Seismic responses of an intensively constructed metro station-passageway-shaft structure system

doi:10.1007/s11709-024-1069-z

Front. Struct. Civ. Eng.

2024, Vol. 18

Issue (5) : 760-775 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11709-024-1069-z

Seismic responses of an intensively constructed metro station-passageway-shaft structure system

Ruohan LI^1,², Yong YUAN³(

), Hong CHEN⁴, Xinxing LI⁴, Emilio BILOTTA²

¹. Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
². Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, University of Naples Federico II, Naples 80125, Italy
³. State Key Laboratory of Disaster Reduction in Civil Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
⁴. Shanghai Tunnel Engineering & Rail Transit Design and Research Institute, Shanghai 200235, China

Download: PDF(10382 KB) HTML
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks

Abstract

Intensive construction methods offer benefits for metro station development, yet they present challenges for seismic design due to the spatially asymmetric configuration of passageway-shaft structures. In this study, a detailed numerical model of a station-passageway-shaft structure system built using intensive construction methods was developed and the deformation and damage modes under seismic loadings were analyzed. The results indicate that inconsistent deformation between the shaft and the station generates interaction through the connecting passageway, leading to damage near the opening of the station structure and both ends of the connecting passageway Damage is more severe under longitudinal excitation. Compared with the opening plan that spans four segments, the opening plan that spans five segments exacerbates the overall degree of damage to the structure system. Under transverse excitation, the presence of interior structures intensifies the damage to the station and connecting passageway, while with such internal structure in place the impact is relatively minor under longitudinal excitation. Reinforcement with steel segments near the station opening can appreciably attenuate the damage. In contrast, introducing flexible joints at both ends of the connecting passageway intensifies the damage. Hence, reinforcement using steel segments emerges as an optimal seismic mitigation strategy.

Keywords earthquake intensive construction metro station numerical simulation

Corresponding Author(s): Yong YUAN

Just Accepted Date: 29 May 2024 Online First Date: 18 June 2024 Issue Date: 26 June 2024

Cite this article:

Ruohan LI,Yong YUAN,Hong CHEN, et al. Seismic responses of an intensively constructed metro station-passageway-shaft structure system[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2024, 18(5): 760-775.

URL:

https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/10.1007/s11709-024-1069-z
https://academic.hep.com.cn/fsce/EN/Y2024/V18/I5/760

Fig.1 Schematic of numerical model: (a) site; (b) structures; (c) lateral cross section; (d) segmental tunnel of the station (portion).

Tab.1 Material parameters of soil layers

Tab.2 Material parameters of concrete

Fig.2 Input motions: (a) accelerogram; (b) Fourier spectrum of 1-Hz Ricker wavelet.

Fig.3 Dynamic response characteristics under transverse excitation: (a) overall deformation; (b) cross-sectional deformation; (c) squeeze deformation compare with structure without opening (deformation scale factor: 500).

Fig.4 Dynamic response characteristics under longitudinal excitation: (a) overall deformation; (b) deformation in horizontal plane; (c) racking deformation of opening (deformation scale factor: 500).

Fig.5 Tensile damage of structure system under transverse excitation: (a) cross section; (b) longitudinal.

Fig.6 Tensile damage of single segment tunnel under transverse excitation: (a) cross section; (b) longitudinal layout.

Fig.7 Tensile damage of structure system under longitudinal excitation: (a) cross section; (b) longitudinal.

Tab.3 Damage level of concrete (modified based on Zhong et al. [28])

Fig.8 Tensile damage volume of structure system: (a) transverse excitation; (b) longitudinal excitation.

Fig.9 Different opening plans: (a) original plan; (b) Plan B.

Fig.10 Tensile damage of structure system using Plan B under transverse excitation: (a) cross section; (b) longitudinal.

Fig.11 Tensile damage of structure system using Plan B under longitudinal excitation: (a) cross section; (b) longitudinal.

Fig.12 Comparison of tensile of damage volume of structure system with different opening plans: (a) transverse excitation; (b) longitudinal excitation.

Fig.13 Interior structure: (a) cross section; (b) three-dimensional sketch.

Fig.14 Tensile damage of structure system with interior structure under transverse excitation: (a) cross section; (b) longitudinal.

Fig.15 Tensile damage of structure system with interior structure under longitudinal excitation: (a) cross section; (b) longitudinal.

Fig.16 Comparison of tensile of damage volume of structure system with interior structure: (a) transverse excitation; (b) longitudinal excitation.

Tab.4 Material parameters of steel

Fig.17 Range of steel shield segment reinforcement.

Fig.18 Tensile damage of structure system with steel shield segment reinforcement under transverse excitation: (a) cross section; (b) longitudinal.

Fig.19 Tensile damage of structure system with steel shield segment reinforcement under longitudinal excitation: (a) cross section; (b) longitudinal.

Fig.20 Comparison of tensile of damage volume of structure system using steel segment: (a) transverse excitation; (b) longitudinal excitation.

Tab.5 Material parameters of flexible joints

Fig.21 Schematic of flexible joint set-up.

Fig.22 Tensile damage of structure system with flexible joint under transverse excitation: (a) cross section; (b) longitudinal.

Fig.23 Tensile damage of structure system with flexible joint under longitudinal excitation: (a) cross section; (b) longitudinal.

Fig.24 Comparison of tensile of damage volume of structure system with flexible joint: (a) transverse excitation; (b) longitudinal excitation.

1	A GhazvinianM MonjeziM R HadeiH R NejatiV Sarfarazi. A global review of metro station construction projects. In: Proceedings of the 1st Asian and 9th Iranian Tunnelling Symposium. Tehran: Iranian Tunneling Association, 2011
2	D C Koutsoftas, P Frobenius, C L Wu, D Meyersohn, R Kulesza. Deformations during cut-and-cover construction of Muni metro turnback project. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 2000, 126(4): 344–359
3	J Liu, F Wang, S He, E Wang, H Zhou. Enlarging a large-diameter shield tunnel using the pile-beam-arch method to create a metro station. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2015, 49: 130–143 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2015.04.006
4	W Wu, S Ge, Y Yuan. Seismic response characteristics of cross interchange metro stations: Transversal response of the three-storey section. Engineering Structures, 2022, 252: 113525
5	S Ge, W Wu, W Ding, Y Yuan. Shaking table test on the response of a cross interchange metro station under harmonic excitations refers to a single two-storey metro station. Applied Sciences, 2021, 11(4): 1511 https://doi.org/10.3390/app11041551
6	J Zhang, Y Yuan, Z Bao, H Yu, E Bilotta. Shaking table tests on shaft-tunnel junction under longitudinal excitations. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2020, 132: 106055 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106055
7	J Zhang, Y Yuan, H Yu. Shaking table tests on discrepant responses of shaft-tunnel junction in soft soil under transverse excitations. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 120: 345–359 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.02.013
8	J Zhang, M Xiao, E Bilotta, C Li, Y Yuan. Analytical solutions for seismic responses of shaft-tunnel junction under travelling SH-wave. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2021, 112: 103910 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2021.103910
9	J Zhang, Y Yuan, E Bilotta, H Yu. Analytical solutions for seismic responses of shaft-tunnel junction under longitudinal excitations. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2020, 131: 106033 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106033
10	J Zhang, Y Yuan, E Bilotta, B Zhang, H Yu. Analytical solution for dynamic responses of the vertical shaft in a shaft-tunnel junction under transverse loads. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 126: 105779 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105779
11	X Ma, G Wang, J Wu, Q Ji. Experimental study on the seismic response of subway station in soft ground. Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami, 2017, 11(5): 1750020 https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793431117500208
12	H Y Zhuang, X Wang, Y Miao, E L Yao, S Chen, B Ruan, G X Chen. Seismic responses of a subway station and tunnel in a slightly inclined liquefiable ground through shaking table test. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2019, 116: 371–385 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.09.051
13	F C DuranJ KiyonoT TsuneiY Maruo. Seismic response analysis of a shield tunnel connected to a vertical shaft. In: Proceedings of the 15th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Lisbon: International Association for Earthquake Engineering, 2012
14	H Yu, Y Yuan, Z Qiao, Y Gu, Z Yang, X Li. Seismic analysis of a long tunnel based on multi-scale method. Engineering Structures, 2013, 49: 572–587 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2012.12.021
15	Q Chen, T Zhang, N Hong, B Huang. Seismic performance of a subway station-tunnel junction structure: A shaking table investigation and numerical analysis. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 2021, 25(5): 1653–1669 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12205-021-1169-4
16	Y Lu, Y Song, Y Wang, J Yuan. Three-dimensional nonlinear seismic response of shield tunnel spatial end structure. Advances in Civil Engineering, 2021, 2021: 8441325 https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/8441325
17	T Suzuki. The axisymmetric finite element model developed as a measure to evaluate earthquake responses of seismically isolated tunnels. In: Proceedings of the 12th World Conference on Earthquake Engineering. Auckland: International Association for Earthquake Engineering, 2000
18	Y Kawamata, M Nakayama, I Towhata, S Yasuda. Dynamic behaviors of underground structures in E-defense shaking experiments. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2016, 82: 24–39 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.11.008
19	N Yoshida, S Kobayashi, I Suetomi, K Miura. Equivalent linear method considering frequency dependent characteristics of stiffness and damping. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2002, 22(3): 205–222 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(02)00011-8
20	J Lubliner, J Oliver, S Oller, E Onate. A plastic-damage model for concrete. International Journal of Solids and Structures, 1989, 25(3): 299–326 https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7683(89)90050-4
21	J Lee, G L Fenves. Plastic-damage model for cyclic loading of concrete structures. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, 1998, 124(8): 892–900 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(1998)124:8(892
22	G Tsinidis, K Pitilakis, A D Trikalioti. Numerical simulation of round robin numerical test on tunnels using a simplified kinematic hardening model. Acta Geotechnica, 2014, 9(4): 641–659 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-013-0293-9
23	Y Yuan, Y Yang, S Zhang, H Yu, J Sun. A benchmark 1 g shaking table test of shallow segmental mini-tunnel in sand. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering, 2020, 18(11): 5383–5412 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-020-00909-w
24	R Rodriguez-Plata, A G Ozcebe, C Smerzini, C G Lai. Aggravation factors for 2D site effects in sedimentary basins: The case of Norcia, central Italy. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2021, 149: 106854 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106854
25	G Tsinidis. Response characteristics of rectangular tunnels in soft soil subjected to transversal ground shaking. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2017, 62: 1–22 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.11.003
26	M Patil, D Choudhury, P G Ranjith, J Zhao. Behavior of shallow tunnel in soft soil under seismic conditions. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2018, 82: 30–38 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.04.040
27	C Liu, Z Peng, J Cui, X Huang, Y Li, W Chen. Development of crack and damage in shield tunnel lining under seismic loading: Refined 3D finite element modeling and analyses. Thin-Walled Structures, 2023, 185: 110647 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tws.2023.110647
28	Z Zhong, Z Wang, M Zhao, X Du. Structural damage assessment of mountain tunnels in fault fracture zone subjected to multiple strike-slip fault movement. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2020, 104: 103527 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2020.103527
29	G M Chen, J G Teng, J F Chen. Finite-element modeling of intermediate crack debonding in FRP-plated RC beams. Journal of Composites for Construction, 2011, 15(3): 339–353 https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CC.1943-5614.0000157
30	S Zhang, Y Yuan, C Li, Y Yang, H Yu, H A Mang. Effects of interior structure as double deck lanes on seismic performance of segmental linings. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2020, 103: 103441 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2020.103441

[1]	Yang YANG, Xingyi ZHU, Denis JELAGIN, Alvaro GUARIN. Smoothed particle hydrodynamics based numerical study of hydroplaning considering permeability characteristics of runway surface[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2024, 18(3): 319-333.
[2]	Weiguo LONG, Wenfan LU, Yifeng LIU, Qiuji LI, Jiajia OU, Peng PAN. Lateral shear performance of sheathed post-and-beam wooden structures with small panels[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2023, 17(7): 1117-1131.
[3]	Dongning SUN, Baoning HONG, Xin LIU, Ke SHENG, Guisen WANG, Zhiwei SHAO, Yunlong YAO. Numerically investigating the crushing of sandstone by a tooth hob[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2023, 17(6): 964-979.
[4]	Wenchang SUN, Nan JIANG, Chuanbo ZHOU, Jinshan SUN, Tingyao WU. Safety assessment for buried drainage box culvert under influence of underground connected aisle blasting: A case study[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2023, 17(2): 191-204.
[5]	Sahand KHALILZADEHTABRIZI, Hamed SADAGHIAN, Masood FARZAM. Uncertainty of concrete strength in shear and flexural behavior of beams using lattice modeling[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2023, 17(2): 306-325.
[6]	Yu DIAO, Yiming XUE, Weiqiang PAN, Gang ZHENG, Ying ZHANG, Dawei ZHANG, Haizuo ZHOU, Tianqi ZHANG. A 3D sliced-soil–beam model for settlement prediction of tunnelling using the pipe roofing method in soft ground[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2023, 17(12): 1934-1948.
[7]	Tiange ZHANG, Xuanyi ZHOU, Zhenbiao LIU. Numerical simulation of rime ice accretion on a three-dimensional wind turbine blade using a Lagrangian approach[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2023, 17(12): 1895-1906.
[8]	Jiaxin HE, Shaohui HE, Xiabing LIU, Jinlei ZHENG. Structural design and mechanical responses of closely spaced super-span double tunnels in strongly weathered tuff strata[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2022, 16(6): 685-703.
[9]	Huayang LEI, Yajie ZHANG, Yao HU, Yingnan LIU. Model test and discrete element method simulation of shield tunneling face stability in transparent clay[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2021, 15(1): 147-166.
[10]	Wei XIONG, Shan-Jun ZHANG, Li-Zhong JIANG, Yao-Zhuang LI. Parametric study on the Multangular-Pyramid Concave Friction System (MPCFS) for seismic isolation[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(5): 1152-1165.
[11]	Qian-Qing ZHANG, Shan-Wei LIU, Ruo-Feng FENG, Jian-Gu QIAN, Chun-Yu CUI. Finite element prediction on the response of non-uniformly arranged pile groups considering progressive failure of pile-soil system[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(4): 961-982.
[12]	Jeng-Wen LIN, Meng-Hsun HSIEH, Yu-Jen LI. Factor analysis for the statistical modeling of earthquake-induced landslides[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2020, 14(1): 123-126.
[13]	Yunlin LIU, Shitao ZHU. Finite element analysis on the seismic behavior of side joint of Prefabricated Cage System in prefabricated concrete frame[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(5): 1095-1104.
[14]	Khaled ZIZOUNI, Leyla FALI, Younes SADEK, Ismail Khalil BOUSSERHANE. Neural network control for earthquake structural vibration reduction using MRD[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(5): 1171-1182.
[15]	Hamid Taghavi GANJI, Mohammad ALEMBAGHERI, Mohammad Houshmand KHANEGHAHI. Evaluation of seismic reliability of gravity dam-reservoir-inhomogeneous foundation coupled system[J]. Front. Struct. Civ. Eng., 2019, 13(3): 701-715.

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed