Model test to investigate reasonable reactive artificial boundary in shaking table test with a rigid container

Abstract

When conducting dynamic tests of underground structure by a rigid container, reasonable boundary conditions are one of the essential factors related to the accuracy of test results, especially the artificial boundary perpendicular to the excitation direction. On the basis of numerous studies, shaking table tests with four different typical boundaries are performed in this study. The tests consider the seismic intensity and seismic wave types. Then, the simulation effects of the four boundary conditions are evaluated from four aspects as follows: the differential rate of peak acceleration, acceleration curve, similarity of Fourier frequency spectra, and uneven soil settlement in rigid containers. Results show that the simulation effects of the boundary conditions are not only affected by the nature of the boundary material but also related to the seismic intensity, types of seismic waves, and filter characteristic of the filling medium in containers. In comparison with the other three types of boundary condition, foamed polyethylene shows the best simulation effect and its effect decreases gradually with the increase in earthquake intensity. Finally, on the basis of existing studies, the evaluation criteria of boundary effect, the principle for the selection of boundary material type and the thickness of boundary material are discussed and summarized, and the corresponding design methods and suggestions are then provided.

Keywords

shaking table test / artificial boundary conditions / rigid container

References

[1] JiangL Z, ChenJ, LiJ. Seismic response of underground utility tunnels: Shaking table testing and FEM analysis [J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2010, 9: 555-567

[2] ChenG X, WangZ H, ZuoX, DuX L, GaoH M. Shaking table test on the seismic failure characteristics of a subway station structure on liquefiable ground [J]. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2013, 42: 1489-1507

[3] ChenZ Y, LiY Y. Boundary deformation of model container design [J]. Earthquake Resistant Engineering and Retrofitting, 2015, 37(5): 106-112

[4] KheradiH, YukihiroM, RyosukeO, FengZ. 3D dynamic finite element analyses and 1g shaking table tests on seismic performance of existing group-pile foundation in partially improved grounds under dry condition [J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2016, 90: 196-210

[5] LiY D, CuiJ, GuanT D, JingL P. Investigation into dynamic response of regional sites to seismic waves using shaking table testing [J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2015, 14(3): 411-421

[6] PanosK, AnnaS D S, AugustoP, MatthewD, AldoE, ArmandoL S, ColinT, GeorgeM. Investigation of seismic response of cantilever retaining walls: Limit analysis vs shaking table testing [J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2015, 77: 432-445

[7] YangG, YuT, YangX, HanB. Seismic resistant effects of composite reinforcement on rockfill dams based on shaking table tests [J]. Journal of Earthquake Engineering, 2017, 21(6): 1010-1022

[8] WangJ X, YangG, LiuH L, SanjayS N, TangX J, XiaoY. Seismic response of concrete-rockfill combination dam using large-scale shaking table tests [J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2017, 99: 9-19

[9] SrilathaN, MadhaviL G, PuttappaC G. Effect of frequency on seismic response of reinforced soil slopes in shaking table tests [J]. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 2013, 36: 27-32

[10] TangL, CongS Y, LingX Z, JuN P. The boundary conditions for simulations of a shake-table experiment on the seismic response of 3D slope [J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2017, 16: 23-32

[11] ZhuangY Z, ChenY, ChenB, WangS Z, HanY T. Shaking table test on boundary effect of steel box for pile-soil interaction research [J]. Journal of Fuzhou University (Natural Science Edition), 2016, 44(4): 504-509(in Chinese)

[12] LiuH X, XuQ, LiY R. Effect of lithology and structure on seismic response of steep slope in a shaking table test [J]. Journal of Mountain Science, 2014, 11(2): 371-383

[13] MajidY. Investigation on the seismic performance of steel-strip reinforced-soil retaining walls using shaking table test [J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2017, 97: 216-232

[14] YanX, YuanJ Y, YuH T, BobetA, YuanY. Multipoint shaking table test design for long tunnels under nonuniform seismic loading [J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2016, 59: 114-126

[15] MasoudR M, MohammadH B. Seismic ground motion amplification pattern induced by a subway tunnel: Shaking table testing and numerical simulation [J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2016, 83: 81-97

[16] LombardiD, BhattacharyaS, ScarpaF, BianchiM. Dynamic response of a geotechnical rigid model container with absorbing boundaries [J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2015, 69: 46-56

[17] LeiM F, LinD Y, HuangQ Y, ShiC H, HuangL C. Research on the construction risk control technology of shield tunnel underneath an operational railway in sand pebble formation: A case study [J]. European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, 2018, 22(s1): 1-15

[18] LeiMingfeng, LinDayong, ShiChenghua, MaJianjun, YangWeichao. A Structural Calculation Model of Shield Tunnel Segment: Heterogeneous Equivalent Beam Model. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2018, 2018: 1-16

[19] BathurstRJ, HatamiK. Seismic response analysis of a geosynthetic reinforced soil retaining wall [J]. Geosynthetics International, 1998, 5(12): 127-166

[20] BhattacharyaS, LombardiD, DihoruL, DietzM, CreweA J, TaylorC A. Model container design for soil-structure interaction studies [J]. Role of Seismic Testing Facilities in Performance-Based Earthquake Engineering, 2011, 22: 135-158

[21] LinY L, LengW M, YangG L, LiL, YangJ S. Seismic response of embankment slopes with different reinforcing measures in shaking table tests [J]. Natural Hazards, 2015, 76: 791-810

[22] LinY L, YangG L. Dynamic behavior of railway embankment slope subjected to seismic excitation [J]. Natural Hazards, 2013, 69(1): 219-235

[23] LeiM F, LinD Y, YangW C, ShiC H, PengL M, HuangJ. Model test to investigate failure mechanism and loading characteristics of shallow-bias tunnels with small clear distance [J]. Journal of Central South University, 2016, 23(12): 3312-3321

[24] XuH, LiT B, XiaL, ZhaoJ C, WangD. Shaking table tests on seismic measures of a model mountain tunnel [J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2016, 60: 197-209

[25] WhitmanR V, LambeP C. Effect of boundary conditions upon centrifuge experiments using ground motions simulations [J]. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 1986, 9: 61-71

[26] CAI L W, GU Y, ZHUO W D, ZHUANG S M. The boundary effects of shaking table test soil box based on finite element simulation [C]// National Conference on Structural Engineering. Lanzhou, China, 2014. http://cpfd.cnki.com.cn/Article/CPFDTOTAL-LXFY201410002060.htm.

[27] LeiMingfeng, LiuJiyao, LinYuexiang, ShiChenghua, LiuCan. Deformation Characteristics and Influence Factors of a Shallow Tunnel Excavated in Soft Clay with High Plasticity. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2019, 2019: 1-14

[28] LeiMingfeng, LiuLinghui, LinYuexiang, LiJin. Study on Flexural Bearing Capacity Calculation Method of Enclosure Pile with Partial Excision in Deep Foundation Pit. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2019, 2019: 1-10

[29] LinY X, PengL M, LeiM F, YangW C, LiuJ W. Mechanical properties of bimrocks with high rock block proportion [J]. Journal of Central South University, 2019, 26(12): 3397-3409

[30] LouM L, WangW J, ZhuT, MaH C. Soil lateral boundary effect in shaking table model test of soil-structure system [J]. Earth Quake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2000, 20(4): 30-36(in Chinese)