The 12

th
International Conference of
International Association for Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics (IACMAG)
1-6 October, 2008
Goa, India


Physical Modeling of Seismic Responses of underground Structures
O. Kusakabe, J .Takemura, A.Takahashi, J . Izawa and S.Shibayama
Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan
Keywords: sei smi c di spl acement method, centri fuge model i ng, acti ve type shear box, shake tabl e
ABSTRACT: In the framework of performance based design codes, numerical analysis and physical modelling
are equally recommended to adopt for the verification of performance of designed structures. To establish the
communication between numerical and physical modelling communities are of vital importance for verification
of performance of geo-structures. This paper introduces the recent development of experimental seismic
displacement method in a centrifuge and some applications to underground structures.
1 Introduction
It is widely accepted from past experiences that underground structures are generally stable, when the ground
is stable because of confining effects from the surrounding ground. Underground structures are considered to
follow the movement of the surrounding ground, since the effect of inertia force is relatively small, and also the
oscillation of the underground structures rapidly ceases due to radial damping. Underground structures are,
therefore, considered to have higher seismic stability (Kawashima, 2000).
Past experiences suggest, however, the following cases where possible damage might occur as are illustrated
in Figure 1.
(1) Changes in ground conditions: Amplitude of seismic horizontal displacement is larger for thicker and softer
layer. Consequently, when long buried structures run through the ground where thickness of soft layer suddenly
changes, or run through the different ground conditions, such as running through fill (or reclamation) and
original ground, strain concentration in the longitudinal direction occurs at the location near the change in
thickness of soft layer, or at the interface between the different ground conditions (Iai, 2004). Most common
damage observed in the past is the failure of joints of small diameter buried pipes installed in these ground
conditions. (2) Changes in structure: The seismic response of underground structure varies with the type of
structure and stiffness of structure. Thus connection parts of different structures, such as the connection
between vertical shaft and tunnel, and branches of tunnel, are subjected to strain concentration (Kitamura et al.
1996). (3) Liquefiable layer: Loose saturated sandy soil may liquefy during earthquake. When liquefaction
occurs, uplift pressure increases at the base of the underground structure and shear resistance decreases
along and above the underground structure, resulting in uplifting the underground structure. When (a) the
liquefied layer is overlying a sloping layer or (b) a gently sloping ground liquefies or (c) a liquefied ground is
retained by a quay wall that is vulnerable to an earthquake, lateral spreading occurs (Takahashi et al., 2005).
The underground structure is then subjected to horizontal displacement. Common observed damage during the
past earthquakes are uplift of manholes of buried pipes and damage of joints due to vertical and horizontal
displacement (Koseki et al. 2002). (4) Shallow depth: Underground structures at the shallow depth in the soft
layer are subjected to shear deformation during seismic events. During 1995 Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake,
Daikai station, one of subway stations in Kobe, experienced the collapse of centre pillars of RC box-type
structure. It is considered that the structure was subjected to larger shear deformation during the earthquake,
causing the overstress at the connection between upper and lower slabs and some centre pillars, leading to re-
distribution of stress in the structure and to progressive failure of other pillars (Iida et al., 1996). The damage to
portal section and to linings near the portal in the mountain tunnel was also observed due to the ground shear
deformation (Asakura et al., 1996). Typically the cracks appear at the shoulder of the portal. (5) Close proximity
of fault zones or crossing fault zones (Yashiro et al., 2007): Damage of tunnels occurs when an earthquake
fault crosses a tunnel. In the 1978 Izu-Oshima-Kinaki Earthquake, the Inatori Tunnel showed severe damage,
such as a collapse of the tunnel lining and longitudinal displacement of the track. According to the survey
results, the relative displacement of the fault was 700mm and 200mm in horizontal and vertical respectively.
Performance-based design framework has been introduced in geotechnical design. Although calculation
methods are, in principle, to use for routine design practice, physical modelling and numerical analysis are
equally recommended to adopt for the verification of performance of designed structures. In particular, physical
modelling is highly recommended to adopt for cases where the level of uncertainties is high (J GS 4001-2004,
2006). In the physical modelling, new and unexpected phenomena are often discovered, whereas numerical
1459


simulation provides the results totally governed by the model used. To bridge between the numerical and
physical modelling and to establish the communication between numerical and physical modelling communities
are of vital importance for verification of performance of geo-structures.
This paper describes briefly the principle of seismic displacement method used in the structural analysis for
underground structures and then introduces the recent development of experimental seismic displacement
method in a centrifuge, followed by the verification of the experimental seismic displacement method by
comparing the structural responses between the observations in dynamic centrifuge tests and the
corresponding static centrifuge tests. Some applications of the experimental seismic displacement method to
underground structured are also presented.
2 Evaluation of seismic performance of underground structure in the transverse direction
Evaluation of seismic performance of underground structure in the transverse direction is becoming
increasingly important, since in recent years many tunnels with a large cross-sectional areas or a complex
cross-sectional profile have been constructed at relatively shallow depth in urban area and they need to be
designed with consideration of large earthquakes. Seismic displacement method has been developed for
dynamic soil-structure interaction problems (Kawashima, 2000).
Deformation of an underground structure may be represented as shown in Figure 2. Defining interface forces
acting on the structure from the ground as {-FI}, the equation of motion of the ground and the structure can be
written as
| | | |
| | | |
{ }
{ }
| | | |
| | | |
{ }
{ }
{ }
{ }
0 0
0
S S SS SI S
I I IS II I I
M u K K u
M u K K u F
( (

+ =
` ` ` ( (


) ) )
%%
%%
(1)
where, I : nodes of the interface between the structure and the ground
S : nodes at the rest of the ground and the structure
{ul} : displacements at the interface between the structure and the ground (nodes I)
{us} : displacements at the rest of the ground and the structure (nodes S)
[MI] : mass matrices of I nodes
[MS] : mass matrices of S nodes
[KSS], [KSI], [KIS], [KII]: partial stiffness matrices for SS, SI, IS and II nodes, respectively.
If one assumes that the displacements at the interface are obtained by the free field displacements and the
displacements induced by the interface forces {Fl}, {uI}can be written as
{ } { } { }
1 2 I I I
u u u = + (2)
where, {uI1}and {uI2}indicates the displacement due to earthquake motion and the interface force {Fl}
respectively. Since the interface forces {Fl}are given as
Portal
Slope failure
Rock fall Fault
Fractured zone
Large shear deformation
Crack
Possible damage due to liquefaction Possible damage in a mountain tunnel
Uplift
Lateral spreading
Liquefiable layer
Figure 1 Illustrations of possible damage of underground structures during earthquakes
Strain concentration
Stiff layer
Soft layer
Possible damage due to change in ground condition Possible failure due to change in structure type
Branch
Curved zone
Connection
Vertical shaft
1460


{ } | |{ }
2 I I
F k u = (3)
in which [k] =ground impedance that characterizes soil-structure interaction. By substituting Eq. (2) into Eq. (3),
one obtains
{ } | |{ } | |{ }
1 I I I
F k u k u = + (4)
Substituting Eq. (4), Eq. (1) becomes,
| | | |
| | | |
{ }
{ }
| | | |
| | | | | |
{ }
{ }
{ }
| |{ }
1
0 0
0
S S SS SI S
I I I IS II I
M u K K u
k u M u K k K u
( (

+ =
` ` ` ( (
+

) ) )
%%
%%
(5)
Rewriting Eq. (5), one obtains
| | | |
| | | | | |
{ }
{ }
{ }
| |{ }
| | | |
| | | |
{ }
{ }
1
0 0
0
SS SI S S S
I IS II I I I
K K u M u
k u K k K u M u
( (

=
` ` ` ( (
+

) ) )
%%
%%
(6)
This is the basic equation used in the Seismic Displacement Method. The first and second terms in the right-
hand side represent the forces induced by the ground displacement (shear force at the interface, dynamic earth
pressure and inertia force). They act to the underground structure elastically supported by the soil springs. This
equation indicates that the dynamic soil-structure problems can be replaced by the equivalent static problems
by means of the ground impedance that characterizes soil-structure interaction.
3 Experimental seismic displacement method
3.1 Development of active type shear box
3.1.1 Preliminary considerations
An active type shear box in a geotechnical centrifuge has been initially developed for investigating the
behaviour of a pile subjected to a large soil movement (Takahashi et al., 2001). The shear box was designed
focusing on deformation of a pile due to lateral movement of soil during earthquake under pseudo-static
conditions, neglecting inertial effects of soil and pile. As a preliminary consideration, 2D FEM analyses were
carried out to examine the effect of the geometry of the shear box on the deformation and stress conditions of
the soil in it, varying the aspect ratios ( W/H: W: width of the shear box, H: height of the shear box). In the
analyses, the soil was modelled as elastic perfectly plastic employing the extended von Mises yield criterion
with non-associated flow rule. From the analyses, we concluded that the aspect ratio of 2 - 3 is the best to use
for the tests with dense sand, although it was expected that the narrower box is better for the test with loose
sand. Another issue was the flexural rigidity of plate springs to transmit the forces applied by actuators. FEM
analysis was also conducted to examine possible maximum displacements of the laminae within the elastic
limit of the plate spring. Considering the fact that the tests will be done under 50G to 100G and 20 mm in
displacement is large enough in terms of displacement of pile, higher rigidity of the plate spring seems to be a
better condition. Based on the above preliminary considerations, we decided to have the specifications for the
shear box as is shown in Table1.
3.1.2 System description
The active type shear box was designed to fit the 0.9m by 0.9m swing platform of the Mark 3 centrifuge at
Tokyo Institute of Technology(Takemura et al. 1999) to be operational under 100 G. Schematic diagram and
photograph are shown in Figure 3 and Photo 1 respectively. The shear box can be disassembled into two parts:
(a) Soil-structure system and interface
forces action on the boundary
(b) Scattered response (c) Response due to interface forces
Figure 2 Idealization of an underground structure by two dimensional Finite Element Models
{FI}
{uI2}
{k}
{FI}
{uI1}
Underground structure
Excavated ground Excavated ground
1461


the laminar box and actuators. The laminar box was made of duralumin with inner size of 450 mm in width, 200
mm in breadth and 325 mm in height. The box consists of thirteen-stacked 24mm thick alumite coated
duralumin laminae. The outer size of the lamina is W512xB262xH24mm and the inner sizes are
W452xB202xH24mm. The laminae are supported by roller bearings, which are mounted in grooves on each
lamina. To prevent the movement perpendicular to the loading direction, four external columns with rollers are
placed just outside of the box. A rectangular shape rubber sheet is placed in the box to inhibit soil particles from
getting into the gaps between the laminae. This aluminium shear sheet roughened by glued Toyoura sand lie
just inside both end walls and are fixed to the base of the box. These sheets are for developing shear stresses
on the vertical and horizontal contact surfaces with the soil. The three actuators are connected with the three
laminae directly and horizontal forces are transmitted to the other laminae through four linked sets of thin plate
spring. Each thin plate spring consists of three-layers of 0.6 mm-thick spring steel sheets. The actuators have a
stroke of +/- 20mm and force capacity of 25.8 kN and 18.0 kN at 20.5MPa oil pressure when moving outward
and inward, respectively.
A series of preliminary tests was carried out to examine the characteristics of the shear box and to observe the
deformation of the soil in the shear box. Toyoura sand with relative density of 80% was used for the model
ground. The test results reveal that the displacements of the laminae to which the actuators were directly
connected showed quite good agreement with the target displacements, though the non-direct-connected
laminae did not attain the target displacements, resulting in many kinks in the horizontal displacement
distributions. However, the distributions of the horizontal ground displacement observed at the centre of the
model were similar to the input motions. The ground displacement at the centre of the model became almost
70-80% of the input value and they were smoother than those of the laminae.
3.2 Verification of experimental displacement method
A comparative study between dynamic shake table test and active type shear box test was carried out to
experimental verify the seismic displacement method.
3.2.1 Model and test descriptions
Two types of 2-D centrifuge test: dynamic shake table test (termed as D-test hereafter) and pseudo-static active
type shear box test (termed as S-test), were conducted for the same prototype configuration of 3.25m wide and
5.0m high rectangular tunnel with a cover of 5.875m embedded in dry dense sand under the same centrifugal
acceleration of 50 G. Each model setup is shown in Figures 4 and 5, respectively.
The centrifuge shake table test (D-test) was conducted in the centrifuge at Kajima Research Institute (Kajima
Technical Research Institute). The model ground was prepared in a 15-stacked 20mm-thick aluminium laminar
shear box with 500mm in height, 450mm in width and 200mm in breadth. Four dynamic events were input with
a peak horizontal acceleration of 5G, 10G, 15G and 20G, respectively. 20 sinusoidal waves with a frequency of
100Hz by a hydraulic dynamic actuator were applied to the model ground for each dynamic event. The
acceleration time histories are given in Figure 6.
The pseudo-static shear box test (S-test) was carried out in the Mark 3 centrifuge at the Tokyo Institute of
Table 1 Specifications of the active type shear box
Maximum operation centrifugal acceleration 100-g
Number 3 for laminar box, for pile head
Stroke +/- 20 mm for laminar box, +/- 40 mm for pile head
Force capacity at 20.5 MPa oil pressure 25.8 kN for outward, 18.0 kN for inward
Actuator
Peak velocity 133 mm/sec
Number of stacks 13
Inner size W450 B200 H325mm Laminar box
Flexural rigidity of plate spring: EI 0.14 N.m
2
, 0.56 N.m
2



Applying lateral load onpile head withanactuator
Imposing soil deformation
withthree actuators
Pile
Soil
Plate
springs
Laminar box

Figure 3 Schematic diagram of the active type shear box Photo 1 A view of the active type shear box
Laminar box Actuators
1462


Technology, using the active type shear box apparatus explained in 3.1. It may be considered that tests in the
active type shear box are an experimental version of the seismic displacement method. A sinusoidal wave with
a frequency of 0.01Hz and half a cycle was applied to the shear box as is shown in Figure 7, where base
indicates the bottom of the shear box. Input distribution of the horizontal displacement at the jack locations was
linearly decreasing with depth and the horizontal displacement at the top laminar ring was about 6mm,
imposing a nominal shear strain of 2.0% to the model ground. Figure 8 shows the measured distribution of
horizontal displacement measured by displacement transducers attached to each laminar ring, showing that the
horizontal displacements at the laminar rings neighbouring those connected to the jack move slightly less than
those originally intended as described before.
A two dimensional rectangular model tunnel used in the two tests had the outer dimensions of 100mm wide,
65mm high with a circular arc of 23.75mm radius at the four corners, and was made of aluminium with 2mm
thickness. Surface conditions of the model tunnel were considered to be smooth. Figures 9 (a) and (b) show the
schematic illustrations of the rectangular model tunnel, together with the locations of a set of strain gauges in
D-test and S-test, respectively. Strain gauges were attached on both outer and inner sides of the model in pairs.
It should be noted that the number of strain gauges differs for the two tests; 18 sets for D-test and 5 sets for S-
test, but the locations of the 5 sets, gauge No.10, 12, 14, 16 and 18, are identical to each other for direct
comparison.
Model ground conditions and the test procedures were identical to both tests. Dry Toyoura sand (Gs=2.64,
D50=0.19mm, Uc=1.56, emax=0.978, emin=0.605) was used for preparing the model ground of 300 mm thick by
air pluviation method to achieve a relative density of 80% (d=15.4kN/m
3
, |=42deg.). The tunnel model was
installed in position during the placement of the sand. 13 accelerometers were laid in the ground as well as in
the model tunnel in the D-test, as is shown in Figure 4. Potentiometers were attached to each laminar ring to
measure the lateral ground movement. Horizontal and vertical relative displacements between upper and lower
slabs were measured at the mid-height and at the centre of the tunnel respectively by two gap sensors installed
in the model tunnel for both test as is illustrated in Figure 10.
3.2.2 Results and discussion
The purpose of this comparative study was to compare the tunnel lining stresses in the tunnel, and the tunnel
Figure 4 Model setup for D-test Figure 5 Model setup for S-test
250mm
1
1
7
.
5
m
m

1
1
7
.
5
m
m

6
5
m
m

3
0
0
m
m

Potentiometer
Toyoura sand Dr=80%

Gap sensor
Potentiometers
for ring displacement

50m
m
250mm
1
1
7
.
5
m
m

1
1
7
.
5
m
m

6
5
m
m

Vertical
Accelerometer
Horizontal
Accelerometer
3
0
0
m
m

Potentiometer
Toyoura sand
Dr=80%
Potentiometers
for ring displacement
Gap sensor
-8 -6 -4 -2 0
0
2.5
5
7.5
10
12.5
15
17.5
20
22.5
25
27.5
30
32.5
ground surface
13R jack
9R jack
5R jack
Horizontal displacement (mm)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
c
m
)
Figure 8 Distributions of lateral
movement in S-test
0 20 40 60
-5
0
5
Ring13 312.5mm
Ring9 212.5mm
Ring5 112.5mm
fromthe base of the box
Time (sec.)
R
i
n
g

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Figure 7 Time histories of ring
displacement in S-test
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
-20
-10
0
10
20
Time (sec.)
4thshake
-20
-10
0
10
20
3rd shake
-20
-10
0
10
20
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
G
)
2nd shake
-20
-10
0
10
20
1stshake
Figure 6 Examples of input waves
1463


deformation of the two types of test to verify that the results obtained from the S-test are practically equivalent
to those obtained from the D-test. Shear strain rate of S-test was about 0.02%/sec on an average, which was
much slower than that of D-test.
Figure 11 shows the bending moment distributions in D-test and S-test for four different dynamic events with
respect to the values at the same horizontal relative displacement between upper and lower slabs (oTH) of the
tunnel. Note that only five sets of strain gauge data are available for S-test as described before. Similarly Figure
12 compares the axial force distributions between D-test and S-test at the same value of the horizontal relative
displacement. Positive axial force indicates the compressive axial force. Positive bending moment is defined as
the case for the inner surface of the tunnel suffers tension force. Considering Figures 11 and 12 together, it can
be said that both bending moment and axial force distributions are practically identical to each other, when the
tunnel is subjected to the same magnitude of the horizontal relative displacement.
a) for D-test b) for S-test
Figure 9 Schematic illustrations of rectangular model tunnel and strain gauge arrangements
100mm
6
5
m
m

R =
23.75mm
In1 In1 In1 In2
Out17 Out18 Out1 Out2
In1 In1 In9 In8
Out11 Out10 Out9 Out8
Out16
Out15
Out14
Out13
Out12 Out7
Out4
Out5
Out6
Out3
In1
In1
In1
In4
In5
In6
In1 In3
In1
In7
: strain gauge
100mm
6
5
m
m

R =
23.75mm
In1
Out18
In1
Out10
Out16
Out14
Out12 Out7
Out5
Out3
In1 In5
In1 In3
In1
In7
Gap sensor
oTH
Relative displacement
between upper and
lower slabs
Target for
Gap sensor
Gap sensors
Figure 10 Arrangement of gap sensors
a) Vertical direction b) Horizontal direction
Figure 13 Relationships between oTH
and oR at D-test and S-test
-2 -1 0 1 2
-2
-1
0
1
2
dynamic 20G
dynamic 15G
dynamic 10G
dynamic 5G
static
Relative displacement of shear rings: o
R
(mm)
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n

u
p
p
e
r

a
n
d

l
o
w
e
r

s
l
a
b
s
:

o
T
H

(
m
m
)
S-test
Figure 11 Bending moment distributions in D-test and S-test
+100 kNm/m
+50
-50
-100
10G, o
TH
=0.30mm
dynamic
static
+100 kNm/m
+50
-50
-100
20G, o
TH
=0.50mm
dynamic
static
Figure 12 Axial force distributions in D-test and S-test
+2000 kN/m
+1000
-1000
-2000
10G, o
TH
=0.30mm
dynamic
static
+2000 kN/m
+1000
-1000
-2000
20G, o
TH
=0.50mm
dynamic
static
1464


The horizontal relative displacement between upper and lower slabs, oTH, must be related to the ground
movement. The values of horizontal relative displacement, oTH, for the four dynamic events in D-test as well as
S-testare plotted against the values of relative horizontal displacement of the ground around the tunnel, oR in
Figure 13. Here, the value of oR was determined from the relative horizontal displacement between two laminar
rings, which were located near upper and lower slabs of the tunnel. The broken line in the figure is a skeleton
curve of oTH-oR relations for the four dynamic events in D-test. It agrees well with the oTH-oR curves obtained
from S-test. This provides strong experimental evidence, confirming that the relationship between the horizontal
displacement of the ground and the horizontal relative displacement of the tunnel shows almost one to one
relation and D-test and S-test give a practically identical relationship. Thus, if the same magnitude of horizontal
relative displacement is imposed to the tunnel, the same stresses would generate in the tunnel lining, both in D-
test and S-test. And, if the same horizontal displacement is applied to the ground, almost the same horizontal
relative displacement between upper and lower slabs would take place regardless of the static and dynamic
loading.
It can be concluded, therefore, that S-test can be a practical substitute for D-test for the study of dynamic
behaviour of underground structures such as tunnel. The similar conclusion was derived from a series of
comparative study of a rectangular tunnel with some countermeasures, which will be described later (Izawa, et
al., 2006).
4 Applications to shallower tunnels
4.1 Influence of tunnel shapes and tunnel-soil-tunnel interaction
In order to utilize limited urban underground spaces, construction of new type tunnels with various cross-
sections is increasing. In such areas, road tunnels are very closely located each other, especially near the
highway junction. To assess the seismic performance of road tunnels near the highway junction, tunnel-soil-
Center Column
2
0
0
2
5
1
4
9
1
0
0
4
9
1
2
5
4.5*3.5
4.5*7.0
A A'
1
0
0
1
0
0
5
5
A A'
B B' 2
0
0
Friction Cut Face
CrossSection B-B'
Top
Bottom
:Strain gauge
Cross Section A-A'
Top
Bottom
External Diameter =60
Internal Diameter =56
Thickness = 2
1
1
Friction Cut Face













R
=
2
3
.
7
5
6
5
100
4.5
CrossSection A-A'
Bottom
Top
(a) Circular Tunnel (b) Rectangular Tunnel
a
b
Thickness =2.5
:Strain gauge
: Horizontal RelativeDisplacement between
top slab (a) and bottomslab(b) using
non-contact displacement sensor
Dimensionsarein millimeters
Figure 15 Outlines of tunnel models and measurements
Figure 14 Test cases

SingleCircular Tunnel SingleRectangular Tunnel Triple-faced Tunnel
CASE1 CASE2 CASE3
No.
Rectangular Tunnel
H:65mm(3.25m)
W:100mm(5m)
3
0
0
m
m
(
1
5
m
)
R13
R9
R5 T
e
s
t

M
o
d
e
l
Actuator-side Counter-side

R2 3
0
0
m
m
(
1
5
m
)
Circular Tunnel
D:60mm(3m)
R13
R9
R5
Actuator-side Counter-side
R2
1
4
0
m
m
(
7
m
)
3
0
0
m
m
(
1
5
m
)
R13
R9
R5
Actuator-side Counter-side
R2
(
5
.
4
m
)
1
0
7
.
5
m
m
(
5
.
4
m
)
1
0
7
.
5
m
m
(
3
.
8
m
)
7
5
m
m
**
**
**
**

Rectangular tunnel
H: 65mm(3.25m)
W: 100mm(5m)
Circular Tunnel
D: 60mm(3m)
1465


tunnel interaction has to be properly considered. If the shape of a slip road tunnel is different from that of a
main road tunnel, the problem being solved becomes more complicated.
To examine such a tunnel-soil-tunnel interaction for two different shape tunnels, three model tests were
performed with the active type shear box (Yamada et al., 2002). Two different types of model tunnel were
prepared: circular tunnel and rectangular tunnel with central columns. The former models the main road tunnel,
while the latter models the slip road tunnel. Model setup and the locations of instrumentation are shown in
Figures 14 and 15. The model situation can be considered as shallow tunnel and C/D ratios were 1.79 for
circular tunnel, and 1.65 for rectangular tunnel. The model ground was prepared by air pluviation method to
achieve a relative density of 90%. The model tunnels were made of aluminium. All the tests were conducted
under 50 G. 8 steps with three cycles of triangular-shaped horizontal displacement were applied to the laminar
box, and nominal shear strain applied ranged from 0.015 up to 2.0%.
To examine the effects of tunnel-soil-tunnel interaction on the tunnel members response, the bending moment
distributions of the tunnels in Case 3, in which two types of tunnels are aligned, were compared with those in
Cases 1 and 2 having circular or rectangular tunnels, respectively. Figure 16 plots the bending moment
distributions of the tunnels when the largest shear deformation was imposed to the model ground (nominal
shear strain of 2.0%). For the circular tunnel, there is not much difference between Cases 1 and 3, even though
the C/D ratio for Case 1 is smaller than that for Case 3. On the other hand, for the rectangular tunnel, the
maximum bending moment around the corner for Case 2 is larger than that for Case 3. The C/D ratio for Case
2 is different from Case 3 and is larger than that for Case 3. To compare the rectangular tunnels response in
detail, the bending moment distributions at the three relative horizontal displacement levels are plotted in Figure
17. As the relative horizontal displacement between the top and bottom slabs in Step 2 for Case 2 was the
same as that in Step 3 for Case 3, these are plotted in the same symbols (open symbols for Case 2 while filled
symbols for Case 3). As seen in the figure, at the same relative horizontal displacement level, the bending
moment at the lower right corner for Case 3, that is adjacent to the circular tunnel, seems to become slightly
greater than that in the single tunnel (Case 2). These results suggest that the effects of tunnel-soil-tunnel
interaction on the tunnel members response were not so remarkable in the present study.
4.2 Effectiveness of countermeasures
4.2.1 Verification of effectiveness of countermeasures
Seismic performance of the flat cross section tunnel was examined in the centrifuge, with and without
countermeasures (Yamada et al., 2004). Model tunnel was made with mortal (unconfined compressive
strength=21MPa). In the case with countermeasures, rubber membrane (thickness=1.0mm, elastic
modulus=1.5GPa) was glued around the outer surface of the tunnel as a seismic isolation layer. Furthermore,
the tunnel area surrounded by round-shaped cement treated soil (unconfined compressive strength=1.0MPa)
was arranged surrounding tunnel as a ground improvement. Schematic illustrations of both model tunnels are
indicated in Figure 18. The model ground was the same as the model used in section 3.2. In this test series,
only the dynamic tests were conducted. Sinusoidal waves were applied to the model ground in the centrifugal
acceleration of 50G.
Figure 19 shows time history of input ground acceleration, the lining strains and relative displacement of the
tunnel. Sudden changes in time strain history after step 5 are seen only in the data of the tunnel without
countermeasures, suggesting that the model tunnel underwent structural damage. Photo 2 shows a view of the
model tunnel without countermeasure observed after the test. Longitudinal crack are evident at the four corners
Figure 16 Comparison between single tunnel and triple faced
tunnel (Bending moment)
Figure 17 Comparison between single tunnel
and triple faced tunnel (Bending moment) for
approximately the same displacement
CASE1(Single) Step8
CASE3(Triple) Step8
CASE2(Single) Step4
CASE3(Triple) Step3
CASE3(Triple) Step4
CASE3(Triple) Step5
-16
16
16
-16


1
6


-
1
6
0
0
0
(kNm/m)
Case2 (Single)
Step2
Step3
Step4
Case3 (Triple)
Step2
Step3
Step4
CASE2(Single) Step8
CASE3(Triple) Step8
-100
100
100
-100
1
0
0
-
1
0
0
0
0
0
-200
-200
200
(kNm/m)
(kNm/m)
CASE2(Single) Step8
CASE3(Triple) Step8
23
Case2 (Single)
Step2
Step3
Step4
1466


and the crown and invert. In contrast, no damage was observed in the tunnel with countermeasures by rubber
membrane and improved ground, as is seen in Photo 2. It clearly demonstrates that the countermeasures are
effective even for brittle structures like mortal made tunnel without reinforcement.






Figure 18 Illustrations of mortal tunnel models with and without countermeasures
|
=
1
3
5
m
m
Rubber membrane
Soil cement
100mm






6
5
m
Strain gauge
Gap sensor
Mortal tunnel
with 8.5mm
thickness
(a) without countermeasures (b) with countermeasures
-400
-200
0
200
400
S
t
r
a
i
n

(

c
)
at outside of upper slab of the tunnel
(No. 2 point in Figure)
-200
-100
0
100
200
S
t
r
a
i
n

(

c
)
at outside of upper corner of the tunnel
(No. 1 point in Figure)
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
m
m
)
0 1 2
-20
-10
0
10
20
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
G
)
Step1 Step2 Step3 Step4 Step5 Step6
Time (sec.)
-400
-200
0
200
400
S
t
r
a
i
n

(

c
)
at outside of upper slab of the tunnel
(No. 2 point in Figure)
-200
-100
0
100
200
S
t
r
a
i
n

(

c
)
at outside of upper corner of the tunnel
(No. 1 point in Figure)
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
(
m
m
)
0 1 2
-20
-10
0
10
20
A
c
c
e
l
e
r
a
t
i
o
n

(
G
)
Step1 Step2 Step3 Step4 Step5 Step6
Time (sec.)
(a) without countermeasures (b) with countermeasures
Figure 19 Test results for mortal tunnel model
Bold line: Location of crack
Photo 2 Mortal tunnel without countermeasures
after shake table test
Soil cement
Photo 3 Mortal tunnel with countermeasures
after shake table test
Rubber membrane
Figure 6 Examples
1467


4.2.2 Investigation of effectiveness of countermeasures

1) Model and test descriptions
Effectiveness of countermeasures was confirmed in the previous section. In this section, the mechanism of
countermeasures and applicability of seismic displacement method are examined. Aluminium tunnel model
with 2.0mm thickness, which was the same model used in 3.2, was used in order to measure the sectional
forces of the tunnel in detail. Three types of the following seismic countermeasures were adopted. (1) Rubber
membrane was glued around the outer surface of the tunnel as a seismic isolation layer (hereafter, called as
RM) (2) Round-shaped soil cement ground (unconfined compressive strength=1.0MPa) was arranged
surrounding tunnel as ground improvement (hereafter called SC), and (3) Combination of these (called RM+SC).
The test without any countermeasures is termed as NC. Model ground condition and test procedures adopted in
the tests are the same as D-test and S-test described in 3.2. Three seismic countermeasures are illustrated in
Figure 20.

2) Results and discussions
i) Effectiveness of countermeasures
It is interesting to compare the vertical relative displacement between upper and lower slabs for various
Figure 20 Countermeasures applied for the aluminium tunnel
(a) Rubber membrane (RM) (b) Round shaped soil cement ground (SC) (c) Combination (RM+SC)
1
3
5

m
m
Soil cement
1
3
5

m
m
Rubber membrane
Soil cement
Rubber membrane
with 1.0mm thickness

Alminium tunnel model
with 2.0mm thickness

NC SC
RM RM+SC
Figure 22 Distributions of sectional forces at 50G
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718
-100
0
100
B
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
e
n
t

(
k
N
m
/
m
)
NC SC
RM RM+SC
Strain gage number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718
-1000
0
1000
A
x
i
a
l

f
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
/
m
)
Strain gage number
Figure 21 Vertical relative displacements between upper and lower slabs
0 10 20 30 40 50
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
Centrifugal acceleration (G)
V
e
r
t
i
c
a
l

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
NC SC
RM RM+SC
SC
RM +SC
RM
NC
1468


countermeasures conditions during spinning up the centrifuge, as are shown in Figures 21. Up to the centrifugal
acceleration of 50G, the vertical relative displacement in NC case linearly increases and RM case shows almost
the same displacement as that of NC case except smaller displacement at smaller g-level. This observation
suggests that the seismic isolation layer is not beneficial to reduce vertical relative displacement. In contrast,
the ground improvement substantially reduces the vertical displacement to one-third, compared to NC case,
which is largely due to stiffer soil cement ground and smaller C/D ratio. The displacement of RM+SC is in
between NC and SC cases. Figure 22 shows the sectional forces at 50 G after spinning up the centrifuge. From
the data of bending moment, it is noted that all the cases show the maximum negative bending moments at the
side walls(strain gauge Nos. 4-6 and 13-15) and the maximum positive bending moments at the upper(Nos. 1,
2, 17 and 18) and lower(Nos. 8-11) slabs and that SC case shows the smaller bending moment values followed
by RM+SC. The data of NC and RM are almost identical to each other. Axial force diagram however shows that
RM+SC case gives the smallest values while SC case exhibits the largest axial force at the lower right corner
(strain gauge No. 7) and the largest tensile forces at the upper-left corner(No. 16).
Figure 23 plots the amplitude of relative vertical and horizontal displacements over one wave between two slabs
during dynamic loading against input base acceleration. It is noticed that the displacements approximately
increase linearly with the acceleration for both directions. The effect of countermeasures is seen in SC case for
the horizontal direction and in SC and RM+SC for the vertical direction respectively, although the magnitude of
relative vertical displacement is one order smaller compared to that of the horizontal displacement.
The seismic isolation layer is effective in reducing the dynamic sectional forces due to the isolation of the
transmission of the shear stress induced by seismic ground strain to the tunnel. Obviously the effectiveness
depends on the value of ratio Gm/Gg (Gm: shear modulus of isolation layer, Gg: shear modulus of the ground)
and the thickness of layer. Since the value of Gg depends on the strain level of ground, the ratio of Gm/Gg may
vary from 0.01 to 0.05 in this study. Figure 24 shows the amplitude of sectional forces for input acceleration
levels of 10G and 20G. The bending moment increases as the input acceleration increases. The differences are
limited among the 4 cases. From the observation that the effect of RM is very limited although the sectional
forces are less than those of NC case, the value of Gm/Gg may have exceeded the threshold of 0.01 due to
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
NC
RM
SC
RM+SC
5G 10G 15G 20G
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

o
f

v
e
t
r
i
c
a
l

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Input acceleration (G)
0
0.5
1
NC
RM
SC
RM+SC
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

o
f

h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
5G 10G 15G 20G
Input acceleration (G)
Figure 23 Amplitude of relative displacement between upper and lower slabs during dynamic loading

Figure 24 Amplitude of sectional forces during dynamic loading

(b) Axial force
0
1000
2000
10G
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819
1000
2000
0
20G
Strain gage number
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

o
f

a
x
i
a
l

f
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
/
m
)
NC SC
RM RM+SC
(a) Bending moment
0
100
200 10G
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819
100
200
0
20G
Strain gage number
A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

o
f

b
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
e
n
t

(
k
N
m
/
m
)
NC SC
RM RM+SC
1469


plastic zone formed in the ground at the larger input acceleration. An apparent difference is seen in the axial
force distribution. That is, the axial forces in SC case at the side walls remarkably larger than those of the other
cases. Furthermore, RM+SC case can ease such concentration of axial force at the corners.
Based on the above observations, it may be said that RM has a certain advantage as countermeasures to
reduce the sectional forces. In the case of SC, the vertical relative displacement of the tunnel could be reduced
during spinning up the centrifuge. However, the axial forces occurred in the lining due to shear deformation
cannot be reduced. Combination of RM+SC may provide the better countermeasures. SC contributes the
reduction of vertical displacement, while RM contributes to reduce the sectional forces under dynamic situation.

ii) Verification of the experimental seismic displacement method
Figure 25 shows the distributions of bending moments and axial forces in D-test and S-test at the same
horizontal relative displacement, oTH. As a whole, almost the same trend and values can be observed in D-test
and S-test. This means that the same sectional forces are induced in the tunnel with countermeasures
regardless of dynamic or static loading, when the tunnel is subjected to the same magnitude of the horizontal
relative displacement. Figure 26 shows the relationships between oTH and oR. Similarly to the result of NC case
shown in 3.2, the relation in D-test shows good agreement with the oTH-oR curves obtained from S-test. That is
to say, if the same horizontal displacement is applied to the ground, almost the same horizontal relative
displacement between upper and lower slabs would take place regardless of the static and dynamic loading. It
can be concluded, therefore, that the effectiveness of countermeasures for the tunnel can be evaluated using
the experimental seismic displacement method.
+100kNm/m
+50
-50
-100 dynamic
static
SC: o
TH
=0.28mm
0
+100 kNm/m
+50
-50
-100 dynamic
static
0
RM: o
TH
=0.28mm
+100kNm/m
+50
-50
-100
dynamic
static
RM+SC: o
TH
=0.27mm
0
(a) Bending moment
(b) Axial force
Figure 25 Bending moment and axial force distributions in D-test and S-test of tunnels with countermeasures
+2000kN/m
+1000
-1000
-2000
dynamic
static
RM: o
TH
=0.25mm
0
+2000kN/m
+1000
-1000
-2000
dynamic
static
0
SC: o
TH
=0.28mm
+2000kN/m
+1000
-1000
-2000
dynamic
static
RM+SC: o
TH
=0.27mm
0
-2 -1 0 1 2
-2
-1
0
1
2
dynamic 20G
dynamic 15G
dynamic 10G
dynamic 5G
static
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n

u
p
p
e
r

a
n
d

l
o
w
e
r

s
l
a
b
s
:

o
T
H

(
m
m
)
Relative displacement of shear rings: o
R
(mm)
-2 -1 0 1 2
-2
-1
0
1
2
dynamic 20G
dynamic 15G
dynamic 10G
dynamic 5G
static
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n

u
p
p
e
r

a
n
d

l
o
w
e
r

s
l
a
b
s
:

o
T
H

(
m
m
)
Relative displacement of shear ring : o
R
(mm)
-2 -1 0 1 2
-2
-1
0
1
2
dynamic 20G
dynamic 15G
dynamic 10G
dynamic 5G
static
Relative displacement of shear ring : o
R
(mm)
H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n

u
p
p
e
r

a
n
d

l
o
w
e
r

s
l
a
b
s
:

o
T
H

(
m
m
)
Figure 26 Relationships between oTH and oR in D-test and S-test of the tunnels with countermeasures
RM case SC Case RM +SC case
S-test S-test S-test
1470


5 Applications to deeper tunnels
As the second stage of the present study, the pseudo-static shear test using the active type shear box was used
for the study of earth pressure on tunnel lining before and after earthquake.
5.1 Modification of active type shear box
In the model test of urban tunnel, tunnel cover-diameter or width ratio is very important parameter, as the depth
controls the stress condition of tunnel surrounding, including formation of arching above the tunnel. Using the
original active type shear box, tests of shallower tunnels were conducted as described above. However, due to
the limitation of the box depth of original active type shear box, a small diameter model tunnel (e.g., 60mm)
was used to have tunnel C/D ratio of about two. Although the depth of urban tunnel is relatively shallow, it
normally has the depth a several times the tunnel width. In order to simulate the various tunnel depths using a
model tunnel of reasonable size (e.g., D=100mm) with various instrumentations, the active type shear box was
modified especially in the depth.
Photo 4 shows a view of the modified active type shear box. Major modifications of the new box are the height
of the box and number of actuators. Number of laminae was increased from 13 to 21 and the height of the box
from 325mm to 524mm. The increase in the height is equivalent to C/D ratio of two for the model tunnel with
100mm width. Removing the small actuator for the pile head loading, one hydraulic actuator for displacing
laminae was added to produce the continuous displacement of the laminae.
5.2 Model and Test description
Assuming horseshoe-shaped mountain tunnel, a semi-circular aluminium model tunnel was used, in which only
tunnel lining was modelled. It has a diameter of 100mm, a height of 75mm and a thickness of 2mm with
smooth surface, which approximately corresponds to a 5m diameter tunnel with a RC lining of 300mm
thickness in the prototype scale. The ends of the lining were rigidly fixed to a 5mm thick aluminium plate. 22
strain gauges were attached on both outer and inner sides of the model in pairs to obtain bending moments of
the tunnel lining. 5 earth pressure cells of 6.2mm diameter and 0.75mm thick were embedded to measure the
actuators
laminae
Plate springs
LVDTs
actuators
laminae
Plate springs
LVDTs
actuators
laminae
Plate springs
LVDTs
Photo 4 A view of the modified active type
shear box for tests on deeper tunnels
Potentiometer
Actuator 1
Actuator 2
Actuator 3
Actuator 4
D=100 100
h
=
7
5
m
m
Potentiometer
Actuator 1
Actuator 2
Actuator 3
Actuator 4
Drysilica sand No.6
Displacement
transducers
C
=
3
D

:
3
0
0
m
m
3
7
5
m
m
Positive shear
strain :
Rough base
D=100mm
Rubber sleeve
Shear plate
with rough
surface
t=2mm
Potentiometer
Actuator 1
Actuator 2
Actuator 3
Actuator 4
D=100 100
h
=
7
5
m
m
100
h
=
7
5
m
m
Potentiometer
Actuator 1
Actuator 2
Actuator 3
Actuator 4
Drysilica sand No.6
Displacement
transducers
C
=
3
D

:
3
0
0
m
m
3
7
5
m
m
Positive shear
strain :
Rough base
D=100mm
Rubber sleeve
Shear plate
with rough
surface
t=2mm
Figure 28 Test setup
0 100 200
-4
-2
0
2
4
Time(sec)
S
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
a
i
n
(
%
)
M4 (first)
0 100 200
M1
0 100 200
M2
0 100 200
M4 (second)
Figure 29 Input shear strain history
4
5

4
5

2
0

epc3
epc4
epc5
epc2
epc1
:Strain gauge

:Earth pressure cell
Figure 27 Positions of strain gauges
and earth pressure cells
1471


distribution of the earth pressure acting on the lining on the outer surface of the tunnel at the tunnel crown,
spring lines and the mid-parts between the crown and spring lines. Figure 27 illustrates the positions of the
strain gauges and the earth pressure cells.
Dry silica sand No.6 (Gs=2.64, D50=0.51mm, Uc=1.74, emax=0.922, emin=0.565) was used for the model ground
in the test. The model ground was constructed by the same method described in, section 3.2 to achieve a
relative density of 80% (d=15.8kN/m
3
, |=41deg.). The height of the model ground was selected to be 375mm,
creating the cover of 300mm, which corresponds to a C/D ratio of 3. The vertical and horizontal displacements
were measured at the ground surface by a potentiometer and a laser displacement transducer respectively. The
model setup is illustrated in Figure 29.
The input shear strain history is shown in Figure 28. The two cycles sinusoidal shear strains with 0.01 Hz, of
which amplitudes were 4%, 1%, 2% and 4% respectively (termed as M4(first), M1, M2 and M4(second),
respectively), were imposed to the model ground continuously.

5.3 Results and Discussion
Figure 30 shows variations of earth pressure measured at the tunnel crown and the mid-part between crown
and left spring line in the loading steps of M4 (first) and M4 (second) with shear strain, =4%. Variations of
bending moments near the two parts are also shown in Figure 31. The positive bending moment means that the
inner surface of the tunnel suffers tension force. In the cycles of M4 (first), the model was first sheared, while
the cycles of M4 (second) were applied after several shear strain cycles were applied to the model including M4
(first) (Figure 29). Earth pressures in the first cycle show a gradual increase during shearing. Cyclic variation of
earth pressure and bending moment at the crown is smaller than those at the mid-part. It is interesting to note
that at the left mid-part the earth pressure varies randomly (Figure 30 (b)), while the bending moment varies in
the same phase with the input sinusoidal shear strain (Figure 31 (b)).
Figures 32 and 33 show earth pressures and bending moments measured before and after cyclic shearing in
M4(first) and M4(second) respectively. The terms before and after in the figures correspond to the test
elapsed time of 0 second and 200 seconds respectively in Figure 28. Figure 34 (a) and (b) show earth
pressures and bending moments measured when the positive maximum strain first applied in the M4 (first) and
M4 (second) which corresponding to elapsed time of 25 seconds in Figure 28.
(a) at crown
0 100 200
-400
-200
0
200
400
-4
-2
0
2
4
Time(sec)
E
a
r
t
h

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
k
P
a
)
M4(first) M4(second) shear strain
S
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
a
i
n
(
%
)
(a) at crown
0 100 200
-400
-200
0
200
400
-4
-2
0
2
4
Time(sec)
B
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
e
n
t
(
N
m
)
M4(first) M4(second) shear strain
S
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
a
i
n
(
%
)
Figure 30 Measured earth pressure
at crown and left mid-part
0 100 200
-400
-200
0
200
400
-4
-2
0
2
4
Time(sec)
E
a
r
t
h

p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
k
P
a
)
M4(first) M4(second) shear strain
S
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
a
i
n
(
%
)
(b) at left mid-part
Figure 31 Measured bending moment
at crown and left mid-part
0 100 200
-400
-200
0
200
400
-4
-2
0
2
4
B
e
n
d
i
n
g

m
o
m
e
n
t
(
N
m
)
M4(first) M4(second) shear strain
S
h
e
a
r

s
t
r
a
i
n
(
%
)
Time(sec)
(b) at left mid-part
1472


From Figure 32, two observations can be made. The first one is that the initial earth pressures before the first
shearing (M4(first)) are much smaller, probably due to the formation of arch action during the period of
increasing centrifugal acceleration up to 50G.
The second one is that the earth pressures increase after the first shearing history, suggesting that deterioration
of the arch action takes place. In Figure 32 (b), the earth pressures before and after M4(second) loading cycles
are almost the same, because the ground has already been subjected to 4%, 1% and 2% shear strain cycles
and arch action diminished by shearing. After applied several shear histories, the soil-tunnel interaction showed
elastic behaviour with no change of earth pressures and bending moments before and after shearing as shown
in Figures 32(b) and 33(b). It is interesting to note that bending moment distributions show no appreciable
change before and after shearing even if a 4% shear strain cycle is imposed.
From the moment distribution at the maximum shear strain shown in Figure 34, it can be confirmed that the
bending moment due to shear deformation of the ground becomes maximum at about 45
o
from the tunnel
crown, which were also found by Yamada et al. (2002) from the circular shield tunnel model in sand.
6 Concluding remarks
This paper introduced the physical modelling technique for an experimental seismic displacement method and
confirmed the usefulness of the method by comparing the structural responses between the observations in
dynamic centrifuge tests and the corresponding static centrifuge tests. A few applications were presented to
seismic stability problems of tunnels constructed both shallow and deeper depths. Further studies on the
Figure 32 Earth pressure measured before and after shearing
(a) M4(first)
Before shearing
After shearing
Earth pressure(kPa)
(b) M4(second)
Earth pressure(kPa)
Before shearing
After shearing
Figure 33 Bending moment measured before and after shearing
(a) M4(first)
Before shearing
After shearing
Bending moment (Nm/m)
(b) M4(second)
Before shearing
After shearing
Bending moment (Nm/m)
Figure 34 Earth pressure and bending moment at maximum shear strain, =4%
(a) Earth pressure
M4 (first)
M4 (second)
Earth pressure(kPa)
(b) Bending moment
M4 (first)
M4 (second)
Bending moment (Nm/m)
1473


development of possible countermeasures against earthquakes for underground structures are expected using
in this facility.
7 Acknowledgements
This research was partially supported by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (A), 2005-2007, No.
17206050, Seismic stability of the large cross-section urban tunnel with located in relatively shallow depth.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the funding for this research from the 21
st
Century Centre of Excellence
(COE) program entitled Evolution of Urban Earthquake Engineering. The authors would like to thank Mr.
Takemine Yamada, Dr. Hideki Nagatani and Dr. Naoto Ohbo, Kajima Technical Institute, for their cooperation.
8 References
Asakura, T. and Sato, Y. 1996. Damage to Mountain Tunnels in Hazard Area, SPECIAL ISSUE on Geotechnical Aspects of the
J anuary 17 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake, Soils and Foundations, No. 1, pp. 301-310.
Iai S. 2004. International Standard (ISO) on Seismic Actions for Designing Geotechnical Works, Proc. of 3
rd
International
Conference on Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 1, pp. 302-309.
Iida H., Hiroto, T., Yoshida N., & Iwafuji M. 1996. SPECIAL ISSUE on Geotechnical Aspects of the J anuary 17 1995 Hyogoken-
Nambu Earthquake, Soils and Foundations, No. 1, pp. 283- 300.
Izawa J ., Kusakabe O., Nagatani H., Yamanda T. and Ohbo N. 2006. Centrifuge modelling on seismic behaviour of rectangular
tunnels, Proceedings of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, Proc. of 6th International Conf. on Physical Modelling in
Geotechnics, pp. 1163-1169.
J apanese Geotechnical Society. 2006. Principles for Foundation Designs Grounded on a Performance-based Design Concept.
Kajima Technical Research Institute, GEOTECHNICAL CENTRIFUGE, http://www.kajima.co.jp/tech/katri/leaf/pdf/2002-37.pdf
Kawashima K. 2000. Seismic design of underground structures in soft ground: A review, Proceedings of Geotechnical Aspects of
Underground Structures in Soft Ground, pp. 3-20.
Kitamura M. and Miyajima M. 1996. Damage to water supply pipelines, SPECIAL ISSUE on Geotechnical Aspects of the J anuary 17
1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake, Soils and Foundations, No. 1, pp. 325- 333.
Koseki J ., Matsuo O., Sasaki T., Saito K., and Yamashita M., 2002. Damage to sewer pipes during the 1993 Kushiro-Oki and the
1994 Hokkaido-Toho-Oki earthquakes, Soils and Foundations, Vol.40, No.1, pp.99-111.
Shibayama S., Izawa J ., Takahashi A., Takemura J . and Kusakabe O. 2008. Centrifuge modelling of seismic displacement method
of tunnel in dry sand, (submitted to International J ournal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics for review).
Takahashi A., Takemura A., Suzuki A., and Kusakabe O. 2001. Development and performance of an active type shear box in a
centrifuge, International J ournal of Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, Vol.1, No.2, 1-17.
Takahashi A. and Takemura J . 2005. Liquefaction-induced large displacement of pile-supported wharf, Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, Vol.25, No.11, 811-825.
Takemura J ., Izawa J ., Shibayama S. and Kusakabe O. 2006. Active type shear box and its application on a stability of shallow
tunnel in a centrifuge, Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Urban Earthquake Engineering, pp. 639-646.
Takemura J ., Kondo M., Esaki T., Kouda M. and Kusakabe O. 1999. Centrifuge model tests on double propped wall excavation in
soft clay, Soils and Foundations, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 75-87.
Yamada T., Nagatani H., Igarashi H. and Takahashi A. 2002. Centrifuge model tests on circular and rectangular tunnels subjected
to large earthquake-induced deformation, Proceedings of Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Structures in Soft Ground, pp.
673-678.
Yamada T., Nagatani H., Ohbo N., Izawa J ., Shigesada H. and Kusakabe O. 2004. Seismic performance of flat cross-sectional
tunnel with countermeasures, Proceedings of 13th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, paper No. 706.
Yashiro K., Kojima Y. and Shimizu M. 2007. Historical earthquake damage to tunnels in J apan and case studies of railway tunnels in
the 2004 Niigataken-Chuetsu earthquake, QR of RTRI, Vol. 48, No. 3.


1474