- Page 1 and 2:
1991 William Barclay Parsons Fellow
- Page 3 and 4:
CONTENTS Foreword ix 1.0 Introducti
- Page 5 and 6:
Mononobe-Okabe Method 87 Wood Metho
- Page 7 and 8:
Figure Title Page 20 Typical Free-F
- Page 9 and 10:
LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page 1 F
- Page 11 and 12:
FOREWORD For more than a century, P
- Page 13:
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
- Page 16 and 17:
1.2 Scope of this Study The work pe
- Page 18 and 19:
Figure 1. Ground Response to Seismi
- Page 20 and 21:
Ground Failure Ground failure broad
- Page 22 and 23:
- Formation of plastic hinges at th
- Page 24 and 25:
• The effects of overburden depth
- Page 27 and 28:
2.0 SEISMIC DESIGN PHILOSOPHY FOR T
- Page 29 and 30:
2.3 Seismic Design Philosophies for
- Page 31 and 32:
2.4 Proposed Seismic Design Philoso
- Page 33 and 34:
expressed in terms of internal mome
- Page 35:
Comments on Loading Combinations fo
- Page 39 and 40:
3.0 RUNNING LINE TUNNEL DESIGN 3.1
- Page 41 and 42:
Ovaling or Racking Deformations The
- Page 43 and 44:
3.3 Free-Field Axial and Curvature
- Page 45 and 46:
Simplified Equations for Axial Stra
- Page 47 and 48:
3.4 Design Conforming to Free-Field
- Page 49 and 50:
Applicability of the Free-Field Def
- Page 51 and 52:
Figure 6. Sectional Forces Due to C
- Page 53 and 54:
- In the JSCE (Japanese Society of
- Page 55 and 56:
Design Example 2: A Linear Tunnel i
- Page 57 and 58:
5. Derive the ground displacement a
- Page 59 and 60:
10. Calculate the allowable shear s
- Page 61 and 62:
It is believed that the only transp
- Page 63:
Based on Equations 3-7 and 3-8, the
- Page 67 and 68:
4.0 OVALING EFFECT ON CIRCULAR TUNN
- Page 69 and 70:
Figure 7. Free-Field Shear Distorti
- Page 71 and 72:
Figure 8. Free-Field Shear Distorti
- Page 73 and 74:
R = radius of the tunnel lining t =
- Page 75 and 76:
Lining Properties Soil Properties R
- Page 77 and 78:
The expressions of these lining res
- Page 79 and 80:
Figure 11. Lining Response Coeffici
- Page 81 and 82:
Thrust Response Coefficient, K 2 Fi
- Page 83 and 84:
Thrust Response Coefficient, K 2 Fi
- Page 85 and 86:
Figure 15. Normalized Lining Deflec
- Page 87 and 88:
Figure 17. Finite Difference Mesh (
- Page 89 and 90:
Table 2. Cases Analyzed by Finite D
- Page 91 and 92:
maximum bending moment than the no-
- Page 93 and 94:
Table 3. Influence of Interface Con
- Page 95:
5.0 RACKING EFFECT ON RECTANGULAR T
- Page 98 and 99: Third, typically soil is backfilled
- Page 100 and 101: thrust that is approximately 1.5 to
- Page 102 and 103: San Francisco BART In his pioneerin
- Page 104 and 105: general, flexibility can be achieve
- Page 106 and 107: • 254 ft/sec for case I • 415 f
- Page 108 and 109: locations of roof and invert are ap
- Page 110 and 111: Figure 25. Structure Deformations v
- Page 112 and 113: Factors Contributing to the Soil-St
- Page 114 and 115: As Figures 28A and 28B show, earthq
- Page 116 and 117: Figure 28A. West Coast Earthquake A
- Page 118 and 119: Figure 29. Design Response Spectra
- Page 120 and 121: Figure 31. Relative Stiffness Betwe
- Page 122 and 123: developed for a one-barrel frame wi
- Page 124 and 125: • For flexibility ratios less tha
- Page 126 and 127: where g s = angular distortion of t
- Page 128 and 129: Structure Deformation Free-Field De
- Page 130 and 131: Because the Poisson’s Ratios of t
- Page 132 and 133: Table 5. Cases Analyzed to Study th
- Page 134 and 135: In comparison with the results show
- Page 136 and 137: Structure Deformation Free-Field De
- Page 138 and 139: • Pseudo-Concentrated Force Model
- Page 140 and 141: deformations result. Section 2.4 in
- Page 142 and 143: Figure 40. Moments at Invert-Wall C
- Page 144 and 145: Figure 42. Moments at Invert-Wall C
- Page 146 and 147: Table 7. Seismic Racking Design App
- Page 150 and 151: • The more frequently occurring e
- Page 152 and 153: Use of this method will lead to a c
- Page 154 and 155: 142
- Page 156 and 157: Duddeck, H. and Erdman, J., “Stru
- Page 158 and 159: Tunnels, Report No. UMTA-MA-06-0100