RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색
다국어 입력

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

예시)
  • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
  • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
닫기
    인기검색어 순위 펼치기

    RISS 인기검색어

      KCI등재

      터널 횡방향 지진해석 Part II: 동적해석을 통한 터널의 지진응답 예측 한국지반공학회논문집 제26권 제6호터널 횡방향 지진해석 Part II: 동적해석을 통한 터널의 지진응답 예측 = Seismic Analysis of Tunnel in Transverse Direction Part II: Evaluation of Seismic Tunnel Response via Dynamic Analysis

      한글로보기

      https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A104662898

      • 0

        상세조회
      • 0

        다운로드
      서지정보 열기
      • 내보내기
      • 내책장담기
      • 공유하기
      • 오류접수

      부가정보

      다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

      Dynamic analyses of tunnels are widely performed in practice in Korea. Accurate performance of a dynamic analysis is very difficult, requiring appropriate application of lower and lateral boundary conditions, deconvolution, constitutive model, and selection of dynamic soil properties etc. Lack of a systematic guideline on how to perform the dynamic analysis makes it even more difficult to perform an analysis. In addition, dynamic analyses are not needed in most cases and pseudo-static analyses are more than adequate. However, they are performed without a clear understanding on the need for the dynamic analysis and differences between the two methods. In this study, firstly, a guideline for correctly performing a 2D dynamic analysis is developed. Secondly, the differences in the tunnel responses using dynamic and pseudo-static analyses are discussed and compared. The results show that the discrepancies between the dynamic and static analyses are not significant for most cases. It is therefore recommended that the dynamic analyses be performed at tunnel portal, very soft ground, or in cases where spatial variation of the ground motion needs to be considered in the seismic analysis of tunnels in transverse direction.
      번역하기

      Dynamic analyses of tunnels are widely performed in practice in Korea. Accurate performance of a dynamic analysis is very difficult, requiring appropriate application of lower and lateral boundary conditions, deconvolution, constitutive model, and sel...

      Dynamic analyses of tunnels are widely performed in practice in Korea. Accurate performance of a dynamic analysis is very difficult, requiring appropriate application of lower and lateral boundary conditions, deconvolution, constitutive model, and selection of dynamic soil properties etc. Lack of a systematic guideline on how to perform the dynamic analysis makes it even more difficult to perform an analysis. In addition, dynamic analyses are not needed in most cases and pseudo-static analyses are more than adequate. However, they are performed without a clear understanding on the need for the dynamic analysis and differences between the two methods. In this study, firstly, a guideline for correctly performing a 2D dynamic analysis is developed. Secondly, the differences in the tunnel responses using dynamic and pseudo-static analyses are discussed and compared. The results show that the discrepancies between the dynamic and static analyses are not significant for most cases. It is therefore recommended that the dynamic analyses be performed at tunnel portal, very soft ground, or in cases where spatial variation of the ground motion needs to be considered in the seismic analysis of tunnels in transverse direction.

      더보기

      참고문헌 (Reference)

      1 한국지반공학회, "지반구조물의 내진설계"

      2 한국지반공학회, "상호검증을 통한 지진 지반응답해석 이해"

      3 일본도로협회, "도로교시방서"

      4 한국도로교통협회, "도로교설계기준"

      5 Hashash, Y.M.A, "Viscous damping formulation and high frequency motion propagation in non-linear site response analysis" 22 (22): 611-624, 2002

      6 Kwok, A.O.L, "Use of Exact Solutions of Wave Propagation Problems to Guide Implementation of Nonlinear Seismic Ground Response Analysis Procedures" 133 : 1385-, 2007

      7 White, W, "Unified boundary for finite dynamic models" 103 (103): 949-964, 1977

      8 Seed, H.B, "Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses"

      9 Park, D, "Soil damping formulation in nonlinear time domain site response analysis" 8 (8): 249-274, 2004

      10 Park, D, "Simulation of tunnel response under spatially varying ground motion" 29 (29): 1417-1424, 2009

      1 한국지반공학회, "지반구조물의 내진설계"

      2 한국지반공학회, "상호검증을 통한 지진 지반응답해석 이해"

      3 일본도로협회, "도로교시방서"

      4 한국도로교통협회, "도로교설계기준"

      5 Hashash, Y.M.A, "Viscous damping formulation and high frequency motion propagation in non-linear site response analysis" 22 (22): 611-624, 2002

      6 Kwok, A.O.L, "Use of Exact Solutions of Wave Propagation Problems to Guide Implementation of Nonlinear Seismic Ground Response Analysis Procedures" 133 : 1385-, 2007

      7 White, W, "Unified boundary for finite dynamic models" 103 (103): 949-964, 1977

      8 Seed, H.B, "Soil moduli and damping factors for dynamic response analyses"

      9 Park, D, "Soil damping formulation in nonlinear time domain site response analysis" 8 (8): 249-274, 2004

      10 Park, D, "Simulation of tunnel response under spatially varying ground motion" 29 (29): 1417-1424, 2009

      11 Gil, L, "Simplified transverse seismic analysis of buried structures" 21 (21): 735-740, 2001

      12 Lysmer, J, "Shear waves in plane infinite structures" 98 (98): 85-105, 1972

      13 Hashash, Y.M.A, "Seismic soil-structure interaction analysis for immersed tube tunnels retrofit" 2 : 1380-1391, 1998

      14 Matasovic, N, "Seismic response of soil deposits composed of fully-saturated clay and sand layers" JGS 611-616, 1995

      15 Wang,J.N, "Seismic Design of Tunnels: A State-of-the-Art Approach" Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. 1993

      16 Hudson, M, "QUAD4M - A computer program to evaluate the seismic response of soil structures using finite element procedures and incorporating a compliant base"

      17 PLAXIS-B.V, "PLAXIS: Finite element Package for analysis of geotechnical structures"

      18 Mazzoni, S, "OpenSees command language manual"

      19 Amorosi, A, "Numerical modelling of the transverse dynamic behaviour of circular tunnels in clayey soils" 29 (29): 1059-1072, 2009

      20 Yang, D, "Numerical model verification and calibration of George Massey Tunnel using centrifuge models" 41 (41): 921-942, 2004

      21 Konder, R.L, "Hyperbolic stress-strain formulation of sands" 289-324, 1963

      22 Borja, R.D, "Ground response in Lotung: Total stress analyses and parametric studies" 128 (128): 54-63, 2002

      23 Lysmer, J, "Finite element model for infinite media" ASCE 95 : 859-877, 1969

      24 Lysmer, J, "FLUSH: A computer program for approximate 3-D analysis of soil-structure interaction problems"

      25 Itasca, "FLAC (Fast Lagrangian Analyses of Continua) v. 6.0"

      26 이홍성, "Estimation of NonlinearSite Effects of Soil Profiles in Korea" 한국지반공학회 24 (24): 13-23, 2008

      27 Prevost, J.H, "DYNAFLOW User’s Manual"

      28 Imai, T, "Correlation of N-value with S-wave velocity and shear modulus"

      29 Joyner, W.B, "Calculation of non-linear ground response in earthquakes" 65 : 1315-1336, 1975

      30 Hibbitt, K, "ABAQUS/Standard: User’s manual" Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen 2001

      더보기

      분석정보

      View

      상세정보조회

      0

      Usage

      원문다운로드

      0

      대출신청

      0

      복사신청

      0

      EDDS신청

      0

      동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

      더보기

      주제

      연도별 연구동향

      연도별 활용동향

      연관논문

      연구자 네트워크맵

      공동연구자 (7)

      유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

      인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

      학술지 이력

      학술지 이력
      연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
      2026 평가예정 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
      2020-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
      2017-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (계속평가) KCI등재
      2013-01-01 평가 등재 1차 FAIL (등재유지) KCI등재
      2010-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2008-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2006-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2004-01-01 평가 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
      2001-01-01 평가 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
      1998-07-01 평가 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
      더보기

      학술지 인용정보

      학술지 인용정보
      기준연도 WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) KCIF(2년) KCIF(3년)
      2016 0.31 0.31 0.28
      KCIF(4년) KCIF(5년) 중심성지수(3년) 즉시성지수
      0.29 0.28 0.564 0.12
      더보기

      이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

      나만을 위한 추천자료

      해외이동버튼