한국지반공학회논문집 (Journal of the Korean Geotechnical Society)

한국지반공학회 (Korean Geotechnical Society)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

박스형 터널의 지진 취약도 평가

Seismic Fragility Evaluation of Cut-and-cover Tunnel

  • 투고 : 2018.10.29
  • 심사 : 2018.11.15
  • 발행 : 2018.11.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

본 연구에서는 박스형 개착식 철도 터널의 지진 응답을 유사정적 프레임 해석으로부터 평가하였으며 취약도 곡선을 도출하였다. 지반의 영향을 평가하기 위하여 다양한 이상화된 주상도를 사용하였으며 20개의 계측지진기록을 적용하였다. 기존 연구에서 제시된 탄성 모멘트와 항복 모멘트 비로 정의된 손상지수를 사용하여 Minor, Moderate, Extensive 손상상태에 대한 취약도 곡선을 각각 최대지반가속도의 함수로 적용하였다. 연구 결과, 지반 조건은 취약도에 큰 영향을 미치는 것으로 나타났으며 이를 고려하는 곡선의 개발이 중요한 것으로 나타났다. 개발된 취약도 곡선은 기존의 연구에서 도출된 곡선들과 비교하였다. 기존에 제시된 경험적 취약도 곡선은 지반조건의 영향을 고려할 수 없으며 특히 연약 지반에서는 취약도를 과소예측하는 것으로 나타났다.

In this study, the seismic response of cut-and-cover box tunnels is evaluated from pseudo-static analyses and the fragility curves are derived. A series of site profiles were used to evaluate the effect of soil conditions. A total of 20 ground motions were used. The fragility curves were developed as functions of peak ground acceleration for three damage states, which are minor, moderate, and extensive states. The damage indices, defined as the ratio of the elastic moment to the yield moment, correlated to three damage states, were used. The curves are shown to greatly depend on the site profile. The curves are further compared to those derived in previous studies. The widely used empirically derived curves are shown not to account for the site effects, and therefore underestimate the response for soft sites.

키워드

GJBGC4_2018_v34n11_71_f0001.png 이미지

Fig. 1. Response spectra of 20 ground motions

GJBGC4_2018_v34n11_71_f0002.png 이미지

Fig. 2. Selected site profiles

GJBGC4_2018_v34n11_71_f0003.png 이미지

Fig. 3. Peak horizontal displacement profiles at selected sites

GJBGC4_2018_v34n11_71_f0004.png 이미지

Fig. 4. Cross sections of cut-and-cover box tunnel

GJBGC4_2018_v34n11_71_f0005.png 이미지

Fig. 5. Boundary condition and loads to the box tunnel (after Lee et al., 2016)

GJBGC4_2018_v34n11_71_f0006.png 이미지

Fig. 6. Proposed damage states and indices for single box tunnels (after Lee et al., 2016)

GJBGC4_2018_v34n11_71_f0007.png 이미지

Fig. 7. Comparison of fragility curves of single tunnel in various soil profiles

GJBGC4_2018_v34n11_71_f0008.png 이미지

Fig. 8. Comparison of proposed and published fragility curves for single box tunnel. The curves of ALA (2001), HAZUS (2004), and Syner-G (Pitilakis, 2011) for cut and cover tunnels are compared.

Table 1. Selected ground motion records

GJBGC4_2018_v34n11_71_t0001.png 이미지

Table 2. Summary of site profiles

GJBGC4_2018_v34n11_71_t0002.png 이미지

Table 3. Definition of damage states and corresponding damage indices (DIs)

GJBGC4_2018_v34n11_71_t0003.png 이미지

참고문헌

  1. ALA (2001), Seismic fragility formulations for water systems: Part 1- Guideline. American Society of Civil Engineers - FEMA.
  2. Anderson, D.G. (2008), Seismic analysis and design of retaining walls, buried structures, slopes, and embankments, Transportation Research Board.
  3. Andreotti, G. and Carlo, G. (2014), "Seismic Vulnerability of Deep Tunnels: Numerical Modeling for a Fully Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis", 2ECEES (Second European Conference on Earthquake Engineering and Seismology), Istanbul, Turkey.
  4. Andreotti, G., Lai, C.G., and Martinelli, M. (2013), "Seismic fragility functions of deep tunnels: a new cumulative damage model based on lumped plasticity and rotation capacity", ICEGE Istanbul, Turkey.
  5. Argyroudis, S. and Pitilakis, K. (2012), "Seismic fragility curves of shallow tunnels in alluvial deposits", Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 35, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.11.004
  6. Corigliano, M., Lai, C., and Barla, G. (2007), "Seismic vulnerability of rock tunnels using fragility curves", 11th ISRM Congress, Lisbon, Portugal. International Society for Rock Mechanics.
  7. CSI (2011), SAP2000 software, ver15. Berkeley, California, USA.
  8. Darendeli, M. (2001), "Development of new family of normalized modulus reduction and material damping curves", University of Texas, Austin, USA.
  9. Dowding, C.H. and Rozan, A. (1978), "Damage to Rock Tunnels from Earthquake Shaking", Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division 104, 175-191.
  10. Hashash, Y., Karina, K., Koutsoftas, D., and O'Riordan, N. (2010), "Seismic Design Considerations for Underground Box Structures", Earth Retention Conference, Washington, USA, pp.620-637.
  11. Hashash, Y., Musgrove, M., Harmon, J., Groholski, D., Phillips, C., and Park, D. (2015), DEEPSOIL 6.0, User Manual, 114 p.
  12. Hashash, Y.M., Hook, J.J., Schmidt, B., John, I., and Yao, C. (2001), "Seismic Design and Analysis of Underground Structures", Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 16, 247-293. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0886-7798(01)00051-7
  13. HAZUS (2004), Multi-hazard loss estimation methodology: Earthquake model, Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, Washington, DC, USA.
  14. Hwang, J.-H. and Lu, C.-C. (2007), "Seismic Capacity Assessment of Old Sanyi Railway Tunnels", Tunnelling and underground space technology 22, 433-449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2006.09.002
  15. Iai, S. (2005), International Standard (ISO) on seismic actions for designing geotechnical works-an overview. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 25, 605-615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.11.005
  16. Lee, T.H., Park, D., Nguyen, D.D., and Park, J.S. (2016), "Damage Analysis of Cut-and-cover Tunnel Structures under Seismic Loading", Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 14, 413-431. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-015-9835-x
  17. MLTM (2009), Earthquake resistance design regulations for subway structures. Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs of Korea.
  18. Nguyen, D.D., Lee, T.H., and Park, D. (2018), "Seismic Damage Analysis of Box Metro Tunnels Accounting for Aspect Ratio and Shear Failure", Submitted to Tunnelling and underground space technology.
  19. Park, D., Sagong, M., Kwak, D.-Y., and Jeong, C.-G. (2009), "Simulation of Tunnel Response under Spatially Varying Ground Motion", Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29, 1417-1424. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2009.05.005
  20. Park, D., Shin, J.-H., and Yun, S.-Y. (2010), "Seismic Analysis of Tunnel in Transverse Direction Part I: Estimation of Seismic Tunnel Response via Method of Seismic Displacement", Vol.26, No.6, pp.57-70.
  21. Penzien, J. (2000), "Seismically Induced Racking of Tunnel Linings", Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 29, 683-691. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(200005)29:5<683::AID-EQE932>3.0.CO;2-1
  22. Pitilakis, K. (2011), D 3.7-Fragility functions for roadway system elements. SYNER-G.
  23. Pitilakis, K. and Tsinidis, G. (2014), "Performance and Seismic Design of Underground Structures", Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering Design. Springer, pp.279-340.
  24. Roy, N. and Sarkar, R. (2017), "A Review of Seismic Damage of Mountain Tunnels and Probable Failure Mechanisms", Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 35, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10706-016-0091-x
  25. Wang, J.-N. (1993), Seismic design of tunnels: a simple state-ofthe- art design approach, Parsons Brinckerhoff.
  26. Werner, S.D., Taylor, C.E., Cho, S., Lavoie, J.-P., Huyck, C.K., Eitzel, C., Chung, H., and Eguchi, R.T. (2006), Redars 2 Methodology and software for seismic risk analysis of highway systems. Special Report MCEER-060SP08. University of Buffalo, The State University of New York, USA.
  27. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2017.02.006