Seismic Design of Tunnels - Parsons Brinckerhoff
Seismic Design of Tunnels - Parsons Brinckerhoff
Seismic Design of Tunnels - Parsons Brinckerhoff
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