Geotechnical and Geological Engineering

, Volume 36, Issue 4, pp 2037–2055 | Cite as

Dynamic Response of Shallow-Buried Small Spacing Tunnel with Asymmetrical Pressure: Shaking Table Testing and Numerical Simulation

  • Xueliang Jiang
  • Feifei WangEmail author
  • Hui Yang
  • Guangchen Sun
  • Jiayong Niu
Original paper


A series of shaking table tests were designed and carried out to study the seismic behaviors of a shallow-buried small spacing tunnel with asymmetrical pressure. The key details to shaking table model test, including test equipment, model similarity relation, similarity constant, model box, physical model, layout of transducers, seismic waves, and loading system were presented. The numerical simulation of the shaking table test was also carried out by using a finite element simulation software. The results show that: (1) the Fourier spectrums in the vertical direction and horizontal direction are different at the same measuring point. The structure of tunnel transforms the Fourier spectrum of horizontal direction. (2) The stability of middle rock pillar is poor under seismic wave action. The anchor plays an important role in strengthening the stability of middle rock pillar. The dynamic strain of anchor has accumulative effect. (3) The numerical simulation results are in significant agreement with the shaking table test results. (4) Compared with type of seismic wave, peak seismic wave has a significant effect on acceleration response of tunnel. The peak acceleration response of the tunnel is linear with the peak seismic wave, in the horizontal direction. The peak acceleration response is nonlinear in the vertical direction. (5) The axial force of cross section at arch foot is larger than other position. The shock absorption effect of 10 cm seismic isolation layer is better than 5 and 20 cm.


Shallow-buried small spacing tunnel Shaking table testing Numerical simulation Dynamic response Shock absorption measure 



The authors are grateful for financial support from the National Natural Science Foundation (NNSF) of China through Grant Nos. 51204215, 51404309. Doctor special research fund of colleges and universities (20134321120004).


  1. Bathurst RJ, Zarnani S, Gaskin A (2007) Shaking table testing of geofoam seismic buffers. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 27(4):324–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen ZY, Shen H (2014) Dynamic centrifuge tests on isolation mechanism of tunnels subjected to seismic shaking. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 42(4):67–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen J, Shi XJ, Li J (2010) Shaking table test of utility tunnel under non-uniform earthquake wave excitation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 30(11):1400–1416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Corigliano M, Scandella L, Lai CG, Paolucci R (2011) Seismic analysis of deep tunnels in near fault conditions: a case study in southern italy. Bull Earthq Eng 9(4):975–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Fishman KL, Mander JB, Richards R (1995) Laboratory study of seismic free-field response of sand. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 14(1):33–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hashash YMA, Hook JJ, Schmidt B et al (2001) Seismic design and analysis of underground structures. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 16(4):247–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hashash YMA, Park D, Yao JIC (2005) Ovaling deformation of circular tunnels under seismic loading, an update on seismic design and analysis of underground structures. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 20(4):435–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hasheminejad SM, Miri AK (2008) Seismic isolation effect of lined circular tunnels with damping treatments. Earthq Eng Eng Vib 7(3):305–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. He C, Zhang J, Li L et al (2014) Seismic damages mechanism of tunnels through fault zones. J Geotech Eng 36(3):427–434Google Scholar
  10. Huang S, Chen WZ, Yang JP et al (2009) Research on earthquake-induced dynamic responses and aseismic measures for underground engineering. J Rock Mech Eng 28(3):483–490Google Scholar
  11. Huo H, Bobet A, Fernandez G et al (2005) Load transfer mechanisms between underground structure and surrounding ground: evaluation of the failure of the Daikai Station. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 131(12):1522–1533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hwang JH, Lu CC (2007) Seismic capacity assessment of old Sanyi railway tunnels. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 22(4):433–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Iai S (1989) Similitude for shaking table tests on soil–structure–fluid model in 1-g gravitational field. Soils Found 29(1):105–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jiang YJ, Wang CX, Zhao XD (2010) Damage assessment of tunnels caused by the 2004 Mid Niigata Prefecture earthquake using Hayashi’s quantification theory type II. Nat Hazards 53(3):425–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jiang SP, Wen DL, Zheng SB (2011) Large-scale shaking table test for seismic response in portal section of Galongla tunnel. J Rock Mech Eng 30(4):649–656Google Scholar
  16. Kim DS, Konagai K (2001) Seismic isolation effect of a tunnel covered with coating material. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 15(4):437–443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kontoe S, Zdravkovic LZ, Potts DMPM et al (2008) Case study on seismic tunnel response. Can Geotech J 45(12):1743–1764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kuhlemeyer RL, Lysmer J (1973) Finite element method accuracy for wave propagation problems. J Soil Mech Found Div ASCE 99(SM5):421–427Google Scholar
  19. Lee JS, Santamarina JC (2007) Seismic monitoring short-duration events: liquefaction in 1 g models. Can Geotech J 44(6):659–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lin G (1990a) Summarization on antiseismatic analysis of under-ground structure (A). World Earthq Eng 6(2):1–9Google Scholar
  21. Lin G (1990b) Summarization on antiseismatic analysis of underground structure (B). World Earthq Eng 6(3):1–10Google Scholar
  22. Lin G, Liang QH (1996) Aseismic design of underground structures. China Civil Eng J 29(1):15–24Google Scholar
  23. Lombardi D, Bhattacharya S, Scarpa F et al (2014) Dynamic response of a geotechnical rigid model container with absorbing boundaries. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 69:46–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Merymand PJ (1998) Shaking table scale model tests of nonlinear soil–pile–super structure interaction in soft clay. University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  25. Sevim B (2011) Nonlinear earthquake behaviour of highway tunnels. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 11:2755–2763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. St John CM, Zahrah TF (1987) Aseismic design of underground structures. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2(2):165–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sun TC, Yue ZR, Gao B et al (2011) Model test study on the dynamic response of the portal section of two parallel tunnels in a seismically active area. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 26(2):391–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wang ZZ, Zhang Z (2013) Seismic damage classification and risk assessment of mountain tunnels with a validation for the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 45(2):45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang WL, Wang TT, Su JJ et al (2001) Assessment of damage in mountain tunnels due to the Taiwan Chi-Chi earthquake. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 16(3):133–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wang X, Liu W, Zhang M (2003) Study on the categorization and mechanism of seismic damage of underground structures. J China Saf Sci 13(11):55–58Google Scholar
  31. Wang ZL, Li YC, Wang JG (2006) Numerical analysis of attenuation effect of EPS geofoam on stress-waves in civil defense engineering. Geotext Geomembrane 24:265–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang ZZ, Gao B, Jiang YJ et al (2009) Investigation and assessment on mountain tunnels and geotechnical damage after the Wenchuan earthquake. Sci China Ser E: Technol Sci 52(2):546–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang FF, Jiang XL, Niu JY (2016) Numerical simulation for dynamic response characteristics of tunnel near fault. Electron J Geotech Eng 21(17):5559–5576Google Scholar
  34. Wang FF, Jiang XL, Niu JY (2017a) The large-scale shaking table model test of the shallow-bias tunnel with a small clear distance. Geotech Geol Eng 35(3):1093–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wang FF, Jiang XL, Yang H et al (2017b) Experiment and numerical simulation study on acceleration response laws of shallow-buried small spacing tunnel with asymmetrical pressure. J Vib Shock 36(17):238–247Google Scholar
  36. Xin CL, Gao B, Yan GM et al (2016) Seismic damage characteristics and anti-seismic damping measures for tunnel across strike-slip faults. J Vib Eng 29(4):694–703Google Scholar
  37. Xu H, Li TB, Xia L et al (2016) Shaking table tests on seismic measures of a model mountain tunnel. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 60:197–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yan X, Yu HT, Yuan Y et al (2015) Multi-point shaking table test of the free field under non-uniform earthquake excitation. Soils Found 55(5):985–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yan X, Yuan J, Yu HT et al (2016) Multi-point shaking table test design for long tunnels under non-uniform seismic loading. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 59:114–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yu Y, Deng L, Sun X (2008) Centrifuge modeling of a dry sandy slope response to earthquake loading. Bull Earthq Eng 6(3):447–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yu HT, Yuan Y, Xu GP et al (2016) Multi-point shaking table test for long tunnels subjected to non-uniform seismic loadings—part II: application to the HZM immersed tunnel. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. Google Scholar
  42. Yuan Y, Yu HT, Li C et al (2016) Multi-point shaking table test for long tunnels subjected to non-uniform seismic loadings—part I: theory and validation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Xueliang Jiang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Feifei Wang
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Hui Yang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Guangchen Sun
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jiayong Niu
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Civil EngineeringCentral South University of Forestry and TechnologyChangshaChina
  2. 2.Rock and Soil Engineering Research InstituteCentral South University of Forestry and TechnologyChangshaChina

Personalised recommendations