LABORATORY OF BIOLOGICAL STRUCTURE MECHANICS

www.labsmech.polimi.it
Kiana Hashemi
Seismic Behavior of Immersed Tunnels with Specific Case of
Port Island Immersed Tunnel in Japan
Monday 30
th
June 2014
2
Table of Content
Immersed
Tunnel
Immersed Tunnels Construction Procedure
Seismic
performance
Behavior of Immersed Tunnels in Past Earthquakes
Seismic Performance of Immersed Tunnels
Deformation modes: Axial Bending Ovaling/Racking
Analysis
Free Field Analysis
Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis against Longitudinal Deformation
Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis against Transversal Deformation
Pseudo-static/Dynamic Analysis
Results
Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis against Longitudinal Deformation
Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis against Transversal Deformation
3
Immersed Tunnels Construction Procedure
lowered with the help of
special sinking rigs
prefabricated floatable
segments constructed
in a dry dock
floated over a pre-
excavated trench
Water is pumped into
tanks in Immersed Tube
and it is gradually sunk
by adjusting buoyancy
tunnel consists of 6
pieces connected
through some
flexible joints
4
Immersion Flexible Joint
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e

J
o
i
n
t
Gina gasket
Hydrostatic
compression
Omega seal
Secondary line
of defense
Tendon Tension
Shear key Shear
5
Behavior of Immersed Tunnels in Past Earthquakes

Two immersed tunnels which are known to
have been subjected to fairly strong seismic
the Bay Area Rapid Transit
(BART) tunnel, California
Osaka South Port (OSP)
immersed tunnel, Japan
- Total length of 5.8 km
- Maximum Depth of 40 m
- Built in the late 1960s
- Subjected to 1989 Loma
Prieta M
s
7.1 earthquake
- long-period acceleration
with PGA of order of
0.20-0.30 g
No damage, sustaining only
a small relative
displacement between the
end segments and the
approach structures
- Total length of 1 km
- Maximum Depth of 27 m
- Almost completed when
it was hit by 1995 M
JMA

7.2 Kobe earthquake
- experienced its design
earthquake shaking with
a recorded PGA of 0.27 g
Sustained no visible
damages since neither
water leakage nor
structural cracking were
observed
6
Seismic Performance of Immersed Tunnels
Surface
Structures
Underground
Structures
Seismic Performance
Designed according
to inertial forces
caused by ground
acceleration
Designed according to
deformation imposed
by surrounding soil

SOIL-
STRUCTURE
INTERACTION
G
r
o
u
n
d

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

t
o

S
h
a
k
i
n
g

Ground Failure
Liquefaction
Slope Instability
Fault Displacement
Ground Shaking and
Deformation
Axial extension and
compression
Longitudinal bending
Ovaling for circular and
racking for rectangular
tunnels
Adding an
arrival
time delay
Site
response
analysis
7
Aseismic Analysis of Tunnels
Free-field Site
Response
Analysis
Obtaining free
field
deformation
time histories
Subjecting the
soil tunnel
system to this
motion
Seismic
Analysis of
Tunnels
Soil-Structure
Interaction
Pseudo-static
Analysis
Dynamic
Analysis
Sources of Ground
motion incoherency
Wave
passage
effect
Local
site
effects
Random
Geometric
Incoherence
Being
neglected

= time lag

= distance along the axis of the tunnel

is the apparent wave velocity

= the shear wave velocity

= the wave incidence angle from the vertical

8
Aseismic Analysis of Tunnels
Free-field Site
Response
Analysis
Obtaining free
field
deformation
time histories
Subjecting the
soil tunnel
system to this
motion
1D wave propagation
site response analysis
Equivalent frequency
domain analysis
Nonlinear time
domain analysis
Free field deformation to
be used for SSI
Strain compatible
shear wave velocity
T
o

f
i
n
d

9
Aseismic Analysis of Tunnels
Free-field Site
Response
Analysis
Obtaining free
field
deformation
time histories
Subjecting the
soil tunnel
system to this
motion
1D wave propagation
site response analysis
Equivalent frequency
domain analysis
Nonlinear time
domain analysis
Free field deformation to
be used for SSI
Strain compatible
shear wave velocity
T
o

f
i
n
d

10
Aseismic Analysis of Tunnels
Free-field Site
Response
Analysis
Obtaining free
field
deformation
time histories
Subjecting the
soil tunnel
system to this
motion
11
Aseismic Analysis of Tunnels
Transversal
Deformations
Finite Element
method
Closed-form
solution
A
g
a
i
n
s
t

Pseudo - static
Analysis
Dynamic
Analysis
methods
SOIL STRUCTURE
INTERACTION
Longitudinal
Deformations
12
Aseismic Analysis of Tunnels
Transversal
Deformations
Finite Element
method
Closed-form
solution
A
g
a
i
n
s
t

Pseudo - static
Analysis
Dynamic
Analysis
methods
SOIL STRUCTURE
INTERACTION
=
2

0
;
=
2

2
cos
3

0

Assumptions:
- soil system is modeled as an elastic
beam in elastic soil
- Loading by sinusoidal wave of
wavelength of , displacement
amplitude of
0
, angle of incidence of

- Structure conforming in homogenous
isotropic half-space medium

= modulus of elasticity

= cross-sectional area

= moment of inertia of the tunnel lining

if

= 45

if

= 0

=
2

0

Soil-structure interaction are modeled by springs in longitudinal
and transverse directions as

and

,
=

2
2

2
+

,
,
=

4
+

Shallow immersed tube tunnels surface box foundation
elastodynamic solution by Gazetas (1991)

0.73
1

0
1 + 2

,

2
2

0
1 +
2
3

0.2
0.75
(1

)
0
1 +
1
2

0
= shear modulus at = 0 ,
= Poissons ratio of the soil ,
and = the soil parameters
B and L = the width and length of the tunnel
The closed-form
solution is just
the quasi-static
analysis because
inertia effects in
soil-structure
interaction are
neglected
Longitudinal
Deformations
13
Aseismic Analysis of Tunnels
Finite Element Model:
- Tunnel segments as beam elements
- Connection to soil through springs
and dashpots
- Immersion joint as two set of node-
frames connected to each other with
SDOF nonlinear springs

Longitudinal direction: Gina gasket
Transverse direction: gap elements which would only transmit shear after the shear key allowance closes
Transversal
Deformations
Finite Element
method
Closed-form
solution
A
g
a
i
n
s
t

Pseudo - static
Analysis
Dynamic
Analysis
methods
SOIL STRUCTURE
INTERACTION
Longitudinal
Deformations
14
Results of Aseismic Analysis of Tunnels
longitudinal deformation
of immersed tunnels
Depends on
- the total number of joints decreasing number
of joints increasing the segment length
increasing the deformation

- properties of Gina gaskets increasing
thickness of the Gina gasket allowing greater
initial hydrostatic compressive deformation
wider deformation margins
Transversal
Deformations
Finite Element
method
Closed-form
solution
A
g
a
i
n
s
t

Pseudo - static
Analysis
Dynamic
Analysis
methods
SOIL STRUCTURE
INTERACTION
Longitudinal
Deformations

OUTPUT
15
Aseismic Analysis of Tunnels
Structural internal
forces or material
strains in the lining
Soil Structure
Interaction Analysis
against TRANSVERSE
deformations
Free field response Racking deformation
INPUT

Transversal
Deformations
Finite Element
method
Closed-form
solution
A
g
a
i
n
s
t

Pseudo - static
Analysis
Dynamic
Analysis
methods
SOIL STRUCTURE
INTERACTION
Longitudinal
Deformations
17
Aseismic Analysis of Tunnels
Calculation of
the maximum
free-field ground
shear strain

Determination of
the differential
free-field relative
displacements

Calculating the
racking stiffness
(

) of the
structure

Obtaining the
flexibility ratio
()
=

Transversal
Deformations
Finite Element
method
Closed-form
solution
A
g
a
i
n
s
t

Pseudo - static
Analysis
Dynamic
Analysis
methods
SOIL STRUCTURE
INTERACTION
Longitudinal
Deformations
Determining the
racking ratio, R
=

+

Calculating the
racking
deformation of the
structure

Calculation of the
internal forces as
well as material
strains by
imposing

WANG
Method
(1993)
18
Aseismic Analysis of Tunnels
Transversal
Deformations
Finite Element
method
Closed-form
solution
A
g
a
i
n
s
t

Pseudo - static
Analysis
Dynamic
Analysis
methods
SOIL STRUCTURE
INTERACTION
Longitudinal
Deformations
Numerical analysis by applying
the free-field racking
displacement at the boundaries
of the model changing linearly
through the height of the box
structure
Two-dimensional analysis
for selection of model
parameters
One-dimensional site response
analysis to compute the free
field racking deformation,

and strain compatible

shear wave velocity

HASHASH
Method
(2010)
19
Aseismic Analysis of Tunnels
Transversal
Deformations
Finite Element
method
Closed-form
solution
A
g
a
i
n
s
t

Pseudo - static
Analysis
Dynamic
Analysis
methods
SOIL STRUCTURE
INTERACTION
Longitudinal
Deformations
Numerical analysis by applying
the displacement time history at
the base of the model and
achieving the displacement time
histories at four monitored
points (A, B, C, and D)
Two-dimensional analysis
for selection of model
parameters: soil properties
from site response analysis
and structural properties
One-dimensional site response
analysis to compute the
acceleration and displacement
time histories for the layer
corresponding to bottom of 2-D
model
HASHASH
Method
(2010)

= max [
,

,
]

= max [
,

,
]

=

20
Results of Aseismic Analysis of Tunnels
Transversal
Deformations
Finite Element
method
Closed-form
solution
A
g
a
i
n
s
t

Pseudo - static
Analysis
Dynamic
Analysis
methods
SOIL STRUCTURE
INTERACTION
Longitudinal
Deformations
< racking stiffness of box
structure > racking stiffness of
surrounding soil the soil is
usually soft and the racking
deformations are relatively large.

> racking stiffness of box
structure < racking stiffness of
surrounding soil the soil is stiff
and racking deformations are small
Soft soil profile ( < ) dynamic and
pseudo-static analysis results appear to be
quite similar and they are slightly above the
relationship proposed by Wang

Moderately stiff soil ( < < ) analyses
by dynamic interaction give the racking
deformation larger than that computed from
the pseudo-static analyses. The racking
ratios computed from pseudo-static and
dynamic soil-structure interaction analyses
plot above the Wang relationship

Stiff soil ( < < ) dynamic analyses
results in term of racking ratio are slightly
lower than that of pseudo-static analyses
and both are less than those for Wang
21
Conclusion
In design of immersed tunnels, the seismic loading which is characterized in terms of
deformations imposed by the soil on the structure and the interaction between them should be
considered in addition to static forces.
The magnitude of deformation developing in the segment joints as the result of the combined
longitudinal and lateral vibrations is the critical case of loading for the seismic safety of an
immersed tunnel.
Even in very large magnitude earthquakes with high level of Peak Ground Acceleration, the net
tension and excessive compression between the segments can be avoided by a suitable design of
join gaskets and relatively small segments length.
The analyses also highlight the importance of dynamic analyses to verify and supplement the
results of pseudo-static soil-structure interaction analyses. However, in the case of structure
surrounding by soft soil, application of just pseudo-static analyses is enough since it provides
quite similar result as the dynamic analyses and dynamic analyses is much more
computationally demanding.
22


Grazie Mille