Abstract
In this paper, the longitudinal seismic response characteristics of utility tunnel subjected to strong earthquake was investigated based on a practical utility tunnel project and numerical method. Firstly, the generalized response displacement method (GRDM) that was used to conduct this study was reviewed briefly. Secondly, the information of the referenced engineering and the finite element model was introduced in detail, where a novel method to model the joints between utility tunnel segments was presented. Thirdly, a series of seismic response of the utility tunnel were provided, including inner force and intersegment opening width. The results showed that (i) the seismic response of the utility tunnel under far-field earthquake may be remarkable and even higher than that under near-field earthquake; (ii) sharp variation of response may occur at the interface between “soft” soil and “hard” soil, and the variation under far-field earthquake could be much more significant. This research provides a reference for the scientific study and design of relevant engineering.
Highlights
In China, utility tunnels are usually constructed in large cities that are located in seismically active areas
Tsinidis et al [9] used the nonlinear soil-tunnel interface model to investigate the influence of tunnel lining stiffness on the dynamic response of the soil-tunnel system
Chen et al [11, 12] investigated the seismic performance of utility tunnel under nonuniform earthquake wave excitation through a series of model tests and numerical simulations; the shear force-slip relationship at the soil-model structure interaction surface, movement and rotation of the construction joint, and the effect of nonuniform earthquake input were discussed
Summary
Numerous concrete segments, prestressed steels, and soil springs. Each segment was 1.5 m long in the longitudinal direction, and the number of segments was 1000. Soil springs were employed to model dynamic soiltunnel interaction. Four tridirectional soil springs were set at the top, bottom, and two lateral boundaries, respectively. E number of the soil springs was 4000. Note that one end of the soil spring was fixed, while the other end was located at the middle node of the two beam elements. E calculation method of the stiffness of soil springs for different soil types was provided [16,17,18]: Suqian Note that one end of the soil spring was fixed, while the other end was located at the middle node of the two beam elements. e calculation method of the stiffness of soil springs for different soil types was provided [16,17,18]: Suqian
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
