Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
MSc. Struct. Engineer, Dept. Manager - Structures, TYPSA, Gomera 9, S.Sebastian Reyes, 28703 Madrid, SPAIN
Sanchez-Jimenez JL. Free field racking deformation methodology applied to the design of shallow tunnel
structures in high risk seismic areas. Practical considerations. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in
Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
ABSTRACT
The free field racking deformation methodology has been agreed as the most reliable and
rational approach for the design of tunnel infrastructures. Since its publication in the FHWA and
AASHTO Tunnel Manual in 2010 is quickly becoming an international standard, as few other
code references are available. The actual application of this method in shallow box shaped
tunnel infrastructure projects entails some considerations that contribute to its practical utilization.
The main issue is related with the clear definition of the boundaries where the traditional dynamic
earth pressure methods (i.e. Mononobe Okabe and Wood) will still be applicable. Additionally
the global effect of the structure racking distortion should be completed with the local effect that
determines the earth pressure on the lateral walls. The key parameter appears to be the flexibility
ratio, after which a simple procedure is proposed, in order to unify the results of the deformation
method with the earth pressure approaches. On the other hand, the design of extremely flexible
underground structures has to be accompanied with additional measures at least to avoid the joints
decompression and consequences at the ground surface. Finally, the direct extrapolation of the
successfully adopted criteria for the aboveground structures has to be observed carefully.
Considering tunnel infrastructures, different issues would show up when relying on the plastic
hinges formation, as the ulterior required reparation would present unaffordable problems in most
cases.
Introduction
The publication of the FHWA [1] and the AASHTO [2] documents in 2010 about the seismic
considerations of tunnels has given a code regulated basis for the design of tunnel linings, in
addition to the existing bibliography from previous studies. Consequently the number of
applications of the deformation method for underground structures in actual tunnel projects has
increased significantly since then. But design criteria for tunnels under seismic hazards are far
from an international consensus at the moment.
The racking deformation method provides a clear and effective process to evaluate the effect of
seismic events on shallow underground structures. The ground structure interaction is included
by means of a flexibility factor, which appears to be of high significance. Flexible structures
embedded in medium to rigid soils will behave near to the cavity free field condition,
1
MSc. Struct. Engineer, Dept. Manager - Structures, TYPSA, Gomera 9, S. Sebastian Reyes, 28703 Madrid, SPAIN.
Sanchez-Jimenez JL. Free field racking deformation methodology applied to the design of shallow tunnel
structures in high risk seismic areas. Practical considerations. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in
Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
amplifying the shear strain of the non-perforated medium by a factor of a maximum between 2.0
to 2.8. On the other hand, relatively rigid structures will reduce the free field deformation
expected.
Other alternative methodologies, based on finite elements numerical calculations, should be
limited to special cases where the racking method is not applicable. As the dynamic and non
elastic behaviors are involved, the uncertainty of the obtained results becomes an issue, as it is a
time consuming calculation. A more practical approach is needed for the design. Some design
considerations will be discussed to contribute to the racking deformation method applicability.
Free Field Racking Deformation Method
The racking deformation method, as proposed by Wang [3] and included in the FHWA
Report [1], assumes that buried structures will experience transverse distortion deformations due
to its interaction with the surrounding soil during an earthquake event. The structure racking
stiffness modifies the ground free field deformation, and therefore an R factor is calibrated to
determine the actual racking distortion to be considered in the box structure design.
(1)
4(1 m )F
3 4 m + F
(2)
R=
= v/Gm PGA/g Rz
(3)
ff = H
(4)
s = R ff
(5)
where F is the flexibility ratio, Gm is the average shear strain modulus, m is the Poisson
coefficient, is the ground strain due to the seismic waves, v is the vertical stress, PGA
is the peek ground acceleration, g is the gravity acceleration, Rz is a depth reduction
factor (Fig. 2), Ks is the racking stiffness of the box structure from the cracked condition,
W is the width of the box structure and H is the height of the box structure and R is the
racking coefficient.
Figure 2.
For the structural analysis, two pseudo static lateral forces are recommended; the more critical
effects to be considered and added to the static (non seismic) loads. For deeper structures the soil
strains are transmitted to the box structure through shear forces at the roof; on the other hand,
shallower structures suffer the soil thrust at the lateral walls. In design stage a cautious approach
is suggested.
The application of this method in real underground infrastructures projects leads to identify the
need for further contributions and highlights some issues, which are hereafter discussed.
plastic hinges formation and energy dissipation. It is said the same approach should apply to
underground structures [1], [2], [3].
The plastic hinges formation in aboveground structures is limited to elements and locations that
could be easily inspected and repaired after an earthquake event. The application of the same
approach to tunnels presents some issues:
The plastic hinges will be irreparable in the outer elements, except for special cases.
The energy dissipation at the plastic hinges will be only a little fraction of the total energy
dissipated in the ground itself. Therefore some of the main assumptions usually considered in
the aboveground structures should be thoroughly restudied (i.e. seismic displacement remains
constant even when plastic hinges develop).
The effects on other near buildings should be considered in every single case, especially in
urban areas.
Therefore a quasi elastic approach, with minor damages, is suggested for the maximum seismic
design scenario. Details providing ductility to the critical sections would be sensible, but the
ductility should be expected to mobilize only over the MDE event. Some owners (e.g. San
Francisco BART) have begun requiring their facilities to remain operational after MDE level
shaking [4].
Besides, the risk level adopted for the facility life should take into account the catastrophic
effects if the tunnel collapses, even larger than those for the aboveground structures, especially
for shallow structures. Obviously this is critical for massive transportation systems like subway
stations. Usually 5% to 10% failure risk level in 50 years of lifetime is considered for bridges
and buildings, corresponding with 500 to 1000 year return period. For public underground
facilities could be proposed 2% to 5% (1000 to 2500 year return period), depending on the
number of people expected simultaneously and the effects on near buildings, if any.
Flexible edge walls will accommodate the differential movement. The joints should be fully
connected and resistant to the corresponding bending moments or, if pinned joints are
possible, should accommodate the required rotations.
Rigid edge walls will limit the differential movement, and therefore will reduce the expected
damages in the longitudinal walls.
F = 0; the structure is rigid, so it will not rack regardless of the ground distortion.
F < 1; the structure is considered stiff relative to the medium and therefore distorts less.
F = 1; the structure and medium have equal stiffness, so the structure will undergo
approximately free field distortions.
F > 1; the structure racking distortion is amplified relative to the free field, though not
because of dynamic amplification, but because of the cavity like presence.
F ; the structure has no stiffness, so it will undergo deformations identical to the
perforated ground.
Hereafter design practical strategies will be analyzed for both cases, relatively rigid and flexible
structures.
Relatively rigid structures are reducing the ground distortion, and therefore some soil thrust
would be expected at the lateral wall in the push side, and reduced accordingly in the opposite
side. Two additive effects on the structure can be considered separately (Fig. 3):
(6)
Local thrust on the lateral wall including the effect of the surrounding ground reduced
distortion. It can be evaluated as an inverted triangular distributed force, totaling P.
= (1 R) m = (1 R) v PGA/g Rz
(7)
P = W
(8)
where P is the pseudo concentrated force equivalent to the racking distortion effect, R is
the racking soil structure interaction coefficient (Eq. 1), m is the shear stress in the free
field medium, is the amount of shear stress not assumed by the structure distortion
because of its stiffness, v is the vertical stress, PGA is the peek ground acceleration, g is
the gravity acceleration, Rz is a depth reduction factor (Fig. 2) and W is the width of the
structure.
Figure 3.
It should be pointed out that Eq. 6 and 7 are equivalent to the Woods expressions for rigid
structures when a value near zero is adopted for the racking coefficient R. In this way, the two
methods find a common expression: as the structure racks, the earth thrust predicted by Wood for
absolutely rigid structures is consequently reduced.
(9)
P = W = (R 1) v PGA/g Rz W
(10)
qmax = 2 P / H
(11)
(12)
where R is the racking soil structure interaction coefficient (Eq. 1), m is the shear stress
in the free field medium, is the shear stresses corresponding with the additional
structure distortion from the free field deformation because of its flexibility, v is the
vertical stress, q(z) is the reduction of the static at rest earth pressure as a function of
the structure height and qmax is its maximum value (expected at the roof level), q(z) is
the final earth pressure including static and pseudo dynamic effects as a function of the
structure height, K0 is the static at rest earth pressure coefficient, KMO is the Mononobe
Okabe dynamic active earth pressure coefficient, PGA is the peek ground acceleration,
g is the gravity acceleration, Rz is a depth reduction factor (Fig. 2), W is the width of the
structure and H is the height of the structure.
The above procedure offers a consistent methodology to evaluate the resultant earth pressure
including the static and the dynamic effect. Mononobe Okabe predicted pressure is kept as a
minimum, assumed as the dynamic yielding active earth pressure if the enough strain is
developed from the at rest level. These local effects must be superposed to the racking
distortion effect.
In any case, the seismic forces induced in structural members decrease as the structure flexibility
increases. In such cases, the security of very flexible structures relies on the structural details. It
cannot be forgotten that structures with no moment resistance, such as unreinforced brick arches,
could totally collapse [3]. For flexible box structures, some design considerations are included
hereafter, that could impose some limitations to the flexibility at the design stage.
The structural joints between roof and walls have to be thoroughly analyzed. The racking
distortion is imposed to the structure mainly through the shear stresses at the top of the roof;
therefore, to avoid their decompression, the joints have to be able to assume loads Pjoints not
less than
Pjoints = R m W
(13)
where R is the racking coefficient, m is the shear stress in the free field medium and W
is the structure width.
Where pinned connections are considered, the maximum rotation has to be checked and
validated. The support devices have to assume a dynamic rotation d, to be added to the static
requirements, not less than
tag d = R m/Gm
(14)
where R is the racking coefficient, m is the shear stress in the free field medium and Gm
is the soil average shear strain modulus.
Where the flexibility ratio F is much larger than 1.0, the additional distortion deformation
could be reflected to the earth surface, especially for shallow and very shallow facilities. If
there are near buildings, as usual for subway infrastructures in urban areas, the maximum
induced differential settlement has to be checked. The expected settlement can be estimated
from the value of the racking distortion, considering (R 1)ff as the horizontal
deformation. As a general rule, differential settlement should be kept under the 1/500 limit to
prevent the occurrence of a serviciality limit state. It should be pointed out that the existing
buildings have had to be designed with their own Earthquake Resistant Strategy (ERS), but
not considering additional deformations from other infrastructures.
(15)
where Gm* is the apparent soil average shear strain modulus to be used in the racking
deformation method, Gm is the elastic average shear strain modulus, lim is the soil
elastic limit strain and is the soil strain at the seismic event (Eq. 3)
Cases analysis
The racking distortion deformation method, as described in the AASHTO Tunnel Manual [2],
has been used in a number of recent projects in which the author has been involved. Parallel
calculations with numerical models by finite elements software have been carried out in order to
validate the design, with acceptable results. Most of these paper contributions come directly from
the studies and considerations developed for these designs. The most significant cases are
mentioned here:
Quito first line subway tunnel and stations, in Ecuador. Designed for 2500 year return
period. PGA adopted for the maximum design earthquake level equal to 0.84g. Designed in
2012 2013.
Via Parque Rimac road tunnel in Lima, Peru. Cut and cover tunnel under the Rimac riverbed.
Designed for 1000 year return period. PGA adopted for the maximum design earthquake
level equal to 0.52g. Designed in 2011 2013.
Conclusions
The free field racking deformation method is the most reliable approach in practical terms for
the design of underground infrastructures. Some contributions to the applicability of this
methodology have been explained for shallow box shaped tunnel structures. They are
applicable where the racking deformation is, as it is known:
Bi dimensional analysis is carried out. Three dimensional issues are not included.
Surrounding ground is supposed uniform and isotropic.
Liquefaction, faults or other geological hazards are not considered.
Interaction with other tunnels, buildings or infrastructures is not included.
Special geometries are not included; the overall shape is considered as a rectangular box,
whatever its inner structure elements distribution is.
A consistent and rational approach to unify the results from the racking deformation method with
Wood method for rigid structures and Mononobe Okabe for flexible structures are described,
discussing on the flexibility factor as the most significant parameter. It is concluded that the
racking deformation method is able to determine not only the general racking distortion effects,
but the local effects of the earth pressure on the lateral walls with very simple expressions.
Additionally some considerations have been pointed out about the requirements of the flexible
structures. The roof and bottom slabs joints with the lateral walls have to endure the
compatibility forces and, if pinned connections are adopted, the rotations. Simple expressions are
given to use in the design. Moreover, other remarks related with the effects that could be
generated at the ground surface are included.
Finally, the plastic hinges formation strategy is discussed. It is not recommended for tunnel
facilities unless special measures could be adopted to repair the plastic joints after an earthquake
event, or the operational condition could be ensured. The risk level assumed should be adopted
considering the risk to human lives and the cost of the re investment in case of collapse;
therefore a minimum of 1000 year return period is suggested for road tunnels, and 2500 year
return period for subway and other massive transportations systems.
References
1.
Hunk CJ, Monsees J, Munfah N, Wisniewski J. Technical manual for design and construction of road tunnels
civil elements. Federal Highway Administration. Report FHWA-NHI-10-034. 2009.
2.
AASHTO. Technical manual for design and construction of road tunnels civil elements. First Edition.
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. 2010.
3.
Wang J. Seismic design of tunnels. A simple state-of-the-art design approach. Monograph 7, Parsons
Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas Inc.1993.
4.
Hashash YMA, Hook JJ, Schmidt B, Yao JI. Seismic design and analysis of underground structures. Tunnelling
and Underground Space Techinollogy, 2001. 16: 247 293.
5.
Yoshida J. Damage to subway station during the 1995 Hyogoken Nambu (Kobe) earthquake. Earthquake
geotechnical case histories for performance based design. Kokusho ed. CRC Press, 2009.