MTunnelSeism GBarla

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/301732200
Presentation:Three Lectures on "Design Analyses of Tunnels and Caverns in

Seismic Conditions". Post Graduate Master Course on "Tunnelling and Tunnel
Boring Machines” (8th Edition),...
Presentation · December 2011

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1020.5045
CITATIONS READS
0 241
1 author:
Giovanni Barla
Politecnico di Torino
316 PUBLICATIONS 2,905 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Post Graduate Master Course on "Tunnelling and Tunnel Boring Machines” (8th Edition), Politecnico di Torino, 2011-2012. View project
PARATIE View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Giovanni Barla on 30 April 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Design analyses of tunnels
and caverns in seismic
conditions
Giovanni Barla
OUTLINE
INTRODUCTION
EARTHQUAKE INDUCED DAMAGES Lecture 1

Typical damage patterns
Database and relevant factors
Fragility curves
DESIGN ANALYSES
Analytical solutions
Simplified design analyses Lecture 2
Detailed design analyses
CASE STUDY
Pavoncelli Tunnel
Pont Ventoux Cavern Lecture 3
conditions
Giovanni Barla
Lecture 1
OUTLINE
INTRODUCTION
EARTHQUAKE INDUCED DAMAGES

Typical damage patterns
Database and relevant factors
INTRODUCTION
Wide use of underground structures implies

study of vulnerability to earthquake loading
Hydroelectric Tunnels
Railways & Highways Underground cavities
Different seismic response of underground and surface structures

• The mass of the surrounding soil is large, relative to that of the structure
• Structure completely confined by ground yields very high damping effects
Seismic design focused on the free-field deformation imposed

and its interaction with the structure
“In general low vulnerability of underground structures”

INTRODUCTION
Low vulnerability of underground structures is due to:
The above-ground structures are affected by the free-

surface effects which double the strength of ground shaking
In the far-field the ground motion is strongly composed by
surface (Rayleigh) waves which have the characteristics of
decaying exponentially with depth
Usually the shear modulus of soil deposits increases with
depth
Small size of the excavations relative to the predominant
wavelengths of the ground motion
Reduced susceptibility of underground structures to be
excited at their resonance frequencies due to the coupling
between the structure and the surrounding ground
“There is a worldwide lack of code prescriptions

and recommendations”
Typical Damage Patterns
Columns heavely damaged

in subway tunnel
1995 Kobe earthquake, Japan

Sheared off lining: fault crossing

or contact between rock
formations with different
mechanical properties
Pavoncelli tunnel (Acquedotto Pugliese)

Irpinia Earthquake 1980 - Rupture of
lining at transition from Varicoloured
clays to Pliocene blue clays of the
Ofanto Basin
Slope failure induced

collapse: typical of shallow
tunnels near to natural slopes
and rock cuts
1999 Chi-Chi earthquake (Taiwan)

Longitudinal cracks in
concrete lining: the crack
length often exceeds the
tunnel diameter
2004 Niigata earthquake, Japan

Transverse cracks in
concrete lining: developed
perpendicular to tunnel axis
1976 Tangshane earthquake,

China – Tangshan Mine
Inclined cracks in concrete

lining: 30 to 60° to the
horizontal developed on one
side of the tunnel
2004 Niigata earthquake, Japan

Extended cross cracks in

concrete lining: develop with
different angle and run
continuously in the lining
1998 Mid-North Iwate

earthquake, Kakkonda
Hydropower Station, Japan
(Uenishi et al., 2001)
Damages in tunnels
near active faults
a) Cracks at the invert
b) Spalling failure at the
sidewalls with yielding of
steel reinforcement
Sinkholes due to roof collapse of karstic caves in the city

of L’aquila, April 6, 2009 earthquake
Database – Analysis of available case studies
Cause of damage due to earthquakes (Dowding and Rozen ,1978):

Damage from ground shaking
Damage from fault displacement
Damage by earthquakes induced failure (liquefaction, landslides)
Damage to underground structures implies:

• Potential loss of human lives
• Loss of functionality
Necessity to mitigate the risk and the effects of damage:

• Design accounting for static and dynamic loading conditions
The major factors influencing the seismic response of an underground

structure include (Dowding and Rozen, 1978, St. John and Zahrah 1987,
Sharma and Judd 1991, Wang et al., 2001):
• Shape, size and depth of the structure
• Mechanical properties of the surrounding soil or rock
• Mechanical properties of the structure → seismic capacity of the
tunnel
• Earthquake intensity → severity of ground shaking
Database Description
Dowding & Rozen (1978) 71

Owen & Scholl (1980) 127
Sharma & Judd (1991) 192
Power et al. (1998) 204
cases
Damage Classification
Limit
Damage level Damage description* Functionality
State
None A No damage detectable by visual inspection
Immediate
Light damage detected on visual inspection, cracking of interruption of
the concrete lining, local opening of joints and operations is not
Slight A
obstructing of the opening, opening deformations (crack strictly required
width < 3 mm, crack lengths < 5 m)
Damage
control
Roof or wall collapse, falling and failure of the tunnel
lining or in un-lining section, spalling of the concrete
lining or un-lining section, liner steel exposed, cracking Interruption of
Moderate B of the concrete lining, crushing of the concrete lining, operation only for 2 or
pavement cracks, wall deformation, slabbing or spalling 3 days
of the rock around the opening, bending and buckling of
Collapse
reinforcing bars (cracks > 3 mm, lengths > 5 m)
prevention
Portal failure, slope instability induce tunnel collapse,
Interruption of its
shared off lining, pavement uplift, rising of the invert,
Severe C serviceability for a
tunnel being flooded or where a tunnel shows damage on
long period of time
ventilation or lighting system
*w =width of crack, l = length of crack


Damaged Tunnels
Year Earthquake Country MW
tot A B C
1887 Sonoka Mexico 7.4 3 3
1906 San Francisco CA 7.8 10 10
1923 Kanto Japan 7.9 25 14 8 3
1927 Kita-Tango Japan 7.3 1 1
1930 Kita-Izu Japan 7.0 1 1
1940 Idaho USA 5.0 1 1
1948 Fukui Japan 7.2 1 1
1952 Tokachi-oki Japan 8.0 1 1
1952 Kern County CA 7.4 8 8
1961 Kita-Mino Japan 7.0 2 2
1964 Great Alaskan Alaska 8.4 8 8
1964 Niigata Japan 7.5 2 2
1967 Koyna India 7.0 1 1
1968 Tokachi-Oki Japan 7.9 1 1
1971 San Fernando CA 6.6 10 10
1976 Tang-Shan China 7.8 2 2
1978 Izu-Oshima-Kinkai Japan 7.0 8 2 6

Damaged Tunnels
Year Earthquake Country MW
tot A B C
1978 Miyagiken-oki Japan 7.4 6 6
1980 Irpinia Italy 6.9 1 1
1982 Urakawa-oki Japan 7.1 6 6
1983 Nihonkai-chubu Japan 7.7 8 8
1984 Naganoken-seibu Japan 6.8 1 1
1987 Chibaken-toho-oki Japan 6.7 1
1989 Loma Prieta CA 7.1 22 22

1992 Petrolia CA 6.9 11 11
1993 Notohanto-oki Japan 6.6 1 1
1993 Hokkaido-nansei-oki Japan 7.8 1 1
1994 Northridge CA 6.7 31 30 1
1995 Kobe (Hyogoken-Nambu) Japan 6.9 97 85 12
1999 Kocaeli Turkey 7.4 1 1
1999 Duzce Turkey 7.2 1 1
1999 Chi-Chi Taiwan 7.6 57 31 11 15
2004 Niigata Japan 6.8 16 9 7
180
160 None
Number of cases 140 Slight
120 Moderate
100 Heavy
80
60
40
20
0
<50
50<100
100<200
200<300
300<500
500<1000
1000<1500
Unknown
Overburden depth [m]
Effect of overburden depth

180
160
None
Number of cases
140
Slight
120
100 Moderate
80 Heavy
60
40
20
0
Rock (?)
Sedimentary
Igneous
Metamorphic
Colluvium
Unknown
Rock Type
Effect of type of surrounding rock

200
None
160
Number of cases Slight
120 Moderate
Heavy
80
40
0
Unlined
Timber
Masonry/Brick
Concrete
Reinforced
Unknown
concrete
Type of internal support
Effect of type of support

250
None
Moderate
150 Heavy
100
50
0
<4
4<5
5<6
6<7
7<8
>=8
Unknown
Magnitude
Effect of earthquake magnitude

180
160 None
120 Moderate
100 Heavy
80
60
40
20
0
<25
25<50
50<100
100<150
150<200
200<300
Unknown
Epicentral distance [km]
Effect of epicentral distance

100
90 None
70
Moderate
60
50 Heavy
40
30
20
10
0
0.05
0.05-0.15
0.15-0.25
0.25-0.35
0.35-0.45
0.45-0.55
0.55-0.65
>0.65
Unknown
Surface PGA [%g]
Effect of peak surface acceleration

Damage due to shaking occurs when one or more of the following

conditions are met:
• earthquakes of high intensity
• tunnels located close to the active faults (<15÷25 km)
• poor rock mass conditions
• poor construction conditions (i.e. without lining or with masonry brick
lining)
• sharp variations of mechanical or geometrical properties in both the
ground and/or in the structure
Summary
conditions
Giovanni Barla
Lecture 2
OUTLINE
DESIGN ANALYSES
Analytical solutions
Simplified design analyses
Detailed design analyses
INTRODUCTION
In the evaluation of the dynamic response of a tunnel/underground cavern two

different approaches can be used:
• Free field deformation approach
• Soil-structure interaction approach
Design analyses may have different levels of approximation:
• Pseudo-static analysis
• Simplified dynamic analysis
• Detailed dynamic analysis
Dynamic response of Response of surrounding

underground ground and by imposed
structures deformation
INTRODUCTION
Design Analysis Methods

Approaches
Free-field Soil-Structure Interaction
Analysis Methods
Pseudostatic
Simplified Dynamic
Detailed Dynamic
“in a schematic form”

INTRODUCTION
Pseudostatic Analysis
Pseudostatic Analysis
Analytical Closed-Form Solutions
Wang (1993) Penzien (2000) Bobet (2003) Corigliano (2007)
Simplified Dynamic Analysis – e.g. FLAC, PLAXIS, midasGTS
Detailed Dynamic Analysis – e.g. GEOELSE, FLAC, PLAXIS, midasGTS
“in a schematic form”

DESIGN ANALYSIS METHODS
For engineering design purposes underground structures can be

assumed to undergo three primary modes of deformation during
seismic shaking (Owen and Scholl, 1981):
• Compression/Extension
• Longitudinal Bending
• Ovaling/racking
Extension Compression Tunnel before

Positive Curvature seismic action
Tunnel Tunnel after

seismic action
Negative Curvature
Shear Wave
Only in detailed dynamic analysis the action out of plane

are coupled with the action in the cross section
Free-field approach
Free-field deformation approach:
strain field caused by the passage of seismic waves
No interaction
low levels of shaking
stiff medium
upper-bound estimate of the induced strains
least amount of input
Free-field ground strains Newmark (1967):

homogeneous, isotropic, elastic medium
harmonic wave with a given angle of incidence
plane waves
same amplitudes
different arrival time
Free-field approach
For engineering design purposes
Free-field ground strains - St. John and Zahrah (1987)

ANALYTICAL CLOSED FORM SOLUTIONS
Transvesal Response in 2D Plane Strain Conditions

Ovaling Deformation Uniform Strain Field
Stress and incremental displacement fields

in the ground
The main input parameter is γmax , which gives:
Es
τ= γmax
2 (1+νs)
Two Inteface (Rock-Lining) Conditions:

Full-slip
No-slip
Eg R(1 −ν s2 )
Compressibility Coefficient: C=
Es As (1 −ν g2 )
Eg R 3 (1 −ν s2 )
Flexibility Coefficient: F=
Es I s (1 −ν g2 )
Cylindrical
N V shell
Results
Input Data No-Slip Full-Slip

Analytical
Solution Soil-Structure
Seismic
Interaction
Action N M V N M V
Parameters
Wang Εg, νg
γmax x x - x x -
(1993) Εs, νs, R, A
Penzien Εg, νg
γmax x x x x x x
(2000) Εs, νs, R, A
Bobet Εg, νg
γmax x x - - - -
(2003) Εs, νs, R, A
Corigliano Εg, νg
γmax x x x x x x
(2007) Εs, νs, R, A
Computation of γmax in free-field conditions:

– Analytical-Empirical Procedures, e.g.: Newmark (1968),
O’Rourke e Liu (1999), Power et al. (1996), Hashash (2001),
AFTES (2001),…
– Penzien & Wu (1998):

u ( yt , t c ) − u ( yb , t c )
γ ff m ax =
D
time tc
u(yt,tc)
u(yb,tc)
∂v ∂w 1
γ yz = + ≅ [v( y o , z o + ∆z ) − v( y o , z o − ∆z )] + 1 [w( y o + ∆y, z o ) − w( y o − ∆y, z o )]
∂z ∂y 2 ∆z 2 ∆y
Displacement
in y-direction
∆z
∆y
Displacement
in z-direction
See: Corigliano, Lai, Barla (2006); Corigliano (2007)

Typical Solution
Equations for computing displacements and stresses have been
derived under the same assumptions adopted by Einstein &
Schwartz (1979)
The computation is performed in one step only by appying a
distributed load at the outer-boundary of the plate, representing the
in situ state of stress
σv
σr M
u τ rϑ
v
σϑ V Cylindrical
Q
shell
R
ϑ
τrϑ|R
τrϑ|R σr|R R
ϑ
ϑ
σr|R
Rock mass
Eg , ν Lining
Es , νs
σh =Ko σv
See: Corigliano, Lai, Barla (2006); Corigliano (2007)

Axial Thrust
E  δ  π
N= g
γ a1 +  cos 2  ϑ + 
2 (1 + ν ) ff max
 3  4
Bending Moment
1 E  δ   π
M= g
γ a 1 + + ε  cos 2  ϑ + 
2
2 2 (1 + ν ) ff max
 3   4
Cylindrical
N V shell
where d ed ε are written in terms of C and F

and a is the radius of the circular tunnel
SIMPLIFIED DYNAMIC ANALYSES
Free Surface Tunnel Detail
Seismic Action applied at the bottom of the model Viscous Boundaries

0.2
0.1
0.1
Accelerazione X (g)
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
-0.1
-0.1
-0.2
Tempo (s)
DETAILED DYNAMIC ANALYSES
Soil-Structure Localised Geological

Interaction Domain
EXTERNAL DOMAIN INTERNAL DOMAIN
Pe(t)
implemented in
Geo-ELSE (GEO-ELasticity by Spectral Elements)
2 Steps Method for modelling seismic wave propagation in a half space containing the
seismic source ->from the half space to the region of interest, with the presence of
geological heterogeneities, topographic features, soil-stucture interaction poblems, etc.
Paolucci, 2008 (modified)

DETAILED DYNAMIC ANALYSES
Underground Cavern
EXAMPLE
Soil parameters
Lining parameters
Static analysis: Plane strain analysis with midasGTS, lining is

simulated by using beam elements
Thrust Bending Moment

Static analysis: Comparison of results between numerical and analytical

solution by Corigliano (2007) and Bobet (2003)
-2000 200
Numerical results Numerical results
Corigliano(2007) Corigliano(2007)
-2500 150
Bobet(2003) Bobet(2003)
-3000 100
-3500 50
M ( kNm)
N ( kN/m)
-4000
0
-4500
-50
-5000
-100
-5500
-150
-6000
-200
-6500
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 60 120 180 240 300 360
0
0 θ()
θ()

Dynamic analysis assuming no-slip conditions 0.2
0.1
0.0
a (g)
-0.1
-0.2
Free field Model with tunnel 0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27

t (s)
Adopted acceleration time history
−4
Free field analysis is carried out to obtain: γ max = 1.681510
Dynamic analysis: Numerical simulation for no-slip condition

Dynamic analysis: Numerical simulation for no-slip condition

80
600
Numerical results
Numerical results 60 Corigliano(2007)
Corigliano(2007) Bobet(2003)
400
Bobet(2003) Penzien(1998)
40
Penzien(1998) Wang(1993)
Wang(1993)
200 20
M ( kNm)
N ( kN/m)
0
0
-20
-200
-40
-400 -60
-80
-600 0 60 120 180 240 300 360
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 0
0 θ( )
θ( )

Comparison between numerical and analytical solutions by
Corigliano (2007) Bobet (2003), Penzien(1998) and Wang (1993)
0.08 Horizontal
0.04
Acceleration (g)
0.00
-0.04
L. Qingrui, A. Perino, G. Barla (2012)
100 m -0.08
-0.12
0 4 8 12 16 20
t (s)
Vertical
0.08
100 m
0.04
0.00
-0.04
-0.08
150 m
-0.12
0 4 8 12 16 20
3D Model
t (s)
Acceleration time histories of the specific seismic event applied to the

model: a) horizontal and b) vertical recorded components of motion
Computation of the free-field strains
6.2775e-5
6.6844e-5
4.2440e-5
3.3422e-5
2.1220e-5
Vertical strain
Shear strain
0.0000e-5
0.0000e-5
-3.3422e-5
-2.1220e-5
maximum shear strain maximum vertical strain
-6.6844e-5 γmax = 8.429·10-5 εv,max = 6.277·10-5
-8.2837e-5 -4.3225e-5
0.01 3.90 7.79 11.68. 15.57. 19.45. 0.01 3.90 7.79 11.68 15.57 19.45
Time (s) Time (s)
Shear and Vertical Strains in the ground at the depth

of the tunnel induced by the applied seismic input
Comparison of numerical and analytical solutions of the lining
thrust and bending moment, for an incident shear wave
applied to 2D and 3D models
250 40
Park (2009)
200 Corigliano (2007) 30
Bobet (2003)
150 Penzien (1998)
Wang (1993) 20
100 Midas 2D
Midas 3D
M (kNm/m)
10
50
N (kN/m)
0 0
-50
-10
Park (2009)
-100 Corigliano (2007)
-20 Bobet (2003)
-150 Penzien (1998)
Wang (2003)
-200 -30 Midas 2D
-250
Thrust Midas 3D
Moment
-40
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 0 60 120 180 240 300 360
θ( )
0
θ( )
0
γg Eg γl t Al Il ElAl ElIl
νg, νl
(kN/m3) (GPa) (kN/m3) (m) (m2/m) 4
(m /m) (kN/m) (kNm2/m)
20 0.25 1.03 25 0.5 0.5 0.010417 19000000 396000
Parameters of lining and ground (t = thickness of the lining)

thrust and bending moment, for an incident compressional
wave applied to 2D and 3D models
30
Bobet (2003)
500 Corigliano (2007) Corigliano (2007)
Bobet (2003) 20 Midas 2D
Midas 2D
Midas 3D
Midas 3D
400
10
M (kNm/m)
N (kN/m)
300 0
-10
200
-20
100
Thrust Moment
-30
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 0 60 120 180 240 300 360
θ( )
0
θ( )
0
νg, νl
(kN/m3) (GPa) (kN/m3) (m) (m2/m) 4
20 0.25 1.03 25 0.5 0.5 0.010417 19000000 396000

thrust and bending moment, for horizontal and vertical motions
applied to 2D and 3D models
700
Bobet (2003) 45 Corigliano (2007)
Corigliano (2007) Bobet (2003)
600
Midas 3D 2components Midas 3D 2 components
Midas 2D 2components 30 Midas 2D 2 components
500
15
M (kNm/m)
N (kN/m)
400
0
300
-15
200
-30
100
Thrust -45 Moment

0
0 60 120 180 240 300 360 0 60 120 180 240 300 360
θ( )
0
θ( )
0
νg, νl
(kN/m3) (GPa) (kN/m3) (m) (m2/m) 4
20 0.25 1.03 25 0.5 0.5 0.010417 19000000 396000

conditions
Giovanni Barla
Lecture 3
OUTLINE
Case Studies
1. Pavoncelli tunnel
2. Venaus Cavern
CASE STUDY 1
Pavoncelli Tunnel
CASE STUDY 1
Pavoncelli Tunnel
(Final Design Galleria Pavoncelli bis, Cotecchia et al., 2008 )
CASE STUDY 1
November 23, 1980 Eathquake
(C.H.R., P.F. "Geodinamica", Roma, 1981)

CASE STUDY 1
(Cotecchia et al., 1986, modified)
Sezione 3 Sezione 1 Sezione 2
0.25% 0.25%
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.90
2.70 3.15 3.15 2.70 3.15 2.70
Legenda tipi di danno:
Fessurazioni traversali e longitudinali Unità Alburno-Cervati
Sollevamento e rottura arco rovescio
Unità Ariano Irpino
900 Unità Argille Scagliose Varicolori
Fiume Ofanto
m Flysch di Materdomini
Fiume Sele
700
500
300
100
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 km
Typical Damage Conditions

CASE STUDY 1
ANALYSES CARRIED OUT
Step 1: Static Analysis – Simulation of construction

conditions and comparison of FLAC2D (FDM) solutions with
analytical solutions
Step 2: Dynamic Analysis – Computation of stresses in

earthquake conditions
Step 3: Comparison with damages as a consequence of

23 November 1980 earthquake
CASE STUDY 1
Static analyses have been performed first for two tunnel sections
in variegated clays (Argille Varicolori). The following models of
behaviour have been adopted for soil:
• elastic
• elastic-perfecly-plastic
Under the following depths of cover: 160m & 380m
Section 1 Section 2
CASE STUDY 1
Static Analyses
  1 −ν  
 log I 1,σ 
I 1,ε = K w 1 −  1 + ν 
Volume Change
  1 −ν  
 log I 1,σ 0 1 + ν  
 
where:
I1σσ > I1σσo
Stresses:
 G
∆σ x = −  K + ε vol
 3
 G
∆σ y = −  K + ε vol
 3
 2 
∆σ z = −  K − G ε vol
 3 
Swelling Behaviour
CASE STUDY 1
Static Analyses
Step 1 Step 2
Blu - compression
Red - tension
Step 3 Step 4
CASE STUDY 1
Dynamic Analyses
450 m
Layer 1
Layer 2
Viscous damping
210 m
Layer 3
Seismic
Action
FDM Model
CASE STUDY 1
Irpino – Lucano Earthquake

23/11/1980 (M=6.9)
0.300
0.200
0.100
Accelerazione X (g)
0.000
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00
-0.100
-0.200
-0.300
50% attenuation
Te mpo (s)
0.150
0.100
0.050
Accelerazione X (g)
0.000
0.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00 160.00
-0.050
-0.100
-0.150
Tempo (s)
CASE STUDY 1
Thrust (no slip)

Comparison of Numerical and analytical solutions
Elastic Model – Dynamic Stress Increment
400
FLAC elementi piani
Corigliano
Wang (1993)
300 Penzien (2000)
Bobet (2003)
200
100
N [kN/m]
0
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360
-100
-200
z=160m
-300
-400
θ [°]
CASE STUDY 1
Bending Moment (no slip)

Elastic Model - Dynamic Stress Increment
200
FLAC elementi piani
Corigliano
Wang (1993)
150 Penzien (2000)
Bobet (2003)
100
50
M [kNm/m]
0
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360
-50
-100
z=160m
-150
-200
θ [°]
CASE STUDY 1
Thrust (no slip)

Elastic Model - Static & Dynamic Stress Increment
0
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360
-200
-400
N [kN/m]
-600
-800
z=160m
-1000
FLAC statico+dinamico
Corigliano statico+dinamico
-1200
θ [°]
CASE STUDY 1

Elastic Model - Static & Dynamic Stress Increment
300
200
100
0
M [kNm/m]
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360
-100
-200
z=160m
-300
FLAC statico+dinamico
Corigliano stat+din
-400
θ [°]
CASE STUDY 1
Thrust (no slip)

Numerical Solution – Elastic & Elasto-Plastic Models
Static & Dynamic Stress Increment
0
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360
-500
-1000
-1500
-2000
N [kN/m]
-2500
-3000
-3500
-4000
Elastico CON rigonfiamento

-4500 ELPLA CON rigonfiamento
Elastico statico+dinamico
ELPLA statico+dinamico
-5000
θ [°]
CASE STUDY 1

Numerical Solution – Elastic & Elasto-Plastic Models
Static & Dynamic Stress Increment
300
200
100
0
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360
-100
M [kNm/m]
-200
-300
-400
-500
-600
Elastico CON rigonfiamento
ELPLA CON rigonfiamento
-700
Elastico statico+dinamico
ELPLA statico+dinamico
-800
θ [°]
CASE STUDY 1
Moment – Thrust Diagram

1500
1000
Calotta smedio=1.32m
Ubicazione delle
M om ento Flettente [kNm ]

500
zone di rottura
Piedritti smedio=1.05m
Arco rov. smedio=0.60m
0
0 -1000 -2000 -3000 -4000 -5000 -6000 -7000
-500
CALOTTA
-1000 PIEDRITTI
ARCO
-1500 ROVESCIO
Forza Normale [kN]
Calotta Arco rovescio Piedritti
Sollecitazioni statiche Calotta Sollecitazioni statiche Arco rovescio Sollecitazioni statiche Piedritti
Sollecitazioni stat+din Calotta Sollecitazioni stat+din Arco rovescio Sollecitazioni stat+din Piedritti
CASE STUDY 1
Moment – Thrust Diagram

CASE STUDY 2
Venaus Cavern
L. Qingrui, A. Perino, G. Barla (2012)

CASE STUDY 2
Venaus Cavern
Powerhouse Arrangement
CASE STUDY 2
Venaus Cavern
Powerhouse Scheme - Detail

CASE STUDY 2
2D model
Characteristics
Maximum height = 49 m
Length = 50 m
Maximum span = 23 m
Buried depth = 250 m
Rock mass properties:

E indisturbed zone 22 GPa
E disturbed zone 14 GPa
ν 0.25 3D model
CASE STUDY 2
Static Analysis
Construction Stages:
Initialization of the model
Simulation of excavation and
activation of the corresponding
disturbed zone
Installation of rock dowels
Installation of active tendons
Subsequent stages
CASE STUDY 2
Reference Section
2D intrinsic 2D reinforced 3D intrinsic 3D reinforced
Static Analysis
CASE STUDY 2
3D intrinsic 3D reinforced
2D intrinsic 2D reinforced
Static Analysis – Minimum Principal Stress

CASE STUDY 2
3D dowels 2D dowels
3D long tendons 2D long tendons Overall load distribution
Static Analysis – Reinforcement Load Distribution

CASE STUDY 2
Seismic Analysis
Cavern located in zone 3, which corresponds to seismic

activity 6 and PGA range from 0.1 to 0.15 g
CASE STUDY 2
Selected Accelerograms
Results of deaggregation Response spectrum of

selected accelerograms
CASE STUDY 2
Displacement time histories at the roof when subjected

to seven groups of accelerograms
CASE STUDY 2
Maximum principal stress
Static condition Dynamic condition
2D Analysis
CASE STUDY 2
Maximum principal stress

3D Minimum principal stress
Analysis

View publication stats

conditions
Giovanni Barla
Lecture 3

MTunnelSeism GBarla

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

MTunnelSeism GBarla

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MTunnelSeism GBarla

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Presentation:Three Lectures on "Design Analyses of Tunnels and Caverns in

Presentation · December 2011

PARATIE View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

EARTHQUAKE INDUCED DAMAGES Lecture 1

EARTHQUAKE INDUCED DAMAGES

Wide use of underground structures implies

Railways & Highways Underground cavities

Different seismic response of underground and surface structures

Seismic design focused on the free-field deformation imposed

“In general low vulnerability of underground structures”

Low vulnerability of underground structures is due to:

The above-ground structures are affected by the free-

“There is a worldwide lack of code prescriptions

Typical Damage Patterns

Columns heavely damaged

1995 Kobe earthquake, Japan

Typical Damage Patterns

Sheared off lining: fault crossing

Pavoncelli tunnel (Acquedotto Pugliese)

Typical Damage Patterns

Slope failure induced

1999 Chi-Chi earthquake (Taiwan)

Typical Damage Patterns

2004 Niigata earthquake, Japan

Typical Damage Patterns

1976 Tangshane earthquake,

Typical Damage Patterns

Inclined cracks in concrete

2004 Niigata earthquake, Japan

Typical Damage Patterns

Extended cross cracks in

1998 Mid-North Iwate

Typical Damage Patterns

(Uenishi et al., 2001)

Typical Damage Patterns

Sinkholes due to roof collapse of karstic caves in the city

Database – Analysis of available case studies

Cause of damage due to earthquakes (Dowding and Rozen ,1978):

Damage to underground structures implies:

Necessity to mitigate the risk and the effects of damage:

Database – Analysis of available case studies

The major factors influencing the seismic response of an underground

Dowding & Rozen (1978) 71

Database – Analysis of available case studies

None A No damage detectable by visual inspection

*w =width of crack, l = length of crack

Database – Analysis of available case studies

Database – Analysis of available case studies

1989 Loma Prieta CA 7.1 22 22

Database – Analysis of available case studies

Effect of overburden depth

Database – Analysis of available case studies

Effect of type of surrounding rock

Database – Analysis of available case studies

Effect of type of support