shallow ground,

, 139:458-469.
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 64: 85–94
Khoshnoudian, F. and Shahrour, I. 2002. Numerical
Analysis of the Seismic Behavior of Tunnels
Constructed in Liquefiable Soils,
.
Soils and
Foundations
Koei, N. 2014. Countermeasures for preventing floating of
sewer manholes caused by liquefaction (Float-less
Method),
, 42(6): 1-8.
Koseki, J., Matsuo, O., Ninomiya, Y. and Yoshida, T.
1997. Uplift of sewer manhole during the 1993
Kushiro-Oki earthquake,
Japan's International Engineering
Consultants No.1, Tokyo, Japan.
Soils and Foundations, 37(1):
109-121
Kovacs, P. 2010. Reducing the risk of earthquake
damage in Canada: Lessons from Haiti and Chile,
.
Ling, H. I., Mohri, Y., Kawabata, T., Liu, H., Burke, C. and
Sun, L. 2003. Centrifugal modeling of seismic
mehavior of large-diameter pipe in liquefiable soil,
The
Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering
Liu, H. and Song, E. 2005. Seismic response of large
underground structures in liquefiable soils subjected to
horizontal and vertical earthquake excitations,
, 129:1092-1101.
Computers and Geotechnic
Liu, H. and Song, E. 2006. Working mechanism of cutoff
walls in reducing uplift of large underground structures
induced by soil liquefaction,
, 32: 223–244.
Computers and
Geotechnic
Liu, H. 2012. Three-dimensional analysis of underground
tunnels in liquefiable soil subject to earthquake
loading,
, 33: 209–221.
GeoCongress 2012
Lu, Y., Wang, Z. and Chong K. 2005.
: 1819–1828.
A comparative study
of buried structure in soil subjected to blast load using
2D and 3D numerical simulations, Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering
Matsuda, T. and Tanaka, N. 1996. Seismic response
analysis for a collapsed underground subway structure
with intermediate columns. Eleventh World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
, 25: 275–288.
Navarro, C. 1992. Seismic analysis of underground
structures,
Paper No.
1452.
Earthquake Engineering, Tenth World
Conference,
Qiao, L., Yuan, C., Miyajima, M., and Zhai, E. (2008)
shake-table testing and FLAC modeling of
liquefaction-induced slope failure and damage to
buried pipelines, Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV: 1-10.
REFERENCES
Azadi, M. and Hosseini, S. M. 2010. Analyses of the effect
of seismic behavior of shallow tunnels in liquefiable
grounds, Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology, 25: 543–552.
Azadi, M. 2011. The seismic behavior of urban tunnels in
soft saturated soils, Procedia Engineering, 14: 3069–
3075.
Chian, S.C. and Tokimatsu, K. 2012. Floatation of
Underground Structures during the Mw9.0 Tōhoku
Earthquake of 11th March 2011, The 15th World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, in Lisbon,
Portugal.
Chian, S.C., Tokimatsu, K. and Madabhushi, S. P. G.
2014. Soil liquefaction–induced uplift of underground
structures: physical and numerical modeling, Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
140(10): 04014057.
Chou, J. C. 2010. Centrifuge Modeling of the BART
Transbay Tube and Numerical Simulation of Tunnels
in Liquefying Ground, A Thesis Submitted for the
Degree of Doctor of Engineering, California University.
Chou, J. C., Kutter, B. L., Travasarou, T. and Chacko, J.
M. 2011. Centrifuge modeling of seismically induced
uplift for the BART Transbay tube, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
137(8):754-765.
CSCE, the Canadian Society of Civil Engineering. 2003,
Civil infrastructure systems technology road map
2003-2013.
DesRoches, R., Comerio, M., Eberhard, M., Mooney, W.
and Rix, G. 2011. Overview of the 2010 Haiti
earthquake, Earthquake Spectra, 27(S1): S1-S21.
Hashash, Y., Hook, J., Schmidt, B. and Yao, J. 2001.
Seismic design and analysis of underground
structures, Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology 16: 247-293.
He, J. and Chen, W. 2011. The Numerical
Experimentation of the Underground Pipeline Anti-To
Float in Liquefaction Field with Gravel Draining Water
Layer, International Conference on Pipelines and
Trenchless Technology (ICPTT), 2011: 1771- 1783.
Huo, H. 2005. Seismic design and analysis of rectangular
underground structures, A Thesis Submitted for the
Degree of Doctor of Engineering, Purdue University.
Huo, H., Bobet, A., Fernández, G. and Ramírez, J. 2005.
Uplift soil–pipe interaction in granular soil, Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
131:1522-1533.
Jung, J. K., O'Rourke, T. D., and Olson, N. A. 2013. Load
Transfer Mechanisms between Underground Structure
and Surrounding Ground: Evaluation of the Failure of
the Daikai Station, Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
50: 744–753.
Kang, G., Tobita, T., Tomisaka, K. and Iai, S. 2009.
Centrifuge modeling for uplift of buried structures by
liquefaction: a new measure for uplift, Annals of
Disaster Prevention Research Institute, No. 52 B.
Kang, G. 2010. Assessing uplift displacement of buried
geotechnical structures in liquefied ground during
earthquakes, A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of
Doctor of Engineering, Kyoto University.
Kang, G., Tobita, T., Kawabata, T., Iai, S. and Ge, L.
2013. Centrifuge modeling and mitigation of manhole
uplift due to liquefaction, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 139:458-469.
Kang, G., Tobita, T., Kawabata, T. and Iai, S. 2014.
Seismic simulation of liquefaction-induced uplift
behavior of a hollow cylinder structure buried in
shallow ground, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 64: 85–94.
Khoshnoudian, F. and Shahrour, I. 2002. Numerical
Analysis of the Seismic Behavior of Tunnels
Constructed in Liquefiable Soils, Soils and
Foundations, 42(6): 1-8.
Koei, N. 2014. Countermeasures for preventing floating of
sewer manholes caused by liquefaction (Float-less
Method), Japan's International Engineering
Consultants No.1, Tokyo, Japan.
Koseki, J., Matsuo, O., Ninomiya, Y. and Yoshida, T.
1997. Uplift of sewer manhole during the 1993
Kushiro-Oki earthquake, Soils and Foundations, 37(1):
109-121.
Kovacs, P. 2010. Reducing the risk of earthquake
damage in Canada: Lessons from Haiti and Chile, The
Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada.
Ling, H. I., Mohri, Y., Kawabata, T., Liu, H., Burke, C. and
Sun, L. 2003. Centrifugal modeling of seismic
mehavior of large-diameter pipe in liquefiable soil,
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 129:1092-1101.
Liu, H. and Song, E. 2005. Seismic response of large
underground structures in liquefiable soils subjected to
horizontal and vertical earthquake excitations,
Computers and Geotechnic, 32: 223–244.
Liu, H. and Song, E. 2006. Working mechanism of cutoff
walls in reducing uplift of large underground structures
induced by soil liquefaction, Computers and
Geotechnic, 33: 209–221.
Liu, H. 2012. Three-dimensional analysis of underground
tunnels in liquefiable soil subject to earthquake
loading, GeoCongress 2012: 1819–1828.
Lu, Y., Wang, Z. and Chong K. 2005. A comparative study
of buried structure in soil subjected to blast load using
2D and 3D numerical simulations, Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, 25: 275–288.
Matsuda, T. and Tanaka, N. 1996. Seismic response
analysis for a collapsed underground subway structure
with intermediate columns. Eleventh World
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Paper No.
1452.
Navarro, C. 1992. Seismic analysis of underground
structures, Earthquake Engineering, Tenth World
Conference, 10: 1939–1944.
Qiao, L., Yuan, C., Miyajima, M., and Zhai, E. (2008)
shake-table testing and FLAC modeling of
liquefaction-induced slope failure and damage to
buried pipelines, Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV: 1-10.
 Rauch, A.F. 1997. EPOLLS: An empirical method for
predicting surface displacements due to liquefaction-
inducted lateral spreading in earthquakes, A Thesis
Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Engineering,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Sasaki, T. and Tamura, K. 2004. Prediction of
liquefaction-induced uplift displacement of
th
underground structures, 36 Joint Meeting US-Japan
Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects, 36: 191-198.
Satoh, M., lsoyama, R., Hamada, M. and Hatakeyama, A.
1995. A procedure to assess the stability of buried
structures against liquefaction-induced ground
deformations, Third International Conference on
Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil Dynamics, 1: 221–228.
Seed, R.B., and Harder, L.F. 1990. SPT-based analysis of
cyclic pore pressure generation and undrained
residual strength. In Proceedings of the Seed
Memorial Symposium, San Francisco, Calif. Edited by
J. Mitchell and J. Duncan. BiTech Publishers,
Richmond, B.C. pp. 351–376.
Seed, H.B., Idriss, I.M. 1970. Soil moduli and damping
factors for dynamic response analyses, Earthquake
Engineering Research Center, Report No. EERC 70-
10, University of California, Berkeley, California.
Stedman, J.D. 1994. Effects of confining pressure and
static shear on liquefaction resistance of Fraser River
sand, A Thesis Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of
Engineering, British Columbia University.
Sweet, J. 1997. Los Angeles metro red line project:
seismic analysis of the little Tokyo subway station,
Report no. CAI-097-100. Engineering Management
Consultants.
Tabatabaiefar, S., Fatahi, B. and Samali, B. 2013.
Seismic behaviour of building frames considering
dynamic soil-structure interaction, International
Journal of Geomechanics, 13(4): 409–420.
Tobita, T., Kang, G. and Iai, S. 2011. Centrifuge modeling
on manhole uplift in a liquefied trench, Soils and
Foundations, 51(6):1091-1102.
Tobita, T., Kang, G. and Iai, S. 2012. Estimation of
liquefaction-induced manhole uplift displacements and
trench-backfill settlements, Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 138:491-499.
Tokimatsua, K., Tamurab, S., Suzukia, H., Katsumata K.
2012. Building damage associated with geotechnical
problems in the 2011 Tohoku Pacific earthquake, Soils
and Foundations, 52(5): 956-974.
View publication stats
Wang, Z., Lu, Y., Hao, H. and Chong K. 2005. A full
coupled numerical analysis approach for buried
structures subjected to subsurface blast, Computers
and Structures, 83: 339–356.
Wood, J. H. 2004. Earthquake design procedures for
rectangular underground structures, Earthquake
Commission Research Foundation, EOC Project No
.1/470.
Xia, Z., YE, G., Wang, J., Ye, B. and Zhang, F. 2010.
Numerical analysis on the influence of thickness of
liquefiable soil on seismic response of underground
structure, J. Shanghai Jiaotong Univ. (Sci.), 15(3):
279-284.
Yang, j. and Wang, H. 201 1606-1618. Seismic response
analysis of shallow utility tunnel in liquefiable soils,
International Conference on Pipelines and Trenchless
Technology (ICPTT), 2012: 1606-1618.
Yoshida, M., Miyajima, M. and Kitaura, M. 2008.
Experimental study on mitigation of liquefaction-
induced flotation of sewerage manhole by using
permeable recycled materials packed in sandbags,
The 14th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, October 12-17, Beijing, China.
Yoshiaki, Y. 1998. Simplified design of structures buried
in liquefaction soil, Soils and Foundations, 38(1): 235-
240.
Yue, Q. and Li, J. 2007. Seismic analysis of utility tunnel
th
considering wave passage effect, 4 International
Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering,
Paper No. 1369.
Zhou, J., Wang, Z., Chen, X. and Zhang, J. 2014. Uplift
mechanism for a shallow-buried structure in liquefiable
sand subjected to seismic load: centrifuge model test
and DEM modeling, Earthquake Engineering and
Engineering Vibration, 13(2): 203–214.
Zhou, J., Jiang, J. and Chen X. 2015. Micro-and macro-
observations of liquefaction of saturated sand around
buried structures in centrifuge shaking table tests, Soil
Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 72: 1–11.
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 57, © 2001 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

4 Conclusions
A rational and consistent procedure, using a deformation-based approach, is
presented for seismic design of tunnels under vertically propagating shear waves.
The ovaling effect on circular tunnels and racking effect on rectangular tunnels
are found to be highly dependent on the relative stiffness between the tunnel
lining and the surrounding ground, making soil-structure interaction one o f the
most important factors in the seismic design and evaluation for tunnel structures.
When a tunnel structure is more flexible than the ground, the tunnel lining will
experience amplified ovalinglracking distortions in comparison to the shear
distortions of the ground in the free field. On the other hand, when a tunnel is
stiffer than the ground it tends to resist the ground deformations, resulting in
smaller lining distortions compared to those produced in the ground.

References
[ l ] Owen, G . N., and Scholl, R. E., Earthquake Engineering of Large
Underground Structures, prepared for the Federal Highway Administration,
FHWAIRD-801195, 1981.
[2] Peck, R. B., Hendron, A. J., and Mohraz, B., "State of the Art of Soft
Ground Tunnelling", Proceedings of the Rapid Excavation and Tunnelling
Conference, Chicago, IL., Vol. 1, 1972.
[3] Schnabel, P. B., Lysmer J., and Seed, B. H., "SHAKE - A Computer
Program for Earthquake Response Analysis of Horizontally Layered Sites,"
EERC Report No. 72-12, Berkeley, Univ. of California, 1972.
[4] Wang, J., "Seismic Design of Tunnels - A Simple State-of-the-Art Design
Approach", William Barclay Parsons Fellowship, Parsons Brinckerhoff,
Monograph 7, 1993.
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 57, © 2001 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

Seismic design of tunnels

J-N. Wang', G.A. MunfakhZ
'Senior Professional Associate, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade
and Douglas, Inc. U S A
'Senior Vice President, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade
and Douglas, Inc. U S A

Abstract
An analytical approach is presented for dealing with the seismic design and
analysis of both bored (circular) and cut-and-cover (rectangular) tunnels. This
approach considers the soil-structure interaction effect and focuses on the
ovaling~racking deformation aspect o f the tunnel structures. The procedure
presented for the bored tunnels is developed from a theory that is familiar to most
mininglunderground engineers (Peck et al., 1972). Simple and easy-to-use
seismic design charts are presented. The design charts are expressed primarily as
a function of relative stiffness between the structure and the ground. The results
are validated through a series o f finite element/difference soil-structure
interaction analyses.
For the cut-and-cover tunnels, the design solutions are derived from an
extensive study using dynamic finite-element soil-structure interaction analyses.
A wide range of structural, geotechnical, and ground motion parameters are
considered in this study. Specifically, five different types of cut-and-cover tunnel
geometry are studied, including one-barrel, one-over-one two-barrel, and one-by-
one twin-barrel configurations. T o quantify the effect of relative stiffness on
tunnel lining response, varying ground profiles and soil properties are used in the
parametric analyses. Based on the results of the parametric analyses, a
deformation-based design chart is developed for cut-and-cover tunnels.

1 Introduction
For underground structures such as tunnels, the seismic design approach differs
from that of the surface structures such as bridges and buildings. Surface
structures are not only directly subjected to the excitations of the ground. but also
Transactions on the Built Environment vol 57, © 2001 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

590 Earthquake Reslstanr Engineerlng Strz~cturesIII

experience amplification o f the shaking motions depending on their own
vibratory characteristics. If the predominant vibratory frequency of the structures
is similar to the natural frequency of the ground motions, the structures are
excited by resonant effects.
In contrast, underground structures are constrained by the surrounding
medium (soil or rock). It is unlikely that they could move to any significant
extent independently of the medium or be subjected to vibration amplification.
Compared to surface structures, which are generally unsupported above their
foundations, the underground structures can b e considered t o display
significantly greater degrees of redundancy thanks to the support from the
ground. These are the main factors contributing to the better earthquake
performance data for underground structures than their aboveground
counterparts.
The different response characteristics of aboveground and underground
structures suggest different design and analysis approaches. For aboveground
structures, the seismic loads are largely expressed in terms of inertial forces. The
traditional methods generally involve the application of equivalent or pseudo-
static forces in the analysis. The design and analysis for underground structures
should be based, however, on an approach that focuses on the displacement1
deformation aspects o f the ground and the structures, because the seismic
response of underground structures is more sensitive to such earthquake induced
deformations. The deformation method is the focus of this paper.

2 Ovaling of circular tunnels

Ovaling of a circular tunnel lining is primarily caused by seismic waves
propagating in planes perpendicular to the tunnel axis. Usually, it is the vertically
propagating shear waves that produce the most critical ovaling distortion of the
lining. These shear distortions produced by the ground can also cause a
rectangular tunnel to rack (sideways motion), as shown in Figure 1. The results
are cycles of additional stresses/strains with alternating additional compression
and tension in the tunnel lining. These dynamic stressesistrains should be
superimposed on the existing static state of stressistrain in the lining (Owen and
Scholl, 1981) for design and evaluation.
The seismic ovaling effect on the lining of boredlmined circular tunnels is
best defined in terms o f change of tunnel diameter, A D E Q ADEQ can be
considered as seismic ovaling deformation demand for the lining. The procedure
for determining ADEQ and the corresponding lining strains is outlined as follows
(Wang, 1993).
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 57, © 2001 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

Earthquake Res~starltEngineei.~r?gSrrucrwes 111 59 1

/ 1Tunnel During
Wave Motion

+ Shear Wave Front

A. Ovallng Deformation of a Circular Cross Section

4- Shear Wave Front

B. Racking Defonnatlon of a Rectangular Cross Section

Figure 1 Ovaling and racking deformations

Step I . Estimate the expected free-field ground strains caused by the vertically
propagating shear waves of the design earthquakes using the following formula:

Ymax = Vs JCse (1)

where: ymax = maximum free-field shear strain at the elevation of the tunnel
= S-wave peak particle velocity at the tunnel elevation
V,
CS, = effective shear wave velocity of ground surrounding the tunnel

Alternatively, the maximum free-field shear strain can be estimated by a more

refined free-field site response analysis (e.g., SHAKE, 1972).
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 57, © 2001 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

It should be noted that the effective shear wave velocity o f the vertically
propagating shear wave, CS, , should be compatible with the level o f the shear
strain that may develop in the ground at the elevation of the tunnel under the
design earthquake shaking.

Step 2. By ignoring the stiffness of the tunnel, which is applicable for tunnels in
rock or stiffidense soils, the lining can be reasonably assumed to conform to the
surrounding ground with the presence of a cavity due to the excavation o f the
tunnel.

The resulting diameter change o f the tunnel is:

ADEQ *
2 YmaX (1- v,) D
where: v, = Poisson's ratio of the surrounding ground
D = diameter of the tunnel.

Step 3. If the structure is stiff relative to the surrounding soil, then the effects of
soil-structure interaction should be taken into consideration. T h e relative
stiffness of the lining is measured by the flexibility ratio, F, defined as follows
(Peck, et al., 1972):

F = {Em ( l - v ? ) {6El Il,l(l+vm)) (3)

Where: Em = strain-compatible elastic modulus of the surrounding ground
R1 = nominal radius o f the tunnel lining
v1 = Poisson's ratio of the tunnel Lining
= moment of inertia o f lining per unit width of tunnel

The strain-compatible elastic modulus of the surrounding ground Em should be

derived using the strain-compatible shear modulus G m corresponding to the
effective shear wave propagating velocity CS,.

The moment o f inertia o f the tunnel lining per unit width, , should be
determined based on the expected behavior of the selected lining under the
combined seismic and static loads, accounting for cracking and joints between
segments and between rings as appropriate.

Step 4. The diameter change, ADEQ, accounting for the soil-structure interaction
effects can then be estimated using the following equation:

ADEQ = + li3 ( k l F ymax D)

where: k l = seismic ovaling coefficient
=12( 1 - v m ) / ( 2 F + 5 - 6 v m )
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 57, © 2001 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

Eci~thyzukeResistam Engineeritzg Structwes 111 593

The seismic ovaling coefficient curves plotted as a function of F and v, are
presented in Figure 2.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Flexibility Ratio, F

Figure 2: Seismic ovaling coefficient, K,

The resulting bending moment induced maximum fiber strain, e m , and the axial
force (i.e.. thrust) induced strain, ET , in the lining can be derived as follows:

The solutions presented in Equations 4 through 7 assume that a full slippage

condition exists along the soilllining interface, which allows normal stresses
(without normal separation) but no tangential shear force. The full-slippage
assumption yields slightly more conservative results in estimating the diameter
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 57, © 2001 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

594 Earthquake Res~stantEngrrzeer~rzgStrzlctzlres III

change and bending strain but significantly lower values of thrust-induced strain
than the no-slippage condition. Therefore, Equation 7 should not be used unless
a full-slippage mechanism is incorporated in the design. Instead, the no-slippage
condition should be assumed in deriving the thrust-induced strain as follows
(Wang, 1993):

ET = { k 2 [ E m / 2 ( 1 + v m ) l R 1 ~ ~ , J / ( E l t l ) (8)
where: k2 = 1 + { F[(1 - 2 v,) - ( l - 2vm)C] - - (1 - 2 + 2) /
{F[(3 - 2 v,) + (1 - 2 vm)C] + C[512 - 8 v, + 6 vm2]
+6-8vm} (9)
C = compressibility ratio

= [E, (1 - vc2) R1 ] / [Ec t (1 + v,) (l - 2 v,)] (10)

The seismically induced strains due to the ovaling effect need to be combined
with strains resulting from non-seismic loading, and then checked against the
allowable strain limits consistent with the performance goal established for the
design of the tunnel lining.

3 Racking of rectangular tunnels

Racking deformations are defined as the differential sideways movements
between the top and bottom elevations of the rectangular structures, shown as As
in Figure 3. The resulting material strains in the lining associated with the

-
seismic racking deformation, As, can be derived by imposing the differential
deformation on the structure in a structural frame analysis.

Horizontal Shear Deformation, A (ft)

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 Ground Surface

-
5
As
0
-V)
5 b-4
z8 100 -
m
5
n
0"

Racklng Deformation ot a
Box Structure

Figure 3: Racking deformations of a rectangular tunnel

 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 57, © 2001 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

The procedure for determining As, taking into account the soil-structure
interaction effects, is presented below (Wang, 1993).

Step l . Estimate the free-field ground strains yma, (at the structure elevation)
caused by the vertically propagating shear waves of the design earthquakes, see
disccusion presented earlier. Determine Afree-field , the differential free-field
relative displacements corresponding to the top and the bottom elevations of the
rectangular structure by:

Afree-field = h ymax
where: h = height of the structure

Step 2. Determine the racking stiffness, Ks , o f the structure from a structural

frame analysis. For practical purposes, the racking stiffness can be obtained by
applying a unit lateral force at the roof level, while the base of the structure is
restrained against translation, but with the joints free to rotate. The structural
racking stiffness is defined as the ratio of the applied force to the resulting lateral
displacement. In performing the structural frame analysis, it is important to use
appropriate moment of inertia, taking into account the potential development of
cracked section, particularly for the vertical walls.

S t e ~3. Determine the flexibility ratio, F,,,, of the proposed design of the
structure using the following equation:

F,,, = (G, l Ks) ( w k ) (12)

where: W = width of the structure
G , = average strain-compatible shear modulus of the surrounding ground

The flexibility ratio is a measure o f the relative racking stiffness o f the

surrounding ground to the racking stiffness of the structure. The derivation o f
Frec is schematically depicted in Figure 4.

Step 4. Based on the flexibility ratio obtained form Step 3 above, determine the
racking ratio, R,,,. for the structure using Figure 5 or the following expression:

The racking ratio is defined as the ratio of actual racking deformation of the
structure to the free-field racking deformation in the ground. The triangular
points in Figure 5 were data generated by performing a series of dynamic finite
element analyses on a number o f cases with varying soil and structural
properties, structural configurations, and ground motion characteristics. Five
different types of rectangular tunnel geometries are studied in the dynamic finite
Transactions on the Built Environment vol 57, © 2001 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

Ground Surfam

:1 -
L
,-------v

1 JIl

W L W
Soil Element

Rigid Base

A. FIoxuml (Shear) O M i o n of FrstFkld Sol4 Medlum

Figure 4: Relative stiffness of soil vs. rectangular frame

Flexib~liryRatio, FREC

Figure 5 : Racking ratio between structure and free-field

 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 57, © 2001 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

Eorthqmke Resistant Engn7eerltlg Structwes III 597

element analysis, including one-barrel, one-over-one two-barrel, and one-by-one
twin-barrel configurations. As indicated in the figure, if Frec = 1 , the structure is
considered to have the same racking stiffness as the surrounding ground and
therefore the racking distortion of the structure is about the same as that o f the
ground in the free field. When Fret is approaching zero, representing a perfectly
rigid structure, the structure does not rack regardless of the distortion o f the
ground in the free field. For Fret > 1.0 the structure becomes flexible relative to
the ground and the racking distortion will be magnified in comparison to the
shear distortion o f the ground in the free field. This magnification effect is not
caused by the effect of dynamic amplification. Rather, it is attributed to the fact
that the ground has a cavity in it as opposed to the free field condition.

Step 5. Determine the racking deformation of the structure, As , using the

following relationship:

Step 6. The seismic demand in terms o f internal forces as well as material

strains can be calculated by imposing As upon the structure in a frame analysis as
depicted in the following figure.

1 fib= Rrec &re-tiefd

Pseudo-
Concentrated
2
1 I

Frame Analysis Modeling of Racking Deformations

Figure 6
 Transactions on the Built Environment vol 57, © 2001 WIT Press, www.witpress.com, ISSN 1743-3509

4 Conclusions
A rational and consistent procedure, using a deformation-based approach, is
presented for seismic design of tunnels under vertically propagating shear waves.
The ovaling effect on circular tunnels and racking effect on rectangular tunnels
are found to be highly dependent on the relative stiffness between the tunnel
lining and the surrounding ground, making soil-structure interaction one o f the
most important factors in the seismic design and evaluation for tunnel structures.
When a tunnel structure is more flexible than the ground, the tunnel lining will
experience amplified ovalinglracking distortions in comparison to the shear
distortions of the ground in the free field. On the other hand, when a tunnel is
stiffer than the ground it tends to resist the ground deformations, resulting in
smaller lining distortions compared to those produced in the ground.

References
[ l ] Owen, G . N., and Scholl, R. E., Earthquake Engineering of Large
Underground Structures, prepared for the Federal Highway Administration,
FHWAIRD-801195, 1981.
[2] Peck, R. B., Hendron, A. J., and Mohraz, B., "State of the Art of Soft
Ground Tunnelling", Proceedings of the Rapid Excavation and Tunnelling
Conference, Chicago, IL., Vol. 1, 1972.
[3] Schnabel, P. B., Lysmer J., and Seed, B. H., "SHAKE - A Computer
Program for Earthquake Response Analysis of Horizontally Layered Sites,"
EERC Report No. 72-12, Berkeley, Univ. of California, 1972.
[4] Wang, J., "Seismic Design of Tunnels - A Simple State-of-the-Art Design
Approach", William Barclay Parsons Fellowship, Parsons Brinckerhoff,
Monograph 7, 1993.