Bulletin of Earthquake Science and Engineering

Bulletin of Earthquake Science and Engineering

Seismic Site Amplification Pattern due to a Three-Dimensional Underground Space Subjected to SV Waves

Document Type : Research Article

Authors
1 M.Sc.Graduate, Faculty of Engineering, Yasouj University, Yasouj, Iran
2 Assistant Professor, Ph.D. in Geotechnical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Yasouj University, Yasouj, Iran
3 M.Sc. Student, Faculty of Engineering, Yasouj University, Yasouj, Iran
Abstract
Introduction
The present study investigates the effect of a three-dimensional (3D) underground space on the seismic response at the ground surface. The FLAC 3D finite difference code was used and verified against the previous studies. Harmonic SV waves with different frequencies were used in the analyses. The seismic response at the ground surface in the presence of the 3D space was compared to the free field response, and the results were presented in the form of an amplification ratio pattern. From the parametric studies, it was concluded that the amplification pattern at the ground surface is strongly influenced by the dimensions of the underground space, or length ratio (L/W) parameter, where L and W are the length and width of the underground space. The amplification patterns and their values are quite different for the models with different L/W. The results show that two-dimensional consideration of the 3D underground spaces causes more or less estimation of the amplifications at the ground surface. The amplification pattern for the three-dimensional geometry is quite different from two-dimensional geometry. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the three-dimensional geometry in investigating the effect of underground spaces or structures on the ground surface during earthquakes.
Methodology
This study examines the effect of 3D underground spaces on the seismic response of the ground surface. While previous research primarily focused on 2D models, this study validates the results of earlier work by Alielahi and Ramezani (2016) through both FLAC 2D and FLAC 3D simulations. The comparison confirms that the 3D model accurately predicts the 2D results. A comprehensive parametric analysis was then performed to investigate the influence of 3D underground box-shaped spaces, considering varying depths, on surface seismic response. The findings highlight the importance of accounting for 3D effects in seismic studies.
Results and Discussion
A three-dimensional numerical model was developed to investigate the effect of a three-dimensional box-shaped underground space on ground surface seismic responses under vertical SV waves. To account for the geometry of the underground space, a dimensionless parameter, L/W, was introduced, and its variations were examined in the seismic site amplification pattern. The seismic response at the ground surface in the presence of the three-dimensional space was compared with the free-field response, and the results were presented as an amplification pattern.
Summary and Conclusion
A 3D numerical model was developed to investigate the effect of a box-shaped underground space on the seismic response of the ground surface under vertical SV waves. A dimensionless parameter, L/W, was introduced to examine its impact on seismic amplification patterns. Key findings include:
1. The dimensions of the underground space directly affect the surface seismic response, with varying amplification patterns for different L/W values.
2. Complex amplification patterns reflect the influence of underground space geometry.
3. λ/D (dimensionless wavelength) and L/W are critical parameters. Maximum amplification occurs at L/W=1 for λ/D=3 and L/W=10 for λ/D=8. Larger λ/D shifts amplification peaks to higher L/W values.
4. Larger underground structures affect broader regions.
5. Amplification distribution is radial for small L/W values and becomes linear as L/W increases.
6. Simplified 2D models cannot fully capture the effects of 3D underground spaces during earthquakes.
These conclusions apply to an unlined box-shaped cavity in an elastic rock medium under harmonic SV waves and are specific to the studied conditions.
Keywords
Subjects

Abuhajar, O., El Naggar, H., & Newson, T. (2015). Experimental and numerical investigations of the effect of buried box culverts on earthquake excitation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 79, 130-148.
Alielahi, H., & Adampira, M. (2016). Site-specific response spectra for seismic motions in half-plane    with shallow cavities. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 80, 163-167.
Alielahi, H., & Feizi, D. (2021). Numerical study on dynamic effects of soil-tunnel-structure interaction. International Journal of Civil Engineering, 19(11), 1339-1355.
Alielahi, H., & Ramezani, M. S. (2016). Seismic site amplification pattern caused by underground box-shaped structures. Bulletin of Earthquake Science and Engineering, 3(1), 55-71.
Alielahi, H., Kamalian, M., & Adampira, M. (2015). Seismic ground amplification by unlined tunnels subjected to vertically propagating SV and P waves using BEM. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 71, 63-79.
Alielahi, H., Nadernia, Z. A., & Entezari, M. M. (2023). A numerical study on effect of underground cavities on seismic ground response due to Rayleigh wave propagation. SN Applied Sciences, 5(2), 64.
De Barros, F. C. P., & Luco, J. E. (1993). Diffraction of obliquely incident waves by a cylindrical cavity embedded in a layered viscoelastic half-space. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 12(3), 159-171.
Feizi, D., Asgari Marnani, J., Alielahi, H., & Panji,      M. (2022). Seismic ground amplification induced by box-shaped tunnels. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 21(3), 697-714.
Gao, Z., Zhao, M., Huang, J., Wang, W., & Du, X. (2022). Effect of soil-rock interface position on seismic response of subway station structure. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 119, 104255.
Jiang, P. L., Jiang, H., Jiang, Y. S., Wang, D., Li, N., & Shi, Z. H. (2021). IBEM simulation of seismic wave scattering by a 3D tunnel mountain. Shock and Vibration, 2021(1), 6643971.
Lee, V. W. (1988). Three-dimensional diffraction of elastic waves by a spherical cavity in an elastic half-space, I: Closed-form solutions. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 7(3), 149-161.
Li, S., Cudmani, R., Xiao, M., Guo, Z., & Yuan, Y. (2023). Ground motion amplification pattern with   TBM tunnels crossing soil-rock interface: Shaking   table test. Underground Space, 12, 202-217.
Luco, J. E., & De Barros, F. C. P. (1994). Dynamic displacements and stresses in the vicinity of a cylindrical cavity embedded in a half‐space. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 23(3), 321–340.
Panji, M., & Mojtabazadeh-Hasanlouei, S. (2021). Seismic ground response by twin lined tunnels with different cross sections. SN Applied Sciences, 3(9), 787.
Panji, M., Mojtabazadeh-Hasanlouei, S., & Fakhravar, A. (2022). Seismic response of the ground surface including underground horseshoe-shaped cavity. Transportation Infrastructure Geotechnology, 9(3), 338-355.
Rabeti Moghadam, M., & Baziar, M. H. (2016). Seismic ground motion amplification pattern induced by a subway tunnel: Shaking table testing and numerical simulation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 83, 81-97.
Wang, G., Yuan, M., Ma, X., & Wu, J. (2017). Numerical study on the seismic response of the underground subway station-surrounding soil mass-ground adjacent building system. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 11(4), 424-435.
Wang, X., Xiong, Q., Zhou, H., Chen, J., & Xiao, M. (2020). Three-dimensional (3D) dynamic finite element modeling of the effects of a geological fault on the seismic response of underground caverns. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 96, 1-10.
Zhang, X., Yang, X., Wang, Z., & Sasaki, K. (2015). Numerical Simulation of Seismic Dynamic Response of Ground Surface Above Mined-Out Area.
Zhu, J., Kontoe, S., Li, X., Liang, J., & Chen, S. (2024). Ground motion amplification by twin circular tunnels for obliquely incident seismic waves: Effects of saturated poroelastic soil parameters. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 186, 108953.

  • Receive Date 03 January 2025
  • Revise Date 21 February 2025
  • Accept Date 15 April 2025