You are on page 1of 5

The 12 International Conference of International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG) 1-6 October, 2008 Goa

, India


Life Cycle Cost Evaluation for Seismic Performance-Based Design of Geotechnical Structures
Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan

I. Yoshida
Dept. of Civil Engineering, Musashi Institute of Technology Tokyo, Japan

Tokyo Electric Power Services, Tokyo, Japan

Y. Ishihara
Giken Engineering, Tokyo, Japan Keywords: earthquake, design, performance, cost, prediction

ABSTRACT: Since the intensity of design earthquake and the demand for more economical design are
increasing together, seismic design of geotechnical structures is required to change significantly. The present paper first addresses recent attempts to establish a new principle based on seismic performance. Second, to validate this principle more clearly from an economical viewpoint, the idea of life cycle cost is introduced. Although those ideas were originally proposed in other engineering disciplines, they need special consideration for their application to geotechnical engineering. The present study describes principles for geotechnical consideration on life cycle cost, and presents example designs of an highway embankment. The life-cycle-cost design is then compared with the product of a conventional design of the same structure.

1 Introduction
Stability of geotechnical structures in seismic countries is one of the most important but difficult tasks of geotechnical engineering. Conventionally, the seismic design has been conducted by using a pseudo-static approach in which design earthquake load is applied in a static manner and the calculated factor of safety has to exceed 1.0. The magnitude of the design load is closely related with the maximum acceleration during expected earthquakes. This approach has encountered difficulty since late 1990s because the intensity of maximum accelerations observed during earthquakes has increased, requiring greater seismic load to be employed in design. This situation has made it difficult to maintain the factor of safety greater than unity in geotechnical structures. It deserves attention, moreover, that public concern has increased as well on safety and costeffectiveness.

Figure 1. Tentative detour for road.


2793 . Therein inquiry studies were made with those who experienced hard times in restoration of damaged structures. limited to rather conceptual idea and its application to any realistic situation was not practiced. From a practical viewpoint. about the allowable deformation.Table 1 Example of seismic performance matrix. The detour was quickly constructed and maintained the function of the main road. most geotechnical structures accept seismic distortion to a certain extent. To facilitate the determination of the allowable residual deformation. An attempt was made to obtain solution to this problem by a JSCE subcommittee (2000) under the second author’s guidance. It was found that the allowable deformation is governed by the negative effects to the public (Towhata. This proposal was. For example. which occur when the seismic factor of safety is less than 1. in which the allowable deformation is greater for a longer recurrence period of earthquakes (stronger shaking) and is smaller for more important structures. 2 On Seismic Performance The seismic design principle based on performance during earthquakes is constructed on the residual deformation in geotechnical engineering. Figure 2. Fig. however. The residual deformation is important in design because it governs the serviceability of structures. the performance matrix is merely a qualitative instruction and there have been few systematic instructions for quantitative determination of the allowable deformation. It was supposed that their experience would give them reasonable idea. 1 illustrates a tentative detour passage for a road embankment which was destroyed during the 2004 Niigata-Chuetsu earthquake. what is called performance matrix (Table 1) has been proposed. The specified restoration time then makes it possible to quantify the allowable deformation. Minimization principle of life cycle cost. Fig.0. Examples of residual deformation are the subsidence of a river dike and lateral displacement of a quay wall. Determination of allowable deformation. Figure 3. Although its idea is clear. The allowable deformation can be quantitatively determined by first determining the size of affected region (or affected population or affected size of economy) and second deciding the allowable restoration time. 2008). not being too conservative nor too optimistic. 2 illustrates this methodology conceptually.

FH. the application of LCC concept to geotechnical engineering encounters several problems. in Fig. FF) of subsidence = 0. of abutment next to a bridge (Fig. Cm in Eq. P(E) stands for the probability of damage. First. because the way of life changes totally after 80 years and the function of a structure changes completely. and its range. 3 On Life Cycle Cost The above-mentioned inquiry demonstrated that the negative effect to the public is the key issue to determine the seismic design. This subsidence leads to discontinuity in pavement elevation because bridges are supported by a pile foundation and are not 2794 . 4.5 m is plotted against the peak ground acceleration. This minimization concept has been discussed in steel and concrete structures. is decomposed into direct and indirect costs.Figure 4 Cross section of expressway embankment. It is therein supposed that the greater initial cost improves the quality of a structure. Inquiry at governmental authorities found that most maintenance cost in geotechnical structure concerns cutting grass and has nothing to do with the quality of construction (Ci). Second. Note that consideration was also made of the improvement of seismic resistance of the embankment by conducting sand compaction pile (SCP with = 37 deg. The former consists of restoration and possibly human-loss and injury costs. this example is suitable for investigation of indirect seismic loss. the probability of damage is obtained by P (E ) = FH (a )[dFF da ]da ∫ (2) Research was focused on geotechnical aspects. 3).1 was removed from further consideration. Because of the importance of the expressway in the entire national economy. B.) method or deep mixing (CDM: Cu = 300 kPa × improvement ratio) in the clayey subsoil. which is difficult to be converted to monetary unit. Consequently. To mitigate the expected seismic damage. The probability of subsidence of expressway embankment is also assessed by varying the intensity of input motion and running Newmark (1965) rigid block analysis on the cross section in Fig. However. With these in mind. LCC is schematically defined by LCC = C i + C m + C e × P (E ) (1) in which Ci designates the initial construction cost. the subsoil has to be improved. The latter comes mainly from economic loss. 7). Cm the maintenance cost over the entire life period of a structure. the present section makes use of a new concept of life cycle cost (LCC) as a better engineering index for the same aim. The life of a geotechnical structure was typically decided to be 80 years. Furthermore. 4 How to Calculate Life Cycle Cost For Road Embankment Example calculation was made on an expressway embankment that rests on a soft clayey deposit and is subject to significant seismic loading (Fig. and its details (type of soil improvement. First. 6 illustrates its example in which the probability (fragility. plotted in Fig. improvement ratio. 5 against the maximum horizontal acceleration (a). Therefore. reducing both maintenance and earthquake damage costs. s. design earthquakes were specified as an interplate one that occurs in a tectonic subduction zone and is of magnitude about 8. an attempt was made to demonstrate practical use of LCC concept for geotechnical structures. This feature is expressed by seismic hazard curves. whose correct assessment appears extremely difficult. 4) are going to be determined by the LCC concept. Fig. and Ce the damage caused by earthquakes during the same period: Ce includes restoration cost. In contrast to the previous section that employed the restoration time as the index for negative effect. The shaking intensity and recurrence period were determined in a probabilistic manner with due reference to local seismic activities. 4).0. the seismic damage cost. Ce. The design adopts an option that minimizes LCC (Fig. the life of a structure is not clearly defined because geomaterials do not decay with time. Seismic damage is expressed in terms of subsidence. the relationship between Ci and Cm is not clear: Good compaction of embankment does not necessarily reduce consolidation in subsoil. and another intraplate earthquake that occurs in a nearby fault and is of magnitude = 7 or less.

Discussion on direct and indirect seismic costs led to the following decisions: (1) Restoration cost is assessed by considering the amount of filling soil. Note that the lower cost of CDM is because of the Japanese market where cement is currently less expensive than sand. Figure 6 Fragility curves for subsidence of 50 . (4) Missing toll fee is another indirect loss. a study was made to find out an empirical relationship between subsidence and the restoration time (Fig. Figure 5 Seismic hazard curves. (2) Human life. It is important to compare the LCC based design and the conventional design based on factor of safety. As stated before. The conventional design employed the seismic coefficient of Kh = 0. the seismic design is determined at the obtained minimum LCC. The discontinuity stops the expressway service and also causes serious car accidents. In case of SCP. 2795 . Thus. is short if it is less than 15 cm because of asphalt overlaying. LCC for the conventional design is greater (11. (5) Moreover. 9 indicates the variation of concerned costs with subsidence. Although the initial construction cost is lower (1. Although there are different opinions on this issue. Consequently.16. Therefore. the negative effect is affected by the restoration time. the present idea is backed by the consideration that people and industries pay the toll because they get the economic benefit of the same amount. which may be lost due to vehicles crushing into the subsidence. there is no minimization.78 Billion Yen). with the initial construction cost of 1. because significant damage is induced by the probability of unexpectedly strong earthquakes. 8). 10 against the initial construction cost.0 m toward null. deep mixing (CDM) achieved the minimum LCC at B=5m and the improvement ratio of 50 %. Calculation of direct and indirect seismic losses was not an easy task. On the contrary.48 Billion Yen) is significantly lower than that of SCP. 8 that the restoration time is null if subsidence is less than 2 cm. Note in Fig.42 Billion Yen). The calculated life cycle cost is plotted in Fig. FH. Fig. the elongated travel time is the important indirect loss. Its LCC (5. and is longer if it exceeds 15 cm because distorted soil has to be removed and new filling has to be conducted.affected by subsidence. vehicles go to local roads for detour.94 Billion Yen. Note that this loss was reduced when the subsidence decreases from 1. depending on number of cars and restoration period as well. This loss is considered to account for the negative effect of the expressway closure to the national economy. is 200 million Yen multiplied by the number of vehicles that cannot stop in front of the subsidence × average number of passengers / car × reduction for distance between car and the subsidence. (3) When the expressway is closed due to the damage. This time loss depends on the number of cars and the restoration period in Fig. the cost of increased traffic accidents and air pollution in local roads are taken into account.

(2008) Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. T. It was demonstrated that LCC design can achieve more economical design that the conventional design principle. Towhata. Those assistances are deeply appreciated by the authors. publ. 5(2). the New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization. as well as many public organizations. 2796 . N.M. Figure 8. 7 References JSCE (2000) Subcommittee activity report on behavior of earth structures undergoing strong earthquake motion. Empirical relationship subsidence and restoration time. Ueda. between Figure 9 Damage costs changing with subsidence. Newmark. Important advices were given by Prof. Section 14. (1965) Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments.6. 137-160. Subsidence at abutment of bridge. Research Committee on Earthquake Engineering (in Japanese). I. Geotechnique. 5 Concluding Remarks The present study proposed methodologies for performance-based seismic design and its more advanced version of LCC-based design. Figure 10 Calculated LCC changing with initial construction cost. 6 Acknowledgment The present study was made possible through a financial support from the NEDO. Civil Engineering Department of the University of Tokyo. Springer.Figure 7.