Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE A

, Volume 19, Issue 5, pp 346–366 | Cite as

Discrete element analysis of a cross-river tunnel under random vibration levels induced by trains operating during the flood season

  • Zhi-hua Zhang
  • Xie-dong Zhang
  • Yao Tang
  • Yi-fei Cui


Floods result in many problems, which may include damage to cross-river tunnels. The cross-river tunnel, as a new style of transportation, deserves a large amount of attention. In this paper, a large-scale cross-river tunnel model is proposed based on discrete element method (DEM). Micro parameters used in the model are calibrated by proposing a triaxial numerical model. Different in situ strata, high water pressures of normal flood-water levels and random vibration levels induced by running trains are taken into account to evaluate the dynamic characteristics of a high-stress tunnel in deformation and stress analysis. The results show that the upper half of the tunnel, including the concrete lining and the surroundings, is at higher risk than the lower half. Vibration waves transferring into the surroundings undergo an amplification process. The particles of the surroundings at the vault of the tunnel separate and move downward and then reassemble during the dynamic vibrations. The vibration levels, represented by particle accelerations, are lower under flood conditions than those under normal conditions. As train speed increases, the acceleration of the track and particles in the foundation increases, accompanied by a decrease in deformation.

Key words

Discrete element method (DEM) Cross-river tunnel Water pressure Metro train operation Random vibration level Acceleration 








采用离散元方法进行数值仿真。1. 基于室内三轴试验和离散元数值拟合得到土层的各细观参数;2. 采用不同接触模型对隧道内钢轨、轨枕、管片以及周边岩土体进行建模;3. 将地铁随机振动荷载施加在钢轨上,对管片及周边岩土体不同区域内颗粒的受力及变形进行监测并分析。


1. 位于隧道上半部分的周边岩土体颗粒振动偏大;2. 随着距离的增大,振动波在周边岩土体内先放大后减小;3. 汛期水位条件下地铁行车荷载对管片和周边岩土体的振动影响较小,但是对隧道变形影响较大。


离散元方法 越江地铁隧道 水压力 地铁行车荷载 

CLC number



Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abul-Husn NS, Sutak M, Milne B, et al., 2013. Measurement of building foundation and groundborne vibrations due to surface trains and subways. Engineering Structures, 53(1): 5–14. Google Scholar
  2. Aldea CM, Shah SP, Karr A, 1999. Permeability of cracked concrete. Materials and Structures, 32(5):370–376. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bian XC, Chao C, Jin WF, et al., 2011. A 2.5D finite element approach for predicting ground vibrations generated by vertical track irregularities. Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE A (Applied Physics & Engineering), 12(12): 885–894. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bian XC, Jin WF, Jiang HG, 2012. Ground-borne vibrations due to dynamic loadings from moving trains in subway tunnels. Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE A (Applied Physics & Engineering), 13(11):870–876. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chang CT, Sun CW, Duan SW, et al., 2001. Response of a Taipei rapid transit system (TRTS) tunnel to adjacent excavation. Tunnelling & Underground Space Technology, 16(3):151–158. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Colaço A, Costa PA, Connolly DP, 2015. The influence of train properties on railway ground vibrations. Structure & Infrastructure Engineering, 12(5):1–18. Google Scholar
  7. Connolly DP, Kouroussis G, Laghrouche O, et al., 2015a. Benchmarking railway vibrations–track, vehicle, ground and building effects. Construction & Building Materials, 92:64–81. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Connolly DP, Costa PA, Kouroussis G, et al., 2015b. Large scale international testing of railway ground vibrations across Europe. Soil Dynamics & Earthquake Engineering, 71:1–12. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cui Y, Nouri A, Chan D, et al., 2016. A new approach to DEM simulation of sand production. Journal of Petroleum Science & Engineering, 147:56–67. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ding DY, Gupta S, Liu WN, et al., 2010. Prediction of vibrations induced by trains on line 8 of Beijing metro. Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE A (Applied Physics & Engineering), 11(4):280–293. CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Dinis Ferreira PA, 2010. Modeling and Prediction of the Dynamic Behavior of Railway Infrastructures at Very High Speeds. PhD Thesis, Technical University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.Google Scholar
  12. Fryba L, 1999. Vibration of Solids and Structures under Moving Loads, 3rd Edition. Thomas Telford, London, UK.CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Gao WL, Yang MS, Zhao BM, 2012. Seismic response analysis of large span tunnel across the river under earthquake. Highway, 5:344–349 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  14. Gu X, Lu L, Qian J, 2017. Discrete element modeling of the effect of particle size distribution on the small strain stiffness of granular soils. Particuology, 32:21–29. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Itasca (Itasca Consulting Group, Inc.), 2008. PFC Particle FOW Code, Version 4.0. Itasca, Minneapolis, USA.Google Scholar
  16. Ji F, Lu J, Shi Y, et al., 2013. Mechanical response of surrounding rock of tunnels constructed with the TBM and drill-blasting method. Natural Hazards, 66(2):545–556. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kouroussis G, 2013. Experimental study of ground vibrations induced by Brussels IC/IR trains in their neighbourhood. Mechanics & Industry, 14(2):99–105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kouroussis G, Conti C, Verlinden O, 2012. Efficiency of resilient wheels on the alleviation of railway ground vibrations. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part F: Journal of Rail and Rapid Transit, 226(4):381–396. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kouroussis G, Connolly DP, Verlinden O, 2014. Railwayinduced ground vibrations–a review of vehicle effects. International Journal of Rail Transportation, 2(2):69–110. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ling XZ, Chen SJ, Zhu ZY, et al., 2010. Field monitoring on the train-induced vibration response of track structure in the Beiluhe permafrost region along Qinghai-Tibet railway in China. Cold Regions Science & Technology, 60(1): 75–83. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Liu Z, Koyi H, 2013. Kinematics and internal deformation of granular slopes: insights from discrete element modeling. Landslides, 10(2):139–160. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lu JF, Zhang CW, Jian P, 2017. Meso-structure parameters of discrete element method of sand pebble surrounding rock particles in different dense degrees. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Discrete Element Methods, p.871–879. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Min FL, Zhu W, Han XR, et al., 2010. The effect of clay content on filter cake formation in highly permeable gravel. Geoshanghai International Conference, 204:210–215. Google Scholar
  24. Min FL, Zhu W, Lin C, et al., 2015. Opening the excavation chamber of the large-diameter size slurry shield: a case study in Nanjing Yangtze River Tunnel in China. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 46:18–27. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nielsen J, Lundén R, Johansson A, et al., 2003. Train-track interaction and mechanisms of irregular wear on wheel and rail surfaces. Vehicle System Dynamics, 40(1–3):3–54. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Picandet V, Khelidj A, Bellegou H, 2009. Crack effects on gas and water permeability of concretes. Cement & Concrete Research, 39(6):537–547. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Potyondy DO, Cundall PA, 2004. A bonded-particle model for rock. International Journal of Rock Mechanics & Mining Sciences, 41(8):1329–1364. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ricci L, Nguyen VH, Sab K, et al., 2005. Dynamic behavior of ballasted railway tracks: a discrete/continuous approach. Computers and Structures, 83(28–30):2282–2292. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shen Y, Gao B, Yang X, et al., 2014. Seismic damage mechanism and dynamic deformation characteristic analysis of mountain tunnel after Wenchuan earthquake. Engineering Geology, 180:85–98. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Voit K, Zimmermann T, 2015. Characteristics of selected concrete with tunnel excavation material. Construction & Building Materials, 101:217–226. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wang J, Gutierrez M, 2010. Discrete element simulations of direct shear specimen scale effects. Géotechnique, 60(5): 395–409. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wu K, Pizette P, Becquart F, et al., 2017. Experimental and numerical study of cylindrical triaxial test on mono-sized glass beads under quasi-static loading condition. Advanced Powder Technology, 28(1):155–166. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Xia X, Li HB, Li JC, et al., 2013. A case study on rock damage prediction and control method for underground tunnels subjected to adjacent excavation blasting. Tunnelling & Underground Space Technology, 35:1–7. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Xiong C, 2014. Technical characteristics and innovation of the cross-Yangtze river tunnel of Wuhan subway line No. 2. Railway Survey and Design, 3:1–7 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  35. Zhai W, Wei K, Song X, et al., 2015. Experimental investigation into ground vibrations induced by very high speed trains on a non-ballasted track. Soil Dynamics & Earthquake Engineering, 72:24–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhang S, Xia Y, Ma G, et al., 2013. Reconnaissance and construction key issues for the cross-river tunnel of Wuhan subway line No. 2. Chinese Journal of Underground Space and Engineering, 9(4):914–918 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  37. Zhang Z, Zhang X, Qiu H, et al., 2016. Dynamic characteristics of track-ballast-silty clay with irregular vibration levels generated by high-speed train based on DEM. Construction & Building Materials, 125:564–573. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhou Y, Su K, Wu H, 2015. Hydro-mechanical interaction analysis of high pressure hydraulic tunnel. Tunnelling & Underground Space Technology, 47:28–34. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Zhejiang University and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of TransportationWuhan University of TechnologyWuhanChina
  2. 2.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of AlbertaEdmonton, AlbertaCanada
  3. 3.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringHong Kong University of Science and TechnologyHong KongChina

Personalised recommendations