Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Liquefiable Concrete Tunnel–Sand–Pile Interaction Response Under Seismic Excitations

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper presents the concrete tunnel-sand-pile interaction (TSPI) phenomenon in liquefiable sand considering various relative densities and seismic excitations. The novel shake table test for the TSPI model was performed to evaluate the excess pore pressure ratio (EPPR) surrounding the tunnel body and interactive tunnel and pile moments. The relative densities are taken to be 27, 41, and 55% in the local sand of Bangladesh. Similarly, the peak ground acceleration (PGA) of the Kobe and Loma Prieta earthquakes are considered to be 0.05, 0.10, 0.15, and 0.20 g. The shake table was calibrated based on similar variations of the input and output PGA. The 3D finite element concrete TSPI model has been performed by Plaxis considering the UBC3D-PLM (two yield surfaces consisting of kinematic hardening rules) constitutive model of sand. Therefore, experimental and numerical results vary closely, which may inform the possibility of the application of the concrete TSPI model on a large scale. The maximum SRSS (Square Root Sum of Squares) tunnel moment has been found to be 18.7 kN-m from the experimental results for 27% relative density of the Kobe earthquake with a PGA of 0.15 g. Also, the maximum SRSS moments of front and rear piles vary (0.10–0.14) % of the tunnel moment. So, the tunnel moment always shows a higher value in liquefiable ground based on the experimental results because of the larger volume and stiffness than a series of piles. However, the present study may be enhanced in the future by varying geometric properties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due to some restriction but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  • An J et al (2021) A shaking table-based experimental study of seismic response of shield-enlarge-dig type’s underground subway station in liquefiable ground. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 147:1–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bao X et al (2017) Numerical analysis on the seismic behavior of a large metro subway tunnel in liquefiable ground. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 66:91–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2017.04.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beaty M, Byrne P (1998) An effective stress model for predicting liquefaction behaviour of sand. Geotech Earthq Eng Soild Dyn ASCE Geotech Spec Pub 75:766–777

    Google Scholar 

  • Beaty M, Byrne P (2011) Ubcsand constitutive model. Itasca UDM website 904aR

  • Bhattacharya S, Madabhushi S, Bolton M (2004) An alternative mechanism of pile failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes. Ge´otechnique 54(3):203–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bolton M (1986) The strength and dilatancy of sands. Géotechnique 36(1):65–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finn W, Fujita N (2002) Piles in liquefiable soils: seismic analysis and design issues. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22:731–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen J (1970) A revised and extended formula for bearing capacity. Bulletin 28 Danish Geotechnical Institute Copenhagen

  • Haque F (2023) Numerically liquefaction analysis of tunnel-sand pile interaction (TSPI) under seismic excitation. Geomech Tunnell 16(2):193–204. https://doi.org/10.1002/geot.202200062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hossain M, Ansary M (2018) Development of a portable traveling pluviator device and its performance to prepare uniform sand specimens. Innov Infrastruct Solut 3(1):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huded P, Dash S, Bhattacharya S (2022) Buckling analysis of pile foundation in liquefiable soil deposit with sandwiched non-liquefiable layer. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 154:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hussein A, Naggar M (2021) Seismic axial behaviour of pile groups in non-liquefiable and liquefiable soils. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 149:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Iai S (1989) Similitude for shaking table tests on soil-structure-fluid model in 1g gravitational field. Soils Found 29(1):105–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liyanapathirana D, Poulos H (2002) A numerical model for dynamic soil liquefaction analysis. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 22:1007–1015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maheshwari B, Nath U, Ramasamy G (2008) Influence of liquefaction on pile-soil interaction in vertical vibration. ISET J Earthq Technol 45(1–2):1–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Makra A (2013) Evaluation of the UBC3D-PLM constitutive model for prediction of earthquake induced liquefaction on embankment dams. Delft University of Technology. http://resolver.tudelft.nl/uuid:dfd7b8e4-8664-4026-bd3f-93749b72bfc8

  • Orang M et al (2021) An experimental evaluation of helical piles as a liquefaction-induced building settlement mitigation measure. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 151:1–17

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petalas A, Galavi V (2012) Plaxis liquefaction model ubc3d-plm. PLAXIS knowledge base

  • Plaxis (2020) Material models manual. Bentley

  • Puebla H, Byrne M, Phillips P (1997) Analysis of canlex liquefaction embankments prototype and centrifuce models. Can Geotech J 34:641–657

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sahare A, Ueda K, Uzuoka R (2022) Influence of the sloping ground conditions and the subsequent shaking events on the pile group response subjected to kinematic interactions for a liquefiable sloping ground. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 152:1–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schadlich B, Schweiger H (2014) A new constitutive model for shotcrete. Numerical Methods in Geotechnical Engineering, pp 103–108

  • Tang L et al (2021) Estimation of the critical buckling load of pile foundations during soil liquefaction. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 146:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor E, Madabhushi S (2020) Remediation of liquefaction-induced floatation of non-circular tunnels. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 98:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsegaye A (2010) Plaxis liquefaction model. Plaxis knowledge base

  • Wang R et al (2022) Influence of vertical ground motion on the seismic response of underground structures and underground-aboveground structure systems in liquefiable ground. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 122:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2021.104351

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Yue F et al (2021) Shaking table test and numerical simulation on seismic performance of prefabricated corrugated steel utility tunnels on liquefiable ground. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 141:1–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao K et al (2020) Stability of immersed tunnel in liquefiable seabed under wave loadings. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 102:1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhao K et al (2021) Seismic response of immersed tunnel in liquefiable seabed considering ocean environmental loads. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 115:1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Bangladesh University of Engineering and Technology, Dhaka, 1000, Bangladesh

    Md. Foisal Haque & Mehedi Ahmed Ansary

Authors
  1. Md. Foisal Haque
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mehedi Ahmed Ansary
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Md. Foisal Haque.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haque, M.F., Ansary, M.A. Liquefiable Concrete Tunnel–Sand–Pile Interaction Response Under Seismic Excitations. Geotech Geol Eng 42, 409–431 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-023-02580-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-023-02580-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation