water

Article
Seismic Response Analysis of Hydraulic Tunnels Under the
Combined Effects of Fault Dislocation and Non-Uniform
Seismic Excitation
Hao Liu 1,2 , Wenyu Yan 3 , Yingbo Chen 3, *, Jingyi Feng 3 and Dexin Li 1,2

1 Hunan Provincial Key Laboratory of Hydropower Development Key Technology, Changsha 410014, China;
2018205100@tju.edu.cn (H.L.); 171301010021@hhu.edu.cn (D.L.)
2 PowerChina Zhongnan Engineering Corporation Limited, Changsha 410014, China
3 State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Intelligent Construction and Operation, Tianjin University,
Tianjin 300350, China; 2021205083@tju.edu.cn (W.Y.); crystalpersonal@163.com (J.F.)
* Correspondence: cyb21@tju.edu.cn

Abstract: Hydraulic tunnels are prone to pass through faults and high-intensity earthquake areas,
which will cause serious damage under fault dislocation and earthquake action. Fault dislocation and
seismic excitation are often considered separately in previous studies. For tectonic earthquakes with
higher frequency in seismic phenomena, fault dislocation and ground motion are often associated,
and fault dislocation is usually the cause of earthquake occurrence, so it is limiting to consider the
two separately. Moreover, strong earthquake records show that there will be significant differences in
the mainland vibration within 50 m. The uniform ground motion inputs in previous studies are not
suitable for long hydraulic tunnels. This paper begins with the simulation of non-uniform stochastic
seismic excitations that consider spatial correlation. Based on stochastic vibration theory, multiple
multi-point acceleration time-history curves that can reflect traveling wave effects, coherence effects,
attenuation effects, and non-stationary characteristics are synthesized. Furthermore, a fault velocity
function is introduced to account for the velocity effect of fault dislocation. Finally, numerical analyses
of the response patterns of the tunnel lining under four different conditions are conducted based on
an actual engineering project. The results indicate the following: (a) the maximum lining response
values occur under the combined effects of fault dislocation and non-uniform seismic excitation,
Citation: Liu, H.; Yan, W.; Chen, Y.; indicating its importance in the seismic resistance of the tunnel. (b) Compared to uniform seismic
Feng, J.; Li, D. Seismic Response excitation, the peak displacement of the tunnel under non-uniform seismic excitation increases by up
Analysis of Hydraulic Tunnels Under to 6.42%, and the peak maximum principal stress increases by up to 28%. Additionally, longer tunnels
the Combined Effects of Fault
exhibit a noticeable delay effect in axial deformation during an earthquake. (c) Under non-uniform
Dislocation and Non-Uniform Seismic
seismic excitation, the larger the fault dislocation magnitude, the greater the peak displacement and
Excitation. Water 2024, 16, 3060.
peak maximum principal stress at the monitoring points of the lining. The simulation results show
https://doi.org/10.3390/w16213060
that the extreme response values primarily occur at the crown and haunches of the tunnel, which
Academic Editor: Helena M. Ramos require special attention. The research can provide valuable references for the seismic design of
Received: 24 September 2024 cross-fault tunnels.
Revised: 18 October 2024
Accepted: 22 October 2024 Keywords: hydraulic tunnel; fault dislocation; inconsistent ground motion; dynamic response
Published: 25 October 2024 analysis; numerical simulation

Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.

1. Introduction
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
Underground hydraulic tunnels are an important component of modern social infras-
distributed under the terms and
tructure [1]. Compared to the surface structure, the underground structure is considered to
conditions of the Creative Commons have good seismic performance because it is constrained by the surrounding rock mass or
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// soil mass. However, seismic damage to underground structures has occurred frequently in
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ recent decades, especially during the 1995 Hanshin earthquake in Japan [2], 1999 Jiji earth-
4.0/). quake in Taiwan [3], and 2008 Wenchuan earthquake [4,5]; many underground tunnels have

Water 2024, 16, 3060. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16213060 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2024, 16, 3060 2 of 15

been irrecoverably damaged. Hydraulic tunnels generally have a long line and inevitably
pass through fault fracture zones and areas with high seismic intensity. Earthquake damage
records indicate that the safety of cross-fault hydraulic tunnels located in seismically active
areas is still an important issue.
Over the years, domestic and foreign scholars have mainly carried out three works to
solve the above problems. Firstly, studies have been carried out on the response and failure
mechanisms of cross-fault tunnels under fault dislocation. Yu et al. [6] combined field
investigation and the Finite Element Method (FEM) to evaluate the failure mechanism of
the Longxi tunnel crossing the reverse fault. Cui et al. [7] conducted laboratory model tests
to compare the effects of several tunnel anti-slip measures under the action of fault viscous
slip dislocation. Zhong et al. [8] established a numerical model of a water delivery tunnel
crossing multiple strike-slip faults to assess the structural damage. An et al. [9] analyzed
the internal forces and deformation characteristics of the tunnel under the action of fault
dislocation. Wang et al. [10] explored the deformation and failure mechanism of tunnels
when faults were dislocated through large-scale model tests. The second is to study the
effect of earthquakes on underground tunnels. Ding et al. [11] conducted dynamic response
analysis of an immersed tube tunnel based on the large-scale seismic response simulation
method. Anastasopoulos [12] conducted the nonlinear response analysis of a deep tunnel
under strong earthquake action. Jiang et al. [13] analyzed the seismic performance of
the tunnel model under the condition of uniform seismic input by combining test and
numerical simulation. Wang et al. [14] studied the seismic response of the underground
tunnel–soil–surface structure interaction system. Sun et al. [15] emphasized the importance
of the duration of ground motion for hydraulic tunnels under deep seismic action and
found that the longer the duration of ground motion, the higher the risk of hydraulic
tunnels collapsing. Thirdly, the seismic response and damage characteristics of cross-fault
tunnels are analyzed. Jiao et al. [16] conducted a numerical study on the nonlinear response
and failure process of tunnels crossing inactive faults. Zhou et al. [17] investigated the
failure modes of shallow buried elliptical tunnels under different geological conditions,
finding significant differences between the dynamic responses of tunnels crossing faults
and those of tunnels in normal surrounding rock. Sun et al. [18] analyzed the seismic
vulnerability of a cross-fault hydraulic tunnel, and then, ref. [19] improved the seismic
performance evaluation index of cross-fault hydraulic tunnels based on the partial least
squares method.
Currently, the study of tunnel responses under fault dislocation only considers the
effect of fault dislocation momentum on the tunnel, neglecting the effect of the fault slip
rate on the tunnels. With the increasing demand for water conveyance and the continuous
improvement in engineering technology, the axial length of hydraulic tunnels has become
increasingly longer. However, the majority of studies on the deformation and force charac-
teristics of tunnels under seismic action have focused on uniform ground motion inputs.
Further observations from seismic damage records [20,21] indicate that, unlike shorter
tunnels, the damage patterns of longer hydraulic tunnels are unique. The damage locations
and types along the tunnel axis are not consistent, exhibiting spatial non-uniformity. These
unique and complex damage phenomena are the result of the spatial effects of seismic
excitations. Uniform input conditions are insufficient for the seismic analysis of long hy-
draulic tunnels. Therefore, it is necessary to adopt non-uniform seismic excitation for a
more accurate analysis. Some studies have considered oblique incidence [22–26] as an
input condition for non-uniform ground motion, but only the travelling wave effect of
ground motion is considered in oblique incidence. However, the spatial variability of
ground motion that has a significant impact on spatial large-size structures [27–29] includes
not only the traveling wave effect, but also the attenuation effect, hysteresis coherence
effect, and local site effect, and the input conditions of uniform ground motion or oblique
incidence are not comprehensive. In recent years, the synthesis method for simulating
non-uniform seismic excitations, which can obtain the spectral characteristics at each ex-
citation point and generate multi-point acceleration time histories through a certain rule,
Water 2024, 16, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 15

Water 2024, 16, 3060 3 of 15

each excitation point and generate multi-point acceleration time histories through a cer-
tain rule, hasa become
has become a focal
focal point. Thispoint.
method Thisnotmethod not only effectively
only effectively simulates
simulates the spatial the spatial
variability
variability of seismic excitations
of seismic excitations but also conveniently
but also conveniently models randomness
models randomness and nonline-
and nonlinearity. Zhang
arity. Zhang
et al. [30] et al.the
analyze [30]nonlinear
analyze behavior
the nonlinear behaviorgravity
of a concrete of a concrete
dam under gravity dam under
near-fault pulse
near-fault
records, and pulse records,records
non-pulse and non-pulse records are
are investigated with investigated withof
consideration consideration
the obliquely ofinci-
the
obliquely
dent P waves.incident
Liu etP waves. Liu et al. [31]
al. [31] proposed proposed a dimensionality
a dimensionality reduction method reduction method
for simulating
for simulating
fully fully non-stationary
non-stationary seismic random seismic
fieldsrandom fields byprobability
by integrating integratingdensity
probability den-
evolution
sity evolution
theory, enabling theory, enabling
detailed dynamic detailed
responsedynamic response
analysis of bridgeanalysis of bridge
structures. structures.
However, these
synthesized
However, seismic
these excitations
synthesized in previous
seismic studies
excitations did not account
in previous studies for
didthe
notweak
accountproperties
for the
of faults
weak and theof
properties effects
faultsofandfault
thedislocation.
effects of faultTo sum up, the To
dislocation. current study
sum up, theonly considers
current study
the effects
only of fault
considers thedislocation
effects of faultand earthquakes
dislocation and on one side, without
earthquakes considering
on one the effects
side, without con-
of both on
sidering thethe tunnel.
effects In reality,
of both on theearthquakes are often
tunnel. In reality, caused byare
earthquakes fault activities,
often causedand fault
by fault
dislocationand
activities, andfault
ground motionand
dislocation usually
grounddo not occurusually
motion separately.
do not occur separately.
In this paper,
In this paper, we present a three-dimensional numerical model of a hydraulic
hydraulic tunnel
tunnel
practical applications.
grounded in practical applications. Employing
Employing the therandom
randomground
groundmotion
motionsynthesis
synthesistech-
tech-
nique, we
nique, we generate
generatenon-uniform
non-uniform ground
ground motions
motionsthatthateffectively capture
effectively the traveling
capture wave
the traveling
effect, effect,
wave attenuation effect, effect,
attenuation coherence effect, and
coherence non-stationary
effect, characteristics
and non-stationary of ground
characteristics of
motion. We extensively investigate the dynamic response of the
ground motion. We extensively investigate the dynamic response of the hydraulic tunnel hydraulic tunnel when
subjected
when to the combined
subjected influence
to the combined of faultofdislocation
influence and non-uniform
fault dislocation ground ground
and non-uniform motion.
A detailed illustration of the research framework is provided
motion. A detailed illustration of the research framework is provided in Figure 1.in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Research framework.

Figure 1. Research framework.

2. Spatial
Spatial Incongruent
Incongruent Ground
Ground Motion
Motion Synthesis Method and Fault Velocity Function
Simulation of
2.1. Simulation of Non-Uniform
Non-Uniform Ground
Ground Motion Based on Random Vibration Theory
Housner [32]
Housner [32] first
first realized
realized that
that ground
ground motion
motion is is aa random
randomground
groundprocess
processand
andpro-
pro-
posed a stationary
posed stationary white
white noise model of ground motion. However, However, this
this model
model was
was only
only
discussed from
discussed from the
the perspective
perspectiveofofpure
puremathematics
mathematicsand and could notnot
could reflect thethe
reflect physical na-
physical
ture of ground motion. Japanese scholars [33] proposed a white noise filtered
nature of ground motion. Japanese scholars [33] proposed a white noise filtered Kanai- Kanai-Tajimi
model model
Tajimi that can better
that can describe seismicseismic
better describe frequency characteristics,
frequency but thisbut
characteristics, model
this cannot
model
deal with
cannot the
deal response
with problem
the response of low-frequency
problem structures.
of low-frequency Many scholars
structures. modified
Many scholars the
mod-
ified the Kanai-Tajimi model to eliminate its low-frequency component. In this paper, the
modified Kanai-Tajimi model [34] is adopted as the ground motion self-power spectrum:
Water 2024, 16, 3060 4 of 15

Kanai-Tajimi model to eliminate its low-frequency component. In this paper, the modified
Kanai-Tajimi model [34] is adopted as the ground motion self-power spectrum:
2
1 + 4ξ 2g ω
ω
ω6 2
g
S(ω ) = 6 6 2
S0 (1)
ω + ωc (1 − ω ) + 4ξ 2 ω2
2
ω 2 gω 2
g g

where ωk , ξ g , S0 , ωc are the improved spectral parameters of the Kanai-Tajimi model [35].
The ground motion power spectrum matrix can be constructed based on the random
vibration theory. For the ground motion power spectrum matrix Si (ω k ) with a frequency of
ω k , the equation is as follows:

· · · S1n (iωk )
 
S1 ( ω k ) S12 (iωk )
 S21 (iωk ) S22 (ωk )
. . . S2n (iωk )
S(iωk ) =  (2)
 
.. .. .. .. 
 . . . . 
Sn1 (iωk ) Sn2 (iωk ) . . . Sn (ωk )

In the matrix, the cross-power spectrum between n and m points on a straight line
along the propagation direction of the seismic wave can be expressed by the following
equation [35]:
−iω v d(nm
q
Snm (iωk ) = Sn (ωk )Sm (ωk )ρnm (ωk , dnm )e a ωk ) (3)

where Sn (ωk ) and Sm (ωk ) are the auto-power spectra of two points n and m, and dnm is
the distance between two points. va (ω k ) is the apparent velocity of the seismic wave, and
ρnm (ωk , dnm ) is the coherence function of two points.
Considering the correlation between the apparent velocity and frequency of seismic
waves, v a (ωk ) is solved according to the following formula [36]:
ωk
v a (ωk ) = c1 + c2 ln( ) (4)
2π
where c1 and c2 are fitting parameters: c1 = 3344; c2 = 1095.
The coherence function adopted in this study is the spatial coherence function model
proposed by Qu et al. [36], which comprehensively considers multiple coherence models
and has a wide range of applicability:

b(ω )
 e − a ( ωk ) d k

ρnm (ωk , dnm ) = a(ωk ) = 0.00001678ω 2 + 0.001219 (5)
 b(ω ) = −0.0055ω 2 +k 0.7674

k k

The power spectrum matrix Si (ωk ) is a Herrmite matrix and a positive definite matrix.
According to matrix theory, Si (ωk ) can be decomposed into the product of a lower triangular
matrix and an upper triangular matrix using the Cholesky [31] method:
l11 (ωk ) 0 ··· 0 l11 (ωk ) l ∗ 21 (ωk ) ··· l ∗ n1 (iωk )
   
 l21 (iωk ) l22 (ωk ) ... 0   0 l22 (ωk ) ... l ∗ n2 (iωk )
S(iωk ) =  .. .. .. × . .. .. (6)
   
..   .. .. 
 . . . . . . . 
ln1 (iωk ) ln2 (ωk ) ... lnn (ωk ) 0 0 ... lnn (iωk )

Using the decomposition term of Si (ωk ), the amplitude Aim (ωk ) and phase angle
θim (ωk ) under the frequency component ωk can be obtained, and the ground motion is
expressed as the sum of n-term trigonometric series. The synthesis formula of spatially
inconsistent ground motion is as follows:

n N −1
ai ( t ) = ∑ ∑ Aim (ωk ) cos[ωk t + θim (ωk ) + φmk ] (7)
m =1 k =0
Water 2024, 16, 3060 5 of 15

where ωk = (k − 1)∆ω, ∆ω = 2π/Td , and d is the duration of synthetic ground motion; ω k

is a circular frequency discrete point; φmk is a random phase angle uniformly distributed
over the interval (0, 2π).
Furthermore, the generated non-uniform ground motion is de-stabilized according to
the following formula:
ai ′ ( t ) = f ( t ) ai ( t ) (8)
where f (t) is the intensity envelope function, which generates the non-stationary amplitude
of ground motion. In this paper, a multi-peak intensity envelope model is adopted [37].
 2
 (t/t1 ) t < t1
f (t) = 1 t1 < t ≤ t2 (9)
 − c ( t − t2 )
e t2 < t

where c controls the attenuation speed of the attenuation section; t1 and t2 control the start
and end moments of the stationary section, respectively.

2.2. Fault Velocity Function

The fault dislocation should not only consider the impact of the dislocation momen-
tum and the dislocation form, but also, the impact of the dislocation rate should be fully
considered. The sliding velocity function can represent the change in the sliding velocity of
the fracture surface with time and space, and the fault dislocation rate is mainly controlled
via the sliding velocity function. Commonly used sliding velocity functions mainly include
the Brune function, Haskell function, bell function, exponential function, triangle function,
etc. [38–40]. Considering the balance between the fidelity to actual situations and compu-
tational efficiency, this paper chooses the bell function to simulate the viscoelastic slip of
the fault. 

 0 t<0
2πt
v(t) = u(∞) 1−cos T 0≤t<T (10)
 T
0 T≤t


where u(∞) is the final error momentum, and T is the total error time.

3. Numerical Simulation
3.1. Numerical Model
The MZ hydropower station project is located in Yongde County, Lincang City, Yunnan
Province. Several developed faults are crossed within the inlet hydraulic tunnel. According
Water 2024, 16, x FOR
toPEER REVIEW
the geological report of the pre-feasibility study, the basic seismic intensity of the site in 6
the MZ tunnel area is estimated to be VIII degree. The geological profile of the right bank
hydraulic tunnel of the MZ hydropower station is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Geological
Figureprofile of the right
2. Geological bank
profile of hydraulic tunnel
the right bank of the MZ
hydraulic Project
tunnel (Unit:
of the MZm).
Project (Unit: m).

Based on the cross-fault underground hydraulic tunnel of the MZ power station

Based on the cross-fault underground hydraulic tunnel of the MZ power station
project, the three-dimensional numerical model as shown in Figure 3 is established. The
ject, the three-dimensional numerical model as shown in Figure 3 is established. The
horizontal direction parallel to the tunnel axis is selected as the x-axis, the vertical direc-
izontal direction parallel to the tunnel axis is selected as the x-axis, the vertical dire
perpendicular to the tunnel axis is the y-axis, and the vertical direction is the z-axis
cording to the experience of selecting the boundary range of the underground engine
model, the boundary effect affecting the tunnel response can be ignored when the bo
ary is taken as 3–5 times the diameter of the tunnel [41,42], so the model size is set t
m × 60 m × 60 m. The tunnel adopts a circular section with an inner diameter of 7 m
 Based on the cross-fault underground hydraulic tunnel of the MZ power station p
ject, the three-dimensional numerical model as shown in Figure 3 is established. The h
Water 2024, 16, 3060
izontal direction parallel to the tunnel axis is selected as the x-axis, the vertical direc
6 of 15
perpendicular to the tunnel axis is the y-axis, and the vertical direction is the z-axis.
cording to the experience of selecting the boundary range of the underground engineer
model, the boundary
tion perpendicular effect
to the tunnelaffecting they-axis,
axis is the tunnelandresponse candirection
the vertical be ignored
is thewhen
z-axis.the bou
ary is taken
According to as
the3–5 times the
experience diameterthe
of selecting of boundary
the tunnel [41,42],
range sounderground
of the the model size engi-is set to
neering model, the boundary effect affecting the tunnel response
m × 60 m × 60 m. The tunnel adopts a circular section with an inner diameter can be ignored when theof 7 m,
boundary is taken as 3–5 times the diameter of the tunnel [41,42], so the model size is set
the lining is made of C30 concrete with a thickness of 0.5 m. In order to meet the requ
to 150 m × 60 m × 60 m. The tunnel adopts a circular section with an inner diameter of
ments
7 m, andof the
dynamic
lining iscalculation
made of C30accuracy [43], athe
concrete with maximum
thickness of 0.5 mesh size of
m. In order to the
meetmodel d
not
the exceed 5 m, and
requirements a total of
of dynamic 286,185 grids
calculation accuracywith 196,731
[43], nodes are
the maximum divided,
mesh size of and
the the lin
grids
model are
doesencrypted
not exceed 5withm, and19,861
a totalgrids. Thegrids
of 286,185 Mohr–Coulomb
with 196,731 nodes elastoplastic
are divided,constitu
and thewas
model lining grids arefor
adopted encrypted
upper andwith lower
19,861 grids.
platesThe andMohr–Coulomb
faults, and the elastoplastic
linear elastic mo
constitutive model was adopted for upper and lower plates
was adopted for the lining. The artificial viscous boundaries and free-fieldand faults, and the linear
boundaries
elastic model was adopted for the lining. The artificial viscous boundaries and free-field
employed in dynamic analysis [44,45]. The values of the physical and mechanical par
boundaries are employed in dynamic analysis [44,45]. The values of the physical and
eters used parameters
mechanical in the three-dimensional model are model
used in the three-dimensional shownare inshown
Tablein1,Table
which are determi
1, which
according to the
are determined recommended
according values from
to the recommended the from
values geological report.report.
the geological

Figure 3. Three-dimensional numerical model of hydraulic tunnel.

Figure 3. Three-dimensional numerical model of hydraulic tunnel.
Table 1. Physical and mechanical properties of materials used in 3D model.
Table 1. Physical and mechanical properties of materials used in 3D model.
Elastic Internal Friction Tensile
Component Den- ·m−3 )
Density/(kg Elastic Modu- Poisson Ratio
Modulus/GPa Internal
Angle/ ◦ Cohesion/MPa
Friction Cohe-Strength/MPaTensile
Component Poisson Ratio
Hanging wall sity/(kg·m
2600 −3) lus/GPa
4.0 0.25 33 Angle/° 1.5 sion/MPa 0.5 Strength/MP
Footwall 2600 4.0 0.25 33 1.5 0.5
HangingFault
wall 2600
2100 4.0
0.68 0.320.25 33 33 0.6 1.5 0.12 0.5
Footwall
Lining 2600
2500 4.0
30 0.200.25 - 33 - 1.5 - 0.5
Fault 2100 0.68 0.32 33 0.6 0.12
Lining 2500 3.2. Spatially30Incoherent Seismic Acceleration
0.20 Time-History
- Curve - -
Assuming that the input ground motion acceleration time history at the bottom of the
model within 50 m is consistent, with a total of three exciting segments (1# , 2# , and 3# ),
3.2. Spatially Incoherent Seismic Acceleration Time-History Curve
three acceleration time-history curves are generated according to the spatially inconsistent
groundAssuming that themethod
motion synthesis inputdescribed
ground in motion
Sectionacceleration time
2. The reference for history at the bottom
the parameters
the model
of the within
self-power 50 m model
spectral is consistent,
is cited inwith a total
ref. [35]. of three
Figure exciting
4a shows the acceleration (1#, 2#, and
segmentstime-
history curve generated after correction via displacement reference. It can be seen from
the figure that the waveform of each acceleration time-history curve is basically the same.
Besides slight differences in amplitude and phase, ground motion also has corresponding
time lag, and no displacement deviation can be seen from the displacement time-history
curve, as shown in Figure 4b. The development trend of the simulated power spectrum
is also basically consistent with that of the target spectrum, as shown in Figure 4c; that
is, the generated non-consistent ground motion can well reflect the travelling wave effect,
coherence effect, attenuation effect, and non-stationary characteristics of ground motion
and meet the requirements of simulation.
 time
time lag,
lag, and
and no
no displacement
displacement deviation
deviation can
can be
be seen
seen from
from the
the displacement
displacement time-history
time-history
curve,
curve,asasshown
shownin inFigure
Figure4b.
4b.The
Thedevelopment
developmenttrend
trendofofthe
thesimulated
simulatedpowerpowerspectrum
spectrumisis
also
also basically consistent with that of the target spectrum, as shown in Figure 4c;
basically consistent with that of the target spectrum, as shown in Figure 4c; that
that is,
is,
the
the generated
generated non-consistent
non-consistent ground
ground motion
motion can
can well
well reflect
reflect the
the travelling
travelling wave
wave effect,
effect,
Water 2024, 16, 3060 coherence
coherence effect,
effect, attenuation
attenuation effect,
effect, and
and non-stationary
non-stationary characteristics
characteristics of of ground
ground motion
motion
7 of 15
and
and meet
meet the
therequirements
requirements ofof simulation.
simulation.

(a)
(a) (b)
(b) (c)
(c)
Figure
Figure 4.
4. Non-uniform
Non-uniform ground
ground motion
motion acceleration
acceleration time-history
time-history curve,
curve, displacement
displacement time-history
time-history
Figure 4. Non-uniform ground motion acceleration time-history curve, displacement time-history
curve,
curve, and
and power
power spectrum:
spectrum: (a)
(a) acceleration
acceleration history
history curve,
curve, (b)
(b) displacement
displacement history
history curve,
curve, and
and (c)
(c)
curve, and power spectrum: (a) acceleration history curve, (b) displacement history curve, and
power
powerspectrum.
spectrum.
(c) power spectrum.
3.3.
3.3. Simulation
3.3. Simulation Process
Simulation Process
Process
In
In order
In orderto
order to simulate
tosimulate
simulatethe the dynamic
thedynamic
dynamic response
response
response of of
of the
the the tunnel
tunnel
tunnel accurately,
accurately,
accurately, the thethe simulation
simulation
simulation pro-
process
process is
is divided
divided into
into material
material parameter
parameter assignment,
assignment,
cess is divided into material parameter assignment, initial ground stress, static excavation, initial
initial ground
ground stress,
stress, static
static exca-
exca-
vation,
lining lining
liningsupport,
vation,support, support,
and dynamic and
anddynamic
dynamic
calculation. calculation.
calculation. The
The initial initial
initialground
Theground ground
stress adopts stress
stressthe adopts
adopts the
gravitythegrav-
grav-
stress
ity stress
ity stress
field, field,
andfield, and
and the
the lateral the lateral pressure
lateral coefficient
pressure coefficient
pressure coefficient is
is set as kis x=
set
set as k = 1.0,
as kkyx == 1.0,
1.0, x k
1.2, kand
y = 1.2,
y = 1.2, and
kz =and k =
1.0.kzThe
z 1.0.
= 1.0. The
The
stress
stress
field field
stressafter after
after support
fieldsupport support isis the
is the initial initial
initial condition
thecondition condition for
for dynamicfor dynamic
dynamic
calculation. calculation.
calculation.
The boundary The
The boundary
boundary
around
around
around
the model the
theismodel
model isis aa free-field
a free-field free-field
boundary boundary
boundary and
and the
and the bottom bottom
bottom boundary
theboundary boundary
is a viscous isis aaboundary.
viscous
viscous bound-bound-
Local
ary.
ary. Local
dampingLocalis damping
damping
employed isis employed
employed
in the model, in
in the
the
withmodel,
model, with aa critical
withdamping
a critical damping
critical ratiodamping of 5% ratio
andof
ratio a 5%
of 5% and
and aa
damping
damping
damping coefficient
coefficient
coefficient of 0.1571 [46]. of
of 0.1571
0.1571 [46].
[46].
Four
Four typical
Four typical monitoring
monitoring surfaces, surfaces,S1, S1, S2,
S2, S3,
S3, and
and S4, S4, are
are set set up
up in in this
this paper,
paper, among
paper, among
among
which
whichS1 S1
S1is isislocated
located
locatedinin the
inthethe #
1 11excited
## excited
excited segment,
segment,
segment, S2S2S2
and andS3 S3
and S3 are
are are located
locatedlocatedin thein
in2the#
the 22## excited
excited excited seg-
seg-
segment,
ment,
ment,
and S4and
and S4
S4isislocated
is located in thein
located 3#the
in the 33##excited
excited excited segment.TheThe
segment.
segment. The
fault fault
fault intersects
intersects
intersects with with
withthethe S3 S3
the S3monitor-
monitor-
monitoring
ing
ing section,
section,
section, withwithwith an
an inclination
an inclinationinclination angle angle
of αof
angle αα and
and
of aa thickness
a thickness
and thicknessof h.of h.
h. Eight
ofEight monitoring
monitoring
Eight monitoring points
points are
points
are
are arranged
arranged
arranged on each on
on each monitoring
monitoring
each monitoring section,
section, withwith
section, points
with points
A, B,A,
points C,B,
A, and
B, C,
C, and
Dand D
D located
located on the
located on the
ontop top
thearch,
top
arch,
left
arch, left
left haunch,
haunch, haunch,right right
haunch,
right haunch, and
and bottom
haunch, and bottom archarch
bottom of the
arch of the
the lining,
oflining, respectively.
respectively.
lining, respectively. Points Points A’–D’
A’–D’
Points A’–D’are
located
are
arelocated
locatedin the in surrounding
inthe
the surrounding
surrounding rock. TheThe
rock.
rock. monitoring
The monitoring
monitoring schemeschemeis illustrated
scheme isis illustrated
illustrated in Figure
in
in Figure 5. 5.
Figure 5.

S1 S2 S3 Fault
Fault S4
S1 S2 S3 S4

Monitoring
hh
Monitoring
AA points
points
60
60
BB CC Tunnel
Tunnel
mm

DD

αα
Boundary
Boundary
Boundary
Boundary 25m
25m 35m
35m 23m
23m 42m
42m 25m
25m

Axial
Axialdistance
distance

Figure
Figure 5.
Figure5. Monitoring
5.Monitoring scheme
Monitoringscheme of
schemeof numerical
ofnumerical model.
numericalmodel.
model.

Based on the survey results, the peak horizontal acceleration of seismic motion in
the project area is 0.2 g. Considering the seismic intensity and other conditions, the peak
acceleration of the seismic waves for the first 20 m, which is the 1# excitation segment, is
set to 2 m/s2 . The peak accelerations for the 2# and 3# excitation segments are adjusted
accordingly in proportion. Ground motion for each stimulating section originates from the
model’s base, with horizontal vibration input along the x-axis. The 1# acceleration time-
history curve, post-amplitude modulation, serves as input for consistent ground motion.
The model’s bottom plate boundary is fixed, and initial downward velocity is applied to
the upper plate’s bottom to induce displacement, creating relative motion between the two
plates to simulate normal fault dislocation. The proposed final fault dislocation momentum
is 0.1 m, with a total dislocation time T of 2 s. To delve deeper into the impact of fault
dislocation and non-uniform vibration on tunnel dynamic response, four distinct loading
conditions are simulated. Condition 1 involves fault displacement alone, condition 2 solely
 history curve, post-amplitude modulation, serves as input for consistent ground motion.
The model’s bottom plate boundary is fixed, and initial downward velocity is applied to
the upper plate’s bottom to induce displacement, creating relative motion between the
two plates to simulate normal fault dislocation. The proposed final fault dislocation mo-
Water 2024, 16, 3060 mentum is 0.1 m, with a total dislocation time T of 2 s. To delve deeper into the impact 8 ofof
15
fault dislocation and non-uniform vibration on tunnel dynamic response, four distinct
loading conditions are simulated. Condition 1 involves fault displacement alone, condi-
tion 2 solely incorporates
incorporates inconsistent inconsistent seismic
seismic motion input,motion input,
condition condition inconsistent
3 introduces 3 introducesseismic
incon-
sistent seismic motion following fault displacement, and condition 4 introduces consistent
motion following fault displacement, and condition 4 introduces consistent seismic motion
seismic motion
post-fault post-faultas
displacement, displacement, as depicted
depicted in Figure 6. in Figure 6.

Free field boundary

Free field boundary

Fault
dislocation

Fixed boundary
Viscous boundary
Velocity applied boundary (a) (b)

Free field boundary

Free field boundary

Fault
dislocation

Free field boundary Fault

dislocation

Free field boundary

Velocity applied boundary
Viscous boundary

Viscous boundary
Velocity applied boundary

(c) (d)

Figure
Figure6.6.Four
Fourworking
workingconditions: (a)(a)
conditions: normal
normalfault dislocation,
fault (b) (b)
dislocation, inconsistent ground
inconsistent motion,
ground (c)
motion,
incoherent ground motion after normal fault dislocation, and (d) input consistent vibration
(c) incoherent ground motion after normal fault dislocation, and (d) input consistent vibration after after
normal fault dislocation.
normal fault dislocation.

4.
4. Result
ResultAnalysis
Analysis
4.1. Displacement ResponseAnalysis
4.1. Displacement Response AnalysisofofLining
Lining
Figure 77 depicts
Figure depicts the
the axial
axial distribution
distribution curve
curve of z-displacement for
of z-displacement for each
each monitoring
monitoring
point along the lining. As illustrated in Figure 7a, the z-displacement
point along the lining. As illustrated in Figure 7a, the z-displacement responses of responses of each
each
monitoring point
monitoring point exhibit
exhibit consistency
consistency under
undernormal
normalfault
faultdislocation,
dislocation,displaying
displayinga adistribu-
distri-
tion akin
bution to the
akin shape
to the of an
shape of “S”. Notably,
an “S”. the displacement
Notably, the displacementcurvecurve
at each monitoring
at each point
monitoring
is most pronounced at the fault, indicating the region with the most significant
point is most pronounced at the fault, indicating the region with the most significant mu- mutation.
Figure Figure
tation. 7b shows that after
7b shows thatthe endthe
after of non-uniform groundground
end of non-uniform motion,motion,
the displacements
the displace-of
all monitoring points are basically the same along the axis, and the displacements
ments of all monitoring points are basically the same along the axis, and the displacements of all
monitoring
of points
all monitoring far from
points the fault
far from the have a small
fault have difference,
a small but the
difference, butdisplacements of all
the displacements
monitoring points within the fault range have a significant difference, indicating
of all monitoring points within the fault range have a significant difference, indicating that that the
fault is the key area for seismic fortification of the lining. Figure 7c shows
the fault is the key area for seismic fortification of the lining. Figure 7c shows that underthat under the
combined
the combined action of fault
action and incoherent
of fault ground
and incoherent motion,
ground the displacement
motion, changechange
the displacement of the lin-
of
ing located on the upper wall is significantly larger than that of the lining of the lower wall.
the lining located on the upper wall is significantly larger than that of the lining of the
This is because when the lower wall is fixed and the upper wall is dislocated downward,
the influence of fault dislocation on the upper wall is more significant, while the influence
of dislocation is weaker the farther away from the upper wall, and the displacement change
is mainly affected by incoherent ground motion. Compared with Figure 7b, the axial
displacement of the lining changes more significantly, indicating that the fault plays a
leading role in the whole loading process. Compared with Figure 7a, the displacement
mutation of the overhanging wall lining is more significant; that is, non-uniform vibration
aggravates the axial change in the displacement of the lining, indicating that although
the fault dislocation plays a leading role, the existence of ground motion still aggravates
the deformation of the lining. Compared with Figure 7d, the displacement difference of
each monitoring point is more obvious, and the displacement mutation range is also larger,
indicating that the displacement response of the lining is inconsistent due to non-uniform
vibration, so it is very necessary to consider non-uniform vibration in the seismic design
of underground hydraulic tunnels. Under the four working conditions, the displacement
 vibration aggravates the axial change in the displacement of the lining, indicating that
although the fault dislocation plays a leading role, the existence of ground motion still
aggravates the deformation of the lining. Compared with Figure 7d, the displacement dif-
ference of each monitoring point is more obvious, and the displacement mutation range
Water 2024, 16, 3060 is also larger, indicating that the displacement response of the lining is inconsistent due
9 of 15
to non-uniform vibration, so it is very necessary to consider non-uniform vibration in the
seismic design of underground hydraulic tunnels. Under the four working conditions, the
displacement changes of the left and right waist arches (monitoring points B and C) basi-
changes of the left and right waist arches (monitoring points B and C) basically coincide
cally coincide along the axis.
along the axis.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 7.
Figure 7. Axial distribution curve
Axial distribution curve of
of z-direction
z-direction displacement
displacement of
of monitoring
monitoring points:
points: (a)
(a) working
working
condition 1, (b) working condition 2, (c) working condition 3, and (d) working condition 4.
condition 1, (b) working condition 2, (c) working condition 3, and (d) working condition 4.

Figure 88 shows
Figure shows the the peak
peak z-displacement
z-displacement and and occurrence
occurrence time time atat point
point A A onon the
the four
four
monitoring surfaces.
monitoring surfaces. Figure
Figure88illustrates
illustratesthat
thatthe
thedisplacement
displacement response
response of of each
each monitor-
monitoring
ing surface
surface is greater
is greater underunder
the the combined
combined influence
influence of fault
of fault displacement
displacement andand ground
ground mo-
motion
tion compared to the effects of fault dislocation or ground motion
compared to the effects of fault dislocation or ground motion alone. Therefore, it is more alone. Therefore, it is
more appropriate
appropriate to consider
to consider the combined
the combined actionaction of fault
of fault and ground
and ground motionmotion
in theinstudy
the study
of a
of a tunnel
tunnel underunder
complex complex geological
geological conditions
conditions and complex
and complex input
input loads, andloads, and the dis-
the displacement
placement
response ofresponse
lining underof lining under theaction
the combined combined action
of fault andofnon-uniform
fault and non-uniform
ground motion ground on
motion
each on each surface
monitoring monitoring is thesurface
largest.isItthe largest.
is more It is to
realistic more
use realistic
incoherent to ground
use incoherent
motion
ground
input motion
when input the
studying when studying
effect of faultthe effect of fault
dislocation dislocation and
and earthquakes earthquakes
on tunnel dynamic on
tunnel dynamic
responses. The peak responses. The peak
displacement underdisplacement under
fault dislocation of fault
S1 and dislocation
S2 monitoringof S1surfaces
and S2
monitoring
is larger thansurfaces
that underis larger than thatground
non-uniform under motion,
non-uniform
becauseground
S1 andmotion, because
S2 sections S1 and
are located
on
S2 the upperare
sections wall and are
located ongreatly affected
the upper wallbyandfault dislocation,
are while S3
greatly affected byand
faultS4 dislocation,
monitoring
surfaces
while S3areand far away from the upper
S4 monitoring wall and
surfaces are the
fardisplacement
away from responsethe upper is mainly
wall andaffected
the
by non-uniform ground motion. The peak displacement times of each monitoring surface
in working condition 2 are 14.5 s, 15.3 s, 15.3 s, and 16 s, respectively; the peak displacement
times of each monitoring surface in working condition 3 are 4.9 s, 2.9 s, 2.9 s, and 15.9 s,
respectively. The inconsistency in the timing of peak displacements at different monitoring
sections is due to the traveling wave effect and coherence effect of non-uniform seismic
excitation. As the axial distance increases, the time it takes for the lining structure to reach
its peak displacement is delayed, which is also the reason for the varying deformations
at different parts of the structure. This highlights the necessity of considering the non-
uniformity of seismic excitation in the seismic design of large underground geotechnical
projects and is also supported by the findings in ref. [47]. While the peak displacement
in working condition 4 is about 4.9 s, 4.9 s, 10.2 s, and 10.2 s, and the peak displacement
on the monitoring surface of S1 and S2 is earlier than that of S3 and S4. This is because
S1 and S2 are located on the upper disk, and the peak displacement time of the S3 and S4
monitoring surface is basically the same due to the non-consistent vibration input. Under
 also the reason for the varying deformations at different parts of the structure. This high-
lights the necessity of considering the non-uniformity of seismic excitation in the seismic
design of large underground geotechnical projects and is also supported by the findings
in ref. [47]. While the peak displacement in working condition 4 is about 4.9 s, 4.9 s, 10.2
Water 2024, 16, 3060 10 of 15
s, and 10.2 s, and the peak displacement on the monitoring surface of S1 and S2 is earlier
than that of S3 and S4. This is because S1 and S2 are located on the upper disk, and the
peak displacement time of the S3 and S4 monitoring surface is basically the same due to
the combined influence
the non-consistent vibration of faultUnder
input. displacement and incoherent
the combined influence ground motion, the peak
of fault displacement
displacement of each monitoring surface occurs earlier compared to
and incoherent ground motion, the peak displacement of each monitoring surface when subjected solely
occurs
to incoherent ground motion. This observation suggests that fault dislocation
earlier compared to when subjected solely to incoherent ground motion. This observation accelerates
the deformation
suggests of the lining
that fault dislocation structure.
accelerates the deformation of the lining structure.

Figure 8. Peak displacement and time in the z direction at point A of each monitoring section.
Figure 8. Peak displacement and time in the z direction at point A of each monitoring section.
4.2. Lining Stress Analysis
4.2. Lining Stress9Analysis
Figure shows the axial distribution curve of the maximum principal stress at each
monitoring point
Figure 9 shows the of the
axiallining. As depicted
distribution curveinofFigure 9a, the distribution
the maximum characteristics
principal stress at each of
the maximum
monitoring point ofprincipal
the lining.stress at each monitoring
As depicted in Figure 9a,point
the along the lining
distribution exhibit similarity
characteristics of
along the axis
the maximum understress
principal fault dislocation. A phenomenon
at each monitoring point alongof stress concentration
the lining is observed
exhibit similarity
alongwithin the under
the axis fault range, impacting an
fault dislocation. area approximately
A phenomenon twice
of stress the width of
concentration is the fault. The
observed
within the fault range, impacting an area approximately twice the width of the fault. Thefrom
maximum principal stress shows tension within the fault range, while the area away
the fault
maximum is basically
principal stresscompression.
shows tension The conclusion
within drawn
the fault range,from
while Figure 9b is
the area basically
away from the
same as that of Figure 9a, but the stress is affected by the fault in
the fault is basically compression. The conclusion drawn from Figure 9b is basically the a slightly larger range.
same as that of Figure 9a, but the stress is affected by the fault in a slightly larger range. in
The comparison reveals that the axial distribution curve of the maximum principal stress
The Figure 9a,d isreveals
comparison basically
thata the
single peak
axial value, andcurve
distribution the peak
of the value occurs principal
maximum at the fault, but the
stress
maximum principal stress in Figure 9c,d obviously has multiple peaks;
in Figure 9a,d is basically a single peak value, and the peak value occurs at the fault, but apart from faults,
the remaining peaks mainly occur in the upper wall. It shows that
the maximum principal stress in Figure 9c,d obviously has multiple peaks; apart from the stress concentration
of the lining structure will occur not only at the fault, but also within the range of the
faults, the remaining peaks mainly occur in the upper wall. It shows that the stress con-
dislocated surrounding rock under the combined action of fault dislocation and ground
centration of the lining structure will occur not only at the fault, but also within the range
motion. The further the stress fluctuation of the concrete lining, the more unfavorable it
of the dislocated surrounding rock under the combined action of fault dislocation and
will be to the lining. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the fault dislocation in the seismic
ground motion. The further the stress fluctuation of the concrete lining, the more unfa-
response analysis of the cross-fault tunnel.
vorable it will be to the lining. Therefore, it is necessary to consider the fault dislocation
Figure 10 shows the peak maximum principal stress and occurrence time at point A of
in the seismic response analysis of the cross-fault tunnel.
the four monitoring surfaces. From Figure 10, it is evident that the peak maximum principal
Figure 10 shows the peak maximum principal stress and occurrence time at point A
stress response on each monitoring surface is greater under the combined influence of fault
of the four monitoring surfaces. From Figure 10, it is evident that the peak maximum prin-
displacement and non-uniform ground motion compared to the effects of fault dislocation
cipal stress response on each monitoring surface is greater under the combined influence
or ground motion acting alone. The peak maximum principal stress on each monitoring sur-
face follows the following order: operating condition 3 > operating condition 2 > operating
condition 4 > operating condition 1. This suggests that ground motion exerts a greater
influence on the lining stress response than fault dislocation. Additionally, the stress con-
centration induced by inconsistent vibration is more pronounced, with larger amplitudes,
compared to that caused by consistent vibration. The occurrence time of the peak maximum
principal stress of each monitoring surface in working condition 2 is 12.8 s, 16.8 s, 16.8 s, and
17.5 s, respectively. The occurrence time of peak displacement of each monitoring surface in
working condition 3 is 0.01 s, 2.84 s, 2.88 s, and 12.06 s, respectively. The time inconsistency
of peak maximum principal stress in different monitoring surfaces reflects the traveling
wave effect of non-uniform ground motion. The occurrence time of the peak maximum
principal stress under the combined action of fault and incoherent ground motion is earlier
than that under the single action of incoherent ground motion, which indicates that the
fault dislocation will accelerate the stress concentration of the lining structure.
 of each monitoring
respectively. The surface in working of
time inconsistency condition 3 is 0.01principal
peak maximum s, 2.84 s,stress
2.88 s,
in and 12.06moni-
different s,
respectively. The time
toring surfaces inconsistency
reflects of peak
the traveling wavemaximum principal stress
effect of non-uniform in different
ground motion. moni-
The oc-
toring surfaces
currence reflects
time of thethe
peak traveling wave
maximum effect ofstress
principal non-uniform
under theground motion.
combined Theofoc-
action fault
currence time of theground
and incoherent peak maximum
motion is principal
earlier thanstress
thatunder
underthethecombined action
single action of of fault
incoherent
Water 2024, 16, 3060 andground
incoherent ground
motion, whichmotion is earlier
indicates than
that the that
fault under thewill
dislocation single actionthe
accelerate of incoherent
stress concen-
11 of 15
ground motion,
tration of thewhich
lining indicates
structure.that the fault dislocation will accelerate the stress concen-
tration of the lining structure.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)

(c) (d)
(c) (d)
Figure 9. Axial distribution curve of maximum principal stress at monitoring points: (a) working
Figure 9. Axial distribution curve of maximum principal stress at monitoring points: (a) working
condition
Figure 1, distribution
9. Axial (b) working curve
condition 2, (c) working
of maximum condition
principal stress3,atand (d) working
monitoring condition
points: 4.
(a) working
condition 1, (b) working condition 2, (c) working condition 3, and (d) working condition 4.
condition 1, (b) working condition 2, (c) working condition 3, and (d) working condition 4.

Figure 10.
Figure 10. Peak maximum
Peak principal
maximum stress
principal and time
stress and in the zindirection
time at point Aatofpoint
the z direction each monitoring
A of each
section.
Figure 10. Peaksection.
monitoring maximum principal stress and time in the z direction at point A of each monitoring
section.
4.3. Influence of Fault Dislocation on Seismic Response of Tunnel
To investigate the impact of fault dislocation on the seismic response of the tunnel,
we employ the normal fault dislocation mode with a duration of 2 s. The fault dislocation
momentum is varied at 0.1 m, 0.2 m, 0.3 m, and 0.4 m, respectively. The ground motion input
comprises non-uniform ground motion. Figure 11 shows the z-direction peak displacement
of the monitoring parts of the lining on each monitoring surface under different fault faults.
From the figure, it is evident that the peak displacement of the monitoring sections of the
lining increases with the fault dislocation momentum. Additionally, the profile located
nearer to the upper wall experiences more pronounced changes in peak displacement,
while the profile situated farther away from the upper wall shows a slower rate of change
in peak displacement. In this simulation, the z-direction peak displacement of each section
is top arch > waist arch > bottom arch. Figure 12 shows the peak maximum principal
stress at the monitoring parts of the lining on each monitoring surface under different fault
momenta. The figure illustrates that as the fault dislocation momentum increases, the peak
maximum principal stress at each monitoring section of the lining also increases.
 displacement,
rate of change while
in peak the profile situated
displacement. farther
In this away from
simulation, thethe upper wall
z-direction shows
peak a slower
displacement
rate of change in peak displacement. In this simulation, the z-direction peak displacement
of each section is top arch > waist arch > bottom arch. Figure 12 shows the peak maximum
of each section
principal stressisattop
thearch > waist arch
monitoring > bottom
parts of the arch.
liningFigure 12 shows
on each the peak
monitoring maximum
surface under
principal stressmomenta.
different fault at the monitoring
The figureparts of thethat
illustrates lining on fault
as the each dislocation
monitoringmomentum
surface under in-
Water 2024, 16, 3060 different fault
creases, the momenta.
peak maximum Theprincipal
figure illustrates
stress atthat
eachasmonitoring
the fault dislocation
section ofmomentum
the lining in-
also
12 of 15
creases, the peak maximum principal stress at each monitoring section of the lining also
increases.
increases.
0.1m 0.2m 0.3m 0.4m 0.1m 0.2m 0.3m 0.4m 0.1m 0.2m 0.3m 0.4m 0.1m 0.2m 0.3m 0.4m
0.1m A
0.2m 0.3m 0.4m 0.1m A
0.2m 0.3m 0.4m 0.1m A
0.2m 0.3m 0.4m 0.1m A
0.2m 0.3m 0.4m
30
A 20
A 8
A 4.0
A
30
25 20 87 4.0
3.5
16
25 76 3.5
20 16 3.0
12 65
20
15 3.0
2.5
12 54
8
15
10 2.5
2.0
43
8
D 105 B D 4 B D 32 B D 2.0
1.5 B
D 5 B D 4 B D 2 B D 1.5 B

C C C C
C C C C
(S1) (S2) (S3) (S4)
(S1) (S2) (S3) (S4)
Figure 11. Peak displacement in the z direction of monitoring parts of lining on each monitoring
Figure
Figure Peak displacement
11. Peak displacement in the zz direction
in the direction of
of monitoring parts
parts of
of lining
lining on
on each
each monitoring
surface11.
under different fault dislocation momentummonitoring
(unit: cm). monitoring
surface under different
different fault
fault dislocation
dislocation momentum
momentum (unit:
(unit: cm).
0.1m 0.2m 0.3m 0.4m 0.1m 0.2m 0.3m 0.4m 0.1m 0.2m 0.3m 0.4m
0.1m A
0.2m 0.3m 0.4m A A
0.1m 0.2m 0.3m 0.4m 0.1m 0.2m 0.3m 0.4m
1.0
A 5.0 1.2
A A
1.0
0.8 4.5 1.0
5.0 1.2
4.0
0.8 4.5 0.8
1.0
0.6 3.5
4.0
3.0 0.6
0.8
0.6
0.4 3.5
2.5 0.4
3.0 0.6
0.4
0.2 2.0
2.5 0.2
0.4
1.5
D 0.2
0.0 B 2.0
D 1.0
1.5
B D 0.0
0.2 B
D 0.0 B D 1.0 B D 0.0 B

C C C
C C C
(S1) (S2) (S3) (S4)
(S1) (S2) (S3) (S4)
Figure 12. Peak maximum principal stress in the z direction of monitoring parts of lining on each
Figure 12. Peak
monitoring
Figure 12. maximum
surface
Peak principal
under different
maximum stress
principalfault in
in the
the zz direction
dislocation
stress direction
momentum of monitoring
of monitoring parts of
(unit: 107 Pa).
parts of lining
lining on
on each
each
monitoring surface under different fault dislocation momentum (unit: 1077 Pa).
monitoring surface under different fault dislocation momentum (unit: 10 Pa).
5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
Using stochastic process theory, this paper generates ground motion acceleration
Using stochastic process theory, thisthis
paper generates ground motion acceleration time-
time-historystochastic
curves forprocess theory,
each excitation paper
section, generates
capturing ground
spatial motion acceleration
non-consistency. Addi-
history curvescurves
time-history for each
foraexcitation section, capturing
each excitation spatialspatial
non-consistency. Additionally,
tionally, it introduces sliding velocity section,
functioncapturing
to reflect the non-consistency.
velocity effect of faultAddi-
dislo-
it introduces
tionally, it a slidingavelocity
introduces sliding functionfunction
velocity to reflect
to the velocity
reflect the effect of
velocity fault
effect ofdislocation.
faultofdislo-
cation. Subsequently, leveraging insights from actual projects, a numerical model rock
Subsequently,
cation. leveraging
Subsequently, insights from
leveraging actual projects,
insights actual aprojects,
numerical model of rock surround-
surrounding the tunnel lining and fault from
interaction a numerical
is established. model
Four conditions of rock
are
ing the tunnelthe
surrounding lining andlining
tunnel fault interaction
and fault is established.
interaction is Four conditions
established. Four are compared
conditions are
compared and analyzed: the dynamic response of the tunnel under fault dislocation, non-
and analyzed: the
compared dynamic response
dynamicofresponse
the tunnel the
under faultunder
dislocation, non-consistent
consistent and analyzed:
vibration, faultthedislocation combinedofwith tunnel
non-consistent fault dislocation,
vibration, and non-
fault
vibration,
consistent fault dislocation
vibration, fault combined
dislocation with non-consistent
combined with vibration,
non-consistent and fault
vibration, dislocation
and fault
dislocation combined with consistent vibration. This study delves deeply into the influ-
combined
dislocation with consistent
combined with vibration.
consistent This study delves
vibration. deeply
This study into deeply
delves the influence
into ofinflu-
the fault
ence of fault dislocation and non-consistent vibration on hydraulic tunnels. Finally, the
dislocation
ence of faultand non-consistent
dislocation vibration on vibration
and non-consistent hydraulicon tunnels. Finally,
hydraulic the preliminary
tunnels. Finally, the
analysis examines the seismic response patterns of tunnels under varying fault dislocation
momenta, leading to the following conclusions:
(1) The z-direction displacement varies significantly within the fault area, and there is a
noticeable stress concentration in the maximum principal stress within this region.
Therefore, the fault is a critical area that requires special attention in the seismic design
of tunnels. Under the combined effects of fault dislocation and non-uniform seismic
excitation, the peak z-direction displacement at point D on monitoring section S1 of
the tunnel is −9.01 cm, and the maximum principal stress is 6.7 MPa. The percentage
increase in displacement due to non-uniform seismic excitation is 5.5%, and the
percentage increase in stress is 44.7%. The dynamic response under the combined
effects is greater than the response under either fault dislocation or non-uniform
seismic excitation alone;
(2) Compared to uniform seismic excitation, the peak displacement of the tunnel under
non-uniform seismic excitation increases by up to 6.42%, and the peak maximum
principal stress increases by up to 28%. Under the combined effects of fault dislocation
and non-uniform seismic excitation, the maximum time difference for the occurrence
of peak displacements at different monitoring sections is 11 s. Under the combined
Water 2024, 16, 3060 13 of 15

effects of fault dislocation and uniform seismic excitation, the maximum time dif-
ference is 5.3 s. The results from non-uniform seismic excitation more closely align
with observed damage cases. In longer tunnels, there is a noticeable delay effect in
deformation along the axial direction during an earthquake, and fault dislocation
shortens the time it takes for the lining structure to reach its peak seismic response;
(3) Under the non-uniform seismic excitation, the larger the fault dislocation magnitude,
the greater the peak displacement and peak maximum principal stress at each moni-
toring point of the lining. Compared to a fault dislocation magnitude of 0.3 m, when
the dislocation magnitude is 0.4 m, the maximum peak displacement of the tunnel
increases by 13.04%, and the maximum peak principal stress increases by 40.66%.
Moreover, the peak displacement of sections near the upper wall undergoes more
significant changes, while those farther away from the upper wall experience slower
changes. In simulations, extreme response values mainly manifest at the top arch and
lumbar arch, highlighting these critical areas for seismic design considerations.
The proposed approach and results provide a reference for the seismic safety analysis
of long underground hydraulic tunnels. However, this study primarily focuses on the
impact of the combined effects of fault dislocation and non-uniform seismic excitation on
tunnel responses. Future work would analyze the sensitivity of key parameters such as
fault dislocation magnitude, fault dislocation velocity, direction, and seismic excitation to
expand the research. Additionally, the influence of water within the tunnel will be a critical
aspect to consider in future research efforts.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, H.L. and W.Y.; methodology, W.Y.; validation, Y.C.;
investigation, J.F.; data curation, D.L.; writing—original draft preparation, H.L.; writing—review and
editing, W.Y.; funding acquisition, H.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This research was jointly funded by the Major Science and Technology Project of the
Ministry of Water Resources (Grant No. SKS-2022028) and Open Research Fund of Hunan Provincial
Key Laboratory of Hydropower Development Key Technology (Grant No. PKLHD202302).
Data Availability Statement: Data are available from the authors by request.
Conflicts of Interest: Authors Hao Liu and Dexin Li were employed by the company PowerChina
Zhongnan Engineering Corporation Limited. The remaining authors declare that the research was
conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.

References
1. Cilingir, U.; Madabhushi, S. A model study on the effects of input motion on the seismic behaviour of tunnels. Soil Dyn. Earthq.
Eng. 2011, 31, 452–462. [CrossRef]
2. Lu, C.; Hwang, J. Nonlinear collapse simulation of Daikai Subway in the 1995 Kobe earthquake: Necessity of dynamic analysis
for a shallow tunnel. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2019, 87, 78–90. [CrossRef]
3. Uzarski, J.; Arnold, C. Chi-Chi, Taiwan, earthquake of September 21, 1999, reconnaissance report. Earthq. Spectra 2001, 17, 190.
4. Chen, Y.; Booth, D. The Wenchuan Earthquake of 2008: Anatomy of a Disaster; Springer Science & Business Media: Berlin/Heidelberg,
Germany, 2011.
5. Shen, Y.; Gao, B.; Yang, X.; Tao, S. Seismic damage mechanism and dynamic deformation characteristic analysis of mountain
tunnel after Wenchuan earthquake. Eng. Geol. 2014, 180, 85–98. [CrossRef]
6. Yu, H.; Chen, J.; Bobet, A.; Yuan, Y. Damage observation and assessment of the Longxi tunnel during the Wenchuan earthquake.
Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2016, 54, 102–116. [CrossRef]
7. Cui, G.; Wang, X.; Wang, Z.; Wang, D. Model tests on the antibreaking countermeasures for tunnel lining across stick-slip faults.
Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2020, 2020, 7937595. [CrossRef]
8. Zhong, Z.; Wang, Z.; Zhao, M.; Du, X. Structural damage assessment of mountain tunnels in fault fracture zone subjected to
multiple strike-slip fault movement. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2020, 104, 103527. [CrossRef]
9. An, S.; Tao, L.; Han, X.; Zhang, Y. Application of two-level design method on subway tunnel crossing active fault: A case study
on Urumqi subway tunnel intersected by reverse fault dislocation. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2021, 80, 3871–3884. [CrossRef]
10. Wang, T.; Geng, P.; Li, P.; Wang, P.; Wang, L. Deformation and failure of overburden soil subjected to normal fault dislocation and
its impact on tunnel. Eng. Fail. Anal. 2022, 142, 106747. [CrossRef]
Water 2024, 16, 3060 14 of 15

11. Ding, J.; Jin, X.; Guo, Y.; Li, G. Numerical simulation for large-scale seismic response analysis of immersed tunnel. Eng. Struct.
2006, 28, 1367–1377. [CrossRef]
12. Anastasopoulos, I.; Gerolymos, N.; Drosos, V.; Kourkoulis, R.; Georgarakos, T.; Gazetas, G. Nonlinear response of deep immersed
tunnel to strong seismic shaking. J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. 2007, 133, 1067–1090. [CrossRef]
13. Jiang, L.; Chen, J.; Li, J. Seismic response of underground utility tunnels: Shaking table testing and FEM analysis. Earthq. Eng.
Eng. Vib. 2010, 9, 555–567. [CrossRef]
14. Wang, G.; Yuan, M.; Miao, Y.; Wu, J.; Wang, Y. Experimental study on seismic response of underground tunnel-soil-surface
structure interaction system. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2018, 76, 145–159. [CrossRef]
15. Sun, B.; Zhang, S.; Wang, C.; Cui, W. Ground motion duration effect on responses of hydraulic shallow-buried tunnel under
SV-waves excitations. Earthq. Eng. Eng. Vib. 2020, 19, 887–902. [CrossRef]
16. Jiao, H.; Du, X.; Zhao, M.; Huang, J.; Zhao, X. Nonlinear Seismic Response of Rock Tunnels Crossing Inactive Fault under
Obliquely Incident Seismic P Waves. J. Earth Sci. 2021, 32, 1174–1189. [CrossRef]
17. Zhou, H.; He, C.; Wang, X.; Chen, Y.; Li, J. Assessment of the seismic response of shallow buried elliptical tunnels. J. Earthq. Eng.
2021, 27, 465–487. [CrossRef]
18. Sun, B.; Deng, M.; Zhang, S.; Wang, C.; Cui, W.; Li, Q.; Yan, H. Optimal selection of scalar and vector-valued intensity measures
for improved fragility analysis in cross-fault hydraulic tunnels. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2023, 132, 104857. [CrossRef]
19. Sun, B.; Liu, W.; Deng, M.; Zhang, S.; Wang, C.; Guo, J.; Wang, J. Compound intensity measures for improved seismic performance
assessment in cross-fault hydraulic tunnels using partial least-squares methodology. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2023,
132, 104890. [CrossRef]
20. Feng, S.; Dai, S.; Lei, H. Application of an integrated nonuniform seismic random excitation method in tunnel engineering in soft
soil areas. Comput. Geotech. 2023, 153, 105043. [CrossRef]
21. Feng, Q.; Hu, Y. Spatial correlation of earthquake motion and its effect on structural response. In Proceeding USPRC Bilateral
Workshop on Earthquake Engineering; Science Press: Beijing, China, 1982; pp. 5–14.
22. Huang, J.; Shao, W.; Zhao, M.; Han, J.; Zhao, X.; Du, X.; Lv, X. Simplified analytical solution for circular tunnel under obliquely
incident SV wave. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2021, 140, 106429. [CrossRef]
23. Zhang, G.; Wang, P.; Zhao, M.; Du, X.; Zhao, X. Seismic structure-water-sediment-rock interaction model and its application to
immersed tunnel analysis under obliquely incident earthquake. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2021, 109, 103758. [CrossRef]
24. Huang, J.; Zhao, M.; Du, X. Non-linear seismic responses of tunnels within normal fault ground under obliquely incident P
waves. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2017, 61, 26–39. [CrossRef]
25. Huang, J.; Du, X.; Jin, L.; Zhao, M. Impact of incident angles of P waves on the dynamic responses of long lined tunnels.
Earthq. Eng. Struct. Dyn. 2016, 45, 2435–2454. [CrossRef]
26. Huang, J.; Du, X.; Zhao, M.; Zhao, X. Impact of incident angles of earthquake shear (S) waves on 3-D non-linear seismic responses
of long lined tunnels. Eng. Geol. 2017, 222, 168–185. [CrossRef]
27. Li, X.; Li, Z.; Crewe, A. Nonlinear seismic analysis of a high-pier, long-span, continuous RC frame bridge under spatially variable
ground motions. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 114, 298–312. [CrossRef]
28. Zerva, A.; Zervas, V. Spatial variation of seismic ground motions: An overview. Appl. Mech. Rev. 2002, 55, 271–297. [CrossRef]
29. Jia, H.; Zhang, D.; Zheng, S.; Xie, W.; Pandey, M. Local site effects on a high-pier railway bridge under tridirectional spatial
excitations: Nonstationary stochastic analysis. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2013, 52, 55–69. [CrossRef]
30. Zhang, J.; Zhang, M.; Li, M.; Min, Q.; Shi, B.; Song, L. Nonlinear dynamic response of a CC-RCC combined dam structure under
oblique incidence of near-fault ground motions. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 885. [CrossRef]
31. Liu, Z.; Liu, Z.; Ai, Q.; Ruan, X.; Tan, C. Global reliability evaluation of a high-pier long-span continuous RC rigid frame bridge
subjected to multi-point and multi-component stochastic ground motions. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2023, 164, 107623. [CrossRef]
32. Housner, G.; Jennings, P. Generation of artificial earthquakes. J. Eng. Mech. Div. 1964, 90, 113–150. [CrossRef]
33. Kanai, K. An Empirical Formula for the Spectrum of Strong Earthquake Motions. Bull. Earthq. Res. Inst. 1961, 39, 85–95.
34. Hu, Y.; Liu, S.; Dong, W. Earthquake Engineering; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1996.
35. Li, H.; Zhu, B.; Lu, T.; Yang, J.; Xia, X.; Liu, Y. Seismic response analysis of underground rock mass cavern group considering
spatial inconsistency of ground motion. Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 2008, 27, 1757–1766. (In Chinese)
36. Qu, T.; Wang, J.; Wang, Q. A practical model for spatially varying ground motion power spectrum. Acta Seismol. Sin. 1996,
1, 55–62. (In Chinese)
37. Amin, M.; Ang, A. Nonstationary stochastic models of earthquake motions. J. Eng. Mech. Div. 1968, 94, 559–584. [CrossRef]
38. Hisada, Y. A Theoretical Omega Square Model Considering the Spatial Variation in Slip and Rupture Velocity. Bull. Seismol. Soc.
Am. 2000, 90, 387–400. [CrossRef]
39. Anderson, J.; Richards, P. Comparison of Strong Ground Motion from Several Dislocation Models. Geophys. J. Int. 2007,
42, 347–373. [CrossRef]
40. Brune, J. Tectonic stress and the spectra of seismic shear waves from earthquakes. J. Geophys. Res. 1970, 75, 4997–5009. [CrossRef]
41. Su, K.; Zhang, Y.; Chang, Z.; Wu, H.; Wang, T.; Zhou, W. Transverse extent of numerical model for deep buried tunnel excavation.
Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 2019, 84, 373–380. [CrossRef]
42. He, Y.; Sun, X.; Zhang, M. Investigation on the deformation of segment linings in cross-fault tunnel considering the creep behavior
of surrounding rock during construction-operation period. Buildings 2022, 12, 1648. [CrossRef]
Water 2024, 16, 3060 15 of 15

43. Lysmer, J.; Kuhlemeyer, R. Finite dynamic model for infinite media. J. Eng. Mech. Div. 1969, 95, 859–877. [CrossRef]
44. Yang, B.Y.; Chen, J.T.; Xiao, M. Seismic response and damage mechanism of lining structures for underground tunnels across
fault. Chin. J. Geotech. Eng. 2020, 42, 2078–2087.
45. Wen, Y.M.; Xin, C.L.; Shen, Y.S.; Huang, Z.M.; Gao, B. The seismic response mechanisms of segmental lining structures applied
in fault-crossing mountain tunnel: The numerical investigation and experimental validation. Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 2021,
151, 107001. [CrossRef]
46. Zheng, Y.; Ye, H.; Huang, R. Analysis and discussion on failure mechanism and fracture surface of seismic slope. Chin. J. Rock
Mech. Eng. 2009, 28, 1714–1723. (In Chinese)
47. Yu, H.; Yan, X.; Bobet, A.; Yuan, Y. Multi-point shaking table test of a long tunnel subjected to non-uniform seismic loadings.
Bull. Earthq. Eng. 2018, 16, 1041–1059. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.