Advertisement

Finite Element Seismic Analysis of Soil–Tunnel Interactions in Clay Soils

  • Mohsen Saleh Asheghabadi
  • Mohammad Ali Rahgozar
Research paper
  • 34 Downloads

Abstract

Seismic waves propagate from bedrock through the soil layers and during this propagation they pass different layers of soil and rock until they reach the soil surface. These waves can be amplified or damped by the soil layers. Underground structures response, like tunnels, is related to a number of factors such as soil type and earthquake frequency. In this paper the simulation of the models is done in two-dimensional plain strain system with finite element mesh generation which consists of soil–tunnel using frequency spectrum analysis. All analyses consist of three actual ground motion records with low, intermediate and high-frequency content. Two different clay soils (Normally or Lightly Over-Consolidate Clay and Heavily Over-Consolidate Clay) have been used in free field and models consist of cylindrical tunnel. In this study, the results of both free field (models without structure) and soil–tunnel analysis have been compared to show the effect of the tunnel on responses. Effect of soil–tunnel interaction in all earthquakes with different frequency content on-site response, amplification, acceleration response and stress and strain propagation in the tunnel’s perimeter are discussed. Based on the results of the analysis, acceleration frequency at different depths of models had different characteristics. Both clay soils amplified seismic waves on the soil surface in free filled models and the soil–structure interaction effects on the tunnel dynamic responses.

Keywords

Soil–structure interaction Frequency content Clay soil Numerical analysis Tunnel 

References

  1. ABAQUS (2012) Theory and analysis user’s manual, version 6.12. Dassault Systèmes SIMULIA, ProvidenceGoogle Scholar
  2. Abdel-Motaal MA, El-Nahhas FM, Khiry AT (2014) Mutual seismic interaction between tunnels and the surrounding granular soil. Hous Build Natl Res Cent HBRC J 10:265–278Google Scholar
  3. Argyroudis S, Tsinidis G, Gatti F, Pitilakis K (2017) Effects of SSI and lining corrosion on the seismic vulnerability of shallow circular tunnels. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 98:244–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Banerjee S (2009) Centrifuge and numerical modeling of soft clay–pile–raft foundations subjected to seismic shaking. Ph.D. thesis, National University of Singapore, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  5. Banerjee S, Goh SH, Lee FH (2007) Response of soft clay strata and clay–pile–raft systems to seismic shaking. J Earthq Tsunami 01(03):233–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bao X, Xia Z, Ye G, Fu Y, Su D (2017) Numerical analysis on the seismic behavior of a large metro subway tunnel in liquefiable ground. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 66:91–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chang DW, Roesset JM, Wen CH (2000) A time-domain viscous damping model based on frequency-dependent damping ratios. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 19:551–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Degrande G, Clouteau D, Othman R et al (2006) A numerical model for ground-borne vibrations from underground railway traffic based on a periodic finite element-boundary element formulation. J Sound Vib 293(3–5):645–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fang X-Q, Jin H-X, Wang B-L (2015) Dynamic interaction of two circular lined tunnels with imperfect interfaces under cylindrical P-waves. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 79:172–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Forrest JA, Hunt HEM (2006a) A three-dimensional model for calculation of traininduced ground vibration. J Sound Vib 294(4/5):678–705CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Forrest JA, Hunt HEM (2006b) Ground vibration generated by trains in underground tunnels. J Sound Vib 294(4/5):706–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Galli M, Thewes M (2014) Investigations for the application of EPB shields in difficult grounds. Geomech Tunn 7(1):31–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Haak D (2004) Simplified 3D modeling of soil vibrations induced by a high-speed train in a tunnel. Delft University of Technology, DelftGoogle Scholar
  14. Häfliger P (2013) Choice of driving methods in soft ground. In: Proceedings of the Swiss tunnel congress, Luzern, pp 178–201Google Scholar
  15. Hashash YMA, Hook JJ, Schmidt B, Yao JI-C (2001) Seismic design and analysis of underground structures. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 16(2):247–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hussein MFM, Hunt HEM (2007) A numerical model for calculating vibration from a railway tunnel embedded in a full-space. J Sound Vib 305:401–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Iervolino I, Galasso C, Paolucci R, Pacor F (2011) Engineering ground motion record selection in the Italian ACcelerometric Archive. Bull Earthq Eng 9:1761–1778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kontoe S, Zdravkovic L, Potts D, Mentiki C (2008) Case study on seismic tunnel response. Can Geotech J 45:1743–1764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuesel TR (1969) Earthquake design criteria for subway. J Struct Div ASCE 95(ST6):1213–1231Google Scholar
  21. Lanzo G, Pagliaroli A, D’Elia B (2003) Numerical study on the frequency-dependent viscous damping in dynamic response analyses of ground. In: Proceedings of earthquake resistant engineering structures IV conference, pp 315–324Google Scholar
  22. Liang J, Jin L (2016) The effect of foundation flexibility on system response of dynamic soil–structure interaction: an analytical solution. China Earthq Eng J 16:113–127Google Scholar
  23. Liang JW, You HB, Lee VW (2006) Scattering of SV waves by a canyon in a fluid saturated, poroelastic layered half- pace modeled using the indirect boundary element method. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 26:611–625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Liang J, Jin L, Todorovska MI, Trifunac MD (2016) Soil–structure interaction for a SDOF oscillator supported by a flexible foundation embedded in a half-space: closed-form solution for incident plane SH-waves. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 90:287–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lin H, Dong J, Zhao L (2011) Studies on dynamic behavior of the subway station influenced by down- through tunnel during strong seismic. 978-1-4577-0290-7/11/$26.00 ©2011 IEEEGoogle Scholar
  26. Lueprasert P, Jongpradist P, Jongpradist P, Suwansawat S (2017) Numerical investigation of tunnel deformation due to adjacent loaded pile and pile–soil–tunnel interaction. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 70:166–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Madabhushi SSC, Madabhushi SPG (2015) Finite element analysis of floatation of rectangular tunnels following earthquake induced liquefaction. Indian Geotech J 45(3):233–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Matin Manesh H, Saleh Asheghabadi M (2011) Seismic analysis on soil–structure interaction of buildings over sandy soil. In: The twelfth east Asia-Pacific conference on structural engineering and construction (EASEC-12), Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, 24–26 Jan 2011Google Scholar
  29. Mayoral M, Alberto Y, Mendoza MJ, Romo MP (2009) Seismic response of an urban bridge-support system in soft clay. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29(5):925–938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Merritt JL, Monsee JE, Hendron AJ Jr (1985) Seismic design of underground structures. In: Proceedings of the 1985 rapid excavation tunneling conference, vol 1, pp 104–131Google Scholar
  31. Nadi B, Askari F, Farzaneh O (2013) Seismic performance of slopes in pseudo-static designs with different safety factors. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng 37(C):395–407Google Scholar
  32. Okamoto S (1973) Introduction to earthquake engineering. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Peila D, Oggeri C, Vinai R (2007) Screw conveyor device for laboratory tests on conditioned soil for EPB tunneling operations. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 133(12):1622–1625CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pitilakis K, Tsinidis G, Leanza A, Maugeri M (2014) Seismic behaviour of circular tunnels accounting for above ground structures interaction effects. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 67:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Saleh Asheghabadi M, Matinmanesh H (2011) Finite element seismic analysis of cylindrical tunnel in sandy soils with consideration of soil–tunnel interaction. Proc Eng 14:3162–3169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. St. John CM, Zahrah TF (1987) Aseismic design of underground structures. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2(2):165–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Unutmaz B (2014) 3D liquefaction assessment of soils surrounding circular tunnels. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 40:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang JN (1993) Seismic design of tunnels: a state of the art approach, vol 7. Monograph. Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Wang G, Yuan M, Miao Y, Wu J, Wang Y (2018) Experimental study on seismic response of underground tunnel–soil–surface structure interaction system. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 76:145–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Whiteman RV, Richard (1967) Design procedure for dynamically loaded foundation. Table 4, pp 182–192Google Scholar
  41. Wolf JP (1997) Spring-Dashpot-Mass models for foundation vibration. Earthq Eng Struct Dynam 26:931–949CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yang YB, Hung HH (2008) Soil vibrations caused by underground moving trains. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 134(11):1633–1644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Yang J, Wang H (2013) Seismic response analysis of shallow utility tunnel in liquefiable soils. In: ICPTT 2012© ASCE, pp 1606–1618Google Scholar
  44. Ye B, Ye GL, Zhang F (2012) Numerical modeling of changes in anisotropy during liquefaction using a generalized constitutive model. Comput Geotech 42:62–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ye GL, Ye B, Zhang F (2013) Strength and dilatancy of over consolidated clays in drained true triaxial tests. J Geotech Geo-environ Eng 140(4):06013006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yin ZY, Chang CS, Hicher PY (2010) Micro mechanical modeling for effect of inherent anisotropy on cyclic behaviour of sand. Int J Solids Struct 47(14–15):1933–1951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Yu H, Mooney MA, Bezuijen A (2017) A simplified chamber pressure model for EPB TBM tunneling in granular soil. In: Proceedings of 9th international symposium on geotechnical aspects of underground construction in soft groundGoogle Scholar
  48. Yuan ZH, Xu CJ, Cai YQ et al (2015) Dynamic response of a tunnel buried in a saturated poroelastic soil layer to a moving point load. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 77:348–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhang F, Ye B, Noda T, Nakano M, Nakai K (2007) Explanation of cyclic mobility of soils: approach by stress-induced anisotropy. Soils Found 47(4):635–648CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zhang F, Jin Y, Ye B (2010) A try to give a unified description of Toyoura sand. Soils Found 50(3):679–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Zhang X, Jiang Y, Sugimoto S (2018) Seismic damage assessment of mountain tunnel: a case study on the Tawarayama tunnel due to the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 71:138–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Shiraz University 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringTsinghua UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.Faculty of Civil Engineering and TransportationUniversity of IsfahanIsfahanIran

Personalised recommendations