NCHRP

NATIONAL
COOPERATIVE
HIGHWAY
RESEARCH
PROGRAM

REPORT 611

Seismic Analysis and Design

of Retaining Walls,
Buried Structures, Slopes,
and Embankments
 105

CHAPTER 9

Buried Structures

This chapter provides results of analyses and sensitivity above-ground structures. Seismic performance records for
studies conducted for buried structures. These studies dealt culverts and pipelines have been very favorable, particu-
with the TGD and not PGD. The primary objectives of the larly when compared to reported damages to other highway/
TGD work were to: transportation structures such as bridges.
The main reason for the good performance of buried struc-
• Identify methodologies for evaluating the ovaling response tures has been that buried structures are constrained by the
of circular conduits, as well as the racking response of rec- surrounding ground. It is unlikely that they could move to any
tangular conduits, and significant extent independent of the surrounding ground or
• Conduct parametric studies and parametric evaluations be subjected to vibration amplification/resonance. Compared
for the methods being proposed. to surface structures, which are generally unsupported above
their foundations, buried structures can be considered to dis-
Results of analyses conducted to address these objectives are play significantly greater degrees of redundancy, thanks to the
summarized in the following sections. These analyses focused support from the ground. The good performance also may be
on deriving a rational procedure for seismic evaluation of partly associated with the design procedures used to construct
buried culverts and pipelines that consider the following sub- the embankment and backfill specifications for the culverts
jects: (1) general properties and characteristics of culverts and and pipes. Typical specifications require close control on
pipes, (2) potential failure modes for buried culverts and pipes backfill placement to assure acceptable performance of the
subject to seismic loading, (3) procedures used in current de- culvert or pipe under gravity loads and to avoid settlement of
sign practice to evaluate seismic response of buried structures, fill located above the pipe or culvert, and these strict require-
(4) derivation of detailed rational procedures for seismic eval- ments for static design lead to good seismic performance.
uation of both rigid and flexible culverts and pipes subject to It is important that the ground surrounding the buried
TGD, taking into consideration soil-structure interaction, and structure remains stable. If the ground is not stable and large
(5) providing recommendations on a general methodology PGD occur (for example, resulting from liquefaction, settle-
for seismic evaluation under the effects of PGD. These results ment, uplift, lateral spread, or slope instability/landslide),
consider both flexible and rigid culverts, burial depths that then significant damage to the culvert or pipe structures can
range from 0.5 to 5 diameters, various cross-sectional geome- be expected. Although TGD due to shaking also can damage
tries (for example, circular and rectangular) and wall stiff- buried structures, compared to the effects of PGD, the damage
nesses, and different properties of the surrounding soil. is typically of a more limited extent.

9.1 Seismic Performance of Culverts 9.2 Culvert/Pipe Characteristics

and Pipelines
Culvert/pipe products are available over a large range in
Damage to buried culverts and pipelines during earth- terms of material properties, geometric wall sections, sizes,
quakes has been observed and documented by previous in- and shapes. Pipe sizes as small as 1 foot and as large as culverts
vestigators (NCEER, 1996; Davis and Bardet, 1999 and 2000; with spans of 40 feet and larger are used in highway applica-
O’Rourke, 1999; Youd and Beckman, 2003). In general, buried tions. They can be composed of concrete, steel, aluminum,
structures have performed better in past earthquakes than plastic, and other materials. Detailed information about their
106

shapes, range of sizes, and common uses for each type of cul- existence of adequate soil support. This may be the weakness
vert or pipe are summarized by Ballinger and Drake (1995). of flexible culverts, in case of earthquakes, in that the soil
support can be reduced or lost during liquefaction or other
permanent ground failure mechanisms associated with
9.2.1 Flexible Culverts and Pipes
seismic events. Significant distortion or collapse of the cul-
In general, culverts and pipes are divided into two major vert cross section is likely if soil support is reduced or lost.
classes from the static design standpoints: flexible and rigid.
Flexible culverts and pipes typically are composed of either
9.2.2 Rigid Culverts and Pipes
metal (for example, corrugated metal pipe (CMP) made of
steel or aluminum) or thermoplastic materials (for example, Rigid highway culverts and pipes consist primarily of rein-
HDPE or PVC). Flexible culverts and pipes respond to loads forced concreted shapes that are either precast or cast-in-place.
differently than rigid culverts and pipes. Because their oval- Unreinforced concrete culverts and pipe structures are not rec-
ing stiffness is small, relative to the adjacent soil, flexible cul- ommended for use in seismic regions. The sizes of reinforced
verts and pipes rely on firm soil support and depend upon a concrete pipe (RCP) range (in diameter) from about 1 foot to
large strain capacity to interact with the surrounding soil to 12 feet. Larger RCP can be precast on the site or constructed
hold their shape, while supporting the external pressures im- cast-in-place. Rectangular four-sided box culverts can be fur-
posed upon them. nished precast in spans ranging from 3 feet to 12 feet. Larger
For static design, current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design spans can be constructed cast-in-place. Three-sided precast
Specifications require as a minimum the following main design box culverts can be furnished in spans up to 40 feet.
considerations (in addition to the seam failure) for flexible cul- Unlike the flexible culverts and pipes, the strain capacity of
verts and pipes: (1) buckling (general cross sectional collapse rigid culverts and pipes is much lower. Rigid culverts must
as well as local buckling of thin-walled section), and (2) flexi- develop significant ring stiffness and strength to support ex-
bility limit for construction. Except for large box structures or ternal pressures. Hence, they are not as dependent upon soil
other large spans with shapes other than circular [per McGrath, support as flexible culverts.
et al., (2002) NCHRP Report 473], the flexural strength con- For static design, the primary design methods used for pre-
sideration (that is, bending moment demand) is generally not cast concrete pipe, either reinforced or unreinforced, include:
required for flexible culverts and pipes. (1) the Indirect Design Method, based on the laboratory three-
Neither current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications edge bearing test, known as the test; (2) a more direct design
nor the McGrath, et al. (2002) study has addressed seismic de- procedure that accounts for bending moment, shear, thrust/
sign concerns for culvert structures. From the seismic design tension, and crack width (bucking is generally not an issue
standpoint, there are two main factors that must be considered: with rigid converts and pipes) around the periphery of the cul-
vert wall; and (3) methods employing computerized numer-
1. Bending moment and thrust evaluations: Seismic loading ical models accounting for soil-structure interaction effects.
is in general nonsymmetric in nature and therefore may re- For box culverts the static design uses the same criteria as
sult in sizable bending in the culvert structures (even for other reinforced concrete structures (for example, beams and
circular shape culverts). Furthermore, the behavior of thin- columns). In general, the effect of surrounding soils is ac-
walled conduits (such as for the flexible culverts and pipes) counted for by applying the soil pressures (active or at-rest)
is vulnerable to buckling. This behavior differs somewhat directly against the wall in the model, instead of fully taking
from that of a rigid concrete culvert structure, for which advantage of the soil-structure interaction effect. Most cur-
bending moments are often the key factor in judging struc- rent commercially available computer software can perform
tural performance. For buckling, thrust (that is, hoop the structural analysis required for this design. For other
force) is the key factor and seismically induced thrust can structural shapes, consideration of soil-structure interaction
be significant, particularly if the interface between the cul- becomes important and therefore is generally accounted for
vert or pipe structure and the surrounding soil is consid- by using computerized numerical models.
ered a nonslip condition (Wang, 1993). Therefore, it is im-
portant that both seismically induced bending and thrust
9.3 General Effects of Earthquakes
be evaluated using published solutions for circular tube
and Potential Failure Modes
(Moore, 1989; Janson, 2003) as failure criteria for evaluating
the seismic performance of CMP and polymeric conduits The general effects of earthquakes on culverts and pipe
(for example, corrugated HDPE pipes). structures can be grouped into two broad categories: ground
2. Soil-support considerations: Implicit in the current shaking and ground failure. The following sections discuss
AASHTO design assumptions for flexible culverts is the each category. As it will be demonstrated, soil-structure inter-
 107

action plays a critical role in the evaluation of the effect of seis-

mic loading for both flexible and rigid culverts and pipes. A
unified evaluation procedure is developed in this chapter to
provide a rational and reliable means for seismic evaluations as
well as realistic design for buried culvert and pipe structures.

9.3.1 Ground Shaking

Ground shaking refers to the vibration of the ground pro-
duced by seismic waves propagating through the earth’s crust.
The area experiencing this shaking may cover hundreds of
square miles in the vicinity of the fault rupture. The intensity
of the shaking attenuates with distance from the fault rupture.
Ground shaking motions are composed of two different
types of seismic waves, each with two subtypes:

• Body waves travel within the earth’s material. They may be

either longitudinal compressional (P-) waves or transverse
shear (S-) waves, and they can travel in any direction in the
ground.
• Surface waves travel along the earth’s surface. They may be Figure 9-2. Ovaling and racking deformations.
either Rayleigh waves or Love waves.
The axial and curvature deformations are induced by com-
As stable ground is deformed by the traveling waves, any ponents of seismic waves that propagate along the culvert or
culverts or pipelines in the ground also will be deformed. The pipeline axis. Figure 9-1 shows the idealized representations of
shaking or wave traveling induced ground deformations are axial and curvature deformations. The general behavior of the
called transient ground deformations. linear structure is similar to that of an elastic beam subject to
When subject to transient ground deformations, the re- deformations or strains imposed by the surrounding ground.
sponse of a buried linear culvert or pipe structure can be de- Current design and analysis methodologies for pipeline
scribed in terms of three principal types of deformations: systems were developed typically for long, linear structures.
(1) axial deformations, (2) curvature deformations (refers The principal failure modes for long, continuous pipeline struc-
to Figure 9-1), and (3) ovaling (for circular cross section) or tures consist of (1) rupture due to axial tension (or pull out for
racking (for rectangular cross section) deformations (refers jointed segmented pipelines), and (2) local bucking (wrinkling)
to Figure 9-2). due to axial compression and flexural failure. If the pipelines
are buried at shallow depth, continuous pipelines in com-
pression also can exhibit beam-buckling behavior (that is,
global bucking with upward buckling deflections). If the axial
stiffness of the structures is large, such as that for a large sec-
tional concrete pipe, then the buckling potential in the longi-
tudinal direction is small for both local buckling and global
buckling. The general failure criteria for the above-mentioned
potential failure modes have been documented by previous
studies (O’Rourke and Liu, 1996).
It should be noted, however, that typical culvert structures
for transportation applications are generally of limited length.
For this condition, it is in general unlikely to develop signifi-
cant transient axial/curvature deformations along the culvert
structures. The potential failure modes mentioned above are
not likely to take place during the earthquake. The main focus
of this chapter will not be on the effects of axial/curvature de-
formations. Instead, the scope of this chapter will concentrate
Figure 9-1. Axial and curvature deformations. on transverse deformations of culverts and pipes.
108

The ovaling or racking deformations of a buried culvert or Each permanent ground deformation may be potentially cata-
pipe structure may develop when waves propagate in a direc- strophic to culvert or pipeline structures, although the dam-
tion perpendicular or nearly perpendicular to the longitudi- ages are usually localized. To avoid such damage, some sort of
nal axis of the culvert or pipe, resulting in a distortion of the ground improvement is generally required, unless the design
cross-sectional shape of the structure. Design considerations approach to this situation is to accept the displacement, local-
for this type of deformation are in the transverse direction. ize the damage, and provide means to facilitate repairs.
Figure 9-2 shows the ovaling distortion and racking deforma- Characteristics of permanent ground deformation and its
tion associated with a circular culvert or pipe and a rectangu- effects on culvert and pipes are extremely complex and must
lar culvert, respectively. The general behavior of the structure be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. It is unlikely that simple
may be simulated as a buried structure subject to ground de- design procedures or solutions can be developed due to the
formations under a two-dimensional, plane-strain condition. complex nature of the problem. In this chapter, detailed study
Ovaling and racking deformations may be caused by verti- of problems associated with permanent ground deformation
cally, horizontally, or obliquely propagating seismic waves of will not be conducted. Instead, only general guidelines and rec-
any type. Previous studies have suggested, however, that the ommendations on methodology for seismic evaluation under
vertically propagating shear wave is the predominant form of the effects of permanent ground deformation will be provided.
earthquake loading that governs the ovaling/racking behav-
ior for the following reasons: (1) except possibly in the very
9.4 Current Seismic Design Practice
near-source areas, ground motion in the vertical direction is
for Culverts or Other Buried
generally considered less severe than its horizontal compo-
Structures
nent, (2) vertical ground strains are generally much smaller
than shearing strain because the value of constrained modu- Currently there is no standard seismic design methodology
lus is much higher than that of the shear modulus, and (3) the or guidelines for the design of culvert structures, including
amplification of vertically propagating shear wave, particu- Section 12 within the current AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design
larly in the soft or weak soils, is much higher than vertically Specifications. The NCHRP Report 473 Recommended Specifi-
propagating compressional wave and any other type of waves cations for Large-Span Culverts, (NCHRP, 2002) does not ad-
traveling in the horizontal direction. Therefore the analysis and dress issues related to seismic evaluation of long-span culverts.
methodology presented in this chapter addresses mainly the ef- In the past, design and analysis procedures have been pro-
fects of vertically propagating shear waves on ovaling/racking posed by some researchers and design engineers for pipelines
behavior of the buried culverts or pipes. (for example, gas and water) or tunnel (that is, transportation
When subject to ovaling/racking deformations, a flexural or water) systems. While some of these procedures can be
type failure mode due to the combined effects of bending mo- used for the design and analysis of culverts and pipes (for ex-
ment and thrust force must be checked. The flexural failure ample, the transverse ovaling/racking deformation of the sec-
mode is typically the main concern for rigid culverts and pipes, tion, Figure 9-2), others cannot be directly applied because
such as those constructed with reinforced concrete. For flex- they are only applicable for buried structures with a long
ible culverts and pipes (typically, thin-walled conduits con- length, or with a deep burial depth. Furthermore, significant
structed with steel, aluminum, or thermoplastic such as HDPE disparity exists among engineers regarding the appropriate
or PVC), they are likely to be controlled by buckling, which design philosophy and methods of analysis applicable to var-
can occur in the elastic range of stresses. For buckling, thrust ious types of culvert structures.
is the key factor and conservative assumption must be made The following two paragraphs provide a brief description
regarding interface condition (slip or nonslip) between the of procedures and methodologies proposed in the past for
exterior surface of the conduit and the surrounding ground. seismic evaluation of buried structures in general:
An elastic buckling criterion for circular conduits in uniform
soil was proposed by Moore (1989) and may be used for buck- • O’Rourke (1998) provides a general overview of lifeline
ling potential evaluation purpose. earthquake engineering, including the treatment of seismic
evaluation of pipelines. O’Rourke and Liu (1996) present a
detailed methodology for evaluating response of buried
9.3.2 Ground Failure
pipelines subject to earthquake effects. Pipelines responses to
Ground failure broadly includes various types of ground in- both transient ground deformation and permanent ground
stability such as faulting, landslides, liquefaction (including deformation were addressed in these two studies. How-
liquefaction-induced lateral spread, settlement, flotation, etc.), ever, the focus of these studies was on pipeline behavior in
and tectonic uplift and subsidence. These types of ground the longitudinal direction which is more suitable for a long
deformations are called permanent ground deformations. continuous buried pipeline structure. Although failure
 109

criteria for axial tension and axial compression (local To account for the effects of transient ground deformation
buckling/wrinkling and beam buckling) were developed, on tunnel structures, Wang (1993) developed closed-form
there were no discussions related to the procedure for eval- and analytical solutions for the determination of seismically
uating the transverse ovaling deformation of the pipe’s induced ovaling/racking deformations and the corresponding
cross-sectional behavior. internal forces (such as moments and thrusts) for bored as
• Based on the field performance of 61 corrugated metal pipes well as cut-and-cover tunnel structures. The procedure pre-
(CMP) that were shaken by the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, sented by Wang for the bored tunnels was developed from a
Davis and Bardet (2000) provided an updated approach to theory that is familiar to most mining/underground engineers
evaluating the seismic performance of CMP conduits. The (Peck et al., 1972). Simple and easy-to-use seismic design
focus of their study was on the ovaling and buckling (of charts were presented. The design charts are expressed prima-
the thin metal wall) of the transverse section behavior of the rily as a function of relative stiffness between the structure and
CMP. This approach involves the following general steps: the ground. Solutions for both full-slip and nonslip conditions
1. Estimate the initial condition of compressive strain in at the interface between soil and the exterior surface of the
the conduit, which is related to depth of burial. tunnel lining were developed. These solutions fully account
2. Estimate the compressive ground strain induced by a ver- for the interaction of the tunnel lining with the surrounding
tically propagating shear wave, which was calculated from ground. The results were validated through a series of finite
the closed-form solution for transient shearing strain, as element/difference soil-structure interaction analyses.
1
⁄2 γmax = vp/2Vs, where γmax is the maximum transient For the cut-and-cover tunnels (with a rectangular shape), the
shearing strain of the ground, vp is the horizontal peak design solutions were derived from an extensive study using
particle velocity transverse to the conduit, and Vs is the dynamic finite-element, soil-structure interaction analyses.
average shear wave velocity of the surrounding ground. A wide range of structural, geotechnical, and ground motion
3. Add the static and transient compressive strains. parameters were considered by Wang in his study. Specifically,
4. Compare the strain so determined with the critical com- five different types of cut-and-cover tunnel geometry were
pressive strain that would cause dynamic buckling (due studied, including one-barrel, one-over-one two-barrel, and
to hoop force) of the CMP pipe. The critical buckling one-by-one twin-barrel configurations. To quantify the effect of
strain (or strength) was assumed to be dependent on the relative stiffness on tunnel lining response, varying ground pro-
stiffness of the surrounding soil (Moore, 1989). files and soil properties were used in the parametric analyses.
Based on the results of the parametric analyses, a deformation-
The methodology derived by Davis and Bardet, although based design chart was developed for cut-and-cover tunnels.
more rational than most of the other procedures, has some Although these solutions were intended originally for tun-
drawbacks, including: nel structures (considered a fairly rigid type of structure), the
methodology is rational and comprehensive and provides a
• The procedure is applicable for thin-walled pipes only. The consistent and unified approach to solving the problem of
failure mode considered by using this procedure is prima- buried conduits subject to ground shaking regardless of
rily for buckling and does not include flexural (that is, whether they are rigid or flexible structures. With some ad-
bending) demand and capacity evaluation. The latter is a justments this approach also is applicable to the culvert and
very important failure mode that must be considered for pipe structures typically used for highway construction. There-
rigid culverts and pipes (such as those constructed with re- fore, a more detailed discussion of Wang’s approach is given
inforced concrete). in the following section.
• The soil-structure interaction effect was considered in eval-
uating the buckling capacity, but not in the evaluation of
9.5 General Methodology and
the demand (that is, earthquake-induced ground strains).
Recommended Procedures
• The method assumed that the strains in the pipe coincide
with those in the surrounding ground (that is, pipe de- The general methodology and recommended procedures
forms in accordance with the ground deformation in the for the ovaling of circular conduits and the racking of rectan-
free-field), on the basis of the assumption that there is no gular conduits developed by Wang (1993) are presented in
slippage at the soil-pipe interface. This assumption was in- the following two sections, respectively.
correct, as Wang (1993) pointed out in his study. Wang
concluded that the strains and deformations of a buried
9.5.1 Ovaling of Circular Conduits
conduit can be greater, equal, or smaller than those of the
surrounding ground in the free-field, depending on the The seismic ovaling effect on the lining of a circular conduit
relative stiffness of the conduit to the surrounding ground. is best defined in terms of change of the conduit diameter
110

(∆DEQ) and incremental seismically induced internal forces using the earthquake-induced shearing stress and the strain-
[for example, bending moment (M) and thrust/hoop force compatible shear modulus of the surrounding ground. In this
(T)]. It should be noted that for flexible types of conduits approach, the expected free-field ground strain caused by the
(such as thin-walled metal, corrugated or noncorrugated, and vertically propagating shear waves for the design earthquake
thermoplastic pipes) buckling is the most critical failure mode is estimated using the following equation.
and therefore the thrust force, (T) is the governing quantity in
the evaluation. For rigid conduits (for example, constructed γ max = τ max Gm (9-2)
with reinforced concrete), the deformation of the lining, the τmax = maximum earthquake-induced shearing stress;
bending, the thrust as well as the resulting material strains are = (PGA/g) σv Rd;
all important quantities. These quantities can be considered as σv = total vertical overburden pressure at the depth cor-
seismic ovaling demands for the lining of the conduit and can responding to the invert of the culvert or pipe;
be determined using the following general steps: = γt (H + D);
γt = total unit weight of soil;
Step 1: Estimate the expected free-field ground strains H = soil cover thickness measured from the ground sur-
caused by the vertically propagating shear waves of the design face to the crown elevation;
earthquakes using the following formula: d = diameter of the circular culvert or pipe;
Rd = depth-dependent stress reduction factor;
γ max = Vs Cse (9-1)
= 1.0 − 0.00233z for z <30 feet where z is the depth to
where the midpoint of the culvert or pipe;
γmax = maximum free-field shearing strain at the elevation = 1.174 − 0.00814z for 30 feet < z <75 feet; and
of the conduit; Gm = effective, strain-compatible shear modulus of the
Vs = shear (S-) wave peak particle velocity at the conduit ground surrounding the culvert or pipe.
elevation; and
Cse = effective shear wave velocity of the medium sur- Alternatively, the maximum free-field shearing strain also
rounding the conduit. can be estimated by a more refined free-field site response
analysis (for example, conducting SHAKE analyses).
It should be noted that the effective shear wave velocity of Step 2: Given γmax, the free-field diameter change of the
the vertically propagating shear wave (Cse) should be com- conduit would be:
patible with the level of shearing strain that may develop in ∆DEQ-FF = 0.5 γ max D (9-3)
the ground at the elevation of the conduit under the design
earthquake shaking. However, if the fact that there is a hole/cavity in the ground
An important aspect for evaluating the transient ground (due to the excavation of the conduit) is considered, then the
deformation effects on culvert and pipe structures is to first diameter change in the ground with the cavity in it would be:
determine the ground strain in the free-field (in this case free-
∆DEQ = ± 2 γ max (1 − νm ) D (9-4)
field shear strain, γmax) and then determine the response of
the structures to the ground strain. For a culvert or pipe struc- where
ture constructed at a significant depth below the ground sur- νm = Poisson’s ratio of the surrounding ground; and
face, the most appropriate design ground motion parameter D = diameter of the conduit structure.
to characterize the ground motion effects is not PGA. Instead,
PGV (in this case S-wave peak particle velocity, Vs) is a better It is to be noted that Equation (9-3) ignores the fact that
indicator for ground deformations (strains) induced during there is a cavity and a conduit structure in the ground, while
ground shaking. This is particularly important because given Equation (9-4) accounts for the presence of the cavity but
the same site-adjusted PGA value, the anticipated peak ground ignores the stiffness of the conduit. Equation (9-4) is applica-
velocity for CEUS could be much smaller than that for the ble for a flexible conduit in a competent ground. In this
WUS. The results based on the PGA versus PGV study pre- case, the lining of the conduit can be reasonably assumed to
sented in Chapter 5 in this report should be used in evaluat- conform to the surrounding ground with the presence of a
ing the maximum free-field shearing strain in Equation (9-1). cavity in it.
However, for most highway culverts and pipes, the burial In the study by Davis and Bardet (2000), it was assumed
depths are generally shallow (that is, within 50 feet from the that the CMP conform to the free-field ground deformation
ground surface). Under these conditions, it is more reason- (that is, Equation 9-3). For flexible conduits such as the CMP
able to estimate the maximum free-field shearing strain studied by Davis and Bardet, the actual pipe deformations/
 111

strains should have been closer to the values predicted by Step 3: The diameter change (∆DEQ) accounting for the
Equation (9-4) rather than by Equation (9-3), suggesting that soil-structure interaction effects can then be estimated using
the strains in the pipes calculated in that study were probably the following equation:
well underestimated.
This very simplified design practice has been used frequently ∆DEQ = ± 1 3( k1 Fγ max D )( full-slip ) (9-7)
in the past (that is, estimate the free-field ground deformations where
and then assume that the conduit structure would conform to k1 = seismic ovaling coefficient
the free-field ground deformations). By doing this, the soil-
structure interaction effect was ignored. This practice may lead = 12 (1 − νm ) ( 2 F + 5 − 6νm ) (9-8)
to either overestimated or underestimated seismic response of
The seismic ovaling coefficient curves plotted as a function
the structural lining, depending on the relative stiffness be-
of F and νm are presented in Figure 9-3.
tween the surrounding ground and the culvert.
The resulting maximum thrust (hoop) force (Tmax) and the
Further studies by Wang (1993) led to a more rational pro-
maximum bending moment (Mmax) in the lining can be de-
cedure in estimating the actual lining deformation by defining
rived as follows:
the relative stiffness between a circular lining and the sur-
rounding ground using two ratios designated as the compress- Tmax = {(1 6 ) k1 [ Em (1 + νm )] Rγ max }( full slip ) (9-9))
ibility ratio (C) and the flexibility ratio (F), as follows (Peck
et al., 1972): M max = {(1 6 ) k1 [ Em (1 + νm )] R 2 γ max }

C = { Em (1 − ν12 ) R} { E1 A1 (1 + νm )(1 − 2 νm )} (9-5) = RTmax ( full slip

p) (9-10)

F = { Em (1 − ν12 ) R3 } {6 E1 I1 (1 + νm )} (9-6) It should be noted that the solutions provided here are
based on the full-slip interface assumption (which allows
where normal stresses, that is, without normal separation, but no
Em = strain-compatible elastic modulus of the surrounding tangential shear force). According to previous investigations,
ground; during an earthquake, slip at interface is a possibility only for
νm = Poisson’s ratio of the surrounding ground; a conduit in soft soils, or when the seismic loading intensity
R = nominal radius of the conduit; is very high. In most cases, the condition at the interface is be-
El = Elastic modulus of conduit lining; tween full-slip and no-slip.
νl = Poisson’s ratio of the conduit lining; In computing the forces and deformations in the lining, it
Al = lining cross-sectional area per unit length along culvert is prudent to investigate both cases, and the more critical one
axial alignment; should be used in design. The full-slip condition gives more
t = lining thickness; and conservative results in terms of maximum bending moment
Il = moment of inertia of lining per unit length of tunnel (Mmax) and lining deflections (∆DEQ). This conservatism is de-
(in axial direction). sirable to offset the potential underestimation (about 15 per-
cent) of lining forces resulting from the use of a pseudo-static
The flexibility ratio (F) tends to be the governing factor for
the bending response of the lining (distortion) while the
compressibility ratio (C) tends to dominate the thrust/hoop
forces/strains of the lining. When F < 1.0, the lining is consid-
ered stiffer than the ground, and it tends to resist the ground
and therefore deforms less than that occurring in the free-
field. On the other hand, when F > 1, the lining is expected to
deform more than the free-field. As the flexibility ratio con-
tinues to increase, the lining deflects more and more than the
free-field and may reach an upper limit as the flexibility ratio
becomes infinitely large. This upper limit deflection is equal
to the deformations displayed by a perforated ground, calcu-
lated by the Equation (9-4) presented above.
The strain-compatible elastic modulus of the surrounding
ground (Em) should be derived using the strain-compatible
shear modulus (Gm) corresponding to the effective shear wave
propagating velocity (Cse). Figure 9-3. Seismic ovaling coefficient, K1.
112

model in deriving these close-form solutions in lieu of the

dynamic loading condition (that is, some dynamic amplifi-
cation effect). Therefore, the solutions derived based on the
full-slip assumption should be used in evaluating the moment
(Equation 9-10) and deflection (Equation 9-7) response of a
circular conduit (that is, culvert/pipe in this study).
The maximum thrust/hoop force (Tmax) calculated by
Equation (9-9), however, may be significantly underesti-
mated under the seismic simple shear condition and may lead
to unsafe results, particularly for thin-wall conduit (flexible
culverts and pipes) where buckling potential is the key poten-
tial failure mode. It is recommended that the no-slip interface
assumption be used in assessing the lining thrust response.
The resulting expression, after modifications based on Hoeg’s Figure 9-4. Seismic thrust/hoop force response
work (Schwartz and Einstein, 1980), is: coefficient, k2 (no-slip interface; soil Poisson’s
ratio = 0.2).
Tmax = {k2 [ Em 2 (1 + νm )] Rγ max } no-slip (9-11)

Where the thrust/hoop force response coefficient k2 is de-

fined as:
2
k2 = 1 + { F [(1 − 2 νm ) − (1 − 2 νm )C ] − 1 2 (1 − 2 νm ) C + 2}
{F [(3 − 2νm ) + (1 − 2νm )C ]
+ C [5 2 − 8 νm + 6 νm2 ] + 6 − 8 νm } (9-12)

A review of Equation (9-11) and the expression of k2 sug-

gests that the maximum lining thrust/hoop force response is a
function of compressibility ratio, flexibility ratio, and Poisson’s
Ratio. Figures 9-4 through 9-6 graphically describe their in-
terrelationships. As the plots show:
Figure 9-5. Seismic thrust/hoop force response
• The seismically induced thrust/hoop force increases with coefficient, k2 (no-slip interface; soil Poisson’s
decreasing compressibility ratio and decreasing flexibility ratio = 0.35).

Figure 9-6 Seismic thrust/hoop force response coefficient,

k2 (no-slip interface; soil Poisson’s ratio = 0.5).
 113

ratio when the Poisson’s ratio value of the surrounding poses, the racking stiffness can be obtained by applying a unit
ground is less than 0.5. lateral force at the roof level, while the base of the structure is
• When the Poisson’s ratio approaches 0.5 (for example, for restrained against translation, but with the joints free to rotate.
saturated undrained clay), the thrust response of the lining The structural racking stiffness is defined as the ratio of the
is essentially independent of the compressibility ratio. applied force to the resulting lateral displacement.
Step 3: Derive the flexibility ratio (Frec) of the rectangular
The theoretical solutions and their applicability to typical structure using the following equation:
culvert and pipeline structures is further verified for reason-
ableness by numerical analysis presented in the next section. Frec = (Gm K s ) p ( L H ) (9-14)

9.5.2 Racking of Rectangular Conduits where

L = width of the structure; and
Racking deformations are defined as the differential side-
Gm = average strain-compatible shear modulus of the sur-
ways movements between the top and bottom elevations of
rounding ground.
rectangular structures, shown as “∆s” in Figure 9-7. The re-
sulting structural internal forces or material strains in the lin-
ing associated with the seismic racking deformation (∆s) can The flexibility ratio is a measure of the relative racking stiff-
be derived by imposing the differential deformation on the ness of the surrounding ground to the racking stiffness of the
structure in a simple structural frame analysis. structure. The derivation of Frec is schematically depicted in
The procedure for determining ∆s and the corresponding Figure 9-8.
structural internal forces [bending moment (M), thrust (T), Step 4: Based on the flexibility ratio obtained form Step 3
and shear (V)], taking into account the soil-structure inter- above, determine the racking ratio (Rrec) for the structure
action effects, are presented below (Wang, 1993). using Figure 9-5 or the following expression:

Rrec = 2 Frec (1 + Frec ) (9-15)

Step 1: Estimate the free-field ground strains γmax (at the
structure elevation) caused by the vertically propagating shear The racking ratio is defined as the ratio of actual racking
waves of the design earthquakes, refer to Equation (9-1) or deformation of the structure to the free-field racking defor-
Equation (9-2) and related discussions presented earlier in mation in the ground. The solid triangular data points in Fig-
Section 9.4.1. Determine the differential free-field relative dis- ure 9-9 were data generated by performing a series of dynamic
placements (∆free-field) corresponding to the top and the bottom finite element analyses on a number of cases with varying
elevations of the rectangular/box structure by: soil and structural properties, structural configurations, and
∆ free-field = H p γ max (9-13) ground motion characteristics. Note, however, these data were
generated by using structural parameters representative of typ-
where H is height of the structure. ical transportation tunnels during the original development
Step 2: Determine the racking stiffness (Ks) of the structure of this design methodology. The validity of this design chart
from a simple structural frame analysis. For practical pur- was later verified and adjusted as necessary by performing

Figure 9-7. Racking deformations of a rectangular conduit.

114

Figure 9-8. Relative stiffness of soil versus rectangular frame.

Figure 9-9. Racking ratio between structure and free-field.

 115

have been validated through a series of parametric numerical

analyses. The applications of these simple design charts to
vehicular/transit tunnels also have been successfully applied
in real world projects in the past, particularly for deep tunnels
surrounded by relatively homogeneous ground.
There are, however, differences between vehicular/transit
tunnels and buried culverts and pipes. For example, tunnel
structures are generally of large dimensions and typically have
much greater structural stiffness than that of culverts and pipe
Figure 9-10. Simple frame analysis of structures. In addition, culverts and pipes are generally buried
racking deformations. at shallow depths where the simplified procedure developed
for deep tunnels may not necessarily be directly applicable.
To address the issues discussed above, numerical analysis
similar numerical analysis using parameters that are repre- using finite element/finite difference procedures was per-
sentative of highway culvert structures. formed for a wide range of parameters representative of actual
As indicated in Figure 9-9, if Frec = 1, the structure is con- culvert properties and geometries (that is, for flexible as well
sidered to have the same racking stiffness as the surrounding as rigid culverts). In addition, the parametric analysis included
ground, and therefore the racking distortion of the structure the construction condition in terms of burial depth. The
is about the same as that of the ground in the free field. When analysis, assumptions, and results are presented in the follow-
Frec is approaching zero, representing a perfectly rigid structure, ing sections.
the structure does not rack regardless of the distortion of the
ground in the free field. For Frec > 1.0 the structure becomes
flexible relative to the ground, and the racking distortion will 9.6.1 Types of Structures and Other
be magnified in comparison to the shear distortion of the Parameters Used in Evaluation
ground in the free field. This magnification effect is not caused The various parameters studied in this analysis are sum-
by the effect of dynamic amplification. Rather it is attributed marized in Table 9-1.
to the fact that the ground has a cavity in it as opposed to the
free field condition.
Step 5: Determine the racking deformation of the structure 9.6.2 Model Assumptions and Results
(∆s) using the following relationship: Six sets of parametric analyses were conducted. Assump-
∆ s = Rrec p ∆ free-field (9-16) tions made and results from these analyses are summarized
in the following sections.
Step 6: The seismic demand in terms of internal forces (M,
T, and V) as well as material strains can be calculated by im-
9.6.2.1 Parametric Analysis—Set 1
posing ∆s upon the structure in a frame analysis as depicted
in Figure 9-10. Model Assumptions—Set 1. The parametric analysis—
It should be noted that the methodology developed above Set 1 (the Reference Set) started with a 10-foot diameter cor-
was intended to address the incremental effects due to earth- rugated steel pipe (or an equivalent liner plate lining) and a
quake-induced transient ground deformation only. The seis- 10-foot diameter precast concrete pipe to represent a flexible
mic effects of transient racking/ovaling deformations on cul- and a rigid culvert structure, respectively. Specific properties
verts and pipes must be considered additional to the normal used for these two different types of culvert structures are pre-
load effects from surcharge, pavement, and wheel loads, and sented in Table 9-2.
then compared to the various failure criteria considered rel- The soil profile used for Set 1 parametric analysis was as-
evant for the type of culvert structure in question. sumed to be a homogeneous deep (100-foot thick) soil de-
posit overlying a rigid base (for example, base rock). The as-
sumed Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio are Em = 3,000
9.6 Parametric and
psi and νm = 0.3, respectively. It is recognized that this is an
Verification Analysis
ideal representation of actual conditions; however, these con-
Section 9.5 presents rational ovaling and racking analysis ditions provide a good basis for making comparison in para-
procedures robust enough to treat various types of buried metric analysis.
conduit structures. Some simple design charts have also been To account for the effects of shallow soil cover, five cases of
developed to facilitate the design process. These design charts varying embedment depths were analyzed for each culvert
116

Table 9-1. Parameters used in the parametric analysis.

Parameters Descriptions
Structure Types FLEXIBLE CULVERTS:
Corrugated Aluminum Pipe
Corrugated Steel Pipe
Corrugated HDPE Pipe
RIGID CULVERTS:
Reinforced Concrete Pipe
Reinforced Concrete Box Type
Burial Depths 5d, 3d, 2d, 1d, 0.5d,
(“d” represents the diameter of a circular pipe or the height of a box concrete
culvert)
Cross Section Circular
Geometry Types Square Box
Rectangular Box
Square 3-sided
Rectangular 3-sided
Diameters of Circular 5 feet (Medium Diameter)
Culverts 10 feet (Large Diameter)
Wall Stiffness of FLEXIBLE CULVERTS:
Circular Culverts 4
I=0.00007256 ft /ft, E= 2.9E+07 psi (Steel)
4
I=0.00001168 ft /ft, E= 1.0E+07 psi (Aluminum)
4
I=0.0005787 ft /ft, E= 1.1E+05 psi (HDPE)
Size Dimensions of 10 feet x 10 feet: Square Box and Square 3-sided
Box Culverts 10 feet x 20 feet: Rectangular Box and Rectangular 3-sided
Wall Stiffness of RIGID CULVERTS:
Box Culverts 4
I=0.025 ft /ft, t=0.67 ft, E= 4.0E+06 psi (Concrete)
4
I=0.2 ft /ft, t=1.33 ft, E= 4.0E+06 psi (Concrete)
Properties of E=3,000 psi (Firm Ground)
Surrounding E=7,500 psi (Very Stiff Ground)
Ground*
Total Unit Weight = 120 psf

* Note: The Young’s Modulus values used in this study are for parametric analysis purposes only.

Table 9-2. Parametric Analysis Set 1—culvert lining properties (Reference Set).

Rigid Culvert Flexible Culvert

Culvert Properties (Concrete Pipe) (Corrugated Steel Pipe)

Culvert Diameter, ft 10 10
2
Young's Modulus, E/(1-v ), used in
2-D Plane Strain Condition, psi 4.0E+06 2.9E+07

0.00007256 ft4/ft
4 4 4
Moment of Inertia I, ft /ft 0.025 ft /ft (=1.505 in /ft)

Sectional Area A, ft2 per ft 0.67 0.02

EI (lb-ft2 per ft) 1.44E+07 3.03E+05

AE (lb per ft) 3.86E+08 8.35E+07

Poisson's Ratio 0.3 0.3

Note: Ground condition (firm ground with Em = 3000 psi, νm = 0.3).

 117

Table 9-3. Analyses performed for variable embedment depths.

Soil Cover Culvert Diameter Embedment Depth

Cases Analyzed H (feet) d (feet) Ratio, H/d

Case 1 50 10 5

Case 2 30 10 3

Case 3 20 10 2

Case 4 10 10 1

Case 5 5 10 0.5

Case 6 2 10 0.2

type (that is, the flexible type and the rigid type). The six cases Results of Analysis—Set 1. Figures 9-19 and 9-20 show
of embedment depths are listed in Table 9-3. examples of culvert lining response in terms of lining
Figures 9-11 through 9-15 show the finite difference meshes thrust/hoop forces and bending moments, respectively. Ex-
(using computer program FLAC) used for the parametric amples presented in Figures 9-19 and 9-20 are for the flexi-
analysis accounting for the variable culvert embedment depths. ble culvert under the Case 1 conditions (that is, with a soil
Figure 9-16 graphically defines the “Embedment Depth cover of 50 feet deep). As indicated, the maximum response
Ratio” cited in Table 9-3. Figure 9-17 shows the culvert lining (that is, the most vulnerable locations) occurs at the knee-
modeled as continuous beam elements in the finite difference, and-shoulder locations around the lining, consistent with
soil-structural interaction analysis. the generally observed damage/damage mechanism for
The entire soil-structure system was subjected to an artifi- buried pipes/culverts (as well as circular tunnels) during
cially applied pseudo-horizontal acceleration of 0.3g (accelera- major earthquakes in the past (refer to the mechanism sketch
tion of gravity), simulating earthquake-induced vertically prop- depicted in Figure 9-2).
agating shear waves. As a result, lateral shear displacement in the Using the lining information presented in Table 9-2 and
soil overburden will occur. A simple, uniform pseudo accelera- the soil properties of the surrounding ground (that is, Em =
tion and a simple, uniform soil profile (with a uniform soil stiff- 3,000 psi, νm = 0.3), the compressibility ratio (C) and flexibil-
ness modulus) were assumed for simplicity and are desirable in ity ratio (F) for the two culverts were calculated using Equa-
parametric analysis. Figure 9-18 presents the resulting lateral tion (9-5) and Equation (9-6), respectively. Their values are
soil displacement profile under lateral acceleration of 0.3g. presented in Table 9-4. The results of the analysis in terms of

Figure 9-11. Case 1 finite difference mesh Figure 9-12. Case 2 finite difference mesh
(soil cover = 50 feet). (soil cover = 30 feet).
118

Figure 9-13. Case 3 finite difference mesh Figure 9-15. Case 5 finite difference mesh
(soil cover = 20 feet). (soil cover = 5 feet).

lining deformations (diameter changes) are presented in about 15 percent to 20 percent. This result is consistent
Tables 9-5 and 9-6. with previous studies as discussed in Section 9.5.1.
From these analyses the following observations were made:
The data contained in Table 9-6 is graphically presented in
• Flexible culverts experience greater deformation than the Figure 9-21. As seen, the flexible culvert deforms significantly
ground deformation in the free-field for both full-slip and more than the free field because its flexibility ratio (F = 22.6)
no-slip cases. is significantly greater than 1.0, suggesting the ground is much
• Rigid culverts experience less deformation than the ground stiffer than the lining. For the rigid culvert with F = 0.482 < 1.0,
deformation in the free-field for both full-slip and no-slip the lining is stiffer than the ground and therefore deforms less
cases. than the free-field.
• The full-slip condition gives more conservative values of Figure 9-22 shows the effects of culvert embedment depth on
lining deflections (∆DEQ) than the nonslip condition by the lining deformations, expressed by the ratios of the lining to
free-field deformation. It can be seen that the ratios of the lin-
ing to free-field deformation remained almost unchanged for
an embedment ratio of 1.0 or greater. When the embedment

Figure 9-14. Case 4 finite difference mesh

(soil cover = 10 feet). Figure 9-16. Definition of embedment depth ratio.
 119

vert than for the flexible culvert. The thrust ratio presented in
Figure 9-23 is defined as the maximum lining thrust obtained
from the finite difference analysis normalized to that derived
using the close-form solutions in Equations (9-11) and (9-12)
(for the no-slip interface condition). As indicated, the theo-
retical close-form solution somewhat overestimates the lining
thrust/hoop forces when the culvert is buried at shallow depth.
For a rigid culvert, the overestimation is no more than 15 per-
cent. For a flexible culvert the overestimation is negligible. The
figure also shows that the effect of embedment is negligible
when the embedment ratio is greater than about 3 or 4.
The embedment effects on bending response are illustrated
in Figure 9-24. Based on the results from the analysis, it ap-
pears that the potential for overestimation of bending de-
mand would occur for rigid types of culvert structures buried
at shallow depths by as much as 30 to 35 percent. Figure 9-24
also suggests that the effects of embedment depth on bending
response are insignificant when the embedment depth ratio
is greater than about 3.
Figure 9-17. Culvert beam element number.
It should be noted that the main reason for the overesti-
mation in thrust and bending forces is that the maximum
ratio is less than 1.0, the ratio of the actual culvert diameter free-field ground shearing strain used in calculating the close-
change to the free-field deformation decreases gradually. form solutions (Equation 9-11 and Equation 9-12) is the
The culvert embedment depth, however, showed some ef- maximum shearing strain that occurs at the culvert invert
fects on the thrust/hoop force and bending response of the (instead of the average free-field shearing strain within the
lining, as indicated in Figures 9-23 and 9-24. The embedment culvert depth). These results suggest that the maximum free-
effect on the thrust response is more obvious for the rigid cul- field ground strain is on the safe side.

Figure 9-18. Soil deformations subjected to pseudo lateral acceleration of 0.3g.

120

Figure 9-19. Culvert lining thrust/hoop force distribution (for flexible culvert in Set 1,
Case 1 geometry).

Figure 9-20. Culvert lining bending moment distribution (for flexible culvert in Set 1,
Case 1 geometry).
 121

Table 9-4. Culvert lining compressibility and flexibility used in analysis.

Rigid Culvert Flexible Culvert

Properties (Concrete Pipe) (Corrugated Steel Pipe)

Compressibility Ratio, C 0.011 0.05

Flexibility Ratio, F 0.482 22.6

Table 9-5. Free-field ground strain and diameter change.

Closed-Form Free-Field Ground

Free-Field Maximum Ground Shear Diameter Change Using Eq. 9-3
Case No. Strain (from FLAC Analysis) ∆D=0.5*D* γmax
(Embedment Ratio) γ max (feet)

Case 1 (H/d=5) 0.0129 0.065

Case 2 (H/d=3) 0.0085 0.043

Case 3 (H/d=2) 0.0064 0.032

Case 4 (H/d=1) 0.004 0.02

Case 5 (H/d=0.5) 0.003 0.015

Case 6 (H/d=0.2) 0.0022 0.011

Note: The maximum free-field ground shearing strain is the maximum shearing strain that could occur within the full depth
of the culvert (that is, from the crown to the invert). In the pseudo-static FLAC analysis, the maximum ground shearing
strains occur at the invert in all cases.

Table 9-6. Culvert diameter change—effect of interface slippage condition.

Culvert Diameter
Culvert Diameter Change (ft) Change (ft) for No-Slip
Case No. for Full-Slip Interface Using Interface Using FLAC Diameter Change Ratio
(Embedment Ratio) Eq. 9-7 Analysis for No-Slip to Full-Slip

For Flexible Culvert

Case 1 (H/d=5) 0.169 0.129 0.77

Case 2 (H/d=3) 0.111 0.082 0.74

Case 3 (H/d=2) 0.084 0.059 0.70

Case 4 (H/d=1) 0.052 0.036 0.68

Case 5 (H/d=0.5) 0.039 0.024 0.62

Case 6 (H/d=0.2) 0.029 0.018 0.62

For Rigid Culvert

Case 1 (H/d=5) 0.042 0.034 0.80

Case 2 (H/d=3) 0.028 0.021 0.77

Case 3 (H/d=2) 0.021 0.015 0.72

Case 4 (H/d=1) 0.013 0.009 0.67

Case 5 (H/d=0.5) 0.010 0.006 0.57

Case 6 (H/d=0.2) 0.007 0.004 0.51

122

Figure 9-21. Culvert deformations versus free-field

deformations.
Figure 9-23. Embedment effects on culvert maximum
thrust/hoop forces.
Additional Parametric Analysis and Results. Additional
parametric analyses included (1) different circular culvert/
pipe sizes; (2) different culvert/pipe material, such as corru- rigid culvert. Similarly for the flexible culvert, C and F were
gated aluminum and HDPE pipes; (3) different soil stiffness; reduced from 0.05 to 0.025 and from 22.6 to 2.856, respec-
(4) square and rectangular shape culverts (constructed with tively (see Table 9-7).
reinforced concrete; (5) 3-sided flat roof rectangular concrete
culverts; and (6) different culvert/pipe wall stiffness. These Results of Analyses—Set 2. Figures 9-25 through 9-27
additional analyses were used to further verify that with some present the results of FLAC analysis. Compared to results
modifications, the close-form solutions developed for deep from Set 1 analysis (refer to Figures 9-22 through 9-24), the
circular bored tunnels and rectangular cut-and-cover tunnels Set 2 results indicated that:
(refer to Section 9.5) also can be used for circular and rectan-
gular culvert structures. • The ratios of the actual culvert deformation to free-field
ground deformation were significantly reduced, reflecting
9.6.2.2 Parametric Analysis—Set 2 the effect of higher culvert lining stiffness because of the re-
Model Assumptions—Set 2. Assumptions and parame-
duced culvert diameter.
• The bending and thrust force response of the smaller
ters used in parametric analysis Set 2 are the same as those
used in Set 1 (the Reference Case) except (1) the culvert di- 5-foot diameter culvert, when normalized to the close-
ameter was reduced from 10 feet to 5 feet; (2) the total soil form solutions, show similar trends to that of the larger
profile depth has been reduced from 100 feet to 50 feet; and culvert (10-foot diameter). Based on results in Figure 9-26,
(3) the culvert embedment depth was halved in each respec- when the burial depth is small, the close-form solutions
tive case to maintain the same embedment ratio (H/d). Be- (using the conservative maximum free-field ground strain
cause of this reduction in culvert size the resulting compress- value at the culvert invert elevation) tend to overestimate
ibility ratio (C) was reduced from 0.011 to 0.005 and the the thrust response by up to about 20 percent for the flex-
flexibility ratio (F) was reduced from 0.482 to 0.061 for the ible culvert. For the rigid culvert the overestimation is
greater than about 30 percent at very shallow burial depth.

Figure 9-22. Ratios of culvert deformations versus Figure 9-24. Embedment effects on culvert maximum
free-field deformations. bending moments.
 123

Table 9-7. Parametric analysis set 2—culvert lining properties.

Rigid Culvert Flexible Culvert

Culvert Properties (Concrete Pipe) (Corrugated Steel Pipe)

Culvert Diameter, ft 5 5
2
Young's Modulus, E/(1-v ), psi 4.0E+06 2.9E+07
4
Moment of Inertia, ft /ft 0.025 0.00007256
2
Sectional Area, ft per ft 0.67 0.02
2
EI (lb-ft per ft) 1.44E+07 3.03E+05

AE (lb, per ft) 3.86E+08 8.35E+07

Poisson's Ratio 0.3 0.3

Compressibility, C 0.005 0.025

Flexibility Ratio, F 0.061 2.856

Note: Ground condition (firm ground with Em = 3000 psi, νm = 0.3).

The effect of shallow embedment depth on bending shows This suggests that the analytical methodology and procedure
similar trends to the thrust response (refer to Figure 9-27). previously presented in Section 9.5 provide a robust ap-
proach to accounting for the soil-structure interaction effect
9.6.2.3 Parametric Analysis—Set 3 in evaluating the seismic behavior of culverts with varying
characteristics.
Model Assumptions—Set 3. In this set of analyses the as-
sumptions and parameters are the same as those used in Set
1 (the Reference Case) except (1) the flexible culvert was
changed from corrugated steel pipe to corrugated aluminum
pipe (with lower bending and compression stiffness com-
pared to the steel pipe); and (2) the rigid concrete pipe was
made even more rigid by increasing its wall thickness from
0.67 feet to 1.33 feet. The resulting compressibility ratio and
flexibility ratio, along with other lining properties are pre-
sented in Table 9-8.

Results of Analyses—Set 3. Results from the analysis are

shown in Figures 9-28 through 9-30. As indicated, the results
are following the same trend as shown in results from Sets 1
and 2 analysis, even though a much more flexible culvert and Figure 9-26. Embedment effects on culvert maximum
a much more rigid culvert were used in this set of analysis. thrust/hoop forces (parametric analysis—Set 2).

Figure 9-25. Ratios of culvert deformations versus Figure 9-27. Embedment effects on culvert maximum
free-field deformations (parametric analysis—Set 2). bending moments (parametric analysis—Set 2).
124

Table 9-8. Parametric analysis set 3—culvert lining properties.

Rigid Culvert Flexible Culvert

Culvert Properties (Concrete Pipe) Aluminum CMP

Culvert Diameter, ft 10 10
2
Young's Modulus, E/(1-v ), psi 4.0E+06 1.0E+07
4
Moment of Inertia, ft /ft 0.2 0.00001168
2
Sectional Area, ft per ft 1.333 0.01125
2
EI (lb-ft per ft) 1.152E+08 1.682E+04

AE (lb, per ft) 7.678E+08 1.62E+07

Poisson's Ratio 0.3 0.3

Compressibility, C 0.005 0.256

Flexibility Ratio, F 0.060 411.7

Note: Ground condition (firm ground with Em = 3,000 psi, νm = 0.3).

9.6.2.4 Parametric Analysis—Set 4 meric conduits are being used with increasing frequency,
and polymers, especially high density polyethylene, are
Model Assumptions—Set 4. Only one type of lining was
likely to be the material of choice for many drainage appli-
analyzed in this set of analysis. The lining modeled in this
cations in the future. The typical properties of the HDPE
analysis is a 5-foot diameter corrugated HDPE pipe. The
material are presented in Table 9-9. Young’s modulus of
reason for selecting HDPE in this analysis is because poly-
110,000 psi is appropriate for short term loading effects on
HDPE pipe. Poisson’s ratio of HDPE pipe is estimated to be
about 0.45.

Results of Analyses—Set 4. Figures 9-31 through 9-33

present the results of the HDPE culvert analysis. As indi-
cated, the seismic behavior of the HDPE pipe also can be
predicted reasonably well using the analytical procedure
presented in Section 9-5. Like in other cases, if necessary,
some adjustments may be made to correct the overestima-
tion of thrust forces and bending moments when the pipe is
buried at a very shallow depth. For conservative design pur-
poses, however, it is recommended that no force reduction
be made.
Figure 9-28. Ratios of culvert deformations versus
free-field deformations (parametric analysis—Set 3).

Figure 9-29. Embedment effects on culvert maximum Figure 9-30. Embedment effects on culvert maximum
thrust/hoop forces (parametric analysis—Set 3). bending moments (parametric analysis—Set 3).
 125

Table 9-9. Parametric analysis set 4—culvert lining properties.

Flexible Culvert
Culvert Properties (Corrugated HDPE)

Culvert Diameter, ft 5
2
Young's Modulus, E/(1-v ), psi 1.1E+05
4
Moment of Inertia, ft per ft 0.0005787
2
Sectional Area, ft per ft 0.0448
2
EI (lb-ft per ft) 9.17E+03

AE (lb, per ft) 7.10E+05

Poisson's Ratio 0.45

Compressibility, C 2.927

Flexibility Ratio, F 94.424

Note: Ground condition (firm ground with Em = 3,000 psi, νm = 0.3).

9.6.2.5 Parametric Analysis—Set 5 and 9-10). However, the soil stiffness has been increased from
Em =3,000 psi (firm ground) to Em = 7,500 psi (very stiff ground).
Model Assumptions—Set 5. In this set of parametric
The entire soil profile was assumed to be homogeneous. The
analysis, the culvert lining properties used are identical to
soil overburden thickness (100-foot thick) and other condi-
those assumed in Set 1 (the Reference Case, refer to Tables 9-2
tions are the same as those in Set 1.

Results of Analyses—Set 5. The calculated compressibil-

ity and flexibility ratios also are included in Table 9-10. Be-
cause of the increased ground stiffness, the flexibility ratio for
the rigid culvert was computed to be 1.217, slightly greater
than 1.0. This suggests that the ovaling stiffness of the ground
is only slightly greater than the ovaling stiffness of the rigid
culvert. Based on the discussions presented in Section 9-4,
when the flexibility ratio is close to 1.0, the ovaling deforma-
tion of the lining should be about the same as that of the sur-
rounding ground.
Results from the FLAC analysis in Figure 9-34 show that
for the rigid culvert the ratio of the culvert deformation to the
Figure 9-31. Ratios of culvert deformations versus ground deformation is very close to 1.0, verifying the validity
free-field deformations (parametric analysis—Set 4).

Figure 9-32. Embedment effects on culvert maximum Figure 9-33. Embedment effects on culvert maximum
thrust/hoop forces (parametric analysis—Set 4). bending moments (parametric analysis—Set 4).
126

Table 9-10. Parametric analysis set 5—very stiff ground condition.

Rigid Culvert Flexible Culvert

Culvert Properties (Concrete Pipe) (Corrugated Steel Pipe)

Culvert Diameter, ft 10 10
2
Young's Modulus, E/(1-v ), psi 4.0E+06 2.9E+07
4
Moment of Inertia, ft /ft 0.025 0.00007256
2
Sectional Area, ft per ft 0.67 0.02
2
EI (lb-ft per ft) 1.44E+07 3.03E+05

AE (lb, per ft) 3.86E+08 8.35E+07

Poisson's Ratio 0.3 0.3

Compressibility, C 0.027 0.127

Flexibility Ratio, F 1.217 57.122

Note: ground condition (very stiff ground with Em = 7,500 psi, νm = 0.3).

of the analytical solutions discussed in Section 9-4. Figures 9-35 • Young’s Modulus, E/(1 − ν2) = 4.0E+06 psi
and 9-36 display similar results (normalized thrust forces and • Poisson’s Ratio, ν = 0.3
bending moments) presented in other parametric analysis cases • Thickness, t = 0.67 ft
even though the ground stiffness was significantly changed • Moment of Inertia, I = 0.025 ft4/ft
(from Em = 3,000 psi to Em = 7,500 psi).
Five sets of parametric analyses have been performed con-
sidering the following combinations of variables: (1) culvert
9.6.2.6 Parametric Analysis—Set 6
sizes; (2) culvert sectional configurations; (3) soil stiffness;
Model Assumptions—Set 6. The parametric analyses dis- and (4) culvert burial depths. Table 9-11 below summarize
cussed thus far focused on the ovaling behavior of culverts. In specific parameters used in each case of analysis.
this section, a series of parametric analysis is performed for the The main purpose of this parametric analysis is to verify
rectangular and square shaped culverts. These culverts are as- that the rectangular flexibility ratio (Frec) developed in Equa-
sumed to be constructed with reinforced concrete. The sizes tion (9-14), Frec = (Gm / Ks) p (w/h), is a proper representa-
and geometry of these concrete box culverts are graphically tion of the relative stiffness between the culvert’s racking
presented in Figure 9-37. stiffness and the ground’s racking stiffness. By using Frec, it
The concrete lining was modeled as continuous beam ele- is possible to accurately estimate the actual racking defor-
ments in the finite difference, soil-structural interaction mation of the culvert as long as the free-field ground defor-
analysis having the following properties: mation (∆free-field) is known.

Figure 9-34. Ratios of culvert deformations versus Figure 9-35. Embedment effects on culvert maximum
free-field deformations (parametric analysis—Set 5). thrust/hoop forces (parametric analysis—Set 5).
 127

analysis. In this FLAC analysis, the culvert structure is in-

cluded in the soil deposit model and subject to the same
pseudo-horizontal acceleration used in the free-field
FLAC analysis mentioned in Step 1 above. Note that since
∆s is related to ∆free-field directly through Rrec, the racking
ratio, the comparison therefore also can be made between
the manually calculated Rrec = [2Frec/(1+Frec)], and Rrec
computed from the FLAC analysis.
4. If the manually estimated racking deformations (or the
Rrec values) are comparable to those computed by the soil-
structure interaction FLAC analysis, then the simplified
procedure developed in Section 9.5.2 can be considered to
Figure 9-36. Embedment effects on culvert maximum be validated.
bending moments (parametric analysis—Set 5).
Results of Analyses—Set 6. Based on the results from
the FLAC analysis (from both the free-field analysis run
The verification procedure is:
and the soil-structure interaction analysis run), the free-
field racking deformations and the actual culvert racking
1. Determine the free-field racking deformation of the
deformations were obtained. Ratios of the culvert to free-
ground (∆free-field). This was achieved in this analysis by ap-
plying a pseudo-horizontal acceleration in the entire free- field racking deformations are plotted for all five cases (for
field soil deposit in the FLAC analysis. Note that at this five different burial depths in each case) in Figures 9-38
time the FLAC model is a free-field soil deposit model that through 9-42. Based on the data presented in these figures,
does not contain the culvert structure in it. The resulting it appears that burial depth does not have significant influ-
free-field racking deformations then can be directly read ence on the racking deformation ratio for the rectangular
out from the output of the FLAC analysis. type of rigid culverts.
2. Given ∆free-field, the racking deformation of the culvert can In the meantime, the structural racking stiffness (Ks) of the
be manually estimated by using the simple relationship culvert structure in each case was determined by a simple frame
presented in Equation (9-16), ∆s = Rrec p ∆free-field. analysis based on the properties of the culvert structure; the re-
3. The manually estimated racking deformation derived sults are presented in Table 9-12. Then the rectangular flexibil-
above then is compared to the actual racking deformation ity ratio (Frec) was calculated using Equation (9-14), and results
of the culvert from the soil-structure interaction FLAC also presented in Table 9-12 for each case.

Figure 9-37. Various concrete box culvert sectional shapes and sizes used in
the parametric analysis—Set 6.
128

Table 9-11. Soil and structure parameters used in the analysis.

Structural Configurations and Soil Properties

Case 1 10’ x 10’ Square Box, in Firm Ground (E m = 3,000 psi, ν m = 0.3)

Case 2 10’ x 10’ Square Box, in Very Stiff Ground (Em = 7,500 psi, ν m = 0.3)

Case 3 10’ x 20’ Rectangular Box, in Firm Ground (Em = 3,000 psi, ν m = 0.3)

Case 4 10’ x 10’ Square 3-Sided, in Very Stiff Ground (Em = 7,500 psi, ν m = 0.3)

Case 5 10’ x 20’ Rectangular 3-Sided, in Very Stiff Ground (Em = 7,500 psi, ν m = 0.3)

Note: For each case, the effects of culvert embedment depth (of 50 feet, 30 feet, 20 feet, 10 feet, and 5 feet, measured from
ground surface to top of the culvert roof) were studied.

The results show that for Case 1 the relative racking stiff- derived in Section 9-5. For Cases 2 through 5, the flexibility
ness of the ground to the structure is about 1.0, suggesting ratios are all greater than 1.0, suggesting that the structure
that the structure would rack in conformance with the free- would deform more than the ground in the free-field, and re-
field racking deformation in the ground. The results pre- sults shown in Figures 9-39 through 9-42 support this theory.
sented in Figure 9-38 show clearly that the FLAC calculated Figure 9-43 plots the racking ratio as a function of the flex-
racking deformations are about the same as the free-field de- ibility ratio based on the results obtained from the FLAC
formations, validating the definition of flexibility ratio (Frec) analysis and then compares them with the recommended

Figure 9-38. Racking ratios from FLAC analysis— Figure 9-40. Racking ratios from FLAC analysis—
Case 1. Case 3.

Figure 9-39. Racking ratios from FLAC analysis— Figure 9-41. Racking ratios from FLAC analysis—
Case 2. Case 4.
 129

Figure 9-43. Recommended design racking curve.

Figure 9-42. Racking ratios from FLAC analysis—
Case 5. • For circular culverts and pipes subject to ovaling deforma-
tions, the simplified close-form solutions and procedure
design curve expressed by Equation (9-15), Rrec = [2Frec/ presented in Section 9.5.1 should provide reliable results
(1+Frec)]. The comparison shows reasonably good agreement under general conditions, with the following notes:
between the recommended simple design solution charts and – In selecting the design transient ground deformation pa-
the results obtained from the numerical analyses. rameter for a culvert or pipe constructed at a signifi-
cant depth below the ground surface, PGV is a better
parameter in the deformation-based procedure than the
9.7 Conclusions and
site-adjusted PGA, because PGV can be used directly
Recommendations
for estimating the shearing strain in the ground (Equa-
Simplified seismic analysis procedures for evaluating culvert tion 9-1). Discussions and recommendations on PGV
and pipe structures subjected to transient ground deforma- values developed in Chapter 5 for retaining walls, slopes,
tions induced by ground shaking proposed in this chapter. The and embankment should be used in evaluating the maxi-
analysis procedures use a deformation-based methodology mum free-field shearing strain in Equation (9-1). For cul-
that can provide a more reliable prediction of culvert/pipe per- verts and pipes buried at relatively shallow depths (that is,
formance. The approach focuses on the deformations in the within 50 feet of the ground surface), it is more reasonable
transverse section of the structure (that is, ovaling/racking de- to estimate the free-field shearing strain in the ground
formations) instead of the longitudinal axial/curvature defor- using the earthquake-induced shearing stress divided by
mations, due primarily to the general condition that typical the stiffness of the surrounding ground (Equation 9-2).
culvert structures for transportation applications are of limited – If a more accurate prediction of the maximum free-field
length, and as such it is in general unlikely to develop signifi- shearing strain is required, a more refined free-field site
cant transient axial/curvature deformations along the longitu- response analysis (for example, using the SHAKE com-
dinal direction of the culvert structures. puter program) should be performed.
Based on the results of a series of parametric soil-structure – In using the simplified approach, the no-slip interface
interaction analysis taking various factors into considera- assumption should be used in calculating the maximum
tion, the following conclusions and recommendations are thrust/hoop forces (Tmax based on Equation 9-11) in the
provided: culvert structure for conservative purposes. Results based

Table 9-12. Racking stiffness of culverts and flexibility ratios.

Structural Racking Stiffness Flexibility Ratio

KS (kips/ft) FREC

Case 1 172 0.97

Case 2 172 2.4

Case 3 115 2.9

Case 4 57 7.3

Case 5 43 19.3
130

on the full-slip assumption tend to under-estimate the • For rectangular shape culverts subject to racking deforma-
thrust/hoop forces. tions, the simplified procedure presented in Section 9.5.2
– In using the simplified approach, the full-slip interface should provide reliable results under general conditions,
assumption should be used in calculating the maximum with the following notes:
bending moments (Mmax, based on Equation 9-10) and – A series of parametric analysis was conducted verifying
culvert deformation (∆DEQ, based on Equation 9-7) that the procedure can provide a reasonable estimate for
because it provides more conservative results than the the culvert racking deformations. To derive the internal
no-slip interface assumption. A flexural type failure forces in the structural elements, a simple frame analy-
mode due to the combined effects of bending moment sis is all that is required (refer to Figure 9-10).
and thrust force must be checked for both rigid and – Based on the results of the parametric analysis, it ap-
flexible culverts. The flexural failure criteria may be pears that burial depth has insignificant effects on the
established using the conventional capacity evaluation culvert racking deformations and therefore no further
procedures for reinforced concrete or metals. modifications to the procedure presented in Section
Based on results from the soil-structure interaction 9.5.2 is necessary.
analysis, the effect of shallow burial depth appears to be • The seismic effects of transient racking/ovaling deforma-
on the safe side, provided that the maximum free-field tions on culverts and pipes must be considered additional
ground shearing strain is calculated at the most critical to the normal load effects from surcharge, pavement, and
elevation (where the maximum ground shearing strain wheel loads, and then compared to the various failure cri-
occurs, rather than the average ground shearing strain teria considered relevant for the type of culvert structure
within the culvert depth profile). in question.