The large underground structure in saturated stratum is vulnerable to float during an earthquake. This results in a plethora of problems, such as uneven settlement, large internal force and structure damage. In this study, the seismic behavior of a three-story, two-span subway station in complex saturated stratum was investigated through water-soil fully coupled 3D finite element method. In the analysis, the nonlinear soil behavior was described by a cyclic mobility model and the structure was calculated using a nonlinear constitutive model which can consider the influence of axial force on its bending moment. Joints elements were used to model the contact surface between soil and structure. The development of the soil displacement and internal force of the station structure at different times during a huge earthquake was examined. The bearing capacity of the station structure members was analyzed. The results indicated that the vertical displacement was spatially distributed. The larger additional seismic stresses appeared in the bottom slab and side wall. Failed elements were observed in both the walls and slabs, and the walls were more easily damaged than the slab. The results provide useful reference for the large underground structure seismic design in the construction of urban underground space.
AhmedMSrivastavaNTipnisG, et al. (2020) A study of Mumbai and Hyderabad's intermodal transportation hubs and their potential in the future railway-led urban development in India. Transportation Research Procedia48: 1968–1986. DOI: 10.1016/j.trpro.2020.08.008.
2.
AnJHTaoLJJiangLZ, et al. (2021) A shaking table-based experimental study of seismic response of shield-enlarge-dig type's underground subway station in liquefiable ground. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering147: 106621. DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106621.
3.
AsokaANakanoMNodaT, et al. (2000) Superloading yield surface concept for highly structured soil behavior. Soils and foundation40. DOI: 10.3208/sandf.40.2_99.
4.
BaoXHYeGLYeB (2014) Explanation of liquefaction in after shock of the 2011 great east Japan earthquake using numerical analysis. Natural Hazards74: 1881–1897. DOI: 10.1007/s11069-017-2779-5.
5.
BaoXHXiaZFYeGL, et al. (2017) Numerical analysis on the seismic behavior of a large metro subway tunnel in liquefiable ground. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology66: 91–106. DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2017.04.005.
6.
BaoXHWuSDLiuZP, et al. (2022) Study on the nonlinear behavior of soil–pile interaction in liquefiable soil using 3D numerical method. Ocean Engineering258: 111807. DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.111807.
7.
ChenZYLiuZQ (2018) Effects of central column aspect ratio on seismic performances of subway station structures. Advances in Structural Engineering21(1): 14–29.
8.
ChenGXWangZHZuoX, et al. (2013) Shaking table test on the seismic failure characteristics of a subway station structure on liquefiable ground. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics42: 1489–1507. DOI: 10.1002/eqe.2283.
9.
ChenGXChenSZuoX, et al. (2015) Shaking-table tests and numerical simulations on a subway structure in soft soil. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering76: 13–28. DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.12.012.
10.
ChenGXChenSZuoX, et al. (2016) Shaking table test on seismic response of subway station structure in soft ground. Rock and Soil Mechanics37: 331–342. DOI: 10.16285/j.rsm.2016.02.004.
11.
ChenSTangBZZhaoK, et al. (2020) Seismic response of irregular underground structures under adverse soil conditions using shaking table tests. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology95: 103141–103145. DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2019.103145.
12.
ChenSTangBZhuangHY, et al. (2020) Experimental investigation of the seismic response of shallow-buried subway station in liquefied soil. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering136: 106153. DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106153.
13.
ChenZYFanYFJiaP, et al. (2021) Influence of buried depth on seismic capacity of underground subway stations through performance-based evaluation. Structures32: 194–203. DOI: 10.1016/j.istruc.2021.03.006.
14.
ChenZYHuangPFChenW (2021) Seismic response characteristics of multi-story subway station through shaking table test. Advances in Structural Engineering24: 2185–2200. DOI: 10.1177/1369433221993296.
15.
ChenXSShenJBaoXH, et al. (2023) A review of seismic resilience of shield tunnels. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology136: 105075. DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2023.105075.
16.
DongRJingLPLiYQ, et al. (2020) Seismic deformation mode transformation of rectangular underground structure caused by component failure. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology98: 103298. DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2020.103298.
17.
GuLLYeGLBaoXH, et al. (2016) Mechanical behaviour of piled-raft foundations subjected to high-speed train loading. Soils and Foundations56(6): 1035–1054.
18.
HashiguchiK (1983) Plastic constitutive equations of granular materials. Studies in Applied Mechanics7: 127–136.
19.
HeZMChenQJ (2020) Upgrading the seismic performance of underground structures by introducing lead-filled steel tube dampers. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology108: 103727. DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2020.103727.
20.
HuJLLiuHB (2017) The uplift behavior of a subway station during different degree of soil liquefaction. Procedia Engineering189: 18–24. DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.05.004.
21.
HuJLChenQHLiuHB (2018) Relationship between earthquake-induced uplift of rectangular underground structures and the excess pore water pressure ratio in saturated sandy soils. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology79: 35–51. DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2018.04.039.
22.
HuangYWenZQWangL, et al. (2019) Centrifuge testing of liquefaction mitigation effectiveness on sand foundations treated with nanoparticles. Engineering Geology249: 249–256. DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2019.01.005.
23.
JinYBaoXHZhangF, et al. (2010) Soil–water coupling analysis of real-scale field test for 9-pile foundation subjected to cyclic horizontal loading. In: Geotechnical Special Publication, Deep Foundation and Geotechnical in Situ Test: ASCE GSP 205. 111–118.
24.
KheradiHNaganoKNishiH, et al. (2018) 1-g shaking table tests on seismic enhancement of existing box culvert with partial ground-improvement method and its 2D dynamic simulation. Soils and Foundations58: 563–581. DOI: 10.1016/j.sandf.2018.01.002.
25.
KwakHKwakJ (2010) An improved design formula for a biaxially loaded slender RC column. Engineering Structures32: 226–237. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2009.09.009.
26.
LechmanM (2022) Cross-sectional analysis of the resistance of RC members subjected to bending with/without axial force. Materials15: 1957. DOI: 10.3390/ma15051957.
27.
LeiZAYongLB (2020) Numerical investigations on the seismic response of a subway tunnel embedded in spatially random clays. Underground Space5(1): 43–52. DOI: 10.1016/j.undsp.2018.10.001.
28.
LiangQQ (2008) Nonlinear analysis of short concrete-filled steel tubular beam–columns under axial load and biaxial bending. Journal of Constructional Steel Research64: 295. DOI: 10.1016/j.jcsr.2007.07.001.
29.
LiuSTangXWLuanYX, et al. (2021) Seismic response analysis of subway station in deep loose sand using the ALE method. Computers and Geotechnics139: 104394. DOI: 10.1016/j.compgeo.2021.104394.
30.
LiuSCPengFLQiaoYK, et al. (2021) Evaluating disaster prevention benefits of underground space from the perspective of urban resilience. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction58: 102206. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102206.
31.
MiaoYZhongYRuanB, et al. (2020) Seismic response of a subway station in soft soil considering the structure-soil-structure interaction. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology106: 103629. DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2020.103629.
32.
PatrickAMarinhoMKrahlP, et al. (2021) Parametrical analysis of partially encased composite columns with fiber reinforced concrete subjected to uniaxial and biaxial non-constant bending moments. Structures34: 1872–1889. DOI: 10.1016/j.istruc.2021.08.085.
33.
RomeroJMiguelP (2011) Effective flexural stiffness of slender reinforced concrete columns under axial forces and biaxial bending. Engineering Structures33: 881–893. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2010.12.009.
34.
SecoLCouchauxMHjiajM, et al. (2021) Column base-plates under biaxial bending moment. Engineering Structures231: 111386. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.111386.
35.
ShenJBaoXHChenXS, et al. (2022) Experimental investigation on dynamic properties of muddy sand from Pearl River Delta of China. Engineering Geology310: 106881. DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2022.106881.
36.
ShirmohammadiFEsmaeilyA (2015) Performance of reinforced concrete columns under bi-axial lateral force/displacement and axial load. Engineering Structures99: 63–77. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2015.04.042.
37.
SuSZhangHWangM, et al. (2021) Transit-oriented development (TOD) typologies around metro station areas in urban China: a comparative analysis of five typical megacities for planning implications. Journal of Transport Geography90: 102939. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102939.
38.
SudevanPBoominathanABanerjeeS (2020) Mitigation of liquefaction-induced uplift of underground structures by soil replacement methods. Geomechanics and Engineering23: 365. DOI: 10.12989/gae.2020.23.4.365.
39.
TangBZLiXJChenS, et al. (2020) Investigations of seismic response to an irregular-section subway station structure located in a soft clay site. Engineering Structures217: 110799. DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2020.110799.
40.
TaoLJDingPYangX, et al. (2020) Comparative study of the seismic performance of prefabricated and cast-in-place subway station structures by shaking table test. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology105: 103583. DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2020.103583.
41.
WangTKwokOJengF, et al. (2021) Seismic response of tunnels revealed in two decades following the 1999 chi-chi earthquake (Mw 7.6) in Taiwan: a review. Engineering Geology287: 106090. DOI: 10.1016/j.enggeo.2021.106090.
42.
WangRZhuTYuJK, et al. (2022) Influence of vertical ground motion on the seismic response of underground structures and underground-aboveground structure systems in liquefiable ground. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology122: 104351. DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2021.104351.
43.
XieHPZhangYHChenYY, et al. (2021) A case study of development and utilization of urban underground space in Shenzhen and the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology107: 103651. DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2020.103651.
44.
XuZDuXXuC, et al. (2020) Numerical analyses of seismic performance of underground and aboveground structures with friction pendulum bearings. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering130: 105967. DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105967.
45.
YeB (2007) Experiment and numerical simulation of repeated liquefaction-consolidation of sand. Dissertation for Doctoral Degree. Gifu, Japan: Gifu University.
46.
YeGL (2011) DBLEAVES: User’s Manual Version 1.6. Shanghai: Shanghai Jiaotong University. (in Japanese and Chinese).
YueCZZhengYL (2019) Shaking table test study on seismic behavior of underground structure with intermediate columns enhanced by concrete-filled steel tube (CFT). Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering127: 105831–105838. DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2019.105838.
49.
ZhangFKimuraM (2002) Numerical prediction of the dynamic behaviors of an RC group-pile foundation. Soils and Foundations42(3): 77–92. DOI: 10.3208/sandf.42.377.
50.
ZhangFYeBToshihiro, et al. (2007) Explanation of cycle mobility of soils: approach by stress-induced anisotropy. Soils and Foundations47: 635–648. DOI: 10.3208/sandf.47.635.
51.
ZhangYHZhuJBLiaoZY, et al. (2021) An intelligent planning model for the development and utilization of urban underground space with an application to the Luohu District in Shenzhen. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology112: 103933. DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2021.103933.
52.
ZhengGZhangWBZhangWG, et al. (2021) Neural network and support vector machine models for the prediction of the liquefaction-induced uplift displacement of tunnels. Underground Space6: 126–133. DOI: 10.1016/j.undsp.2019.12.002.
53.
ZhuTWangRZhangJM (2021) Effect of nearby ground structures on the seismic response of underground structures in saturated sand. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering146: 106756. DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106756.
