Tenth U.S.

National Conference on Earthquake Engineering

Frontiers of Earthquake Engineering
July 21-25, 2014
10NCEE Anchorage, Alaska

FREE – FIELD RACKING DEFORMATION

METHODOLOGY APPLIED TO THE
DESIGN OF SHALLOW TUNNEL
STRUCTURES IN HIGH RISK SEISMIC
AREAS. PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS.
J. L. Sanchez-Jimenez1

ABSTRACT

The free – field racking deformation methodology has been agreed as the most reliable and
rational approach for the design of tunnel infrastructures. Since its publication in the FHWA and
AASHTO Tunnel Manual in 2010, is quickly becoming an international standard, as few other
code references are available. The actual application of this method in shallow box – shaped
tunnel infrastructure projects entails some considerations that contribute to its practical
utilization. The main issue is related with the clear definition of the boundaries where the
traditional dynamic earth pressure methods (i.e. Mononobe – Okabe and Wood) will still be
applicable. Additionally the global effect of the structure racking distortion should be completed
with the local effect that determines the earth pressure on the lateral walls. The key parameter
appears to be the flexibility ratio, after which a simple procedure is proposed, in order to unify
the results of the deformation method with the earth pressure approaches. On the other hand, the
design of extremely flexible underground structures has to be accompanied with additional
measures at least to avoid the joints decompression and consequences at the ground surface.
Finally, the direct extrapolation of the successfully adopted criteria for the aboveground
structures has to be observed carefully. Considering tunnel infrastructures, different issues would
show up when relying on the plastic hinges formation, as the ulterior required reparation will
present unaffordable problems in most cases.

1
MSc. Struct. Engineer, Dept. Manager - Structures, TYPSA, Gomera 9, S.Sebastian Reyes, 28703 Madrid, SPAIN

Sanchez-Jimenez JL. Free – field racking deformation methodology applied to the design of shallow tunnel
structures in high risk seismic areas. Practical considerations. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in
Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
Free – Field Racking Deformation Methodology Applied To The Design
Of Shallow Tunnel Structures In High Risk Seismic Areas.
Practical Considerations.

J. L. Sanchez-Jimenez1

ABSTRACT

The free – field racking deformation methodology has been agreed as the most reliable and
rational approach for the design of tunnel infrastructures. Since its publication in the FHWA and
AASHTO Tunnel Manual in 2010 is quickly becoming an international standard, as few other
code references are available. The actual application of this method in shallow box – shaped
tunnel infrastructure projects entails some considerations that contribute to its practical utilization.
The main issue is related with the clear definition of the boundaries where the traditional dynamic
earth pressure methods (i.e. Mononobe – Okabe and Wood) will still be applicable. Additionally
the global effect of the structure racking distortion should be completed with the local effect that
determines the earth pressure on the lateral walls. The key parameter appears to be the flexibility
ratio, after which a simple procedure is proposed, in order to unify the results of the deformation
method with the earth pressure approaches. On the other hand, the design of extremely flexible
underground structures has to be accompanied with additional measures at least to avoid the joints
decompression and consequences at the ground surface. Finally, the direct extrapolation of the
successfully adopted criteria for the aboveground structures has to be observed carefully.
Considering tunnel infrastructures, different issues would show up when relying on the plastic
hinges formation, as the ulterior required reparation would present unaffordable problems in most
cases.

Introduction

The publication of the FHWA [1] and the AASHTO [2] documents in 2010 about the seismic
considerations of tunnels has given a code regulated basis for the design of tunnel linings, in
addition to the existing bibliography from previous studies. Consequently the number of
applications of the deformation method for underground structures in actual tunnel projects has
increased significantly since then. But design criteria for tunnels under seismic hazards are far
from an international consensus at the moment.

The racking deformation method provides a clear and effective process to evaluate the effect of
seismic events on shallow underground structures. The ground – structure interaction is included
by means of a flexibility factor, which appears to be of high significance. Flexible structures
embedded in medium to rigid soils will behave near to the cavity free – field condition,

1
MSc. Struct. Engineer, Dept. Manager - Structures, TYPSA, Gomera 9, S. Sebastian Reyes, 28703 Madrid, SPAIN.

Sanchez-Jimenez JL. Free – field racking deformation methodology applied to the design of shallow tunnel
structures in high risk seismic areas. Practical considerations. Proceedings of the 10th National Conference in
Earthquake Engineering, Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, Anchorage, AK, 2014.
amplifying the shear strain of the non-perforated medium by a factor of a maximum between 2.0
to 2.8. On the other hand, relatively rigid structures will reduce the free – field deformation
expected.

Other alternative methodologies, based on finite – elements numerical calculations, should be

limited to special cases where the racking method is not applicable. As the dynamic and non
elastic behaviors are involved, the uncertainty of the obtained results becomes an issue, as it is a
time consuming calculation. A more practical approach is needed for the design. Some design
considerations will be discussed to contribute to the racking deformation method applicability.

Free – Field Racking Deformation Method

The racking deformation method, as proposed by Wang [3] and included in the FHWA
Report [1], assumes that buried structures will experience transverse distortion deformations due
to its interaction with the surrounding soil during an earthquake event. The structure racking
stiffness modifies the ground free – field deformation, and therefore an R factor is calibrated to
determine the actual racking distortion to be considered in the box structure design.

Figure 1. Racking deformation of a box structure. (Wang 1993 [3])

The racking coefficient R is the ratio of the racking distortion of the structure Δs (Δdiff in Fig.1), to
that of the free – field soil Δff. The flexibility coefficient F is the ratio of the surrounding ground
stiffness to that of the racking structure. Wang [3] obtained the relationship between the racking
coefficient R and the flexibility ratio F (Eq. 1). The free – field deformation Δff is obtained from
the ground strain γ caused by the vertically propagation of the seismic shear waves (Eq. 3).

F = (Gm/Ks) · (W/H) (1)

4·(1 −ν m )·F
R= (2)
3 − 4ν m + F

γ = σv/Gm · PGA/g · Rz (3)

 Δff = γ · H (4)

Δs = R · Δff (5)

where F is the flexibility ratio, Gm is the average shear – strain modulus, νm is the Poisson
coefficient, γ is the ground strain due to the seismic waves, σv is the vertical stress, PGA
is the peek ground acceleration, g is the gravity acceleration, Rz is a depth reduction
factor (Fig. 2), Ks is the racking stiffness of the box structure from the cracked condition,
W is the width of the box structure and H is the height of the box structure and R is the
racking coefficient.

Figure 2. Depth reduction factor, with z in meters.

For the structural analysis, two pseudo – static lateral forces are recommended; the more critical
effects to be considered and added to the static (non seismic) loads. For deeper structures the soil
strains are transmitted to the box structure through shear forces at the roof; on the other hand,
shallower structures suffer the soil thrust at the lateral walls. In design stage a cautious approach
is suggested.

The application of this method in real underground infrastructures projects leads to identify the
need for further contributions and highlights some issues, which are hereafter discussed.

Contributions for the racking deformation method application

Design approach considerations

Aboveground structures analyses have quickly evolved to a two level seismic design – criteria
approach, as far as it allows a sound and economic risk management. The first level (Operation
Design Earthquake ODE) will ensure the facility operational condition, with minor damages; the
second level (Maximum Design Earthquake MDE) will ensure the life –saving condition, with
plastic hinges formation and energy dissipation. It is said the same approach should apply to
underground structures [1], [2], [3].

The plastic hinges formation in aboveground structures is limited to elements and locations that
could be easily inspected and repaired after an earthquake event. The application of the same
approach to tunnels presents some issues:

ƒ The plastic hinges will be irreparable in the outer elements, except for special cases.
ƒ The energy dissipation at the plastic hinges will be only a little fraction of the total energy
dissipated in the ground itself. Therefore some of the main assumptions usually considered in
the aboveground structures should be thoroughly restudied (i.e. seismic displacement remains
constant even when plastic hinges develop).
ƒ The effects on other near buildings should be considered in every single case, especially in
urban areas.

Therefore a quasi – elastic approach, with minor damages, is suggested for the maximum seismic
design scenario. Details providing ductility to the critical sections would be sensible, but the
ductility should be expected to mobilize only over the MDE event. Some owners (e.g. San
Francisco BART) have begun requiring their facilities to remain operational after MDE level
shaking [4].

Besides, the risk level adopted for the facility life should take into account the catastrophic
effects if the tunnel collapses, even larger than those for the aboveground structures, especially
for shallow structures. Obviously this is critical for massive transportation systems like subway
stations. Usually 5% to 10% failure risk level in 50 years of lifetime is considered for bridges
and buildings, corresponding with 500 to 1000 year return period. For public underground
facilities could be proposed 2% to 5% (1000 to 2500 year return period), depending on the
number of people expected simultaneously and the effects on near buildings, if any.

Longitudinal behavior considerations

The most appalling reported damages in shallow underground facilities are those from Daikai
subway station during 1995 Kobe earthquake [5], leading to the collapse of more than 30 central
columns and consequently the roof fell down. Even though the collapse can be explained by the
transverse racking distortion, evidences of cracking at the edges of the lateral walls and slabs
demand attention for the longitudinal direction.

Typically subway station edges present abrupt width variation and even different structural
systems. The behavior of the transverse edge walls should be analyzed properly; they should
accommodate the differential longitudinal movements between the lateral walls of the different
tunnel sections. Two different strategies are possible: flexible edge walls or rigid edge walls.

ƒ Flexible edge walls will accommodate the differential movement. The joints should be fully
connected and resistant to the corresponding bending moments or, if pinned joints are
possible, should accommodate the required rotations.
ƒ Rigid edge walls will limit the differential movement, and therefore will reduce the expected
damages in the longitudinal walls.

Design methods discussion

It is broadly agreed that the racking distortion method is the most sensible and suitable approach
to be used in underground practical design. However, the method applicability boundaries are
not clearly defined, especially with the traditional dynamic earth pressure methods
(i.e. Mononobe – Okabe and Wood methods).

Initially developed for aboveground earth retaining walls, Mononobe – Okabe method would
remain applicable at very shallow structures; accordingly, when the structure is not able to move
or tilt enough to form a yielding active wedge earth pressure, Wood method would be
appropriate. But for deeper tunnels, this approach would lead to unrealistic assumptions [4], and
the racking distortion stands out as the most reliable method.

A practical procedure is needed to determine the boundaries of the recommended applicable

methodology, and could be discussed after the flexibility ratio of the surrounding ground
stiffness to that of the structure racking. In the following paragraphs some contributions will be
addressed.

Relative Structure Flexibility influence

Major influence of the flexibility ratio F on the structure racking distortion behavior can be
summarized as follows [4]:

ƒ F = 0; the structure is rigid, so it will not rack regardless of the ground distortion.
ƒ F < 1; the structure is considered stiff relative to the medium and therefore distorts less.
ƒ F = 1; the structure and medium have equal stiffness, so the structure will undergo
approximately free – field distortions.
ƒ F > 1; the structure racking distortion is amplified relative to the free – field, though not
because of dynamic amplification, but because of the cavity – like presence.
ƒ F → ∞; the structure has no stiffness, so it will undergo deformations identical to the
perforated ground.

Hereafter design practical strategies will be analyzed for both cases, relatively rigid and flexible
structures.

Relatively Rigid structures F < 1

Relatively rigid structures could be seen for small facilities in soft to very soft soils. The racking
distortion method leads to a racking coefficient R lower than unity (Eq. 2) as expected.
Obviously, this methodology is not applicable for F values near to zero, where no effects would
be predicted in a non – realistic and non – conservative scenario.
Relatively rigid structures are reducing the ground distortion, and therefore some soil thrust
would be expected at the lateral wall in the push side, and reduced accordingly in the opposite
side. Two additive effects on the structure can be considered separately (Fig. 3):

ƒ Racking distortion considering the soil – structure interaction. It could be considered as a

pseudo concentrated force P.

P = R · τm · W (6)

ƒ Local thrust on the lateral wall including the effect of the surrounding ground reduced
distortion. It can be evaluated as an inverted triangular distributed force, totaling ΔP.

Δτ = (1 – R) · τm = (1 – R) · σv · PGA/g · Rz (7)

ΔP = Δτ · W (8)

where P is the pseudo concentrated force equivalent to the racking distortion effect, R is
the racking soil – structure interaction coefficient (Eq. 1), τm is the shear stress in the free
– field medium, Δτ is the amount of shear stress not assumed by the structure distortion
because of its stiffness, σv is the vertical stress, PGA is the peek ground acceleration, g is
the gravity acceleration, Rz is a depth reduction factor (Fig. 2) and W is the width of the
structure.

Figure 3. Additive load assumptions for relatively rigid structures

It should be pointed out that Eq. 6 and 7 are equivalent to the Wood’s expressions for rigid
structures when a value near zero is adopted for the racking coefficient R. In this way, the two
methods find a common expression: as the structure racks, the earth thrust predicted by Wood for
absolutely rigid structures is consequently reduced.
Relatively flexible structures F > 1

Most of the large underground facilities, like subway stations and cut and cover road tunnels, in
medium to rigid soils could be predicted as relatively flexible structures. Furthermore, as the
racking coefficient becomes almost constant for F values over 10 (Fig. 4), most of them could be
treated as relatively no – stiff without much difference in the numerical results.

Figure 4. Racking coefficient, considering νm equal to 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4.

Mononobe – Okabe method is not able to predict the expected distortion; therefore racking
distortion method appears as the most sensible and rational approach. As far as the structure is
more flexible than the surrounding ground, the structure distortion can only be imposed through
the shear stresses. What is more, a certain reduction of the static earth pressure on the lateral
walls is expected; this reduction could be estimated with the same expressions in Equation 6 and
7, with R > 1.0.

To properly evaluate the local effects at the structure lateral walls, the static “at rest” earth
pressure is reduced because of structure flexibility; but it should be checked that the total earth
pressure has to be kept not less than the Mononobe – Okabe earth pressure prediction.

Δτ = (R – 1) · τm = (R – 1) · σv · PGA/g · Rz (9)

ΔP = Δτ · W = (R – 1) · σv · PGA/g · Rz · W (10)

Δqmax = 2 · ΔP / H (11)

q(z) = σv(z) · K0 – Δq(z) ≥ σv(z) · KMO (12)

where R is the racking soil – structure interaction coefficient (Eq. 1), τm is the shear stress
in the free – field medium, Δτ is the shear stresses corresponding with the additional
structure distortion from the free – field deformation because of its flexibility, σv is the
vertical stress, Δq(z) is the reduction of the static “at rest” earth pressure as a function of
 the structure height and Δqmax is its maximum value (expected at the roof level), q(z) is
the final earth pressure including static and pseudo dynamic effects as a function of the
structure height, K0 is the static “at rest” earth pressure coefficient, KMO is the Mononobe
– Okabe dynamic active earth pressure coefficient, PGA is the peek ground acceleration,
g is the gravity acceleration, Rz is a depth reduction factor (Fig. 2), W is the width of the
structure and H is the height of the structure.

The above procedure offers a consistent methodology to evaluate the resultant earth pressure
including the static and the dynamic effect. Mononobe – Okabe predicted pressure is kept as a
minimum, assumed as the dynamic yielding active earth pressure if the enough strain is
developed from the “at rest” level. These local effects must be superposed to the racking
distortion effect.

In any case, the seismic forces induced in structural members decrease as the structure flexibility
increases. In such cases, the security of very flexible structures relies on the structural details. It
cannot be forgotten that structures with no moment resistance, such as unreinforced brick arches,
could totally collapse [3]. For flexible box structures, some design considerations are included
hereafter, that could impose some limitations to the flexibility at the design stage.

ƒ The structural joints between roof and walls have to be thoroughly analyzed. The racking
distortion is imposed to the structure mainly through the shear stresses at the top of the roof;
therefore, to avoid their decompression, the joints have to be able to assume loads Pjoints not
less than

Pjoints = R · τm · W (13)

where R is the racking coefficient, τm is the shear stress in the free – field medium and W
is the structure width.

ƒ Where pinned connections are considered, the maximum rotation has to be checked and
validated. The support devices have to assume a dynamic rotation θd, to be added to the static
requirements, not less than

tag θd = R · τm/Gm (14)

where R is the racking coefficient, τm is the shear stress in the free – field medium and Gm
is the soil average shear – strain modulus.

ƒ The structure racking distortion stiffness Ks is supposed to be evaluated considering the

cracked concrete condition. However, very flexible structures would remain elastic even with
medium to high seismic event. Assuming reduced values of the structure stiffness will
overestimate the displacements and racking distortion (in the safe side); but on the other hand
it will underestimate the local earth pressure at the walls, or the loads at the structural joints.
Sound engineering judgment is required to establish in each case what it is the more
appropriate approach.
ƒ Where the flexibility ratio F is much larger than 1.0, the additional distortion deformation
could be reflected to the earth surface, especially for shallow and very shallow facilities. If
there are near buildings, as usual for subway infrastructures in urban areas, the maximum
induced differential settlement has to be checked. The expected settlement can be estimated
from the value of the racking distortion, considering (R – 1)·Δff as the horizontal
deformation. As a general rule, differential settlement should be kept under the 1/500 limit to
prevent the occurrence of a serviciality limit state. It should be pointed out that the existing
buildings have had to be designed with their own Earthquake Resistant Strategy (ERS), but
not considering additional deformations from other infrastructures.

Non – elastic ground behavior for large deformations

Soft soils in high risk seismic areas will be submitted to very large strains in the free – field
stage. If the plastic yielding limit is reached, the elastic proportionality between the shear stress
and the strain distortion will be lost. In its extreme stage, cracks at the earth surface would
appear even without liquefaction phenomenon or other instability situations.

To evaluate the elasto – plastic soil behavior effects on the racking distortion method, a new
correction factor could be introduced. In this way an apparent Gm* could be considered in the
analysis:

Gm* = Gm · γlim / γ (15)

where Gm* is the apparent soil average shear – strain modulus to be used in the racking
deformation method, Gm is the elastic average shear – strain modulus, γlim is the soil
elastic limit strain and γ is the soil strain at the seismic event (Eq. 3)

Cases analysis

The racking distortion deformation method, as described in the AASHTO Tunnel Manual [2],
has been used in a number of recent projects in which the author has been involved. Parallel
calculations with numerical models by finite elements software have been carried out in order to
validate the design, with acceptable results. Most of these paper contributions come directly from
the studies and considerations developed for these designs. The most significant cases are
mentioned here:

ƒ Quito first line subway tunnel and stations, in Ecuador. Designed for 2500 year return –
period. PGA adopted for the maximum design earthquake level equal to 0.84·g. Designed in
2012 – 2013.

ƒ Via Parque Rimac road tunnel in Lima, Peru. Cut and cover tunnel under the Rimac riverbed.
Designed for 1000 year return – period. PGA adopted for the maximum design earthquake
level equal to 0.52·g. Designed in 2011 – 2013.
 Conclusions

The free – field racking deformation method is the most reliable approach in practical terms for
the design of underground infrastructures. Some contributions to the applicability of this
methodology have been explained for shallow box – shaped tunnel structures. They are
applicable where the racking deformation is, as it is known:

ƒ Bi – dimensional analysis is carried out. Three dimensional issues are not included.
ƒ Surrounding ground is supposed uniform and isotropic.
ƒ Liquefaction, faults or other geological hazards are not considered.
ƒ Interaction with other tunnels, buildings or infrastructures is not included.
ƒ Special geometries are not included; the overall shape is considered as a rectangular box,
whatever its inner structure elements distribution is.

A consistent and rational approach to unify the results from the racking deformation method with
Wood method for rigid structures and Mononobe – Okabe for flexible structures are described,
discussing on the flexibility factor as the most significant parameter. It is concluded that the
racking deformation method is able to determine not only the general racking distortion effects,
but the local effects of the earth pressure on the lateral walls with very simple expressions.

Additionally some considerations have been pointed out about the requirements of the flexible
structures. The roof and bottom slabs joints with the lateral walls have to endure the
compatibility forces and, if pinned connections are adopted, the rotations. Simple expressions are
given to use in the design. Moreover, other remarks related with the effects that could be
generated at the ground surface are included.

Finally, the plastic hinges formation strategy is discussed. It is not recommended for tunnel
facilities unless special measures could be adopted to repair the plastic joints after an earthquake
event, or the operational condition could be ensured. The risk level assumed should be adopted
considering the risk to human lives and the cost of the re – investment in case of collapse;
therefore a minimum of 1000 year return – period is suggested for road tunnels, and 2500 year
return – period for subway and other massive transportations systems.

References

1. Hunk CJ, Monsees J, Munfah N, Wisniewski J. Technical manual for design and construction of road tunnels –
civil elements. Federal Highway Administration. Report FHWA-NHI-10-034. 2009.
2. AASHTO. Technical manual for design and construction of road tunnels – civil elements. First Edition.
American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials. 2010.
3. Wang J. Seismic design of tunnels. A simple state-of-the-art design approach. Monograph 7, Parsons
Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas Inc.1993.
4. Hashash YMA, Hook JJ, Schmidt B, Yao JI. Seismic design and analysis of underground structures. Tunnelling
and Underground Space Techinollogy, 2001. 16: 247 – 293.
5. Yoshida J. Damage to subway station during the 1995 Hyogoken – Nambu (Kobe) earthquake. Earthquake
geotechnical case histories for performance – based design. Kokusho ed. CRC Press, 2009.