Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering

, Volume 17, Issue 11, pp 5963–5985 | Cite as

Seismic response and damage of underground subway station in a slightly sloping liquefiable site

  • Su Chen
  • Xu Wang
  • Haiyang ZhuangEmail author
  • Changjie Xu
  • Kai Zhao
Original Research


Sand liquefaction-induced lateral flow has caused the destruction of a large number of buildings. In this work, an overall time-history numerical simulation is conducted to study the nonlinear dynamic interaction of soil with an underground structure buried in a slightly sloping liquefied foundation. Firstly, the consistency between the numerical simulation and model test results is verified. Then, the influence law of the ground inclination angle on the liquefaction distribution of the foundation around an underground structure reveals that the soil liquefaction at the lateral side of the underground structure is alleviated but is aggravated severely in the soils under the subway station. Additionally, the dynamic uplifting behavior and the seismic damage of the underground structure are different from those in a horizontally layered liquefied foundation. The rotation response and asymmetrical seismic damage of an underground structure in a slightly sloping liquefied foundation need attention.


Underground structure Sand liquefaction Slightly sloping ground Ground lateral movement Numerical simulation Shaking table test 



The authors are grateful for the research funding provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC, Grant Nos. 51778290, 51878266), Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (NSFJ, Grant No. 16KJA560001), and National Science Fund for Distinguished Young Scholars (NSFDYS, Grant No. 51725802). All statements, results, and conclusions are those of the researchers and do not necessarily reflect the views of these foundations. The authors would also like to sincerely thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions.


  1. Abuhajar O, El Naggar H, Newson T (2015) Experimental and numerical investigations of the effect of buried box culverts on earthquake excitation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 79:130–148Google Scholar
  2. Bartlett SF, Youd TL (1992) Empirical analysis of horizontal ground displacement generated by liquefaction-induced lateral spread. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research Technical Report, NCEER-92-0021Google Scholar
  3. Byrne PM, Jitno H (1992) Earthquake induced displacement of soil-structures systems. In: Proceedings, 10th world conference on earthquake engineering, Madrid, Spain, pp 1407–1412Google Scholar
  4. Cao Z, Hou LQ, Yuan XM, Sun R et al (2010) Characteristics of liquefaction-induced damages during Wenchuan Ms 8.0 earthquake. Rock Soil Mech 31(11):3549–3555 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  5. Chang D, Boulanger R, Brandenberg S et al (2013) FEM analysis of dynamic soil-pile-structure interaction in liquefied and laterally spreading ground. Earthq Spectra 29(3):733–755Google Scholar
  6. Chen GX, Wang ZH, Zuo X et al (2013) Shaking table test on the seismic failure characteristics of a subway station structure on liquefiable ground. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 42(10):1489–1507Google Scholar
  7. Cilingir U, Madabhushi SPG (2011) A model study on the effects of input motion on the seismic behavior of tunnels. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31:452–462Google Scholar
  8. Dobry R, Thevanayagam S, Medina C et al (2011) Mechanics of lateral spreading observed in a full-scale shake test. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 137(2):115–129Google Scholar
  9. Du XL, Wang G, Lu DC (2016) Earthquake damage mechanism analysis of Dakai Metro station by Kobe earthquake. Chin J Disaster Prevent Mitig Eng 2:165–171Google Scholar
  10. Elgamal A, Yang ZH, Ender P (2002) Properties of a phase-conjugate etalon mirror and its application to laser resonator spatial-mode control. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22(4):259–271Google Scholar
  11. Finn WDL, Dowling J, Ventura CE (2016) Evaluating liquefaction potential and lateral spreading in a probabilistic ground motion environment. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 91:202–208Google Scholar
  12. Goh ATC, Zhang WG (2014) An improvement to MLR model for predicting liquefaction-induced lateral spread using multivariate adaptive regression splines. Eng Geol 170(3):1–10Google Scholar
  13. Hamada M, Towhata I, Yasuda S, Isoyama R (1987) Study of permanent ground displacement induced by seismic liquefaction. Comput Geotech 4(4):197–220Google Scholar
  14. Hirt CW, Cook JL, Butler TD (1970) A lagrangian method for calculating the dynamics of an incompressible fluid with free surface. J Comput Phys 5(1):103–124Google Scholar
  15. Howell R, Rathje EM, Boulanger RW (2015) Evaluation of simulation models of lateral spread sites treated with prefabricated vertical drains. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 141(1):04014076Google Scholar
  16. Jeeho L, Fenves GL (1998) Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures. J Eng Mech 124(8):892–900Google Scholar
  17. Jin L, Yu WX, Du XL, Zhang S, Li D (2019) Meso-scale modelling of the size effect on dynamic compressive failure of concrete under different strain rates. Int J Impact Eng 125:1–12Google Scholar
  18. Kjellgren P, Hyvärinen J (1998) An arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian finite element method. Comput Mech 21(1):81–90Google Scholar
  19. Li G, Motamed R (2017) Finite element modeling of soil-pile response subjected to liquefaction-induced lateral spreading in a large-scale shake table experiment. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 92:573–584Google Scholar
  20. Liao ZP (1996) Introduction to wave motion theories in engineering. High Education Press, Beijing (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  21. Liu JB, Li B (2005) A three dimensional visco-elastic uniform artificial boundary for static and dynamic together. Scientia Sinica (Technologica) 35(9):966–980Google Scholar
  22. Liu Y, Xie JF (1984) Soil vibration liquefaction. Seismological Press, Beijing (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  23. Lou ML, Wang WJ, Zhu T (2000) Soil lateral boundary effect in shaking table model test of soil–structure system. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 20(2):30–36 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  24. Montgomery J, Boulanger RW (2016) Effects of spatial variability on liquefaction-induced settlement and lateral spreading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 143(1):04016086Google Scholar
  25. Newmark NM (1965) Effects of earthquakes on dams and embankments. Geotechnique 15(2):139–160Google Scholar
  26. Parra-Colmenares EJ (1996) Numerical modeling of liquefaction and lateral ground deformation including cyclic mobility and dilation response in soil systems. Thesis for Ph.D, Rensselaer Polytechnic InstituteGoogle Scholar
  27. Pitilakis K, Tsinidis G (2014) Performance and seismic design of underground structures. In: Earthquake geotechnical engineering design. Springer International Publishing, pp 279–340Google Scholar
  28. Takashi N, Hughes TJR (1992) An arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian finite element method for interaction of fluid and a rigid body. Comput Methods Appl Mech Eng 95(1):115–138Google Scholar
  29. Tsinidis G (2017) Response characteristics of rectangular tunnels in soft soil subjected to transversal ground shaking. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 62:1–22Google Scholar
  30. Tsinidis G, Pitilakis K, Madabhushi G (2016) On the dynamic response of square tunnels in sand. Eng Struct 125:419–437Google Scholar
  31. Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center (2011) Post earthquake reconnaissance report on transportation infrastructure impact of the February 27, 2010, offshore Maule Earthquake in Chile. Publication No. FHWA-HRT-11-030Google Scholar
  32. Yang ZH, Elgamal A (2002) Influence of permeability on liquefaction-induced shear deformation. J Eng Mech 128(7):720–729Google Scholar
  33. Yang J, Sze HY (2011) Cyclic strength of sand under sustained shear stress. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 137(12):1275–1285Google Scholar
  34. Yasuda S, Nagase H, Kiku H et al (1992) The mechanism and a simplified procedure for the analysis of permanent ground displacement due to liquefaction. Soils Found 32(1):149–160Google Scholar
  35. Ye JH, Wang G (2015) Seismic dynamics of offshore breakwater on liquefiable seabed foundation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 76:86–99Google Scholar
  36. Ye JH, Huang D, Wang G (2016) Nonlinear simulation of offshore breakwater on sloping liquefied seabed. Bull Eng Geol Environ 75:1215–1225Google Scholar
  37. Yu HT, Yan X, Bobet A, Yuan Y, Xu GP, Su QK (2018) Multi-point shaking table test of a long tunnel subjected to non-uniform seismic loadings. Bull Earthq Eng 16(2):1041–1059Google Scholar
  38. Zhang SF, Wang HB, Yang HC (2008) Equivalent viscous boundary elements and the method of wave input for viscous boundary. J Hydraul Eng 39(10):1248–1255 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  39. Zhuang HY, Chen GX (2009) Improvement of dynamic viscoplastic memorial nested yield surface model of soil. Rock Soil Mech 30(1):118–122 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  40. Zhuang HY, Hu ZH, Wang XJ et al (2015) Seismic responses of a large underground structure in liquefied soils by FEM numerical modelling. Bull Earthq Eng 13(12):3645–3668Google Scholar
  41. Zhuang HY, Chen GX, Hu ZH et al (2016) Influence of soil liquefaction on the seismic response of a subway station in model tests. Bull Eng Geol Environ 75(3):1169–1182Google Scholar
  42. Zhuang HY, Wang R, Chen GX et al (2018) Shear modulus reduction of saturated sand under large liquefaction-induced deformation in cyclic torsional shear tests. Eng Geol 240:110–122Google Scholar
  43. Zhuang HY, Wang X, Miao Y et al (2019) Seismic responses of a subway station and tunnel in a slightly inclined liquefiable ground through shaking table test. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 116:371–385Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Geophysics, China Earthquake AdministrationBeijingChina
  2. 2.Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Nanjing Tech UniversityNanjingChina
  3. 3.School of Civil Engineering and ArchitectureEast China Jiaotong UniversityNanchangChina

Personalised recommendations