## 3 Shake Table Model Tests
### Results and Analysis  
#### 3.4.1 Strain Analysis  
The assessment of circumferential and longitudinal strain along the tunnel's axial direction under different seismic wave excitations and anti-vibration strategies was carried out using the findings from the model tests, illustrated in Figures 7-9. The testing segment of the tunnel model is positioned within the vertical range of 90-110 cm. In general, the circumferential and longitudinal strains within and around the fault section (90-110 cm) displayed slightly higher values compared to other undisturbed ground segments when they were subjected to the three input ground motions. This indicated \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**No.** & **Loading Model** & **Input Seismic Wave** & **Seismic Input Mode** & **Model Loading Intensity** \\ \hline
1 & Model 1 and Model 2 & White noise &
\begin{tabular}{c} Bottom synchronous \\ input X, Y, Z direction \\ vibration \\ \end{tabular} & Load seismic wave peak 0.10 A \\
2 & Model 1 and Model 2 & El-Centro wave &
\begin{tabular}{c} Bottom input X direction \\ vibration \\ \end{tabular} & Load seismic wave peak 0.25 A \\
3 & Model 1 and Model 2 & Taft wave &
\begin{tabular}{c} Bottom input X direction \\ vibration \\ \end{tabular} & Load seismic wave peak 0.25 A \\
4 & Model 1 and Model 2 & Artificial wave &
\begin{tabular}{c} Bottom input X direction \\ vibration \\ \end{tabular} & Load seismic wave peak 0.25 A \\
5 & Model 1 and Model 2 & White noise &
\begin{tabular}{c} Bottom synchronous \\ input X, Y, Z direction \\ vibration \\ \end{tabular} & Load seismic wave peak 0.10 A \\
6 & Model 1 and Model 2 & El-Centro wave &
\begin{tabular}{c} Bottom input X direction \\ vibration \\ \end{tabular} & Load seismic wave peak 0.5 A \\
7 & Model 1 and Model 2 & Taft wave &
\begin{tabular}{c} Bottom input X direction \\ vibration \\ \end{tabular} & Load seismic wave peak 0.5 A \\
8 & Model 1 and Model 2 & Artificial wave &
\begin{tabular}{c} Bottom input X vibration \\ bottom synchronous \\ input X, Y, Z direction \\ vibration \\ \end{tabular} & Load seismic wave peak 0.10 A \\
10 & Model 1 and Model 2 & El-Centro wave &
\begin{tabular}{c} Bottom input X direction \\ vibration \\ \end{tabular} & Load seismic wave peak 0.75 A \\
11 & Model 1 and Model 2 & Taft wave &
\begin{tabular}{c} Bottom input X direction \\ vibration \\ \end{tabular} & Load seismic wave peak 0.75 A \\
12 & Model 1 and Model 2 & Artificial wave &
\begin{tabular}{c} Bottom input X direction \\ vibration \\ \end{tabular} & Load seismic wave peak 0.75 A \\
13 & Model 1 and Model 2 & White noise &
\begin{tabular}{c} Bottom synchronous \\ input X, Y, Z direction \\ vibration \\ \end{tabular} & Load seismic wave peak 0.10 A \\
14 & Model 1 and Model 2 & El-Centro wave &
\begin{tabular}{c} Bottom input X direction \\ vibration \\ \end{tabular} & Load seismic wave peak 1 A \\
15 & Model 1 and Model 2 & Taft wave &
\begin{tabular}{c} Bottom input X direction \\ vibration \\ \end{tabular} & Load seismic wave peak 1 A \\
16 & Model 1 and Model 2 & Artificial wave &
\begin{tabular}{c} Bottom input X direction \\ vibration \\ \end{tabular} & Load seismic wave peak 1 A \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Model test conditions. that the boundary effects of the fault zone reached a certain distance into the surrounding intact rock. After incorporating anti-vibration measures, the strain distributions exhibited a more evenly spread pattern along the tunnel axis in contrast to the initial condition without any interventions. Additionally, the peak strain values decreased with the implementation of these controls. Although certain local strain readings displayed slight increments, these variations were presumed to have stemmed from minor testing inaccuracies. Figure 8: Peak distribution of (**a**) circumferential and (**b**) longitudinal strain increments along the longitudinal direction of the tunnel under the Taft wave.