0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

1 visualizzazioni6 paginehi

Dec 13, 2016

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

hi

© All Rights Reserved

0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

1 visualizzazioni6 paginehi

© All Rights Reserved

Sei sulla pagina 1di 6

www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

L.M. Gil a,*, E. Hernandez a, P. De la Fuente b

a

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].

analyze a tunnel cross-section considering the soil pressures

against the tunnel walls, roof and oor caused by the different

seismic waves. The main feature of this methodology is that

the required analysis is static, and uses a set of loads that are

equivalent to the dynamic actions. This quasi-static approach

was re-developed by Navarro and Samartin [3], and then

extended by Navarro [4] to include underground structures

of arbitrary conguration. When the buried structure is exible

enough as to fully conform to the deformations imposed by the

surrounding soil, no soilstructure interaction effect need be

considered, and the dynamic action of the soil on the tunnel

may be obtained from the soil free-eld pressure values.

In this paper, an alternative method is proposed to

approximate the seismic stresses of a buried reinforced

concrete structure. The stresses are obtained from a simplied static model that is subjected to the action of shear and

compression waves propagated vertically. The values of

these actions are obtained from a dynamic analysis of the

soil prole under the assumption of free-eld conditions.

2. Proposed method

2.1. Modeling of the system

* 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

The horizontal dimension of the static model is obtained by

comparing the displacements associated to the fundamental

modes of vibration, horizontal and vertical, of the free-eld

and the soilstructure systems, respectively. From these

comparisons, a distance d from the axis of the buried structure is determined, which denes an inuence zone due to

the presence of the structure. The criterion established for

the determination of this inuence zone is that the presence

of the structure will not affect the motion at point P in the

surrounding soil provided that:

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

rest on a rigid base.

Because of the FLUSH code characteristics, horizontal

and vertical excitations must be considered separately.

This computer code has been widely used in many seismic

soilstructure interaction problems in spite of its intrinsic

limitations: approximate consideration of the non-linear soil

behavior, two-dimensional analysis which approximate

three-dimensional simulation and seismic excitation due to

vertical propagation of shear and compression waves. This

program accurately represents the real radiation damping by

means of transmitting elements that absorb any wave effects

emanating from the structure. These elements are placed

along all the boundaries of the problem (except on the

free surface), and allow to simulate the behavior of a large

soil prole.

2.2. Seismic input

The seismic action to be considered on the soilstructure

system is the effect of two articial accelerograms, one

horizontal and the other vertical. Both of them are statistically independent with a broad frequency content. The input

accelerograms are specied on the surface of the soil and at

rock level, to account for the amplication effects of the

backll layer and its inuence on the results. In the rst

case, a deconvolution process in the free-eld is used to

obtain the input motion.

The analyses are carried out for different seismic excitation levels. The response spectra of the accelerograms used

in the analysis are those proposed in the Regulatory Guide

1.60 [7] for horizontal and vertical excitation.

2.3. Length of inuence

The variation of d/(L/2) over E is shown graphically in

Fig. 2(a) and (b), for horizontal vibrations, and in Fig. 3(a)

and (b), for vertical vibrations. In Figs. 2 and 3, d signies the

length of the zone of inuence, L the side dimension of the

buried structure, E the modulus of elasticity of the granular

backll layer, H the thickness of the granular stratum, and p the

depth at which the structure is located. It is assumed that the

modulus of elasticity is constant throughout the whole stratum.

L.M. Gil et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21 (2001) 735740

737

700 MPa.

Careful consideration to the values of the length of inuence for vertical vibrations must be given because of the

following reasons.

1. When the stiffness of the soil is high, the soilstructure

system vibrate as a whole, thus, the lengths of inuence

values illustrated in the graphs are real because they

reect the inuence of the structure in the modal displacements.

2. When either the soil is soft or the structure is deep, the

soilstructure system does not vibrate as a whole. It is

the soil above the structure the one that vibrates, and the

structure itself behaves as a rigid base. In this case the

values of d obtained from the graphs are high and they

the vibration of the structure.

3. When the soil is soft but the structure is placed close to

the surface of the layer, the buried structure and the

surrounding soil vibrate as a whole. Consequently,

large lengths of inuence are obtained.

It may be seen from Figs. 2 and 3, that higher values of d

are obtained as the structure is placed deeper. This is consistent with the fact that the dynamic response is more

pronounced when the structure is closer to the surface.

3. Analysis procedure

The analysis procedure is performed in two stages: rst, a

738

L.M. Gil et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21 (2001) 735740

analysis, as follows.

3.1. Dynamic analysis

Using the FLUSH program, a frequency domain analysis

is performed and the maximum displacements at each node

for free-eld conditions are obtained, for both horizontal

and vertical vibrations.

3.2. Static analysis

Once the inuence zone, d, is dened for a specic case, a

static model is dened. The new model is composed of a

section of the surrounding soil whose horizontal dimension

is 2d, and the vertical dimension is the thickness of the

stratum. The base of the model is xed and the buried

structure is placed in the center of the model. The displacements obtained under the free-eld conditions comprise the

Figs. 4 and 5.

4. Validation of the proposed method

Three cases have been tested to prove the validity of the

proposed methodology. These cases are dened in Table 1,

following the notation of Fig. 1. The three soilstructure

systems are subjected to vertical propagation of P and S

waves.

In each case a complete dynamic analysis has been

performed rst using the FLUSH program, and then the

proposed simplied static analysis. The modulus of elasticity of the soil is supposed to be constant throughout the

layer, and its value is obtained from the last iteration of the

FLUSH program at the middle position of the structure (see

rst column in Tables 2 and 3).

In order to verify the accuracy of the results obtained by

L.M. Gil et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 21 (2001) 735740

739

proposed static approximation.

Tables 2 and 3 summarize the maximum internal loads

(bending moment M, and axial force A) at the most unfavorable point of the cross-section as well as the value of k

for each case.

5. Extension of the method

and axial forces (N) are compared. Given the small size of

these structures, reinforcement is usually uniform. Therefore, we will compare the most unfavorable point of the

cross-section (in these cases the lower corners).

A coefcient k has been dened as

k

sd

ss

complete dynamic analysis with the program FLUSH, and

Table 1

Examples

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

buried structures, we have analyzed a different model from

that considered above. In [8] Navarro compares internal

loads acting on a tunnel structural elements obtained from

the FLUSH analysis with those calculated using the simplied methodology proposed by Constantopoulos. This example has been analyzed here using the proposed method.

The structure is a symmetric concrete rectangular twobarrel tunnel 5 m wide and 3.3 m high. The thickness of the

perimeter walls is 0.4 m, that of the roof and oor is 0.5 m,

and the internal wall is 0.3 m thick. The material properties

of reinforced concrete are: modulus of elasticity of

3 10 6 N/cm 2, Poisson's ratio equal to 0.2, and mass

density of 2500 kg/m 3.

The structure lies on a granular backll layer resting on a

thin soft layer which, in turn, lies on a rock half-space. All

layers are horizontal and of constant thickness (Fig. 6).

The geometric characteristics and dynamic properties of

each soil type are summarized in Table 4. The system is

excited in the horizontal direction. The articial accelerogram is dened at ground level with a peak acceleration of

0.2174 g.

The horizontal dimension of the static model is obtained

by comparing the displacements associated with the fundamental horizontal mode of vibration. In this case the distance

of inuence is about 23 m. Free-eld displacements are

obtained from the dynamic analysis of the soil prole.

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

obtained from the FLUSH analysis are compared in Table 5

with those calculated using the simplied methodology

proposed by Constantopoulus (CM), and with those obtained

using the method proposed herein (PM). We conclude that the

proposed method leads to a good approximation.

6. Conclusions

A simplied method for the transverse analysis of buried

structures under seismic P and S waves is presented. This

method is an extension of that proposed by Constantopoulos

et al. [2]. The main advantage of this procedure is that only a

static analysis is necessary. The dimensions of the model are

determined by the analysis of modal displacements corresponding to the fundamental modes of vibration, horizontal

and vertical, respectively.

In order to impose the dynamic excitation on the model,

Constantopoulos [2] prescribed a set of forces or pressures

against tunnel walls, roof and oor (inertial boundary conditions). In the proposed methodology, the only actions to be

considered are the displacements of free-eld conditions that

are imposed on a given set of nodes on the static model (kinematic boundary conditions [9]).

Once the free-eld displacements are obtained, many different structures can be easily analyzed. Consequently, this new

method can be used as the rst step in a design problem of

buried structures, prior to the complete nal analysis.

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.