Reliability evaluation of flexibly soft contact earth pressure cell testing based on centrifugal tests on tunnels

LIU Yuanpeng; TANG Zhaoguang; LI Yurun; WANG Yongzhi; ZHU Yaoting; LIU Hongshuai

doi:10.11779/CJGE2024S10042

Volume 46 Issue S1

Turn off MathJax

Article Contents

Abstract

References

Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering > 2024 > 46(S1): 75-80. > DOI: 10.11779/CJGE2024S10042

LIU Yuanpeng, TANG Zhaoguang, LI Yurun, WANG Yongzhi, ZHU Yaoting, LIU Hongshuai. Reliability evaluation of flexibly soft contact earth pressure cell testing based on centrifugal tests on tunnels[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2024, 46(S1): 75-80. DOI: 10.11779/CJGE2024S10042

Citation:

PDF (2363 KB)

Reliability evaluation of flexibly soft contact earth pressure cell testing based on centrifugal tests on tunnels

1.
Key Laboratory of Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, Institute of Engineering Mechanics, China Earthquake Administration, Harbin 150080, China
2.
Key Laboratory of Earthquake Disaster Mitigation, Ministry of Emergency Management, Harbin 150080, China
3.
College of Civil Engineering and Transportation, Hebei University of Technology, Tianjin 300401, China
4.
CCCC Tianjin Port Engineering Institute Co., Ltd., Tianjin 300222, China
5.
Institute of Geotechnical Engineering, Hebei University, Baoding 071002, China

More Information

Received Date: April 28, 2024

Graphical Abstract

Abstract

Abstract

A series of centrifugal model tests are conducted by selecting the linear error, average amplitude error and response rate as the indice. Based on the tunnel model, a new flexibly soft contact earth pressure cell ESP-Ⅱ and two internationally representative traditional earth pressure sensors (PDA and EPL-D1) are compared and evaluated to verify the reliability of the newly developed earth pressure cell measurement. The main conclusions are as follows: (1) Under the static state, the linear errors of ESP-Ⅱ, PDA and EPL-D1 are 19.36%, 12.7% and 21.0%, respectively, and the average amplitude errors are 5.79%, 48.2% and 22.6%, indicating that the ESP-Ⅱ earth pressure cell has better static testing performance compared to the two international earth pressure cells. (2) Under the dynamic loads, the average response rates of ESP-Ⅱ, PDA and EPL-D1 earth pressure cells are 67.1, 51.5, and 65.8 Hz, respectively. The response rate of ESP-Ⅱ is slightly higher than that of the other two types of earth pressure cells, indicating a good response frequency. The earth pressures measured by ESP-Ⅱ and PDA under sequential seismic loads are different from those of EPL-D1, showing a consistent incremental pattern. However, there are certain differences in the numerical values, indicating that the soils have strong structural characteristics. (3) During the unloading process, the data measured by the three types of earth pressure cell show varying degrees of nonlinear changes. The time-history curves of earth pressures of PDA and EPL-D1 exhibit bending and jumping phenomena, while those of ESP-Ⅱ maintain good data continuity, indicating to some extent that the soft contact design can achieve good contact between the earth pressure cells and the soils.
- tunnel,
- centrifugal model test,
- soft contact type,
- earth pressure cell,
- test reliability

FullText(HTML)

References (9)

References

[1]	KARL T. Theoretical Soil Mechanics[M]. New York: J Wiley and Sons Inc, 1943.
[2]	陈若曦, 朱斌, 陈云敏, 等. 基于主应力轴旋转理论的修正Terzaghi松动土压力[J]. 岩土力学, 2010, 31(5): 1402-1406. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-7598.2010.05.009 CHEN Ruoxi, ZHU Bin, CHEN Yunmin, et al. Modified Terzaghi loozening earth pressure based on theory of main stress axes rotation[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2010, 31(5): 1402-1406. (in Chinese) doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-7598.2010.05.009
[3]	刘晶波, 刘祥庆, 王宗纲, 等. 土-结构动力相互作用系统离心机振动台模型试验[J]. 土木工程学报, 2010, 43(11): 114-121. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-TMGC201011018.htm LIU Jingbo, LIU Xiangqing, WANG Zonggang, et al. Dynamic centrifuge model test of a soil-structure interaction system[J]. China Civil Engineering Journal, 2010, 43(11): 114-121. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-TMGC201011018.htm
[4]	WANG J, LIU H Q, LIU H B, et al. Centrifuge model study on the seismic responses of shield tunnel[J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2019, 92: 103036. doi: 10.1016/j.tust.2019.103036
[5]	CILINGIR U, GOPAL MADABHUSHI S P. A model study on the effects of input motion on the seismic behaviour of tunnels[J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2011, 31(3): 452-462. doi: 10.1016/j.soildyn.2010.10.004
[6]	芮瑞, 吴端正, 胡港, 等. 模型试验中膜式土压力盒标定及其应用[J]. 岩土工程学报, 2016, 38(5): 837-845. doi: 10.11779/CJGE201605009 RUI Rui, WU Duanzheng, HU Gang, et al. Calibration tests on diaphragm-type pressure cells[J]. Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 2016, 38(5): 837-845. (in Chinese) doi: 10.11779/CJGE201605009
[7]	魏永权, 罗强, 张良, 等. 离心力场中微型土压力传感器非线性响应分析[J]. 岩土力学, 2015, 36(1): 286-292. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YTLX201501039.htm WEI Yongquan, LUO Qiang, ZHANG Liang, et al. Study of nonlinear response of miniature earth pressure transducer in centrifugal force field[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2015, 36(1): 286-292. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YTLX201501039.htm
[8]	梁波, 厉彦君, 凌学鹏, 等. 离心模型试验中微型土压力盒土压力测定[J]. 岩土力学, 2019, 40(2): 818-826. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YTLX201902047.htm LIANG Bo, LI Yanjun, LING Xuepeng, et al. Determination of earth pressure by miniature earth pressure cell in centrifugal model test[J]. Rock and Soil Mechanics, 2019, 40(2): 818-826. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-YTLX201902047.htm
[9]	蔡正银, 代志宇, 徐光明, 等. 离心模型试验中界面土压力盒标定方法研究[J]. 水利学报, 2020, 51(6): 695-704. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SLXB202006007.htm CAI Zhengyin, DAI Zhiyu, XU Guangming, et al. Study on calibration method of interface soil pressure sensor in centrifugal model test[J]. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 2020, 51(6): 695-704. (in Chinese) https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-SLXB202006007.htm