Advertisement

Geotechnical and Geological Engineering

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 43–60 | Cite as

Dynamic Responses of Bridge–Tunnel Overlapping Structure for High-Speed Railway Under Different Seismic Excitations

  • Guangchen SunEmail author
  • Jiayou Xie
  • Shan He
  • Helin Fu
  • Xueliang Jiang
  • Liang Zheng
Original Paper
  • 58 Downloads

Abstract

There are many bridges and tunnels been built overlapping or close to each other during railway constructions in west or south China recent years. For bridge–tunnel overlapping structures on high-speed railway, serious damage or even complete destruction could be caused when powerful earthquake occurred in complex topography or poor geological areas. However, there is still little research yet on this kind of complex system taking interactions of bridge–tunnel–rock into account, especially for seismic damage or dynamic response mechanism. For purposes of dynamic response analysis and reasonable anti-seismic measures for complex bridge–tunnel overlapping structures, large scale shaking table model tests have been carried out. In shaking table model test, EL-Centro wave (EL) and the Wenchuan wave (WC) were adopted as loading wave in X, Y, Z-direction (perpendicular to the tunnel axis, horizontal along the tunnel axis, and vertical). Test results demonstrated significant differences existing on dynamic responses or variation laws especially in different seismic excitation cases, and fateful consequences could be caused. It also indicated that several sensitive and fragile parts (e.g., the arch vault and arch foot at enlarged section of the tunnel, at the end of the beam and the top of the abutment inside the tunnel portal, and the soil above the tunnel roof etc.) should be strengthened or required special treatment for structural security or overall stability. Simultaneously, seismic excitation combination analysis is important for such overlapping structures in weak surrounding rocks or soils. And the influence caused by the tunnel longitudinal direction should not be ignored for seismic response analysis for such structures. Bidirectional or multi-directional seismic excitation method is proposed for the rationality and accuracy on seismic tests or anti-seismic analysis for same or similar structures.

Keywords

High-speed railway Bridge–tunnel overlapping structure Shaking table Seismic excitation direction EL-Centro wave Dynamic response 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 51408617, 51578550 and 51204215), the Postdoctoral research foundation of Central South University (No. 169720), and the Scientific Research Fund of Central South University of Forestry and Technology for introduction of high-level talents (No. 1040331).

References

  1. Chen GX, Zhuang HY, Cheng SG, Du XL et al (2006) A large scale shaking table test for dynamic soil-metro tunnel interaction: test scheme. J Earthq Eng Vib 26(6):178–183Google Scholar
  2. Chen ZY, Shi C, Li TB (2016) Damage characteristics and influence factors of mountain tunnels under strong earthquakes. Nat Hazards 61(2):387–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cheng XS, Feng H, Qi SR et al (2017) Dynamic response of curved wall LTSLS under the interaction of rainwater seepage and earthquake. Geotech Geol Eng 35:903–914CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coelho BZ, Hicks MA (2016) Numerical analysis of railway transition zones in soft soil. Proc Inst Mech Eng Part F J Rail Rapid Transit 230(6):1601–1613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fan LC, Nie LY, Li JZ (2003) Discussion on standard of critical angle of seismic wave in seismic analysis of complicated structures. J Tongji Univ 31(6):631–636 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  6. George DH, Dimitri EB (2010) Soil–structure interaction effects on seismic inelastic analysis of 3-D tunnels. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30:851–861CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hou S, Tao LJ, Zhao X, Qiu WG et al (2016) Shaking table test for dynamic response in portal section of mountain tunnel based on different vibration directions. J Cent South Univ (Sci Technol) 47(3):994–1001 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  8. Huang J, Yuan TY, Peng LM et al (2015) Model test on dynamic characteristics of invert and foundation soils of high-speed railway tunnel. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 14(3):549–559CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Iai S (1989) Similitude for shaking table tests on soil–structure fluid model in 1-g gravitational field. Soils Found 29(1):105–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kontoe S, Zdravkovic L, Potts DM et al (2008) Case study on seismic tunnel response. Can Geotech J 45:1743–1764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kyriazis P, Grigorios T et al (2014) Seismic behaviour of circular tunnels accounting for above ground structures interaction effects. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 67:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lee TH, Park D et al (2016) Damage analysis of cut-and-cover tunnel structures under seismic loading. Bull Earthq Eng 14(2):413–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Luo Q (2003) Dynamic performance analyses and experiment study on bridge/approach embankment of high-speed railway. Ph.D. thesis, Southwest Jiaotong Univ., Chengdu, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  14. Meymand PJ (1998) Shaking table scale model tests of nonlinear soil-pile-super structure interaction in soft clay. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  15. Nishant R, Rajib S (2017) A review of seismic damage of mountain tunnels and probable failure mechanisms. Geotech Geol Eng 35:1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Song ZX, Ding HP (2013) Effect of earth wave vibration direction on seismic responses of arch dam under bidirectional earthquake wave input. J Earthq Eng Vib 33(3):64–70Google Scholar
  17. Sun TC, Yue ZR, Gao B et al (2011) Model test study on the dynamic response of the portal section of two parallel tunnels in a seismically active area. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 26(2):391–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sun GC, He S, Fu HL (2015) Deterioration mechanism and influence factors of multiple-source damages on bridge and tunnel adjacent section in weak surrounding rocks. Electron J Geotech Eng 20:11909–11922Google Scholar
  19. Taghavi A, Patil A, Davidson M (2017) Design-oriented seismic soil-pile-superstructure interaction analysis using a dynamic p-y method. Bridge Struct 13(2–3):57–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tatsuo O, Abdolrahim J (1999) Fundamental study on near-field effects on earthquake response of arch dams. Earthq Eng Eng Seismol 1(1):1–11Google Scholar
  21. The National Standards Compilation Group of People’s Republic of China (2009) GB50011-2006 Code for seismic design of railway engineering. China Planning PressGoogle Scholar
  22. Wang SP (2004) Model test study on tunnel within cracked surrounding rock. Ph.D. thesis, Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  23. Wang WL, Wang TT, Su JJ et al (2001) Assessment of damage in mountain tunnels due to the Taiwan Chi-Chi earthquake. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 16(3):133–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wang FF, Jiang XL, Niu JY (2017) The large-scale shaking table model test of the shallow-bias tunnel with a small clear distance. Geotech Geol Eng 35:1093–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Xia CY, Lei JQ, Zhang N et al (2012) Dynamic analysis of a coupled high-speed train and bridge system subjected to collision load. J Sound Vib 331(10):2334–2347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Xu QY, Chen XP, Yan B et al (2015) Study on vibration reduction slab track and adjacent transition section in high-speed railway tunnel. J Vibroeng 17(2):905–916Google Scholar
  27. Xu H, Li TB, Xia L et al (2016) Shaking table tests on seismic measures of a model mountain tunnel. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 60:197–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Yan X, Yuan JY, Yu HT et al (2016) Multi-point shaking table test design for long tunnels under non-uniform seismic loading. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 59:114–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yashiro K, Kojima Y, Fukazawa N et al (2013) Studies on seismic damage mechanism of mountain tunnels in poor geological conditions. In: World tunnel congress/39th general assembly of the international-tunnelling-and-underground-space-association, May 31–June 7 2013. Swiss Tunnelling Soc, Geneva, Switzerland, pp 1079–1086Google Scholar
  30. Ye HL, Zheng YR, Du XL, Li AH (2012) Shaking table model test and numerical analysis on dynamic failure characteristics of slope. China Civ Eng J 45(9):128–135 (in Chinese) Google Scholar
  31. Yu HT, Chen JT, Yuan Y et al (2016a) Seismic damage of mountain tunnels during the 5.12 Wenchuan earthquake. J Mt Sci Engl 13(11):1958–1972CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yu HT, Chen JT, Bobet A et al (2016b) Damage observation and assessment of the Longxi tunnel during the Wenchuan earthquake. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 54:102–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Civil EngineeringCentral South University of Forestry and TechnologyChangshaChina
  2. 2.School of Civil EngineeringCentral South UniversityChangshaChina
  3. 3.College of Architecture EngineeringHunan Communication PolytechnicChangshaChina
  4. 4.National Engineering Laboratory for Construction Technology of High Speed RailwayChangshaChina

Personalised recommendations