Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Generalized response displacement methods for seismic analysis of underground structures with complex cross section

  • Published:
Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The response displacement method (RDM) is recommended for the seismic analysis of underground structures in the transverse direction for many codes, including bases for design of structures-seismic actions for designing geotechnical works (ISO 23469) and code for seismic design of urban rail transit structures (GB 50909-2014). However, there are some obvious limitations in the application of RDM. Springs and the shear stress of the soil could be approximately evaluated for the structures having a simple cross section, such as rectangular and circular structures. It is necessary to propose simplified seismic analysis methods for structures with complex cross sections. This paper refers to the idea of RDM and proposes three generalized response displacement methods (GRDM). In GRDM1, a part of the soil surrounding a structure is selected to generate a generalized underground structure with a rectangular cross section, and the same analysis model as RDM is applied to analyze the responses of the structure. In GRDM2, a hollow soil model without a generalized structure is used to compute the equivalent load caused by the relative displacement of the soil, and the soil-structure interaction model is applied to calculate the responses of the structure. In GRDM3, a continuous soil model is applied to compute the equivalent load caused by the relative displacement and shear stress of the soil, and the soil-structure interaction model is applied to analyze the responses of the structure, which is the same as the model used in GRDM2. The time-history analysis method (THAM) is used to evaluate the accuracy of the proposed simplified methods. Results show that the error of GRDM1 is about 20%, while the error is only 5% for GRDM2 and GRDM3. Among the three proposed methods, GRDM3 has obvious advantages regarding calculation efficiency and accuracy. Therefore, it is recommended to use GRDM3 for the seismic response analysis of underground structures that have conventional simple or complex cross sections.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abuhajar O, El Naggar H and Newson T (2015), “Experimental and Numerical Investigations of the Effect of Buried Box Culverts on Earthquake Excitation,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 79: 130–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bardet JP, Ichii K and Lin CH (2000), EERA: A Computer Program for Equivalent-Linear Earthquake Site Response Analyses of Layered Soil Deposits, University of Southern California, Department of Civil Engineering, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhalla S, Yang Y, Zhao J and Soh C (2005), “Structural Health Monitoring of Underground Facilities -Technological Issues and Challenges,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 20(5): 487–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broere W (2016), “Urban Underground Space: Solving the Problems of Today’s Cities,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 55: 245–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen G, Wang Z, Zuo X, Du X and Gao H (2013), “Shaking Table Test on the Seismic Failure Characteristics of a Subway Station Structure on Liquefiable Ground,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 42(10): 1489–1507.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen Z and Shen H (2014), “Dynamic Centrifuge Tests on Isolation Mechanism of Tunnels Subjected to Seismic Shaking,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 42: 67–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Choi JS, Lee JS and Kim JM (2002), “Nonlinear Earthquake Response Analysis of 2-D Underground Structures with Soil-Structure Interaction Including Separation and Sliding at Interface,” 15th ASCE Engineering Mechanics Conference, New York, 1–8.

  • Cilingir U and Madabhushi SPG (2011a), “Effect of Depth on Seismic Response of Circular Tunnels,” Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 48(1): 117–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cilingir U and Madabhushi SPG (2011b), “Effect of Depth on the Seismic Response of Square Tunnels,” Soils and Foundations, 51(3): 449–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ding JH, Jin XL, Guo YZ and Li GG (2006), “Numerical Simulation for Large-Scale Seismic Response Analysis of Immersed Tunnel,” Engineering Structures, 28(10): 1367–1377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dowding CH and Rozan A (1978), “Damage to Rock Tunnels from Earthquake Shaking,” ASCE J Geotech Eng Div, 104(2): 175–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du X and Zhao M (2009), “Stability and Identification for Rational Approximation of Frequency Response Function of Unbounded Soil,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 39(2): 165–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • GB 50909-2014 (2014), Code for Seismic Design of Urban Rail Transit Structures, China Planning Press, Beijing, China. (in Chinese)

    Google Scholar 

  • Guan Z, Zhou Y, Gou X, Huang H and Wu X (2019), “The Seismic Responses and Seismic Properties of Large Section Mountain Tunnel Based on Shaking Table Tests,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 90: 383–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamada M, Izumi H, Iwano M and Shiba Y (1984a), “Analysis of Dynamic Strain Around Rock Cavern and Earthquake Resistant Design,” Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 1984(341): 197–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamada M, Sugihara Y, Shiba Y and Iwano M (1984b), “Observation and Study on Dynamic Behavior of Rock Cavern During Earthquake,” Japan Society of Civil Engineers, 1984(341): 187–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hashash YM, Hook JJ, Schmidt B, John I and Yao C (2001), “Seismic Design and Analysis of Underground Structures,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 16(4): 247–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huo H and Bobet A (2003), “Seismic Design of Cut and Cover Rectangular Tunnels-Evaluation of Observed Behavior of Dakai Station During Kobe Earthquake, 1995,” Proceedings of 1st World Forum of Chinese Scholars in Geotechnical Engineering, Shanghai, pp. 456–466.

  • Iida H, Hiroto T, Yoshida N and Iwafuji M (1996), “Damage to Daikai Subway Station,” Soils and Foundations, 36(Special): 283–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO 23469 (2015), “Bases for Design of Structures-Seismic Actions for Designing Geotechnical Works, International Standard ISO TC 98/SC3/WG10,” International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee TH, Park D, Nguyen DD and Park JS (2016), “Damage Analysis of Cut-and-Cover Tunnel Structures Under Seismic Loading,” Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 14(2): 413–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li Y, Zhao M, Xu C, Du X and Li Z (2018), “Earthquake Input for Finite Element Analysis of Soil-Structure Interaction on Rigid Bedrock,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 79: 250–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu J and Li B (2005), “A Unified Viscous-Spring Artificial Boundary for 3-D Static and Dynamic Applications,” Science in China Series E: Engineering & Materials Science, 48(5): 570–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu J, Wang W and Dasgupta G (2014), “Pushover Analysis of Underground Structures: Method and Application,” Science in China Series E: Technological Sciences, 57(2): 423–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu R and Shi H (2006), “An Improved Pseudo-Static Method for Seismic Resistant Design of Underground Structures,” Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 5(2): 189–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nam S, Song H, Byun K and Maekawa K (2006), “Seismic Analysis of Underground Reinforced Concrete Structures Considering Elasto-Plastic Interface Element with Thickness,” Engineering Structures, 28(8): 1122–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newmark NM (1968), “Problem in Wave Propagation in Soil and Rock,” Proceedings of Wave Propagation and Dynamic Properties of Earth Materials, Mexico, 7–26.

  • Penzien J (2000), “Seismically Induced Racking of Tunnel Linings,” Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics, 29(5): 683–691.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramazi H and Jigheh HS (2006), “The Bam (Iran) Earthquake of December 26, 2003: From an Engineering and Seismological Point of View,” Journal of Asian Earth Sciences, 27(5): 576–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma S and Judd WR (1991), “Underground Opening Damage from Earthquakes,” Engineering Geology, 30(3–4): 263–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Systèmes D (2007), Abaqus Analysis User’s Manual, Providence, USA.

  • Tao L, Ding P, Shi C, Wu X, Wu S and Li S (2019), “Shaking Table Test on Seismic Response Characteristics of Prefabricated Subway Station Structure,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 91: 102994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tateishi A (2005), “A Study on Seismic Analysis Methods in the Cross Section of Underground Structures Using Static Finite Element Method,” Structural Engineering and Earthquake Engineering, 22(1): 41–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang JM and Litehiser JJ (1985), “The Distribution of Earthquake Damage to Underground Facilities During the 1976 Tang-Shan Earthquake,” Earthquake Spectra, 1(4): 741–757.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang JN (1993), Seismic Design of Tunnels: A Simple State-of-the-Art Design Approach, Parsons Brinckerhoff, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu Z, Du X, Xu C, Jiang J and Han R (2019), “Simplified Equivalent Static Methods for Seismic Analysis of Shallow Buried Rectangular Underground Structures,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 121: 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu H, Yuan Y, Xu G, Su Q, Yan X and Li C (2018), “Multi-Point Shaking Table Test for Long Tunnels Subjected to Non-Uniform Seismic Loadings - Part II: Application to the HZM Immersed Tunnel,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 108: 187–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yuan Y, Yu H, Li C, Yan X and Yuan J (2018), “Multi-Point Shaking Table Test for Long Tunnels Subjected to Non-Uniform Seismic Loadings - Part I: Theory and Validation,” Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 108: 177–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zou Y, Liu H, Jing L and Cui J (2017), “A Pseudo-Static Method for Seismic Responses of Underground Frame Structures Subjected to Increasing Excitations,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 65: 106–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgement

This research is jointly funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 52108453), the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province in China (No. 20212BAB214014), the National Key R&D Program of China (No. 2018YFC1504305), and Joint Funds of the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. U1839201).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jiangxi Key Laboratory of Infrastructure Safety Control in Geotechnical Engineering, East China Jiaotong University, Nanchang, 330013, China

    Zigang Xu, Linling Ding & Haiyang Zhuang

  2. Key Laboratory of Urban Security and Disaster Engineering of the Ministry of Education, Beijing University of Technology, Beijing, 100124, China

    Xiuli Du & Chengshun Xu

Authors
  1. Zigang Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Linling Ding
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Xiuli Du
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Chengshun Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Haiyang Zhuang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zigang Xu.

Additional information

Supported by: National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. 52108453, Natural Science Foundation of Jiangxi Province of China under Grant No. 20212BAB214014, National Key R&D Program of China under Grant No. 2018YFC1504305, and Joint Funds of the National Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant No. U1839201

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Xu, Z., Ding, L., Du, X. et al. Generalized response displacement methods for seismic analysis of underground structures with complex cross section. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 22, 979–993 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-023-2211-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11803-023-2211-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation