1

POLITECNICO DI MILANO
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering

PhD School in Seismic, Geotechnical and Structural
Engineering

Seismic Behavior of Immersed Tunnels with Nonlinear
Numerical Analyses

Course in Nonlinear Finite Element with Application in
Geotechnical Engineering

Prepared by:
Kiana Hashemy
Seyedehkiana.hashemydahaj@polimi.it
_________________________________________
PhD student Cycle XXIX Politecnico di Milano
Milano, 01 July 2014

Summary
This report aims to present the general seismic performance of tunnels and specifically the
immersed tunnels against different modes of deformations. Unlike above ground structures, the
seismic response of underground structures is dominated by the deformations of the surrounding
soil. This report reviews the numerical approaches based on finite element method and also some
simplified analytical solutions for evaluation of seismic behavior of tunnels using pseudo-static
and dynamic soil-structure interaction analyses.
KEYWORDS: Immersed tunnels, Earthquakes, Free-field, Soils-structure interaction, Pseudo-
static analyses, Dynamic analysis.
2

Contents
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3
2 Immersed Tunnels Construction ................................................................................................ 3
3 Behavior of Immersed Tunnels in Past Earthquakes ................................................................. 4
4 Seismic Performance of Immersed Tunnels .............................................................................. 5
5 Methodology for the Aseismic Analysis of Tunnels ................................................................. 7
6 Free Field Analysis .................................................................................................................... 7
7 Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis of Immersed Tunnel against Longitudinal deformations .... 8
Finite Element Modeling of the Immersed Tunnel ..................................................................... 9
Finite Element Analysis of the Immersed Tunnel .................................................................... 11
8 Results of Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction Analyses against Longitudinal Deformations
and Parametric Studies .................................................................................................................. 12
9 Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis of Immersed Tunnel against Transversal deformations .. 16
Pseudo-static Analysis .............................................................................................................. 16
Dynamic Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 18
10 Results of Soil-Structure Interaction Analyses against Racking Deformations .................... 19
11 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................. 20
References ..................................................................................................................................... 20


3

1 Introduction
Immersed tube tunnels are generally consisting of several elements, usually of rectangular cross-
section, connected by flexible joints. With the hydrostatic compression being the only force
keeping the tunnel segments together, the design and construction of such tunnels in areas of
high seismicity is quite challenging.
Unlike the case of surface structures whose seismic response is governed by inertia effects, the
response of tunnels embedded in the ground is primarily kinematic and dominated by the
deformations and inertial response of the surrounding soil mass. Therefore soil-structure
interaction effects are essential to the design (Vrettos et al. 2007).
This report is describing the steps required for the evaluation of seismic performance of tunnels,
especially immersed tunnels. The report reviews available simplified solutions as well as the
numerical approaches for free-field and soil-structure interaction analyses. Pseudo-static
followed by dynamic soil-structure interaction analyses has been performed to investigate the
seismic behavior of the tunnel against different modes of deformation as longitudinal (axial and
flexural) and transversal (ovaling/racking) deformations even though longitudinal oscillation is
the critical mode of earthquake-induced vibration and is the most severe loading situations for an
immersed tunnel since it may lead to decompression of the joints and therefore threatening the
safety of the tunnel.
2 Immersed Tunnels Construction
Immersed tunnels typically consist of prefabricated floatable segments, 100150 m in length and
usually of rectangular cross-section which are connected by flexible joints. They are constructed
in a dry dock, made watertight with the use of special bulkheads, floated over a pre-excavated
trench, and lowered with the help of special sinking rings (Anastasopoulos et al. 2007a). Water is
pumped into tanks in the Immersed Tube and the Immersed Tube is gradually sunk by adjusting
buoyancy.
The tunnel segments are connected through some flexible joints in order to absorb large forces
induced by deformation, differential settlement and earthquakes. The connection of two
consecutive segments is performed underwater, through special Gina-type rubber gaskets. Once
the two segments gain contact, the water between them will be drained and Gina gasket will be
compressed due to one-sided hydrostatic water pressure, achieving the necessary water-tightness.
One problem in such tunnels under the water is the gasket compressive loading. Under excessive
compressive loading due to hydrostatic pressure, Gina gaskets may fail in tension
perpendicularly to the direction of the loading (due to Poisson effect). Secondary lines of defense
include the omega seal and longitudinal tendons as while the Gina gasket needs a minimum
compression to achieve water-tightness, the Omega seal doesnt. But since none of them can
4

sustain substantial shear, shear keys are also constructed once the segments have been
connected (Anastasopoulos et al. 2007a).

Aseismic design of the immersed tunnel: (a) schematic detail of the immersion joint, showing the Gina gasket, the omega seal,
the tendons along with the couplers, and the shear key; (b) zoom-in of the immersion joint before the contact of two consecutive
segments; and (c) after the compression of the Gina gasket, installation of the Omega seal and connection of the tendons with the
use of a special coupler
3 Behavior of Immersed Tunnels in Past Earthquakes
There are two immersed tunnels which are known to have been subjected to fairly strong seismic
shaking (Anastasopoulos et al. 2008):
- the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) tunnel in California
- Osaka South Port (OSP) immersed tunnel in Japan
Both tunnels have shown exceptionally good performance during the earthquake sustaining no
damage. The BART tunnel with total length of 5.8 km at 40 m maximum depth was built in the
late 1960s and it was one of the first underground structures designed against seismic loading
(Kuesel 1969). The tunnel is equipped with four special three-dimensional joints capable of
accommodating horizontal and vertical displacements of 8 cm and 15 cm, respectively
(Douglas and Warshaw 1971; Bickel and Tanner 1982). This tunnel was shaken by 1989 Loma
Prieta M
s
7.1 earthquake and it withstood long-period accelerations with PGA of order of 0.20-
5

0.30 g. It survived with no damage, sustaining only a small relative displacement between the
end segments and the approach structures (PB 1991).
The Osaka South Port tunnel with length of 1 km at a 27 m depth had been almost completed
when it was hit by 1995 M
JMA
7.2 Kobe earthquake. The tunnel segments were connected
through some flexible immersion joints equipped with Gina-type rubber gaskets and secondary
Omega-type waterproofing membranes. Prestressed cables and shear keys were installed to
prevent excessive axial tensile and lateral shear displacements, respectively. This tunnel
experienced its design earthquake shaking with a recorded PGA of 0.27 g during this earthquake
but it sustained no visible damages since neither water leakage nor structural cracking were
observed (Anastasopoulos et al. 2008).
4 Seismic Performance of Immersed Tunnels
In contrast to surface structures which are designed according to inertial forces caused by ground
accelerations, the response of tunnels embedded in the ground is characterized in terms of the
deformations and strains imposed on them by the surrounding ground and the compatibility of
the tunnel deformation to that of the surrounding soil (Vrettos et al. 2007). Measurements made
by Okamoto et al. (1973) of the seismic response of an immersed tube tunnel during several
earthquakes show that the response of a tunnel is dominated by the surrounding ground response
and not the inertial properties of the tunnel structure itself. The focus of underground seismic
design, therefore, is on the free field deformation of the ground and its interaction with the
structure.
The evaluation of ground response to shaking can be divided into two groups: (1) ground failure;
and (2) ground shaking and deformation. Ground failure includes liquefaction, slope instability,
and fault displacement. This report focuses on ground shaking and deformation, which assumes
that the ground does not undergo large permanent displacements (Hashash et al. 2001).
Three principal types of deformation occur usually in tunnels (Hashash et al. 2001):
1. Axial extension and compression induced by seismic wave components that produce
motions parallel to the axis of the tunnel and cause alternating compression and tension.

6

2. Longitudinal bending due to curvature caused by those components of the seismic wave
that produce particle motions perpendicular to the tunnel axis.



3. Ovaling for circular and racking for rectangular tunnels deformations in a tunnel structure
develop when shear waves propagate normal or nearly normal to the tunnel axis, resulting
in a distortion of the cross-sectional shape of the tunnel lining.



For the design of tunnels, the deformations in longitudinal and transverse directions must be
considered. In the longitudinal direction, underground structures are subject to bending and axial
compression/tension as the seismic waves propagate along the structure. In the transverse
direction the rectangular immersed tunnels will be subjected to shear strains that will cause
racking of the box structures.

7

5 Methodology for the Aseismic Analysis of Tunnels
In order to analyze the response of a tunnel to different components of deformations described
above, the analysis usually comprises of two main steps: (1) obtaining free field deformation
through 1D wave propagation analysis; and (2) subjecting the soil tunnel system to this motion.
In first step, free-field displacement/acceleration time histories are computed at the base of the
tunnel (seabed) through some one-dimensional wave propagation analyses (Anastasopoulos et al.
2007a). One-dimensional equivalent linear and/or nonlinear site response analyses are conducted
to account for the effect of the soil column on ground motion. Then this computed free-field
displacement/acceleration time histories are imposed on the supports of the tunnel in order to
evaluate the soil-structure interaction on the response of the tunnel.
For long structures, it is important to consider effect of ground motion differentiation along the
length of these structures which may affect the arrival time of the seismic waves as well as their
amplitude and frequency contents. There are three sources of ground motion incoherency: the
wave passage effect, local site effects, and random geometric incoherence due to reflections
refractions, and superposition of incident seismic waves (Anastasopoulos et al. 2007a).
Wave passage effects are accounted by adding an arrival time lag of the ground motion
according Eurocode 8 (2002):

In which

is the distance along the axis of the tunnel, and

is the apparent wave velocity

(

where

is the shear wave velocity and

is the wave incidence angle from the

vertical).
Local site effects are accounted for by performing appropriate site response analyses that capture
the variability in site conditions across the site.
Geometric incoherency effects generally can be ignored since they are not significant compared
to wave passage effect (Anastasopoulos (2007a); Hashash (2010)).
6 Free Field Analysis
One dimensional (1-D) site response analyses should be used to evaluate the influence of the
local site conditions on the propagating ground motions. Site response analysis can be performed
using equivalent linear frequency domain or nonlinear time domain analysis methodologies. The
objectives of the free field analysis are to compute the free-field deformations which will be used
in soil-structure interaction analysis as well as determining the strain compatible shear wave
velocity.
8

7 Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis of Immersed Tunnel against
Longitudinal deformations
Since immersed tunnels are composed of a number of segments connected by non-rigid joints,
longitudinal oscillations constitutes of axial and curvature deformations is the critical mode of
earthquake-induced vibration since it may lead to decompression of joint gaskets and hence
threatening the watertightness and safety of the tunnel (Anastasopoulos et al. 2007a).

Problem definition: the multi-segment beam element applied to strong seismic shaking in the form of shear wave incident at an
angle s sustains compression and decompression in the joints

For axial and curvature deformation analysis of the tunnels, simple equations have been derived
according to Newmark (1967) and Kuesel (1969) pioneering work. In these solutions, the tunnel-
soil system is modeled as an elastic beam in elastic soil which subjected to a pseudo-static
sinusoidal shear wave with wavelength of , displacement amplitude of

, angle of incidence of

, and in homogenous isotropic half-space medium. Maximum values for axial forces, N, and
bending moments, M are given by:
||

|| (

where

is the modulus of elasticity,

the cross-sectional area, and

the moment of inertia of

the tunnel lining. The maximum axial force of the tunnel section

is derived considering a
shear wave propagating at

9

And the maximum bending moment of the tunnel section

is derived considering a shear

wave propagating parallel to the tunnel axis (

The effects of soil-structure interaction are modeled through the introduction of the springs in
longitudinal and transverse directions as

and

. For the first approximations, these

coefficients are assumed to be independent of wavelength or frequency (Vrettos et al. 2007). The
resulting expressions for maximum sectional force by considering the soil-structure interaction
effects are:

Defining the proper values for the vertical and horizontal spring constants (Winkler moduli) is a
difficult task with lots of uncertainties (Vrettos et al. 2007). Shallow immersed tube tunnels
correspond rather to surface box foundation, so the elastodynamic solution for a rigid long
rectangular foundation on half-space proposed by Gazetas (1991) can be utilized to obtain not
only Winkler-type springs but also dashpots to represent the elastic soil-structure interaction
(Anastasopoulos et al. 2007a):

where

is shear modulus at , is the Poissons ratio of the soil, and are the soil
parameters, and B and L are the width and length of the tunnel respectively. The values of
parameters,

, and can be obtained by curve fitting the profile of the shear modulus in the
last iteration of the equivalent-linear wave propagation analysis. The distributed vertical and
horizontal springs are then obtained as the static vertical, lateral, and axial stiffness of a very
long tunnel.
Finite Element Modeling of the Immersed Tunnel
Since immersed tube tunnels are composed of discrete elements connected by joints, the above
equations are suitable mainly for preliminary estimates of the sectional forces. Also in the
closed-form solution described above, the inertia effects in soil-structure interaction are
10

neglected, thus just a quasi-static analysis was performed. However, the inertia effects are not
always negligible.
For more accurate structural design of the tunnel, Finite Element modeling of the complete
system can be used to perform nonlinear dynamic transient analysis of the tunnel. For this
regard, finite-element code, ABAQUS, has been used. Tunnel segments are simulated using
special beam elements that take account of shear rigidity. Then all segments are attached to the
soil through springs and dashpots reflecting the effects of soil-structure interaction. Each
immersion joint is modeled with a two set of node-frames representing the perimeter of the tube-
collar connection which are connected to each other with single degree-of-freedom nonlinear
springs representing the stiffness of the joints. The nodes are connected to the single end node of
the segment beam with special transitional rigid elements as it can be seen in figure below
(Anastasopoulos et al. 2007a):

Finite-element model: (a) 3-D view; (b) longitudinal section along with the force-displacement relations of the constituent
elements of the model

11

The first and last segments are connected to the bored approaching tunnels rigidly.
For the soil-structure interaction parameters as for horizontal and vertical supporting-spring
constants, the ones proposed by Gazetas (1991) which defined previously will be utilized.
For vertical, lateral and longitudinal dashpot coefficients which reflect the radiation and
hysteretic damping of the soil, the same model can be used.
For modeling of the interface which transmit the tangential contact forces from the seabed to the
tunnel by friction and passive resistance, in the longitudinal direction (x), their behavior is
approximated by a simple slider of a friction coefficient

. In transverse direction (y), the

modeling of interface is more complex since sliding is accompanied by passive type deformation
of the backfill. Thus, the equivalent friction coefficient,

, is estimated through 2D plane

strain analyses of the tunnel cross section (Anastasopoulos et al. 2007a).
For the immersion joints, in the longitudinal direction (x), the springs refer to the Gina gasket
which their hyperelastic restoring force-deformation backbone curves as shown in figure below
are consistent with the results of half-size models ( Kiyomia 1995).

In the transverse and vertical directions, the Gina gaskets cannot transfer shear and therefore the
drift of the tunnel depends only on the shear key allowance. Thus the behavior of the joint is
modeled with special gap elements which would only transmit shear after the shear key
allowance closes (Anastasopoulos et al. 2007a).

Finite Element Analysis of the Immersed Tunnel
The finite element analysis composed of two main steps. First, the hydrostatic pressure is applied
statically to the end of each segment in several steps in order to simulate the whole procedure of
installation. Modeling of installation is started from the left side of the model in which the first
segment is activated and hydrostatic pressure is applied at its right end. In the next step, the
12

second segment is activated and hydrostatic pressure is deactivated from the right end of the first
segment while it is applied on the right end of the second segment. This procedure will be
repeated for all segments until all of them are installed (Anastasopoulos et al. 2007a). When the
installation is completed and the tunnel experiences the initial hydrostatic longitudinal
compression, the model is applied to a spatially varying free-field soil deformation pattern
achieved in site response analysis. As mentioned before, the ground motion geometric
incoherence effect can be ignored and just the special variability of the ground motion can be
approximately simulated by passage of shear waves without the presence of wave scattering
(Vrettos et al. 2007). The seismic motion imposed in terms of free-field displacements on the soil
ends of the springs with time lag equal the one computed in previous section.
8 Results of Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction Analyses against
Longitudinal Deformations and Parametric Studies
For the aseismic design of an immersed tunnel, there are two parameters that have an important
influence on the construction and cost of the tunnel, namely (1) the maximum tensile stress
induced by the design earthquake in the tunnel elements that defines the necessary pre-stressing
to avoid decompression of the joints between the elements, and (2) the deformation of the
flexible joint between elements which reflects the adequacy of the Gina profile to keep the joint
watertight. The magnitude of both above effects increases with the increase of the length of the
monolithic elements of the tunnel (Vrettos et al. 2007).
The results for dynamic response of the tunnels with and in terms of
longitudinal and transverse time histories of sliding displacements, joint deformation and
segment internal forces are displayed in figures of next pages respectively.
From these figures, it can be confirmed that the deformation of the joints, the overall resilience
of the tunnel, and hence, its dynamic motion depend on the total number of joints. As the tunnel
segments are significantly stiffer than the Gina gaskets, they tend to behave as rigid blocks and
most of the imposed deformation is absorbed by the joints. Therefore decreasing the number of
joints (increasing the segment length) will increase the deformation. While the modern trend in
non-seismic regions is to go for longer segments, of the order of 150-200 m, smaller length may
be dictated by seismic considerations (Anastasopoulos et al. 2007a).
The longitudinal deformation of immersed tunnels also depends significantly on the properties of
Gina gaskets because it is the primary seal of the tunnel and therefore ensuring its
impermeability is crucial. For a given segment length, increasing the thickness of the Gina gasket
will allows for greater initial hydrostatic compressive deformation, wider deformation margins
and therefore, safer joint against tension and excessive compression (Anastasopoulos et al.
2007a).
13

The magnitude of the recompression and decompression of the immersion joints also controls the
design of the tendons. If it will be proven that the decompression is quite significant, the tendons
will have to undertake large tensile forces to secure impermeability which is an undesirable
mechanism. Shear key allowance also a key parameter in the transverse and vertical deformation
of the tunnel. If this allowance is large enough, joint will allow relative displacement between
consecutive segment and reducing the allowance tends to make the connection more fixed
(Anastasopoulos et al. 2008).


Longitudinal x and transverse y sliding displacements for: (a) 70 m segments; (b) 165 m segments for Kobe-JMA type
excitation and shear-key allowance of 5 mm shear-key allowance
14



Longitudinal

and transverse

joint deformation for: (a) 70 m segments; (b) 165 m segments for Kobe-JMA type excitation
and shear-key allowance of 5 mm shear-key allowance
15



Axial force and bending moment time histories for: (a) 70 m segments; (b) 165 m segments for Kobe-JMA type excitation and
shear-key allowance of 5 mm shear-key allowance
16

9 Soil-Structure Interaction Analysis of Immersed Tunnel against
Transversal deformations
The objective of the soil-structure interaction analysis against transversal deformation for a box
structure is to compute the racking/ovaling deformation of the tunnel given the free-field
deformations. Racking deformations (for a box structure) are defined as the differential sideways
movements between the top and bottom elevations of rectangular structures. The resulting
structural internal forces or material strains in the lining associated with the seismic racking
deformation (

or

) can be derived by imposing the differential deformation on the

structure in a simple structural frame analysis (Anderson et al. 2008).
To account for the effects of transient ground deformation on tunnel structures, method proposed
by Hashash et al. (2010) is presented here. Its aim is to compute the racking deformation of
underground box structure by conducting numerical analyses using pseudo-static and dynamic
soil-structure interaction approaches which are reviewed in following sections:
Pseudo-static Analysis
In pseudo-static racking analysis, the inertia of the soil and structure due to seismic shaking is
neglected. The analysis comprises of three main steps as following:
1. One-dimensional site response analysis for computing the free field racking deformation,

and strain compatible shear wave velocity.

2. Two-dimensional analysis for selection of model parameters by selecting the soil layers
above and below of the box tunnel, use the strain compatible shear wave velocities from
site response analysis to calculate shear modulus values of selected soil layers and the
average. Then the properties of structural members as E, I, A should be obtained.

17



3. Numerical analysis by applying the free-field racking displacement at the boundaries of
the model changing linearly through the height of the box structure.

The box racking deformation can be achieved from the numerical analysis and finally the
Racking Ratio can be calculated as:

18

Dynamic Analysis
The analysis comprises of three main steps as following:
1. One-dimensional site response analysis to compute the acceleration and displacement
time histories for the layer corresponding to bottom of 2-D model as well as the strain
compatible shear wave velocity and damping ratio for layers corresponding to layers in
the 2-D model.

2. Two-dimensional analysis for selection of model parameters including the soil properties
from site response analysis and structural properties.

3. Numerical analysis by applying the displacement time history at the base of the model
and achieving the displacement time histories at four monitored points (A, B, C, and D).


Then using these obtained time histories to calculate the box relative displacement, free-
field relative displacement and finally the Racking Ratio as following:

19

10 Results of Soil-Structure Interaction Analyses against Racking
Deformations
When flexibility ratio, F is , the racking stiffness of the box structure is larger than that of the
surrounding soil, the soil is usually soft and the racking deformations are relatively large. When
, the stiffness of the soil is larger than the racking stiffness of the structure and therefore
the soil is stiff and racking deformations are small.
The results of a series of analyses in terms of the computed racking ratio, R plotted versus the
flexibility ratio, F by using the procedure proposed by Hashash et al. (2010) is displayed in
figure below. The analyses include both pseudo-static and dynamic soil-structure interaction
analysis. Equivalent linear and nonlinear site response analysis results were used as input in the
soil-structure interaction analysis. The closed-form solution in the NCHRP 611 (Anderson et al.
2008) is also plotted in this figure for the validation of the approach.

These results show that for the case of a box in soft soil profile ( , the dynamic and
pseudo-static analysis results appear to be quite similar and they are slightly above the
relationship proposed by Wang. For the structure in moderately stiff soil ( ), analyses
by dynamic interaction give the racking deformation larger than that computed from the pseudo-
static analyses. The racking ratios computed from pseudo-static and dynamic soil-structure
20

interaction analyses plot above the Wang relationship. For the case of a box in stiff soil (
), dynamic analyses results in term of racking ratio are slightly lower than that of pseudo-
static analyses and both are less than those for Wang.
11 Conclusion
The immersed tunnels employed in urban transportation projects have generally performed well
during past earthquakes. Nevertheless, in design of these structures, the seismic loading should
be considered in addition to static forces. Therefore, seismic loading is characterized in terms of
deformations imposed by the soil on the structure and the interaction between them.
The magnitude of deformation developing in the segment joints as the result of the combined
longitudinal and lateral vibrations is the critical case of loading for the seismic safety of an
immersed tunnel. The response in the longitudinal direction is controlled by the extent of ground
motion incoherency along the length of the alignment while the extent of racking displacements
will depend on the shear stiffness of the box structure relative to that of the surrounding soil.
Even in very large magnitude earthquakes with high level of Peak Ground Acceleration, the net
tension and excessive compression between the segments can be avoided by a suitable design of
join gaskets and relatively small segments length.
The analyses also highlight the importance of dynamic analyses to verify and supplement the
results of pseudo-static soil-structure interaction analyses. However, in the case of structure
surrounding by soft soil, application of just pseudo-static analyses is enough since it provides
quite similar result as the dynamic analyses and dynamic analyses is much more computationally
demanding.
References
Anastasopoulos I, Gerolymos N, Drosos V, Kourkoulis R, Georgarakos T, Gazetas G (2007a)
Nonlinear response of deep immersed tunnel to strong seismic shaking, J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng ASCE 133(9):10671090
Anastasopoulos I, Gerolymos N, Drosos V, Kourkoulis R, Georgarakos T, Gazetas G (2008)
Behaviour of deep immersed tunnel under combined normal fault rupture deformation
and subsequent seismic shaking, Bull Earthquake Eng 6:213239
Anderson DG, Martin GR, Lam I, Wang JN (2008) Seismic analysis and design of retaining
walls, buried structures, slopes and embankments, National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, Transportation Research Board
21

Bickel JO, and Tanner, DN (1982) Sunken tube tunnels in: Tunnel engineering handbook., J.
O. Bickel and T. R. Keusel, eds., Van Nostrand Reinholds, Chap. 13, 354394.
Douglas WS, Warshaw R (1971) Design of seismic joint for San Francisco Bay Tunnel, J
Struct Div 97(4):11291141
Gazetas G (1991), Foundation vibrations: Foundation engineering handbook, 2nd Ed., H. Y.
Fang, ed., Kluwer, Dordrecht, Chap. 15, 553593.
Hamada M, Shiba Y, Ishida O (1982) Earthquake observation on two submerged tunnels at
Tokyo Port, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering Conference, Southampton, 723-
735
Hashash YMA, Hook JJ, Schmidt B, Yao JI-C (2001) Seismic design and analysis of
underground structures, Tunnel Undergr Space Technol 16(2):247293
Hashash YMA, Karina K, Koutsoftas D, O'Riordan, N (2010) Seismic Design Considerations
for Underground Box Structures, Earth Retention Conference 3: pp. 620-637.
Kiyomiya O (1995) Earthquake-resistant design features of immersed tunnels in Japan, Tunn.
Undergr. Space Technol., 10(4), 463475.
Kuesel TR (1969) Earthquake design criteria for subways, J Struct Div ASCE ST6:12131231
Okamoto S, Tamura, C, Kato K, Hamada, M (1973) Behaviors of submerged tunnels during
earthquakes, Proceedings of the Fifth World Conference on Earthquake Engineering,
vol. 1, Rome, Italy, pp. 544_553.
PB. (1991) Trans-Bay tube seismic joints post-earthquake evaluation, Rep. Prepared for the
Bay Area Rapid Transit District, Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade, and Douglas Inc.
Vrettos C, Kolias B, Panagiotakos T, Richter Th (2007) Seismic Response Analysis of an
Immersed Tunnel Using Imposed Deformations, Proceedings of the Fourth International
Conference on Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Thessaloniki, Greece, Paper No.
1473.
Wang J, (1993) Seismic Design of TunnelsA Simple State-of-the- Art Design Approach
William Barclay Parsons Fellowship, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Monograph 7