Advertisement

Investigation of Seismic Reliability Index in Shallow Underground Tunnels by Combining Three Methods of Surface Response, Hasofer–Lind and Finite Element Method

  • Mohammadreza Momenzadeh
  • Mohammadreza KoopialipoorEmail author
  • Hossein Tootoonchi
  • Farshad Khalili
  • Sahand Khorami
  • Sepehr Khorami
Original Paper
  • 18 Downloads

Abstract

The study of seismic behavior of underground tunnels is of particular importance due to the fact that they are completely enclosed in the soil or rocks and also these structures have a considerable length. Therefore, the seismic response to the tunnel lining requires special attention. Limited research data and extensive spatial variations make it difficult to describe their geological position. Therefore, the parameters governing their design are numerous and their variability cannot be ignored. One solution to this problem is designing and analyzing based on reliability. In this research, the analysis is based on the reliability of the lining system of a small underground tunnel in the soil. Examples such as describing the relationship between tunnel lining and its surrounding environment, lack of access to a function of closed form have been studied. Also, analyzes were carried out in seismic and static conditions, random variables in soil characteristics were taken into account. The seismic response of the tunnel lining is considered for axial force, bending moment and shear force. In this paper, the tunnel lining function (under static and seismic conditions) is investigated by combining the response surface method, the Hasofer–Lind reliability concept and finite element method. The results of the analyzes show that the reliability index for the response of the shear force of the tunnel lining to earthquake records is less than the axial and bending moment force. As a result, soil and tunnel strengthening is recommended against shear failure under earthquake load.

Keywords

Reliability index Hasofer–Lind Finite element method Random variables Response performance function Response surface method (RSM) Seismic stimulation 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Asheghabadi MS, Matinmanesh H (2011) Finite element seismic analysis of cylindrical tunnel in sandy soils with consideration of soil-tunnel interaction. Proc Eng 14:3162–3169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Catani F, Casagli N, Ermini L et al (2005) Landslide hazard and risk mapping at catchment scale in the Arno River basin. Landslides 2:329–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chopra AK (1995) Dynamics of structures. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  4. Chowdhury R, Flentje P (2003) Role of slope reliability analysis in landslide risk management. Bull Eng Geol Environ 62:41–46Google Scholar
  5. Committee ACI, Institute AC, IO for Standardization (2008) Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-08) and commentary. American Concrete InstituteGoogle Scholar
  6. Dodagoudar GR, Venkatachalam G (2000) Reliability analysis of slopes using fuzzy sets theory. Comput Geotech 27:101–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. El-Ramly H, Morgenstern NR, Cruden DM (2002) Probabilistic slope stability analysis for practice. Can Geotech J 39:665–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Godbole PN, Viladkar MN, Noorzaei J (1990) Nonlinear soil-structure interaction analysis using coupled finite-infinite elements. Comput Struct 36:1089–1096CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haldar S, Sivakumar Babu GL (2008) Load resistance factor design of axially loaded pile based on load test results. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 134:1106–1117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hashash YMA, Hook JJ, Schmidt B et al (2001) Seismic design and analysis of underground structures. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 16:247–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hashash YMA, Park D, John I, Yao C (2005) Ovaling deformations of circular tunnels under seismic loading, an update on seismic design and analysis of underground structures. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 20:435–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hasofer AM, Lind NC (1974) Exact and invariant second-moment code format. J Eng Mech Div 100:111–121Google Scholar
  13. Hibbitt H, Karlsson B, Sorensen P (2011) Abaqus analysis user’s manual version 6.10. Dassault Systèmes Simulia Corp Provid RI, USAGoogle Scholar
  14. Koopialipoor M, Tootoonchi H, Marto A, et al (2018) Various effective factors on peak uplift resistance of pipelines in sand: a comparative study. Int J Geotech Eng 1–8Google Scholar
  15. Kulhawy FH (1975) Stresses and displacements around openings in homogeneous rock. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci Geomech Abstr 12:43–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Laso E, Lera MSG, Alarcón E (1995) A level II reliability approach to tunnel support design. Appl Math Model 19:371–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Li D-Q, Jiang S-H, Cao Z-J et al (2015) Efficient 3-D reliability analysis of the 530 m high abutment slope at Jinping I Hydropower Station during construction. Eng Geol 195:269–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lü Q, Low BK (2011) Probabilistic analysis of underground rock excavations using response surface method and SORM. Comput Geotech 38:1008–1021CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lü Q, Chan CL, Low BK (2013) System reliability assessment for a rock tunnel with multiple failure modes. Rock Mech Rock Eng 46:821–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Momenzadeh M, Koopialipoor M, Mansoori M (2018) Determination of the racking reduction factor in a horseshoe shaped tunnel section considering the soil-structure interaction. Geotech Geol Eng 36:3903–3910.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-018-0581-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Montgomery DC, Anderson-Cook CM (2009) Response surface methodology: process and product optimization using designed experiments. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  22. Penzien J (2000) Seismically induced racking of tunnel linings. Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 29:683–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rashiddel A, Koopialipoor M, Hadei MR, Rahmannejad R (2018) Numerical investigation of closed-form solutions for seismic design of a circular tunnel lining (by quasi-static method). Civ Eng J 4:239–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Spyridis P, Konstantis S, Gakis A (2016) Performance indicator of tunnel linings under geotechnical uncertainty. Geomech Tunn 9:158–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wang JN (1993) Seismic design of tunnels: a state-of-the-art approach. Monograph. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., New York, p 7Google Scholar
  26. Zeng P, Senent S, Jimenez R (2014) Reliability analysis of circular tunnel face stability obeying Hoek–Brown failure criterion considering different distribution types and correlation structures. J Comput Civ Eng 30:4014126CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohammadreza Momenzadeh
    • 1
  • Mohammadreza Koopialipoor
    • 2
    Email author
  • Hossein Tootoonchi
    • 2
  • Farshad Khalili
    • 1
  • Sahand Khorami
    • 2
  • Sepehr Khorami
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Science and Research BranchIslamic Azad UniversityTehranIran
  2. 2.Faculty of Civil and Environmental EngineeringAmirkabir University of TechnologyTehranIran

Personalised recommendations