Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Some Aspects of Seismic Soil–Structure Interaction of Lifeline Structures

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Indian Geotechnical Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Historically, underground structures were considered to be less vulnerable to earthquakes. However, some of the recent earthquakes have demonstrated that underground structures too can suffer severe damages, especially when these are located in the vicinity of causative faults. In case of a shallow underground tunnel excavated in an urban area, design and construction is demanding due to interaction between the tunnels and the overlying pre-existing structures. Selection of a realistic ground motion of an earthquake plays a crucial role in the seismic analysis and design of underground structures. In the absence of realistic earthquake data for the given area, it becomes essential to generate artificial or synthetic time history compatible with the largest earthquake expected in that area. Depending upon the situation, it may become necessary to consider three-dimensional aspects of the problem rather than depending on only a two-dimensional behavior. Strong ground shaking can as well cause loss of strength in saturated cohesion less soils resulting in liquefaction. Liquefaction can cause the ground surrounding the tunnels to shift, with potentially severe consequences. An attempt has been made in this paper to discuss various analysis and design considerations of underground lifeline structures and then look in to the aspects of stability of metro underground tunnels of Delhi city on basis of response spectra compatible time histories of 1999 Chamoli earthquake of Uttarakhand, actual three-dimensional analyses, and some liquefaction studies.

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
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hashash YA, Hook J, Schmidt B, Chiangyao J (2001) Seismic design and analysis of underground structures. J Tunnel Undergr Space Technol 16(4):247–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Dowding CH, Rozen A (1978) Damage to rock tunnels from earthquake shaking. J Geotech Eng 2:175–191

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kumar A (2006) Software for generation of spectrum compatible time history having same phase as of a given time history. In: Proceedings 8th U.S. National conference on earthquake engineering, San Francisco, California, USA, April 18–22, Paper No. 172

  4. Abrahamson NA (2010) Nonstationary spectral matching program RSPMATCH. User’s manual (1992)

  5. Gasparini DA, Vanmarcke EH (1976) Simulated earthquake motion compatible with prescribed response spectra. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering, Constructed Facilities Division, Springfield, VA: Distributed by National Technical Information Service, U.S. Dept. of Commerce

  6. Silva WJ, Lee K (1987) WES RASCAL Code for synthesizing earthquake ground motions. Miscellaneous paper S-73-1. Report 24, US Army Core of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Missisippi, p 73

  7. Lilhanand K, Tseng WS (1988) Development and application of realistic earthquake time histories comparable with multiple damping design spectra. In: Proceedings 9th world conference on earthquake engineering, Tokyo-Kyoto, Japan, vol 2

  8. Bolt BA, Gregor NJ (1993) Synthesized strong ground motions for the seismic condition assessment of the eastern portion of the San Francisco Bay Bridge. Report UCB/EERC-93/12, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, CA

  9. Gupta ID, Joshi RG (1993) On synthesizing response spectrum compatible accelerograms. Proc Eur Conf Earthq Eng 7(2):25–33

    Google Scholar 

  10. Shrikhande M, Gupta VK (1996) On generating ensemble of design spectrum-compatible accelerograms. J Eur Earthq Eng 3:49–56

    Google Scholar 

  11. Conte JP, Peng BF (1997) Fully nonstationary analytical earthquake ground motion model. J Eng Mech ASCE 123(1):15–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Shrikhande M, Gupta VK (2011) On the characterization of the phase spectrum for strong motion synthesis. J Earthq Eng 5(4):465–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Atik LA, Abrahamson N (2010) An improved method for nonstationary spectral matching. J Earthq Spectra 26(3):601–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Singh M, Viladkar MN, Samadhiya NK (2017) Seismic response of Delhi metro underground tunnels. Int J Geotech Eng 11(2):175–185

    Google Scholar 

  15. Trifunac MD, Udwadia FE, Brady AG (1971) High frequency errors and instrument corrections of strong-motion accelerogram. Earthquake Energy Res. Lab. EERL 71-05, CALTECH., Pasadena, California

  16. Wong HL, Trifunac MD (1979) Generation of artificial strong motion accelerograms. J Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 7:509–527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Basu B, Gupta VK (1999) Wavelet-based analysis of non-stationary response of a slipping foundation. J Sound Vib 222(4):547–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fahjan Y, Ozdemir Z (2008) Scaling of earthquake accelerograms for non-linear dynamic analyses to match the earthquake design spectra. In: 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, China, pp 12–17

  19. Katsanos EI, Sextos A, Manolis GD (2010) Selection of earthquake ground motion records: a state-of-art review from a structural engineering perspective. J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(4):157–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Singh M (2018) Seismic response of shallow metro underground tunnels. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Roorkee, India

  21. IS: 1893 Part-1 (2002) Code of practice: criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures. Bureau of Indian Standards, (BIS), Manak Bhawan, New Delhi

  22. Sony S (2015) Static and dynamic response of Delhi metro tunnels. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Delhi, India

  23. Yadav HR (2005) Geotechnical evaluation of Delhi metro tunnels. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Delhi, India

  24. Lysmer J, Kuhlemeyer RL (1969) Finite dynamic model for infinite media. J Eng Mech 95:859–878

    Google Scholar 

  25. Sliteen I, Mroueh H, Sadek M (2011) Three-dimensional modeling of the behavior of shallow tunnel under seismic loading. Laboratory of Civil Engineering and GeoEnvironment (LGCgE), University of Lille, 1-Polytech-Lille, France

  26. Li P, Song EX (2015) Three-dimensional numerical analysis for the longitudinal seismic response of tunnels under an asynchronous wave input. J Comput Geotech 63:229–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Stamos AA, Beskos DE (1995) Dynamic analysis of large 3-D underground structures by the BEM. J Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 24(6):917–934

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Stamos AA, Beskos DE (1996) 3-D seismic response analysis of long lined tunnels in half-space. J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 15(2):111–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Yu H, Yuan Y, Bobet A (2017) Seismic analysis of long tunnels: a review of simplified and unified methods. J Undergr Space 2:73–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Yu H, Yuan Y, Chen Z, Yu G, Gu Y (2009) Full 3D numerical simulation method and its application to seismic response analysis of water-conveyance tunnel. J Comput Struct Eng 19:349–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Chen Z, Yu H, Yuan Y (2014) Full 3D seismic analysis of a long-distance water conveyance tunnel. J Struct Infrastruct Eng 10(1):128–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ichimura T, Tanaka S, Hori M, Yamamoto Y, Dobashi H, Osada M, Ohbo N, Yamada T (2016) Full three-dimensional seismic response analysis of underground structures with large complex cross sections and two-step analysis method for reducing the computational costs. J Earthq Tsunami 10(5):1640016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Chun LD, Qi LV, Li DX, Chao M (2015) Three dimensional seismic response analysis of tunnels and surrounding rock. J Disaster Prev Mitig Eng 02

  34. Singh M, Viladkar MN, Samadhiya NK (2018) Three dimensional seismic analysis of metro underground tunnels. In: Proceedings international conference advances in construction materials and structures, Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Roorkee

  35. Kramer SL (1996) Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Pearson Education Inc. and Dorling Kindersley Pub. Inc., London

    Google Scholar 

  36. Prakash S (1981) Soil dynamics. McGraw Hill, New York. Reprinted SP Foundation, Rolla, MO, USA

  37. Hashash YA, Hook J, Schmidt B, Chiangyao J (2005) Seismic design and analysis of underground structures. J Tunnel Undergr Space Technol 20(5):435–441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Azadi M, Mohammad SM (2010) Analyses of the effect of seismic behavior of shallow tunnels in liquefiable grounds. J Tunnel Undergr Space Technol 25(5):543–552

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  39. Azadi M (2011) The seismic behavior of urban tunnels in soft saturated soils. In: Proceedings 12th East Asia Pacific conference on structural engineering & construction, procedia engineering, vol 14, pp 3069–3075

  40. Bao X, Xi Z, Ye G, Fu Y, Su D (2017) Numerical analysis of the seismic behavior of a large metro subway tunnel in liquefiable ground. J Tunnel Undergr Space Technol 66:91–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Liu H, Song E (2005) Seismic response of large underground structures in liquefiable soils subjected to horizontal and vertical earthquake excitations. J Comput Geotech 32(4):223–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Salehzadeh H, Parchami ML (2014) Seismic analysis of twin tunnels in liquefiable soils. J Transp Res 2(39):125–158

    Google Scholar 

  43. Unutmaz B (2014) 3D liquefaction assessment of soils surrounding circular tunnels. J Tunnel Undergr Space Technol 40:85–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Viladkar MN, Singh M, Samadhiya NK (2019) Liquefaction analysis of metro underground tunnels. In: 7th international conference earthquake geotechnical engineering, Rome, Italy, June

  45. Tsegaye A (2010) Plaxis liquefaction model. External report. Plaxis knowledge base, http://www.plaxis.nl

Download references

Funding

Necessary finding for this work was received from The Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD), New Delhi, India.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, India

    M. N. Viladkar

  2. Department of Civil Engineering, NIT Hamirpur, Hamirpur, H.P., India

    Manendra Singh

Authors
  1. M. N. Viladkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Manendra Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. N. Viladkar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no known conflicting financial or any other interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Viladkar, M.N., Singh, M. Some Aspects of Seismic Soil–Structure Interaction of Lifeline Structures. Indian Geotech J 51, 482–501 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-021-00523-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-021-00523-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation