consideration of the dynamic water pres-
sures acting at the front of vertical walls
has been stated.
(3) Assess of earthquake-resistant performance
Assessing way of the earthquake-resistant
(4) Assess of liquefaction potential
Assessing way of liquefaction potential has
been modified.
(5) Design method of open piled piers
Modified pseudo-static design method, whi-
ch is called the modified seismic coefficient
method, has been introduced for the design
of open piled piers.
(6) Design method of reinforced concrete struc-
tures
Limit state design method has been intro-
duced, and safety factors for the design have
been established.
The history of revisions of design codes IS

performance in view of level 2 earthquake summarized in Table 4.1.1.

Table 4.1.1 Summary of history of revisions of design codes

1973 1979 1989 1999

Earthquake design level One level Two levels

Seismic coefficient method 0 0

modified

Performance-based design principles - 0

Assess of liquefaction potential - 0 0

modified

Design of open piled piers Seismic coefficient Modified seismic coefficient

method method

Design of reinforced concrete structure Allowable stress method Limit state design method

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4-2
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

4.2 Damage to port facilities by past
earthquakes
Port facilities ill Japan has been suffering
severe damage by earthquakes, such as the 1964
Niigata earthquake, the 1968 Tokachi-Oki earth-
quake, the 1978 Miyagiken-Oki earthquake, the
1983 Nipponkai-Chubu earthquake, the 1993 Ku-
shiro-Oki earthquake, the 1993 Hokkaido-
Nansei-Oki earthquake, the 1995 Hyogoken-
Nambu earthquake, etc. Earthquakes that induce
severe damage for port facilities have been occur-
ring approximately once in five years in Japan.
The details of the damage caused by those earth-
quakes were carefully surveyed and summarized
in the reports.
The observation of the strong-motion earth-
quake at major ports in Japan has been conducted
since 1962 and strong ground motions by these
earthquakes were recorded at various ports.
Therefore, the relationship between ground mo-
tion and damage of port facilities has been ex-
amined carefully since 1962. Although the
mechanism and pattern of the damage depend on
the type of facilities, strong ground motion char-
acteristics and geotechnical properties of founda-
tion have a major effect on the extent of damage.
In this section, typical damage of various types
of port facilities and its mechanism are summa-
rized considering the ground motion characteris-
tics and geotechnical background.
the evidence of ground liquefaction and the
ground liquefaction behind the caisson might
have a major effect on the deformation of the
caisson and the settlement at the apron.
_______. before
- - after
20.0
~t""'r',...,,-------.-------- muJ
l~ I: \\
L WL. ± 0.0 \:;.J---l....
' -------.-, ~
Concrete Caisson
13.0
FigA.2.1 Cross section and deformation of a
quaywalI at Gaiko District in Akita port
The 1993 Kushiro-Oki earthquake
A typical cross section of a gravity type quay-
wall at Kushiro port is shown in FigA.2.2. As
shown in the figure, a caisson wall was put on a
firm foundation with SPT N-values ranging from
30 to 50, with a loose backfill. Shaken with a
peak bedrock acceleration of O.28g, residual dis-
placement of the caisson walls ranged from Om to
OA3m, on average 0.24m.
- - - Before earthquake
~ ---- After earthquake
a

4.2.1 Gravity type quaywalls

+3.
;;rIi
.tl2
vH.W.L+1.§ I
i L.W.L+0.5
:.. _ -
0.43
- - - "",
-
I
.....
=
..........
..
,.,,--=-

. I I .....
The 1983 Nipponkai-Chubu earthquake I Caisson I "-~<
I I Rubble "-
Figure 4.2.1 shows a cross section of a quay- I L B H I Backfill -, .....
I 15.0x12.0XO.6 I >-
wall at Gaiko district in Akita port. A typical -9.11 I 1. "\) -- --
_-..1---------.....:...< »>:

feature of the damage was a large settlement at - <: __-J~6_ B.u.!?ll!.el'1E.ull d__ .»>: Unit (m)

the apron in an order of 1.0 to 1.5m, and the cais-

FigA.2.2 Cross section and deformation of a
son wall inclined toward the sea by 1.6 degree.
quaywall at Kushiro port (West port District
Maximum horizontal displacement at the top of No.2 West quaywaIl-9m)
the caisson was lAm. Observed was 0.22g of
maximum acceleration in Akita port. There was

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation 4-3
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

The 1995 Hyougoken-Nambu earthquake - - - before

- - after
Gravity type quaywalls in Kobe port slid to
+2.37
offshore side 1m to Sm and subsided 1m to 2m, r,---~~~-------~~~r------­
I \
I ~\ _
subsidence behind the quaywalls of 3m to 4m due
\7±O. Tie Rod 1=11.0
to the lateral deformation of the quaywall as indi-
cated in Fig A .2.3. As shown in this figure, a cais- E
E
~ 0
son wall was put on loosely deposited decom- c:: 0
~

tti "S-
posed granite. A peak acceleration of 0.55g at a Ol
s:
Ul

depth of GL-32m was recorded at the Port Island

vertical seismic array site in Kobe port.
~~
FigA.2A Cross section of a sheetpile bulkhead
in Yamanoshita Revetment in Niigata port

T:'.: C
~l'" _L ........: 1:' .....L _
.rlgUlC '"t • .L . .J snows a (.;1U::;::; ::;C(.;l.!UH Ul anouier
sheetpile bulkhead in Yamanoshita wharf Con-
struction of this wharf was completed about one
Backfillin Sand
year before the earthquake. The earthquake re-
Alluvial Clay Layer Sand Drain
for Replacing Clay Layer
sistance design of the wharf was carried out using
'V-34.00~-36.00

Unil(m} the design seismic coefficient of 0.12. As seen in

FigA.2.3 Cross section and deformation of a
quaywall in Kobe port (RC-5, Rokko Island
-14m)
the figure, no appreciable damage was observed,
except for a local sinking of the fill behind the
anchor plate.

4.2.2 Sheetpile bulkheads

The 1964 Niigata earthquake
The majority of quaywalls in Niigata port were Tie Rod

sheetpile bulkheads. A typical damage of the

sheetpile bulkheads was their swelling and tilting
toward the sea. This type of damage was ob-
served mostly in bulkheads with poor anchor re-
sistance. In such cases, the swelling of bulkheads
was accompanied by a horizontal shear at a joint FigA.2.5 Cross section of a sheetpile bulkhead

of the top concrete and the upper end of sheet- in Yamanoshita wharf in Niigata port
piles.
A cross section of a sheetpile bulkhead in The 1968 Tokachi-oki earthquake
As shown in FigA.2.6, the Konakano No.1
Yamanoshita Revetment is shown in FigA.2A. A
characteristic feature of the damage was an over- quaywall in Hachinohe port was heavily damaged

all settlement. A face line of the walls swelled by the earthquake. The walls tilted 5 degrees and

more or less toward the sea and some of the top swelled toward the sea by O.6m at maximum due

concrete blocks sank completely under the water. to insufficient anchor resistance. Tension cracks
in the direction parallel to the face line and set-

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation 4-4
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

tlement in an order of several 10cm occurred in The 1973 Nemuro-hanto-oki earthquake

the backfill surface. The maximum acceleration As shown in FigA.2.8, the sheetpile bulkhead
of the earthquake was observed to be 0.26g in was severely damaged by the earthquake. Ac-
this district. cording to the investigation after the earthquake,
- - - l:efore the tie rods were not cut and the damage was es-
-after
timated to have been caused by the decrease of
anchoring capacity due to the seismic effect.
- _. before
- aIler

I~~
15.0
L - 068.0
H.WL+~ ~itf
__ . [+250
::: 1

LWL ±O.ro 1\
TIe Rod
\ Tumbuclde

"" Tlrrber Pile I

s:
-4.5 ~

]~
-5.0 VV

FigA.2.6 Cross section of a sheetpile bulkhead

in Konakano No.1 quaywaII in Hachinohe
port FigA.2.8 Cross section of a sheetpile bulkhead
in Hanasaki port
The sheetpile bulkhead with batter anchor
piles, the quaywall of Kitahama pier in Hakodate
The 1983 Nipponkai-chubu earthquake
port, was damaged by the earthquake as shown in
The severe damage occurred on the sheetpile
FigA.2.7. The fixation point of sheetpiles and an-
bulkhead at Ohama NO.2 wharf of -10m depth.
chorpiles was broken and the face line of the
Typical features of damage in the quaywall were
quaywall swelled toward the sea by 59cm at
a large settlement at the apron and a tilting of the
maximum.
coping. Through the investigation after the earth-
- - - before
- - after
quake, the sheetpile damage was summarized as
+3.00 shown in Fig.4.2.9. These damages were estimat-
HWL +1.04 ~ , +2.73 ed to be caused mainly by liquefaction of the
L WL ± O.00 "1\\~:;:Ll:u"
backfilling sand.

+2.0
-7.00 LWL ±o.oo
~

-12.00

-14.50 -
-10.0
-1.lV..t.?;t--

Fig.4.2.7 Cross section of a sheetpile bulk- Fig.4.2.9 Cross section of a sheetpile bulkhead
head in Kitahama pier in Hakodate port at Ohama No.2 pier in Akita port

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4-5
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

4.2.3 Pile supported piers Composite breakwaters consisting of concrete

The 1964 Niigata earthquake
The severe damage was observed on the tres-
tle type quaywalls at Rinko district in Niigata
port. The ground having consisted of very loose
sandy alluvial layer, a typical feature of damage
in this area was a large settlement. The quaywall
shown in FigA.2.10 sank completely under the
water.
+2.40
l7 +0.00
-1.50
caissons and the foundation rubble in Kobe port
suffered damage as shown in Fig.4 .2.12. These
breakwaters were constructed on loose decom-
posed granite, which was filled into the area after
the excavation of the original alluvial clay layer.
TIle breakwater settled about 1.4 to 2.6m through
the earthquake. The horizontal displacements of
the breakwater, however, were less than tens of
em. The mode of deformation suggests that the
caisson was pushed into the rubble foundation
and the rubble was also dragged down and
pushed into the loose deposit beneath it.

- - - before
-after

II
II
II
II
II
,

FigA.2.10 Cross section of a trestle type pier

in B Berth in Niigata port

-·16.7
The 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu earthquake
A pile supported pier suffered damage at Ta- FigA.2.11 Cross section and deforma-
tionlfailure of a pile supported pier at Kobe
kahama wharf in Kobe port. The horizontal
port
residual displacement of the pier ranged from 1.3
to 1.7m. A typical example of the cross section
and deformation of the pile supported pier is before
-afler
shown in FigA.2.ll. As shown in this figure, the .g L.W.L
pier was constructed on a :firm foundation deposit
consisting of alternating layers of Pleistocene
clay and sandy gravel. The steel piles having a
.... Backfill Soil, after c; /"
diameter of 700mm buckled at the pile heads ex- .... -!-'~s Excavating Clay Layer 'j'> /"
Clay ........... ///
Clay
cept for the piles located most landward. A crack ......<::~::. -40.00.:::':'-;;':'--
was observed at the connection of the pile cap 1-15}0- J Unit(m)

and the concrete beam located most landward.

Fig.4.2.12 Cross section and deformation of a
4.2.4 Breakwaters breakwater at Kobe port (Breakwater No.7)
The 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu earthquake

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation 4-6
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN
4.3 Evaluation of Seismic Performance
4.3.1 General
In the design of port facilities, the effect of
earthquakes should be taken into account so
that they possess appropriate amount of
seismic resistance.
Explanation
(1) Earthquake resistant design should be
applied to port facilities as explained :in this
chapter. Seismic resistance of bridges, oil
be examined based on other appropriate
regulations and guidelines.
(2) In the examination of seismic resistance,
following factors should be taken into account.
(a) Seismicity of the region, target earthquake
and target ground motion.
(b) Subsoil conditions.
(c) Importance of the facility, which should be
determined based on various factors
including it's role in the society or economy.
(d) Seismic resistance of the facility.
(3) Following factors should be examined to
assure the seismic resistance of the facility.
(a) Stability of the whole structure.
(b) Stability of the subsoil against failure.
(c) Effects of liquefaction on the stability of
subsoil and upper structure.
(d) Stress of the members of the structure.
(e) Relative displacements between various
portions of a structure, between structures
or between structure and soil. This factor
may be important for the purpose of
maintaining the functions of the structure
after the earthquake.
(4) At Kobe Port, the type of structures were
quite uniform during the 1995 Hyogoken-
N anbu earthquake. This is why almost all of
the structures suffered similar damage. If the
type of structures had been more diverse, the
amount of damage for each structure should not
have been uniform because their response
characteristics should have been different.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4-7
January, 2000
Based on this experience, in the choice of the
structural type of port facilities, it is
recommended to adopt various type of
structures as long as possible.
Related information
Seismic performance of port facilities should
be examined with pseudo-static method,
earthquake response analysis and/or seismic
deformation method depending on the dynamic
characteristics of the structure.
Seismic resistance of structures which are
relatively rigid and will not show much
amplification during earthquake, should be
design seismic coefficient designated in 4.4 and
4.7. Gravity type quay wall is a typical example
of such structure.
For structures which has a small damping
factor and a natural period close to
predominant period of ground motion or for the
structures which has a relatively long natural
period, modified pseudo-static method should
be applied, taking into account the dynamic
characteristics of the structure. The application
of modified pseudo-static method to the design
of piled piers is explained in 4.8.
The seismic resistance of buried line
structures such as tunnels and pipelines should
be examined with seismic deformation method
because the safety of these structures are
controlled by the deformation of surrounding
soil.
If the facility is especially important or the
type of structure is rare and there is no similar
conventional structure, it is recommended that
it's seismic resistance should be examined by
using earthquake response analysis together
with . conventional pseudo-static method,
modified pseudo-static method or seismic
deformation method. The earthquake response
analysis should be based on appropriate
modeling of related conditions including the
structure and the earthquake.
4.3.2 Seismic performance requirement for port
facilities.
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN
(1) Port facilities should sustain their structural
stability and maintain their functions for a
level-1 ground motion, which by definition
occurs with high probability during the
facility's duration.
(2) High seismic resistant facilities, which are
especially important and require high
seismic resistance, are allowed to suffer only
slight damage for a level-2 ground motion,
which by definition occurs with relatively
low probability during the facility's duration
but which is very intense. In other words,
high seismic resistant facilities should be
prepared for rapid restoration to sustain
their intended functions after a level-2
ground motion.
Explanation
In the seismic design :of port structures, a
level 1 ground motion, which has a return
period of 75 years and a level 2 ground motion,
which is a ground motion due to intra-plate
earthquake with a return period of more than
several hundred years or a ground motion due
to a subduction zone earthquake, should be
taken into account.
High seismic resistant facilities include high
seismic resistant quay walls, which are
specially designed for the transportation of
emergency cargo or for the maintenance of
economic or social activity just after the
earthquake, and the revetments of the disaster
prevention base, which is intended to keep the
safety of the citizen just after the earthquake.
While 'to maintain their functions' means to
sustain their structural stability, 'to sustain
intended functions' means to suffer only a slight
damage and to be prepared for a immediate
restoration.
Related information
(1) Fig. 4.3.1 shows the design procedure
required for all of the port facilities. In this
procedure, after determining the structural
parameters, the evaluation of liquefaction
potential and the mitigation of liquefaction is
requested. This is based on the appreciation of
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
January, 2000
the importance of the liquefaction mitigation.
Seismic coefficient
(Level-I
ground motion)
I
Seismic coefficient -Regional seismic coefficient
X Factor for subsoil condition
x Importance factor
I
Cross section of the facility
I
Assessment of liquefaction
and mitigation
I
Detailed design
Figure 4.3.1 Design process applied to
all port facilities
(2) During the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu
earthquake, the lateral movement of the ground
caused significant damage to piles. In the
earthquake resistant design of port structures,
the mitigation of liquefaction is always required
when necessary. Therefore, it is only in very
limited case that that the liquefaction or related
lateral movement of the ground is allowed and
used as a given condition of the design of
structures. In these limited cases, the design
should be performed adequately based on the
earthquake response analysis as a part of the
examination of earthquake resistance of soil-
structure system or based on the references
regarding lateral movement of the ground.
4.3.3 Pseudo-static method
4-8
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

(1) In principle, seismic load for port the product of the weight of the portions of the
structures with relatively short natural structure and the seismic coefficient of the
period and relatively high damping' factor particular portion depending on the response
should be designated as a design seismic
coefficient for pseudo-static approach. In this characteristics of the structure. In modified
case, the design seismic coefficient designated pseudo-static design of port structure, design
in 4.4 and 4.7 should be used. Seismic inertia seismic coefficient designated in 4.4 is used for
force should be the larger of the following (a) the calculation of seismic load. Therefore, the
and (b) and should be assumed to act on the only difference of modified pseudo-static method
gravity center of the structure.
(a) (Seismic force):::: compared to original pseudo-static method lies
(Self weight) x (Seismic coefficient) in the computation of the distribution of seismic
(b) (Seismic force)=(Self weight + coefficient along the height of the structure. See
Surcharge) x (Seismic coefficient) 4.8 for details of the modified pseudo-static
(2) For structures for which pseudo-static method for piled piers.
method is not applied, seismic load should be (4) The effect of the vertical component of ground
designated in an appropriate manner, taking
motion depends on the type of structure and on
into account the characteristics of the
I structure.
strict to consider vertical seismic coefficient, the
vertical seismic coefficient is not required to be
Explanation
considered in the design code because of
following reasons. First, it is preferable to avoid
(1) For quay walls and other similar port
the complexity of the computation. Second,
structures, pseudo-static method is applied as
according to the observation of ground motion,
for other wide range of structures 1) • Because
the vertical component is usually smaller than
natural periods of these structures are generally
the horizontal component except for near-source
higher than predominant periods of ground
region. Thirdly, the horizontal design seismic
motions, the response of these structures during
coefficient designated in 4.4 includes the effect of
earthquake are similar to those of rigid bodies
vertical seismic ground motion-.Because of these
on a rigid table. In this case, it is assumed that
reasons, the consideration of horizontal design
the seismic load is proportional to the structure's
seismic coefficient is sufficient for the design of
weight, The seismic coefficient is defined as the
usual port structures.
seismic load divided by the weight. In pseudo-
static method it is assumed that the seismic load
4.3.4 Earthquake response analysis
acts as if it were a static load at the gravity
center of the structure.
(3) Because the seismic load is assumed to act as If the facility is especially important or the
a static load in the pseudo-static method, it is type of structure is rare and there is no
necessary to take into account the difference similar conventional structure, it is
between the real phenomena and the recommended that it's seismic resistance
assumptions in the method. To appreciate this should be examined by using earthquake
response analysis together with conventional
difference, the safety factor and the allowable
pseudo-static method or seismic deformation
stress for dynamic loads are different from those method.
for static load.
(3) It is preferable to examine the seismic
resistance of those structures which has a longer
natural period compared to predominant periods Explanation
of ground motion or for which the distribution of
acceleration is not uniform along the height. In (1) General explanation
this case, seismic load should be assumed to be

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation 4-9
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

Recently, new type of port facilities or conditions at the observation site and the
extremely large port facilities have been construction site are different, the surface
designed and constructed. On the other hand, it records should be deconvolved to obtain incident
is sometimes required to construct port wave at the bedrock, which can be used as a
structures at a site with a poor subsoil incident wave to compute surface motion at the
conditions. Furthermore, as explained in 4.7, it construction site. For this process, response
is requested to examine whether a high seismic analysis of the ground based on multiple-
resistant facility will maintain their functions reflection theory can be used. Multiple reflection
after a near-source ground motion such as the method, however, is based on equivalent-linear
ground motion at Kobe Port during the 1995 theory. Therefore, the method can be applied
Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake. It is only when the shear strain in the soil is less
recommended to examine earthquake resistance than 1%. It should be noted that if the target
of structures-by conducting earthquake response ground motion is of level-2, the method is not
analysis to understand the performance of applicable in many cases.
structures during earthquake more precisely jf (d) To determine the peak amplitude or the
-LL _ .L- .f! _.J.. ~~_~_ :. ~_~ :..J'! .L-l- __ .L-..._w ...... J... ... .; .... ~.~•• _-J _~-<-:~_ .f'~~...~ .. ~ .. 1-.~ .. ~.~_~
ltL!.aL vv,ac;
~ .. ~.;.~~ ~~ th\
"oJ!
Lilt: LYIJl::: UJ. ::;L.I:UCLUJ.-t: L:5 ilew U.I: .ll I,llt: ::;L.l:U{.;l>UJ.1:: -'-'" ~.!l.uu.uu .1..llV W.Vll , .!.a.\';iJUJ..~ ~LoGUJtJ\A. J.L.I.

especially important. should be considered. Following equation has

been presented to estimate peak amplitude of
(2) Implementation of earthquake response ground motion at engineering-oriented
analysis. bedrock",

When earthquake response analysis is Log l oAcoR=O.55M

conducted, first, appropriate method should be -loglO(X+O.0050 X lOD.05M)
selected. Then the structure should be modeled - O.00122X+O.502. (4.3.1)
for that particular method and the material Log l A MAC=O.53M
properties should be determined. Furthermore, -loglO<X+O.0062 X lOo.53~
input ground motion should be determined. The - O.00169X+O.524. (4.3.2)
validity of the results should be examined
carefully in the light of the limitation of the Log lOV=0.48M
method, the limitation of the modeling and the -loglO<X+O.014 X 100.43M)

accuracy of the material property; - O.00060X-O.324. (4.3.3)

Related Information Here, AcOR is the corrected peak ground

acceleration (Gal), ASMAC is the peak ground
(1) Input ground motion acceleration measured with SMAC-t-ype
accelerograph (Gal), V is the peak ground
(a) In the design of structures, it is velocity (kine), M is the magnitude, X is the
recommended to determine input ground motion closest distance from the fault to the site (km).
based on past observations or earthquake
response analysis of the ground. Strong motion Strong motion observations. at Japanese ports
records at Japanese ports have been have been conducted with SMAC-type and ERS-
accumulated and published since 1963 2). type accelerographs, Because of the different
(b) For determining peak amplitude and characteristics of these types of seismographs,
waveform of the ground motion, the size and the they give different waveforms. SMAC-type
source-mechanism of the earthquake, the accelerograph gives smaller peak ground
distance and the site effects should be taken into acceleration. Therefore accelerograms from
account. these two different manner should be treated in
(c) When past records are used, if the soil a different way. In the standard process of the

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4-10
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

strong motion observation at Japanese ports, given in FigA.3.2 and expressed in EqA.3A.
records are corrected for their characteristics
of the accelerographs and published as Log 1oA=3.159+0.234M- l.4781oglDX. (4.3.4)
"corrected records". Corrected records can be
treated in the same way irrespective of the type Here, A is the peak ground acceleration of
of accelerographs. This is the reason why engineering-oriented bedrock (Gal), M is the
usually corrected records are used in the magnitude, X is the shortest distance from the
earthquake response analysis. site to the fault (km).
Although almost all of the accelerographs at
Japanese ports are of ERS-type, most of the past (2) Methods for earthquake response analysis
earthquake records were obtained by SMAC-
type accelerographs. Therefore, past research Methods for earthquake response analysis can
were based on the SMAC records. Because the be divided into two categories, that is, numerical
determination of design seismic coefficient of analysis with computers and vibration tests.
high seismic resistant quay walls and
liquefaction assesment is based on 1000.-
It J.iI:: 7. .:1.
oM' 7.2
research, SMAC PGA is used for these x M>6.7
.c. M-6.5-6.0
examinations. 500
a M = .5.9_5. .5
• M·5.4-~.O
(e) Most commonly used seismograms in the .. M ::4.9-4,0

design of port structures are shown in FigA.7.3.

These waveforms, however, are equivalent to
SMAC-type accelerographs. In the earthquake ..-. 100
--;

,,~
response analysis, corrected waveforms should Q.
be used. <:
0
0.-
(f) Alley observations of strong motion have been

J5~
conducted, which are useful in measuring the
. strain of the ground during earthquake. In
general strong motion accelerations are directly
observed and the displacement can be obtained
by integrating the records. This integration M :r6.0

often fails in error because of the error during

the digitization. A method to avoid the error
during the integration was presented.
J10 50 100
(

Fault distance [km]

I , I I
500
I Ii
1000

Displacement waveforms based on this method

are displayed in reference 2).
(g) In pseudo-static design, the vertical
component of ground motion is usually neglected.
In the earthquake response analysis, however,
vertical component of ground motion should be
sometimes taken into account. The peak vertical
ground motion divided by peak horizontal
ground motion usually ranges between 1/3-
1/23),4 ) .
(11) According to the examination of past strong-
motion records, the attenuation of peak ground
acceleration is dependent on the region. The
regional attenuation was examined for the
Pacific coast of Tohoku area. The results are
Figure 4.3.2 Attenuation relations for
Pacific side of Tohoku
(a) Numerical analysis
Table 4.3.1 shows various methods for numerical
earthquake response analysis.
1) Effective stress analysis and total stress
analysis
When the soil is liquefied, the pore water
pressure is induced in the soil and the effective
stress decreases. As a result, rigidity and
damping of the soil change. Effective stress
analysis can treat these situations and the

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4-11
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

Table 4.3.1 Methods of numerical earthquake response analysis

Treatment of excess
pore water pressure I Effective stress Total stress
i
Dimension I-D, 2-D. 3-D
I
I ,
Modeling i
Multiple reflection model. :MDQIi'. FEM
I
Material
I
Linear. Equivalent-linear, Nonlinear

Domain Time domain, Frequency domain

-liH"~ Time I'J

07 O~
01 0.3
0.2 05
,
~======S=4;=C:;:;~=::::::~==-
I I
i
.
(rnJ
6
(kN/JJI")
! 19.5 i 12~-
j fmJ'$J i '!='

I
i I 4119.3 "Ii 200 I
: I
!
I t a
I
! 16.1
I'~O!'
ef
l : : ;i
1 14 JO.7! '20
I
, I
'"
!
J i i
I"
I
1 1a. 5 I
.
'20 I

!
I
r
(a) Material properties (b) Reflection and transmission

Figure 4.3.3 Multiple reflection model

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4-12
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN
excess pore water 'pressure in the soil can be
computed directly, On the other hand, in total
stress analysis the pore water pressure is not
computed and the effect of pore water pressure
on the response is not considered. Therefore, in
the case of high pore water pressure (the pore
water pressure ratio of 0.5 or greater), the
results of total stress analysis is not accurate. In
the practical design, however, total stress
analysis is often utilized because of it's
simplicity. In many cases, stress or acceleration
given by effective stress analysis is smaller than
those given by total stress analysis.
2) Dimension of the domain
The dimension ranges from 1 to 3. In general the
response of horizontally layered soil is treated as
a I-D problem. On the other hand, structure-soil
system such as quay walls which satisfies
plane-strain condition is 'treated by 2-D analysis.
Although there are some cases in which 3-D
analysis is more appropriate, 3-D analysis is
mainly used for especially important structures
or research purposes because of the limitations
of computers.
3) Modes for computation
a) Multiple reflection model
In this model, the soil layers are considered
to be horizontally homogeneous as shown in
FigA.3.3 and vertical incidence of a shear
wave is assumed. In this method, stress-
strain relation is usually assumed to be
equivalent-linear. SHAKE 5) adopts this
algorithm.
b) MDOF model
In this model, the soil is considered to be a
combination of masses, springs and dampers
as shown :in. Fig.4.3A. The algorithm of this
method is simple. It is also possible to
consider nonlinear restoring force.
c) FEM, etc.
In this model, the soil is divided mto finite
elements as shown in FigA.3.5. This method
is applicable not only soils but also many
types of materials. The main feature of this
method is that the 2-D characteristics of the
soil is easily taken into account. Practical
program for this method includes FLUSH6),
BEAD?) and FLIPS).
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4-13
January, 2000
d) Cantilever model
Structure (or soil) is modeled as a cantilever
with a constant or linearly varying material
properties. Shear beam model is most
commonly used. Information regarding the
shape of the structure, density, rigidity and
damping is necessary for computation.
4) Evaluation of material properties.
In the earthquake response analysis, modeling
of the soil nonlinearity is also important. In the
low strain range, stress-strain relation of the soil
is linear. In the middle or high strain range,
however, this relation is nonlinear, In such cases,
nonlinearity of the soil has to be taken into
account. Today, besides linear analysis,
equivalent-linear analysis, which uses material
parameters corresponding to the level of strain,
and nonlinear analysis, which reproduces actual
stress-strain relation at large strain to some
extent, have been developed and used. The effect
of the deference of modeling among these
analysis can be summarized as follows. Fig.
4.3.6 shows the comparison among linear,
equivalent-linear (SHAKE), Bi-linear, Tri-linear,
Hardin-Drnevich and Ramberg-Osgood models
as applied to I-D soil response problem in which
the amplitude of input ground motion is 100Gal.
G/Go- 'l' and h- 'Y curves from these models are
set to be consistent with experimental results at
the strain level of 0.3%. The figure shows the
distribution of peak acceleration, peak stress
and peak strain. In this range of the input
motion amplitude, the models which considers
soil-nonlinearlity has a tendency to give smaller
response acceleration / stress and larger strain.
Difference between equivalent-linear model and
nonlinear model are small as long as the peak
strain is less than 1%. In the case of level-2
ground motion, however, peak shear strain often
exceeds 1%. At our current state of knowledge it
is difficult to determine whether above
mentioned tendency applies to' such cases.
In the earthquake response analysis, G/Go- "I .
and h- 'Y curves from the models should be
consistent with the results of experiment at the
strain level of concern. In general, masing-rule
is used for representing the stress-strain loop. It
has been revealed that this rule overestimates
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

H
Vs {ml si
M 5

I 7.5 /6.7
~::!:~C!!/){'------=-I
~=:::::j
M 4 In
M 3 K4
I
M 2 K 3

M I K2
37 , '5.6

(a) Material properties (b) Multiple degree of freedom system

Figure 4.3.4 Multiple degree of freedom (J\1DOF) system

30.50

v H.W.L+1.7m
'¥¥ LW.L""*"O.om
Basement of crane Backfill soil
Gravel /'"1.< I , v-6.0
11.J
9-14.50
,,;/1 l;
v-IH.sn
Gravel ~=='------7

Cohesive soil Replaced soil Cohesive soil

Sand drain

7-:tlJXl-3S.0':

2-l.lY./

(.!jilli : rn)

(a)"Cross section of the target structure

Inclination
4.1"
\l Horizontal displacement
3.5m
\'ertical displacement I 5m T ............. ...,..."'T'"-r ~ ..... _ J +4.0m

, , -!--'_ -H-\-;i..(:· eJ.:I.:.l''- ~U X t

______ • __ L~

I ,I I I I ...... ,._ _ _ _ ....... _to .. _ "_.1

, I
-- - ---- --"'---...
-
- -
..
-
-~~
~ . "

i I ,
,"I
I I I ' i I I ;
, I i I I I i Iii i
, ,
I I 1I ; ; I I I ;

(b) Results of FEM analysis'

Figure 4.3.5 FEM analysis

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4-14
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

Acceler-ation a (Gal)
a 100 200 300 400
12.3 , r~ ~ 0--QLin

'\',B
l ~P'"
..------;-- <, i
i
I
0---08- L
Lr--6T- L
V---'V H - D
1'1)
i '
x -'- I>
'/ ,
I
:
o-'~R
- 0
--SHAKE
,
E i..: T~ I
I

'1. ,//1\
:

'-"<.,
'I

!\
I I
I
S - 252 NS Bose
Cl mcx =' 100Gai
% . ;
j),o'
>!::;l>,.u
'" V
\ iI
" I

,
:Ii I
-73.6 i I

Shear strain y (%)

o 05 1.0 1.5
12.3 '$>-. o--oLin
0 -0 --~ o--oS - L
is--'£:' T - L
~~---=-~-~ i
I y--"7 H - D
~.,---:~ !
. "",4 i i
<>---¢ R - 0
--SHAKE
~ q !

.
~ I
9 i
i ;
S-252 NS Base
q71 Lf.~ !
I Omex = IOOGal
JI: :
-,
~ C!
!WoP i

;)#>'1\ !

,
~.->J~
If'
,J:r i !

-73.6 Iti'f i i

Shear stress -r: (Him')

0 0 10 20 30 40 50
12.3 a;:a... o., , 0--0 Lin
I I
~ -c; I o--oS-L
Lr---6. T - L
-\'R~ .~ ! I v---v H - D
.~-~ ~'::J o-.-¢ R - a
~ I
.! - - SHAKE
i\\
Ii .,~
"",-
~
l;;:(, L>:
'-[
'<f
c>-

-,
(

?J;
....-
:;.;0 ,
i
ii s- 252 NS Base
f'..
~ 1"< ~=t
__ 0 ? I Omex ='IOOGol
'-< \7 I
: QI \ItS ~~"" I
<s. \Zl' u.:.
L~
!
i
I ~>~
i ~L:,.+-\ I 'Qy
i ,
!
«~\I \----=-~, --¥0
-.
-73.6 ~

Figure 4.3.6 Comparison ofthe modeling of soil noninearitv (l)

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4-15
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN
the damping in the case oflarge strain. Today an
approach to mitigate this discrepancy has been
presented, in which the thickness of stress-
strain loop is controlled to give more realistic
damping factors". FLIP is one of the programs
which use this approach.
Fig. 4.3.7 compares the results of SHAKE,
DESRA (hyperbolic model) and CHARSOIL
(Ramberg-Osgood model) for the same ground
motion (El Centro-1940NS, PGA=O.lG) and for
the same soil layers'?', SHAKE gives larger
surface acceleration and shear stress. Today
there is a consensus to think that equivalent-
linear analysis such as SHAKE gives safe-side
results, although the situation will depend on
the soil and ground motion characteristics.
5) TIme domain and frequency domain.
Nonlinear analysis including effective stress
analysis is usually implemented in time domain.
If the excess pore water pressure is small (pore
water pressure ratio less than 0.5), effective
stress analysis may be implemented in
frequency domain in a similar manner as
equivalent-linear analysis.
6) Effect of water
In FEM programs, the effect of water should
be properly taken into account by using fluid
element. For example, FLIP has a fluid element
by which sea water can be treated as a non-
compressional fluid.
(b) Vibration tests
This is a test in which model soil-structure
system is subject to ground motion. This is a
convenient method to understand the global
performance of soil-structure system. High skill.
is required, however, to conduct vibration tests.
Vibration tests include log shaking table tests,
centrifuge tests and in-situ vibration tests.
(3) FOl' dynamic characteristics of the structure
(vibration mode, natural period and damping), it
is convenient to refer to the results of in-situ
measurement and/or numerical analysis.
(4) Earthquake response analysis requires the
evaluation of nonlinear material properties.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4-16
January, 2000
Effective stress analysis is a method to consider
this nonlinear properties relatively accurately.
Now effective stress analysis has been proved to
be a efficient method to evaluate seismic
performance of structure including residual
deformation and residual stress. On the other
hand, equivalent-linear analysis has been used
widely because of it's simplicity, Material
properties for this analysis should be
determined by conducting experiment or by
referring to past analysis.
(5) The effect of water should be taken into
account if the structure has an interface with
water.
(6) Sometimes large and temporal response
appears in the results of earthquake response
analysis. These phenomena can be evaluated by
referring to the past design of similar structure
or related research results.
4.3.5 Seismic deformation method
Because the deformation of line structures
etc. buried in the soil during earthquake is
controlled by surrounding soil, it is preferable
that such structures should be designed by
using seismic deformation method.
Explanation
(1) In the examination of earthquake resistance
of line structures such as tunnels or oil-
pipelines, the relative displacement of the
ground is important. The relative
displacement is dependent on the
characteristics of ground motion and the soil
conditions.
(2) Besides line structures buried in the soil,
seismic deformation method has been applied
to dams. Seismic deformation method can be
applied to structures other than line
structures as long as the residual
displacement of the structure can be
appropriately evaluated.
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

'mol (kg/lem')

C 01 0.2 03 0.4 05

j II
- 5
'" ~"
-,

", ,',
'C,
-,
\\
CHARSOIL

/SHAKE
J
!
\\ [
J
I
-= \\
». ~
~.
~
10
DESRA/ \,
I \\

Period (,)
2 \\
\ \, I
15
"

Figure 4.3.7 Comparison of the modeling of soil nonlinearity (2)

References of
........nnnntOl"
...... "' .......... 1:-' ....................

Approximate 3-D analysis of Soil-Structure

1) "Earthquake Resistant Design of Civil
Engineering Structures" by N. Mononobe,
1952 (Revised Edition in Japanese).
2) "Annual Report on Strong-motion
Earthquake Records In Japanese Ports
(1995 & 1996) ,i by Yukihiro Sato, Koji Ichii,
Susumu Iai, Yuko Hoshino, Yoko Sato,
Masafumi Miyata and Toshikazu Morita,
Technical Notes of the Port and Harbour
Research Institute, No.909, 1998 (in
Japanese with English abstract).
3) "Relation between Seismic Coefficient and
Peak Ground Acceleration Estimated from
Attenuation Relations" by A Nozu, T. Uwabe,
Y. Sato and T. Shinozawa, Technical Note of
the Port and Harbour Research Institute,
No.893, 1997 (In Japanese with English
abstract).
4) "Characteristics of Vertical Components of
Strong Motion Accelerograms and Effects of
Vertical Ground Motion on Stability of
Gravity-type Quay wall" by T. Uwabe, S.
Noda and E. Kurata, Report of the Port and
Harbour Eesearcb Institute, Vol. IS, No.2,
197G.
5) "SHAKE-A Computer Program for
Earthquake Response Analysis of
Horizontally Layered Sites" by P.B. Schnabel.
J. Lysmer and H.B. Seed, Report No. EERC
72-12. Col. of Eng., University of California
at Berkeley, December 1972.
Interaction Problems" by J. Lysmer, T.
Udaka, C.F. Tsai and H.B.Seed, Report
No.EERC 75-30, University of California at
Berkley, 1975.
7) "Coupled Hydrodynamic Response
Characteristics and Water Pressures of
Large Composite Breakwater" By T. Uwabe,
S. Noda, T. Chiba and N. Higaki, Report of
the Port and Harbour Research Institute,
Vo1.20, No.4, 1981 (in Japanese with English
abstract).
8) "Strain Space Plasticity Model for Cyclic
Mobility" by S. Iai, Y. Matsunaga and T.
Kameoka, SOlIs and Foundations, Vo1.32,
No.2, pp.1-15.
9) "Modeling of Stress-Strain Relations of Soils
in Cyclic Loading" by K. Ishihara, N.
Yoshida and S. Tsujino, Proceedings of the
{fh Conference on Numerical Methods in
Geomechenics, Nagoya, Vol.L, 1985, pp.373-
380.
10) "Comparison of Dynamic Analysis for
Saturated Sands" by W.D.L. Finn, G.R.
Martin and M.K.W. Lee, Proc. of ABeL
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics,
VoLI. pp.472-491, 1978.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4-17
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

4.4 Earthquake Load

4.4.1 Design Seismic coefficient

(1) For pseudo-static design of port structures, horizontal design seismic coefficient should be
determined with following equation.

Seismic coefficient =Regional seismic coefficient.x Factor for subsoil condition X Importance factor
(4.4.1)

Horizontal design seismic coefficient should be rounded to obtain two places of decimals. Standard
values for regional seismic coefficient are:
ReID-on A: 0.15
Nemuro, Kushiro, 'Iokachi and Hidaka districts of Hokkaido, Saitama, Chiba, Tokyo (Except for
Hachijo and Ogasawara Islands), Kanagawa, Yamanashi, Shizuoka, Aichi, Gnu, Fukui, Shiga, Mie,
Nara, Wakayama, Osaka and Hyogo.
Recion B: 0.13
Pacific side of Aomori, Iwate, Miyagi, Fukushima, Ibaragi, Tochigi, Gunma, Nagano, Kyoto, Kochi
and Tokushima.
Region C: 0.12
Iburi, Oshima and Hiyama districts of Hokkaido, Aomori (except for Pacific side), Nata, Yamagata,
Niigata, Toyama, Ishikawa, Tottori, Hiroshima, Ehime, Oita, Miyazaki, Amami Islands of
Kagoshima and Kumamoto.
Region D: 0.11
Abashiri, Goshi, Ishikari, Sorachi, Rumoi and Kamikawa districts of Hokkaido, Okayama, 'Iottori,
Kagawa, Nagasaki (except for Goto, Iki and Tsushima Islands), Saga, Kagoshima (except for Amami
Islands) and Okinawa (except for Daito Islands).
Region E: 0.08
Sorachi district of Hokkaido, Hachijo and Ogasawara Islands of Tokyo, Yamaguchi, Fukuoka, Goto,
Ik:i. and Tsushima Islands of Nagasaki and Daito Islands of Okinawa.

Factor for subsoil condition should be determined as shown in Table 4.4.1 and 4.4.2.

Table 4.4.1 Factor for subsoil condition

==--====--===--=====
Classification l"t kind

Factor 0.8 1.0 1.2

Table 4.4.2 Classification of subsoil

Thickness of Sand
Quaternary Gravel or Soft ground
Deposit clay

less than 5m
5-25m
more than 25m

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4-18
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

Importance factor should be determined according to Table 4.4.3.

Table 4.4.3 Importance factor

Category Special A B C

Factor 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.8

========--===--===
Category Special: The structure has significant characteristics described by items (1)~(4) of
category A.
Categorv A: (1) If the structure is damaged by an earthquake, a large number of human life and
property will possibly be lost. (2) If the structure is damaged by an earthquake, economic or social
activity of the region will be severely suffered. (3) The structure will perform an important role in
the reconstruction work of the region after the earthquake. (4) The structure handles a hazardous
or a dangerous object and it is anticipated that the damage of the structure will cause a great loss
of human life or property. (5) If the structure is damaged, it is supposed that the repair work is
considerably difficult.
Category B: The structure does not belong to categories Special, Anor C.
Category C: The structure does not belong category Special nor A and is easy to repair or, even if
the structure is damaged by an earthquake, the effect on economic or social activity is small.

(2) If vertical seismic coefficient is required in the pseudo-static design, the vertical seismic
coefficient should be determined appropriately, taking into account the characteristics of sn..u cture
and subsoil.

Explanation observations or when seismic response analysis

(1) In general, factors that has to be considered
in the determination of design seismic
coefficient are regional seismicity, subsoil
conditions, dynamic characteristics of the
structure and the importance of the structure.
Most of the port structures, however, have
relatively short natural period and relatively
large damping factor. Therefore, in general, the
design seismic coefficient for pseudo-static
design is determined without considering the
dynamic characteristics of the structure.
(2) When the design seismic coefficient can be
accurately determined by investigating regional
seismic activity; characteristics of ground
motion, site response, etc., it is preferable to use
this design seismic coefficient instead of the
value designated here. For example, when the
design ground motion is determined based on
the information regarding regional seismic
activities or based on strong ground motion
of the structure is conducted, design seismic
coefficient can be determined based on these
results.
(3) Th determine importance factor of the
structure, it is necessary to consider not only
the purpose, type or size of the structure but
also social or economic aspects of the structure.
Following factors also should be taken into
account.
1. The extent of damage in the future
earthquake, the difficulty of restoration
work 01' the residual strength after the
earthquake.
2. The cargo-handling capacity of the
other facilities of the same port.
Therefore, it is possible to use different
importance factors for the structures for the
same cargo in the same port when desired.
(4) When computing seismic load, it is not
allowed to subtract buoyancy from the weight
of the structure. In the computation of soil

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4-19
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN
pressure, however, unit weight is usually
modified to include the effect of buoyancy.
Therefore, in the computation of soil pressure,
apparent seismic coefficient should be used as
describes in 4.5.
(5) For structures other than high seismic
resistant quay walls, the upper limit of design
seismic coefficient should be 0.25 for several
reasons. First, in the past, the upper limit of
design seismic coefficient was 0.25. Second,
there has been no port structures with design
seismic coefficient of 0.25 that suffered
significant damage. Thirdly, high seismic
resistant quay wall has been constructed in
many ports.
Related information
(1) Design seismic coefficient for modified
pseudo-static method should be determined
based on the response characteristics, response
spectrum of ground motion and the relation
between response acceleration and design
seismic coefficient. The dynamic characteristics
of the structure can be obtained by
appropriately modeling the structure as
described in 4.3.4. Response spectrum of ground
motion can be obtained by appropriately
modeling earthquakes or by averaging observed
response spectra. By using these response
spectra, peak response acceleration
corresponding to natural periods of
fundamental and higher orders can be obtained.
By superposing these peak accelerations,
response acceleration can be obtained, from
which design seismic coefficient is determined.
Observed acceleration response spectra from
strong motion observations in Japanese ports
are displayed in reference 3). For the purpose of
assessing dynamic characteristics of the
structure, not only the structure itself but also
soil and water surrounding the structure have
to be appropriately modeled. Also the
dissipation of vibration energy ha-ve to be
considered appropriately.
(2) The relation between seismic coefficient and
peak ground acceleration 1),2) for gravity quay
walls is shown in FigAA.l, in which seismic
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4-20
January, 2000
coefficient was obtained based on past quay
wall damage and peak ground acceleration was
obtained from either observation or attenuation
relations. For sheet-pile quay walls, similar
result have been obtainedv". Application of the
results to other structures require prudent
examinations. By the way, peak ground
acceleration in FigA.4.1 is a value obtained
with SMAC-type accelerograph. Peak ground
acceleration which is obtained with another
type of accelerograph should be converted to
that of SMAC-type accelerograph before
comparison.
(3) Level-l ground motion for all port facilities
(a) Regional seismic coefficient has been
..J~ .. ~.~~_~A .t'..~_ ...l..~ ...:l~~ ..... ;'l..... .h~_ N{: _~_1~
uC:;lIt:a,U1...U..J,C;U .LLV.lll VUC \Lli)lo.l.~JJu.w..U.1.L VJ. VCQ..fi.
ground acceleration with a return period of 75
years 2),5) . Here, return period is defined in a
probabilistic way and it does not necessarily
imply that the particular ground motion occurs
every 75 years. For example, a structure with a
duration of 50 years encounters a ground
motion with a return period of 75 year or longer
with a probability of approximately 50%. For
structures with a shorter duration, it may be
reasonable to reduce the return period of design
ground motion.
(b) Table 4.4.4 shows peak ground acceleration
with a return period of 75 years. Regional
seismic coefficients have been obtained from
averaged relation between seismic coefficient
and peak g-round acceleration.
Reference
1) "Relation Between Seismic Coefficient and
Ground Acceleration for Gravity Quay Wall" S.
Noda, T. Uwabe and T. Chiba, Report of the
P01"t and Harbour Research Institute, Vol. 14,
No.4, 1975 (in Japanese with English abstract).
2) "Relation between Seismic Coefficient and
Peak Ground Acceleration Estimated from
Attenuation Relations" by A Nozu, T. Uwabe, Y:
Sato and T. Shinozawa, Technical Note of the
Port and Harbour Research Institute, 1'10.893,
1997 (In Japanese with English abstract),
3) Annual Report on Strong-motion Earthquake
Records In Japanese Ports (1995 & 1996) " by
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

Yukihiro Sato, Koji Ichii, Susumu Iai, Yuko Table 4.4.4 Regional seismic coefficient and
Hoshino, Yoko Sato, Masafumi Miyata, .peak acceleration with a return
Toshikazu Morita, Technical Note of tile Port 'period of 75 years
and Harbour Research Institute, No.909, 1998
(in Japanese with English abstract).
Peak ground
4) "Analysis on Seismic Damage in Anchored Regional acceleration with
Sheet-Piling Bulkheads" by S. Kitajima and T. Area seismic return period of,
Uwabe, Report of the Port and Harbour coefficient 75 years(Gal)
Research Institute, Vol.18, No.1, 1979 (in
Japanese with English abstract). A 0.15 350
5) "Expected values of Maximum Base Rock B 0.13 250
Acceleration along Coasts of Japan" by S. C 0.12 200
Kitazawa, T. Uwabe and N. Higaki, Technical D 0.11 ISO
Note of the Port and Harbour Research E 0.08 100
Institute, No.486, 1984 (in Japanese with
English abstract).

-1--------------------7
--.:.-----------r-- ---·-----------·-r---------- -------- ---1-------":'----------
). 3 0 ";---~--- -- - ~--- --- -:-----~

Ii Vertical bar indicates the estimated range ~f seismic coefficient : ,

: TTL 'if:
.------- --- ---- -------7---- -------.-- ----i-------- ------:v--L-
6: ---------··-·~l~-H A;- )f.------:

'----------f~ 1_ ~t~--- f--~~-J------------------L------~

i i---------,--t ·:-~~~:l)t-±+---T------------L----f
0" y ---:-

0"

. . : ..
: LV Seismic coefficient estimated for ports
0,00 . ----•. _-----------.,--------- • ; __• •. --1 ..__..; --:
o 100 200 300 400 500 GOD
ASMAC (Gal)

Figure 4.4.1 Relation between peak. ground acceleration and seismic coefficient

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4-21
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

4.5 Lateral earthpressure and water In the case ·of using equation(4.5.2), it should be
included the dynamic water pressure during earthquake
pressure during earthquake
when overall seismic stability calculation. The dynamic
water pressure is applied in the seaward direction.
4.5.1 General
Refernces:
In static conditions, earth pressures are calculated by
Mononobe, N.,'Emthquake resistant design of civil
ordinary More-Coulomb earth pressure theory. On the
engineering structures',(Revised edition), 1957.
other hand, earthpressures during earthquakes are
Okabe, S.,'GeneraI theory on earthpressure and seismic
calculated by the Mononobe/Okabe method (Mononobe
stablility of retaining walls and dams',J.
1957, Okabe 1924) with special treatment where beneath
JSCE, Vol.] O,No.6, 1924.
the water table soil layers.

4.5.2 Apparent seismic coefficient (Seismic 4.6 Liquefaction Prediction/Determination

coefficient of submerged soil layer) Method
The concept of the apparentseismic coefficient k' is
indicated in following equation.
4.6.1 General
Saturated loose sandy deposits tend to liquefy during
y,xk=(y-]O)xk' (4.5.1)
earthquakes, causing damage to structures. Currently,
liquefaction phenomenon is a major keyword for seismic
A product of unit weight of a soil layer and seismic
design of port and harbor facilities. Past big earthquake
coefficient over the water table equals a product of
disaster reports show that liquefaction should be taken
submerged unit weight of a soil layer and the apparent
into consideration in design and construction of
coefficient.
structures. Liquefaction potential should be assessed by
The apparent seismic coefficientofsubmerged soil layer
two step procedures as follow with considering the
can be evaluated by equation (4.5.2).
condition of construction site, a degree of importance,
etc ..
(J ).Grain Size Distribution and SPT- N value
If the results obtained by (I) is not sufficient, following
procedure should be conducted.
(2).Undrained Cyclic Triaxial Test and seismic response
Where: Y, =unit weight of a soil layer over the water
analysis
table (kl-l/rrr'), y =unit weight of saturated soil layer at
submerged area(kN/rri\ m=uniform external load at the
4.6.2 Grain Size Distribution and SPT-N value
ground surfacefkl-l/rrl), h =thickness of arbitrary soil
A soil is classified according to the grain size
layer(m), suffix i=over the water table and suffix
distribution by Fig.(4.6.1). The soil of which gr.ain size
j=submerged area.
distribution falls outside of the liquefaction possibility
zone in Fig.(4.6.1) is considered non liquefiable. For
4.5.3 Dynamic water pressure during earthquake
the soil of which the distribution curve falls inside the
In case of sea walls during an earthquake, external
liquefaction possibility zone the following procedure is
forces can be summarized as shown in Figure(4.5.]).
conducted using standard penetration test blow
counts(SPT N value).
(l).Equivalent N Value
Dynamic
An equivalent N value is calculated by the following
Dynamic Earth Press.
Water Press. equation.

Fig. 4.5.1 Schematic diagram of external forces N) _ N - 0.0]9(d v -65)

( (4.6.1)
65 - 0.0041(d v -65)+ 1.0

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4-22
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

Where: (N)65 =Equivalent N value, N =SPT N value of gives a critical N value ofa soil under a given equivalent
a soil layer, (J' l' = effective overburden pressure of a acceleration.
soil layer (kN/m") (The effective overburden pressure Zone 1 has a very high possibility of liquefaction.
should be calculated with respect to the ground surface Zone n has a high possibility of liquefaction.
elevation at the time ofthe standard penetration test). Zone ill has a low possibility of liquefaction.
Zone N has a very low possibility ofliquefaction.
;j
f- SAND WITH LOW COEFFICIENT OF UNIFORMITY Ucd.5
:c 100,----,-----,---,---:---.---::------:--,--
o 30
Ui
3 75 IV
>-
'"ffi 50
25
/
z UJ
r;: :::J ! III
uJ
c
25
:i 20
-c
/
..
>
iiif- 0L-.---:"':-:---~-7:---___:_"::_------,0:_-
OJ 1.0 10
Z
U
J-
GRAIN SIZE (rnrn) Z I.,

1/ V
c:<:
UJ
lJJ
c, CLAY I SILT I SAND GRAVEL -l
0.005 0.Q75 2.0 «: J
2:
:::J 10

/; ~
~
f- SAND WITH HIGH COEFFICIENT OF UNIFORMITY Uc>3.5
C!
UJ
V
:c I00,-----,-----=----,...----:--.---,,----
o
iii 5

~
3 75
>-
'"B} 50
z 00 100 200 300 400 500 600
r;: EQUIVALENT ACCELERATION (Gal)
lJJ 25
o
~
15 o''-'----:-':-.,-----;!-;------:-'-:-------:!-;:--- Fig. 4.6.2 Classification of soil layer for liquefaction
0.01 0.1 1.0 10
u GRAIN SIZE (111m)
c:<:
uJ
c, CLAY I SILT I SAND GRAVEL prediction based 011 equivalent acceleration and
D.W5 0.075 2.0
eq uivalent N-values.
Fig. 4.6. J G radation of soil having the possibility of
liquefaction. (4).Correction of the equivalent N value (The fine
content «O.075mm) ofa soil is not less than 5%)
(2).Equivalent acceleration The equivalent N value of a soil of which the fine
An equivalent acceleration is estimated by the following content is not less than 5% is corrected as in the
equation based on the maximum shear stress obtained following three cases:
from earthquake response analysis. Casel:The plasticity index ofa soil is less than 10 or
the fine content is less than 15%. An equivalent N value .
obtained from Eq.(4.6.1) is corrected by the following
(4.6.2) equation.

(N)65corrected = (N)65 / c N (4.6.3)

Where: (Xeq = equivalent acceleration, rroax = maximum
shear stress (kN/m"), (J'" = effectiveoverburden pressure
2 where: (N)65corrected = a correctedequivalent N value, c N
(kN/m ) (The effective overburden pressure should be
= a correction factor obtained from, Fig.(4.6.3) based on
calculated with respect to the ground surfaceelevation at
the fine content. The corrected equivalent N value is
the time of earthquake), g = acceleration of gravity
plotted in Fig.(4.6.2) with an equivalent acceleration and
(980Gal).
the zone to which a soil layer belongs is determined.
(3).Check by the critical N value (The fine content of a
Case2: The plasticity index is not less than 10 and not
soil is less than 5%)
more than 20, and the fine content is not less than·15%.
The zone in Fig.(4.6.2) to which a soil layer belongs is
Two corrected equivalent N values are calculated as
determined from the equivalent N value and the
follows:
equivalent acceleration. The boundary line of the zones
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4-23
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

(N)65corrected = (N)65 /0.5 (4.6.4) can be evaluated by the relationship between cyclic stress
N+M
(N)65corrected = (4.6.5) ratio and number of cycles(=20) to the defined
M = 8 + 0.4(1p - 10) (4.6.6) liquefaction initiated state as shown in Fig.(4.6.4). The
in-situ liquefaction strength ratio Rrnax is given by the
Where: (N)65 =an equivalent N value obtained from following equation,
Equation(l), N =SPT N value of a soil layer, I p = a
plasticity index ofa soil.

(4.6.7)
"'
=>
..J
-c
>
z
b:
~1.0r----.....
-c
In this equation, several corrections are included as listed
u
1= in followings.
'"
u
'"
o (1).Stress condition correction: The stress conditions
~ 0.5
between at site( Ko) and in the triaxial cell(isotropic
13
;;:
~ 01 --'-- -'- -'--__---'-
,
(2).Type of Input motion correction: The applied stress
5 0 5 10 15 20 condition between at a site high/low degree of
"'
'" FINE CONTENT (BELOW 0.075I11m) ('To)
irregularity of input motion(impact type/vibration type)
Fig. 4.6.3 Reduction facto!" for critical STP-N value and in case case of cyclic triaxial test(harmonic).
based on the fine content. Impact type input motion C, =0.55
Vibration type input motion C, =0.7
The two corrected equivalent N values are plotted in
0.5
Fig.(4.6.2) with acceleration and the zone to which
c
a soil layer belongs is determined as follows. In l2;:> 0.4 Undrained Cyclic Triaxial Test Results

the case that the (N+ D N) is inside of the zone ] , the o

f:::
soil layer belongs to the zone 1 . In the case that the -c
p::
0.3
CI)

(N+ D N) is inside ofthe zone II, the soil layer belongs CI)

~ 0.2
f- ~------':"'_----6
to the zone II . In the case that the (N+ D N) is inside CI)
Rrnaxtvibration type) ' "

ofthe zone III or N, and the (N\5 /0.5 is outside ofthe 0.1

zone N, the soil layer belongs to the zone ill. In the O!:-:-----'-----:-'::-~--:-:':-::------:-:-:!
0.1 10 20 100 1000
case that the (N+ 6.N) is inside of the zone ill or
N, and NUMBER OF CYCLES NI
the (N)65 / 0.5 is inside of the zone N, the soil layer
Fig. 4.6.4 Correction of Rmax
belongs to the zone N.
Case3: The plasticity index is not less than 20 and the
Applied stress ratio L max = T"max / (5' I' is calculated by
fine content is not less than 15%. A corrected equivalent
seismic response analysis.
N value is calculated by Eqs.(4.6.5) and (4.6.6). The
The liquefaction potentiahsafetyfactorjf'., is given as,
corrected equivalent N value is plotted in Fig.(4.6.2)
with an equivalent acceleration and the zone to which a
soil layer belongs is determined.
(4.6.8)

4.6.3 Undrained Cyclic Triaxial Test and seismic

response analysis (Sensitive assess method) In case ofF L < 1.0, the soil layer should liquefy.
When the liquefaction potential cannot be determined
from the grain size distribution and SPT N value, Reference:(the text mentioned above is revised in 1998 )
liquefaction prediction is made by performing undrained POIi and Harbour Research Institute ed., 'Handbook on
cyclic triaxial tests using undisturbed soil samples. The Liquefaction Remediation of Reclamimed Land',
index of a degree of liquefaction strength R max of a soil Balkema, 1997.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4-24
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN
4.7 Seismic Design of High Seismic
Resistant Quaywalls
4.7.1 Evaluation of seismic performance of
high seismic resistant facilities.
(1) In the design process of high seismic
resistant facilities, it is requested that
their seismic performance should be
evaluated for a level-2 ground motion to
assure that their seismic resistance is
satisfactory.
(2) Seismic performance should be
evaluated by appropriately modeling
the soil and the structure of the facility,
with a method which is appropriate for
the particular type of the structure.
Ground motion which is used for the evaluation
of seismic performance should be determined
with response analysis of the ground in
principle.
Explanation
(1) Evaluation of the residual deformation of
high seismic resistant facilities, which is based
on a earthquake response analysis, is required
for the purpose of verifying that they will
sustain their intended functions after a level-2
ground motion. The reason is that, for the
examination of the stability of the structure or
the soil for a large ground motion such as a
level-2 ground motion, conventional pseudo-
static method is not sufficient.
(2) The judgement whether the high seismic
resistant facilities will sustain their intended
functions based on the results of earthquake
response analysis should be based on the
combined considerations on the stability of the
structure after the earthquake, the functions
and the difficulty of restoration work. Although
the allowable residual deformation should be
defined for this judgement, it is not easy to
specify the allowable deformation at the present
state of knowledge. Tables 4.7.1 and 4.7.2, in
which the possibility of temporal use just after
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4-25
January, 2000
the earthquake is presented, should be useful
for the judgement. It should be noted, however,
that these tables cannot be applied to a
quaywall with cranes because the stability or
the function of the cranes is not addressed in
Tables 4.7.1 and 4.7.2. In the case of the 1995
Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake, some of the
caisson quaywalls with a normalized
deformation (lateral residual displacement I
height of the quaywall) of over 10-20% was
temporary repaired and offered for immediate
use just after the earthquake. .
Related information
for
seismic resistant quaywalls.
4.7.2 Design Seismic coefficient ofhigh seismic
resistance facilities
(1) When pseudo-static design is applied to
high seismic resistant quaywalls, the design
seismic coefficient should be determined by a
global judgement base on the seismic
coefficient determined by EqAA.l with
importance factor 1.5, by following equations
for which peak ground acceleration should be
calculated with ground response analysis for
level-2 ground motion, and by other
appropriate methods.
1. If a is smaller than or equal to 200Gal,
Kh=a/g (4.7.1)
2. If a is larger than 200Gal,
x, =(113) X ( a Ig)(lJ3) (4.7.2)
Here, Kh is horizontal seismic coefficient, a is
peak ground acceleration at free surface and g
LS the acceleration of gravity.
Explanations
(1) When the design seismic. coefficient can be
accurately determined by investigating
regional seismic activity, characteristics of
ground motion, site response, ete., it is
preferable to use this design seismic
coefficient instead of the value designated
here. For example, when the design ground
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

Table 4.7.1 Allowable residual deformation from the viewpoint of availability

i
Amount of deformation
I
Type of
structure. II Gravity quay wan Sheet-pile quay wall

Depth of More than 7.5m Less than 7.5m More than 1.5m Less than 7.5m
water

'Available: o -30cm o -20cm o-30cm o -20cm

N at available 30-l00cm 20-S0cm 30-S0cm 20-30cm

Table 4.7.2 Allowable residual displacement from functional point ofview

Subsidence of whole apron 20-30cm

Main structure Inclination 3- 5 0

Irregularity of the horizontal 20-30cm

displacement offace line

Irregularity of subsidence 3 -lOcm

Apron Gap between apron and backyard: 30-70cm
Inclination normal: 3-5% reverse: 0%

motion is determined based on the information
regarding regional seismic activities or based
on strong ground motion observations or when
seismic response analysis of the structure is
conducted, design seismic coefficient can be
determined based on these results.
(2) In the design of high seismic resistant
facilities. target earthquake has to be selected
from earthquakes including hypothetical
earthquake in the disaster prevention plan set
by local government.
(3) One way of calculating peak ground
acceleration at free surface is to use multiple
reflection model for the response analysis of the
ground.
(4) Refer to the reference 1) and 2) for the
details ofEq.4.7.1 and Eq.4.7.2.
(5) From the experience of significant damage
at Kobe Port during the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu
earthquake, minimum design seismic
coefficient for high seismic resistant facilities
should be 0.25 if the site is ill a near-source
region.
(6) When it is desired, seismic resistant qua
walls should be designed for level-2 ground
motion with a method other than pseudo-static
method such as earthquake response analysis.
In this case, it is necessary to make sure that
seismic resistant facilities will sustain their
structural stability for level-I ground motion.
Related information
(1) Level-2 ground motion for high seismic

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation 4-26
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN
Requirement of performance
I
Ground motion
I
Size of earthquake I I
I
Selection of target earthquake
, (Near-source or not?)
PGA at bedrock
Selection of waveform
Earthquake response analysis of ground
Figure 4.7.1 Design process of high seismic resistant facilities
resistant facilities
(a) If hypothetical earthquake is not designated
in the regional disaster prevention plan or if the
hypothetical earthquake in the disaster
prevention plan is not appropriate for
determining level-2 ground motion, it is
recommended to select an earthquake which
brings the largest ground motion to the site
among earthquakes in the past and
hypothetical earthquakes on active faults.
Magnitude of hypothetical earthquake on active
faults can be estimated with following equation.
Log1oL=O.6M-2.9. (4.7.3)
Here, L is the length of the fault (kID) and M is
the magnitude. Sometimes several active faults
are closely located to each other in the fault
map. In such cases, if one fault is within 51an
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4-27
January, 2000
Regional seismic coefficient,
XF'actor for subsoil condition
>< Importance factor O. 5)
I
; Seismic coefficient
Type and parameters of structure,
I-
soil improvement, function of facility
I
Cross section of the facility -
I
Assessment of liquefaction and mitigation l-
I
Examination of residual,
r--
deformation for level-2 ground motion
I
Detailed design
£rom another fault, these faults should be
considered as one long fault m the
determination of magnitude. If there is
difficulty in the application of EqA.7.3, the
magnitude 7.2 can be used, which is the same
as the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake.
(b) Following equation" can be used to
determine peak ground acceleration at
engineering-oriented bedrock.
Log lOAsMAC=O.53M .
-loglO(X+O.0062 x lOo.53~
- O.00169X+O.524. (4.7A)
Here, A SMAC is the peak ground acceleration
measured with SMAC-type accelerograph (Gal),
M is the magnitude, X is the closest distance
from the fault to the site (km). The relation is
shown in Fig.4.7.2. If the dip angle of the fault
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

0;
Q.
<t: 100
C)
9
""'U<C 7
;:;;
UJ

"

10
:3 ~ :s 6 3 04 5 G
'0 100

Fault distance X [km]

Figure 4. 7.2 Attenuation relations for peak acceleration

for engineering-oriented bedrock
200

;;a I a) 5-252 NS a... MAX. 170 Gel

Q. 100 ------------~---------------.1--------.------
0
<:: ; !
+J °
...'" , .
i
-100 --------1---------~------·----__:_------·----

o
...: -200 1 !
0 10 20

Time [s]

:::;' 200

'"
Q.
(b) 5-1210 E 041S

---------r-------------.t----------
MAX, 161 Gal

<::

j
..
0
+J
° ,
-100 -.- -----}-------------1--------------
8
...: .
I •
:
-200
0 10 15 20

Time [s]

;;a 60O
(c) Pi-7S us Bue
Q. "00

<:: 200
.S
.......
-200 ---+----------------r--------------
'"
Qj
-400 -'---'----:'---------'------------
8
< -600
I.
° 10 20

Time [s]

Figure 4.7.3 Time history of representative strong motion records

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4-28
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

80r-------,-------,--------,-----,
Ill} S-252. NS e-.

-------r-------r-----.-----
: :
i: ;:
10 ,5

Frequency [Hz]

'Or---~---,--------,-------,-----..,
i (b) 5-1210 e.1 S

60 -------~--t--~-------r·-------;
: ------
. een-i--+-_==
-v Vf\A i. -+ ~
':_-i~ f Frequency [Hz]
'0

i
(e) Pf-7R N& a-
'ai'
•
en
Q.
200
---j-'------+----:-J=-
a
'"
....
<)
i------l-----:----
: : s.--UHz

'"so0- 100 ---~------+--_._ . _-+-_._--

: :
.~.... ! :
: :
~'"
~O •• - - - - - . - -----~--.----!
--~-----

! :
oL_ _---'-_ _-=::::::::::::::::=h====d
c 10 20

Frequency {Hz]

Figure 4.7.4 Fourier spectra of representative strong motion records

30
I
, I
I
, I

2S
: : J ! ,/
---r------l--------r-----:------T-l--------
• I I II
I , I 1/

a
c:. 20
,: ,
:
,; II

-----;----------;-------;--------- T-----------
: : : I

, , I I
$(
C l : : I
.:l liB 1 ;
'5'"
1S --1---------;----.. ------~--- T-------
: l I
~ ! ! 1
,
r.:.'" /0
"
----t----------+-----~ -+, w_

-i-r--
i" J IA
: ~ I
: : :

-r-~=~r
5 e

0
5 6 7 9

MagnitudeM

Figure 4.7.5 A diagram presented for determining whether near-source effects

should be considered
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4-29
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

is unknown, the distance from the site to the causes large deformation of structures even
updip projection of the fault can be used in when peak ground acceleration is small.
EqA. 7 A. If the location of the fault cannot be
determined, the distance from the site to a Reference
sphere with a radius determined from following
equation can be used. 1) "Relation Between Seismic Coefficient and
Log lOr=0.5M-2.25. (4.7.5) Ground Acceleration for Gravity Quay Wall" S.
Here, r is the radius (km) and M is the Noda, T. Uwabe and T. Chiba, Report of the
magnitude. Engineering oriented bedrock is Port and Harbour Research Institute, Vol.14,
defined as a soil layer with shear-wave velocity No.4, 1975 (in Japanese with English abstract).
over 300m/s, a sandy soil with SPT-N value 2) "Relation between Seismic Coefficient and
over 50 or a cohesive soil with qu over Peak Ground Acceleration Estimated from
650kN/m2 . Attenuation Relations" by A. Nozu, T. Uwabe, Y.
(c) Hypothetical earthquakes can be divided Sato and T. Shinozawa, Technical Note of the
into intra-plate earthquaJre and inter-plate Port and Harbour Research Institute, No.893,
earthquake. Strong monon records at POIt 1997 (In Japanese w-ith English abstract).
Island during the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu
earthquake can be used as a representative
ground motion from intra-plate earthquake.
Records at Hachinohe Port during 1968
'Iokachi-oki earthquake or at Ofunato during
the 1978 Miyagi-ken-oki earthquake can be
used as a representative ground motion from
inter-plate earthquake. It is recomended to use
Port Island records when it is necessary to take
into account near-source effects even when the
earthquake is a inter-plate earthquake because
near-source ground motion from inter-plate
earthquake has not been obtained yet. Time
history of these records are shown in Fig. 4.7.3
and Fourier spectra of these records are shown
in FigA.7A.
(d) FigA.7.5 can be used to determine whether
the site is in near-source region. If the site is
located in A of Fig. 4.7.5, then the site is in
near-source region.
(e) Sometimes design seismic coefficient
obtained from EqA.7.1 and EqA.7.2 is smaller
than those obtained from regional seismic
coefficient, etc. This is partly because the factor
of subsoil conditions are not necessarily
consistent with the amplification factor
obtained from response analysis. In the case of
weak soil, peak ground acceleration at the
surface is often smaller then expected form
linear theory due to nonlinear effects during
large earthquake. It should be noted that
ground motion at weak soil site sometimes

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation 4-:30
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

4.8 New Seismic Design of Open Piled Piers
4.8.1 General
The seismic design of open piled piers described in
this section is basically to verify if they possess the
required structural performance during earthquakes.
At first, the fundamental dimensions of structural
members to be verified are designed with the
allowable stress method against loads except seismic
forces. Then structural performance of the pre-
determined section under seismic actions is checked
considering seismic energy absorption due to plastic
deformation of steel pipe piles. The required
structural performance will be determined m happen.
consideration of the importance and the role of
structures, and will be expressed in terms of
horizontal displacement and the place and the timing.
of local damages.
Open piled piers were damaged by liquefaction of
the base ground or the backfilling soil of retaining
structures behind them due to the 1995 Hyogoken-
Nambu earthquake. The liquefaction produced
unforeseen external forces and caused buckling of
steel pipe piles and cracks in concrete superstructures.
Since it should be rather difficult to estimate the
magnitude of such external forces, the design method
for open piled piers assumes that liquefaction does
not occur. Therefore, liquefaction should be
prevented. However, the effect of liquefaction
. should be considered for very important facilities.
4.8.2 Seismic performance requirements
_It should be examined appropriately whether open
piled piers will perform as required when earthquakes
For common piers, structural performance
should be verified against Level 1 ground motions.
Both of Levels 1· and 2 ground motions should be
taken into consideration for high seismic resistant
piers. Seismic performance requirements depend on
the importance of piers and can be described with
indices such as extent of damage, maximum
displacement, and residual displacement after
earthquakes. The difficulty of· repair to damages

Dynamic analysis of ground Natural period of pier

Maximum acceleration of the base

Model for

Frame model, etc.

Ground response anafsis (SHAKE, etc.)

Acceleration at 1/ below the seabed

Seismic coefficient

Fig. 4.8.1 Calculation flow of seismic coefficient

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4-31
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

should be considered well at the same time. Region A

Resonance will make the response of a pier higher I. 00 I-~~~~---"----------'

than that expected when the natural periods of the

structure and the ground are close to each other. In ......
c
(!)
such a case, dimensions, geometry, etc. of the '0
:i=
original structure should be modified to achieve (!)
o
o O. 10 r---:----'---~+--~~-~~
different natural periods. Alternatively, the ground (.)

should be improved so that the natural period of the E

(f)
'CD
ground is changed. (f)

For the structure of an access bridge to link a pier

to the land, the following should be taken into O. 01 ~ '---..L-_-,- ---'-,-.J
account: (a) In case large seismic force acts on the O. 1 1. 0 10
pier towards the retaining structure, possible contact Period (s)
between the pier and the retaining structure, through Fig. 4.8.2 Standard seismic coefficient
the access bridge, should be avoided by checking the
available clearance against the maximum
where Tg is the natural period of the ground, Hi is the
displacement. (b) In case the seismic force acts
towards the sea, the maximum displacement should
thickness of zth stratum, and Vsi is the shear wave
velocity. Vsi can be assumed using N value of the
be checked to prevent the access bridge from falling
ground.
down.
The natural period of the wharf can be calculated
If case that cargo handling machines such as
using Eq. 4.8.2:
container cranes are equipped on piers, the interactive
vibrations between them should be well examined.
(4.8.2)

4.8.3 Design earthquake forces

where T, is the natural period of the wharf, W is the
Figure 4.8.1 shows the sequence for calculating the
weight of the wharf and surcharge, g is the gravity
seismic coefficient. Level 1 ground motions are
acceleration, and Kh is the,horizontal spring constant
defined as those with a 50-percent probability of
of each pile.
exceedance in 75 years. Expected values of the
The seismic coefficient for Level 2 ground motions
base ground acceleration depend on the region where
is obtained using the same procedure shown in Fig.
piers .are constructed. Acceleration response that
4.8.1. Dynamic analysis of the ground is necessary
corresponds to the natural period of pier is obtained
because charts like Fig. 4.8.2 are not available for
as shown in Fig. 4.8.1. The design seismic
Level 2 ground motions at present.
coefficient will be given by dividing the response
acceleration by the acceleration of gravity. Instead
4.8.4 Structural analysis procedures
of performing the dynamic analysis of the ground, the
Seismic performance of an open piled pier should
seismic coefficient can be obtained using the standard
be examined with appropriate analytical. models to
spectrum shown in Fig. 4.8.2 as an example.
simulate its non-linear behavior as close as possible.
The natural period of the ground can be
Plastic deformation of steel piles provides excellent
approximately calculated by Eq. 4.8.1:
seismic structural capacity particularly during Level
(4.8.1) 2 ground motions, but also initiates local minor

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4-32
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

damages. Therefore, requirements regarding moments can reach their fully plastic moments in
locations and extent of these damages should be about a half of all piles, and after that, horizontal
specified at the verification. displacement may rapidly increase.
For verification of the seismic capacity of a pier, P-a is the ratio of the allowable maximum
the ductility design methods recommended to be horizontal displacement to that at the elasticity limit.
applied are: (a) simplified analysis, (b) elasto-plastic On the basis of analytical and experimental results,
analysis, or (c) non-linear dynamic analysis. /-la is summarized in Table 4.8.1 for Level 1 ground
(a) Simplified analysis motions and presented in Eq. 4.8.5 for Level 2
The superstructure of a pier is considered to be a ground motions.
rigid body, and the capacity of the pier is evaluated as
the overall capacities of each pile. This method is Table 4.8.1 Standard values of u; for Levell
applicable to piers supported on vertical piles with ground motions
small variety of their rigidities. Classification of pier P-a
Special class 1.0
(b) Elasto-plastic analysis
A class 1.3
A pier and its surrounding ground are modeled by B class 1.6
a frame and springs, which represent their non-linear C class 23
properties. This method is suitable for complicated
structures whose capacities might be overestimated !-La = 1.25 + 62.5 (t / D) :s; 2.5 (4.8.5)
by the simplified analysis. The seguence of local where P-a is the allowable horizontal displacement
failures (generation of plastic hinges, damage of ductility factor, t is the thickness of pipe pile, and D
superstructures, etc.) and the maximum and residual is the diameter of pipe pile.
displacements will be verified. Instead of performing elasto-plastic analysis, the
(c) Non-linear dynamic analysis elasticity limit P, can be given by Eqs. 4.8.6 and
The pier structural system is analyzed by the finite 4.8.7 based on parametric studies:
element method considering non-linear and dynamic P, = O.8 2-p.all (4.8.6)
properties. This method is applied when the whole Paall = L {2M pi /(hi + 1/ f3i )} (4.8.7)
structural system is complicated or large deformation where PI/all is the horizontal force when bending
of the ground is predicted. moments at the pile head and the assumed fixed point
In the ductility design method, the Newmark law under the ground of all piles reach their fully plastic
of constant energy is assumed. The basic equation moments, M p i is the fully plastic moment of each pile,
for the verification' is presented as Eg. 4.8.3: and (hi +1/(3;) is the length between the head and the
(4.8.3) assumed fixed point of each pile.
where R; is the load carrying capacity during The residual horizontal displacement of a pier can
earthguake, K; is the design seismic coefficient, and be calculated on the assumption that the
W is the vertical loads including self-weight and load-displacement relationship during unloading has
surcharge. Ra is given by Eg. 4.8.4: the same gradient as that during initial loading.

s, = ~2/-1-a -1+8(/-I-a-1)2 Py (4.8.4) The structural behavior of high seismic resistant

where P-a is the allowable plasticity ratio, e is
ratio of the secondary gradient to the primary
gradient in the load-displacement relationship, and P,
is the horizontal force corresponding to the elasticity
limit. At the elasticity limit, pile-head bending
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4-33
the piers should remain within elastic regions during
Level 1 ground motions, and it should be controlled
with horizontal displacement, as mentioned above,
during Level 2 ground motions. The load carrying
capacity R; in Eg. 4.8.4 can be calculated with e and
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

methods. The shear failure should not occur prior to

bending failure.
Allowable ultimate stage
i The properties of piles pushing into or pulling out
"'0
<tl
Pp
0 from the ground should be modeled taken into
P)'
CO
..... consideration their non-linear behaviors. Lateral
c
0
N resistance of the ground should also be modeled as
'C
0 the same way above.
I
Buckling of piles often dominates the ultimate
0
(5!' 0p state of a pier. Equation 4.8.14 gives the strain that
Displacement
may cause local buckling in steel pipe piles:
C ma• = 0.44t / D (4.8.14)
Fig. 4.8.3 f-L. and e where t is the thickness of the steel pipe and D is the
diameter of the steel pipe.
f-La obtained by the result of elasto-plastic analysis as The moment at the strain of Cmax is not much
shown in Fig. 4.8.3. different from Mp in Eq. 4.8.8 for steel pipe piles with
Either a bi-linear or a tri-linear model can be used commonly used dimensions.
for the constitutive law of steel pipe piles. Fully
plastic moment Mp , yielding moment My, and their
respective curvature ¢>p and ¢y can be given by Eqs.
4.8.8 to 4.8.11.
M p = M pa cos(an /2) (4.8.8)
My = (Jy -N / A)Ze (4.8.9)
¢y = My / £1 (4.8.10)
¢p =(Mp-MJrf>y (4.8.11)
where M po is the fully plastic moment of the steel
pipe without axial force expressed as follows:
«; =Zpfy (4.8.12)
Zp is the plastic sectional modulus of the steel pipe,
which can be obtained as follows:
Zp =~{r3 -(r -tJ} (4.8.13)
where r is the radius of the steel pipe, t is the
thickness of the steel pipe, a is the ratio of applied
axial force N to yield axial force No (No = A h) when
bending moment is not applied, A is the area of the
cross section of the steel pipe, fy is the yield strength
of the steel pipe, Z, is the elastic sectional modulus of
the steel pipe, and EI is the flexural rigidity of the
steel pipe.
The concrete superstructure is represented by the
tri-linear bending moment-curvature relationship.
Cracking moment, rebar-yielding moment, ultimate
moment should be calculated with appropriate design
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
4-34
5. BASIC PRINCIPLES OF SEISMIC DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

FOR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES

JAPAN WATERWORKS ASSOCIATION

5.1 Basic Concept of Anti-Seismic Measures for Water Supply Facilities 5- 1

5.1.1 General 5- 1
5.1.2 Planning, Designing and Implementation 5- 1
5.1.3 Geotechnical Survey of the Foundation 5- 2
5.1 A The Employment of Highly Earthquake Resistant Materials and Joints 5- 3
5.1.5 Anti-Seismic Design of Water Supply System 5- 3
5.1.6 Maintenance and Planned Improvements 5- 4
5.1.7 Assumption of Earthquake Damage 5- 5
5.1.8 The Order of Restoration Works and Relationship Between Emergency
Restoration Works and Permanent Restoration Works 5- 5
5.2 Basic Concept of Anti-Seismic Design 5- 5
5.2.1 General 5- 5
5.2.2 Seismic Motion Levels for Anti-Seismic Design 5- 6
5.23 Importance Ranking of Facilities 5- 6
5.2A Anti-Seismic Level Which Water Supply Facilities Must Maintain
During and Earthquake 5- 6
5.2.5 Earthquake Effects on Anti-Seismic Designs 5- 7
5.2.6 Sequence of Anti-Seismic Design Works 5- 7
5.2.7 Related Regulations 5- 8
53 Seismic Motion Input for Anti-Seismic Design 5- 10
53.1 Anti-Seismic Calculation Methods and Objective Structures 5- 10
53.2 Seismic Intensity Used in Anti-Seismic Design under the Seismic
Intensity Method for Ground Structures (Seismic Motion Levell) 5- 10
533 Seismic Motion Level Used in Anti-Seismic Design by the Seismic Intensity
Method for Ground Structures (Seismic Motion Level 2) 5- 11
5.3A Seismic Intensity Used in Anti-Seismic Design by the Seismic Intensity
Method for Buried Structures (Seismic Motion Levell) 5- 15

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 5.3.5 Design Seismic Intensity Used in Anti-Seismic Intensity Method for
Buried Structures (Seismic Motion Level 2) 5-16

5.3.6 Seismic Motion Level Used in the Response Displacement Method for
Buried Structures (Seismic Motion Levell) 5- 16
5.3.7 Seismic Intensity Used in Design of Buried Structures by the Response
Displacement Method (Seismic Motion Level 2) 5- 17
5.3.8 Seismic Motion Input Used in Design Using the Dynamic Analysis 5- 19
5.4 Geotechnical Surveys, Ground Displacement, and Ground Distortion 5- 19
5.4.1 Primary Subjects of Geotechnical Survey 5- 19
5.4.2 Methods of Geoetchnical Survey 5- 20
5.4.3 Soil Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading 5- 21
5.4.4 Ground Displacement and Ground Strain Caused by Liquefaction 5- 21
5.4.5 Ground Strain at the Incline of Artificially Altered Ground 5- 21
5.4.6 Reduction in Reaction Force and Ground Friction Force due to Soil Liquefaction 5- 22
5.5 Soil Pressure During an Earthquake 5- 23
5.5.1 General 5- 23
5.5.2 Calculation of Horizontal Soil Pressure During an Earthquake 5- 23
5.5.3 Calculation of Vertical Soil Pressure During an Earthquake 5- 23
5.5.4 External Pressure due to Lateral Spreading 5- 24
5.5.5 Buoyancy Generated by Soil Liquefaction 5- 24
5.6 Hydrodynamic Pressure During an Earthquake and the Water Sloshing 5- 24
5.6.1 Hydrodynamic Pressure During an Earthquake 5- 24
5.6.2 Water Sloshing 5- 25
5.7 Safety Check 5- 25
5.7.1 Combination of Loads 5- 25
5.7.2 Safety Check of the Structures Fabricated with Steel, Concrete, etc 5- 25.
5.7.3 Safety Check of Pipeline in their Anti-Seismic Calculations 5- 26
5.7.4 Safety Check ofthe Foundation Ground in its Anti-Seismic Calculations 5- 26
5.7.5 Safety Check of Foundation, Earthen Structures and Retaining Wall in
Anti-Seismic Calculations 5- 27
5.7.6 Safety Check in Anti-Seismic Calculations in Consideration of Critical State
under Seismic Motion Level 2 5- 27

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

5. BASIC PRINCIPLES OF SEISMIC DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FOR

WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES
JAPAN WATER WORKS ASSOSIATION

5.1 Basic Concept of Anti-Seismic Measures for
Water Supply Facilities
5.1.1 General
For developing anti-seismic measures in water
supply, the following basic plans must be drawn
beforehand:
(1) Proper damage estimates before
occurrence of an earthquake, and preventive
measures based on such estimates,
(2) Plans on emergency relief measures to be
undertaken immediately after an earthquake,
and disaster prevention measures including
effective emergency repair works and
(3) Detailed plans on the organization for the
implementation of permanent restoration
works in the period from temporary works
in above (2) to the completion of the
permanent works
The underlying goal of implementing anti-
seismic measures for water supply systems is to
save human lives. To this end, a plan must be
established to provide well-balanced,
comprehensive measures to be implemented under
adequate mutual understanding with related
organizations, during: (1) the pre-earthquake
period; (2) the immediate post-earthquake period;
and (3) the reconstruction period.
In the pre-earthquake period, the potential scale
of the disaster must be properly assumed; the
reinforcement works must be implemented based
on rational anti-seismic designs; and everyday
facility maintenance must be carried out with
consideration of the anti -seismic measures.
In the immediate post-earthquake period, it is
essential to collect quick and accurate information,
the and establish a communication network. A plan
must be drown. before-hand for calling out
personnel for their deployment for initial response
activities, which are considered the most
important.
During the reconstruction period, in
coordination with the police and fire departments
and under the rescue operations provided by other
water utilities, an emergency water service must
be implemented until restoration of regular water
supply; restoration works must efficiently be
implemented and manpower and materials and
equipment required for such activities must be
procured.
5.1.2 Planning, Designing and Implementation
For preparation of plans and designs of water
supply facilities and their implementation,
sufficient consideration should be given to
earthquakes in accordance with various conditions
in which the water utility is actually situated.
For important facilities, their structures must be

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
5-1
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

rationally designed with adequate consideration to carried out.

the effects from earthquakes.
The construction of water supply facilities must For the construction of the water supply
be so implemented that the water supply system as facilities, it is essential to that a good ground site
a whole retain as much capability to do water be chosen. This is particularly true for the
service even though the system has sustained construction of key facilities such as water intake
certain damage. facilities, reservoirs, delivery facilities, treatment
facilities, service reservoirs, and main
Water supply facilities are fundamental to the sending/receiving lines.
infrastructure supporting a city and to the lives of The power of an earthquake's force on building
the city's citizens. For earthquake disasters, differs greatly depending on various ground
maximum effort to develop countermeasures must foundations, even ground foundations in the same
be taken in order to insure that the water suppiy is region. In addition, the scale of an earthquake's
protected. This is true regardless of the size of motion may also differ, depending on the
the facility. topographical and geological differences of a
Restoration of emergency water supplies is particular region.
crucial immediately after an earthquake disaster. For the construction of key facilities,
Implementation and execution of an effective architectural designs for main buildings and their
reconstruction plan must be applied in conjunction foundations must be based on data gathered by a
with earthquake countermeasure upgrades. detailed survey of ground conditions. These
In order to implement and execute adequate detailed surveys of the construction site must
plans for different distribution facilities, include an analysis of the site's dynamic behavior
examination of local earthquake records and during an earthquake.
accurate predictions and .estimates of future When: the ground conditions are not the most
earthquakes based on changes in the earth's crust desirable, improving the foundation through
(from geological surveys) must be completed. substructure work or additional slope stabilization
work must be applied. Preventative measures,
5.1.3 Geotechnical Survey of the Foundation such as the use of flexible structures which
respond to ground 'floating' or displacement
It is desirable that water supply facilities are during an earthquake, must also be used.
founded on location where the foundation is firm For ground foundations in areas with high
and the landscape is stable. Prior to the ground water levels, such as sandy soil (which
construction of specially important facilities a easily generate ground Fluidization), suitable
careful and detailed geotechnical survey must be measures must be adopted. These methods

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
5-2
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

include flexible ground structures that absorb be used. In addition, flexible materials that are
ground displacement and reinforced ground capable of absorbing earthquake displacement
foundations. may also be used to avoid structural damage.

5.1.4 The Employment of Highly Earthquake 5.1.5 Anti-Seismic Design of Water Supply
Resistant Materials and Joints System

For construction of main water supply facilities, For anti-seismic design of water supply systems,
earthquake resistant materials should be employed the followings are prerequisites:
in structurally important locations. 1) Earthquake damage is localized as much as
For water containing facilities, structures, possible.
which can absorb structural strain and abate stress, 2) The damage is easily repaired.
must be designed with the provision of earthquake 3) Measures, which will prevent secondhand
resistant joints, which absorb expansion, disasters as a result of an earthquake, must
contraction and distortion must be provided be provided.
between interfacing structures which may move, To meet these conditions, redundancy in
when an earthquake occurs, and leave relative important facilities, interconnection of block
displacement. systems, grouping of such systems, separation of a
pipe network into blocks, and installation of
Underground pipelines will bend as a result of emergency cut-off valves must be implemented.
the ground displacement produced by an
earthquake. Such displacement tends to escalate When water conveyance and distribution
in areas where the geography or topography is pipelines receive earthquake damage, the water
subject to sudden change. As a result, supply in an entire distribution area may be cut off
connections between the structure and related ad severe conditions may result.
pipes are subject to great distortion. This When the system of water conveyance pipelines
distortion results from the difference between the is interconnected, the transmission and
rigidity of the structures and the related pipes. In distribution of water may be cut off when one
addition, the alteration of fluid ground also portion of the system is cut off or out of service.
produces irregular and uneven ground surfaces. Therefore, it is desirable to have a system which is
This results in movement and distortion of capable delivering water even after sustaining
structural bulkheads. On such ground, flexible, damage. Using an interconnected system with
anti-seismic joints capable of absorbing the different functioning lines is the most effective
displacement generated during an earthquake must method of supplying water when an earthquake

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
5-3
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

disaster occurs. This method is also effective for Positive anti-seismic diagnostic inspections in
responding to other common disasters and for accordance with this manual must be conducted.
providing raw water for regular usage. Facilities with low anti-seismic ratings must
It is desirable to connect the main water supply undergo improvement works through planning.
pipeline to other water works facilities in
neighboring vicinities. In order to minimize the Planning upgrades to existing water works
damage during an earthquake, construction of systems (in order to make them more earthquake
pipeline networks must take into consideration the proof) must utilize competent anti-seismic
following issues: diagnosis. Such diagnosis in necessary for
1) Minimizing the range of water delivery failure existing facilities in order to execute
after an earthquake by adequately spacing reinforcement or renovation. First, in order to
gate valves in the pipeline network, making perform diagnosis, a water works system must be
the distance between them the shortest broken down, with each facility being categorized
possible. and listed in order of its importance. Second,
2) Limiting the depth of underground pipes in initial diagnostic inspections must be conducted
order to insure that they are not buried too and the priority of work must be decided upon.
deeply. In addition, properly locating access Third, improvements or reinforcement must be
and work station doors in the facilities to proceeded with.
make restoration work swift and easy. To create anti-seismic water work facilities,
3) Using preventative measures, such as setting design and execution must be carefully carried out.
gate valves both in back and in front of a pipe After completing construction, constant inspection
when the pipe crosses over a railroad or a and maintenance of the facility must be carried
large river and installing chlorine neutralizing out. To fulfill this purpose, listed inspections
devices. These preventative measures must and maintenance must be set and routinely
be utilized because damage to a water work followed.
facility may generate secondary damage to For the improvement of the existing facilities,
important public and private facilities or to earthquake resisting measures and measures
neighboring residences. aimed at the prevention of numerous, everyday
accidents must be taken. These improvements
5.1.6 Maintenance and Planned Improvements must be carried out after a comprehensive and
integrated evaluation.
Adequate inspection and maintenance of water
supply facilities must be undertaken at a basis to
insure their anti-seismic integrity.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
5-4
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

5.1.7 Assumption of Earthquake Damage

Each part of water supply facilities must be
Based on assumptions on the type and designed to retain its respective capacity even
magnitude of damage to the water supply systems after an earthquake with the design intensity of
as a result of an earthquake, plans for emergency seismic tremor.
water service and repair works must be The more important the facility, the more the
established. To facilitate such works, need for such consideration.
information networks, emergency manpower For anti-seismic design of facilities, the design
mobilization plans, and mutual cooperation method must be employed, which is suitable to the
system must be established; and comprehensive characteristics of respective facilities and the
preparation must be made for stockpiling nature of their founding and surrounding soil.
materials and equipment required for restoration
works, preparation of complete sets of facility 5.2.2 Seismic Motion Levels
drawings and decentralization of their Design
management.
For an anti-seismic design, two different
5.1.8 The Order of Restoration Works and magnitudes of intensity must be employed:
Relationship Between Emergency Seismic Motion Levell, which has a return
Restoration Works and Permanent probability of once or twice in the service lie of
Restoration Works the facility, and Level 2, which has a smaller
probability than the former but is greater in
As a general rule, restoration work after an magnitude.
earthquake disaster should start with raw water
intake facilities, followed by, in sequence, water Seismic Motion Levell (Ll) is equivalent to
treatment facilities, transmission and distribution the conventional seismic motion level set by many
facilities, and finally water service connections. civil engineering construction guidelines.
To realize early resumption of water service, Seismic Motion Levell may be generated once or
sufficient consideration should be made on twice during the in service period of a structure.
relationship between emergency restoration works Seismic Motion Level 2 (L2) is the equivalent of
and subsequent permanent restoration works. the seismic motion generated in areas with faults
or areas with big scale plates bordering. inland
5.2 Basic Principles for Anti-Seismic Design areas, such as the earthquake which struck the
southern area of Hyogo Prefecture in 1995.
5.2.1 General The probability of a water works system

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
5-5
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

experiencing Seismic Motion Level 2 is very low. It is not realistic to demand the highest level of
Nevertheless, the influence of a Seismic Motion earthquake durability every component of a water
Level 2 is considered enormously great. supply system. When implementing anti-seismic
However, information on seismic motion planning for a facility, the facility's degree of
parameters for a fault may be used to search for an significance must be categorized into either Rank
appropriate location. If a seismic motion caused A or Rank B. In addition, the degree of
by active faults is clearly understood using importance must be combined with the two
preliminary surveys, a construction design can be Seismic Motion Levels, Level 1 and Level 2.
directly evaluated. Through these combinations, it is possible to
create different designs with different anti-seismic
5.2.3 Importance Ranking of Facilities capabilities. Refer to 5.2.1 (general concept) and
5.2.4 (anti-seismic levels for water works facilities
In principle, for planning anti-seismic design of during an earthquake).
water supply facilities, they must be categorized The significant degrees are decided by
into two: individual work groups, based on their own
(1) facilities at a high level of importance judgment, experience, locallspecialized reasoning,
(Rank A), and and consideration of local disaster prevention
(2) other facilities (Rank B). programs. Factors effecting a facility's degree of
Each water utility must sort the Rank A significance are grouped in two categories: those
facilities based on the actual position of their factors which, during an earthquake, may
system, and with consideration to the following influence non-water works facilities and those
conditions: factors which may effect the conventional
1) Facilities which possess the potential to functions of awter works facilities.
generate serious secondary disasters.
2) Facilities located up stream of water supply 5.2.4 Anti-Seismic Level Which Water Supply
system. Facilities Must Maintain During an
3) Main facilities which do not have backup Earthquake
facilities.
4) Feeder mains to important facilities. Water supply facilities should maintain either
5) Main facilities which are difficult to restore one of the following anti-seismic standards, which
if damaged are set by combining the Seismic Motion Level
6) Facilities which will become the center for (Ll and L2) and the importance ranking (Rank A
gatheringinformation during a disaster. and Rank B) of the facilities.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
5-6
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

ground located above an active fault, must be

given sufficient consideration due to the potential
for disaster. In particular, new housing on slopes
which have been artificially altered are especially
subject to ground distortion and displacement
generated by a Seismic Motion Level 2.
\ Indhdd:u~r This earth load stress can be evaluated using
fa¢lllM".Q~Y

··r~;"t~H$p:t; ,Islil~~
d~~:g#!!'l:rtd
rllil'llktl I$ayt\4l:b¢ahl~
t\)$j;;nltJan,
• methods based on the response displacement
method.
There are two types of hydraulic water force:
'B~kt one which exerts inertial force directly against a
r~t4rnHi:ln
?¢1I$ibl¢. facility and one which exerts secondary,
osciliating force on the surface of free water.
Facilities which abut reservoir structures,
5.2.5 Earthquake Effects on Anti-Seismic
underground water storage tanks, dams, or water
Designs
intakes receive dynamic water pressure during an
earthquake. As a result, the design of such
For anti-seismic design, the following effects of
facilities must take into consideration the
earthquake must be taken into consideration:
influence of this pressure.
1) Displacement and distortion of the
The effects of surface oscillation in water on a
foundation soil during an earthquake,
structure must be determined by analyzing the
2) Inertial force owing to the weight of
oscillation characteristics of a structure and the
structures,
frequency of surface water.
3) Soil pressure during an earthquake,
4) Dynamic water pressure during an
5.2.6 Sequence of Anti-Seismic Design Works
earthquake,
5) Water surface sloshing,
As a general rule, anti-seismic designs of water
6) Lateral soil movements due to liquefaction
supply facilities must be carried out in the
of the soil, and
following order:
7) Soil distortion on a slope of reclaimed land.
1) Selection of the construction site,
2) Geotechnical survey at the site
Facilities which are built on ground that is
3) Selection of the type of structure and the
clearly subject to rapid/dynamic change, such as
study on geotechnical conditions of
ground subject to horizontal, fluid displacement or
foundation,

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
5-7
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

4) Anti -seismic calculation,

5) Examination of anti-seismic level

Figure 5.2.1 illustrates the method for anti-

seismic calculation. This method may differ
according to the structural characteristics and
ground conditions involved. The appropriate
calculation. method must match the structure's
propose and condition.
A facility belonging to Significance Rank B
must designed by matching it to Seismic Motion
Level 1. Depending on the facility's necessity,
evaluation under Seismic Motion Level 2. must be
made.

5.2.7 Related Regulations

When designing water supply facilities, existing

laws and related regulations whichever applicable,
must be followed. In addition, it is desirable that
technical standards established by institutions or
associations are followed.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
5-8
EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

S TAR T

SELEcrION OF
CONSTRUcrION SITE

DECISONOF SIGNIFICANT
RANKING OF FACILITIES

SOILSURVEY

STRUcrURE DESIGN
ANDl'KAMiNG

STATIONARY LOAD
CALCULATION

ANTI-SEISMIC CALCULATIONS
FORSEISMIC MOTIONLEVEL 1

No

ANTI-SEISMIC CALCULATIONS
FORSEISMICMOTIONLEVEL2

No
No

Yes

E N D

fiGURE· 5.2.1
ANTI-SEISMIC STRUcrURE DESIGNORDER

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
5-9
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

5.3 Seismic Motion Input for Anti-Seismic dynamic analysis method must be applied when
Design required.
5.3.1 Anti-Seismic Calculation Methods and For an anti-seismic design of a massive,
Objective Structures partially buried structure (such as a settling basin),
the seismic intensity method may be used.
1. The following are standard anti-seismic
design methods to be applied for water supply 5.3.2 Seismic Intensity Used in Anti-Seismic
facilities. Their selection must be based on the Design under the Seismic Intensity
structural nature of the objective structures and Method for Ground Structures
other factors. (Seismic Motion Levell)
Depending on the structural nature and special
subsoil conditions, the result of calculation by 1. The horizontal seismic intensity to be used for
means of either 1) or 2) must be cross-checked design or structures on the ground surface
with that obtained by mean of 3). shall be determined as follows:
1) Seismic intensity method K h1 ::::: C, . K h01 (5.3.1)
2) Response displacement method Where:
3) Reference to the results by dynamic Cz : Region-specific correction factor.
analysis Values are 1.0-0.7.
2. For ground structures, an anti-seismic design. K h01 : Standard horizontal seismic
must be implemented using the seismic intensity intensity at the center of gravity of the
method. Because the effects of inertial force and structure. Values are shown in Table
dynamic water pressure, in the case water levels 5.3.1 by the type of subsoil.
are full, cannot be neglected, verification of the The value of KhOl shall be set at 0.16, 0.2,
safety, using the dynamic analysis method, is and 0.24 for ground type I, IT, and ill
recommended after the seismic intensity method respectively.
is applied. 2. Ground types for an anti-seismic design must
3. Buried structures must be designed using the be classified based on proper period obtained
seismic intensity method or the response by the equation 5.3.2. If the base of the
displacement method. For the anti-seismic foundation conforms to the ground surface,
design of a structure whose movements are the ground type must be Type I.
complex at the Seismic Motion Level 2, to verify
~.................................. (5..
3 2)
the results calculation using the seismic intensity
method or the response displacement method, the Where:

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
5-10
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

TAlltE

}'(n$T.rj,'"PE•• qltOUNtJ··O'il",i!;2)·.ViHEEE··TaXS·THg·.
NKl'LlRALPERJfJDOW THEGROU~l1(lt~

TG: Proper period of ground(s) layer. Type II ground does not belong to
Hi: Thickness of the I th stratum (m) either Type I ground or Type II ground.
Vsi: Average elastic wave velocity (rills) Instead, Type II belongs to either diluvial or
alluvial categories. The alluvial ground
3. Should the vertical seismic intensity (K.vl) be mentioned here includes new sedimentary
taken into account, the following formula layers created by landslides, landfills, and
shall be used. other weak ground. The Diluvial layers
mentioned here include hardened sandy soil
layers and layers of boulders.

1. The behavior of water works in reaction to a 5.3.3 Seismic Motion Level Used in Anti-
seismic motion is dependent on factors such Seismic Design by the Seismic Intensity
as the earthquake's strength, its periodic Method for Ground Structures
characteristics, its duration, the ground type, (Seismic Motion Level 2)
the type of structure involved, the type of
foundation, etc.. Standard design for 1. Horizontal seismic intensity (K h2 ) used for
horizontal seismic intensity takes these factors anti-seismic design based' on Seismic' Motion
into account. Level 2 shall be determinedas follows:
2. Ground classification is used to determine the KhZ = C, . K hoz · · · · (5.3.3)
horizontal seismic intensity value (Kh1) on a Where:
construction design, using the seismic Cz : Structure specific factor, which must
intensity method. properly be determined based on the
As a "rule of thumb," Type I ground is made magnitude of diminution due to the
up of ideal diluvial ground and a proper rock response of the structure and the
bed. Type ill ground is considered poor capability of plastic deformation of the
ground and is located at or around the alluvial structure.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
5-11
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

lAn'lI:.5,;;l;:~ tJ:RPE~LIM:IT.YP:i;.I.JE.··O~'.THE • STAN[DRD··:Eii€iE1Z0NTAL•• SEIS'MIC•• ·rWTENSI':fTJRtiL

DESIG1\!.OJi'~OY$GROtJ'l'fU STRUttt'tJ.R$t$ElSMlCrNTENSl'1'Y$;1B:T.HOP)
--_.. .•. " ,.~~~----.,..

GROUNtlT'l"BE I J£ho2vPJ.;"tt"EAGP-,lNST STRl1C)",f'UP,;Jl:.J.. NNl'tJ1't.4.L 'f'BBIDT{Sl

··'1'YrE·"j·· ['ra~D;2J· ... ..w .... ,.... '1'<0,2 O,.z;G.'1'';;l.l) 1..0<:'1'
'O~·IT'l·G'":r'~'T'tl."r"·'1\.f:,,'\:·~t"~:;4-''f''':
'H;,·:]'::f"..... 1'n:.:~~'r:.=. ::_~:~.~t.q:_::~.-·.:0.'~S::l5
;~;~';~~;~~~:ir;~;'; • . ~C;;i¥E\ZB;;;~KkQ!l'~030 J£hoz==·l)} KM2=LOOO·f" lAM
T<O,2 "'··..'''"..,,,,.··'' 1.• .• • '··...... 'O;2$!1;i'~1 1..0<.'1'
1"Y?EIlKhM=~.lSi)1'Q,aC7 ...' . .. j
[0;2&1'o<05J B:O\VEVER; .·KhC;;,~(Ulfl KhG2= 1.4 1{h(;~""lAQ(J1'__ lA(I~
""-·.."1.. .
T\?B ill
[O,G~'l'GJ
I
tAanL 5,3:$ E'OT1'M:tilM.l,£ViililJE{$'EI$M1CMOXION tJil'\tEt. 2) OF'STANtJAt1.D.HOR1Z()NT.~...LS:ElSMlt!lNmENSIt$tY,
tiSEnt0:R,GrtOiJNn··S11nU£"tUlte.DESrCN·.?'.a0M·.l'nB.SE~S~~n:c··rtiF:t'ENSln··M)o;'10D
..... , ', . . --. .. " .. "': ... : ..... : -... _.,.:.. ~._- ... -.,,.: .... _--.- .... : .... : .. " .. ".:.,: ..... :,.:..:.,.:.: .. ,:': ..... ,'.".:': ......-, .. ,'-''':-···-··:----CC":··

TYP.E 1 Ctc< 0.21

Tt>JS THE 'NAT{JRlib
GROUND PERIOD
'.t')9E'·Il·.'OEQVN'P···
t(l,a;~Td<l:tbl

Khoz: Standard
intensity at the center of gravity of the
structure, the values
derived from Table 5.3.2, Table 5.3.3
depending on the importance of the
structure and the soil type.
However, KhZ shall not be less than 0.3.
The standard horizontal seismic intensity
(KhZ) at the ground surface must be: 0.7
(upper limit) - 0.6 (lower limit), 0.8 - 0.7, 0.6-
0.4 respectively for Type I, Type II, and Type
ill subsoil classifications.
2. When taking vertical seismic intensity (K,Z),
the equation is:
horizontal seismic 3. If there is a possibility that the seismic motion
is largely amplified by such irregularities of
of which are ground as the titled ground surface, the design
seismic intensity shall be increased by 1.2
times at maximum.
These guidelines were decided to be designed
horizontal seismic intensity and acceleration
response spectrum by the following methods.
CD Maximum acceleration on the ground
surface.
Using the seismic motion records
which can be accepted as based on
engineering standards (Kobe University
[NS EW]; East Kobe Ohashi [GL-33m,
N78E, N12W]; Port Island (GL-83m,

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
5-12
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

Nl2E), the ground surface response (acceleration response value) of the

acceleration was derived by the ground surface seismic intensity which is
equivalent linear method with gathered from approximately 150
considering the flexibility dependence of checking sites were surveyed at each I, IT,
modulus of transverse flexibility and ill type grounds. Same as the
(modulus of rigidity) and dampening design horizontal seismic intensity
coefficients based on total 150 points of described before, the value equivalent to
boring data from the Hanshin District. the acceleration response value was
Based on these results, divided into three derived at each 90% and 70% of non-
ground types: Type I ground (TG < 0.2s), over probability and was shown in
Type IT ground (0.2 < TG < 0.6s), and Figure 5.3.1 x 1. As same with design
Type III ground (0.6 < TG) according to horizontal seismic intensities, the value
its natural period and asked the equivalent to the acceleration response
generation frequency distribution of each value was set within the limits of the
ground type. With this results, set non- significant ranking of the facilities.
over probability 90%, 70% and decided Also, concerning the area which periodic
the upper and lower limit values of the zone is above LOs (Type ill ground must
surface acceleration. For example, be above 1.5s), on the logarithmic graph
surface acceleration of Type I ground the spectrum value is shown as a
600-700 gal is equivalent to non-over 'declining straight line. Also, 0.1 second
probability of 70%-90%. Further, the spectrum value has set to coincide to the
intensity is derived by dividing ground maximum ground surface acceleration
surface acceleration by gravitational value as shown in (1). Also, the
acceleration and it is used to measure for response spectrum shows a result of
anti-seismic structural design by seismic attenuation coefficient 5% and if the
intensity method and judgment of the structural attenuation coefficient may
liquidation. This design horizontal differ from this result, the acceleration
seismic intensity must be set between response value will be assumed to
upper limit value and lower limit value of reverse proportion of the 2 root of
the significance rank of the facilities. attenuation coefficient, and correct the
CD Structural acceleration spectrum. spectrum value. For example, in the
Before mentioned generation case of an acceleration response value of
frequency distribution of the structural 10%, it may become 5% of the value:
acceleration response spectrum $/.JW = 0.707 (times).

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
5-13
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

@ Standard Horizontal Seismic Intensity

(K hoz)·
The standard horizontal seismic
intensity (K hoz) is derived from dividing
the acceleration response value at the
center of gravity of the structure by
gravitational acceleration. Based on the
Figure 5.3.1 the result of formulating
upper and lower limit values of the
standard horizontal seismic intensity is
shown in Table 5.3.2 and 5.3.3. The
Upper and lower limit values are
equivalent to the bore mentioned at 90%
and 70% of non-over probability. This
means depending on the water supplier's
judgment on the significant degree of
water works facility may reflect choice.
@ Design Horizontal Seismic Intensity
(Khz)'
The design horizontal seismic intensity III
I
(Khz) is derived by multiplying the STRtiC1'UK41. NATr.7R.tiJ,.PROPF.l{TY(S)
SECQNlJ1"'ll{,,: GROU1<iD FOUND,,:rl0N
standard horizontal seismic intensity (h) (O,2S;>:T".<O.6.s)

(K hoz) with the structural characteristic

factor (C s) ' This structural
characteristic factor (Cs) is derived by
multiplying the dampening characteristic
(D). Figure 5.3.1 shows the response
spectrum derived at with a structural
attenuation coefficient of 5%. If, the
structural attenuation coefficient differs
from this value, it can be corrected and
D '1 can be derived from this graph. 10.t 1
5T1WCTl:W:AL ~UmJI'.AL PROPEJ'SOr
Further, the D'1 value is considered the (CtntmtiT,(1'r;"'Hf)u.l>ln:CGN\)'?<r!O~;llHi,.cTd
HGtlRfS~3+ .
ACCELf.r",~T l'o;~rRES?ONS£S?EC'ffiUI>;(,
structural flexibility factor. Thus, it is ($ElSMICMOT!ON LJ-:V'l::L2)

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
5-14
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

equivalent with factors which are used (K' hOI) and (K hOl) shall be derived using Table
for calculating equivalent horizontal 5.3.4. The standard horizontal seismic
seismic intensity in "Road Bridge intensity at the objective depth may be
Specifications. " This is defined as derived by linear interpolation between K hOl
follows: and K'hOI'
2. The design horizontal seismic intensity, when
applying Seismic Motion Level 1, shall be
determined as follows:
D = J5
hJh 1) The design horizontal seismic intensity at
ground surface
D = 1
s; Cz ' K hOI
~1+417
=
17
2) The standard horizontal seismic intensity
't'lTL _
VVUC>1C> at the base ground surface
h = attenuation coefficient (%) s; = Cz ' K'hOi

7] =durability ratio Where:

The structural characteristic factors C; Region-specific correction factor.
(Cs) can only be used for seismic motion Values are 1.0-0.7.
Level 2. They cannot be applied to 3) When considering the vertical design
seismic motion Level 1 anti-seismic seismic intensity (KVI )
construction design. K Y1 = K h/2.

5.3.4 Seismic Intensity Used in Anti-Seismic

·.·rAJHES,3L4
Design by the Seismic Intensity Method ·STANDARlJHORlZ0f4i1;j\n.SlEtSMlCIN1""Et4Sfl')'{UEVEDll
WH1£ff.jS·.TJSED•. FnR't$i$ .•$tJE~D$TRtle'TURA:E
for Buried Structures DEsIG1'j'.·.BiX·.1fJ3,$••$EISMlY.·.INTlU-iSIlT'Y·••METH0D
(Seismic Motion Levell)
..... $TAh1)AiRril-to~6NS1AlmAlU)ffd~f1jtf
GROIl'1>J"DTi:PB SmlSM1CIh'1'ENSlT'i': •.• .• .•....·N$l'm"· . .
CLASSJElCATlom
1. When anti-seismic design for buried
structures is carried out using the seismic
intensity method, the standard horizontal
seismic intensity shall be determined
employing the standard horizontal seismic
intensity (K' hOI) at the base ground level
assumed for the design and the ground surface
seismic intensity (K hOI)' The values of

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
5-'15
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

When the buried structures are designed by the
seismic intensity method, the standard horizontal
seismic intensity which will act on the buried
structure can be considered as the standard
horizontal seismic intensity at the center of the
gravity of the structure.
Also for the underground standard horizontal
seismic intensity will be assumed that it will
change linearly between the base ground of the
anti-seismic design and ground
Therefore, it will be obtained the value at the
center of the gravity of structure by the linear
interpolation.
5.3.5 Design Seismic Intensity Used in Anti-
Seismic Intensity Method for Buried
Structures
(Seismic Motion Level 2)
3. If there is possible amplification of seismic
motion due to such irregularities of the ground
as tilted ground surface, the design seismic
intensity shall be increased by 1.2 times at
maximum.
Similar to seismic motion Level 1, the
design horizontal seismic intensity, which acts
on buried structures, may be acceptably
surface. derived using linear interpolation at the
structure's center of the gravity. Here the
design horizontal seismic intensity Kh2 is not
necessarj when considering the structural
characteristic factor.
tAaH15.35
DESIGNfORHORlZONTAI..>SElSMIG.. rNTENSITY
{S£lSMiCM01'lONLEVU2JWJ:liCHU$ED FOR
mJRISD$t~VC:nJltAL. hEsl(iN(SE1SMIC
tN'Tt~i$nY METHOD

1. In the case anti-seismic design for an Buried

't'fPR dMJUND
structure is carried out by the seismic intensity ·t1C<C.2J .
,VHE1'l:E'l'G is
method, the design horizontal seismic GRDlfNf.1.·NA'ttlH.i\L
'?ERJOD(s)
intensity shall be determined by the design
TYPEll
horizontal seismic intensity (K 'h2) at the base [O.Z1iil'c <t't<i]
I
ground surface used for anti-seismic design Tl'Ps.m
[t.?~5:,$:T~:J
and the ground surface seismic intensity (Kh2) .
The values of (K 'h2) and (Kh2) shall be deri,:ed
from Table 5.3.5. The design horizontal 5.3.6 Seismic Motion Level Used in the
seismic intensity at the objective depth may
Response Displacement Method for
be determined by linear interpolation between
Buried Structures
K h2 and K h2 '.
(Seismic Motion Levell)
2. In the case vertical seismic intensity (Kv2 ) is
taken into account, shall be set as follows: 1. For anti-seismic design of buried structures,
K V2 = K h12. whose response characteristics during an

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
5-16
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

earthquake are chiefly affected by movements

of surrounding ground, the response Velocity response(s) per unit seismic intensity
displacement method shall be used. is derived using Figure 5.3.2 according to the
Cross-sectional force, stress, strain, etc. basic natural period for the ground surface layer.
working on the structures shall be computed Figure 5.3.2 shows the maximum relative
based on the displacement or deformation of velocity generated by modeling a system with one
the ground. The ground displacement degree of freedom for the natural period T G'
amplitude to be generated under Seismic Reduction of the constant hG (20%) for the surface
Motion Level 1 shall be derived by the ground layer was accomplished. With this
following formula at the distance x(m) from derived value together with seismic records
the ground surface. expanded the maximum velocity to 1.0 g.

u, (x) = -;-SvTGK~l cos ~ (5.3.4)

Jr ~11

Where,
U h (x): the horizontal displacement amplitude
(m) of the ground at the depth x from the
ground surface.
Sv: seismic motion velocity response spectrum
(cmls) of the ground per unit seismic
1 H)
Nt:rtJEAV·.r:'E1HOn.·(l'e)(sJOP·SUl'l.%'iGE
intensity.
e..·I'."~H".E•••• "...,. 2·i CRQtJND ROb NDA'1'HJN
F:~·~..f>.".~-",,;j. .. ,",_. ,'" .': , _ ' -" , _.' _." . . " •. <
TG : the natural period(s) for the surface layer SPEED RE:'H>0NSESFECTRUMfORCONSTRUGT1QUI]E$fOW·
i$El$~tlC M01'JON·LKVE:L2'l
of the ground.
K 'h1: the design horizontal seismic intensity at
foundation ground surface where the 5.3.7 Seismic Intensity Used in Design of
design is based (Refer to 5.3.4 Seismic Buried Structures by the Response
Intensity Used in Anti-Seismic Design by Displacement Method
the Seismic Intensity Method for Buried (Seismic Motion Level 2)
Structures (Seismic Motion Levell))
H: the thickness of surface ground layer (m) Similar to the case of Seismic Motion Levell,
ill the case the vertical response like Buried structures, anti-seismic design of
displacement amplitude is taken into account, structures whose response characteristics during
the following formula is used: an earthquake are chiefly affected by displacement
1 of surrounding ground, the response displacement
U v =-U
2 h

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
5-17
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

method shall principally be used. foundation and rock bed surface observations
Cross-sectional force, stress and strain, etc. within 20 km from the Hyogo fault. Figure
working on the structures shall be computed 5.3.3 represents the velocity response spectrum
based on the displacement or deformation. obtained from the acceleration response
The ground displacement amplitude generated spectrum of the ground surface. Engineering
under Seismic Motion Level 2 is derived by judgment was added. Figure 5.3.3 shows two
the following formula at the distance x(m) different kinds of values - 200 cm/s (upper
from the ground surface. limit) and 70 cm/s (lower limit) - as the
2 I 1lX maximum response velocity. The system was
U'; (x) = 7r 2 S; To cos 2H (5.3.5)
modeled with one degree of freedom for natural
Where, periods above 0.7(s). Each of these values is
U; (x): the horizontal displacement amplitude compatible to a probability not exceeding 90%
and 70%. The desigu value is increased or
ground surface. decreased within the scope of the upper limit
Sy: seismic motion velocity response spectrum and the lower limit, according to significance
(cm/s) [See Figure 5.3.3] rank of the structure.
To: the natural period(s) for the surface ground
layer.
H : the thickness of the surface ground layer (m)

When the ground vertical response

displacement amplitude Uv is considered, the
formula is:
1
U =-U
2 h
y

If there is possible amplification of seismic

motion due to such irregularities of the ground
as tilted ground surface, the design seismic
intensity shall be increased by 1.2 times at r 10
maximum. FA'1'tiJLAiL l"B.RIOD(n:;){flFOR•.S.tJf\.f,....c·~:GR0lJND
rPUNDATI0N

These records were from the 1995 Hyogo-

ken Nanbu earthquake. These records took into
account five wave forms obtained from ground

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
5-18
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN
5.3.8 Seismic Motion Input Used in Design
Using the Dynamic Analysis
The seismic waves used for dynamic analysis
must fit the founding ground surface velocity
response spectrum is shown in Figure 5.3.3, the
ground surface acceleration response spectrum is
shown in Figure 5.3.1, or the seismic waves
observed in the vicinity of inland faults such as
ones caused by the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu
earthquake.
When selecting seismic wave observation sites
for dynamic analysis against seismic motion Level
2, the ground types for the sites must be well
considered. In particular, whether or not the
observed seismic wave response spectrum is
similar to the design response spectrum in Figure
5.3.1 must be check. The maximum value of the
inputted seismic wave for dynamic analysis must
be for a ground surface that is 6,000 - 7,000 cm/s"
and 400 - 600 cm/s 2 against the first ground type,
second ground type, and third ground type.
Similarly, the base ground must be 400-500 cm/s".
5.4 Geotechnical Surveys, Ground Displacement,
and Ground Distortion
5.4.1 Primary Subjects of Geotechnical Survey
For anti-seismic design of water supply
facilities, geotechnical survey at locations, where
construction works are situated, depending on the
importance of the facilities.
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
5-19
January,2000
Soil surveys here include all surveys related to
topography, geology, ground, and soiL
Generally, less damage due to earthquakes is
found on good ground, that is firm and uniform
ground. Therefore, water works facilities must
be required to be built on such stable ground.
The following are not good ground conditions:
CD Sliding;
® Mountainous slope toes and slope shoulders;
@ Slopes;
@ Different soil layer interfaces;
@ Weak ground;
@ Reclaimed ground;
(J) Ground subject to fluidization or lateral
floating during an earthquake.
1. Survey using existing records
Rough soil conditions at the facility
construction site can be studied.
2. Common soil survey
Study of required items for construction
planning and earthquake resistance of
facilities will be conducted.
3. Survey of dynamic properties of soil
The physical properties of soil are
represented by the N value. Cohesion, C,
and the internal friction angle 1>, are for
static behaviors. However, the velocity
effect of stress to the constants of the
ground and the effects of stress during an
earthquake must be discussed. For these
studies, the following constants shall be
determined.
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODESIN JAPAN January, 2000

1) Modulus of dynamic distortion; The geotechnical survey methods shall be based

2) Attenuation coefficient; on the following:
3) Dynamic poison ratio; 1. Follow the standard or criteria which are set
4) Dynamic shear strength. forth in the Japan Industrial Standard (JIS)
4. Survey of dynamic physical properties of or the Japan Geology Society (JGS) for
the ground various survey and laboratory test.
1) Velocity of elastic wave; 2. In principle, measurements shall be actually
2) Ground predominant period; and conducted for dynamic soil constants and
3) Other. dynamic physical properties of the ground.
When it is impossible to do so, they may be
obtained from the results of other surveys.

5.4.2 Methods of Geotechnical Survey Vfu-lOliS test-methods and soil Constants related
to ground and soil are shown in Table 5.4.1.

~. 01
iO
ifJ
10
.10
o
o
Jh7Klli/OR.BODY StAWIC'1'ESTS UNIJl...'t.J'AL.C(tMPRESSI0t'i
SMfPtt"1C•.'l'E);.r·· ·.·.Tlo:;sT'l"~lA.."{lAX.
. CDM:?RESSrO.NTh:S't~
•. DlRECtSflEAroNGT$tirt
..... ·lixiNA.lV!lC'l'Rb\XIAt
o o
j
. COMPR~S$!ON'T:m$T . i
··.·PYNi><MIC••stMPLl:l.· o
. sHE~il:lNGT£b'"1) o
•..RE.so.N.• AJ.'<f.bE. M.z.n•. •.cH.OD
.. o 0 .:
.",.",_.."-_ _....;.. ~..,,.•
.;TgSTVIER;.4Trot>l·1'EST
O~.!stHE't!i:ST.:tl:ES't.r..;T •.PI~tC'fl,;';{REQ~rES<tED{)RUSEFORnlscussrON

O·M,A1U{.mlNPH~EGTW;'.REQ!1ES'!Eb··oa··tJSES··!N·.PtSCtlSS10N

'ON:l..;Y·':l'HEJ~ONG1'1'tml.N¥'.L ""~'l':.rE. S\?EEO\'tIl:;.L.BRDERrilED

··{)NLY'THES.H!EAR!NG ELAS'I'ICCOEl1'FICIEN'T:\'IlLLJUlDERr\I1i:!)

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
5-20
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

5.4.3 Soil Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading
Liquefaction of the soil is a phenomenon
whereby sandy soil loses its strength and rigidity
rapidly and the whole body of soil behaves like
liquid.
Since the soil liquefaction causes damage to
water supply facilities such as flotation of buried
structures, and subsidence and/or tilting of other
structures, anti-seismic design with due
consideration to such aspects must be provided.
In the ground near the embankment bordering a
reclaimed land and slopil1.g ground, a phenomenon
of lateral movements, of liquefied soil may occur
and may damage foundation of structures and
water mains. For the examination of anti-
seismic safety of such lateral soil movements shall
be taken into account. Judgment on the
possibility of soil liquefaction shall be made if the
soil possesses all the following conditions:
(1) Saturated soil layer thinner than 25m from
the ground surface.
(2) Average grain size Dso is less than lOmm.
(3) Content by weight of small grain particles
(soil grain size of less than 0.075mm) is less
than 30%.
5.4.4 Ground Displacement and Ground Strain
Caused by Liquefaction
In the ground near the embankment or sloping
ground, there is a possibility of lateral spreading
due to liquefaction. For anti-seismic design
buried pipelines for water supply, ground
displacement and strain due to such lateral
spreading must be taken into account.
Large-scale lateral movement of a revetment,
caused by an earthquake, is possible in reclaimed
areas. This occurs when the tensile strain of the
ground, in a direction perpendicular to revetment
line, is in the range of 1.2 - 2.0%. Figure 5.4.1
shows the frequency of ground strain occurrence
100m from the revetments in the Hyogo-ken
Nanbu and Niigata earthquakes. Based on this
distribution, the probability was calculated and
tabulated in the Figure. ~~ ground strain value of
1.2 - 2.0% was obtained from the 70% and 90%
non-exceeding probability. For anti-seismic
design of underground pipelines, an appropriate
ground strain may be selected within this range,
depending on the pipeline's degree of importance
and difficulty in restoring.
5.4.5 Ground Strain at the Incline of
Artificially Altered Ground
In the case, the surface of artificially altered
ground (such as in a housing estate) is inclined,
displacements downwards along the slope may
occur during a severe earthquake with such
seismic intensity as the Seismic Motion Level 2.
The effects of such ground displacement must
be taken into account for anti-seismic design of
buried pipeline.
Ground strain for inclined ground (non-
fluidized) during the Seismic Motion Level 2 is

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
5-21
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

·0$1%
Q)7Q$4

filt'5lJRE ·,s.4L..l
C~0~*bitg#Stka. brST(n~!T1QN F'RtQttt>CY bl$TRlIHPTlQNNBAR BFL1;l4B;Att
:<EJCHBORHOQDARE:A
within a range of 1.0 - 1.7%. and foundation structures is reduced when ground
Anti-seismic design for buried pipelines for the is fluidized. Reducing ground reaction greatly
Seismic Motion Level 2 must be taken into effects the behavior of structures during
account. The types of ground subject to earthquakes. The ground reaction coefficient
investigation are: valleys filled with ground, and ground friction force must be reduced as
ponds, and embankments with more than 10% shown in Table 5.4.2. This must be done
average slope. according to the degree of fluidization.

5.4.6 Reduction in Reaction Force and Ground

Friction Force due to Soil Liquefaction

If there is a possibility of soil liquefaction, the

ground reaction force coefficient for the design of
buried pipeline and foundation structures must be
reduced according to the degree of liquefaction.

Ground reactions which act on buried pipelines

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
5-22
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

SCOP2bF$AJ:'WtYRAT!t'}j"'L ntlrt:H1I'B0M
ACAU1Sl'•• LIQJJlW1>H;nON GThOlJ:ND S'l;JE'
GEMEHAtllJN f'AC~m}
'~=-,,~---'---;""'-+~ ,.;..,.:.........=-"f-..---~-+=-"=-"~.-.-+-- . . . . . ~........., . . . . . _=-"~

5.5 Soil Pressure During an Earthquake

5.5.1 General

For anti-seismic design of structures attached to

the earth, the soil pressure during an earthquake
shall be determined according to the following:
1. The horizontal soil pressure during an
earthquake must be derived by the Mononobe-
Okabe soil pressure formula.
2. In case vertical seismic intensity for the
surcharge load during an earthquake, the
surcharge load must be multiplied by (1 +Kv ) .

5.5.2 Calculation of Horizontal Soil Pressure

During on Earthquake

For calculation of the horizontal soil pressure 5.5.3 Calculation of Vertical Soil Pressure
during an earthquake, the cohesiveness of soil, if During an Earthquake
any, shall be taken into account.
The vertical soil pressure on buried pipeline
1. Soil classification for earth pressure must be calculated taking into account, the
calculation. For soil classification and for influence of lateral friction, if any.
various numerical soil values of earth pressure,
refer to Table 5.5.1.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation 5-23
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

5.5.4 External Pressure due to Lateral
Spreading
On the ground, which may be subject to lateral
spreading due to liquefaction, anti -seismic design
of foundation structures must be carried out with
consideration to the external force caused by such
spreading. In this case, the influence of inertia
force from the super-structure and the base
structure don't have to be considered.
Great concern about the external pressure
created by lateral ground flow exists, especially,
with regards to water works facilities built on
suspect ground. Anti -seismic structural design
must consider earth and flow pressure.
It is shown in the experiments that fluidization
flow pressure (which acts on the buried structure)
in the liquefied ground layer is below 30% of the
total load pressure.
The lateral flow of the external pressure is
stated in Figure 5.5.1.
5.5.5 Buoyancy Generated by Soil Liquefaction
ill case the liquefaction resistance coefficient,
FL , refer to Explanation of 5.4.3 (Soil Liquefaction
and Lateral Spreading) of soil surrounding such
buried structures as pipeline is smaller than 1.0,
the safety of the structure in regard to buoyancy
shall be examined.
Specific gravity of fluidized soil is 18 - 20
kN/m3 (1.8 - 2.0 X 10-3 kgf/cnr'). If the actual
specific gravity includes the content volume or
it will become smaller than this value and the
buried structure will have a tendency to balloon.
The upper portion of the non-fluidization layer,
the weight of the road surface pavement materials,
and the shearing resistance will usually block out
the floating up. However, past examples
(Niigata earthquake, etc.) illustrate that floating up
bad broken pipelines or manholes. Careful
examination is necessary.

5.6 Hydrodynamic Pressure During an

Earthquake and the Water Sloshing

5.6.1 Hydrodynamic Pressure During an

Earthquake

For anti-seismic construction design of

structures that come into contact with water,
dynamic water pressure during an earthquake
must be considered.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
5-24
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

Structures which contact water (such as a dams, sloshing is induced during an earthquake. The
water tanks, etc.) and are subject to an earthquake effects of sloshing bring about overflow or impact
must be considered. These structures receive pressure against the roof.
dynamic water pressure during an earthquake. Whether such sloshing cause damage, or not, it
The action of dynamic water pressure during an depend on the close relationship between the
earthquake must take into account two factors: (1) natural period of water sloshing in the tank and
whether free surface water is present and (2) the periodic characteristic of the seismic motion.
whether the complacability of the water can be The sloshing of water inside of the tank shall be
ignored. checked by following methods.
Dynamic water pressure action created during a: Response spectrum method based on the
an earthquake can be dived into two factors: (1) potential theory.
inertial action which interacts proportionality with b: n wave response method.
c: Response spectrum method based on the
secondary dynamic water pressure generated by potential theory.
free surface water oscillation. Generally, the However, when the competent seismic wave
inertial force of dynamic water pressure has inputted, dynamic response analysis is
interaction is more significant and, therefore, will acceptable.
be taken into account by the design. The action
of surface water oscillation is a supplemental issue 5.7 Safety Check
for dynamic analysis.
The complacability of water, with regards to 5.7.1 Combination of Loads
structures like water tanks and water intake towers
in water works facilities, can be ignored without Structure safety in anti-seismic calculations
creating problems. However, for pipeline must be checked by combining the normal load
structures, the complacability of water must be (dead weight and live load at ordinary times) and
considered. It is not, an excessive load for the seismic effects.
design may result.
5.7.2 Safety Check of the Structures Fabricated
5.6.2 Water Sloshing with Steel, Concrete, etc.

For anti-seismic design of water tanks, water For safety checks of structures fabricated with
sloshing must be considered when necessary. concrete, steel bars, structural steel pre-stressed
concrete(pC) etc., the following related standards
For water tanks with free surface water, must be used.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
5-25
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

Specifications for Highway Bridges (Japan
Road Association);
Concrete Standard Specifications
Society of Civil Engineers);
Iron Sluice Valve Technology Standard (Iron
Sluice Valve & Pipe Society).
5.7.3 Safety Check of Pipeline in their Anti-
Seismic Calculations
As a general rule, safety of pipeline during an
earthquake must be checked with consideration to
I the strength and flexibility of the pipeline.
characteristics is summarized in Table 5.7.1. For
either the seismic motion Level 1 or seismic
(Japan motion Level 2, the pipeline component stress will
not exceed the allowable stress of the pipe
materials. With jointed pipeline structures under
live loads and under ordinary conditions, the
jointed component expansion capacity will not
exceed the maximum expansion capacity of the
design. This is the main point for anti-seismic
checking.
With safety checks against seismic motion

under live loads, must basically be below yield

A pipeline structure for a water works facility point stress for the pipe component material.
varies in types. If roughly categorized, the Distortion, which corresponds with the yield point
following two types would emerge: stress, is:
1. Jointed pipeline structures - Here, most of E = (J IE = 2,400/2,100,000 = 0.11 %
the flexibility is dependant on the joint. After field condition are completely considered,
2. Continuous pipeline structure - Here, most appearances seem better, since distortion of the
of the flexibility is dependent on material the pipe pipe component is below 23t/D (%) (about 0.15 -
is made of. The anti-seismic calculation method 0.20)% and the anti-seismic capability can be
for the direction of principal buried pipelines is checked. Here, t is the pipe thickness and D is
described in this edition of the guidelines. the diameter of the pipe. With seismic motion
Anti-seismic ability is checked using the Level 2, the distortion of the component, even
response displacement method. This method is considering the stationary free load, is below
based on the behavior of the pipeline. This 46tID (%) (about 0.3 - 0.4)%. The anti-seismic
behavior is generated through the relative capability can be checked.
displacement of pipeline and the ground.
The pipelines, which possess the characteristics
of (1), are represented by ductile iron pipe. The
pipeline which possess the characteristics of (2)
are represented by steel pipe. The basic concept
of the safety check on pipelines with these

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
5-26
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

5.7.4 Safety Check of the Foundation Ground so that no plastic yield shall occur until the
in its Anti-Seismic Calculations structures have reached te critical state.
3. For the anti-seismic design based on the
As a general rule, safety of the foundation critical state, an appropriate safety factor
ground in anti-seismic calculations must be must be employed with reference to the
checked in accordance with "Supporting Ground critical displacement.
and Allowable Bearing Force".

5.7.5 Safety Check of Foundation, Earthen and

Retaining wall in Anti-Seismic
Calculations

As a general lule, safety check of foundation,

earthen structures, and retaining wall in anti-
seismic calculation must be checked in
accordance with "Anti-Seismic Calculation
Methods for Foundations" and "Anti-Seismic
Calculation Methods for Earthen Structures and
Retaining Wall".

5.7.6 Safety Check in Anti-Seismic Calculations

in Consideration of Critical State under
Seismic Motion Level 2

Safety check in anti-seismic calculations in

consideration of critical state must be carried out
using the following rules:
1. Based on the results of proper analyses or
testing the anti-seismic safety of structures
must be checked with reference to the
critical state found in such analysis and
testing.
2. In anti-seismic design based on the critical
state, tenacity of structures must be secured

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
5-27
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
6. RECOMMENDED PRACTICES FOR EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT

DESIGN OF GAS PIPELINES (DRAFT)

JAPAN GAS ASSOCIATION

6.1 Introduction 6- 1

6.2 High-Pressure Gas Pipelines 6- 1

6.2.1 Basic Policy on Earthquake-Resistant Design 6- 1

6.2.2 Earthquake-Resistant Design against Seismic Motions of Level 1 6- 3

6.2.3 Earthquake-Resistant Design against Seismic Motions of Level 2 6- 4

6.3 Medium- and Low-Pressure Gas Pipeilnes 6-17

6.3.1 Basic Policy on Earthquake-Resistant Design 6-17

6.3.2 Earthquake-Resistant Design Procedure 6-17

6.3.3 Design Ground Displacement 6-17

6.3.4 Ground Condition 6-19

6.3.5 Pipeline Capability to Absorb Ground Displacement 6-20

6.3.6 Allowable Strain and Allowable Displacement 6-22

6.4 Appendix 6-24

6.4.1 Earthquake-Resistant Design ofHigh-Pressure Gas Pipeline 6-24

6.4.2 Improvement of Earthquake Resistance of Pipelines 6-29

6.4.3 Block System of Pipeline Networks 6-29

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000
6.RECOMMENDEDPRACTICESFDREARrHQUAKE-RESfSTANTDESIGNOFGASPIPELINES
(DRAFT)
JAPAN GAS ASSOCIATION
6.1 Introduction
The presently used "Recommended Practices
for Earthquake-Resistant Design of Gas Pipe-
lines" was established as the recommended
practices for earthquake-resistant design of
high-pressure gas pipelines (See Appendix
6.4.1.) and medium- and low-pressure gas
pipelines in March 1982, after the Miyagiken-
Oki Earthquake (June 1978),
The Hyogoken-N anbu Earthquake occurred
in January 1995. Since the earthquake far
exceeded conventional theory, the Central Dis-
aster Prevention Council reviewed its Basic
Plan for Disaster Prevention and the Japan
Society of Civil Engineers presented a proposal.
These actions showed the necessity for and
concept of containing the recommended prac-
.tices for the earthquake-resistant design of
important structures in methods of design for
seismic motions of a higher level, level 2 seis-
mic motions, which correspond to the shocks
generated by the Hyogoken-Nanbu Earth-
quake in the Kobe District.
The gas utilities are also now revising the
Recommended Practices for Earthquake-
Resistant Design of Gas Pipelines in the high-
pressure gas pipelines section, mainly for the
purpose of improving the resistance of high-
pressure gas pipelines to seismic motions of
level 2, especially in the concept of design in-
put seismic motions. This revision is aimed at
achieving a more carefully-formulated respon-
se to advanced seismic needs worldwide in the
light of technological findings since the pre-
sently used Recommended Practices were es-
tablished 17 years ago. Regarding this re-
vised edition of Recommended Practice for
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
6-1
Design of High Pressure Gas Pipelines, be-
cause its official issue may be after the publi-
cation of the English version, it is hoped to
recognize it as based on a "Draft" of the revised
recommended practice.
The presently used Recommended Practices
for Earthquake-Resistant Design of Gas Pipe-
lines has not been revised in the medium- and
low-pressure gas pipelines section, since it has
been confirmed that the recommendations
therein are reasonable for earthquake-
resistant design, judging from the results of
investigation of the Hyogoken-Nanbu Earth-
quake.
6.2 High-Pressure Gas Pipelines
6.2.1 Basic Policy on Earthquake-
Resistant Design
(1) Basic Concept of Earthquake-Resistant
Design
For the earthquake-resistant design, two
levels of seismic motions are assumed to se-
cure the earthquake-resistant performance
specified for the respective levels of seismic
motions in principle.
(Description)
(a) The Basic Plan for Disaster Prevention of
the Central Disaster Prevention Council
was reviewed based on the Hyogoken-
Nanbu Earthquake which occurred on
January 17, 1995, and it now stipulates
that the earthquake-resistant design of
structures, facilities, etc. to be constructed
in the future shall not suffer any serious
loss of function even should general seismic
motions with a probability of occurring once
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

or twice within the service life of the pipe- (Description)

line occur, and shall not have any serious (a) Seismic Motions of Level 1, and Earth-
influence on human life even should a quake-Resistant Performance against
higher level of seismic motions of low prob- Them
ability occur, due to an inland type earth- [Seismic Motions]
quake or trench type huge earthquake. Seismic motions specified in the previous
(b) For the earthquake-resistant design of gas
Recommended Practices for Earthquake-
equipment, two levels of seismic motions
resistant design of High Pressure Gas Pipe-
are assumed, and considering the influ-
lines (March 1982).
ence of structures, facilities, etc. on -human
[Earthquake-Resistant Performance]
life, the influence on relief activities and on
The earthquake-resistant performance re-
the prevention of secondary disasters, and
quired for the seismic motions of level 1 is
the influence on economic activities, gas
equipment must have earthquake-resistant such that "Operation can be resumed imD:1e-

performance suitable for its respective diately without any repair." based on the Re-
kinds and degree of importance. port of the Committee for Preventing Seismi-
(c) Based on the above basic concept; earth- cally Caused Gas Disasters.
quake-resistant design is performed to se- (b) Seismic Motions of Level 2, and Earth-
cure the earthquake-resistant performance quake-Resistant Performance against
required for the two levels of seismic mo- Them
tions, as described in the following chapter. [Seismic Motions]
(2) Seismic Motions to be Assumed for A proposal concerning the seismic standard,
Design, and Earthquake-Resistant etc. of the Japan Society of Civil Engineers
Performance presents concrete images as "seismic motion
The seismic motions to be assumed for de- near the hypocenter fault of an earthquake
sign, and the earthquake-resistant perfor- caused by any internal strain of a plate of
mance required of them are shown in Table magnitude 7 class (hereinafter called an in-
6.2.1. land type earthquake)" and "seismic motion
Table 6.2.1 Seismic Motions and Earthquake- in the hypocenter region by a large-scale in-
Resistant Performance
Seismic Motions to be Assumed Eart hquake- Resistan t
ter-plate earthquake occurring near land
for Design Performance (hereinafter called a trench type earth-
General seismic motions Operation can be
Seismic quake)", and the present "Recommended
with a probability of resumed immediately
motions
occurring once or twice without any repair.
of Practices" assumes the seismic motions of
during the service life of
level 1
gas pipeline are assumed. these two earthquake types; inland type
Very strong seismic mo- The pipeline does not
tions due to an inland leak. though de-
earthquake and trench type earthquake.
Seismic type earthquake or formed. Further, even if there -is no active fault
motions trench type earthquake
of likely to occur at a low found in the existing documents, there is a
leve12 probability rate during
the service life of gas
possibility that an inland type earthquake
pipeline are assumed. may occur. Thus, it was decided to adopt a

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
6-2
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000
concept that a lower limit level is set when
seismic motions are assumed.
[Earthquake-Resistant Performance]
The earthquake-resistant performance re-
quired for the seismic motions of level 2 is
such that "the pipeline does not leak, though
deformed." based on the Report of the Com-
mittee for Preventing Seismically Caused
Gas Disasters.
(3) Evaluation of Earthquake-Resistance
Since seismic motions repetitively forcibly
displace the pipeline, the fatigue damage at
a very low frequency caused by them is
evaluated for earthquake-resistant design,
When the ground of the planned pipeline
is likely to be greatly deformed by liquefac-
tion, etc., it must be examined adequately.
(Description)
The method for evaluating earthquake-
resistance was decided, considering that seis-
mic motions have the following characteristics:
a) the loads are short-term ones, and
b) since the strains (or relative displacements)
caused in the ground by seismic motions are
repetitively applied to the pipeline, the loads
are periodically displacement-controlled, and
also in reference to the concepts of existing
standards(ASME Sec. III, etc.) which specify
these loads.
6.2.2 Earthquake-Resistant Design
against Seismic Motions of Levell
The earthquake-resistant design against
seismic motions of level 1 is performed ac-
cording to the Recommended Practices for
Earthquake-resistant design of High Pres-
sure Gas Pipelines (Japan Gas Association,
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
March 1982)*. However, for the "apparent
propagationvelocity of seismic motion", the
value stated in "Apparent wavelength of
seismic motion" is used, and for the "ground
spring constants in the axial direction ofthe
pipe and in the transverse direction of the
pipe", the values stated in "Confining force
of ground" are used.
* See Appendix 6.4.1.
(Description)
For earthquake-resistant design against
seismic motions of levell, Recommended Prac-
tices for Earthquake-Resistant Design of High
Pressure Gas Pipelines* (Japan Gas Associa-
tion, March 1982) is applied.
However, the following portions among the
latest results of research concerning the
earthquake-resistant design, especially among
the findings obtained after the 1995 Hyogo-
ken-Nanbu Earthquake inclusive should also
be applied, in view of their nature, to the.
earthquake-resistant design against seismic
motions of level 1. So, for the following val-
ues stated in the 1982 Recommended Practices,
those stated in the present Recommended
Practices are used.
(1) "Apparent propagation velocity of seismic
motion" in "Design seismic motion"
(2) "Ground spring constants in the axial di-
rection of the pipe and in the transverse di-
rection of the pipe" in "Earthquake-
resistant design of straight pipe in uniform
ground", "Earthquake-resistant design of
straight pipe in roughly varying Ground"
and "Earthquake-resistant design for bend
and tee".
6-3
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000
6.2.3 Earthquake-Resistant Design
against Seismic Motions of Level 2
(1) Entire Flow of Earthquake-Resistant
Design
(a) The procedure for setting the design seis-
mic motion is shown in Fig. 6.2.1.
(b) The earthquake-resistant design flow
based on the set design seismic motion is
shown in Fig. 6.2.2.
(2) Setting of Design Seismic Motion
[A] Procedure and Method for Setting
Design Seismic Motion I, II and III
The design seismic motion is set as fol-
lows based on "[B] Investigation of active
fault" and "[C] Judgment as to existence of
active fault".
1) When it has been concluded that the ex-
istence of any active fault is positive:
· The seismic motion obtained by multi-
plying the design seismic motion I stated
in "[D] Design seismic motion I" by the
seISmIC zone coefficient stated in "[G]
Seismic zone coefficient" is used as the
design seismic motion.
· Alternatively if fault analysis can be per-
formed, the seismic motion calculated ac-
cording to the fault analysis stated in "[F]
Design seismic motion III" is used as the
design seismic motion. However, if the
calculated design seismic motion is smal-
ler than the seismic motion obtained ac-
cording to the procedure of 2), the seismic
motion of 2) is used as the design seismic
motion.
2) When it has been concluded that the exis-
tence of any active fault is negative:
· The seismic motion obtained by multi-
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
6-4
plying the design seismic motion II stated
in "[E] Design seismic motion II" by the
seismic zone coefficient stated in "[G]
Seismic zone coefficient" is used as the
design seismic motion.
3) When it has been concluded that the exis-
tence of any active fault is unknown:
. The seismic motion obtained by multi-
plying the design seismic motion I stated
in "[D] Design seismic motion I" by the
seismic zone coefficient stated in "[G]
Seismic zone coefficient" is used as the
design seismic motion.
(Description)
(1) The seismic motion of level 2 to be applied
for design is set using any of the three kinds
of seismic motion described below based on
the conclusion as to whether the existence
of any active fault is positive or negative.
Design seismic motion I: Seismic motion
decided for the inland type earthquake
based on the observation records of
Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake
Design seismic motion II: Seismic motion
decided for the trench type earthquake
based on past earthquake observation
records
Design seismic motion III: Seismic motion
based on analytical decision for the in-
land type earthquake by modeling the
hypocenter fault and using the hypocen-
ter parameter and the information on
the ground and physical properties of
propagation routes
(2) If it is concluded that the existence of any
active fault likely to greatly affect the
planned pipeline is positive, it can be con-
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

sidered to analytically calculate the seismic
motion by modeling the hypocenter fault
and using the. fault parameter and the in-
formation onthe ground and physical prop-
erties of propagation routes (this method is
called fault analysis). However, presently
the data necessary for analysis and the
analytical method are not sufficiently es-
tablished. Therefore, the design seismic
motion is set by using the design seismic
motion I decided based on the observation
records of Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake,
one of the recent largest inland type earth-
quakes, or by fault analysis.
(3) When it has been concluded that the exis-
tence of any active fault is negative, it is re-
quired to take only the trench type earth-
quake into consideration, and the design
seismic motion is set using the design seis-
mic motion II for the trench type earth-
quake.
(4) When it has been concluded that the exis-
tence of any active fault is unknown, the
design seismic motion is set using the
above-mentioned design seismic motion I,
from the viewpoint of obtaining conserva-
tive results for design, since it cannot be
concluded that there is no active fault.

Investigation of active fault near

the design site (B)

Negative Positive

No

Design seismic Design seismic

motion II (E) motion I (D)
Yes
Selection of seismic Selection of seismic
zone coefficient (G) zone coefficient (G)

Corrected design Design seismic

Corrected design
seismic motion I motion ill (F)
seismic motion II

Decision of design
seismic motion

* 1) If the design seismic motion III is smaller than the corrected design seismic motion II, the corrected
design seismic motion II is used as the design seismic motion.
Fig. 6.2.1 Design Seismic Motion Setting Flow

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
6-5
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

Fig. 6.2.2 Earthquake-Resistant Design Flow for High Pressure Gas Pipelines against
Seismic Motions of Level 2

Design Seismic Motion I or II Design Seismic Motion III

(set based on earthquake
(set by fault analysis)
observation records)

.Natural Period of Ground of Surface Layer

4.H :EVsjOH j
.Ma:cimum Velocity in the Ground of
:T=-=-, V s = - - ' - - -
v, H Surface Layer at Design Site (at bur-
H ; Thickness of ground of surface layer (m) ied depth of gas pipeline): v
V s ; Shear wave velocity in the ground of surface layer (m/s) Maximum ground displacement: Uh
I r Elastic wave survey xC""", Sand 0.7 E . 0.6
L Clay 0.7 E • 0.85
Estimate from N value -.:::::::::: Sand 0.7 E • 6NO.2!
Clay 07 E12 • NO·078

.Apparent Wavelength of Seismic Motion

:L=V·T
V;Apparent propagation velocity of seismic motion

V (2.5,800)
(rn/s)
.Apparent Horizontal Propagation Velocity of Wave: V
a. Apparent propagation hodograph
(0.15, 100) b. Calculation of simple phase velocity
c. Detailed analysis (Haske] matrix method, etc.)
T (s) To calculate according to any of a, band c.

.Ground Displacement of Surface Layer

1tZ
. T· Sv : cos- .Ground Strain
aa
v ; Seismic zone

f ~7,50)
V (0.7, 100) coefficient
(cm/s) z ; Buried depth of
pipeline (m)
Sv; Standard response
velocity (cm/s)
(0.1,
8.0)

(0.1, 4.0) T (s) .

.Ground Strain of Uniform Ground

: E Gl=2 1t X UhlL

• Ground Strain of Irregular Shallow

No
Ground: EG2= IE G12+ EG/
E G3: Ground strain caused by irregular

shallow ground

(* *)

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
6-6
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

Design of Straight Pipe Design of Bend and Tee

Ground strain due to (*) or (**) E G Ground displacement due to (*) or (**) Uh

.Strain Transfer Coefficient .Displacement Transfer Coefficient

a * = q* • aa
q* ; Coefficient considering sliding
between pipe and ground
Relative displacement between pipe
q. Coefficient considering sliding between
and ground
pipe and ground : 6. = (1- a *) . Uh
Al = ~ KI
~ ; Ground spring
constant in axial
In the case of irregular shallow ground,
E'A the value at or near the place where the
direction of pipe
bend or tee is installed is used.

• Strain of Pipe caused by earthquake .Strain of Bend or Tee during

E p = a • E G (a • E G < E y) Earthquake
: Ep = (ex • E G ~ e y)
EG E B,T= f3 B,T • 6. (f3 B,T~ 1.27 E y)
E y; Yield strain of pipe material E B,T= C· f3B,T ·6.(f3 B ,T > L 27 E y)

f3 B,T ; Coefficient of conversion

C ; Plastic state correction factor

.Allowable Strain No
: Allowable strain
of straight pipe,
bend and tee 3%

Examination of Design Modification

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation6-7
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN
[B] Investigation ofActive Fault
For investigation of any active fault, the
information concerning the position, prob-
ability, activity; etc. of any inland active fault
likely to produce large seismic motions to the
planned pipeline is collected from existing
documents.
(Description)
(1) For any inland active fault, basically, the
active faults belonging to probabilities I and
II of "Active Faults in Japan (New Edition)"
are investigated for comprehensive evalua-
tion also in reference to the active fault list
stated in "Investigation and Observation
Plan for Foundations Relating to Earth-
quakes", the earthquakes assumed in the
regional disaster prevention plan and other
findings in the latest investigation and re-
search results.
(2) If any active fault found as a result of ac-
tive fault investigation is found not to be
imminent in activity and not to act during
the service life of the pipeline, it can be ex-
cluded from the investigation.
[C] Judgment as to the Existence of Active
Fault
Whether the existence of any active fault
likely to give large seismic motions to the
planned pipeline is "positive", "negative" or
"unknown" is concluded by taking the fol-
lowing into consideration:
(1) Distance of the planned pipeline from the
active fault
(2) Magnitude of earthquake estimated from
the length ofthe active fault
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
6-8
January, 2000
(Description)
(1) The conclusion as to whether the existence
of any active fault is "positive", "negative" or
"unknown" can be made in reference to Ta-
ble 6.2.
Table 6.2.2 Criterion for concluding that the
existence of any active fault is "positive",
....
"nezative" or "unknown"
Conclusion Criterion
"Positive" · It is judged that "The existence of
any active fault likely to produce
large seismic motions is positive."
Fig. 6.2.3 shows the relation be-
tween the distance from an active
fault and the magnitude of an
earthquake.
"Negative" · It is judged that "The existence of
any active fault likely to produce
large seismic motions is negative."
Fig. 6.2.3 shows the relation be-
tween the distance from an active
fault and the magnitude of an
earthauake.
"Unknown" · It is not confirmed that there is no
active fault in a plain covered with a
thick sedimentary layer.
·A complicated earth structure is
formed with boundaries of three
plates gathering underground, as in
the metrooolitan area.
(2) The boundary line of Fig. 6.2.3 is obtained
by calculating the weak ground conditions
with a ground surface velocity of 64 cmls as
the boundary on the conservative side. If
the shortest distance from the active fault
concerned to the planned pipeline and the
magnitude of the earthquake likely to be
caused by the active fault exist on the left
side of the boundary line, the ground sur-
face velocity caused at the planned pipeline
when the active fault aets is larger than 64
cm/s. If they exist on the right, the ground
surface velocity is smaller than 64 em/s.
The surface ground velocity of 64 cm/s was
obtained by converting 50 cm/s, which is the
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

response velocity of design seismic motion II (Description)

caused by the trench type earthquake speci- (1) The design seismic motion I was decided by
fied in "Design seismic motion II", into the obtaining the velocity response spectrum on
ground surface velocity (50 x 4J 7[ = 64, 4J 7[: the seismic base rock (engineering under-
coefficient for converting the response of ground base rock) based on 16 observed
single-degree-of-freedom system into the re- waves of two horizontal components at the
sponse of continuum). hypocenter region and nearby (within 10 km

8 from the active fault) eight sites of the

I I I I I II II I I I I
L I Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake, considering
"Positive'
I
,I I
I
the non-excess probability.
I I I I
, I I

I 1.-1" 'Negative" . [E] Design Seismic Motion II

6
I
I
I
VI I I
I
I
I
I
11111 11111
11111 1111I _. Th~ _d~Sign seismic motion II is shown in I
~
l!'lg. (j.~.5.
I . . 300

5 I I I ~s
o J0 20 30 40
.7-;50)
The shortest distance from an active fault, d (km) 0

Fig. 6.2.3 Criterion for concluding whether

the existence of any active fault likely to pro-
V
duce large seismic motions is positive or
negative (O.l.U
3
(3) As an example of the methods for estimating 0.1 0.2 0.:5 J.O 2.D '.0
Natural period of ground of surface layer T (5)
the magnitude of an earthquake, Matsuda
Fig. 6.2.5 Velocity response spectrum of as-
proposes the following formula:
sumed trench type earthquake
LoglOL = a.6M - 2.9
L: Length ofthe active fault (Description)
M : Magnitude of an earthquake specified (1) The design seismic motion II was set at one
by Meteorological Agency half of the design seismic motion I, in refer-
[D] Design Seismic Motion I ence to the two spectra.
V Earthquake-resistant design Course,
The design seismic motion I is shown in
Highway Bridge Specifications and Descrip-
Fig. 6.2.4. II II
tion (December 1996)
c-,
. Earthquake-resistant design (draft), Design
-.; a>
c -
o> B
~
Standard and Description of Railway Struc-
"'r 3Or--+-74--+++f+H--+-+-+-I
v tures, Etc. (November 1998)
c~'e
_
Co >
~er; [F] Design Seismic Motion III
~ {O.1.I.Q

I
I
,
I I
The design seismic motion III is calculated
0..3 1.0 1.0 5.0
by fault analysis.
Natural period of ground of surface layer T (5)

Fig. 6.2.4 Velocity response spectrum of (Description)

assumed inland type earthquake (1) If the seismic motion calculated by fault

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
6-9
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

analysis is smaller than the corrected design (Description)

seismic motion II caused by the trench type
earthquake at the planned pipeline, the cor-
rected design seismic motion II is used as
the design seismic motion.
[G] Seismic Zone Coefficient
Fig. 6.2.6 shows the zone classification map
for the seismic zone coefficient.
(3) Ground Displacement and Ground Strain
of Surface Layer
[A] Natural Period of Ground of Surface Layer

(1) The zone classification is the same as the The basic natural period of ground of surface
classification specified in the Recom- layer is obtained from the following formula:
mended Practices for Earthquake- 4- H
T=~ where
Resistant Design of High Pressure Gas Vs
Pipelines (Japan Gas Association, March T: Natural period of ground of surface layer(s)
1982). H: Thickness of ground of surface layer
n
~ -_. .
(2) The seismic zone coefficient is the value (= LH j) (m)
j=l
stated in Table 6.2.3 for each zone.
Vs : Shear wave velocity in the ground of sur-

J
Table 6 2 3 Seismic Zone Coefficient
face layer (rn/s)
Zone Classification Seismic Zone Coefficient

[
n Vs; Shear wave velocity of
Special A Zone 1.0 "" Vs - H j-th layer (mJs)
A Zone 0.8 f;:: j j ~: Thickness of j-th layer
H (m)
B or C Zone 0.7

_ Special A Zone
m AZone
§ BZone
o . CZone

Fig. 6.2.6 Zone Classification for Seismic Zone Coefficient

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
6-10
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

[B] Apparent Wavelength of Seismic Motion of Section 6.2.3 (2) [D]

The apparent wavelength of seismic mo- T: Natural period of ground of surface
tion in the direction along the ground sur- layer(s)
face is obtained from the following formula: z : Buried depth of pipeline (m)
L= V' T H: Thickness of ground of surface layer (m)
where L : Apparent wavelength of seismic (2) When design seismic motion II is used, it
motion in the direction along the is obtained from the following formula:
ground surface (m)
U
h
=~.
Jr 2
T' v· S
VII
(T)' cos ( JrZ )
2H
V: Apparent propagation velocity of seismic
motion (m/s) where SVII(1): Response velocity of design
T: Natural period of ground of surface layer(s) seismic motion II (cm/s), according to
The apparent propagation velocity of Fig. 6.2.5 of Section 6.2.3 (2) [E]
seismic motion is obtained from Fig. 6.2.7. 'rnp ntnpr i'lvmhnli'l Hrf~ HI'l snecified for (1)
- - - - - - - - - - -oJ ----- - - - --- - -- - - ...- - - " ,.

3000
I, ! Ii II III I I ! (3) When design seismic motion III is used,
2000

1000
I
I I I I 1111
I
i
u,I
. i
the ground displacement of the surface
layer at the buried position of the pipeline
! i. :
,
500
I I I
! i I!! I . /
II / !
I
!
is directly calculated.
! I I i
i i I ! 10 I ! I
[D] Ground Strain of Surface Layer in the Case
200
i
I
I Viii'!
' ; I
II I i
100
/11 I
1=(0.15,1~
I
III1
: !,: I
i
II
of Uniform Ground
The ground strain of surface layer in the
,
I ,,
50
! I I : case of uniform ground is obtained as fol-
0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0

Natural period of ground of surface layer, T (s)

lows:
Fig. 6.2.7 Apparent propagation velocity of (1) When design seismic motion I is used, it
seismic motion is obtained from the following formula:

[C] Ground Displacement of Surface Layer E G1 =V • E GIO •

1rZ)
cos( 2H
The ground displacement of surface layer
where E G1 : Ground strain of surface layer
is obtained as follows:
in the case of uniform ground
(1) When design seismic motion I is used, it is
v: Seismic zone coefficient, according to
obtained from the following formula:
6.2.3 (2) [G]
U
h
=~.
Jr2
T' v· S. (T)' cos (
r I 2H
JrZ )
E GIO : Ground strain of surface layer of

where U;,: Ground displacement of surface design seismic motion I in the case of

layer (em) uniform ground, according to Fig. 6.2.8

v: Seismic zone coefficient, according to Sec- (2) When design seismic motion II is used, it

tion 6.2.3 (2) [G] is obtained from the following formula:

SVI(T): Response velocity of design seismic E Gl =V • E GIlD •

1rZ)
cos ( 2H
motion I (cm/s), according to Fig. 6.2.4
where E GIlD: Ground strain of surface

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

layer of design seismic motion II in the (4) Ground Strain ofIrregular Shallow
case of uniform ground, according to Fig. Ground
6.2.9 In the case of irregular shallow ground, a
"
.§ ground strain larger than that in the uniform
0; __ 1.0
, ground can happen, and this must be taken
U)~ ,, , ,, , ,
.~]
:::~

0.5 0
,
,
!
\Qj.o:~i
, , !
into account for earthquake-resistant design.
i ,
" :l
0 i I L..-ri !'N..,!
:::o
r"
,.~
[Description 1J Ground Strain of Irregular
~ E
~

» .... 0.20
lA
'. , ! i ii ,ii !i ! !~ ! i i
.....
i i i i Ii ,
i I I
~ ,~
-g ~c 0.1 nVCQr-°. l1
I ! i ! !!
i
i
I (2..S.1i.16j
I
l i
I Shallow Ground
(0.1.0.102
, , ,, (a) The ground strain caused in irregular shal-
~~ , , , ,
- '"
-
rJJ '"
'00
OJ
0.05
i
! i
!

i
I
I
i
! i
i
i i
! !
!
!
i
low ground is calculated by superimposing
I j i ! I
iii ! i
.~
::
-=~ 1 ! I i the ground strain of uniform ground on the
-=
rJJ _.5 0.0 2 I i I i ! ! !!! I ! !
, Ii i ground strain caused by inclined seismic
~ g
i
I ! i ! t i i !! J i i1
.:l .-
o ~ 0.01.-1-1---'---'---'---'---'-............._ I
! ! ! ! ! 11 _'----'-....o.........I
I I base rock.
o:E 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0
cG2 =.J g2 G1 + c 2G3
Natural period of ground of surface layer, T (5)
cG3 =n -0.3 (%)
Fig. 6.2.8 Ground strain of surface layer
where E G1: Ground strain of uniform ground,
of design seismic motion I in the case of
according to 6.2.3 (3) [D] "Ground strain
uniform ground
of surface layer in the case of uniform
ground"
, , , ,
, E G2: Ground strain caused in irregular shal-
, ,
.~"'g 0.50 i
!
0; :l j ! low ground
<:: 0
'""' CJ....
.;:
j i i i i !! !
,
i

I*"
o s::: ! ! .(O.7,0~!
i
i
i j ! E G3: Ground strain caused by inclined seismic
.... - 0 20 ,
~ ~ .
I'~. i
i
c: .- I : I I i !I base rock
- s::: (0.15.0.~ ! i i !,ll] I i
~ 0 1n
: o ...... i
n: In the case of corrected design seismic
-
~
....
a
<:: , , ,, , -~
:l '"
!
~.o.~)--+- motion I: v (seismic zone coefficient, ac-
~ <:3 D. 05 (0.1.0.05 11
i i i
'.J ,
i i i ! ! !
,, , ! i
o OJ
I j ,, cording to Section 6.2.3 (2) [G] )
.-s:::..l:~
!
,
i
, ,, i·
i

~ .5 I i !! !
I

rJJ:::: D. 02
i i
,
, i
i
I ! i
i In the case of corrected design seismic mo-
iI i
I
Ii iI
i
-:: c !
i I !i
I

I
I
;; .!:! i
! i i
I i tion II: 0.5 x v
e "'0 o. 01 ! i

CJ :E 0.1 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 (b) As the ground strain of uniform ground E ci.

Natural period of ground of surface layer, T (s) the ground strain of uniform ground at the
Fig. 6.2.9 Ground strain of surface layer of position where the surface layer thickness
design seismic motion II in the case of becomes maximum at the irregular shallow
uniform ground
ground portion or that at the position where
(3) When design seismic motion III is used,
it becomes minimum, whichever is larger, is
the ground strain of the surface layer at
adopted.
the position of the buried pipeline is di-
(c) The ground strain of irregular shallow
rectly calculated, including the influence
ground is taken into account when the angle
of irregular shallow ground.
of inclined base rock is 5 or more.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
6-12
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

(5) Confining Force of Ground

[AJ Confining Force of Ground in the Axial

Direction of Pipe /AY/
The confining force of ground in the axial
I
H o= LSm
~~
direction of a pipe is approximated by bi-
linear expression using the critical shear
stress 'C cr per unit surface area of the pipe
o
and the ground spring constant k 1, or ob-
tained by measurement.
Critical shear stress: 'C cr = 1.5N/cm2 [B] Confining Force of Ground in the
(O.15kgflcm~ Transverse Direction of Pipe
Ground spring constant: k, =6.0N/cm 3
The confining force a of ground in the
(O.6kgficmS] transverse direction of a prpe 18

approximated by the bilinear expression or

r cr the straight line using the initial gradient of
the bilinear expression, using the maximum
confining force (J cr of ground per unit pro-
jected area and the yield displacement i5 cr,
or obtained by measurement.

Relative Displacement 0

Table 6.2.4 Confining Force of Ground in the Transverse Direction of Pipe by Diameter

Maximum Confining Force of Ground Yield Displacement k 2 = a crt 6 cr

Diameter (mm)
a cr N'cm" (kgf/crrr') 6 cr cm Nzcm" (kgf/cm'')

(Typical example) 750 32 (3.2) 3.0 11 (1.1)

c Straight line
C
::l
...o
""
c.e a cr Bilinear expression
c
co
...
<.2
""c

: 0' cr
D (Outer diameter)
Relative displacement O.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
6-13
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

(6) Earthquake-Resistant Design of Straight a = q. ao

Pipe where a: Strain transfer coefficient of the

[A] Strain of Straight Pipe Caused by straight pipe (for the strain transfer coeffi-
Earthquake cient a of the straight pipe, the same for-

The strain of a straight pipe caused by an mula as used in the Recommended Practices

earthquake is obtained from either of the for Earthquake-Resistant Design of Gas

following formulae: Pipelines is used.)
(1) If the strain of the straight pipe is in the a 0: Strain transfer coefficient of the straight

elastic range, that is, if a . E G':::: E s» then pipe without sliding taken into account

(2) If the strain of the straight pipe is in the

plastic range, that is, if a • EG > E y' then
~: Ground spring constant in the axial di-
where E p: Strain of the straight pipe caused rection of the pipe per unit length of pipe-
by earthquake line [N/cm2 (kg£'cm~], according to Section
0:: Strain transfer coefficient of the straight 5.4.1.
pipe, according to (B) of the following L: Apparent wavelength of seismic
section. motion(cm)
E G: Ground strain, according to and E : Elastic modulus of the pipe [N/cm2
Ey : Yield strain of the pipe material (kgficmZ)], E = 2100000 kgf/crrr'
[Description] A: Sectional area of the pipe (em")

(1) If the strain of the straight pipe exceeds
the buckling limit, the strain of the pipe af-
ter buckling is calculated, for example, using
FEM analysis with buckling behavior taken
into account. The buckling limit is the
buckling initiation strain E buckle
fied in the Recommended Practices for
Earthquake-resistant design of Gas Pipe-
lines.
t : Wall thickness ofthe pipe (em)
r G: Sear stress acting on the pipe surface
[Nzcm" (kg£'cmZ)]
t cr: Sliding initiation critical shear stress
(%) speci-
when sliding occurs between the pipe
and the surrounding ground [N/cm2
(kgficmZ)]
q: Sliding reduction coefficient

q ::: 1- cos ~ + Q. -(; - ~ ) sin ; ,

where t: Wall thickness of the pipe (em)
D m : Average diameter of the pipe (em)
[B] Strain Transfer Coefficient
q = arcsin ( :: J' q s1
rG'::::r cr q=l
The strain transfer coefficient of a straight
Q: Correction factor for evaluating q on the
pipe is obtained from the following formula:
conservative side, 1. 5

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
6-14
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

(7) Earthquake-Resistant Design of Bend Gr = fJr6-

and Tee
A bend or tee may be greatly strained de-
pending on the piping conditions, and this
must be taken into account for earthquake-
resistant design.
[Description 1] Strain of Bend Caused by
Earthquake
The strain of a bend caused by an earthquake
is obtained from either of the following formu-
lae or by FEM analysis,
(1) If the strain of the bend is in the elastic
range or partially plastic range, that is, if
flB6- ~ 1.27&y' then
&B = flB6-
(2) If the strain of the bend is in the full plastic
range, that is, if flB6- > 1.27&y' then
&B = CBflB6-
where EB: Strain of the bend caused by earth-
quake
{3 B: Coefficient of conversion of the bend
(Vern), according to Description 4.
zl: relative displacement (em), according to
Description 3
Ey : Yield strain of the pipe material
GB : Correction factor for the strain ofthe bend
in the full plastic range
GB = 2 (below 600A)
GB =1 (over 600A including 600A)
(2) If the strain of the tee caused by an earth-
quake is in the full plastic range, that is, if
flr6- > 1.27&y' then
&r = 2flr6-
where E r: Strain ofthe tee caused by
earthquake
{3r: Coefficient of conversion of the tee (Vern),
according to Description 5.
zl: Relative displacement (em), according to
Description 3
E y: Yield strain of the branch pipe adjacent to
the tee
[Description 3] Relative Displacement between
Pipe and Ground
The relative displacement between a pipe
and ground is obtained from the following for-
mula: Ll = (1- a*)o U h
where Ll: Relative displacement (em)
Uh: Ground displacement of the surface layer
(em)
ex * : Coefficient concerning relative displace-
ment between pipe and ground
a* =q * 0 ao
ex 0: Strain transfer coefficient of the straight
pipe without sliding taken into account
q*: Sliding reduction coefficient concerning
relative displacement

( 2-2
~2)
[Description 2] Strain of Tee Caused by
q*=sin~ 1+ ~ 0 -~ ocos~, q*::;l
Earthquake
The strain of a tee caused by an earthquake rG~rcr q=l

~ ~ arCSin(::)
is obtained from either of the following formu-
lae or by FEM analysis. where Furthermore,

(1) If the strain of the tee caused by an earth-

r G: Shear stress acting on the pipe surface
quake is in the elastic or partially plastic [N/cm 2 (kgf/cm 2) ]
range, that is, if flr6- ~ 1.27&y' then

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
6-15
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

r or: Sliding initiation critical shear stress direction of the pipe per unit length [Nzcm"
when sliding occurs between the pipe and (kg.fi'cm~]

the surrounding ground [N/cm 2 (kg.fi'cm~] E: Elastic modulus [N/cm2 (kgflcm~]

[Description 4] Coefficient of Conversion of [Description 5] Coefficient of Conversion of Tee

Bend The coefficient of conversion of a tee is ob-
The coefficient of conversion of a bend is ob- tained from the following formula:
tained from the following formula: fJT = 42;2 D]A2~: 1)
2i B A1 D/(5 + R1~11 + 413115(1 + b2 ) -
2
bII 4A 2 + LI]A] C
fiB = -3
10A+5L12 (1+b 2)+10Ab 3
2
1 + 2R1 + (Jr - 2}nR 2 1

• _ ~? -;;-2 / • "\ ~ -.. -;;-3

b = l-LnlCA -~4-Tr)nlCA
where the subscripts for D, A, land 1. express
{1 + RI~ + TrnRI + (4 -Tr)nR 2 I
2}
2
the following:
b 3 = nR 3-3{Tr
A - + Tr] 2 + ( 1- ] )b,
--2 Subscript 1: Branch pipe side
2 2nAR nAR
Subscript 2: Main pipe side
{ +( RA
2_+!!.-+
2 2nAR
Tr] 2)b,} [3 T: Coefficient of conversion of the tee (l/cm)
D: Outside diameter (em)
where [3B: Coefficient of conversion ofthe bend
A: Sectional area (crrr')
(l/cm)
iB: Stress index for the bending load of the I: Moment of inertia (ern")
L: Apparent wavelength of seismic
bend, obtained from the following formula:
motion(cm)
i - 1.95 or 1.5, whichever is larger
B- (~~r/3 I: V~l
n : Flexibility factor of the bend, obtained from 11;.: Ground spring constant in the transverse
the following formula: direction of the pipe per unit length
1.65 [N/cm 2 (kg:flcm~]
n= (~~) E: Elastic modulus [Nzcm" (kgflcm~]
(8) Allowable Strain
A: Sectional area of the pipe (crrr)
The allowable strain of a straight pipe,
R: Radius of curvature (em)
bend or tee is 3%.
I: Moment of inertia (em")
D: Outside diameter of the pipe (cm) [Description]

L: Apparent wavelength of seismic (A) Allowable strain on the seismic motion of

motion(cm) Level 2 was determined based on the damage

-,{If; caused by the cyclic ground displacement of
A: V4t- the extremely low cycle. Regarding the
11;.: Ground spring constant in the transverse number of the cyclic ground displacements,

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
6-16
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000
by taking the same concept as the Recom-
mended Practice for Earthquake-Resistant
Design of High Pressure Gas Pipeline (1982.
3), the repetition number of times of the
maximum strain was determined to be"
equivalent to the fatigue damage which one
seismic motion of Level 2 gives to the pipe-
line. As it is enough if one seismic motion of
Level 2 occurs during the design lifetime of
the pipeline, the number of the cyclic ground
displacements to be considered on the seis-
mic motion of Level 2 are approximately 3 to
5 times.
Setting the allowable strain in the light of
the fatigue design curve of ASME, the allow-
able strain of the base metal is 3% if assumed
the repeated times of 3 to 5. It can be con-
sidered in general that the strain of 3%
doesn't impede the operation and it has
enough safety margin from the viewpoint of
the experimental data and the performance
of the steel pipe.
(B) Buckling is allowed because it doesn't lead
to leakage directly. But in the case that
there is possibility of strain occurrence to
cause buckling on a straight pipe, in other
words, the case that the occurred strain ex-
ceeds the initial buckling strain specified on
the seismic motion of Levell, 35 . tJDm (t :
pipe thickness (em), Dm: average diameter of
the pipe (cm), the strain which occurs on the
pipeline after buckling should be calculated
correctly by the method such as the finite
element method (FEJ\.1).
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
6-17
6.3 MEDIUM-AND LOW-PRESSURE GAS
PIPELINES
6.3.1 Basic Policy on Earthquake-Resistant
Design
(1) General Principles
Earthquake-resistant design for medium-
and low - pressure pipelines is aimed at
achieving greater pipeline flexibility and there-
by reducing gas pipe leakage or breakage.
(2) Quantitative Flexibility Evaluation
Method for Pipelines
Aseismic strength is judged by calculating
the capability of the pipeline to absorb the
stipulated ground displacement. If the value
exceeds the design ground displacement de-
termined by ground and other conditions, the
pipeline is judged to be earthquake-resistant.
6.3.2 Earthquake-Resistant Design
Procedure
The procedure is shown in Fig. 6.3.1.
Evaluation of earthquake resistance is based
on the following items.
CD Selection of burying conditions
@ Calculation of design ground displace-
ment
@ Calculation of pipeline ground displace-
ment absorption
@ Selection of ground displacement input
@. Selection of standard strain and standard
displacement
@ Evaluation of earthquake resistance
6.3.3 Design Ground Displacement
The design ground displacement for
evaluating pipeline flexibility is determined by
the following formula.
. 1) Horizontal displacement (in axial direction
of pipe) : U = a 1a 2 U O
2) Vertical displacement (perpendicular to
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

Desig-n Ground Displacements Canabilitv to Absorb Ground Displacement

Horizontal U = a 1a 2 U o Input Ground Designing

Displacement Models Pipings

Vertical V = 1/ 2U . Horizontal
. Straight
Pipings
Displacement
in which . Pipings with
. Vertical
a 1 = Seismic zone factor bends, branche
Displacement
etc.
a 2 = Factor according to the
combination of pipeline
I
type and ground
~ Allowable Limits I
conditions
. Allowable strain
U o=Standard design ground
(e 0)
displacement
. Allowable
displacement
(00' eo)

Evaluation of Capability to
Absorb Ground Displacement

Simple formulas
. Nume~cal calCulatiOn]
[
. Expenment

,
I L\u and L\v I

- I
Evaluation of Flexibilitv

Su » U

L\v> V

Fig. 6.3.1 : Flow Diagram of Earthquake-Resistant Design

of Medium - and Low - Pressure Pipelines

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
6-18
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

pipe axis): V = 1/ 2U combination

In the formula, a] is determined by the
seismic zone factor in Table 6.3.1 of which the
division of area is the same as that shown in
Fig. 6.3.1 in 6.4 Appenclix 6.4.1.
Table 6.3.2 shows that a 2 is a factor repre-
senting the combination of pipeline type and
ground condition.
Uo is determined as 5.0 (em) in standard
design ground displacement.
The ground condition type in Table 6.3.2 is
based on "6.3.4 Definition of Ground Condi-
rion."
6.3.4 Ground Condition
Ground conditions are determined the state
of the ground in the general area w here piping
is installed and by the piping installation's
geographic location.
I . Area formed by any of the following ground
types or areas where the three are found in
(1) Soil layer dating back to the Triassic E;a.
or earlier (hereinafter called "rock layer")
(2) Diluvium layer
(3) Alluvium layer less than 10m thick or
layer in which soft layer is less than 5m
thick.
* Provided there exists a rock layer or firm
diluvium layer (N) 50, seismic wave veloc-
ity of more than 300m/sec.)
II. Area formed chiefly by alluvium layer of
more than 10m or soft layer of more than
ill a. Mixture of soil layer equivalent to Condi-
tion I and a layer equivalent to Condition
IT, or are in which the two types are mixed
illb. Border are between soil layer and sturdy
structure built upon foundation equivalent
to Condition IT and other locations where
displacement is evidently discontinuous

Table 6.3.1: Seismic Zone Factors (a l )

SA A B C
1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4

Table 6.3.2: Factors according to the combination ofthe

kind of pipeline and ground conditions (a 2)

~
Classification
of Pipeline
Medium pressure A
I II ill

(3 ~ P< 10kgflcmZ) 0.9 1.3 1.8

Medium pressure B
(1 ~ P< 3kgflcmZ) 0.7 1.0 1..4
Low pressure (main)
(P< lkgflcmZ) 0.5 0.7 to
Low pressure (service)
(P< Lkgf/crn") 0.7 1.0 1.0

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
6-19
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

6.3.5 Pipeline Capability to Absorb Ground F2

!1u=---
Displacement JiDrAE
(1) Capability of Straight Piping to Absorb
where, Fa: Allowable tensile strength
of screwed joint portion
Ground Displacement in Axial Direction
iii) Piping with mechanical joint
(1w)
Su = 00 +2 (0 1 +02+·····+0n)
The capability of a straight pipe to absorb
ground displacement in the axial direc-
Where, ° 0 is the maximum displacement

tion(!::..u) under ground conditions I, IT, and of joint in the center of ground displacement,
at which leakage or serious damage of joint is
Illa , as shown in Fig. 6.3.2 is a ground dis-
placement that can be absorbed by the pipe at
expected. 51' °2 , ••• , On represents allow-
a displacement input that focuses on one able displacement (slipout) in joints adjoining

point on the ground surface. the joint in the center, calculated taking into

i) A pipeline with continuous restraint force account the reduction in load due to the

from projection in axial direction ground restraint force between the joints.

[a] Reduced elastic modulus model (for poly- The capability of a straight pipeline fixed at

ethylene pipe, etc.) one end in Ground Condition lib to absorb

- 2
!::..U = AE£o [mm]
wr
where, A: Area of cross-section (mnr')
D : Pipe diameter
E : Reduced elastic modulus (Nzmnr)
r : Restraint force of ground per unit sur-
face of pipe (Nzmm")
e 0 : Allowable strain (specified in Section
6.3.6)
[b] Elastoplastic calculation model (welded
steel pipe)
2 2
AE {£} +.11.(£0
Su = - - - - ' - - - - - - - - : . . . . ! . . . .
trDr
e v : Yield strain of pipe
e 0 : Allowable strain of pipe
E : Elastic modulus (N/mmZ)
}.E : Tangent modulus of pipe
ii) Piping showing localized reduction in ten-
sile stress on cross-section (such as steel
pipe with screwed joint)
axial ground displacement is ground dis-
placement that can be absorbed when the
input of ground displacement that concen-
trates at the border of a structure and ground
is added, as shown in Fig. 6.3.4.
(2) Capability of a Straight Piping to Ab-
sorb Ground Displacement in Direction
Transverse to Axis
The capability of straight piping to absorb
ground displacement in the direction trans-
verse to its axis (!1v) in Ground Condition I ,
IT, or IIJa is ground displacement that the
- ev ) }
piping can absorb when transverse displace- .
ment concentrates on one point on the ground,
as shown in Fig. 6.3.5.
i) A pipeline with homogeneous rigidity along
its axis (steel pipe with welded joint
or polyethylene pipe)
!1v=
2.fie'" ~4El
--£
D kD 0
Where, E : Reduced elastic modulus
(N/mm~

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
6-20
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

f:,u Ground Displacement

~ ......lJ>
Restriction of Soil
--.. --.. --.. --.. -+ --..

I Pipe
I
Fig. 6.3.2 : Ground Displacement Input for Ground Conditions I, II, and IDa

O"v
~ __- ~----=-_
1
. . AE

Fig. 6.3.3: Bilinear Elastoplastic Model of Steel Material

Ground Displacement
--v>
c....
~

Ground Restraint Force

~

'-:
--..-+-+-+--..-+
~~r---
;:;U-----:=-----r-------------~
.3
:r.;
I
>:?i

Fig. 6.3.4 : Ground Displacement Input on Piping Fixed at One End in Ground Condition IDb

~~-------------r"" -~~-.--.~--- ..-.... -..

--_ ....... - .......... -_ ..... - .. --- .... -_.,

I,
.............................................. .. ..'I

Fig. 6.3.5: Ground Displacement Input in Transverse Direction Under

Ground Condition I, II, or ID a

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
6-21
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN
1 : Moment of inertia of cross-section (mm 4)
k : Reduced coefficient of subgrade reaction
(Nzmm")
ii) Piping with localized drop in strength
against bending moment (steel pipe with
screwed joint)
~4EI
Jr 4
Llv=
.fie /
--M
EI kD 0 .... E =3.0X 104 [N/mm2J
Where, M o : Mome.it atthe location of
localized drop in strength (N . mm)
E : Elastic modulus (N/mm~
The capability to absorb ground displace-
ment when the pipe is fixed to structure un-
der Ground Condition J:Ifu, as in Fig. 6.3.6, is
displacement that the pipe can absorb when
displacement concentrates at the border of
the structure and ground.
(3) Capability of 3-D piping to Absorb
Ground Displacement (Llu)
The capability of 3-D piping system com-
prised oflow - pressure service and internal
pipes under Ground Condition I, Il , or ma
is ground displacement that the piping can
absorb at the displacement shown in Fig.
6.3.7.
The absorption capability of a 3-D piping
system buried under Ground Condition Illb
and fixed at one end to a structure is ground
displacement that can be absorbed when the
ground displacement shown in Fig. 6.3.4 is
applied.
6.3.6 Allowable Strain and Allowable
Displacement
(1) Allowable Strain in Pipe Material (£0)
and Elastic Modulus (E)
The Allowable strain (£0) that is set over
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
6-22
January, 2000
the plastic limit and the reduced elastic
modulus (E) applied when calculating the
material's ability to absorb ground displace-
ment, which depends upon the material, are
shown below.
1) Steel pipe: Allowable strain .... £0=3 [%]
Reduced elastic modulus
2) Ductile cast-iron pipe
: Allowable strain.... £0=2 [%]
Reduced elastic modulus
.... E =3.0 X 104 [Nzmm'']
3) Polyethylene pipe
: Allowable strain .... £0=20 [%]
Reduced elastic modulus
.... E =3.0 X Hf [N/mmZ]
When, however, reduced elastic modulus is
inapplicable for steel or ductile cast-iron pipe,
Young's modulus that is within the range of
elasticity is applied.
Steel pipe: 2.1 x lOS [Nzmm']
Ductile cast-iron pipe: 1.6 X lOS [N'mnr']
Coefficient A used to determine the tan-
gent modulus (AE ) used to calculate elastic-
ity of steel pipe is founded upon the following:
--1 =7.1 X 10-3
(2) Allowable Displacement for Mechanical
Joints and Expansion Fittings
Standard displacement for expansionjoints
such as mechanical and flexible joints for
connecting pipes in ways other than welding
is the official value specified under JIS or
other equivalent standards. If no nominal
value is found, it is determined as the dis-
placement that removes airtightness or inflic-
ts serious damage or deformation upon a ma-
jor part of the joint.
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

................. "..f. .
6.v V

Fig. 6.3.6 : Ground Displacement Input in Transverse Direction for Piping

Fixed at One End Under Ground Condition ill b

Location of Ground Displacement Input

Pwad ~
<;~l Residential
I I
Land

Gas Meter

Crank Pipe

Main or Service Pipe Service Pipe Internal Pipe

a) Location of Ground Displacement Input

Service Pipe Element Internal Pipe Element

b) Division of Service Pipe and Internal Pipe Elements and

Displacement of Each Element

Fig. 6.3.7: Ground Displacement Input for Service and Internal Pipe System and
Calculation of Ground Displacement Absorption Capability (Sample)

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
6-23
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

6.4 Appendix by evaluating fatigue damage m plastic

6.4.1 Earthquake-Resistant Design of
High-Pressure Gas Pipeline
(1) Basic Concept of Earthquake-Resistant
Design
A Recommended Practice for Earthquake-
Resistant Design of High-Pressure Gas Pipe-
line is based on greatly improved concepts with
regard. to the evaluation of seismic motions
and interaction (slippage) between the ground
and the gas pipeline. Features of the Recom-
mended Practice (Standards) are as follows.
(1) The design method consists of strain de-
sign. Strains during. an earthquake are
allowed to be in excess of the elastic limit
range.
(2) The design method for bends and tees is
very important because seismic forces
concentrate in them, while smaller strains
in a straight pipelines are due to the slip-
page between the pipe and the ground.
(3) The standard consider the seismic waves
apparently propagating along the ground
surface and the strain in ground with in-
clined base rock.
Table 6.4.1 shows the flow diagram of the
earthquake resistant design based on the
above concept.

Fig. 6.4.1 : Seismic Zone Coefficient

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation 6-24
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

Table 6.4.1 Flow Diagram. of Earthquake-Resistant Design

a ions £or
elSIDlC Mt Desrgn )
(2) Natural Period of Surface Layer (3) Apparent Wavelength of
(1) Horizontal Seismic Intensity at 4 'H :rr~ . HI Seismic Motion
T=--,r;= L== V' T
Base Rock
I'; H
& == 0.15' u i : U, V: Apparent Propagation
H : Thickness of Surface Layer (m)
U 1 : Coefficient of - Velocity of Seismic Motion
Importance V s : Shear Wave Velocity in Surface Layer
~
Pipeline Buried
~(~') <
V (1.0, 800)

~
under Public Road Others '. Elastic Wave XC Sand 0.6 f--. (m/s)
in UrbanArea Survey Clay 0.85
VI

u, : Seismic Zone Coefficient

LO 0.8 Estimate from
N,Value
< Sand 62N 0.021
Clay 122N 0.078 T (s)

I
~
(4) Displacement Amplitude of the Surface Layer (5) Strain in Ground with Uniform Surface Layer
2 JrZ 2w' U.
U =-T'Sv 'K cos- E 01 .=
h JrZ oJ<
2H L
3 • S•• K •• w'
&al = • cos-.-
(0.6, 150) fr' V 2H
Sv
,j.
(cm/s)
/ , : . 1 ' 25) (6) Strain in Ground with Inclined Base Rock

T (s) c G2 =~CG/ +C G /
K wz
51 : Velocity Response Spectrum per Unit Seismic c G3 =X'~' tan(J • cos-
V, 2H
Intensity at Base Rock (cm/s)
z : Depth of Pipeline (m) Z : T<0.3s Z==405'T
Z : T~0.3s X == 122
. (J : Inclination of Base Rock (deg.)

( (7) Design of Straight Pipe )

(7)' Strain Transfer Coefficient

[ (8) Design of Bend and Tee )
I
a l
; q s: a Q

l+(~r
At·r.
(8)' Displacement Transfer Coefficient
q : Coefficient Considering Slippage between a* == q* • a o
Pipe and Ground q' : Coefficient Considering Slippage between
Pipe and Ground
J. =
,
~ E'A
K,
K1 Ground Spring
Constant in Axial Relative Displacement of Pipe and Ground
Direction Do == (1- a*) • Un
1 J.
(7)" L Strain in Straight Pipe -
Uniform Ground c"1=a • cGJ (8)" Strain in Bend and Tee
Inclined Base Rock Cd = a . cG2 Bend 5 B=PB • Do
2. Strain in Joint (welded) of Straight Pipe
Tee 5 r == Pr' • Do
Uniform Ground 5"2 = i, . a' 5 Gl

Inclined Base Rock c V4 -t. . a' 5 G2

fJ : Coefficient of Convention

i; : Stress Index
I I
( (9) Allowable Pipe Strain
J 1
(9)' Allowable Strain in Straight Pipe (9)" Allowable Strain in Joint of Straight Pipe,
(i) 1.0% or Bend and Tee
(ii) 35t/Dm ("10) (Buckling Strain Obtained by Actual 1.0%
Measurement with Safety Factor of 1.25 taken into
Consideration), Whichever is Smaller

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
6-25
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

(2) Seismic Motion for Design H in Equation ® represents the thickness

(a) Horizontal Seismic Intensity at Base Rock of the surface layer. "Vs- shows the shear
The horizontal seismic intensity to be con- wave velocity in the surface layer. Determi-
sidered for design is given by Equation CD nation of the base rock face depends on an N

······CD value not less than 50 or a measured shear

wave velocity of 300m/sec or more.
In Equation CD, 0.15 is the basic input at
(c) Apparent Wavelength of Seismic Motion
base rock. Here, VI is a coefficient of impor-
Apparent wavelength of seismic motion is
tance and v 2 is the seismic zone coefficient
given by
show in Figure 6.4.1. ...... @
L= V' T
(b) Natural Period of Surface Layer
V in Equation @ is the apparent propaga-
Equation (2) gives the natural period of the
tion velocity of seismic motion. Figure 6.4.2
surface layer.
shows the relationship between the natural
......@. period and the apparent propagation velocity.

(1.0,800)

(0.25, 100)

0.1 1.0 5.0

Natural Period (8)
Fig. 6.4.2: Apparent Propagation Velocity of Seismic Motion

(0.6, 150)

100

50

(0.1, 25)

1Q '--_---J_--'-_---'-_.LJ....L..1-.l....L_ _-'-_...l.-_-'--~

0.1 0.5 1.0 5.0

Natural Period (8)
Fig. 6.4.3 : Velocity Response Spectrum per Unit Seismic Intensity

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation 6-26
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

(d) Displacement Amplitude of Surface Layer i \' : stress index (i v = 2.0)

Equation @) gives the displacement ampli- (4) Design of Bend and Tee
tude of the surface layer. (a) Strain in a Bend
The strains in bends (e B) are given by
Uh
2 . S; • K
= -T •
JC
cOS-· .•.... @
1C
oh
2H Equation ®.
where
cB = flB • .1 ®
S; : velocity response spectrum per unit where
seismic intensity .1 : relative displacement between the
z: depth of pipeline pipe and the 'ground
S, is given by Figure 6.4.3. fJ B : coefficient of convention for bend

2 ' iB 'A .1 'D ·1(5+R' 2) 'bl l+ 4 ' 2 3 <I : ~. (1+b2)-b\!

2
(e) Strain in Ground with Uniform Surface
PB = . 3
Layer 10 'A+5'L']' l . (l+b:z)+1O·,A·~
"I • .... _ n _ -:;- . f _ "\'\ n2 _ "'1 2
1 -t- L. - .I'( - A. -t- -.t..) - n - 1'\ - A
The strain in the ground with a uniform v~

b =
l }
(l+R 'l)' {2+;r'n'R' l+(4-;r)'n ·R2 • A.
surface layer is given by Equation @.
cGl = 21r' Uh / L @
1-2' n . R 2 • 12'_ (4 _ it') . n •R 3 • 23
2
b = (1 + R . 2){2 +;r' n • R • l +(4 -;r) . n . R 2 .,A.'}
(1) Strain in Ground with Inclined Base Rock
The strain in the ground with inclined base
~=n'R3.23.{'::+ ;r'] 2+(1 ] 2)''1
2 2'n'A'R n'A'R
rock is given by Equation @.
2 2 ,(_2 +.::+ ;r'] ) . b}
cG2 = cGl + cG3 \.R.1 2 2'n'A'R 2 2

1lZ }, •••••• @
K
C G3 =k : ~ tan e. COS-- where
r. 2H fJ B : Coefficient of convention of bend
where iB : Stress index for bending load on bend
E G3 : strain in ground occurring by differ- n : Flexibility factor of bend
ence in displacements of two points A : Sectional area of pipe
e : inclination of base rock R : Radius of curvature of bend
k : coefficient related to the natural pe- I : Moment of inertia
riod of ground surface D : Outside diameter of pipe
(3) Design for a Straight Pipe L : Apparent wavelength of seismic motions
(a) Strain in a Straight Pipe
~'4~
. V4E0
The strain in a straight pipe is given by
Equation (J). K2 : Ground spring constant in the trans-
......(J)
CPl = a' cGI verse direction to the axis per unit pipe
(b) Strain in a Pipe Welded Joint length
The strain in a pipe welded joint is given by E : Young's modulus of pipe
Equation @. The relative displacement between the pipe
......@
and the ground is given by Equation @,
where .1 = (1- a*) . U;

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
6-27
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

where branch
a * : displacement transfer coefficient - ,4' I/ ° D1T • A2 ° (C-l)
f3 T1
a* = q * . a o - IT
4 °
A
2 + L • II ° Al ° C
3

q" = Sine: .1*) - 2; l*co{2; .1*) ~2 {l-( 4~*r} ;J

+
c = 1 + 4 (Y1 I
1 + 2(A.! 1.A.2)3(D 2
Y2 ) 3 ( D: / D1 )
/ D1)

(Adopt q* = 1, when slipping judging value where

SJ<l) iT : Stress index
' . Y22oD2ToAI (1 2 )
(b) Strain in a Tee fJ T2 = IT ° , '2.-
Al+2oLo12°A.21:T
The strains in tees (c T) are given by Equa-
Note: Subscripts with sectional area A, sec-
tion @ and@.
......@ , ond moment of area I, outside diameter D, and
cn = f3T! • L1 2
......@ ...1. are:
cn = f32 • L1 j
Subscription 1
Straight pipe in branch part
~j : relative displacement between the main
Subscription 2
pipe and the ground
Straight pipe in main part
L1 2 : relative displacement between the
Subscription IT Tee in branch part
branch pipe and the ground
Subscription 2T Tee in main part
f3n : coefficient of convention for branch
(c) Stress Index and Flexibility Factor
when seismic waves input in parallel to
Stress index and flexibility factor of bends
main pipe
and tees are shown in the below table.
f3 T2 : coefficient of convention for main pipe
when seismic waves input in parallel to

Type Stress Index Flexibility Illustration

Factor Unit: em
The Larger one of 1.65

e;2 n~
Bend 1.95
IB or 1.5. R
(Butt weld elbow)

-
('/)'" ) . :-1> -

The larger one of

Tee
(Butt weld tee)
Ir
0.67' 7
( )2/3 or 2.0 +~"

where r: Mean radius of pipe

t: Wall thickness D: Outside diameter of pipe
R: Radius of curvature

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation 6-28
 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000

(5) Allowable Strain Gas Association and officially approved by the

Seismic strains in straight pipeline are uni- government authorities as safe and reliable
form tensile or compressive strains in the en- techniques for use in the gas industries. Lin-
tire area. The allowable strain in a straight ing the pipelines from inside with polymer
pipeline is smaller value of 1 % or the allowable tubes is typical of these techniques.
strain due to buckling given by Equation @.
4 t 6.4.3. Block System of Pipeline Networks
E=- • --n ......@
3 Dm Damage susceptibility of pipelines depends

where on : (1) the distance from the origin of earth-

E : buckling strain quake (the shorter the distance is, the more

n: 0.11 intense the earthquake ground motion is, in

t: pipe wall thickness (em) general); and (2) the ground conditions

Dm: mean diameter of pipe (=D-t) (em) (damage is apt to be concentrated to the areas

The allowable buckling strain is given by 35 with very soft grounds, in general). Therefore,

(tlDm) (%) using Equation @ with a safety the degree of concentration of damage varies

factor of 1.25. greatly from an area to another.

To isolate heavily damaged areas from less

Earthquake Countermeasures for Gas damaged areas, the block system of pipeline

Distribution Systems - the Status Quo networks are in effect in major gas industries
in Japan. This system is aimed at minimizing

6.4.2. Improvement of Earthquake the number of suspended customers, as a re-

Resistance of Pipelines sult, maximizing the efficiency of reetoration

Improving the earthquake resistance of pipe- activities.

lines is essential to : (1) prevent disaster The block system takes a hierarchical struc-

caused by gas leakage; (2) minimize the sus- ture; large blocks cover wide areas and the

pension of supply of gas; and (3) minimize the blocking valves are remotely operated at the

restoration works thus enabling fast restora- control center; these blocks are divided into

tion of supply of gas to the customers. medium size networks which are not connected

The Recommended Practices for Earth- mutually; the medium sized blocks are

quake-Resistant Design of Gas Pipelines de- equipped with block-valves by which the blocks

scribed in the preceding Chapters are aimed at can be divided further into small blocks (valves

the improvement of the earthquake resistance are rperated manually).

of newly constructed pipelines.

Retrofitting techniques have been developed
and are being applied to the old pipelines.
There are several kinds of retrofitting tech-
niques which are recommended by the Japan

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
6-29
@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
 B?jfIJ61~10~ B5: 933 25,000

971

* THE 1995 HYOGOKEN-NANBU EARTHQUAKE ijZJJX:8~6~ A4: 306 4,854

45,714

ijZJJX:5~5~ B5: 254 6,796

ijZJJX:6~12~ B5:407 5,825

ijZJJX:9~2~ B5: 499 9,500

* Ei'&W~B!E~!J-;q 1994~J-A!Jy~±lliEiEi'&~~,*1!r 6,000

EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN FOR CIVIL ENGINEERING
BBfIJ59~7~ B5:265
STRUCTURES IN JAPAN 1984
EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN FOR CIVIL ENGINEERING
BBf1J63~7~ B5: 259
STRUCTURES IN JAPAN 1988
* EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN
• STRUCTURES IN JAPAN 1992
FOR CIVIL ENGINEERING
ijZJJX:4~10~ B5:259 7,767
* EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN
• January,2000
CODES IN JAPAN ijZJJX:12~1~ A4: 171 2,700

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation
EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN
January, 2000

Published by

Earthquake Engineering Committee

Japan Society of Civil Engineers

Yotsuya Lrchome Shinjukuku Tokyo, 160-0004 Japan

FAX +81-3-5379-2769 E-mail jsce-pubescivil.or.jp

Distributors

Maruzen Co.,Ltd. International Division

P.O.Box 5050 Tokyo International 100-3191 Japan
TEL +81-3-3273-3234 FAX +81-3-3278-9256

Copyright © JSCE 2000 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN

ISBN4-8106-0266-4

Printed in Japan, Waco Co.,Ltd.

@Seismicisolation
@Seismicisolation