applied

sciences
Article
Seismic Vulnerability Assessment of a Shallow
Two-Story Underground RC Box Structure
Jungwon Huh 1 ID
, Quang Huy Tran 1 ID
, Achintya Haldar 2 , Innjoon Park 3 and Jin-Hee Ahn 4, *
1 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Chonnam National University, Yeosu, Chonnam 59626,
Korea; jwonhuh@chonnam.ac.kr (J.H.); 157042@live.jnu.ac.kr or huytq@ntu.edu.vn (Q.H.T.)
2 Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721,
USA; haldar@u.arizona.edu
3 Department of Civil Engineering, Hanseo University, Seosan, Chungnam 31962, Korea;
geotech@hanseo.ac.kr
4 Department of Civil Engineering, Gyeongnam National University of Science and Technology, Jinju,
Gyeongnam 52725, Korea
* Correspondence: jhahn@gntech.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-55-751-3293

Academic Editor: Takayoshi Kobayashi

Received: 8 June 2017; Accepted: 14 July 2017; Published: 18 July 2017

Abstract: Tunnels, culverts, and subway stations are the main parts of an integrated infrastructure
system. Most of them are constructed by the cut-and-cover method at shallow depths (mainly
lower than 30 m) of soil deposits, where large-scale seismic ground deformation can occur with
lower stiffness and strength of the soil. Therefore, the transverse racking deformation (one of the
major seismic ground deformation) due to soil shear deformations should be included in the seismic
design of underground structures using cost- and time-efficient methods that can achieve robustness
of design and are easily understood by engineers. This paper aims to develop a simplified but
comprehensive approach relating to vulnerability assessment in the form of fragility curves on a
shallow two-story reinforced concrete underground box structure constructed in a highly-weathered
soil. In addition, a comparison of the results of earthquakes per peak ground acceleration (PGA) is
conducted to determine the effective and appropriate number for cost- and time-benefit analysis.
The ground response acceleration method for buried structures (GRAMBS) is used to analyze the
behavior of the structure subjected to transverse seismic loading under quasi-static conditions.
Furthermore, the damage states that indicate the exceedance level of the structural strength capacity
are described by the results of nonlinear static analyses (or so-called pushover analyses). The Latin
hypercube sampling technique is employed to consider the uncertainties associated with the material
properties and concrete cover owing to the variation in construction conditions. Finally, a large
number of artificial ground shakings satisfying the design spectrum are generated in order to develop
the seismic fragility curves based on the defined damage states. It is worth noting that the number
of ground motions per PGA, which is equal to or larger than 20, is a reasonable value to perform
a structural analysis that produces satisfactory fragility curves.

Keywords: two-story underground structure; fragility curve; GRAMBS; maximum likelihood;

Latin hypercube sampling; pushover analysis

1. Introduction
In previous design specifications for underground structures in Japan, the seismic design
is not usually considered in the transverse direction because there has been a strong belief that
underground structures are stable following the deformation of the surrounding soil during an
earthquake. Consequently, the Daikai subway system as well as tunnels and metro stations where

Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 735; doi:10.3390/app7070735 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 735 2 of 16

the design did not consider the earthquake load [1] were hit by the Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake
of magnitude 7.2 based on Japan Meteorological Agency scale (roughly equivalent to a moment
magnitude Mw of 6.9) in 1995 [2]. The general damage pattern showed the lack of load carrying
capacity against shear at the center columns that led to the collapse of the tunnel ceiling slabs [1,3].
Moreover, many of infrastructures worldwide have also experienced significant damages in recent
earthquakes such as in the Mw 7.7 Chi-Chi Taiwan in 1999 [4], Mw 6.3 Baladeh in 2004 [5], and
Mw 7.0 Haiti in 2010 [6]. Several design hypotheses for the analysis applying seismic loadings are
suggested. However, the real seismic behavior during shaking remains unaddressed [7]. There are
many methods used to perform the soil–structure interaction (SSI). Whereas the sophisticated model
using full dynamic numerical analysis is expected to provide accurate results at high computational
cost, other methods such as pseudo-static or equivalent static solutions are also acceptable for practical
purposes despite a low accuracy in calculation. The static seismic analysis method, so-called the
ground response acceleration method for buried structures (GRAMBS) has proven its effectiveness in
modeling the dynamic response behavior considering the SSI [8,9]. The method was first proposed by
Katayama in 1990 [8], where the calculated accelerations were converted into static force and applied
to the finite element method (FEM) model which assigning horizontal rollers at both sides and a fixed
base condition. The analytical method had been verified to be effective by comparing its results with
those of the dynamic analysis using FLUSH-VB [8]. From the experiment in Katayama’s research,
the required computing time for GRAMBS was only one-tenth of that for the analysis using FLUSH-VB,
with relatively identical results. In addition, other recent quasi-static methods also show satisfactory
results similar to GRAMBS. Particularly, Akira Tateishi proposed a new method called the ground
response method (GRM) in 2005 [9] by studying a seismic load for the seismic deformation method
based on the dynamic substructure method. Then, those seismic stresses and seismic deformation of
the ground were verified to be applied to underground structure. The GRM uses the inertia forces
calculated from response accelerations of a free field as the main seismic load similar to GRAMBS, and
the difference is that the outer boundary conditions are replaced with equivalent nodal forces that
reproduce seismic strains of a free field to a near field. The GRM results had proven the accuracy of
Katayama’s method. Out of the GRAMBS’s benefits such as time efficiency and its simplicity, its main
shortcoming is not applicable to an inclined input of a shear wave and a longitudinal wave because of
the constraints of displacements at the boundaries [9]. Even though GRAMBS has been developed
for a long time, it is still the most effective and reliable static seismic analysis method because it was
verified with various dynamic finite element analyses [10–12], especially the validity of GRAMBS was
confirmed from the result of a small-scale model of tunnel embedded in a shear soil column on shaking
table conducted by Tohma et al. [13]. Therefore, GRAMBS is trusted to be a tool for structural analysis
in this study.
Most of the structures in the form of tunnels or parking lots have at least two levels, which allow
functional arrangements for ticket machines, platforms, ATM, passenger access, ventilation, equipment,
and staff rooms. Therefore, a typical two-story reinforced concrete underground box structure is
considered as the main subject of this research. The objective is to propose a comprehensive numerical
approach for the development of fragility curves. In addition, the number (10, 20, 30, 40, and 50) of
earthquakes per peak ground acceleration (PGA) is investigated in order to determine the effective
number, which is appropriate in a practical analysis.

2. Analytical Procedure for Constructing Fragility Curves

As mentioned above, the objective of this study is to develop a comprehensive numerical
approach for the construction of fragility curves focusing on a shallow two-story reinforced concrete
underground box structure in a highly-weathered soil. The frame work of the study is divided into
many subtasks as shown in Figure 1. The numerical approach is based on the GRAMBS method for
analyzing the subway station structure instead of applying the dynamic time-history analysis because
it significantly improves the efficiency by reducing the computational cost without sacrificing the
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 735 3 of 16

accuracy. A large set of input artificial ground motions representing different levels of earthquake
intensity are6,generated.
Appl. Sci. 2017, 735 The responses of the free-field ground shaking are calculated through 3aof1D 16
equivalent linear analysis for an increasing level of earthquake intensity. Then, the accelerations at
the time of theatmaximum
accelerations the time of displacement
the maximum between top andbetween
displacement bottom of theand
top tunnel are obtained.
bottom All the
of the tunnel are
accelerations along the soil depth are converted into static force and applied to the
obtained. All the accelerations along the soil depth are converted into static force and applied to structure. On the
other hand,
structure. On the damage
the statesthe
other hand, thatdamage
indicatestates
the exceedance
that indicate level
theof the structural
exceedance levelstrength capacity
of the structural
are described by the pushover analysis considering the uncertainties on the material
strength capacity are described by the pushover analysis considering the uncertainties on the material properties and
concrete
properties cover.
and For this purpose,
concrete cover. Forthethis
Latin hypercube
purpose, sampling
the Latin method
hypercube is used to
sampling generate
method a set of
is used to
random
generatevariables.
a set of Finally,
randomthevariables.
fragility curves arethe
Finally, constructed
fragility based
curvesonaretheconstructed
developmentbasedof a damage
on the
index (DI) with
development of the increaseindex
a damage of seismic intensity.
(DI) with The fragility
the increase curve intensity.
of seismic parameters arefragility
The estimated by
curve
applying
parameters theare
maximum
estimated likelihood estimate
by applying (MLE). likelihood estimate (MLE).
the maximum

Figure 1. Analytical
Figure 1. Analytical process of proposed
process of proposed methodology.
methodology.

2.1. Structural Analysis Using GRAMBS

2.1. Structural Analysis Using GRAMBS
In a soil-structure system, the major external forces on the structure are provided by the effective
In a soil-structure system, the major external forces on the structure are provided by the effective
dynamic response of the surrounding soil. The dynamic problem of such a buried structure certainly
dynamic response of the surrounding soil. The dynamic problem of such a buried structure certainly
becomes the quasi-static soil-structure interaction problem of the system. When a two-dimensional
becomes the quasi-static soil-structure interaction problem of the system. When a two-dimensional
system is excited by the horizontal input ground motion, .. X  ( t ) , the equation of motion [8] is
system is excited by the horizontal input ground motion, Xg (gt), the equation of motion [8] is
[ M ]{X.. ( t )} + [ C ]{X. ( t )} + [ K ]{X ( t )} = - [ M ]{ι} X g.. ( t ) , (1)
[M]{X(t)} + [C]{X (t)} + [K]{X(t)} = −[M]{ι}Xg (t), (1)
where [M], [C], and [K] are the mass matrix, damping matrix, and stiffness matrix, respectively.
where
X(t) is [M], [C], anddisplacement
the relative [K] are the mass
vector. {ι} damping
matrix, is the influence matrix,vector
and stiffness matrix, respectively.
which represents X(t) is
the relationship
the relative displacement vector. {ι} is the influence vector which represents the relationship between
between seismic input direction and analytical model degree-of-freedom (DOF). At first, the tunnel
seismic input direction and analytical model degree-of-freedom (DOF). At first, the tunnel structure is
structure is neglected, and the system is assumed to consist only of the soil layer. The problem
neglected, and the system is assumed to consist only of the soil layer. The problem therefore turns out
therefore turns out to be a free-field response of a uniform soil. The stress of a small portion of soil
to be a free-field response of a uniform soil. The stress of a small portion of soil from the depth j to j + 1
from the depth j to j + 1 can be expressed as [8]
can be expressed as [8]
=[ D[D
σσj j = ][ B][]Bu]ju, j , (2)
(2)

where j
where σσj represents
represents the
the stress
stress of
of the
the soil
soil from
from the
the depth
depth jj to
to jj + 1, [D]
+ 1, [D] is
is the
the material property matrix,
material property matrix,
related to Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio, [B] is the strain-displacement matrix
related to Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio, [B] is the strain-displacement matrix which indicates which indicates
the j
the relationship
relationship between
between relative
relative displacement
displacement and and shear
shear strain,
strain, andand uuj is
is the
the relative
relative displacement
displacement
between
between the depth j and j + 1. Taking the time, tm, when the portion of the soil to be replaced by
the depth j and j + 1. Taking the time, tm , when the portion of the soil to be replaced by the
the
tunnel shows the maximum relative displacement between the top and bottom levels of the tunnel,
Equation (2) must be maximized and should also satisfy Equation (1) as

Xj ( t m ) =Xj+1 ( t m ) +u j , (3)

Rewriting Equation (1), we obtain

[ K]{X ( t m )} =-[ M] ({X ( t m )} +{ι} X g ( t m ) ) -[C]{X ( t m )} , (4)

Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 735 4 of 16

tunnel shows the maximum relative displacement between the top and bottom levels of the tunnel,
Equation (2) must be maximized and should also satisfy Equation (1) as

Xj (tm )= Xj+1 (tm )+uj , (3)

Rewriting Equation (1), we obtain

.. .. .
[K]{X(tm )} = −[M]({X(tm )} + {ι}Xg (tm )) − [C]{X(tm )}, (4)
Appl. Sci. 2017, 6, 735 4 of 16
where the right-hand side of Equation (4) is the dynamic force applied on the full depth of the soil
column
whereatthe
time tm . Because
right-hand sidethe time is fixed,
of Equation (4) isit the
becomes a solution
dynamic to the static
force applied on theproblem.
full depthIf the damping
of the soil
of column
the soil at
is time
small, Equation (4) can be approximated as [8]
tm. Because the time is fixed, it becomes a solution to the static problem. If the damping
of the soil is small, Equation (4) can be approximated .. as [8] ..
[K]{X(tm )} = −[M]({X(tm )} + {ι}Xg (tm )), (5)
({ } )
[ K]{X ( t m )} =-[ M] X ( t m ) +{ι} X g ( t m ) , (5)
If the portion of the soil is replaced by the tunnel, then the corresponding parts of the matrices
[M], [K],If [D],
the portion
and [B]of the soiltoisthe
relating replaced by theoftunnel,
calculation then thestress
the maximum corresponding
describedparts of are
earlier the replaced
matrices by
[M],of[K],
those the[D], and [B]
tunnel. relating touthe
In addition, calculation
j becomes of the maximum
equivalent to the maximumstress described earlier are replaced
relative displacement between
by those of the tunnel. In addition, u j becomes equivalent to the maximum relative displacement
the top and bottom levels of the tunnel. Finally, the maximum stress state of the tunnel surrounded by
between the top and bottom levels of the tunnel. Finally, the maximum stress state of the tunnel
the soil is predicted.
surrounded by the soil is predicted.
In this study, at first, without considering the subway station structure, the free-field soil response
In this study, at first, without considering the subway station structure, the free-field soil
analysis for each sub-layer is performed using the 1D equivalent linear method [14]. The aim is mainly
response analysis for each sub-layer is performed using the 1D equivalent linear method [14].
to obtain the time-dependent displacement and acceleration responses of each layer. The ground
The aim is mainly to obtain the time-dependent displacement and acceleration responses of each
response acceleration at time tm is considered
layer. The ground response acceleration
for the whole depth of the soil column and converted
at time tm is considered for the whole depth of the soil
into a body force as illustrated in Figure
column and converted into a body force as illustrated 2a. Then, it isinapplied
Figure 2a. to every
Then, itnode of a 2D
is applied to finite
everyelement
node
model
of a 2Dforfinite
the static
elementanalysis.
model A fornumerical exampleAhas
the static analysis. been solved,
numerical example in which
has beena two-story reinforced
solved, in which a
concrete subway station and near field of the adjacent ground are modeled
two-story reinforced concrete subway station and near field of the adjacent ground are modeled using the MIDAS finite
element
using theprogram
MIDAS [15]. Theelement
finite subwayprogramstation base
[15]. is placed
The subway on astation
rocky base
layerisatplaced
22.6 mon depth with
a rocky a buried
layer at
soil cover
22.6 of approximately
m depth with a buried 10.25
soil m high.
cover ofBoundary
approximately conditions
10.25 m of high.
the ground
Boundary model comprise
conditions ofathe
fixed
base and roller
ground modelsupports
comprise at bothbase
a fixed sidesandwhichrollerfix verticalatdirection
supports both sidesand freefix
which tovertical
rotate and translate
direction and in
horizontal direction
free to rotate when the
and translate inground
horizontal subjected
direction bywhen
horizontal shaking
the ground as shown
subjected by in Figure 2b.
horizontal The soil
shaking
as shown
layers in Figure
and their physical2b. The soil layers
properties areand their physical
summarized properties
in Table 1. are summarized in Table 1.

Figure 2.2.(a)
Figure (a)1D
1Dfree-field
free-fieldsoil
soilresponse
response analysis; (b)Plane
analysis; (b) Planestrain
strain2D
2Dfinite
finiteelement
element method
method (FEM)
(FEM) model.
model.
Appl. Sci. 2017, 6, 735 5 of 16
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 735 5 of 16
Appl. Sci. 2017, 6, 735 Table 1. Physical properties of soil. 5 of 16

Soil Layer TableUnit

1. PhysicalSandy
properties of Weathered
soil. Soil Rock
Table 1. Physical properties of soil.
Mass density kg/m3 1800 2000 2300
Soil
ShearSoil
waveLayer
velocity
Layer Unit
m/s
Unit Sandy
275
Sandy Weathered Soil
500 Soil
Weathered Rock
1500
Rock
Poisson’s
Mass ratio
density - 33
kg/m 0.35
1800 0.35
2000 0.25
2300
Mass density kg/m 1800 2000 2300
ShearThickness
wave velocity
Shear wave velocity m/s m
m/s 6.0
275
275 16.6
500
500 -
1500
1500
Poisson’s ratio
Poisson’s ratio - - 0.35
0.35 0.35
0.35 0.25
0.25
Thickness
Owing to theThickness
lack of sufficient and m m
suitable 6.0
earthquake
6.0 records in -
Korea, a set of- artificial
16.6 ground
motions are used in this study to derive the vulnerability curves considering the design spectrum
Owing to theKorean
suggested lack of Building
sufficient Code
and suitable earthquake records3.inTwenty-three
Korea, a set of artificial seismic
ground
Owingintothe
the lack of sufficient [16], asearthquake
and suitable shown in records
Figure in Korea, a set ofdifferent
artificial ground
motions
PGA levels are used in this study to derive the vulnerability curves considering the design spectrum
motions areare considered,
used and to
in this study 50 derive
acceleration time histories
the vulnerability are artificially
curves considering generated for each
the design PGA
spectrum
suggested
level by in the
using theKorean Building
QuakeGem Code [17],
program [16], as shown
which is in Figure
based on 3. Twenty-three
the different seismic
spectral-representation-based
suggested in the Korean Building Code [16], as shown in Figure 3. Twenty-three different seismic
PGA levelsalgorithm
simulation are considered, and 50Deodatis
proposed acceleration time histories are 1150
artificially generated for each PGA
PGA levels are considered, and by
50 accelerationin 1996
time[18,19]. Thus,
histories ground
are artificially shaking time
generated for eachhistories
PGA
level by
are producedusing the QuakeGem program [17], which is based on the spectral-representation-based
level by usingastheinputs to the 1D
QuakeGem free-field
program soilwhich
[17], analysis. The PGA
is based on thelevel ranges from 0.02 g to 1.3 g.
spectral-representation-based
simulation
The two algorithm
minimum andproposed
maximum by ground
Deodatis in 1996time
motion [18,19]. Thus,are
histories 1150 ground shaking
illustrated in Figure time histories
4. histories
simulation algorithm proposed by Deodatis in 1996 [18,19]. Thus, 1150 ground shaking time
are produced as inputs to the 1D free-field soil analysis. The PGA level ranges from 0.02 g to 1.3 g.
are produced as inputs to the 1D free-field soil analysis. The PGA level ranges from 0.02 g to 1.3 g.
The two minimum and maximum ground motion time histories are illustrated in Figure 4.
The two minimum and maximum ground motion time histories are illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 3. Typical spectral response acceleration.

Figure 3. Typical spectral response acceleration.

Figure 3. Typical spectral response acceleration.

(a) (b)

Figure 4.
Figure 4. Artificial
Artificialground
ground motiontime
(a) motion timehistories
histories with
with peak
peak ground
ground acceleration
acceleration (PGA)
(PGA)
(b) of0.02
of (a) (a) 0.02
g andg
and (b) 1.3
(b) 1.3 g. g.
Figure 4. Artificial ground motion time histories with peak ground acceleration (PGA) of (a) 0.02 g
2.2. Definition
2.2. ofg.Damage
and (b) 1.3of
Definition Damage State
State of
of Underground
Underground Subway
Subway Station
Station
In the
In the pushover
pushover analyses, aa lateral
analyses, lateral force
force is applied
isSubway
applied incrementally
incrementally toto produce
produce displacements
displacements from
from
2.2. Definition of Damage State of Underground Station
zero to the ultimate value in order to observe the nonlinear behavior of the structure.
zero to the ultimate value in order to observe the nonlinear behavior of the structure. The type of The type of
lateralInforce
the pushover
applied analyses,
on the a lateralshould
structure force isbeapplied
selectedincrementally
based on to characteristics
the produce displacements
of from
interaction
lateral force applied on the structure should be selected based on the characteristics of interaction
zero to the
between theultimate value in order to observe the nonlinear behavior ofat the structure. The type of
between the soil
soil and
andstructure.
structure.ForFordeep
deeptunnels,
tunnels, shear
shearforce developed
force developed the exterior
at the surface
exterior of the
surface of
lateral force applied on the structure should be selected based on the characteristics
roof is the primary cause of the structural racking deformation. Thus, the racking effects of a deep of interaction
between the soil and structure. For deep tunnels, shear force developed at the exterior surface of the
roof is the primary cause of the structural racking deformation. Thus, the racking effects of a deep
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 735 6 of 16

Appl. Sci. 2017, 6, 735 6 of 16

the roof is the primary cause of the structural racking deformation. Thus, the racking effects of a
rectangular
deep tunnel
rectangular can can
tunnel be simulated by applying
be simulated a point/concentrated
by applying a point/concentrated loading at the
loading attop
the of
toptheof wall.
the
On the contrary, for a shallow tunnel with a thin overburden soil cover, the racking
wall. On the contrary, for a shallow tunnel with a thin overburden soil cover, the racking deformation deformation may
be developed along the side walls of the tunnel owing to the normal earth pressures.
may be developed along the side walls of the tunnel owing to the normal earth pressures. Therefore, Therefore, the
racking deformation should be imposed by applying an inverse triangular
the racking deformation should be imposed by applying an inverse triangular displacement loading displacement loading
alongthe
along thewall
walldepth
depth[20].
[20].When
Whenthethestructure
structureisisburied
buriedrelatively
relativelydeep
deepininthe
thesoil,
soil,both
bothtwo
twotypes
typesofof
pseudo-static lateral force models (concentrated and inverse triangular force) are expected to bebeused
pseudo-static lateral force models (concentrated and inverse triangular force) are expected to used
totoproduce
producea aunit
unitdisplacement
displacementofofthe thetunnel
tunnelstation,
station,asasdepicted
depictedininFigure
Figure5.5.The
Thetunnel
tunnelstation
stationisis
considered as a frame structure, and the plastic hinges are assumed to be developed at the end ofofthe
considered as a frame structure, and the plastic hinges are assumed to be developed at the end the
frames. The plastic hinge properties used are those suggested by
frames. The plastic hinge properties used are those suggested by FEMA 356 [21]. FEMA 356 [21].

Figure 5. Models of lateral force type and pushover curve: (a) Concentrated load; (b) Inverse triangular
Figure 5. Models of lateral force type and pushover curve: (a) Concentrated load; (b) Inverse
load; and (c) Typical pushover curve.
triangular load; and (c) Typical pushover curve.

The
Theevaluation
evaluationofofdamage damageisisnormally
normallybased based on on the
the deflection
deflection response
response ofof thethe structure.
structure.
The
The damage states can be divided into three performance levels based on ATC 40 and FEMA 356FEMA
damage states can be divided into three performance levels based on ATC 40 and [21–23],
356
i.e.,[21–23], i.e., (a) occupancy
(a) immediate immediate(IO), occupancy (IO), (b)
(b) life safety lifeand
(LS), safety (LS), and
(c) collapse (c) collapse
prevention prevention
(CP), (CP),
which indicate
which indicate the correlation between the material nonlinearity and
the correlation between the material nonlinearity and deterministic projections for the structural deterministic projections for
the structural
damage damage
sustained. They sustained. They can
can be classified be classified
as minor, moderate,as minor, moderate,
and extensive and extensive
damage damage
states, respectively.
states,To respectively.
demonstrate the behavior of a structure, a two-story reinforced concrete tunnel station is
To demonstrate
modeled by using SAP2000the behavior of a the
[24] with structure, a two-story
dimensions reinforced
and details concrete tunnel
of reinforcement station isin
bars depicted
modeled
Figure 6.by Inusing SAP2000a[24]
this program, with the
post-yield dimensions
behavior and details
is assigned of reinforcement
by concentrated plasticbars
hingesdepicted in
to frames.
Figure 6. In this
The inelastic program,
behavior a post-yield
is obtained behavior
through is assigned
integration of theby concentrated
plastic strain and plastic
plastichinges to frames.
curvature which
The inelasticin
suggested behavior
FEMA is obtained
356. One ofthrough
the main integration of the
factors that plasticthe
control strain and plastic
uncertainty curvature
of the responsewhichof a
suggested
reinforcedinconcrete
FEMA 356. One is
structure of the
the variability
main factors thatmaterial
of the control the uncertainty
strength. The mean of the
and response of aof
coefficient
reinforced
variation concrete
are used structure
to describe is the
the statistical
variabilityvariation
of the material strength.properties.
of the material The mean Thus,and coefficient of
uncertainties
variation are used
in the design to describe
parameters are the statistical
considered asvariation of the material
random variables, properties.
and their Thus,
statistical uncertainties
properties in
are given
the
in design
Table 2parameters
[25,26]. In thisare study,
considered as random
the Latin variables,
hypercube approachand is their statistical
applied properties
to simulate are given
the uncertainty
inand
Table 2 [25,26]. In
randomness ofthis
the study,
random thevariables.
Latin hypercube
The reasonapproach
of using is applied
this method to simulate
is that the
Latinuncertainty
hypercube
and randomness
sampling of the
stratifies the random variables.distributions,
input probability The reason ofinusing whichthis methodthe
it divides is that Latin hypercube
cumulative curve into
sampling stratifies
equal intervals onthe
theinput probability
cumulative distributions,
probability in which
scale, then takes ait random
divides the valuecumulative
from eachcurve intoof
interval
equal intervals
the input on the cumulative
distribution [27]. Therefore,probability scale, amount
with a small then takes a random
of sample, value from
it shows a goodeach interval of
representative
the
of input
the real distribution
variability [27]. Therefore,
comparing to thewith a small technique
traditional amount ofsuch sample,like it showsCarlo
Monte a good representative
Sampling, without
ofsacrificing
the real variability comparing
much accuracy. to the traditional technique such like Monte Carlo Sampling, without
sacrificing much accuracy.
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 735 7 of 16
Appl. Sci. 2017, 6, 735 7 of 16

(a)

(b)
Figure 6. (a) Typical cross section of the tunnel (in meter); (b) Details of reinforcement bars (in mm).
Figure 6. (a) Typical cross section of the tunnel (in meter); (b) Details of reinforcement bars (in mm).

Table 2. Statistical properties of the random variables.

Table 2. Statistical properties of the random variables.
Random variables Unit Distribution Mean COV
Random variables
Elastic modulus of concrete Unit GPa Distribution
Normal Mean0.120
31.23 COV
Poisson’s ratio
Elastic modulus of concrete of concrete
GPa - Normal
Normal 0.17 31.230.050 0.120
Compression strength
Poisson’s ratio of concrete of concrete
- MPa Normal
Normal 29.42 0.17 0.175 0.050
Concrete
Compression strength of concrete cover MPa mm Normal
Normal 78.0029.420.145 0.175
ConcreteYield
coverstrength of steel mm MPa Normal
Log-normal 400.00 78.000.093 0.145
Yield strength of steel
Elastic modulus of steelMPa GPa Log-normalLog-normal 199.95 400.000.033 0.093
Elastic modulus of steel GPa Log-normal 199.95 0.033
Fifty different pushover analyses per model are conducted. Figure 7 illustrates the deformation
of theFifty
tunnel and the
different distribution
pushover of per
analyses plastic
modelhinges in various Figure
are conducted. phases7 obtained
illustratesfrom the pushover
the deformation of
analysis.
the tunnelTheandfirst hinges of theofIO
the distribution levelhinges
plastic appearinatvarious
the joints of the
phases side column
obtained from theand bottom analysis.
pushover floor as
shown
The inhinges
first Figureof7b.the
Under a continuously
IO level appear at theincreasing
joints of load, thecolumn
the side plastic hinges at the floor
and bottom IO level occurred
as shown in
more at several other positions. In addition, a plastic hinge at the toe of the side column
Figure 7b. Under a continuously increasing load, the plastic hinges at the IO level occurred more at first reaches
the LS level,
several otheras shown inInFigure
positions. 7c, which
addition, causes
a plastic a potential
hinge at the toecollapse at the
of the side toe offirst
column thatreaches
column.the With
LS
alevel,
gradual increase of load, the most dangerous hinge moves
as shown in Figure 7c, which causes a potential collapse at to the top of the same column, reaching
toe of that column. With a gradual
the CP level as illustrated in Figure 7d. It indicates that the collapse would first occur at the top of the
side column.
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 735 8 of 16

increase of load, the most dangerous hinge moves to the top of the same column, reaching the CP level
as illustrated
Appl. Sci. 2017, 6,in Figure 7d. It indicates that the collapse would first occur at the top of the side column.
735 8 of 16

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 7.
Figure 7. An
An example
example of
of deformation
deformation and
and hinges
hinges in
in various
various phases
phases under
under inverse
inverse triangular
triangular loading
loading
(a) gravity load; (b) Hinges at immediate occupancy (IO) level; (c) Hinges at life safety (LS) level;
(a) gravity load; (b) Hinges at immediate occupancy (IO) level; (c) Hinges at life safety (LS) level; and
(d) Hinges at collapse prevention (CP) level.
and (d) Hinges at collapse prevention (CP) level.

Based on the IO, LS, and CP performance level defined in FEMA 356 and ATC 40, the DI is
Based on the IO, LS, and CP performance level defined in FEMA 356 and ATC 40, the DI is
defined as the ratio of the lateral displacement (between the top and bottom of the tunnel) and height
defined as the ratio of the lateral displacement (between the top and bottom of the tunnel) and height
of the tunnel in this study. By taking the average of drift capacity values at each performance level,
of the tunnel in this study. By taking the average of drift capacity values at each performance level,
the DI can be derived. The four different damage states are introduced in Table 3. Under an identical
the DI can be derived. The four different damage states are introduced in Table 3. Under an identical
earthquake intensity, the DI from the concentrated load, assuming that the primary cause is due to
earthquake intensity, the DI from the concentrated load, assuming that the primary cause is due to
the shear force developed at the exterior surface of the tunnel roof, reaches the same damage state
the shear force developed at the exterior surface of the tunnel roof, reaches the same damage state
more easily than the DI from the distributed load, considering that the cause is due to the normal
more easily than the DI from the distributed load, considering that the cause is due to the normal earth
earth pressures developed along the side walls.
pressures developed along the side walls.
Table 3. Definition of damage index (DI).
Table 3. Definition of damage index (DI).
Types of Pseudo-Static Lateral Force
Damage State
Types ofLoad
Concentrated Pseudo-Static
InvertLateral Force Load
Distributed
Damage State
No damage DI ≤ 0.11%
Concentrated Load InvertDI ≤ 0.13% Load
Distributed
Minor
No damage 0.11% < DI ≤
DI ≤ 0.11%0.36% 0.13% < DI0.13%
DI ≤ ≤ 0.36%
Moderate
Minor 0.36%<<DI
0.11% DI≤≤ 0.36%
0.88% 0.36%
0.13%<<DI
DI≤≤0.90%
0.36%
Moderate
Extensive 0.36% < DI ≤
DI > 0.88%0.88% 0.36% ≤
DI > 0.90%0.90%
< DI
Extensive DI > 0.88% DI > 0.90%

3. Fragility Curve Development

3. Fragility Curve Development
The probability of failure or collapse is a conditional probability that the maximum drift between
The probability
the top and bottom of
of failure or collapse
the tunnel exceedsis the
a conditional probability
drift threshold underthat
the the maximum
earthquake drift between
intensity. After
the top and bottom of the tunnel exceeds the drift threshold under the earthquake
calculating the probability of exceedance of the limit states for each PGA, the vulnerability curve intensity. After
can
calculating the probability
be constructed by plottingofthe
exceedance of the
calculated datalimit states
versus for each
PGA. PGA,
There are the vulnerability
parametric (e.g.,curve can be
log-normal
constructed
function) andby plotting the calculated
non-parametric methoddata(e.g.,
versus PGA. There
binned Monteare parametric
Carlo (e.g., log-normal
simulation and Kernelfunction)
density
and non-parametric method (e.g., binned Monte Carlo simulation and Kernel
estimation [28]) to establish fragility curve. In this study, the log-normal cumulative density estimation [28])
distribution
function is used to define the fragility function [29–33].
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 735 9 of 16

to establish fragility curve. In this study, the log-normal cumulative distribution function is used to
define the fragility function [29–33].
 
ln(x/θ)
P(PGA = x) = Φ , (6)
β

where P(PGA = x) represents the probability that a ground motion with PGA = x causes the structure
to collapse; Φ( ) is the standard normal cumulative distribution function; θ and β are the median and
standard deviation of ln(PGA), respectively.
At each PGA = xj , the structural analyses produce some number of collapses out of the total
number of ground motions. The probability of observing collapses or no collapses is given by the
binomial distribution. Hence, the MLE function is
!
m
nj zj zj n j − zj
 
Likelihood = ∏ pj 1 − pj , (7)
j=1 zj

where pj represents the probability that a ground motion with PGA = xj causes the collapse, zj is the
number of collapses out of nj ground motions, and m represents the number of PGA level. In order to
perform this maximization, Equation (6) is substituted to Equation (7), so the fragility parameters are
explicit in the likelihood function:
!
! zj
!!nj −zj
m ln xj /θ ln xj /θ
nj
Likelihood = ∏ zj
Φ
β
1−Φ
β
, (8)
j=1

The parameters that maximize this likelihood function also maximize the log of the likelihood.
The “∧” notation denotes an estimate of a parameter:
( !
!
!!)

∧ ∧
 m ln xj /θ ln xj /θ
nj
= argmax ∑ ln +zj ln Φ + nj −zj ln 1 − Φ


θ, β , (9)
j=1 zj β β

To determine the probability of exceeding the damage states, the resulting displacements of the
tunnel obtained by GRAMBS method on twenty-three PGA levels ranging from 0.02 g to 1.3 g as
summarized in Table 4, were then compared with the defined damage states as presented in Table 3 for
both types of pushover analyses, in order to find the number of failures per each PGA level. Figure 8
shows separately the three fragility curves built from the data of three damage states obtained after
the tunnel sustained artificial ground motions, which are indicated by the white circle (for minor),
triangular (for moderate), and diamond (for extensive) shapes. A group of ten earthquake PGAs
were applied to calculate the three damage states including the minor (PGA from 0.02 g to 0.23 g),
moderate (PGA from 0.18 g to 0.7 g), and extensive (PGA from 0.4 g to 1.3 g) states, in which each
PGA level contains 50 different artificial earthquakes. As a result, for the concentrated load condition,
the median values of PGA (50% probability of exceedance) were 0.103 g, 0.330 g, and 0.806 g for minor,
moderate, and extensive damage states respectively, while they were 0.116 g, 0.328 g, and 0.818 g for
the distributed load condition, respectively.
In addition, considering the influence of the degree of earthquake intensity increment, there was
a significant difference between both pushover models in the minor state. For example, at a PGA of
0.1 g, only 9 minor damage cases happened after sustaining 50 earth shakes under the distributed load
case, whereas 23 minor damage cases were expected by the hypothesis of the shear force acting on the
tunnel roof. On the other hand, the number of collapse increased significantly with a slight increase in
the seismic PGA, especially in the minor and moderate damage states.
 Appl. Sci. 2017, 6, 735 10 of 16

Table 4. Number of failures per each PGA level.

Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 735 Concentrated Distributed 10 of 16

PGA (g)
Minor Moderate Extensive Minor Moderate Extensive
0.02 0 - - 0 - -
Table 4. Number of failures per each PGA level.
0.03 0 - - 0 - -
0.05 0Concentrated- - 0 -
Distributed -
PGA (g) 0.08 3 - - 0 - -
Minor Moderate Extensive Minor Moderate Extensive
0.10 23 - - 9 - -
0.02 0 - - 0 - -
0.13 43 - - 33 - -
0.03 0 - - 0 - -
0.05 0.15 0 50 - - - - 0 46 -- - -
0.08 0.18 3 50 - 0 - - 0 50 0- - -
0.10 0.20 23 50 - 0 - - 9 50 0- - -
0.13 0.23 43 50 - 0 - - 33 50 0 - - -
0.15 50 - - 46 - -
0.18
0.25 50 - 0
2 -
- 50
- 30 - -
0.20 0.28 50 - 0 5 - - 50 - 40 - -
0.23 0.30 50 - 0 17 - - 50 - 180 - -
0.25 0.40 - - 2 43 - 0 - - 413 0 -
0.28 - 5 - - 4 -
0.50 - 50 0 - 50 0
0.30 - 17 - - 18 -
0.40 0.60 - - 43 50 0 1 - - 5041 1 0
0.50 0.70 - - 50 50 0 10 - - 5050 7 0
0.60 0.80 - - 50 - 1 26 - - -50 25 1
0.70 0.90 - - 50 - 10 37 - - -50 33 7
0.80 - - 26 - - 25
0.90 1.00 - - - - 37 44 - - -- 43 33
1.00 1.10 - - - - 44 49 - - -- 49 43
1.10 1.20 - - - - 49 50 - - -- 50 49
1.20 1.30 - - - - 50 50 - - -- 50 50
1.30 - - 50 - - 50
θ 0.103 0.330 0.806 0.116 0.328 0.818
θ β 0.103 0.164 0.330 0.157 0.806 0.158 0.116
0.161 0.328
0.161 0.818
0.157
β 0.164 0.157 0.158 0.161 0.161 0.157
Note: θ, β: median and standard deviation of ln(PGA).
Note: θ, β: median and standard deviation of ln(PGA).

(a)

Figure 8. Cont.
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 735 11 of 16
Appl.Sci.
Appl. Sci.2017,
2017,6,6,735
735 11of
11 of16
16

(b)
(b)
Figure8.
Figure
Figure 8.8.Fragility
Fragilitycurves
Fragility curvesfor
curves fordamage
for damagestates:
damage states:(a)
states: (a)for
(a) forconcentrated
for concentratedload;
concentrated load;(b)
load; (b)for
(b) forInvert
for Invertdistributed
Invert distributedload.
distributed load.
load.

To compare
To compare two two hypotheses
hypotheses of of concentrated
concentrated load
load andand invert
invert distributed
distributed load,
load, the
the data
data from
from
To compare two hypotheses of concentrated load and invert distributed load, the data from
Table 4 and the fitted fragility curves from Figure 8 are broken down into three Figure 9a–c. ItIt isis
Table 4 and the fitted fragility curves from Figure 8 are broken down into three Figure 9a–c.
Table 4 and the fitted fragility curves from Figure 8 are broken down into three Figure 9a–c. It is clearly
clearlyseen
clearly seenthat
thatthe
theshapes
shapesof offragility
fragilitycurves
curvesofofboth
bothhypotheses
hypothesesare aresimilar.
similar.However,
However,at atthe
thesame
same
seen that the shapes of fragility curves of both hypotheses are similar. However, at the same PGA level,
PGAlevel,
PGA level,the
theprobability
probabilityof ofexceeding
exceedingthethedamage
damagestatestateisislarger
largerwith
withthe
thepoint
pointload
loadcomparing
comparingto to
the probability of exceeding the damage state is larger with the point load comparing to the distributed
the distributed load, except for moderate damage state, it showed nearly same
the distributed load, except for moderate damage state, it showed nearly same results. For example,results. For example,
load, except for moderate damage state, it showed nearly same results. For example, in minor damage
in minor
in minor damage
damage state,
state, at
at the
the same
same PGA
PGA ofof 0.11
0.11 g,
g, the
the exceedance
exceedance probability
probability forfor the
the point
point load
load
state, at the same PGA of 0.11 g, the exceedance probability for the point load hypothesis is double
hypothesisisisdouble
hypothesis doublethe thedistributed
distributedload,
load,which
whichareare66%
66%and and37%,
37%,respectively.
respectively.ForForextensive
extensivestate,
state,
the distributed load, which are 66% and 37%, respectively. For extensive state, at the PGA of 0.8 g,
atthe
at thePGA
PGAof of0.8
0.8g,
g,they
theywere
were48%48%for
forpoint
pointload
loadand
and44%44%for fordistributed
distributedload.
load.The
Theresults
resultsare
aresimilar
similar
they were 48% for point load and 44% for distributed load. The results are similar with a value of 65%
withaavalue
with valueofof65%
65%for formoderate
moderatestate
stateat
ataaPGA
PGAof of0.35
0.35ggas asshown
shownin inFigure
Figure9.9.
for moderate state at a PGA of 0.35 g as shown in Figure 9.

(a)
(a)

Figure 9. Cont.
Appl.
Appl.Sci. 2017,7,6,735
Sci.2017, 735 12
12of
of16
16

(b)

(c)
Figure 9. Fitted fragility curves of 50 earthquakes per each PGA level: (a) Minor; (b) Moderate; and
Figure 9. Fitted fragility curves of 50 earthquakes per each PGA level: (a) Minor; (b) Moderate;
(c) Extensive damage state.
and (c) Extensive damage state.

To determine the required number of earthquakes to be applied in practical structural analysis,

two To determine
statistical the required
parameters, number
which of earthquakes
are required to be
to define a applied
fragility in practical
curve, are structural analysis,
obtained using the
two statistical parameters, which are required to define a fragility curve, are obtained
proposed method and three fragility curves, ranging from 10 to 50 earthquakes per PGA level, using the
proposed
are derivedmethod and three
gradually. fragility
The median curves,
value ranging
at each damagefromstate
10 to 50 earthquakes
is acquired with itsper PGA level,
corresponding
are derived gradually. The median value at each damage state is acquired
log-normal standard deviation value summarized in Table 5 and plotted in Figure 10. with its corresponding
log-normal standard deviation value summarized in Table 5 and plotted in Figure 10.
Table 5. Fragility curve parameters for 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 earthquakes per PGA.
Table 5. Fragility curve parameters for 10, 20, 30, 40, and 50 earthquakes per PGA.
Load Type Concentrated Load Invert Distributed Load
Earthquakes per PGA
Load Type 10 20
Concentrated30Load 40 50 10 Invert20 Distributed
30 Load40 50
Earthquakes per PGA θ 0.107 10 0.104
20 0.105
30 0.103
40 0.103
50 0.124
10 0.119 30
20 0.119 400.117 500.116
Minor
θβ 0.148
0.107 0.146
0.104 0.137
0.105 0.142
0.103 0.164 0.124
0.103 0.167 0.119
0.168 0.119
0.162 0.117
0.162 0.116
0.161
Minor
0.148 0.146 0.137 0.142 0.164
β
θ 0.351 0.337 0.338 0.328 0.330 0.167
0.351 0.168
0.337 0.162
0.336 0.162
0.327 0.161
0.328
Moderate θ 0.351 0.337 0.338 0.328 0.330 0.351 0.337 0.336 0.327 0.328
Moderate
β
β 0.135
0.135
0.137
0.137
0.131
0.131
0.139
0.139
0.157
0.157
0.135
0.135
0.137
0.137
0.133
0.133
0.139
0.139
0.161
0.161
θ
θ 0.841
0.841
0.809
0.809
0.823
0.823
0.804
0.804
0.806
0.806
0.854
0.854
0.819
0.819
0.830
0.830
0.816
0.816
0.818
0.818
Extensive
Extensive
ββ 0.148
0.148 0.147
0.147 0.148
0.148 0.155
0.155 0.158 0.130
0.158 0.130 0.142
0.142 0.145
0.145 0.151
0.151 0.157
0.157
Appl.
Appl.Sci. 2017,7,
Sci.2017, 6,735
735 13
13of
of16
16

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
Figure 10.
Figure 10. Fragility
Fragility curves
curves for
for damage
damage states
states ranging
ranging from
from 10
10 to
to 50
50 earthquakes
earthquakes per
per PGA
PGA level:
level:
(a) Concentrated load (Minor); (b) Distributed load (Minor); (c) Concentrated load
(a) Concentrated load (Minor); (b) Distributed load (Minor); (c) Concentrated load (Moderate); (Moderate);
(d)Distributed
(d) Distributedload
load(Moderate);
(Moderate);(e)
(e)Concentrated
Concentratedload
load(Extensive)
(Extensive)and
and(f)
(f)Distributed
Distributedload
load(Extensive).
(Extensive).

The fragility curves for the three damage states with a range of 10 to 50 earthquakes per PGA
The fragility curves for the three damage states with a range of 10 to 50 earthquakes per PGA
level as illustrated in Figure 10, show similar trends but the lower the number of earthquakes per
level as illustrated in Figure 10, show similar trends but the lower the number of earthquakes per
PGA, the steeper the curves can be observed. Moreover, the cases of 10 earthquakes per PGA show
PGA, the steeper the curves can be observed. Moreover, the cases of 10 earthquakes per PGA show
slightly larger values of medians than those for other cases, whereas the cases of equal to or larger
slightly larger values of medians than those for other cases, whereas the cases of equal to or larger than
than 20 earthquakes per PGA provide more identical values in Figure 10. Therefore, it can be
20 earthquakes per PGA provide more identical values in Figure 10. Therefore, it can be concluded
concluded that the analysis with approximately 20 ground motions in each PGA level is a reasonable
value for performing the structural analysis to derive the fragility curves of tunnels. In addition, the
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 735 14 of 16

that the analysis with approximately 20 ground motions in each PGA level is a reasonable value for
performing the structural analysis to derive the fragility curves of tunnels. In addition, the interval of
PGA level is also important to have a good estimation of fragility curve. However, this topic is beyond
the scope of this paper.

4. Conclusions
This study examines the fragility curves of a shallow two-story reinforced concrete underground
box structure subjected to seismic loading. A total of 1150 artificial ground motions in 23 PGAs ranging
from 0.02 g to 1.3 g (with 50 ground motions per PGA level) were applied to a two-dimensional plane
strain FEM model.
The effect of the near-field ground domain adjacent to the tunnel structures was investigated to
estimate the relative displacement between the top and bottom of the tunnel following the GRAMBS
method. An efficient and practical guide based on GRAMBS method, nonlinear static analysis (or
pushover) with Latin hypercube sampling, and maximum likelihood method was proposed to construct
fragility curves of a RC box structure in a highly-weathered soil. In addition, the definition of
damage states was provided by conducting comprehensive pushover analyses with considering the
uncertainties of material properties and concrete cover, to help in making a good decision for the
recovery time and repair cost, without taking much time for dynamic analysis.
In the comparison of the required earthquakes per PGA level for developing fragility curves,
the results suggest that the analysis with equal to or larger than 20 ground motions in each PGA is a
reasonable value for performing the structural analyses to derive the fragility curves of tunnels.
The shapes of fragility curves of both hypotheses, the shear force developed at the exterior surface
of the roof (point load) and the racking deformation developed along the side walls (invert distributed
load), are similar. However, at the same PGA level, the probability of exceeding the damage state of
the point load is larger than the distributed load in the minor and extensive damage state, except for
the moderate damage state, it shows nearly same results.
In this study, the tunnel material properties and concrete cover had been considered as random
variables. This approach can be extended further by considering other uncertainties such as the
difference in geometric shapes of underground tunnels owing to a possible incorrect construction or
the variability of soil properties.

Acknowledgments: This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National
Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (NRF-2014R1A1A2058765) and was a
part of the project titled ‘Development of performance-based seismic design technologies for advancement in
design codes for port structures’, funded by the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, Korea.
Author Contributions: Jungwon Huh and Achintya Haldar conceived the idea and designed the framework;
Jin-Hee Ahn, Innjoon Park and Quang Huy Tran designed the numerical models; Jungwon Huh, Quang Huy Tran
and Jin-Hee Ahn performed the analyses and analyzed the data; and Jungwon Huh and Quang Huy Tran wrote
the paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Yoshida, N.; Nakamura, S. Damage to Daikai Subway Station during the 1995 Hyogoken-Nunbu Earthquake
and its Investigation. Proceedings of Eleventh World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco,
Mexico, 23–28 June 1996.
2. EQE International. The January 17, 1995 Kobe Earthquake; An EQE Summary Report; EQE International:
San Francisco, CA, USA, April 1995.
3. Matsuda, T.; Tanaka, N. Seismic Response Analysis for a Collapsed Underground Subway Structure with
Intermediate Columns. In Proceedings of the 11th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Acapulco,
Mexico, 23–28 June 1996.
4. Tsai, Y.; Huang, M. Strong Ground Motion Characteristics of the Chi-Chi, Taiwan Earthquake of 21 September
1999. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Seismol. 2000, 2, 1–21.
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 735 15 of 16

5. Donner, S.; Rößler, D.; Krüger, F.; Ghods, A.; Strecker, M. Source mechanisms of the 2004 Baladeh (Iran)
earthquake sequence from Iranian broadband and short-period data and seismotectonic implications.
In Proceedings of the AG Seismologie: 37. Meeting, Sankelmark, Germany, 27–29 September 2011.
6. Earthquake Engineering Research Institute (EERI). Learning from Earthquakes: The Mw 7.0 Haiti Earthquake
of 12 January 2010; EERI Special Earthquake Report; Earthquake Science Center: Menlo Park, CA, USA,
May 2010.
7. Pitilakis, K.; Tsinidis, G. Chapter 11—Performance and Seismic Design of Underground Structures.
In Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering Design; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 279–340.
8. Katayama, I. Studies on Fundamental Problems in Seismic Design Analyses of Critical Structures and
Facilities. Ph.D. Thesis, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan, 1990.
9. Tateishi, A. A Study on Seismic Analysis Methods in The Cross Section of Underground Structures using
Static Finite Elements Method. JSCE 2005, 22, 41–53. [CrossRef]
10. Kaizu, N.; Annaka, T.; Ohki, H. Observation of behavior of underground power transmission shaft during
earthquake. Jpn. Soc. Civ. Eng. 1989, 20, 409–412. (In Japanese)
11. Ohki, H.; Annaka, T.; TKaizu, N. Analysis of behavior of underground power transmission shaft during
earthquake. Jpn. Soc. Civ. Eng. 1989, 20, 413–416. (In Japanese)
12. Kaizu, N.; Harada, M.; Annaka, T.; Ohki, H. Observation and numerical analyses of shaft for underground
transmission lines. PVP (Am. Soc. Mech. Eng.) 1989, 162, 183–190.
13. Tohma, J. Model experiment of sea water intake duct of nuclear power plant. Denryoku Doboku 1985, 197,
36–44. (In Japanese)
14. Idriss, I.M.; Sun, J.I. A Computer Program for Conducting Equivalent Linear Seismic Response Analyses of
Horizontally Layered Soil Deposits; University of California: Davis, CA, USA, 1992.
15. MIDAS CIVIL. Technical Lecture; MIDAS Information Technology Co., Ltd.: Gyeonggi, Korea, 2011.
(In Korean)
16. Architectural Institute of Korea. Korean Building Code; Architectural Institute of Korea: Seoul, Korea, 2013.
17. Kim, J.M. QuakeGem-Computer Program for Generating Multiple Earthquake Motions; Chonnam National
University: Gwangju, Korea, 2007.
18. Deodatis, G. Non-stationary Stochastic Vector Processes: Seismic Ground Motion Applications. Probab. Eng.
Mech. 1996, 11, 149–168. [CrossRef]
19. Deodatis, G. Simulation of Ergodic Multivariate Stochastic Processes. J. Eng. Mech. 1996, 122, 778–787.
[CrossRef]
20. Wang, J.N. Seismic Design of Tunnel-A simple State-of-the-Art Design Approach; Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade &
Douglas Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 1993.
21. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 356. Prestandard and Commentary for the Seismic
Rehabilitation of Buildings; FEMA: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
22. Applied Technology Council ATC40. Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Concrete Buildings; Seismic Safety
Commission: Redwood, CA, USA, 1996.
23. Freeman, S.A. Review of the development of the capacity spectrum method. ISET J. Earthq. Technol. 2004,
41, 438.
24. SAP2000. Linear and Nonlinear Static and Dynamic Analysis and Design of 3D Structures: Basic Analysis Reference
Manual; CSI: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2006.
25. Lee, T.H.; Mosalam, K.M. Probabilistic Seismic Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete Structural Components and
Systems; PEER Center: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2006.
26. Matos, J.C.; Batista, J.; Cruz, P.; Valente, I. Chapter 429—Uncertainty Evaluation of Reinforced Concrete
Structures Behavior. In Bridge Maintenance, Safety, Management and Life-Cycle Optimization; CRC Press:
Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2010; p. 609.
27. Iman, R.L.; Conover, W. Small sample sensitivity analysis techniques for computer models.with an
application to risk assessment. Commun. Stat. Theory Methods 1980, 9, 1749–1842. [CrossRef]
28. Mai, C.; Konakli, K.; Sudret, B. Seismic Fragility Curves for Structures Using Non-Parametric Representations.
Front. Struct. Civ. Eng. 2017, 11, 169–186. [CrossRef]
29. Baker, J.W. Efficient analytical fragility function fitting using dynamic structural analysis. Earthq. Spectr.
2015, 31, 579. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 735 16 of 16

30. Shinozuka, M.; Feng, M.Q.; Kim, H.; Uzawa, T.; Ueda, T. Statistical Analysis of Fragility Curves; University of
Southern California: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2001.
31. Argyroudis, S.A.; Pitilakis, K.D. Seismic fragility curves of shallow tunnels in alluvial deposits. Soil Dyn.
Earthq. Eng. 2012, 35, 1–12. [CrossRef]
32. Lee, D.H.; Kim, B.H.; Jeong, S.H.; Jeon, J.S.; Lee, T.H. Seismic fragility analysis of a buried gas pipeline based
on nonlinear time-history analysis. Int. J. Steel Struct. 2016, 16, 231–242. [CrossRef]
33. Ibarra, L.F.; Krawinkler, H. Global Collapse of Frame Structures under Seismic Excitations; College of Engineering,
University of California: Berkeley, CA, USA, September 2005.

© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).