Taking the 3D cross-engineering of Caomeigou No.1 Tunnel and Pandaoling Tunnel as an example, a shaking table test was carried out to study the effect of tunnel spatial position on seismic wave propagation characteristics and acceleration response of surrounding rock under earthquake seismic excitation. Based on the influence of the spatial position of the tunnel, the characteristic form of the surrounding rock between the cross section and non-cross section is divided, and the accelerometer layout scheme is designed. Based on statistical probability, the ratio of peak ground velocity to peak ground acceleration (PGA) was introduced to quantitatively characterize the characteristics of seismic wave propagation spectrum. Furthermore, the SPECTR calculation was used to obtain the regional difference in the seismic wave propagation potential damage potential displacement parameter (Pd). Under the influence of the spatial location of the 3D cross tunnel, the peak acceleration and motion duration of the seismic wave are mainly reflected in the variation of the section along the elevation direction. Low-frequency (≤20 Hz) seismic waves have a greater impact on the tunnel structure, and peak ground velocity/peak ground acceleration ratio has a positive correlation with the peak input energy of ground motion. The ultra-small net-spacing cross tunnel has a spatially distributed coupling deformation effect. The crown of the upper-span tunnel is highly sensitive to earthquakes and becomes a weak link in seismic design. These results help us provide a theoretical basis for the seismic design of the cross-tunnel.
AnHGSunJHuXD (2004) Study on intelligent method of prediction by small samples for ground settlement in shield tunnelling. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology19(4): 385. DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2004.02.013.
2.
AnWJiangLSunJ, et al. (2015) Correlation analysis of sample thickness, heat flux, and cone calorimetry test data of polystyrene foam. Journal of Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry119(1): 229–238. DOI: 10.1007/s10973-014-4165-9.
3.
BhallaSYangYWZhaoJ, et al. (2005) Structural health monitoring of underground facilities - technological issues and challenges. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology20(5): 487–500. DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2005.03.003.
4.
BommerJJHancockJAlarcónJE (2006) Correlations between duration and number of effective cycles of earthquake ground motion. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering26(1): 1–13. DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2005.10.004.
5.
ChangSHHongJYYunSK, et al. (2016) A study of the correlation between sinusoidal sweep and random vibration durability tests through specimen tests. International Journal of Precision Engineering and Manufacturing17(12): 1665–1671. DOI: 10.1007/s12541-016-0193-7.
6.
ChenBJCaiXPLiCH, et al. (2013) Influence of bridge settlement on dynamic characteristics of ballastless turnout. Journal of the China Railway Society35(10): 100–105. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-8360.2013.10.015.(in Chinese).
7.
ChoiJ-KKimK-H (2014) Effects of nose shape and tunnel cross-sectional area on aerodynamic drag of train traveling in tunnels. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology41(3): 62–73. DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2013.11.012.
8.
DongJYYangJHYangGX, et al. (2012) Research on similar material proportioning test of model test based on orthogonal design. Journal of China Coal Society37(01): 44–49. DOI: 10.1007/s11783-011-0280-z.(in Chinese).
9.
DouHByrnePM (1997) Model studies of boundary effect on dynamic soil response. Canadian Geotechnical Journal34(3): 460–465. DOI: 10.1139/t97-006.
10.
FengZ (2011) The seismic signatures of the 2009 Shiaolin landslide in Taiwan. Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences11(5): 1559–1569. DOI: 10.5194/nhess-11-1559-2011.
11.
GeorgeDBAchilleasGP (2005) Numerical evaluation of slope topography effects on seismic ground motion. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering25: 547–558. DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2004.11.008.
12.
HamidrezaRHosseinSJ (2006) The bam (Iran) earthquake of december 26, 2003: from an engineering and seismological point of view. Journal of Asian Earth Sciences27(5): 576–584. DOI: 10.1016/j.jseaes.2005.05.009.
13.
HellwigZ (1976) The transitivity of the correlation relation of random variables and some econometric implications obtained therefrom. Przegld Statyst23(1): 3–20.
14.
HousnerGW (1963) The behavior of inverted pendulum structures during earthquakes. Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America53(2): 403–417. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004.
15.
HuHYZhouXJWangJH (2017) Study on the wave method of seismic response of bedding tunnel. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Engineering36(6): 1373–1383. DOI: 10.13722/j.cnki.jrme.2016.0546.(in Chinese).
16.
KorbinGEBrekkeTL (1978) Field study of tunnel prereinforcement. Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division104(8): 1091–1108. DOI: 10.1016/0148-9062(79)90872-6.
17.
KostyukovNA (1978) Effect of the initial density of a substance on the conditions of oblique collision of shock waves. Journal of Applied Mechanics and Technical Physics18(3): 379–384. DOI: 10.1007/BF00851663.
18.
LiYFPengLMLeiMF (2015) A review of studies on dynamics of high-speed railway crossing tunnels. Modern Tunnelling Technology52(2): 8–15. DOI: 10.13807/j.cnki.mtt.2015.02.002.(in Chinese).
19.
LiuZ (2010) Research on mechanical coupling mechanism and dynamic evolution and control of three-dimensional cross tunnel system. PhD Thesis, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China.(in Chinese).
20.
MaNWuHMaH, et al. (2019) Examining dynamic soil pressures and the effectiveness of different pile structures inside reinforced slopes using shaking table tests. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering116: 293–303. DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2018.10.005.
21.
MarraFAzzaraRBellucciF, et al. (2000) Large amplification of ground motion at rock sites within a fault zone in Nocera Umbra (central Italy). Journal of Seismology4(4): 543–554. DOI: 10.1023/a:1026559901378.
22.
MengD (2013) Blasting vibration effect and zoning research of railway three-dimensional cross tunnel construction. Engineering Master Thesis, Central South University, Changsha, China.(in Chinese).
23.
MohamedAAElnahhasFAhmedTK (2014) Mutual seismic interaction between tunnels and the surrounding granular soil. HBRC Journal10(3): 265–278. DOI: 10.1016/j.hbrcj.2013.12.006.
24.
MohammadD (2005) Evaluation of the effect of PGV/PGA ratio of strong ground motions on responses of soil structure sdofsystems. Biotechnology and Bioengineering39(4): 398–407. DOI: 10.1002/bit.260390406.
25.
MohsenSAMohammadAR (2019) Finite element seismic analysis of soil-tunnel interactions in clay soils. Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering43: 835–849. DOI: 10.1007/s40996-018-0214-0.
26.
MuruganRRajaVPThylaPR (2013) Establishment of structural similitude for elastic models and validation of scaling laws. Ksce Journal of Civil Engineering17(1): 139–144. DOI: 10.1007/s12205-013-1216-x.
27.
PaiLfWuHg (2021) Shaking table test of comparison and optimization of seismic performance of slope reinforcement with multi-anchor piles. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering145(6): 106737. DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106737.
28.
PaiLFZhaoJWuHG, et al. (2019) Experimental study on the deformation evolution of the parallel system of tunnel and landslide under the weight reduction of the brush side. Journal of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation Engineering39(5): 842–850. DOI: 10.13409/j.cnki.jdpme.2020.01.014.(in Chinese).
29.
RodrigoMJAMarildeTPS (2013) Exploring similarity relations according to different contexts in mining generalized association rules. Enterprise Information Systems141: 137–152. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-40654-6_9.
30.
ShaoHZhangZX (2004) Analysis of the influence of shield tunneling construction on the disturbance of the operated tunnel. Rock and Soil Mechanics■■■(S2): 545–549. DOI: 10.16285/j.rsm.2004.s2.115.(in Chinese).
31.
ShinozakiTIwatateTKobayashiT, et al. (2007) Seismic response analysis of existing shield tunnel on neighboring construction. Proceedings of the JSCE Earthquake Engineering Symposium29: 842–849. DOI: 10.11532/proee2005a.29.842.
32.
SimoneCFrancescoG (2015) Full waveform seismological advances for microseismic monitoring. Advances in Geophysics56(12): 169–228. DOI: 10.1016/bs.agph.2014.12.002.
33.
WangGBPengXJHaoPF, et al. (2019) A review of research on seismic response of short-distance underground crossing structures. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering41(11): 2026–2036. DOI: 10.11779/CJGE201911007.(in Chinese).
34.
WangLYLiYNLiF, et al. (2011) Research on the characteristics of seismic wave velocity ratio and apparent velocity before and after the Wenchuan earthquake. Journal of Seismology33(1): 1–14.CNKI: SUN: DZXB.0.2011-01-002 (in Chinese).
35.
WangXCaiM (2017) Numerical modeling of seismic wave propagation and ground motion in underground mines. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology68(8): 211–230. DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2017.05.019.
36.
WuZJLeiTChenYJ, et al. (2015) Deformation and instability characteristics of loess slope based on shaking table model test. Journal of Shanghai Jiaotong University7(3): 1–17. DOI: 10.16183/j.cnki.jsjtu.2015.07.003.(in Chinese).
37.
XuBW (2010) Shaking Table Model Test of Large Complex Structure-Pile-soilPhD Thesis. Tianjin, China: Tianjin University.(in Chinese).
38.
XuHLiTXuJ, et al. (2014) Dynamic response of underground circular lining tunnels subjected to incident P waves. Mathematical Problems in Engineering2014(7): 1–11. DOI: 10.1155/2014/297424.
39.
YukinoriK (2011) A history and research objects of design method for shield tunnel lining in Japan. Journal of Tunnel Engineering14: S1–S8. DOI: 10.11532/journalte2004.14.S1.
40.
ZhuZGYangLHLiuGP, et al. (2018) Study on the mechanism of earthquakes on cross tunnels and the anti-seismic plan. Journal of Railway Engineering Society35(9): 61–66.CNKI: SUN: TDGC.0.2018-09-012 (in Chinese).
