Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding the impact of the earthquake on circular tunnels in different rock mass: a numerical approach

  • Technical papers
  • Published:
Innovative Infrastructure Solutions Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Tunnels are the most important infrastructure components as it plays a major role in public infrastructure, water transport and the production of hydroelectric power. The constant variation in the geological conditions affects the tunnel stability which can be achieved using flexible rock support methods. The analysis and understanding of the prevalent complex rock mass in a region which is highly seismically active is a challenge and necessary for the successful execution of any tunnelling project. Therefore, a pseudo-static approach has been studied to understand the impact of earthquakes on circular tunnels using the Phase 2 software. The rock mass surrounding the tunnel is modeled using the continuum approach and continuum with interface approach where joints were incorporated in the model as an interface. For this study, a tunnel model with specification (diameter-6 m, depth-100 m) with a Q range of 1–30 was used to examine the impact of rock mass quality. The study revealed that while the seismic load remains unchanged, the magnitude of the axial force on the liner and the net increase due to seismic loading referred to as seismic axial force, increase as the rock mass quality decreases. The diameter of the circular tunnel at a depth of 100 m is increased from 6 to 24 m at an interval of 6 m to check the influence of the tunnel diameter under the seismic loading. It was observed that the seismic axial force decreases with the tunnel diameter for the rock mass Q = 1 (“very low” rock class) and strong rock, it is comparatively small.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Dowding C (1979) Earthquake stability of rock tunnels. Tunn Tunn 11(5):15–20

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kaneshiro JY, Power M, Rosidi D (2000) Empirical correlations of tunnel performance during earthquakes and a seismic aspects of tunnel design. In: Proceedings of the conference on lessons learned from recent earthquakes. On earthquakes in Turkey, 8–11 Nov 1999

  3. Power, Rosidi D, Kaneshiro JY (1998) Seismic vulnerability of tunnels and underground structures revisited. In: Ozedimir L (ed) Proceedings of the North American Tunneling. Balkema, Rotterdam, pp 243–250

    Google Scholar 

  4. Owen GN, Scholl RE (1981) Earthquake engineering of large underground structures. Report no. FHWA/RD-80/195. Federal Highway Administration and National Science Foundation

  5. Sharma S, Judd WR (1991) Underground opening damage to underground facilities. Eng Geol 30:263–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Wang JN, Munfakh GA (2001) Seismic design of tunnels, vol 57. WIT Press, Southampton

    Google Scholar 

  7. Li T (2011) Damage to mountain tunnels related to the wenchuan earthquake and some suggestions for aseismic tunnel construction. Bull Eng Geol Environ 71(2):297–308

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Forcellini D (2017) Cost assessment of isolation technique applied to a benchmark bridge with soil structure interaction. Bull Earthq Eng 15(1):51–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Forcellini D (2018) Seismic assessment of a benchmark based isolated ordinary building with soil structure interaction. Bull Earthq Eng 16(5):2021–2042

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Forcellini D (2019) Numerical simulations of liquefaction on an ordinary building during Italian (20 May 2012) earthquake. Bull Earthq Eng 17(9):4797–4823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hudson JA, Harrison JP (2000) Engineering rock mechanics: an introduction to the principles. Elsevier Science, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  12. Barton N, Lien R, Lunde J (1974) Engineering classification of rockmasses for the design of tunnel support. Rock Mech 6(4):189–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hashash YMA, Hook JJ, Schmidt B, Yao JI-C (2001) Seismic design and analysis of underground structures. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 16(4):247–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Sedarat H et al (2009) Contact interface in seismic analysis of circular tunnels. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 24(4):482–490

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Abokhalil, M. (2007) Insights into the response of rock tunnels to seismicity. Master’s Thesis in Geosciences, Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo

  16. Bilotta E, Lanzano G, Russo G, Santucci de Magistris F, Aiello V, Conte E, Silvestri F, Valentino M (2007) Pseudostatic and dynamic analyses of tunnels in transversal and longitudinal direction. In: Proceeding of the fourth international conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering, Thessaloniki, Greece; Paper no. 1550

  17. Rocscience Inc. (2001). Phase2 Program reference Manual

  18. Tshering T (2011) The impact of earthquake on tunnels in different rockmass quality Q: Masters’s thesis in Geoscience, Department of Geoscience, University of Oslo

  19. Chen CH, Wang TT, Jeng FS, Huang TH (2012) Mechanisms causing seismic damage of tunnels at different depths. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 28:31–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sun QQ, Dias D (2019) Assessment of stress relief during excavation on the seismic tunnel response by the pseudo-static method. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 117:384–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bhasin R, Kaynia AM, Paul DK, Singh Y, Pal S (2006) Seismic behaviour of rock support in tunnels. In: Proceedings 13th symposium on earthquake engineering. Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, 18–20 Dec

  22. Callisto L, Ricci C (2019) Interpretation and back-analysis of the damage observed in a deep tunnel after the 2016 Norcia earthquake in Italy. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 89:238–248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Grimstad E, Barton N (1988) Design and methods of rock support. Norwegian tunnelling today. Nor Soil Rock Eng Assoc Publ 5:59–64

    Google Scholar 

  24. Shreedharan S, Kulatilake PHSW (2016) Discontinuum–equivalent continuum analysis of the stability of tunnels in a deep coal mine using the distinct element method. Rock Mech Rock Eng 49(5):1903–1922

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Walton G, Diederichs MS (2015) Applications for continuum modelling of brittle rock fracture with a focus on dilatancy during failure. In: 13th international congress of rock mechanics. ISRM, Montreal, Canada

  26. Bhasin R, Høeg K (1998) Parametric study for a large cavern in jointed rock using a distinct element model (UDEC—BB). Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 35(1):17–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Bhasin R, Hoeg K, Abokhalil M (2008) Effect of seismicity on rock support in tunnels. World tunnel congress

  28. Vardakos SS, Gutierrez MS, Barton NR (2007) Backanalysis of Shimizu Tunnel No. 3 by distinct element modeling. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 22(4):401–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Li J, Ma G (2010) Analysis of blast wave interaction with a rock joint. Rock Mech Rock Eng 43(6):777–787

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Cai M, Champaigne D, Coulombe JG, Challagulla K (2019) Development of two new rockbolts for safe and rapid tunneling in burst-prone ground. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 91:103010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Geng P, Mei S, Zhang J et al (2019) Study on seismic performance of shield tunnels under combined effect of axial force and bending moment in the longitudinal direction. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 91:103004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Hoek E, Brown E (1997) Practical estimates of rock mass strength. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 34(8):1165–1186

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Geotechnical Engineering Laboratory, Earthquake Engineering Research Centre, International Institute of Information Technology Hyderabad, Hyderabad, India

    Ambika Srivastav

  2. Discipline of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Indore, Simrol, Indore, India

    Neelima Satyam

Authors
  1. Ambika Srivastav
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Neelima Satyam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ambika Srivastav.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Srivastav, A., Satyam, N. Understanding the impact of the earthquake on circular tunnels in different rock mass: a numerical approach. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 5, 32 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-020-0278-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-020-0278-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation