Seismic Design and Assessment of Urban Tunnels- A Literature Review on Modelling Studies

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
A. Golshani
A. Rzaei
Associate Professor in Geotechnical Engineering
10.22034/23.1.1
Abstract
Advancements in tunnelling technologies and ease of implementation of drilling methods in addition of other political and security issues made the construction of underground structures as an important alternative for answering the demands of population growth and the limitations of surface spaces in urban areas. Underground roads and highways, various types of tunnels and urban subway networks are the examples of underground structures being constructed and rapidly implemented in different countries. Meanwhile, for reducing negative effects to the environment, shortening the routes and improving traffic efficiency, urban tunnels should have high level of safety standards in design, construction and operation. Tunnels are considered major national projects and infrastructure investments, and huge costs are incurred around the world to build these structures. In countries located in highly active seismic zone, such as Iran, seismic researches for such important underground structures should not be ignored. The safety of such structures should be provided with respect to all loading demands and hazards issues associated with the site, including seismic loads. Reviewing seismic events in the past shows that underground structures have suffered less damage than above ground structures against seismic loads. However, in recent years, major earthquakes such as the 1995 Kobe earthquake in Japan, the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake in Taiwan, the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake in Turkey, and the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake in China have caused underground structures to experience significant damage. There is evidence to conclude that the structural vulnerability of a tunnel in seismically active areas is an important issue but is either not yet well understood or not well assessed at the time of construction, emphasising that dynamic analysis of these structures against seismic loads is necessary. Earthquakes are likely to significantly affect tunnel performance by causing severe damage or excessive deformation of the tunnel structure. To understand the seismic-induced behaviour and performance of urban tunnels, this paper provides the state of the art in modelling studies of seismic design and assessment of tunnels. The review includes an investigation in seismic responses of real tunnels reported during past seismic events, the probable mechanisms caused damages in tunnels and physical and numerical methods used until now to either investigate those mechanisms or implemented in new designs. As an introduction, the seismic performance of tunnels affected by previous seismic events discusses first, emphasising the effective parameters in evaluation of tunnel seismic response and the relationship between the parameters, and the damage levels caused during earthquakes. Subsequently, the paper continues with a comprehensive literature review on the experimental methods used to investigate seismic-induced response in tunnels including physical testing, centrifuge tests, shaking table tests, and static tests. Analytical, quasi-static and numerical methods of dynamic analysis of tunnels and the accuracy of these methods are discussed then in details referring to some examples. The paper also reviews the effects of soil heterogeneity in the seismic response of tunnel and application of the random field for dynamic analysis of underground structures. Examining the achievements and challenges remained in the field, the paper concludes with the existing gaps in the field to stimulate readers for doing more relevant researches.

Keywords

Subjects

1. Dowding, C.H. and A.J.A.J.G.E.D. Rozan, Damage to rock tunnels from earthquake shaking. ASCE J Geotech Eng Div, 1978. 104(2): p. 175-191.
2. Yoshikawa, K., G.J.A.i.t.t. Fukuchi, and s. use, Earthquake damage to railway tunnels in Japan. Advances in tunnelling technology subsurface use, 1984. 4(3): p. 75-83.
3. Owen, G.N. and R.E. Scholl, Earthquake engineering of large underground structures. 1981.
4. Sharma, S. and W.R.J.E.g. Judd, Underground opening damage from earthquakes. Engineering geology, 1991. 30(3-4): p. 263-276.
5. Power, M., et al., Summary and evaluation of procedures for the seismic design of tunnels. Final report for task, 1998.
6. Hashash, Y.M., et al., Seismic design and analysis of underground structures. Tunnelling underground space technology, 2001. 16(4): p. 247-293.
7. Kontoe, S., et al., Case study on seismic tunnel response. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2008. 45(12): p. 1743-1764.
8. Tsinidis, G., et al., Seismic behaviour of tunnels: From experiments to analysis. Tunnelling Underground Space Technology, 2020. 99: p. 103334.
9. Wang, Z., Z.J.S.D. Zhang, and E. Engineering, Seismic damage classification and risk assessment of mountain tunnels with a validation for the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. Soil Dynamics Earthquake Engineering, 2013. 45: p. 45-55.
10. Zhang, X., et al., Seismic damage assessment of mountain tunnel: A case study on the Tawarayama tunnel due to the 2016 Kumamoto Earthquake. Tunnelling underground space technology, 2018. 71: p. 138-148.
11. Wang, J.-N. and G. Munfakh, Seismic design of tunnels. Vol. 57. 2001: WIT Press.
12. Power, M., D. Rosidi, and J.J.N.C.f.E.E.R. Kaneshiro, Buffalo, New York, Vol. III Strawman: screening, evaluation, and retrofit design of tunnels. Report Draft. National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research, Buffalo, New York, 1996.
13. Institute, N.H., et al., Technical manual for design and construction of road tunnels--civil elements. 2010: AASHTO.
14. Wang, J.J.P., Brinckerhoff, Quade and N.Y. Douglas Inc, Seismic design of tunnels: a state-of-the-art approach, monograph, monograph 7. Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade Douglas Inc, New York, 1993.
15. Chen, J. and X.J.I.T.o.S.p. Huo, Theoretical results on sparse representations of multiple-measurement vectors. IEEE Transactions on Signal processing, 2006. 54(12): p. 4634-4643.
16. Pitilakis, K. and G. Tsinidis, Performance and seismic design of underground structures, in Earthquake geotechnical engineering design. 2014, Springer. p. 279-340.
17. Asheghabadi, M.S. and X.J.A.S. Cheng, Analysis of Undrained Seismic Behavior of Shallow Tunnels in Soft Clay Using Nonlinear Kinematic Hardening Model. Applied Sciences, 2020. 10(8): p. 2834.
18. Golshani, A., M.J.G. Rezaeibadashiani, and G. Engineering, A Numerical Study on Parameters Affecting Seismic Behavior of Cut and Cover Tunnel. Geotechnical Geological Engineering, 2020. 38(2): p. 2039-2060.
19. Tsinidis, G., K.J.S.D. Pitilakis, and E. Engineering, Improved RF relations for the transversal seismic analysis of rectangular tunnels. Soil Dynamics Earthquake Engineering, 2018. 107: p. 48-65.
20. Patil, M., et al., Behavior of shallow tunnel in soft soil under seismic conditions. Tunnelling Underground Space Technology, 2018. 82: p. 30-38.
21. Kutter, B.L., J.-C. Chou, and T. Travasarou, Centrifuge testing of the seismic performance of a submerged cut-and-cover tunnel in liquefiable soil, in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics IV. 2008. p. 1-29.
22. Pitilakis, K., et al., Seismic behaviour of circular tunnels accounting for above ground structures interaction effects. Soil Dynamics Earthquake Engineering, 2014. 67: p. 1-15.
23. Chian, S., S.J.S.D. Madabhushi, and E. Engineering, Effect of buried depth and diameter on uplift of underground structures in liquefied soils. Soil Dynamics Earthquake Engineering, 2012. 41: p. 181-190.
24. Onoue, A., H. Kazama, and H. Hotta. Seismic response of a stacked-drift-type tunnel in dry sand. in Centrifuge 98. 1998.
25. Yamada, T., et al. Centrifuge model tests on circular and rectangular tunnels subjected to large earthquake-induced deformation. in Geotechnical aspects of underground construction in soft ground. 2002.
26. Ito, Y. and K.J.G.R.L. Obara, Very low frequency earthquakes within accretionary prisms are very low stress‐drop earthquakes. Geophysical Research Letters, 2006. 33(9).
27. Shibayama, S., et al., Observed behaviour of a tunnel in sand subjected to shear deformation in a centrifuge. Soils Foundations, 2010. 50(2): p. 281-294.
28. Tohda, J., et al., Centrifuge model tests on the dynamic response of sewer trunk culverts: J. Tohda H. Yoshimura, in Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, Two Volume Set. 2010, CRC Press. p. 677-682.
29. Gillis, K., et al. Seismic response of a cut-and-cover underground structure in dry sand: centrifuge modeling. in 8th International Conference on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, ICPMG 2014. 2014.
30. Abuhajar, O., et al., Experimental and numerical investigations of the effect of buried box culverts on earthquake excitation. Soil Dynamics Earthquake Engineering, 2015. 79: p. 130-148.
31. Yang, D., et al., Numerical model verification and calibration of George Massey Tunnel using centrifuge models. Canadian geotechnical journal, 2004. 41(5): p. 921-942.
32. Cao, J. and M. Huang. Centrifuge tests on the seismic behavior of a tunnel. in Proceedings of 7th international conference on physical modelling in geotechnics, ICPMG. 2010.
33. Chen, Z., H.J.T. Shen, and U.S. Technology, Dynamic centrifuge tests on isolation mechanism of tunnels subjected to seismic shaking. Tunnelling Underground Space Technology, 2014. 42: p. 67-77.
34. Cilingir, U., S.G.J.S.D. Madabhushi, and E. Engineering, A model study on the effects of input motion on the seismic behaviour of tunnels. Soil Dynamics Earthquake Engineering, 2011. 31(3): p. 452-462.
35. Tsinidis, G., et al., Physical modeling for the evaluation of the seismic behavior of square tunnels, in Seismic evaluation and rehabilitation of structures. 2014, Springer. p. 389-406.
36. Tsinidis, G., et al., Centrifuge modelling of the dynamic behavior of square tunnels in sand, in Experimental Research in Earthquake Engineering. 2015, Springer. p. 509-523.
37. Tsinidis, G., et al., Dynamic response of shallow rectangular tunnels in sand by centrifuge testing, in Experimental Research in Earthquake Engineering. 2015, Springer. p. 493-507.
38. Tsinidis, G., K. Pitilakis, and G.J.E.S. Madabhushi, On the dynamic response of square tunnels in sand. Engineering Structures, 2016. 125: p. 419-437.
39. Tsinidis, G., et al., Seismic response of box-type tunnels in soft soil: experimental and numerical investigation. Tunnelling Underground Space Technology, 2016. 59: p. 199-214.
40. Hashash, Y.M., et al., Influence of tall buildings on seismic response of shallow underground structures. Journal of Geotechnical Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2018. 144(12): p. 04018097.
41. Adalier, K., et al., Centrifuge modelling for seismic retrofit design of an immersed tube tunnel. International journal of physical modelling in geotechnics, 2003. 3(2): p. 23-35.
42. Chen, Z., et al., Dynamic centrifuge tests on effects of isolation layer and cross-section dimensions on shield tunnels. Soil Dynamics Earthquake Engineering, 2018. 109: p. 173-187.
43. Xu, H., et al., Shaking table tests on seismic measures of a model mountain tunnel. Tunnelling Underground Space Technology, 2016. 60: p. 197-209.
44. Chen, J., et al., Shaking table test of utility tunnel under non-uniform earthquake wave excitation. Soil Dynamics Earthquake Engineering, 2010. 30(11): p. 1400-1416.
45. Jiang, L., et al., Seismic response of underground utility tunnels: shaking table testing and FEM analysis. Earthquake engineering and engineering vibration, 2010. 9(4): p. 555-567.
46. Xin, C., et al., Shaking table tests on seismic behavior of polypropylene fiber reinforced concrete tunnel lining. Tunnelling Underground Space Technology, 2019. 88: p. 1-15.
47. Ohtomo, K., et al., Research on Streamlining Seismic Safety Evaluation of Underground Reinforced Concrete Duct-Type Structures in Nuclear Power Stations.-Part-2. Experimental Aspects of Laminar Shear Sand Box Excitation Tests with Embedded RC Models. 2001.
48. Chen, J., et al., Numerical simulation of shaking table test on utility tunnel under non-uniform earthquake excitation. Tunnelling underground space technology, 2012. 30: p. 205-216.
49. Zou, Y., et al., A pseudo-static method for seismic responses of underground frame structures subjected to increasing excitations. Tunnelling Underground Space Technology, 2017. 65: p. 106-120.
50. Sun, T., et al., Model test study on the dynamic response of the portal section of two parallel tunnels in a seismically active area. Tunnelling Underground Space Technology, 2011. 26(2): p. 391-397.
51. Wang, G., et al., Experimental study on seismic response of underground tunnel-soil-surface structure interaction system. Tunnelling Underground Space Technology, 2018. 76: p. 145-159.
52. Kiyomiya, O.J.T. and U.S. Technology, Earthquake-resistant design features of immersed tunnels in Japan. Tunnelling Underground Space Technology, 1995. 10(4): p. 463-475.
53. Jin, Y., et al., Experimental investigation of the nonlinear behavior of segmental joints in a water-conveyance tunnel. Tunnelling Underground Space Technology, 2017. 68: p. 153-166.
54. Yu, H., et al., Seismic mitigation for immersion joints: Design and validation. Tunnelling Underground Space Technology, 2017. 67: p. 39-51.
55. St John, C., T.J.T. Zahrah, and u.s. technology, Aseismic design of underground structures. Tunnelling underground space technology, 1987. 2(2): p. 165-197.
56. Newmark, N.M. Problem in wave propagation in soil and rock. in Proceedings of Int. Symp. Wave Propagation and Dynamic Properties of Earth Materials. 1968. Univ. New Mexico Press.
57. Penzien, J.J.E.E. and S. Dynamics, Seismically induced racking of tunnel linings. Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamics, 2000. 29(5): p. 683-691.
58. Huo, H., et al., Analytical solution for deep rectangular structures subjected to far-field shear stresses. Tunnelling underground space technology, 2006. 21(6): p. 613-625.
59. Bobet, A., et al., A practical iterative procedure to estimate seismic-induced deformations of shallow rectangular structures. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2008. 45(7): p. 923-938.
60. Bobet, A.J.T. and U.S. Technology, Effect of pore water pressure on tunnel support during static and seismic loading. Tunnelling Underground Space Technology, 2003. 18(4): p. 377-393.
61. Bobet, A.J.T. and U.S. Technology, Drained and undrained response of deep tunnels subjected to far-field shear loading. Tunnelling Underground Space Technology, 2010. 25(1): p. 21-31.
62. Park, D., et al., Simulation of tunnel response under spatially varying ground motion. Soil Dynamics Earthquake Engineering, 2009. 29(11-12): p. 1417-1424.
63. Kouretzis, G.P., et al., 3-D shell analysis of cylindrical underground structures under seismic shear (S) wave action. Soil Dynamics Earthquake Engineering, 2006. 26(10): p. 909-921.
64. Kouretzis, G.P., et al., Seismic verification of long cylindrical underground structures considering Rayleigh wave effects. Tunnelling underground space technology, 2011. 26(6): p. 789-794.
65. Kouretzis, G.P., et al., Analysis of circular tunnels due to seismic P-wave propagation, with emphasis on unreinforced concrete liners. Computers Geotechnics, 2014. 55: p. 187-194.
66. Kontoe, S., et al., Numerical validation of analytical solutions and their use for equivalent-linear seismic analysis of circular tunnels. Soil Dynamics Earthquake Engineering, 2014. 66: p. 206-219.
67. Rashiddel, A., et al., Numerical investigation of closed-form solutions for seismic design of a circular tunnel lining by quasi-static method. Civil Engineering Journal, 2018. 4(1): p. 239.
68. St John, C., T.J.A.i.t.t. Zahrah, and s. use, Seismic design considerations for underground structures. Advances in tunnelling technology and subsurface use, 1984. 4(3): p. 105-112.
69. Kawashima, K. Seismic design of underground structures in soft ground: a review. in Geotechnical aspects of underground construction on soft ground. 2000.
70. Gil, L., et al., Simplified transverse seismic analysis of buried structures. Soil dynamics earthquake engineering, 2001. 21(8): p. 735-740.
71. Tateishi, A.J.S.E.E.E., A study on seismic analysis methods in the cross section of underground structures using static finite element method. Structural Engineering/Earthquake Engineering, 2005. 22(1): p. 41s-54s.
72. Hashash, Y.M., et al. Seismic design considerations for underground box structures. in Earth Retention Conference 3. 2010.
73. Yu, H., Y. Yuan, and A.J.U.S. Bobet, Seismic analysis of long tunnels: a review of simplified and unified methods. Underground Space, 2017. 2(2): p. 73-87.
74. Ding, J.-H., et al., Numerical simulation for large-scale seismic response analysis of immersed tunnel. Engineering Structures, 2006. 28(10): p. 1367-1377.
75. Yu, H., et al., Seismic analysis of a long tunnel based on multi-scale method. Engineering Structures, 2013. 49: p. 572-587.
76. Zhou, S., et al., Dynamic response of a segmented tunnel in saturated soil using a 2.5-D FE-BE methodology. Soil Dynamics Earthquake Engineering, 2019. 120: p. 386-397.
77. Bilotta, E., et al., A numerical Round Robin on tunnels under seismic actions. Acta Geotechnica, 2014. 9(4): p. 563-579.
78. Tsinidis, G., K. Pitilakis, and C.J.B.o.E.E. Anagnostopoulos, Circular tunnels in sand: dynamic response and efficiency of seismic analysis methods at extreme lining flexibilities. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2016. 14(10): p. 2903-2929.
79. Kontoe, S., et al., On the relative merits of simple and advanced constitutive models in dynamic analysis of tunnels. Géotechnique, 2011. 61(10): p. 815-829.
80. Sun, Q., D.J.S.D. Dias, and E. Engineering, Significance of Rayleigh damping in nonlinear numerical seismic analysis of tunnels. Soil Dynamics Earthquake Engineering, 2018. 115: p. 489-494.
81. Andreotti, G. and C.J.B.o.E.E. Lai, A nonlinear constitutive model for beam elements with cyclic degradation and damage assessment for advanced dynamic analyses of geotechnical problems. Part II: validation and application to a dynamic soil–structure interaction problem. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2017. 15(7): p. 2803-2825.
82. Kampas, G., et al., The effect of tunnel lining modelling approaches on the seismic response of sprayed concrete tunnels in coarse-grained soils. Soil Dynamics Earthquake Engineering, 2019. 117: p. 122-137.
83. Bao, X., et al., Numerical analysis on the seismic behavior of a large metro subway tunnel in liquefiable ground. Tunnelling Underground Space Technology, 2017. 66: p. 91-106.
84. Mohsenian, V., et al., An investigation into the effect of soil-foundation interaction on the seismic performance of tunnel-form buildings. Soil Dynamics Earthquake Engineering, 2019. 125: p. 105747.
85. Abate, G. and M.R.J.B.o.E.E. Massimino, Numerical modelling of the seismic response of a tunnel–soil–aboveground building system in Catania (Italy). Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2017. 15(1): p. 469-491.
86. Abate, G. and M.R.J.B.o.E.E. Massimino, Parametric analysis of the seismic response of coupled tunnel–soil–aboveground building systems by numerical modelling. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2017. 15(1): p. 443-467.
87. Ma, C., et al., Seismic performance upgrading for underground structures by introducing sliding isolation bearings. Tunnelling Underground Space Technology, 2018. 74: p. 1-9.
88. Salemi, A., R. Mikaeil, and S.S.J.K.J.o.C.E. Haghshenas, Integration of finite difference method and genetic algorithm to seismic analysis of circular shallow tunnels (Case study: Tabriz urban railway tunnels). KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 2018. 22(5): p. 1978-1990.
89. Huang, J., et al., Effect of peak ground parameters on the nonlinear seismic response of long lined tunnels. Tunnelling Underground Space Technology, 2020. 95: p. 103175.
90. Tsinidis, G., K. Pitilakis, and A.D.J.A.G. Trikalioti, Numerical simulation of round robin numerical test on tunnels using a simplified kinematic hardening model. Acta Geotechnica, 2014. 9(4): p. 641-659.
91. Kouretzis, G.P., et al., Effect of interface friction on tunnel liner internal forces due to seismic S-and P-wave propagation. Soil Dynamics Earthquake Engineering, 2013. 46: p. 41-51.
92. Yu, H., et al., Damage observation and assessment of the Longxi tunnel during the Wenchuan earthquake. Tunnelling Underground Space Technology, 2016. 54: p. 102-116.
93. Chen, C.-H., et al., Mechanisms causing seismic damage of tunnels at different depths. Tunnelling underground space technology, 2012. 28: p. 31-40.
94. Amorosi, A., D.J.S.D. Boldini, and E. Engineering, Numerical modelling of the transverse dynamic behaviour of circular tunnels in clayey soils. Soil Dynamics Earthquake Engineering, 2009. 29(6): p. 1059-1072.
95. Sun, Q., et al., Impact of an underlying soft soil layer on tunnel lining in seismic conditions. Tunnelling Underground Space Technology, 2019. 90: p. 293-308.
96. Hleibieh, J., D. Wegener, and I.J.A.G. Herle, Numerical simulation of a tunnel surrounded by sand under earthquake using a hypoplastic model. Acta Geotechnica, 2014. 9(4): p. 631-640.
97. Argyroudis, S., K.J.S.D. Pitilakis, and E. Engineering, Seismic fragility curves of shallow tunnels in alluvial deposits. Soil Dynamics Earthquake Engineering, 2012. 35: p. 1-12.
98. Laib, A., et al., Modeling of soil heterogeneity and its effects on seismic response of multi-support structures. Earthquake Engineering Engineering Vibration, 2015. 14(3): p. 423-437.
99. Chen, Z., et al., Seismic performance of an immersed tunnel considering random soil properties and wave passage effects. Structure Infrastructure Engineering, 2018. 14(1): p. 89-103.
100. Zhang, L. and Y.J.U.S. Liu, Numerical investigations on the seismic response of a subway tunnel embedded in spatially random clays. Underground Space, 2020. 5(1): p. 43-52.
101. Yan, X., et al., Multi-point shaking table test design for long tunnels under non-uniform seismic loading. Tunnelling Underground Space Technology, 2016. 59: p. 114-126.
102. Bao, Z., et al., Multi-scale physical model of shield tunnels applied in shaking table test. Soil Dynamics Earthquake Engineering, 2017. 100: p. 465-479.
103. Yu, H., et al., Multi-point shaking table test of a long tunnel subjected to non-uniform seismic loadings. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2018. 16(2): p. 1041-1059.
104. Anastasopoulos, I. and G.J.B.o.E.E. Gazetas, Analysis of cut-and-cover tunnels against large tectonic deformation. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2010. 8(2): p. 283-307.
105. Nam, S.-H., et al., Seismic analysis of underground reinforced concrete structures considering elasto-plastic interface element with thickness. Engineering Structures, 2006. 28(8): p. 1122-1131.
106. Hatzigeorgiou, G.D., D.E.J.S.D. Beskos, and E. Engineering, Soil–structure interaction effects on seismic inelastic analysis of 3-D tunnels. Soil Dynamics Earthquake Engineering, 2010. 30(9): p. 851-861.
107. Argyroudis, S., et al., Effects of SSI and lining corrosion on the seismic vulnerability of shallow circular tunnels. Soil dynamics earthquake engineering, 2017. 98: p. 244-256.
108. Hu, X., et al., A real-life stability model for a large shield-driven tunnel in heterogeneous soft soils. Frontiers of Structural Civil Engineering, 2012. 6(2): p. 176-187.
109. Cheng, H., et al., Comparison of modeling soil parameters using random variables and random fields in reliability analysis of tunnel face. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2019. 19(1): p. 04018184.
110. Gholampour, A., A.J.C. Johari, and Geotechnics, Reliability-based analysis of braced excavation in unsaturated soils considering conditional spatial variability. Computers Geotechnics, 2019. 115: p. 103163.
111. Cheng, H., J. Chen, and J.J.I.J.o.G. Li, Probabilistic analysis of ground movements caused by tunneling in a spatially variable soil. International Journal of Geomechanics, 2019. 19(12): p. 04019125.
Modares Civil Engineering journal
Volume 23, Issue 1
March and April 2023
Pages 7-29