اثر سازه زیرزمینی بر حداکثر شتاب سطح زمین در دو حالت رفتار خطی و غیرخطی خاک
نویسندگان
1 دانشکده مهندسی عمران دانشگاه علم و صنعت ایران
2 دانشگاه کایست، کره جنوبی
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
Effect of Underground Structure on PGA at Ground Surface Considering Linear and Nonlinear Behaviour for the Soil
نویسندگان [English]
- M. Hassan Baziar 1
- M. Rabeti Moghadam 1
In this paper, a numerical model was first verified against dynamic centrifuge tests results performed on an
underground subway tunnel and then, the effect of underground structure on peak ground acceleration (PGA) at the ground
surface investigated considering linear and nonlinear behavior for the soil. The results show that in the range of natural
frequency of the system, nonlinear model shows deamplification of PGA with respected to the freefield. Whereas, linear model
shows opposite trend. Out of the range of natural frequency of the system, linear and nonlinear models predict same results and for both model, underground tunnel resulted in amplification of low frequencies and deamplification of high frequencies with
respected to the freefield.
کلیدواژهها [English]
- Underground structure
- freefield
- Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA)
- linear and nonlinear behavior of soil
- parametric study
- FLAC 2D software
Subway Station During The 1995 Hyogoken-Nunbu
Earthquake and Its Investigation”, 11WCEE, Paper
No. 2151, 1996.
2. Cilingir U., and Madabhushi S.P. G. “A Model Study
on the Effects of Input Motion on the Seismic
Behaviour of Tunnels”, Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 31, pp. 452-462, 2011.
3. Cilingir U., and Madabhushi, S. P. G., “Effect of
Depth on Seismic Response of Circular Tunnels”,
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 48, pp.117-
127, 2011.
4. Penzien, J., “Seismically-Induced Racking of Tunnel
Linings”, Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, Vol. 29, pp. 683–691, 2000.
6. Migliazza M., Chiorboli M., and Giani G. P.,
“Comparison of Analytical Method, 3D Finite
Element Model with Experimental Subsidence
Measurements Resulting from the Extension of the
Milan Underground”, Computers and Geotechnics,
Vol. 36, pp. 113–124, 2009.
7. Yiouta-Mitra P., Kouretzis G., Bouckovalas G., and
Sofianos A., “Effect of Underground Structures in
Earthquake Resistant Design of Surface Structures”,
ASCE GSP 160 Dynamic Response and Soil
Properties, Geo-Denver: New Peaks in Geotechnics,
2007.
8. Wong K. C., Shah A. H., and Datta S. K., “Diffraction
of Elastic Waves in a Halfspace.II. Analytical And
Numerical Solutions”, Bulletin of the Seismological
Society of America, Vol. 75, pp. 69-92, 1985.
9. Dravinski M., “Ground Motion Amplification Due to
Elastic Inclusions in a Halfspace”, Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 11,
pp. 313-335, 1983.
10. Pao H. Y., and Maw C. C., “The Diffraction of
Elastic Waves and Dynamic Stress Concentrations”,
A Report Prepared for United States Air Force
Project Rand, Crane-Russak, New York, 1973.
11. Lee VW., “Three Dimensional Diffraction of Elastic
Waves by a Spherical Cavity in an Elastic Halfspace:
Closed form Solutions”, Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 7(3), pp. 149-161,
1988.
12. Smerzini C., Aviles J., Paolucci R., and Sanchez-
Sesma F. J., “Effect of Underground Cavities on
Surface Ground Motion under SH wave
Propagation”, Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics, Vol. 38, pp. 1441-1460, 2009.
13. Sun, C., and Wang, Q., “Effects of Underground
Structure on Acceleration Response of Site”,
Advanced Materials Research, Vol. 368-373, pp.
2791-2794, 2011.
14. Sica S., Rotili F., Simonelli A.L., and Dello Russo
A., “The Role of Underground Cavities on Ground
Motion Amplification”, 15WCEE, LISBON, 2012.
15. Abuhajar O., El Naggar H., and Newson T., “Effects
of Underground Structures on Amplification of
Seismic Motion for Sand with Varying Density”,
Pan-Am CGS Geotechnical Conference, 2011.
16. Choo, Y. W., Kim, S. J., Ha, J. G., and Kim, D.
S.,“Centrifuge Modeling of Buried Box Structure
Subject to Earthquake”, Proceeding of the 14th Asian
Regional Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering, Hong Kong, China, 2011.
17. Kim D. S., Kim N. R., Choo Y. W., and Cho G. Ch.,
“A Newly Developed State-of-the-Art Geotechnical
Centrifuge in Korea”, KSCE Journal of Civil
Engineering, Vol. 17(1), pp. 77-84, 2013.
18. Lee S. H., Choo Y. W., and Kim, D. S.,
“Performance of an Equivalent Shear Beam (ESB)
model Container for Dynamic Geotechnical
Centrifuge tests”, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, Vol. 44, pp. 102-114, 2013.
19. Kuhlemeyer, R. L., and Lysmer, J., “Finite Element
Method Accuracy for Wave Propagation Problems”,
Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations
Division, Vol. 99, No. 5, pp. 421-427, 1973.
20. Mejia L. H., and Dawson E. M., “Earthquake
Deconvolution for FLAC”, Proceedings of the 4th
International FLAC Symposium, Madrid, Spain, pp.
211-219, 2006.
21. Luzhen J., Jun Ch., and Jie L., “Seismic Response of
Underground Utility Tunnels: Shaking Table Testing
and FEM Analysis”, Earthquake Engineering and
Engineering Vibration, Vol. 9, pp. 555-567, 2010.
22. Itasca Consulting Group, “FLAC – Fast Lagrangian
Analysis of Continua”, Ver. 5.0 User’s Guide,
Minneapolis, Itasca, 2005.
23. Gómez, J. E., Filz G. M., and Ebeling R. M.,
“Extended Hyperbolic Model for Sand-to-Concrete
Interfaces”, Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering 2003, Vol. 129(11),
pp. 993–1000, 2003.
)