Advertisement

Dynamic Tunnel–Soil Interaction in Soft Soils Considering Site-Specific Seismic Ground Response

  • Deepankar ChoudhuryEmail author
  • Milind Patil
  • P. G. Ranjith
  • Jian Zhao
Chapter
Part of the Developments in Geotechnical Engineering book series (DGE)

Abstract

Tunnels constructed in soft soils are vulnerable to earthquake-induced ground shaking in seismically active regions. Since typically the tunnelling depth is shallow and lies within the soft ground zone, there is a need for a complete understanding of tunnel behavior in soft soil. A wide range of case histories and various approaches adopted in seismic analysis of tunnels have been reviewed here. Seismic effects on tunnels and factors influencing damages to tunnels due to earthquakes are summarized in this article. In addition, the effects of various parameters on seismic behavior of shallow tunnel in soft soil were investigated in the present study. A fully nonlinear plane strain analysis was performed using finite element (FE) program to examine the effects of input ground motion, shape of tunnel, and tunnel–soil interface conditions on the seismic behavior of tunnel. Prior to parametric study, an approach for calibration of stiffness and Rayleigh damping parameters are discussed. It was observed that the realistic field scenario can be simulated in numerical modeling with calibrated stiffness and damping ratio after conducting site-specific ground response analysis. Available analytical results are compared with developed numerical results. Circular tunnels are found to perform better than other shapes during earthquake condition. Full-slip interface produces higher bending moment in tunnel compared to no-slip tunnel–soil interface condition. Maximum dynamic earth pressure occurs at shoulder of tunnel. The major findings here focus on the complex deformation modes and lining forces of tunnel during earthquake shaking, which can be used for design of tunnels in soft soil.

Keywords

Tunnel Dynamic tunnel–soil interaction Soft soil Ground response analysis Finite element analysis Seismic response 

References

  1. 1.
    Sharma, S., Judd, W.R.: Underground opening damage from earthquakes. Eng. Geol. 30(3–4), 263–276 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jiang, Y., Wang, C., Zhao, X.: Damage assessment of tunnels caused by the 2004 Mid Niigata prefecture earthquake using Hayashis quantification theory type II. Nat. Hazards 53, 425–441 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Power, M.S., Rosidi, D., Kaneshiro, J.Y.: Seismic vulnerability of tunnels and underground structure revisited. In: Proceedings of the North American Tunneling Conference. Elsevier, Long Beach, CA, USA (1998)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wang, J.N.: Seismic design of tunnel—a simple state of the art design approach, p. 7. Parson Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas Inc., New York, Monograph (1993)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Penzien, J., Wu, C.: Stresses in linings of bored tunnels. Int. J. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 27, 283–300 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Owen, G.N., Scholl, R.E.: Earthquake engineering of large underground structures. Federal Highway Administration and National Science Foundation, Report No. FHWA/RD-80/195 (1981)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hashash, Y.M.A., Hook, J.J., Schmidt, B., Yao, J.I.C.: Seismic design and analysis of underground structures. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 16, 247–293 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hashash, Y.M.A., Park, D., Yao, J.I.C.: Ovaling deformations of circular tunnels under seismic loading, an update on seismic design and analysis of underground structures. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 20(5), 435–441 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Patil, M., Choudhury, D., Ranjith, P.G., Zhao, J.: Seismic analysis of tunnels in soft soils: a state-of-the-art review. In: Proceeding of the International Conference on Soft Ground Engineering (ICSGE 2015), 3–4 Dec 2015, Singapore, pp. 625–634 (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cilingir, U., Madabhushi, S.P.G.: Effect of depth on the seismic response of circular tunnels. Can. Geotech. J. 48(1), 117–127 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cilinger, U., Madabhushi, S.P.G.: A model study on the effects of input motion on the seismic behaviour of tunnels. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 31(3), 452–462 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Izawa, J., Kusakabe, O., Nagatani, H., Yamada, T., Ohbo, N.: Centrifuge modelling on seismic behaviour of rectangular tunnels. Phys. Model. Geotech.—ICPMG’06, 1163–1169 (2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tsinidis, G., Pitilakis, K., Madabhushi, G., Heron, C.: Dynamic response of flexible square tunnels: centrifuge testing and validation of existing design methodologies. Geotechnique 65(5), 401–417 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bilotta, E., Lanzano, G., Russo, G., Silvestri, F., Madabhushi, S.P.G.: Seismic analyses of shallow tunnels by dynamic centrifuge tests and finite elements. In: Proceedings of 17th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Alexandria, Egypt, pp. 474–477 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lanzano, G., Bilotta, E., Russo, G., Silvestri, F., Madabhushi, S.P.G.: Centrifuge modelling of seismic loading on tunnels in sand. Geotech. Test. J. 35(6), 854–869 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tsinidis, G., Rovithis, E., Pitilakis, K., Chazelas, J.L.: Seismic response of box-type tunnels in soft soil: experimental and numerical investigation. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 59, 199–214 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kontoe, S., Zdravkovic, L., Potts, D., Mentiki, C.: On the relative merits of simple and advanced constitutive models in dynamic analysis of tunnels. Geotechnique 61(10), 815–829 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kontoe, S., Avgerinos, V., Potts, D.M.: Numerical validation of analytical solutions and their use for equivalent-linear seismic analysis of circular tunnels. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 66, 206–219 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Amorosi, A., Boldini, D.: Numerical modelling of the transverse dynamic behaviour of circular tunnels in clayey soils. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 29(6), 1059–1072 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Debiasi, E., Gajo, A., Zonta, D.: On the seismic response of shallow-buried rectangular structures. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 38, 99–113 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Patil, M., Choudhury, D., Ranjith, P.G., Zhao, J. A numerical study on effects of dynamic input motion on response of tunnel-soil system. In: Proceeding of the 16th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering (16th WCEE 2017), Santiago, Chile, Paper ID: 3313 (2017)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tsinidis, G.: Response characteristics of rectangular tunnels in soft soil subjected to transversal ground shaking. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 62, 1–22 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Huo, H., Bodet, A., Fernandez, G., Ramirez, J.: Load transfer mechanisms between underground structure and surrounding ground: evaluation of the failure of the Daikai station. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 131(12), 1522–1533 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bobet, A., Fernandez, G., Huo, H., Ramirez, J.: A practical iterative procedure to estimate seismic-induced deformations of shallow rectangular structures. Can. Geotech. J. 45, 923–938 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bobet, A.: Drained and undrained response of deep tunnels subjected to far-field shear loading. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 25, 21–31 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Azadi, M.: The seismic behavior of urban tunnels in soft saturated soils. Procedia. Eng. 14, 3069–3075 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dowding, C., Rozen, A.: Damage to rock tunnel from earthquake shaking. J. of. Geotech. Eng. 104, 175–191 (1978)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bloodworth, A.G.: Three-dimensional analysis of tunneling effects on structures to develop design methods. Doctoral thesis, University of Oxford, The United Kingdom (2002)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Li, T.: Damage to mountain tunnels related to the Wenchuan earthquake and some suggestions for aseismic tunnel construction. Bul. Eng. Geol. Env. 71(2), 297–308 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Okamato, S., Tamura, C., Kato, K., Hamada, M.: Behaviors of submerged tunnels during earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the 5th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering, vol. 1, pp. 544–553. Rome, Italy. (1973)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wood, J.H.: Earthquake-induced soil pressures on structures. California Institute of Technology, Report No. EERL 73–05 (1973)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Penzien, J.: Seismically included racking of tunnels linings. Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 29, 683–691 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ingerslev, C., Kiyomiya, O.: Earthquake analysis. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 12(2), 157–162 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kontoe, S., Zdravkovic, L., Potts, D.M., Menkiti, C.O.: Case study on seismic tunnel response. Can. Geotech. J. 45(12), 1743–1764 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Okabe, S.: General theory on earth pressure and seismic stability of retaining wall and dam. J. Jpn. Soc. Civ. Eng. 12(1), 23–134 (1926)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Mononobe, N., Matsuo, H.: On the determination of earth pressures during earthquakes. In: Proceedings of World Engineering Congress (1929)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Choudhury, D., Rao, K.S.S.: Seismic passive resistance in soils for negative wall friction. Can. Geotech. J. 39(4), 971–981 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Choudhury, D., Sitharam, T.G., Rao, K.S.S.: Seismic design of earth retaining structures and foundations. Curr. Sci. 87(10), 1417–1425 (2004)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rao, K.S.S., Choudhury, D.: Seismic passive earth pressures in soils. J. Geotech. Geoenv. Eng. 131(1), 131–135 (2005)  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1090-0241(2005)131:1(131)
  40. 40.
    Choudhury, D., Rao, K.S.S.: Seismic uplift capacity of inclined strip anchors. Can. Geotech. J. 42(1), 263–271 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Choudhury, D., Singh, S.: New approach for estimation of static and seismic active earth pressure. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 24(1), 117–127 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ahmad, S.M., Choudhury, D.: Seismic internal stability analysis of waterfront reinforced-soil wall using pseudo-static approach. Ocean Eng. 52, 83–90 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Choudhury, D., Savoikar, P.: Seismic stability analysis of expanded MSW landfills using pseudo-static limit equilibrium method. Waste Mgt. Res. 29(2), 135–145 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Choudhury, D., Ahmad, S.M.: Pseudo-static design factors for stability of waterfront retaining wall during earthquake. J Earthq. Tsunami 4(4), 387–400 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Choudhury, D., Ahmad, S.M.: External stability of waterfront reinforced soil structures under seismic conditions using a pseudo-static approach. Geosynth. Int. 16(1), 1–10 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Choudhury, D., Ahmad, S.M.: Stability of waterfront retaining wall subjected to pseudo-static earthquake forces. Ocean Eng. 34(14–15), 19471954 (2007)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rangari, S.M., Choudhury, D, Dewaikar, D.M.: Pseudo-static uplift capacity of obliquely loaded horizontal strip anchor in cohesionless soil. In: Geo-Congress 2012: State of the Art and Practice in Geotechnical Engineering. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 225, pp. 185–194 (2012)  https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784412121.020
  48. 48.
    Rangari, S., Choudhury, D., Dewaikar, D.M.: Pseudo-static uplift capacity of horizontal strip anchors. In: Geo-Frontiers 2011: Advances in Geotechnical Engineering. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 211: pp. 1821–1831 (2011)  https://doi.org/10.1061/41165(397)186
  49. 49.
    Choudhury, D., Savoikar, P.: Seismic translational failure analysis of MSW landfills using pseudo-static approach. In: GeoFlorida 2010: Advances in Analysis, Modeling & Design. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 199: pp. 2830–2839 (2010)  https://doi.org/10.1061/41095(365)288
  50. 50.
    Chakraborty, D., Choudhury, D.: Pseudo-static and pseudo-dynamic stability analysis of tailings dam under seismic conditions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., India, Sect. A 83(1), 63–71 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40010-013-0069-5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Choudhury, D., Nimbalkar, S.: Seismic passive resistance by pseudo-dynamic method. Geotechnique 55(9), 699–702 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Choudhury, D., Nimbalkar, S.S.: Pseudo-dynamic approach of seismic active earth pressure behind retaining wall. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 24(5), 1103–1113 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Nimbalkar, S.S., Choudhury, D., Mandal, J.N.: Seismic stability of reinforced soil-wall by pseudo-dynamic method. Geosynth. Int. 13(3), 111–119 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Choudhury, D., Nimbalkar, S.: Seismic rotational displacement of gravity walls by pseudo-dynamic method: passive case. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 27(3), 242–249 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Nimbalkar, S., Choudhury, D.: Sliding stability and seismic design of retaining wall by pseudo-dynamic method for passive case. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 27(6), 497–505 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ahmad, S.M., Choudhury, D.: Pseudo-dynamic approach of seismic design for waterfront reinforced soil wall. Geotext. Geomemb. 26(4), 291–301 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Choudhury, D., Ahmad, S.M.: Stability of waterfront retaining wall subjected to pseudo-dynamic earthquake forces. J. Waterw. Port Coast. Ocean Eng. 134(4), 252–260 (2008)  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-950x(2008)134:4(252) (2008)
  58. 58.
    Choudhury, D., Nimbalkar, S.S.: Seismic rotational displacement of gravity walls by pseudo-dynamic method. Int. J. Geomech. 8(3), 169–175 (2008)  https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1532-3641(2008)8:3(169)
  59. 59.
    Reddy, G.V.N.N., Choudhury, D., Madhav, M.R., Reddy, E.S.: Pseudo-dynamic analysis of reinforced soil wall subjected to oblique displacement. Geosynth. Int. 16(2), 61–70 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Choudhury, D., Savoikar, P.: Seismic yield accelerations of MSW landfills by pseudo-dynamic approach. Nat. Hazards 56(1), 275–297 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Savoikar, P., Choudhury, D.: Translational seismic failure analysis of MSW landfills using pseudo-dynamic approach. Int. J. Geomech. 12(2), 136–146 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Rangari, S.M., Choudhury, D., Dewaikar, D.M.: Seismic uplift capacity of shallow horizontal strip anchor under oblique load using pseudo-dynamic approach. Soils Found. 53(5), 692–707 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2013.08.007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Rangari, S.M., Choudhury, D., Dewaikar, D.M.: Estimation of seismic uplift capacity of horizontal strip anchors using pseudo-dynamic approach. KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 17(5), 989–1000 (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-013-0046-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Chakraborty, D., Choudhury, D.: Sliding stability of non-vertical waterfront retaining wall supporting inclined backfill subjected to pseudo-dynamic earthquake forces. Appl. Ocean Res. 47, 174–182 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2014.05.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Pain, A., Choudhury, D., Bhattacharyya, S.K.: Seismic stability of retaining wall-soil sliding interaction using modified pseudo-dynamic method. Geotech. Lett. 5(1), 56–61 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1680/geolett.14.00116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Pain, A., Choudhury, D., Bhattacharyya, S.K.: Seismic uplift capacity of horizontal strip anchors using modified pseudo-dynamic approach. Int. J. Geomech. 16(1), 04015025 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Pain, A., Choudhury, D., Bhattacharyya, S.K.: Seismic rotational stability of gravity retaining walls by modified pseudo-dynamic method. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 94(3), 244–253 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2017.01.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Rajesh, B.G., Choudhury, D.: Stability of seawalls using modified pseudo-dynamic method under earthquake conditions. Appl. Ocean Res. 65, 154–165 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2017.04.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Rajesh, B.G., Choudhury, D.: Generalized seismic active thrust on a retaining wall with submerged backfill using a modified pseudo-dynamic method. Int. J. Geomech. 17(3), 06016023 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Rajesh, B.G., Choudhury, D.: Seismic passive earth resistance in submerged soils using modified pseudo-dynamic method with curved rupture surface. Mar Georesour. Geotech. 35(7), 930–938 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1080/1064119X.2016.1260077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Pain, A., Choudhury, D., Bhattacharyya, S.K.: Seismic passive earth resistance using modified pseudo-dynamic method. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 16(2), 263–274 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-017-0381-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Patil, M., Choudhury, D., Ranjith, P.G., Zhao, J.: Behavior of shallow tunnel in soft soil under seismic conditions. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 82, 30–38 (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.04.040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Council, B.S.S.: NEHRP Recommended Seismic Provisions for New Buildings and Other Structures (FEMA sP-750). Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC (2009)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Dickenson, S.E.: Dynamic response of soft and deep cohesive soils during the Loma Prieta Earthquake of October 17, 1989. Thesis dissertation, Civil Engineering, University of California. Berkeley, Californias (1994)Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Amorosi, A., Boldini, D., Elia, G.: Parametric study on seismic ground response by finite element modelling. Comput. Geotech. 37, 515–528 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Schnabel, P.B., Lysmer, J., Seed, H.B.: SHAKE: a computer program for earthquake response analysis of horizontally layered sites. Report No EERC72–12, Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley (1972)Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Idriss, I.M., Lysmer, J., Hwang, R., Seed, H.B.: QUAD-4: a computer program for evaluating the seismic response of soil structures by variable damping finite element procedures. Report No EERC 73–16. Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley (1973)Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Idriss, I.M., Sun, J.I.: SHAKE91: a computer program for conducting equivalent linear seismic response analyses of horizontally layered soils deposits. Center for Geotechnical Modeling, University of California, Davis (1992)Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Ordonez, G.A.: SHAKE2000—a computer program for 1-D analysis of geotechnical earthquake problems. Geomotions, LLC, Lacey, Washington, USA (2012)Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Choudhury, D., Savoikar, P.: Equivalent-linear seismic analyses of MSW landfills using DEEPSOIL. Eng. Geol. 107(3–4), 98–108 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Phanikanth, V.S., Choudhury, D., Reddy, G.R.: Equivalent-linear seismic ground response analysis of some typical sites in Mumbai. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 29(6), 1109–1126 (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-011-9443-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Desai, S.S., Choudhury, D.: Site-specific seismic ground response study for nuclear power plants and ports in Mumbai. Nat. Hazards Rev. 16(4), 04015002 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)NH.1527-6996.0000177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Naik, N.P., Choudhury, D.: Comparative study of seismic ground responses using DEEPSOIL, SHAKE and D-MOD for soils of Goa, India. In: Geo-Congress 2014. Geotechnical Special Publication No. GSP 234, pp. 1101–1110 (2014)  https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413272.107
  84. 84.
    Shylamoni, P., Choudhury, D., Ghosh, S., Ghosh, A.K., Basu, P.C.: Seismic ground response analysis of KK-NPP site in the event of NCO earthquake using DEEPSOIL. In: Geo-Congress 2014. Geotechnical Special Publication No. GSP 234, pp. 840–849 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784413272.082
  85. 85.
    Chatterjee, K., Choudhury, D.: Influences of local soil conditions for ground response in Kolkata city during earthquakes. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, India, Section A: Physical Sciences, in press (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40010-016-0265-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Choudhury, D., Phanikanth, V.S., Mhaske, S.Y., Phule, R.R., Chatterjee, K.: Seismic liquefaction hazard and site response for design of piles in Mumbai city. Ind. Geotech. J. 45(1), 62–78 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40098-014-0108-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    PLAXIS 2D AE.02 [Computer software]. PLAXIS BV, NetherlandsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deepankar Choudhury
    • 1
    Email author
  • Milind Patil
    • 2
  • P. G. Ranjith
    • 3
  • Jian Zhao
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology BombayPowai, MumbaiIndia
  2. 2.IITB-Monash Research AcademyPowai, MumbaiIndia
  3. 3.Department of Civil EngineeringMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations