Kawashima, K.

Review:

Seismic Analysis of Underground Structures

Kazuhiko Kawashima
Department of Civil Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology O-Okayama, Meguro, Tokyo 152-8552, Japan E-mail: kawasima@cv.titech.ac.jp [Received November 10, 2006; accepted November 20, 2006]

A review on the seismic behavior and design of underground structures in soft ground is described focusing on the development of equivalent static seismic design called the seismic deformation method. Seismic isolation of underground structures is also presented.

Keywords: seismic design, underground structures, seismic deformation method, pipelines, seismic isolation

1. Introduction
Underground space in modern urban areas contains a wide range of underground structures, most of which are so essential to human life that they are called lifeline facilities. These include pipelines for water, sewage, gas, electricity and telecommunication; subways; roads; storage tanks; rivers; parking lots; and common utility tunnels. Varying widely in shape and size, they are classied into three groups as shown in Fig. 1. Pipelines embedded in subsurface (near-surface) ground, primarily for utilities; structures with large cross sections along subsurface ground, such as underground roads, parking lots, subways and common utility tunnels; and vertically deep structures such as ventilation trenches and ducts. They are generally constructed in soft ground vulnerable to seismic disturbance. Analyses and measurements have shown that axial deformation is more dominant than exural deformation in pipelines, for example, and the effect of exural deformation increases with size. In cross-sectional or vertically deep structures, however, in-plane deformation along the cross section becomes important in addition to axial deformation. This paper introduces a review on the seismic performance and seismic design of underground structures with large cross sections in soft subsurface ground (Kawashima 2000 [18]), excluding, however, the seismic performance of small utility pipelines, rock tunnels or damage associated with soil liquefaction and lateral spreading, which are beyond the scope of this review.
Fig. 1. Underground structure shapes.

2. Technical Background
Historically certain types of underground structures are known to be vulnerable to seismic action. Studies on seismic damage to water pipelines in the Kanto earthquake (e.g., Okamoto 1973 [29]) dates back to 1923. More recent earthquake provided opportunities to study damage to water, sewage and gas lines. In 1971, the San Fernando earthquake in California, USA damaged a tunnel at the Joseph Jensen Filtration Plant (US Department of Commerce, 1973 [38]). In 1985, Mexican earthquake in Mexico damaged a sewer shield tunnel 6.1 m diameter, offsetting ringbolts between two segments due to torsion. In the 1995 Kobe earthquake in Japan, subway columns were damaged in the most extensive seismic ground motion ever seen in large engineering structures in soft ground. Compared to above-ground structures, the history of seismic design of underground structures is much shorter. Studies of the seismic effects on underground structures were initiated in Japan and the US in the 1960s, associated with the construction of underwater tunnels, necessitated by the soft and weak ground common at construction sites. These studies were primarily conducted using shake tables, because computers were still at their infancy (e.g., Kuribayashi et al. 1972 [21]). Experiments such as these showed that underground structures exhibit signicantly different seismic responses from surface structures, not responding in resonance in the ground, rather responding based on the response of surrounding soil. This unusual response occurs, rst beJournal of Disaster Research Vol.1 No.3, 2006

378

Seismic Analysis of Underground Structures

cause the mass effect is much smaller in underground than in surface structures, because their gross unit weight is generally 10.5-11 kN/m3 and the unit weight of surrounding soil is generally 14-18 kN/m3 . Mass density of underground structure is thus smaller than that of the surrounding soil. Second, the damping in underground structures is extremely high due to energy radiating from these into the surrounding ground. The smaller mass effect and larger radiational damping make underground structures respond based on the response of surrounding ground without resonance, as veried by eld measurements. The Matsushiro earthquake swarm from 1965 to the 1970s provided valuable information based on the measurement in both pipelines and surrounding ground, and the large strains induced in pipelines were closely related to wave propagation by ground motion (Sakurai et al. 1967 [32]). The BART subway in San Francisco, CA in the US was designed based on axial and exural strain induced in tubes (Kuesel 1969 [20]). The concept of an equivalent wavelength was rst proposed to idealize subway deformation. Similar analysis was used in design of the Los Angeles, CA, Metro in the US (Monsees and Merritt 1991 [26]). Unique seismic response of underground structures found by eld measurements and shake table experiments was rst implemented to seismic design of an aviation petroleum pipeline to Narita International Airport in Japan (JRA 1976 [3]). Since it was the rst petroleum pipeline embedded under national roads in congested areas, advanced design procedure including seismic design was required. Hence, equivalent static seismic design method which introduced the seismic deformation of subsurface ground as a major seismic effect on pipelines was rst implemented. A 5-year research project focusing on the development of new seismic design for civil engineering structures was conducted in 1972-1977 at Japans Ministry of Construction (MOC 1977 [25]). A major area considered was the seismic design of underground structures. The design method which takes account of the seismic deformation of subsurface ground as a major seismic effect for underground structures was further improved in the project, and was included in the nal project report under the title of seismic deformation method. The seismic deformation method has since then been implemented to seismic design of many underground structures such as water pipes (JWA 1979 and 1997 [12]), sewage pipes (1981 [8]) and gas pipeline (JGA 1982 [2]), immersed tunnels (JSCE 1975 [9], JRA 1977 [4]), common utility tunnels (JRA 1986 [5]), and underground parking lots (JRA 1992 [6]). Measured data on the seismic response of underground structures has been accumulated, especially for pipelines. The behavior of an embedded pipeline intersected by a surface rupture was observed at Parkeld, CA in the US (Isenburg et al. 1988 [1]). The seismic response of pipes with a diameter of 150 mm and 300 mm was measured in Sodega-ura, Japan (Kawashima et al. 1991 [15]).

(a) Under ground structure

(b) On-ground structure Fig. 2. Acceleration response of underground and aboveground structures.

3. Seismic Response of Underground Structures

3.1. Seismic Deformation of Subsurface Ground
Figure 2 shows how underground and above-ground structures behave under ground motion. A 2D plane strain nite element model which represents subsurface ground, an above-ground structure and an underground structure was subjected to a ground motion at the base rock, where subsurface ground implies the near-surface ground above base rock. The peak response acceleration of the aboveground structure is 0 77g, which differ much from ground surface acceleration since it is amplied by structural response. The response acceleration of the underground structure is similar in both frequency content and peak to ground acceleration at the same depth to the underground structure, clearly indicating how underground structures respond. Seismic deformation of subsurface ground must therefore be evaluated accurately because this directly affects underground structure response. Shear deformation critically affects the seismic response of the underground structure in Fig. 2. Subsurface ground deformation must be evaluated in a more general sense, for example, based on dense array records. Six subsurface ground strain components were evaluated from accelerations measured at four nodes; three nodes on the surface with 50 m apart each, and a node 50 m un379

Journal of Disaster Research Vol.1 No.3, 2006