Earthquake Resistant Design Codes in Japan 2000

JAPAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN

CODES IN JAPAN
January,2000
JAPAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES
OF CIVIL ENGINEERING STRUCTURES IN JAPAN
1. KEY CONCEPTS FOR EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF CIVIL
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES AFTER THE 1995 HYOGOKEN-NANBU
EARTHQUAKE
2. 1996 SEISMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS OF HIGHWAYBRIDGES
JAPAN ROAD ASSOCIATION
3. SEISMIC DESIGN FOR RAILWAY STRUCTURES
RAILWAY TECHNICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, JAPAN
4. EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF PORT FACILITIES
BUREAU OF THE PORTS AND HARBORS, IvuNISTRYOF TRANSPORT
5. BASIC PRINCIPLES OF SEISMIC DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FOR WATER
SUPPLYFACILITIES
JAPAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION
6. RECOMMENDED PRACTICES FOR EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF
GAS PIPELINES
JAPAN GAS ASSOCIATION
THE JAPAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS
THE PUBLICATION COMMITTEE
OF
EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES
OF CIVIL ENGINEERING STRUCTURES IN JAPAN
Chairman:
Members:
Masanori Hamada (r#iseda Unievrsity)
Key Concepts for Earthquake Resistant Design
Shigeki Unjo (Public Works Research Institute, Ministry of Construction)
Highway Bridges
Akihiko Nishimura (Railway Technical Research Institute, Japan)
Railway Structures
Tatsuo Uwabe (Port and Harbor Research Institute, Ministry ot Trensport)
Port Facilities
Seiji Une (Japan Water Works Association)
Water Supply Facilities
Hiroyuki Yamakawa (Japan Ges Associetion)
Gas Pipelines
1. KEY CONCEPTS FOR EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF CIVIL
ENGINEERING STRUCTURES AFTER THE 1995 HYOGOKEN-NANBU
EARTHQUAKE
1.1 Lessons from The 1995 Hyogoken-nanbu (Kobe) Earthquake 1- 1
1.2 Key Concepts for Earthquake Resistant Design 1- 4
1.3 Technical Subjects for Revision of Earthquake Design Code 1- 6
1.4 Diagnosis and Reinforcement of Existing Structures 1- 7
1.5 Future Innovations of Design Codes and Research Subjects 1- 8
EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January, 2000
1. KEY CONCEPTS FOR EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
STRUCTURES AFTERTHE1995 HYOGOKEN-NANBU EARTHQUAKE
1.1 Lessons from The 1995 Hyogoken-nanbu
(Kobe) Earthquake
At 5:46AM of January 17, 1995, a highly
urbanized area of western Japan was jolted by an
earthquake with a magnitude of M=7.2. This
earthquake affected an extensive area containing
major cities, Kobe and Osaka and their
surrounding satellite cities which constitute the
industrial, commercial and cultural center of
western Japan.
The areas most heavily damaged by this
earthquake extends in a belt-shaped zone along
the causative fault system with a length of 40km,
particularly the zones identified as JMA intensity
scale VII (equivalent to MMI=X). They extend
over the entire east-west length of the most
densely populated part of Hanshin (meaning
Osaka-Kobe) metropolitan region.. Three million
people in this region were seriously affected. A
free-field ground acceleration (pGA) exceeded
800cmfs
2
in Kobe city and its response spectrum
was over 2000cmfs
2
at a damping coefficient of
0.05.
Table.Ll shows loss of human lives, and a
Table 1.1 A Summary of Damage Caused by the 1995 Kobe Earthquake (1995 Kobe Earthquake)
Human* Death: 6306 Missing: 2 Injured: 41,527
Housing and Buildings
Bridges **
Totally collapsed houses:
Half and partially collapsed houses:
Buildings:
Road (Hanshin Expressway): 67
100,300
214,000
3,700
Railway: 32
Embankment and Landslides Embankment: 427 Landslides: 367
Water Customers without service: 1.2 million Restoration time: 40 days
Gas Customers without service: 857,000 Restoration time: 85 days
Electricity Customers without service:
Outage of electric power:
Restoration time:
2.6 million
2836Mw
7 days
Telecommunication Customers affected by Switchboard Malfunction: 235,000
Damaged Cable Line: 19,300
Economic Impact Private properties:
Transportation facilities:
Lifelines:
Others:
Grand total:
6.3 trillion
2.2 trillion
0.6 trillion
0.5 trillion
9.6 trillion
*
**
Toll by Fire Defense Agency May 21, 1995
Collapsed and Extensively Damaged
1-1
summary of structural and functional disaster by
the Kobe earthquake to houses and buildings,
bridge, lifeline facilities and so on.
The first point to note about damage to civil
engineering structures is that elevated highway
bridge piers were completely destroyed. Although
there had been RC bridge piers damaged by
earthquakes in the past, this was the first
experience of total collapse in Japan. Most of the
seriously damaged piers were designed in
accordance with pre-1980 earthquake resistant
design codes. The piers of concrete structures
having low ductility and low ultimate strength,
were shear-fractured, resulting in such major
failures. Damage to RC piers designed in
conformance with the current earthquake resistant
design codes after 1980 was not so severe as to
result in bridge collapses.
Figure 1.2 Collapse of Bridge Piers of A
Elevated Highway Bridge (1995 Kobe
Earthquake)
Another point to note is the damage to steel
bridge piers. Many steel bridge piers buckled.
Most steel structures were designed by a method
where stresses in steel structural members fell
within an elastic region. The characteristics of
plastic deformation of steel structures had not
1-2
been incorporated into design codes. This is one
of the technical subjects that the earthquake
showed needs to be promptly studied and
implemented.
Figure 1.3 Buckling of A Steel Pier of A
Bridge (1995 Kobe Earthquake)
Damage to large underground structures,
such as subway structures has also become a focus
ofattention. The severest dainage was caused at a
subway station in the downtown of Kobe city,
which is of box-type RC structure, where
reinforced concrete columns were shear- fractured
and an upper floor deck slab collapsed along with
the overburden soil. Severe damage to other
underground subway stations was also reported.
Besides subway tunnels, which were constructed
by the cut-and-fill method, many mountain
tunnels of railway and highway were also
damaged due to large ground motion in the near
field of the earthquake fault.
Another. typical characteristic of damage to
civil infrastructures caused by the Kobe
earthquake is collapses and large displacements of
quay walls. Numerous collapses of revetments and
quay walls had been reported in past earthquakes,
but most of them had not been designed to
withstand soil liquefaction and had been decaying.
This was the first time when recently constructed
quay walls were largely displaced by several
meters or collapsed. All the damaged quay walls
had been constructed using concrete caissons. The
result of the investigation into cause of the
damage to quay walls said that soft clay of the sea
bed largely amplified the earthquake motion and
the foundation ground of the caissons, which had
been constructed by replacing the original sea bed
of soft clay with liquefiable gravel sand,
weathered granite, also liquefied besides the filled
ground behind the quay walls.
Figure 1.4 Large Movement of Concrete
Caisson Quay walls (1995 Kobe Earthquake)
However, it should be noted that all the
so-called earthquake resistant quay walls mostly
survived. The construction of earthquake resistant
quay walls has been promoted nationwide, mainly
in major ports and harbors, through the lessons
leamed from the damage to quay walls in Akita
Harbor during the 1983 Nihonkai-Chubu
earthquake. The earthquake resistant quay walls,
which were designed by adopting a higher seismic
load than that for conventional quay walls, were
constructed to withstand liquefaction.
Damage to RC elevated railway bridge piers
1-3
of the Shinkansen (bullet trains) shocked not only
civil engineers, but also the general public. RC
bridge piers were shear-fractured and collapsed,
and girders fell. Fortunately, because the
earthquake struck 14 minutes before service hours,
no human life was lost. A serious issue has
surfaced of how to assure the safety of high speed
Figure 1.5 Soil Liquefaction of An Artificial
Island in Kobe (1995 Kobe Earthquake)
trains, including Shinkansen, against earthquakes
caused by inland faults directly below them.
Soil liquefaction was extensively caused in
the artificial islands and alluvial low lands in
Kobe and its neighboring areas, which resulted in
a significant damage to buried pipes and
structures of lifeline systems, and many port
facilities. Most of the artificial islands in Kobe
area was reclaimed from the sea by weathered
granite which contained large cobbles and fine
contents. This revealed a need of revision of the
method to evaluate the liquefaction potential of
gravel sand with fine contents.
The ground behind the quay walls moved
several meters towards the sea, resulting from the
large displacement of quay walls. These lateral
ground movement damaged the foundation piles
of bridges, buildings and industrial facilities.
Furthermore, large ground strain due to
liquefaction-induced ground movement ruptured
buried pipes of lifeline systems such as gas, water,
electricity and sewer. A great number of breakages
of buried pipes resulted in the out of service to
numerous customers during a long period. These
liquefaction-induced ground displacement had not
been taken in the consideration in the earthquake
resistant design codes before the 1995 Kobe
earthquake.
Figure 1.6 Fall of A Bridge Girder due to
Movement of its Foundation Caused by
Liquefaction-Induced Ground Displacement
When we learn the lessons from the Kobe
earthquake, we should keep in mind the fact that
some conditional factors mitigated the disaster.
For one example had the earthquake struck the
Shinkansen (bullet train) traveling on elevated
railway bridges one hour later, it would have run
off the rails and caused disastrous train accidents.
The same can be said of the collapse of subway
stations. Concrete slabs along with their
overburden soil collapsed onto subway tracks. If
subway trains had been stopped there or had
smashed into the collapsed sections, additional
serious damage would have resulted.
There were other factors that contributed to
lessening the secondary damage. One important
1-4
factor was that the earthquake struck early in the
morning. If the earthquake had struck a few hours
later during the rush hour, the results would have
been much more tragic. Another factor was that
dawn broke over the disaster-stricken area after
the earthquake. The daylight aided the evacuation
of victims and the rescue of people trapped under
collapsed houses. If the earthquake had struck at
midnight, the death toll would have been much
greater.
It is highly important to investigate into the
causes of damage to the structures and to apply
the results in future preventive measures against
earthquakes, but we should also pay our full
attention on the above-mentioned hidden lessons.
1.2 Key Concepts for Earthquake Resistant
Design.
The JSCE (Japan Society of Civil Engineers)
organized a Special Task Committee of
Earthquake Resistance of Civil Engineering
Structures ill March 1995, about two months after
the Kobe earthquake, to discuss various subjects,
such as what an earthquake resistant capability of
civil engineering structures should be in the future
through the lessons from the Kobe earthquake.
The committee first discussed whether the strong
earthquake motions that had occurred in Kobe
area should be taken into account in the future
earthquake resistant design of civil engineering
structures. According to researchers on active
faults, in Japan the return period of the activity of
the earthquake fault is 500 to 2,000 years.
Assuming that the return period of the fault
activity is 1,000 years and the service life of civil
engineering structures is about 50 years, a
probability that the structures would undergo such
strong earthquake motions as those observed at
the Kobe earthquake during the serviceable life is
only five percent. The subject of the discussions
by the JSCE committee was how to treat great
disasters with such low probability of occurrence.
The JSCE proposed two key concepts for
earthquake resistant design of civil engineering
structures based on the discussions by the
committee. Those are two levels of ground
motions for earthquake resistant design and so
called performance-based design.
JSCE said that the resistance of civil
engineering structures against future earthquakes
should be examined by taking into the
consideration such strong earthquake motions as
observed during the Kobe earthquake in addition
to the ordinary earthquake motions that have thus
far been used for earthquake resistant design.
These two earthquake motions are respectively
called Level I and Level IT ground motions.
One of the reasons why JSCE said that the
Level IT ground motion should be taken into
account in the earthquake resistant design is
shown in Figure 1.7. This figure is a list of the
damaging earthquakes in the last century in Japan
and the numbers of casualties, and shows that
inland earthquakes of magnitude 7 and larger such
as the Kobe earthquake, which are surrounded by
squares in the figure, occurred 8 times and have a
probability of occurrence that can not be neglected
in terms of reformation of the design codes.
Figurel.7 also shows that the inland
earthquakes such as the Kobe earthquake resulted
in a greater number of causalities in comparison
with the plate boundary earthquakes in the pacific
ocean, if the 1923 Kanto and the 1900
Sanriku-Tsunami earthquake are excepted. In
these two earthquakes, the main causes of the loss
Name of
M D ate
Casualties (H, Kem!)da Kyoto
Earthquake
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
Kumamoto 5.8 1889. 7.28
8.0 1891.10.28
Tokyo
6.7 1894. 6.20
20
Shonai 6.8 1894.10.22 7273
Sanriku Tsun. 7.1 1896. 6.15 31
Rikuu 7.0 1896. 8.31
209
1900
Gono 6.4 1909. 8.14
Akita-Senpoku 5.9 1914. 3.15

41
Ch!iiwa-Bay
6.0 1922.12. 8
Great Kanto 7.9 1923. 9. 1
94
ita-t'Tafima
6.5 1925. 5.23
ita Tango 7.5 1927. 3.7
ita Izu 7.0 1930.11.26
C;;;65 ......
Sanr-iku Tsun. 8.3 1933. 3. 3

2925
Oga-Hanto 7.0 1939. 5.1 r- 272
7.4 1943. 9.10
1------------3064
Tonankai 8.0 1944.12.7
27
lMikawa I 7.1 1945. 1.13
-"

Nanka! ---..
1961
8.1 1946.12.21 ...................... 144J
IFukui I
P
3769
7.3 1948. 6.28
29
Tokecbf-oki
8.1 1952. 3. 4
Chile EQ Tsun. 8.5 1960. 5.23
1'-196a... -i-as - .
Niigata 7.5 1964. 6.16
t:::
Tokachr-oki 7.9
26
- InlandE.Q. 1968. 5.16
52
' Plate Boundary (in Pacific Ocean) E.Q.
Izu Hanto-roki
6.9 1974 5. 9
;;::
Izu-Oshima
7.0 1978. 1.14 30
_ - _ Plate Boundary (Tsunami)
Miyagiken-oki 7.4 1978. 6.12 25
Nihonkat--Chubu
28
7.7 1983. 5.26
INagano-Seibu I 6.8 1984. 9.14
104
r------ 29
Kushiro-oki 7.8 1993. 1.15
Hokkaido SI: 7.8 1993. 7.12

2.230 6308"
Hyogoken S 7.2 1995. 1.17
2000
Figure 1.7 Damaging Earthquakes and Number of Causalities
in Last Century in Japan (c=J: Inland Earthquakes)
1-5
of human lives were the aftermath fire and the
tsunami, respectively.
However, JSCE's recommendation does not
mean that all structures should be designed and
constructed to sustain Level II earthquake motions.
It states that the earthquake resistant capability,
namely performance level of a structure should be
determined by comparing the importance of the
structure with the probability of occurrence of the
design earthquake motion. For instance, against
earthquake motions having a probability of
occurrence once or twice during the service life of
structures, e.g. Level I earthquake motions, the
earthquake resistant design should stipulate that
the deformation of structure falls within an elastic
limit and that any residual deformation does not
remain after the design earthquake. In contrast to
this, against very rare earthquake motions, e.g.
Level II earthquake motions, the performance
level of a structure should be changed according
to the importance of the structure. The
performance of structures after an encounter with
the design earthquake motion can be varied for an
example as follows; i) non-damaged and
functional, ii) slightly damaged but functional,
iii) heavily damaged and unfunctional, but
repairable, iv) collapsed and unrepairable.
The degree of importance of a structure is
determined by considering the following items;
i) effects of collapse of structures on human life
and survival, ii) effects on rescue and ambulance
operations and restoration activities immediately
after earthquakes, iii) effects on civic life after
earthquakes, iv) effects on economic activities
after earthquake, and v) effects on reconstruction
works.
The above-mentioned key concepts proposed
by JSCE were adopted in the National Disaster
Prevention Program in Japan which was newly
revised after the Kobe earthquake and were
strongly referred for the revision and development
of the earthquake resistant design codes.
1.3 Technical Subjects for Revision of
Earthquake Design Code
The adoption of the JSCE-proporsed key
concepts for earthquake resistant design raised
following technical subjects to be resolved for the
code developments.
i) Determination of Level II earthquake ground
motion.
ii) Evaluation of elasto-plastic behaviors and
ultimate strength of structures against the
Level II ground motion.
iii) Evaluation of residual deformation of earth
structures such as embankments, retaining
Probability of occurrence of
Importance of structure
design earthquake motion
I I
~
Earthquake resistant capability
(Performance Level) of structure
Figure 1.8 Determination of Performance Level (Earthquake Resistant Capability)
1-6
walls and quay walls.
iv) Evaluation of liquefaction potential of
comparatively stiffer soil against Level II
ground motion
v) Effects of liquefaction-induced large ground
displacement.
How to determine the Level II ground motion
was one of the most important subjects in the
development of the design codes. There were
following three kinds of ideas;
i) Adoption of the maximum ground motion
recorded during past earthquakes including the
Kobe earthquake.
ii) Statistical approach of recorded and calculated
ground motion.
iii) Numerical Analysis of ground motion directly
from the design earthquake fault.
The first idea was introduced for the seismic
design specifications of highway bridges (Chapter
2) and the Level II ground motion was determined
based on the ground motions recorded during the
Kobe earthquake.
The second idea was adopted in the revision
of the design codes for the railway facilities
(Chapter 3) water facilities and gas supply
facilities (Chapters 4, 5).
The third idea where the :design ground
motion was numerically calculated from the fault
movement was also adopted for the railway
facilities and gas supply facilities.
The adoption of the Level II design ground
motion raised another Technical subjects. One is
how to estimate the behaviors of the structures in
the plastic region and their ultimate strength. For
an example, the earthquake resistant design of
steel structures has been generally made by the
allowable stress method. That is, the design is
made, not in a plastic region beyond an elastic
region. Research has hardly been done on the
1-7
behaviors of steel structures in plastic region. The
same can be said of the ultimate strength of buried
steel pipes of lifeline systems. If large ground
strain due to liquefaction-induced lateral ground
flow is incorporated into the earthquake resistant
design of buried pipes, strains of the pipes will
reach a plastic region. But a small amount of data
has been accumulated on the deformation
characteristics in a plastic region and ultimate
strength of buried pipes.
Further, evaluation of the and ductility of
earth structures, e.g. embankments, revetments,
retaining walls, and quay walls, is another subject
which needs research and development.
These above-mentioned technical subjects
have been progressively carried out after the Kobe
earthquake and the outcomes of the researches
was applied for the revision and the development
of the design code.
1.4 Diagnosis and Reinforcement of Existing
Structures
Although the future earthquake resistant
design of civil engineering structures will be
based on the concepts described above, an
additional problem is diagnosis and reinforcement
of existing structures. In large Japanese cities,
such as Tokyo and Osaka, there are countless civil
engineering structures similar to those damaged in
the Kobe area by the Kobe earthquake. Some of
them, e.g. highway bridges, Shinkansen lines,
subways, and quay walls, were constructed earlier
or have decayed more than those damaged in the
Kobe area. The earthquake resistant reinforcement
of these structures becomes an inevitable problem
if disaster preventive measures are taken by
predicting that earthquakes of a similar scale of
the Kobe earthquake will hit these cities.
Therefore, reinforcement of concrete piers of
highways and railways and concrete columns of
subways has been carried out by jacketing the
existing concrete with steel plates casting
additional concrete, and the other methods while
the effectiveness of those reinforcements was
confirmed by loading teats in the laboratory.
However, the diagnosis and the reinforcement of
the foundations of bridges and buildings against
the liquefaction-induced large ground
displacement has hardly been conducted.
As is clear from the damage caused by the
Kobe earthquake, most critical and urgent issue is
the reinforcement of structures on reclaimed lands,
for instance the Tokyo Bay and the Osaka Bay
areas, where in most of cases no soil improvement
has been taken against soil liquefaction, and a
huge number of buildings, bridges, and lifeline
facilities already exist there. It is urgently required
to develop technologies of soil improvement of
existing artificial grounds.
In addition, because reinforcement should be
undertaken in a proper order, it is also necessary
to develop a basic idea to decide the priority of
reinforcement. The previously mentioned
importance level of structures may be referred to
in deciding the priority of the reinforcement. That
is, the effects of structures on human life and
survival and on rescue and ambulance operations
and restoration activities immediately after
earthquake, as well as other effects:
1.5 Future Innovations of Design Codes and
Research Subjects
Most of earthquake resistant design codes for
civil engineering structures have been revised or
newly developed under the JSCE's key concepts
and based on the outcomes from the researches
after the Kobe earthquake. However, the following
technical subjects remains unresolvedand needs
1-8
more detailed investigations in future.
i) Dynamic failure mechanism of steel and
concrete structures due to severe earthquake
ground motion, eg Level II ground motion,
shall be investigated through static and
dynamic loading tests of structural members
and large size structural models. Outcomes of
these studies are expected to give significant
information to establish new earthquake
resistant design method against extremely
severe earthquake ground motion.
ii) Mechanisms of large deformation and failure of
foundations against strong earthquake ground
motion and large ground deformation shall be
investigated, and effective countermeasures for
foundations against liquefaction and its induced
large ground displacement are required to be
developed.
iii) Mechanisms of occurrence of static large
ground deformation due to liquefaction shall
be studied by large scale shaking table test.
Studies on properties of perfectly liquefied soil
is essential for development of a rational
method for estimation of the ground
displacement. Furthermore, large scale shaking
table test on liquefaction-induced ground
displacement is expected to clarify the
mechanism.
iv)Reasonable techniques are expected to be
developed for diagnosis and reinforcement of
existing structures including foundations.
Furthermore, proper technology shall be
developed for the soil improvement of existing
liquefiable ground.
REFERENCES
1) Japan Society of Civil Engineers:
Proposal on Earthquake Resistance for Civil
Engineering Structures, 1996
2) Hamada, M.: Seismic Code Development for
Civil Infrastructures after the 1995
Hyogoken-nanbu (Kobe) Earthquake,
Proceedings of the 5
th
U.S. Conference on
Lifeline Earthquake Engineering, TCLEE,
Monograph No.16, pp922-929, 1999
3) Japan Road Association: Design
Specifications of Highway bridges, Part I
Common Part, Part IT Steel Bridges, Part ill
Concrete Bridges, Part IV Foundations, and
Part V Seismic Design, 1996
4) Seismic Design Code for Railway
Structures, published by MARUZEN,
Oct., 1999. (in Japanese)
5) Japan Water Works Association:
Seismic Design and Construction
Guidelines for Water Supply Facilities,
1997
1-9
2. 1996 SEISMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES
2.1 Introduction 2- 1
2.2 Damage Features of Bridges in The Hyogo-ken Nanbu Earthquake 2- 1
2.3 Basic Principle of Seismic Design 2- 3
2.4 Design Methods 2- 4
2.5 Design Seismic Force 2- 6
2.6 Evaluation of Displacement Ductility Factor of a Reinforced Concrete Pier 2- 7
2.6.1 Evaluation of Failure Mode 2- 7
2.6.2 Displacement Ductility Factor 2- 7
2.6.3 Shear Capacity 2- 8
2.6.4 Arrangement of Reinforcement 2- 9
2.6.5 Two-Column Bent 2- 11
2.7 Evaluation of Displacement Ductility of a Steel Pier 2- I I
2.7.1 Basic Concept 2- 11
2.7.2 Concrete Infilled Steel Pier 2- 12
2.7.3 Steel Pier without Infilled Concrete 2- 12
2.8 Dynamic Response Analysis 2- 13
2.9 Menshin Design 2- 14
2.9.1 Basic Principle 2- 14
2.9.2 Design Procedure 2- 15
2.9.3 Design of Menshin Devices 2- 15
2.10 Design of Foundation 2- 17
2.11 Design Against Soil Liquefaction and Liquefaction-Induced Ground Flow 2- 17
2.11.1 Estimation of Liquefaction Potential 2- 17
2.11.2 Design Treatment of Liquefaction for Bridge Foundations 2- 17
2.11.3 Design Treatment of Liquefaction-induced Ground Flow for Bridge Foundations 2- 18
2.12 Bearing Supports 2- 18
2.13 Unseating Prevention Systems 2- 19
2.14 Concluding Remarks 2- 20
2.1996 SEISMIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS OF HIGHWAY BRIDGES
2.1 Introduction
Highway bridges in Japan had been
considered safe even against extreme
earthquake such as the Great Kanto Earthquake
(M7.9) in 1923, because various past bitter
experiences have been accumulated to
formulate the seismic design method
(Kawashima (1995)). Large seismic lateral
force ranging from O.2g to O.3g has been
adopted in the allowable stress design
approach. Various provisions for preventing
damage due to instability of soils such as soil
liquefaction have been adopted. Furthermore,
design detailings including the unseating
prevention devices have been implemented.
In fact, reflecting those provisions, number
of highway bridges which suffered complete
collapse of superstructures was only 15 since
1923 Great Kanto Earthquake. Based on such
evidence, it had been regarded that the seismic
damage of highway bridges had been
decreasing in recent years.
However, the Hyogo-ken nanbu Earthquake
of January 17, 1995, exactly one year after the
Northridge, California, USA, earthquake,
caused destructive damage to highway bridges.
Collapse and nearly collapse of superstructures
occurred at 9 sites, and other destructive
damage occurred at 16 sites (Ministry of
Construction, 1995a). The earthquake revealed
that there are a number of critical issues to be
revised in the seismic design and seismic
strengthening of bridges in urban areas.
After the earthquake the "Committee for
Investigation on the Damage of Highway
Bridges Caused by the Hyogo-ken nanbu
Earthquake" (chairman : Toshio IWASAKI,
Executive Director, Civil Engineering Research
Laboratory) was formulated in the Ministry of
Construction to survey the damage and clarify
the factors which contributed to the damage.
On February 27, 1995, the Committee
approved the "Guide Specifications for
2-1
Reconstruction and Repair of Highway Bridges
which suffered Damage due to the Hyogo-ken
nanbe Earthquake," (Ministry of Construction
1995b) and the Ministry of Construction
noticed on the same day that the reconstruction
and repair of the highway bridges which
suffered damage in the Hyogo-ken nanbu
earthquake should be made by the Guide
Specifications. It was decided by the Ministry
of Construction on May 25, 1995 that the
Guide Specifications should be tentatively used
in all sections of Japan as emergency measures
for seismic design of new highway bridges and
seismic strengthening of existing highway
bridges until the Design Specifications of
Highway Bridges was revised.
In May, 1995, the "Special Sub-Committee
for Seismic Countermeasures for Highway
Bridges" (chairman Kazuhiko
KAWASHIMA, Professor of the Tokyo
Institute of Technology) was formulated in the
"Bridge Committee" (chairman : Nobuyuki
NARlTA, Professor of the Tokyo Metropolitan
University), Japan Road Association, to draft
the revision of the Design Specifications of
Highway Bridges. The Special Sub-Committee
drafted the new Design Specifications of
Highway Bridges, and after the approval of the
Bridges Committee, the Ministry of
Construction releasedit November 1, 1996.
This chapter summarizes the damage
feature of highway bridges by the Hyogo-ken
Nanbu earthquake and the new Design
Specifications of Highway Bridges issued in
November 1996.
2.2 Damage Features of Bridges in The
Hyogo-ken Nanbu Earthquake
Hyogo-ken Nanbu earthquake was the first
earthquake which hit an urban area in Japan
since the 1948 Fukui Earthquake. Although the
magnitude of the earthquake was moderate
(M7.2), the ground motion was much larger
Fig.2.1 Design Specifications Referred
to in Design of Hanshin Expressway
Fig.2.2 compares damage of piers on the
Route 3 (Kobe Line) and Route 5 (Bay Shore
Line) of the Hanshin Expressway. Damage
degree was classified as As (collapse), A
(nearly collapse), B (moderate damage), C
(damage of secondary members) and D (minor
B
(b) Route 5
A
s
(a) Route 3
o
Although damage concentrated on the
bridges designed with the older Design
Specifications, it was thought that essential
revision was required even in the recent Design
Specifications to prevent damage against
destructive earthquakes such as the Hyogo-ken
nanbu earthquake. The main points requiring
modifications were;
(1) it was required to increase lateral capacity
and ductility of all structural components in
which seismic force is predominant so that
ductility of a total bridge system be enhanced.
For such purpose, it was required to upgrade
or no damage). Substructures of the Route 3
and Route 5 were designed with the 1964
Design Specifications and 1980 Design
Specifications, respectively. It should be noted
in this comparison that the intensity of ground
shaking in terms of response spectra was
smaller at the Bay Area than the narrow
rectangular area where JMA Seismic Intensity
was vn (equivalent to Modified Mercalli
Intensity of X-XI). The Route 3 was located in
the narrow rectangular area while the Route 5
was located in the Bay Area. Keeping in mind
such difference of ground motion, it is apparent
in Fig.2.2 that about 14% of the piers on Route
3 suffered As or A damage while no such
damage was developed in the piers on the
Route 5.
Fig.2.2 Comparison of Damage Degree between
Route 3 and Route 5 (As: Collapse, A : Nearly
Collapse, B : Moderate Damage, C : Damage of .
Secondary Members, D : Minor or No Damage)
1990 Design
Specifications
1964 or Older
Design Specifications
1980 Design
Specifications
1971 Design
Specifications
than anticipated in the codes. It occurred very
close to the Kobe City with shallow focal
depth.
Damage was developed at highway bridges
on Routes 2, 43, 171 and 176 of the National
Highway, Route 3 (Kobe Line) and Route 5
(Bay Shore Line) of the Hanshin Expressway,
the Meishin and Chugoku Expressway.
Damage was surveyed for all bridges on
National Highways, Hanshin Expressways and
Expressways in the area where destructive
damage occurred. Total number of piers
surveyed reached 3,396 (Ministry of
Construction, 1995a). Fig.2.1 shows Design
Specifications referred to in design of the 3,396
piers. Most of piers (bridges) which suffered
damage were designed according to the 1964
Design Specifications or older Design
Specifications. Although the seismic design
methods have been improved and amended
several times since 1926 based on damage
experience and progress of bridge earthquake
engineering, only a requirement for lateral
force coefficient was provided in the 1964
Design Specifications or older Specifications.
2-2
correct mechanism of
a superstructure to
the "Check of Ductility of Reinforced Concrete
Piers," which has been used since 1990, to a
"Ductility Design Method," and to apply the
Ductility Design Method to all structural
components. It should be noted here that
"check" and "design" is different; the check is
only to verify the safety of a structural member
designed by other design method, and is
effective only to increase the size or
reinforcements if required, while the design is
an essential procedure to determine the size
and reinforcements,
(2) it was required to include the ground
motion developed at Kobe in the earthquake as
a design force in the Ductility Design Method,
(3) it was required to specify input ground
motions in terms of acceleration response
spectra for dynamic response analysis more
actively,
(4) it was required to increase tie
reinforcements and to introduce intermediate
ties for increasing ductility of piers. It was
decided not to terminate main reinforcements at
mid-height for preventing premature shear
failure, in principle,
(5) it was suggested to adopt multi-span
continuous bridge for increasing number of
indeterminate of a total bridge system,
(6) it was suggested to adopt rubber bearings
for absorbing lateral displacement between a
superstructure and substructures. It was
important to consider
force transfer from
substructures,
(7) it was suggested to include the Menshin
design (seismic isolation),
(8) it was required to increase strength,
ductility and energy dissipation capacity of
unseating prevention devices, and
(9) it was required to consider the effect of
lateral spreading associated with soil
liquefaction in design of foundations at the site
vulnerable to lateral spreading.
2.3 Basic Principle of Seismic Design
Table 2.1 shows the seismic performance
level provided in the revised Design
Specifications in 1996. The bridges are
categorized into two groups depending on their
importance; standard bridges (Type-A bridges)
and important bridges (Type-B bridges).
Seismic performance level depends on the
importance of bridges. For moderate ground
motions induced in the earthquakes with high
probability to occur, both A and B bridges
should behave in an elastic manner without
essential structural damage. For extreme
ground motions induced in the earthquakes
with low probability to occur, the Type-A
bridges should prevent critical failure, while
the Type-B bridges should perform with
limited damage .
Table 2.1 Seismic Performance Levels
Importance of Bridges Design Methods
Type of Design Ground Motions Type-A Type-B Equivalent Dynamic
(Standard (Important Static Lateral
Bridges) Bndges) Force Methods Analysis
Ground Motions with
Seismic
Prevent Damage Coefficient Step by Step
High Probability to Occur Method Analysis
Ground Motions Type-I
or
with Low
(Plate Boundary
Earthquakes) Prevent Limited Ductility Response
Critical Design Spectrum
Probability Type-II Damage Damage Method Analysis
(Inland
to Occur Earthquakes)
2-3
In the Ductility Design Method, two types
of ground motions must be considered. The
first is the ground motions which could be
induced in the plate boundary-type earthquakes
with magnitude of about 8. The ground motion
at Tokyo in the 1923 Kanto Earthquake is a
typical target of this type of ground motion.
The second is the ground motion developed in
earthquakes with magnitude of about 7-7.2 at
very short distance. Obviously the ground
motions at Kobe in the Hyogo-ken nanbu
earthquake is a typical target of this type of
ground motions are called as Type-I and
Type-Il ground motions, respectively.
( Start )
Design for
Principal
Loads
Seismic Design by
Seismic Coefficient
Method
The recurrence time of the Type-IT ground
motion may be longer than that of the Type-I
ground motion, although the estimation is very
difficult.
2.4 Design Methods
Bridges are designed by both the Seismic
Coefficient Method and the Ductility Design
Method as shown in Fig.2.3. In the Seismic
Coefficient Method, a lateral force coefficient
ranging from 0.2 to 0.3 has been used based on
the allowable stress design approach. No
change was introduced since the 1990
Specifications in the Seismic Coefficient
:heck the Safety by
> - - ~ Dynamic Response
Anal sis
Unseating
Prevention
Devices
Seismic Design by Dynamic
Response Analysis (Type I
and II Ground Motions
Seismic Design by
Ductility Design
Method (Type J and
II Design Force)
Check the Safety by
Dynamic Response
Analysis (Type I and II
Ground Motion)
I
End
Fig.2.3 Flowchart of Seismic Design
2-4
Method.
In the Ductility Design Method, assuming a
principle plastic hinge formed at the bottom of
pier as shown in Fig.4(a) and the equal energy
assumption, a bridge is designed so that the
following requirement is satisfied.
Pa > he W (1)
where
OR=CR (jJ. R-l) (l-r) a y (5)
jJ. R = 1/2 {(he' W/Pai+l ] (6)
in which a R =residual displacement of a pier
after an earthquake, a Ra = allowable residual
displacement of a pier, r = bilinear factor
defined as a ratio between the first stiffness
(yield stiffness) and the second stiffness
(post-yield stiffness) of a pier, CR = factor
depending on the bilinear factor r, jJ. R =
response ductility factor of a pier, and a y =
yield displacement of a pier. The a aa should
be 11100 of a distance between the bottom of a
pier and a gravity center of a superstructure.
In a bridge with complex dynamic
response, the dynamic response analysis is
required to check the safety of a bridge after it
is designed by the Seismic Coefficient Method
and the Ductility Design Method. Because this
is only for a check of the design, the size and
reinforcements of structural members once
determined by the Seismic Coefficient Method
and the Ductility Design Methods can only be
increased if necessary. It should be noted
however that under the following conditions in
which the Ductility Design Method is not
directly applied, the size and reinforcements
can be determined based on the results f a
dynamic response analysis as shown in Fig.2.3.
The conditions when the Ductility Design
Method should not be directly used include:
(1) principle mode shapes which contribute to
(4)
(Z)
khe
he =
-.fZjJ.a-1
W =Wo--c Wp (3)
in which, Pa = lateral capacity of a pier, he =
equivalent lateral force coefficient, W =
equivalent weight, kne = lateral force
coefficient, jJ. a = allowable displacement
ductility factor of a pier, Wu =weight of a part
of superstructure supported by the pier, Wp =
weight of a pier, and cp =coefficient depending
on the type of failure mode. The cp is 0.5 for a
pier in which either flexural failure or shear
failure after flexural cracks are developed, and
1.0 for a pier in which shear failure is
developed. The lateral capacity of a pier Pa is
defined as a lateral force at the gravity center
of a superstructure.
In the Type-B bridges, residual
displacement developed at a pier after an
earthquake must be checked as
a R< a aa
where
Principal Plastic Hinge
(a) Conventional Design
(b) Menshin Design (c) Bridge Supported by A Wall-type Pier
Fig.2.4 Location of Primary Plastic Hinge
2-5
bridge response are different from the ones
assumed in the Ductility Design Methods,
(2) more than two modes significantly
contribute to bridge response,
(3) principle plastic hinges form at more than
two locations, or principle plastic hinges are
not known where to be formed, and
(4) response modes for which the equal energy
assumption are not applied.
In the seismic design of a foundation, a
lateral force equivalent to the ultimate lateral
capacity of a pier Pu is assumed to be a design
force as
h p =Cdf PuIW (7)
in which hp = lateral force coefficient for a
foundation, Cdf = modification coefficient
(=1.1), and W = equivalent weight by Eq.(3).
Because the lateral capacity of a wall-type pier
is very large in transverse direction, the lateral
seismic force evaluated by Eq. (7) becomes in
most cases excessive. Therefore if a foundation
has sufficiently large lateral capacity compared
with the lateral seismic force, the foundation is
designed assuming a plastic hinge at the
foundation and surrounding soils as shown in
Fig.2A(e),
2.5 Design Seismic Force
Lateral force coefficient he in Eq.(2) is
given as
he =cz : heO (8)
in which cz = modification coefficient for zone,
and is 0.7, 0.85 and 1.0 depending on zone, and
heo = standard modification coefficient. Table
2.2 and Fig.2.S show the standard lateral force
coefficients heo for the Type-I and the Type-Il
ground motions. The Type-I ground motions
have been used since 1990 (1990
Specifications), while the Type-Il ground
motions were newly introduced in the 1996
Table 2.2 Lateral Force Coefficient heo in the Ductility Design Method
(a) Type-I Ground Motions
Soil Condition Lateral Force Coefficient fuco
Group I
fuco=0.7 for T < 1.4 hco=0.876T
2
/
J
for T > 1.4
(stiff)
Group II fueo=1.51TI/J
fueo=0.85 fueo=1.16T
2
/
J
(fueo > 0.7)
(moderate) for T < 0.18 for 0.18 < T < 1.6 for T> 1.6
Group III beo=1.51T
I/J
fueo=1.0 fueo=1.59T
2
/3
(beo > 0.7)
(soft) for T < 0.29 for 0.29 < T < 2.0 for T> 2.0
(b) Type-Il Ground Motions
Soil Condition Lateral Force Coefficient fueo
Group I fueo=4.46T/
J
beo=2.00 beo=1.24T
4/J
(stiff) for T < 0.3 for 0.3 < T < 0.7 for T> 0.7
Group II heo=3.22T
/J
heo=1.75 beo=2.23T
4/J
(moderate) for T <0.4 for 0.4 ~ T < 1.2 for T> 1.2
Group III hco=2.38T
/3
beo=1.50 beo=2.57T
'3
(soft) for T <0.5 for 0.5 < T < 1.5 for T> 1.5
2-6
accelerations excursion is longer in the Type-I
ground motions than the Type-II ground
motions. As will be described later, such a
difference of the duration has been taken into
account to evaluate the allowable displacement
ductility factor of a pier.
2.6 Evaluation of Displacement Ductility
Factor of A Reinforced Concrete Pier
2.6.2 Displacement Ductility Factor
The allowable displacement ductility factor
of a pier j.J. a in Eq.(2) is evaluated as
a u - a y
j.J. a == 1 + Q:' a y (9)
in which Q:' = safety factor, a y == yield
displacement of a pier, and a u = ultimate
displacement of a pier. As well as the lateral
capacity of a pier Pa in Eq.(I), the a y and
a u are defined at the gravity center of a
superstructure. In a reinforced concrete single
pier as shown in Fig.2.4(a), the ultimate
displacement a u is evaluated as
a u== a y+ (et> u- et> y) Lp(h - Lp/2) (10)
in which et> y = yield curvature of a pier at
bottom, et> u == ultimate curvature of a pier at
bottom, h == height of a pier, and Lp == plastic
hinge length of a pier. The plastic hinge length
is given as
2.6.1 Evaluation of Failure Mode
In the ductility design of reinforced concrete
piers, the failure mode of the pier is evaluated
as the first step. Failure modes is categorized
to 3 types based on the bending capacity and
shear capacity of the pier as
1) Pu < Ps : bending failure
2) Ps < Pu < Pso : bending to shear failure
3) PsO < Pu : shear failure
in which Pu == bending capacity, Ps == shear
capacity in consideration of the effect of cyclic
loading, and Pso == shear capacity without
consideration of the effect of cyclic loading.
The ductility factor and capacity of the
reinforced concrete piers are determined
according to the failure mode as described
later.
Specifications. It should be noted here that the
heO at stiff site (Group I) has been assumed
smaller than the heO at moderate (Group II)
and soft soil (Group III) sites in the Type-I
ground motions as well as the seismic
coefficients used for the Seismic Coefficient
Method. The Type-I ground motions were
essentially estimated from an attenuation
equation for response spectra that was derived
from a statistical analysis of 394 components
of strong motion records. Although the
response spectral accelerations at short natural
period are larger at stiff sites than at soft soil
sites, the tendency has not been explicitly
included in the past. This was because damage
has been more developed at soft sites than at
stiff sites. To consider such fact, the design
force at stiff sites has been assumed smaller
than that at soft sites even at short natural
period. However being different from such a
traditional consideration, the Type-II ground
motions were determined by simply taking
envelops of response accelerations of major
strong motions recorded at Kobe in the
Hyogo-ken nanbu Earthquake. It was
considered appropriate to set realistic ground
motions.
Although the acceleration response spectral
intensity at short natural period is higher in the
Type-II ground motions than in the Type-I
ground motions, the duration of extreme
2.5
u
- - - - - Group I ..c
.Y
- - - Group II Type I .....,
2
c -- ~
Group III
a;
I
U
I
--. - - - - - Group I
<;::
- Group II Type II ~
1.5 a;
a Group 111
U
a;
U
L-
a
u.,
ro
0.5 L-
a;
---
.....,
ro
-..l
0
0 2 3 4
Natural Period T (5)
Fig.2.S Type I and Type II Ground Motions
in the Ductility Design Method
2-7
(17) < 0.018
4Ah
p s =
(
C ee
C ell =
C ee +
(18)
It is important to note here that the ultimate
strain c eu depends on the types of ground
motions; the c eu for the Type-II ground
motions is larger than that for the Type-I
ground motions. Based on a loading test, it is
known that a certain level of failure in a pier
such as a sudden decrease of lateral capacity
occurs at smaller lateral displacement in a pier
subjected to a loading hysteresis with more
number of load reversals. To reflect such a
fact, it was decided that the ultimate strain
e eu should be evaluated by Eq.(18),
depending on the type of ground motions.
and a = 0.2 and j3 = 0.4 for a rectangular
pier), and p s = tie reinforcement ratio
defmed as
sd
in which Ah = area of tie reinforcements, s =
space of tie reinforcements, and d = effective
width of tie reinforcements.
The ultimate curvature u is defmed as a
curvature when concrete strain at longitudinal
reinforcing bars in compression reaches an
ultimate strain e eu defined as
for Type I ground motions
0.2 (J' ee
Edes
for Type II ground motions
(16)
(14)
(15)
e < E cu)
(12)
(13)
(J' ek 2
Ee e ee
Edes = 11.2
p s (J' sy
in which (J' ek = design strength of concrete,
(J' sy = yield strength of reinforcements, a
and j3 = coefficients depending on shape of
pier ( a =1.0 and j3 =1.0 for a circular pier,
n=
Ee E ee - (J' ee
in which a cc =strength of confined concrete,
Ee =elastic modules of concrete, e cc =strain
at maximum strength, and Edes = gradient at
descending branch. In Eq.(12), (J' cc, C ee and
Eses are determined as
a ee = (J' ek + 3.8 a p s (J' sy
C ee = 0.002+0.033 j3 P s (J' sy
(J' ek
Lp= 0.2h - O.lD (O.lD < Lr < 0.5D) (11)
in which D is a width or a diameter of a pier.
The yield curvature y and ultimate
curvature u in Eq.(10) are evaluated
assuming a stress-strain relation of
reinforcements and concrete as shown in
Fig.2.6. The stress (J' e - strain t: e relation of
concrete with lateral confinement is assumed as
[
Ee e e{l _ 1 ~ ) n - l }
n C ee
(0 < C e < e cc)
(J'e=
ee - Edes(c e- c cc)
(c cc< e
Stress (}s
Stress O'c
Strain e,
0.80' cc - - - - --
I
_____ L _
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
cu Strain E.c
(a) Reinforcing Bars (b) Concrete
Fig.2.6 Stress and Strain Relation of Confined Concrete and Reinforcing Bars
2-8
Table 2.3 Safety Factor a in Eq.(9)
Type of Bridges Type-I Ground Motions Type-II Ground Motions
Type-B
3.0 1.5
Type-A
2.4 1.2
Table 2.4 Modification Factor On Scale Effect for Shear Capacity Shared by Concrete
Effective Width of Section d (m) Coefficient Ce
d ;;:;; 1
1.0
d::::3
0.7
d::::5
0.6
d ~ 10 0.5
(19)
(20)
(21)
Therefore, the allowable ductility factor u a
depends on the type of ground motions; the
u a is larger in a pier subjected to the Type-IT
ground motions than a pier subjected to the
Type-I ground motions.
It should be noted that the safety factor a
in Eq.(9) depends on the type of bridges as
well as the type of ground motions as shown in
Table 2.3. This is to preserve higher seismic
safety in the important bridges, and to take
account of the difference of recurrent time
between the Type-I and the Type-IT ground
motions.
2.6.3 Shear Capacity
Shear capacity of reinforced concrete piers
is evaluated by a conventional method as
Ps :::: Sc + Ss
Sc :::: 10 Cc Ce Cpt reb d
Ss > Aw a sy d (sin e+cos e)
10 x 1.1Sa
in which Ps :::: shear capacity, Sc :::: shear
capacity shared by concrete, Ss :::: shear
capacity shared by tie reinforcements, t: c =
shear stress capacity shared by concrete, Cc =
modification factor for cyclic loading (0.6 for
Type-I ground motions, 0.8 for Type-II ground
motions), Ce = modification factor for scale
effect of effective width, Cpt :::: modification
factor for longitudinal reinforcement ratio, b, d
2-9
:::: width and height of section, Aw :::: sectional
area of tie reinforcement, (J' sy:::: yield strength
of tie reinforcement, e = angle between
vertical axis and tie reinforcement, and a =
spacing of tie reinforcement.
The modification factor on scale effect of
effective width, Ce, was based on the
experimental study of loading tests of beams
with various effective height and was newly
introduced in the 1996 Specifications. Table
2.4 shows the modification factor on scale
effect.
2.6.4 Arrangement of Reinforcement
Fig.2.7 shows suggested arrangement of tie
reinforcement. Tie reinforcement should be
deformed bars with a diameter equal or larger
than 13 mm, and it should be placed in most
bridges at a distance of no longer than 150mm.
In special cases such as the bridges with pier
height taller than 30m, the distance of tie
reinforcement may be increased at height so
that pier strength should not be sharply
decreased at the section. Intermediate ties
should be also provided with the same distance
with the ties to confine the concrete. Space of
the intermediate ties should be less than 1m.
~ ~ u
u u u u
p
(
(
~ ~
~ ~
(b) Semi -square Section
(a) Square Section
(c) Circular Section (d) Hollow Section
Fig.2.7. Confinement of Core-concrete by Tie Reinforcement
Lp
n
Lp
r:
o--6--r--o---(c)}-+----------j--<!o-O-.....- ~ - o
LPC
o o.
o Node
@ Plastic hinge
Lp Plastic Hinge Length
Rigid Member
Elastic Member
Fig.2.S Analytical Idealization of A Two-Column Bent
2-10
2.6.5 Two-Column Bent
To determine the ultimate strength and
ductility factor for two-column bents, it is
modeled as the frame model with plastic hinges
at the both end of lateral cap beam and
columns as shown in Fig.2.8. Each elastic
frame member has the yield stiffness which is
obtained based on the axial load by the dead
load of the superstructure and the column. The
plastic hinge is assumed to be placed at the end
part of a cap beam and the top and bottom part
of each column. The plastic hinges are
modeled as spring elements with bilinear
moment-curvature relation. The location of
plastic hinges is half distance of the plastic
hinge length off from the end edge of each
member, where plastic hinge length LP is
assumed to be Eq.(ll).
When the two-column bent is subjected to
the lateral force in the transverse direction,
axial force developed in the beam and columns
is affected by the aoolied lateral force.
Therefore, the horizontal force-displacement
relation is obtained through the static push-over
analysis considering axial force N - moment M
interaction relation. The ultimate state of each
plastic hinges is obtained by the ultimate
plastic angle e pu as
e pu = ( uI y -1) Lp y (22)
in which u =ultimate curvature and y =
yield curvature.
(a) Fracture of Comers
The ultimate state of the whole two-bent
column is determined so that all 4 plastic
hinges developed reach the ultimate plastic
angle.
2.7 Evaluation of Displacement Ductility of
A Steel Pier
2.7.1 Basic Concept
To improve seismic performance of a steel
piers, it is important to avoid specific brittle
failure modes. Fig.2.9 shows the typical brittle
failure mode for rectangular and circular steel
piers. The followings are the countermeasures
to avoid such brittle failure modes and to
improve seismic performance of steel piers:
1) fill the steel column with concrete
2) improve structural parameters related to
buckling strength
decrease the width/thickness ratio of
stiffened palates of rectangular piers or the
diameter/thickness ratio of steel pipes
increase the stiffness of stiffeners
reduce the diaphragm spacing
strengthen comers using the comer plates
3) improve welding section at the comers of
rectangular section
4) eliminate welding section at the comers by
using round comers
(b) Elephant Knee Buckling
Fig.2.9 Typical Brittle Failure Modes of Steel Piers
2-11
(24)
(23)
2.7.2 Concrete Infilled Steel Pier
In a concrete infilled steel pier, the lateral
capacity Pa and the allowable displacement
ductility factor jJ. a in Eqs.(l) and (2) are
evaluated as
Pu - Py
Pa == Py + --'-'----'--
(]I
-(1 O ' u - O ' y ) ~
jJ.a- +
(]I a y Pa
in which Py and Pu == yield and ultimate lateral
capacity of a pier, a y and a u == yield and
ultimate displacement of a pier, and (]I ==
safety factor (refer to Table 2.3). The Pa and
the jJ. a are evaluated idealizing that a concrete
infilled steel pier resists flexural moment and
shear force as a reinforced concrete pier. It is
assumed in this evaluation that the steel section
be idealized as reinforcing bars and that only
steel section resists axial force. A stress vs.
strain relation of steel and concrete as shown in
Fig.2.10 is assumed. The height of infilled
concrete has to be decided so that. bucking is
not developed above the infilled concrete.
2.7.3 Steel Pier without Infilled Concrete
A steel pier without infilled concrete must
be designed with the dynamic response
analysis. Properties of the pier need to be
decided based on a cyclic loading test.
Arrangement of stiffness and welding at comer
must be precisely evaluated so that brittle
failure should be avoided.
0.10
i
O
.
05
0.04 0.06 0.08
Strain t: s
a
y
0
Of.]
'"
~
l-<
.....
1;1)
0
iEy
0.02
o
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Strain t: s
(a) Steel (Tension Side)
(b) Steel (Compression Side)
o
. E
a=2a,<!' x 0.00827 (2
Ec )
0.00827
o
! ! ! ! t
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Strain t: c
(c) Concrete
Fig.2.10 Stress-Strain Relation of Steel and Concrete
2-12
modification coefficient for damping ratio
given as
Table 2.5 and Fig.2.ll show the standard
acceleration response spectra (damping ratio
h=0.05) for the Type-I and Type-Il ground
motions.
It is recommended to use at least three
ground motions per analysis, and take an
average to evaluate the response.
In the dynamic analysis, modal damping
ratios have to be carefully evaluated. To
determine themodal damping aratios, a bridge
may be divided into several sub-strucctures in
which energy dissipating mechanism is
essentially the same. If one can specify a
2.8 Dynamic Rresponse Analysis
Dynamic response analysis is required in
the bridges with complex dynamic response to
check the safety factor of the static design.
Dynamic response analysis is alas required as a
"design" tool in the bridges for which the
Ductility Design Method is not directly
applied. In dynamic response analysis, ground
matins which are spectral fitted to the
following response spectra are used;
S I =cz ' CD' S I 0 (25)
S II = cz ' CD SilO (26)
in which S I and S II = acceleration response
spectrum for Type-land Ty6e-II ground
motions, S I 0 and SilO = standard acceleration
response spectrum for Type-land Type-Il
ground motions, respectively, CZ = modification
coefficient for zone (refer to Eq.(8, and CD =
CD =
1.5
40hi + 1
+ 0.5 (27)
Table 2.5 Standard Acceleration Response Spectra
(a) Type-I Response Spectra SIO
Soil Condition Response Acceleration S10 (gal=cm/sec
2
)
Group I SIO=700 for Ti ~ 1.4 SIO=980!Ti for Ti > 1.4
SJo=1,505T."3 S1O=850 SJO=1,360!Ti
Group II (SJO ~ . 700)
for Ti < 0.18 for 0.18 ~ Ti ~ 1.6 for Ti > 1.6
SJO=1,511T."3 SIO=l,OOO SJO=2,000/Ti
Group III (SJO ~ 700)
for 0.29 ~ Ti ~ 2.0 for Ti > 2.0 for T; < 0.29
(b) Type-Il Response Spectra SilO
Soil Condition Response Acceleration Suo (gal=cm/sec
2
)
SII0=4,463Ti
2/3
SII0=2,000
513
SII0=1,104/Ti
Group I
for Ti ~ 0.3 for 0.3 ~ T; ~ 0.7 for Tj > 0.7
Sno=3,224T/
13
SII0=1,750 SJJO=2,371/T/'3
Group I!
for T, < 0.4 for 0.4 ~ Ti ~ 1.2 for T ; > 1.2
3no=2,381Ti
213
SII0=1,500
SII0=2,948/T;513
Group III
for Ti < 0.5 for 0.5 ~ Ti ~ 1.5 for T; > 1.5
2-13
Fig.2.ll Type I and Type II Standard Acceleration
Response Spectra
damping ratio of each sub-structure for a given
mode shape, the modal damping ratio for i-th
mode, hi, may be evaluated as
n
L ij T. hij . Kj' ij
hi = j=l (28)
<t:> iT'K' <t:> i
in which hij = damping ratio of j-th
substructure in i-th mode, ij = mode vector
of j-th substructure in i-th mode, kj = stiffness
matrix of j-th substructure, K= stiffness matrix
of a bridge, and <t:> i = mode vector of a bridge
in i-th mode, and is given as
cP iT = { u", iZ
T
, , in
T
} (29)
Table 2.6 shows recommended damping
ratios for major structural components.
2.9 Menshin Design
2.9.1 Basic Principle
Implementation of the Menshin bridges should
be carefully decided from not only seismic
performance but function for traffic and
maintenance point of view, based on the
advantage and disadvantage of increasing
natural period The Menshin design should not
be adopted at the following conditions;
1) sites vulnerable to lose bearing capacity
due to the soil liquefaction and the lateral
spreading,
2) bridges supported by flexible columns,
3) soft soil sites where potential resonance
with surrounding soils could be developed by
increasing the fundamental natural period,and
4) bridges with uplift force at bearings.
It is suggested that the design should be
made with an emphasis on an increase of
energy dissipating capability and a distribution
of lateral force to as many substructures as
possible. To concentrate the hysteretic
deformation at not piers but bearings, the
fundamental natural period of a Menshin
bridge should be about 2 times or longer than
the fundamental natural period of the same
bridge supported by the conventional bearings.
It should be noted that an elongation of natural
period aiming to decrease the lateral force
should not be attempted.
4
Type I
3
- - - - - Ground I
- - Ground IJ
-- Ground III
----- Ground I
- - - Ground II Type U
2
Natural Period (5)
\
\
,
,
\
\
___ ..J.. __
\. <, "-
---- - -- - -- ....- , ...........
' ... --.... ---
... -... """'-
- - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j
r
, \
, \
,_-"", __
" I .. \
" I
: I
: I
r-r-r-r-r-r-it-r-r-r-r-c-:
2.5
-;)
2
-
.. 1.5
;:;
'-'
'-'
<
'-'
~
;::
'-'
c::
0
0
Table 2.6 Recommended Damping Ratios for Major Structural Components
Structural Elastic Response Nonlinear Response
Components Steel Concrete Steel Concrete
Superstructure 0.02 ~ 0.03 0.03 ~ 0.05 0.02 ~ 0.03 0.03 ~ 0.05
Rubber Bearings 0.02 0.02
Mensbin Bearings Equivalent Damping Ratio Equivalent Damping Ratio
by Eq.(26) by Eq.(26)
Substructures 0.03 ~ 0.05 0.05 ~ 0.1 0.1 rv 0.2 0.12 ~ 0.2
Foundations 0.1 ~ 0.3 0.2 rv 0.4
2-14
(32)
reduced, as large as 30%, by the modification
coefficient CE depending on the modal damping
ratio of a bridge.
Modal damping ratio of a menshin bridge h
for the fundamental mode is computed as
Eq.(32). In Eq.(32), hsi =damping ratio of i-th
damper, hPi = damping ratio of i-th pier or
abutment, hFui = damping ratio of i-th
foundation associated with translational
displacement, hF e i = damping ratio of i-th
foundation associated with rotational
displacement, Kn = equivalent stiffness of i-th
pier or abutment, KFui = translational stiffness
of i-th foundation, KFe i = rotational stiffness
of i-th foundation, UBi =design displacement of
i-th Menshin device, and. H = distance from a
bottom of pier to a gravity center of a deck.
In the Menshn design, the allowable
displacement ductility factor of a pier jJ. m in
Eq.(30) is evaluated by
2.9.3 Design of Menshin Devices
Simple devices stable against extreme
earthquakes have to be used. The bearings have
to be anchored to a deck and substructures with
bolts, and should be replaceable. The clearance
has to be provided
(33)
KBi KBi KBi'H
2
L K B j'U B j 2(1 + --+ --+ )
KPi KFui KFBj
smaller allowable ductility factor in the
menshin design is to limit the hysteretic
behavior of a pier at the plastic hinge zone so
that principle hysteretic behavior occurs at the
menshin devices as shown in Fig.2.4(b).
hem =
h=
2.9.2 Design Procedure
Menshin bridges are designed by both the
a u - a y
jJ. m = 1 + _---=--_-'---L.-
amoy
in which a m is a safety factor used in
Menshin design, and is given as
jJ.m=2a
where a is the safety factor in the
conventional design (refre to Table 2.3).
Eq.(34) means that the allowable displacement
ductility factor in the menshin design jJ. m
should be smaller than the allowable
displacemnent ductility factor u a by Eq.(2) in
the conventional design; The reason for the
Seismic Coefficient Method and the Ductility
Design Method. In the Seismic Coefficient
Method, no reduction of lateral force from the
conventional design is mae.
In the Ductility Design Method, the
equivalent lateral force coefficient kbcm in the
Menshin design is evaluated as
hcm
(30)
.["2 jJ. m-1
hcm = CE' hc (31)
in which hcm = lateral force coefficient in
menshin design, jJ. m = allowable ductility
factor of a pier, CE = modification coefficient
for energy dissipating capability (refer to
Table2.7), and knc =lateral force coefficient by
Eq.(8). Because the hc is the lateral force
coefficient for a bridge supported by the
conventional bearings, Eq.(31) means that the
lateral force in the Menshin design can be
"'K 2(h hPi'KBi hFui'KBi hFBi'KBi'H
2
L. B i u B i . B i + K + K + TT )
Pi Fui
Table 2.7 Modification Coefficient for Energy Dissipation Capability
Damping Ratio for 1st Mode h Coefficient c E
h < 0.1 1.0
0.1 h < 0.12 0.9
0.12 ;;;;;; h < 0.15 0.8
h 0.15 0.7
2-15
(36)
F(UBe) - F(-uBe)
2UBe

hs :::: 2 7C W (37)
use :::: cs : UB (38)
in which F(u) :::: restoring force of a device at a
displacement U , UBe :::: effective design
displacement, W = energy dissipated per
cycle, W = elastic strain energy, 'and CB ::::
coefficient to evaluate effective displacement
(=0.7).
The equivalent stiffness KB and equivalent
damping ratio hs of a Menshin device are
evaluated as
(35) UB ::::
between a deck and an abutment or between
adjacent decks.
Isolators and dampers must be designed for
a desired design displacement us. The design
displacement UB is evaluated as
khem Wu
K:e
in which hem :::: equivalent lateral force
coefficient by Eq.(3l), KB :::: equivalent
stiffness, and Wu :::: dead weight of a
superstructure. It should be noted that because
the equivalent lateral force coefficient hem
depends on the type of ground motions, the
design displacement us also depends on it.
Curvature
Vertical
Displacement
Y : Yield
- Mp: Plastic Moment
o
c v:
EM. i---------
o
;'8 My -_.:
OJ)
c
"t:l
C
OJ
(b)Vertical Force YS. Vertical

Displacement Relation
Vertical Force at Pile Top P
...
Ultimate Bearing Capacity
P" - -r-r- _
_____...L - PT'
Ultimate Pull-out
Force
Curvature
C: Crack
Y: Yield
U : Ultimate :
kHE
.....
C l:
E Mu - _.- --- -.-.------
o
y
My.-.----
C
b.O Ma ---
C
:a
c
OJ
Max. Horizontal
Reaction Force
:
:
, ,
, 1 :
, "
'I I I I I
' ... _..l I ... _.J 1 __ .J
(a) Analytical Model

,
Horizontal Displacement
OJ
<.J
1-0
o
<.J
PHU
P::
B
c
o
N
'J:
o
:I: 0'---'---------
(c) Horizontal Force vs, (d) Moment vs. Curvature
Horizontal Displacement Relation of Reinforced
Relation Concrete Piles
(e) Moment vs. Curvature
Relation of Steel Pipe
Piles
Fig.2.12Idealized Nonlinear Model of A Pile Foundation
2-16
2.10 Design of Foundation
The evaluation methods of ductility and
strength of foundations such as pile
foundations and caisson foundations was newly
introduced in the 1996 Specifications.
In a pile foundation, a foundation is so
idealized that a rigid footing is supported by
piles which are supported by soils. The flexural
strength of a pier defined by Eq.(7) shall be
applied as a seismic force to foundations at the
bottom of the footing together with the dead
weight superstructure, pier and soils on the
footing. Fig.2.l2 shows the idealized nonlinear
model of a pile foundation. The nonlinearity of
soils and piles is considered in the analysis.
The safety of the foundation shall be
checked so that 1) the foundation shall, not
reach the yield point of a foundation, 2) if the
primary nonlinearity is developed in the
foundations, the response displacement shall be
less than displacement ductility limit, and 3)
the displacement developed in the foundation
shall be less than allowable limit. The
allowable ductility and allowable limit of
displacement were commented as 4 in
displacement ductility, 40cm in horizontal
displacement and a.025rad in rotation angle.
For a caisson type foundation, the
foundation is modeled as a reinforced concrete
column which is supported by soil spring
model and the safety is checked in the same
way as the pile foundations.
2.11 Design Against Soil Liquefaction and
Liquefaction-induced Ground Flow
2.11.1 Estimation of Liquefaction Potential
Since the Hyogo-ken nanbu Earthquake of
1995 caused liquefaction even at coarse sand
or gravel layers which had been regarded
invulnerable to liquefy, a gravel layer was
included in the soil layers that require
liquefaction potential estimation. Soil layers
that satisfies the following conditions is
estimated to be potential liquefaction layers:
1) saturated soil layer which is located within
20m deep under the ground surface and in
which ground water level is within 10m deep.
2-17
2) soil layer in which fine particle content ratio
Fe is equal orless than 35% or plasticity index
IF is equal or less than 15.
3) soil layer in which mean grain size Dso is
equal or less than 10mm and 10% grain size
DIO is equal or less than Imm.
Liquefaction potential is estimated by the
safety factor against liquefaction FL as
FL = RJL (35)
where, FL = liquefaction resistant ratio, R =
dynamic shear strength ratio and L = share
stress ratio during an earthquake. The dynamic
shear strength ratio R may be expressed as
R = cw Rc (36)
where, Cw = corrective coefficient for ground
motion characteristics (1.0 for Type-I ground
motions, 1.0-2.0 for Type-IT ground motions),
and Rc = cyclic triaxial strength ratio. The
cyclic triaxial strength ratio was estimated by
laboratory tests with undisturbed samples by
in-situ freezing method.
The shear stress ratio during an earthquake
may be expressed as
L = ru kne a via v' (37)
where, ra = modification factor shear stress
ratio with depth, :he = design seismic
coefficient for the evaluation of liquefaction
potential, (J" v =total loading pressure, (J" v'
= effective loading pressure.
It should be noted here that the design
seismic coefficient for the evaluation of
liquefaction potential :he is ranging from 0.3 to
0.4 for Type-I ground motions, and from 0.6 to
0.8 for Type-IT ground motions.
2.11.2 Design Treatment of Liquefaction for
Bridge Foundations
When the liqeufaction occurs, the strength
and the bearing capacity of a soil decreases. In
the seismic design of highway bridges, soil
constants of a sandy soil layer which is judged
liable to liquefy are reduced according to the
FL value. The reduced soil constants are
calculated by multiplying the coefficient DE in
Table2.8 to the soils constants estimated on an
Table 2.8 Reduction Coefficient for Soil Constants due to Soil Liquefaction
Range of FL
Depth from the Present Dynamic Shear Strength Ratio R
Ground Surface x (m) R ~ 0.3 0.3<R
0 ~ x ; ; ; ; ' 1 0 a
1/6
F L ~ 1/3 ----------------------- ----------------- ----------------
10<x ~ 20 1/3 1/3
a ~ x ; ; ; ; 10 1/3 2/3
1/3<FL ~ 2/3
----------------------- ----------------- ----------------
10<x ~ 20 2/3 2/3
0
~ x ; ; ; ;
10 2/3 1
2/3<FL ~ 1 ----------------------- ----------------- ----------------
10<x ~ 20 1 1
assumption that the soil layer does not liquefy.
2.11.3 Design Treatment of
Liqeufaction-Induced Ground Flow for
Bridge Foundations
When the liquefaction-induced ground flow
that may affect bridge seismicity is likely to
occur, this influence was included in the
revised Design Specifications in 1996. The
case in which the ground flow that may affect
bridge seismicity is likely to occur is generally
that the ground is judged to be liquefiable and
is exposed to biased earth pressure, for
example, the ground behind a seaside
protection wall. The effect of
liquefaction-induced ground flow is considered
as the static force acting on structure. This
method premises that the surface soil is of the
non-liqeufiable and liquefiable layers, and the
forces equivalent to the passive earth pressure
and 30% of the overburden pressure are
applied to the structure in the non-liquefiable
layer and liquefiable layer, respectively.
The seismic safety of a foundation is
checked by confirming the displacement at the
top of foundation caused by ground flow does
not exceed an allowable value, in which a
foundation and the ground are idealized as
shown in Fig.2.l2. The allowable displacement
of a foundation may be taken as two times the
yield displacement of a foundation. In this
process, the inertia force of structure is not
necessary to be considered simultaneously,
2-18
because the liquefaction-induced ground flow
may take place after the principle ground
motion.
2.12 Bearing Supports
The bearings are classified into two groups;
the first is the bearings which resist the seismic
force of Eq.(2), and the second is the bearings
which resist the seismic force considered in the
Seismic Coefficient Method. The first and the
second bearings are called as the Type-B
bearings and the Type-A bearings, respectively.
Seismic performance of the Type-B bearings is,
of course, much higher than the Type-A
bearings. In the Type-A bearings, a
displacement limiting device, which will be
described later, has to be co-installed in both
longitudinal and transverse directions, while it
is not required in the Type-B bearings. Because
of the importance .of bearings as one of the
main structural components, the Type-B
bearings should be used in the menshin
bridges.
The uplift force applied to the bearing
supports is specified as
Ru :::: R - .r Rheq
2
+ Rvec{ (38)
in which Ru =design uplift force applied to the
bearing support, RD = dead load of
superstructure, Rheq and Rveq are vertical
reactions caused by the horizontal seismic force
and vertical force, respectively. Fig.2.13 shows
the design forces for thebearing supports.
1
Center of gravity
R
V EQ
RHEQI
(i- )
jh
B
!
I
_----Jr==F=...Jc..J.. --'r-iL..Ji.-!:, r=..-==...-.L.l:.-, .:t.... _.
.-
+
along the bridge axis, and is 0.0025, 0.00375,
and 0.005 for Group-I, II and ill sites,
respectively, L= distance which contributes to
the relative displacement of ground (m), and 1
= span length (m). If two adjacent deck are
supported by a pier, the lager span length
should be 1 in evaluating the seat length.
Inthe menshin deisgn, in addition to the
above requirements, the following
Fig.2.13 Design Forces for Bearing Supports
each support against transverse response. The
displacement limiting device is not generally
required if the Type-B bearings are used. But,
even if the Type-B bearing is adopted, it is
required in skewed bridges, curved bridges,
bridges supported by columns with narrow
crest, bridges supported by few bearings per
piers, and bridges constructed at the sites
vulnerable to lateral spreading associated with
soil liquefaction.
The seat length SE is evaluated as
SE =UR +UG > SEM (39)
SEM =70 + 0.51 (40)
UG =100' C G'L (41)
in which UR = relative displacement (cm)
developed between a superstructure and a
substructure subjected to a seismic force
equivalent to the equivalent lateral force
coefficient he by Eq.(2), UG = relative
displacement of ground along the bridge axis,
SEM = minimum seat length (cm), C G =
ground strain induced during an earthquake
2.13 Unseating Prevention Systems
Unseating prevention measures are required
for the highway. bridges. The measures
required for the highway bridges are as:
1) the unseating prevention systems have to be
so designed that unseating of a superstructure
from their supports can be prevented even if
unpredictable failures of the structural members
occur,
2) the unseating prevention systems are
consisted of providing enough seat length, a
falling-down prevention device, a displacement
limiting device, and a settlement prevention
device,
3) enough seat length must be provided and a
falling-down prevention device must be
installed at the ends of a superstructures against
longitudinal response. If the Type-A bearings
are used, a displacement limiting device has to
be further installed at not only the ends of a
superstructure but each intermediate support in
a continuous bridge, and
4) if the Type-A bearings are used, a
displacement limiting device is requested at
2-19
copnsiderations have to be made.
1) To prevent collisions between a deck and an
abutment or between two adjacent decks,
enough clearance must be provided. The
clearance between those structural components
SB shall be evaluated as
UB + LA
between a deck and an abutment
CB"UB + LA
between two adj acent decks
(42)
in which UB = design displacement of menshin
devices (em) by Eq.(35), LA =:: redundancy of a
clearance (generally + 1.5cm), and CB =
modification coefficient for clearance (refer to
Table 2.9). The modification coefficient CB was
determined based on an analysis of the relative
displacement response spectra. It depends on a
difference of natural periods 6. T =T. - T2 (T.
> T2), in which Ti and T2 represent the natural
period of the two adjacent bridge systems.
2) The clearance at an expansion joint LE is
evaluated as
LE = us + LA (43)
in which UB = design displacement of menshin
devices (cm) by Eq.(35), and LA = redundancy
of a clearance (generally -+- 1.5cm).
of the new Seismic Design Specifications of
Highway Bridges issued in 1996 as well as the
damage features of highway bridges in the
Hyogo-ken nanbu earthquake. The Hyogo-ken
nanbu earthquake was the first earthquake
which developed destructive damage in an
urban area since the 1948 Fukui Earthquake.
Because it had been considered that such
destructive damage could be prevented due to
the progress of construction technology in
recent years, it provided a large impact on the
earthquake disaster prevention measures in
various fields. The "Part V Seismic Design" of
the "Design Specifications of Highway
Bridges" (Japan Road Association) was totally
revised in 1996, and the design procedure
moved from the traditional Seismic Coefficient
Method to the Ductility Design Method. The
revision was so comprehensive that the past
revisions in the last 30 years look minor.
Major point of the revision was the
introduction of explicit two-level seismic
design consisting of the Seismic Coefficient
Method and the Ductility Design Method.
Because the Type-I and the Type-Il ground
motions are considered in the Ductility Design
Method, three design seismic forces are totally
used in design. Seismic performance for each
design force was clearly stated in the
Specifications.
The fact that lack of near-filed strong
Table 2.9 Modification Coefficient for Clearance CB
c. TIT, CB
o~ ~ TlTl < 0.1 1
0.1 ~ ~ TIT, < 0.8 -V2
0.8 ~ ~ T(I\ ~ 1.0 1
2.14 CONCLUDING REMARKS
The preceding pages presented an outline
2-20
motion records prevented to seriously evaluate
the validity of recent seismic design codes is
important. The Hyogo-ken nanbu earthquake
revealed that history of strong motion recording
is very short, and that no near-field records
have yet been measured by an earthquake with
magnitude on the order of 8. It is therefore
essential to have enough redundancy and
ductility in a total bridge system. It is hoped
that the revised Seismic Design Specifications
of Highway Bridges contributes to enhance
seismic safety of highway bridges.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Drafting of the revised version of the "Part V
Seismic Design" of the "Design Specifications
of Highway Bridges" was conducted at the
"Special Sub-committee for Seismic
Countermeasures for Highway Bridges" and
was approved by the Bridge Committee, Japan
Road Association. The first and other authors
of this paper served as chairman and
executive members in the Special
Sub-committee. The authors thank ail members
of the Special Sub-Committee and the Bridge
Committee.
REFERENCES
1) Japan Road Association Design
Specifications of Highway Bridges, Part I
Common Part, Part II Steel Bridges, Part
ill Concrete Bridges, Part IV Foundations,
and Part V Seismic Design, 1996
2) Kawashima, K.: Impact of Hanshin/Awaji
Earthquake on Seismic Design and
Seismic Strengthening of Highway
Bridges, Report No. TIT/EERG 95-2,
Tokyo Institute of Technology., 1995
3) Ministry of Construction: Report on the
Damage of Highway Bridges by the
Hyogo-ken Nanbu Earthquake, Committee
for Investigation on the Damage of
Highway Bridges Caused by the
Hyogo-ken Nanbu Earthquake, 1995
4) Ministry of Construction: Guide
Specifications for Reconstruction and
Repair of Highway Bridges Which
Suffered Damage due to the Hyogo-ken
2-21
Nanbu Earthquake, 1995
RAILWAY TECHNICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, JAPAN
3.1 Basic Principles of Seismic Design for Railway Structures
3.2 Setting of Design Earthquake Motions
3.2.1 Setting of Earthquake Motions for Bedrock
3.2.2 Setting of Design Earthquake Motions on the Ground Surface
3.3 Seismic Performance of Structures
3.3.1 Setting of Seismic Performance Levels for Structures
3.3.2 Consideration on the Damage Levels of Member, the Stability Levels of
Foundation as well as their Limit Values
3.4 Concept ofImportance Degree of Structure
3- 1
3- 3
3- 3
3-11
3-13
3-13
3-14
3-17
3.5 Evaluation of Surface Ground and Calculation of Displacement and Stress ofStructure3-17
3.5.1 Evaluation of Surface Ground 3-17
3.5.2 Calculation of Responses of Structures 3-24
3.6 Safety (Seismic Performance) Checking of Structures 3-25
3.6.1 Checking Damage Levels of Members 3-27
3.6.2 Checking Stability Levels of Foundation 3-27
3.6.3 An Example of Safety Checking of Pile Foundation 3-27
3.7 Conclusions 3-29
RAILWAYTECHNICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE, JAPAN
3.1 Basic Principles of Seismic Design for
Railway Structures
A new code, "Seismic Design Code for
Railway Structures" (in Japanese), drawn up by
Railway Technical Research Institute, has been
published recently, which reflects the recent
advances in earthquake engineering'{ In the code
some new thought for seismic design have been
adopted by drawing the lesson of the Hyogoken-
Nanbu Earthquake of January 17, 1995 that
caused the devastating damage including the
large-scale cave-in of many railway structures. In
order to introduce a methodology for the seismic
design that can effectively prevent reappearance
of the kind of damage happened in the Hyogoken-
Nanbu Earthquake, elucidation of the damage
mechanism has been conducted. As the results,
the following causes of the damage are inferred
based on the damage reconnaissance and
analysis".
CDMany of the structures damaged possessed the
seismic capacity that was designed by only
considering a horizontal design seismic
coefficient of 0.2. However, the acceleration
level of the Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake was
far over such a design level and caused the
large damage.
Viaducts of the Shinkansen that suffered
serious damage including the collapsing of
structures, were originally designed to be less
safety against shear loads than bending loads.
This imbalance aggravated the damage degree
of the structures. This was partly due to the
fact that allowable stress against shear force
was set larger in the design code of those days.
@Some situation of the damage showed a great
gap in the damage degree between two
adjoining viaducts, where one side collapsed
3-1
totally and the other side with only cracks in
columns. This situation with different damage
pattern might be mainly due to the difference in
dynamic behavior of the surface ground, which
was inferred through the dynamic analysis by
considering both the properties of structures
and ground.
@As to the damage of cut and cover tunnel, both
bending and shear stresses occurred in columns,
but since the shear strength was lower than that
of bending which is same as the case of
viaducts, the shear failure occurred and caused
the collapse under the weight of overburden.
The facts above indicate the following
procedures are important to seismic design.
CDTaking inland earthquakes into account
Evaluating the safety of members by
considering the failure modes of structures
@The necessary to use dynamic analysis
methods and consider the dynamic behavior of
surface ground in response analysis of
structures.
Moreover, the level of design earthquake
motion has become dramatically large because of
consideration of the inland earthquakes.
Generally the return period of the intense
earthquake may be several hundred years long.'
Therefore, it is reasonable to abandon the elastic
design method and adopt the performance-based
design method in which the seismic performance
of structures is evaluated and the damage of
structure is allowable in some extend, but never
the collapse.
Seismic design of a railway structure should
therefore be carried out according to the
following procedures. Firstly, from the
viewpoint of damage control, the degree of
damage to a structure (seismic performance)
should be identified. Secondly, the responses of
the surface ground are analyzed by inputting the
design earthquake motion in the base ground.
Thirdly, the response waves of the surface
ground are inputted to the structure and the
responses of the structure are analyzed. Finally,
basing on the obtained responses of the structure
the seismic performance can be checked.
There are two types of design earthquake
motion are determined in this code. One is the
so-call L1 earthquake motion, which has a
recurrence probability of a few times during the
service life of the structure. .The other is L2
earthquake motion with high intensity, which is
caused by a near-land-large-scale interplate
earthquake or an inland earthquake near to the
structure. Comparing with Ll earthquake, the
occurrence probability of L2 earthquake is low.
For the earthquake motions, by considering the
damage of members and stability of the
foundations, the seismic performance of a
structure is set to 3 grades corresponding to the
presumed levels of repair or reinforcement that
may be required following an intense earthquake.
In the seismic design, responses of a structure
resulting from an earthquake should be made to
satisfy the seismic performance objective.
Which performance the structure should be
endowed with basically depends on the
importance of the structure.
As the reasons described above, in order to
check the seismic performance properly, a
dynamic analysis method for calculating the
responses of a structure is generally adopted in
seismic design. However, some times a static
analysis method is also used depending on the
type of structure. The procedure of seismic
design for bridges or viaducts based on the
approaches above is shown in Fig.3.1.1.1.
As what indicated in the figure, there are two
types of approaches can be used for the seismic
design. One is the simplified method (nonlinear
spectrum method) that can be easily applied for
the calculation of the responses of a structure by
i) selecting the soil profile type based on site
geological conditions; ii) using the demand yield
strength spectrum that is calculated with the
earthquake motion corresponding to the soil
profile type selected. The other is the detailed
Setting input
earthquake motion
Evaluation of
surface ground
Calculation of
responses of structures
Examination
of seismic performance
Selection of Ll , L2 earthquake motions
(SpectrumI, SpectrumII)
Selection of earthquake motions
according to Soil Profile Type
Simplified
dynamic analysis
(Nonlinear spectrum method)
Members : Damage Level
Foundation; Stability Level
Fig.3.1.1.1 Procedure of seismic design for bridges or viaducts
3-2
method (time-history dynamic analysis method)
with which the time history of responses of the
ground and structure can be analyzed detailed.
For a common structure, the nonlinear
spectrum method is suitable. However if a
structure can not be modeled as a system with
single degree of freedom, as described later, the
detailed analysis method should be applied to.
In the following pages, major procedures for
the seismic design, such as the setting of design
earthquake motions, the analysis of
displacements and stresses of structures, and the
checking of structural safety are described.
3.2 Setting of Design Earthquake Motions
3.2.1 Setting of Earthquake Motions for
Bedrock
(1) Types and Determination of Design
Spectra
As what described previously, in order to
consider the effects of surface ground to the
responses of a structure, either LIar L2
earthquake motion is set on the surface of
bedrock.
Ll earthquake motion has about the same level
as the acceleration spectrum corresponding to the
high quality ground that used to be adopted in
the allowable stress design. The maximum value
of the response acceleration is 250 gal
corresponding to the damping coefficient of 5%.
L2 earthquake motion is classified into the
following 3 types.
CD SpectrumI acceleration spectrum
corresponding to the near-land interplate
earthquakes of magnitude 8.0 and epicenter
distance of 30 to 40 kilometers.
In addition, the inland active fault, which will
cause an earthquake of magnitude less than 6.5, is
difficult to be found since its size is not big
enough to reach the ground surface. According to
the historical earthquakes, this type of earthquake
3-3
may happen in most areas of Japan. Consequently,
the motion due to this type of earthquake is also
covered by Spectrum I, therefore this spectrum is
regarded as the minimum earthquake motion to be
verified in the seismic design.
SpectrumII : acceleration spectrum based
on the statistic analysis of the earthquake data
recorded in the past inland earthquakes caused
by active faults.
@ Spectrumill: also representing the
motions caused by active inland faults, but based
on the analysis of the active faults, if such a
model of active fault is available.
motion from the 3 types above is a difficult, but
important task in the seismic design, because the
presumed earthquake may be affected by a great
amount of uncertainty.
It is desirable to determine the design
earthquake motion for a specific site according to
the risk factors such as the return period of
earthquake from certain seismic faults. However,
the return period of earthquake related to an
inland active fault is not accurate enough at
present, when compared with the service life of
structure. Therefore, an extreme event associated
with an inland active fault should be taken into
account, unless it is evident that the fault will not
move during the life of structure.
To determine the design earthquake motion of a
site, the geological and seismological information
on inland active faults, historical activities of
earthquakes around the site and interplate
earthquakes near land must be analyzed
carefully'). A general flowchart is given in
Fig.3.2.1.1.
There are a number of ways to define the design
earthquake motion. The design earthquake motion
is defined below by the response spectra of
acceleration on a free surface of bedrock, the
shear wave speed of which is over 400m/s. The
choice of bedrock is to avoid the influences from
local effects of specific site on the ground motion,
such as the amplification due to the soft surface
soil and irregular topography of ground. The
influence due to geological conditions is very
remarkable, as recognized in seismic records, and
can be evaluated by calculating the responses of
surface soil using a proper numerical model of
surface ground with the design earthquake motion
as the incident motion. A corresponding artificial
seismic wave can be generated by adjusting
Fourier amplitudes of the wave according to the
objective response spectra of acceleration and
modeling the phases to reflect the non-stationary
property of earthquake motions.
Which spectrum should be used as the design
earthquake motion depends on the results of
investigation of inland active faults. There could
be three possibilities shown following from the
investigation (Fig.3.2.1.1).
The first (the left route in Fig.3.2.I.1), if there is
no active fault near the site, the earthquake motion
of Spectrum I is to be used as design earthquake
T
No
Analysis with
source model?
Yes,
Doubtful
No
Determine local
seismic risk factor
,
Spectrum I modified
by risk factor
Computation of ground
motions
~ - - - - - '
I
,
Determination of
spectrum ill
I
,
Compared with
odified spectrum
,
Artificial wave
I
,
c?
SpeetrumIl
attenuated with
distance
Determine local
seismic risk factor
,
Spectrum TI
modified by risk
factor
Fig.3.2.1.1 General flowchart to determine the design earthquake motion
3-4
motion after modified by the risk factor of the
area.
The second (the middle route in Fig.3.2.1.1),
there are cases where one or more active faults
existing near the site. When the parameters of
seismic source for the faults can be properly
decided, the design earthquake motion can be
determined by the fault analysis with source
model (Spectrum III). Otherwise, the earthquake
motion of Spectrum IT attenuated according to the
distance between the fault and site, will be used as
the design earthquake motion. Because the power
of the motion decreases as the distance between
attenuated results of Spectrum IT and III should be
compared with that of Spectrum I modified by the
risk factor of the area, then the larger one will be
taken as the design earthquake motion.
The third (the right route in Fig.3.2.1.1), there
are sites where the existence of active fault is very
doubtful and difficult to confirm due to very deep
sedimentary deposit, or there exists a complex
tectonic structure beneath the site, such as the
Kanto area in Japan where three plates encounter
with each other. Hence, the design earthquake
motion is Spectrum IT modified by the risk factor
of the area.
(2)Near-Source Earthquake Motions Induced
by Inland Active Faults
There are still many problems to be solved
when using a seismic source model of fault to
predict the earthquake ground motion at a site for
the purpose of seismic design, such as the
distribution of the asperity on the fault plane, the
start point of rupture, etc. To consider these
uncertainties of it, it is effective to evaluate the
earthquake motion near inland fault from
statistical analyses of near-source strong seismic
records observed in recent years. Below
summarized is a method to determine Spectrum IT
based on strong seismic records.
1) Seismic records
Table 3.2.1.1 shows the list of records observed
in recent earthquakes in the United States and
Japan, Hyogoken-Nanbu (1995,M7.2), Coyote
Lake (1979, MS.9), Loma Prieta (1989,M7.1),
Landers (1992, M7.5) and Northridge (1994,
Table 3.2.1.1 Near-source seismic records from recent earthquakes
Max. Ace. (gal) ]
"S
tU
r!:::
LL
a
Ol .8
Ol
Ol '-'
_ c
-""
Ol o Ol Ol Ol 0
'"
""0
""0
c.. c> o > :.=
Soil condition
No
::::>
3
3 .>, c; c Ol ro
0-
Nameof seismic record '5> .c ro ro -2:
;
NS EW
~ c -05 05
""OOl
at the positionof seismometer
ffi ....J 0
C._
0
C en
....J
Ol""O ::::>.0
W Cij
05
eo
>
Ol
o
'5
'"
0- 0
UJ
U
679.8 302.6 135.208 11.64 3.24 GL-83 Vs=450 (m/s)
2 86.0 109.3 134.783 32.75 27.08 GL100 Vs=460 (m/s)
3 293.9 319.8 135.442 34.57 24.65 GL-97.0 Vs=455 (m/s)
4 Hyogoken- 272.0 306.5 135.240 14.99 6.90 GL9.5 0.5m(240m/s) layeroverVs=590 (m/s)
5 Nanbu 185.3 200.4 135.427 38.03 25.03 GL-30 Vs=780m/s
6 445.9 425.3 135.296 20.00 12.38 GL-33 Layerof N=18 aboveGL-45
7 683.6 600.9 135.344 29.93 16.88 GLO.O Nover63, 1.5m surfacelayerwithN=5
8 510.7 584.2 135.250 16.52 7.53 GLO.O Vs=300m/s, 4msurface layerVs=200m/s
9 Coyote Lake 314.6 408.8 121.484 1.0 GLO.O Rock
10 433.1 401.5 122.06 18.01 12.19 GLO.O Limestone
LomaPrieta
11 426.6 433.6 121.572 26.56 12.21 GLO.O Franciscan Sandstone
12 Landers 268.3 278.4 116.314 16.90 10.79 GLO.O Shallow alluvium over granite bedrock
13
Northridge
GLO.O Thin alluvium oversiltstone
::;] GLO.O IRock
3-5
5 4 3 0.4 0.3 0.2
10
0.1
4000
2000
1000
800
600
---.
'"2
400
eo
<::
::::
0
. ~
200
'-
<1)
a:5
<:)
o
100
~
80
60
40
20
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.80.9 1 Period (sec) 2
Fig.3.2.1.2 Acceleration response spectra of observed records at near-source area of inland earthquakes
M6.7). The records are chosen to satisfy the
following requirements.
CDThe soil condition at the station of seismometer
meets the condition of the aforementioned
bedrock.
The maximum acceleration is greater than
lOOgal.
@The Closest Distance to Fault is less than 30km.
The list shows that the records of Hyogoken-
Nanbu Earthquake are all within the ground.
Theoretically, deconvolution shall be carried out
to separate the incident wave from the record. The
original records are used here instead, because it
is difficult to get a result that is reasonably closer
to incident wave than original record, as there are
a number of unsolved problems in the
deconvolution analysis for strong ground motion.
Besides, the influence of the surface soil would
not be too strong since the shear wave speed of
soil at all sites is higher than 450m/s anywhere,
except at the Great Bridge of East Kobe.
The acceleration response spectra of the
selected records are illustrated in Fig.3.2.1.2. It
can be found that the response accelerations vary
from 200(gal) to 3000(gal) in the range of short
period and from tens of gals to lOOO(gal) in the
range of long period. As the soil conditions at the
observation stations have been carefully chosen,
this wide variation may be attributed to the
following.
CDDifferencein the mechanismof seismic sources
Difference in the propagation of seismic waves
@Influence of irregular topography
The influence of irregular topography can be
avoided only by selecting records according to the
geological condition if available. Through a
careful investigation, it is found that the records at
Tarzana, Northridge earthquake (1994, M6.7),
3-6
N IN
x-
2
="d
2
x:-
2
"d
2
eq i..J I 1 .t... I
j=l j=l
New Kobe substation and Takaratuka, Hyogoken-
Nanbu earthquake (1995,M7.2), are influenced
strongly by special topography4),S), so that these
records are excluded from the statistical analyses.
As to the influence of the propagation of
seismic waves, the profiles in deep ground in the
range of several kilometers as well as the Q factor
(quality factor) are considered to be very
important, but they are out of the scope of this
study. However, a number of attenuation
functions of ground motion have been proposed,
in which influences on propagation are all
considered in an average sense. By using the
recorded earthquake motions to a same distance
from the seismic source so that the variation of
ground motion due to propagation can be
minimized. The rest variation of ground motion
in statistics is attributed to the properties of the
seismic source or other unclear reasons.
2) Compensation by attenuation function
Among the attenuation functions proposed, the
measurement of the distance between the site and
the seismic source is very important to decide the
near-source strong ground .motion, where the
extent of fault plane must be considered properly.
To satisfy the above requirement, the Closest
Distance to Fault (CDF) has been widely used
recently. The following is an attenuation function
of response spectra of ground motion based on
CDF which is proposed by Fukushima
6
).
logS(T) =aj ( T ) M ~ - az(T)Mw +b(T) R
-log(R+O.025xlOo.4zMw) +[,cj(T)l
j
(3.2.1.1)
in which M w , R and T are the moment magnitude,
the Closest Distance to Fault and the period,
respectively; al, az and b are coefficients of
regression; Cj is the coefficients related to site
properties.
3-7
On the other hand, Ohno et al.
7
) proposed
another type of attenuation relation based on
Equivalent Hypocentral Distance, this is
determined by the energy radiated from the finite
fault plane.
logS(T) = a(T)Mw -logXeq - b(T)X
eq
+ c(T) +&(T)
(3.2.1.2)
(3.2.1.3)
where x; denotes the Equivalent Hypocentral
Distance; N, Xi, and d, are the number of small
site and the center of the area i, and the seismic
moment on the area i, respectively.
The Closest Distance to Fault and Equivalent
Hypocentral Distance given in Table 1 for every
site of record are calculated according to the fault
models published by USGS for earthquakes in
USA and by Irekura for Hyogoken-Nanbu
Earthquake, respectively.
There is an important phenomenon for the
ground motion in near-source area, in that it tends
to saturate as the site is getting close to fault
presumably for the following reasons. Firstly,
most of active fault planes are nearly vertical to
the ground surface. Secondly, the thickness of the
crust of the earth is from 15 to 20km. In
consequence, the size of the fault in the horizontal
direction will increase as the scale of the
earthquake gets larger, so that the affected area
becomes larger too. However, the intensity of
ground motion at the near-source area will not
increase because the energy does not concentrate
but widely spreads on the whole plane of the fault.
Since we need to infer the ground motion right
above the fault, we can omit the influence of the
magnitude while taking into account only the
distance between the site and the fault,
compensating for the observed records by the
aforementioned attenuation relation.
Fig.3.2.1.3 Observed spectra compensated
with the attenuation relation of
Equivalent Hypocentral Distance
4 5 .4 0.5 o.e0.70.80.91 Period (sec) 2
2D
40
10
0.1
1000
800
600
"lO t:<_..... "-_"";'''''';;;Mm",
_=1
.]: 200

3100 _1oI._a.-Jo
80

__$o.:r._....
_1o.r.... ,..1
_ __e-UCl:ca ..
__ -to_C_UOC"I
__
H-+-t-++++----1----+":-H
_1.'.t_NS
__,.. .....w

After all fault models are examined, the
Equivalent Hypocentral Distance of destination is
taken as 12lan in this study. With the attenuation
relation using the value of Equivalent Hypocentral
Distance, all the acceleration response spectra of
observed records are then compensated, the
results are shown in Fig.3.2.1.3.
Because, overall, the compensation from the
attenuation function gives a ground motion closer
to the fault than original records, all spectra
become larger. The upper limit is about 2000gal,
except those of SGK EW97 and Gilroy#l
Gravilan Coll.EW records. As expected, the
Fig.3.2.1.4 Comparison of the statistical results
based on the seismic records in USA
and Kobe, respectively
Fig.3.2.1.5 Comparison of the statistical
results using Closest Distance to Fault
and equivalent hypocentral distance
attenuation relations
10
0.1
4 5
4 5 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 OBO.g 1 Pedodfsec) 2
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.70.80.91
.'
1

i---.

I "'- '" f
...... ....
" .
.
,,,........i.
... I

...--... mean(Kobe)
", 1:.. .
..Iv-,
-_..
90% unsurpass (Kobe) ", "
\
=
......... mean(US)
>-
---- llnsurpass (US)
-,
- -mean
I
90% Unsur ss
I
1'--..
rt- I
V'
J--.....
i-
---
I
'"
<,
1'----. 1"'-
r-.
"\
1
2D
20
10
0.1
100
80
60
2000
40
1000
800
600
400
200
4000
2DOO
1000
BOO
BOO
40
4000
mean value becomes smaller for all periods.
When compared with those in the short period,
the improvement in the long period is slight, to
imply the existence of dominating effects from
the seismic source and the structure in deep
ground.
Fig.3.2.1.4 compares the statistical results based
on the seismic records of USA and Kobe. They
satisfactorily agree with each other for the period
up to 1.0 second. For the period longer than 1.0
second, the records at Kobe give larger response
spectra This difference would be a major cause
of larger deviation of total statistical results in the
long period range. Meanwhile, it can also be
found that the statistical results become smoother
as the number of records increases.
The attenuation function based on CDF is also
used, where the distance of destination is taken as
2lan. The point of 2km from fault is the place
right above it, because little portion of energy will
be radiated from the range within 2km from the
ground surface, even though the fault reaches and
appears on the ground surface. There is not much
difference between the mean of response spectra
and that based on the Equivalent Hypocentral
Distance, but the values of 90% unsurpassed
probability show a little difference (Fig.3.2.1.5).
This illustrates that the statistical result of ground
np.v1:ltlcm of crrrrrmri monon frorn thp. staristir-al
-_..--... -- --- 0---- ---- ---- --
3-8
Fig.3.2.1.6 Response spectra of acceleration
for design earthquake motion straightly
above an inland fault (Spectrum II)
log plot to define the response spectra of
acceleration for the design earthquake motion
(Fig.3.2.1.6) called Spectrum II. Its values
corresponding to the ranges of period are shown
below.
CDllOOgal at O.ls in period
1700gal between 0.2s and 0.7s in period
@154galat 5.0s in period.
This spectrum express the motion just above a
fault straightly. Therefore, it's values can be
reduced by the attenuation relationship according
to the distance between the seismic fault and the
site. Here Formula (3.2.1.2) based on the
Equivalent Hypocentral Distance is recommended.
(3)Earthquake Motions due to Near-Land
Interplate Earthquakes
In the codes of seismic design used before the
Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake, the seismic motion
of interplate earthquake was provided. The values
of the response spectra of acceleration for the
design were about 1000gal on a standard ground
surface. In order to treat the earthquakes due to
inland faults and interplates on a same basis, the
same methods for statistical analysis and
compensation carried out so far are applied to the
seismic records of interplate earthquakes. A brief
outline about the determination of Spectrum. I is
summarized bellow.
0,2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.70.80.9 1 Penod (sec) 2
~
y
I
I
-,
I
-,
I
Damping ratio h=5% I
II
5
'00
0.1
~ sao
$500
" .,g 400
~
'E 300
:<
2"'0
,,'"
900
800
700
motion right above the fault is almost independent
of attenuation relation of the Closest Distance to
Fault or the Equivalent Hypocentral Distance.
3) Spectrum for earthquake motion straightly
above the inland fault
In view of the limited number of records
adopted at present as well as unknown properties
of earthquakes in the future, it is wise and
reasonable to determine the design seismic motion
according to a certain unsurpassed value, rather
than by taking the envelope of the maximum
values.
To what degree the unsurpassed probability
should be taken is very important but difficult to
determine. It usually depends on a subjective
judgment. For railway structures, the following
considerations are necessary.
CDRailways are means of mass transportation
directly related to the safety of passengers.
@ A failure at one point of a railway system will
affect the whole route, and it is very costly and
impossible to have a bypass for the same
railway.
@The seismic records used are limited possibly
with unknown factors.
In the light of above considerations, a high
unsurpassed probability is strongly expected, but
the value 90% is believed to be acceptable and
adequate when the accuracy of the whole process
of seismic design is taken into account.
It is not difficult to get the value of a certain
unsurpassed probability if we assume that the
response spectra at the given period is normally
distributed. The 90% unsurpassed value is given
in thick dot line in Fig.3.2.1.3. Due to the
influence of the records at SGK (Hyogoken-
Nanbu earthquake) and Gilroy Gavilan Coll.
(Lama Prieta earthquake), the apparent value near
0.3s in period is over 2000gal, which may be
attributed to some local effects of two sites.
Therefore, we use three straight lines on the log-
3-9
Table 3.2.1.2 Seismic records from recent interplate earthquakes in Japan
<;
=
....
" " o
.b
'"
<5
=

.8

g 2
;.0,,-...

"
a

'"
Direction of
Earthquake No Recorded site Latitude Longitude
<; 2 2

o
." 0 '- records c
"
c '"
Cl
0
o . U;

0
'" .-
0, ;>-0
c-, .::;
::r: C'
0
0
U
P-.
Tokacbi-Oki (May 16,1968) 1 Hacbinohe 40.55 . 141.483 179.4 130 88.6 GL NS,EW
Off NemnroPen. (June 17,1973) 2 Otanoshike Brg. 43.0083 144.271 136.9 163.7 109.7 GL LG
3 Kaihoku Brg. 38.445 141.313 81.6 70.2 56.5 GL LG,TR
Off Miyagi Pref. (June 12,1978)
86.8 71.6 4 Ofunato- Bochi 39.00 141.733 101.7 GL N41W,E41N
W off N Tohoku (May 26,1983) 5 Kamitorizawi Brg. 42.1014 140.563 231 190.8 144.5 GL LG,TR
6 Urakawa 42.158 142.781 151.6 174.4 149.1 GL NS,EW
7 Hanasaki Port 43.2800 145.589 109.4 156.4 131.3 GL N20E,E20S
8 Tokachi Port 42.2889 143.324 106.5 141.7 121.8 GL NS,EW
Kusiro-Oki (Jan. 15, 1993)
142.2792 9 HirooBrg. 143.319 107.5 142.4 122.4 GL LG,TR
10 Otanosbike Brg. 143.0083 144.271 19.8 105.2 100.1 GL LG,TR
11 Chiyocla Brg. 42.9197 143.389 81.5 123.3 108.2 GL LG,TR
12 Muroran Port 42.3167 140.967 153.3 149.0 129.3 GL NS,EW
Hokkaido Nansei-Oki (July 12,1993)
13 Kamitorizawi Brg. 42.1014 140.563 124.6 120.1 91.4 GL LG,TR
Hokkaido Tohoku-Oki (Oct 4,1994) 14 Hanasaki Port 43.2800 145.589 168.4 123 58.5 GL N20E,E20S
0.1
Distance (km)
Hypocentrai distance
r---
SiI EquivalentHypocentral distance
o Closest distance to fault r-----
n I
II 11m

16
14
12
Fig.3.2.1.7 Interplate earthquakes occurred in
Japan recently
Fig.3.2.1.8 Distribution of distance between
seismometer and seismic source
1) Seismic records of interplate earthquakes
The recent interplate earthquakes occurred near
Japan are shown in Fig.3.2.1.7, from which over a
hundred records with the maximum acceleration
larger than 100gal have been collected. The
distances between the site of seismometer and the
source are mostly from 100 to 200km
(Fig.3.2.1.8).
From these data, 27 records have been chosen,
according to the following requirements, their
detail information is given in Table 3.2.1.2.
(DBoth Equivalent Hypocentral Distance and
Closest Faults Distance are within 200
kilometers.
The soil condition of the observation station is
good.
@There is no unnatural peak existing in the
Fourier spectra of the records.
The acceleration response spectra of those
records are shown in Fig.3.2.1.9.
3-10
2) Spectrum compensated for interplate
earthquakes
The attenuation relations used for inland
earthquakes are also used here. As we have to
take the scale of earthquake into consideration
because the earthquake motion to be inferred is at
the site a little far from the seismic source, the
motion becomes very sensitive to the scale of
earthquake.
After investigating the effect of scale of
earthquake with the different attenuation
functions .based on the Equivalent Hypocentral
Distance as well as the Closest Distance to Fault
respectively, the final compensated result is
obtained. Through analysis of the characteristics
of this compensated spectrum, the Spectrum I is
defined by two straight lines in log-log plot as
-S-ZS2NS

_IXH_W
_OO-l_W

+--f'-,:-"'f-.j
_P_61Il:tS
_00'-
_00....

-oo-6U>
_oo-ou
_OO_IIHA
-OO-11lUl
-OQ-11HA.
_OO_11Wl
_CXi_lJlU..
-oo-1.ltlB
-!'-ss.,..s
_1"_llol'lW

-J,(-I4f38W
aa (1.<1 1).5 G.6 U-1l>.8'O.91 Period (sec) 2
shown in Fig.3.2.1.10, which possesses the
following values.
(1) 1100gal between O.ls and LOs in period
(2) 154gal at 5.0s in period
For comparison, Spectrum IT is also plotted in
Fig.3.2.1.10. In order to make the design
simplified, the values of Spectra I are defined as
the same as the Spectrum IT for the period longer
than 1.0 second. When compared with the
original records in, Fig.3 .2.1.9, the design spectra
are larger in the period longer than 0.2 seconds.
In general, the vibration of high frequency
decreases much quicker due to the damping in
structure and soil as ,:veil as the displacement
associated with it is small too. Therefore, the
design, spectra defined here does not
underestimate the actual ground motion for the
seismic design.
Besides, the level of Spectrum I, even when
multiplied by the smallest risk factor, can cover
the ground motion due to an earthquake with the
magnitude less than 6.5 which may occur inland
without making its fault reach the ground surface.
This can be easily verified through the attenuation
function given above, where the depth of a fault
center is assumed as 10km from the ground
surface".
Fig.3.2.1.9 Acceleration response spectra of
observed records of interplate
earthquake near Japan
3.2.2 Setting of Design Earthquake Motions
on the Ground Surface
Fig.3.2.1.10 Comparison of the spectra
between the interplate and inland
While calculating responses of a structure to
earthquake motions, the structure can be
modeled as an overall system including the
surface ground where the foundation is
embedded, then inputting the previously
mentioned design earthquake motion into the
bedrock, and using a dynamic analysis method to
perform a nonlinear analysis which can take the
effect of soil-foundation-superstructure
interaction into account. .This kind of procedure,
however, at this time is considered overly
4 ,
I
.......... "1"" .....
.... ... . .. -
jl
,
I
I
Spectrum I
"'
I
I
I...... SpectrumIf <,
I
I
r-,
I I i I
I'
r-,
,
,
,
I I I I
I I I
100
90
eo
10
60
"
0.1

3500
.9 .400
] 300
1i
.:: 200
'000
3-11
3000
2000
r--,
ca
tlJ)
"-"
;:::
.9
1000
.....,
900
('j
.....
800
(l)
Q) 700
o
600 ()
<C
500
(l)
UJ
;:::
400
0
0..
UJ
(l)
300
200
G2
l.--/
I
""'-
2"3

, ,

"
- -------- -.- -.-
K

-
....... .j-..........
-.......
I""
_._.u.. ...... ..
'G6
..'
..
r-,
-
.-'
..'
-
- r-, <,
-, "---',
,
,
--"
-
-
-
.'
-
.
.
......
<, -, ,"",
,
-,
,
-
- .'
-
<, -,
!'-.-'-'>-
,
,
.
- .' .
- -, ,
,
-
.
..
.
- ..,
....
.G7
-, <,
'
,
.'
" '
. ,
..
-
-
"GO""
-, ",
.., . , -, ,
....
-- --. " .
-
-
"
,
.
.
J"
Gl
,
.
....'\.........
--
-

.
-

,
"'"'-. "
"-
c:;
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 2 4 5
Period (sec)
Fig.3.2.2.1 Design response spectra of acceleration on ground surface for Spectrum II (damping
coefficient of 5%)
complicated and impractical for general use. As
a general rule, in order to simplify the design
procedure, the foundation of a structure will be
replaced by supporting springs and the
superstructure modeled as a multiple mass
system. In this case, the earthquake motions on
the ground surface are needed, which can be
calculated from dynamic analysis of the ground.
But, in reality, there are difficulties in this
dynamic analysis of surface ground such as
setting of relationships between the strain and
shear modulus of ground, damping coefficient of
soil and so on. To overcome such difficulties,
design earthquake motions on ground surface
corresponding to various types of soil profile
were investigate in an amount of parametric
studies. As the results, the acceleration response
spectra on ground surface due to Spectrum I and
Spectrum II are determined. Fig.3.2.2.1 gives the
design response spectra of acceleration on
ground surface for Spectrum II, which are
corresponding to the soil profile types from GO
3-12
Table 3.2.2.1 Soil Profile Types
Soil Soil Profile
Profile Period (sec) Name/Generic
Type Description
GO - Hard Rock
Gl - Bedrock
G2 -0.25 Diluvium
G3 0.25-0.5 Dense Soil
G4 0.5-0.75 Dense to Soft Soil
G5 0.75-1.0 Soft Soil
G6 1.0-1.5 Very Soft.Soil
G7 1.5- Extremely Soft Soil
to G7. Moreover, the soil profile types indicated
in the figure are categorized based on the natural
periods of ground that are calculated with the
velocities of elastic shear wave in surface ground.
The relations between the soil profile types and
the natural periods of ground are summarized in
Table 3.2.2.1.
In summary, there are 8 types of soil profile
used in this code. With respect to each soil
profile, the design response spectra of
acceleration on ground surface are determined
corresponding to the L1 earthquake motion,
Spectrum I and Spectrum II of L2 earthquake
motion.
3.3 Seismic Performance of Structures
3.3.1 Setting of Seismic Performance Levels
for Structures
Corresponding to the presumed levels of repair
and reinforcement of structures that may be
required after an intense earthquake, the seismic
performance can be categorized into 3 levels as
follows.
CDSeismic Performance I (SPI): capability of
maintaining the original functions without any
repair and no excessive displacement
occurring during an earthquake
@Seismic Performance II (SPIT): capability of
making quick recovery of the original
functions with repairs after an earthquake
@Seismic Performance ill (SPill): capability of
keeping the overall structure in place without
collapse during an earthquake
These performance levels are mainly defined
by the ease degree of recovery of the structures
after an earthquake. Therefore, the relationship
between the levels of earthquake motions and
seismic performances has been established as
follows.
For L1 earthquakes, the structural seismic
structures designed.
For L2 earthquakes, SPII should be satisfied by
the structures with greater importance, and SP ill
by other structures.
Furthermore, the seismic performance levels
are also connected with the state of damage of
member as well as the stability of foundation
Seismic Performance I (SPI)
Capability of maintaining the
original functions without any
repair and no excessive
displacement occurring during an
earthquake
Seismic Performance II (SPII)
Capability of making quick
recovery of the original functions
with repairs after an earthquake
Seismic Performance III (SPill)
Capability of keeping the
overall structure in place without
collapse during an earthquake
Damage Level 1: no damage
Damage Level 2: damage that may require repair
depending on situation
Damage Level 3: damage requiring repair
Damage Level 4: damage requiring repair, and
replacement of members depending on situation
Stability Levell: no damage (loading smaller than
bearing capacity)
Stability Level 2: damage requiring repair depending on
situation
Stability Level 3: damage requmng repair, and
correction of structure depending on situation
Fig.3.3.1.1 Relationship among seismic performance levels, damage levels of member and
stability levels of foundation (bridges and viaducts)
3-13"
Reinforcing bar yielding
in axial direction
Cracks occurring
Envelop curve
of test results
Maintaining yield load
Skelton curve
for analysis
Deformation
Fig.3.3.2:1 Relationship of lateral load-deformation relationship for reinforced concrete
member, with a generai ievei of compressive axiai force
which are constituted in the overall structure.
Since the damage level of member and the
stability level of foundation will influence the
structural seismic performance level much, how
to determine them properly is important. ill this
code, the damage level for each member which
composes a structure is set properly by
considering the role played by the member for
the overall structure. ill regard to the stability of
foundation, as it has a big impact on
displacement of a structure, it should be
determined by considering the bearing capacity
or the deformation of the foundation involved.
Fig.3.3.1.1 shows the relationships among
seismic performance levels required for bridges
and viaducts, the damage levels of member, and
the stability levels of foundation.
3.3.2 Consideration on the Damage Levels of
Member, the Stability levels of
Foundation as Well as Their Limit
Values
(1)Damage Levels of Member
It is considered appropriate to determine a
damage level to a member by considering the
3-14
relation among the property of the member, state
of damage, and repairing methods. Moreover the
relationship between the damage levels and the
displacements on the load-displacement curve
should also be taken into account. As an
example, the following shows how to set the
damage levels for a member of reinforced
concrete.
ill case the bending failure mode occurs firstly
under the condition that the exerting compressive
axial force is of a general level, the load-
deformation relation of the member is shown in
Fig.3.3.2.1. It is considered that some physical
phenomena reflecting the stress-strain condition
of the member, as shown in this figure, occur at
the changing points of the envelop curve.
Taking this member's characteristics into
consideration, each damage level of the member
is determined corresponding to the deformation
range as the following.
CDDamage Levell: before the point of B
Damage Level 2: from B to C
@DamageLevel3:fromC to D
@Damage Level 4: after D
Once the relationship between the damage
level and the deformation is established, the
Table 3.3.2.1 Relationship between the damage levels of member and rotational angles
------------
Limit Value of Rotational Angle
Damage Level 1 e
yd
: Yielding rotational angle of member
Damage Level 2
e
md
: Rotational angle of member corresponding to the maximum
deformation resulting from the peak lateral loading
Damage Level 3
end
Rotational angle of member corresponding to the maximum
deformation being able to resist the yield lateral load
Damage Level 4
e
ud
: Rotational angle of member for limiting the excessive deformation
in axial direction
P y: Yield bearing capacity
. Pm: Maximum bearing capacity
COy: Yield displacement
Om: Displacement corresponding to
maximum load
ou : Ultimate displacement
Level 3 Level 2 Level 1
p
p B
m ............................_._........_ :.:; _-------.
p A
y _ .
Oy Om Ou
Fig.3.3.2.2 Imagine of load-displacement curve as well as stability levels offoundation
value of deformation becomes a suitable index
for checking the damage level, which may be
directly calculated from a response analysis. If
the member's nonlinear behavior is evaluated
with a mechanical model of bar, generally, the
rotational angle or the curvature for the section
of plastic hinge is taken as the index for the
member checking. The relationship between
them is shown in Table 3.3.2.1.
(2)Stability Levels of Foundation
Since the stability levels of foundation have a
great impact on the seismic performances of
overall structure, how to determine them
properly is important. In order to ensure the
seismic performance for an overall structure, the
stability levels of foundation should be
determined in term of two aspects. One is the
damage levels with respect to the stability of the
foundation itself. The other is the damage level
to the members constituting the foundation. For
the latter one, the procedure to determine the
damage levels of member is same as what
described previously. As to the procedure for
determination of damage levels to the foundation
stability, the following items should be taken into
account.
CDThe effects on the usage property of structure
3-15
due to the displacement of foundation
The variation of bearing capacity of the
foundation after an earthquake
As indexes for evaluating these items, response
ductility ratio as well as residual displacement of
foundation should be used. The former is
defined as the ratio of the foundation's seismic
response displacement to yield displacement that
is determined by the load-displacement curve of
the foundation. Fig.3.3 .2.2 gives a general
illustration of the load-displacement curve as
well as the stability levels of the foundation.
Using the indexes of displacement in this figure,
the stability levels of foundation can be
determined as follows.
G)Stability Levell: In principle, load acting on
the foundation should be less than its yield
bearing capacity and no excessive
displacement occurs. Stress resultant of
members composing the foundation should not
exceed yield strength.
@Stability Level 2: Either subgrade supporting
the foundation, members composing the
foundation or both are deformed plastically, but
yet maintain sufficient bearing capacity. No
displacement detrimental to maintenance of the
structure's functions nor residual displacement
should be allowable after an earthquake.
@Stability Level 3 : Sufficient bearing capacity
should be maintained to protect the structure
from collapse by damage of the bearing
subgrade or members.
8j: Damage parts
Fig.3.3.2.3 Illustration of damaged parts of a rigid frame viaduct
Table 3.3.2.2 An example of the relationship among the limit values of structure's seismic
performance levels, member's damage levels and foundation's stability levels (rigid frame
viaduct)
Structure SPI SPIT SPill
Superstructure Girder and Underground Beam 1 2 3
Damage Level of
Other Beam 1 3 4
Member
Column 1 3 3
Stability Level of Foundation 1 2 3
3-16
Besides the values of stability level are set
corresponding to the types of foundation.
(3) Limit Values
Based on the consideration explained above,
the parts where the damage may occur to a rigid
frame viaduct are illustrated in Fig.3.3.2.3, and
an example of the relationship among the limit
values of structure's seismic performance levels,
member's damage levels and foundation's
stability levels is shown in Table 3.3.2.2.
3.4 Concept of Importance Degree of
Structure
Determination of the importance degree of a
railway structure requires consideration various
factors, for example, the possible influences on
human life, society, neighborhood, operating
speeds and timetable of trains, and the difficulty
degree of recovery in case of damage. Based on
this concept, greater importance has been given
to the following structures.
(DStructures of the Shinkansen bullet lines and
those of passenger railway lines in major
metropolitan cities
@Structures whose recovery after an earthquake
is considered very difficult, for example a cut
and cover tunnel, etc.
3.5 Evaluation of Surface Ground and
Calculation of Displacement and Stress
of Structure
According to what shown in Fig.3.1.1.1, the
procedure for seismic design of a viaduct is,
inputting the L2 earthquake motions on the
bedrock firstly, evaluation of surface ground,
calculation of response of the structure and
evaluation of its seismic performance. In this
case, since the L2 earthquake motions are so
intense, both the ground and the structure are
expected to behavior strongly nonlinearly.
3-17
Therefore, how to evaluate the nonlinear effects
of ground and structure becomes an essential
task in seismic design.
3.5.1 Evaluation of Surface Ground
Characteristics of the surface ground must be
carefully analyzed because of its big impact on
the seismic performance of the structure to be
built. Generally there are 3 kinds of problems
that may be encountered and difficult to handle
in design practice: irregularity in topography or
geology, liquefaction, and soft or very soft soil
profile. In this section, the consideration and
analysis approaches adopted in the code to deal
with these special kinds of surface ground are
described.
(1) Irregular Surface Ground
From the past damage reconnaissance after
earthquakes, it is often observed that severe
damage happened on a ground with irregularity in
topography or geology. The cause for this
phenomenon is obvious that the superposition of
reflection waves resulting from the irregularities
of surface ground make the response amplified.
At this time even though there are some analysis
methods with rigorous numerical models may
evaluate such irregularity effects precisely, the
necessary of large amount of precise input
I Groundmodel for 2D analysis I
Inclination e
'I """'_"""-,.. II
Fig.3.5.1.1 Ground models used for 10 and 20
analyses
parameters makes such analysis impractical for
general use. Therefore, a simplified method that
can estimate the amplification of earthquake
motion caused by irregularity and satisfy the
accuracy for seismic design is needed.
The incident wave is input at the bottom of the
hard layer and the response analysis method used
in the investigation is FEM. The time-history
Fig.3.5.1.2 Responses of horizontal
acceleration obtained from 20-FEM
analysis (normalized by peak value of
input wave)
Fig.3.5.1.3 Responses of horizontal
acceleration obtained by subtracting
values of 10 from 20 (normalized by
peak value of input wave)
H=20(m)
H ~ m )
20 15 10
Time(s)
Time(s)
l,x=<sU(
,
.,"
,
I ~ ~ I ~ iT>
,-
,.
<
I"(}In H
" .,,' .. '. ,
,
,,"
'"
,.. '.
... '
.: .-:,'., ... "
, -:
,
~ b v
'.' ... '.
AUlm
6Qlin
...
TT
..:
.: ,.,
.'
.:,' .. "
<
:
,... '.
,.
,
... ' ... ,.., ... .:... ,
'"1"'"
,
",". IT
160:in
... ,
"
'....
"
.'. <.
.'.,' '.
" ~ .
,
20
2) Effects of geological irregularity
In order to elucidate the mechanism of
amplification of earthquake motion due to the
geological irregularity, some numerical
investigations have been conducted as follows.
Firstly, the responses of 2D and 1D modeled
grounds were calculated, respectively. Then the
differences of the response between the 2D and
ID models were extracted by subtracting the
results of 1D from those of2D. These differences
represent the effects of geological irregularity,
because the responses due to the laterally
propagating waves that rebound on the inclined
boundary of hard layer are included in the results
of2D.
1) Ground models
Since ground motion amplification is affected
by various factors, such as the scale of irregular
shape and the characteristics of input motion, etc.
it is almost impossible to take all the factors into
account in the response analysis of surface ground.
For this reason, a ground model with rather
simple irregularity is considered in this
investigation. As what illustrated in Fig.3.5.1.1,
there are. two types of models prepared for
analysis, one is the two-dimensional (2D), and the
other is the one-dimensional (1D). For 2D
analyses, the property of surface ground is
modeled by the 3 key parameters: the inclination
angle ((J) of hard layer (bedrock), the thickness
(If) of soft layer, and the impedance ratio (IC ) of
the two layers. In ID analyses, all conditions
such as the properties of soil profile and the
thickness of soft and hard layers are set equal to
those of the corresponding 2D models as shown in
the Fig.3.5.1.1.
3-18
Determination of a andLJ. t
It is easy to be conjectured that the coefficient
a: and LJ. t in Formula (3.5.1.1) are dependent on
f'(t)
a=-,-,
f(t)
the Fourier spectra of earthquake
motion on the surface of irregular
ground;
the amplitude ratio between the
horizontally propagating wave
l' (t) and the vertically
propagating SH wave J(t);
the Fourier spectra of SH wave
J(t) ;
the delay time between J' (t) and
J(t) ;
G(CtJ, x) =F(CtJ)+ a .F(w)- e-
imAt
=F(CtJ). ~ +a . e - i ~ t } = F(w)r;(w)
(3.5.1.1)
(3.5.1.2)
a:
G(CtJ,x)
Where,
LJ.t
3) Simplified methodology for evaluation of
geological irregularity
CDFormulae for estimating ground motion
Based on the results of numerical investigation
above, the influence of the irregularity upon the
earthquake motion on the ground surface is
possible to be modified with the following
expressions.
response acceleration on the ground surface
calculated by 2D FEM are shown in Fig.3.5.1.2,
whose incident wave is a SH Ricker wavelet with
a predominant period of O.8sec that is the same as
the fundamental resonance period of the soft layer.
Since the soft layer is rather thick, the
amplification property of the irregular ground is
obvious with the normalized peak value of 2.4 in
the vicinity of the edge of basin (x=40m). The
duration time of response becomes longer at
places remote from the edge of basin, These
characteristics are attributed to both the thickness
of soft layer and the irregularity in geology. Then,
the responses purely caused by the irregularity can
be obtained by subtracting the results of ID from
those of 2D (See Fig.3.5.1.3). The response
waves shown in Fig.3.5.1.3 are caused by a
laterally propagating wave that is generated at the
edge of the basin. Since the phase velocity of this
wave is nearly equal to that of Raleigh wave, the
major component included in the laterally
propagating wave is presumed to be Raleigh wave.
Fromthese results of the numerical investigations,
a phenomenon is revealed that the earthquake
motions on the surface of the ground with
irregularity are synthesized from two parts, one is
the SH wave propagating directly form the
bedrock, the other one is Raleigh wave
propagating horizontally.
+
Fig.3.5.1.4 Definition of the parameters for irregular ground
3-19
the properties of geometry and material of the
irregular ground. Through an amount of
parametrical studies, the relationship among a
and the geometrical parameters e(the inclination
angle of hard layer), H (the thickness of soft
layer), and the material parameter K (the
impedance ratio of soft and hard layers) is
empirically expressed as the following".
a = 0.3xexp( - xexp(-O.44X)
(3.5.1.3)
formulae. Fig.3.5.1.5 gives the comparison of
Fourier amplitudes calculated by 2D-FEM and the
results of Gem, x) obtained by the empirical
formula (3.5.1.1). As to the time-history
responses of acceleration, the comparisons
between the two methods are shown in Fig.3.5.1.6.
The good agreement between them proves that the
accuracy degree of the empirical formulae is
sufficient to the level of seismic design.
Accordingly, in practice it is adequate to apply the
simplified methodology for general use.
(3.5.1A)
Where, X =x I H represents the normalized
distance from the origin at the edge point as
shown in Fig.3.5.1A.
With the same procedures the empirical formula
for delay time,.,d t is obtained as follows.
--
--
20
'1/ V :
Time(sec)
10
1500 ,-----.,-----.,------,--------,
:; tx=O(m)----.: 1\ --;;---J--.. _
.=9 . I !lA1 .n "" ,
0 ;..,/ .. V.....
1500 method

__4
. .
:iJ.000I-.. ..
e
eo
...
.2:
a
o
r;.;. 500 1-'-"';-'.".
1500 x=20(m)
---2D FEM
. - Proposed method .-+...,..-t-t-t-tf-l
o'---'--'--'--'-'---'---"-''-=-'.......
0.1 0.5 1 5 10
Frequency(Hz)
Fig.3.5.1.5 Comparison of Fourier amplitudes
between the 2D-FEM and the empirical
method (x=20 m)
Fig.3.5.1.6 Comparison of time-history
responses between the 2D-FEM and
the empirical method (x=O, 20, 40 m)
the
the
in Fig.3.5.1.4, illustrated
shear velocity of the hard layer;
shear velocity of the soft layer;
travelling velocity of the
horizontally propagating wave
within the range where the hard
layer slants;
phase velocity of the Raleigh wave; CJ!...OJ) :
Where, as
meanings of the main parameters are as
following.
Vb
CDAdequacy of the simplified methodology
In the code, the simplified methodology
described above is proposed for evaluation of the
ground irregularity in general use. According to
this methodology, in a general case a 2D response
analysis of irregular ground can be omitted and
the irregularity effect is taken into account by
modifying the response of ID analysis with the
empirical formulae. Therefore, it is necessary to
grasp the calculation accuracy of the empirical
3-20
Therefore, the hitherto applied relationship
1000

1.1J.bll-'-s-
arc promoted
10 100
Nnber of cycle(Nc)

Or<SQ'X;
... Dr=::70$
\
.Or-SO'!.
+ '1\
Or-9O$
r-,
-,
+ 4ill
:r. --::::I:-l"

.
I - + I
+
+

!, r-t-
--
I I
0.0
1
O.S
1.0
..
1.5
2.0
2.S
liquefaction judgement
Since the intense level of the earthquakes which
occurred before the Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake
was not so high, the relative density of the soil
profile incurred liquefaction was low.
Accordingly the relationship between R and N
c
was obtained based on experimental results that
correspond to the values of relative density below
60%. Furthermore, this relationship was
determined independent to the relative density of
soil profiles.
After the Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake, the
intensity level of design earthquake as well as the
density level of the soil profile needed
Liquefaction is a very serious problem to
consider in seismic design. During the past
earthquakes, there were an amount of damages to
infrastructures caused by liquefaction or
subsequent lateral flow. Therefore, for the
ground with liquefaction possibility, if any
financially feasible measure is available, such as
ground improvement that can prevent
liquefaction to happen, it should be implemented.
If not, the overall structure, including the
superstructure, should be taken care of
comprehensive measures to prevent collapse or
other disastrous damage against excessive
response the structure may incur due to
liquefaction or lateral flow.
In this code, the procedures for liquefaction
judgment as well as decrease in coefficient of
subgrade reaction to consider the effect of
liquefaction and subsequent lateral flow are
determined.
(2) Liquefied Surface Ground
1) Liquefaction judgement
In liquefaction judgement for railway structure
design, the following expression is applied.
Fig.3.5.1.7 Relationship between the ratio of
liquefaction strength (R) and the
number of cycles (N
c
)
Fig.3.5.1.8 Relationship between the ratio of
liquefaction strength and the number of
cycles (DA=10% to15%)
0.0
1 1000 100
NootIer of. eyels(Ne)
10
\[1\
I

DA-"""2Q%
1\
'---......
I--

t--
t--t-
0.5
3.0
1.0
2.0
2.5
t!.
1.5
( 3.5.1.5)
Where,
FL factor of liquefaction resistance;
R ratio of liquefaction strength;
L maximum shear stress ratio;
The ratio of liquefaction strength (R) is
determined by correcting the standard values of
liquefaction strength ratio that are obtained from
cyclic triaxial tests or in-site tests. In this
correction the concept of accumulated damage
index is introduced to reflect the irregularity effect
of earthquake motion. Therefore, the relationship
between R (ratio of liquefaction strength) and N,
(number of alternative cycles of earthquake
motion) becomes required.
3-21
20<P,
Structures are designed by seismic defomation method.
+--ground surface properties
forseismic design
~ range to reduce the coefficient
~ of subgrade reaction
--ground surface properties
for seismic design
__ground surface pruper-t.ies
for seismic design
_ range to reduce the coefficient
of subgrade reaction
Ground surface properties for seiseric design set up the
shallowest layer to reduce the coefficient of subgrade reaction.
Ground surface properties for seismic design set up the
deepest layer to reduce the coefficient of subarsde reaction.
ground surface
range for lowering the coefficients of subgrade
and the parameters concerning ground properties
is judged by using the liquefaction coefficient, an
index of the degree of liquefaction, for different
values of liquefaction resistance given by the
Fig.3.5.1.9 Range to reduce the coefficient of
subgrade reaction and ground surface
properties for seismic design
2) Reducing the coefficient of subgrade
reaction as the effect of liquefaction
Basing on some researches, in this code the
between R and N; corresponding to the low
relative density is considered too conservative, in
which it mistakenly leads to judgement that even
soil at a high relative density free from
liquefaction will liquefy.
On the other hand, the influence of liquefaction
on the dynamic response of structure is taken into
account by reducing the coefficient of subgrade
reaction according to the situation ofliquefaction.
Accordingly, the decrease in coefficient of
subgrade reaction should be formulated varying
with the degree of liquefaction and the depth from
ground surface.
Fig.3.5.1.7 shows the relationship between R
and N, corresponding to different relative density
obtained from cyclic triaxial tests of dense sandy
soil. This result reveals a fact that the sandy soil
with relative density below 50% its relationship
between R and N, can be considered independent
to relative density, but if the density over the
value of 50% the relationship should be
determined by taking the effect of relative density
into account.
So far, the double amplitude (DA) of axial strain
used as index for liquefaction judgement is set to
5% as the critical value. This is proper to L1
design earthquake motion, but for L2 earthquake
the critical value of DA is promoted to 10% or
15% by considering the structural seismic
performance levels and the return period of
earthquake'?',
In the strain range of 10 to 15%, dense soil will
show cyclic mobility or positive dilantancy,
recover the effective stress and present high
stiffness against cyclic shear stresses. In this
situation, the dynamic shear strength ratio
becomes larger as shown in Fig.3.5.1.8, which
means that the soil will not liquefy.
3-22
Fig.3.5.1.10 Relationship between excess
pore water pressure and shear strain
3) Liquefaction-induced lateral flow
From mechanism elucidation of foundations
damaged by liquefaction-induced lateral flow of
ground in past earthquakes, it is understood that
loads existing at foundation are composed of drag
force due to liquefaction layer and load due to
ground displacement of non-liquefaction layer.
However, this kind of investigation needs precise
analysis models and sophisticated technology for
numerical computation. It is impractical for
seismic design, especially, estimating the drag
force is very difficult.
Since the most important task in seismic design
structure, the methods for evaluating the drag
force and the load due to ground displacement in
this code, are determined based on the
consideration that the calculated response
displacements of structure can fit well to those
obtained by experiments. The illustration of this
concept is shown in Fig.3.5.1.11, where the
effects of the lateral flow are expressed with the
loads exerted to the upper and lower parts of the
foundation, respectively. The upper part load is
transferred equivalently from the displacement of
the non-liquefaction layer through the spring
constants of subgrade. The lower part load is due
to the lateral flow of liquefaction layer.
Displacements of structure calculated with this
model are a little bit larger than those obtained in
experiments. Therefore, this design methodology
is considered in the safety side.
(3) Surface Ground with Soft Soil Profile
The amplification property of surface ground
with soft soil profile has been testified in many
past earthquakes. This property will cause big
effects on structure design. For this reason,
response analysis of surface ground under an
intense earthquake should be conducted carefully
and precisely.
For dynamic analysis of surface ground, a shear
(3.5.1.6)
1
10
~ 2 -1 0
10 10 10
Shear strain (%)
r
20
P
L
=Jo (1 - F
L
)wdz
W =1O-0.5z
o -4
10
in which P
L
is the liquefaction potential; F
L
is
the factor of liquefaction resistance; and z is the
depth in meters.
Fig.3.5.1.9 shows the range to reduce the
coefficient of subgrade reaction and ground
surface properties for seismic design by referring
to the calculation result of the liquefaction
potential of a few ground models. This
formulation considers sudden changes of ground
condition for liquefaction.
Moreover, this covers soft ground at the
liquefaction potential of less than 5, and structures
are designed by the seismic deformation method.
Because the ground strain considered by the
seismic deformation method is 0.1%, this is a case
of liquefaction potential of less than 5. Namely,
this is a state where the strain has risen a little in
excess pore water pressure in Fig.3.5.1.10. It is
the state of just before liquefaction.
equation .(3.5.1.6), where the weighting
coefficient for the depth is set to reflect the effect
on structures.
3-23
stress-strain model used should be satisfied to the
following conditions.
The model,
(Dcan express the stress-strain relationship ('" "-'
r ) for various geo-materials ranging from soft
clay to hard rock over a wide pre-failure strain
range;
has a minimum possible number of parameters
to describe the model, each possessing clear
physical meaning;
@can express the damping-strain relationship (h
"-' r ) over a wide strain range obtained from
laboratory tests;
@)can reflect the concept of failure strength;
@can easily be applicable to seismic design.
In this code, a model of shear stress-strain
satisfy the conditions above is proposed. This
model fits dynamic deformation characteristics
obtained from laboratory tests, such as G / G m a x ~
r , hr- r relationships over a wide strain range,
and reflects failure limit stress r Furthermore,
the adequacy of the model was examined by
model ground test with shaking table.
(" ....,
! j
non effective I non-Iiquifaction layer
ranp of lateral flow
3.5.2 Calculation of Responses of Structures
Dynamic analysis should be the main method
for seismic design of bridges. In this case, how
to setting the nonlinear behavior for structural
members is very important. In the code, the
member's non-linearity is prescribed according
to what shown in Fig.3.3.2.1 and Fig.3.3.2.2. In
addition to the skeleton curves, the hysteresis
loops for determining damping constant are also
required. In the code, they are given with respect
to the types of material and foundations.
Moreover, it is very convenient to use nonlinear
spectrum method (the simplified dynamic
analysis method as shown in Fig.3.1.1.1) to
calculate the ductility ratio of structure for a
general case.
Fig.3.5.2.1 gives an example of the demand-
yield-seismic-coefficient spectrum that is applied
in nonlinear spectrum method. The spectrum is
applicable to a general structure, and the
procedure for making out it is: i) modeling the
structure to a single-degree-of-freedom system,
ii) calculating the maximum nonlinear response
displacement of the structure under the design
earthquake motion; iii) plotting the relationship
load as lateral flow of non-Iiqufaction layer
model of analysis
Fig.3.5.1.11 Illustration of design methodology for lateral flow induced by liquefaction
3-24
between the yield seismic coefficient and the
natural period corresponding to each ductility
ratio.
For such structures as multiple-spanned
bridges, structures with long natural periods, or
new types of bridges whose behavior cannot be
expressed with the system of single degree of
freedom, detailed dynamic analysis method using
the model of multiple degrees of freedom should
be chosen.
With regard to foundation structures, dynamic
response analysis should also be chosen as main
way for design. In case of surface ground with
soft soil profile, the ground displacement
resulting from an earthquake is generally beyond
negligible levels, especially when the earthquake
is intense the ground displacement may cause
severe damage to a deep foundation embedded.
In this code, therefore, it is prescribed that the
effect on deep foundation due to ground
displacement should be taken into account by
using so-called seismic deformation method.
Until now only this code has the stipulation,
and in other codes deep foundations are designed
merely against seismic inertial force. However,
ground displacement caused by an earthquake
will generate curvature of deep foundation and
subsequently bending moment along its whole
length, which makes stress resultant increase
within the foundation's members. Therefore the
design method considering only initial force is at
unsafe side, especially in case of intense
earthquakes.
The seismic deformation method prescribed in
the code is a cost-effective one that can
conveniently combine the both effects coming
from the inertial force of superstructure and the
displacement of ground according to relationship
between the natural periods of structure and
ground.
3.6 Safety (Seismic Performance) Checking
of Structures
In checking seismic performance of a structure,
the prescribed procedure in the code specifies
that responses calculated as in Section 3.5 should
satisfy the limit values of the member's damage
levels and the foundation's stability levels, both
mentioned in Section 3.3. The flowchart for
5
Input Wave: L2 Earthquake Motion; Objective Structure: Surperstructures of RC or SRC
-
c
Q)
'(3
o
o
o
0.5
i . '
(j) ---------------------------:---------------,----------,--------,------r-----'- -, Nonlinear Behavior: Clough model
>=
Stiffness: 0.1 .
I Type of Soil Profile: G3 j ii' Initial Damping Coefficienth=0.04/T,
0.1
1
i
0.1 0.5 1
Equivalent Natural Period (sec)
Fig.3.5.2.1 An example of Demand-Yield-Seismic-Coefficient Spectrum (Earthquake Motion:
Spectrum II, Surface Ground: G3 Type)
3-25
Setting design earthquake motion and soil profile
Modeling structure foranalysis
i.-
Static nonlinear analysis (Pushoveranalysis):
~
Setting nonlinear property for
Lateral load-displacement relationship
"""""
members and subgrade
~
Grasping seismic performance of structure
(kh
y
: yield seismic coefficient; T
eq
: equivalent natural period; deformation property)
~
Calculating response of structure;
I ~
Demand-yield-seismic-coeffcient spectrum
Ductility ratio or Detailed dynamic analysis method
~
Checking seismic performance of structure
(Members: damage level; Foundation: stability level)
Fig.3.6.1.1 Procedure of seismic performance checking for bridges and viaducts
such a procedure is shown in Fig.3.6.1.1.
Static nonlinear analysis method (pushover
Analysis method), in the code, is stipulated to
apply in the checking process. The procedure of
pushover analysis is, i) modeling overall
structure (from superstructure to foundation) to a
frame structure, and subgrade supporting the
foundation to a system composed of springs; ii)
setting the strengths and deformation behaviors
for the structural members and the subgrade
reaction according to what described previously;
iii) calculating the displacement of structure by
increasing seismic load step by step and plotting
the relationship between the seismic load and the
displacement. In this way, the failure process of
the overall structure can be grasped by indicating
the various critical steps in the load-displacement
3-26
curve. Such critical steps include the steps
where the structural capacities reach to the limit
values of yield, maximum and ultimate. The
ultimate displacement can be determined by
comparing the calculated displacement with the
limit values listed in Table 3.3.2.1. For the
superstructure and foundation, when the
member's capacity of whichever reaches to the
limit value of ultimate state, the displacement is
determined as the ultimate displacement for the
overall structure.
Therefore, if the value of the ultimate
displacement determined as above is larger than
response displacement calculated by a dynamic
analysis method, it means that the structural
seismic performance designed satisfy the
objective of seismic performance level, and a
safety judgement is obtained. Furthermore, the
judgement of each member's damage level and
foundation's stability level should be conducted
by checking the deformation state of the step in
the pushover analysis, whose displacement is as
same as that calculated by the dynamic analysis
method. The main contents about this checking
are described as follows.
the allowable values of residual displacement
should be limited within a small range.
All the items above are checked according to
the results obtained by the static nonlinear
analysis.
3.6.3 An Example of Safety Checking of Pile
Foundation
3.6.1 Checking Damage Levels of Members
In the code, the following items are stipulated
for the checking of stability levels of foundation.
CDThe response ductility ratio of foundation;
The damage levels of the members composing
the foundation;
@The residual displacement of foundation.
The residual displacement above is taken as a
main index for checking the Seismic
Performance II. That is to say in order to make
quick recovery of the function for train operation,
In checking the damage levels of members
made of concrete, failure mode should be judged
at first, namely, if shear stress calculated is
smaller than shear strength when bending
strength is reached, the failure mode is defined as
bending failure mode, inversely shearing failure
mode. In the code, it is stipulated that the real
strength of reinforcing bar should be used in the
failure mode judgement.
In case of bending failure mode, the damage
levels can be judged with the deformation results
calculated from static nonlinear analysis. For the
case of shearing failure mode, however, the
judgement can only be conducted according to
the strength. That is to say the deformation
behavior of the member with shearing failure
mode should be set to linearity in the overall
structural model for the static nonlinear analysis.
3.6.2 Checking Stability
Foundation
Levels of
3-27
(1) Seismic Performance Levels of Pile
Foundation
The seismic performance levels of pile
foundation are determined by the stability levels
or pue foundation, The stability levels of pile
foundation are determined by considering the
strength and deformation properties of subsoil and
pile members. Table 3.6.3.1 shows the definition
of the state of pile foundation corresponding to
the seismic performance.
(2) Pushover Analysis
Table 3.6.3.1 State of pile foundation corresponding
tothe seismic performance levels
Seismic Stability
Performance Level of State of Pile Foundation
Level Foundation
SPI Level 1 Pile foundation do not yield.
Although pile foundation
SPII Level 2 yields, it maintains a
sufficient bearing capacity.
Although pile foundation
SPill Level 3
reaches the ultimate state,
super structure does not
collapse.
1) Structural analysis model
In the pushover analysis, super structures and
pile foundations are modeled as a overall
structural system (Fig.3.6.3.1), which includes the
Kv : Vertical subgrade reaction of pile point
Ksv : Vertical subgrade reaction of pile surface
K.h : Horizontal resisitance of pile
.Khf : Horizontal resisitance of footing
(a) Pier type
EIs
Elp
I
(b) Rigid frame type
K.h
------
i
i
LKhf
I
Ell
Elr
il
i !
El
p
i
I
2) Characteristics of ground resistance
The property of ground resistance of pile
foundation is assumed to be represented by an
elasto-plastic model (bilinear type). Fig.3.6.3.2
shows an example of the ground resistance model
that becomes plastic when the subgrade reaction
of each ground resistance reaches the upper limit.
nonlinear properties of both the subgrade and
structures. The springs expressing the subgrade
reaction are attached to the nodal points, and the
parts connecting the pile to the spread footing and
the pile to the embedded lateral beams are
assumed to be rigid.
Fig.3.6.3.1 Structural model for viaducts
(c) Horizontal on pile surface
Fig.3.6.3.2 Models for ground resistance
criterions. In this case, the yield point can be
determined by taking into account the causes
which intensify the displacement rapidly in the
load-displacement curve.
liw
Displacement
of pile skin
Rp: Design point bearing capacity
of single pile
Re: Design skin friction capacity
of single pile
Pe : Effective resistance earth pressure
Indentation side
Vertical subgrade reaction
of pile skin
---'----I-Un h
Pulling side
(b) Vertical on pile surface
Displacement
of pile point
Iih
Horizontal displacement
Effective resistance
earth pressure
Indentation side
Rp f - - ~ - - -
0'---'-------
Vertical subgrade reaction
of pile point
(a) Vertical at pile tip
Pulling side
Horizontal resiaitance of
pile I
3) Yield point of pile foundation
Yield point of a pile foundation is established
according to the load-displacement curve of an
overall structure, where the displacement
increases rapidly mainly because of the subgrade
reaction reaching the upper limit values or the
stiffness of pile members decreasing due to the
strength yielding. However, the yield point where
the displacement rapidly increases in the 1000-
displacement curve varies for different types of
foundations. This makes it difficult to judge the
yield point from i) the degree to which the
subgrade reaction exceeds the upper limit values
and ii) the number of members damaged over the
total number of members.
In order to investigate the causes of yield point,
some common prototype pile foundations were
chosen for trial designing. As a result, it was
confirmed that the yield point appears when i) the
subgrade reaction yields at the outermost edge of
the indentation in side of pile group and ii) half of
the total number of pile members yields.
In the code, therefore, it is stipulated that the
yield point of pile foundation with a common
shape can be determined as the point when it
reaches one of the states shown in Table 3.6.3.2.
If a pile foundation has too many piles, it is
difficult to determine the yield point by these
3-28
Table 3.6.3.2 Yield point definition for pile foundation
Subgrade in the
When the vertical resistance of pile
indentation-in
head atthe outermost edge reach the
side of pile group
upper limit value of design vertical
capacity
Subgrade in the
When the vertical resistance of the
pulling-out side of
head of a half (ignoring fractions) of
pile group
total piles reach the upper limit of
design pull-out resistance
Pile members
When the strength of a half (ignoring
fractions) of the total piles yield
(3)Response Analysis of Pile Foundation
To check the stability levels of pile foundation,
the response values of pile foundation due to the
design earthquake motion should be calculated
firstly. Then the stability level can be determined
by comparing the response values with the
indexes of ductility, damage level and response
displacement. The response analysis should be
conducted by using the dynamic analysis method
which is chosen by the designer out of the
following by taking into account the ground and
structure conditions.
CDNon-linearspectra method
Analysis method with springs supporting
foundation
@Analysis method considering the soil-pile-
structure interaction
For the method CD or above, the procedure of
pushover analysis is needed. But for the method
@, only the member's properties and the
properties of ground resistance as illustrated in
Fig.3.6.3.2 are needed.
(4) Checking Stability Levels of Pile
Foundation
1) Response ductility ratios
In the code, the safety checking of pile
foundation is stipulated to check the ductility ratio
3-29
of the foundation. Table 3.6.3.3 gives the limit
values of response ductility ratio corresponding to
various stability levels for cast-in-place pile,
which are prescribed in the code. Furthermore,
the limit values of ductility ratio are based on the
results of loading experiments. If there is the
sufficient strength left for pile members, the limit
values can be determined by other methods while
taking the damage process into account.
Table 3.6.3.3 Stability Levels and Limit Values of
Ductility Ratio
Limit value of ductility factor
jL L
Stability Stability Stability
level 1 level 2 level 3
Cast-In-
1 5 8
Place Pile
2) Damage levels of members
In the seismic design, it is necessary to confirm
that the demanded damage level of each pile
member is satisfied. Referring to some studies'",
it is understood that even when the damage level
of one part of a pile group exceeds the damage
level 1 or 2, the strength remaining for the overall
structural system is enough. Therefor, in the code,
the limit values for the damage levels of pile
members have been relaxed.
3) Response displacement
It is confirmed that the values of response
displacement or residual displacement should be
less than the limit values corresponding to various
stability levels.
3.7 Conclusions
The outline of the new seismic design code for
railway structures has been described above.
Because of the limited space in this article, only
the basic principles and some.important advances
for the seismic design are introduced.
The adequacy of seismic design methodology
should be confirmed through precise analysis of
real damage examples incurred in past
earthquakes. The methodologies introduced here
are based on the results of damage analyses
concerning to the Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake.
Since these damage analyses are still being
conducted by each organization, currently, some
new knowledge or consideration may be
obtained in the near future. Consequently, by
absorbing that information, the current seismic
design methodology can become as perfect as
possible.
Moreover, the methodology for seismic design
L _ ~ _ _ _ _ __.4-L__ _ 1.: __.4-_..1 1-. ~ _ _.&
ucco.urcs 1 <1Wc;l I,;VllljJlll,;<1lc;U Uc;l,;<1U1\C' Vi.
consideration of the both non-linearity corning
from the structures and the subgrade. In order to
avoid meaningless complication, the described
approaches taken in the seismic design are the
essential ones that can express the damage levels
of structures. Therefore, by using these
approaches the state of damage to designed
structures during an intense earthquake can be
predicted corresponding to the seismic
performance levels.
At last, there is a notice that the precision of
the input parameters concerning structures and
subgrade and the computing accuracy should be
appropriate to the execution of computer. Even
though the level of design method is promoted, a
design using incorrect input data can not be
considered as a good one.
REFERENCES
1) Seismic Design Code for Railway Structures,
published by MARUZEN, Oct, 1999. (in
Japanese)
2) Akihiko Nishimura: "Earthquake resistant design
for Railway Structures", Quarterly Report of
RT.RI., VOl.37, No.3, pp.128-138, 1996.
3) "Proposal on Earthquake Resistance for Civil
Engineering Structures", Special task committee
3-30
of earthquake resistance of civil engineering
structures, Japan
4) "Report on the investigation of disaster of
Earthquake in Hanshin-Awaji", Committee on the
investigation of disaster of Earthquake in
Hanshin-Awaji, The Japanese Geotechnical
Society. (in Japanese)
5) Gotou, Y, Ejiri, J.: "The characteristics of
amplification at the Tarzana observation station in
Northridge earthquake", Proceedings of
Amplification of Ground Motion on Soft Ground
Symposium, Japan, 1994.
6) Yoshimitsu Fukushima: "Empirical prediction for
_.&...... .J __.l.': J:1 __.l._..J __ "-L ...: __ l
1\UVllg gIVUllU lllVUVll lCJ.lCl,;lCU Vll WCVIC'U'-'''-l
backgrounds of source and propagation of seismic
wave", ORr Report 93-07, Ohsaki Research
Institute, March 1994. (in Japanese)
7) Susumu 0000, Katsuya Takahashi: "Evaluation
of strong-motion attenuation relation using near-
source data in California", Proceedings of the 9th
Japan Earthquake Engineering Symposium, 1994.
(in Japanese)
8) Haibo Wang, Akihiko Nishimura:
"Determination of design seismic motion by
considering inland and interplate earthquakes",
Quarterly Report of RT.RI., Vol. 40, No.3 ,
pp.130-138, 1999.
9) Yoshitaka Murono, Akihiko Nishimura:
"Characteristics of Local Site Effects on Seismic
Motion, --Non-linearity of Soil and Geological
Irregularity--", Quarterly Report of R T.RI.,
Vo1.40, No.3, pp.139-l45, 1999.
lO)Ryo Sawada, Akihiko Nishimura: "Design
Method of Structure Considering Liquefaction and
Subsequent Lateral Flow" , Quarterly Report of
RT.RI., VolAO, No.3, pp.146-l51, 1999.
11)Kimura, Okoshi, et al : An Experimental Study
on The Ductility of Pile Foundations, Journal of
Study Engineering, Vol.44A, 1998.3 (in Japanese)
4. EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF PORT FACILITIES
BUREAU OF THE PORTS AND HARBORS, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT
4.1 History or Revisions of Design Codes 4- 1
4.2 Damage to Port Facilities by Past Earthquakes 4- 3
4.2.1 Gravity Type Quaywalls 4- 3
4.2.2 Sheetpile Bulkheads 4- 4
4.2.3 Pile Supported Piers 4- 6
4.2.4 Breakwaters 4- 6
4.3 Evaluation of Seismic Performance 4- 7
4.3.1 General 4- 7
4.3.2 Seismic Performance Requirement for Port Facilities 4- 7
4.3.3 Pseudo-static Method 4- 8
4.3.4 Earthquake Response Analysis 4- 9
4.3.5 Seismic deformation method 4- 16
4.4 Earthquake Load 4- 18
4.4.1 Design Seismic Coefficient 4- 18
4.5 Lateral Earth Pressure and Water Pressure during Earthquake 4- 22
4.5.1 General 4- 22
4.5.2 Apparent Seismic Coefficient (Seismic Coefficient of Submerged Soil Layer) 4- 22
4.5.3 Dynamic Water Pressure During Earthquake 4- 22
4.6 Liquefaction Prediction/Determination Method 4- 22
4.6.1 General 4- 22
4.6.2 Grain Size Distribution and SPT-N Value 4- 22
4.6.3 Undrained Cyclic Triaxial Test and Seismic Response Analysis (Sensitive
Assess Method) 4- 24
4.7 Seismic Design of High Seismic Resistant Quaywalls 4- 25
4.7.1 Evaluation of Seismic Performance of High Seismic Resistant Facilities 4- 26
4.7.2 Design Seismic Coefficient of High Seismic Resistant Quay Walls 4- 26
4.8 New Seismic Design of Open Piled Piers 4- 31
4.8.1 General 4- 31
4.8.2 Seismic Performance Requirements 4- 31
4.8.3 Design Earthquake Forces 4- 32
4.8.4 Structural Analysis Procedures 4- 32
4. EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN OF PORT FACIILITIES
BUREAU OF THE PORTS AND HARBOURS MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT
4.1 History of revisions of design codes
Having been established in 1951, the Port and
Harbour Law in Japan has been revised many
times so far. The important revision in view of
the design of port and harbour facilities was made
in 1974, in which it was noticed that the port and
harbour facilities must be constructed, maintained
and rehabilitated in accordance with the Techni-
cal Standard of Port and Harbour Facilities. In
1975 the engineering requirement was established
as the Ordinance of the Ministry of Transport and
it was prescribed in the ordinance that the faciliti-
es in ports and harbours must be stable against
the loads such as earthquake loads, dead weights,
wave forces, impacts due to ships andso on.
The Technical Standard of Port and Harbour
Facilities was established in 1973 as the order of
the Director General of Bureau of the Ports and
Harbours, Ministry of" Transport, in which the
details on earthquake resistant design, such as
design procedures, factor of safety and allowable
stresses, were specified.
In 1979 the Technical Standard of Port and
Harbour Facilities and its Commentary was com-
piled under the supervision of the Bureau of the
Ports and Harbours, Ministry of Transport, and
has been revised in every ten years after the 1979
edition.
Seismic stability of the port and harbour
structures was to be examined only by the
pseudo-static method in the 1979 edition and
1989 edition of the Technical Standards. The
pseudo-static method is called the seismic coeffi-
cient method, and the earthquake load is obtained
by the multiplication of the design seismic coeffi-
cient and the vertical load. The design seismic
coefficient is obtained by the multiplication of the
regional seismic coefficient, the factor for subsoil
condition, and the importance factor. Those three
4-1
factors were classified into three groups respec-
tively, with the regional seismic coefficient
ranging from 0.05 to 0.15, the factor for subsoil
condition ranging from 0.8 to 1.2, and the im-
portance factor ranging from 0.5 to 1.5. The re-
sultant value, the design seismic coefficient, was
rounded off to the nearest 0.05 or 0.00. As to the
design of the reinforced concrete structures, al-
lowable stress method was applied.
Significant modification had not been made as
to the earthquake resistant design procedures ever
since the first edition thus far, however, the pro-
cedure of assessing the liquefaction potential was
not stated in the 1973 edition, and was firstly
stated in the 1979 edition.
In 1999, the order of the Director General of
Bureau of the Ports and Harbours was repealed
for variety of reasons, and the Ministry of Trans-
port notified the new detailed Technical Standard.
In the new Technical Standard, some significant
revisions have been made based on the outcome
of the recent research after the 1995 Hyogoken-
Nambu earthquake. Those are summarized as
follows:
(1) Principles of design
The concept of performance-based design
has been introduced. The principles are:
CDAil the structures must be stable against
the level 1 earthquake motions whose re-
turn periods are about 75 years.
High seismic resistant facilities should
keep the required performance against the
level 2 earthquake motions whose retum
periods are over some hundred years.
(2) Seismic coefficient method
CD The regional seismic coefficient and the
importance factor have been modified,
while the factor for subsoil condition has
remained as it was. The number of region-
al groups for the regional seismic coeffi-
cient has come up to five, coefficient
ranging from 0.08 to 0.15. Range of the
importance factor has become from 0.8 to
1.5. In addition, the resultant value has
been considered down to three decimal
places.
(2) The equation for the apparent seismic
coefficient, which is the seismic coeffi-
cient used for the calculation of earth
pressure below groundwater level, has
been modified.
Consideration ofthe dynamic water pres-
sures acting at the front of vertical walls
has been stated.
(3) Assess of earthquake-resistant performance
Assessing way of the earthquake-resistant
performance in view of level 2 earthquake
motions has been introduced.
(4) Assess of liquefaction potential
Assessing way of liquefaction potential has
been modified.
(5) Design method of open piled piers
Modified pseudo-static design method, whi-
ch is called the modified seismic coefficient
method, has been introduced for the design
of open piled piers.
(6) Design method of reinforced concrete struc-
tures
Limit state design method has been intro-
duced, and safety factors for the design have
been established.
The history of revisions of design codes IS
summarized in Table 4.1.1.
Table 4.1.1 Summary of history of revisions of design codes
1973 1979 1989 1999
Earthquake design level One level Two levels
Seismic coefficient method
0 0
modified
Performance-based design principles -
0
Assess of liquefaction potential -
0 0
modified
Design of open piled piers Seismic coefficient Modified seismic coefficient
method method
Design of reinforced concrete structure Allowable stress method Limit state design method
4-2
20.0
,-------.-------- muJ
I: \\
LWL. 0.0 \:;.J---l.... ' -------.-,
- - - Before earthquake
---- After earthquake
a
+3..tl2 = ,.,,--=-
;;rIi "", ...
vH.W.L+1. I :.. _ - - - - - .....
i L.W.L+0.5 0.43 I ..........
. I I .....
I Caisson I
I I Rubble "-
I L B H I Backfill -, .....
I 15.0x12.0XO.6 I >-
-9.11 I 1. "\) -- --
_-..1---------.....:...< >:
- <: __ B.u.!?ll!.el'1E.ull d__ .>: Unit (m)
The 1993 Kushiro-Oki earthquake
A typical cross section of a gravity type quay-
wall at Kushiro port is shown in FigA.2.2. As
shown in the figure, a caisson wall was put on a
firm foundation with SPT N-values ranging from
30 to 50, with a loose backfill. Shaken with a
peak bedrock acceleration of O.28g, residual dis-
placement of the caisson walls ranged from Om to
OA3m, on average 0.24m.
FigA.2.1 Cross section and deformation of a
quaywalI at Gaiko District in Akita port
13.0
Concrete Caisson
the evidence of ground liquefaction and the
ground liquefaction behind the caisson might
have a major effect on the deformation of the
caisson and the settlement at the apron.
_______. before
-- after
quaywall at Kushiro port (West port District
No.2 West quaywaIl-9m)
Port facilities ill Japan has been suffering
severe damage by earthquakes, such as the 1964
Niigata earthquake, the 1968 Tokachi-Oki earth-
quake, the 1978 Miyagiken-Oki earthquake, the
1983 Nipponkai-Chubu earthquake, the 1993 Ku-
shiro-Oki earthquake, the 1993 Hokkaido-
Nansei-Oki earthquake, the 1995 Hyogoken-
Nambu earthquake, etc. Earthquakes that induce
severe damage for port facilities have been occur-
ring approximately once in five years in Japan.
The details of the damage caused by those earth-
quakes were carefully surveyed and summarized
in the reports.
The observation of the strong-motion earth-
quake at major ports in Japan has been conducted
since 1962 and strong ground motions by these
earthquakes were recorded at various ports.
Therefore, the relationship between ground mo-
tion and damage of port facilities has been ex-
amined carefully since 1962. Although the
mechanism and pattern of the damage depend on
the type of facilities, strong ground motion char-
acteristics and geotechnical properties of founda-
tion have a major effect on the extent of damage.
In this section, typical damage of various types
of port facilities and its mechanism are summa-
rized considering the ground motion characteris-
tics and geotechnical background.
4.2 Damage to port facilities by past
earthquakes
4.2.1 Gravity type quaywalls
The 1983 Nipponkai-Chubu earthquake
Figure 4.2.1 shows a cross section of a quay-
wall at Gaiko district in Akita port. A typical
feature of the damage was a large settlement at
the apron in an order of 1.0 to 1.5m, and the cais-
son wall inclined toward the sea by 1.6 degree.
Maximum horizontal displacement at the top of
the caisson was lAm. Observed was 0.22g of
maximum acceleration in Akita port. There was
4-3
- - - before
-- after
The 1995 Hyougoken-Nambu earthquake
Gravity type quaywalls in Kobe port slid to
offshore side 1m to Sm and subsided 1m to 2m,
subsidence behind the quaywalls of 3m to 4m due
to the lateral deformation of the quaywall as indi-
cated in FigA.2.3. As shown in this figure, a cais-
son wall was put on loosely deposited decom-
posed granite. A peak acceleration of 0.55g at a
depth of GL-32m was recorded at the Port Island
vertical seismic array site in Kobe port.
\7O.
+2.37

I \
I _
Tie Rod 1=11.0
E
E
0
c::
0
tti
"S-
Ol
s:
Ul

quaywall in Kobe port (RC-5, Rokko Island
-14m)
Alluvial ClayLayer
Backfillin Sand
for Replacing Clay Layer

Sand Drain
Unil(m}
FigA.2A Cross section of a sheetpile bulkhead
in Yamanoshita Revetment in Niigata port
T:'.: C _L ........: 1:' ..... L _
.rlgUlC '"t .L. .J snows a (.;1U::;::; ::;C(.;l.!UH Ul anouier
sheetpile bulkhead in Yamanoshita wharf Con-
struction of this wharf was completed about one
year before the earthquake. The earthquake re-
sistance design of the wharf was carried out using
the design seismic coefficient of 0.12. As seen in
the figure, no appreciable damage was observed,
except for a local sinking of the fill behind the
anchor plate.
4.2.2 Sheetpile bulkheads
The 1964 Niigata earthquake
The majority of quaywalls in Niigata port were
sheetpile bulkheads. A typical damage of the
sheetpile bulkheads was their swelling and tilting
toward the sea. This type of damage was ob-
served mostly in bulkheads with poor anchor re-
sistance. In such cases, the swelling of bulkheads
was accompanied by a horizontal shear at a joint
of the top concrete and the upper end of sheet-
piles.
A cross section of a sheetpile bulkhead in
Yamanoshita Revetment is shown in FigA.2A. A
characteristic feature of the damage was an over-
all settlement. A face line of the walls swelled
more or less toward the sea and some of the top
concrete blocks sank completely under the water.
4-4
Tie Rod
FigA.2.5 Cross section of a sheetpile bulkhead
in Yamanoshita wharf in Niigata port
The 1968 Tokachi-oki earthquake
As shown in FigA.2.6, the Konakano No.1
quaywall in Hachinohe port was heavily damaged
by the earthquake. The walls tilted 5 degrees and
swelled toward the sea by O.6m at maximum due
to insufficient anchor resistance. Tension cracks
in the direction parallel to the face line and set-
- _. before
- aIler
-5.0 VV
Tlrrber PileI
15.0
__ . [+250
::: 1
1\ \
TIe Rod Tumbuclde
"
" s:
-4.5

L- 068.0

LWL O.ro
-10.0
- -1.lV..t.?;t--
in Hanasaki port
The 1973 Nemuro-hanto-oki earthquake
As shown in FigA.2.8, the sheetpile bulkhead
was severely damaged by the earthquake. Ac-
cording to the investigation after the earthquake,
the tie rods were not cut and the damage was es-
timated to have been caused by the decrease of
anchoring capacity due to the seismic effect.
The 1983 Nipponkai-chubu earthquake
The severe damage occurred on the sheetpile
bulkhead at Ohama NO.2 wharf of -10m depth.
Typical features of damage in the quaywall were
a large settlement at the apron and a tilting of the
coping. Through the investigation after the earth-
quake, the sheetpile damage was summarized as
shown in Fig.4.2.9. These damages were estimat-
ed to be caused mainly by liquefaction of the
backfilling sand.
+2.0
LWL o.oo
+2.73
- - - before
-- after
-7.00
-12.00
-14.50
tlement in an order of several 10cm occurred in
the backfill surface. The maximum acceleration
of the earthquake was observed to be 0.26g in
this district.
- - - l:efore
-after
in Konakano No.1 quaywaII in Hachinohe
port
The sheetpile bulkhead with batter anchor
piles, the quaywall of Kitahama pier in Hakodate
port, was damaged by the earthquake as shown in
FigA.2.7. The fixation point of sheetpiles and an-
chorpiles was broken and the face line of the
quaywall swelled toward the sea by 59cm at
+3.00
HWL +1.04 ,
LWL O.00
maximum.
Fig.4.2.7 Cross section of a sheetpile bulk-
head in Kitahama pier in Hakodate port
Fig.4.2.9 Cross section of a sheetpile bulkhead
at Ohama No.2 pier in Akita port
4-5
4.2.3 Pile supported piers
The 1964 Niigata earthquake
The severe damage was observed on the tres-
tle type quaywalls at Rinko district in Niigata
port. The ground having consisted of very loose
sandy alluvial layer, a typical feature of damage
in this area was a large settlement. The quaywall
shown in FigA.2.10 sank completely under the
water.
+2.40
l7 +0.00
-1.50
II
II
II
II
II
,
FigA.2.10 Cross section of a trestle type pier
in B Berth in Niigata port
Composite breakwaters consisting of concrete
caissons and the foundation rubble in Kobe port
suffered damage as shown in Fig.4.2.12. These
breakwaters were constructed on loose decom-
posed granite, which was filled into the area after
the excavation of the original alluvial clay layer.
TIle breakwater settled about 1.4 to 2.6m through
the earthquake. The horizontal displacements of
the breakwater, however, were less than tens of
em. The mode of deformation suggests that the
caisson was pushed into the rubble foundation
and the rubble was also dragged down and
pushed into the loose deposit beneath it.
- - - before
-after
-16.7
FigA.2.11 Cross section and deforma-
tionlfailure of a pile supported pier at Kobe
port
before
-afler
Unit(m)
Clay
.... Backfill Soil, after c; /"
.... - ! - ' ~ s Excavating Clay Layer 'j'> /"
........... ///
......< : : ~ : : . -40.00.:::':'-;;':'--
1-15}0- J
.gL.W.L
Clay
The 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu earthquake
A pile supported pier suffered damage at Ta-
kahama wharf in Kobe port. The horizontal
residual displacement of the pier ranged from 1.3
to 1.7m. A typical example of the cross section
and deformation of the pile supported pier is
shown in FigA.2.ll. As shown in this figure, the
pier was constructed on a :firm foundation deposit
consisting of alternating layers of Pleistocene
clay and sandy gravel. The steel piles having a
diameter of 700mm buckled at the pile heads ex-
cept for the piles located most landward. A crack
was observed at the connection of the pile cap
and the concrete beam located most landward.
4.2.4 Breakwaters
The 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu earthquake
Fig.4.2.12 Cross section and deformation of a
breakwater at Kobe port (Breakwater No.7)
4-6
4.3 Evaluation of Seismic Performance
4.3.1 General
In the design of port facilities, the effect of
earthquakes should be taken into account so
that they possess appropriate amount of
seismic resistance.
Explanation
(1) Earthquake resistant design should be
applied to port facilities as explained :in this
chapter. Seismic resistance of bridges, oil
be examined based on other appropriate
regulations and guidelines.
(2) In the examination of seismic resistance,
following factors should be taken into account.
(a) Seismicity of the region, target earthquake
and target ground motion.
(b) Subsoil conditions.
(c) Importance of the facility, which should be
determined based on various factors
including it's role in the society or economy.
(d) Seismic resistance of the facility.
(3) Following factors should be examined to
assure the seismic resistance of the facility.
(a) Stability of the whole structure.
(b) Stability of the subsoil against failure.
(c) Effects of liquefaction on the stability of
subsoil and upper structure.
(d) Stress of the members of the structure.
(e) Relative displacements between various
portions of a structure, between structures
or between structure and soil. This factor
may be important for the purpose of
maintaining the functions of the structure
after the earthquake.
(4) At Kobe Port, the type of structures were
quite uniform during the 1995 Hyogoken-
Nanbu earthquake. This is why almost all of
the structures suffered similar damage. If the
type of structures had been more diverse, the
amount of damage for each structure should not
have been uniform because their response
characteristics should have been different.
4-7
Based on this experience, in the choice of the
structural type of port facilities, it is
recommended to adopt various type of
structures as long as possible.
Related information
Seismic performance of port facilities should
be examined with pseudo-static method,
earthquake response analysis and/or seismic
deformation method depending on the dynamic
characteristics of the structure.
Seismic resistance of structures which are
relatively rigid and will not show much
amplification during earthquake, should be
design seismic coefficient designated in 4.4 and
4.7. Gravity type quay wall is a typical example
of such structure.
For structures which has a small damping
factor and a natural period close to
predominant period of ground motion or for the
structures which has a relatively long natural
period, modified pseudo-static method should
be applied, taking into account the dynamic
characteristics of the structure. The application
of modified pseudo-static method to the design
of piled piers is explained in 4.8.
The seismic resistance of buried line
structures such as tunnels and pipelines should
be examined with seismic deformation method
because the safety of these structures are
controlled by the deformation of surrounding
soil.
If the facility is especially important or the
type of structure is rare and there is no similar
conventional structure, it is recommended that
it's seismic resistance should be examined by
using earthquake response analysis together
with . conventional pseudo-static method,
modified pseudo-static method or seismic
deformation method. The earthquake response
analysis should be based on appropriate
modeling of related conditions including the
structure and the earthquake.
4.3.2 Seismic performance requirement for port
facilities.
the importance of the liquefaction mitigation.
Seismic coefficient
(Level-I
ground motion)
I
Seismic coefficient -Regional seismic coefficient
X Factor for subsoil condition
x Importance factor
I
Cross section of the facility
I
Assessment of liquefaction
and mitigation
I
Figure 4.3.1 Design process applied to
all port facilities
Detailed design
(2) During the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu
earthquake, the lateral movement of the ground
caused significant damage to piles. In the
earthquake resistant design of port structures,
the mitigation of liquefaction is always required
when necessary. Therefore, it is only in very
limited case that that the liquefaction or related
lateral movement of the ground is allowed and
used as a given condition of the design of
structures. In these limited cases, the design
should be performed adequately based on the
earthquake response analysis as a part of the
examination of earthquake resistance of soil-
structure system or based on the references
regarding lateral movement of the ground.
Explanation
(1) Port facilities should sustain their structural
stability and maintain their functions for a
level-1 ground motion, which by definition
occurs with high probability during the
facility's duration.
(2) High seismic resistant facilities, which are
especially important and require high
seismic resistance, are allowed to suffer only
slight damage for a level-2 ground motion,
which by definition occurs with relatively
low probability during the facility's duration
but which is very intense. In other words,
high seismic resistant facilities should be
prepared for rapid restoration to sustain
their intended functions after a level-2
ground motion.
In the seismic design :of port structures, a
level 1 ground motion, which has a return
period of 75 years and a level 2 ground motion,
which is a ground motion due to intra-plate
earthquake with a return period of more than
several hundred years or a ground motion due
to a subduction zone earthquake, should be
taken into account.
High seismic resistant facilities include high
seismic resistant quay walls, which are
specially designed for the transportation of
emergency cargo or for the maintenance of
economic or social activity just after the
earthquake, and the revetments of the disaster
prevention base, which is intended to keep the
safety of the citizen just after the earthquake.
While 'to maintain their functions' means to
sustain their structural stability, 'to sustain
intended functions' means to suffer only a slight
damage and to be prepared for a immediate
restoration.
Related information
(1) Fig. 4.3.1 shows the design procedure
required for all of the port facilities. In this
procedure, after determining the structural
parameters, the evaluation of liquefaction
potential and the mitigation of liquefaction is
requested. This is based on the appreciation of
4.3.3 Pseudo-static method
4-8
(1) In principle, seismic load for port
structures with relatively short natural
period and relatively high damping' factor
should be designated as a design seismic
coefficient for pseudo-static approach. In this
case, the design seismic coefficient designated
in 4.4 and 4.7 should be used. Seismic inertia
force should be the larger of the following (a)
and (b) and should be assumed to act on the
gravity center of the structure.
(a) (Seismic force)::::
(Self weight) x (Seismic coefficient)
(b) (Seismic force)=(Self weight +
Surcharge) x (Seismic coefficient)
(2) For structures for which pseudo-static
method is not applied, seismic load should be
designated in an appropriate manner, taking
into account the characteristics of the
Istructure.
Explanation
(1) For quay walls and other similar port
structures, pseudo-static method is applied as
for other wide range of structures1) Because
natural periods of these structures are generally
higher than predominant periods of ground
motions, the response of these structures during
earthquake are similar to those of rigid bodies
on a rigid table. In this case, it is assumed that
the seismic load is proportional to the structure's
weight, The seismic coefficient is defined as the
seismic load divided by the weight. In pseudo-
static method it is assumed that the seismic load
acts as if it were a static load at the gravity
center of the structure.
(3) Because the seismic load is assumed to act as
a static load in the pseudo-static method, it is
necessary to take into account the difference
between the real phenomena and the
assumptions in the method. To appreciate this
difference, the safety factor and the allowable
stress for dynamic loads are different from those
for static load.
(3) It is preferable to examine the seismic
resistance of those structures which has a longer
natural period compared to predominant periods
of ground motion or for which the distribution of
acceleration is not uniform along the height. In
this case, seismic load should be assumed to be
the product of the weight of the portions of the
structure and the seismic coefficient of the
particular portion depending on the response
characteristics of the structure. In modified
pseudo-static design of port structure, design
seismic coefficient designated in 4.4 is used for
the calculation of seismic load. Therefore, the
only difference of modified pseudo-static method
compared to original pseudo-static method lies
in the computation of the distribution of seismic
coefficient along the height of the structure. See
4.8 for details of the modified pseudo-static
method for piled piers.
(4) The effect of the vertical component of ground
motion depends on the type of structure and on
strict to consider vertical seismic coefficient, the
vertical seismic coefficient is not required to be
considered in the design code because of
following reasons. First, it is preferable to avoid
the complexity of the computation. Second,
according to the observation of ground motion,
the vertical component is usually smaller than
the horizontal component except for near-source
region. Thirdly, the horizontal design seismic
coefficient designated in 4.4 includes the effect of
vertical seismic ground motion-. Because of these
reasons, the consideration of horizontal design
seismic coefficient is sufficient for the design of
usual port structures.
4.3.4 Earthquake response analysis
If the facility is especially important or the
type of structure is rare and there is no
similar conventional structure, it is
recommended that it's seismic resistance
should be examined by using earthquake
response analysis together with conventional
pseudo-static method or seismic deformation
method.
Explanation
(1) General explanation
4-9
Recently, new type of port facilities or
extremely large port facilities have been
designed and constructed. On the other hand, it
is sometimes required to construct port
structures at a site with a poor subsoil
conditions. Furthermore, as explained in 4.7, it
is requested to examine whether a high seismic
resistant facility will maintain their functions
after a near-source ground motion such as the
ground motion at Kobe Port during the 1995
Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake. It is
recommended to examine earthquake resistance
of structures-by conducting earthquake response
analysis to understand the performance of
structures during earthquake more precisely jf
-LL _ .L- .f! _.J.. :. :..J'! .L-l- __.L-..._w ...... J... ... .; ....
Lilt: LYIJl::: UJ. ::;L.I:UCLUJ.-t: L:5 ilew U.I: .ll I,llt: ::;L.l:U{.;l>UJ.1:: -'-'"
especially important.
(2) Implementation of earthquake response
analysis.
When earthquake response analysis is
conducted, first, appropriate method should be
selected. Then the structure should be modeled
for that particular method and the material
properties should be determined. Furthermore,
input ground motion should be determined. The
validity of the results should be examined
carefully in the light of the limitation of the
method, the limitation of the modeling and the
accuracy of the material property;
Related Information
(1) Input ground motion
(a) In the design of structures, it is
recommended to determine input ground motion
based on past observations or earthquake
response analysis of the ground. Strong motion
records at Japanese ports have been
accumulated and published since 1963
2
).
(b) For determining peak amplitude and
waveform of the ground motion, the size and the
source-mechanism of the earthquake, the
distance and the site effects should be taken into
account.
(c) When past records are used, if the soil
conditions at the observation site and the
construction site are different, the surface
records should be deconvolved to obtain incident
wave at the bedrock, which can be used as a
incident wave to compute surface motion at the
construction site. For this process, response
analysis of the ground based on multiple-
reflection theory can be used. Multiple reflection
method, however, is based on equivalent-linear
theory. Therefore, the method can be applied
only when the shear strain in the soil is less
than 1%. It should be noted that if the target
ground motion is of level-2, the method is not
applicable in many cases.
(d) To determine the peak amplitude or the
_-J ... .. .. .. .. th\
.1..llVW.Vll , ltL!.aL vv,ac; J.L.I. "oJ!
should be considered. Following equation has
been presented to estimate peak amplitude of
ground motion at engineering-oriented
bedrock",
Log
l
oAcoR=O.55M
-loglO(X+O.0050 X lOD.05M)
- O.00122X+O.502. (4.3.1)
Log
l
A MAC=O.53M
-loglO<X+O.0062 X
- O.00169X+O.524. (4.3.2)
Log
lO
V=0.48M
-loglO<X+O.014 X 100.43M)
- O.00060X-O.324. (4.3.3)
Here, AcOR is the corrected peak ground
acceleration (Gal), A
SMAC
is the peak ground
acceleration measured with SMAC-t-ype
accelerograph (Gal), V is the peak ground
velocity (kine), M is the magnitude, X is the
closest distance from the fault to the site (km).
Strong motion observations. at Japanese ports
have been conducted with SMAC-type and ERS-
type accelerographs, Because of the different
characteristics of these types of seismographs,
they give different waveforms. SMAC-type
accelerograph gives smaller peak ground
acceleration. Therefore accelerograms from
these two different manner should be treated in
a different way. In the standard process of the
4-10
strong motion observation at Japanese ports,
records are corrected for their characteristics
of the accelerographs and published as
"corrected records". Corrected records can be
treated in the same way irrespective of the type
of accelerographs. This is the reason why
usually corrected records are used in the
earthquake response analysis.
Although almost all of the accelerographs at
Japanese ports are of ERS-type, most of the past
earthquake records were obtained by SMAC-
type accelerographs. Therefore, past research
were based on the SMAC records. Because the
determination of design seismic coefficient of
high seismic resistant quay walls and
given in FigA.3.2 and expressed in EqA.3A.
Log
1oA=3.159+0.234M-
l.4781og
lDX.
(4.3.4)
Here, A is the peak ground acceleration of
engineering-oriented bedrock (Gal), M is the
magnitude, X is the shortest distance from the
site to the fault (km).
(2) Methods for earthquake response analysis
Methods for earthquake response analysis can
be divided into two categories, that is, numerical
analysis with computers and vibration tests.
Figure 4.3.2 Attenuation relations for
Pacific side of Tohoku
500 1000
M :r6.0
It J.iI:: 7. .:1.
oM' 7.2
x M>6.7
.c. M-6.5-6.0
a M = .5.9_5..5

.. M ::4.9-4,0
( I , I I I Ii
100
Fault distance [km]
50
500
1000.-
100
..-.
--;

Q.
<:
0
0.-
J

J
10
(a) Numerical analysis
Table 4.3.1 shows various methods for numerical
earthquake response analysis.
1) Effective stress analysis and total stress
analysis
When the soil is liquefied, the pore water
pressure is induced in the soil and the effective
stress decreases. As a result, rigidity and
damping of the soil change. Effective stress
analysis can treat these situations and the
liquefaction assesment is based on
research, SMAC PGA is used for these
examinations.
(e) Most commonly used seismograms in the
design of port structures are shown in FigA.7.3.
These waveforms, however, are equivalent to
SMAC-type accelerographs. In the earthquake
response analysis, corrected waveforms should
be used.
(f) Alley observations of strong motion have been
conducted, which are useful in measuring the
. strain of the ground during earthquake. In
general strong motion accelerations are directly
observed and the displacement can be obtained
by integrating the records. This integration
often fails in error because of the error during
the digitization. A method to avoid the error
during the integration was presented.
Displacement waveforms based on this method
are displayed in reference 2).
(g) In pseudo-static design, the vertical
component of ground motion is usually neglected.
In the earthquake response analysis, however,
vertical component of ground motion should be
sometimes taken into account. The peak vertical
ground motion divided by peak horizontal
ground motion usually ranges between 1/3-
1/2
3
),4) .
(11) According to the examination of past strong-
motion records, the attenuation of peak ground
acceleration is dependent on the region. The
regional attenuation was examined for the
Pacific coast of Tohoku area. The results are
4-11
Table 4.3.1 Methods of numerical earthquake response analysis
Treatment of excess
I
Effective stress Total stress
pore water pressure
i
Dimension
I
I-D, 2-D. 3-D
I ,
Modeling
i
Multiple reflection model. :MDQIi'. FEM
I
I
Material
Linear. Equivalent-linear, Nonlinear
Domain
Time domain, Frequency domain
'"
07
I
05
I
I'J
0.3
,
Time
01 0.2

i (rnJ (kN/JJI") j fmJ'$J i '!='
. 6 ! 19.5 i
I
i I 4119.3 "Ii 200 I
: I
! I I '
I t a ! 16.1
J
ef l : : ;
1
14
JO.7! '20 i
, I I
! i i
I " 1 1a. 5 I '20 I
I .
!
I
r
(a) Material properties (b) Reflection and transmission
Figure 4.3.3 Multiple reflection model
4-12
excess pore water 'pressure in the soil can be
computed directly, On the other hand, in total
stress analysis the pore water pressure is not
computed and the effect of pore water pressure
on the response is not considered. Therefore, in
the case of high pore water pressure (the pore
water pressure ratio of 0.5 or greater), the
results of total stress analysis is not accurate. In
the practical design, however, total stress
analysis is often utilized because of it's
simplicity. In many cases, stress or acceleration
given by effective stress analysis is smaller than
those given by total stress analysis.
2) Dimension of the domain
The dimension ranges from 1 to 3. In general the
response of horizontally layered soil is treated as
a I-D problem. On the other hand, structure-soil
system such as quay walls which satisfies
plane-strain condition is 'treated by 2-Danalysis.
Although there are some cases in which 3-D
analysis is more appropriate, 3-D analysis is
mainly used for especially important structures
or research purposes because of the limitations
of computers.
3) Modes for computation
a) Multiple reflection model
In this model, the soil layers are considered
to be horizontally homogeneous as shown in
FigA.3.3 and vertical incidence of a shear
wave is assumed. In this method, stress-
strain relation is usually assumed to be
equivalent-linear. SHAKE
5
) adopts this
algorithm.
b) MDOF model
In this model, the soil is considered to be a
combination of masses, springs and dampers
as shown :in. Fig.4.3A. The algorithm of this
method is simple. It is also possible to
consider nonlinear restoring force.
c) FEM, etc.
In this model, the soil is divided mto finite
elements as shown in FigA.3.5. This method
is applicable not only soils but also many
types of materials. The main feature of this
method is that the 2-D characteristics of the
soil is easily taken into account. Practical
program for this method includes FLUSH
6
),
BEAD?) and FLIPS).
d) Cantilever model
Structure (or soil) is modeled as a cantilever
with a constant or linearly varying material
properties. Shear beam model is most
commonly used. Information regarding the
shape of the structure, density, rigidity and
damping is necessary for computation.
4) Evaluation of material properties.
In the earthquake response analysis, modeling
of the soil nonlinearity is also important. In the
low strain range, stress-strain relation of the soil
is linear. In the middle or high strain range,
however, this relation is nonlinear, In such cases,
nonlinearity of the soil has to be taken into
account. Today, besides linear analysis,
equivalent-linear analysis, which uses material
parameters corresponding to the level of strain,
and nonlinear analysis, which reproduces actual
stress-strain relation at large strain to some
extent, have been developed and used. The effect
of the deference of modeling among these
analysis can be summarized as follows. Fig.
4.3.6 shows the comparison among linear,
equivalent-linear (SHAKE), Bi-linear, Tri-linear,
Hardin-Drnevich and Ramberg-Osgood models
as applied to I-D soil response problem in which
the amplitude of input ground motion is 100Gal.
G/G
o
- 'l' and h- 'Y curves from these models are
set to be consistent with experimental results at
the strain level of 0.3%. The figure shows the
distribution of peak acceleration, peak stress
and peak strain. In this range of the input
motion amplitude, the models which considers
soil-nonlinearlity has a tendency to give smaller
response acceleration / stress and larger strain.
Difference between equivalent-linear model and
nonlinear model are small as long as the peak
strain is less than 1%. In the case of level-2
ground motion, however, peak shear strain often
exceeds 1%. At our current state of knowledge it
is difficult to determine whether above
mentioned tendency applies to' such cases.
In the earthquake response analysis, G/G
o
- "I .
and h- 'Y curves from the models should be
consistent with the results of experiment at the
strain level of concern. In general, masing-rule
is used for representing the stress-strain loop. It
has been revealed that this rule overestimates
4-13
H
Vs {ml si
37 , '5.6
M 5
M 4 In
M 3 K4
M 2 K 3
M I K2

I
I 7.5 /6.7
(a) Material properties
(b) Multiple degree of freedom system
Figure 4.3.4 Multiple degree of freedom (J\1DOF) system
Cohesive soil
(.!jilli : rn)
Sand drain
2-l.lY./
7-:tlJXl-3S.0':
30.50
Basement of crane Backfill soil
Gravel /'"1.< I , v-6.0
Gravel
11.J
Replaced soil
9-14.50
,,;/1 l;
v-IH.sn
v H.W.L+1.7m
' LW.L""*"O.om
Cohesive soil
(a)"Cross section of the target structure
Inclination
4.1"
\l Horizontal displacement
3.5m
\'ertical displacement I 5m
, ,
I ,I I I I
T ............. ...,..."'T'"-r ..... _ J +4.0m
-!--' _ -H-\-;i..(: eJ.:I.:.l''- X t
______ __
...... ,._ _ _ _ ....... _to.. _ "_.1
- ---.. -"'--
-- - - - - - -...- .."
, I
,
, ,
i
"I ,
I I I ' i
I i I I I i
I I 1 I ; ; I
I ,
I I ;
Iii i
I I ;
(b) Results of FEM analysis'
Figure 4.3.5 FEM analysis
4-14
Cl mcx =' 100Gai
S - 252 NS Bose
400
0--QLin
0---08- L
Lr--6T- L
V---'V H - D
- 0
--SHAKE
300 200
Acceler-ation a (Gal)
100
,

l <,
i
'\',B
..------;--
i
I
1'1)
'/
I i '
x -'- I>
,
:
i..: I
,
'1. ,/ /
I
I
I
: 'I 1\
'-"<.,
!\
I
%
. ;
j),o'
>!::;l
>,.u
'" V
i \
I
" I
:Ii I
,
i I
a
12.3
-73.6
E
o
S-252 NS Base
Omex =IOOGal
1.5
o--oLin
o--oS - L
is--':' T - L
y--"7 H - D
<>--- R- 0
--SHAKE
Shear strain y (%)
05 1.0
'$>-.
0 -0

i
I

i
!
. "",4 i
q
!
9
i
i
;
. I
q
71
!
I
JI:
:
C!
-,
!WoP i
;)#>'1\
!

,
If'
i
,J:r
!
Iti'f i i
12.3
-73.6
Shear stress -r: (Him')
s- 252 NS Base
Omex ='IOOGol
0--0 Lin
o--oS-L
Lr---6. T - L
v---v H - D
o-.- R - a
-- SHAKE
50 40 30 20 10
a;:a... o., ,
I I
-c;
I
!
I

I
!
c>-
.
i\\
"",-
'<f
(
:;.;0
,
I

....-
i
l;;:(, L>: ?J;
'-[ -, i
i f'..
i
1"< ?
I
'-< \7
__ 0
I
:
QI \ItS

I
<s. \Zl' u.:.
!
I

i
i I 'Qy
i
,
--
! -.
,
0
12.3
0 0
-73.6
Figure 4.3.6 Comparison ofthe modeling of soil noninearitv (l)
4-15
the damping in the case oflarge strain. Today an
approach to mitigate this discrepancy has been
presented, in which the thickness of stress-
strain loop is controlled to give more realistic
damping factors". FLIP is one of the programs
which use this approach.
Fig. 4.3.7 compares the results of SHAKE,
DESRA (hyperbolic model) and CHARSOIL
(Ramberg-Osgood model) for the same ground
motion (El Centro-1940NS, PGA=O.lG) and for
the same soil layers'?', SHAKE gives larger
surface acceleration and shear stress. Today
there is a consensus to think that equivalent-
linear analysis such as SHAKE gives safe-side
results, although the situation will depend on
the soil and ground motion characteristics.
5) TIme domain and frequency domain.
Nonlinear analysis including effective stress
analysis is usually implemented in time domain.
If the excess pore water pressure is small (pore
water pressure ratio less than 0.5), effective
stress analysis may be implemented in
frequency domain in a similar manner as
equivalent-linear analysis.
6) Effect of water
In FEM programs, the effect of water should
be properly taken into account by using fluid
element. For example, FLIP has a fluid element
by which sea water can be treated as a non-
compressional fluid.
(b) Vibration tests
This is a test in which model soil-structure
system is subject to ground motion. This is a
convenient method to understand the global
performance of soil-structure system. High skill.
is required, however, to conduct vibration tests.
Vibration tests include log shaking table tests,
centrifuge tests and in-situ vibration tests.
(3) FOl' dynamic characteristics of the structure
(vibration mode, natural period and damping), it
is convenient to refer to the results of in-situ
measurement and/or numerical analysis.
(4) Earthquake response analysis requires the
evaluation of nonlinear material properties.
Effective stress analysis is a method to consider
this nonlinear properties relatively accurately.
Now effective stress analysis has been proved to
be a efficient method to evaluate seismic
performance of structure including residual
deformation and residual stress. On the other
hand, equivalent-linear analysis has been used
widely because of it's simplicity, Material
properties for this analysis should be
determined by conducting experiment or by
referring to past analysis.
(5) The effect of water should be taken into
account if the structure has an interface with
water.
(6) Sometimes large and temporal response
appears in the results of earthquake response
analysis. These phenomena can be evaluated by
referring to the past design of similar structure
or related research results.
4.3.5 Seismic deformation method
Because the deformation of line structures
etc. buried in the soil during earthquake is
controlled by surrounding soil, it is preferable
that such structures should be designed by
using seismic deformation method.
Explanation
(1)In the examination of earthquake resistance
of line structures such as tunnels or oil-
pipelines, the relative displacement of the
ground is important. The relative
displacement is dependent on the
characteristics of ground motion and the soil
conditions.
(2) Besides line structures buried in the soil,
seismic deformation method has been applied
to dams. Seismic deformation method can be
applied to structures other than line
structures as long as the residual
displacement of the structure can be
appropriately evaluated.
4-16
Period (,)
'mol
(kg/lem')
j
C 01 0.2 03 0.4 05
'"
~ "
-,
'C,
CHARSOIL
J ",
5 -,
-
,',
!
I \\
/SHAKE
I
-=
\\ [ I
J \\
~
I
~ .
.
~
10
DESRA/ \,
\\
I
2
\\
\ \
,
15
"
Figure 4.3.7 Comparison of the modeling of soil nonlinearity (2)
References
........nnnntOl"
...... "' .......... 1:-' .................... of
1) "Earthquake Resistant Design of Civil
Engineering Structures" by N. Mononobe,
1952 (Revised Edition in Japanese).
2) "Annual Report on Strong-motion
Earthquake Records In Japanese Ports
(1995 & 1996) ,i by Yukihiro Sato, Koji Ichii,
Susumu Iai, Yuko Hoshino, Yoko Sato,
Masafumi Miyata and Toshikazu Morita,
Technical Notes of the Port and Harbour
Research Institute, No.909, 1998 (in
Japanese with English abstract).
3) "Relation between Seismic Coefficient and
Peak Ground Acceleration Estimated from
Attenuation Relations" by A Nozu, T. Uwabe,
Y. Sato and T. Shinozawa, Technical Note of
the Port and Harbour Research Institute,
No.893, 1997 (In Japanese with English
abstract).
4) "Characteristics of Vertical Components of
Strong Motion Accelerograms and Effects of
Vertical Ground Motion on Stability of
Gravity-type Quay wall" by T. Uwabe, S.
Noda and E. Kurata, Report of the Port and
Harbour Eesearcb Institute, Vol. IS, No.2,
197G.
5) "SHAKE-A Computer Program for
Earthquake Response Analysis of
Horizontally Layered Sites" by P.B. Schnabel.
J. Lysmer and H.B. Seed, Report No. EERC
72-12. Col. of Eng., University of California
at Berkeley, December 1972.
4-17
Approximate 3-D analysis of Soil-Structure
Interaction Problems" by J. Lysmer, T.
Udaka, C.F. Tsai and H.B.Seed, Report
No.EERC 75-30, University of California at
Berkley, 1975.
7) "Coupled Hydrodynamic Response
Characteristics and Water Pressures of
Large Composite Breakwater" By T. Uwabe,
S. Noda, T. Chiba and N. Higaki, Report of
the Port and Harbour Research Institute,
Vo1.20, No.4, 1981 (in Japanese with English
abstract).
8) "Strain Space Plasticity Model for Cyclic
Mobility" by S. Iai, Y. Matsunaga and T.
Kameoka, SOlIs and Foundations, Vo1.32,
No.2, pp.1-15.
9) "Modeling of Stress-Strain Relations of Soils
in Cyclic Loading" by K. Ishihara, N.
Yoshida and S. Tsujino, Proceedings of the
{fh Conference on Numerical Methods in
Geomechenics, Nagoya, Vol.L, 1985, pp.373-
380.
10) "Comparison of Dynamic Analysis for
Saturated Sands" by W.D.L. Finn, G.R.
Martin and M.K.W. Lee, Proc. of ABeL
Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics,
VoLI. pp.472-491, 1978.
4.4 Earthquake Load
4.4.1 Design Seismic coefficient
(1) For pseudo-static design of port structures, horizontal design seismic coefficient should be
determined with following equation.
Seismic coefficient =Regional seismic coefficient.x Factor for subsoil condition XImportance factor
(4.4.1)
Horizontal design seismic coefficient should be rounded to obtain two places of decimals. Standard
values for regional seismic coefficient are:
ReID-on A: 0.15
Nemuro, Kushiro, 'Iokachi and Hidaka districts of Hokkaido, Saitama, Chiba, Tokyo (Except for
Hachijo and Ogasawara Islands), Kanagawa, Yamanashi, Shizuoka, Aichi, Gnu, Fukui, Shiga, Mie,
Nara, Wakayama, Osaka and Hyogo.
Recion B: 0.13
Pacific side of Aomori, Iwate, Miyagi, Fukushima, Ibaragi, Tochigi, Gunma, Nagano, Kyoto, Kochi
and Tokushima.
Region C: 0.12
Iburi, Oshima and Hiyama districts of Hokkaido, Aomori (except for Pacific side), Nata, Yamagata,
Niigata, Toyama, Ishikawa, Tottori, Hiroshima, Ehime, Oita, Miyazaki, Amami Islands of
Kagoshima and Kumamoto.
Region D: 0.11
Abashiri, Goshi, Ishikari, Sorachi, Rumoi and Kamikawa districts of Hokkaido, Okayama, 'Iottori,
Kagawa, Nagasaki (except for Goto, Iki and Tsushima Islands), Saga, Kagoshima (except for Amami
Islands) and Okinawa (except for Daito Islands).
Region E: 0.08
Sorachi district of Hokkaido, Hachijo and Ogasawara Islands of Tokyo, Yamaguchi, Fukuoka, Goto,
Ik:i. and Tsushima Islands of Nagasaki and Daito Islands of Okinawa.
Factor for subsoil condition should be determined as shown in Table 4.4.1 and 4.4.2.
Table 4.4.1 Factor for subsoil condition
==--====--===--=====
Classification l"t kind
Factor 0.8 1.0 1.2
Table 4.4.2 Classification of subsoil
Thickness of
Quaternary
Deposit
less than 5m
5-25m
more than 25m
Gravel
Sand
or
clay
4-18
Soft ground
Importance factor should be determined according to Table 4.4.3.
Table 4.4.3 Importance factor
Category
Factor
Special
1.5
A
1.2
B
1.0
C
0.8
========--===--===
Category Special: The structure has significant characteristics described by items ( 1 ) ~ ( 4 ) of
category A.
Categorv A: (1) If the structure is damaged by an earthquake, a large number of human life and
property will possibly be lost. (2) Ifthe structure is damaged by an earthquake, economic or social
activity of the region will be severely suffered. (3) The structure will perform an important role in
the reconstruction work of the region after the earthquake. (4) The structure handles a hazardous
or a dangerous object and it is anticipated that the damage of the structure will cause a great loss
of human life or property. (5) If the structure is damaged, it is supposed that the repair work is
considerably difficult.
Category B: The structure does not belong to categories Special, Anor C.
Category C: The structure does not belong category Special nor A and is easy to repair or, even if
the structure is damaged by an earthquake, the effect on economic or social activity is small.
(2) If vertical seismic coefficient is required in the pseudo-static design, the vertical seismic
coefficient should be determined appropriately, taking into account the characteristics of sn..ucture
and subsoil.
Explanation
(1) In general, factors that has to be considered
in the determination of design seismic
coefficient are regional seismicity, subsoil
conditions, dynamic characteristics of the
structure and the importance of the structure.
Most of the port structures, however, have
relatively short natural period and relatively
large damping factor. Therefore, in general, the
design seismic coefficient for pseudo-static
design is determined without considering the
dynamic characteristics of the structure.
(2) When the design seismic coefficient can be
accurately determined by investigating regional
seismic activity; characteristics of ground
motion, site response, etc., it is preferable to use
this design seismic coefficient instead of the
value designated here. For example, when the
design ground motion is determined based on
the information regarding regional seismic
activities or based on strong ground motion
4-19
observations or when seismic response analysis
of the structure is conducted, design seismic
coefficient can be determined based on these
results.
(3) Th determine importance factor of the
structure, it is necessary to consider not only
the purpose, type or size of the structure but
also social or economic aspects of the structure.
Following factors also should be taken into
account.
1. The extent of damage in the future
earthquake, the difficulty of restoration
work 01' the residual strength after the
earthquake.
2. The cargo-handling capacity of the
other facilities of the same port.
Therefore, it is possible to use different
importance factors for the structures for the
same cargo in the same port when desired.
(4) When computing seismic load, it is not
allowed to subtract buoyancy from the weight
of the structure. In the computation of soil
pressure, however, unit weight is usually
modified to include the effect of buoyancy.
Therefore, in the computation of soil pressure,
apparent seismic coefficient should be used as
describes in 4.5.
(5) For structures other than high seismic
resistant quay walls, the upper limit of design
seismic coefficient should be 0.25 for several
reasons. First, in the past, the upper limit of
design seismic coefficient was 0.25. Second,
there has been no port structures with design
seismic coefficient of 0.25 that suffered
significant damage. Thirdly, high seismic
resistant quay wall has been constructed in
many ports.
Related information
(1) Design seismic coefficient for modified
pseudo-static method should be determined
based on the response characteristics, response
spectrum of ground motion and the relation
between response acceleration and design
seismic coefficient. The dynamic characteristics
of the structure can be obtained by
appropriately modeling the structure as
described in 4.3.4. Response spectrum of ground
motion can be obtained by appropriately
modeling earthquakes or by averaging observed
response spectra. By using these response
spectra, peak response acceleration
corresponding to natural periods of
fundamental and higher orders can be obtained.
By superposing these peak accelerations,
response acceleration can be obtained, from
which design seismic coefficient is determined.
Observed acceleration response spectra from
strong motion observations in Japanese ports
are displayed in reference 3). For the purpose of
assessing dynamic characteristics of the
structure, not only the structure itself but also
soil and water surrounding the structure have
to be appropriately modeled. Also the
dissipation of vibration energy ha-ve to be
considered appropriately.
(2) The relation between seismic coefficient and
peak ground acceleration1),2) for gravity quay
walls is shown in FigAA.l, in which seismic
4-20
coefficient was obtained based on past quay
wall damage and peak ground acceleration was
obtained from either observation or attenuation
relations. For sheet-pile quay walls, similar
result have been obtainedv". Application of the
results to other structures require prudent
examinations. By the way, peak ground
acceleration in FigA.4.1 is a value obtained
with SMAC-type accelerograph. Peak ground
acceleration which is obtained with another
type of accelerograph should be converted to
that of SMAC-type accelerograph before
comparison.
(3) Level-l ground motion for all port facilities
(a) Regional seismic coefficient has been
.. ... .....;'l..... N{:
uC:;lIt:a,U1...U..J,C;U .LLV.lll VUC VJ. VCQ..fi.
ground acceleration with a return period of 75
years
2
),5) . Here, return period is defined in a
probabilistic way and it does not necessarily
imply that the particular ground motion occurs
every 75 years. For example, a structure with a
duration of 50 years encounters a ground
motion with a return period of 75 year or longer
with a probability of approximately 50%. For
structures with a shorter duration, it may be
reasonable to reduce the return period of design
ground motion.
(b) Table 4.4.4 shows peak ground acceleration
with a return period of 75 years. Regional
seismic coefficients have been obtained from
averaged relation between seismic coefficient
and peak g-round acceleration.
Reference
1) "Relation Between Seismic Coefficient and
Ground Acceleration for Gravity Quay Wall" S.
Noda, T. Uwabe and T. Chiba, Report of the
P01"t and Harbour Research Institute, Vol.14,
No.4, 1975 (in Japanese with English abstract).
Attenuation Relations" by A Nozu, T. Uwabe, Y:
Sato and T. Shinozawa, Technical Note of the
Port and Harbour Research Institute, 1'10.893,
1997 (In Japanese with English abstract),
3) Annual Report on Strong-motion Earthquake
Records In Japanese Ports (1995 & 1996) " by
Yukihiro Sato, Koji Ichii, Susumu Iai, Yuko
Hoshino, Yoko Sato, Masafumi Miyata,
Toshikazu Morita, Technical Note of tile Port
and Harbour Research Institute, No.909, 1998
(in Japanese with English abstract).
4) "Analysis on Seismic Damage in Anchored
Sheet-Piling Bulkheads" by S. Kitajima and T.
Uwabe, Report of the Port and Harbour
Research Institute, Vol.18, No.1, 1979 (in
Japanese with English abstract).
5) "Expected values of Maximum Base Rock
Acceleration along Coasts of Japan" by S.
Kitazawa, T. Uwabe and N. Higaki, Technical
Note of the Port and Harbour Research
Institute, No.486, 1984 (in Japanese with
English abstract).
Table 4.4.4 Regional seismic coefficient and
.peak acceleration with a return
'period of 75 years
Peak ground
Regional
acceleration with
Area seismic
return period of,
coefficient
75 years(Gal)
A 0.15 350
B 0.13 250
C 0.12 200
D 0.11 ISO
E 0.08 100
). 3 0 "; -- - --- --.:.-----------r-----------------r---------- -------- ---1-------":'-----------1------- -------- -----7
Ii Vertical bar indicates the estimated range seismic coefficient : ,
.------- --- ---- -------7---- -------.-- ----i-------- ------:v--L-
: TTL 'if: 6: A;- )f.------:
0" y ---:- 1_
i0" i---------,--t
. . : . .
: L V Seismic coefficient estimated for ports
0,00 . ----. _-----------.,--------- ; __ . --1 ..__..; --:
o 100 200 300
ASMAC (Gal)
400 500 GOD
Figure 4.4.1 Relation between peak. ground acceleration and seismic coefficient
4-21
4.5.1 General
In static conditions, earth pressures are calculated by
ordinary More-Coulomb earth pressure theory. On the
other hand, earthpressures during earthquakes are
calculated by the Mononobe/Okabe method (Mononobe
1957, Okabe 1924) with special treatment where beneath
the water table soil layers.
4.5 Lateral earthpressure
pressure during earthquake
and water
In the case of using equation(4.5.2), it should be
included the dynamic water pressure during earthquake
when overall seismic stability calculation. The dynamic
water pressure is applied in the seaward direction.
Refernces:
Mononobe, N.,'Emthquake resistant design of civil
engineering structures',(Revised edition), 1957.
Okabe, S.,'GeneraI theory on earthpressure and seismic
stablility of retaining walls and dams',J.
JSCE, Vol.] O,No.6, 1924.
4.5.3 Dynamic water pressure during earthquake
In case of sea walls during an earthquake, external
forces can be summarized as shown in Figure(4.5.]).
4.5.2 Apparent seismic coefficient (Seismic
coefficient of submerged soil layer)
The concept of the apparentseismic coefficient k' is
indicated in following equation.
4.6 Liquefaction Prediction/Determination
Method
4.6.1 General
Saturated loose sandy deposits tend to liquefy during
earthquakes, causing damage to structures. Currently,
liquefaction phenomenon is a major keyword for seismic
design of port and harbor facilities. Past big earthquake
disaster reports show that liquefaction should be taken
into consideration in design and construction of
structures. Liquefaction potential should be assessed by
two step procedures as follow with considering the
condition of construction site, a degree of importance,
etc ..
(J ).Grain Size Distribution and SPT- N value
If the results obtained by (I) is not sufficient, following
procedure should be conducted.
(2).Undrained Cyclic Triaxial Test and seismic response
analysis
4.6.2 Grain Size Distribution and SPT-N value
A soil is classified according to the grain size
distribution by Fig.(4.6.1). The soil of which gr.ain size
distribution falls outside of the liquefaction possibility
zone in Fig.(4.6.1) is considered non liquefiable. For
the soil of which the distribution curve falls inside the
liquefaction possibility zone the following procedure is
conducted using standard penetration test blow
counts(SPT N value).
(l).Equivalent N Value
An equivalent N value is calculated by the following
equation.
(4.5.1)
Dynamic
Earth Press.
y,xk=(y-]O)xk'
Dynamic
Water Press.
A product of unit weight of a soil layer and seismic
coefficient over the water table equals a product of
submerged unit weight of a soil layer and the apparent
coefficient.
The apparent seismic coefficientofsubmerged soil layer
can be evaluated by equation (4.5.2).
Where: Y, =unit weight of a soil layer over the water
table (kl-l/rrr'), y =unit weight of saturated soil layer at
submerged area(kN/rri\ m=uniform external load at the
ground surfacefkl-l/rrl), h =thickness of arbitrary soil
layer(m), suffix i=over the water table and suffix
j=submerged area.
Fig. 4.5.1 Schematic diagram of external forces
(
N ) _ N - 0.0]9(d v -65)
65 - 0.0041(d v -65)+ 1.0
(4.6.1)
4-22
Where: (N)65 =Equivalent N value, N =SPT N value of
a soil layer, (J' l' = effective overburden pressure of a
soil layer (kN/m") (The effective overburden pressure
should be calculated with respect to the ground surface
elevation at the time ofthe standard penetration test).
IV
/
!
III
/
1/
..
V
J
/;
5
25
Fig. 4.6.2 Classification of soil layer for liquefaction
prediction based 011 equivalent acceleration and
eq uivalent N-values.
00 100 200 300 400 500 600
EQUIVALENT ACCELERATION (Gal)
30
UJ
:::J
:i 20
>
Z
J-
Z I.,
UJ
-l
:
2:
:::J 10
C!
UJ
gives a critical N value ofa soil under a given equivalent
acceleration.
Zone 1has a very high possibility of liquefaction.
Zone n has a high possibility of liquefaction.
Zone ill has a low possibility of liquefaction.
Zone N has a very low possibility ofliquefaction.
10
10
GRAVEL
GRAVEL
2.0
2.0
I SAND
I SAND
0.1 1.0
GRAIN SIZE (111m)
OJ 1.0
GRAINSIZE (rnrn)
0.Q75
0.075
SILT
SILT
0.01
D.W5
0.005
CLAY I
CLAY I
f- SAND WITHHIGHCOEFFICIENTOF UNIFORMITY Uc>3.5

:cI00,-----,-----=----,...----:--.---,,----
o
iii
3 75
>-
'"
B} 50
z
r;:
lJJ 25
o
15 o''-'----:-':-.,-----;!-;------:-'-:-------:!-;:---
u
c:<:
uJ
c,
;j
f- SAND WITH LOWCOEFFICIENT OF UNIFORMITYUcd.5
:c 100,----,-----,---,---:---.---::------:--,--
o
Ui
3 75
>-
'"
ffi 50
z
r;:
uJ 25
c
-c
f-
iii
U
c:<:
lJJ
c,
Fig. 4.6. J Gradation of soil having the possibility of
liquefaction.
(2).Equivalent acceleration
An equivalent acceleration is estimated by the following
equation based on the maximum shear stress obtained
from earthquake response analysis.
(4.6.2)
(4).Correction of the equivalent N value (The fine
content O.075mm) ofa soil is not less than 5%)
The equivalent N value of a soil of which the fine
content is not less than 5% is corrected as in the
following three cases:
Casel:The plasticity index ofa soil is less than 10 or
the fine content is less than 15%. An equivalent N value .
obtained from Eq.(4.6.1) is corrected by the following
equation.
where: (N)65corrected = a correctedequivalent N value, c
N
= a correction factor obtained from, Fig.(4.6.3) based on
the fine content. The corrected equivalent N value is
plotted in Fig.(4.6.2) with an equivalent acceleration and
the zone to which a soil layer belongs is determined.
Case2: The plasticity index is not less than 10 and not
more than 20, and the fine content is not less than15%.
Two corrected equivalent N values are calculated as
follows:
Where: (Xeq = equivalent acceleration, rroax = maximum
shear stress (kN/m"), (J'" = effectiveoverburden pressure
(kN/m
2
) (The effective overburden pressure should be
calculated with respect to the ground surfaceelevation at
the time of earthquake), g = acceleration of gravity
(980Gal).
(3).Check by the critical N value (The fine content of a
soil is less than 5%)
The zone in Fig.(4.6.2) to which a soil layer belongs is
determined from the equivalent N value and the
equivalent acceleration. The boundary line of the zones
(N)65corrected = (N)65 / c
N
(4.6.3)
4-23
Where: (N)65 =an equivalent N value obtained from
Equation(l), N =SPT N value of a soil layer, Ip = a
plasticity index ofa soil.
(N)65corrected = (N)65 /0.5
(N)65corrected = N+M
M = 8+ 0.4(1p - 10)
(4.6.4)
(4.6.5)
(4.6.6)
can be evaluated by the relationship between cyclic stress
ratio and number of cycles(=20) to the defined
liquefaction initiated state as shown in Fig.(4.6.4). The
in-situ liquefaction strength ratio Rrnax is given by the
following equation,
(4.6.7)
(4.6.8)
Undrained Cyclic Triaxial Test Results
Rrnaxtvibration type) '"
c
l2
;:> 0.4
o
f:::
-c 0.3
p::
CI)
CI)
0.2
f-
CI)
0.1

0.1 10 20 100 1000
NUMBER OF CYCLES NI
Fig. 4.6.4 Correction of Rmax
0.5
In this equation, several corrections are included as listed
in followings.
(1).Stress condition correction: The stress conditions
between at site( K
o
) and in the triaxial cell(isotropic
(2).Type of Input motion correction: The applied stress
condition between at a site high/low degree of
irregularity of input motion(impact type/vibration type)
and in case case ofcyclic triaxial test(harmonic).
Impact type input motion C, =0.55
Vibration type input motion C, =0.7
Applied stress ratio L
max
= T"max / (5' I' is calculated by
seismic response analysis.
The liquefaction potentiahsafetyfactorjf'., is given as,
,
5 10 15 20
FINE CONTENT (BELOW 0.075I11m) ('To)
"' =>
..J
-c
>
z
b:

-c
u
1=
'"
u
'" o
0.5
13
;;:
01 --'-- -'- -'--__---'-
5 0
"'
'"
Fig. 4.6.3 Reduction facto!" for critical STP-N value
based on the fine content.
The two corrected equivalent N values are plotted in
Fig.(4.6.2) with acceleration and the zone to which
a soil layer belongs is determined as follows. In
the case that the (N+ DN) is inside of the zone ] , the
soil layer belongs to the zone 1 . In the case that the
(N+DN) is inside ofthe zone II, the soil layer belongs
to the zone II . In the case that the (N+DN) is inside
ofthe zone III or N, and the (N\5 /0.5 is outside ofthe
zone N, the soil layer belongs to the zone ill. In the
case that the (N+6.N) is inside of the zone ill or N, and
the (N)65 / 0.5 is inside of the zone N, the soil layer
belongs to the zone N.
Case3: The plasticity index is not less than 20 and the
fine content is not less than 15%. A corrected equivalent
N value is calculated by Eqs.(4.6.5) and (4.6.6). The
corrected equivalent N value is plotted in Fig.(4.6.2)
with an equivalent acceleration and the zone to which a
soil layer belongs is determined.
4.6.3 Undrained Cyclic Triaxial Test and seismic
response analysis (Sensitive assess method)
When the liquefaction potential cannot be determined
from the grain size distribution and SPT N value,
liquefaction prediction is made by performing undrained
cyclic triaxial tests using undisturbed soil samples. The
index of a degree of liquefaction strength R
max
of a soil
In case ofFL<1.0, the soil layer should liquefy.
Reference:(the text mentioned above is revised in 1998 )
POIi and Harbour Research Institute ed., 'Handbook on
Liquefaction Remediation of Reclamimed Land',
Balkema, 1997.
4-24
4.7 Seismic Design of High Seismic
Resistant Quaywalls
4.7.1 Evaluation of seismic performance of
high seismic resistant facilities.
(1) In the design process of high seismic
resistant facilities, it is requested that
their seismic performance should be
evaluated for a level-2 ground motion to
assure that their seismic resistance is
satisfactory.
(2) Seismic performance should be
evaluated by appropriately modeling
the soil and the structure of the facility,
with a method which is appropriate for
the particular type of the structure.
Ground motion which is used for the evaluation
of seismic performance should be determined
with response analysis of the ground in
principle.
Explanation
(1) Evaluation of the residual deformation of
high seismic resistant facilities, which is based
on a earthquake response analysis, is required
for the purpose of verifying that they will
sustain their intended functions after a level-2
ground motion. The reason is that, for the
examination of the stability of the structure or
the soil for a large ground motion such as a
level-2 ground motion, conventional pseudo-
static method is not sufficient.
(2) The judgement whether the high seismic
resistant facilities will sustain their intended
functions based on the results of earthquake
response analysis should be based on the
combined considerations on the stability of the
structure after the earthquake, the functions
and the difficulty of restoration work. Although
the allowable residual deformation should be
defined for this judgement, it is not easy to
specify the allowable deformation at the present
state of knowledge. Tables 4.7.1 and 4.7.2, in
which the possibility of temporal use just after
4-25
the earthquake is presented, should be useful
for the judgement. It should be noted, however,
that these tables cannot be applied to a
quaywall with cranes because the stability or
the function of the cranes is not addressed in
Tables 4.7.1 and 4.7.2. In the case of the 1995
Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake, some of the
caisson quaywalls with a normalized
deformation (lateral residual displacement I
height of the quaywall) of over 10-20% was
temporary repaired and offered for immediate
use just after the earthquake. .
Related information
for
seismic resistant quaywalls.
4.7.2 Design Seismic coefficient ofhigh seismic
resistance facilities
(1) When pseudo-static design is applied to
high seismic resistant quaywalls, the design
seismic coefficient should be determined by a
global judgement base on the seismic
coefficient determined by EqAA.l with
importance factor 1.5, by following equations
for which peak ground acceleration should be
calculated with ground response analysis for
level-2 ground motion, and by other
appropriate methods.
1. If a is smaller than or equal to 200Gal,
Kh=a/g (4.7.1)
2. Ifa is larger than 200Gal,
x,=(113) X ( a Ig)(lJ3) (4.7.2)
Here, K
h
is horizontal seismic coefficient, a is
peak ground acceleration at free surface and g
LS the acceleration of gravity.
Explanations
(1) When the design seismic. coefficient can be
accurately determined by investigating
regional seismic activity, characteristics of
ground motion, site response, ete., it is
preferable to use this design seismic
coefficient instead of the value designated
here. For example, when the design ground
Table 4.7.1 Allowable residual deformation from the viewpoint of availability
i
I
Amount of deformation
Type of
I
Gravity quay wan
structure. Sheet-pile quay wall
I
Depth of
More than 7.5m Less than 7.5m
More than 1.5m Less than 7.5m
water
'Available: o-30cm o-20cm o-30cm o-20cm
Nat available
30-l00cm 20-S0cm 30-S0cm 20-30cm
Table 4.7.2 Allowable residual displacement from functional point ofview
Subsidence of whole apron
20-30cm
Main structure Inclination 3 - 5 0
Irregularity of the horizontal 20-30cm
displacement offace line
Irregularity of subsidence
3 -lOcm
Apron Gap between apron and backyard:
30-70cm
Inclination normal: 3-5% reverse: 0%
motion is determined based on the information
regarding regional seismic activities or based
on strong ground motion observations or when
seismic response analysis of the structure is
conducted, design seismic coefficient can be
determined based on these results.
(2) In the design of high seismic resistant
facilities. target earthquake has to be selected
from earthquakes including hypothetical
earthquake in the disaster prevention plan set
by local government.
(3) One way of calculating peak ground
acceleration at free surface is to use multiple
reflection model for the response analysis of the
ground.
(4) Refer to the reference 1) and 2) for the
details ofEq.4.7.1 and Eq.4.7.2.
4-26
(5) From the experience of significant damage
at Kobe Port during the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu
earthquake, minimum design seismic
coefficient for high seismic resistant facilities
should be 0.25 if the site is ill a near-source
region.
(6) When it is desired, seismic resistant qua
walls should be designed for level-2 ground
motion with a method other than pseudo-static
method such as earthquake response analysis.
In this case, it is necessary to make sure that
seismic resistant facilities will sustain their
structural stability for level-I ground motion.
Related information
(1) Level-2 ground motion for high seismic
Requirement of performance
I
Ground motion
I
Size of earthquake
Selection of target earthquake
, (Near-source or not?)
PGA at bedrock
Selection of waveform
Earthquake response analysis of ground
I
Regional seismic coefficient,
XF'actor for subsoil condition
>< Importance factor O. 5)
I
; Seismic coefficient
I
I
Type and parameters of structure,
soil improvement,
I-
function of facility
I
Cross section of the facility -
I
Assessment of liquefaction and mitigation l-
I
Examination of residual,
deformation for level-2 ground motion
r--
I
Detailed design
Figure 4.7.1 Design process of high seismic resistant facilities
resistant facilities
(a) Ifhypothetical earthquake is not designated
in the regional disaster prevention plan or if the
hypothetical earthquake in the disaster
prevention plan is not appropriate for
determining level-2 ground motion, it is
recommended to select an earthquake which
brings the largest ground motion to the site
among earthquakes in the past and
hypothetical earthquakes on active faults.
Magnitude of hypothetical earthquake on active
faults can be estimated with following equation.
Log
1oL=O.6M-2.9.
(4.7.3)
Here, L is the length of the fault (kID) and M is
the magnitude. Sometimes several active faults
are closely located to each other in the fault
map. In such cases, if one fault is within 51an
4-27
rom another fault, these faults should be
considered as one long fault m the
determination of magnitude. If there is
difficulty in the application of EqA.7.3, the
magnitude 7.2 can be used, which is the same
as the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu earthquake.
(b) Following equation" can be used to
determine peak ground acceleration at
engineering-oriented bedrock.
Log
lO
AsMAC=O.53M .
-loglO(X+O.0062 x l O o . 5 3 ~
- O.00169X+O.524. (4.7A)
Here, A
SMAC
is the peak ground acceleration
measured with SMAC-type accelerograph (Gal),
M is the magnitude, X is the closest distance
from the fault to the site (km). The relation is
shown in Fig.4.7.2. If the dip angle of the fault
0;
Q.
<t:
100
C)
""'
9
U
<C
7
;:;;
UJ
"
10
:3 ~ :s 6 3 04 5 G
'0
100
Fault distance X [km]
Figure 4. 7.2 Attenuation relations for peak acceleration
for engineering-oriented bedrock
MAX. 170 Gel
20 10
, .
- - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - _ _ : _ - - - - - - - - - -
1 !
- - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 1 - - - - - - - - . - - - - - -
; !
200
;;a
I a) 5-252 NS a...
Q.
100
<::
0
+J
'"
...
i
-100
o
...:
-200
0
Time [s]
20 15 10
MAX, 161 Gal
---------r-------------.t----------
,
-.- -----}-------------1--------------
I
. :
:::;'
200
'"
(b) 5-1210 E 041S
Q.
<::
0
+J
..
j
-100
8
...:
-200
0
Time [s]
20 I. 10
---+----------------r--------------
-'---'----:'---------'------------
;;a
60O
(c) Pi-7S us Bue
Q.
"00
<::
200
.S
....
...
-200
'" Qj
-400
8
< -600
Time [s]
Figure 4.7.3 Time history of representative strong motion records
4-28
80r-------,-------,--------,-----,
,5
Ill} S-252. NS e-.
10
-------r-------r-----.-----
: :
i ;
: :
Frequency [Hz]

i (b) 5-1210 e.1 S
:
60 ------
.. een-i--+-_==
f
-v Vf\A i. -+

'0
Frequency [Hz]
i
(e) Pf-7R N& a-
---j-'------+----:-J=-
: : s.--UHz
i------l-----:----
.._-+-_._--
: :
! :
: :
-----.-
! :
'ai'
en 200
Q.
a
'"
....
<)
'"
0-
so 100

....
'"
20 10
oL__---'-__-=::::::::::::::::=h====d
c
Frequency {Hz]
Figure 4.7.4 Fourier spectra of representative strong motion records
30
2S
a
20
c:.
$(
C
.:l
'"
1 S
'5
'" r.:.
/0
5
0
I
, I
I
, I
: : J ! ,/
---r------l--------r-----:------T-l--------
I I II
I , I 1/
: : ; II
, , ,
: : : I
-----;----------;-------;--------- T-----------
, , I I
l : : I
liB 1 ;
--1---------;----.. T-------
: l I
!! 1
" ,
-+ w_
" ,
i J IA
: I
:: :
-i-r--
e
5 6 7 9
MagnitudeM
Figure 4.7.5 A diagram presented for determining whether near-source effects
should be considered
4-29
is unknown, the distance from the site to the
updip projection of the fault can be used in
EqA. 7A. If the location of the fault cannot be
determined, the distance from the site to a
sphere with a radius determined from following
equation can be used.
Log
lOr=0.5M-2.25.
(4.7.5)
Here, r is the radius (km) and M is the
magnitude. Engineering oriented bedrock is
defined as a soil layer with shear-wave velocity
over 300m/s, a sandy soil with SPT-N value
over 50 or a cohesive soil with qu over
650kN/m
2
.
(c) Hypothetical earthquakes can be divided
into intra-plate earthquaJre and inter-plate
earthquake. Strong monon records at POIt
Island during the 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu
earthquake can be used as a representative
ground motion from intra-plate earthquake.
Records at Hachinohe Port during 1968
'Iokachi-oki earthquake or at Ofunato during
the 1978 Miyagi-ken-oki earthquake can be
used as a representative ground motion from
inter-plate earthquake. It is recomended to use
Port Island records when it is necessary to take
into account near-source effects even when the
earthquake is a inter-plate earthquake because
near-source ground motion from inter-plate
earthquake has not been obtained yet. Time
history of these records are shown in Fig. 4.7.3
and Fourier spectra of these records are shown
in FigA.7A.
(d) FigA.7.5 can be used to determine whether
the site is in near-source region. If the site is
located in A of Fig. 4.7.5, then the site is in
near-source region.
(e) Sometimes design seismic coefficient
obtained from EqA.7.1 and EqA.7.2 is smaller
than those obtained from regional seismic
coefficient, etc. This is partly because the factor
of subsoil conditions are not necessarily
consistent with the amplification factor
obtained from response analysis. In the case of
weak soil, peak ground acceleration at the
surface is often smaller then expected form
linear theory due to nonlinear effects during
large earthquake. It should be noted that
ground motion at weak soil site sometimes
4-:30
causes large deformation of structures even
when peak ground acceleration is small.
Reference
1) "Relation Between Seismic Coefficient and
Ground Acceleration for Gravity Quay Wall" S.
Noda, T. Uwabe and T. Chiba, Report of the
Port and Harbour Research Institute, Vol.14,
No.4, 1975 (in Japanese with English abstract).
Attenuation Relations" by A. Nozu, T. Uwabe, Y.
Sato and T. Shinozawa, Technical Note of the
Port and Harbour Research Institute, No.893,
1997 (In Japanese w-ithEnglish abstract).
4.8 New Seismic Design of Open Piled Piers
4.8.1 General
The seismic design of open piled piers described in
this section is basically to verify if they possess the
required structural performance during earthquakes.
At first, the fundamental dimensions of structural
members to be verified are designed with the
allowable stress method against loads except seismic
forces. Then structural performance of the pre-
determined section under seismic actions is checked
considering seismic energy absorption due to plastic
deformation of steel pipe piles. The required
structural performance will be determined m
consideration of the importance and the role of
structures, and will be expressed in terms of
horizontal displacement and the place and the timing.
of local damages.
Open piled piers were damaged by liquefaction of
the base ground or the backfilling soil of retaining
structures behind them due to the 1995 Hyogoken-
Nambu earthquake. The liquefaction produced
Dynamic analysis of ground
Maximum acceleration of the base
Model for
Ground response anafsis (SHAKE, etc.)
Acceleration at 1/ below the seabed
unforeseen external forces and caused buckling of
steel pipe piles and cracks in concrete superstructures.
Since it should be rather difficult to estimate the
magnitude of such external forces, the design method
for open piled piers assumes that liquefaction does
not occur. Therefore, liquefaction should be
prevented. However, the effect of liquefaction
. should be considered for very important facilities.
4.8.2 Seismic performance requirements
_It should be examined appropriately whether open
piled piers will perform as required when earthquakes
happen. For common piers, structural performance
should be verified against Level 1 ground motions.
Both of Levels 1 and 2 ground motions should be
taken into consideration for high seismic resistant
piers. Seismic performance requirements depend on
the importance of piers and can be described with
indices such as extent of damage, maximum
displacement, and residual displacement after
earthquakes. The difficulty of repair to damages
Natural period of pier
Frame model, etc.
Seismic coefficient
Fig. 4.8.1 Calculation flow of seismic coefficient
4-31
10
(4.8.2)
1. 0
Period (s)
Region A
I. 00 I - ~ ~ ~ ~ - - - " - - - - - - - - - - '
O. 01 ~ '---..L-_-,- ---'-,-.J
O. 1
Fig. 4.8.2 Standard seismic coefficient
......
c
(!)
'0
:i=
(!)
o
o O. 10 r - - - : - - - - ' - - - ~ + - - ~ ~ - ~ ~
(.)
E
(f)
'CD
(f)
where T
g
is the natural period of the ground, Hi is the
thickness of zth stratum, and Vsi is the shear wave
velocity. Vsi can be assumed using N value of the
ground.
The natural period of the wharf can be calculated
using Eq. 4.8.2:
should be considered well at the same time.
Resonance will make the response of a pier higher
than that expected when the natural periods of the
structure and the ground are close to each other. In
such a case, dimensions, geometry, etc. of the
original structure should be modified to achieve
different natural periods. Alternatively, the ground
should be improved so that the natural period of the
ground is changed.
For the structure of an access bridge to link a pier
to the land, the following should be taken into
account: (a) In case large seismic force acts on the
pier towards the retaining structure, possible contact
between the pier and the retaining structure, through
the access bridge, should be avoided by checking the
available clearance against the maximum
displacement. (b) In case the seismic force acts
towards the sea, the maximum displacement should
be checked to prevent the access bridge from falling
down.
If case that cargo handling machines such as
container cranes are equipped on piers, the interactive
vibrations between them should be well examined.
4.8.3 Design earthquake forces
Figure 4.8.1 shows the sequence for calculating the
seismic coefficient. Level 1 ground motions are
defined as those with a 50-percent probability of
exceedance in 75 years. Expected values of the
base ground acceleration depend on the region where
piers .are constructed. Acceleration response that
corresponds to the natural period of pier is obtained
as shown in Fig. 4.8.1. The design seismic
coefficient will be given by dividing the response
acceleration by the acceleration of gravity. Instead
of performing the dynamic analysis of the ground, the
seismic coefficient can be obtained using the standard
spectrum shown in Fig. 4.8.2 as an example.
The natural period of the ground can be
approximately calculated by Eq. 4.8.1:
(4.8.1)
where T, is the natural period of the wharf, W is the
weight of the wharf and surcharge, g is the gravity
acceleration, and K
h
is the, horizontal spring constant
of each pile.
The seismic coefficient for Level 2 ground motions
is obtained using the same procedure shown in Fig.
4.8.1. Dynamic analysis of the ground is necessary
because charts like Fig. 4.8.2 are not available for
Level 2 ground motions at present.
4.8.4 Structural analysis procedures
Seismic performance of an open piled pier should
be examined with appropriate analytical. models to
simulate its non-linear behavior as close as possible.
Plastic deformation of steel piles provides excellent
seismic structural capacity particularly during Level
2 ground motions, but also initiates local minor
4-32
(4.8.6)
(4.8.7)
damages. Therefore, requirements regarding
locations and extent of these damages should be
specified at the verification.
For verification of the seismic capacity of a pier,
the ductility design methods recommended to be
applied are: (a) simplified analysis, (b) elasto-plastic
analysis, or (c) non-linear dynamic analysis.
(a) Simplified analysis
The superstructure of a pier is considered to be a
rigid body, and the capacity of the pier is evaluated as
the overall capacities of each pile. This method is
applicable to piers supported on vertical piles with
small variety of their rigidities.
(b) Elasto-plastic analysis
A pier and its surrounding ground are modeled by
a frame and springs, which represent their non-linear
properties. This method is suitable for complicated
structures whose capacities might be overestimated
by the simplified analysis. The seguence of local
failures (generation of plastic hinges, damage of
superstructures, etc.) and the maximum and residual
displacements will be verified.
(c) Non-linear dynamic analysis
The pier structural system is analyzed by the finite
element method considering non-linear and dynamic
properties. This method is applied when the whole
structural system is complicated or large deformation
of the ground is predicted.
In the ductility design method, the Newmark law
of constant energy is assumed. The basic equation
for the verification' is presented as Eg. 4.8.3:
(4.8.3)
where R; is the load carrying capacity during
earthguake, K; is the design seismic coefficient, and
W is the vertical loads including self-weight and
surcharge. R
a
is given by Eg. 4.8.4:
s, =~ 2 / - 1 - a -1+8(/-I-a-1)2 P
y
(4.8.4)
where P-a is the allowable plasticity ratio, e is the
ratio of the secondary gradient to the primary
gradient in the load-displacement relationship, and P,
is the horizontal force corresponding to the elasticity
limit. At the elasticity limit, pile-head bending
4-33
moments can reach their fully plastic moments in
about a half of all piles, and after that, horizontal
displacement may rapidly increase.
P-a is the ratio of the allowable maximum
horizontal displacement to that at the elasticity limit.
On the basis of analytical and experimental results,
/-la is summarized in Table 4.8.1 for Level 1 ground
motions and presented in Eq. 4.8.5 for Level 2
ground motions.
Table 4.8.1 Standard values of u; for Levell
ground motions
Classification of pier P-a
Special class 1.0
A class 1.3
B class 1.6
Cclass 23
!-La = 1.25+ 62.5(t / D) :s; 2.5 (4.8.5)
where P-a is the allowable horizontal displacement
ductility factor, t is the thickness of pipe pile, and D
is the diameter of pipe pile.
Instead of performing elasto-plastic analysis, the
elasticity limit P, can be given by Eqs. 4.8.6 and
4.8.7 based on parametric studies:
P, = O.82-p.all
P
aall
= L{2Mpi /(h
i
+1/ f3i )}
where PI/all is the horizontal force when bending
moments at the pile head and the assumed fixed point
under the ground of all piles reach their fully plastic
moments, M
pi
is the fully plastic moment of each pile,
and (hi +1/(3;) is the length between the head and the
assumed fixed point of each pile.
The residual horizontal displacement of a pier can
be calculated on the assumption that the
load-displacement relationship during unloading has
the same gradient as that during initial loading.
The structural behavior of high seismic resistant
piers should remain within elastic regions during
Level 1 ground motions, and it should be controlled
with horizontal displacement, as mentioned above,
during Level 2 ground motions. The load carrying
capacity R; in Eg. 4.8.4 can be calculated with eand
Fig. 4.8.3 f-L. and e
methods. The shear failure should not occur prior to
bending failure.
The properties of piles pushing into or pulling out
from the ground should be modeled taken into
consideration their non-linear behaviors. Lateral
resistance of the ground should also be modeled as
the same way above.
Buckling of piles often dominates the ultimate
state of a pier. Equation 4.8.14 gives the strain that
may cause local buckling in steel pipe piles:
C
ma
= 0.44t / D (4.8.14)
where t is the thickness of the steel pipe and D is the
diameter of the steel pipe.
The moment at the strain of Cmax is not much
different from M
p
in Eq. 4.8.8 for steel pipe piles with
commonly used dimensions.
"'0
Pp
<tl
0
P)'
CO
.....
c
0
N
'C
0
I
0
f-La obtained by the result of elasto-plastic analysis as
shown in Fig. 4.8.3.
Either a bi-linear or a tri-linear model can be used
for the constitutive law of steel pipe piles. Fully
plastic moment M
p
, yielding moment My, and their
respective curvature >p and y can be given by Eqs.
4.8.8 to 4.8.11.
M p = M pa cos(an /2) (4.8.8)
My = (Jy -N/ A)Ze (4.8.9)
y = My / 1 (4.8.10)
p =(Mp-MJrf>y (4.8.11)
where M
po
is the fully plastic moment of the steel
pipe without axial force expressed as follows:
; =Zpfy (4.8.12)
Zp is the plastic sectional modulus of the steel pipe,
which can be obtained as follows:
Zp = ~ { r 3 -(r -tJ} (4.8.13)
where r is the radius of the steel pipe, t is the
thickness of the steel pipe, a is the ratio of applied
axial force N to yield axial force No (No = A h) when
bending moment is not applied, A is the area of the
cross section of the steel pipe, fy is the yield strength
of the steel pipe, Z, is the elastic sectional modulus of
the steel pipe, and EI is the flexural rigidity of the
steel pipe.
The concrete superstructure is represented by the
tri-linear bending moment-curvature relationship.
Cracking moment, rebar-yielding moment, ultimate
moment should be calculated with appropriate design
Allowable ultimate stage
i
(5!' 0p
Displacement
4-34
5. BASIC PRINCIPLES OF SEISMIC DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
FOR WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES
JAPAN WATERWORKS ASSOCIATION
5.1 Basic Concept of Anti-Seismic Measures for Water Supply Facilities 5- 1
5.1.1 General 5- 1
5.1.2 Planning, Designing and Implementation 5- 1
5.1.3 Geotechnical Survey of the Foundation 5- 2
5.1 A The Employment of Highly Earthquake Resistant Materials and Joints 5- 3
5.1.5 Anti-Seismic Design of Water Supply System 5- 3
5.1.6 Maintenance and Planned Improvements 5- 4
5.1.7 Assumption of Earthquake Damage 5- 5
5.1.8 The Order of Restoration Works and Relationship Between Emergency
Restoration Works and Permanent Restoration Works 5- 5
5.2 Basic Concept of Anti-Seismic Design 5- 5
5.2.1 General 5- 5
5.2.2 Seismic Motion Levels for Anti-Seismic Design 5- 6
5.23 Importance Ranking of Facilities 5- 6
5.2A Anti-Seismic Level Which Water Supply Facilities Must Maintain
During and Earthquake 5- 6
5.2.5 Earthquake Effects on Anti-Seismic Designs 5- 7
5.2.6 Sequence of Anti-Seismic Design Works 5- 7
5.2.7 Related Regulations 5- 8
53 Seismic Motion Input for Anti-Seismic Design 5- 10
53.1 Anti-Seismic Calculation Methods and Objective Structures 5- 10
53.2 Seismic Intensity Used in Anti-Seismic Design under the Seismic
Intensity Method for Ground Structures (Seismic Motion Levell) 5- 10
533 Seismic Motion Level Used in Anti-Seismic Design by the Seismic Intensity
Method for Ground Structures (Seismic Motion Level 2) 5- 11
5.3A Seismic Intensity Used in Anti-Seismic Design by the Seismic Intensity
Method for Buried Structures (Seismic Motion Levell) 5- 15
5.3.5 Design Seismic Intensity Used in Anti-Seismic Intensity Method for
Buried Structures (Seismic Motion Level 2) 5-16
5.3.6 Seismic Motion Level Used in the Response Displacement Method for
Buried Structures (Seismic Motion Levell) 5- 16
5.3.7 Seismic Intensity Used in Design of Buried Structures by the Response
Displacement Method (Seismic Motion Level 2) 5- 17
5.3.8 Seismic Motion Input Used in Design Using the Dynamic Analysis 5- 19
5.4 Geotechnical Surveys, Ground Displacement, and Ground Distortion 5- 19
5.4.1 Primary Subjects of Geotechnical Survey 5- 19
5.4.2 Methods of Geoetchnical Survey 5- 20
5.4.3 Soil Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading 5- 21
5.4.4 Ground Displacement and Ground Strain Caused by Liquefaction 5- 21
5.4.5 Ground Strain at the Incline of Artificially Altered Ground 5- 21
5.4.6 Reduction in Reaction Force and Ground Friction Force due to Soil Liquefaction 5- 22
5.5 Soil Pressure During an Earthquake 5- 23
5.5.1 General 5- 23
5.5.2 Calculation of Horizontal Soil Pressure During an Earthquake 5- 23
5.5.3 Calculation of Vertical Soil Pressure During an Earthquake 5- 23
5.5.4 External Pressure due to Lateral Spreading 5- 24
5.5.5 Buoyancy Generated by Soil Liquefaction 5- 24
5.6 Hydrodynamic Pressure During an Earthquake and the Water Sloshing 5- 24
5.6.1 Hydrodynamic Pressure During an Earthquake 5- 24
5.6.2 Water Sloshing 5- 25
5.7 Safety Check 5- 25
5.7.1 Combination of Loads 5- 25
5.7.2 Safety Check of the Structures Fabricated with Steel, Concrete, etc 5- 25.
5.7.3 Safety Check of Pipeline in their Anti-Seismic Calculations 5- 26
5.7.4 Safety Check ofthe Foundation Ground in its Anti-Seismic Calculations 5- 26
5.7.5 Safety Check of Foundation, Earthen Structures and Retaining Wall in
Anti-Seismic Calculations 5- 27
5.7.6 Safety Check in Anti-Seismic Calculations in Consideration of Critical State
under Seismic Motion Level 2 5- 27
5. BASIC PRINCIPLES OF SEISMIC DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FOR
WATER SUPPLY FACILITIES
JAPAN WATER WORKS ASSOSIATION
5.1 Basic Concept of Anti-Seismic Measures for
Water Supply Facilities
5.1.1 General
For developing anti-seismic measures in water
supply, the following basic plans must be drawn
beforehand:
(1) Proper damage estimates before the
occurrence of an earthquake, and preventive
measures based on such estimates,
(2) Plans on emergency relief measures to be
undertaken immediately after an earthquake,
and disaster prevention measures including
effective emergency repair works and
(3) Detailed plans on the organization for the
implementation of permanent restoration
works in the period from temporary works
in above (2) to the completion of the
permanent works
The underlying goal of implementing anti-
seismic measures for water supply systems is to
save human lives. To this end, a plan must be
established to provide well-balanced,
comprehensive measures to be implemented under
adequate mutual understanding with related
organizations, during: (1) the pre-earthquake
period; (2) the immediate post-earthquake period;
and (3) the reconstruction period.
In the pre-earthquake period, the potential scale
5-1
of the disaster must be properly assumed; the
reinforcement works must be implemented based
on rational anti-seismic designs; and everyday
facility maintenance must be carried out with
consideration of the anti -seismic measures.
In the immediate post-earthquake period, it is
essential to collect quick and accurate information,
and establish a communication network. A plan
must be drown. before-hand for calling out
personnel for their deployment for initial response
activities, which are considered the most
important.
During the reconstruction period, in
coordination with the police and fire departments
and under the rescue operations provided by other
water utilities, an emergency water service must
be implemented until restoration of regular water
supply; restoration works must efficiently be
implemented and manpower and materials and
equipment required for such activities must be
procured.
5.1.2 Planning, Designing and Implementation
For preparation of plans and designs of water
supply facilities and their implementation,
sufficient consideration should be given to
earthquakes in accordance with various conditions
in which the water utility is actually situated.
For important facilities, their structures must be
rationally designed with adequate consideration to
the effects from earthquakes.
The construction of water supply facilities must
be so implemented that the water supply system as
a whole retain as much capability to do water
service even though the system has sustained
certain damage.
Water supply facilities are fundamental to the
infrastructure supporting a city and to the lives of
the city's citizens. For earthquake disasters,
maximum effort to develop countermeasures must
be taken in order to insure that the water suppiy is
protected. This is true regardless of the size of
the facility.
Restoration of emergency water supplies is
crucial immediately after an earthquake disaster.
Implementation and execution of an effective
reconstruction plan must be applied in conjunction
with earthquake countermeasure upgrades.
In order to implement and execute adequate
plans for different distribution facilities,
examination of local earthquake records and
accurate predictions and .estimates of future
earthquakes based on changes in the earth's crust
(from geological surveys) must be completed.
5.1.3 Geotechnical Survey of the Foundation
It is desirable that water supply facilities are
founded on location where the foundation is firm
and the landscape is stable. Prior to the
construction of specially important facilities a
careful and detailed geotechnical survey must be
5-2
carried out.
For the construction of the water supply
facilities, it is essential to that a good ground site
be chosen. This is particularly true for the
construction of key facilities such as water intake
facilities, reservoirs, delivery facilities, treatment
facilities, service reservoirs, and main
sending/receiving lines.
The power of an earthquake's force on building
differs greatly depending on various ground
foundations, even ground foundations in the same
region. In addition, the scale of an earthquake's
motion may also differ, depending on the
topographical and geological differences of a
particular region.
For the construction of key facilities,
architectural designs for main buildings and their
foundations must be based on data gathered by a
detailed survey of ground conditions. These
detailed surveys of the construction site must
include an analysis of the site's dynamic behavior
during an earthquake.
When: the ground conditions are not the most
desirable, improving the foundation through
substructure work or additional slope stabilization
work must be applied. Preventative measures,
such as the use of flexible structures which
respond to ground 'floating' or displacement
during an earthquake, must also be used.
For ground foundations in areas with high
ground water levels, such as sandy soil (which
easily generate ground Fluidization), suitable
measures must be adopted. These methods
include flexible ground structures that absorb
ground displacement and reinforced ground
foundations.
5.1.4 The Employment of Highly Earthquake
Resistant Materials and Joints
For construction of main water supply facilities,
earthquake resistant materials should be employed
in structurally important locations.
For water containing facilities, structures,
which can absorb structural strain and abate stress,
must be designed with the provision of earthquake
resistant joints, which absorb expansion,
contraction and distortion must be provided
between interfacing structures which may move,
when an earthquake occurs, and leave relative
displacement.
Underground pipelines will bend as a result of
the ground displacement produced by an
earthquake. Such displacement tends to escalate
in areas where the geography or topography is
subject to sudden change. As a result,
connections between the structure and related
pipes are subject to great distortion. This
distortion results from the difference between the
rigidity of the structures and the related pipes. In
addition, the alteration of fluid ground also
produces irregular and uneven ground surfaces.
This results in movement and distortion of
structural bulkheads. On such ground, flexible,
anti-seismic joints capable of absorbing the
displacement generated during an earthquake must
5-3
be used. In addition, flexible materials that are
capable of absorbing earthquake displacement
may also be used to avoid structural damage.
5.1.5 Anti-Seismic Design of Water Supply
System
For anti-seismic design of water supply systems,
the followings are prerequisites:
1) Earthquake damage is localized as much as
possible.
2) The damage is easily repaired.
3) Measures, which will prevent secondhand
disasters as a result of an earthquake, must
be provided.
To meet these conditions, redundancy in
important facilities, interconnection of block
systems, grouping of such systems, separation of a
pipe network into blocks, and installation of
emergency cut-off valves must be implemented.
When water conveyance and distribution
pipelines receive earthquake damage, the water
supply in an entire distribution area may be cut off
ad severe conditions may result.
When the system of water conveyance pipelines
is interconnected, the transmission and
distribution of water may be cut off when one
portion of the system is cut off or out of service.
Therefore, it is desirable to have a system which is
capable delivering water even after sustaining
damage. Using an interconnected system with
different functioning lines is the most effective
method of supplying water when an earthquake
disaster occurs. This method is also effective for
responding to other common disasters and for
providing raw water for regular usage.
It is desirable to connect the main water supply
pipeline to other water works facilities in
neighboring vicinities. In order to minimize the
damage during an earthquake, construction of
pipeline networks must take into consideration the
following issues:
1) Minimizing the range of water delivery failure
after an earthquake by adequately spacing
gate valves in the pipeline network, making
the distance between them the shortest
possible.
2) Limiting the depth of underground pipes in
order to insure that they are not buried too
deeply. In addition, properly locating access
and work station doors in the facilities to
make restoration work swift and easy.
3) Using preventative measures, such as setting
gate valves both in back and in front of a pipe
when the pipe crosses over a railroad or a
large river and installing chlorine neutralizing
devices. These preventative measures must
be utilized because damage to a water work
facility may generate secondary damage to
important public and private facilities or to
neighboring residences.
5.1.6 Maintenance and Planned Improvements
Adequate inspection and maintenance of water
supply facilities must be undertaken at a basis to
insure their anti-seismic integrity.
5-4
Positive anti-seismic diagnostic inspections in
accordance with this manual must be conducted.
Facilities with low anti-seismic ratings must
undergo improvement works through planning.
Planning upgrades to existing water works
systems (in order to make them more earthquake
proof) must utilize competent anti-seismic
diagnosis. Such diagnosis in necessary for
existing facilities in order to execute
reinforcement or renovation. First, in order to
perform diagnosis, a water works system must be
broken down, with each facility being categorized
and listed in order of its importance. Second,
initial diagnostic inspections must be conducted
and the priority of work must be decided upon.
Third, improvements or reinforcement must be
proceeded with.
To create anti-seismic water work facilities,
design and execution must be carefully carried out.
After completing construction, constant inspection
and maintenance of the facility must be carried
out. To fulfill this purpose, listed inspections
and maintenance must be set and routinely
followed.
For the improvement of the existing facilities,
earthquake resisting measures and measures
aimed at the prevention of numerous, everyday
accidents must be taken. These improvements
must be carried out after a comprehensive and
integrated evaluation.
5.1.7 Assumption of Earthquake Damage
Based on assumptions on the type and
magnitude of damage to the water supply systems
as a result of an earthquake, plans for emergency
water service and repair works must be
established. To facilitate such works,
information networks, emergency manpower
mobilization plans, and mutual cooperation
system must be established; and comprehensive
preparation must be made for stockpiling
materials and equipment required for restoration
Each part of water supply facilities must be
designed to retain its respective capacity even
after an earthquake with the design intensity of
seismic tremor.
The more important the facility, the more the
need for such consideration.
For anti-seismic design of facilities, the design
method must be employed, which is suitable to the
characteristics of respective facilities and the
nature of their founding and surrounding soil.
works, preparation of complete sets of facility 5.2.2 Seismic Motion Levels
drawings and
management.
decentralization of their Design
5.1.8 The Order of Restoration Works and
Relationship Between Emergency
Restoration Works and Permanent
Restoration Works
As a general rule, restoration work after an
earthquake disaster should start with raw water
intake facilities, followed by, in sequence, water
treatment facilities, transmission and distribution
facilities, and finally water service connections.
To realize early resumption of water service,
sufficient consideration should be made on
relationship between emergency restoration works
and subsequent permanent restoration works.
5.2 Basic Principles for Anti-Seismic Design
5.2.1 General
5-5
For an anti-seismic design, two different
magnitudes of intensity must be employed:
Seismic Motion Levell, which has a return
probability of once or twice in the service lie of
the facility, and Level 2, which has a smaller
probability than the former but is greater in
magnitude.
Seismic Motion Levell (Ll) is equivalent to
the conventional seismic motion level set by many
civil engineering construction guidelines.
Seismic Motion Levell may be generated once or
twice during the in service period of a structure.
Seismic Motion Level 2 (L2) is the equivalent of
the seismic motion generated in areas with faults
or areas with big scale plates bordering. inland
areas, such as the earthquake which struck the
southern area of Hyogo Prefecture in 1995.
The probability of a water works system
experiencing Seismic Motion Level 2 is very low.
Nevertheless, the influence of a Seismic Motion
Level 2 is considered enormously great.
However, information on seismic motion
parameters for a fault may be used to search for an
appropriate location. If a seismic motion caused
by active faults is clearly understood using
preliminary surveys, a construction design can be
directly evaluated.
5.2.3 Importance Ranking of Facilities
In principle, for planning anti-seismic design of
water supply facilities, they must be categorized
into two:
(1) facilities at a high level of importance
(Rank A), and
(2) other facilities (Rank B).
Each water utility must sort the Rank A
facilities based on the actual position of their
system, and with consideration to the following
conditions:
1) Facilities which possess the potential to
generate serious secondary disasters.
2) Facilities located up stream of water supply
system.
3) Main facilities which do not have backup
facilities.
4) Feeder mains to important facilities.
5) Main facilities which are difficult to restore
if damaged
6) Facilities which will become the center for
gatheringinformation during a disaster.
5-6
It is not realistic to demand the highest level of
earthquake durability every component of a water
supply system. When implementing anti-seismic
planning for a facility, the facility's degree of
significance must be categorized into either Rank
A or Rank B. In addition, the degree of
importance must be combined with the two
Seismic Motion Levels, Level 1 and Level 2.
Through these combinations, it is possible to
create different designs with different anti-seismic
capabilities. Refer to 5.2.1 (general concept) and
5.2.4 (anti-seismic levels for water works facilities
during an earthquake).
The significant degrees are decided by
individual work groups, based on their own
judgment, experience, locallspecialized reasoning,
and consideration of local disaster prevention
programs. Factors effecting a facility's degree of
significance are grouped in two categories: those
factors which, during an earthquake, may
influence non-water works facilities and those
factors which may effect the conventional
functions of awter works facilities.
5.2.4 Anti-Seismic Level Which Water Supply
Facilities Must Maintain During an
Earthquake
Water supply facilities should maintain either
one of the following anti-seismic standards, which
are set by combining the Seismic Motion Level
(Ll and L2) and the importance ranking (Rank A
and Rank B) of the facilities.
\

rllil'llktl I
t\)$j;;nltJan,

?1I$ibl.
5.2.5 Earthquake Effects on Anti-Seismic
Designs
For anti-seismic design, the following effects of
earthquake must be taken into consideration:
1) Displacement and distortion of the
foundation soil during an earthquake,
2) Inertial force owing to the weight of
structures,
3) Soil pressure during an earthquake,
4) Dynamic water pressure during an
earthquake,
5) Water surface sloshing,
6) Lateral soil movements due to liquefaction
of the soil, and
7) Soil distortion on a slope of reclaimed land.
Facilities which are built on ground that is
clearly subject to rapid/dynamic change, such as
ground subject to horizontal, fluid displacement or
5-7
ground located above an active fault, must be
given sufficient consideration due to the potential
for disaster. In particular, new housing on slopes
which have been artificially altered are especially
subject to ground distortion and displacement
generated by a Seismic Motion Level 2.
This earth load stress can be evaluated using
methods based on the response displacement
method.
There are two types of hydraulic water force:
one which exerts inertial force directly against a
facility and one which exerts secondary,
osciliating force on the surface of free water.
Facilities which abut reservoir structures,
underground water storage tanks, dams, or water
intakes receive dynamic water pressure during an
earthquake. As a result, the design of such
facilities must take into consideration the
influence of this pressure.
The effects of surface oscillation in water on a
structure must be determined by analyzing the
oscillation characteristics of a structure and the
frequency of surface water.
5.2.6 Sequence of Anti-Seismic Design Works
As a general rule, anti-seismic designs of water
supply facilities must be carried out in the
following order:
1) Selection of the construction site,
2) Geotechnical survey at the site
3) Selection of the type of structure and the
study on geotechnical conditions of
foundation,
4) Anti -seismic calculation,
5) Examination of anti-seismic level
Figure 5.2.1 illustrates the method for anti-
seismic calculation. This method may differ
according to the structural characteristics and
ground conditions involved. The appropriate
calculation. method must match the structure's
propose and condition.
A facility belonging to Significance Rank B
must designed by matching it to Seismic Motion
Level 1. Depending on the facility's necessity,
evaluation under Seismic Motion Level 2.must be
made.
5.2.7 Related Regulations
When designing water supply facilities, existing
laws and related regulations whichever applicable,
must be followed. In addition, it is desirable that
technical standards established by institutions or
associations are followed.
5-8
S TAR T
SELEcrION OF
CONSTRUcrION SITE
DECISONOFSIGNIFICANT
RANKING OF FACILITIES
SOILSURVEY
STRUcrURE DESIGN
ANDl'KAMiNG
STATIONARY LOAD
CALCULATION
ANTI-SEISMIC CALCULATIONS
FORSEISMIC MOTIONLEVEL 1
No
ANTI-SEISMIC CALCULATIONS
FORSEISMICMOTIONLEVEL2
Yes
No
No
E N D
fiGURE 5.2.1
ANTI-SEISMICSTRUcrURE DESIGNORDER
5-9
5.3 Seismic Motion Input for Anti-Seismic
Design
5.3.1 Anti-Seismic Calculation Methods and
Objective Structures
1. The following are standard anti-seismic
design methods to be applied for water supply
facilities. Their selection must be based on the
structural nature of the objective structures and
other factors.
Depending on the structural nature and special
subsoil conditions, the result of calculation by
means of either 1) or 2) must be cross-checked
with that obtained by mean of 3).
1) Seismic intensity method
2) Response displacement method
3) Reference to the results by dynamic
analysis
2. For ground structures, an anti-seismic design.
must be implemented using the seismic intensity
method. Because the effects of inertial force and
dynamic water pressure, in the case water levels
are full, cannot be neglected, verification of the
safety, using the dynamic analysis method, is
recommended after the seismic intensity method
is applied.
3. Buried structures must be designed using the
seismic intensity method or the response
displacement method. For the anti-seismic
design of a structure whose movements are
complex at the Seismic Motion Level 2, to verify
the results calculation using the seismic intensity
method or the response displacement method, the
5-10
dynamic analysis method must be applied when
required.
For an anti-seismic design of a massive,
partially buried structure (such as a settling basin),
the seismic intensity method may be used.
5.3.2 Seismic Intensity Used in Anti-Seismic
Design under the Seismic Intensity
Method for Ground Structures
(Seismic Motion Levell)
1. The horizontal seismic intensity to be used for
design or structures on the ground surface
shall be determined as follows:
K
h1
::::: C, . K
h01
(5.3.1)
Where:
C
z
: Region-specific correction factor.
Values are 1.0-0.7.
K
h01
: Standard horizontal seismic
intensity at the center of gravity of the
structure. Values are shown in Table
5.3.1 by the type of subsoil.
The value of K
hOl
shall be set at 0.16, 0.2,
and 0.24 for ground type I, IT, and ill
respectively.
2. Ground types for an anti-seismic design must
be classified based on proper period obtained
by the equation 5.3.2. If the base of the
foundation conforms to the ground surface,
the ground type must be Type I.
~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5 3 2)
..
Where:
TAlltE
}'(n$T.rj,'"PE qltOUNtJO'il",i!;2).ViHEEETaXSTHg.
NKl'LlRALPERJfJDOW
TG: Proper period of ground(s)
Hi: Thickness of the I th stratum (m)
Vsi: Average elastic wave velocity (rills)
3. Should the vertical seismic intensity (K.vl) be
taken into account, the following formula
shall be used.
1. The behavior of water works in reaction to a
seismic motion is dependent on factors such
as the earthquake's strength, its periodic
characteristics, its duration, the ground type,
the type of structure involved, the type of
foundation, etc.. Standard design for
horizontal seismic intensity takes these factors
into account.
2. Ground classification is used to determine the
horizontal seismic intensity value (K
h1
) on a
construction design, using the seismic
intensity method.
As a "rule of thumb," Type I ground is made
up of ideal diluvial ground and a proper rock
bed. Type ill ground is considered poor
ground and is located at or around the alluvial
5-11
layer. Type II ground does not belong to
either Type I ground or Type II ground.
Instead, Type II belongs to either diluvial or
alluvial categories. The alluvial ground
mentioned here includes new sedimentary
layers created by landslides, landfills, and
other weak ground. The Diluvial layers
mentioned here include hardened sandy soil
layers and layers of boulders.
5.3.3 Seismic Motion Level Used in Anti-
Seismic Design by the Seismic Intensity
Method for Ground Structures
(Seismic Motion Level 2)
1. Horizontal seismic intensity (K
h2
) used for
anti-seismic design based' on Seismic' Motion
Level 2 shall be determinedas follows:
KhZ = C, . K
hoz
(5.3.3)
Where:
C
z
: Structure specific factor, which must
properly be determined based on the
magnitude of diminution due to the
response of the structure and the
capability of plastic deformation of the
structure.
STAN[DRD:EiiiE1Z0NTAL SEIS'MIC rWTENSI':fTJRtiL
STRUttt'tJ.R$t$ElSMlCrNTENSl'1'Y$;1B:T.HOP)
--_.." ..
GROUNtlT'l"BE I Jho2vPJ.;"tt"EAGP-,lNSTSTRl1C)",f'UP,;Jl:.J.. NNl'tJ1't.4.L 'f'BBIDT{Sl
'1'YrE"j ... ..w .... ,.... '1'<0,2 O,.z;G.'1'';;l.l) 1..0<:'1'
'H;,:]'::f"..... ":r' .:0.
.. Jhoz==l)} KM2=LOOOf" lAM
T<O,2 "'..'''"..,,,,.'''1... '...... 1..0<.'1'
...' . .. j
[0;2&1'o<05J B:O\VEVER; KhG2= 1.4 __
T\?B ill

""-.."1....
I
tAanL5,3:$ E'OT1'M:tilM.l,ViililJE{$'EI$M1CMOXION tJil'\tEt. 2)

..... , ', .. --. .. " .. "': ... : ..... :-... _.,.: .. ... -.,,.: .... _--.- .... : .... : .. " .. ".:.,: ..... :,.:..:.,.:.: .. ,:': ..... ,'.".:': ......-, .. ,'-''':--:----CC":
TYP.E 1 Ctc<0.21
Tt>JS THE 'NAT{JRlib
GROUNDPERIOD
'.t')9E'Il.'OEQVN'P

K
hoz:
Standard horizontal seismic
intensity at the center of gravity of the
structure, the values of which are
derived from Table 5.3.2, Table 5.3.3
depending on the importance of the
structure and the soil type.
However, KhZ shall not be less than 0.3.
The standard horizontal seismic intensity
(KhZ) at the ground surface must be: 0.7
(upper limit) - 0.6 (lower limit), 0.8 - 0.7, 0.6-
0.4 respectively for Type I, Type II, and Type
ill subsoil classifications.
2. When taking vertical seismic intensity (K,Z),
the equation is:
5-12
3. If there is a possibility that the seismic motion
is largely amplified by such irregularities of
ground as the titled ground surface, the design
seismic intensity shall be increased by 1.2
times at maximum.
These guidelines were decided to be designed
horizontal seismic intensity and acceleration
response spectrum by the following methods.
CD Maximum acceleration on the ground
surface.
Using the seismic motion records
which can be accepted as based on
engineering standards (Kobe University
[NS EW]; East Kobe Ohashi [GL-33m,
N78E, N12W]; Port Island (GL-83m,
Nl2E), the ground surface response
acceleration was derived by the
equivalent linear method with
considering the flexibility dependence of
modulus of transverse flexibility
(modulus of rigidity) and dampening
coefficients based on total 150 points of
boring data from the Hanshin District.
Based on these results, divided into three
ground types: Type I ground (T
G
< 0.2s),
Type IT ground (0.2 < T
G
< 0.6s), and
Type III ground (0.6 < T
G
) according to
its natural period and asked the
generation frequency distribution of each
ground type. With this results, set non-
over probability 90%, 70% and decided
the upper and lower limit values of the
surface acceleration. For example,
surface acceleration of Type I ground
600-700 gal is equivalent to non-over
probability of 70%-90%. Further, the
intensity is derived by dividing ground
surface acceleration by gravitational
acceleration and it is used to measure for
anti-seismic structural design by seismic
intensity method and judgment of the
liquidation. This design horizontal
seismic intensity must be set between
upper limit value and lower limit value of
the significance rank of the facilities.
CD Structural acceleration spectrum.
Before mentioned generation
frequency distribution of the structural
acceleration response spectrum
5-13
(acceleration response value) of the
ground surface seismic intensity which is
gathered from approximately 150
checking sites were surveyed at each I, IT,
and ill type grounds. Same as the
design horizontal seismic intensity
described before, the value equivalent to
the acceleration response value was
derived at each 90% and 70% of non-
over probability and was shown in
Figure 5.3.1 x 1. As same with design
horizontal seismic intensities, the value
equivalent to the acceleration response
value was set within the limits of the
significant ranking of the facilities.
Also, concerning the area which periodic
zone is above LOs (Type ill ground must
be above 1.5s), on the logarithmic graph
the spectrum value is shown as a
'declining straight line. Also, 0.1 second
spectrum value has set to coincide to the
maximum ground surface acceleration
value as shown in (1). Also, the
response spectrum shows a result of
attenuation coefficient 5% and if the
structural attenuation coefficient may
differ from this result, the acceleration
response value will be assumed to
reverse proportion of the 2 root of
attenuation coefficient, and correct the
spectrum value. For example, in the
case of an acceleration response value of
10%, it may become 5% of the value:
$/.JW = 0.707 (times).
III
10.t 1
5T1WCTl:W:AL PROPEJ'SOr

.
T
($ElSMICMOT!ON LJ-:V'l::L2)
I
STRtiC1'UK41. NATr.7R.tiJ,.PROPF.l{TY(S)
SECQNlJ1"'ll{,,: GROU1<iD FOUND,,:rl0N
(h) (O,2S;>:T".<O.6.s)
@ Standard Horizontal Seismic Intensity
(K
hoz)
The standard horizontal seismic
intensity (K
hoz)
is derived from dividing
the acceleration response value at the
center of gravity of the structure by
gravitational acceleration. Based on the
Figure 5.3.1 the result of formulating
upper and lower limit values of the
standard horizontal seismic intensity is
shown in Table 5.3.2 and 5.3.3. The
Upper and lower limit values are
equivalent to the bore mentioned at 90%
and 70% of non-over probability. This
means depending on the water supplier's
judgment on the significant degree of
water works facility may reflect choice.
@ Design Horizontal Seismic Intensity
(Khz)'
The design horizontal seismic intensity
(Khz) is derived by multiplying the
standard horizontal seismic intensity
(K
hoz)
with the structural characteristic
factor (C
s
) ' This structural
characteristic factor (C
s
) is derived by
multiplying the dampening characteristic
(D). Figure 5.3.1 shows the response
spectrum derived at with a structural
attenuation coefficient of 5%. If, the
structural attenuation coefficient differs
from this value, it can be corrected and
D '1 can be derived from this graph.
Further, the D'1 value is considered the
structural flexibility factor. Thus, it is
5-14
(K' hOI) and (K
hOl)
shall be derived using Table
intensity at the objective depth may be
derived by linear interpolation between K
hOl
and K'hOI'
2. The design horizontal seismic intensity, when
applying Seismic Motion Level 1, shall be
determined as follows:
1) The design horizontal seismic intensity at
ground surface
s; = C
z
' K
hOI
2) The standard horizontal seismic intensity
equivalent with factors which are used
for calculating equivalent horizontal
seismic intensity in "Road Bridge
Specifications. " This is defined as
follows:
D = J5
hJh
D = 1
17
5.3.4. The standard horizontal seismic
't'lTL _
VVUC>1C>
h =attenuation coefficient (%)
7] =durability ratio
The structural characteristic factors
(C
s
) can only be used for seismic motion
Level 2. They cannot be applied to
seismic motion Level 1 anti-seismic
construction design.
5.3.4 Seismic Intensity Used in Anti-Seismic
Design by the Seismic Intensity Method
for Buried Structures
1. When anti-seismic design for buried
structures is carried out using the seismic
intensity method, the standard horizontal
seismic intensity shall be determined
employing the standard horizontal seismic
intensity (K' hOI) at the base ground level
assumed for the design and the ground surface
seismic intensity (K
hOI)'
The values of
5-'15
at the base ground surface
s ; = C
z
' K'hOi
Where:
C; Region-specific correction factor.
Values are 1.0-0.7.
3) When considering the vertical design
seismic intensity (K
VI
)
K
Y1
= K
h/2.
.rAJHES,3L4
STANDARlJHORlZ0f4i1;j\n.SlEtSMlCIN1""Et4Sfl')'{UEVEDll
WH1ff.jS.TJSED..FnR't$i$.
DEsIG1'j'..BiX .1fJ3,$ $EISMlY..INTlU-iSIlT'Y METH0D
.....
GROIl'1>J"DTi:PB SmlSM1CIh'1'ENSlT'i': . . .....N$l'm" ...
CLASSJElCATlom
When the buried structures are designed by the
seismic intensity method, the standard horizontal
seismic intensity which will act on the buried
structure can be considered as the standard
horizontal seismic intensity at the center of the
gravity of the structure.
Also for the underground standard horizontal
seismic intensity will be assumed that it will
change linearly between the base ground of the
anti-seismic design and ground surface.
Therefore, it will be obtained the value at the
center of the gravity of structure by the linear
3. If there is possible amplification of seismic
motion due to such irregularities of the ground
as tilted ground surface, the design seismic
intensity shall be increased by 1.2 times at
maximum.
Similar to seismic motion Level 1, the
design horizontal seismic intensity, which acts
on buried structures, may be acceptably
derived using linear interpolation at the
structure's center of the gravity. Here the
design horizontal seismic intensity K
h2
is not
interpolation. necessarj when considering the structural
characteristic factor.
1. For anti-seismic design of buried structures,
whose response characteristics during an
I
't'fPR dMJUND
t1C<C.2J ..
,VHE1'l:E'l'G is
GRDlfNf.1.NA'ttlH.i\L
'?ERJOD(s)
TYPEll
[O.Z1iil'c<t't<i]
Tl'Ps.m

tAaH15.35
DESIGNfORHORlZONTAI..>SElSMIG.. rNTENSITY
{SlSMiCM01'lONLEVU2JWJ:liCHU$ED FOR
hEsl(iN(SE1SMIC
METHOD
5.3.6 Seismic Motion Level Used in the
Response Displacement Method for
Buried Structures
1. In the case anti-seismic design for an Buried
structure is carried out by the seismic intensity
method, the design horizontal seismic
intensity shall be determined by the design
horizontal seismic intensity (K'h2) at the base
ground surface used for anti-seismic design
and the ground surface seismic intensity (K
h2
) .
The values of (K'h2) and (K
h2
) shall be deri,:ed
from Table 5.3.5. The design horizontal
seismic intensity at the objective depth may
be determined by linear interpolation between
K
h2
and K
h2
'.
2. In the case vertical seismic intensity (K
v2
) is
taken into account, shall be set as follows:
K
V2
= K
h
12.
5.3.5 Design Seismic Intensity Used in Anti-
Seismic Intensity Method for Buried
Structures
5-16
earthquake are chiefly affected by movements
of surrounding ground, the response
displacement method shall be used.
Cross-sectional force, stress, strain, etc.
working on the structures shall be computed
based on the displacement or deformation of
the ground. The ground displacement
amplitude to be generated under Seismic
Motion Level 1 shall be derived by the
following formula at the distance x(m) from
the ground surface.
u,(x) = cos (5.3.4)
Jr
Where,
U
h
(x): the horizontal displacement amplitude
(m) of the ground at the depth x from the
ground surface.
Sv: seismic motion velocity response spectrum
(cmls) of the ground per unit seismic
intensity.
T
G
: the natural period(s) for the surface layer
of the ground.
K 'h1: the design horizontal seismic intensity at
foundation ground surface where the
design is based (Refer to 5.3.4 Seismic
Intensity Used in Anti-Seismic Design by
the Seismic Intensity Method for Buried
Structures (Seismic Motion Levell))
H: the thickness of surface ground layer (m)
ill the case the vertical response
displacement amplitude is taken into account,
the following formula is used:
1
U =-U
v 2 h
Velocity response(s) per unit seismic intensity
is derived using Figure 5.3.2 according to the
basic natural period for the ground surface layer.
Figure 5.3.2 shows the maximum relative
velocity generated by modeling a system with one
degree of freedom for the natural period TG'
Reduction of the constant h
G
(20%) for the surface
ground layer was accomplished. With this
derived value together with seismic records
expanded the maximum velocity to 1.0 g.
1 H)
Nt:rtJEAV.r:'E1HOn.(l'e)(sJOPSUl'l.%'iGE
e.. "...,. 2 i CRQtJND ROb NDA'1' HJN
.. .. ,",_. ,'" .': , _ ' -" , _.' _." .. " . <
SPEED RE:'H>0NSESFECTRUMfORCONSTRUGT1QUI]E$fOW
M01'JONLKVE:L2'l
5.3.7 Seismic Intensity Used in Design of
Buried Structures by the Response
Displacement Method
Similar to the case of Seismic Motion Levell,
like Buried structures, anti-seismic design of
structures whose response characteristics during
an earthquake are chiefly affected by displacement
of surrounding ground, the response displacement
5-17
method shall principally be used.
Cross-sectional force, stress and strain, etc.
working on the structures shall be computed
based on the displacement or deformation.
The ground displacement amplitude generated
under Seismic Motion Level 2 is derived by
the following formula at the distance x(m)
from the ground surface.
2 I 1lX
U'; (x) =7r
2
S; To cos 2H (5.3.5)
Where,
U; (x): the horizontal displacement amplitude
ground surface.
Sy: seismic motion velocity response spectrum
(cm/s) [See Figure 5.3.3]
To: the natural period(s) for the surface ground
layer.
H : the thickness of the surface ground layer (m)
When the ground vertical response
displacement amplitude Uv is considered, the
formula is:
1
U =-U
y 2 h
If there is possible amplification of seismic
motion due to such irregularities of the ground
as tilted ground surface, the design seismic
intensity shall be increased by 1.2 times at
maximum.
These records were from the 1995 Hyogo-
ken Nanbu earthquake. These records took into
account five wave forms obtained from ground
5-18
foundation and rock bed surface observations
within 20 km from the Hyogo fault. Figure
5.3.3 represents the velocity response spectrum
obtained from the acceleration response
spectrum of the ground surface. Engineering
judgment was added. Figure 5.3.3 shows two
different kinds of values - 200 cm/s (upper
limit) and 70 cm/s (lower limit) - as the
maximum response velocity. The system was
modeled with one degree of freedom for natural
periods above 0.7(s). Each of these values is
compatible to a probability not exceeding 90%
and 70%. The desigu value is increased or
decreased within the scope of the upper limit
and the lower limit, according to significance
rank of the structure.
r 10
FA'1'tiJLAiL l"B.RIOD(n:;){flFOR.S.tJf\.f,...
rPUNDATI0N
EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN January,2000
5.3.8 Seismic Motion Input Used in Design
Using the Dynamic Analysis
The seismic waves used for dynamic analysis
must fit the founding ground surface velocity
response spectrum is shown in Figure 5.3.3, the
ground surface acceleration response spectrum is
shown in Figure 5.3.1, or the seismic waves
observed in the vicinity of inland faults such as
ones caused by the 1995 Hyogo-ken Nanbu
earthquake.
When selecting seismic wave observation sites
for dynamic analysis against seismic motion Level
2, the ground types for the sites must be well
considered. In particular, whether or not the
observed seismic wave response spectrum is
similar to the design response spectrum in Figure
5.3.1 must be check. The maximum value of the
inputted seismic wave for dynamic analysis must
be for a ground surface that is 6,000 - 7,000 cm/s"
and 400 - 600 cm/s
2
against the first ground type,
second ground type, and third ground type.
Similarly, the base ground must be 400-500 cm/s".
5.4 Geotechnical Surveys, Ground Displacement,
and Ground Distortion
5.4.1 Primary Subjects of Geotechnical Survey
For anti-seismic design of water supply
facilities, geotechnical survey at locations, where
construction works are situated, depending on the
importance of the facilities.
5-19
Soil surveys here include all surveys related to
topography, geology, ground, and soiL
Generally, less damage due to earthquakes is
found on good ground, that is firm and uniform
ground. Therefore, water works facilities must
be required to be built on such stable ground.
The following are not good ground conditions:
CD Sliding;
Mountainous slope toes and slope shoulders;
@ Slopes;
@ Different soil layer interfaces;
@ Weak ground;
@ Reclaimed ground;
(J) Ground subject to fluidization or lateral
floating during an earthquake.
1. Survey using existing records
Rough soil conditions at the facility
construction site can be studied.
2. Common soil survey
Study of required items for construction
planning and earthquake resistance of
facilities will be conducted.
3. Survey of dynamic properties of soil
The physical properties of soil are
represented by the N value. Cohesion, C,
and the internal friction angle 1>, are for
static behaviors. However, the velocity
effect of stress to the constants of the
ground and the effects of stress during an
earthquake must be discussed. For these
studies, the following constants shall be
determined.
EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODESIN JAPAN January, 2000
1) Modulus of dynamic distortion;
2) Attenuation coefficient;
3) Dynamic poison ratio;
4) Dynamic shear strength.
4. Survey of dynamic physical properties of
the ground
1) Velocity of elastic wave;
2) Ground predominant period; and
3) Other.
The geotechnical survey methods shall be based
on the following:
1. Follow the standard or criteria which are set
forth in the Japan Industrial Standard (JIS)
or the Japan Geology Society (JGS) for
various survey and laboratory test.
2. In principle, measurements shall be actually
conducted for dynamic soil constants and
dynamic physical properties of the ground.
When it is impossible to do so, they may be
obtained from the results of other surveys.
5.4.2 Methods of Geotechnical Survey
Vfu-lOliS test-methods and soil Constants related
to ground and soil are shown in Table 5.4.1.
01
o
o
0 .:

iO
i fJ
10
.10
o
o
o
o
o
o
i
Jh7Klli/OR.BODY StAWIC'1'ESTS UNIJl... 't.J'AL.C(tMPRESSI0t'i
SMfPtt"1C.'l'E);.r
.
. DlRECtSflEAroNGT$tirt
..... lixiNA.lV!lC'l'Rb\XIAt
.
.PYNi><MICstMPLl:l.
..
.
...RE.so.N. AJ. '<f. bE. M.z. nc ... H.OD....
.",.",_.."-__....;.. .. ,,.;TgSTVIER;.4Trot>l1'EST
.

S\?EEO\'tIl:;.L.BRDERrilED
{)NLY'THES.H!EAR!NGELAS'I'ICCOEl1'FICIEN'T: \'IlLLJUlDERr\I1i:!)
5-20
5.4.3 Soil Liquefaction and Lateral Spreading
Liquefaction of the soil is a phenomenon
whereby sandy soil loses its strength and rigidity
rapidly and the whole body of soil behaves like
liquid.
Since the soil liquefaction causes damage to
water supply facilities such as flotation of buried
structures, and subsidence and/or tilting of other
structures, anti-seismic design with due
consideration to such aspects must be provided.
In the ground near the embankment bordering a
reclaimed land and slopil1.g ground, a phenomenon
of lateral movements, of liquefied soil may occur
and may damage foundation of structures and
water mains. For the examination of anti-
seismic safety of such lateral soil movements shall
be taken into account. Judgment on the
possibility of soil liquefaction shall be made if the
soil possesses all the following conditions:
(1) Saturated soil layer thinner than 25m from
the ground surface.
(2) Average grain size D
so
is less than lOmm.
(3) Content by weight of small grain particles
(soil grain size of less than 0.075mm) is less
than 30%.
5.4.4 Ground Displacement and Ground Strain
Caused by Liquefaction
In the ground near the embankment or sloping
ground, there is a possibility of lateral spreading
due to liquefaction. For anti-seismic design
buried pipelines for water supply, ground
5-21
displacement and strain due to such lateral
spreading must be taken into account.
Large-scale lateral movement of a revetment,
caused by an earthquake, is possible in reclaimed
areas. This occurs when the tensile strain of the
ground, in a direction perpendicular to revetment
line, is in the range of 1.2 - 2.0%. Figure 5.4.1
shows the frequency of ground strain occurrence
100m from the revetments in the Hyogo-ken
Nanbu and Niigata earthquakes. Based on this
distribution, the probability was calculated and
tabulated in the Figure. ~ ~ ground strain value of
1.2 - 2.0% was obtained from the 70% and 90%
non-exceeding probability. For anti-seismic
design of underground pipelines, an appropriate
ground strain may be selected within this range,
depending on the pipeline's degree of importance
and difficulty in restoring.
5.4.5 Ground Strain at the Incline of
Artificially Altered Ground
In the case, the surface of artificially altered
ground (such as in a housing estate) is inclined,
displacements downwards along the slope may
occur during a severe earthquake with such
seismic intensity as the Seismic Motion Level 2.
The effects of such ground displacement must
be taken into account for anti-seismic design of
buried pipeline.
Ground strain for inclined ground (non-
fluidized) during the Seismic Motion Level 2 is
0$1%
Q)7Q$4
according to the degree of fluidization.
and foundation structures is reduced when ground
is fluidized. Reducing ground reaction greatly
effects the behavior of structures during
earthquakes. The ground reaction coefficient
and ground friction force must be reduced as
shown in Table 5.4.2. This must be done
account. The types of ground subject to
investigation are: valleys filled with ground,
ponds, and embankments with more than 10%
average slope.
filt'5lJRE ,s.4L..l
F'RtQttt>CY bl$TRlIHPTlQNNBAR BFL1;l4B;Att
:<EJCHBORHOQDARE:A
within a range of 1.0 - 1.7%.
Anti-seismic design for buried pipelines for the
Seismic Motion Level 2 must be taken into
5.4.6 Reduction in Reaction Force and Ground
Friction Force due to Soil Liquefaction
If there is a possibility of soil liquefaction, the
ground reaction force coefficient for the design of
buried pipeline and foundation structures must be
reduced according to the degree of liquefaction.
Ground reactions which act on buried pipelines
5-22
SCOP2bF$AJ:'WtYRAT!t'}j"'L
ACAU1Sl' LIQJJlW1>H;nON
GEMEHAtllJN
ntlrt:H1I'B0M
GThOlJ:ND S'l;JE'

,.;..,.:......... .......... ........., ..........
5.5 Soil Pressure During an Earthquake
5.5.1 General
For anti-seismic design of structures attached to
the earth, the soil pressure during an earthquake
shall be determined according to the following:
1. The horizontal soil pressure during an
earthquake must be derived by the Mononobe-
Okabe soil pressure formula.
2. In case vertical seismic intensity for the
surcharge load during an earthquake, the
surcharge load must be multiplied by (1 +K
v
) .
5.5.2 Calculation of Horizontal Soil Pressure
During on Earthquake
For calculation of the horizontal soil pressure 5.5.3 Calculation of Vertical Soil Pressure
during an earthquake, the cohesiveness of soil, if
During an Earthquake
any, shall be taken into account.
The vertical soil pressure on buried pipeline
1. Soil classification for earth pressure must be calculated taking into account, the
calculation. For soil classification and for influence of lateral friction, if any.
various numerical soil values of earth pressure,
refer to Table 5.5.1.
5-23
5.5.4 External Pressure due to Lateral
Spreading
On the ground, which may be subject to lateral
spreading due to liquefaction, anti -seismic design
of foundation structures must be carried out with
consideration to the external force caused by such
spreading. In this case, the influence of inertia
force from the super-structure and the base
structure don't have to be considered.
Great concern about the external pressure
created by lateral ground flow exists, especially,
with regards to water works facilities built on
suspect ground. Anti -seismic structural design
must consider earth and flow pressure.
It is shown in the experiments that fluidization
flow pressure (which acts on the buried structure)
in the liquefied ground layer is below 30% of the
total load pressure.
The lateral flow of the external pressure is
stated in Figure 5.5.1.
5-24
5.5.5 Buoyancy Generated by Soil Liquefaction
ill case the liquefaction resistance coefficient,
F
L
, refer to Explanation of 5.4.3 (Soil Liquefaction
and Lateral Spreading) of soil surrounding such
buried structures as pipeline is smaller than 1.0,
the safety of the structure in regard to buoyancy
shall be examined.
Specific gravity of fluidized soil is 18 - 20
kN/m
3
(1.8 - 2.0 X 10-
3
kgf/cnr'). If the actual
specific gravity includes the content volume or
it will become smaller than this value and the
buried structure will have a tendency to balloon.
The upper portion of the non-fluidization layer,
the weight of the road surface pavement materials,
and the shearing resistance will usually block out
the floating up. However, past examples
(Niigata earthquake, etc.) illustrate that floating up
bad broken pipelines or manholes. Careful
examination is necessary.
5.6 Hydrodynamic Pressure During an
Earthquake and the Water Sloshing
5.6.1 Hydrodynamic Pressure During an
Earthquake
For anti-seismic construction design of
structures that come into contact with water,
dynamic water pressure during an earthquake
must be considered.
Structures which contact water (such as a dams,
water tanks, etc.) and are subject to an earthquake
must be considered. These structures receive
dynamic water pressure during an earthquake.
The action of dynamic water pressure during an
earthquake must take into account two factors: (1)
whether free surface water is present and (2)
whether the complacability of the water can be
ignored.
Dynamic water pressure action created during
an earthquake can be dived into two factors: (1)
inertial action which interacts proportionality with
secondary dynamic water pressure generated by
free surface water oscillation. Generally, the
inertial force of dynamic water pressure
interaction is more significant and, therefore, will
be taken into account by the design. The action
of surface water oscillation is a supplemental issue
for dynamic analysis.
The complacability of water, with regards to
structures like water tanks and water intake towers
in water works facilities, can be ignored without
creating problems. However, for pipeline
structures, the complacability of water must be
considered. It is not, an excessive load for the
design may result.
5.6.2 Water Sloshing
For anti-seismic design of water tanks, water
sloshing must be considered when necessary.
For water tanks with free surface water,
5-25
sloshing is induced during an earthquake. The
effects of sloshing bring about overflow or impact
pressure against the roof.
Whether such sloshing cause damage, or not, it
depend on the close relationship between the
natural period of water sloshing in the tank and
the periodic characteristic of the seismic motion.
The sloshing of water inside of the tank shall be
checked by following methods.
a: Response spectrum method based on the
potential theory.
b: n wave response method.
c: Response spectrum method based on the
potential theory.
However, when the competent seismic wave
has inputted, dynamic response analysis is
acceptable.
5.7 Safety Check
5.7.1 Combination of Loads
Structure safety in anti-seismic calculations
must be checked by combining the normal load
(dead weight and live load at ordinary times) and
seismic effects.
5.7.2 Safety Check of the Structures Fabricated
with Steel, Concrete, etc.
For safety checks of structures fabricated with
concrete, steel bars, structural steel pre-stressed
concrete(pC) etc., the following related standards
must be used.
Specifications for Highway Bridges (Japan
Road Association);
Concrete Standard Specifications (Japan
Society of Civil Engineers);
Iron Sluice Valve Technology Standard (Iron
Sluice Valve & Pipe Society).
5.7.3 Safety Check of Pipeline in their Anti-
Seismic Calculations
As a general rule, safety of pipeline during an
earthquake must be checked with consideration to
I the strength and flexibility of the pipeline.
A pipeline structure for a water works facility
varies in types. If roughly categorized, the
following two types would emerge:
1. Jointed pipeline structures - Here, most of
the flexibility is dependant on the joint.
2. Continuous pipeline structure - Here, most
of the flexibility is dependent on material the pipe
is made of. The anti-seismic calculation method
for the direction of principal buried pipelines is
described in this edition of the guidelines.
Anti-seismic ability is checked using the
response displacement method. This method is
based on the behavior of the pipeline. This
behavior is generated through the relative
displacement of pipeline and the ground.
The pipelines, which possess the characteristics
of (1), are represented by ductile iron pipe. The
pipeline which possess the characteristics of (2)
are represented by steel pipe. The basic concept
of the safety check on pipelines with these
characteristics is summarized in Table 5.7.1. For
either the seismic motion Level 1 or seismic
motion Level 2, the pipeline component stress will
not exceed the allowable stress of the pipe
materials. With jointed pipeline structures under
live loads and under ordinary conditions, the
jointed component expansion capacity will not
exceed the maximum expansion capacity of the
design. This is the main point for anti-seismic
checking.
With safety checks against seismic motion
under live loads, must basically be below yield
point stress for the pipe component material.
Distortion, which corresponds with the yield point
stress, is:
E =(J IE =2,400/2,100,000 =0.11 %
After field condition are completely considered,
appearances seem better, since distortion of the
pipe component is below 23t/D (%) (about 0.15 -
0.20)% and the anti-seismic capability can be
checked. Here, t is the pipe thickness and D is
the diameter of the pipe. With seismic motion
Level 2, the distortion of the component, even
considering the stationary free load, is below
46tID (%) (about 0.3 - 0.4)%. The anti-seismic
capability can be checked.
5-26
5.7.4 Safety Check of the Foundation Ground
in its Anti-Seismic Calculations
As a general rule, safety of the foundation
ground in anti-seismic calculations must be
checked in accordance with "Supporting Ground
and Allowable Bearing Force".
5.7.5 Safety Check of Foundation, Earthen and
Retaining wall in Anti-Seismic
Calculations
As a general lule, safety check of foundation,
earthen structures, and retaining wall in anti-
seismic calculation must be checked in
accordance with "Anti-Seismic Calculation
Methods for Foundations" and "Anti-Seismic
Calculation Methods for Earthen Structures and
Retaining Wall".
5.7.6 Safety Check in Anti-Seismic Calculations
in Consideration of Critical State under
Seismic Motion Level 2
Safety check in anti-seismic calculations in
consideration of critical state must be carried out
using the following rules:
1. Based on the results of proper analyses or
testing the anti-seismic safety of structures
must be checked with reference to the
critical state found in such analysis and
testing.
2. In anti-seismic design based on the critical
state, tenacity of structures must be secured
5-27
so that no plastic yield shall occur until the
structures have reached te critical state.
3. For the anti-seismic design based on the
critical state, an appropriate safety factor
must be employed with reference to the
critical displacement.
6. RECOMMENDED PRACTICES FOR EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT
DESIGN OF GAS PIPELINES (DRAFT)
6.1 Introduction
6.2 High-Pressure Gas Pipelines
6.2.1 Basic Policy on Earthquake-Resistant Design
6.2.2 Earthquake-Resistant Design against Seismic Motions of Level 1
6.2.3 Earthquake-Resistant Design against Seismic Motions of Level 2
6.3 Medium- and Low-Pressure Gas Pipeilnes
6.3.1 Basic Policy on Earthquake-Resistant Design
6.3.2 Earthquake-Resistant Design Procedure
6.3.3 Design Ground Displacement
6.3.4 Ground Condition
6.3.5 Pipeline Capability to Absorb Ground Displacement
6.3.6 Allowable Strain and Allowable Displacement
6.4 Appendix
6.4.1 Earthquake-Resistant Design ofHigh-Pressure Gas Pipeline
6.4.2 Improvement of Earthquake Resistance of Pipelines
6.4.3 Block System of Pipeline Networks
6- 1
6- 1
6- 1
6- 3
6- 4
6-17
6-17
6-17
6-17
6-19
6-20
6-22
6-24
6-24
6-29
6-29
6.RECOMMENDEDPRACTICESFDREARrHQUAKE-RESfSTANTDESIGNOFGASPIPELINES
(DRAFT)
6.1 Introduction
The presently used "Recommended Practices
for Earthquake-Resistant Design of Gas Pipe-
lines" was established as the recommended
practices for earthquake-resistant design of
high-pressure gas pipelines (See Appendix
6.4.1.) and medium- and low-pressure gas
pipelines in March 1982, after the Miyagiken-
Oki Earthquake (June 1978),
The Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake occurred
in January 1995. Since the earthquake far
exceeded conventional theory, the Central Dis-
aster Prevention Council reviewed its Basic
Plan for Disaster Prevention and the Japan
Society of Civil Engineers presented a proposal.
These actions showed the necessity for and
concept of containing the recommended prac-
. tices for the earthquake-resistant design of
important structures in methods of design for
seismic motions of a higher level, level 2 seis-
mic motions, which correspond to the shocks
generated by the Hyogoken-Nanbu Earth-
quake in the Kobe District.
The gas utilities are also now revising the
Recommended Practices for Earthquake-
Resistant Design of Gas Pipelines in the high-
pressure gas pipelines section, mainly for the
purpose of improving the resistance of high-
pressure gas pipelines to seismic motions of
level 2, especially in the concept of design in-
put seismic motions. This revision is aimed at
achieving a more carefully-formulated respon-
se to advanced seismic needs worldwide in the
light of technological findings since the pre-
sently used Recommended Practices were es-
tablished 17 years ago. Regarding this re-
vised edition of Recommended Practice for
6-1
Design of High Pressure Gas Pipelines, be-
cause its official issue may be after the publi-
cation of the English version, it is hoped to
recognize it as based on a "Draft" of the revised
recommended practice.
The presently used Recommended Practices
for Earthquake-Resistant Design of Gas Pipe-
lines has not been revised in the medium- and
low-pressure gas pipelines section, since it has
been confirmed that the recommendations
therein are reasonable for earthquake-
resistant design, judging from the results of
investigation of the Hyogoken-Nanbu Earth-
quake.
6.2 High-Pressure Gas Pipelines
6.2.1 Basic Policy on Earthquake-
Resistant Design
(1) Basic Concept of Earthquake-Resistant
Design
For the earthquake-resistant design, two
levels of seismic motions are assumed to se-
cure the earthquake-resistant performance
specified for the respective levels of seismic
motions in principle.
(Description)
(a) The Basic Plan for Disaster Prevention of
the Central Disaster Prevention Council
was reviewed based on the Hyogoken-
Nanbu Earthquake which occurred on
January 17, 1995, and it now stipulates
that the earthquake-resistant design of
structures, facilities, etc. to be constructed
in the future shall not suffer any serious
loss of function even should general seismic
motions with a probability of occurring once
or twice within the service life of the pipe-
line occur, and shall not have any serious
influence on human life even should a
higher level of seismic motions of low prob-
ability occur, due to an inland type earth-
quake or trench type huge earthquake.
(b) For the earthquake-resistant design of gas
equipment, two levels of seismic motions
are assumed, and considering the influ-
ence of structures, facilities, etc. on-human
life, the influence on relief activities and on
the prevention of secondary disasters, and
the influence on economic activities, gas
equipment must have earthquake-resistant
performance suitable for its respective
kinds and degree of importance.
(c) Based on the above basic concept; earth-
quake-resistant design is performed to se-
cure the earthquake-resistant performance
required for the two levels of seismic mo-
tions, as described in the following chapter.
(2) Seismic Motions to be Assumed for
Design, and Earthquake-Resistant
Performance
The seismic motions to be assumed for de-
sign, and the earthquake-resistant perfor-
mance required of them are shown in Table
6.2.1.
Table 6.2.1 Seismic Motions and Earthquake-
Resistant Performance
Seismic Motions to be Assumed Eart hquake- Resistant
for Design Performance
Seismic
General seismic motions Operation can be
motions
with a probability of resumed immediately
of
occurring once or twice without any repair.
level 1
during the service life of
gas pipeline are assumed.
Very strong seismic mo- The pipeline does not
tions due to an inland leak. though de-
Seismic type earthquake or formed.
motions trench type earthquake
of likely to occur at a low
leve12 probability rate during
the service life of gas
pipeline are assumed.
6-2
(Description)
(a) Seismic Motions of Level 1, and Earth-
quake-Resistant Performance against
Them
[Seismic Motions]
Seismic motions specified in the previous
Recommended Practices for Earthquake-
resistant design of High Pressure Gas Pipe-
lines (March 1982).
[Earthquake-Resistant Performance]
The earthquake-resistant performance re-
quired for the seismic motions of level 1 is
such that "Operation can be resumed imD:1e-
diately without any repair." based on the Re-
port of the Committee for Preventing Seismi-
cally Caused Gas Disasters.
(b) Seismic Motions of Level 2, and Earth-
quake-Resistant Performance against
Them
[Seismic Motions]
A proposal concerning the seismic standard,
etc. of the Japan Society of Civil Engineers
presents concrete images as "seismic motion
near the hypocenter fault of an earthquake
caused by any internal strain of a plate of
magnitude 7 class (hereinafter called an in-
land type earthquake)" and "seismic motion
in the hypocenter region by a large-scale in-
ter-plate earthquake occurring near land
(hereinafter called a trench type earth-
quake)", and the present "Recommended
Practices" assumes the seismic motions of
these two earthquake types; inland type
earthquake and trench type earthquake.
Further, even if there -is no active fault
found in the existing documents, there is a
possibility that an inland type earthquake
may occur. Thus, it was decided to adopt a
concept that a lower limit level is set when
seismic motions are assumed.
[Earthquake-Resistant Performance]
The earthquake-resistant performance re-
quired for the seismic motions of level 2 is
such that "the pipeline does not leak, though
deformed." based on the Report of the Com-
mittee for Preventing Seismically Caused
Gas Disasters.
(3) Evaluation of Earthquake-Resistance
Since seismic motions repetitively forcibly
displace the pipeline, the fatigue damage at
a very low frequency caused by them is
evaluated for earthquake-resistant design,
When the ground of the planned pipeline
is likely to be greatly deformed by liquefac-
tion, etc., it must be examined adequately.
(Description)
The method for evaluating earthquake-
resistance was decided, considering that seis-
mic motions have the following characteristics:
a) the loads are short-term ones, and
b) since the strains (or relative displacements)
caused in the ground by seismic motions are
repetitively applied to the pipeline, the loads
are periodically displacement-controlled, and
also in reference to the concepts of existing
standards(ASME Sec. III, etc.) which specify
these loads.
6.2.2 Earthquake-Resistant Design
against Seismic Motions of Levell
The earthquake-resistant design against
seismic motions of level 1 is performed ac-
cording to the Recommended Practices for
Earthquake-resistant design of High Pres-
sure Gas Pipelines (Japan Gas Association,
6-3
March 1982)*. However, for the "apparent
propagationvelocity of seismic motion", the
value stated in "Apparent wavelength of
seismic motion" is used, and for the "ground
spring constants in the axial direction ofthe
pipe and in the transverse direction of the
pipe", the values stated in "Confiningforce
of ground" are used.
* See Appendix 6.4.1.
(Description)
For earthquake-resistant design against
seismic motions of levell, Recommended Prac-
tices for Earthquake-Resistant Design of High
Pressure Gas Pipelines* (Japan Gas Associa-
tion, March 1982) is applied.
However, the following portions among the
latest results of research concerning the
earthquake-resistant design, especially among
the findings obtained after the 1995 Hyogo-
ken-Nanbu Earthquake inclusive should also
be applied, in view of their nature, to the.
earthquake-resistant design against seismic
motions of level 1. So, for the following val-
ues stated in the 1982 Recommended Practices,
those stated in the present Recommended
Practices are used.
(1) "Apparent propagation velocity of seismic
motion" in "Design seismic motion"
(2) "Ground spring constants in the axial di-
rection of the pipe and in the transverse di-
rection of the pipe" in "Earthquake-
resistant design of straight pipe in uniform
ground", "Earthquake-resistant design of
straight pipe in roughly varying Ground"
and "Earthquake-resistant design for bend
and tee".
against Seismic Motions of Level 2
(1) Entire Flow of Earthquake-Resistant
Design
(a) The procedure for setting the design seis-
mic motion is shown in Fig. 6.2.1.
(b) The earthquake-resistant design flow
based on the set design seismic motion is
shown in Fig. 6.2.2.
(2) Setting of Design Seismic Motion
[A] Procedure and Method for Setting
Design Seismic Motion I, II and III
The design seismic motion is set as fol-
lows based on "[B] Investigation of active
fault" and "[C] Judgment as to existence of
active fault".
1) When it has been concluded that the ex-
istence of any active fault is positive:
The seismic motion obtained by multi-
plying the design seismic motion I stated
in "[D] Design seismic motion I" by the
seISmIC zone coefficient stated in "[G]
Seismic zone coefficient" is used as the
design seismic motion.
Alternatively if fault analysis can be per-
formed, the seismic motion calculated ac-
cording to the fault analysis stated in "[F]
Design seismic motion III" is used as the
design seismic motion. However, if the
calculated design seismic motion is smal-
ler than the seismic motion obtained ac-
cording to the procedure of 2), the seismic
motion of 2) is used as the design seismic
motion.
2) When it has been concluded that the exis-
tence of any active fault is negative:
The seismic motion obtained by multi-
6-4
plying the design seismic motion II stated
in "[E] Design seismic motion II" by the
seismic zone coefficient stated in "[G]
3) When it has been concluded that the exis-
tence of any active fault is unknown:
. The seismic motion obtained by multi-
plying the design seismic motion I stated
in "[D] Design seismic motion I" by the
seismic zone coefficient stated in "[G]
(Description)
(1) The seismic motion of level 2 to be applied
for design is set using any of the three kinds
of seismic motion described below based on
the conclusion as to whether the existence
of any active fault is positive or negative.
Design seismic motion I: Seismic motion
decided for the inland type earthquake
based on the observation records of
Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake
Design seismic motion II: Seismic motion
decided for the trench type earthquake
based on past earthquake observation
records
Design seismic motion III: Seismic motion
based on analytical decision for the in-
land type earthquake by modeling the
hypocenter fault and using the hypocen-
ter parameter and the information on
the ground and physical properties of
propagation routes
(2) If it is concluded that the existence of any
active fault likely to greatly affect the
planned pipeline is positive, it can be con-
sidered to analytically calculate the seismic
motion by modeling the hypocenter fault
and using the. fault parameter and the in-
formation onthe ground and physical prop-
erties of propagation routes (this method is
called fault analysis). However, presently
the data necessary for analysis and the
analytical method are not sufficiently es-
tablished. Therefore, the design seismic
motion is set by using the design seismic
motion I decided based on the observation
records of Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake,
one of the recent largest inland type earth-
quakes, or by fault analysis.
(3) When it has been concluded that the exis-
tence of any active fault is negative, it is re-
quired to take only the trench type earth-
quake into consideration, and the design
seismic motion is set using the design seis-
mic motion II for the trench type earth-
quake.
(4) When it has been concluded that the exis-
tence of any active fault is unknown, the
design seismic motion is set using the
above-mentioned design seismic motion I,
from the viewpoint of obtaining conserva-
tive results for design, since it cannot be
concluded that there is no active fault.
Investigation of active fault near
the design site (B)
Negative
Design seismic
motion II (E)
Selection of seismic
zone coefficient (G)
Corrected design
seismic motion II
Design seismic
motion I (D)
Selection of seismic
zone coefficient (G)
Corrected design
seismic motion I
Decision of design
seismic motion
No
Positive
Yes
Design seismic
motion ill (F)
* 1) If the design seismic motion III is smaller than the corrected design seismic motion II, the corrected
design seismic motion II is used as the design seismic motion.
Fig. 6.2.1 Design Seismic Motion Setting Flow
6-5
Fig. 6.2.2 Earthquake-Resistant Design Flow for High Pressure Gas Pipelines against
Seismic Motions of Level 2
Design Seismic Motion I or II
(set based on earthquake
observation records)
Design Seismic Motion III
(set by fault analysis)
.Apparent Wavelength of Seismic Motion
:L=VT
V;Apparent propagation velocity of seismic motion
.Natural Period of Ground of Surface Layer
4.H :EVsjOH
j
:T=-=-, V
s
=--'---
v, H
H ; Thickness of ground of surface layer (m)
Vs ; Shear wave velocity in the ground of surface layer (m/s)
Ir Elastic wave survey xC""", Sand 0.7 E . 0.6
L Clay 0.7 E 0.85
Estimate from N value -.:::::::::: Sand 0.7 E 6NO.2!
Clay 07 E12 NO078
V
(rn/s)
(2.5,800)
(0.15, 100)
T (s)
.Ma:cimum Velocity in the Ground of
Surface Layer at Design Site (at bur-
ied depth of gas pipeline): v
Maximum ground displacement: Uh
.Apparent Horizontal Propagation Velocity of Wave: V
a. Apparent propagation hodograph
b. Calculation of simple phase velocity
c. Detailed analysis (Haske] matrix method, etc.)
To calculate according to any of a, band c.
.Ground Displacement of Surface Layer
1tZ
. T Sv : cos-
aa
.Ground Strain
V
(cm/s)
(0.1,
8.0)
(0.7, 100)
f ~ 7 , 5 0 )
v ; Seismic zone
coefficient
z ; Buried depth of
pipeline (m)
Sv; Standard response
velocity (cm/s)
(0.1, 4.0)
T (s) .
.Ground Strain of Uniform Ground
: E Gl=2 1t X UhlL
Ground Strain of Irregular Shallow
Ground: EG2= IE G1
2
+ EG/
E G3: Ground strain caused by irregular
shallow ground
(* *)
6-6
No
.Strain Transfer Coefficient
~ ; Ground spring
constant in axial
direction of pipe
Design of Straight Pipe
Ground strain due to (*) or (**) E G
q. Coefficient considering sliding between
pipe and ground
Al = ~ KI
E'A
Strain of Pipe caused by earthquake
E p = a E G (a E G < E y)
: E p = E G (ex E G ~ e y)
E y; Yield strain of pipe material
Design of Bend and Tee
Ground displacement due to (*) or (**) Uh
.Displacement Transfer Coefficient
a * = q* aa
q* ; Coefficient considering sliding
between pipe and ground
Relative displacement between pipe
and ground
: 6. = (1- a *) . Uh
In the case of irregular shallow ground,
the value at or near the place where the
bend or tee is installed is used.
.Strain of Bend or Tee during
Earthquake
EB,T= f3 B,T 6. (f3 B , T ~ 1.27 Ey)
E B,T= C f3B,T 6.(f3 B,T > L 2 7 E y)
f3 B,T ; Coefficient of conversion
C ; Plastic state correction factor
.Allowable Strain
: Allowable strain
of straight pipe,
bend and tee 3%
6-7
No
Examination of Design Modification
of any active fault is "positive", "negative" or
"unknown" can be made in reference to Ta-
(Description)
(1) The conclusion as to whether the existence
....
Conclusion Criterion
"Positive" It is judged that "The existence of
any active fault likely to produce
large seismic motions is positive."
Fig. 6.2.3 shows the relation be-
tween the distance from an active
fault and the magnitude of an
earthquake.
"Negative" It is judged that "The existence of
any active fault likely to produce
large seismic motions is negative."
Fig. 6.2.3 shows the relation be-
tween the distance from an active
fault and the magnitude of an
earthauake.
"Unknown" It is not confirmed that there is no
active fault in a plain covered with a
thick sedimentary layer.
A complicated earth structure is
formed with boundaries of three
plates gathering underground, as in
the metrooolitan area.
ble 6.2.
Table 6.2.2 Criterion for concluding that the
existence of any active fault is "positive",
"nezative" or "unknown"
(2) The boundary line of Fig. 6.2.3 is obtained
by calculating the weak ground conditions
with a ground surface velocity of 64 cmls as
the boundary on the conservative side. If
the shortest distance from the active fault
concerned to the planned pipeline and the
magnitude of the earthquake likely to be
caused by the active fault exist on the left
side of the boundary line, the ground sur-
face velocity caused at the planned pipeline
when the active fault aets is larger than 64
cm/s. If they exist on the right, the ground
surface velocity is smaller than 64 em/s.
The surface ground velocity of 64 cm/s was
obtained by converting 50 cm/s, which is the
For investigation of any active fault, the
information concerning the position, prob-
ability, activity; etc. of any inland active fault
likely to produce large seismic motions to the
planned pipeline is collected from existing
documents.
[B] Investigation ofActive Fault
(Description)
(1) For any inland active fault, basically, the
active faults belonging to probabilities I and
II of "Active Faults in Japan (New Edition)"
are investigated for comprehensive evalua-
tion also in reference to the active fault list
stated in "Investigation and Observation
Plan for Foundations Relating to Earth-
quakes", the earthquakes assumed in the
regional disaster prevention plan and other
findings in the latest investigation and re-
search results.
(2) If any active fault found as a result of ac-
tive fault investigation is found not to be
imminent in activity and not to act during
the service life of the pipeline, it can be ex-
cluded from the investigation.
[C] Judgment as to the Existence of Active
Fault
Whether the existence of any active fault
likely to give large seismic motions to the
planned pipeline is "positive", "negative" or
"unknown" is concluded by taking the fol-
lowing into consideration:
(1) Distance of the planned pipeline from the
active fault
(2) Magnitude of earthquake estimated from
the length ofthe active fault
6-8
The design seismic motion I is shown in
'.0
0.:5 J.O 2.D
.7-;50)
0
V
(O.l.U
3
0.1 0.2
_. seismic motion II is shown in I
l!'lg.
300
(Description)
(1) The design seismic motion I was decided by
obtaining the velocity response spectrum on
the seismic base rock (engineering under-
ground base rock) based on 16 observed
waves of two horizontal components at the
hypocenter region and nearby (within 10 km
from the active fault) eight sites of the
Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake, considering
the non-excess probability.
[E] Design Seismic Motion II
Fig. 6.2.5 Velocity response spectrum of as-
sumed trench type earthquake
Natural period of ground of surface layer T (5)
(Description)
(1) The design seismic motion II was set at one
half of the design seismic motion I, in refer-
ence to the two spectra.
V Earthquake-resistant design Course,
Highway Bridge Specifications and Descrip-
tion (December 1996)
. Earthquake-resistant design (draft), Design
Standard and Description of Railway Struc-
tures, Etc. (November 1998)
[F] Design Seismic Motion III
II II
v
{O.1.I.Q
3Or--+-74--+++f+H--+-+-+-I
I I I I I II II I I I I
L I
"Positive' I I
I
,
I
I I I I
,
I I
I 1.-1" 'Negative" .
I I
I I 11111 11111
I I 11111 1111I
VI I I I
c-,
-.; a>
c -
o B
>
"'r

c _
Co >

I . .

5 I I I
o J0 20 30 40
Fig. 6.2.4.
8
response velocity of design seismic motion II
caused by the trench type earthquake speci-
fied in "Design seismic motion II", into the
ground surface velocity (50 x 4J 7[ =64, 4J 7[:
coefficient for converting the response of
single-degree-of-freedom system into the re-
sponse of continuum).
The shortest distance from an active fault, d (km)
Fig. 6.2.3 Criterion for concluding whether
the existence of any active fault likely to pro-
duce large seismic motions is positive or
negative
(3) As an example of the methods for estimating
the magnitude of an earthquake, Matsuda
proposes the following formula:
LoglOL =a.6M - 2.9
L: Length ofthe active fault
M : Magnitude of an earthquake specified
by Meteorological Agency
[D] Design Seismic Motion I
I ,
I I I
0..3 1.0 1.0 5.0
Natural period of ground of surface layer T (5)
Fig. 6.2.4 Velocity response spectrum of
assumed inland type earthquake
The design seismic motion III is calculated
by fault analysis.
(Description)
(1) If the seismic motion calculated by fault
6-9
Vs : Shear wave velocity in the ground of sur-
face layer (rn/s)
n Vs; Shear wave velocity of J
"" Vs - H j-th layer (mJs)
f;:: j j ~ : Thickness of j-th layer
H (m)
analysis is smaller than the corrected design
seismic motion II caused by the trench type
earthquake at the planned pipeline, the cor-
rected design seismic motion II is used as
the design seismic motion.
[G] Seismic Zone Coefficient
(1) The zone classification is the same as the
classification specified in the Recom-
mended Practices for Earthquake-
Resistant Design of High Pressure Gas
Pipelines (Japan Gas Association, March
1982).
(2) The seismic zone coefficient is the value
stated in Table 6.2.3 for each zone.
Table 6 2 3 Seismic Zone Coefficient
Zone Classification Seismic Zone Coefficient
Special AZone 1.0
A Zone 0.8
B or C Zone 0.7
(Description)
Fig. 6.2.6 shows the zone classification map
for the seismic zone coefficient.
(3) Ground Displacement and Ground Strain
of Surface Layer
[A] Natural Period of Ground of Surface Layer
The basic natural period of ground of surface
layer is obtained from the following formula:
4- H
T = ~ where
Vs
T: Natural period of ground of surface layer(s)
H: Thickness of ground of surface layer
n
~ -_. .
(=LHj) (m)
j=l
[
_ Special A Zone
m AZone
BZone
o .CZone
Fig. 6.2.6 Zone Classification for Seismic Zone Coefficient
6-10
[B] Apparent Wavelength of Seismic Motion
The apparent wavelength of seismic mo-
tion in the direction along the ground sur-
face is obtained from the following formula:
L= V' T
where L : Apparent wavelength of seismic
motion in the direction along the
ground surface (m)
V: Apparent propagation velocity of seismic
motion (m/s)
T: Natural period of ground of surface layer(s)
The apparent propagation velocity of
seismic motion is obtained from Fig. 6.2.7.
of Section 6.2.3 (2) [D]
T: Natural period of ground of surface
layer(s)
z : Buried depth of pipeline (m)
H: Thickness of ground of surface layer (m)
(2) When design seismic motion II is used, it
is obtained from the following formula:
U T' v S (T)' cos ( JrZ )
h Jr 2 VII 2H
where SVII(1): Response velocity of design
seismic motion II (cm/s), according to
Fig. 6.2.5 of Section 6.2.3 (2) [E]
'rnp ntnpr i'lvmhnli'l HI'l snecified for (1)
- --- - ----- -oJ ----- --- --- - -- - - ...- - - " ,.
Natural period of ground of surface layer, T (s)
[C] Ground Displacement of Surface Layer
Fig. 6.2.7 Apparent propagation velocity of
seismic motion
where E G1 : Ground strain of surface layer
in the case of uniform ground
v: Seismic zone coefficient, according to
where E GIlD: Ground strain of surface
(3) When design seismic motion III is used,
the ground displacement of the surface
layer at the buried position of the pipeline
is directly calculated.
The ground strain of surface layer in the
case of uniform ground is obtained as fol-
lows:
(1) When design seismic motion I is used, it
(
1rZ)
E G1 =V E GIO cos 2H
6.2.3 (2) [G]
E GIO : Ground strain of surface layer of
design seismic motion I in the case of
uniform ground, according to Fig. 6.2.8
(2) When design seismic motion II is used, it
(
1rZ)
E Gl =V E GIlD cos 2H
[D] Ground Strain of Surface Layer in the Case
of Uniform Ground
5.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 0.2
I
!
i
II III I I ! I
,
I i
I1111
. i I
I
I I
u,
I
! i. :
I I I
,
II / ! !
! I ! i I!! I ./ I I i
i i I ! 10 I ! I
I
I Viii'
I
I i i ' ; I ! I
/11
I
III1
i
I I I
I : !,:

I
,
! I
,
I
,
:
50
0.1
200
500
100
1000
3000
2000
The ground displacement of surface layer
is obtained as follows:
(1) When design seismic motion I is used, it is
obtained from the following formula:
U T' v S. (T)' cos ( JrZ )
h Jr 2 r I 2H
where U;,: Ground displacement of surface
layer (em)
v: Seismic zone coefficient, according to Sec-
tion 6.2.3 (2) [G]
SVI(T): Response velocity of design seismic
motion I (cm/s), according to Fig. 6.2.4
Natural period of ground of surface layer, T (5)
adopted.
(c) The ground strain of irregular shallow
ground is taken into account when the angle
of inclined base rock is 5 or more.
In the case of irregular shallow ground, a
ground strain larger than that in the uniform
ground can happen, and this must be taken
into account for earthquake-resistant design.
(4) Ground Strain ofIrregular Shallow
Ground
[Description 1J Ground Strain of Irregular
Shallow Ground
(a) The ground strain caused in irregular shal-
low ground is calculated by superimposing
the ground strain of uniform ground on the
ground strain caused by inclined seismic
base rock.
cG2 =.Jg2G1 +c
2G3
cG3 =n -0.3 (%)
where E G1: Ground strain of uniform ground,
according to 6.2.3 (3) [D] "Ground strain
of surface layer in the case of uniform
ground"
E G2: Ground strain caused in irregular shal-
low ground
E G3: Ground strain caused by inclined seismic
base rock
n: In the case of corrected design seismic
motion I: v (seismic zone coefficient, ac-
cording to Section 6.2.3 (2) [G] )
In the case of corrected design seismic mo-
tion II: 0.5 x v
(b) As the ground strain of uniform ground E ci.
the ground strain of uniform ground at the
position where the surface layer thickness
becomes maximum at the irregular shallow
ground portion or that at the position where
it becomes minimum, whichever is larger, is
5.0
I I
5.0
I
2.0
2.0 1.0
0.5 1.0
0.5
! ! ! ! !11
0.2
0.2
, , ,
, , , , ,
0
,
!

, ,
!
i
,
,
i
I L..-ri !'N..,!
lA!
i
i i i
! ! i i
' ,
i i !
. ,
nVCQr-.
l1
i I
i
,
I
i
I
.....
i i
i
i ,
i
I
I
(2..S.1i.16j
I ! i
! ! !
I
l i
(0.1.0.102
, , , ,
,
!
, , ,
5
i I i i ! ! !
! i i I
!
i i i !
i
I
j
1 i
! I
i i i
!
i ! I i
I i I i ! ! !!! I ! !
2
i
,
!
t
I i
!
i
J i
i
I ! i i i ! 1
,
, , , ,
.50
,
,
!
i j !
j i i i i ! ! ! i
i

,
j
! i ! ! i
20

I*"
i
i
,
I I : I I i !
! i i !
I i
I
1
n
, l l ] i
-
, ,
,
, ,
!

05
i i
'.J
i
(0.1.0.0511 i i i ! !
,
!
!
i
,
,
! i
I
j
,
,
i
,
, ,
,
I
i
i !
I
! !
i
i
i
,
i !
i
i
,
I
02
I
,
i
i
I
I
!
i
I
i
i
!
i
I
I
I
I
I
i
! i
i
i i
01
! i
0.20
0.01.-1-1---'---'---'---'---'-.............__'----'-....o.........I
0.1
" .
0; __ 1.0

0.5
" :l r" 0
:::
o
E
....

- c
g 0.1

- OJ
- '"
rJJ '" 0.0
'00
::
-=
-= .5
rJJ _ 0.0
g
.:l .-
o
o:E
Fig. 6.2.8 Ground strain of surface layer
of design seismic motion I in the case of
uniform ground
layer of design seismic motion II in the
case of uniform ground, according to Fig.
6.2.9
0
0; :l
<:: 0
'""' ....
.;: CJ
o s:::
.... - 0
.
c: .-
- s:::
: 0
o ......
a
.... <::
:l '"
<:3 D.
o OJ
s:::..l:
.-
.5
rJJ:::: D.
-:: c
;; .!:!
e "'0 o.
CJ :E 0.1
Natural period of ground of surface layer, T (s)
Fig. 6.2.9 Ground strain of surface layer of
design seismic motion II in the case of
uniform ground
(3) When design seismic motion III is used,
the ground strain of the surface layer at
the position of the buried pipeline is di-
rectly calculated, including the influence
of irregular shallow ground.
6-12
The confining force a of ground in the
[B] Confining Force of Ground in the
Transverse Direction of Pipe
prpe 18
/AY/
direction of a
I
Ho=LSm

o
transverse

Ground spring constant: k, =6.0N/cm
3
(O.6kgficmS]
The confining force of ground in the axial
direction of a pipe is approximated by bi-
linear expression using the critical shear
stress 'C cr per unit surface area of the pipe
and the ground spring constant k
1
, or ob-
tained by measurement.
Critical shear stress: 'C cr =1.5N/cm
2
(5) Confining Force of Ground
[AJ Confining Force of Ground in the Axial
Direction of Pipe
r cr
approximated by the bilinear expression or
the straight line using the initial gradient of
the bilinear expression, using the maximum
confining force (J cr of ground per unit pro-
jected area and the yield displacement i5 cr,
or obtained by measurement.
Relative Displacement 0
Table 6.2.4 Confining Force of Ground in the Transverse Direction of Pipe byDiameter
Maximum Confining Force of Ground Yield Displacement
k
2
= a crt 6 cr
Diameter (mm)
a cr N'cm" (kgf/crrr') 6 cr cm
Nzcm" (kgf/cm'')
(Typical example) 750 32 (3.2) 3.0 11 (1.1)
c
C
::l
o
...
""
c.e a cr
c
co
...
<.2
""
c
Straight line
Bilinear expression
: 0' cr
D (Outer diameter)
Relative displacement O.
6-13
(6) Earthquake-Resistant Design of Straight
Pipe
[A] Strain of Straight Pipe Caused by
Earthquake
The strain of a straight pipe caused by an
earthquake is obtained from either of the
following formulae:
(1) If the strain of the straight pipe is in the
elastic range, that is, if a . E G':::: E s then
(2) If the strain of the straight pipe is in the
plastic range, that is, if a E G > E y' then
where E p: Strain of the straight pipe caused
by earthquake
0:: Strain transfer coefficient of the straight
pipe, according to (B) of the following
section.
E G: Ground strain, according to and
E y : Yield strain of the pipe material
[Description]
(1) If the strain of the straight pipe exceeds
the buckling limit, the strain of the pipe af-
ter buckling is calculated, for example, using
FEM analysis with buckling behavior taken
into account. The buckling limit is the
buckling initiation strain E buckle (%) speci-
fied in the Recommended Practices for
Earthquake-resistant design of Gas Pipe-
lines.
where t: Wall thickness of the pipe (em)
D
m
: Average diameter of the pipe (em)
[B] Strain Transfer Coefficient
The strain transfer coefficient of a straight
pipe is obtained from the following formula:
6-14
a = q. ao
where a: Strain transfer coefficient of the
straight pipe (for the strain transfer coeffi-
cient a of the straight pipe, the same for-
mula as used in the Recommended Practices
for Earthquake-Resistant Design of Gas
Pipelines is used.)
a 0: Strain transfer coefficient of the straight
pipe without sliding taken into account
Ground spring constant in the axial di-
rection of the pipe per unit length of pipe-
line [N/cm
2
according to Section
5.4.1.
L: Apparent wavelength of seismic
motion(cm)
E : Elastic modulus of the pipe [N/cm
2
(kgficmZ)], E =2100000 kgf/crrr'
A: Sectional area of the pipe (em")
t : Wall thickness ofthe pipe (em)
r G: Sear stress acting on the pipe surface
[Nzcm" (kg'cmZ)]
t cr: Sliding initiation critical shear stress
when sliding occurs between the pipe
and the surrounding ground [N/cm
2
(kgficmZ)]
q: Sliding reduction coefficient
q ::: 1- cos + Q. -(; - ) sin ; ,
q = arcsin ( :: J' q s 1
rG'::::r cr q=l
Q: Correction factor for evaluating q on the
conservative side, 1. 5
(7) Earthquake-Resistant Design of Bend
and Tee
A bend or tee may be greatly strained de-
pending on the piping conditions, and this
must be taken into account for earthquake-
resistant design.
[Description 1] Strain of Bend Caused by
Earthquake
The strain of a bend caused by an earthquake
is obtained from either of the following formu-
lae or by FEM analysis,
(1) If the strain of the bend is in the elastic
range or partially plastic range, that is, if
flB6- 1.27&y' then
&B = flB6-
(2) If the strain of the bend is in the full plastic
range, that is, if flB6- > 1.27&y' then
&B =C
B
flB6-
where EB: Strain of the bend caused by earth-
quake
{3 B: Coefficient of conversion of the bend
(Vern), according to Description 4.
zl: relative displacement (em), according to
Description 3
E
y
: Yield strain of the pipe material
G
B
: Correction factor for the strain ofthe bend
in the full plastic range
G
B
=2 (below 600A)
G
B
=1 (over 600A including 600A)
[Description 2] Strain of Tee Caused by
Earthquake
The strain of a tee caused by an earthquake
is obtained from either of the following formu-
lae or by FEM analysis.
(1) If the strain of the tee caused by an earth-
quake is in the elastic or partially plastic
range, that is, if flr6- 1.27&y' then
6-15
Gr = fJr6-
(2) If the strain of the tee caused by an earth-
quake is in the full plastic range, that is, if
flr6- > 1.27&y' then
&r =2flr6-
where E r: Strain ofthe tee caused by
earthquake
{3r: Coefficient of conversion of the tee (Vern),
according to Description 5.
zl: Relative displacement (em), according to
Description 3
Ey: Yield strain of the branch pipe adjacent to
the tee
[Description 3] Relative Displacement between
Pipe and Ground
The relative displacement between a pipe
and ground is obtained from the following for-
mula: Ll =(1- a*)o U
h
where Ll: Relative displacement (em)
Uh: Ground displacement of the surface layer
(em)
ex * : Coefficient concerning relative displace-
ment between pipe and ground
a* =q *0 a
o
ex 0: Strain transfer coefficient of the straight
pipe without sliding taken into account
q*: Sliding reduction coefficient concerning
relative displacement
(
2
0 1+ -2 q*::;l
q=l
where arCSin( ::) Furthermore,
r G: Shear stress acting on the pipe surface
[N/cm
2
(kgf/cm
2
) ]
r or: Sliding initiation critical shear stress
when sliding occurs between the pipe and
the surrounding ground [N/cm
2

[Description 4] Coefficient of Conversion of
Bend
The coefficient of conversion of a bend is ob-
tained from the following formula:
2i
B
A1
2
D/(5 + + 413115(1 + b
2
) - bII
fiB = -3
10A+5L12 (1+b
2)+10Ab3
1+ 2R1 + (Jr - 2}nR 2 1
2
_ -;;-2 / "\ -.. -;;-3
b = l-LnlCA
2 {1 + + TrnRI + (4 -Tr)nR 2I
2}
3-3{Tr Tr] ( ])
b
3
= nR A - + 2 + 1- --2 b,
2 2nAR nAR
{
+( 2_+!!.-+ Tr] 2)b,}
RA 2 2nAR
where [3B: Coefficient of conversion ofthe bend
(l/cm)
iB: Stress index for the bending load of the
bend, obtained from the following formula:
i - 1.95 or 1.5, whichever is larger
B-
n : Flexibility factor of the bend, obtained from
the following formula:
1.65
n =
A: Sectional area of the pipe (crrr)
R: Radius of curvature (em)
I: Moment of inertia (em")
D: Outside diameter of the pipe (cm)
motion(cm)
-,{If;
A: V4t-
11;.: Ground spring constant in the transverse
direction of the pipe per unit length [Nzcm"

E: Elastic modulus [N/cm
2

[Description 5] Coefficient of Conversion of Tee
The coefficient of conversion of a tee is ob-
tained from the following formula:
fJT = 42;2 1)
4A
2
+ LI]A] C
where the subscripts for D, A, land 1. express
the following:
Subscript 1: Branch pipe side
Subscript 2: Main pipe side
[3 T: Coefficient of conversion of the tee (l/cm)
D: Outside diameter (em)
A: Sectional area (crrr')
I: Moment of inertia (ern")
motion(cm)
I:
11;.: Ground spring constant in the transverse
direction of the pipe per unit length
[N/cm
2

E: Elastic modulus [Nzcm"
(8) Allowable Strain
The allowable strain of a straight pipe,
bend or tee is 3%.
[Description]
(A) Allowable strain on the seismic motion of
Level 2 was determined based on the damage
caused by the cyclic ground displacement of
the extremely low cycle. Regarding the
number of the cyclic ground displacements,
6-16
by taking the same concept as the Recom-
mended Practice for Earthquake-Resistant
Design of High Pressure Gas Pipeline (1982.
3), the repetition number of times of the
maximum strain was determined to be"
equivalent to the fatigue damage which one
seismic motion of Level 2 gives to the pipe-
line. As it is enough if one seismic motion of
Level 2 occurs during the design lifetime of
the pipeline, the number of the cyclic ground
displacements to be considered on the seis-
mic motion of Level 2 are approximately 3 to
5 times.
Setting the allowable strain in the light of
the fatigue design curve of ASME, the allow-
able strain of the base metal is 3% if assumed
the repeated times of 3 to 5. It can be con-
sidered in general that the strain of 3%
doesn't impede the operation and it has
enough safety margin from the viewpoint of
the experimental data and the performance
of the steel pipe.
(B) Buckling is allowed because it doesn't lead
to leakage directly. But in the case that
there is possibility of strain occurrence to
cause buckling on a straight pipe, in other
words, the case that the occurred strain ex-
ceeds the initial buckling strain specified on
the seismic motion of Levell, 35 . tJDm (t :
pipe thickness (em), Dm: average diameter of
the pipe (cm), the strain which occurs on the
pipeline after buckling should be calculated
correctly by the method such as the finite
element method (FEJ\.1).
6.3 MEDIUM-AND LOW-PRESSURE GAS
PIPELINES
6.3.1 Basic Policy on Earthquake-Resistant
Design
(1) General Principles
Earthquake-resistant design for medium-
and low - pressure pipelines is aimed at
achieving greater pipeline flexibility and there-
by reducing gas pipe leakage or breakage.
(2) Quantitative Flexibility Evaluation
Method for Pipelines
Aseismic strength is judged by calculating
the capability of the pipeline to absorb the
stipulated ground displacement. If the value
exceeds the design ground displacement de-
termined by ground and other conditions, the
pipeline is judged to be earthquake-resistant.
Procedure
The procedure is shown in Fig. 6.3.1.
Evaluation of earthquake resistance is based
on the following items.
CD Selection of burying conditions
@ Calculation of design ground displace-
ment
@ Calculation of pipeline ground displace-
ment absorption
@ Selection of ground displacement input
@. Selection of standard strain and standard
displacement
@ Evaluation of earthquake resistance
6.3.3 Design Ground Displacement
The design ground displacement for
evaluating pipeline flexibility is determined by
the following formula.
. 1) Horizontal displacement (in axial direction
of pipe) : U =a
1a2
U
O
2) Vertical displacement (perpendicular to
6-17
Desig-n Ground Displacements Canabilitv to Absorb Ground Displacement
~ Allowable Limits I
Horizontal U =a 1a 2 U
o
Vertical V =1/ 2U
in which
a 1= Seismic zone factor
a 2 = Factor according to the
combination of pipeline
type and ground
conditions
Input Ground
Displacement Models
. Horizontal
Displacement
. Vertical
Displacement
Designing
Pipings
. Straight
Pipings
. Pipings with
bends, branche
etc.
I
U
o
=Standard design ground
displacement
. Allowable strain
(e0)
. Allowable
displacement
(00' eo)
Evaluation of Capability to
Absorb Ground Displacement
Simple formulas
[
. N u m e ~ c a l calCulatiOn]
. Expenment
,
I L\u and L\v I
-
Evaluation of Flexibilitv
Su U
L\v> V
I
Fig. 6.3.1 : Flow Diagram of Earthquake-Resistant Design
of Medium - and Low - Pressure Pipelines
6-18
pipe axis): V =1/ 2U
In the formula, a] is determined by the
seismic zone factor in Table 6.3.1 of which the
division of area is the same as that shown in
Fig. 6.3.1 in 6.4 Appenclix 6.4.1.
Table 6.3.2 shows that a 2 is a factor repre-
senting the combination of pipeline type and
ground condition.
U
o
is determined as 5.0 (em) in standard
design ground displacement.
The ground condition type in Table 6.3.2 is
based on "6.3.4 Definition of Ground Condi-
rion."
6.3.4 Ground Condition
Ground conditions are determined the state
of the ground in the general area where piping
is installed and by the piping installation's
geographic location.
I . Area formed by any of the following ground
types or areas where the three are found in
combination
(1) Soil layer dating back to the Triassic E;a.
or earlier (hereinafter called "rock layer")
(2) Diluvium layer
(3) Alluvium layer less than 10m thick or
layer in which soft layer is less than 5m
thick.
* Provided there exists a rock layer or firm
diluvium layer (N) 50, seismic wave veloc-
ity of more than 300m/sec.)
II. Area formed chiefly by alluvium layer of
more than 10m or soft layer of more than
ill a. Mixture of soil layer equivalent to Condi-
tion I and a layer equivalent to Condition
IT, or are in which the two types are mixed
illb. Border are between soil layer and sturdy
structure built upon foundation equivalent
to Condition IT and other locations where
displacement is evidently discontinuous
Table 6.3.1: Seismic Zone Factors (a
l
)
SA
1.0
A
0.8
B
0.6
C
0.4
Table 6.3.2: Factors according to the combination ofthe
kind of pipeline and ground conditions (a2)
~
Classification
I II ill
of Pipeline
Medium pressure A
0.9 1.3 1.8
(3 ~ P< 10kgflcmZ)
Medium pressure B
0.7 1.0 1..4
(1 ~ P< 3kgflcmZ)
Low pressure (main)
0.5 0.7 to
(P< lkgflcmZ)
Lowpressure (service)
0.7 1.0 1.0
(P< Lkgf/crn")
6-19
6.3.5 Pipeline Capability to Absorb Ground
Displacement
(1) Capability of Straight Piping to Absorb
Ground Displacement in Axial Direction
(1w)
The capability of a straight pipe to absorb
ground displacement in the axial direc-
tion(!::..u) under ground conditions I, IT, and
Illa , as shown in Fig. 6.3.2 is a ground dis-
placement that can be absorbed by the pipe at
a displacement input that focuses on one
point on the ground surface.
i) A pipeline with continuous restraint force
from projection in axial direction
[a] Reduced elastic modulus model (for poly-
ethylene pipe, etc.)
- 2
!::..U = AEo [mm]
wr
where, A: Area of cross-section (mnr')
D : Pipe diameter
E : Reduced elastic modulus (Nzmnr)
r : Restraint force of ground per unit sur-
face of pipe (Nzmm")
e0 : Allowable strain (specified in Section
6.3.6)
[b] Elastoplastic calculation model (welded
steel pipe)
AE{} +.11.(0
2
- e v
2
) }
Su =----'--------:....!....
trDr
e v : Yield strain of pipe
e0 : Allowable strain of pipe
E : Elastic modulus (N/mmZ)
}.E : Tangent modulus of pipe
ii) Piping showing localized reduction in ten-
sile stress on cross-section (such as steel
pipe with screwed joint)
6-20
F
2
!1u=---
JiDrAE
where, Fa: Allowable tensile strength
of screwed joint portion
iii) Piping with mechanical joint
Su =00 +2 (0
1
+02++0n)
Where,
0
is the maximum displacement
ofjoint in the center of ground displacement,
at which leakage or serious damage ofjoint is
expected. 51'
2
, , On represents allow-
able displacement (slipout) in joints adjoining
the joint in the center, calculated taking into
account the reduction in load due to the
ground restraint force between the joints.
The capability of a straight pipeline fixed at
one end in Ground Condition lib to absorb
axial ground displacement is ground dis-
placement that can be absorbed when the
input of ground displacement that concen-
trates at the border of a structure and ground
is added, as shown in Fig. 6.3.4.
(2) Capability of a Straight Piping to Ab-
sorb Ground Displacement in Direction
Transverse to Axis
The capability of straight piping to absorb
ground displacement in the direction trans-
verse to its axis (!1v) in Ground Condition I ,
IT, or IIJa is ground displacement that the
piping can absorb when transverse displace- .
ment concentrates on one point on the ground,
as shown in Fig. 6.3.5.
i) A pipeline with homogeneous rigidity along
its axis (steel pipe with welded joint
or polyethylene pipe)
2.fie'" ~ 4 E l
!1v= --
D kD 0
Where, E : Reduced elastic modulus
( N / m m ~
f:,u Ground Displacement
......lJ>
I I
Restriction of Soil
--.. --.. --.. --.. -+ --..
Pipe
Fig. 6.3.2 : Ground Displacement Input for Ground Conditions I, II, and IDa
1
__- ...... AE
O"v
Fig. 6.3.3: Bilinear Elastoplastic Model of Steel Material
Ground Displacement
--v>
c
....
Ground Restraint Force
--..-+-+-+--..-+
I
>:?i
'-:

.3
:r.;
Fig. 6.3.4 : Ground Displacement Input on Piping Fixed at One End in Ground Condition IDb
.. -.... -..
--_ ....... - .......... -_ ..... - .. --- .... -_.
,
I,
.............................................. .. ..'I
Fig. 6.3.5: Ground Displacement Input in Transverse Direction Under
Ground Condition I, II, or IDa
6-21
1 : Moment of inertia of cross-section (mm4)
k : Reduced coefficient of subgrade reaction
(Nzmm")
ii) Piping with localized drop in strength
against bending moment (steel pipe with
screwed joint)
.fie
Jr
/
4
~ 4 E I
Llv= --M
EI kD 0
Where, M
o
: Mome.it atthe location of
localized drop in strength (N . mm)
E : Elastic modulus ( N / m m ~
The capability to absorb ground displace-
ment when the pipe is fixed to structure un-
der Ground Condition J:Ifu, as in Fig. 6.3.6, is
displacement that the pipe can absorb when
displacement concentrates at the border of
the structure and ground.
(3) Capability of 3-D piping to Absorb
Ground Displacement (Llu)
The capability of 3-D piping system com-
prised oflow - pressure service and internal
pipes under Ground Condition I, Il , or ma
is ground displacement that the piping can
absorb at the displacement shown in Fig.
6.3.7.
The absorption capability of a 3-D piping
system buried under Ground Condition Illb
and fixed at one end to a structure is ground
displacement that can be absorbed when the
ground displacement shown in Fig. 6.3.4 is
applied.
6.3.6 Allowable Strain and Allowable
Displacement
(1) Allowable Strain in Pipe Material (0)
and Elastic Modulus (E)
The Allowable strain (0) that is set over
6-22
the plastic limit and the reduced elastic
modulus (E) applied when calculating the
material's ability to absorb ground displace-
ment, which depends upon the material, are
shown below.
1) Steel pipe: Allowable strain .... 0=3 [%]
Reduced elastic modulus
.... E =3.0X 10
4
[N/mm2J
2) Ductile cast-iron pipe
: Allowable strain.... 0=2 [%]
.... E =3.0 X10
4
[Nzmm'']
3) Polyethylene pipe
: Allowable strain .... 0=20 [%]
.... E =3.0 X Hf [N/mmZ]
When, however, reduced elastic modulus is
inapplicable for steel or ductile cast-iron pipe,
Young's modulus that is within the range of
elasticity is applied.
Steel pipe: 2.1 x lOS [Nzmm']
Ductile cast-iron pipe: 1.6 X lOS [N'mnr']
Coefficient A used to determine the tan-
gent modulus (AE ) used to calculate elastic-
ity of steel pipe is founded upon the following:
--1 =7.1 X 10-3
(2) Allowable Displacement for Mechanical
Joints and Expansion Fittings
Standard displacement for expansionjoints
such as mechanical and flexible joints for
connecting pipes in ways other than welding
is the official value specified under JIS or
other equivalent standards. If no nominal
value is found, it is determined as the dis-
placement that removes airtightness or inflic-
ts serious damage or deformation upon a ma-
jor part of the joint.
f.
................. ".. .
6.v V
Fig. 6.3.6 : Ground Displacement Input in Transverse Direction for Piping
Fixed at One End Under Ground Condition ill b
Location of Ground Displacement Input
<;
Pwad ~ ~ l
Residential
Land
I I
Gas Meter
Main or Service Pipe Service Pipe
Crank Pipe
Internal Pipe
a) Location of Ground Displacement Input
Service Pipe Element Internal Pipe Element
b) Division of Service Pipe and Internal Pipe Elements and
Displacement of Each Element
Fig. 6.3.7: Ground Displacement Input for Service and Internal Pipe System and
Calculation of Ground Displacement Absorption Capability (Sample)
6-23
6.4 Appendix
6.4.1 Earthquake-Resistant Design of
High-Pressure Gas Pipeline
(1) Basic Concept of Earthquake-Resistant
Design
A Recommended Practice for Earthquake-
Resistant Design of High-Pressure Gas Pipe-
line is based on greatly improved concepts with
regard. to the evaluation of seismic motions
and interaction (slippage) between the ground
and the gas pipeline. Features of the Recom-
mended Practice (Standards) are as follows.
(1) The design method consists of strain de-
sign. Strains during. an earthquake are
allowed to be in excess of the elastic limit
by evaluating fatigue damage m plastic
range.
(2) The design method for bends and tees is
very important because seismic forces
concentrate in them, while smaller strains
in a straight pipelines are due to the slip-
page between the pipe and the ground.
(3) The standard consider the seismic waves
apparently propagating along the ground
surface and the strain in ground with in-
clined base rock.
Table 6.4.1 shows the flow diagram of the
earthquake resistant design based on the
above concept.
Fig. 6.4.1 : Seismic Zone Coefficient
6-24
Table 6.4.1 Flow Diagram. of Earthquake-Resistant Design
) D Mt elSIDlC a ions or esrgn
(2) Natural Period of Surface Layer (3) Apparent Wavelength of
(1) Horizontal Seismic Intensity at 4 'H . HI
Seismic Motion
Base Rock
T=--,r;=
L== V' T
I'; H
& == 0.15' u i : U,
H : Thickness of Surface Layer (m)
V: Apparent Propagation
U1 : Coefficient of
-
Velocity of Seismic Motion
Importance
V s : Shear Wave Velocity in Surface Layer
Pipeline Buried

V (1.0, 800)
under Public Road Others
'. Elastic Wave X C <Sand
0.6 f--. (m/s)
in UrbanArea Survey Clay 0.85

VI LO 0.8
Estimate from< Sand 62N 0.021
u, : Seismic Zone Coefficient
N,Value Clay 122N 0.078
T (s)
I
(4) Displacement Amplitude of the Surface Layer (5) Strain in Ground with Uniform Surface Layer
2 JrZ 2w' U.
U =-T'Sv 'K cos- E
0 1
.=
L h
JrZ
oJ<
2H
3 S K w'
(0.6, 150)
&al =
cos-.-
Sv
fr' V 2H
(cm/s)
/,:.1' 25)
,j.
(6) Strain in Ground with Inclined Base Rock
T (s)
cG2 +CG/
51 : Velocity Response Spectrum per Unit Seismic
K wz
c
G3

tan(J cos-
Intensity at Base Rock (cm/s)
V, 2H
z : Depth of Pipeline (m)
Z : T<0.3s Z==405'T
Z : X == 122
. (J : Inclination of Base Rock (deg.)
( (7) Design of Straight Pipe )
(7)' Strain Transfer Coefficient
[ (8) Design of Bend and Tee )
I
a
l
; q

s : a
Q
(8)' Displacement Transfer Coefficient
Atr.
q : Coefficient Considering Slippage between
a* == q*
a
o
Pipe and Ground
q' : Coefficient Considering Slippage between
J. = K,
K
1
Ground Spring
Pipe and Ground
, E'A Constant in Axial
Relative Displacement of Pipe and Ground
Direction Do == (1- a*)
Un
1
J.
(7)" LStrain in Straight Pipe -
Uniform Ground
c"1 =a cGJ
(8)" Strain in Bend and Tee
Inclined Base Rock
Cd =a . cG2
Bend
5 B=PB
Do
2. Strain in Joint (welded) of Straight Pipe
Tee 5
r
== Pr' Do
Uniform Ground
5"2 =i,
.
a' 5
Gl
Inclined Base Rock
c
V4
-t.
.
fJ : Coefficient of Convention
a' 5
G2
i; : Stress Index
I I
(
J
(9) Allowable Pipe Strain
1
(9)' Allowable Strain in Straight Pipe (9)" Allowable Strain in Joint of Straight Pipe,
(i) 1.0% or Bend and Tee
(ii) 35t/Dm ("10) (Buckling Strain Obtained by Actual 1.0%
Measurement with Safety Factor of 1.25 taken into
Consideration), Whichever is Smaller
6-25
In Equation CD, 0.15 is the basic input at
base rock. Here, VI is a coefficient of impor-
tance and v2 is the seismic zone coefficient
show in Figure 6.4.1.
(b) Natural Period of Surface Layer
Equation (2) gives the natural period of the
surface layer.
(2) Seismic Motion for Design
(a) Horizontal Seismic Intensity at Base Rock
The horizontal seismic intensity to be con-
sidered for design is given by Equation CD
. ..... @
H in Equation represents the thickness
of the surface layer. "Vs- shows the shear
wave velocity in the surface layer. Determi-
nation of the base rock face depends on an N
value not less than 50 or a measured shear
wave velocity of 300m/sec or more.
(c) Apparent Wavelength of Seismic Motion
Apparent wavelength of seismic motion is
given by
L= V' T
V in Equation @ is the apparent propaga-
tion velocity of seismic motion. Figure 6.4.2
shows the relationship between the natural
period and the apparent propagation velocity.
CD
...... @.
(0.25, 100)
(1.0,800)
5.0 0.1 1.0
Natural Period (8)
Fig. 6.4.2: Apparent Propagation Velocity of Seismic Motion
5.0
(0.6, 150)
(0.1, 25)
50
1Q '--_---J_--'-_---'-_.LJ....L..1-.l....L__- ' - _ . . . l . - _ - ' - - ~
0.1
100
0.5 1.0
Natural Period (8)
Fig. 6.4.3 : Velocity Response Spectrum per Unit Seismic Intensity
6-26
where
(b) Strain in a Pipe Welded Joint
The strain in a pipe welded joint is given by
Equation @.
"I .... _ n _ -:;- . f _ "\'\ n2 _ "'1
2
1 -t- L. - .I'( - A. -t- -.t..) - n - 1'\ - A
i \' : stress index (i v = 2.0)
(4) Design of Bend and Tee
(a) Strain in a Bend
The strains in bends (eB) are given by
Equation .
cB = flB .1
where
fJ B : Coefficient of convention of bend
iB : Stress index for bending load on bend
n : Flexibility factor of bend
A : Sectional area of pipe
R : Radius of curvature of bend
I : Moment of inertia
D : Outside diameter of pipe
L : Apparent wavelength of seismic motions

. V4E0
,(_2+.::+ ;r'] ) . b}
\.R.1 2 2'n'A'R
2
2
where
.1 : relative displacement between the
pipe and the 'ground
fJB : coefficient of convention for bend
2 'i
B
'A .1
2
'D 1(5+R' 2) 'b
l
l+4 ' 2 3 <I : (1+b
2)-b\!
PB =. 3
10 'A+5'L']' l .
bl = }
(l+R 'l)' {2+;r'n'R' l+(4-;r)'n R
2
A.
1-2' n . R
2
1
2
' _ (4_ it') . n R
3
2
3
b
2
= (1+R . 2){2 +;r' n R l +(4-;r) . n . R
2
.,A.'}
;r'] 2+(1 ] 2)''1
2 2'n'A'R n'A'R
K
2
: Ground spring constant in the trans-
verse direction to the axis per unit pipe
length
E : Young's modulus of pipe
The relative displacement between the pipe
and the ground is given by Equation @,
.1 = (1- a*) . U;
......(J)
......@
1lZ }, @
COS--
2H
K
CG3 =k : tan e.
r.
CPl =a' cGI
(1) Strain in Ground with Inclined Base Rock
The strain in the ground with inclined base
rock is given by Equation @.
2 2
cG2 =cGl + cG3
where
S; : velocity response spectrum per unit
seismic intensity
z: depth of pipeline
S, is given by Figure 6.4.3.
(e) Strain in Ground with Uniform Surface
Layer
The strain in the ground with a uniform
surface layer is given by Equation @.
cGl =21r' U
h
/ L @
(d) Displacement Amplitude of Surface Layer
Equation @) gives the displacement ampli-
tude of the surface layer.
2 JC
U
h
=-T. S; K
oh
cOS- .....@
1C 2H
where
E G3 : strain in ground occurring by differ-
ence in displacements of two points
e : inclination of base rock
k : coefficient related to the natural pe-
riod of ground surface
(3) Design for a Straight Pipe
(a) Strain in a Straight Pipe
The strain in a straight pipe is given by
Equation (J).
6-27
...... @ ,
......@
where
a * : displacement transfer coefficient
a* =q * . a
o
q" =Sine: .1*) -2; l*co{2; .1*) + {l-( ;J
(Adopt q* =1, when slipping judging value
SJ<l)
(b) Strain in a Tee
The strains in tees (cT) are given by Equa-
tion @ and@.
cn =f3T! L1
2
cn =f32 L1
j
branch
f3
- ,4' I/ D
1T
A
2
(C-l)
T1 - IT A 3
4 2 + L II Al C
c = 1 + 4 (Y1 I Y2 ) 3 ( D: / D1 )
1 + 2(A.! 1.A.2)3(D
2
/ D
1
)
where
iT : Stress index
fJ
' . Y22oD2ToAI (1
2
)
T2 = IT , '2.-
Al+2oLo12A.21:T
Note: Subscripts with sectional area A, sec-
ond moment of area I, outside diameter D, and
...1. are:
Subscription 1
Straight pipe in branch part
(c) Stress Index and Flexibility Factor
Stress index and flexibility factor of bends
and tees are shown in the below table.
: relative displacement between the main
pipe and the ground
L1
2
: relative displacement between the
branch pipe and the ground
f3n : coefficient of convention for branch
when seismic waves input in parallel to
main pipe
f3T2 : coefficient of convention for main pipe
when seismic waves input in parallel to
Subscription 2
Subscription IT
Subscription 2T
Straight pipe in main part
Tee in branch part
Tee in main part
Type Stress Index Flexibility Illustration
Factor Unit: em
The Larger one of
1.65

Bend IB
1.95
or 1.5.
e;2
R
)
(Butt weld elbow)
('/)'"
. :-1> -
-
The larger one of

( )2/3
Tee Ir
0.67' 7 or 2.0
(Butt weld tee)
where
t: Wall thickness
R: Radius of curvature
r: Mean radius of pipe
D: Outside diameter of pipe
6-28
......@
(5) Allowable Strain
Seismic strains in straight pipeline are uni-
form tensile or compressive strains in the en-
tire area. The allowable strain in a straight
pipeline is smaller value of 1% or the allowable
strain due to buckling given by Equation @.
4 t
E=- --n
3 D
m
where
E : buckling strain
n: 0.11
t: pipe wall thickness (em)
Dm: mean diameter of pipe (=D-t) (em)
The allowable buckling strain is given by 35
(tlDm) (%) using Equation @ with a safety
factor of 1.25.
Earthquake Countermeasures for Gas
Distribution Systems - the Status Quo
6.4.2. Improvement of Earthquake
Resistance of Pipelines
Improving the earthquake resistance of pipe-
lines is essential to : (1) prevent disaster
caused by gas leakage; (2) minimize the sus-
pension of supply of gas; and (3) minimize the
restoration works thus enabling fast restora-
tion of supply of gas to the customers.
The Recommended Practices for Earth-
quake-Resistant Design of Gas Pipelines de-
scribed in the preceding Chapters are aimed at
the improvement of the earthquake resistance
of newly constructed pipelines.
Retrofitting techniques have been developed
and are being applied to the old pipelines.
There are several kinds of retrofitting tech-
niques which are recommended by the Japan
Gas Association and officially approved by the
government authorities as safe and reliable
techniques for use in the gas industries. Lin-
ing the pipelines from inside with polymer
tubes is typical of these techniques.
6.4.3. Block System of Pipeline Networks
Damage susceptibility of pipelines depends
on : (1) the distance from the origin of earth-
quake (the shorter the distance is, the more
intense the earthquake ground motion is, in
general); and (2) the ground conditions
(damage is apt to be concentrated to the areas
with very soft grounds, in general). Therefore,
the degree of concentration of damage varies
greatly from an area to another.
To isolate heavily damaged areas from less
damaged areas, the block system of pipeline
networks are in effect in major gas industries
in Japan. This system is aimed at minimizing
the number of suspended customers, as a re-
sult, maximizing the efficiency of reetoration
activities.
The block system takes a hierarchical struc-
ture; large blocks cover wide areas and the
blocking valves are remotely operated at the
control center; these blocks are divided into
medium size networks which are not connected
mutually; the medium sized blocks are
equipped with block-valves by which the blocks
can be divided further into small blocks (valves
are rperated manually).
6-29
*THE 1995 HYOGOKEN-NANBU EARTHQUAKE
*
EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN FOR CIVIL ENGINEERING
STRUCTURES IN JAPAN 1984
EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN FOR CIVIL ENGINEERING
*EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN FOR CIVIL ENGINEERING
* EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN
January,2000
B5: 933
A4: 306
B5: 254
B5:407
B5: 499
B5:265
B5: 259
B5:259
A4: 171
25,000
971
4,854
45,714
6,796
5,825
9,500
6,000
7,767
2,700
EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN CODES IN JAPAN
January, 2000
Published by
Earthquake Engineering Committee
Japan Society of Civil Engineers
Yotsuya Lrchome Shinjukuku Tokyo, 160-0004 Japan
FAX +81-3-5379-2769 E-mail jsce-pubescivil.or.jp
Distributors
Maruzen Co.,Ltd. International Division
P.O.Box 5050 Tokyo International 100-3191 Japan
TEL +81-3-3273-3234 FAX +81-3-3278-9256
Copyright JSCE 2000 EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN
ISBN4-8106-0266-4
Printed in Japan, Waco Co.,Ltd.

Earthquake Resistant Design Codes in Japan 2000

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Earthquake Resistant Design Codes in Japan 2000

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

JAPAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS

EARTHQUAKE RESISTANT DESIGN

Akita-Senpoku 5.9 1914. 3.15

Sanr-iku Tsun. 8.3 1933. 3. 3

7.4 1943. 9.10

Hokkaido SI: 7.8 1993. 7.12

(b)Vertical Force YS. Vertical

f- SAND WITHHIGHCOEFFICIENTOF UNIFORMITY Uc>3.5

in UrbanArea Survey Clay 0.85

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi