- 1741 -

Dynamic Response of Substructures

under Earthquake Force

Indrajit Chowdhury
Petrofac International Limited;
Sharjah, UAE.
Indrajit.Chowdary@petrofac.com

Shambhu P Dasgupta
Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, India
dasgupta@civil.iitkgp.ernet.in

ABSTRACT
With increase in infrastructure development in metro-cities like construction of underground
railways, pedestrian subways etc., there exists a significant debate among designers as to -
what is the effect of earthquake on these substructures? While there exists widely diverging
opinion on the topic like i) ignoring its effect completely below ground to ii) reducing the
spectral acceleration to half its value up to 30 meter depth below ground or iii) simply using
Mononobe and Okabes (M-O) method to estimate the seismic pressure on a substructure, a
number of such substructures have been observed to have undergone damage under recent
earthquakes like Kobe (1995), Bhuj (2001), Fukushima (2011) to name some of the major
few. Recent research in USA sponsored by US Nuclear Regulatory Corporation (USNRC)
shows that substructures below ground can be significantly affected by seismic force and
procedures in vogue as mentioned above are not at all realistic, to the extent that USNRC has
now stopped using any of the M-O based method for design of their substructures in their
Nuclear power plants. However this research is valid for simplified case like shear modulus
constant with depth and requires extensive use of software like SAASI/SHAKE. A simplified
formula based on this study has now been accepted by Federation of Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA/NEHRP) for estimating dynamic pressure on such substructures. Present
paper proposes an analytical method based on Galerkins weighted residual technique to
arrive at the dynamic pressure on such substructures with soil having generalized constitutive
model- (where G could vary with depth having different powers). The method does not
require any special software to be used thus engineers not having access to such special
purpose software can yet handle this problem with confidence. The results obtained by the
proposed method matches well within limits of civil engineering design with the established
method as proposed now by FEMA/NEHRP and can be used for any general constitutive
model of soil.
KEYWORDS: Wave propagation, Energy principle, Plane strain, Galerkin Weighted
Residual technique, Dynamic pressure.
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. L 1742

INTRODUCTION
With a spurt of recent underground infrastructure construction, namely metro rail tunnels,
pedestrian subways etc. being built in a number of metropolitan cities, the primary debate that has
come to the fore is
What is the effect of earthquake on these types of structures built below ground?
The debate has gained significant importance as the arguments put forward for the design of
such structures under seismic force are highly diverging.
While some recommend (most popular) to totally ignore the effect of any earthquake below
ground arguing, only structures above ground are affected by seismic forces, others prescribe to
reduce the Sa/g value linearly up to a depth of 30m below the ground and consider half the value of
(Sa/g) thereafter. Again, there are others who in the absence of any specific guidelines prefer to use
Mononobes earth pressure coefficients (Mononobe & Matsuo1929) to determine the seismic
pressure on the wall of such structures, that are usually considered rigid.
It was only in the recent past, research carried out in USA (Ostadan & White 1997), (Ostadan
2004) based on extensive field observation and then back checking the same by finite element
method (FEM) through software like SHAKE(Schnabel et al 1972) and SASSI (Lysmer et al 2000)
came up with a pressure equation that is best fit over a number of soil data. This formula is now
adapted by NEHRP [2000] and also by US Nuclear Regulatory Corporation for all their
substructures for Nuclear Power plants. However, one of the major limitations of this method is that
the expression is valid only for G constant with depth and would still require software like SHAKE,
SASSI to arrive at an acceptable result.
Chowdhury & Dasgupta (2007, 2008) presented an analytical solution for determination of such
dynamic pressure, having G constant with depth and a few selected cases like sandy or gravelly
soils. The solution was restricted to the case where the underground structure was directly resting on
the bedrock. In the present paper an analysis is outlined which takes care of underground structures
that may be floating or resting on bedrock. The soil with a generalized constitutive model can be
adapted to estimate the dynamic pressure.

PROPOSED METHOD
The problem statement along with free field characteristics of the site is shown in Fig. 1.
Figure 1: An underground structure built below the ground

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1743

The propagation of S
V
waves through the medium in two dimensions can be expressed as

2
2
2 2
2
2
2
) , , ( 1 ) , , ( ) , , (
t
t z x u
Vs z
t z x u
x
t z x u

(1)
where V
s
= shear wave velocity of the soil medium; u(x, z, t) = the displacement function and can be
considered as u = H(x).Q (z).P (t) [H, P, Q are the three independent functions of x, z and t
respectively].
Eqn. (1) can be broken up into three ordinary differential equations of second order, given by

0
2
2
2
= + P
dt
P d
(2)
where = iV
s
where i is a constant

0 ) (
) (
2
2
2
= + x H k
dx
x H d
(3)
where k is another constant

0 ) (
) (
2
2
2
= + z Q p
dz
z Q d
(4)
where p, i, and k are related through p
2
= i
2
- k
2
.


The solution of the eqns. (3) and (4) is given by

kx B kx A x H sin cos ) ( + = (5)

pz D pz C z Q sin cos ) ( + =
(6)
the boundary conditions
At x = 0, u = 0 H (x) = 0, which implies A = 0.
At x = a (where a may be very large), u = 0
H (a) = 0 which implies H (a) = 0 sin = ka B



a
m
k

= (7)
and hence

a
x m
x H
m

sin ) ( = (8)
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. L 1744

At the free surface i.e. where z = 0 (Fig. 1), the boundary conditions are
At z = 0, shear strain, 0 =

z
u
or 0
) (
=
dz
z dQ

which implies D = 0.
At z = H, displacement, 0 = u , i.e. 0 ) ( = H Q . It implies that

H
n
p
2
) 1 2 (
= (9)
and hence

H
z n
z Q
2
) 1 2 (
cos ) (

= (10)
The eigenvectors of the problem can be established as

H
z n
a
x m
z Q x H z x
2
) 1 2 (
cos sin ) ( ) ( ) , (

= = (11)
where, m, n = 1,2,3
Again, from the description of eqns. (2) and (3)

2 2
k p V
s
+ =
Substituting the value of p and k from eqns. (9) and (7), one can have

2
2
2
2
4
) 1 2 (
H
n
a
m
V
s

+ = .
For the fundamental mode considering m, n = 1 and lim a , the value of reduces to

2
4
1
0
H
V
s
+ = = and

H
V
s
2

= (12)
The period, T can be derived from eqn. (12) as T = 4H/V
s
which is basically the free field time
period for the site in one dimension.
For lim a

, the first term of eigen-function (in x direction) can be dropped in eqn. (11)
which gives the eigen-function in one dimension as

( )
H
z n
z
2
1 2
cos ) (

= (13)
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1745

In this case the eigen-value vis--vis the free field time period and eigen-vectors are derived by
direct solution of the differential equation of motion of the wave propagation in two dimensions for
constant G.
However the same can be derived from the energy equation also and are furnished hereafter.
The strain energy equation of a soil body, in general, is given by (Timoshenko et al 1983)

( ) ( )
2
2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2
x y z xy yz xz
e G
U G

= + + + + + + (14)

where, U = strain energy density of the soil body; = ) 2 1 /( 2 G ; G = dynamic shear modulus
of the soil medium and its Poisson ratio; e =
x
+
y
+
z
;
x,y,z
= strain in the x, y and z direction and

xy,yz,zx
= shear strains in the xy, yz and zx planes respectively.
With reference to Fig. 1 and assuming the condition of plane strain, eqn. (14) can be rewritten as

( ) ( ) ( )
2 2 2 2
2 2 1
xz z x z x
G
G
G
U

+ + + +

= (15)

For impulsive seismic response,
z
= 0 which reduces eqn. (15) further to

( )
2 2
2 2 1
1
xy x
G G
U

= (16)
Considering u(x,z) = (x,z), q(t) one can have

|
.
|

\
|

+ |
.
|

\
|

z
u
q z
u
G
x
u
q x
u G
q
U
r r r

2 1
) 1 ( 2

That is

( )
r i
r i
r i
r i
r
q q
z z
G q q
x x
G
q
U

2 1
1 2

(17)
where
= ) , ( z x generalized shape function with respect to x and z co-ordinate,
q(t) = displacement function with respect to time in generalized co-ordinate.
The stiffness and mass matrix can be written as (Hurty and Rubenstein 1967)

dz dx
z z
G
x x
G
K
H a
r i r i
ir
.
2 1
) 2 1 ( 2
0 0
} } (

(18)
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. L 1746

and
} }
=
H a
r i
s
ir
dz dx
g
M
0 0
.

(19)
where, K = stiffness matrix of the soil medium; M = mass matrix of the soil medium;
i and r are different modes 1,2,3..
K and M for the fundamental mode are given by

( )
dz dx
z
G
x
G
K
H a
.
2 1
1 2
0 0
2 2
11
} }
(
(

|
.
|

\
|

+ |
.
|

\
|

(20)

( )
} }
=
H a
s
dz dx
g
M
0 0
2
11
.

(21)
It was shown earlier that when lim a

, the first term can be dropped and eqns. (20) and (21)
reduce to

dz
z
G K
H
.
0
2
11
}
(
(

|
.
|

\
|

=


(22)

( )
}
=
H
s
dz
g
M
0
2
11

(23)
Considering the shape function given in eqn. (13) as (z) = cos
nz
2H
(i.e. for n = 1) and
substituting it in eqns. (22) and (23) for a constant G value and by integrating, one can have

H
G
K
8
2
11

=

(24)
and,
g
H
M
s
2
11

=

(25)
Considering I = 2nHK substituting eqns. (24) and (25) one can arrive at the same
expression as as T = 4H/V
s
derived earlier. This shows the correctness of the energy principle as
adapted herein.
For multi-degree freedom, the stiffness and mass matrices can be expressed as

[ ] dz
z z
G K
H
r i
.
0
}
(

|
.
|

\
|

|
.
|

\
|

=


(26)
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1747


[ ] ( )( )
}
=
H
r i
s
dz
g
M
0

(27)
For the first four modes, expanding eqns. (26) and (27), it gives

[ ]
2
2
2
2
/ 8 0 0 0
0 9 / 8 0 0
0 0 25 / 8 0
0 0 0 49 / 8
G
K
H

(
(
(
=
(
(
(


(28)

[ ]
1/ 2 0 0 0
0 1/ 2 0 0
0 0 1/ 2 0
0 0 0 1/ 2
s
H
M
g

(
(
(
=
(
(


(29)
Solving for the eigenvalue from
[ ] [ ] 0 = M K
and knowing =
2
where T==2/,, we
finally have

{ } { } 4 1.333 0.8 0.571
T
s
H
T
V
=

(30)
The corresponding eigenvectors [] are obtained as


[ ]
(
(
(
(

=
1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 0 0 1

(31)
Considering modal analysis, the amplitude of displacement can be expressed as (Clough and
Penzien 1983)

2

a
d
S
S =

(32)
Based on Code definition, the amplitude of vibration may be expressed as

H
z
n
S
u
an
n n
2
) 1 2 cos(
2

=

(33)
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. L 1748

in which K
n
, is a Code factor expressed as K
n
= ZI/2R where Z = zone factor, I = importance factor,
R = response reduction factor; K
n
is modal mass participation factor and is expressed as


= =
=
n
i
n
i
i i i i n
m m
1 1
2



For the first four modes this is given in Table 1.

Table 1: Values of modal mass participation factor.

Mode 1 2 3 4
8/(+2) -8(3-2) 8/(5+2) -8/(7-2)

The strain within the soil body is expressed as
0 =
xx
and
z
u
zz

= which gives

( )
H
z
n
T S
H
n
n an
n n zz
2
) 1 2 sin(
4 2
1 2
2
2

= (34)
Eqn. (34) on simplification for the first four modes, it finally gives

( ) H
z
G
H
g
S
a
s zz
2
sin
2
16
1
1

|
|
.
|

\
|
+
=

(35)

( ) H
z
G
H
g
S
a
s zz
2
3
sin
2 3 3
16
2
2

|
|
.
|

\
|

=

(36)

( ) H
z
G
H
g
S
a
s zz
2
5
sin
2 5 5
16
2
3

|
|
.
|

\
|
+
=

(37)

( ) H
z
G
H
g
S
a
s zz
2
7
sin
2 7 7
16
4
4

|
|
.
|

\
|

=

(38)

(
(
(
(

xz
zz
xx
xz
zz
xx
G

2
2 1
0 0
0 1
0 1
) 2 1 (
2

(39)
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1749

Under plane strain condition

( )
zz xx xx
G G

2 1
2
2 1
1 2

=

(40)
This gives
Now considering
0 =
xx

one can have

zz xx
G

2 1
2

=

(41)
Considering,
xx
as the dynamic pressure on the wall we have for the first four modes

H
z
H
g
S
p
s
a
2
sin
2 1 ) 2 (
32
1
1

|
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
+

=

(42)

H
z
H
g
S
p
s
a
2
3
sin
2 1 ) 2 3 ( 3
32
2
2

|
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|

=

(43)

H
z
H
g
S
p
s
a
2
5
sin
2 1 ) 2 5 ( 5
32
3
3

|
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
+

=

(44)

H
z
H
g
S
p
s
a
2
7
sin
2 1 ) 2 7 ( 7
32
4
4

|
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|

=

(45)
Eqns. (42) to (45) can also be generically expressed as

H
g
S
coeff p
s
a

|
|
.
|

\
|
=

(46)
in which,
|
.
|

\
|

2 1

where, coeff is a coefficient and is a SRSS value of the above pressures for different modes are
shown in Fig. 2.

Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. L 1750





Based on the above following are to be noted.
For G remaining constant with depth, cos[(2n-1) z/2H] is an exact solution of the differential
equation of motion and gives identical solution to the problem based on Rayleigh-Ritz basis (energy
principle) for obtaining the stiffness and mass matrices of the system.
The response for fundamental mode is most critical. The higher order modes have significantly
reduced response (Fig. 2).
The SRSS values of pressure for the first three modes vis--vis fundamental mode- there is
negligible difference (Fig. 2).
Thus, if one works with fundamental mode only, for practical engineering problem, it is
adequate.

SOLUTION FOR GIBSON TYPE SOIL
As soil is heterogeneous in nature, it is only in the case of normally consolidated clay, G remains
constant with depth. For cohesion less soil, G is often found to vary with depth as G = G0.(z/H),
where G varies from 0 at z = 0 to G0 at depth H. This is often called Gibson soil.
Incorporating this soil constitutive model, the properties of the partial differential equation
furnished in eqn. (1) changes, giving rise to solutions with Bessel function of the first kind of order
0, where J0( nz) are the eigen vectors (Verruijt 2010) of the problem. Though this is easily
solvable; for other constitutive models like, G = G0.(z/H)2, G = G0(1+z/H), G = G0(1+z/H)2, and G
= G0(z/H)0.5 etc., it is extremely difficult to solve them analytically as they become inordinately
complex to handle or even not solvable.
Thus to circumvent this problem and yet arrive at a realistic result, the approach of the problem
is elaborated hereafter.
Considering eqn. (13) as the assumed shape function, it will generically satisfy the static
equation of a cantilever shear beam under loading q expressed as
Pressure coeeficient for first three modes including srss
value.
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
1
0
0
.
1
0
.
2
0
.
3
0
.
4
0
.
5
0
.
6
0
.
7
0
.
8
0
.
9 1
z/H
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

c
o
e
f
f
p1
p2
p3
psrss
Figure 2: Dynamic pressure coefficient on wall for G constant with depth
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1751


q
dz
u d
A
H
z
G =
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
2
2
0

(47)

q
dz
u d
GA =
|
|
.
|

\
|
2
2
(48)
where G = G
0
.(z/H) , A = area of cross section of the shear beam and q = the externally applied load.
If ideally by eqn. (13)
0
.cos[(2 1) / 2 ] u u n z H = is the exact solution of eqn. (48) will yield

0
2
2
=
|
|
.
|

\
|
q
dz
u d
GA

(49)
However since it is not an exact solution, will have a residual error, Re expressed as

q
dz
u d
GA
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
2
2
Re

(50)
Now as per Galerkin basis of weighted residual method, we minimize this error Re over the
domain that will give [Chowdhury & Dasgupta 2008)

0 ) ( ) (
0
2
2
0
=
|
|
.
|

\
|
} }
dz z q dz z
dz
u d
GA
H
j j
H


(51)
where ) ( .
0
z u u
i
= and ) (z
i
is as defined in eqn. (13).
Integrating eqn. (51) by parts, we have

0 ) ( ) (
0 0
= |
.
|

\
|
} }
dz z q dz z
dz
du
dz
d
GA
H
j j
H



} } }
= |
.
|

\
|

H
j j
H
j
H
dz z q dz z
dz
du
GA
dz
d
z
dz
du
GA
0 0 0
) ( ) ( ) (

(52)
The first term in eqn. (52) depicts the shear force V
b
in beam which gives

b
H
j j
H
V dz z q dz z
dz
du
GA
dz
d
= |
.
|

\
|

} }
0 0
) ( ) (

(53)
Now considering
) ( .
0
z u u
i
=
one can have
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. L 1752


b
H
j j
i
H
V dz z q u dz z
dz
z d
GA
dz
d
= |
.
|

\
|

} }
0
0
0
) ( . ) (
) (

(54)
From above it is apparent that based on Galerkin basis of weighted residual method, the stiffness
of the shear beam can be expressed as

[ ] dz z
dz
z d
GA
dz
d
K
j
i
H
) (
) (
0

|
.
|

\
|
=
}

(55)

[ ] dz z z GA K
H
j i
}

(

=
0
) ( ) (

(56)
It may be observed that stiffness matrix derived herein is different from eqn. (26) which is based
on Rayleigh Ritz basis.
For the mass matrix based on Galerkin basis, the matrix remains same as expressed by eqn. (27).
For soil type G = G
0.
(z/H) using = cos(2 1)
2
z
n
H

as the assumed shape function, for n =

1,2,3.., also satisfies the boundary condition of the equation (actual solution is = J
0
(
n
z/H), as
discussed earlier) given by.

2
2
2
2
0
t
u
dz
u d
H
z
G

=
|
|
.
|

\
|
|
.
|

\
|
(57)
Now, applying Galerkin basis to derive the stiffness matrix [vide eqn. (56)], we have

[ ]
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

+
=
4
1
16
49
4
35
100
21
36
7
4
35
4
1
16
25
4
15
36
5
100
21
4
15
4
1
16
9
4
3
36
7
36
5
4
3
4
1
16
2
2
2
2

H
G
K (58)
The mass matrix remains same as eqn. (29).
Solving for the eigenvalue, from [ ] [ ] 0 = M K and knowing =
2
where T=2/ we finally
have

{ } { } 5.19 2.133 1.228 0.755
T
s
H
T
V
=
(59)
The scaling factors for the eigenvectors are expressed as
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1753


{ }
(
(
(
(

=
733 . 0 432 . 0 199 . 0 046 . 0
668 . 0 562 . 0 39 . 0 086 . 0
125 . 0 701 . 0 723 . 0 217 . 0
021 . 0 078 . 0 534 . 0 971 . 0
(60)
Considering that eqn. (59) was derived based on assumed shape function
H
z
n
2
) 1 2 cos(

= in
lieu of =J
0
(
n
z/H) (which is exact), it would be enlightening to compare the values of time period
coefficient ( )
s T
V H C T = by both the method as shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Comparison of Time period coefficient (C
T
) exact versus proposed

Mode 1 2 3 4
=J
0
(
n
z/H). 5.19 2.14 1.232 0.769
=cos(2n-1)z/2H. 5.19 2.133 1.228 0.755
Error (%) 0 0.32% 0.32% 1.8%

The results are found to be in excellent agreement having error less than 0.5% for first three modes.
Considering fundamental mode to be the most critical, one can surely argue that this solution is
acceptable for practical design work. Advantage with approaching this problem based on Galerkin
weighted residual technique is that for other type of soil (G =G
0
(1+z/H), G = G
0
(z/H)
0.5
, G =
G
0
(z/H)
2
etc) for which no exact solution exists one can come to a realistic solution.
As elaborated in eqn. (34) the amplitude of displacement in this case can be expressed as

[ ]
H
z
n
T S
u
T
n
n an
n n
2
) 1 2 cos(
4
2
2

= (61)
Here
n
does not change and remains same as values derived earlier for G constant with depth, [
n
] is
the scale factor of the eigen vectors as derived in eqn. (60).
Eqn. (61) can be further expressed for the fundamental mode as

( )
(

|
|
.
|

\
|
+
=
H
z
H
z
H
z
G
H
g
S
u
a
s
2
5
cos . 086 . 0
2
3
cos . 217 . 0
2
cos . 971 . 0
4
19 . 5
2
8
2
2 2
1
1

(62)

(

|
|
.
|

\
|
=
H
z
H
z
H
z
G
H
g
S
u
a
s
2
5
cos . 086 . 0
2
3
cos . 217 . 0
2
cos . 971 . 0 0616 . 1
2
1
1


Considering 0 =
xx
and
z
u
zz

= , we have

(

+ +
|
|
.
|

\
|
=
H
z
H
z
H
z
G
H
g
S
a
zz
2
5
sin 675 . 0
2
3
sin 022 . 1
2
sin 525 . 1 0616 . 1
1
1

(63)
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. L 1754

Considering
zz xx
G
p

2 1
2

= =


(

+ +
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|
=
H
z
H
z
H
z
g
S
H p
a
s
2
5
sin 675 . 0
2
3
sin 022 . 1
2
sin 525 . 1
2 1
123 . 2
1
1

(64)
Higher modes can be ignored as it was shown earlier (Fig. 2) that their effects are insignificant.
Proceeding in identical fashion and considering, ) / ( Vs H C T
T
= , values of C
T
for different soil
type are presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Values of coefficient C
T
for various soils

Mode 1 2 3 4
G=G
0
(z/H) 5.19 2.133 1.228 0.755
G=G
0
(z/H)
0.5
4.486 1.668 1.005 0.679
G=G
0
(z/H)
2
7.826 3.301 1.66 0.867
G=G
0
(1+z/H) 3.094 1.095 0.66 0.462
G=G
0
(1+z/H)
2
2.421 0.906 0.545 0.361

Now following the same steps as shown from eqns. (61) to (64) the dynamic pressure for soils with
different characteristics are shown hereafter:
i) For soil of type G=G
0
(z/H)
0.5
the dynamic pressure is expressed as

( )
z z z
a
s
C B A
g
S
H p 104 . 0 372 . 0 566 . 1
2 1
586 . 1 + +
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|
=

(65)


ii) For soil of type G=G
0.
(z/H)
2


( )
z z z
a
s
C B A
g
S
H p 26 . 1 822 . 1 424 . 1
2 1
826 . 4 + +
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|
=

(66)

iii) For soil of type G=G
0.
(1+z/H)

( )
z z z
a
s
C B A
g
S
H p 013 . 0 240 . 0 569 . 1
2 1
754 . 0 + +
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|
=

(67)

iv) For soil of type G=G
0.
(1+z/H)
2


( )
z z z
a
s
C B A
g
S
H p 075 . 0 51 . 0 561 . 1
2 1
462 . 0 + +
|
.
|

\
|

|
|
.
|

\
|
=

(68)
where A
z
= sin(z/2H), B
z
= sin(3z/2H) and C
z
= sin(5z/2H).

Eqns. (65) to (68) can be generically expressed as
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1755


H
g
S
coeff p
s
a

|
|
.
|

\
|
= (69)
The variation of pressure profile for different type of soil over the depth of the soil to bed rock is
shown in Figs. 3 and 4.


Figure 3: Variation of dynamic pressure over the soil depth


Figure 4: Variation of dynamic pressure over the soil depth

For quick computation, the pressure coefficients for different type of soil are as shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Coefficient of pressure along soil depth for various soil type

=z/H Coeff (G
0
)
Coeff
(G
0
(z/H))
Coeff
(G
0
(z/H)
0.5
)
Coeff
(G
0
(z/H)
2
)
Coeff
(G
0
(1+z/H))
Coeff
(G
0
(1+z/H)
2
)
0 0.000 0.00 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.05 0.155 1.30 0.396 4.919 0.139 0.125
0.1 0.310 2.50 0.773 9.367 0.274 0.244
0.15 0.462 3.48 1.115 12.933 0.403 0.353
0.2 0.612 4.18 1.410 15.318 0.522 0.448
0.25 0.758 4.56 1.648 16.371 0.629 0.526
0.3 0.899 4.62 1.827 16.104 0.723 0.585
Table 4 continues on the next page.
Coefficient of pressure profile for different soil
0.000
5.000
10.000
15.000
20.000
0
0
.
1
5
0
.
3
0
.
4
5
0
.
6
0
.
7
5
0
.
9
z/H
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t G0
G0(z/H)
G0(z/H)^0.5
G0(z/H)^2
Coefficient of presure profile for differnt soil
0.000
0.500
1.000
1.500
2.000
2.500
0
0
.
1
0
.
2
0
.
3
0
.
4
0
.
5
0
.
6
0
.
7
0
.
8
0
.
9 1
z/H
C
o
e
e
f
i
c
e
n
t

o
f

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e G0(1+z/H)
G0(1+z/H)^2
G0
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. L 1756

Table 4 continues from the previous page.
0.35 1.035 4.40 1.949 14.684 0.802 0.625
0.4 1.164 3.96 2.021 12.402 0.867 0.648
0.45 1.287 3.40 2.053 9.633 0.919 0.656
0.5 1.401 2.81 2.057 6.777 0.958 0.652
0.55 1.506 2.27 2.044 4.202 0.985 0.639
0.6 1.603 1.85 2.027 2.196 1.003 0.622
0.65 1.689 1.60 2.012 0.932 1.014 0.601
0.7 1.765 1.53 2.004 0.448 1.019 0.581
0.75 1.830 1.61 2.006 0.657 1.020 0.563
0.8 1.884 1.80 2.015 1.367 1.019 0.547
0.85 1.926 2.04 2.030 2.323 1.016 0.535
0.9 1.957 2.27 2.044 3.253 1.014 0.527
0.95 1.975 2.44 2.055 3.919 1.012 0.522
1 1.981 2.50 2.059 4.160 1.012 0.520

Based on above table the steps for estimation of dynamic pressure on the wall of the substructure can
be summarized as follows.
1. Determine the depth of bedrock from where waves can emanate (in absence of bedrock this
can be taken as depth where SPT value N 50).
2. Select the variation profile of dynamic shear modulus of soil body to the depth of bedrock
which closely resembles expressions like G0(z/H), G0(1+z/H) etc
3. Estimate Poissons ratio vis--vis the value .
4. Compute free field time period of the site from expression T = CT(H/Vs), where the
coefficient CT is as given in Table 3
5. Estimate the response reduction factor of soil, consider R = 3.0 for soft soil and R=2.0 for
stiff soil.
6. Estimate the code factor = ZI/2R.
7. From the value of T as computed in step 4, determine the spectral acceleration Sa/g from
code.
8. To be on conservative side consider 15% damping for soft soil and 10% damping for stiff
soil while estimating the value S
a
/g.
9. Now referring to Table-4 extract the pressure profile from eqn. (69).
10. It is to be noted that the dynamic pressure profile will vary with location of the sub-structure
below ground, that is, whether it is near the surface or deeply embedded inside ground- for
this refer to the worked out example cited below.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
To check validity of the proposed method the formulation has been compared with (Ostadan
2004) having G constant with depth having a recommended value of =1/3 as furnished in NEHRP
and expressed as
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1757

2 3 4 5
( ) 0.0015 5.05 15.84 28.25 24.59 8.14 p z z z z z z = + + +


Figure 5: Comparison of pressure coefficient for = 1/3

It is observed in Fig. 5 that the values are well matching within the acceptable limit of civil
engineering design.
To further substantiate the matter a 30 ft deep basement wall having V
s
=1000ft/sec (constant
with depth), unit weight of soil 125 pcf and Poisson ratio=1/3 (Ostadan 2004) is compared by using
simplified method of NEHRP and closed form solution as proposed herein in Fig. 6. The results are
again found to be closely matching.


Figure 6: Comparison of dynamic pressure for the 30ft basement wall with Vs=1000ft/sec.

While the method proposed by (Odstadan et al 1997, 2004) requires an estimation of natural
frequency based on SHAKE/SASSI and then compute the pressure, the proposed method does not
require any software to be used either to estimate the free field time period or the pressure for any
type of soil that fits in the profiles as mentioned above.
Comparison of pressure coefficient
-2.5
-2
-1.5
-1
-0.5
0
0.5
0
0
.
1
0
.
2
0
.
3
0
.
4
0
.
5
0
.
6
0
.
7
0
.
8
0
.
9 1
z/H
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
Proposed Method
Ostadan
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
0 6
1
2
1
8
2
4
3
0
Height in feet
D
y
n
a
m
i
c

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
p
s
f
)
Closed form
Simplified
Method
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. L 1758

Computation of pressure on a metro rail tunnel at surface, and deeply
entrenched in the ground.
To elaborate how the system works for a metro tunnel 35m wide 20m deep is located at a site as
shown in Fig.7. It is, i) At the surface; ii) 16m below the ground.
We need to determine the pressure on the wall when V
s
= 200 m/s (varying linearly with depth
z/H) having = 0.3 and unit weight of 20 kN/m
3
. The site is seismic Zone III as per IS code. The
bedrock level is at 40m below the ground surface.















Since V
s
varies as z/H, the time period of site is expressed as
5.19 / (5.19 40) / 200 1.038
s
T H V = = = s

Considering the soil as soft, damping ratio chosen is 15%.
For T=1.038s, Sa/g = 1.67/T =1.608.
For damping ratio of 15% scaling factor = 0.7.
Thus the design Sa/g = 0.7x1.608 = 1.126.

For Zone III
Z = 0.16; I = 1.5, R = 3
/ 2 (0.16 1.5) / 6 0.04 ZI R = = =
75 . 0
6 . 0 1
3 . 0
2 1
=

For case- (i) 0 . 0
1
= and
2
20/ 40 0.5 = = the pressure distribution is shown below in Fig. 8.

Figure 7: A 35m x 20 m metro railway tunnel below ground
Case
-(ii)
16m Case
-(i)
Bed Rock
20m
40m
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1759





For case-(ii)
1
16/ 40 0.4 = = and
2
36/ 40 0.9 = = the pressure distribution is shown in Fig. 9.



Figure 9: Pressure on tunnel wall 16 m below ground surface (Case-2i).

The pressures are computed from the expression ( ) H g S coeff p
s a
= where the
coefficients are extracted for the corresponding values from Table 5.

Table 5: Pressure magnitude on tunnel wall at surface and 16.0m below ground level

=z/H
Pressure
Coefficien
t as per
Table-4
Dynamic
pressure
Case-1
(kN/m
2
)
=z/
H
Pressure
Coefficient as per
Table-4
Dynamic
pressure
Case-2 (kN/m
2
)
0 0 0.00 0.4 3.967 107.20
0.05 1.309 35.37 0.45 3.404 91.99
0.1 2.505 67.70 0.5 2.81 75.94
0.15 3.489 94.29 0.55 2.272 61.40
Table 5 continues on the next page.
Pressure on wall caste at surface(Case-1)
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
140.00
0
0
.
0
5
0
.
1
0
.
1
5
0
.
2
0
.
2
5
0
.
3
0
.
3
5
0
.
4
0
.
4
5
0
.
5
z/H
P
r
e
s
r
u
e
(
k
N
/
m
2
)
Pressure
Pressure on wall 16 m below ground (Case-2)
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9
z/H
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
k
N
/
m
2
)
Pressure
Figure 8: Pressure on tunnel wall at ground surface (Case -1)
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. L 1760

Table 5 continues from the previous page.
0.2 4.189 113.20 0.6 1.857 50.18
0.25 4.567 123.42 0.65 1.607 43.43
0.3 4.626 125.01 0.7 1.532 41.40
0.35 4.403 118.99 0.75 1.612 43.56
0.4 3.967 107.20 0.8 1.804 48.75
0.45 3.404 91.99 0.85 2.047 55.32
0.5 2.81 75.94 0.9 2.278 61.56

Figs. 8 and 9 reflect that ignoring the seismic effect altogether below the ground is not a prudent
decision. Structures built below the ground are significantly affected by seismic forces. This is
logical, as because the waves propagating through the soil, interact with the rigid substructure and
the frequency content of the wave excites the structure generating pressure on the wall. The depth of
bedrock level with respect to the position of the substructure has a significant effect on the
magnitude of dynamic pressure. Shallower the bedrock level more intense will be the pressure on the
wall.
CONCLUSION
A comprehensive analytical model is proposed that can estimate dynamic pressure on the walls
of a substructure built below the ground. The method proposed is analytical in nature and generic
and can take care of any type of soil perceived in nature. It does not require any sophisticated FEM
software (like SASSI/PLAXIS) etc. and can be computed simply by a spread sheet. The results
match well with the established formulation given in NEHRP for constant G and Poissons ratio, but
can be extended to other type of soil for which no solution exists.
REFERENCES
1. Chowdhury I. and Dasgupta S.P. (2008) Dynamics of Structures and Foundations - a
unified approach Volume 1 and 2 CRC Press, Leiden, Holland.
2. Chowdhury I. and Dasgupta S.P. (2007) Dynamic Earth pressure on rigid unyielding
walls under earthquake force Indian Geotechnical Journal Vol. 37(2). .
3. Clough R.W. and Penzien J. (1983) Dynamics of Structures; McGraw-Hill Kogakusha
Ltd., Tokyo
4. Hurty W. C. and Rubenstein M.F. Dynamics of Structures (1967) Prentice Hall
Publication, New Delhi India.
5. Lysmer J., Ostadan F., and Chen C. C. SASSI 2000- A System for analysis of soil
structure interaction, Dept of Civil engineering, University of California, Berkeley
2000.
6. Mononobe N. and Matsuo H., (1929) On the determination of Earth Pressure during
Earthquakes, Proceeding of World Engineering Congress Tokyo Vol-9, Paper 388..
7. NEHRP (2000), Recommended provisions for seismic regulation for New Building and
other Structures, FEMA 369 March 2001.
Vol. 17 [2012], Bund. K 1761

8. Ostadan F., (2004) Seismic Soil Pressure on Building Walls-An Updated approach,
11th International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering.
University of California, Berkeley, January.
9. Ostadan F. and White. W.H. (1997) Lateral Seismic Soil pressure, an updated approach
Bechtel Technical Grant Report, LA USA.
10. Schnabel B., Lysmer J. and Seed H.B., SHAKE, (1972) A Computer program for
Earthquake response of Horizontally Layered Site, University of California, Berkeley
EERC 72-12 December.
11. Timoshenko S.P. and Goodier G., (1983) Theory of Elasticity, McGraw-Hill Kogakusha
Ltd., Tokyo.
12. Verruijt, A. (2010) An Introduction to Soil Dynamics Springer Verlag Publication, NY.
USA.
2012 ejge