Model size and tunnel hood structure size.
Abstract
When a high‐speed train is passing through a tunnel, micro‐compression wave may be created at the tunnel exit, which will affect the environment around the railway line. Setting hood at tunnel entrance is one of the efficacious ways for solving this problem. While in an earthquake region, in addition to consideration of controlling micro‐compression wave, the seismic safety of hood structure must not overlook the factor. In this chapter, using finite difference method, several types of hood seismic dynamic characteristic were analyzed, and their seismic dynamic respond stress curves were drawn out. As a result, the recommended hood type was determined, which is helpful for hood design in high intensity earthquake zone.
Keywords
- tunnel
- hood
- seismic dynamic characteristic
- finite difference method
1. Introduction
In China, high‐speed railway technology got quick development and more and more high‐speed railway tunnels were built in high earthquake intensity zones. Large amount of postearthquake investigation shows that tunnel entrance is liable to earthquake effect and result in damage. However, for solving train‐tunnel aerodynamic effect, tunnel hood has become an indispensable accessory of tunnel structure. So how to improve tunnel hood seismic characteristic is one of the hot point on tunnel seismic research.
To the tunnel entrance seismic character, much amount of research has been made and some important conclusions have been drawn out.
Gao et al. (2009) did a thorough tunnel damage field investigation along the Dujiangyan‐Wenchuan highway after the Wenchuan earthquake. The inspection results showed that the disaster induced relatively serious damage to the tunnel entrance.
Through collecting and analyzing information of seismic damage of the tunnel portals in Wenchuan earthquake, Wang et al. (2012) summed up the major factors that affected seismic damage extension, and pointed out using fuzzy synthetic evaluation method for the estimation of seismic risk level of mountain tunnel portals. Zheng (2007), using 3D distinct element method, analyzed the tunnel entrance seismic response. Cui (2010), using finite difference software FLAC‐3D and experiment method, researched the seismic design calculation method of tunnel shallow‐buried portal.
From previous discussion, it can be seen that many researchers have done study on tunnel entrance seismic character, while few topic pointed to the high‐speed tunnel hood. In fact, for relief of aerodynamic effect, the hood structure usually set opening on top or side district. So in high seismic area, the tunnel hood will be more fragile compared with common tunnel portal.
In this chapter, using finite element software, Abaqus, the seismic character of two opening hood and nonopening hood was calculated and compared, and the recommended hood structure was given out. The types of hood are side‐strip and top combination opening hood, two‐side‐strip opening hood and two seam opening hood.
2. Numerical simulation parameter
2.1. Numerical model
In this chapter, finite element software Abaqus was used for simulating the tunnel hood dynamic response under seismic wave. The dimension of the model is shown in Table 1.
Whole model | Explanation | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
134.7 | 100 | 77.8 | Yang slope degree is 45°, and vault buried depth is 30 m. | |
Tunnel hood | 14.7 | 20 | 12.28 | Cross‐section area is 100 m2; the thickness of the lining is 0.7 m. |
For obtaining a good relief microcompression effect, the hood opening parameter must be determined through a large amount of analysis and calculation. Jiang (2014) gave out 20 m length of three types of hood optimum parameter, which is shown in Figure 1. The numerical model meshes of the whole model and hood structure are shown in Figures 2 and 3. For absorption of the seismic reflection wave, the cycle sides of the model is set as infinite element, and the bottom of the model is set as viscous‐elastic boundary.
The lining of the tunnel is C35 concrete and the surrounding rock is grade IV. Their mechanical parameters are shown in Table 2.
Type of material | Density (kg/m3) | Young modulus (GPa) | Poisson ratio | Cohesion force (MPa) | Friction angle (°) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Surrounding rock | 2100 | 8 | 0.31 | 0.6 | 33 |
C35 concrete | 2500 | 31.5 | 0.2 | — | — |
The input seismic wave is scaled Wolong wave and is shown in Figure 4, the acceleration pick of which was 0.62 m/s2 and was set on the bottom of the model for simulating the seismic effect in vertical direction.
The calculation was divided into two steps. First, only setting gravity load, the initial stress condition of the whole model would be obtained. Second, using dynamic implicit model and setting seismic load at the bottom of the model, the dynamic response of the lining was simulated. In the tunnel cross‐section, there are nine monitor points on the lining of the tunnel, as shown in Figure 5, for recording the dynamic response in different position. In the tunnel axis direction, the hood was set with four monitor in cross‐section. The position to tunnel and hood crossing surface is 1 m (surface I‐I), 7 m (surface II‐II), 11.5 m (surface III‐III), and 15 m (surface IV‐IV), respectively, and is shown in Figure 1.
3. Calculation result
3.1. Initial stress condition
Under dead weight of the surrounding rock and lining, the stress status of structure is almost the same to different calculation condition. So only the maximum principal stress contour graphic of side strip and top open combination opening hood was provided (Figure 6). It can be seen that the peak value of the maximum principal stress is 0.67 Mpa.
3.2. Stress condition under seismic load
3.2.1. Stress contour condition analysis
The maximum principal stress conditions of the hood structures at peak period of seismic wave (
Type of hood | No opening hood | Side‐strip and top combination opening hood | Two‐side‐strip opening hood | Two seam opening hood |
---|---|---|---|---|
Value of maximum principal stress (MPa) | 2.09 | 14.38 | 11.01 | 8.64 |
The simulation results showed that:
Under seismic load, the peak value of maximum principal stress is more than 2 MPa. It can be checked out that the tensile strength of C35 is 1.57 MPa, which means that no matter of the setting opening, the seismic load can result in damage to the hood structure.
Differences of setting opening position can affect the peak value of maximum principal stress. Peak value of maximum principal stress to side‐strip and top combination opening hood is up to 14.38 MPa, while the value to two seam opening hood is only 8.64 MPa. So choosing appropriate type of hood is very helpful for promoting structural safety in the earthquake region.
3.2.2. The stress condition discrepancy analysis
The discrepancy at hood cross‐section and axial direction is shown in Tables 4–7 and Figures 8–11.
Type of hood | Maximum principal stress/MPa | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | B | C | D | F | G | H | I | |
No open | 0.87 | -0.01 | 0.08 | -0.11 | 0.01 | -0.1 | 0.08 | -0.01 |
Side‐strip and top combination opening hood | 2.17 | 0.02 | 2.93 | 1.82 | 0.02 | 1.81 | 2.82 | 0.03 |
Two‐side‐strip opening hood | 0.01 | 0.05 | 2.89 | -0.08 | -0.03 | -0.08 | 2.87 | 0.05 |
Two seam opening hood | 0.11 | 2 | 0.04 | -0.17 | -0.002 | -0.17 | 0.04 | 1.9 |
Type of hood | Maximum principal stress/MPa | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | B | C | D | F | G | H | I | |
None opening hood | 1.46 | 0.02 | 1.2 | -0.06 | 0.1 | -0.05 | 1.18 | 0.02 |
Side‐strip and top combination opening hood | 2.92 | 2.02 | 6.4 | 1.75 | -0.01 | 1.75 | 6.43 | 2.02 |
Two‐side‐strip opening hood | 0.98 | 0.71 | 4.1 | 1.26 | -0.08 | 1.26 | 4.1 | 0.71 |
Two seam opening hood | -0.01 | 0.59 | 0.69 | -0.04 | 0.12 | -0.04 | 0.73 | 0.51 |
Type of hood | Maximum principal stress/MPa | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | B | C | D | F | G | H | I | |
None opening hood | 1.17 | 0.04 | 0.93 | -0.07 | 0.11 | -0.06 | 0.95 | 0.03 |
Side‐strip and top combination opening hood | 0.46 | 0.86 | 3.05 | 1.28 | -0.01 | 1.27 | 3.06 | 0.83 |
Two‐side‐strip opening hood | 0.05 | 0.13 | 1.18 | 0.85 | 0.01 | 0.85 | 1.18 | 0.12 |
Two seam opening hood | 0.004 | 0.23 | 0.91 | 0.003 | 0.13 | 0.009 | 1.03 | 0.24 |
Type of hood | Maximum principal stress/MPa | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A | B | C | D | F | G | H | I | |
None opening hood | 0.76 | 0.13 | 0.77 | -0.08 | 0.12 | -0.07 | 0.76 | 0.16 |
Side‐strip and top combination opening hood | 0.46 | 0.86 | 3.05 | 1.28 | -0.01 | 1.27 | 3.06 | 0.83 |
Two‐side‐strip opening hood | 2.08 | 1.5 | 3.2 | 0.58 | -0.01 | 0.57 | 3.2 | 1.49 |
Two seam opening hood | 0.06 | 0.12 | 1 | 0.05 | 0.13 | 0.05 | 1.16 | 0.12 |
The results showed that:
Although there are some variations because of the differences in the type of hood, the stress maximum region is almost the same, near to the waist of the hood structure.
Except the two seam opening hood, in the hood axial direction, the peak value of max principal stress appeared at the section II‐II, which is 7 m to the hood and tunnel cross point.
Among these hoods, the peak value on two seam opening hood is the lowest. In some checking point, the max principal stress on its structure is even lower than that on no opening hood as shown in Figure 12 and Table 8.
Type of hood | Maximum principal stress value/Mpa | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Section I‐I | Section II‐II | Section III‐III | Section IV‐IV | |
None opening hood | 0.08 | 1.18 | 0.95 | 0.76 |
Side‐strip and top combination opening hood | 2.82 | 6.43 | 3.06 | 3.06 |
Two‐side‐strip opening hood | 2.87 | 4.1 | 1.18 | 3.2 |
Two seam opening hood | 0.04 | 0.73 | 1.03 | 1.16 |
4. Conclusion
The chapter discussed several types of hood structures’ safety and dynamic response under Wolong seismic wave, the acceleration peak of which was 0.6 m/s2, using finite element method. The analysis results showed that:
Under seismic load, the peak value of maximum principal stress may exceed the tensile strength of structure material (C35). No matter setting opening or not, the seismic load can result in damage to the hood structure.
Differences of setting opening position can affect the peak value of maximum principal stress.
Although there is some variation because of the differences in types of hood, the stress maximum region is almost same, near to the waist of the hood structure.
Except the two seam opening hood, in the hood axial direction, the peak value of max principal stress appeared at the section II‐II, which is 7 m to the hood and tunnel cross point.
Among these hoods, the peak of maximum principal stress value on two seam opening hood is the lowest. So this hood structure is recommended in tunnel entrance for high‐speed railway line.
Acknowledgments
This chapter is supported by the National High Technology Research and Development Program (“863” Program) of China (grant No. 2011AA11A103‐3‐3‐2).
References
- 1.
G. Cui. The seismic design calculation method and test study of tunnel shallow‐buried portal and rupture stick‐slipping section, Southwest Jiaotong University Doctor Degree Dissertation, 2010. - 2.
B. Gao, Z. Wang, S. Yuan, Y. Shen. Lessons learnt from damage of highway tunnels in Wenchuan earthquake, Journal of Southwest Jiaotong University, Vol. 44, No. 3, pp. 336–341, 2009. - 3.
Q. Jiang, Two‐stage aerodynamic characteristics and parameter analysis of buffer structure at high‐speed railway tunnel entrance, Southwest Jiaotong University Master Degree Dissertation, 2014. - 4.
Z. Wang, Z. Zhang, B. Gao, Y. Shen. Factors of seismic damage and fuzzy synthetic evaluation on seismic risk of mountain tunnel portals, Journal of Central South University (Science and Technology), Vol. 43, No. 3, pp. 1122–1130, 2012. - 5.
Z. Zheng. Analysis of mountain tunnel seismic damage study on dynamic response of tunnel entrance, Southwest Jiaotong University Master Degree Dissertation, 2007.