16.05.2014 Views

Seismic Design of Tunnels - Parsons Brinckerhoff

Seismic Design of Tunnels - Parsons Brinckerhoff

Seismic Design of Tunnels - Parsons Brinckerhoff

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

• The effects <strong>of</strong> overburden depths on damage are shown in Figure 2A for 132 <strong>of</strong> the<br />

192 cases. Apparently, the reported damage decreases with increasing overburden<br />

depth.<br />

• Figure 2B shows the damage distribution as a function <strong>of</strong> material type surrounding<br />

the underground opening. In this figure, the data labeled “Rock (?)” were used for all<br />

deep mines where details about the surrounding medium were not known. The data<br />

indicate more damage for underground facilities constructed in soil than in competent<br />

rock.<br />

• The relationship between peak ground acceleration (PGA) and the number <strong>of</strong><br />

damaged cases are shown in Figure 2C.<br />

- For PGA values less than 0.15g, only 20 out <strong>of</strong> 80 cases reported damage.<br />

- For PGA values greater than 0.15g, there were 65 cases <strong>of</strong> reported damage out<br />

<strong>of</strong> a total <strong>of</strong> 94 cases.<br />

• Figure 2D summarizes the data for damage associated with earthquake magnitude.<br />

The figure shows that more than half <strong>of</strong> the damage reports were for events that<br />

exceeded magnitude M=7.<br />

• The damage distribution according to the epicentral distance is presented in Figure<br />

2E. As indicated, damage increases with decreasing epicentral distance, and tunnels<br />

are most vulnerable when they are located within 25 to 50 km from the epicenter.<br />

• Among the 192 cases, unlined openings account for 106 cases. Figure 2F shows the<br />

statistical damage data for each type <strong>of</strong> support. There were only 33 cases <strong>of</strong><br />

concrete-lined openings including 24 openings lined with plain concrete and 9 cases<br />

with reinforced concrete linings. Of the 33 cases, 7 were undamaged, 12 were<br />

slightly damaged, 3 were moderately damaged, and 11 were heavily damaged.<br />

It is interesting to note that, according to the statistical data shown in Figure 2F, the<br />

proportion <strong>of</strong> damaged cases for the concrete and reinforced concrete lined tunnels<br />

appears to be greater than that for the unlined cases. Sharma and Judd attributed<br />

this phenomenon to the poor ground conditions that originally required the openings<br />

to be lined. Richardson and Blejwas (1992) <strong>of</strong>fered two other possible explanations:<br />

-Damage in the form <strong>of</strong> cracking or spalling is easier to identify in lined openings<br />

than in unlined cases.<br />

-Lined openings are more likely to be classified as damaged because <strong>of</strong> their<br />

high cost and importance.<br />

12

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!