Advertisement

Physical Modeling for the Evaluation of the Seismic Behavior of Square Tunnels

Chapter
Part of the Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering book series (GGEE, volume 26)

Abstract

The Chapter summarizes results from dynamic centrifuge tests performed on a rectangular tunnel model embedded in dry sand. The tests were carried out at the geotechnical centrifuge facility of the University of Cambridge, within the Transnational Access Task of the SERIES Research Project (Project: TUNNELSEIS). The experimental data is presented in terms of acceleration and displacement-time histories in the soil and on the tunnel, soil surface settlements, earth pressures on the side walls of the tunnel and internal forces of the tunnel lining. The goal of the experiment is twofold: to better understand the seismic behavior of these types of structures, and to use the high quality and perfectly constrained data to validate the numerical models which are commonly used for the design of rectangular embedded structures. The interpretation of the results reveals (i) rocking response of the tunnel model, (ii) existence of residual values on the earth pressures on the side walls and on the internal forces and (iii) important influence of the tunnel on the shear wave field. These issues are not well understood and are usually not taken into account in the simplified seismic analysis methods.

Keywords

Seismic Response Earth Pressure Input Motion Tunnel Model High Relative Density 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme [FP7/2007–2013] for access to the Turner Beam Centrifuge, Cambridge, UK, under grant agreement n° 227887 [SERIES]. The technical support received by the Technicians of the Schofield Centre is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. ABAQUS (2010) Analysis user’s manual, vols I–IV, Dassault Systèmes, SIMULIA Inc, USAGoogle Scholar
  2. Cilingir U, Madabhushi SPG (2011) A model study on the effects of input motion on the seismic behavior of tunnels. J Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 31:452–462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. FWHA (2009) Technical manual for design and construction of road tunnels – Civil elements. US Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Publication No. FHWA–NHI–09–010, p 629Google Scholar
  4. Ghosh B, Madabhushi SPG (2002) An efficient tool for measuring shear wave velocity in the centrifuge. In: Phillips R, Guo PJ, Popescu R (eds) Proceedings of international conference on physical modelling in Geotechnics, St Johns, NF, Canada. AA Balkema Publishers, the Netherlands, pp 119–124Google Scholar
  5. Hardin BO, Drnevich VP (1972) Shear modulus and damping in soils: design equations and curves. J Soil Mech Found Div 98(SM7):667–692Google Scholar
  6. Hashash YMA, Hook JJ, Schmidt B, Yao JI-C (2001) Seismic design and analysis of underground structures. Tunn Undergr Sp Technol 16(2):247–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Iida H, Hiroto T, Yoshida N, Iwafuji M (1996) Damage to Daikai subway station. Soils and Foundations, Special Issue on Geotechnical Aspects of the January 17 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu Earthquake. Japanese Geotechnical Society, pp 283–300Google Scholar
  8. ISO 23469 (2005) Bases for design of structures – Seismic actions for designing geotechnical works. ISO International Standard. ISO TC 98/SC3/WG10Google Scholar
  9. Lanzano G, Bilotta E, Russo G, Silvestri F, Madabhushi SPG (2012) Centrifuge modeling of seismic loading on tunnels in sand. Geotech Test J 35:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Madabhushi SPG, Schofield AN, Lesley S (1998) A new stored angular momentum (SAM) based earthquake actuator. In: Kimura T, Kusakabe O, Takemura J (eds) Proceedings of the international conference Centrifuge ’98, Tokyo, Japan. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 111–116Google Scholar
  11. Madabhushi SPG, Houghton NE, Haigh SK (2006) A new automatic sand pourer for model preparation at University of Cambridge. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on physical modelling in geotechnics, Hong KongGoogle Scholar
  12. Mitrani H (2006) Liquefaction remediation techniques for existing buildings. PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKGoogle Scholar
  13. Penzien J (2000) Seismically induced racking of tunnel linings. Earthquake Eng Struct Dyn 29:683–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Pitilakis K, Tsinidis G (2012) Performance and seismic design of underground structures. In: Proceedings of the II international conference on performance based design in earthquake geotechnical engineering, TaorminaGoogle Scholar
  15. Power M, Rosidi D, Kaneshiro J, Gilstrap S, Chiou SJ (1998) Summary and evaluation of procedures for the seismic design of tunnels. Final report for task 112-d-5.3(c). National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Schofield AN (1980) Cambridge geotechnical centrifuge operations. Geotechnique 30(3):227–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schofield AN, Zeng X (1992) Design and performance of an equivalent shear beam (ESB) container for earthquake centrifuge modelling. Technical Report, CUED/D-Soils/I’R245, Cambridge University, UKGoogle Scholar
  18. Sharma S, Judd WR (1991) Underground opening damage from earthquakes. Eng Geol 30:263–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wang JN (1993) Seismic design of tunnels – A simple state-of-the-art design approach. Monograph 7. Parsons Brinckerhoff, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Zhao Y, Gafar K, Elshafie MZEB, Deeks AD, Knappett JA, Madabhushi SPG (2006) Calibration and use of a new automatic sand pourer. In: Ng CWW, Zhang LM, Wang YH (eds) Physical modelling in geotechnics – 6th ICPMG ’06. Taylor & Francis Group, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Research Unit of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil DynamicsAristotle University of ThessalonikiThessalonikiGreece
  2. 2.Department of Engineering, Schofield CentreUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations