Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 66 (2014) 206–219

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/soildyn

Numerical validation of analytical solutions and their use

for equivalent-linear seismic analysis of circular tunnels
S. Kontoe n, V. Avgerinos, D.M. Potts
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Imperial College London, South Kensington Campus, London SW7 2AZ, UK

art ic l e i nf o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The first part of this paper presents an extensive validation of four analytical solutions for the seismic
Received 12 December 2013 design of circular tunnels. The validation is performed with a quasi-static finite element (FE) model
Received in revised form which conforms to the assumptions of the analytical solutions. Analyses are performed for a wide range
20 June 2014
of flexibility ratios, slippage conditions at soil–lining interface, assuming both drained and undrained
Accepted 8 July 2014
behaviour. Based on the numerical predictions the relative merits of the considered analytical solutions
are discussed and recommendations are given for their use in design. The second part of this paper
Keywords: explores the use of equivalent linear soil properties in analytical solutions as an approximate way of
Quasi-static finite element analysis simulating nonlinearity. The results of equivalent linear site response analyses are used as an input for
Seismic design of tunnels
the analytical solutions. The comparison of the analytical predictions with nonlinear numerical analysis
Equivalent linear site response analysis
results is very satisfactory. The results of this study suggest that analytical solutions can be used for
preliminary design using equivalent linear properties and the corresponding compatible strain as an
approximate way of accounting for nonlinear soil response.
& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction degree of slippage and consequently it is difficult to select an

The seismic design of circular tunnels is currently based on
analytical solutions [11,19,4,5,18], deformation based quasi-static
finite element (FE) analysis [15,10,22,2]and time-domain FE ana-
lysis [15,14,1,6,2,16] which simulate vertical propagation of shear
waves. The above mentioned analytical solutions and quasi-static
FE analysis consider the lining ground interaction, but they neglect
any inertial interaction which can only be examined with a time-
domain analysis.
The analytical solutions are very attractive tools for preliminary
design, as they provide a quick and easy calculation of the seismic
design loads in the tunnel lining in terms of axial force and bending
moment. Most analytical solutions assume either zero friction (full-
slip condition) or full connexion (no-slip condition) between the soil
and the lining. Park et al. [18] provides the only analytical solution,
to the authors' knowledge, that considers the slippage effect at
the soil–lining interface using a spring-type flexibility coefficient.
As suggested by many studies [9,22,16] for most cases the interface
condition is actually somewhere between full-slip and no-slip and,
in that respect, the contribution of the Park et al. [18] solution is
significant. In practice though, it is difficult to, a-priori, quantify the
n
Corresponding author. Tel.: þ 44 20 7594 5996; fax: þ 44 20 7594 5934.
E-mail addresses: stavroula.kontoe@imperial.ac.uk (S. Kontoe),
v.avgerinos@imperial.ac.uk (V. Avgerinos), d.potts@imperial.ac.uk (D.M. Potts).
appropriate value for the flexibility coefficient.
The most widely used and discussed analytical solutions are the
generalised method of Hoeg [11] (often referred to as Wang [25])
and the method of Penzien [19]. These two approaches result in
identical seismic loads for the case of full-slip assumption along the
soil–structure interface, whereas for the no-slip case significant
discrepancies are observed [9,15,18]. Hashash et al. [10] and more
recently Sedarat et al. [22] compared the results of simple quasi-
static finite element analyses with the two analytical solutions in
terms of axial force and bending moments for the no-slip case. These
studies not only confirmed the differences between the two con-
sidered analytical solutions, but they also revealed that the Penzien
[19] approach severely underestimates the seismic axial forces.
Another important assumption which has been adopted by
most analytical solutions is that of dry soil conditions. Naturally,
this assumption is not realistic when tunnels are placed in
saturated deposits and are subjected to rapid loading. Bobet [4,5]
dealt with this limitation and provided a solution for undrained
conditions.
In the first part of this paper, an extended validation of four
analytical solutions [11,19,4,5,18] is presented for various slippage
conditions, a wide range of flexibility ratios and for both drained
and undrained conditions. The validation is performed using linear
elastic quasi-static analyses with the finite element code ICFEP [20].
The second part of this paper explores the use of equivalent
linear properties in analytical solutions as an approximate way of

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.07.004
0267-7261/& 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S. Kontoe et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 66 (2014) 206–219
simulating soil's nonlinearity, which was previously suggested by
Wang [25] and later employed by Hashash et al. [9] and Amorosi and
Boldini [1]. A recent study by Argyroudis and Pitilakis [2] shows a
poor comparison between analytical solutions and nonlinear quasi-
static FE analysis, thus suggesting the exclusive use of fragility curves
derived by numerical analysis for preliminary design. This study
shows that the results of most analytical solutions when adopting
equivalent linear properties compare very favourably with nonlinear
FE analysis and provides possible explanations for the discrepancy
with the Argyroudis and Pitilakis [2] findings.
2. Problem statement and analytical solutions
It is widely accepted [17] that the response of circular tunnels
to ground shaking can be described by three main deformation
modes: (a) axial deformation along the tunnel, (b) longitudinal
bending and (c) ovaling deformation of the tunnel's cross section.
The first two deformation modes occur due to seismic waves
propagating parallel or at an angle to the tunnel axis, while the
latter one is related to seismic shear waves propagating perpendi-
cularly to the tunnel axis.
Obviously, in order to simulate rigorously all these three modes
of deformation, a three-dimensional model is needed. It is widely
Fig. 1. (a) Ovaling deformation due to vertically propagating shear waves (adapted from [17]), (b) corresponding seismic shear loading and (c) equivalent static loading
(adapted from [18]).
207
accepted though that two-dimensional plane strain models pro-
vide a reasonable approximation of the problem, as the most
critical mode is the ovaling deformation of the tunnel's cross
section [19] which is schematically illustrated in Fig. 1a.
In the present study four analytical solutions (generalised
method of Hoeg's [11] (often referred to as Wang [25]), Penzien
[19], Park et al. [18] and Bobet [5]) are examined and compared
with numerical results, concerning the bending moments, axial
forces and lining deflection due to ovaling deformation. When
employing such analytical solutions it is very important to first
appreciate their underlying assumptions:
 The tunnel lining (for the seismic loading) is considered to act as
an elastic beam under a uniform shear-strain field of amplitude
γmax, ignoring any inertial soil–lining interaction.
 The initial stresses in the ground and the lining are not considered
and the excavation is assumed to take place simultaneously with
the construction of the lining.
 The strain is applied under fully drained conditions (note that
Bobet [5] gives a separate solution for undrained conditions).
It should be mentioned that the dynamic interaction can be of
importance when (a) the dimensions of the tunnel's cross section
208 S. Kontoe et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 66 (2014) 206–219
are comparable to the wavelengths of the predominant frequency
of the earthquake loading, (b) the tunnel is relatively shallow and
(c) for stiff structures in soft soil. The loading in the tunnel under
static conditions depends on the stiffness of the lining, the over-
burden pressure and the coefficient of earth pressure at rest, K0.
For the seismic case, the free-field shear stress replaces the in-situ
overburden pressure and the at-rest coefficient of earth pressure is
assigned a value of (  1). Hence the loading induced by shear
waves is assumed as being equivalent to a compressive and tensile
principal stress acting at 451 with respect to the horizontal axis (as
shown in Fig. 1b and c). Clearly due to this assumption, regarding
the seismically induced stress state in the field, all these analytical
solutions predict maximum ovaling deformation at the major and
minor axes at θ¼ 7 451 from the horizontal axis.
The main parameters that govern the predicted loads by the
analytical solutions are the compressibility, C, and the flexibility, F,
ratios and the shear-strain γmax. The shear strain is calculated
either as the ratio of the particle velocity to the shear wave
propagation velocity or, preferably, from a site response analysis
as the maximum shear strain at the level of the tunnel axis.
The compressibility, C, and the flexibility, F, ratios are means to
quantify the relative stiffness of the medium compared to that of
the lining. The compressibility ratio is a measure of the extensional
stiffness of the medium relative to that of the lining and the
flexibility ratio is a measure of the flexural stiffness
Em ð1  ν2l Þr
C¼
El tð1 þ νm Þð1  2νm Þ
Em ð1 ν2l Þr 3
F¼
6El Ið1 þ νm Þ
where Em and El are Young's moduli of the medium and the lining
respectively, νm and νl are Poisson's ratios of the medium and the
lining respectively, r and t are the radius and the thickness of the
lining, respectively and I is the moment of inertia per unit width of
the lining. Values of the flexibility ratio F greater than 1 suggest
that the tunnel lining has lower stiffness than the surrounding
medium. Hence, values of F-1 imply that the tunnel undergoes
identical deformations to that of an unlined tunnel without
resisting the ovaling deformation. The analytical solutions exam-
ine separately the cases of full and no-slip condition along the
interface of ground and lining. Slip at the interface is generally
possible depending on the construction method, the relative
stiffness at the soil–lining interface and the severity of the seismic
loading, while as many studies suggest [9,22,16] in most cases the
reality is somewhere in between full-slip and no-slip. For com-
pleteness the four analytical solutions are presented concisely in
the Appendix.
3. Numerical validation of analytical solutions
3.1. Numerical model and parameters considered
The validation of the analytical solutions was based on a simple
quasi-static model which was created with the finite element code
ICFEP [20]. Quasi-static finite element analysis can either be forced
based, in which seismically induced inertia forces are approxi-
mated as a constant body force, or deformation based, in which
the mesh is subjected to shear deformation, as schematically
illustrated in Fig. 2. In this study a deformation based quasi-
static methodology is adopted, as this approach is consistent with
the assumptions of the analytical solutions and it does not suffer
from the inherent limitations of the forced based approach (e.g.
sensitivity on the dimensions of the model) [13].
Fig. 2. Schematic representation of the mesh configuration in a quasi-static
deformation based analysis consistent with simple-shear conditions.
Table 1
Soil parameters and corresponding flexibility ratios.
Soil's Young's modulus Εm Flexibility ratio
(kPa) F
2018.2 0.12
7427.1 0.46
16,145.8 1.00
35,843.7 2.22
350,455.7 21.7
1,120,000.0 69.4
2,240,000.0 138.7
3,000,000.0 185.8
The assumed model represents a soil layer of thickness of
H¼ 50 m overlying bedrock. The vertical boundaries of the mesh
ð1Þ
are 50 m away from the centre of the tunnel. The soil was con-
sidered to behave elastically with Poisson's ratio νm ¼0.25, while its
Young's modulus, Em , was varied parametrically in order to capture
ð2Þ
a wide range of flexibility ratios F (Table 1). The modelled tunnel has
a circular cross section of radius r¼ 3 m and its centre is located
15 m below the ground surface. The lining's width is t¼0.3 m and
was modelled with elastic beam elements of Young's modulus
El ¼24.8 GPa and Poisson's ratio, νl ¼0.2. Prior to all quasi-static
analyses, a static analysis was undertaken to establish the initial
stresses acting on the lining. During the static analysis, displace-
ments were restricted in both directions along the bottom mesh
boundary and horizontal displacements were restricted along the
side boundaries. The tunnel construction was modelled using the
convergence-confinement method which is described in detail by
Potts and Zdravković [21]. The tunnel excavation was performed in
10 increments and the linings were constructed at 50% of stress
relaxation (i.e. increment 5) prior to the completion of excavation.
In order to be consistent with the assumptions of the analytical
solutions (which ignore the initial stresses in the ground and the
lining), in all cases the “seismic increment” was obtained by
subtracting the loads computed at the end of the excavation from
those at the end of the quasi-static analysis.
For the modelling of the slippage, interface elements of zero
thickness were used [8] with a very high normal stiffness (KN ¼
107 kN/m3) and varying shear stiffness depending on the degree of
slippage. In particular for the full-slip case a nominal value of
shear stiffness (Ks ¼1 kN/m3) was used. In order to be consistent
with the assumptions of the analytical solutions, the vertical and
horizontal displacements were restricted along the bottom bound-
ary, while the vertical displacement was also restricted along the
side and top boundaries of the model. Furthermore, a uniform
displacement u was applied along the top boundary, while a
triangular displacement distribution was applied along the vertical
boundaries of the mesh (see Fig. 2). The magnitude of the uniform
applied displacement u was u ¼0.126 m corresponding to a shear
strain:
u 0:126 m
γ max ¼ ¼ ¼ 0:00252 ð3Þ
H 50 m
 S. Kontoe et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 66 (2014) 206–219
Fig. 3. Comparison of calculated thrust (a) and bending moments (b) by analytical solutions and numerical analysis for the full-slip condition.
This value of shear strain is identical to one adopted by Hashash
et al. [9] in their validation study.
3.2. Drained analysis
In this section, the results of a series of numerical analyses for
both full-slip and no-slip conditions are compared with the four
analytical solutions. Fig. 3 presents the comparison for the full-slip
assumption in terms of lining thrust and bending moment. The
resulting thrust and bending moment for all analytical methods
coincide, while the analytical results are also in excellent agree-
ment with the numerical results for all examined flexibility ratios.
It should be noted that Sedarat et al. [22] performed a similar
comparison for three flexibility ratios and two lining thickness
(t ¼0.36 m and t¼1.26 m). They concluded that the results of
extended Hoeg and Penzien for the full-slip condition in terms
of thrust loads are comparable with the numerical results only for
the thick lining and for low values of the flexibility ratio (up to
3.2). In the present study although the lining thickness (t¼ 0.3 m)
is similar to the thin lining case of Sedarat et al. [22] (which
showed poor agreement with the analytical solutions) the com-
puted thrust values herein are in excellent agreement with the
analytical results for all examined flexibility ratios. It should be
noted that Sedarat et al. [22] modelled the full-slip case with a
frictionless contact, adopting an elastoplastic law for the soil–
lining interface. This prohibits the development of tensile normal
contact stresses and leads to the observed discrepancies, for the
full-slip case, with the numerical results of the present study and
the analytical solutions. While the modelling of the interface
condition in the present study is consistent with the assumptions
of analytical solutions, the use of an elastoplastic law for the
interface condition is more realistic providing that it is accom-
panied by an elastoplastic model for the surrounding soil.
Among the existing analytical solutions, Park et al. [18] is the
only one that considers the slippage effect at the soil–lining
interface employing a spring-type flexibility coefficient (D).
According to Park et al. [18], while the flexibility coefficient can
theoretically vary from D ¼0 (corresponding to the no-slip case) to
D-1 (representing the full-slip case), in practice it is limited to a
narrower range. Fig. 4 compares the calculated thrust and bending
moments with the Park et al. [18] solution for D ¼10  6–10  4
209
which corresponds to Ks values of 106–104 kN/m3 for the shear
stiffness of the interface elements. The numerical results compare
very well with the analytical solution both in terms of thrust and
bending moments for all the considered flexibility coefficients.
The flexibility coefficient D has a more pronounced effect on the
resulting thrust values rather than the bending moments with the
effect becoming progressively larger as the flexibility ratio (F)
increases.
Figs. 5 and 6 present the comparison for the no-slip case again
in terms of lining thrust and bending moment. In Fig. 5 the results
for the lower examined flexibility ratios are shown (up to F ¼2.22),
while Fig. 6 presents the results for the higher flexibility ratios.
Concerning the thrusts, Hoeg, Park et al. and Bobet solutions
match perfectly the numerical solution for the lower flexibility
ratios (Fig. 5a), while the comparison is also very good for the
larger ones (Fig. 6a). However Penzien's solution gives comparable
results with the other approaches only for very low flexibility
ratios, while as the flexibility ratio increases the Penzien method
results diverge from the numerical solution considerably, reaching
differences of 28.3% and 46.3% for flexibility ratios F ¼1.0 and
F ¼2.22 respectively. The underestimation of the thrust values by
this approach becomes even worse for greater flexibility ratios, as
the predicted thrust values are lower by at least an order of
magnitude compared to the other approaches and the numerical
solution. This is in agreement with the findings of Hashash et al.
[10] and Sedarat et al. [22].
With regards to the bending moments, the comparison between
Hoeg's or Penzien's approaches and the numerical solution is very
good only for very low flexibility ratios F o1.0, while the results
of Park et al.'s and Bobet's solutions are matching the numerical
ones for even larger flexibility ratios (up to F ¼2.22 in Fig. 5b). For
flexibility ratios F 421.7 (Fig. 6b) the numerical solution predicts a
very small change in bending moments, while the analytical
solutions result in an increase of its value with increasing flexibility
ratio (with a reduced rate though). The percentage differences of
the bending moments between analytical and numerical solutions
are summarised in Table 2. The superiority of the Park et al. [18] and
Bobet [5] solutions is clear as the maximum observed deviation,
for the flexibility ratios examined herein, is almost half of the other
two approaches (15% compared to 27% deviation of the other two
solutions).
210 S. Kontoe et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 66 (2014) 206–219

Fig. 4. Comparison of calculated thrust (a) and bending moments (b) by Park et al. [18] and numerical analysis for various slippage levels.

Fig. 5. Comparison of calculated thrust (a) and bending Moments (b) by analytical solutions and numerical analysis for the no-slip condition and for F¼ 0.125, 0.46,
1.0 and 2.22.

In order to compare the thrusts and moments (for the no-slip
assumption) of the analytical procedures with the numerical
solution for a greater range of flexibility ratios, all the above
calculations and analyses were repeated for an increased tunnel
radius of r ¼5 m. All the remaining parameters concerning both
the soil and the lining were kept the same. The larger radius led to
an increase of all the examined flexibility ratios. The results are
summarised in Fig. 7, while a logarithmic axis is used because the
range of the investigated flexibility ratios varied from less than
1 to almost 650. The results, both for thrusts (Fig. 7a) and for
bending moments (Fig. 7b), confirm the observations of Figs. 5
and 6 and show that the discrepancy between analytical and
numerical solutions in terms of bending moment increases with
increasing flexibility ratio.
Furthermore Fig. 8 compares the results of the analytical and
numerical solutions in terms of normalised lining deflection at
θ¼ 7451 from the horizontal axis, which is defined as follows:
Δdl Δdl
¼7 ð4Þ
Δdfreefield rγ max
where Δdl is the lining deflection, Δdf reef ield is the corresponding
diametric strain for a circular cross section for non-perforated
ground, r is the tunnel radius and γmax is the maximum free-field
shear-strain at the level of the tunnel axis. In both cases (i.e. full-
slip and no-slip) the discrepancy between the numerical predic-
tions and the analytical solutions is significant for flexibility ratios
less or equal to one, while the comparison improves for higher
values of flexibility ratio. For the full-slip case Hoeg's, Penzien's
 S. Kontoe et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 66 (2014) 206–219 211

Fig. 6. Comparison of calculated thrust (a) and bending moments (b) by analytical solutions and numerical analysis for the no-slip condition and for F¼ 21.7, 69.4, 138.7
and 185.8.

Table 2
Percentage differences (%) between calculated maximum bending moments by full-slip case, showing a good agreement between the analytical
analytical solutions and numerical analysis for the no-slip assumption. and the numerical solution both in terms of thrust and bending
moments with the corresponding percentage differences reaching
F Extended Hoeg Penzien [19] Park et al [18] Bobet [5]
almost 6% for the thrust and 10% for the bending moment for the
0.12 11.93 0.19  1.28  1.28
high flexibility ratios (Table 3). The deviation between the numer-
0.46 13.63 3.86  0.62  0.62 ical and analytical solution is more significant for the no-slip case
1.00 15.64 7.97 0.34 0.34 as depicted in Fig. 10 and Table 3. The numerical analysis predicts
2.22 18.04 12.88 1.51 1.51 larger values of thrust and bending moment than Bobet [5] for low
21.7 22.89 22.06 5.18 5.18
flexibility ratios, while this trend is reversed for F421.7. While the
69.4 25.12 24.86 9.34 9.34
138.7 26.85 26.72 13.35 13.35 comparison in terms of bending moments is within acceptable
185.7 27.63 27.53 15.33 15.33 level the differences in terms of thrust values are significant.
It should be noted that the expressions of Bobet [5] for dry ground
and saturated ground under undrained conditions give identical
and Park et al.'s solutions give identical results, while the Bobet [5] results if a Poisson ratio, νm ¼ 0:5 is adopted.
solution gives lower values for the entire range of flexibility ratios.
For the no-slip case and for F 41 the solutions of Park et al. [18]
and Bobet [5] coincide and are in better agreement with the 4. Numerical evaluation of analytical solutions for nonlinear
numerical predictions than the remaining two solutions. It should response
be noted that Hashash et al. [10] observed a good agreement
between Hoeg's and Penzien's approaches and the numerical The use of the analytical solutions in seismic design usually
solution in terms of normalised lining deflection examining the involves the adoption of the maximum shear modulus and the
no-slip case (percentage differences up to 15.5%), but they con- maximum free-field shear-strain as input parameters. This can
sidered a limited range of flexibility ratios (F ¼9.63, 16.2 and 18.58) lead to erroneous estimation of the lining loads, as it is well esta-
within which the present study also shows a satisfactory compar- blished that soil behaves nonlinearly during seismic shaking and
ison (12% for Hoeg and 11% for Penzien for F ¼21.71). can experience significant stiffness degradation. To improve this
shortfall of the analytical solutions, it has been suggested [25] to
3.3. Undrained analysis perform first an equivalent-linear site response analysis of the
stratigraphy and to then use as input parameters for the analytical
Bobet [4] extended the analytical solutions for dry ground to solutions the equivalent linear (converged value) of shear modulus
fully saturated ground under undrained conditions, for both full and the corresponding “effective” shear-strain (which is a fraction
slip and no-slip conditions and expressed the bending moment of γ max ) at the level of the tunnel axis. In order to verify the validity
and the thrust as a function of the quasi-static free-field vertical of the suggested approach, the quasi-static finite element analyses
stress ðσ v Þ and horizontal stress ðσ h Þ. Later, Bobet [5] presented the were repeated adopting a nonlinear model using for the input
equations as a function of the far-field shear stress (as shown in deformation the effective shear-strain of each equivalent analysis
the Appendix) and further extended the methodology for the case at the depth of the tunnel axis.
of rectangular tunnels.
In order to validate the expressions proposed by Bobet [5] for 4.1. Equivalent linear analysis and nonlinear quasi-static analysis
undrained conditions, the set of analyses for a tunnel of radius
r ¼3.0m was repeated with the water table at the ground surface To estimate the equivalent linear shear stiffness and the
and undrained conditions. Fig. 9 presents the comparison for the compatible free-field shear-strain (γ ef f ) at the level of the tunnel
212 S. Kontoe et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 66 (2014) 206–219

Fig. 7. Comparison of calculated thrust (a) and bending moments (b) by analytical solutions and numerical analysis for the no-slip condition and for a wide range of
flexibility ratios (for tunnel with radius r¼ 5.0 m).

Fig. 8. Comparison of normalised lining deflection calculated by analytical solutions and numerical analysis for a wide range of flexibility ratios. (a) Full-slip, and (b) No-slip.

axis, site response analyses of a uniform one dimensional soil
column of 50 m depth were performed with the software EERA
[3]. The column was subjected to the north–south component of
the Griffith observatory motion recorded during the 1994 North-
ridge earthquake. This record was selected because of its very rich
frequency content which is expected to engage a wide range of
modes of the problem. A parametric analysis was undertaken
varying the intensity of the ground motion and the soil type,
aiming to cover a wide range of shear strains. In particular, the
input motion was scaled to maximum peak ground accelerations
of 0.2 g and 0.4 g and two soil types, a clean sand with plasticity
index PI¼0 and a medium plasticity clay with PI¼50, were
examined. The adopted stiffness degradation and damping curves
were based on the expressions of Darendeli [7] and were
also subsequently used to calibrate the nonlinear model of the
FE quasi-static analysis. Table 4 summarises the examined cases
along with the results of the site response analysis in terms of
equivalent shear stiffness and compatible free-field shear-strain
(γ ef f ) at the level of the tunnel axis. It should be noted that the
ratio of γ ef f to γ max was taken equal to 0.6 for all site response
analyses, which according to the empirical expression of Idriss and
Sun [12] implies an earthquake of moment magnitude M ¼7.0.
Subsequently, for all cases shown in Table 4, nonlinear elastic
quasi-static finite element analyses were carried out employing
the boundary conditions and the lining parameters described
previously for the linear case and assuming no-slip between the
soil and the lining. These nonlinear elastic analyses were carried
out with a cyclic nonlinear model for the soil which adopts
a hyperbolic function for the backbone curve as described in
[23, 24]. The model follows the Masing rules for unloading and
reloading, but this feature of the model was not used herein as
only monotonic loading was imposed for the purposes of this
 S. Kontoe et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 66 (2014) 206–219 213

Fig. 9. Comparison of calculated thrust (a) and bending moments (b) by Bobet [5] and numerical analysis for undrained conditions and full-slip assumption.

Table 3
Percentage differences (%) between calculated maximum thrust and bending
flexibility ratio. The higher the flexibility ratio, the stiffer the soil
moments by Bobet [5] and numerical analysis for undrained conditions. and hence the lower the value of effective shear-strain that results
from the site response analysis (see Table 4). This explains the
F Full-Slip No-Slip differences observed in the trends of linear and nonlinear analyses,
while it indicates that using the elastic properties can result in
Tmax Mmax Tmax Mmax
overestimation of the lining loads for high flexibility ratios.
0.12  3.27  0.15  360.74  14.78
0.46  0.65 2.00  149.66  9.24 4.2. Comparison with analytical solutions
1.00 1.30 3.79  63.89  5.45
2.22 3.05 5.55  30.57  2.38
5.59 8.84  6.75 1.77
Figs. 12 and 13 compare the nonlinear analyses results with the
21.7
69.4 5.88 9.93 0.85 7.43 analytical solutions for PGA values of 0.2 g and 0.4 g respectively.
138.7 5.70 9.70 5.56 13.49 As previously explained Geq and the compatible free-field shear-
185.7 5.59 9.68 7.67 16.35 strain (γ ef f ) at the level of the tunnel axis were used as input
parameters for the analytical solutions. Similar to the linear case
(see Figs. 5 and 6) Park et al. [18] and Bobet [5] solutions compare
study. The model was calibrated to the stiffness degradation very well with the nonlinear FE analyses, Hoeg's solution shows
curves that were used for the site response starting with the larger differences in terms of bending moments, while Penzien
elastic shear stiffness (Gmax) values shown in Table 4. For each [19] underestimates the thrust values. The corresponding percen-
analysis the imposed deformation was calculated based on Eq. (3) tage differences between analytical solutions and numerical ana-
using the compatible free-field shear-strain (γ ef f ) at the level of the lyses are shown in Tables 5 and 6 for PGA values equal to 0.2 g and
tunnel axis shown in Table 4. In order to be consistent with the 0.4 g respectively. Overall the comparison between the analytical
assumptions of the analytical solutions, the simulation of the solutions and numerical analysis for the thrust values deteriorates
excavation and the tunnel construction was undertaken assuming with increasing nonlinearity (i.e. higher PGA level and lower
linear elastic behaviour (using Gmax) and the nonlinear model was flexibility ratios), but it is always within acceptable levels (exclud-
activated only for the quasi-static part of the analysis. In all cases ing Penzien for thrust predictions). Furthermore Fig. 14 shows the
the “seismic increment” was obtained by subtracting the loads comparison between numerical analysis and analytical solutions
computed at the end of the excavation from those at the end of the in terms of normalised lining deflection. Again the agreement
quasi-static analysis. between the two methodologies (i.e. analytical and numerical) is
Fig. 11 shows the thrust and bending moment variation with good with the Hoeg and Penzien solutions showing slightly better
flexibility ratio resulting from the nonlinear FE analyses for all comparison with the numerically obtained deflections. These
cases. It should be noted that the flexibility ratios have been observations confirm that analytical solutions with equivalent
calculated using the equivalent linear values of shear modulus linear shear stiffness and the corresponding compatible shear-
shown in Table 4. The thrust values seem to reach, with some strain at the tunnel axis level as input parameters can be success-
fluctuations, a plateau for high flexibility ratios, while for the fully used for the preliminary seismic design of circular tunnels.
linear case they were monotonically increasing with increasing The proposed approach can lead to more accurate estimation of
flexibility ratio (see Fig. 7a). On the other hand, the bending the lining loads as soil nonlinearity is approximated in a consistent
moments reduce with increasing flexibility ratio, while in the manner.
linear case they were reaching a plateau for the high flexibility Recently, Argyroudis and Pitilakis [2] performed a similar com-
ratio (see Fig. 7b). It should be noted though that, while all linear parison between analytical solutions and FE quasi-static analysis
elastic analyses were performed for the same value of shear-strain, observing a poor agreement. Therefore they concluded that
in the nonlinear case the imposed shear-strain value varies with numerically derived fragility curves should be used for preliminary
214 S. Kontoe et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 66 (2014) 206–219

Fig. 10. Comparison of calculated thrust (a) and bending moments (b) by Bobet [5] and numerical analysis for undrained conditions and no-slip assumption.

Table 4
Parameters considered in site response analyses and corresponding results in terms of equivalent shear modulus and effective shear strain at the level of the tunnel axis.

PI PGA (g) Gmax (kPa) Geq (kPa) F Geq/Gmax γ ef f (%)

0 0.2 140,182.3 72,811.27 11.27 0.52 0.0465

448,000.0 273,580.5 42.36 0.61 0.0310
896,000.0 657,803.7 101.85 0.73 0.0167
1,200,000.0 1,008,380.0 156.14 0.84 0.0083
50 0.2 14,337.48 8364.264 1.30 0.58 0.0850
140,182.3 95,935.35 14.85 0.68 0.0527
448,000.0 336,672.5 52.13 0.75 0.0367
896,000.0 812,796.8 125.85 0.91 0.0102
1,200,000.0 1,075,343.0 166.50 0.90 0.0117
0 0.4 140,182.3 38,412.16 5.95 0.27 0.1465
448,000.0 239,162.0 37.03 0.53 0.0437
896,000.0 559,027.3 86.56 0.62 0.0291
1,200,000.0 860,149.2 133.18 0.72 0.0183
50 0.4 140,182.3 79,797.1 12.36 0.57 0.0905
448,000 289,267.6 44.79 0.65 0.0637
896,000 748,747.8 115.94 0.84 0.0207
1,200,000 1,017,085.0 157.48 0.85 0.0182

Fig. 11. Thrust and bending moment variation with flexibility ratio calculated with nonlinear quasi-static FE analysis.
 S. Kontoe et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 66 (2014) 206–219 215

Fig. 12. Comparison of calculated thrust (a) and bending moments (b) by analytical solutions and nonlinear numerical analysis for PGA ¼0.2 g (no-slip condition).

Fig. 13. Comparison of calculated thrust (a) and bending moments (b) by analytical solutions and nonlinear numerical analysis for PGA ¼0.4 g (no-slip condition).

Table 5
Percentage differences (%) between calculated maximum thrust and bending Table 6
moments by analytical solutions and nonlinear numerical analysis for PGA ¼ 0.2 g. Percentage differences (%) between calculated maximum thrust and bending
moments by analytical solutions and nonlinear numerical analysis for PGA ¼ 0.4 g.
PI F Extended Hoeg Penzien Park et al. Bobet
PI F Extended Hoeg Penzien Park et al. Bobet
Tmax Mmax Tmax Mmax Tmax Mmax Tmax Mmax
Tmax Mmax Tmax Mmax Tmax Mmax Tmax Mmax
0 11.27 15.47 17.01  352.15 15.42 15.70  2.01 15.70  2.01
42.36 13.11 22.31  1336.53 21.87 13.16 5.04 13.16 5.04 0 5.95 22.69 10.88  154.93 7.99 23.07  8.93 23.07  8.93
101.85 7.39 27.27  3115.64 27.09 7.39 12.88 7.39 12.88 37.03 16.99 18.63  1120.89 18.11 17.04 0.37 17.04 0.37
156.14 4.04 28.51  4548.19 28.39 4.03 15.71 4.03 15.71 86.56 12.13 23.12  2570.96 22.90 12.14 7.45 12.14 7.45
50 1.30 5.06 14.81  40.40 7.82 6.24  1.19 6.24  1.19 133.18 7.78 27.78  3858.79 27.65 7.77 14.32 7.77 14.32
14.85 9.43 21.13  507.30 19.94 9.62 2.98 9.62 2.98 50 12.36 14.48 18.46  392.64 17.01 14.70  0.27 14.70  0.27
52.13 7.66 25.86  1727.19 25.52 7.70 9.69 7.70 9.69 44.79 12.41 23.57  1419.93 23.16 12.46 6.67 12.46 6.67
125.85 2.87 28.30  3890.11 28.16 2.86 14.74 2.86 14.74 115.94 4.53 27.98  3576.62 27.83 4.53 14.11 4.53 14.11
166.50 3.40 28.74  4808.00 28.63 3.38 16.22 3.38 16.22 157.48 3.78 28.54  4590.82 28.43 3.77 15.79 3.77 15.79
216 S. Kontoe et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 66 (2014) 206–219
Fig. 14. Comparison of normalised lining deflection calculated by analytical solutions and numerical analysis for a wide range of flexibility ratios (no-slip condition).
(a) PGA ¼ 0.2g, (b) PGA ¼0.4g.
design instead of analytical solutions. They attributed the observed
discrepancies mainly to the following reasons:
 The use of an elastoplastic constitutive model for their FE anal-
ysis which can lead to redistribution of stresses around the
tunnel lining and plastic deformations.
 The simulation of the excavation which essentially modifies the
initial stress conditions around the tunnel prior to the quasi-
static analysis.
 The application of a deformation variation, with depth while an
average value of strain at the tunnel axis is considered for the
analytical solutions.
In order to compare numerical analysis with the analytical
solutions, within the context of a validation exercise, is important
to model as closely as possible the assumptions of the analytical
solutions. Once the validation exercise is completed, a further
comparison can be carried out with more sophisticated numerical
modelling to assess the validity of the assumptions of the anal-
ytical solutions. Indeed, the use of an elastoplastic model is not
compatible with the assumptions of the analytical solutions, while
the nonlinear modelling of the excavation process results to a
stress-field around the tunnel which differs from the assumption
of the analytical solutions of a uniform strain field around the
tunnel. This was further investigated herein by repeating the FE
analysis simulating nonlinearly the excavation process and the
tunnel construction (in all previous nonlinear quasi-static analyses
the excavation/construction was simulated linearly). Fig. 15 shows
the thrust and bending moment variations around the tunnel
lining for PI¼ 0, PGA ¼0.2 g and Gmax ¼448.0 MPa predicted by
numerical analysis both for the case of linear and nonlinear
excavation/construction and the corresponding no-slip Bobet [5]
prediction. It should be clarified that the loads generated during
excavation/construction have been subtracted to facilitate the
comparison with the analytical solution. Clearly the nonlinear
simulation for construction/excavation leads to a non-symmetric
distribution of the loads around the tunnel lining, while the pre-
dicted response diverges considerably from the analytical solution
in [5]. For both numerical analyses, the maximum response is
predicted at θ ¼ 45o to the horizontal axis.
A further important reason for the discrepancy between the
numerical results and the analytical solutions in [2] is the adopted
boundary conditions in their quasi-static model which are not in
agreement with the racking boundary conditions which are
assumed by the analytical solutions. In particular, vertical displa-
cement was not restricted along the top boundary of their model
(as shown in Fig. 7a of [2]). Furthermore the variation of strain
with depth which was obtained by the site response analysis was
imposed to the quasi-static FE model instead of a uniform strain
corresponding to the level of the tunnel axis. A direct consequence
of their adopted boundary conditions is that the numerical model
did not predict the maximum lining response at θ ¼ 7 45o to the
horizontal axis (shown in Fig. 7b of [2]).
5. Conclusions
The first part of this paper examined parametrically the
reliability of four analytical solutions for the evaluation of seismi-
cally induced loading and deflection in circular lined tunnels
under plane strain quasi-static conditions. This was done for a
wide range of flexibility ratios and a variation of slippage condi-
tions. Based on this parametric investigation the following con-
clusions can be drawn:
 Assuming full-slip conditions between the soil and the lining,
the results of the analytical methods, in terms of thrust loads
and bending moments, are in perfect agreement with the
numerical predictions. The numerical results also compared
very well with the Park et al. [18] solution when the slippage
effect between the lining and the soil was considered.
 In agreement with previous studies [10,15,22], the Penzien [19]
solution for the no-slip condition underestimates the thrust
values and thus its use should be avoided. The thrust loads
predicted by the extended Hoeg [11], the Park et al. [18] and
Bobet [5] approaches are in perfect agreement with the num-
erical solution.
 The bending moments resulting from the Park et al. [18] and
Bobet [5] methods for the no-slip case are also in very good
agreement with the numerical results. The bending moments
 S. Kontoe et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 66 (2014) 206–219
Fig. 15. Variation of seismic thrust (a) and seismic bending moment around the tunnel lining (PI ¼ 0, PGA ¼ 0.2 g, Gmax ¼448.0 MPa).
predicted by Hoeg's method start diverging from the numerical
solution even for very low flexibility ratios (i.e. for Fo1), while
for the Park et al. [18] and Bobet [5] methods this divergence is
minor and more pronounced only for higher flexibility ratios
(F4 21.7, reaching 15.3% for F¼185.7). Generally, the deviations
between analytical and numerical solutions in terms of bend-
ing moments are increasing with increasing flexibility ratio
showing a trend of stabilisation for larger flexibility ratios.
 In terms of normalised lining deflection, the discrepancy
between the numerical predictions and the analytical solutions
is significant for flexibility ratios less or equal to one, while the
comparison improves for higher values of flexibility ratio. For
the full-slip case Hoeg's, Penzien's and Park et al.'s solutions
give identical results, while Bobet's solution gives lower values
for the entire range of flexibility ratios. For the no-slip case and
for large flexibility ratios the solutions in [5,18] are in better
agreement with the numerical predictions than the remaining
two solutions.
 The solution in [5] for undrained conditions was found to be in
perfect agreement with the numerical predictions for the full-
slip case. For the no-slip case the numerical analysis predicts
larger values of thrust and bending moment than in [5] for low
flexibility ratios, while this trend is reversed for F4 21.7.
The second part of this paper investigated the use of equivalent
linear properties in analytical solutions as an approximate way of
simulating nonlinearity which was previously suggested by Wang
[25] and later employed by Hashash et al. [9] and Amorosi and
Boldini [1]. Equivalent linear site response analyses were under-
taken varying the intensity of the ground motion and the soil type
covering a wide range of shear strains. The resulting equivalent
stiffness (Geq) and effective shear strain at the level of the tunnel
axis were used as input parameters for the analytical results.
The analytical solutions were validated for the no-slip case against
FE quasi-static nonlinear analyses subjected to the same value of
shear-strain, but starting the loading with the elastic properties
(Gmax).
217
The conclusions drawn from the comparison between analy-
tical solutions and numerical analysis is similar to the linear case.
Park et al. [18] and Bobet [5] predictions, in terms of thrust and
bending moments, compare well with the numerical analysis
results. Overall the comparison for the thrust values deteriorates
with increasing nonlinearity (i.e. higher PGA level and lower
flexibility ratios), but it is always within acceptable levels. With
regards to normalised tunnel deflection, the agreement between
the analytical solutions and the numerical approach is also
satisfactory with the Hoeg and Penzien solutions showing slightly
better comparison with the numerically obtained deflections.
The findings of this study confirm that analytical solutions with
equivalent linear shear stiffness and the corresponding compatible
shear-strain at the tunnel axis level as input parameters can be
successfully used for the preliminary seismic design of circular
tunnels. The proposed approach can lead to more accurate esti-
mation of the lining loads as soil nonlinearity is approximated in a
consistent manner. Analytical solutions are based, of course, on
numerous assumptions and simplifications and therefore detailed
design should involve a more rigorous approach. For the detailed
design, quasi-static deformation based FE nonlinear analysis can
be employed as this approach is capable of dealing with some of
the limitations of the analytical solutions (e.g. realistic modelling
of the excavation and tunnel construction). Ideally though, time-
domain finite element analysis should be used employing an
appropriate constitutive model which can capture fundamental
facets of soil behaviour under seismic loading.
Appendix
This Appendix summarises the equations employed by the four
analytical methods for the calculation of axial force (thrust),
bending moment and normalised lining deflection for the full
and no-slip assumption at the interface. The equations are pre-
sented using a consistent notation for all methods, where Em and
El are Young's moduli of the medium and the lining respectively,
νm and νl are Poisson's ratios of the medium and the lining
218 S. Kontoe et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 66 (2014) 206–219

 υm Þ 3El Ið3  4υm Þ

respectively, r and t are the radius and the thickness of the lining, where R ¼ 7 4ð1
ðα þ 1Þ and α ¼ r 3 G ð1  ν2 Þ
n
m l
respectively, θ is the angular location of the tunnel lining, I is the Δdl
moment of inertia per unit width of the lining, γmax is the ¼R ð14Þ
rγ max
maximum free-field shear-strain at the level of the tunnels axis
and C and F are the compressibility and flexibility ratios defined by
Eqs. (1) and (2) respectively.

Park et al. method [18]

Generalised Hoeg's method (often referred to Wang [25])
Park et al. [18] introduced the shear flexibility coefficient, D in
order to improve the modelling of the slip between the lining and
the soil. The equations that they propose for the calculation of the
seismic induced thrusts and bending moments are given in
(a) Full-slip
relation to this shear coefficient, with D ¼0 and D-1 represent-
1 Em  π
M ¼  K1 r 2 γ max cos 2 θ þ ð5Þ ing the no-slip and full-slip cases respectively:
6 ð1 þ νm Þ 4   
ð1  νm ÞEm γ max r 4Em π
 T¼ 2F þ ð1  2νm ÞC þ 4D cos 2 θ þ
1 Em π ð1 þ νm ÞΔ '' rð1 þ νm Þ 4
T ¼  K1 rγ max cos 2 θ þ ð6Þ
6 ð1 þ νm Þ 4 ð15Þ
 νm Þ
where K 1 ¼ ð2F12ð1
þ 5  6νm Þ   
ð1  νm ÞEm γ max r 2 4Em π
Δdl 1 M¼  ð1  2νm ÞC þ2 þ D cos 2 θ þ
¼ 7 K 1 Fγ max ð7Þ rð1 þ νm Þ
Δdf reef ield 3 ð1 þν ÞΔ''
m
4
ð16Þ

(b) No-slip where

Em π
T ¼ K 2 rγ cos 2ðθ þ Þ ð8Þ Δ'' ¼ CFð1  2νm Þ þFð3  2νm Þ
2ð1 þ νm Þ max 4
ð2F þ 5  6νm ÞEm
þCð2:5  8νm þ 6ν2m Þ þ 6  8νm þ 2D
rð1 þ νm Þ
 
Δdl 4ð1  νm Þ 8Gs FD
where ¼ ð1  2νm ÞFC þ 2F þ ð17Þ
Δdf reef ield Δ'' r
Fð1  2νm Þð1  CÞ  21 ð1  2νm Þ2 þ 2
K2 ¼ 1þ

F½ð3  2νm Þ þ ð1  2νm ÞC þ C 52  8νm þ 6νm 2 þ 6  8νm
Bobet method [5]
It should be noted that no solutions are proposed for the calcula-
tion of the bending moment and the normalised lining deflection
for the no-slip assumption, but the method suggests using the
corresponding equations for the full-slip assumption. (a) Full-slip – dry soil
12ð1  νm Þ
T¼ Gm γ max r sin 2θ ð18Þ
3ð5  6νm Þ þ ð1  νm ÞF '
Penzien [19] method
M¼T r ð19Þ
with F ' ¼ Em r 3 ð1 ν2m Þ=El Ið1  ν2l Þ

(a) Full-slip Δdl 2U r

¼ ð20Þ
 Δdf reef ield rγ max
3E IRn r γ max π
T ¼  l3 cos 2 θ þ ð9Þ
2 r ð1  νl Þ
2 4 where U r is the radial displacement of the lining, which ignor-
ing the thickness of the lining is defined as
3El IRn r γ max  π
M¼  cos 2 θ þ ð10Þ 1 þ νm
2 r 2 ð1  ν2l Þ 4 Ur ¼ ½1 þ 4ð1  νm ÞC 1 þ C 2 Gm γ max r sin 2θ ð21Þ
Em
3  ð1  νm ÞF ' '
where with C 1 ¼  , C 2 ¼  3ð1  2νm ÞF þ ð1  νm Þ
3ð5  6νm Þ þ ð1  νm ÞF ' 3ð5  6νm Þ þ ð1  νm ÞF '
αn ¼ 3 El I ð5  6 υm Þ=2 r 3 Gm ð1  ν2l Þ, Rn ¼ 7 4ðαð1n  υm Þ
þ 1Þ , and Gm is
the shear modulus of the medium. (b) No-slip – dry soil
Δdl T ¼ ð1 C 2 ÞGm γ max r sin 2θ ð22Þ
¼ Rn ð11Þ
r γ max
1
M ¼  ð1 þC 1 þ C 2 ÞGm γ max r 2 sin 2θ ð23Þ
2
(b) No-slip ð1  νm Þ C ' þ ð1  νm Þ  ½ð1  νm ÞC ' þ 43=F '
2
where C 1 ¼  2
 ð1  ν2 ÞC ' þ ð1  νm Þð3  2νm Þ þ ½ð1  νm Þð5  6νm ÞC ' þ 4ð3  4νm Þ3=F '
3El I R Δdf reef ield π m
T¼
r ð1  νl Þ
3 2
cos 2 θ þ
4
ð12Þ 1 ð1  νm ÞC ' 2  C 1 ½ð1  νm ÞC ' þ 4νm 
C2 ¼
3 ð1  ν ÞC ' þ 2
m
3El I RΔdf reef ield  π
M¼  cos 2 θ þ ð13Þ with C ' ¼ Em rð1 ν2m Þ=El Að1  ν2l Þ and F ' ¼ Em r 3 ð1  ν2m Þ=El I
2 r ð1  νl Þ
2 2 4 ð1  ν2l Þ
 S. Kontoe et al. / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 66 (2014) 206–219 219

and [4] Bobet A. Effect of pore water pressure on tunnel support during static and
seismic loading. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2003;18:377–93.
1 þ νm [5] Bobet A. Drained and undrained response of deep tunnels subjected to far-
Ur ¼ ½1  2ð1  νm ÞC 1  C 2 Gm γ max r sin 2θ ð24Þ
Em field shear loading. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2010;25:21–31.
[6] Corigliano M, Scandella L, Lai CG, Paolucci R. Seismic analysis of deep tunnels
in near field fault conditions: a case study in Southern Italy. Bull Earthq Eng
(c) Full-slip – undrained conditions 2011;9(4):975–95.
[7] Darendeli MB. Development of a new family of normalised modulus reduction
6
T¼ Gm γ max r sin 2θ ð25Þ and material damping curves. ([Ph.D. thesis]). Austin: University of Texas;
6 þ ð1  νm ÞF ' 2001.
[8] Day RA, Potts DM. Zero thickness interface elements-numerical stability and
application. Int J Numer Anal Methods Geomech 1994;18:689–708.
M¼T r ð26Þ
[9] Hashash YMA, Hook JJ, Schmidt B, Yao JI-C. Seismic design and analysis of
underground structures. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2001;16:247–93.
1 þ νm [10] Hashash YMA, Park D, Yao JI-C. Ovaling deformations of circular tunnels under
Ur ¼ ½1 þ 2C 1 þ C 2 Gm γ max r sin 2θ ð27Þ
Em seismic loading, and update on seismic design and analysis of underground
structures. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2005;20:435–41.
with [11] Hoeg K. Stresses against underground structural cylinders. J Soil Mech Found
' '
C 1 ¼  3  ð1  νm ÞF and C 2 ¼  ð1  νm ÞF Div ASCE 1968;94(4):833–58.
6 þ ð1  νm ÞF ' 6 þ ð1  νm ÞF ' [12] Idriss IM, Sun JI. User's manual for SHAKE91. Davis: Center for Geotechnical
Modeling, Department of Civil Engineering, University of California; 1992.
(d) No-slip – undrained conditions [13] Kontoe S, Pelecanos L, Potts DM. An important pitfall of pseudo-static finite
T ¼  ð1  2C 2 ÞGm γ max r sin 2θ ð28Þ element analysis. Comput Geotech 2013;48:41–50.
[14] Kontoe S, Zdravković L, Potts DM, Menkiti CO. On the relative merits of simple
and advanced constitutive models in dynamic analysis of tunnels. Geotechni-
1
M ¼  ð1 þ 2C 1 þ 2C 2 ÞGm γ max r 2 sin 2θ ð29Þ que0016-8505 2011;61:815–29.
2 [15] Kontoe S, Zdravković L, Potts DM, Menkiti CO. Case study on seismic tunnel
with response. Can Geotech J 2008;45(12):1743–64.
[16] Kouretzis GP, Sloan SW, Carter JP. Effect of interface friction on tunnel liner
ð1  νm Þ2 C ' þ ð1  νm Þ  ½ð1 νm ÞC ' þ 43=F ' internal forces due to seismic S- and P- wave propagation. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng
C1 ¼  2013;46:41–51.
½2 þ ð1  ν ÞC ' ½ð1 ν Þ þ6=F ' 
m m [17] Owen GN, Scholl RE. Earthquake engineering of large underground structures.
(Report no. FHWA/RD-80/195). Washington, D.C: Federal Highway Adminis-
tration and National Science Foundation; 1981.
1 ð1  νm Þ2 C '  12=F ' [18] Park K-H, Tantayopin K, Tontavanich B, Owatsiriwong A. Analytical solution for
C2 ¼
2 ½2 þ ð1  ν ÞC ' ½ð1 ν Þ þ 6=F '  seismic-induced ovaling of circular tunnel lining under no-slip interface
m m
conditions: a revisit. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2009;24:231–5.
and [19] Penzien J. Seismically induced racking of tunnel linings. Int J Earthq Eng Struct
Dyn 2000;29:683–91.
1 þ νm [20] Potts DM, Zdravković LT. Finite element analysis in geotechnical engineering:
Ur ¼ ½1  2C 1  2C 2 Gm γ max r sin 2θ ð30Þ theory. London: Thomas Telford; 1999.
Em
[21] Potts DM, Zdravković LT. Finite element analysis in geotechnical engineering:
application. London: Thomas Telford; 2001.
[22] Sedarat H, Kozak A, Hashash YMA, Shamsabadi A, Krimotat A. Contact
interface in seismic analysis of circular tunnels. Tunn Undergr Space Technol
2009;24:482–90.
References [23] Taborda D. Development of constitutive models for application in soil
dynamics. ([Ph.D. thesis]). London: Imperial College; 2011.
[24] Taborda D, Kontoe S, Zdravković L & Potts DM 2009. Application of cyclic
[1] Amorosi A, Boldini D. Numerical modeling of the transverse dynamic behavior
nonlinear elastic models to site response analysis. In: Proceedings of the 1st
of circular tunnels in clayey soils. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2009;29:1059–72.
international symposium on computational geomechanics, Juan-les-Pins,
[2] Argyroudis SA, Pitilakis KD. Seismic fragility curves of shallow tunnels in
alluvial deposits. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 2012;35:1–12. France; 29 April–1 May 2009. p. 956–66.
[3] Bardet JP, Ichii K, Lin CH. EERA, a computer program for equivalent linear [25] Wang JN. Seismic design of tunnels: a state-of-the-art approach. (Monograph).
earthquake site response analysis of layered soils deposits. Los Angeles: New York: Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas Inc.; 1993.
University of Southern California; 2000.