Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn
Department of Mechanics of Structures, University of Granada, E.T.S.I. de Caminos, 18071 Granada, Spain
Department of Mechanics of Structures, U. P. of Madrid, E.T.S.I. de Caminos, Ciudad Universitaria s/n, 28040 Madrid, Spain
Accepted 29 May 2001
Abstract
This paper presents a simplied method for the analysis of square cross-section buried structures (tunnel) subjected to seismic motion.
Finite element analyses are performed to assess the fundamental modes of vibration of the soil layer with and without the tunnel. The
inuence of the tunnel on the modes of vibrations is taken into account by comparing the modal deformations in the free-eld to those in the
presence of the tunnel. From this comparison the zone of inuence of the modal displacements due to the presence of the structure is
determined. The resulting model is subjected to horizontal and vertical excitation of statistically independent accelerograms compatible with
the response spectra of the Regulatory Guide 1.6 of the Nuclear Energy Commission. The free-eld displacement is introduced at the
boundaries of the zone of inuence. The proposed simplied static analysis yields a state of stresses similar to that obtained from a full
dynamic analysis of the complete soiltunnel system. Several examples are solved to corroborate the validity of the method. q 2001 Elsevier
Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Dynamic response; Simplied static model; Buried structures; Seismic motion
1. Introduction
The nite element method (FEM) is the most widely used
numerical method for structural analysis. Its accuracy depends
primarily on the element type and mesh density. The main
deciency of this method when applied to dynamic problems
stem from the fact that a semi-innite medium needs to be
represented by a nite size model. Consequently, a considerable effort has been devoted towards obtaining non-reecting,
or transmitting boundaries, that are placed at the limits of a
mesh to allow for energy radiation.
The use of the boundary element method (BEM) in
underground structures is also attractive. This technique is
based on the numerical solution of the integral equations
that result from the application of Green's theorem to the
partial differential equation governing wave motion in the
continuum, in conjunction with the use of the fundamental
solution. The procedure results in an exact representation of
the wave scattering phenomena for media exhibiting linear
material behavior, provided all boundaries of the problem at
hand are conveniently discretized. A mixed approach
consists of modeling the structure and a portion of the
surrounding soil by the FEM, and the remaining soil stratum
by the BEM [1].
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mlgil@ugr.es (L.M. Gil).
0267-7261/01/$ - see front matter q 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0267-726 1(01)00039-2
736
L.M. Gil et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21 (2001) 735740
dt 2 dFF
# 0:05
dFF
where d t is the modal displacement at point P when the
structure is present, and d FF is the modal displacement
under free-eld conditions.
For the problem at hand, we consider a reinforced
concrete tunnel (Fig. 1), with square cross-sections of
sides, L 2, 3, 4 and 5 m; buried at different depths, p, in
a horizontal layer of constant thickness, H 12, 16 and
20 m, resting on bedrock. It is assumed that the granular
soil is viscoelastic with non-linear behavior. The shear
modulus and damping ratio depend on the shear deformation as Hardin and Drnevich [5] suggested for granular
materials. The buried structure is always placed at the center
of the model.
The surrounding soil has been discretized using four node
rectangular elements with 2 translational degrees of freedom
per node. The cross-section of the buried structure has been
represented by beam elements with a thickness of L/10 of
the larger beam dimension. The material properties of the
reinforced concrete are: modulus of elasticity of 2.7 10 6 N/
cm 2; Poisson's ratio of 0.2, and mass density equal to
2500 kg/m 3.
The full model has been analyzed by the nite element
method using the well-known soilstructure interaction
program FLUSH [6]. With this program, the structure and
the soil media is modeled as a portion of constant thickness.
This plane strain representation is made equivalent to a fully
three-dimensional model. This is due to the fact that geometry and material properties remain unchanged along the
length of the longitudinal axis. In addition, the seismic
L.M. Gil et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21 (2001) 735740
737
738
L.M. Gil et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21 (2001) 735740
L.M. Gil et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21 (2001) 735740
739
sd
ss
Case A
Case B
Case C
H (m)
L (m)
p (m)
Acelerogram dened in
20
16
12
5
5
3
13
10
2
surface
rock
rock
Table 2
Horizontal vibrationsmaximun acceleration: 0.15 g
Case A
Case B
Case C
Estatic (MPa)
Mdynamic (Nm/m)
Mstatic (Nm/m)
Adynamic (N/m)
Astatic (N/m)
298
465
103
94,270
184,300
53,490
84,760
177,200
60,080
105,300
351,300
46,750
91,000
301,600
59,310
1.12
1.05
1.00
740
L.M. Gil et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21 (2001) 735740
Table 3
Vertical vibrationsmaximum acceleration: 2/3 z 0.15 g
Case A
Case B
Case C
Estatic (MPa)
Mdynamic (Nm/m)
Mstatic (Nm/m)
Adynamic (N/m)
Astatic (N/m)
412
756
178
41,200
40,850
18,240
27,910
39,880
13,940
97,440
111,000
66,000
76,180
113,200
53,300
1.44
1.02
1.30
Table 4
Dynamic properties of soils
Granular backll
Fractured and altered graywacke
Graykacke half-space
Poisson's ratio
Density (T/m 3)
Thickness (m)
350
1800
Undeformable behaviour
0.4
0.25
2
2.7
8.40
5.90
1.75
Table 5
Results of FLUSH analysis vs simplied methodologies. Horizontal excitation
Structural element
External walls
Central wall
Roof
Floor
Flush
CM
PM
Flush
CM
PM
Flush
CM
PM
3.15
1.26
2.26
3.15
6.02
3.17
6.02
6.02
4.16
0.87
1.93
4.16
2.6
2.47
1.96
2.96
3.68
3.67
3.51
3.51
7.17
0.51
5.53
13.4
120.6
92.23
58.14
81.5
226.9
223.6
151.5
151.5
174.0
59.7
57.36
126.6
References
[1] Manolis GD, Beskos DE. Underground and lifelines structures. In:
Beskos DE, Anagnostopoulos SA, editors. Computer analysis and
design of earthquake resistant structures: a handbook. Southampton:
CMP, 1997. p. 775837.
[2] Constantopoulos IV, Motherwell JT, Hall JR. Seismic analysis of
buried tunnels. Proceedings of the Seventh World Conference on
Earthquake Engineering, 1980. p. 193200.
[3] Navarro C, Samartn A. Simplied longitudinal seismic analysis of
buried tunnels. Software for Engineering Workstations 1988;4:310.
[4] Navarro C. Seismic analysis of underground structures. Proceedings
of the Tenth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering.
Rotterdam: Balkema, 1992. p. 193944.
[5] Hardin BO, Drenevich VP. Shear Modulus and damping in soils:
design equations and curves. International Journal Soil Mech Found
Div ASCE 1972; 98:60324.
[6] Lysmer J, Udaka T, Tsia CF, Seed HB. FLUSH: A computer program
for approximate 3D analysis of soilstructure interaction problems.
Geotechnical Engineering Department of Civil Engineering, University of California. Berkeley. 1975.
[7] Nuclear Energy Commission. Design response spectra for seismic
design of nuclear power plants. Regulatory Guide 1.60. Directorate
of Regulatory Standards, Washington, 1973.
[8] Navarro C. Effect of adjoining structures on seismic response of
tunnels. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical Methods
in Geomechanics 1992;16:797814.
[9] Gil LM, De la Fuente P, Perez JL, Navarro C. Engineering model for
the seismic response of buried tunnels. Proceedings of the Eleventh
World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Acapulco, Mexico.
Paper No. 539, 1996.