Finite element analysis-aided seismic

behavior examination of modular

underground arch bridge - eBook PDF
Go to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebooksecure.com/download/finite-element-analysis-aided-seismic-behavior-ex
amination-of-modular-underground-arch-bridge-ebook-pdf/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Fragility-based seismic performance assessment of

modular underground arch bridges - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/fragility-based-seismic-
performance-assessment-of-modular-underground-arch-bridges-ebook-
pdf/

(eBook PDF) Finite Element Analysis: Theory and

Application with ANSYS 4th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-finite-element-analysis-
theory-and-application-with-ansys-4th-edition/

Damage Modeling of Composite Structures: Strength,

Fracture, and Finite Element Analysis 1st Edition
Pengfei Liu - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/damage-modeling-of-composite-
structures-strength-fracture-and-finite-element-analysis-ebook-
pdf/

Synthesis and Operability Strategies for Computer-Aided

Modular Process Intensification 1st Edition - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/synthesis-and-operability-
strategies-for-computer-aided-modular-process-intensification-
ebook-pdf/
Finite Element Method: Physics and Solution Methods 1st
edition - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/finite-element-method-physics-
and-solution-methods-ebook-pdf/

(eBook PDF) A First Course in the Finite Element Method

6th Edition

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-a-first-course-in-the-
finite-element-method-6th-edition/

Introduction to the Finite Element Method 4E 4th

Edition Reddy - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/introduction-to-the-finite-
element-method-4e-ebook-pdf/

(eBook PDF) Finite Element Simulations with ANSYS

Workbench 19 by Huei-Huang Lee

http://ebooksecure.com/product/ebook-pdf-finite-element-
simulations-with-ansys-workbench-19-by-huei-huang-lee/

Application of Control Volume Based Finite Element

Method (CVFEM) for Nanofluid Flow and Heat Transfer 1st
Edition Mohsen Sheikholeslami - eBook PDF

https://ebooksecure.com/download/application-of-control-volume-
based-finite-element-method-cvfem-for-nanofluid-flow-and-heat-
transfer-ebook-pdf/
 Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 118 (2021) 104166

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

incorporating Trenchless Technology Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tust

Finite element analysis-aided seismic behavior examination of modular

underground arch bridge
Toan Van Nguyen a, Junwon Seo b, Jin-Hee Ahn c, Achintya Haldar d, Jungwon Huh a, *
a
Department of Architecture & Civil Engineering, Chonnam National University, South Korea
b
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, South Dakota State University, USA
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52725, South Korea
d
Department of Civil Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this study, a 3D finite element analysis (FEA) is performed to examine the seismic behaviors of a three-hinge
Modular Underground Arch Bridge modular underground arch bridge (MUAB) subjected to a series of synthetic ground motions with a wide peak-
Prestressed Rebar ground-acceleration (PGA) spectrum. The FEA model of the MUAB under longitudinal and transverse synthetic
Arch Length
ground-motion loading is described by several modeling parameters [e.g., arch-to-arch interaction (AAI),
Arch-to-Arch Interaction
Soil–Structure Interaction
soil–structure interaction (SSI), and stiffness of prestressed rebar], to determine its various seismic response
Finite Element Model-Based Seismic Behavior characteristics (i.e., maximum displacement, maximum tensile and compressive stresses, and maximum crack
depth). The FEA results show that the MUAB’s seismic responses differ with respect to earthquake-loading di­
rection owing to the different levels of seismic resistance associated with the considered modeling parameters. To
elucidate the influence of each modeling parameter on the seismic response, we performed MUAB parametric
studies featuring different arch lengths, SSI and AAI friction coefficients, and prestressed-rebar stiffnesses. The
key findings indicate that the seismic behaviors of MUABs depend on the PGAs and ground-motion directions;
furthermore, they exhibited a sensitivity to the arch length and prestressed-rebar stiffness. In addition, the SSI
friction coefficient exerted a minor influence on the seismic responses of MUABs, especially on their maximum
compressive and tensile stresses and maximum crack depths; meanwhile, the AAI friction coefficient had a
moderate influence upon seismic response.

1. Introduction modular precast concrete forms offers various benefits, including

Underground precast arch bridges are a type of culvert; they have
been widely implemented in underground infrastructure developments
(Abe and Nakamura, 2014). In recent years, these underground arch
bridges have been modularized into precast components. The con­
struction of modular components via the assembling of modular forms
has been applied in the field of structural engineering; in underground
arch bridges, these forms offer several advantages in terms of con­
struction and structural performance. For example, the modular bridges
have a greater load-carrying capacity than conventional bridges owing
to the efficient load sharing between the bridge and soil embankment
(Abe and Nakamura, 2014; Fairless and Kirkaldie, 2008; Sawamura
et al., 2011). When constructing underground arch bridges, the use of
simpler and faster construction processes and high-quality member
control.
Types of underground precast arch bridges are classified into several
categories including hinge types based on the cross-section sizes of the
arch and the sizes of the arch span (Miyazaki, 2019). For the hinge types
of underground precast arch bridges, two-hinged arch bridges and three-
hinged arch bridges have been used commonly because they are most
effective in soil-arching. Technically, the hinge types of underground
precast arch bridges allow for motion and rotation to mobilize earth
pressure compared to rigid arch bridges. The three-hinged arch bridges
are made from two segmental precast units resulting in three hinge
points. It harnesses passive resistance of an embankment by permitting
deflection, resulting in a mechanically stable bridge structure

* Corresponding author at: Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Chonnam National University, 77 Yongbong-ro, Buk-gu, Gwangju 61186, South
Korea.
E-mail addresses: 198047@jnu.ac.kr (T. Van Nguyen), junwon.seo@sdstate.edu (J. Seo), jahn@gnu.ac.kr (J.-H. Ahn), haldar@u.arizona.edu (A. Haldar),
jwonhuh@chonnam.ac.kr (J. Huh).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2021.104166
Received 11 September 2020; Received in revised form 12 July 2021; Accepted 24 August 2021
Available online 21 September 2021
0886-7798/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
T. Van Nguyen et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology incorporating Trenchless Technology Research 118 (2021) 104166
(Sawamura et al., 2019). However, there needs to be a thorough
investigation into the mechanical behavior of three-hinged arch bridges
under seismic loadings.
Underground arch bridges constructed from these modular compo­
nents are referred to as modular underground arch bridges (MUABs). In
general, the occurrence of cracks at component edges is common in
MUABs (Abe and Nakamura, 2014). Numerous studies have attempted
to determine the seismic responses of different bridge types (Huh et al.,
2017a; Huh et al., 2017b; Jeon et al., 2015; Mangalathu et al., 2018;
Rogers and Seo, 2017; Seo, 2013; Seo and Linzell, 2012, 2013; Seo and
Rogers, 2017; Siqueira et al., 2014; Tavares et al., 2012); however, very
few have investigated the structural behaviors of cracked MUABs under
static and/or dynamic loadings. These studies have employed numerical
analyses (Byrne et al., 1996; Jeon et al., 2019; Sawamura et al., 2012;
Wood and Jenkins, 2000), laboratory testing (Miyazaki et al., 2017a,b,
2018; Sawamura et al., 2015; Toyota and Takagai, 1999; Sawamura
et al., 2016) and field measurements (Kim et al., 2019) as the research
methodology. Most recent works on cracked concrete components and
embankment soils were based solely on linear elastic fracture mechanics
while neglecting nonlinear behaviors (Miyazaki et al., 2018, 2020).
Furthermore, Jeon et al. (2019) constructed a 3D nonlinear structural
model for a slice of a multi-hinge precast underground arch bridge with
outriggers to assess its structural behavior and the interactions between
segmental precast arch members during backfill construction; however,
this study neglected dynamic effects.
A small number of studies (Abuhajar et al., 2015; Abuhajar et al.,
2017; Kang et al., 2020; Le et al., 2014; Miyazaki et al., 2020; Santos
et al., 2020) have sought to simulate MUABs by partially considering the
arch-to-arch and/or soil–structure interactions. In particular, Miyazaki
et al. (Miyazaki et al., 2020) modeled arch segment components by
considering the interactions between precast arch members and the
surrounding soil. Furthermore, considerable efforts have been devoted
to modeling the arch-to-arch interactions of MUABs. Abuhajar et al.
(Abuhajar et al., 2015; Abuhajar et al., 2017) demonstrated the signif­
icance of soil arching in controlling the structural static load responses
of MUABs by conducting 2D finite element analysis (FEA) alongside
corresponding downscaled centrifuge tests. However, Abuhajar et al.
(Abuhajar et al., 2015; Abuhajar et al., 2017) only tested individual
samples; as a result, their study did not capture the influence of pre­
stressed rebars on the MUAB.
This study aims to develop a sophisticated 3D FEA model of a MUAB,
to evaluate its seismic behaviors. More specifically, the FEA model is
used to study seismic deformation and stress development in the
segmental component structure by incorporating the friction co­
efficients of arch-to-arch interactions (AAIs) and soil–structure in­
teractions (SSIs) and the influence of the prestressed rebar. Parametric
studies for various arch lengths, soil–structure and arch-to-arch in­
teractions, and prestressed rebars were also conducted to examine the
seismic responses of MUABs subjected to different seismic loadings. This
paper is organized into five sections (including the present one). Section
2 describes the 3D FEA model of the MUAB. Section 3 presents the modal
analyses and seismic responses of the MUAB model. Section 4 discusses
the findings of the parametric MUAB-model studies with respect to the
key modeling parameters. Finally, Section 5 presents the conclusions
drawn from the work.
2. 3D FEA modeling
In this section, we describe the 3D FEA model used to conduct
seismic-response evaluations of three-hinge MUABs. More specifically,
in the following subsections, we describe the studied MUAB—its con­
crete, surrounding soil, contact surface, and prestressed rebar modeling
specifications as well as its design response spectrum under synthetic
ground motions.
2
2.1. Studied MUAB
The three-hinge MUAB model previously employed by Miyazaki
et al. (2020) was used for this study. This MUAB was constructed ac­
cording to Korean standards (KDS, 2019); that is, it was designed to be
resistant to an earthquake with a 500-year return period and another
with a 1000-year return period. The peak ground acceleration (PGA)
values of 500- and 1000-year-return-period earthquakes are 0.4345 g
and 0.5744 g, respectively.
The three-hinge MUAB was bounded by wing walls and embank­
ments that matched its geometrical properties; these were modeled
using ABAQUS to numerically determine the MUAB seismic behavior (as
shown in Fig. 1). Detailed dimensions for the MUAB (arch length: 7.5 m;
outer diameter: 10.5 m) are provided in Table 1. Notably, the total
length of the MUAB (including wing walls) was 8.75 m, and it consisted
of 2 types of segmental arches: Segments 1 and 2. These segments
featured identical thicknesses and inner/outer radii, though their widths
differed (Segment 1: 1.25 m and Segment 2: 0.625 m). The MUAB was
placed on a concrete invert foundation (thickness: 1.0 m), and a concrete
wing-wall (thickness: 0.625 m) was placed on the wing-wall foot. The
surrounding soil consisted of a 7.5 m-thick embankment and 6 m-thick
subsoil lying on top of the bedrock.
The studied MUAB was generated using the eight-node brick
element, C3D8 [available in ABAQUS (Abaqus, 2014)]. The first-order
elements C3D8 were sufficient to obtain results with the desired accu­
racy for the FEA model and saved computing costs. The elements C3D8
were the most suitable for problems related to contacts between
deformable bodies in nonlinear dynamic analysis. The element sizes
were finalized based on the number of trial analyses and also on the
stability limits, which was a function of mesh size and wavelength of the
FEA model (Abaqus, 2014). Finer meshings were provided in the con­
crete parts, especially in the segmental arches, and other coarser
meshings were provided in the surrounding soils. The most optimal
meshing of MUAB (Fig. 1a) was adopted to lay a foundation for the
study. The total numbers of model elements and nodes were 44,744 and
79,476, respectively. The total mass of the model was ~ 15,000 tons.
A two-step dynamic analysis was performed. In the first step (static
analysis), a gravitational load was applied to the FEA model; this was
used to eliminate the abrupt influence of dynamic effects when ground
acceleration was applied. The lateral surfaces were fixed against trans­
lation movements in the normal direction; meanwhile, the bottom face
was fixed against all translation movements. In the second step (dy­
namic analysis), a ground motion was applied alongside the self-weight
maintenance load. Thus, the boundary condition was changed to reflect
the new loading condition. A viscous-spring artificial boundary was
imposed by installing springs and dampers on the truncated boundaries
of the surrounding soil corresponding to excitation directions; thus, we
assumed that incident waves were absorbed upon reaching the corre­
sponding truncated boundaries. As a result of the two-step dynamic
analysis, the FEA model closely reproduced the actual response of far-
field soil.
2.2. Concrete and prestressed rebar
The concrete used in the MUAB was modeled using ABAQUS. We
considered its nonlinearity (Hognestad, 1951) using the plastic-damage
model established by Lee and Fenves (1998a, 1998b). This model can
represent the damage-cracking behavior of concrete, particularly for
MUABs under seismic loadings. In quasi-brittle materials, this model can
be defined by evaluating the dissipated fracture energy required to
generate microcracks in the concrete of the MUAB. The uniaxial
compressive and tensile responses of the concrete were assumed to be
influenced by the damage plasticity, and this assumption formed the
basis of the model. The key components of the inviscid-concrete damage
plasticity model under strain-rate decomposition were assumed for the
rate-independent model. The total strain tensor was comprised of elastic
T. Van Nguyen et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology incorporating Trenchless Technology Research 118 (2021) 104166

Fig. 1. Schematic of the studied MUAB.

Table 1 Table 2
Segment component characteristics. Properties of MUAB model concrete.
Characteristic Unit Segment 1 Segment 2 Property Unit M40 M30
3
Number of segments – 11 2 Unit weight, γ kg/m 2450 2400
Outer radius, Rout m 5.25 5.25 Young’s modulus, Ec MPa 30,000 26,600
Inner radius, Rin m 5.00 5.00 Poisson’s ratio, υ – 0.2 0.2
Segment thickness m 0.25 0.25 Compressive strength, f’c MPa 40 30
Segment width m 1.25 0.625 Tensile strength, ft MPa 4.0 3.0
Number of prestressed holes on each lateral – 4 4 Dilation angle ◦
31 31
face Eccentricity – 0.1 0.1
Number of prestressed holes on top face – 2 1 fb0/fc0 – 1.16 1.16
K – 0.67 0.67
Viscosity parameter – 0 0
and plastic components.
Two damage variables (in terms of failure mode: tensile cracking and
compressive crushing) were considered for the MUAB model. Hardening descended after reaching the maximum (referred to as the softening
and softening variable values were applied to determine the cracking section of the curve). After the curve descended, crushing failure
and crushing trends, respectively. These were responsible for the loss of occurred at an ultimate strain of 20% f’c. However, the elastic strain
elastic stiffness and the development of the yield surface. Therefore, the increased up to the tensile strength. Cracking strain occurred beyond the
compressive and tensile damage states were characterized indepen­ tension stress peak (i.e., at the tensile strength). Stiffening failure
dently by two hardening variables. In this section, the numerical simu­ occurred at an ultimate strain of 1% ft.
lation of concrete material was briefly introduced. Details can be further The dynamic properties of M40- and M30-grade concrete were
referred to Zhang et al. (2013). employed for nonlinear seismic analyses. Structure damping was
M40-grade concrete (modeled in ABAQUS as having compressive incorporated in the FEA model by using Rayleigh’s damping and
strength f’c = 40 MPa) was used for the segmental arch and wing wall; assuming mass and stiffness to be proportional. A 5% damping was
meanwhile, M30-grade concrete (modeled as having compressive considered for the fundamental vibration modes of the MUAB system to
strength f’c = 30 MPa) was adopted for the invert foundation, as listed in determine the mass- and stiffness-proportional damping factors. Besides,
Table 2. In terms of compressive behavior, the inelastic strain was the concrete material damping values were defined for direct integration
initialized as 50% of f’c. Above this point, the curve increased gradually in the implicit ABAQUS application by using a mass-proportional
up to f’c. The initial crack occurred at 85% of f’c. The stress–strain curve damping αR of 0.77 and a stiffness-proportional damping βR of 0.003.

3
T. Van Nguyen et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology incorporating Trenchless Technology Research 118 (2021) 104166

The static analysis (with the self-weight of the MUAB) was initially Table 3
performed under the static stress state; however, nonlinear seismic Mechanical properties of prestressed rebar.
analysis under ground motions was performed by considering the dy­ Property Unit L-J and C-J
namic properties.
Young’s modulus MPa 19,700
Two types of prestressed rebar (length: 500 mm and diameter: 36 Poisson’s ratio – 0.2
mm) are aligned along the longitudinal (L-J) and circumferential (C-J) Ultimate strength, Fu MPa 1860
joints in accordance with the L-J holes and C-J holes, as illustrated in Yield strength, Fy MPa 1339
Fig. 1(c). The prestressed L-J and C-J rebars were modeled using spring
elements available in ABAQUS (Abaqus, 2014), as shown in Fig. 2. The
mechanical properties of the spring elements representing the rebars can Table 4
be seen in Table 3. The stiffnesses (K) of the rebars can be determined Properties of surrounding soil.
using Eq. (1). Property Unit Subsoil Embankment
AE Unit weight, γ kg/m3 1800 1750
K= (1) Young’s modulus, E MPa 45 50
l
Poisson’s ratio, υ – 0.33 0.28
where K = equivalent stiffness (N/m), A = cross-sectional area of Internal friction angle, ϕ ◦
25 35
rebar (m2), E = elastic modulus of material (Pa), and l = length of the Dilatancy angle, Ψ ◦
1 5
rebar (m). Cohesive force, c KPa 100 20

2.3. Surrounding soil
The surrounding soil plays an important role in maintaining the
overall stability of the MUAB via efficient load sharing. Embankment
shape patterns affect the seismic behavior of the MUAB. These shape
patterns can cause severe damage or collapse in large earthquakes owing
to the shallow soil cover (Miyazaki et al., 2017a). A symmetrical sur­
rounding soil profile and shallow embankment cover on top of the
segmental arch were adopted for seismic analysis. The soil properties
considered in the FEA model of the MUAB are given in Table 4 for soil
generalizability. Notably, these are common values for the soil types
applied to MUAB constructions, including normal clay subsoil and high-
quality mixed sandy embankment soil. The FEA soil model geometries
(see Fig. 1) were based on the Mohr–Coulomb plasticity model, which
allows for soil hardening behaviors. We assumed the soil properties to be
identical before and after seismic loadings.
2.4. Contact surface
In the FEA model, contact surfaces were used to model the shear-
force resistance between segments. These surfaces were classified into
two groups: arch-to-arch interactions (AAIs), representing contacts be­
tween segmental components [as shown in Fig. 3(a) and Fig. 3(b)], and
soil–structure interactions (SSIs), representing contact between the
concrete and surrounding soil [as shown in Fig. 3(c) and Fig. 3(d)].
These contact surfaces were modeled with surface-to-surface contact
Fig. 2. Prestressed rebar arrangement with L-J and C-J holes.
interactions that incorporated their mechanical contact properties by
using the hard contact and standard Coulomb friction model available in
ABAQUS (Abaqus, 2014). The Coulomb friction model was defined with
an interface friction coefficient of 0.6 for both the lateral and top AAI
surfaces of the segments to model a normal-weight concrete cast against
hardened concrete (Mattock, 1977; ACI, 2014). Interface friction co­
efficients of 0.3 and 0.45 were selected for the subsoil–concrete and
embankment–concrete SSI interactions (Sheng et al., 2007),
respectively.
Furthermore, the FEA model employed tie constraints as a semi-rigid
link connecting the arch segments and concrete invert foundation.
Surface-based tie constraints bind two surfaces together. The surface-to-
surface discretization method was adopted (Abaqus, 2014). These con­
straints facilitated the modeling of kinematic relationships between the
points and surfaces of the arch base and top face of the concrete foun­
dation. The connection between the wing-walls and the concrete foun­
dation was modeled with a rigid link based upon an assumption of cast-
in-place construction. Note, the arch segment-foundation concrete and
wall-foundation concrete were unified as a single modeling component.
2.5. Synthetic ground motions
Synthetic ground motions were generated using the procedure rec­
ommended by the Hallodorson and Papageorgiou (Halldorsson and
Papageorgiou, 2005). As stated above, we assumed that the MUAB was
located in Seismic Zone 1 [according to the Korean standards (KDS,
2019)] with Ground Type S4 bedrock, which has an average shear-wave
velocity (at a depth of 30 m) of Vs30 = 620 m/s (Borcherdt, 1992, 1994,
2012). The ground motions were generated to simulate far-field earth­
quakes of magnitudes below 6.9.
The elastic spectrum with 5% damping was adopted for the calcu­
lation. The deconvolution procedure was used for matching the ground
motions. The soil beneath the MUAB foundation was assumed to consist
of a single-layered soil overlaying the bedrock. The accelerogram was
defined starting from a synthetic one. The accelerogram was compatible
with the target spectrum and adapted to its frequency content using the
Fourier Transform Method (see Fig. 4). As a result, seven different
synthetic ground motions were generated, which achieved convergence
errors smaller than 8% [as shown in Fig. 5(a)].
The ground motions were matched to the Korean-code-based spec­
trum corresponding to a 500-year-return-period earthquake (KDS,
2019); these motions were then scaled up and down via intensity indices
with PGAs of 0.1–1.2 g. As shown in Fig. 1, the generated ground mo­
tions were applied individually to the bottom face of the structure in the
longitudinal and transverse directions of the MUAB model. The vertical
direction was not considered in this study because the MUAB having

4
T. Van Nguyen et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology incorporating Trenchless Technology Research 118 (2021) 104166
Fig. 3. Contact surfaces for AAIs and SSIs.
Fig. 4. Flowchart of generated synthetic ground motion.
shallow cover depth was much more influenced under the horizontal
ground motions than the vertical direction (Byrne et al., 1996; Jeon
et al., 2019; Sawamura et al., 2012; Wood and Jenkins, 2000). The set of
different ground motions was applied to study the maximum seismic
response of the MUAB. The median ground motion was adopted as a
representative, which matched well to the design spectrum and closed to
the median of the generated ground motions [Fig. 5(b) and Fig. 5(c)].
The representative ground motion was used to investigate crack prop­
agation in segment components and evaluate the influence of modeling
parameters on the seismic response of the studied MUAB.
3. Results and discussion
This section summarizes the computational results obtained from
FEA. The dynamic characteristics and seismic responses of the MUAB are
presented and discussed below.
5
3.1. Dynamic characteristics
The natural periods of the MUAB were calculated, to investigate the
vibrational characteristics of the MUAB according to the Lanczos
eigenvalue-extraction procedure (Lanczos, 1950; Ojalvo and Newman,
1970; Paige, 1971) available in ABAQUS (Abaqus, 2014). The periods of
the first twelve modes (along with their corresponding effective masses)
are listed in Table 5; these mode shapes are shown in Fig. 6. The sum of
the effective masses in each component direction for the first 12 modes
exceeded 90% of the MUAB total mass. The effective mass distribution
characterizes the relative contributions of the modes when the MUAB is
excited along a specific direction with a given frequency. These modes
can contribute to the interface loads. The interface-load-based effective
mass was measured to identify two target modes determining the
MUAB’s dynamic behavior. The natural periods of the first and second
modes were 0.430 s and 0.386 s, respectively. The figure and table show
that the first two modes of the MUAB were dominated by flexural and
torsional effects. On the other hand, the first two mode shapes suggest
that the other modes were directly associated with the effects of sur­
rounding soil deformation.
3.2. Seismic response
Nonlinear time-history analyses (using the generated synthetic
ground motions) were performed using ABAQUS to investigate the
MUAB’s seismic behavior. For these analyses, a Hilber–Hughes–Taylor
time integrator with full Newton–Raphson iteration was employed to
solve the nonlinear equations of motion for the MUAB. All segment
components of the MUAB were evaluated at each of the arch cross-
sections. More specifically, the seismic responses of the segment com­
ponents with respect to the angle [from 0◦ (bottom) to 90◦ (top)] for
both sides of the arch were determined through nonlinear time history
analyses, as indicated in Fig. 7. In this figure, the longitudinal and
transversal ground motions were applied individually to the bottom face
of the MUAB.
3.2.1. Maximum seismic response
Fig. 8(a) depicts the arch crack depths and extensions for different
PGAs. The crack depth reached 5 cm under a longitudinal PGA of 0.47 g
or under a transverse PGA of 0.59 g. Crack depths of 12.5 cm were
realized for longitudinal and transverse PGAs of 0.73 g and 0.84 g,
respectively. When the PGA (either longitudinal or transverse) does not
T. Van Nguyen et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology incorporating Trenchless Technology Research 118 (2021) 104166

exceed 0.47 g, the segment components may be repairable, because the

crack depth is smaller than 5 cm (equivalent to one-fifth of the arch
thickness). The MUAB can be extensively damaged when the PGA ex­
ceeds 0.85 g (greater than the half-thickness of the arch components).
The depth extensions of cracks produced by transverse ground motions
were smaller than those arising through longitudinal motions owing to a
greater seismic resistance in the transverse direction.
The stress changes in the MUAB for a spectrum of ground motions
(various PGAs) are presented in Fig. 8(b) and (c). Both tensile and
compressive stresses were significantly increased (compared to those
generated by self-weight loads) by the ground motions under initial
tensile and compressive stresses of 2.3 MPa and 7.5 MPa, respectively;
this indicates that the ground motions dramatically increased the stress
across the segment components. The tensile stress exceeded the tensile
strength of the concrete (4 MPa) under longitudinal ground motions
with a PGA of 0.3 g; meanwhile, this occurred at a PGA of 0.39 g for
transverse ground motions. Generally, for normal concrete, the
strain–stress curve is linearly elastic up to one-third of the maximum
compressive strength; thus, the compressive stress exceeded 20 MPa
(half of the compressive strength of concrete) under longitudinal and
transverse PGAs of 0.61 g and 0.79 g, respectively. The initial
compressive-strength-induced cracks corresponded to 34 MPa when the
longitudinal and transverse PGAs were 1.04 g and 1.1 g, respectively.
The maximum displacement of the MUAB subjected to ground mo­
tions is displayed in Fig. 8(d). The displacement increased by 71% and
52% for longitudinal and transverse PGAs of 0.4 g, respectively.
Furthermore, the difference in displacements between the 2 ground-
motion directions was more evident when the PGA increased to ~ 0.5
g. The deflection limit for buried concrete structures (such as MUABs)
should be mandatory in urban areas (AASHTO, 2012). However, no
specific reference number for MUAB deflection limits is available as yet;
thus, we defined the displacement criteria for MUABs as a ratio of arch
span (D) to 500 mm. The MUAB’s displacement exceeded these criteria
when the longitudinal and transverse PGAs exceeded 0.43 g and 0.55 g,
respectively.

3.2.2. Crack propagation

Fig. 9 depicts the contour plots of the equivalent plastic strain
(PEEQ), which represents the cracking patterns for the arch of a MUAB
subjected to ground motions. It was assumed that macrocracks start to
propagate through the arch when the PEEQ value exceeds 0.0001 (Feng
et al., 2011; Pan et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2013). The ground-motion-
induced seismic behaviors of the arch differed with respect to the two
Fig. 5. (a) The elastic response spectra (5% damping) for synthetic ground seismic loading directions (i.e., longitudinal and transverse). Under
motions, which matched to the Korean-code-based spectrum corresponding to a longitudinal ground motions, slight cracking appeared at the bottom of
500-year-return-period earthquake, (b) spectral acceleration of representative component of the arch when the PGA exceeded 0.3 g. The crack prop­
synthetic ground motion, and (c) time history of the representative synthetic agated from bottom to top in both width and depth directions. When the
ground motion scaled to a PGA of 0.3 g.
PGA exceeded 0.6 g, the cracks moderately expanded at the middle of
the arch; when the PGA exceeded 0.9 g, these propagated to the arch top.
Table 5
However, under transverse ground motions, the crack development was
Vibration periods and effective modal masses. considerably less detrimental than that observed under longitudinal
ones. No cracks were formed in the arch when the PGA was smaller than
Mode no. Period (s) Effective mode mass per total mass (%)
0.2 g; cracking became notable when the PGA exceeded 0.4 g, with crack
x-component y-component z-component formation focused on the longitudinal center region of the structure at
1 0.430 5.45 2.58 4.13 an angle of 22.5◦ . More cracks initialized and developed under further
2 0.386 0.93 3.06 51.25 increases in PGA. Cracks expanded from the longitudinal middle (at an
3 0.356 0.01 5.49 10.85
angle of 22.5◦ ) to the edges, bottom, and top of the arch.
4 0.340 4.23 0.01 0.09
5 0.333 0.13 3.17 6.63
Fig. 10(a) shows a plan view of the MUAB subjected to ground mo­
6 0.315 2.66 1.72 0.79 tion PGAs of 1.2 g; the structure becomes significantly damaged (i.e., the
7 0.288 5.07 0.19 0.28 cracking and peeling of segment components) under the effects of lon­
8 0.284 0.55 9.35 11.89 gitudinal and transversal ground motions. Under longitudinal ground
9 0.283 26.83 14.01 0.04
motions, deep cracks (with depths exceeding 10 cm) appeared at the
10 0.281 14.16 1.66 1.10
11 0.273 31.06 2.40 2.02 bottom of most segmental components at angles of 45◦ in the edge
12 0.271 2.64 52.22 3.38 components, marked S1-1, S1-6, S2-1, and S2-2 and in the components
– – Σ ¼ 93.72 Σ ¼ 95.86 Σ ¼ 92.45 adjacent thereto, marked S1-2, S1-5, S1-7, and S1-11. However, under
transverse ground motions, deep cracks appeared in the middle

6
T. Van Nguyen et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology incorporating Trenchless Technology Research 118 (2021) 104166

Fig. 6. Mode shapes for the first 12 modes.

Fig. 7. Sketch of critical MUAB sections and their monitoring points.

components at angles of 22.5◦ (see S1-3, S1-4, S1-8, S1-9, and S1-10)
and in the edge components at angles of 10◦ (see S1-1, S1-6, S2-1, and
S2-2). Peeling was clearly visible at the tops of all segmental components
under longitudinal ground motions, though it was less prominent under
transverse ground motions. It can be concluded that the longitudinal
ground motions lead to significant damage because the longitudinal
cross-section of each segment component is weaker than the transverse
one. Furthermore, cracks scattered in many different locations (from
along the bottom to the top of the segment components) under
longitudinal ground motions. Therefore, the components sustained
greater damage under longitudinal ground motions than transverse
ones.
Many three-hinge modular underground arch bridges suffered
damage under the Great East Japan earthquake (Abe and Nakamura,
2014). Crack propagation and damage signs of MUAB from the site are
shown in Fig. 10(b). Noticeable signs of recorded damage consisted of
the edge defects and cracks on the arch members, damage to the
waterproof sheet by peeling and penetration between the segmental

7
T. Van Nguyen et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology incorporating Trenchless Technology Research 118 (2021) 104166
Fig. 8. Peak seismic response of MUAB subjected to ground motions with varying PGAs: (a) crack depth, (b) tensile stress, (c) compressive stress, and (d)
displacement.
arch members. Damage by cracks and defects appeared at the bottom of
the segmental components, especially on the edge components. Besides,
not only did peelings occur at the top of the arch, but they also occurred
on the concrete foundations. Abe and Nakamura (2014) and Miyazaki
(2019) noted that the damage levels of these MUABs were different,
which might have depended on the geometry of arch cross-section, the
length of the arch, the type of foundation, the height of the embankment
road, and the seismic excitation direction.
4. Parametric studies
The 3D FEA-developed model was applied to evaluate the effects of
arch length, SSIs, AAIs, and prestressed rebars on the seismic response of
a MUAB subjected to longitudinal and transverse ground motions. Each
input parameter determining the MUAB’s seismic response is discussed
at length in the following sections.
4.1. Arch length
Fig. 11(a) shows the effects of arch length (L) on the maximum
displacement of a MUAB subjected to longitudinal and transverse
ground motions, assuming a consistent arch diameter (D) of 10 m. When
L was increased from 3.75 to 18.75 m, the maximum displacement
generated by the longitudinal and transverse ground motions was
increased by 65% and 117%, respectively. This is because the seismic
resistance of the arch in the longitudinal direction exceeds that in the
transverse direction when L exceeds D. For all examined values of L,
8
both the longitudinal and transverse displacements increased signifi­
cantly as the PGA increased. When the PGA was increased from 0.3 g to
1.2 g, the displacement difference between the longitudinal and trans­
verse ground motions increased by 33% (from 83% to 116%). Interest­
ingly, the displacements produced by the transverse ground motions
exceeded those produced by the longitudinal ones when L exceeded 15
m. Both longitudinal and transverse displacements increased slightly
when L was smaller than 11.25 m; however, they increased significantly
as expected when L was increased from 11.25 to 18.75 m owing to the
increase in PGA. This is because the increase of L decreases the seismic
capacity of the MUAB under increased PGAs.
Fig. 11(b) and Fig. 11(c) illustrate the effects of L on the maximum
compressive and tensile stresses in the segment components of the
MUAB, respectively. When the PGA was increased from 0.3 g to 1.2 g,
the maximum compressive stress increases generated by the longitudi­
nal and transverse ground motions were 214% and 313%, respectively.
The difference in compressive stress between the longitudinal and
transverse ground motions decreased by 67% (from 105% to 38%).
When the PGA was increased from 0.3 g to 0.6 g, the compressive stress
generated by the longitudinal and transverse ground motions was
reduced by only 5% for values of L smaller than 7.5 m. However, the
longitudinal- and transverse-ground-motion-induced compressive
stresses were maximally increased by 45% and 90%, respectively, when
L exceeded 15 m. For all values of L, the compressive stress produced by
both longitudinal and transverse ground motions was smaller than the
compressive strength of M40-grade concrete (i.e., 40 MPa) when the
PGA was smaller than 0.9 g. Meanwhile, the tensile stress of the
T. Van Nguyen et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology incorporating Trenchless Technology Research 118 (2021) 104166
Fig. 9. Cracking patterns of MUAB loaded with longitudinal and transverse ground motions.
longitudinal ground motions exceeded that of the transverse ground
motions, exhibiting a downward trend under increasing L. Similar to the
compressive stress results, for all analyzed cases of L, the longitudinal-
ground-motion-induced tensile stress exceeded the tensile strength of
M40-grade concrete (i.e., 4 MPa). A PGA increase from 0.3 g to 1.2 g led
to a maximum increase of 156% and 181% in the tensile stress generated
by the longitudinal and transverse ground motions; this suggests that,
for values of L exceeding 15 m, the greater the MUAB arch length, the
more detrimental the ground motion’s effects.
Fig. 11(d) illustrates the effects of L on the maximum longitudinal-
and transverse-ground-motion-induced crack depths in the segment
components. When L was below 11.25 m, the crack depth produced by
longitudinal PGAs of 0.3 g was ~ 2.5 times that produced by the same
ground motions in the transverse direction. However, for all intensities,
when L approached 18.75 m, the crack depth maximally decreased by
26% under longitudinal ground motions; meanwhile, it maximally
increased by 58% under transverse ones. This is primarily because the
crack depth is determined by the tensile stress, and the longitudinal
seismic resistance of the MUAB is greater if L exceeds D.
4.2. SSI
Fig. 12(a) shows the effects of the SSI coefficient on the maximum
displacement of a MUAB subjected to longitudinal and transverse
ground motions. For all PGA values, increasing the SSI coefficient from
0 to 0.45 led to a decrease of 20% in the ground-motion-induced
displacement. In contrast, within the SSI coefficient range of 0.5–0.55,
the displacement values remained almost constant. When the PGA was
increased from 0.3 g to 1.2 g, the difference in displacement between the
longitudinal and transverse ground motions decreased by 18% (from
25% to 7%). Moreover, the maximum displacement increases generated
9
by longitudinal and transverse ground motions were 427% and 440%,
respectively. This indicates that the influence of SSIs on the MUAB’s
displacement is relatively similar between both loading directions. In
particular, the maximum displacement generated by ground motions
with a PGA of 0.3 g was almost 2 cm, which is approaching the MUAB’s
predefined displacement criteria. Thus, when the SSI coefficient exceeds
0.5, the MUAB’s displacement criteria can be ensured if the PGA is
below 0.45 g and 0.55 g under longitudinal and transverse ground
motions, respectively. This is because SSIs are fundamental in the global
compaction and stability of MUABs under external loadings: larger SSI
coefficients result in more compacted MUABs.
Fig. 12(b) shows the influence of the SSI coefficient on the maximum
compressive stress in MUAB segment components. The influence of SSI
variation on the compressive stress produced by longitudinal ground
motions was more significant than that produced by transverse ones.
When the PGA was increased from 0.3 g to 1.2 g, the maximum increases
in the longitudinal- and transverse-ground-motion-induced compressive
stresses were 218% and 280%, respectively. The difference in
compressive stress between the longitudinal and transverse ground
motions increased by 30% (from 93% to 123%). The longitudinal-
ground-motion-induced compressive stress under a PGA of 0.3 g was
increased by 27% when the SSI coefficient was reduced from 0 to 0.5;
then, it stabilized at 15 MPa, which corresponds to 37.5% of the
compressive strength of M40-grade concrete. However, when the SSI
coefficient exceeded 0.3, PGAs of 0.6 g and 0.8 g were required under
longitudinal and transverse ground motions. The compressive stress
exceeded the compressive strength for all SSI coefficients when the PGA
reached 1.2 g; thus, an increase in the SSI coefficient can increase the
compressive stress owing to the increase in soil aching associated with
ground motions.
As illustrated in Fig. 12(c), a significant variation of maximum
T. Van Nguyen et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology incorporating Trenchless Technology Research 118 (2021) 104166

Fig. 10. (a) Plan view of MUAB subjected to ground motion with PGAs of 1.2 g, and (b) Schematic of damage to three-hinged arch bridges subjected to Great East
Japan earthquake reported by Abe and Nakamura (2014) and drawn by Miyazaki et al. (2020).

tensile stress was observed with respect to the ground-motion intensity
of both longitudinal and transverse ground motions. When the PGA was
increased from 0.3 g to 1.2 g, the maximum tensile strength increases
produced by the longitudinal and transverse ground motions were 162%
and 225%, respectively. The maximum tensile stress increases for SSI
coefficients ranging from 0 to 0.9 were 4% and 6% under longitudinal
and transverse ground motions, respectively. This shows that an in­
crease in SSI coefficient does not significantly reduce tensile stress in the
components because the composite soil arching that arises between the
arch and surrounding soils is not sustainable under the repeated shear
impact of strong ground motions. Regarding all SSI coefficients, the
tensile stress produced by the longitudinal and transverse ground

10
T. Van Nguyen et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology incorporating Trenchless Technology Research 118 (2021) 104166

Fig. 11. Maximum seismic responses of MUAB with respect to arch length and Fig. 12. Maximum seismic responses of MUAB with respect to SSI coefficient
ground motion direction: (a) displacement, (b) compressive stress, (c) tensile and ground motion direction: (a) displacement, (b) compressive stress, (c)
stress, and (d) crack depth. tensile stress, and (d) crack depth.

11
T. Van Nguyen et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology incorporating Trenchless Technology Research 118 (2021) 104166

motions exceeded the tensile strength of M40-grade concrete when the

PGAs approached 0.3 g and 0.4 g, respectively.
No significant change in maximum crack depth was observed within
the SSI evaluation range for any of the ground-motion intensity levels, as
shown in Fig. 12(d). For all PGAs, when the SSI coefficient approached
0.9, the crack depths produced by the longitudinal and transverse
ground motions increased by as much as 17% and 14%, respectively.
When the PGA was increased from 0.3 g to 1.2 g, the difference in crack
depth between the longitudinal and transverse ground motions
increased by 72% (from 24% to 96%). Hence, the crack depth variation
was almost independent of the SSI coefficient, though it depends on the
ground-motion direction.

4.3. AAI

Fig. 13(a) shows the relationship between the AAI coefficient and the
maximum displacement of a MUAB subjected to ground motions; an
increase in the former leads to a considerable decrease in the latter.
When the PGA increased from 0.3 g to 1.2 g, the maximum displacement
increases produced by longitudinal and transverse ground motions were
470% and 434%, respectively; the difference in displacement between
longitudinal and transverse ground motions decreased by 51% (from
93% to 42%). When the PGA was below 0.6 g and the AAI coefficient
below 0.2, the displacements produced by the transversal ground mo­
tions exceeded those caused by longitudinal ones. However, when the
AAI coefficient reached 0.6, the maximal decrease in transverse-ground-
motion-induced displacement was 2.7 times higher than that produced
by the longitudinal motions. When the AAI coefficient exceeds 0.7, the
displacement criteria of the MUAB can meet for longitudinal and
transverse PGAs smaller than 0.48 g or 0.59 g, respectively. Thus, the
AAI coefficient can considerably strengthen the seismic capacity of
MUABs subjected to strong ground motions, especially when loaded in
the transverse direction.
Fig. 13(b) and Fig. 13(c) illustrate the influence of the AAI coefficient
on the maximum ground-motion-induced compressive and tensile
stresses in the segment components, respectively; a significant change
can be seen in both owing to the change in AAI coefficient. When the
PGA was increased from 0.3 g to 1.2 g, the maximum increases in
maximum compressive stress were 231% and 305% for longitudinal and
transverse ground motions, respectively. Meanwhile, the difference
between the longitudinal- and transverse-ground-motion-induced
compressive stresses increased by 46% (from 78% to 124%). In partic­
ular, for PGAs of 1.2 g, the compressive stress exceeded the compressive
strength under both ground motions for all AAI coefficients, leading to
significant compressive damage to the MUAB components. When the
PGA was increased from 0.3 g to 1.2 g, the maximum tensile strength
increases produced by longitudinal and transverse ground motions were
153% and 200%, respectively. On the other hand, for AAI coefficients
from 0 to 1, the maximum decreases in tensile stress under longitudinal
and transverse ground motions were 15% and 33%, respectively. The
tensile stress produced by the longitudinal ground motions with PGAs of
0.3 g exceeded the tensile strength for all AAI coefficients. This shows
that longitudinal ground motions pose a higher damage risk than
transverse ones.
Furthermore, Fig. 13(d) shows the influence of the AAI coefficient on
the maximum crack depth in segment components subjected to ground
motions. For all PGAs, the crack depths under longitudinal and trans­
verse ground motions decreased by 37% and 62%, respectively, at the
maximum AAI coefficients (i.e., approaching 1). When the PGA was
increased from 0.3 g to 1.2 g, the difference in crack depth between the
longitudinal and transverse ground motions decreased by 34% (from
Fig. 13. Maximum seismic responses of MUAB with respect to AAI coefficient
46% to 12%).
and ground motion direction: (a) displacement, (b) compressive stress, (c)
tensile stress, and (d) crack depth.
4.4. Prestressed rebar

Fig. 14(a) shows the effects of the prestressed rebar stiffness on the

12
T. Van Nguyen et al.
Fig. 14. Maximum seismic responses of MUAB with respect to prestressed
rebar stiffness and ground motion direction: (a) displacement, (b) compressive
stress, (c) tensile stress, and (d) crack depth.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology incorporating Trenchless Technology Research 118 (2021) 104166
maximum MUAB displacements under longitudinal and transverse
ground motions. For all PGAs, the displacements produced by the lon­
gitudinal ground motions exceeded those produced by the transverse
ones within the studied stiffness range. However, for identical PGAs
(especially at larger PGAs), the longitudinal displacements tended to
converge earlier than transverse ones; meanwhile, the stiffnesses
increased because the connections between the L-J and C-J components
were more stabilized in the longitudinal than the transversal directions.
In particular, when the stiffness was increased from 0 to 40 MN/m, the
displacements in all analyzed PGA cases maximally decreased by 54%
and 56% under longitudinal and transverse ground motions, respec­
tively. When the PGA was increased from 0.3 g to 1.2 g, the maximum
displacement increases produced by the longitudinal and transverse
ground motions were 655% and 584%, respectively. The difference in
displacement between the longitudinal and transverse ground motions
decreased by 12% (from 18% to 6%). This indicates that the longitudinal
displacements dominate over the transverse ones. It can be generally
concluded that the stiffness increase reduces both the longitudinal and
transverse displacement because the strengthened joints between
segment components increase the MUAB resistance.
Fig. 14(b) and (c) demonstrate the effects of the prestressed rebar
stiffness on the maximum compressive and tensile stresses in the
segment components. For different stiffnesses of the prestressed rebar,
the tensile and compressive stresses produced by the longitudinal
ground motions exceeded those produced by transverse ones. When the
PGA was increased from 0.3 g to 1.2 g, the maximal compressive-stress
increases produced by longitudinal and transverse ground motions were
214% and 313%, respectively. When the stiffness increased from 0 to 50
MN/m, the maximum decrease in compressive stress produced from the
longitudinal and transverse ground motions is 15% and 21%, respec­
tively. When the stiffness increased from 0 to 40 MN/m for PGAs smaller
than 0.6 g, the compressive stress produced by both ground motions
gradually decreased by 20%. The recorded compressive stress was much
smaller than the compressive strength of M40-grade concrete for all
stiffnesses. Meanwhile, when the PGA was increased from 0.3 g to 1.2 g,
the maximum tensile stress increases produced by the longitudinal and
transverse ground motions were 163% and 245%, respectively. The
maximum tensile-stress decreases for stiffnesses ranging from 0 to 50
MN/m were 12% and 14% under longitudinal and transverse ground
motions, respectively. Thus, the structural joint strength of segment
components is significantly strengthened under an increase in stiffness,
which enhances the component tensile and compressive strengths as
well as the overall seismic capacity of the MUAB.
Fig. 14(d) shows that the prestressed rebar stiffness affects the
maximum crack depth. When the PGA was increased from 0.3 g to 1.2 g,
the difference in maximum crack depth between the longitudinal and
transverse ground motions decreased by 34%. Within the stiffness range,
when the PGA was below 0.3 g, the crack depths produced by transverse
motions were unremarkable. When the PGA exceeded 0.9 g, the MUAB
components exhibited substantially deep crack extensions. The crack
depth decreased by 26% under a stiffness increase from 30 to 50 MN/m.
This was primarily because the strengthening of joints between the
segment components enhances the overall seismic capacity of the
MUAB.
5. Conclusions
This paper presented a sophisticated 3D FEA of a 3-hinge MUAB with
an arch diameter of 10 m and an arch length of 7.5 m. The MUAB was
developed and subjected to a suite of synthetic ground motions via
simulations generated to match the Korean Standard Design Response
Spectrum (KDS, 2019). We performed FEA-based seismic evaluations of
the MUAB under synthetic ground motions with PGAs ranging from 0.1
g to 1.2 g in the longitudinal and transverse directions, taking into ac­
count the effects of AAIs, SSIs, and prestressed rebar stiffness. Further­
more, changes in arch length, SSI and AAI friction coefficients as well as
13
T. Van Nguyen et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology incorporating Trenchless Technology Research 118 (2021) 104166
the prestressed rebar stiffnesses were modeled in parametric studies of
various MUABs subjected to representative synthetic ground motions.
Thus, the study provides valuable insights into the procedural aspects of
seismic behavior evaluations for MUABs. The key conclusions drawn
from this study are as follows:
(1) The FEA results show that the seismic behaviors of MUABs sub­
jected to ground motions differ with respect to earthquake loading di­
rections owing to the different levels of seismic resistance. The crack
depth reached 5 cm when the PGA of the longitudinal ground motion
was 0.47 g; meanwhile, this occurred under a PGA of 0.59 g for the
transverse ground motion. A crack depth of 12.5 cm was observed for
the longitudinal and transverse direction earthquakes at PGAs of 0.73 g
and 0.84 g, respectively. When the PGA was below 0.47 g, the segment
components of the MUAB might be repairable because the crack depth
was smaller than 5 cm (equivalent to one-fifth of the arch thickness)
under both longitudinal and transverse ground motions. However, the
segment components were significantly damaged by compressive
stresses when the PGA reached 1.2 g. The MUAB displacement exceeded
the required displacement criteria when the PGA exceeded 0.43 g and
0.55 g under the longitudinal and transverse ground motions,
respectively.
(2) The parametric study revealed that the seismic behavior of the
MUAB depends on the PGAs and ground motion directions; furthermore,
it is sensitive to changes in the arch length and prestressed rebar stiff­
ness. When the arch length was increased from 3.75 m to 18.75 m, the
maximum displacements generated by the longitudinal and transverse
ground motions were increased by 65% and 117%, respectively. This
was because the seismic resistance of the arch in the longitudinal di­
rection exceeded that in the transverse direction. The influence of the
prestressed rebar stiffness on the segment components depended heavily
on the ground motion direction and the PGA. The increase in the pre­
stressed rebar stiffness decreased both the longitudinal and transverse
displacements because the structural joints of the segmental components
were largely strengthened by the stiffness increase, resulting in an
enhanced seismic resistance. The tensile and compressive stresses pro­
duced by the longitudinal ground motions exceeded those produced by
the transverse ground motions for various prestressed rebar stiffnesses.
(3) From the parametric study, it was also found that the SSI coef­
ficient had a minimal effect on the MUAB’s seismic response, especially
in terms of its compressive and tensile stresses and crack depth; how­
ever, the AAI coefficient had a moderate impact on this response. For all
PGAs, the increase in SSI coefficient from 0 to 0.45 led to a decrease of
20% in the MUAB displacement under both ground motions. This was
because the MUABs could be more compacted and stabilized at larger
SSI coefficients owing to the efficient soil arching effect of the SSI in­
crease. The increase in AAI led to a decrease in the maximum
displacement, tensile and compressive stresses, and crack depths in
components because it could strengthen the seismic capacities of the
MUAB, particularly under PGA increases in the transverse direction.
The present study had been limited to the number of ground motions
to evaluate the seismic behavior of MUABs. Therefore, to assess the
seismic performance of MUAB fully, a database of ground motion re­
cords is required. It is the key component in future attempts to overcome
the uncertainty in the ground motion time history in that the selections
must ensure an adequate number of ground motions to meet site char­
acteristics. Hence, further studies could fruitfully explore this issue by
investigating the seismic vulnerability of MUAB.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Toan Van Nguyen: Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original
draft, Validation, Visualization. Junwon Seo: Writing – review & edit­
ing, Methodology, Visualization. Jin-Hee Ahn: Conceptualization,
Validation. Achintya Haldar: Methodology, Writing – review & editing.
Jungwon Huh: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – review &
editing, Supervision.
14
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the Korea Agency for Infrastructure
Technology Advancement (KAIA) grant funded by the Ministry of Land,
Infrastructure, and Transport (Grant 20CTAP-C151892-02).
References
AASHTO, 2012. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specifications: customary US Units, Sixth
ed. Washington, D.C.
Abaqus, V., 2014. 6.14 Documentation. Dassault Systemes Simulia Corporation.
Abe, T., Nakamura, M., 2014. The use of and the caution in the application of the culvert
constructed by large pre-cast element in the expressway construction. Found Eng
Equip 42, 8–11.
Abuhajar, O., El Naggar, H., Newson, T., 2015. Static soil culvert interaction the effect of
box culvert geometric configurations and soil properties. Computers and
Geotechnics 69, 219–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2015.05.005.
Abuhajar, O., Newson, T., El Naggar, H., 2017. The Effect of Soil Depth and Box Culvert
Geometry on the Static Soil-Culvert Interaction, Geotechnical Frontiers 2017,
Orlando, Florida, pp. 202-211. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784480441.022.
ACI, C., 2014. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-14).
American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
Borcherdt, R.D., 1992. Simplified site classes and empirical amplification factors for site-
dependent code provisions, Proc. NCEER, SEAOC, BSSC Workshop on Site Response
during Earthquakes and Seismic Code Provisions. University of Southern California,
Los Angeles, California, pp. 18-20.
Borcherdt, Roger D., 1994. Estimates of site-dependent response spectra for design
(methodology and justification). Earthquake spectra 10 (4), 617–653. https://doi.
org/10.1193/1.1585791.
Borcherdt, R.D., 2012. simplified earthquake resistant design, GMPEs, and ShakeMaps,
The.
Fairless, G., Kirkaldie, D., 2008. Earthquake performance of long-span arch culverts. New
Zealand Transport Agency Research. Report.
Feng, Jin, Wei, Hu, Pan, Jianwen, Jian, Yang, Wang, Jinting, Zhang, Chuhan, 2011.
Comparative study procedure for the safety evaluation of high arch dams. Computers
Geotechnics 38 (3), 306–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2010.10.008.
Halldorsson, B., Papageorgiou, A.S., 2005. Calibration of the specific barrier model to
earthquakes of different tectonic regions. Bulletin of the Seismological society of
America 95, 1276–1300. https://doi.org/10.1785/0120040157.
Hognestad, E., 1951. Study of combined bending and axial load in reinforced concrete
members. University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, College of Engineering http://
hdl.handle.net/2142/4360.
Huh, Jungwon, Le, Thai Son, Kang, Choonghyun, Kwak, Kiseok, Park, Inn-Joon, 2017a.
A probabilistic fragility evaluation method of a RC box tunnel subjected to
earthquake loadings. Journal of Korean Tunnelling Underground Space Association
19 (2), 143–159. https://doi.org/10.9711/KTAJ.2017.19.2.143.
Huh, J., Tran, Q.H., Haldar, A., Park, I., Ahn, J.-H., 2017b. Seismic vulnerability
assessment of a shallow two-story underground RC box structure. Applied Sciences
7, 735. https://doi.org/10.3390/app7070735.
Jeon, J.-S., Shafieezadeh, A., Lee, D.H., Choi, E., DesRoches, R., 2015. Damage
assessment of older highway bridges subjected to three-dimensional ground motions:
Characterization of shear–axial force interaction on seismic fragilities. Engineering
Structures 87, 47–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.01.015.
Jeon, S.H., Cho, K.I., Huh, J., Ahn, J.H., 2019. The Performance Assessment of a Precast,
Panel-Segmented Arch Bridge with Outriggers. Applied Sciences-Basel 9, 4646.
https://doi.org/10.3390/app9214646.
Kang, Junsuk, Im, Hwangi, Park, Jong Sup, 2020. The effect of load reduction on
underground concrete arch structures in embedded trench installations. Tunnelling
Underground Space Technology 98, 103240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tust.2019.103240.
Byrne, P.M., Anderson, D.L., Jitno, H., 1996. Seismic analysis of large buried culvert
structures. Transportation Research Record 1541, 133-139. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0361198196154100117.
KDS, 2019. KDS 41 17 00 :2019 Building Seismic Design Code. Korea Construction
Standards Center.
Kim, H.J., Lee, G.-P., Lim, C.W., 2019. Investigation for the deformation behavior of the
precast arch structure in the open-cut tunnel. Journal of Korean Tunnelling and
Underground Space Association 21, 93–113. https://doi.org/10.9711/
KTAJ.2019.21.1.093.
Lanczos, C., 1950. An iteration method for the solution of the eigenvalue problem of
linear differential and integral operators. United States Governm. Press Office Los
Angeles, CA. https://doi.org/10.6028/jres.045.026.
Le, T.S., Huh, J., Park, J.-H., 2014. Earthquake fragility assessment of the underground
tunnel using an efficient SSI analysis approach. Journal of Applied Mathematics
Physics 2, 1073. https://doi.org/10.4236/jamp.2014.212123.
T. Van Nguyen et al. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology incorporating Trenchless Technology Research 118 (2021) 104166
Lee, J., Fenves, G.L., 1998a. A plastic-damage concrete model for earthquake analysis of
dams. Earthquake engineering & structural dynamics 27, 937–956. https://doi.org/
10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199809)27:9<937::AID-EQE764>3.0.CO;2-5.
Lee, Jeeho, Fenves, Gregory L., 1998b. Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of
concrete structures. Journal of engineering mechanics 124 (8), 892–900. https://doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1998)124:8(892).
Mangalathu, S., Jeon, J.S., DesRoches, R., Dynamics, S., 2018. Critical uncertainty
parameters influencing seismic performance of bridges using Lasso regression.
Earthquake Engineering 47, 784–801. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2991.
Mattock, A.H., 1977. Discussion of “Considerations for the Design of Precast Concrete
Bearing Wall Buildings to Withstand Abnormal Loads” by PCI Committee on Precast
Concrete Bearing Wall Buildings. PCI Journal 22, 105–106.
Miyazaki, Y., 2019. Fundamental study on seismic behavior of hinge types of precast
arch culverts in culvert longitudinal direction. Kyoto University. https://doi.org/
10.14989/doctor.k21736.
Miyazaki, Y., Sawamura, Y., Kishida, K., Kimura, M., 2017b. Evaluation of dynamic
behavior of embankment with precast arch culverts considering connecting
condition of culverts in culvert longitudinal direction. Japanese Geotechnical Society
Special Publication 5 (2), 95–100. https://doi.org/10.3208/jgssp.v05.020.
Miyazaki, Y., Sawamura, Y., Kishida, K., Kimura, M., 2017a. Dynamic Centrifuge Model
Tests on Seismic Performance in Culvert Longitudinal Direction of Hinge-Type Arch
Culverts due to Patterns of Embankment Shape. Journal of Japan Society of Civil
Engineers, Ser. C (Geosphere Engineering) 73, 429–441. https://doi.org/10.2208/
jscejge.73.429.
Miyazaki, Y., Sawamura, Y., Kishida, K., Kimura, M., 2018. Dynamic behaviour of three-
hinge-type precast arch culverts with various patterns of overburden in culvert
longitudinal direction. In: Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, 2. CRC Press,
pp. 915–920. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429438646.
Miyazaki, Y., Sawamura, Y., Kishida, K., Kimura, M., 2020. Elasto-plastic 3D FE analysis
of the seismic behavior in culvert longitudinal direction of three-hinge type of
precast arch culverts. Advances in Computer Methods and Geomechanics. Springer
223–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-0886-8_18.
Ojalvo, I., Newman, M., 1970. Vibration modes of large structures by an automatic
matrix-reductionmethod. AIAA Journal 8, 1234-1239. https://doi.org/10.2514/
3.5878.
Paige, C.C., 1971. The computation of eigenvalues and eigenvectors of very large sparse
matrices. University of London. https://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.eth
os.307848.
Pan, Jianwen, Xu, Yanjie, Jin, Feng, 2015. Seismic performance assessment of arch dams
using incremental nonlinear dynamic analysis. European Journal of Environmental
Civil Engineering 19 (3), 305–326. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19648189.2014.960950.
Rogers, Luke P., Seo, Junwon, 2017. Vulnerability sensitivity of curved precast-concrete
I-girder bridges with various configurations subjected to multiple ground motions.
Journal of Bridge Engineering 22 (2), 04016118. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
BE.1943-5592.0000973.
Santos, R.R.V., Kang, J., Park, J.S., 2020. Effects of embedded trench installations using
expanded polystyrene geofoam applied to buried corrugated steel arch structures.
Tunnelling Underground Space Technology 98, 103323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tust.2020.103323.
Sawamura, Y., Ishihara, H., Kishida, K., Kimura, M., 2016. Experimental study on
damage morphology and critical state of three-hinge precast arch culvert through
15
shaking table tests. Procedia Engineering, Advances in Transportation Geotechnics
III 143, 522-529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.06.066.
Sawamura, Yasuo, Ishihara, Hiroyuki, Otani, Yoshinori, Kishida, Kiyoshi,
Kimura, Makoto, 2019. Deformation behavior and acting earth pressure of three-
hinge precast arch culvert in construction process. Underground Space 4 (3),
251–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.undsp.2018.09.005.
Sawamura, Y., Kishida, K., Kimura, M., 2011. Numerical approach on dynamic
interactive behavior between embankment and installed multi-arch culverts, Proc.
In: of the 13th Int. Conf. on Computer Methods and Advances in Geomechanics,
pp. 798–803.
Sawamura, Y., Kishida, K., Kimura, M., 2012. Numerical Study on Dynamic Interaction
Between Embankment and Consecutive Culverts. 2nd International Conference on
Transportation Geotechnics (ICTG) International Society of Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE).
Sawamura, Yasuo, Kishida, Kiyoshi, Kimura, Makoto, 2015. Centrifuge model test and
FEM analysis of dynamic interactive behavior between embankments and installed
culverts in multiarch culvert embankments. International Journal of Geomechanics
15 (3), 04014050. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000361.
Seo, Junwon, 2013. Statistical determination of significant curved I-girder bridge seismic
response parameters. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration 12 (2),
251–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-013-0168-y.
Seo, J., Linzell, D.G., 2012. Horizontally curved steel bridge seismic vulnerability
assessment. Engineering Structures 34, 21–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
engstruct.2011.09.008.
Seo, Junwon, Linzell, Daniel G., 2013. Nonlinear seismic response and parametric
examination of horizontally curved steel bridges using 3D computational models.
Journal of Bridge Engineering 18 (3), 220–231. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
BE.1943-5592.0000345.
Seo, J., Rogers, L.P., 2017. Comparison of curved prestressed concrete bridge population
response between area and spine modeling approaches toward efficient seismic
vulnerability analysis. Engineering Structures 150, 176–189. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.07.033.
Sheng, Daichao, Wriggers, Peter, Sloan, Scott W., 2007. Application of frictional contact
in geotechnical engineering. International journal of geomechanics 7 (3), 176–185.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2007)7:3(176).
Siqueira, G.H., Sanda, A.S., Paultre, P., Padgett, J.E., 2014. Fragility curves for isolated
bridges in eastern Canada using experimental results. Engineering Structures 74,
311–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.04.053.
Tavares, D.H., Padgett, J.E., Paultre, P., 2012. Fragility curves of typical as-built highway
bridges in eastern Canada. Engineering Structures 40, 107–118. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.02.019.
Toyota, Hirofumi, Takagai, Makoto, 1999. Dynamic Behavior of 3-hinge Arch in Terre
Armee Foundationテールアルメ盛土中における3ヒンジアーチの動的挙動. Doboku
Gakkai Ronbunshu 1999 (624), 255–266. https://doi.org/10.2208/jscej.1999.624_
255.
Wood, J.H., Jenkins, D.A., 2000. Seismic analysis of buried arch structures, Proc. New
Zealand Society for Earthquake Engineering, Wellington, New Zealand.
Zhang, S., Wang, G., Sa, W., 2013. Damage evaluation of concrete gravity dams under
mainshock–aftershock seismic sequences. Soil Dynamics Earthquake Engineering 50,
16–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2013.02.021.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Plate VIII. 3a-3g, Stage II.
Plate IX. 3h-3o, Stage II.
Plate X. Stage III.
Plate XI. 6-6i, Stage III; 7a, Stage IV.
Plate XII. 7b-7h, Stage IV; 8, 8a, Stage V.

Plate XIII. Stage V.

Plate XIV. 8i-8j, Stage V; 9a-9g, Stage VI.
Plate XV. 9h-9m, Stage VI; 10, Stage VII.
Plate XVI. 10a, Stage VII; 11a-11d, Stage VIII.
Plate XVII. Stage VIII.
Plate XVIII. 11i-11k, Stage VIII; 12-12b, Stage IX.