Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24 (2009) 482–490

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology

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

Technical Note

Contact interface in seismic analysis of circular tunnels

Hassan Sedarat a, Alexander Kozak a, Youssef M.A. Hashash b,*, Anoosh Shamsabadi c, Alex Krimotat a
a
SC Solutions, 1261 Oakmead Parkway, Sunnyvale, CA 94085, USA
b
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 205 N. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801, USA
c
Caltrans, Department of Transportation, State of California, 3 Mayapple Way, Irvine, CA 92612, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The seismic analysis of underground structures requires a careful consideration of the important effect of
Received 19 February 2008 shear strains in the soil due to vertically propagating horizontal shear waves. These strains result in oval-
Received in revised form 13 October 2008 ing deformations of circular tunnels or racking deformations of rectangular tunnels. Closed-form solu-
Accepted 8 November 2008
tions as well as numerical analyses are used to characterize this soil-structure interaction problem.
Available online 25 December 2008
Many of these solutions assume full normal contact at the interface between the soil and tunnel lining.
This work describes a numerical finite element study of soil-circular tunnel lining interaction with con-
Keywords:
tact conditions that allow both limited slippage and separation to prevent development of potentially
Seismic analysis
Soil-tunnel interaction
unrealistic normal tensile and tangential forces at the interface. The analyses highlight the significant
Frictional contact limitations of widely used closed-form solutions in engineering practice. The finite element solutions
Underground structures demonstrate the need for realistic representation of the soil-tunnel interaction using numerical modeling
approaches.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
While tunnels have generally performed better than above
ground structures during earthquakes, damage to some of these
important lifeline structures during previous earthquake events
highlights the need to account for seismic loading in the design
of underground structures.
Hashash et al. (2001) provide a review of damage to under-
ground structures and analytical approaches for seismic evalua-
tions of these structures. In general, damage to tunnels is greatly
reduced with increased overburden, and damage is greater in soils
than in competent rock. Earthquake effects on underground struc-
tures can be grouped into ground failure and ground shaking.
Ground failure constitutes conditions such as liquefaction, fault
displacement, and slope stability.
The collapse of the Daikai subway metro station in the 1995
Hyogo-ken Nambu earthquake in Kobe, Japan, was the first such
significant collapse of an urban underground structure due to
earthquake shaking, rather than ground instability. No seismic pro-
visions were implemented in the 1962 design of this station as was
pointed out by Toshio et al. (1998) and the complete collapse of
this structure was due to loss of bearing capacity of the center
columns. Giannakou et al. (2005) suggests that the failure of
Bolu tunnel in Turkey, which was under construction during
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 217 333 6986.
E-mail addresses: hassan@scsolutions.com (H. Sedarat), kozak@scsolutions.com
(A. Kozak), hashash@illinois.edu (Y.M.A. Hashash), anoosh_shamsabadi@dot.ca.gov
(A. Shamsabadi), alex@scsolutions.com (A. Krimotat).
1999 Izmit, Turkey earthquake, was the result of the intensity of
the seismic motions due to proximity of the seismic source to
the tunnel.
Three types of deformations characterize the response of under-
ground structures to ground shaking: (1) axial compression and
extension; (2) longitudinal bending; and (3) ovaling/racking.
Ovaling/racking deformations have been the subject of many
papers that describe closed-form solutions as well as numerical
analysis approaches. For example, Kramer et al. (2007) describe de-
tailed three-dimensional nonlinear ovaling analysis of a circular
tunnel and Huo et al. (2006) developed closed-form solutions for
rectangular linings. By far the best known closed-form solutions
to compute liner forces subjected to seismic racking were devel-
oped for circular tunnels by Wang (1993) and Penzien and Wu
(1998) and are widely used in engineering practice. Hashash
et al. (2005) described the discrepancies between these two solu-
tions and used numerical analyses under the same assumptions
to better understand the differences between the two the solutions
and their causes. The closed-form solutions are limited to the fol-
lowing assumptions:
1. In the direction normal to the lining, soil and lining are fully
connected.
2. In the tangential direction, generally two cases are considered.
These two cases are best known as:
a. ‘‘full-slip” that assumes no tangential resistance transmitted
from soil to the lining and
b. ‘‘no-slip” that assumes full connection between soil and the
lining.

0886-7798/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tust.2008.11.002
 H. Sedarat et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24 (2009) 482–490
Fig. 1. Geometry and loading: (a) finite element model; (b) excavation load; (c) excavation force time function.
3. Tunnel is circular with uniform thickness and without any
discontinuities.
4. Soil and lining are massless and linear elastic.
5. Plane strain conditions are postulated for soil and lining.
6. The effect of construction sequence is not considered.
These assumptions are often not representative of actual condi-
tions because
1. Soil and lining are not integrally connected in the direction nor-
mal to the lining. An exception would be when rock bolts or soil
reinforcement elements are used.
2. ‘‘Full-slip” or ‘‘no-slip” conditions are idealizations of real con-
tact of soil and lining.
3. The shape of the lining is rarely circular or rectangular with uni-
form thickness.
4. Soil around the lining may yield.
5. The construction sequence influences the state of stress at the
lining interface with the ground.
These deficiencies of the closed-form solutions are readily
overcome through the use of numerical analysis techniques pro-
vided that proper characterizations of the physical system are
implemented into the numerical models. Unfortunately, almost
all the numerical analyses presented in known literature incorpo-
rate the same assumptions as the closed-form solutions, and
therefore, have the same limited applicability. In engineering
practice there is sometime heavy reliance on closed form solu-
tions (Wang, 1993; Penzien and Wu, 1998) without full recogni-
tion of the limitations of these solutions. In this paper, a finite
element based approach with rigorous characterization of the
interface between soil and lining of circular tunnels through fric-
tional contact is proposed. Although only circular tunnel results
are reported in this paper, this does not result in any limitation
of the proposed modeling approach and it is just a convenient
way to compare with existing closed-form solutions. The behav-
ior of the surrounding soil is assumed to be linear elastic, similar
to the assumption in closed form solutions, in order to highlight
the important role of modeling the soil-lining interface. In reality
soil behavior is highly nonlinear and should be represented in a
numerical analysis. The contact condition prevents development
483
of tensile normal stresses at the soil-tunnel interface. A Coulomb
friction law is used to limit the tangential tractions. In this paper,
the terms ‘‘normal stresses” and ‘‘tangential tractions” are used
to describe normal and tangential components of the soil-tunnel
interaction forces per unit area of the interface surface, respec-
tively. The term ‘‘total tractions” is also used as a reference to
vector summation of the normal and tangential components.
The effect of frictional contact on the tunnel seismic response
is examined for a range of soil and lining stiffness and friction
coefficients. In all the cases, influence of gravity load and con-
struction sequence on the state of stress of the tunnel is taken
into account. The results of the analyses show that the more real-
istic modeling procedure using frictional contact to represent the
interface between the tunnel liner and surrounding soil results in
lining forces (due to seismically induced racking deformations)
that are significantly different from those of the closed-form
solutions. The study highlights the need for high fidelity tunnel
and soil specific numerical modeling of seismic racking. It is
not the intent of the study to develop alternative correlations.
Analysis of tunnels anchored to the surrounding soil with means
like rock bolts or soil reinforcement is outside the scope of this
work.
2. Numerical modeling of tunnel ovaling with contact interface
Fig. 1a shows the 2D finite element model used in this study
and analyzed using the general purpose finite element program
ADINA (2005). The soil continuum and the tunnel are represented
with solid elements and beam elements of a unit width, respec-
tively. The interface between soil and tunnel is modeled with fric-
tional contact. The coefficient of friction is varied to examine its
effect on the tunnel response.
It is important to have realistic initial stress conditions prior to
application of racking deformations due to seismic loading when
the soil-tunnel interface is modeled with the frictional contact.
The in situ state of stress is first established in the soil prior to
tunnel construction. The overburden pressure is applied at the
top of the mesh as shown in Fig. 1a. The soil initial stress is spec-
ified based on the assumed coefficient of lateral earth pressure K0.
In order to account for the soil stress relaxation and arching
during the tunnel excavation and construction, the widely used
484 H. Sedarat et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24 (2009) 482–490

Table 1 3. Finite element simulation with the closed-form solution

Flexibility ratios*.
Lining thickness, t (m) Soft soil, 0.1Es Basic soil, Es Stiff soil, 10Es
0.36 14.3 143 1430
1.26 0.32 3.2 32
* connection and ‘‘no-slip” condition) of Wang (1993) and Penzien
The flexibility ratios are calculated according to Eq. (1) where R = 5m is the tunnel
radius; Ec = 2.22E+04 MPa and mc = 0.3 are the modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s
ratio of the lining, respectively; Es = 8.16E+02 MPa and ms = 0.3 are the modulus of
elasticity and Poisson’s ratio of the soil, respectively.
b-method (Möller, 2006) is employed. The equivalent (excava-
tion) load is applied at the tunnel perimeter (Fig. 1b) and reduced
prior to lining installation as illustrated in Fig. 1c. The soil exca-
vation and tunnel construction sequence are simulated in three
steps. At time Step 1, the excavation load is in equilibrium with
the initial in situ soil stresses and no displacements occur. From
the first to the second time steps, soil stress relaxation is simu-
lated by decreasing the excavation load by a factor b = 0.50. This
b factor value is usually assumed and found to be conservative for
the tunnel forces based on an extensive study reported by Möller
(2006). The tunnel construction is simulated by activation of the
lining members (beam finite elements) between the second and
the third time steps. After time Step 3 the remaining excavation
load is removed.
Racking deformations due to seismic loading are then imposed
as inverted triangular displacements along the lateral boundaries
of the model and uniform lateral displacements along the top
boundary (Fig. 1a).
As the relative stiffness of soil and lining significantly affects the
response of tunnel, the flexibility ratio F suggested by Wang (1993)
is used to characterize the relative stiffness:
Es ð1  m2c ÞR3
F¼
6Ec Ið1 þ ms Þ
where Ec and mc are modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio of the
lining; Es and ms modulus of elasticity and Poisson’s ratio of the soil;
R, radius of the tunnel; I, moment of inertia of the lining.
The soil stiffness, the tunnel thickness, the friction coefficient as
well as the coefficient of initial lateral earth pressure are varied in
the parametric studies presented in the following sections. The soil
and tunnel material properties are assumed to be linear elastic.
Zero coefficient of friction represents a condition in which there
is no tangential traction between the soil and lining and is analo-
gous to the ‘‘full-slip” condition in closed form solutions. Neverthe-
less, as it will be shown later, due to the absence of the tensile
normal contact stresses, the frictionless contact interface provides
different tunnel response compared to that of the ‘‘full-slip” condi-
tion in closed form solutions. A coefficient of friction f = 1 corre-
sponds to a friction angle of 45°.
assumptions
A numerical simulation of the circular tunnel ovaling is per-
formed with the closed-form solution assumptions (full normal
and Wu (1998) to establish a reference point for further studies.
A 0.36 m thick tunnel in a soil with flexibility ratio of 143 and coef-
ficient of lateral earth pressure equal to 1.0 (Table 1) is analyzed.
After establishing initial stress conditions, racking deformations
are applied corresponding to a soil shear strain equal to 0.5%. Table
2 lists the seismic increment of the lining thrust, shear force and
bending moment due to ovaling deformations. The seismic incre-
ment is obtained by subtracting the forces computed at the end
of tunnel construction from those at the end of racking analysis.
Table 2 includes the corresponding values computed from the
closed-form solutions of Wang (1993) and Penzien and Wu
(1998). When using the same assumptions, the finite element anal-
ysis results in a lining thrust, moment and shear values which
more closely match those of Wang’s closed-form solution (Table
2). This is in good agreement with the findings of Hashash et al.
(2005). Although, Wang’s closed-form solution provides reason-
able value of the thrust (discrepancy is just 2%), the bending mo-
ment value seems to be less accurate. The error (37%) is high
because the bending moment is numerically small. The difference
is about 100 kN-m/m compared to the thrust value of about
8000 kN/m.
4. Effect of frictional contact interface and limited
circumferential slippage on the response of the tunnel
The analysis in the previous section is repeated using a contact
interface. The coefficient of friction at the contact surface is as-
ð1Þ sumed to be 1.0. The lining sectional force seismic increments
are compared in Table 2. While the shear and moment increments
are similar to those from the ‘‘no-slip” analysis, the thrust incre-
ment is much smaller. The computed thrust increment is signifi-
cantly different from both closed-form solutions.
The diagram of the lining total thrust (due to gravity load and
ovaling at soil shear strain equal to 0.5%) is quite different qualita-
tively and quantitatively from that for the ‘‘no-slip” analysis
(Fig. 2). The contact interface results in compressive thrust of rela-
tively small value (maximum compressive thrust = 3,745 kN/m in
Fig. 2a), whereas the ‘‘no-slip” connection results in both tensile
and compressive thrusts in the lining (maximum compressive
thrust = 9,494 kN/m and maximum tensile thrust = 6,096 kN/m in
Fig. 2b). The cause of this dissimilarity is the difference in the nor-
mal stresses and tangential tractions at the interface between soil
and lining (Fig. 3). Since the finite element model with the contact
condition prevents tensile (pulling) normal stresses and limits the

Table 2
Seismic increment of lining sectional forces at soil shear strain of 0.5%; F = 143, t = 0.36m, K0 = 1.0.

Force/moment Finite element analysis Closed-form solutions

Closed-form solution Frictional contact, Wang no-slip condition Penzien & Wu ‘‘no-slip” condition
assumptions f = 1.0
Thrust increment, P (kN/m) 7795 1920 7988 152
(1.02)* (4.16)* (0.02) (0.08)
Shear force increment, V (kN/m) 126 132  152
(1.21) (1.15)
Bending moment increment, 278 303 380 379
M (kN-m/m) (1.37) (1.25) (1.36) (1.25)
*
For the closed-form solutions, ratios to the finite element seismic increment forces and moments are given in parenthesis. The first number in the parenthesis corresponds
to the numerical analysis with the closed-form solution assumptions whereas the second one corresponds to the finite element analysis with contact interface and friction
coefficient equal to 1.0.
 H. Sedarat et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24 (2009) 482–490 485

Fig. 2. Lining total thrust at soil shear strain of 0.5%: (a) frictional contact (f = 1.0); (b) ‘‘no-slip” connection; displacement magnification factor = 20, F = 143, t = 0.36 m,
K0 = 1.0.

Fig. 3. Soil-tunnel interaction tractions at soil shear strain of 0.5%: (a) contact interface (f = 1.0); (b) ‘‘no-slip” connection; displacement magnification factor = 20, F = 143,
t = 0.36 m, K0 = 1.0.

Fig. 4. Soil maximum shear stress at soil shear strain of 0.5%: (a) contact interface (f = 1.0); (b) ‘‘no-slip” connection; F = 143, t = 0.36 m, K0 = 1.0.
486 H. Sedarat et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24 (2009) 482–490
Fig. 5. Contact tractions, lining total thrust and bending moment at soil shear strain of 0.5% under different friction coefficients: (a) f = 0 and (b) f = 1.0; F = 143, t = 0.36 m,
K0 = 1.0.
tangential tractions, the total tractions are much lower (Fig. 3a). In
the case of ‘‘no-slip” condition, total tractions at the soil-tunnel
interface are much larger with both compressive and tensile (push-
ing and pulling) normal components (Fig. 3b). Consequently, the
analysis with contact interface results in smaller regions in soil
with high shear stresses compared with the ‘‘no-slip” condition
(Fig. 4).
5. Effects of coefficient of friction, soil shear strain, and lining
thickness on the tunnel response
Distributions of contact total tractions, lining total thrust and
bending moment are compared for two values of friction coeffi-
cient: 0 and 1.0 in Fig. 5a and b respectively. Other model param-
eters are F = 143, t = 0.36m, K0 = 1.0. At a soil shear strain of 0.5%,
the frictionless contact (f = 0) analysis results in contact stresses
that are normal to the tunnel (tangential component is zero) and
relatively uniform: the deviation is between 28% and 14% from
the mean value. Similarly the total thrust is relatively uniform
along the tunnel circumference with a maximum deviation of
±6%. The high friction coefficient (f = 1.0) analysis results in large
tangential traction with the maximum total traction 2.3 times lar-
ger than the maximum contact total traction for f = 0 analysis. De-
spite the fact that all normal contact components are compressive,
this contact total traction distribution results in tensile and com-
pressive thrust increments which lead to significantly non-uniform
total thrust. The direction of the tangential tractions illustrates
their essential contribution to the tunnel ovaling and lining thrust
seismic increments. The tunnel ovaling is exclusively due to the
normal contact stress distribution along the tunnel perimeter in
the case of frictionless contact. Note that the friction coefficient in-
crease does not significantly affect the lining bending moment
whereby the maximum value decreases by 9%. The lining bending
moment diagram is a function of the geometry or shape of the de-
formed tunnel which does not vary significantly due to the specific
contact interface assumption.
The nonlinear behavior of the thrust in the tunnel lining when
interface is modeled with frictional contact can be further under-
stood by varying the racking shear strains. In Fig. 6, the maximum
compressive thrust seismic increment versus soil shear strain is
plotted for a set of friction coefficient values: 0, 0.5, 0.8, and 1.0.
These correspond to analyses with F = 143, t = 0.36m, k0 = 1.0. At
early stages of ovaling, the soil-tunnel interface is locked in the
tangential direction which allows for a significant and rapid build
up of thrust in the lining until the frictional limit resistance at
the interface is reached. This transition occurs at a higher value
of thrust for the higher value of the friction coefficient. Afterwards,
some local slippage between the lining and the soil develops. The
further increase in the thrust is due to the differential normal con-
tact stress. At this stage, the rate of increase in the thrust is the
same for all friction coefficients (Fig. 6). In the course of ovaling
without friction (f = 0), thrust increases due to the normal contact
pressure of the soil. In case of frictional contact (f > 0), the thrust
increment is developed due to the normal and tangential traction
at the soil-tunnel interface until friction limit resistance is reached
and slippage occurs. From that moment on, further increase of the
thrust is due to the same factor as in case of frictionless contact,
namely, the normal contact pressure only.
Fig. 7 compares the seismic thrust increment from the numerical
analyses with the ‘‘full-slip” and ‘‘no-slip” closed-form solutions by
f = 1.0
2000
f = 0.8
Thrust (kN/m)
f = 0.5
1000
f = 0.0
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.010
Soil Shear Strain
Fig. 6. Seismic increment of lining thrust versus soil shear strain under different
friction coefficients: 0, 0.5, 0.8, and 1.0; F = 143, t = 0.36 m, K0 = 1.0.
 H. Sedarat et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24 (2009) 482–490 487

Soil Shear Strain

0.001 0.005 0.010

15975
7988
Thrust (kN/m)

2000

1000

0
Wang Full-Slip

Wang No-Slip
Wang No-Slip

Wang Full-Slip

Penzien No-Slip

Wang Full-Slip

Penzien No-Slip
Wang No-Slip
Penzien Full-Slip

Penzien No-Slip

Penzien Full-Slip

Penzien Full-Slip
Contact - f=1.0
Contact - f=1.0

Contact - f=1.0
Contact - f=0.0

Contact - f=0.0
Contact - f=0.5
Contact - f=0.8
Contact - f=0.5
Contact - f=0.8

Contact - f=0.0
Contact - f=0.5
Contact - f=0.8
Fig. 7. Seismic increment of lining thrust at different soil shear strains: 0.1%, 0.5%,
and 1.0%; F = 143, t = 0.36 m, K0 = 1.0.
Fig. 9. Seismic increment of lining thrust at soil shear strain of 0.5% under different
friction coefficients: 0, 0.5, 0.8, and 1.0; F = 3.23, t = 1.26 m, K0 = 1.0.

(F = 143) and 1.26m (F = 3.2), respectively (see Table 1). It is worth

noting that a 1.26m lining is far too thick compared to the lining
thickness commonly used in practice, however, it is used in this
numerical study to account for wide variations in flexibility ratios.
A value of K0 = 1.0, and friction coefficients 0, 0.5, 0.8, and 1.0 are
used. In all cases, as the coefficient of friction increases, the thrust
increment increases as well. However, the thicker lining develops
much greater thrust seismic increment and is less sensitive to
the soil-tunnel friction.

6. Parametric finite element analyses and closed-form solutions

A series of numerical analyses are conducted as listed in Table 1

Fig. 8. Seismic increment of lining thrust at soil shear strain of 0.5% under different
friction coefficients: 0, 0.5, 0.8, and 1.0; F = 143, t = 0.36 m, K0 = 1.0.
Wang (1993) and Penzien and Wu (1998). Although, at a relatively
small soil shear strain 0.1%, Wang’s ‘‘no-slip” closed-form solution
provides a thrust increment value comparable with those from
the numerical analyses, at larger shear strains it gives a much
higher value (Fig. 7). The closed-form solution is linear, whereas
the finite element model incorporates non-linearity of the soil-
tunnel interface. Therefore, neither of the two closed-form
solutions provides estimates of the thrust that are comparable with
those from the numerical analyses within a wide range of the soil
shear strain values.
Figs. 8 and 9 present computed thrust seismic increment distri-
bution at a soil strain of 0.5% for the lining thickness of 0.36m
and Table 3 to further illustrate the influence of various factors on
the computed response of the tunnel lining and the difference with
the closed-form solutions.
Tables 4 and 5 summarize the maximum and minimum seismic
increments of the lining thrust, shear force, and bending moment
obtained from numerical analyses and compared with those from
the closed-form solutions at the soil shear strain equal to 0.5%. In
addition, the lining diametric strain values are summarized in
Table 6. The finite element thrust seismic increments are sensitive
to various interface conditions and, in general, differ substantially
from those of the closed-form solutions, whereas seismic incre-
ments of the shear and bending moment obtained from the numer-
ical and closed-form solutions are within the same order of
magnitude. As discussed earlier, the bending moment diagram cor-
responds to the deformed shape of the tunnel which does not vary
significantly due to variation in contact condition. In some cases,
the closed-form solutions (Penzien and Wu, 1998; Wang, 1993)
correlate with the numerical results within tolerances acceptable
for practical purposes, while in many other cases they do not. Figs.
10 and 11 present graphical comparisons of the maximum lining

Table 3
Analyses’ matrix.

Case ID Lining radius, R (m) Lining thickness, t (m) Flexibility ratio, F Coefficient of friction, f Coefficient of lateral earth pressure, K0
2B3  01 5 0.36 14.3 0.0, 0.5, 0.8, 1.0 0.5, 1.0
2B3 5 0.36 143 0.0, 0.5, 0.8, 1.0 0.5, 1.0
2B3  10 5 0.36 1430 0.0, 0.5, 0.8, 1.0 0.5, 1.0
B3  01 5 1.26 0.32 0.0, 0.5, 0.8, 1.0 0.5, 1.0
B3 5 1.26 3.2 0.0, 0.5, 0.8, 1.0 0.5, 1.0
B3  10 5 1.26 32 0.0, 0.5, 0.8, 1.0 0.5, 1.0
488 H. Sedarat et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24 (2009) 482–490

Table 4
Maximum/minimum seismic increment of lining sectional forces at soil shear strain of 0.5% under different flexibility ratios: 14.3, 143, and 1430; t = 0.36m.

Flexibility ratio Force/moment* Closed-form solution Finite element solution with contact interface
Wang Penzien &Wu
Full-slip No-slip Full-slip No-slip K0 Coefficient of friction
0 0.5 0.8 1.0
14.3 max P 69 931 69 136 0.5 91 681 860 905
1.0 113 843 924 928
min P 69 931 69 136 0.5 72 628 819 858
1.0 80 813 913 922
V   69 136 0.5 130 125 119 112
1.0 122 120 108 107
M 345 345 345 341 0.5 299 276 270 266
1.0 301 263 264 264
143 max P 76 7988 76 152 0.5 217 811 1240 1550
1.0 231 1010 1545 1920
min P 76 7988 76 152 0.5 53 491 755 904
1.0 58 645 976 1160
V   76 152 0.5 132 131 132 132
1.0 130 131 132 132
M 380 380 380 379 0.5 332 324 314 309
1.0 334 320 308 303
1430 max P 77 36557 77 153 0.5 460 783 1024 1201
1.0 464 832 1104 1307
min P 77 36557 77 153 0.5 310 13 132 218
1.0 311 23 186 280
V   77 153 0.5 132 132 132 132
1.0 132 132 131 131
M 384 384 384 383 0.5 344 348 348 347
1.0 346 348 348 348
*
The lining forces and bending moment are designated as follows: P is the thrust increment (kN/m), V is shear force increment (kN/m), M is bending moment increment (kN-
m/m). Negative thrust increment indicates tension.

Table 5
Maximum/minimum seismic increment of lining sectional forces at soil shear strain of 0.5% under different flexibility ratios: 0.32, 3.2, and 32; t = 1.26 m.

Flexibility ratio Force/moment* Closed-form solution Finite element solution with contact interface
Wang Penzien &Wu
Full-slip No-slip Full-slip No-slip K0 Coefficient of friction
0 0.5 0.8 1.0
0.32 max P 571 1163 571 1034 0.5 589 1033 1160 1219
1.0 610 1169 1237 1243
min P 571 1163 571 1034 0.5 582 1150 1187 1225
1.0 594 1185 1241 1243
V   571 1034 0.5 1161 1110 1077 1060
1.0 1151 1068 1050 1049
M 2854 2854 2854 2585 0.5 2852 2694 2632 2611
1.0 2850 2631 2600 2598
3.2 max P 2271 9788 2271 4361 0.5 3416 3713 3958 4103
1.0 3155 3529 3805 3986
min P 2271 9788 2271 4361 0.5 202 2277 3437 4039
1.0 555 2858 4014 4637
V   2271 4361 0.5 3934 3926 3905 3907
1.0 3970 3963 3965 3948
M 11354 11354 11354 10903 0.5 9388 9206 9120 9086
1.0 9538 9319 9236 9205
32 max P 3234 66011 3234 6431 0.5 6593 6834 7066 7218
1.0 6406 6673 6909 7083
min P 3234 66011 3234 6431 0.5 1420 1748 3415 4200
1.0 1218 1985 3555 4455
V   3234 6431 0.5 5863 5950 5916 5840
1.0 5859 5934 5875 5879
M 16171 16171 16171 16077 0.5 13,267 13,023 12,926 12,882
1.0 13,271 13,012 12,920 12,872
*
The lining forces and bending moment are designated as follows: P is the thrust increment (kN/m), V is shear force increment (kN/m), M is bending moment increment (kN-
m/m). Negative thrust increment indicates tension.

thrust seismic increments for the tunnel lining thicknesses of increment increases with the flexibility ratio for a constant lining
0.36 m and 1.26 m, respectively, at a soil strain of 0.5% and stiffness. The thrust seismic increment increases as the thickness
K0 = 1.0. Except for the case of F = 1430, the lining thrust seismic of the lining increases for a constant soil stiffness. This can be
 H. Sedarat et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24 (2009) 482–490 489

Table 6
Seismic increment of diagonal strain of the lining at soil shear strain of 0.5%.

Flexibility ratio Closed-form solution Finite element solution with frictional interface
Wang Penzien & Wu
Full-slip (%) No-slip (%) Full-slip (%) No-slip (%) K0 Coefficient of friction
0 (%) 0.5 (%) 0.8 (%) 1.0 (%)
14.3 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.62 0.5 0.59 0.55 0.53 0.53
1.0 0.58 0.53 0.52 0.52
143 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.69 0.5 0.64 0.63 0.63 0.63
1.0 0.66 0.63 0.63 0.62
1430 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.5 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64
1.0 0.64 0.64 0.64 0.64
0.32 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.5 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12
1.0 0.13 0.12 0.12 0.12
3.2 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.45 0.5 0.56 0.54 0.53 0.52
1.0 0.54 0.52 0.51 0.50
32 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.66 0.5 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63
1.0 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63

Flexibility Ratio The effect of coefficient of lateral earth pressure appears to be sig-
14.3 143 1430 nificant only for the 0.36 m thick lining and flexibility ratio equal to
143. The soil diametric strain values obtained from the finite ele-
36557
7988

ment analyses are somewhat below those of the closed-form solu-

Thrust (kN/m)

2000
tions except for the case of the stiff lining (t = 1.26 m, F = 3.2).
The lining thrust seismic increments of the ‘‘full-slip” closed-
form solutions are comparable to those of the finite element
1000 model with the soil-tunnel contact interface only for the 1.26 m
thick lining and flexibility ratios equal to 0.32 and 3.2 (Fig. 11).
This is also true when Wang’s ‘‘no-slip” closed-form solution is
0 used for the soft soil (F = 14.3 in Fig. 10 and F = 0.32 in Fig. 11).
Wang Full-Slip

Penzien No-Slip

Wang Full-Slip

Penzien No-Slip
Penzien Full-Slip
Wang Full-Slip

Wang No-Slip
Penzien No-Slip

Wang No-Slip

Penzien Full-Slip

On the other hand, the lining thrust seismic increments of Penz-

Penzien Full-Slip

Wang No-Slip
Contact - f=1.0
Contact - f=1.0

Contact - f=1.0
Contact - f=0.0

Contact - f=0.0
Contact - f=0.5
Contact - f=0.8
Contact - f=0.5
Contact - f=0.8

Contact - f=0.0
Contact - f=0.5
Contact - f=0.8

ien and Wu’s ‘‘no-slip” closed-form solution seem closer to the

numerical analysis values for the thick lining (Fig. 11). For other
cases there is no clear correlation between the closed-form solu-
tions and finite element analyses with the soil-tunnel contact
interface. The comparisons suggest that the thrust seismic incre-
Fig. 10. Seismic increment of lining thrust at soil shear strain of 0.5% under
different flexibility ratios: 14.3, 143, and 1430; t = 0.36 m, K0 = 1.0.
ment in the lining is dependent on several factors including rela-
tive soil and lining stiffness and the soil-tunnel interface
conditions. The available closed-form solutions are ill-equipped
to represent these conditions in a general way and may overesti-
mate or underestimate the lining forces. Therefore, the closed-
Flexibility Ratio form solutions should be used with caution even as first order
0.32 3.2 32 estimates.
66011

Although the characteristics of the soil-tunnel interface signifi-

9788

cantly affect the level of the thrust in the tunnel lining, the tunnel
Thrust (kN/m)

6000 lining diagonal strain is mostly controlled by the flexibility ratio

(Table 6).
4000
7. Summary and conclusions
2000
This paper highlighted the importance of a more realistic repre-
0 sentation of the soil-tunnel interface when performing seismic
racking analysis of underground structures. The contact interface
Wang Full-Slip

Wang Full-Slip
Penzien No-Slip

Penzien No-Slip
Penzien Full-Slip
Wang Full-Slip
Penzien Full-Slip

Penzien Full-Slip
Wang No-Slip
Wang No-Slip
Penzien No-Slip

Wang No-Slip
Contact - f=1.0
Contact - f=1.0

Contact - f=1.0
Contact - f=0.0

Contact - f=0.0
Contact - f=0.5
Contact - f=0.8
Contact - f=0.5
Contact - f=0.8

Contact - f=0.0
Contact - f=0.5
Contact - f=0.8

incorporated into a finite element model prevents development

Fig. 11. Seismic increment of lining thrust at soil shear strain of 0.5% under
different flexibility ratios: 0.32, 3.2, and 32; t = 1.26 m, K0 = 1.0.
clearly observed when comparing thrust values obtained from
cases with flexibility ratios 14.3, 143, and 1430 in Fig. 10 with
those for flexibility ratios 0.32, 3.2, and 32 in Fig. 11, respectively.
of unrealistic normal tensile stresses and controls build up of the
tangential tractions between the soil and tunnel lining. As a result,
the lining thrust increments due to the tunnel ovaling are signifi-
cantly different from those of widely used closed-form solutions.
Bending moments are less sensitive to the specific assumption
regarding the soil-tunneling interface. The frictional contact is a
nonlinear phenomenon and cannot be handled by linear closed-
form solutions. It is shown that even with a very high value of fric-
tion coefficient (f = 1.0), the contact interface limits the tangential
tractions and provides much lower thrust levels than ‘‘no-slip”
closed-form solutions. In some of the cases presented in this paper,
490 H. Sedarat et al. / Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 24 (2009) 482–490
the closed-form solutions correlate with the numerical results
within tolerances acceptable for practical purposes, while in many
other cases they do not. While it is not the intention of this study to
find out when the closed-form solutions match with numerical
analyses, it is quite reasonable that a finite element technique with
proper definition of the soil-tunnel interface be always used to
simulate seismic response of the tunnels.
Although, only circular tunnels of a constant thickness in a uni-
form soil have been analyzed in this study, many tunnels have a
horse-shoe shape with variable thickness in a multilayered soil
profile. All these complicating factors are beyond the limiting
assumptions of the available closed-form solutions but might be
easily addressed with a numerical approach.
During a seismic event, the soil and tunnel might undergo both
shear and normal strains. Since the lining thrust is sensitive to both
normal stresses and tangential tractions at the soil-tunnel lining
interface and since the tangential tractions depend on the value
of normal contact stresses (Coulomb friction law), the thrust due
to seismic racking deformations could be underestimated. For a
comprehensive estimation of the seismic response of tunnels, both
shear and normal (vertical and horizontal) motions might have to
be applied to the soil and tunnel in the course of a time history
analysis. The nonlinear behavior of soil is another important aspect
in soil-tunnel lining interaction that can be accounted for in finite
element simulation of a seismic event and will be considered in fu-
ture studies.
References
ADINA, 2005. ADINA User Interface. Command Reference Manual. Volume 1: ADINA
Solids & Structures Model Definition. Report ARD 05–2. October 2005. ADINA
System version 8.3, ADINA R&D Inc.
Giannakou, A., Nomikos, P., Anastasopoulos, I., Sofianos, A., Gazetas, G., Yiouta-
Mitra, 2005. Sesimic behaviour of tunnels in soft soil: parametric numerical
study and investigation on the causes of failure of the Bolu Tunnel (Duzce,
Turkey, 1999). In: Yücel Erdem & Tülin Solak (Eds.), Underground Space Use:
Analysis of the Past and Lessons for the Future, Taylor & Francis Group, London,
ISBN: 04 1537 452 9.
Hashash, Y.M.A., Hook, J.J., Schmidt, B., Yao, J.I.-C., 2001. Seismic design and analysis
of underground structure. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology 16,
247–293.
Hashash, Y., Park D., M.A., Yao, J.I.C., 2005. Ovaling Deformations of Circular Tunnels
Under Seismic Loading, an Update on Seismic Design and Analysis of
Underground Structures. Elsevier, Tunneling and underground space Technology.
Huo, H., Bobet, A., Fernandez, G., Ramirez, J., 2006. Analytical solution for deep
rectangular structures subjected to far-field shear stresses. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology 21 (6), 613–625.
Kramer, G.J.E., Sedarat, H., Kozak, A., 2007. Seismic response of pre-cast tunnel linings.
In: Proc. 2007 Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Conference, Toronto, ON, 2007.
Möller, S., 2006. Tunnel induced settlements and structural forces in linings. Ph.D.
Thesis,Universität Stuttgart, Germany.
Penzien, J., Wu, C.L., 1998. Stresses in linings of bored tunnels. International Journal
of Earthquake Engineering Structural Dynamics 27, 283–300.
Toshio, Umehara, Hiroomi, Iiada, Susumu, Nakamura, Youichi, Yamahara, 1998.
Restoration of the collapsed Subway Station due to Hyogoken-Nanbu Earthquake,
January 17, 1995. In: Arsenio Negro, Jr. & Argimiro Alvarez Ferreira (Eds.), Tunnels
and Metropolises, c 1998, Balkema, Rotherdam, ISBN: 90 5410 936X.
Wang, J.-N., 1993. Seismic Design of Tunnels: A State-of-the-Art Approach,
Monograph, monograph 7, Parsons. Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas Inc., New
York.