preliminary design and analysis for an immersed tube tunnel across

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3.2.2.2. Depth Reduction Factor The depth reduction factor, r d , is introduced to take into account the fact that the amplitudes of horizontal accelerations decrease, as the depth below the ground surface increases (Similar to the acceleration response values in high-rise buildings). Seed and Idris (1971) recommended using the following r d values, which account for the flexibility of the soil profile, in regard to routine practice and non-critical projects (Tezcan and Özdemir 2004). r d r d r d = 1 − 0. 00765⋅ z for z ≤ 9. 15 (3.9.a) = 1 . 174 − 0. 0267 ⋅ z for 9.15 ≤ z ≤ 23 (3.9.b) = 0 . 744 − 0. 0082 ⋅ z for 23 ≤ z ≤ 30 (3.9.c) r = 0. 50 for z ≥ 30 (3.9.d) d where z is the depth to the midpoint of the layer below the seabed surface in m. 3.2.2.3. Cyclic Resistance Ratio (CRR) To determine the capacity of seabed soil to resist liquefaction, cyclic resistance ratio-CRR is determined by use of field correlations from insitu tests or laboratory tests on representative samples of the soil deposits. The three most routinely used methods to evaluate the liquefaction resistance, CRR, are: i: The standard penetration test (SPT), ii: The cone penetration test (CPT), iii: The seismic shear wave velocity (Vs) test (Tezcan and Özdemir 2004). For this work, the CRR value is calculated by using the SPT results. Corrected factors for SPT Values are; ( ) N = C N ⋅C E ⋅C B ⋅C R ⋅C S ⋅ N m 1 (3.10) 60 29
where, ( N 1) : Corrected SPT number 60 C N : Overburden correction factor C E : Correction factor for the SPT hammer energy ratio C B : Correction factor for the borehole diameter C R : Correction factor for the rod length C S : Correction factor for the sampling method N m : Insitu measured Standard Penetration resistance value The correction factors C N , C E , C B , C R , Cs are summarized in Table 3.2. After calculating the corrected SPT number, the CRR can be found by using charts developed by different researches. Curves by Seed et al. (1983): Practical charts are proposed by Seed et. al. (1983) regarding evaluation of the liquefaction potential for different magnitude earthquakes, by representing the behavior of sands with D50>0.25 mm, under level ground conditions, and penetration resistance, N1, as shown in Figure 3.5 (Tezcan and Özdemir 2004). 30
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 30 and 31: Reduction factor Rw 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,7
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 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?