Abstract
In this paper, four known analytical methods including Wang (1993), Penzien (2000), Park et al. (2009), and Bobet (2010) were Evaluated based on seismic design of circular tunnel in Tehran Metro Line 6. For this purpose, a quasi-static numerical method was applied in the framework of finite difference method (FDM) under the same assumptions. In both numerical and analytical methods, to consider the nonlinear behavior of soil, linear equivalent properties of soil derived from ground analysis were incorporated in EERA software. obtained results shown that the Park’s analytical solution under various conditions of interaction between the tunnel lining and soil provides very close results to the of numerical modeling. Afterward, a comprehensive validation was performed to assess the impact of the rigidity of the surrounding ground and the maximum shear strain value. In this regard, several earthquake scenarios with different shear wave rates were used to achieve a wide range of flexibility ratio (F) and maximum shear strain. The results showed a significant difference between the results of Penzine’s and Bobet’s methods under the no-slip conditions and those of numerical analyses for a certain range of flexibility and shear strain ratios. In the final part of the paper, a quasi-static seismic numerical study was performed under realistic soil-structure interaction conditions to illustrate the importance of the actual interaction between the tunnel lining and surrounding soil. The results showed that the actual interaction conditions governing estimation of the axial force play a very important role. Also, it was found that Park’s solution, because of the ability to consider the slip at the interface provides results very close to those of the numerical modeling. In contrast, one of the serious limitations of the other analytical methods is their inability to simulate the slip interface between the tunnel lining and soil.
Highlights
Tunnels have better performance than surface structures against earthquake
Defined conditions of some analytical solutions including the Penzien (2000) and Bobet’s (2010) solutions taken to formulate interaction between the lining and the soil under no-slip conditions lead to some results contradictive with those of other analytical methods and numerical methods
The first part relates to the comparison of the results of quasi-static numerical analysis of an urban environment with analytical solutions
Summary
Tunnels have better performance than surface structures against earthquake. Seismic loading parameters have to be taken into account in the design of underground structures such as tunnels [1]. Considering the high seismic susceptibility of countries such as Iran due to their. Considering that analytical solutions make calculations very quick and easy to obtain the axial and moment forces of the tunnel lining, they are attractive tools for initial design. The closed-form analytical solution is used for a quick initial estimation; their efficiency and integrity must be validated in all the soil environments through applying precise methods
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
