Effects of seismic buffer thickness on a circular rock tunnel considering seismic damage form and failure state

IF 7 1区 工程技术 Q1 ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL
Runfang Sun , Hua Xu , Qixiang Yan , Kai Yang , Chuan Zhang
{"title":"Effects of seismic buffer thickness on a circular rock tunnel considering seismic damage form and failure state","authors":"Runfang Sun ,&nbsp;Hua Xu ,&nbsp;Qixiang Yan ,&nbsp;Kai Yang ,&nbsp;Chuan Zhang","doi":"10.1016/j.ijrmms.2024.105892","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Conventional seismic designs are currently inadequate to withstand earthquakes in mountain tunnels, which have historically suffered devastating seismic damage. Seismic buffers made of expanded polystyrene geofoam, which are widely used in aboveground structures, have potential applications in tunnels. However, it is not known what the optimal thickness should be, and the seismic effects on such buffers and their compatibility with tunnel construction require investigation. In this study, the effects of seismic buffer thickness on the tunnel lining are investigated. A novel direction-based displacement approach associated with practical seismic damage forms was devised, and the Mohr–Coulomb criterion was integrated into a meridian space to understand the failure of the lining. The states and forms of lining displacement and stress were probed, and the results were validated through the seismic deformation method, shaking table tests, and on-site investigations. The results indicate that unsafe multiple displacement forms of the lining can be mitigated to a relatively uniform vertical shearing form with a seismic buffer no more than 20 cm thick; moreover, lining failure can be prevented, without changing lining tensile and compression forms. However, adverse effects occur with buffers thicker than 20 cm, leading to the resumption of the multiple lining displacement forms and failure. Buffer thicknesses of 10–20 cm should be considered in future seismic designs of mountain tunnels, combined with a trade-off among the seismic effects, manufacturing, and installation of buffers under specific construction conditions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":54941,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences","volume":"183 ","pages":"Article 105892"},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1365160924002570","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"工程技术","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, GEOLOGICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Conventional seismic designs are currently inadequate to withstand earthquakes in mountain tunnels, which have historically suffered devastating seismic damage. Seismic buffers made of expanded polystyrene geofoam, which are widely used in aboveground structures, have potential applications in tunnels. However, it is not known what the optimal thickness should be, and the seismic effects on such buffers and their compatibility with tunnel construction require investigation. In this study, the effects of seismic buffer thickness on the tunnel lining are investigated. A novel direction-based displacement approach associated with practical seismic damage forms was devised, and the Mohr–Coulomb criterion was integrated into a meridian space to understand the failure of the lining. The states and forms of lining displacement and stress were probed, and the results were validated through the seismic deformation method, shaking table tests, and on-site investigations. The results indicate that unsafe multiple displacement forms of the lining can be mitigated to a relatively uniform vertical shearing form with a seismic buffer no more than 20 cm thick; moreover, lining failure can be prevented, without changing lining tensile and compression forms. However, adverse effects occur with buffers thicker than 20 cm, leading to the resumption of the multiple lining displacement forms and failure. Buffer thicknesses of 10–20 cm should be considered in future seismic designs of mountain tunnels, combined with a trade-off among the seismic effects, manufacturing, and installation of buffers under specific construction conditions.

考虑地震破坏形式和破坏状态的抗震缓冲区厚度对圆形岩石隧道的影响
目前,传统的抗震设计不足以抵御山区隧道的地震,这些隧道在历史上曾遭受过毁灭性的地震破坏。由发泡聚苯乙烯土工泡沫塑料制成的抗震缓冲材料被广泛应用于地面建筑,在隧道中也有潜在的应用价值。然而,目前尚不清楚最佳厚度是多少,而且需要研究地震对这种缓冲材料的影响及其与隧道建设的兼容性。本研究调查了地震缓冲区厚度对隧道衬砌的影响。设计了一种与实际地震破坏形式相关的基于方向的新型位移方法,并将莫尔-库仑准则纳入子午线空间,以了解衬砌的破坏情况。对衬砌位移和应力的状态和形式进行了探测,并通过地震变形法、振动台试验和现场调查对结果进行了验证。结果表明,在不超过 20 厘米厚的地震缓冲区内,可将衬里不安全的多种位移形式缓解为相对均匀的垂直剪切形式;此外,在不改变衬里拉伸和压缩形式的情况下,可防止衬里破坏。但是,如果缓冲区厚度超过 20 厘米,就会产生不利影响,导致衬砌恢复多种位移形式并发生破坏。在未来的山岭隧道抗震设计中,应考虑 10-20 厘米的缓冲厚度,并在特定施工条件下对缓冲区的抗震效果、制造和安装进行权衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.00
自引率
5.60%
发文量
196
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Rock Mechanics and Mining Sciences focuses on original research, new developments, site measurements, and case studies within the fields of rock mechanics and rock engineering. Serving as an international platform, it showcases high-quality papers addressing rock mechanics and the application of its principles and techniques in mining and civil engineering projects situated on or within rock masses. These projects encompass a wide range, including slopes, open-pit mines, quarries, shafts, tunnels, caverns, underground mines, metro systems, dams, hydro-electric stations, geothermal energy, petroleum engineering, and radioactive waste disposal. The journal welcomes submissions on various topics, with particular interest in theoretical advancements, analytical and numerical methods, rock testing, site investigation, and case studies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信