Optimal intensity measures for longitudinal seismic response of tunnels

Abstract

To study the ground motion intensity measures(IMs)suitable for the design of seismic performance with a focus on longitudinal resistance in tunnel structures, 21 different seismic intensity parameters are selected for nonlinear calculation and analysis of tunnel structures, in order to determine the optimal IM for the longitudinal seismic performance of tunnel structures under different site conditions. An improved nonlinear beam-spring model is developed to calculate the longitudinal seismic response of tunnels. The PQ-Fiber model is used to simulate the longitudinal nonlinear behavior of tunnel structures and the tangential interactions between the tunnel and the soil is realized by load in the form of moment. Five different site types are considered and 21 IMs is evaluated against four criteria: effectiveness, practicality, usefulness, and sufficiency. The results indicate that the optimal IMs are significantly influenced by the site conditions. Specifically, sustained maximum velocity(V_SM)emerges as the optimal IM for circular tunnels in soft soil conditions(Case Ⅰ sites), peak ground velocity(V_PG)is best suited for Case Ⅱ sites, sustained maximum acceleration(A_SM)is ideal for both Case Ⅲ and Case Ⅴ sites, and peak ground acceleration(A_PG)for Case Ⅳ sites. As site conditions transition from Case Ⅰ to Case Ⅴ, from soft to hard, the applicability of acceleration-type intensity parameters gradually decreases, while the applicability of velocity-type intensity parameters gradually increases.

Keywords

seismic intensity measures / tunnel longitudinal direction / probabilistic seismic demand model / soil-tunnel interaction / improved ground-beam model

References

[1] He C, Koizumi A. Study on seismic behavior and seismic design methods in transverse direction of shield tunnels[J]. Structural Engineering and Mechanics, 2001, 11(6): 651-662. DOI: 10.12989/sem.2001.11.6.651.

[2] Liu X D, Liu M H, Jin X N. Technological development and prospect of China’s large-scale cross-sea passage project[J]. Journal of Southeast University(Natural Science Edition), 2023, 53(6): 988-996. DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1001-0505.2023.06.005. (in Chinese)

[3] Huang Z K, Pitilakis K, Tsinidis G, et al. Seismic vulnerability of circular tunnels in soft soil deposits: The case of Shanghai metropolitan system[J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2020, 98: 103341. DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2020.103341.

[4] Liu H Q, Song K Z, Ye Z, et al. Seismic fragility analysis of in-service shield tunnels considering surface building and joint-bolt corrosion[J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2022, 162: 107455. DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2022.107455.

[5] Wang M, Du X L, Sun F F, et al. Fragility analysis and inelastic seismic performance of steel braced-core-tube frame outrigger tall buildings with passive adaptive negative stiffness damped outrigger[J]. Journal of Building Engineering, 2022, 52: 104428. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobe.2022.104428.

[6] Yu X H, Zhou Z, Du W Q, et al. Development of fragility surfaces for reinforced concrete buildings under mainshock-aftershock sequences[J]. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2021, 50(15): 3981-4000. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.3542.

[7] Lin J C, Sun W Y, Li G Y, et al. Seismic fragility of shallowly buried bias loess tunnels based on vector-valued intensity measures[J]. Journal of Southeast University(Natural Science Edition), 2024, 54(2):432-440.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1001-0505.2024.02.021. (in Chinese)

[8] Chen Z Y, Wei J S. Correlation between ground motion parameters and lining damage indices for mountain tunnels[J]. Natural Hazards, 2013, 65(3): 1683-1702. DOI: 10.1007/s11069-012-0437-5.

[9] Zhang C M, Zhong Z L, Zhao M. Study on ground motion intensity measures for seismic response evaluation of circular tunnel[J]. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 2020, 455(1): 012164. DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/455/1/012164.

[10] Hashash Y M A, Park D. Non-linear one-dimensional seismic ground motion propagation in the Mississippi embayment[J]. Engineering Geology, 2001, 62(1/2/3): 185-206. DOI: 10.1016/S0013-7952(01)00061-8.

[11] Jiang B J, Xian Q L, Zhou F L. The influence analysis of the effect of pile-soil contact on the seismic response of the high speed railway bridge[J]. Journal of Guangzhou University(Natural Science Edition), 2016, 15(1): 57-63. (in Chinese)

[12] Shakib H, Jahangiri V. Intensity measures for the assessment of the seismic response of buried steel pipelines[J]. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2016, 14(4): 1265-1284. DOI: 10.1007/s10518-015-9863-6.

[13] Jiang H, Gu Q, Huang L, et al. Analysis on seismic vulnerability of offshore cable-stayed bridge considering time-dependent deterioration by chloride-induced corrosion[J]. Journal of Southeast University(Natural Science Edition), 2021, 51(1):38-45.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1001-0505.2021.01.006. (in Chinese)

[14] Jiang H, Li C, Feng M Y, et al. Analysis on probabilistic seismic damage characteristics of dry joint prefabricated bridge pier based on kernel density estimation[J]. Journal of Southeast University(Natural Science Edition), 2021, 51(4):566-574.DOI:10.3969/j.issn.1001-0505.2021.04.003. (in Chinese)

[15] Cornell C A, Jalayer F, Hamburger R O, et al. Probabilistic basis for 2000 SAC federal emergency management agency steel moment frame guidelines[J]. Journal of Structural Engineering, 2002, 128(4): 526-533. DOI: 10.1061/(asce)0733-9445(2002)128:4(526).

[16] Deng X S, Lai X Y, Yuan K, et al. Vulnerability analysis of multiple ground motion intensity measure rectors for high-rise RC frame structure under rare earthquake[J]. World Earthquake Engineering, 2022, 38(3): 19-29. DOI:10.19994/j.cnki.WEE.2022.0053. (in Chinese)

[17] Mackie K, Stojadinovic B. Probabilistic seismic demand model for California highway bridges[J]. Journal of Bridge Engineering, 2001, 6(6): 468-481. DOI: 10.1061/(asce)1084-0702(2001)6:6(468).

[18] Padgett J E, Nielson B G, DesRoches R. Selection of optimal intensity measures in probabilistic seismic demand models of highway bridge portfolios[J]. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2008, 37(5): 711-725. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.782.

[19] Luco N, Cornell C A. Structure-specific scalar intensity measures for near-source and ordinary earthquake ground motions[J]. Earthquake Spectra, 2007, 23(2): 357-392. DOI: 10.1193/1.2723158.

[20] Tsinidis G, Di Sarno L, Sextos A, et al. Optimal intensity measures for the structural assessment of buried steel natural gas pipelines due to seismically-induced axial compression at geotechnical discontinuities[J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2020, 131: 106030. DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.106030.

[21] Zhao M, Li H F, Huang J Q, et al. Analytical solutions considering tangential contact conditions for circular lined tunnels under longitudinally propagating shear waves[J]. Computers and Geotechnics, 2021, 137: 104301. DOI: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104301.

[22] Liu Z Q, Du Z Y, Xue J Y, et al. Experimental study and finite element analysis on seismic behavior of solid-web steel reinforced concrete cross-shaped and L-shaped columns[J]. Journal of Building Structures, 2019, 40(4): 104-115. DOI:10.14006/j.jzjgxb.2019.04.011. (in Chinese)

[23] Li X Y, Zhao X, Li Y H. Green’s functions of the forced vibration of Timoshenko beams with damping effect[J]. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 2014, 333(6): 1781-1795. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsv.2013.11.007.

Funding

National Key Research and Development Program of China(2022YFC3004300); the National Natural Science Foundation of China(52378475)