Advertisement

Soil pressure and pore pressure for seismic design of tunnels revisited: considering water-saturated, poroelastic half-space

  • Jun Zhu
  • Jianwen LiangEmail author
Article
  • 1 Downloads

Abstract

This paper describes a systematic study on the fundamental features of seismic soil pressure on underground tunnels, in terms of its magnitude and distribution, and further identifies the dominant factors that significantly influence the seismic soil pressure. A tunnel embedded in water-saturated poroelastic half-space is considered, with a large variety of model and excitation parameters. The primary features of both the total soil pressure and the pore pressure are investigated. Taking a circular tunnel as an example, the results are presented using a finite element-indirect boundary element (FE-IBE) method, which can account for dynamic soil-tunnel interaction and solid frame-pore water coupling. The effects of tunnel stiff ness, tunnel buried depth and input motions on the seismic soil pressure and pore pressure are also examined. It is shown that the most crucial factors that dominate the magnitude and distribution of the soil pressure are the tunnel stiff ness and dynamic soil-tunnel interaction. Moreover, the solid frame-pore water coupling has a prominent influence on the magnitude of the pore pressure. The findings are beneficial to obtain insight into the seismic soil pressure on underground tunnels, thus facilitating more accurate estimation of the seismic soil pressure.

Keywords

seismic soil pressure seismic pore pressure dynamic soil-tunnel interaction water-saturated poroelastic 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

Acknowledgment

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 51978462, which is gratefully acknowledged. The authors are grateful to the anonymous reviewers whose comments lead to improvements of the paper.

References

  1. Baziar MH, Moghadam MR, Choo YW and Kim DS (2016), “Tunnel Flexibility Effect on the Ground Surface Acceleration Response,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 15(3): 457–476.Google Scholar
  2. Biot MA (1956), “Theory of Propagation of Elastic Waves in a Fluid-Saturated Porous Solid (I): Low Frequency Range,” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 28(2): 168–178.Google Scholar
  3. Biot MA (1962), “Mechanics of Deformation and Acoustic Propagation in Porous Media,” Journal of Applied Physics, 33(4): 1482–1498.Google Scholar
  4. Bobet A (2010), “Drained and Undrained Response of Deep Tunnels Subjected to Far-Field Shear Loading,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 25(1): 21–31.Google Scholar
  5. Esmaeili M, Vahdani S and Noorzad A (2006), “Dynamic Response of Lined Circular Tunnel to Plane Harmonic Waves,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 21(5): 511–519.Google Scholar
  6. Feng YT and Owen DRJ (1996), “I terative Solution of Coupled FE/BE Discretizations for Plate-Foundation Interaction Problems,” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, 39(11): 1889–1901.Google Scholar
  7. Fu J, Liang J and Qin L (2016), “D ynamic Soil-Tunnel Interaction in Layered Half-Space for Incident Plane P-and SV-Waves,” Earthquake Science, 28(4): 275–284.Google Scholar
  8. Gaitanaros AP and Karabalis DL (1988), “Dynamic Analysis of 3-D Flexible Embedded Foundations by a Frequency Domain BEM-FEM,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 16(5): 653–674.Google Scholar
  9. Gazetas G, Gerolymos N and Anastasopoulos I (2005), “Response of Three Athens Metro Underground Structures in the 1999 Parnitha Earthquake,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 25(7): 617–633.Google Scholar
  10. Hashash YMA, Hook JJ, Schmidt B and Yao JI-C (2001), “Seismic Design and Analysis of Underground Structures,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 16(4): 247–293.Google Scholar
  11. Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE) (2001), Japanese Standard for Shield Tunneling, China Architecture & Building Press. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  12. Jiang L, Chen J and Li J (2010), “Seismic Response of Underground Utility Tunnels: Shaking Table Testing and FEM Analysis,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 9(4): 555–567.Google Scholar
  13. Liang J, Fu J, Todorovska MI and Trifunac MD (2016), “I n-Plane Soil–Structure Interaction in Layered, Fluid-Saturated, Poroelastic Half-Space I: Structural Response,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 81: 84–111.Google Scholar
  14. Liang J, Fu J, Todorovska MI and Trifunac MD (2017), “In-Plane Soil-Structure Interaction in Layered, Fluid-Saturated, Poroelastic Half-Space II: Pore Pressure and Volumetric Strain,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 90: 585–595.Google Scholar
  15. Liang J and Liu Z (2009), “Diffraction of Plane SV Waves by a Cavity in Poroelastic Half-Space,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 8(1): 29–46.Google Scholar
  16. Liang J and You H (2004), “Dynamic Stiffness Matrix of a Poroelastic Multi-Layered Site and Its Green’s Functions,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 3(2): 273–282.Google Scholar
  17. Liang J and You H (2005), “Green’s Functions for Uniformly Distributed Loads Acting on an Inclined Line in a Poroelastic Layered Site,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 4(2): 233–241.Google Scholar
  18. Liang J and Zhu J (2016), “Seismic Soil Pressure on Underground Tunnel in Transverse Direction,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Dynamics, 36(4): 54–69. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  19. Liang J and Zhu J (2019a), “A FE-IBE Method for Linearized Nonlinear Soil-Tunnel Interaction in Water-Saturated, Poroelastic Half-Space: I. Methodology and Numerical Examples,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 120: 454–467.Google Scholar
  20. Liang J and Zhu J (2019b), “A FE-IBE Method for Linearized Nonlinear Soil-Tunnel Interaction in Water-Saturated, Poroelastic Half-Space: II. A Revisit toTwo Widely Used Analytical Solutions,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 120: 468–478.Google Scholar
  21. Lu J, Jeng D and Lee T (2007), “Dynamic Response of a Piecewise Circular Tunnel Embedded in a Poroelastic Medium,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 27(9): 875–891.Google Scholar
  22. Luco JE and De Barros FCP (1994), “Dynamic Displacements and Stresses in the Vicinity of a Cylindrical Cavity Embedded in a Half-Space,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 23(3): 321–340.Google Scholar
  23. Millán MA and Domínguez J (2009), “Sim plified BEM/ FEM Model for Dynamic Analysis of Structures on Piles and Pile Groups in Viscoelastic and Poroelastic Soils,” Engineering Analysis with Boundary Elements, 33(1): 25–34.Google Scholar
  24. Ministry of Railways of the People’s Republic of China (2009), Chinese Code for Seismic Design of Railway Engineering, GB50111-2009, China Planning Press. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  25. Mononobe N and Matuo H (1929), “On the Determination of Earth Pressures During Earthquakes,” Proceedings of World Engineering Congress, vol. 9, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  26. Okabe S (1924), “General Theory of Earth Pressures and Seismic Stability of Retaining Wall and Dam,” Journal of the Japanese Society of Civil Engineering, 10(5): 1277–1323.Google Scholar
  27. Ostadan F (2005), “Seismic Soil Pressure for Building Walls: an Updated Approach,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 25(7): 785–793.Google Scholar
  28. Pitilakis K and Tsinidis G (2014), “Performance and Seismic Design of Underground Structures,” Maugeri M and Soccodato C, Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering Design, Chapter 11, Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  29. Sedarat H, Kozak A, Hashash YM, Shamsabadi A and Krimotat A (2009), “Contact Interface in Seismic Analysis of Circular Tunnels,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 24(4): 482–490.Google Scholar
  30. Spyrakos CC and Xu C (2004), “Dyn amic Analysis of Flexible Massive Strip-Foundations Embedded in Layered Soils by Hybrid BEM-FEM,” Computers & Structures, 82(29): 2541–2550.Google Scholar
  31. Tamari Y and Towhata I (2003), “Seismic Soil-Structure Interaction of Cross Sections of Flexible Underground Structures Subjected to Soil Liquefaction,” Soils & Foundations, 43(2): 69–87.Google Scholar
  32. Tsinidis G, Pitilakis K and Madabhushi G (2016), “On the Dynamic Response of Square Tunnels in Sand,” Engineering Structures, 125: 419–437.Google Scholar
  33. Tsinidis G (2018), “Response of Urban Single and Twin Circular Tunnels Subjected to Transversal Ground Seismic Shaking,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 76: 177–193.Google Scholar
  34. Veletsos A and Younan AH (1994), “Dynamic Soil Pressure on Rigid Vertical Walls,” Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 23(3): 275–301.Google Scholar
  35. Wolf J (1985), Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction, Prentice Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
  36. Wood JH (1973), Earthquake-Induced Soil Pressures on Structures, California Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  37. Zhou J, Dong P and Chi Y (2004), “Res earch on Seismic Soil Pressure of Underground Structures in Soft Soils,” Rock and Soil Mechanics, 25(4): 554–559. (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  38. Zienkiewicz OC, Taylor RL and Zhu JZ (2005), The Finite Element Method: Its Basis and Fundamentals, Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and SafetyTianjin UniversityTianjinChina
  2. 2.School of Civil EngineeringTianjin UniversityTianjinChina

Personalised recommendations