arnquake Engineering, Tenth Vir Conference 1992 Bakers, Roterdan. (SBN 9054100805 Seismic analysis of underground structures C.Navaro Escuela de Ingenieros de Caminos, Ciudad Universitaria, Madrid, Spain ABSTRACT: This pay Gonstantopoutos et a (19 extends to other types of strcture the simplified methodology proposed b (1979) for the seismic design of tunnels. As a practical example, alarge structure of reinforced concrete, of box shape and toally embedded in sil is analyzed. The dynaraic pressures acting on walls, roof and floor, due to body and surface waves, are considered inthe analyses. A set of seismic load Combination hy i$ are proposed to account forthe differnt polarzation planes of the seismic’ waves, The Influence of neighbouring buildings can be taken into account considering the new soil sress sates that they produee. LINTRODUCTION Under seismic conditions, underground. structures respond to diferent seismic waves propagating trough soll media. One way t analyze this problem involves three-dimensional finite element analyses “using Appropriate transmitting boundaries, which allow Sbeurate modelling ofthe sector andthe surrounding Sci, These fll narmerical analyses should be cared out in time domain to account properly for soi nonlinear behaviour, However this methodology 1s expensive ‘wen utlized aya design tol ofthe stactre, because Gezpands ing compute ine. ‘Since the pioneering paper of Yeh (1974), in which a sapled shalyns fr bated pipes subjected to sete ‘was proposed, some atemps have been made 0 apply those theoretical concepts tothe svetaral design Theavier and more complicated structures, sch a5 ‘underground tunnels and galleries in fre-field ondion ‘Constantopoulos etal (1979 and 1980), Chrisano et (1983) and Navazzo & Samaria (1988). 1h their methodology, Constantopouls et al. (1979) assumed tht tunels move ina manner similar t that of the surrounding sol, and ths sol-tnnel interaction may be neglected, at least in its radional sense, tecause the most tunnel vibration cnergy is radiated Say by soil elastic waves. This method requires only atic analyses and accounts very roughly for the Gifference between tunnel and soll "gies. They divided the seiamic tunnel analysis into two part: transverse and longitudinal analyses. In the frst, 2 tel ose secton anand, ong te Sol ‘pressures against tunnel walls, oor ea the different seismic waves. These pressures are obtained from the sesses in sol in fee-eld condition, {aking into account the changes in the sess istibuton ‘sound the tunnel originated by its physical presence on Sell mass. The types of seismic waves considered in this ‘analysis are" shear and. compression waves Dropagating vetcally, and Rayleigh wave components {GStosional and dlationa) traveling horizon and 1998 perpendiculary tothe longitudinal axis ofthe tunel. Love waves are not considered in this part of the ‘alysis because they ae polrized in horizontal planes Parallel wth ground suace For longitudinal analysis, surface waves propagating parallel tthe tnael axis are considered ang he tanael Ean be modeled at an elastic beam connected by springs tothe far ela (Winkler model, Nava and Sarasin (0966) provided an analytical solution for this probe. ‘They considered the tunnel bending analyse, a3 suggested by Constanopouios etal (1979), analyzing th effects on the tunnel caused by the dstorsional component of Rayleigh and Love waves, but they incorporated a "push-pull" analysis to account forthe intivence ofthe dilatational component of Rayleigh waves, improving tht suggested for Consaatopoulos Teal (1970). To eheck the modified analysis, Nevaro and Samar (1986) compazed the values 10 obtained wth those recorded in actual earthquakes, observing a High degee of accuracy. a this paper, the methodology proposed by Cons- tantopoulos eal (1979) extended wo other pes of buried structures. As a practcal example, a eiforeed oncrece large box (12.$+12.5°120 meters), protecting Glesel tank, is analyzed seismically. Its founded on fotact rock (shear wave velocity vp= 2,960 mls and density p2= 2.71 tons/a’) andthe walls apd te roof fein contact with a panulr backfill (v1 = 008 and t= 206 tons/m), The rock material behaviour was Sipposed elastic, and the variation of the dynamic properties of the granular backfill versus shear sain ‘ete taken into account Hardin and Drevieh (1972). ‘Assructural wansverse secon is showa in Figure 1. The seomic excitation cont of wo satiny independent accelerograms with 4 broad frequenc ‘content. They ae defied at rockbackfi neta Ie witha peak aceleraon of 0.2, in bots horizontal and Yercal directions, and-match he response spect given Inthe the Regulatory Guide 1.60.1050 Figure 1. Geometrical definition ofthe analyzed structure ve Point A Point B a Peetet Bas a —— Poin B a2 Pan g 3 1 E a. ‘ < Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz) Figure Horizon response spectra at points A andB (continous ine) and atts even fee-fed condition (dete ie), Damping rao 5%. 2 SEISMIC ANALYSIS this figure he horizontal response speta at suerte Points A’ and'B.Gee Figure 1 for situation), Seeing to ronal sialon ee compres 2.1 Preliminary SSI sdies ce obbned in refi condone athe ame Rages impor of actu ection é in hese probems, finite element falyses were cared out, nthe fequency domain, {ing the vell-enown merical ool FLUSH (Lysmer als (1975) whic taken into aocout dre dmeasional effec in an approximate manne, The results conned that SSt effec were not very portant forthe case of fanels (Constanopoutos e¢ aL" (1979) and Naver {@982), nor forthe probes understudy (Figure )-1n levels, Maximum spectral ordinates appear for the aural ‘ofthe soll layer. Differences of about 10% are observed: that for point A is greater than that of free-fieid, whereas for poiat B the opposite occurs. For verical excitation these differences are much les 2.2 Seismic environment ‘The determination of a seismic input for buried 1940suctres is very complex dve tothe randomness of ‘Etecion and the magnitude ofthe seismic modon, 0 Simplifying and conservative hypotheses should be ‘sed acount for the uncertainties of the seismic ‘vent The selamie waves considered are: verteally propagiting body (shear and compression), and Fortzntlly propagating Rayleigh waves, all polarized in'vereal planes, and Love waves ‘polarized in horizontal planes parallel to the ground surface. The last two waves, normally known as surface waves, have & Glpersive characte? when they propagate throogh & layered half-space, iy wave phase velocity 33 & {neton of the frequency of the wave component onsidered. Forde case of Love waves, result ofthe Aispersion equon are shown gaphcaly in Figure 3, forthe simple layered halespace considered. For he fundarmentl frequency range of an earthquake (1-5 Hay, Love wave components propagate 10 4 phase well very near to the shear waves veloc ofthe $Slpace Ail cneosin Ss acer when {eating Rayleigh waves inthe sae sll sytem ving Sal os))-Paptumennal nodes of so woven it {he imple layered half-space, show that no changes in Sell suesies re observed through layer depth This ‘means that infee-field condone, te maximum stresses at layer points, due to surface waves, may be computed a panicle o (or) = "Ble + Berd) FREQUENCY (i) LEGEND: ‘y= phase velocity of the Love wave component (1) p1=2.060m3,v 1=3000m/s,92=2 53, v7=18600m/s G) p1=2.06elm3,v1}=300m/s,p2=2 5u/m3,v2=2960m/5 Figure 3. Dispersion curves for a Love wave propagating through a simple layered half-space. 1941 where Yparticle is the maximum soll panicle velocity, wave is the wave phase velocity, E and G the elasticity and shear moduli of soil respectively, and ¢ and = are the normal and shear stresses inthe soil mass due 1 the seismic wave component. The velocity of sol particles ‘may be obtained from the equation (Newmark etal 973): e here gay isthe si pea acceleration. Inthe ease of Rayleigh waves, the sss sate induced in the soll consists of normal stress, cng on vera! panes, together wih a shear sues Gompotent Te fistcan be Sorapie wing Eq (1) and considering & moles E Sccordingly with the shear deformation. The send Stress component may be assumed at 10% of he Brevious one, for # layer Septh below 55 of he Epieigh wavelength (Wait C588), oll sess cased by vereally propagating body waves may be eaicsiced by meant of the computer program SHAKE (Schnabel etal 913) or By using be simplified method suggested ty Seed and Tass (1971) wo evalate sol shea susie caused by the vera! propagation of sear waves The autor fag checked tha he eppronimateexyesion ven by Seed and Tdriss (1971) can also be used for verbally ‘ropegating compression waves, consienng the same Enefcents bot ioducing the vercalacscration a ‘posnd evel panicle (ms) = 1.2 ® 23 Seismic sol pressures (Once he soi senses infeed, casted by each basic weave typ, are known, sol pressure cisebutons can te compat wing ast fit clement mesh in which the sritore and a part of te surrounding sot ave Todeled, as suggested by Constanopouion ct a (1895) Ta hs mane, presture concentration ees Structure comers, caused by the srture and scl fulness ferences, an be fen int aoeount, Thus the normal and shear swesedisbuton sting onthe ‘era wall se and athe le sous wld doe to shear, compression and Rayleigh waves ar oined igure. ‘This figure presents some pnts ofits. Fist of al, the preaure disbutons donot follow the Mononoke: Giabe theory (Seed and Whitman (1970) of seme ath throt prediedons. This fs due tothe wall fleibiliy the theory isnot sppcabe otis ye of Sroctre, The shear sess values due to veteal ‘ropagnton of shear wave ae mach higher than hone ‘obtained from either Rayleigh or compression waves. Note sit the fst reach a maximom of sbost 103 tons/m? whereas the second values between 0 and 2 tons/m2. Although the shear sess vales would be Timid by soitwall fon phenoment, the sil forces are walficor level oil be governed by sear wave ‘ropegncon The nomal sets tengo he wal doe DYRavicigh and compression waves fre very smilar thd in prtodee can be sasomed as constant long the ral. Those exvsed by shear wave presen «minimum Yiluc about the mide of he wall 84 maximum valsSubscripts P, § and R represent respectively Shear, ‘Compression and Rayleigh waves Fie 4. Suess dssibution wound the wall caused by ferent seismic waves, (Verical plane) LEGEND: = nommal sess ‘cm shear stress Subscripts L and R represent respectively Love and. Rayleigh waves Figure 5. Swess distribution around walls comer caused, by diferent seismic waves. (Horizontal plane) 1942 LEGEND: += Type of movement adquired by soil particles S” Shear wave Compression wave R-Rayleigh wave, Directionof L Love wave wave propagation “igure 6. Seismic waves considered and their supposed paeation planes, at the wall comers, as consequence of the stress Concentration effect mentioned. The shear force and ‘ending moment in the wall seem to be due 10 either ‘compression or Rayleigh waves. However axial force tnd bending moment at wallfloor and walltoof rather appear to be due to shear waves, ‘Figure 5 shows the suess distribution across a quarter of ahorizontal cross-section, at the middle of structure height. Only Rayleigh and Love wave effects are ‘considered in this figure. The normal stresses reach ‘imum values at the middle of the wall, and shear stresses due to Love waves can be considered as ‘Accordingly to the polarized planes ofeach basic wave type, shown in Figure 6, and to the terms of the Regulatory Guide 1.92, the following seismic loads ‘combinations apply 9) S1-S2-P BW) S1-R 2 St-L1-P — &) $2-Ry €)12-S2-P 9 RL DUp-1y-P —b) Ra-Ly where S, P, Rand L represent respectively any internal load or bending moment due o 2 pressure disuibution cconesponding t0 shear, compression, Rayleigh and Love waves, andthe subscripts give the structural sides where the seismic pressures are supposed acting. The design loads should be computed as the envelope of those calculated in esch combination hypothesis, 24 Influence of neighbouring buildings ‘When massive building ae founded near the considered seuetre, this methodaiogy does nt access lead to conservative design values. Recent works (Gémex- ‘Mass6 and Aralla (1984) snd Navarro (1992)) on this Jase subject prove thatthe inluense of buildings ean ieally alter the sess states generated in soll mass ‘garding tose obtained in free sotion. So, forthe ease ofa Dullding (8,000 tons) founded atsurface (Figure 7(a)) on a soil system of the same aynamic $ and seismic input as said before, Figure 8) shows the sess sate, generated ito te fol at diferent distances from the balding edge and in the mile ofthe ayer depth, for horizontal excitation For approximately 30 meters fom the bulaing edge, the influence of the building hes disappeared. For ‘eal exciton the influence decreases much fase. Figure 700) shows anoler eaze very common in Nuclear Power Plants faites: a Reactor bulding of 120,000 tons weight and 60 mm diate, founded ona talespace, wid a shear wave velocity of about 1100 ‘ullding is surrounded by a granular backfill Inver 10 m deep, whose dynamic properties ze those proposed by. Hardin and Drocvieh (1972), The Forlzonal seismie input isan accclerogram of peak seeleration Gag, dened at backil see id batching the response spectrum of the Regulatory Guide 1:50, The dependence ofthe sess state oh Gistance from the wall at an intesedate layer depth, i Shown i Figure 8@). Ata distance of about 30 mec, the influence of the building seems to dltappear However, this de not exactly true Because Navarro (4995) nas shown that an interference phenomena ferweea Rayleigh waves, propagating Horizontally through the Back layer tad aay froma the bullding tall and verdeal maveling shear waves, occurs at ore than 30 m fom the wallTo Mlustat tis, Figure 9 Shows the response spectra, fora damping ratio of 3%, beeen er ey cee WS @ obaned cdferent points ofthe layer. At abou 40 m, al ordinates are greater han those obtained in fecheid ‘Pie dies wc ey let furetion of the wave Tength of the Raylelgh wave (aver (1992), 3 CONCLUSIONS ‘This paper outlads a simplified methodology for the design of lege suuctures other than tuntels and lleres. Te is an extension of that proposed by Sonstantopoutos et al (1979) ‘Some recommendation are made about the choice of Rayleigh and Lave wave velocies to be used in the ‘nalts Ths geal smpliies the consideration of the seas of the selmic waves Figure 7. Different stuctural systems Combination criteria, attending to the different polarization planes of the seismic waves involved, are rovided Particular attention should be given when massive buildings are near the buried stcucture because then some ofthe ress of he splifed methodology may ‘ot be conservative. as Toraonal es a - vale Bas 7 Sees Bis hora ses if versalanes i aay Bos i Tien eae enaen “JD UU EDD Ee Ow Disa rs ulin en) Disance tom bulliag val (n) @ Figure 8. Stess stares 1943 ®Ground surtace Middle of back tayer ACCELERATION (*8) aurea sas FREQUENCY (Hz) @ FREQUENCY (Fiz) o Figure 9. Response spectra fora damping ratio of 5% at different distances REFERENCES Constantopoulos, LY. etal. 1979, Dynamic analysis of vunnels. Proc. 3rd. Tat, Conf. Num. Meth. Geomech.. Constantopoulos, LY. et al. 1980, Seismic analysis of ‘buried tunnels: Pros. 7th, World Con. Earthquake Engng. Christiano, P.P. et al. 1983. Response, of buried Tunnels to earthquake excitation, Trans, 7th Int. Cont. Sect Mech Reacon Tech Vol K: 287294, Ewing, W. M. et al, 1957. Blastc waves in iayere toed, Pentel Gémez-Mass6, A. & I. Atala 1984. Finite element ‘versus simplified methods in the seismic analysis of underground structures. Earthquake Engng. Stroct. Dyn. 12: 347-367. Hardin, BO. & VP. Dmevich 1972. Shear modulus £6 dirping in sols design equations and caves. J __ Soil Mech, Found, Div. ASCE 98: 603-624. Lysmer, J. etal. 1975. FLUSH, a computer program for approximate 3D analysis of soil-stucture interaction problems. Rep. EERC 75-30. Navarro, C. & Samartin, A. 1988, Simplified Yongitadinal analysis of buried tunnels. Software for ang. Workstations 4: 3-10 Navarro, C. 1992. Effect of adjoining structures on seismic response of tunnels. Int. J. Num. Anel. Meth, Geomech. Gn press). "Newmark, NM eta. 1973, Seismic design specra for ‘Noclear Power Plans. Power Div. ASCE 98. ‘Schnabel, P.B, etal. 1975, SHAKE- A computer ‘gram for earthquake response analysis of horizontally Iintered sites, Rep. EERC 72-12. Seed, HB. & Idriss 1971. Simplified procedure for evalua sll Lgutacton potential J Soll Mesh. Found. Div., ASCE 97:1249-1273, Sedd, H.B. & Whitman, R.V. 1970. Design of earth ‘taining structures for dynamic loads. Lateral stesses in the. ground & design of earth retaining structures: ASCE. USNRC. Regulatory Guide 1.60. Design response ta for Seismic design of Nuclear Power Plants INRC. Regulatory Guide 1.92, Combining modal 1944 res-ponses and spatial components in seismic response analysis. Yeh, G. C.K. 1974, Seismic analysis of slender buried ‘beams. Bul, Seis. Soe, America 64: 1551-1562. Wolf, LP. 1985. Dynamic soil-structure interaction. Prentice-Hall.