Longitudinal shaking of culvert-frame combined underground structure

Abstract

The underground structure with stiffness mutation at the culvert-frame connection suffers from discrepant dynamic responses when earthquakes strike. This paper studies the seismic responses of an underground structure consisting of two portions of box frames and twin jacked culverts in soft soil. The two portions of box frames (Part A and Part C) have the same 2-storey and 3-span cross sections, rigidly connected to the two parallel jacked culverts (Part B) with F-type sockets between joints. A series of 1g shaking table tests is conducted on the modeled soil−structure system. Accelerometers are installed within the model soil, upon culverts, and on the top of mid slabs of box frames. Joint extensions and closures of culverts are measured. The white noise case is carried out to assess dynamic characteristics of the model system. Four synthetic earthquake cases are conducted to investigate the model system’s seismic responses under earthquakes with varying intensities. Ground acceleration responses of the model soil at different distances from Part A are compared. The extent of discrepancy in acceleration of culverts and box frames is quantified by the correlation coefficient. The characteristics of the joint extension and closure are summarized.

Graphical abstract

Keywords

shaking table test / underground structure / culvert-frame / metro station / soft soil

References

[1] Abuhajar O, El Naggar H, Newson T. Experimental and numerical investigations of the effect of buried box culverts on earthquake excitation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2015, 79: 130–148

[2] Tsinidis G, Heron C, Madabhushi G, Pitilakis K. Calibration of strain gauged square tunnels for centrifuge testing. Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 2016, 34(3): 911–921

[3] Tsinidis G, Pitilakis K, Madabhushi G, Heron C. Dynamic response of flexible square tunnels: Centrifuge testing and validation of existing design methodologies. Geotechnique, 2015, 65(5): 401–417

[4] Tsinidis G, Rovithis E, Pitilakis K, Chazelas J L. Seismic response of box-type tunnels in soft soil: Experimental and numerical investigation. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2016, 59: 199–214

[5] Yatsumoto H, Mitsuyoshi Y, Sawamura Y, Kimura M. Evaluation of seismic behavior of box culvert buried in the ground through centrifuge model tests and numerical analysis. Underground Space, 2019, 4(2): 147–167

[6] Chen G, Chen S, Zuo X, Du X, Qi C, Wang Z. Shaking-table tests and numerical simulations on a subway structure in soft soil. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2015, 76: 13–28

[7] Yue C, Zheng Y, Deng S. Shaking table test study on seismic performance improvement for underground structures with center column enhancement. Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami, 2019, 13(2): 1950009

[8] Chen Z Y, Liu Z Q. Effects of pulse-like earthquake motions on a typical subway station structure obtained in shaking-table tests. Engineering Structures, 2019, 198: 109557

[9] Wu W, Ge S, Yuan Y, Ding W, Anastasopoulos I. Seismic response of subway station in soft soil: Shaking table testing versus numerical analysis. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2020, 100: 103389

[10] Tang B, Li X, Chen S, Zhuang H, Chen H P. Investigations of seismic response to an irregular-section subway station structure located in a soft clay site. Engineering Structures, 2020, 217: 110799

[11] Xu C, Zhang Z, Li Y, Du X. Seismic response and failure mechanism of underground frame structures based on dynamic centrifuge tests. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 2021, 50(7): 2031–2048

[12] Wu W, Ge S, Yuan Y. Seismic response characteristics of cross interchange metro stations: Transversal response of the three-storey section. Engineering Structures, 2022, 252: 113525

[13] Tao L, Shi C, Ding P, Yang X, Bao Y, Wang Z. Shaking table test of the effect of an enclosure structure on the seismic performance of a prefabricated subway station. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2022, 125: 104533

[14] Zhang Z, Yuan Y, Li C, Yu H, Chen H, Bilotta E. Comparison of seismic responses of atrium-style and frame-box metro stations in soft soil in shaking table testing. Structures, 2022, 45: 912–931

[15] Yang J, Zhuang H, Zhang G, Tang B, Xu C. Seismic performance and fragility of two-story and three-span underground structures using a random forest model and a new damage description method. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2023, 135: 104980

[16] Cui Z D, Zhang L J, Zhan Z X. Seismic response analysis of shallowly buried subway station in inhomogeneous clay site. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2023, 171: 107986

[17] Saito K, Yamane K, Koizumi A. A study on II seismic behavior of shield tunnel including shaft in longitudinal direction. Journal of Tunnel Engineering, JSCE, 2006, 16: 121–132

[18] Ma X, Wang G, Wu J, Ji Q. Experimental study on the seismic response of subway station in soft ground. Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami, 2017, 11(5): 1750020

[19] Zhuang H, Wang X, Miao Y, Yao E, Chen S, Ruan B, Chen G. Seismic responses of a subway station and tunnel in a slightly inclined liquefiable ground through shaking table test. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 116: 371–385

[20] Zhang J, Yuan Y, Yu H. Shaking table tests on discrepant responses of shaft-tunnel junction in soft soil under transverse excitations. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 120: 345–359

[21] Zhang J, Yuan Y, Bao Z, Yu H, Bilotta E. Shaking table tests on shaft-tunnel junction under longitudinal excitations. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2020, 132: 106055

[22] Zhang J, Yuan Y, Bao Z, Yu H, Bilotta E. Shaking table tests on the intersection of cross passage and twin tunnels. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 124: 136–150

[23] Chen Q, Zhang T, Hong N, Huang B. Seismic performance of a subway station-tunnel junction structure: A shaking table investigation and numerical analysis. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 2021, 25(5): 1653–1669

[24] Kawamata Y, Nakayama M, Towhata I, Yasuda S. Dynamic behaviors of underground structures in E-Defense shaking experiments. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2016, 82: 24–39

[25] FuglsangL DOvesen N K. The Application of the Theory of Modelling to Centrifuge Studies. In: Centrifuges in Soil Mechanics. London: CRC Press, 1988, 1–10

[26] Kondner R L. Hyperbolic stress-strain response: Cohesive soils. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, 1963, 89(1): 115–143

[27] KramerS L. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 1996

[28] Yan X, Yu H, Yuan Y, Yuan J. Multi-point shaking table test of the free field under non-uniform earthquake excitation. Soil and Foundation, 2015, 55(5): 985–1000

[29] AriasA. A Measure of Earthquake Intensity. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1970

[30] Hartzell S. Variability in nonlinear sediment response during the 1994 Northridge, California, earthquake. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 1998, 88(6): 1426–1437

[31] Régnier J, Bonilla L, Bard P, Bertrand E, Hollender F, Kawase H, Sicilia D, Arduino P, Amorosi A, Asimaki D. . International benchmark on numerical simulations for 1D, nonlinear site response (Prenolin: Verification phase based on canonical cases. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 2016, 106(5): 2112–2135

[32] Yuan Y, Li S, Yu H, Xiao M, Li R, Li R. Local site effect of soil-rock ground: 1-g shaking table test. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2023, 21: 3251–3272

[33] BarclayWFellowship P. Seismic Design of Tunnels: A Simple State-of-the-Art Design Approach. New York: Parsons Brinckerhoff Incorporated, 1993

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China Projects of International Cooperation and Exchanges (Grant No. 52061135112), the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (Nos. 22DZ1203005 and 21DZ1202803).

Electronic Supplementary Material

Supplementary material is available in the online version of this article at https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-025-1149-8 and is accessible for authorized users.

Conflict of interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2025 Higher Education Press