You are on page 1of 124

Seismic Design and Risk Assessment of Underground Long Structures

Kyriazis Pitilakis Sotiris Argyroudis and Grigoris Tsinidis


Aristotle University

MONICO Workshop 18 March 2011, Athens

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Underground structures - tunnels


Mountain tunnels in rock conditions Subways Highway, railway, water and sewage tunnels in alluvial soils Metro stations Underground parking stations, commercial centers etc Their seismic design and risk assessment in seismically prone areas is of major importance Public Safety - Economy

AUTH

SDGEE

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Introduction
Conceptual, geometrical, and operational features of underground long structures, make their seismic behavior very distinct from aboveground structures Imposed seismic ground deformations rather than inertial forces dominate the structures seismic response Relative lack of well-documented case histories, lack of well validated methodologies and lack of specific guidelines and seismic code regulations for seismic design

AUTH

SDGEE

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Introduction

AUTH

SDGEE

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Summary
To provide a short but comprehensive review of the analysis and design methods of long underground structures To highlight and discuss some open issues mentioned before To provide a short review and ongoing research activities of underground structures vulnerability and risk assessment under seismic loading Example:
an immersed tunnel that is planned to be constructed also in Thessaloniki, is utilized as a typical example

AUTH

SDGEE

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Contents
Typology construction methods case studies Observed damages and behavior in past earthquakes Design principles in practice Determination of input motion

Transversal seismic analysis


Longitudinal seismic analysis Ground failure Importance of seismic design compared to static Real time risk assessment and Early Warning Systems Vulnerability of underground structures under seismic loading Conclusions

AUTH

SDGEE

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Typology Construction methods

AUTH

SDGEE

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Typology

cut and cover (rectangular)

bored tunnel (circular)

cut and cover (center columns or wall) cut and cover (vertical tubes)

Power et al.,1996
AUTH SDGEE 8

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Immersed tunnel Aktio-Preveza, Greece

AUTH

SDGEE

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Bosporous-Marmara railway crossing, Turkey

AUTH

SDGEE

10

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Athens Metro, Sepolia Station, Greece

Station Entrance
AUTH SDGEE 11

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Construction methods
Bored linear underground structures (e.g. tunnels) Usually circular cross sections Cut and cover type structures (e.g. tunnels or subway stations, parking and metro stations) - Rectangular cross sections Immersed structures (e.g. immersed tunnels) Segmented constructions connected through special joints
Before Initial Contact gasket supporting plate bolts roof After installation of Omega bolts grout fill roof

Gina gasket
AUTH

IPE steel strip

steel strip

bolts Omega seal


SDGEE 12

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Example : Immersed highway tunnel


2.9 km cut and cover segmented tunnels 1.2 km immersed tunnel (8 segments, 155m each) 1.2 km conjunction ramps to the local road system
Section E-E : cut and cover tunnel (2x2 lanes) Section D-D : cut and cover tunnel (3 lanes) open entry ramp from Kaftantzoglou Str. entry tunnel branch from Kountouriotou Str. open entry ramp from Kountouriotou Str. service building A entry tunnel branch from Kaftantzoglou Str.

open exit ramp from Politechniou Str. exit tunnel branch towards Politechniou Str.

1
A 3 3 3 3
service building C

open entry ramp from M. Alexandrou Ave.

2 3

2 2

E
E

C 2 C
western cut and cover tunnel

B B

A
service building B el ed tunn immers

eastern cut and cover tunnel open exit ramp towards M. Alexandrou Ave.

open entry/exit ramp at the new western entrance of Thessaloniki

Thermaikos Gulf

Section C-C : Section B-B : cut and cover tunnel (1 lane) cut and cover tunnel (2x3 lanes)

Section A-A : immersed tunnel (2x3 lanes)

legends immersed tunnel cut and cover tunnels open entry / exit ramps service buildings number of traffic lanes

AUTH

SDGEE

13

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Example : Immersed highway tunnel


1.3

Cross section

35.1

P1
7.5

1.1
1.3

P4
17

0.6

1.45

P5

P6
17

1.1

B-B Section B-B water - Thermaikos bay tunnel cross section GM Well graded gravels sand mixtures CL Stiff sandy silty clay CL Very stiff sandy clay Vs =130m/s, =18.6kN/m Vs =270m/s, =21.0kN/m Vs =380m/s, =21.5kN/m

A-A
0.00 m

Section A-A

Compacted gravel material Vs =380m/s, =21.5kN/m -10.50 m


-14.50 m -22.50 m -30.50 m

8.8
SM-SC Loose silty clayey sand SM-SC Dense silty clayey sand CL Stiff sandy silty clay

P2

P3 4

Vs =500m/s, =22.0kN/m
-66.50 m

Vs =700m/s, =22.0kN/m
-110.50 m

CL Very stiff sandy clay

B-B

A-A

AUTH

SDGEE

14

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Observed damages and behavior in past earthquakes

AUTH

SDGEE

15

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Seismic performance of tunnels


Heavy to moderate damages

when:
Depth < 50m Soft soils PGA surf > 0.15g M>6 R < 50 km
Sarma et al, 1991

AUTH

SDGEE

16

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Seismic performance of tunnels: Overview 1/2


Underground structures seem less vulnerable than above ground structures Deep or underground structures in rock seem to be safer Lined and grouted tunnels are safer than unlined tunnels in rock Damage from shaking can be reduced by stabilizing the ground around a tunnel Structure vulnerability is better correlated with ground velocity than peak ground acceleration Spatial variability of ground motion, together with the magnitude Mw and epicentre distance R, are the main controlling parameters for the seismic design and vulnerability assessment

Hashash et al., 2001


AUTH SDGEE 17

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Seismic performance of tunnels : Overview 2/2


Duration of earthquake is of utmost importance because it may cause fatigue failure and therefore, large deformations High frequency motions, expected mainly at small distances from the causative fault, may explain the local spalling of rock or concrete along planes of weakness Ground motion may be amplified if wavelengths are between one and four times the tunnel diameter

Damages manifested with slope instability near tunnel portals may be significant
Typical case of good performance: BART tunnel in San Francisco CA design and constructed in 60. (Loma Prieta earthquake, 1989, Mw=6.9)

AUTH

SDGEE

18

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Observed damages in past earthquakes


Large space underground structures present certain particularities compared to classical circular lined or unlined bored tunnels

Dakai subway, Kobe, 1995, Mw=6.9


Collapse of the station Designed with poor seismic design considerations

AUTH

SDGEE

19

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Dakai subway, Kobe, 1995, Mw=6.9

The main cause of collapse is due to the shear and buckling failure of the centre columns, which were designed and constructed with insufficient transverse shear reinforcement

Iida et al., 1996, Kawashima, 1999, Hashash et al., 2001


AUTH SDGEE 20

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Dakai subway, Kobe, 1995, Mw=6.9

AUTH

SDGEE

21

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Dakai subway, Kobe, 1995, Mw=6.9

AUTH

SDGEE

22

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Seismic behavior

AUTH

SDGEE

23

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Seismic behavior

AUTH

SDGEE

24

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

In general the inertial forces (accelerations) are lower for underground structures

Mmax=444kNm

0.62g

Mmax=683kNm

0.37g

0.20g
AUTH

0.20g
SDGEE 25

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

PGA is not the best parameter to evaluate the seismic performance of an underground structure. The response and the seismic vulnerability of an underground structure is controlled by the imposed seismic ground deformations and not by the inertial forces

AUTH

SDGEE

26

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Seismic response ground shaking

Deformation modes of tunnels due to ground shaking (travelling seismic waves)

Owen & Scholl, 1981


AUTH SDGEE 27

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Seismic behavior Shaking


The imposed seismic ground deformations and the relative stiffness or the stiffness contrast between the structure and surrounding soil, control the overall seismic behaviour of an underground structure

Ground failure
The response is also controlled by the imposed permanent ground deformations and displacements Large permanent deformations due to: Liquefaction : Settlements, lateral spreading Slope failure Fault movements
AUTH SDGEE 28

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Design principles

AUTH

SDGEE

29

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Design principles
Static analysis Seismic analysis Final analysis output and Design

1. Seismicity Earthquake design criteria

2. Ground response characteristics

3. Structure seismic response analysis and design

Seismic hazard (PSHA or DSHA) ODE MDE

Ground failure

Ground shaking

Transversal seismic analysis Longitudinal seismic analysis

AUTH

SDGEE

30

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Design principles
Design loading criteria Operational Design Earthquake (ODE) (10% in 50 years): The structure remain in elastic range Maximum Design Earthquake (MDE) (5% in 50 years): Prevention collapse, inelastic deformation acceptable, plastic hinges occur, design to provide sufficient ductility to crucial components of the structure (e.g. joints)

AUTH

SDGEE

31

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Total seismic and static loads

MDE ODE

U = D + L + E1 + E2 + EQ U =1.05D + 1.3L + (1.05-1.30)E1 + E2 + 1.3EQ

D : Dead loads L : Live loads E1 : Vertical loads (soils, water) E2 : Horizontal loads (soils, water) EQ : Seismic loads

max U for (max E2, min E1)


If the flexural strength of the structure lining, using elastic analysis, is found not to be exceeded, no more check needed If it is exceeded, sufficient ductility (if it is possible) must be provided
SDGEE 32

AUTH

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Input motion

AUTH

SDGEE

33

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Design input motion


Seismic code regulations
Practically inexistent Seismic regulations normally refer to aboveground structures and usually to different return periods

Site specific seismic hazard analysis


Mandatory

AUTH

SDGEE

34

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Required design input motion parameters


Determination of seismic input for outcrop (Seismic Hazard) Site effects in free-field conditions (1D,2D,3D) PHGA, PVGA, PGV, PGD, PSA, PSV, Sd, strains (), and stresses () at the ground surface and at different depths Asynchronous motion characteristics (apparent velocity...), differential displacements Induced phenomena and ground failure (liquefaction and liquefaction induced phenomena, uplift, settlements, lateral spreading...), fault displacement, landslide displacements

AUTH

SDGEE

35

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Design input motion considering complex 2D effects

SW Lateral propagation

1D SH

AUTH

SDGEE

36

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Bedrock motion > Deconvolution design principles


Usually ground motion deconvolution method is applied to estimate, from a known surface ground motion, the bedrock motion and finally the FREE FIELD ground response at the level of each tunnel segment

AUTH

SDGEE

37

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Design input motion


Site specific seismic hazard assessment

Thessaloniki T= 475 years


40.8

40.75

m=475
400 380

40.7

0.15g
40.65

360

0.20g 0.24g 0.28g

340 320 300

PHGA (g)
0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1

40.6

280 260

Metro

40.55

240 220 200

40.5

180 160

Immersed roadway

40.45

140 120 100

40.4 22.7

22.75

22.8

22.85

22.9

22.95

23

23.05

23.1

23.15

23.2

AUTH

SDGEE

38

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Design input motion (PGV m/s) and liquefaction settlements


Settlements (cm) due to liquefaction

500 years PGV


0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0

Thessaloniki, Tm = 500 years


AUTH

10

15

20

25

30

SDGEE

39

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Design input motion in the longitudinal analysis


Spatial variability of ground motion Time lag (Phase difference) Incoherency of the ground motion
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3

Wa

epicenter
vef ron t

heterogeneity epicenter

fault
A
1

B
2 3

: Underground structure

AUTH

SDGEE

40

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Transversal seismic analysis

AUTH

SDGEE

41

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Methods
Equivalent static analysis Analytical close-form solutions Statically imposed seismic ground deformations Full dynamic time-history analysis

Open issues
Estimation of seismic earth pressures Estimation of seismic shear stresses along the perimeter Impedance functions

Modeling features

AUTH

SDGEE

42

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Equivalent static analysis


Seismic forces are acting as equivalent static inertial forces: Equivalent static forces: Calculated for an average acceleration estimated along the structures depth. Applied either directly on the structure or through springs

Dynamic earth pressures: Limit - state Mononobe - Okabe approach and seismic code regulations for non-deformable walls
Hydrodynamic pressures: Westergaard theory Seismic shear stresses: Applied through the shear springs
i 1.5 aH H EAE h H
AUTH

0.5 aH
SDGEE 43

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Equivalent static analysis


Equivalent static forces (case A)

soils weight + inertia forces

(a)

(c)

(b)

(e)

g2+q (f)

structure's weight + inertia forces

(b)

(e)

(c)

(a)

(d) (b) (a) geostatic pressures, (b) hydro-dynamic pressures, (c) hydrostatic pressures, (d) seismic shear stresses, (e) seismic earth pressures, (f) dead (g2) and live loads (q)

AUTH

SDGEE

44

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Equivalent static analysis


Equivalent static forces (only dynamic part) (case B)
ground differential displacement between surface and bedrock seismic shear stresses hydro-dynamic dynamic pressures pressures soils weight + inertia forces dynamic pressures hydro-dynamic pressures

structure's weight + inertia forces

springs-impedance functions Kx,Ky

seismic shear stresses bedrock

AUTH

SDGEE

45

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Equivalent static analysis


Open issues
Impedance functions for underground structures ? Modeling of kinematic and inertial aspects of Soil-Structure Interaction Seismic earth pressures considering structures flexibility Ground acceleration ? Seismic shear stresses in the perimeter ? Importance and effect of relative soil-structure flexibility ?

AUTH

SDGEE

46

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Example : Immersed roadway tunnel


Model- loads (dynamic part)
1.5 a=76.44 kN/m

z
(b) 0.5a= 32.34 kN/m
2B=34m

F1=32.95kN/m (a)

Kwz

x
F2=5.90kN/m (a)

Kzx

Ksx

15.20 kN/m

15.20 kN/m

z
(c)

Kwz
x
(c)

26.95 kN/m

Kzx

Ksx

26.95 kN/m

a: Equivalent static inertial forces, b: Seismic earth pressure, c: Hydrodynamic pressures

AUTH

h=7.5m D=11m

Kwx

SDGEE

47

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Impedance functions Kw,x

Few are specifically for tunnels

z x

Kwx Kwz

AUTH

Ksx

Ksz

SDGEE

48

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Impedance functions Ks,x Kb,z

Few are specifically for tunnels

z x

Kwx Kwz

Ksx
AUTH

Ksz
SDGEE 49

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Impedance functions Ks,z Kw,z

Few are specifically for tunnels

z x

Kwx Kwz

Ksx
AUTH

Ksz
SDGEE 50

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Analytical close-form solutions


Two categories: Solutions ignoring SSI effects Solutions taking into account SSI effects Main assumptions: The soil behaves as elastic infinite homogeneous isotropic medium Elastic behavior for the structure Structure is modeled an elastic beam on elastic foundation in the longitudinal direction Structure considered under plane strain conditions in the transversal direction Full slip or no slip conditions may be considered for the soilstructure interface
AUTH SDGEE 51

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Analytical close-form solutions with no SSI


SSI effects Circular cross section

structure
max 2

free

field

d d

d d

2max 1 vm
Wang, 1993, Hashash et al., 2001

AUTH

SDGEE

52

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Analytical close-form solutions with no SSI


SSI effects are not taken into account Rectangular cross section

structure

free

field

Hashash et al., 2001


AUTH SDGEE 53

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Analytical close-form solutions considering SSI


SSI effects are taken into account in a simplified way Circular cross section

Compressibility
ratio

Em 1- l2 R Elt 1 m 1- 2m
d d
Mmax

Flexibility
ratio

Em 1- l2 R 3 6El I 1 m

Solutions for full slip


:

1 K 1Fmax 3
Em 1 K1 R 2max 6 1 m

Moment:

Axial force: Tmax

Em 1 K1 Rmax 6 1 m
K1 = 12 1-m 2F+5-6m
Wang, 1993
SDGEE 54

AUTH

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Analytical close-form solutions considering SSI


SSI effects are taken into account in a simplified way Circular cross section

Compressibility
ratio

Em 1- l2 R Elt 1 m 1- 2m

Flexibility
ratio

Em 1- l2 R 3 6El I 1 m

Solutions for no slip


:

Axial force: Tmax =K 2 max r=K 2

Em Rmax 2(1+m )
1 1- 2 m 2
2

K2

1 F

F 1- 2m - 1- 2m C 3 - 2m 1- 2m C C

2 6 - 8 m
Hoeg, 1968

5 2 - 8m 6 m 2

AUTH

SDGEE

55

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Racking Approach (Penzien)


Rectangular cross section

Racking coefficient

structure structure structure H R= = = free-field free-field free-field H

(1 vs)
Penzien (2000)

AUTH

SDGEE

56

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Racking Approach (Wang, Penzien)


Rectangular cross section Estimation of free field deformations (through 1D analysis) Estimation of flexibility ratio F = soils stiffness/ structure stiffness

Gm H2 W HW2 F= + 24 EIw EIR

structure=R x free field

R
W

AUTH

SDGEE

57

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Racking Approach (Wang, Penzien)

F0

Rigid structure

No racking deformation will be displayed Structural deformation smaller than free-field deformation level Structure will follow the freefield deformation Structure racking deformations amplified compared to the freefield deformations
SDGEE 58

F<1.0

Structure is stiffer than the surrounding soil Structure and soil have the same stiffness

F=1.0

F>1.0
AUTH

Soil stiffer than the structure

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Racking Approach (Wang)

R=structure/free field

Circular Tunnels

Rectangular Tunnels
F flexibility ratio Estimation of structure through the racking evaluation Static analysis of the structure with the imposed structure
AUTH SDGEE 59

Wang,1993

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Imposed seismic ground deformations


Pseudo-Static numerical analysis Free-field ground deformations applied at the mesh soil boundaries

Soil-structure interaction is explicitly taking into account


2D FE models utilizing 2D plain strain elements or springs for the soil and beam elements for the structure

Open issues
Appropriate side-boundaries distances to the structures cross section? Spring values in case of using this model

AUTH

SDGEE

60

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Case A : SSI modeling using soil springs


Max free-field ground differential displacement seismic shear stresses
Free Field ux (m) t (sec)

x (t1) 'x 'x

'x

x(t1)= ux surface (t1)ux bedrock(t1) = max

springs-impedance functions Kx,Ky

seismic shear stresses bedrock

Free Field ux (m)

t1

t (sec)

AUTH

SDGEE

61

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Case B : Soil and SSI modeling through 2D plain strain elements the ground seismic displacements are imposed at the soil boundaries
Plain Strain Finite Elements free field ground differential displacement between surface and bedrock

AUTH

SDGEE

62

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Example : Immersed roadway tunnel


Seismic ground deformations for the initial soil layers
d = 5.0m
u=0.012m

Inclined bed

Initial soil layers

z = -20.0m

Model boundary

AUTH

Seismic design of large, long underground structures: Metro and parking stations, highway tunnels

SDGEE

63

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Full dynamic analysis


Example : Immersed roadway tunnel

2D model (ADINA FE code)


AUTH SDGEE 64

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Full dynamic analysis


Example : Immersed roadway tunnel
6 4
A (m/sec 2)

Surface
A (m/sec 2)

4 2 0 -2 -4 -6

z=-14.50m

2 0 -2 -4 -6

Free Field (0.50g) Near the structure (0.39g)


water - Thermaikos bay tunnel cross section Vs =130m/s, =18.6kN/m Vs =270m/s, =21.0kN/m Vs =380m/s, =21.5kN/m
-30.50 m

Free Field (0.39g) Near the structure (0.44g)

Compacted gravel material Vs =380m/s, =21.5kN/m -10.50 m


-14.50 m -22.50 m

Vs =500m/s, =22.0kN/m
-66.50 m

Vs =700m/s, =22.0kN/m
-110.50 m

3 2 1 0 -1 -2 -3 -4

z=-22.50m

A (m/sec 2)

Free Field (0.28g) Near the structure (0.27g)

3 2
A (m/sec 2)

z=-30.50m

2 1

Input motion - Bedrock (0.24g)

1 0 -1 -2 -3

A (m/sec )

0 -1 -2

Free Field (0.27g) Near the structure (0.24g)

Thessaloniki 1978
SDGEE 65

AUTH

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Discussion
Differential slab displacements (drift) Seismic earth pressures Seismic shear stress developed around the structure Bending moments, axial and shear forces on critical cross sections Accuracy of the impedance factors

AUTH

SDGEE

66

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

a) Differential slab displacements (drift) Example : Immersed roadway tunnel


Differential slab displacements (Thessaloniki 78) 0.008 0.004
d (m)

0 -0.004 -0.008 0.008 0.004 Differential slab displacements (Kozani95)

F-R analytical solution and full dynamic analysis are well compared

d (m)

0 -0.004 Closed-form solution (Wang) -0.008 Full dynamic time-history analysis

AUTH

SDGEE

67

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

b) Seismic earth pressures Example : Immersed roadway tunnel


Due to the tunnels complex behaviour during ground shaking, the earth pressures developed along the side-walls, vary between passive and active limit state, reaching values between the two limit state earth pressures
yy Earth Pressure on tunnel wall
0 -0.5 -1.5 -2.5 50 100 yy(kPa) 150 200 250 300 350

Seismic pressure THESS Seismic pressure KOZ Rigid Wall E.A.K. 2003 Average (time history) M.O.- uniformly distributed M.O. triangularly distributed M.O. passive

z(m)

-3.5 -4.5 -5.5 -6.5 -7.5

AUTH

SDGEE

68

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

c) Seismic shear stresses Example : Metro tunnel in Thessaloniki


1D ground response analysis provides reasonable estimation of the horizontal shear stresses

Method
1D FF Analysis (mean value) 1D FF Analysis (Kozani 95) Dynamic Analysis (Kozani 95)

Shear stress YZ (KN/m) Max 95.0 68.0 65.0-70.0 Effective 66.5 47.6 48.0

1D site response analysis


AUTH SDGEE 69

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Example : Immersed roadway tunnel


Comparison with soil shear strength (Mohr Coulomb) Solid connection between structure and soil, usually adopted in dynamic analysis, does not always occur. Interface behavior maybe quite complex Side walls:
Effective shear stress at side walls
-50 -25 0 0 25 50 yz(kPa) 75 100 125 150 175 200

-2.5

z(m)

Thessaloniki time-history Kozani time-history Mohr-Coulomb limit stress

-5

-7.5
AUTH SDGEE 70

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Example : Immersed roadway tunnel


Roof slab:
100

Effective shear stress yz at roof slab

50

yz (kPa)

0 0 -50 8.5 17 L (m) 25.5 34

-100 Thessaloniki time-history- Roof slab -150


AUTH

Kozani time-history- Roof slab Mohr Coulomb limit stress-Roof slab


SDGEE 71

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Example : Immersed roadway tunnel


Inverted slab:
250 200 150

Effective shear stress yz at inverted slab


Thessaloniki time-history- Inverted slab Kozani time-history- Inverted slab Mohr Coulomb limit stress- Inverted slab

yz (kPa)

100 50 0 0 -50
AUTH

8.5

17 L (m)

25.5

34

SDGEE

72

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Example : Immersed roadway tunnel Side walls: Effective shear stresses applying different methods
Effective seismic shear stress yz at the side walls (Kozani95)
-60 -40 -20 0 Dynamic analysis Imposed seismic ground deformations Wang (mean value) Wang (Initial soil properties) Wang (Gravel material properties)
AUTH SDGEE 73

yz(kPa) 20 40

60

80

100

120

z(m)

-2.5

-5

-7.5

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Example : Immersed roadway tunnel Roof slab: Effective shear stresses applying different methods
Effective seismic shear stress yz at the roof slab (Kozani95)
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 0 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 -140

yz (kPa)

8.5

17 L (m) . Dynamic analysis

25.5

34

Imposed seismic ground deformations Wang (mean value) Wang (Initial soil properties) Wang (Gravel material properties)

AUTH

SDGEE

74

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Example : Immersed roadway tunnel


Inverted Slab: Effective shear stresses applying different methods
120 100 80 60 40 20 0 -20 0 -40 -60 -80 -100 8.5
.

Effective seismic shear stress yz at the inverted slab (Kozani95)

yz (kPa)

17 L (m)

25.5 Dynamic analysis

34

Imposed seismic ground deformations Wang (mean value) Wang (Initial soil properties) Wang (Gravel material properties)
AUTH SDGEE 75

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

d) Section internal forces

Effective values
Bending moment time - history (Thessaloniki78)
1600 1200

Bending moment (kNm)

800 400 0 -400 -800 -1200 -1600 -2000 P4 left bending moment time history Effective value (1123.8kNm)

AUTH

SDGEE

76

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Example : Immersed roadway tunnel Equivalent static - Imposed seismic ground displacements Full dynamic analysis P1 P3 P2 3 1 2 P4 P5 P6
Axial force results
1000 750 500

Axial force (kN)

250 0 -250 -500 -750 -1000 -1250 Imposed seismic ground deformations Dynamic analysis Equivalent static analysis

P1 left

P2 left

P3 left

P4 left

P5 left

P1 center

P2 center

P3 center

P4 center

P5 center

P6 left

P6 center

T1 up

T2 up

T3 up

P1 right

P2 right

P3 right

P4 right

P5 right

P6 right

T1 down

T2 down

T3 down

T4 up

AUTH

T4 down
SDGEE

77

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Example : Immersed roadway tunnel Equivalent static - Imposed seismic ground displacements Full dynamic analysis P1 P3 P2 3 1 2 P4 P5 P6
800 600 400

Shear force results

Shear force (kN)

200 0 -200 -400 -600 -800 -1000 Imposed seismic ground deformations Dynamic analysis Equivalent static analysis

P1 left

P2 left

P3 left

P4 left

P5 left

P1 center

P2 center

P3 center

P4 center

P5 center

P6 left

P6 center

T1 up

T2 up

T3 up

P1 right

P2 right

P3 right

P4 right

P5 right

P6 right

T1 down

T2 down

T3 down

T4 up

AUTH

T4 down

SDGEE

78

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Example : Immersed roadway tunnel Equivalent static - Imposed seismic ground displacements Full dynamic analysis P1 P3 P2 3 1 2 P4 P5 P6
1500 1250 1000 750 500 250 0 -250 -500 -750 -1000 -1250 -1500 -1750

Bending moment results


Imposed seismic ground deformations Dynamic analysis Equivalent static analysis

Bending moment (kNm)

P1 left

P2 left

P3 left

P4 left

P5 left

P1 center

P2 center

P3 center

P4 center

P5 center

P6 left

P6 center

T1 up

T2 up

T3 up

P1 right

P2 right

P3 right

P4 right

P5 right

P6 right

T1 down

T2 down

T3 down

T4 up

AUTH

T4 down

SDGEE

79

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Longitudinal seismic analysis

AUTH

SDGEE

80

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Longitudinal seismic analysis


Full dynamic time history analysis utilizing continuum FE models Dynamic Beam on Winkler foundation type models Analytical closed form solutions

Open issues
Asynchronous seismic ground motion Joints seismic performance and modeling, in case of segmented underground structures (e.g. immersed tunnels) Impedance functions (springs and dashpots frequency depended)

AUTH

SDGEE

81

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Asynchronous motion Apparent velocity


Seismic shaking varies in space in terms of wave amplitude, frequency characteristics, time of arrival and duration Simplest modeling is with a phase difference approach Apparent velocity : Vapp (Cs) = 700 -1500 m/sec For tunnels min L = 100 m - 150 m (Kawashima et al.,1996)

Time lag due to apparent velocity:

Vapp

V sin
Li

ti+1-ti =
Li S2

Li

Vapp
Li

propagation direction

S4
shear wave
ad

tunnel

S1
ad

S3
ad

ad

ti
AUTH

t i+1

t i+2
SDGEE 82

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Joints seismic design and modeling Joints of segmented tunnels, consist of special joints (e.g. Gina) and shear keys Joints (Gina-Omega Seal)
Material law for GINA gasket
2500 2250 2000 1750 10

Force of endless seal Local contact pressure

7 6 5 4 3 2 1

1500 1250 1000 750 500 250 0 0 20 40 60 80 100

0 120

Treleborg
AUTH

Compression (mm)

Daewoo,2004
SDGEE 83

Contact pressure (N/mm )

Force(kN/m)

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Shear keys

shear key

Fy, Fz

shear key

< 5cm y, z

AUTH

SDGEE

84

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Joints final design


roof Detail A Omega seal Tendon

Shear Key

Gina Gasket

inverted slab Detail A


AUTH SDGEE 85

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Analytical close-form solutions with no SSI


Analytical solution based on Newmarks 1965 work SSI effects are not taken into account

structure

free

field

Tunnel under simple harmonic wave excitation

St. John & Zahrah, 1987


AUTH SDGEE 86

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Analytical close-form solutions with no SSI


Tunnel under simple harmonic wave excitation

Moment:

Ec Ic M

2 L

cos 3 Ec Ic Asin
3

2x L / cos

Shear force: V

M x

2 L

cos 4 Ec Ic Acos

2x L / cos

Axial force: Q

2 2x sin cosEc Ac Acos L L / cos

St. John & Zahrah, 1987


AUTH SDGEE 87

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Analytical close-form solutions considering SSI


SSI effects are taken into account in a simplified way Elastic beam theory Moment:
M 2 cos 3 2 x L E I A sin c c 4 L / cos Ec Ic 2 1 cos 4 Kh L
2 cos 4 2 x L E I Acos c c 4 L / cos Ec Ic 2 1 cos 4 Kh L
3

Shear force: V

2 sin cos 2 x L Axial force: Q E A Acos c c 2 L / cos Ec Ac 2 2 1 cos Ka L


AUTH

St. John & Zahrah, 1987


SDGEE 88

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Analytical close-form solutions considering SSI


How can we calculate the soil stiffness ? Still, an open issue

St. John & Zahrah, proposed:

Kh
:

Ka

P uym

16 G 1 v d 3 4v L

St. John & Zahrah, 1987


AUTH SDGEE 89

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Longitudinal seismic analysis Analytical solutions


Example : Immersed roadway tunnel
Closed form solution
Free field ground deformations (structure = free-field )
0.08 0.07 0.06 Thessaloniki 78 Kozani 95 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 500 750 1000 1250 1500 Cs (m/sec) 1750 2000 2250 2500

Max joint deformation as function of Cs

u (m)

axial =
AUTH

vs sincos+r s2 cos3 Cs Cs

axial l e

Power et al.,1996
SDGEE 90

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Example : Immersed roadway tunnel


Max joint deformation as function of
0.025 0.020 Thessaloniki 78 Kozani 95

u (m)

0.015 0.010 0.005 0.000 0 10 20 30 40 50 (deg) 60 70 80 90

axial =
u

vs sincos+r s2 cos3 Cs Cs

axial l e

Power et al.,1996
SDGEE 91

AUTH

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Beam on Dynamic Winkler Foundation Model


Tunnel is modelled as a linear equivalent elastic beam on dynamic Winkler foundation modelled with springs and dashpots

Crucial issues for modelling:


The joints behaviour (between segments) is difficult to be modelled, as their stiffness is varying with seismic excitation Asynchronous motion Soil springs and dashpots (frequency depended)
AUTH SDGEE 92

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Example : Immersed roadway tunnel Sensibility analysis: effect of phase difference, joints stiffness and variability of soil properties along the tunnel axis

time lag Model A Model B Model C Model D Model E Model F no yes yes yes yes yes

joint material law linear linear linear linear bi-linear bi-linear

soil properties Uniform soil - no damping Uniform soil - no damping Uniform soil - damping Variable soil - damping Uniform soil - damping Variable soil - damping

AUTH

SDGEE

93

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Example : Immersed roadway tunnel Joint axial deformations


Joint 5 axial deformation (Winkler models)
0.025 0 -0.025 -0.05 + (tension) - (compresion) Joint Failure

x(m)

-0.075 -0.1 -0.125 -0.15 -0.175 -0.2 Hydrostatic pressure -0.225

t = 0 sec

Model B Model C Model D Model E Model F

Seismic excitation

AUTH

SDGEE

94

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Example : Immersed roadway tunnel

Joint axial deformations


Thessaloniki 78
m o d e l

Joint 1 maxx (m) 0.058 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 minx (m) -0.056 -0.061 -0.061 -0.057 -0.052 -0.052

Joint 5 maxx (m) 0.011 0.045 0.044 0.099 0.043 0.099 minx (m) -0.01 -0.048 -0.046 -0.088 -0.039 -0.071

Joint 9 maxx (m) 0.059 0.06 0.06 0.088 0.059 0.078 minx (m) -0.062 -0.058 -0.058 -0.049 -0.06 -0.05

Joint 9

A B C D E F

Joint 5

Joint 1

analytical solution (=0o, Cs=1000 m/sec) 0.0095 m


AUTH SDGEE 95

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Ground failure

AUTH

SDGEE

96

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Ground failure Liquefaction


Ground failure Large permanent deformations due to: Liquefaction Slope instability Fault displacements Liquefaction: pore water pressure build-up due to seismic excitation reduction of effective stresses in saturated loose cohesionless silty sandy soils deformations due to lateral spreading or settlements - uplift

Liquefaction uplift mechanism: Study of retrofitting the BART system

Kutter et al.,2008
AUTH SDGEE 97

March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece on 5.00)

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities

Centrifuge experiments and numerical analyses (FLAC, UBCSAND and GEND OpenSees (Elgamal et al.))
Uplift mechanism related primarily to movement of soil under the tunnel during an earthquake

000E+01 4.0000E+01 6.500E+01 -2.000E+01

ups

(cm) (cm) Tunnel uplift

30

20
Experiment FLAC FLAC OpenSees OpenSees

10

ctors 3.000E+00 0 885E+00 0 1E 1


AUTH

20

40

60

80

100

120

Kutter et al.,2008 Travasarou & Chacko, 2008


SDGEE 98

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Example : Immersed roadway tunnel


Differential shear displacements at joints (e.g. due to liquefaction lateral spreading) are anticipated with the use of shear keys

Liquefied soil soil-spring stiffness is usually reduced to 10% of their initial values
Two shear-slip scenarios are examined: (a) Uniform displacement (horizontal and vertical) imposed upon the tunnel segment, while the segments next to it remain in their place (b) Differential displacement imposed upon the tunnel segment, due to possible movement of the opposite segment

AUTH

SDGEE

99

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Example : Immersed roadway tunnel


Horizontal shear key - b x d x l=1900x600x700 (mm) Vertical shear key - b x d x l=600x1650x700 (mm)

Model adopted:
displacement time history restrains ux=uy=uz=0 shear key

tunnel segment

AUTH

SDGEE

100

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Example : Immersed roadway tunnel

Horizontal lateral spreading displacement Case (a) d (m) 0.10 0.05 Vsd (kN) 3630 1815 d (m) 0.10 0.05 Case (b) Vsd (kN) 19200 9600 15600 7800

0.01

363

0.01

1920

1560

Concrete shear strength 1500 kN (without considering the shear key reinforcement and the participation of the tendons at the joint)

Vertical displacement (settlements)


Case (a) d (m) 0.10 0.05 0.01
AUTH

Case (b) d (m) 0.10 0.05 0.01 Vsd (kN) 51330 25665 5133 13160 6580 1316 38150 19075 3815

Vsd (kN)

Concrete shear strength 2600 kN


Extreme scenario

SDGEE

101

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Importance of the seismic loads compared to the static ones

AUTH

SDGEE

102

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Static loads:
Dead loads of the structure (g1+g2) Live loads of the structure (q) Hydrostatic pressures and uplift force at the structure (E1)

Geostatic pressures at the structure (E2)

g1+g2+E1 g1 g1+g2 E2 E1 g1

Kwx

g1+g2+q
Ksx

Kwz

E1

Ksz

E1

E2

AUTH

SDGEE

103

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Real Time
Early Warning

AUTH

SDGEE

104

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Different components and time scales in seismic risk

AUTH

SDGEE

105

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Basic concepts and measurements of earthquake early warning systems

AUTH

SDGEE

106

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Time depended risk assessment


Hazard

Non-Poissonian recurrence

Time

Exposure/value
Evacuation Aftershock Population & economic growth Time

Vulnerability =
Foreshock Retrofitting Time

Risk

?
Time
SDGEE 107

AUTH

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Vulnerability assessment

AUTH

SDGEE

108

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Vulnerability assessment

AUTH

SDGEE

109

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Fragility Curves
Provide the probability for the element at risk to be in or exceed a certain damage state under a seismic event of given intensity
Illustration of the relationship between seismic excitation and damage
Damage Probability
1.0

Minor damage FUNCTIONALITY

Pf
Complete Damages NOT FUNCTIONAL

Empirical / statistical Analytical / numerical Expert judgment Hybrid

Pc

0.0 0.0
AUTH

ai

Seismic Motion
SDGEE 110

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Empirical fragility curves for tunnels (ALA, 2001)


Fragility curves for tunnels with poor to average construction quality in soil or cut and cover conditions, subject to ground shaking

AUTH

SDGEE

111

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

General flowchart of the procedure for deriving numerical fragility curves for tunnels in alluvial deposits
Tunnel typology Basic models Soil type Typical soil profiles (P) Seismic input motion Accelerograms (A), intensity levels (S)

Damage index (DI), damage states (ds), thresholds values of DI for each ds

Quasi static response of the soil-tunnel models

1D equivalent linear analysis of the soil profiles - input motions models (PxAxS)

Evolution of damage with earthquake parameter (EP), median threshold value of EP for each ds

Soil deformations and soil stiffness parameters

Uncertainties (seismic demand, tunnel capacity, definition of DI and ds) Fragility curves for each tunnel and soil type

Argyroudis & Pitilakis 2011 (submitted)


AUTH SDGEE 112

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Tunnel response analysis


A plane strain ground model and the tunnel cross sections are simulated using the Plaxis finite element code (Plaxis, 2002)
Shear deformations that are calculated by 1D linear equivalent soil response analysis, for the different levels of peak ground acceleration are imposed on the boundaries of the plain strain model Stresses and deformations of tunnel lining can be assessed due to the shear distortion of the surrounding ground

Bending moment Extreme bending moment -84.28 kNm/m

Mmax=-84.3 kNm/m

Axial forces Extreme axial force -692.68 kN/m

Nmax=-692.7 kN/m b)

AUTH

Deformed Mesh -3 Extreme total displacement 43.07*10 m (displacements scaled up 100.00 times)

SDGEE

113

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Comparison Analytical vs Empirical (minor damage)


Circular (bored) tunnel - Minor damage 1.0
Empirial - ALA 2001 (good quality construction)

Probability of damage0

0.8

soil C

0.5
soil B soil D

0.3

0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 PGA (g)

AUTH

SDGEE

114

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Comparison Analytical vs Empirical (moderate damage)


Circular (bored) tunnel - Moderate damage 1.00
Empirial - ALA 2001 (good quality construction)

Probability of damage

0.75

0.50
soil B soil C soil D

0.25

0.00 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 PGA (g)

AUTH

SDGEE

115

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Conclusions

AUTH

SDGEE

116

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Input motions and seismic design loads must be estimated through a detailed seismic hazard analysis, considering the specific site effects due to local soil and site conditions There is no doubt that the most accurate method for seismic design of extended underground structures is the full dynamic time-history analysis, utilizing 2D or 3D FE, FD, BE models, and adequate soil and structural models with appropriate constitutive relationships. This approach can successfully model the complex soil-structure interaction effects Underground structures should be designed for imposed seismic ground deformations rather than inertial forces

AUTH

SDGEE

117

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Analytical methods utilizing the racking coefficient method (i.e. Wang, 1993), seems to give rather acceptable results, in case of shallow underground structures (tunnels). Further improvement and extension is deemed necessary Quasi-static imposed seismic ground deformation methods combined with numerical modelling, provide an interesting approach. Soil-structure interaction can be directly taken into account.

AUTH

SDGEE

118

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Equivalent static analysis is proved to be conservative for shallow tunnels, while for subway stations and deep large underground structures is clearly un-conservative

In general it is unable to describe correctly all seismic phenomena and the actual seismic response of the deep and large spaced structures
Issues, such as the estimation of appropriate impedance functions for underground structures to model soils behaviour and SSI effects, the modelling of equivalent static seismic inertial forces, the estimation of seismic earth pressures, the seismic shear stress developed during the shaking along the perimeter of the structure, are still open, and more research is deemed necessary

AUTH

SDGEE

119

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Longitudinal seismic analysis of long segmented structures is equally important with the transversal analysis. Asynchronous ground motion must be absolutely considered in the analysis procedure. Simple phase difference introducing a simple time lag may not be always accurate enough. The apparent velocity should be accurately estimated based on accurate geological and geotechnical data. A conservative value of Capp = 800m/s could be used. Special seismic design provisions must be taken for joints and shear keys, as these elements are the most vulnerable parts of an underground structure

AUTH

SDGEE

120

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Ground permanent displacements due to liquefaction, slope instability or fault rupture must be seriously taken into consideration, as they can affect seriously the overall design and safety of the structure Static loads and especially uplifting from buoyancy, are controlling in general the overall design of an underground structure Seismic loads are becoming very important when uplift buoyancy loads are minimized, for PGA >0.2g (outcrop conditions) and medium stiffness soils which amplifies considerably the ground motion

AUTH

SDGEE

121

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

A research program is undergo in Aristotle University aiming to provide specific answers to several of the subjects discussed, namely: - Seismic earth pressures for rigid and flexible structures - Shear stresses development and distribution - Impedance functions (frequency depended springs and dashpots) - Importance and quantification of structures flexibility and to propose a solid methodology for the seismic analysis and design of tunnels and large space underground structures Centrifuge test experiments in LCPC-Nantes and the University of Cambridge will provide the necessary experimental validation and breakthrough to better understand the physical problems and validate the numerical modelling (SERIES project)

AUTH

SDGEE

122

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Moreover Aristotle University is participating in ongoing major EU research projects aiming to contribute significantly to: the development of improved methods for the risk assessment at systems level considering intra and inter-dependencies in the systems vulnerability and risk assessment considering buildings, facilities, lifelines and infrastructures, including tunnels as parts of a global system (SYNER-G http://www.syner-g.eu) Coordinator the real time seismic risk assessment of structures (buildings, tunnels etc) with emphasis to the development of time depended fragility (vulnerability) of elements at risk and advanced, more efficient, early warning technology (REAKT)

AUTH

SDGEE

123

MONICO Workshop - Structural Monitoring and Assessment of Underground Transportation Facilities March 18, 2011 - Athens, Greece

Thank you

AUTH

SDGEE

124

You might also like