4.7 Article

Shaking-table tests and numerical simulations on a subway structure in soft soil

Journal

SOIL DYNAMICS AND EARTHQUAKE ENGINEERING
Volume 76, Issue -, Pages 13-28

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.12.012

Keywords

Shaking table test; Numerical simulation; Soft soil; Subway station structure; Seismic damage behavior

Funding

  1. Major Research Plan Integration Project of the Natural Science Foundation of China [91215301]
  2. Project of Construction of Innovative Teams and Teacher Career Development for Universities and Colleges under Beijing Municipality [IDHT20130512]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Shaking table tests were performed to investigate the damage mechanisms of a subway structure in soft soil while experiencing strong ground motions. The seismic responses of the structure and soil were found to be more sensitive to input motions with richer low-frequency components. The excess pore pressure ratio of soil increased slightly, and the distribution of the excess pore pressure surrounding the structure showed clear spatial effects. The frequency spectrum characteristics of input ground motions clearly influenced the lateral displacement of the structure. In addition, the structure was most severely damaged at the top or the bottom of the interior columns. Finite element analyses were conducted by using the modified Martin-Seed-Davidenkov viscoelastic and the rate-independent plastic-damage constitutive models for soil and concrete, respectively. Satisfactory agreement was observed between the simulation and test results, the difference between these results was discussed in detail. The results provide insight into how the characteristics of strong ground motion might influence and present a simplified analysis method to quantitatively evaluate the damage of subway structures in soft soil. (c) 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available