preliminary design and analysis for an immersed tube tunnel across

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Reduction factor Rw 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 Figure 3.1. Correction factor for position of water level: (a) depth of water level with respect to dimension of footing; (b)water level above base of footing (c): water level below base of footing . (Source: Teng 1962) 3.1.1. SPT Results of the İzmir Bay D B B h ( a ) Water level ( i ) Water level ( ii ) SPT-N value: A standard sampler is driven 450 mm into the ground at the bottom of drilled borehole by a drop hammer with a weight of 63.5 kg falling through a height of 76 cm. The number of blows is recorded at each 150 mm increments. The SPT- N is the number of blows required to achieve penetration from 15-45cm (Sivrikaya and Toğrol 2003). da db 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7 0,6 0,5 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0 da / D db / B ( b ) ( c ) Reduction factor Rw Water level ( iii ) For case ( i ) only For cases ( ii ) ( iii ) 19
For this study, there was no opportunity to make standard penetration tests (SPT) along the tunnel route. Therefore, test results that were obtained in the past is investigated by. Among these, data nearest to the tunnel route were used and the SPT results are presented in Table 3.1. These values are used to calculate the allowable bearing capacity of the seabed soil of the proposed IBITT across the İzmir Bay can be calculated. The borehole locations of the SPT are shown in Figure 3.2. SK17 SK18 SK8 Figure 3.2. The locations of the 3 existing SPT boreholes nearest the IBITT route 20
Page 1: PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND ANALYSIS FOR
Page 4 and 5: ABSTRACT PRELIMINARY DESIGN AND ANA
Page 6 and 7: TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES .
Page 8 and 9: 5.3.2. Calculation of Racking Defor
Page 10 and 11: Figure 5.6. Simplified frame analys
Page 12 and 13: 1.1. Purpose CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
Page 14 and 15: approximately 40000 vehicles use th
Page 16 and 17: 1.3. Scope of This Study This study
Page 18 and 19: A suspension bridge is a type of br
Page 20 and 21: On the other hand, the first immers
Page 22 and 23: Max. 9 m. Figure 2.1. The possible
Page 24 and 25: Figure 2.3. The technical propertie
Page 26 and 27: IMMERSED IMMERSED TUNNEL TUNNEL UNI
Page 28 and 29: It is recommended that, the allowab
Page 32 and 33: Table 3.1 The SPT results obtained
Page 34 and 35: a.) First method: The allowable bea
Page 36 and 37: intolerable settlement, before it f
Page 38 and 39: DEPTH (m) 12.0 18.0 0 0 3.0 6.0 9.0
Page 40 and 41: 3.2.2.2. Depth Reduction Factor The
Page 42 and 43: Table 3.2. The correction factor va
Page 44 and 45: ⎛ 0. 34⋅ g ⎞ ⎛189. 92 ⎞ C
Page 46 and 47: CRR = 0. 02 …. FS CRR = CSR FS =
Page 48 and 49: CHAPTER 4 STATIC ANALYSIS FOR PRELI
Page 50 and 51: Figure 4.1. Influence factor If for
Page 52 and 53: 4.1.3. Application of the First and
Page 54 and 55: 4 ⋅ 213203 + 402944 ( ) = = 25115
Page 56 and 57: Figure 4.3. The weights for vertica
Page 58 and 59: ( 1/ 3) ⋅ ( 175000) ⋅ ( 212) 12
Page 60 and 61: a) Pressure transferring on the b)
Page 62 and 63: Wsemifilled _ tube tube water W > F
Page 64 and 65: settlement value is a serviceabilit
Page 66 and 67: 5.1. Types of Deformations The resp
Page 68 and 69: 5.2.1. Free-Field Deformation Appro
Page 70 and 71: and also underground structures are
Page 72 and 73: The maximum bending strain is calcu
Page 74 and 75: 1. There is a larger deformation du
Page 76 and 77: Table 5.2. Ratios of peak ground ve
Page 78 and 79: τ F = τ soil structure Gs ⋅ B F
Page 80 and 81:
R= Structure Deformation Free-Fluid
Page 82 and 83:
where, the N value was taken as 4 i
Page 84 and 85:
For free field axial strain: Vs a 2
Page 86 and 87:
V d = M max V d 2 10 π = 4. 016 ×
Page 88 and 89:
where DL is the dead load coming fr
Page 90 and 91:
order to strengthen the structure a
Page 92 and 93:
z y x The max stress in lateral dir
Page 94 and 95:
In the equation above, 20 is the le
Page 96 and 97:
max lateral displacement 0.04 m Fig
Page 98 and 99:
number of assumptions (See Table 5.
Page 100 and 101:
provide the dewatering activity bet
Page 102 and 103:
(x1,y1) th 36 immersed tube unit θ
Page 104 and 105:
∆opening = tan( 0. 0036) ⋅ 39.
Page 106 and 107:
4. Durability can be extended. Ther
Page 108 and 109:
values are less than 11. The applic
Page 110 and 111:
Compaction grouting applications:
Page 112 and 113:
value should exceed 15 in the first
Page 114 and 115:
6.3.2.2. Liquefaction Analysis by u
Page 116 and 117:
Table 6.1. The Situation of soil be
Page 118 and 119:
6. The response of the structure du
Page 120 and 121:
REFERENCES Akimoto, K., Y. Hashidat
Page 122 and 123:
Murowchick, Robert E. 2008. Bridgin
show all

preliminary design and analysis for an immersed tube tunnel across

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?