A SIMPLIFIED SEISMIC DESIGN METHOD FOR UNDERGROUND

STRUCTURES BASED ON THE SHEAR STRAIN TRANSMITTING

CHARACTERISTICS
Tsutomu NISHIOKA1 and Shigeki UNJOH2
1

Public Works Research Institute, 1-6, Minamihara, Tsukuba,

305-8516, JAPAN
E-mail: nisioka@pwri.go.jp
2
Public Works Research Institute, 1-6, Minamihara, Tsukuba,
305-8516, JAPAN
E-mail: unjoh@pwri.go.jp
ABSTRACT:
This paper presents a simplified seismic design method for underground structures based on
the shear strain transmitting characteristics from surrounding ground to the structure. Since
seismic deformation in the cross section of underground structures is mainly shear
deformation, seismic performance is estimated by the shear deformation in simplified seismic
design methods. This paper clarifies that structure-ground shear strain ratio is the hyperbolic
function of ground-structure stiffness ratio and proposes an analytical method to estimate the
seismic shear deformation using the shear strain transmitting characteristics.

1. Introduction
Underground structures were thought to be relatively safe during earthquakes until some of
the subway tunnels in Kobe suffered serious damage from the 1995 Hyogoken-nanbu
earthquake [1]. Seismic deformation method (SDM) is commonly applied to practical seismic
design of the cross section of underground structures [2-3]. In this method, free-field ground
displacement is loaded on the structure through Winkler-type soil springs. One of the
problems in the SDM, however, is evaluating the soil spring that is supposed to simulate the
soil-structure kinematic interaction. The adequacy of the soil spring and its evaluation method
are still under discussion.
Although straightforward approaches such as finite element methods (FEM) can solve the
problem of the soil spring model, there still remains an important place for simple approaches
for the benefit of practical design activities. Instead of the SDM, simplified seismic design
methods to estimate seismic deformation of underground structures are proposed these days
[3-4]. The seismic deformation in the cross section of underground structures is mainly shear
deformation. Hence, seismic performance is estimated by the shear deformation based on the
ground-structure shear stiffness ratio in these methods. These current methods, however,
consider only horizontal deformation to evaluate the seismic shear deformation. The seismic
deformation of underground structures generally includes horizontal and vertical deformation,
and the rotation of the whole structure exists simultaneously.
In this discussion, considering the horizontal and vertical deformation and the rotation of
the structure, the seismic shear deformation is accurately evaluated. It is clarified that
structure-ground shear strain ratio depends only on ground-structure shear stiffness ratio and
that the hyperbolic relation between the two parameters exists. Finally, a simplified analytical
method to estimate the seismic shear deformation of underground structures is proposed based
on the shear strain transmitting characteristics.

Case

Width Height Overb (m) h (m) burden

D (m)

Surface layer
thickness
H (m)

Aspect
ratio
b/h

Weight
ratio
Ws/Wg

3.70

2.88

6.2

25.2

1.29

0.73

1.75

2.85

6.2

25.2

0.61

1.04

7.95

2.85

6.2

25.2

2.79

0.60

3.65

7.80

3.7

25.2

0.47

0.66

1.75

7.80

3.7

25.2

0.22

0.84

3.70

2.88

6.2

25.2

1.29

0.0

3.70

2.88

6.2

25.2

1.29

1.0

Rigid
zone

2875

150

350

3700

2500

2.1 Analysis Cases

Common utility boxes with rectangular
cross section are adopted for the
analysis of the shear strain transmitting
characteristics. Seven cases are
analyzed, as shown in Table 1.
Parameters are aspect ratio of the
rectangular
cross
section
and
structure-ground weight ratio in order
to investigate the effects of the
kinematic and the inertia interaction on
the
shear
strain
transmitting
characteristics. Case 0 is the basic case
that corresponds to RC common utility
box with two hollows shown in Fig. 1.
The aspect ratios b/h vary from 0.22 to
2.79 in Case 0~4. The structure-ground
weight ratios Ws/Wg in Case 5,6 are
adjusted to be 0.0, 1.0, respectively, by
changing RC weight per unit volume.

Table 1 Analysis cases

150
Beam
element

400

2. Analysis of Shear Strain

Transmitting Characteristics

node
unit:mm

350

1800

300 1250 350

Fig. 1 Cross section of the common utility box and the frame
model in Case 0

Underground
structure

Ground level
Ground
displacement
distribution

Lateral boundary
(Free in the
horizontal direction )
Quarter
cosine
curve

Base layer (Fix)

Surface layer

Fig. 2 Schematic diagram of the FEM analysis

25.2m

155.7m

76.0m
Fig. 3 Finite element mesh of Case 0

2.2 FEM Analysis

Structure-ground shear strain ratios are analyzed by two-dimensional FEM. The structure is
modeled as the beam elements illustrated in Fig. 1. The surface layer is modeled as the plain
strain elements shown in Fig. 2. Static horizontal inertia forces are applied to both the ground
and the structure elements so that ground displacement distribution would be the quarter
cosine curve. Fig. 2 is the schematic diagram of the FEM analysis. FEM boundary conditions
are fixed on the base layer and free in the horizontal direction at the lateral boundaries of the
surface layer. Fig. 3 shows finite element mesh of Case 0. Horizontal distance between the
structure and the lateral boundaries is set to be approximately three times as longer as the
thickness of the surface layer.
The surface layer is assumed to be elastic and homogeneous in order to simplify the ground
shear stiffness. Two cases of shear wave
velocity Vs = 50, 100 (m/s) are taken into
s
account. Weight per unit volume and
Ps = bGs(s/h)
Poisson's ratio of the soil are 18 (kN/m3)
and 0.45, respectively.
The structure is modeled as two types of
frame to investigate the effects of
structural linearity and non-linearity on the
shear strain transmitting characteristics.
One is an equivalent linear frame model
Fig. 4 Estimation of the equivalent shear
and the other is a non-linear frame model.
stiffness Gs of the whole structure
The non-linear frame model has the
tri-linear moment-curvature relationships
r
that have the concrete crack point, the
g
s
reinforcement yield point, and the ultimate
point. The ultimate point is defined as the
point where concrete compression strain
d1
reaches 0.0035 [5]. Weight per unit
s
h
g
d2
volume, modulus of elasticity, and
Poisson's ratio of the RC are assumed as
24.5 (kN/m3), 2.35104 (N/mm2), and 1/6,
b
respectively.
2.3 Computation of Shear Stiffness and
Shear Strain of Ground and Structure
Ground shear stiffness Gg is given by
G g = Vs2 / g

(a) In case of Gs > Gg

g

(1)
s

where Vs = shear wave velocity of the

surface layer, = weight per unit volume
of the soil, g = acceleration of gravity.
The equivalent shear stiffness Gs of the
whole structure, simple-supported at the
lower slab shown in Fig. 4, is estimated by
Gs = ( Ps / b) /( s / h)

(2)

(b) In case of Gs < Gg

Fig. 5 Ground shear strain g and the

equivalent shear strain s of the whole
structure

 g =g /h

(3)

where g = relative horizontal displacement

of free-field ground on the structure's
underground level shown in Fig. 5.
The equivalent shear strain s of the
whole structure is computed, based on the
geometric property of the parallelogram in
Fig. 5, by

s = s / h = (d 22 d12 ) /(4bh)

(4)

where s = displacement of the upper slab

due to the shear deformation of the
structure, d1, d2 = shorter and longer
diagonals of the cross section, respectively.
It should be noted that the gyrostatic
rotation of the whole structure exists when
Gs > Gg and that the counterclockwise
rotation of the lower slab exists because of
the larger shear deformation of the
structure than that of the ground when Gs < Gg.

s/g

1.5
1

5% of
Flexural
Rigidity

20% of
Flexural
Rigidity

0.5

Nonlinear, Vs=50m/s
Nonlinear, Vs=100m/s
Equivalent Linear, Vs100m/s

50% of
Flexural
Rigidity

0
-0.5
0

4
Gg/Gs

Fig. 6 Comparison of the non-linear and the

equivalent linear structure frame models
(Case 0)
2
1.5
(s+r)/g

where Ps = horizontal force applied to the

upper slab, s = horizontal displacement of
the upper slab, h = height of the cross
section, b = width of the cross section.
The ground shear strain g on the
structure's underground level is obtained
by

1
b/h=0.22
b/h=0.47
b/h=0.61
b/h=1.29
b/h=2.79

0.5
0
-0.5
0

4
Gg/Gs

Fig. 7 Relationships between Gg /Gs and

(s+r)/g (Case 0~4)

2.4 Effects of Linearity and Non-linearity of the Structure Frame Model

Fig. 6 shows the comparison of structure-ground shear strain ratios s/g between the
equivalent linear and the nonlinear structure frame models in Case 0. In the equivalent linear
model, 5, 20, and 50 % of the initial flexural rigidity of the beam elements are analyzed. In
the nonlinear model, Gs decrease as s increase.
The more ground-structure shear stiffness ratios Gg/Gs increase, The more s/g increase.
s/g of the equivalent linear model are very close to those of the nonlinear frame model. It is
also found that, in the nonlinear model, s/g of Vs = 50, 100 (m/s) form a nearly identical
curved line.
2.5 Effects of Aspect Ratio of the Cross Section
s/g are analyzed in Case 0~4 where aspect ratios b/h of the rectangular cross section vary
from 0.22 to 2.79. It is noted that the equivalent linear structure frame models are applied to
Case 1~4 in order to simplify the analytical procedures. Fig. 7 shows the relationships
between Gg/Gs and (s+r)/g, where r is the horizontal displacement due to rotation of the
lower slab, obtained by subtracting s from the relative horizontal displacement (s+r) of the
upper slab. Where Gg/Gs < 1, the smaller b/h are, the larger (s+r)/g are. Where Gg/Gs > 1, on
the other hand, the adverse tendency is observed.

b/h=0.22
b/h=0.47
b/h=0.61
b/h=1.29
b/h=2.79

r/g

1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5
-1
0

4
Gg/Gs

Fig. 8 Relationships between Gg/Gs and r/g

(Case 0~4)

(a) Gg/Gs<1

(b) Gg/Gs=1

(c) Gg/Gs>1

Fig. 9 Relationships between Gg/Gs and the

structural deformation
2
s/g (s/g)

2.6 Effects
of
Structure-ground
Weight Ratio
s /g are analyzed in Case 5, 6 in which
structure-ground weight ratios Ws/Wg
are 0.0, 1.0, respectively. Fig. 11 shows
the relationships between Gg/Gs and s/g.
Ws is the equivalent weight per unit
volume of the whole structure that is
computed by dividing all the RC
members' weight by the volume of the
whole section including hollows. No
inertia forces are applied to the structure
when Ws/Wg=0.0, whereas the whole
inertia forces of the structure are equal to
those of the ground when Ws/Wg=1.0.
s/g in Case 5, 6 come into the
approximately same curved line. It is
found that the inertia forces of the
structure have little effects on s/g.

1.5
1
b/h=0.22
b/h=0.47
b/h=0.61
b/h=1.29
b/h=2.79

0.5
0
-0.5
0

4
Gg/Gs

Fig. 10 Relationships between Gg/Gs and s/g

(Case 0~4)
2
1.5
s/g

Fig. 8 shows the relationships between

Gg/Gs and r/g. It is found that r/g > 0
where Gg/Gs < 1 and that r/g < 0 where
Gg/Gs > 1. The slants of r/g with
smaller b/h are steeper. This can be
explained by the gyrostatic rotation of
the whole structure in Gg/Gs < 1 and the
counterclockwise rotation of the lower
slab in Gg/Gs>1 as described above. If
Gg/Gs=1, the shear deformation of the
structure is as much as that of the ground.
Fig. 9 shows the relationships between
Gg/Gs and the structural deformation.
Fig. 10 shows the relationships
between Gg/Gs and s/g. s/g are turned
to be s/g by multiplying the numerator
and the denominator by the height of the
cross section. s/g in Case 0~4 have the
similar curved line regardless of b/h. It is
made clear that b/h have little effects on
s /g.

1
Ws/Wg=0.0
Ws/Wg=1.0

0.5
0

3. Estimation of Seismic Shear

Deformation
3.1 Formulation of the Shear Strain
Transmitting Characteristics
The physical basis of the SDM is
explained by the static substructure

-0.5
0

4
Gg/Gs

Fig. 11 Relationships between Gg/Gs and s/g

(Case 5, 6)

method derived from the dynamic substructure method [6]. Equations of motion of the SDM
are given by
K SS
K
IS

K SI rS
M
= SS
G
K II + K I 0 rI
0

0 rS 0 0
+
+
M II r K IG0 rIF q IF
I

(5)

where K = stiffness matrix of the structure, M = mass matrix of the structure, r = displacement
vector. The subscripts I and S denote the nodes on the soil-structure interface, and the
remaining nodes of the structure, respectively. The superscript dots denote time derivation.
KI0G = ground impedance matrix, rIF = free-field ground displacement vector, qIF = free-field
ground internal force on the soil-structure interface.
The second row of Equation (5), the equilibrium on the soil-structure interface, is expressed
as

( K IS rS + K II rI ) = M II rI + K IG0 (rIF rI ) + q IF
Since only the shear deformation of
the structure and the ground are
discussed herein, the equilibrium of
one-dimensional shear stress in Fig. 12
is applied to Equation (6). The
equilibrium is given by

(8)

Fig. 13 shows the comparison

between s/g in Case 0~4 and
Equation (8). It is found that Equation
(8) approximately coincides with s /g
in Case 0~4.

Ground level

Gg(g-s)

(7)

where Gss = structure reaction shear

stress, Gg(g-s) = ground shear stress
due to the relative shear strain between
the free-field ground and the structure,
Ggg = free-field ground shear stress
on the structure's underground level.
The first term of the right side of
Equation (6), the inertia forces of the
structure are ignored because the
effects of the inertia interaction are
very small, shown in Fig. 11.
The structure-ground shear strain
ratio s/g is expressed as

s / g = (2G g / Gs ) /(G g / Gs + 1)

Ground
displacement
distribution

Ggg
Gss

Base layer

Fig. 12 Equilibrium of one-dimensional shear

stress
2
1.5
s/g

Gs s = G g ( g s ) + G g g

(6)

1
0.5
Case04
Equation (8)

0
-0.5
0

4
Gg/Gs

Fig. 13 Comparison of Equation (8) and s/g

(Case 0~4)

3.2 Estimation of the Seismic Shear Deformation of Underground Structures

Seismic response analysis of free-field ground gives the ground shear strain g on the
structure's underground level and the ground shear stiffness Gg. Substituting g and Gg into
Equation (8) yields one relation of the equivalent shear strain s and the equivalent shear
stiffness Gs of the whole structure.
Pushover analysis of the structure, modeled by the simple-supported non-linear frame in Fig.
4, provides another relation of s and Gs. During earthquakes, s is determined by the
intersecting point of the two relations. Fig. 14 shows the flow diagram of estimation of the
seismic shear deformation based on the shear strain transmitting characteristics.

Structural nonlinear relation of

s and Ps (Fig. 4)
Structural nonlinear relation of
sand Gs

Relation of s and Gs
based on Equation (8)

Solution of the two relations

Estimation of s

Fig. 14 Flow diagram of estimation of the seismic

shear deformation based on the shear strain
transmitting characteristics
Each layer
thickness (m)

(9)

where H = total thickness of the

surface layer, Ts = fundamental
natural period of the surface layer
analyzed
by
SHAKE.
The
equivalent ground shear stiffness
Gg,eq is evaluated by Vs,eq and ave
that is the average weight per unit
volume weighted by each layer
thickness. Fig. 16 shows the two
relations of s and Gs. The
intersecting point of the two
relations gives s = 0.0021.
At the same time, the FEM static

Pushover analysis of
the structure

Equation (8),
Shear strain
transmitting
characteristics

Total thickness H = 38.0 (m)

Vs ,eq = 4 H / Ts

Evaluating g and Gg by
seismic response analysis of
free-field ground

Ground level
(kN/m3) Vs(m/s)

6.8

17.7

165

2.9
2.15

15.7
19.1

147
226

3.4
1.45
2.35

19.6
19.1
19.6

236
226
236

10.2

17.7

186

3.0

19.6

295

5.75

19.1

257

D = 2.95 (m)
h = 5.4 (m)

3.3 Practical Example

A practical example of estimation of
the seismic shear deformation is
provided as follows. Fig. 15 shows
the multi-layered ground conditions
and the common utility box located
in Kobe.
The one-dimensional seismic
response analysis (SHAKE) of the
surface layer is conducted. The
seismic
motion
observed
underground (G.L.-83m) in the
Kobe reclaimed island during the
1995 Hyogoken-nanbu earthquake is
applied to SHAKE. From the results
of SHAKE, the peak ground shear
strain g,max on the structure's
underground level is 1.9810-3. In
case that the thickness of the surface
layer is one fourth of the shear
wavelength, the equivalent shear
wave velocity Vs,eq of the ground is
given by

g,max
= 1.9810-3
b = 4.1 (m)

Fig. 15 The multi-layered ground conditions and the

common utility box in Kobe

Gs(kN/m2)

analysis, in which the horizontal

1.0E+05
inertia forces at the time of g,max =
Pushover
1.9810-3 in SHAKE are applied to
analysis
8.0E+04
both the structure and the ground, is
Equation (8)
conducted on the identical conditions.
6.0E+04
The straightforward approach gives
4.0E+04
the more precise solution of s =
s=0.0021
0.0014.
2.0E+04
If the capacity shear deformation su
0.0E+00
is assumed as the minimum shear
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
deformation for the non-linear
s
response of one structural member to
Fig. 16 Estimation of the seismic shear deformation
reach the ultimate curvature, su
based on the shear strain transmitting
results in 0.014 by the pushover
characteristics
analysis of the structure. It is found
that s is much smaller than su, which
can explain the small damage of the
common utility boxes in Kobe during the Hyogoken-nanbu earthquake. The estimation of s
based on the shear strain transmitting characteristics proposed herein is applicable enough for
the practical seismic design method of underground structures.

4. Conclusions
The shear strain transmitting characteristics from the surrounding ground to the underground
structure have been intensively discussed in this paper. It is clarified that the aspect ratio of
the cross section of the structure and the structure-ground weight ratio have little influence on
the structure-ground shear strain ratio. The hyperbolic relationship between the
ground-structure shear stiffness ratio and the structure-ground shear strain ratio is developed
by the equilibrium of one-dimensional shear stress between the structure and the ground.
Finally, a simplified seismic design method for underground structures based on the shear
strain transmitting characteristics is proposed.
References
[1] SAMATA S., "Underground Subway Damage during the Hyogoken-nanbu Earthquake
and Reconstruction Technology", JSCE Journal of Construction Management and
Engineering, No. 534, VI-30, 1996.3, pp. 1-17.
[2] JAPAN ROAD ASSOCIATION, "Specifications of Design and Construction for Parking
Structures", Maruzen Inc., Tokyo, 1992.11, pp. 155-186.
[3] RAILWAY TECHNICAL RESEARCH INSTUTUTE, "Specifications of Seismic Design
for Railway Structures", Maruzen Inc., Tokyo, 1999.10, pp. 331-341.
[4] WANG J. N., "Seismic Design of Tunnels, A State-of-the-Art Approach", Monograph 7,
Parsons Brickerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., New York, 1993.
[5] JAPAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS, "Standard Specifications for Concrete
Structures, Design Edition", Maruzen Inc., Tokyo, 1996.3, pp. 23-24.
[6] TATEISHI A., "A Study on Loading Method of Seismic Deformation Method", JSCE
Journal of Structural Mechanics and Earthquake Engineering, No. 441, I-18, 1992.1, pp.
157-166.