ARTICLE IN PRESS

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1059–1072

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

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

Numerical modelling of the transverse dynamic behaviour of circular tunnels

in clayey soils
A. Amorosi a, D. Boldini b,
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Technical University of Bari, via Orabona 4, 70125 Bari, Italy
b
Department of Chemical, Mining and Environmental Engineering, University of Bologna, via Terracini 28, 40131 Bologna, Italy

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

Article history: In this paper, different approaches aimed at investigating the dynamic behaviour of circular tunnels in
Received 2 April 2008 the transverse direction are presented. The analysed cases refer to a shallow tunnel built in two
Received in revised form different clayey deposits. The adopted approaches include 1D numerical analyses performed modelling
9 December 2008
the soil as a single-phase visco-elastic non-linear medium, the results of which are then used to
Accepted 12 December 2008
evaluate the input data for selected analytical solutions proposed in the literature (uncoupled
approach), and 2D fully coupled FE simulations adopting visco-elastic and visco-elasto-plastic effective
Keywords: stress models for the soil (coupled approach). The results are proposed in terms of seismic-induced
Seismic behaviour of tunnel loads in the transverse direction of the tunnel lining. The different constitutive hypotheses adopted
Shallow tunnels
in the coupled numerical approach prove to play a significant role on the results. In particular, the
Clayey soils
plasticity-based analyses indicate that a seismic event can produce a substantial modification of loads
Numerical modelling
Finite element analysis acting in the lining, leading to permanent increments of both hoop force and bending moment.
& 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Dynamic effects on underground structures have often
been neglected based on the assumption that their response
to earthquake loading is relatively safe as compared to that
of surface structures. Nevertheless, several examples of recorded
damage to underground structures for which seismic forces were
not considered in the original design can be quoted. For example,
Hashash et al. [1] describe the collapse of the Daikai subway
station in Kobe during the 1995 Hyogoken-Nambu earthquake,
the damages to highway tunnels in Central Taiwan during
the 1999 Chi-Chi earthquake and the collapse of the Bolu tunnel
in Turkey during the 1999 Koceali earthquake. Yashiro et al. [2]
report the consequences of four historical earthquakes on deep
tunnels in Japan: the 1923 Kanto earthquake, which affected
93 tunnels among which 25 required retrofitting, the 1978
Izu-Oshima-Kinkai earthquake, during which 9 tunnels were da-
maged and 2 of them required additional reinforcement, the 1995
Hyogoken-Nambu earthquake, during which 7 tunnels experi-
enced serious damage and 5 tunnels required repair and retro-
fitting, and the 2004 Niigataken-Chuetsu earthquake that severely
hit 24 tunnels and required lining repair and reinforcement for
5 of them. According to the Authors, the main causes of damage
 Corresponding author. Tel.: +39 051 2090233, fax: +39 051 2090247.
E-mail addresses: a.amorosi@poliba.it (A. Amorosi),
daniela.boldini@unibo.it (D. Boldini).
in these case histories were the shallow depth of tunnels, the poor
geological conditions, the displacement of active faults crossing
the tunnel and the pre-existing structural defects in the tunnel
lining. For a comprehensive review on the seismic behaviour of
underground structures, one can refer to Manolis and Beskos [3].
During the seismic excitement, tunnels are basically subjected
to three kinds of deformation [4]: axial compression and
extension, longitudinal bending and ovaling or racking. In
particular, the latter mode of deformation is related to the
distortion of the cross-sectional shape of the tunnel lining,
triggered by shear waves which propagate almost perpendicularly
to the tunnel axis.
This paper focuses on the seismic response of circular tunnels
along the transversal direction. Correspondingly, the ovalisation
of the lining is the only mechanism taken into account here,
allowing the tunnel and the surrounding soil to be analysed as a
two-dimensional (2D) system.
This problem was addressed in the past by a number of
Authors that proposed solutions based on analytical or numerical
investigations.
In particular, analytical solutions are still very popular, as
confirmed by the growing body of literature devoted to this topic:
while early studies referred to simplified geometries (i.e., circular
tunnel, lining schematised as a closed ring, etc.) and constitutive
assumptions (i.e., single-phase linear-elastic soil), recently pro-
posed closed-form solutions deal, as an example, with piecewise
tunnel lining connected by joints [5], non-uniform lining thick-
ness [6] and poro-elastic fully-saturated medium (e.g. [7–10]).

0267-7261/$ - see front matter & 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2008.12.004
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

1060 A. Amorosi, D. Boldini / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1059–1072

Some analytical solutions are based on simplified uncoupled The physical properties and mechanical parameters of both
approaches: a free-field seismic ground response analysis is first materials are reported in Table 1.
carried out and the resulting maximum displacements are then The assumed profile of the small-strain shear stiffness G0 with
applied to a static model of the underground structure. For a depth (Fig. 1) was calculated adopting the relationship proposed
synopsis of the available uncoupled solutions, the reader can refer by Viggiani and Atkinson [20]
to St John and Zahrah [11], Penzien and Wu [12] and Wang [13].  0 n
G0 p
Many real tunnel projects are characterised by relatively ¼S Rm (1)
pr pr
complex conditions in terms of heterogeneity of the soil strata,
non-regularity of the tunnel geometry, pre-existence of surface where pr is a reference pressure taken equal to 1 kPa, p0 is the
and sub-surface structures, ground water flow. In such cases, mean pressure, S, n and m are parameters depending on the
the analysis of the seismic behaviour of the underground plasticity index IP and R is the overconsolidation ratio in terms
structure can take advantage of the use of numerical methods, of mean effective stress. The values of S, n and m for the two cases
like the boundary element method (BEM) (e.g. [14,15]) and the under study are summarised in Table 1.
finite element method (FEM) (e.g. [16–18]). For sake of simplicity, the small-strain damping ratio D0 was
BEM is particularly valuable for problems characterised by considered constant with depth.
infinite or semi-infinite domains, as the one under consideration, In both deposits, a horizontal ground surface was assumed,
while FEM requires the domain to be discretised, entailing the use with the water table at the ground level.
of artificial boundaries in the numerical model. A circular tunnel, located at 15 m depth and with a 10.10 m
However, BEM makes use of elasticity-based solutions which diameter, is selected as the reference underground structure for
do not account for the highly non-linear soil response, the the present case study. The lining is assumed to be composed
accumulation of plastic strain and the build up of excess pore by 0.50 m thick precast concrete segments characterised by the
water pressures during the seismic actions. In contrast, the use of following linear visco-elastic parameters: Young’s modulus El ¼
FEM allows the soil behaviour to be described in a more realistic 38 GPa, Poisson’s ratio nl ¼ 0.25, damping ratio Dl ¼ 5%.
fashion, accounting for the aforementioned features. In the present study, the acceleration time history recorded at
In general, when linear-elastic or linear-visco-elastic models Kalamata (Greece) during the 13.XI.1986 earthquake was con-
are employed to describe the soil behaviour, particular effort sidered. The original seismic signal is characterised by a duration
should be put in the selection of the stiffness and damping of 29.74 s and by a maximum acceleration of 0.24 g.
parameters compatible with the effective deformation level The input signal was scaled to 0.35 g and was filtered
expected during the earthquake. An alternative is to run preli- to prevent frequency levels higher than 7 Hz. This latter frequency
minary 1D free-field site response analyses by means of numerical was selected consistently with the element dimension adopted
codes like SHAKE or FLUSH, where an equivalent-linear soil model in the finite element discretisation. A diagram of the selected
is implemented, and to adopt the resulting strain-compatible horizontal component of the acceleration time history after
stiffness parameters in the finite element (FE) analyses [1,17,19]. manipulation is given in Fig. 2, while the corresponding Fourier
In the authors’ opinion, the systematic comparison between spectrum is shown in Fig. 3.
results of simplified uncoupled approaches, analytical solutions The input seismic signal was considered as applied at the rock
and fully dynamic coupled analyses, characterised by increasing outcropping of the deposit. The corresponding bedrock motion
level of complexity, has not been sufficiently covered so far. was then calculated by performing an equivalent-linear deconvo-
In this paper, an attempt in this direction is undertaken with lution with the code EERA [21]. The corresponding bedrock
reference to two ideal, but realistic, cases of shallow tunnels in motion for the two soil profiles are shown in Figs. 4 and 5,
clayey deposits. The transverse seismic behaviour of the tunnels is respectively.
analysed by means of both uncoupled and coupled approaches.
They include 1D numerical analyses, performed modelling the soil
as a single-phase visco-elastic non-linear medium, and 2D fully 3. 1D equivalent-linear visco-elastic ground response analysis
coupled FE simulations adopting visco-elastic and visco-elasto-
plastic effective stress models for the soil. The 1D ground response analyses were performed by the code
The results of 1D visco-elastic analyses are first adopted to EERA. The code is based on the assumption of equivalent-linear
define the input data for the analytical uncoupled solutions given visco-elastic soil behaviour.
in Wang [13] to predict the transverse response of the structure.
The 1D results are also employed to calibrate the parameters of Table 1
the linear visco-elastic and visco-elasto-plastic models adopted in Physical and mechanical parameters of the two soil deposits analysed in the
numerical analyses.
the coupled FE analyses. Those analyses are aimed at performing a
comparison between the analytical and numerical visco-elastic Parameters Soil profile
solutions and at establishing the relevance of plasticity on the
soil–lining interaction during and after the seismic event. Soft clay Stiff clay
Special emphasis is given throughout the paper to the
Plasticity index IP (%) 44 40
calibration procedure of the material parameters for this class Unit weight of volume g (kN/m3) 17 20
of dynamic analyses, based on the realistic geotechnical char- Coefficient at rest K0 0.60 0.92
acterisation assumed for the soil deposits under study. Overconsolidation ratio in terms of mean 1.5 4.0
effective stress R
Small-strain shear stiffness G0 (MPa) variable with depth (see Fig. 1)
Small-strain damping ratio D0 (%) 1.0 1.0
Poisson’s ratio n0 0.25 0.25
2. Outline of the idealised problem Cohesion c’ (kPa) 0 30
Friction angle j0 (1) 24 23
Parameter of Eq. (1) S 600 4900
Two ideal 60 m thick soil deposits were considered in the
Parameter of Eq. (1) n 0.820 0.825
numerical analyses. The first deposit consists of a single soft Parameter of Eq. (1) m 0.360 0.245
clay stratum, while the second is composed of a stiff clay one.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

A. Amorosi, D. Boldini / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1059–1072 1061

G0(MPa) 0.10

0 500 1000 1500

0 0.08

Fourier amplitude (g s)
soft clay deposit
0.06
10 stiff clay deposit

0.04

20 0.02
depth z (m)

0.00
30 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
frequency (Hz)

Fig. 3. Frequency-filtered Fourier amplitude.

40
0.4

50
0.2
ax (g)

60 0.0

Fig. 1. Profile of the small-strain shear stiffness G0.

-0.2

0.4
-0.4
0 10 20 30
0.2 time (s)

Fig. 4. Acceleration applied to the bedrock of the soft clay deposit.

ax (g)

0.0
0.4

-0.2
0.2

-0.4
ax (g)

0 10 20 30 0.0

time (s)

Fig. 2. Modified acceleration time history scaled at 0.35 g.

-0.2

Modulus reduction curve G/G0 and variation of damping ratio D

with shear strain level g were defined according to typical results
reported in the literature [22] as a function of IP (Fig. 6). -0.4
0 10 20 30
A total number of 31 layers were assumed to discretise the
profiles of stiffness and damping ratio with depth: 1 uppermost time (s)
layer of 0.5 m thickness, followed by 10 of 1 m, 15 of 3 m, 4 of 4 m Fig. 5. Acceleration applied to the bedrock of the stiff clay deposit.
and 1 base layer of 3.5 m. In the iterative procedure, the ratio of
effective and maximum shear strain is assumed equal to 0.5.
Figs. 7 and 8 show the computed results for the soft and maximum acceleration amax. Figures clearly demonstrate the
stiff clay deposits, respectively, in terms of maximum shear differences in the dynamic response related to the soft and stiff
strain gmax, normalised shear stiffness G/G0, damping ratio D and consistency of the two soil deposits.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

1062 A. Amorosi, D. Boldini / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1059–1072

Values of gmax and G obtained at the depth of 15 m, i.e., at the
tunnel depth, were subsequently used to evaluate the increments
in the hoop force and bending moment in the tunnel lining during
the earthquake, according to selected analytical solutions dis-
cussed in the next paragraph. The maximum shear strain at the
tunnel depth for the stiff clay deposit (gmax ¼ 0.0368%) is
significantly lower than the one predicted for the soft deposit
(gmax ¼ 0.6249%).
4. Analytical solutions
Here, the closed-form solutions summarised in Wang [13]
to predict the transverse response of the tunnel are adopted,
according to what suggested by Hashash et al. [23]. These
solutions take explicitly into account the soil–structure interac-
tion effect under both no-slip and full-slip conditions. They are
based on the following assumptions:

 the ground is an infinite, elastic, homogeneous and isotropic

medium;
1.0 20  the tunnel and the lining are circular and the lining thickness is
small in comparison to the tunnel diameter.
0.8 16
Seismic actions are considered as external static forces acting on
the tunnel lining, induced by the ground distortion related to a
0.6 12
vertically propagating shear wave. The resulting ovalisation of the

D (%)
soft clay deposit
G/G0

stiff clay deposit tunnel lining is assumed to occur under plane strain conditions.
0.4 8 The detailed solutions are briefly summarised in Appendix A.
According to Wang [13], the flexibility ratio F is the most
important parameter to quantify the ability of the lining to resist
0.2 4
against the distortion imposed by the ground. For the investigated
cases, it is equal to 1.0 for the tunnel excavated in the soft clay
0.0 0 deposit, whereas it assumes the value of 38.7 for the tunnel in the
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 stiff clay layer. In the former case, the flexural stiffness of the
lining corresponds to the flexural stiffness of the excavated soil
γ (%)
material inside the tunnel cavity (‘‘non-perforated’’ condition),
Fig. 6. Modulus reduction curve G/G0 and variation of damping ratio D with shear while in the latter case, the lining deflects more than the soil
strain g. being excavated (‘‘perforated’’ condition).

γmax (%) G/G0 D (%) amax (g)

0.00 1.00 2.00 0.0 0.5 1.0 0 5 10 15 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0

10

20
depth z (m)

30

40

50

60

Fig. 7. Results of the 1D ground response analysis performed with EERA: soft clay deposit.

γmax (%) G/G0 D (%) amax (g)

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.0 0.5 1.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
0

10

20
depth z (m)

30

40

50

60

Fig. 8. Results of the 1D ground response analysis performed with EERA: stiff clay deposit.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

A. Amorosi, D. Boldini / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1059–1072 1063

In both cases, no relevant slippage between the soil and the
tunnel lining is expected. In fact, this feature becomes crucial only
for Fo1 as, for example, in the case of tunnels built in very soft
ground.
Table 2 summarises the increments in the hoop force and
bending moment of the tunnel lining computed for both full-slip
and no-slip conditions. Increments in the hoop force, as expected,
are significantly higher in the no-slip case, especially for the
analysis performed in the stiff clay deposit where this condition
certainly holds, given the relatively large value of F. Increments in
the bending moment coincide, irrespectively of the different
slippage conditions assumed in the analyses. They are about one
order of magnitude larger in the case of the soft clay deposit than
in the stiff clay one. This latter result should be related to the
larger values of the mobilised shear strain gmax and lining
response coefficient K1 (see Eq. (A3) in Appendix A) in the soft
clay analysis, although in this case the operative Young’s modulus
Eu at the tunnel depth is significantly lower than the one
characterising the stiff clay deposit.
5. 2D FE numerical modelling
The coupled numerical analyses were performed with the
finite element code PLAXIS 2D [24], a two-dimensional (plane
strain and axi-symmetric) FE code that implements the coupled
Biot dynamic equations [25], adopting the so-called u–p simpli-
fication (where u is the skeleton displacement and p the pore
pressure), assuming as negligible the fluid acceleration relative to
the solid skeleton.
The code adopts the Generalised Newmark method [26] for the
time integration under dynamic conditions. In this case, the
following standard values of the Newmark’s constants were
selected in all the analyses illustrated in this paper: aN ¼ 0.3025
and bN ¼ 0.6000. Those values ensure that the algorithm is
unconditionally stable, while being dissipative only for the high-
frequency modes.
In the dynamic solution, the code allows to introduce
frequency-dependent viscous damping by means of the
Rayleigh formulation, the damping matrix being defined as
follows:
considering the following relationship with the damping ratio D
(e.g. [27]):
( )  
aR 2D on om
¼ (3)
bR on þ om 1
where on e om are the angular frequencies related to the
frequency interval fnCfm in which the viscous damping is equal
to or lower than D.
The boundary conditions adopted for the static stages of the
analyses were the standard ones: nodes at the bottom of the mesh
were fixed in both vertical and horizontal directions, while those
along the lateral sides were only fixed in the horizontal direction.
In the dynamic analyses, the bottom of the mesh was assumed to
be rigid and the lateral sides were characterised by the viscous
boundaries proposed by Lysmer and Kuhlmeyer [28], with
parameters a ¼ 1.0 and b ¼ 0.25.
In order to perform a comparative analysis with the EERA
results, a linear visco-elastic constitutive model for the soil was
first selected in the dynamic stage of the analyses, coupling a
linear isotropic elastic model and the Rayleigh viscous formula-
tion. Plasticity was then added, leading to a non-associated visco-
elasto-plastic constitutive assumption characterised by a Mohr-
Coulomb yield criterion and a null dilatancy angle. The structural
elements adopted to simulate the tunnel lining behaviour were
assumed to be linear visco-elastic plates, formulated according to
the Mindlin theory (e.g. [29]). Impervious interface elements were
also introduced to model the interaction between the lining and
the soil, according to the formulation summarised in the manual
of the code [24]. In particular, the interface was characterised
by values of the shear strength parameters equal to those of the
surrounding soil: such an assumption can be considered as
corresponding to the no-slip condition of the Wang’s solutions.
The mesh employed in the present study is reported in Fig. 9:
it is characterised by a width equal to eight times its height, in
order to minimise the influence of boundary conditions on the
computed results. The domain was discretised in a total number
of 2431 15-node plane strain triangular elements. In the central

½C ¼ aR ½M þ bR ½K (2)

where M and K are the mass and the stiffness matrix of the
system, respectively. The coefficients aR and bR are obtained

Table 2
Increments in the hoop force and bending moment according to the solutions
given in Wang [13].

Soil deposit Full-slip conditions No-slip conditions

DNmax (kN/ DMmax DNmax DMmax

m) (kNm/m) (kN/m) (kNm/m)

Soft clay 7159 7802 7473 7802

Stiff clay 718 790 7664 790
Fig. 10. Details of the mesh near the tunnel section.

Fig. 9. Mesh employed in the FE analyses.

 ARTICLE IN PRESS

1064 A. Amorosi, D. Boldini / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1059–1072

part of the mesh, where the tunnel is located, the characteristic In particular, the simulation of the tunnel excavation was
dimension of the elements h always satisfies the condition performed in undrained conditions by imposing a volumetric
contraction of the tunnel section corresponding to a volume loss
hphmax ¼ V S =ð6C7Þf max (4) of 0.4%. This value was selected as representative of a satisfactory
performance of the tunnel excavation stage for a shallow tunnel
where VS is the shear wave velocity and fmax is the maximum in clayey material. The following installation of the tunnel lining
frequency of the seismic signal. was also carried out under undrained conditions, while in the
Similarly to what is assumed in the 1D ground response subsequent consolidation stage, the previously cumulated excess
analyses, the domain was partitioned into 20 horizontal layers to pore water pressures were allowed to dissipate, leading to the pre-
account for variable stiffness and damping parameters with seismic reference state of the system. The dynamic stage was then
depth. carried out under undrained conditions, adopting a time step
A detail of the mesh around the tunnel is shown in Fig. 10. equal to 0.01 s, corresponding to that of the seismic signal input
All analyses were carried out performing a set of initial static data. A post-seismic consolidation analysis was finally performed,
stages, to simulate the tunnel excavation, the installation of the to evaluate the long-term effects of the seismic event on the
lining and the subsequent consolidation stage, followed by the tunnel section.
dynamic stage, during which the seismic signal was applied at The elastic soil shear stiffness moduli G, assumed in the static
the bottom of the mesh, and a final static post-seismic consolida- stages of the analyses, were selected scaling down the corre-
tion stage. sponding initial values G0 according to the normalised modulus
reduction curves shown in Fig. 6, assuming an average mobilised
G (MPa) D (%) shear strain level equal to ḡ ¼ 0:1%.
All the static stages of the analyses were also characterised by
0 20 40 60 0 5 10 15 the assumption of elasto-plastic behaviour of the soil, irrespec-
0
tively of the hypotheses holding for the dynamic stages. This was
aimed at reproducing the same pre-seismic conditions for all the
EERA dynamic analyses. In fact, those latter were carried out assuming
10 different constitutive hypotheses, namely linear visco-elastic or
PLAXIS
visco-elasto-plastic, to highlight the role of the irreversible
component of the soil behaviour on the seismic and post-seismic
20 transversal response of the tunnel.
depth z (m)

30 6. Calibration of the visco-elastic parameters and free-field FE

ground response analyses

The analysis of soil dynamic boundary value problems is often

40
based on constitutive assumptions characterised by visco-elastic
hypotheses for the reversible response. In this context, it is a well-
established fact that the solution depends on the assumed profile
50 of the stiffness and damping parameters with depth (e.g. [30]).

60
αR βR
Fig. 11. G and D profiles assumed in the FE analyses on the basis of EERA results for
the soft clay deposit. 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
0

0.40
10
z = 0.25 m
z = 10 m
0.30
Fourier amplitude (g⋅s)

z = 15 m 20
depth z (m)

z = 29.5 m
0.20 bedrock 30

0.10 40

50
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

frequency (Hz) 60

Fig. 12. Fourier spectra computed by EERA at different depths for the soft clay Fig. 13. aR e bR profiles assumed in the FE analyses on the basis of EERA results for
deposit and high-energy frequency interval. the soft clay deposit.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

A. Amorosi, D. Boldini / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1059–1072 1065

0.40 Thus, when adopting linear visco-elastic assumptions, the para-

meter calibration might be not trivial (e.g. [31]), due to the well-
0.30 EERA known dependency of both stiffness and damping on the strain
PLAXIS level.
0.20
In this paper, a recently developed calibration procedure of the
0.10 visco-elastic parameters to be assumed in dynamic FE analyses is
proposed [32]. G and D profiles are set in such a way to match the
ax (g)

0.00 corresponding profiles resulting from the free-field EERA analysis.

To this end, the numerical model is subdivided in a high number
-0.10 of layers in order to obtain an as close as possible correspondence.
For each layer a single value of G and D is selected, together with
-0.20
the corresponding Rayleigh coefficients aR and bR. These two
-0.30 coefficients are chosen according to Eq. (3), for the frequency
interval fnCfm characterised by the highest energy content
-0.40 predicted by EERA at different depths of the soil deposit.
0 10 20 30 Details of the calibration procedure are given hereinafter for
time (s) the two soil deposits under study. For each of them, a preliminary
comparison between the EERA and PLAXIS predictions at the

0.25
0.40
0.20 z = 0.25 m
Fourier amplitude (g.s)

z = 10 m
Fourier amplitude (g⋅s) 0.30
0.15
z = 15 m
z = 29.5 m
0.10 0.20
bedrock

0.05
0.10

0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
0.00
frequency (Hz) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Fig. 14. Comparison between EERA and PLAXIS free-field soil response analyses at frequency (Hz)
15 m depth for the soft clay deposit.
Fig. 16. Fourier spectra computed by EERA at different depths for the stiff clay
deposit and high-energy frequency interval.

G (MPa) D (%) αR βR
0 400 800 1200 0 5 10 15 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 0 0.005 0.01 0.015
0 0

EERA
10 PLAXIS 10

20 20
depth z (m)

depth z (m)

30 30

40 40

50 50

60 60

Fig. 15. Calibration of the G and D profiles assumed in the FE analyses on the basis Fig. 17. aR e bR profiles assumed in the FE analyses on the basis of EERA results for
of EERA results for the stiff clay deposit. the stiff clay deposit.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

1066 A. Amorosi, D. Boldini / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1059–1072

tunnel depth is provided to check the consistency between the 0.40

1D and 2D approaches. In this case, the 2D FE model does
not incorporate the tunnel and, as such, the PLAXIS results can 0.30 EERA
be directly compared to that of the corresponding 1D free-field
0.20 PLAXIS
analysis performed with EERA.
Fig. 11 shows the G and D profiles adopted in PLAXIS for the
0.10
soft clay deposit compared to the corresponding profiles obtained

ax (g)
by the EERA analysis. 0.00
Fourier spectra computed with EERA at different depths are
reported in Fig. 12 together with the frequency interval selected -0.10
for the definition of the Rayleigh coefficients according to Eq. (3):
in this case the highest energy content is observed between 0.4 -0.20
and 2.6 Hz. The resulting aR and bR profiles are shown in Fig. 13.
A comparison between the acceleration time histories and the -0.30
corresponding Fourier amplitude computed at z ¼ 15 m with EERA
-0.40
and with the visco-elastic PLAXIS analysis is illustrated in Fig. 14, 0 10 20 30
for the soft clay deposit. A good agreement is obtained, demon-
strating the effectiveness of the proposed calibration strategy. time (s)
The G and D profiles adopted in PLAXIS for the stiff clay deposit
are compared in Fig. 15 to the corresponding profiles obtained by
0.25
the free-field EERA analysis.
In this case, the highest energy content predicted at different
depths by EERA ranges between 1.4 and 3.4 Hz (Fig. 16). The 0.20
resulting aR and bR profiles are shown in Fig. 17.
Fourier amplitude (g.s)

Fig. 18 compares the 1D and 2D results in terms of acceleration

time histories and corresponding Fourier spectra at z ¼ 15 m. A 0.15
slightly less satisfactory agreement is observed in this case, with
the exception of the frequency range 0C2 Hz, where the two
spectra almost coincide. 0.10

7. FE numerical analyses of the tunnel 0.05

The distribution of the predicted hoop force N and bending

moment M prior to and after the earthquake, as well as their
minimum and maximum envelopes during the seismic event, are
shown in Fig. 19 for the soft clay deposit. The results are reported
as a function of the angle y, also shown in Fig. 19 and defined
positive in counter-wise direction. In particular, Fig. 19a
and b refers to the analysis based on the visco-elastic consti-
tutive model, while Fig. 19c and d to the one where the visco-
elasto-plastic model is adopted. Results indicate a good agreement
between the visco-elastic FE solution, characterised by maximum
increments, evaluated with respect to the static conditions, of
hoop force |DN|max ¼ 426 kN/m and bending moment |DM|max ¼
713 kNm/m, and the corresponding increments predicted by
the Wang’s solutions for the no-slip case (Table 2). These latter
are only slightly larger than the numerical results both in terms
of hoop force (+11%) and bending moment (+13%). It is worth
remarking that the two solutions compared above are based
on substantially different approaches: the analytical results rely
on a quasi-static analysis of the problem, while the dynamic FE
solution includes more realistic features like the time-dependent
kinematic soil–structure interaction. Nonetheless, the results
compare nicely in the visco-elastic case for the soft clay deposit.
Adding plasticity to the FE analysis significantly modifies the
stress distribution in the lining, both qualitatively and quantita-
tively. In fact, the behaviour during the earthquake is charac-
terised by reduced loads in the tunnel lining as compared to the
visco-elastic case, especially in terms of bending moment: upper-
most increments with respect to the static conditions are in
this case equal to |DN|max ¼ 356 kN/m and |DM|max ¼ 499 kNm/m.
This pattern is consistent with what was observed by Shahrour
and Khoshnoudian [33] for plasticity-based dynamic analyses
of shallow tunnels in soft soils. More importantly, permanent
increments of hoop force and bending moment are predicted at
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
frequency (Hz)
Fig. 18. Comparison between EERA and PLAXIS free-field soil response analyses at
15 m depth for the stiff clay deposit.
the end of the seismic event, as a consequence of the irreversible
deformation cumulated by the soil during the earthquake. In
particular, the permanent increment of hoop force with respect to
the initial static conditions, entirely in compression, is character-
ized by a maximum value of DN ¼ 313 kN/m at the tunnel
crown, while that of bending moment DM varies between 340
and +349 kNm/m. These permanent additional loads are found to
slightly redistribute with time as a consequence of the post-
seismic consolidation process occurred in the soil, as illustrated
in Fig. 20.
Fig. 21 shows the results for the stiff clay deposit. In this case,
the visco-elastic FE solution for the hoop force (Fig. 21a),
characterised by maximum increments of |DN|max ¼ 686 kN/m,
matches fairly well that obtained by the no-slip solutions given in
Wang (Table 2). On the contrary, the increments of seismic-
induced bending moment obtained in the visco-elastic FE analysis
(Fig. 21b), equal to |DM|max ¼ 117 kNm/m, are larger than those
calculated by the no-slip Wang’s solutions. Adding plasticity
to the FE produces a non-negligible increment in the loads
induced during the earthquake, especially in terms of hoop
force (Fig. 21c and d). The permanent increments of hoop force
in the short term, entirely in compression, are characterized
by a maximum of DN ¼ 742 kN/m at the tunnel crown. The
distribution of the permanent increments of bending moment is
characterised by DM varying between 105 and +97 kNm/m. Both
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

A. Amorosi, D. Boldini / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1059–1072 1067

before the earthquake

after the earthquake
envelope of the minimum and maximum
values during the earthquake
θ

a visco-elastic analysis
c visco-elasto-plastic analysis
0 0

-450 -450
N (kN/m)

-900 -900

-1350 -1350

-1800 -1800
0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360

b d
800 800

400 400
M (kNm/m)

0 0

-400 -400

-800 -800
0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360
θ (°) θ (°)

Fig. 19. Distribution of hoop force and bending moment before and after the seismic event and their maximum envelope. Soft clay deposit.

hoop force and bending moment show a negligible post-seismic

visco-elasto-plastic analysis:
modification due to consolidation (Fig. 22).
short-term Figs. 23 and 24 illustrate the evolution of the hoop force and
bending moment during the earthquake for the stiff deposit case.
long-term
All the plasticity-based analyses show a noticeable accumulation
a of permanent loads for tffi2.5 s, approximately corresponding to
the peak value of the accelerogram at the tunnel depth.
-900 With reference to the results discussed above, some general
conclusions are proposed in the following.
N (kN/m)

For both idealised deposits, the visco-elastic FE analyses lead to

results that are in fair agreement with those obtained by the
-1350 corresponding solutions given in Wang [13], although no clear
indication arises concerning which of the two approaches
provides the most conservative solution. This last finding appears
to be in contrast to what was assessed by Bilotta et al. [34],
0 90 180 270 360 although their analyses refer to different classes of materials,
b ranging from clay to gravel.
400 Concerning the role of plasticity in the dynamic response of the
soil-tunnel system, the results proposed in this paper indicate that
the irreversible soil behaviour significantly modifies the tunnel
M (kNm/m)

loads both during the earthquake and, more importantly, after it.
0 In fact, albeit the simple perfectly plastic constitutive assumption
adopted, a considerable amount of plastic strain cumulate in the
soil during the dynamic analyses, leading to a corresponding
permanent modification of the effective stress distribution around
-400 the tunnel lining. Fig. 25 shows the stress–strain behaviour
0 90 180 270 360
Fig. 20. Distribution of permanent hoop force and bending moment in the short-
θ (°) and long-term for the visco-elasto-plastic analysis. Soft clay deposit.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

1068 A. Amorosi, D. Boldini / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1059–1072

before the earthquake

after the earthquake
envelope of the minimum and maximum
values during the earthquake
θ

a visco-elastic analysis c visco-elasto-plastic analysis

0 0

-450 -450
N (kN/m)

-900 -900

-1350 -1350

-1800 -1800
0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360

b d
400 400
M (kNm/m)

0 0

-400 -400
0 90 180 270 360 0 90 180 270 360
θ (°) θ (°)

Fig. 21. Distribution of hoop force and bending moment before and after the seismic event and their maximum envelope. Stiff clay deposit.

predicted in the stiff clay deposit at a depth of 15 m below the

visco-elasto-plastic analysis:
ground, for a Gauss point adjacent to the tunnel. It clearly
short-term highlights that the accumulation of plastic strains substantially
long-term modifies the soil response, especially for the cycles characterised
by relatively large amplitude. This pattern influences the
a corresponding Fourier spectra, illustrated in Fig. 26: the peak of
the Fourier amplitude is significantly lower than that obtained in
-900
the corresponding visco-elastic case. This is a consequence of the
larger amount of damping acting in the visco-elasto-plastic
N (kN/m)

analysis, as both viscous and hysteretic components are triggered

in this case. Fig. 26 also shows that accounting for plasticity does
-1350 not induce noteworthy modifications of the fundamental fre-
quencies of the system.
All the plasticity-based analyses proposed in this work are
0 90 180 270 360 characterised by a post-seismic consolidation stage, aimed at
evaluating the effects on the tunnel lining of the dissipation of the
θ (°) excess pore water pressures induced during the shaking. It results
that these effects are negligible in the cases under study, given the
b low excess pore water pressures predicted by the relatively simple
400
constitutive model adopted for the clayey material.
M (kNm/m)

0
8. Conclusions

This paper presents the results of a set of analyses aimed at

-400 studying the seismic transversal response of a shallow tunnel
0 90 180 270 360 built in two ideal clayey deposits of different consistency. Two
different approaches, both accessible in the engineering practice,
θ (°)
are adopted to evaluate the increments of seismic-induced loads
Fig. 22. Distribution of permanent hoop force and bending moment in the short- in the transverse direction of the tunnel lining in terms of hoop
and long-term for the visco-elasto-plastic analysis. Stiff clay deposit. force and bending moment.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

A. Amorosi, D. Boldini / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1059–1072 1069

visco-elastic analysis
visco-elasto-plastic analysis
θ

0 400
θ = 0° θ = 0°

M (kNm/m)
N (kN/m)

-900 0

-1800 -400
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
t (s) t (s)

0 400
θ = 45° θ = 45°

M (kNm/m)
N (kN/m)

-900 0

-1800 -400
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
t (s) t (s)

0 400
θ = 90° θ = 90°
M (kNm/m)
N (kN/m)

-900 0

-1800 -400
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
t (s) t (s)

0 400
θ = 135° θ = 135°
M (kNm/m)
N (kN/m)

-900 0

-1800 -400
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
t (s) t (s)

Fig. 23. Evolution of hoop force and bending moment during the earthquake for the stiff clay deposit (01pyp1351).

The first approach is the quasi-static one discussed in Wang
[13]. It is based on a number of simplified hypotheses concerning
the behaviour of the soil and the tunnel lining and their
interaction, but has the advantage of generating straightforwardly
reliable results without the need of employing sophisticated
numerical procedures [1].
The second approach requires the execution of fully dynamic
analyses using a non-linear finite element program, based on
simple visco-elastic or visco-elasto-plastic constitutive assump-
tions.
The comparison between Wang’s and FE visco-elastic solutions
has proved to be satisfactory, especially for the soft clay deposit
where the differences between the two approaches result to be
lower than 15% both in terms of hoop force and bending moment
acting in the lining.
FE results accounting for soil plasticity introduced new
ingredients in the analysis of soil–tunnel interaction in dynamic
conditions: different distribution and magnitude of the seismic-
induced hoop force and bending moment, permanent increments
of loads at the end of the seismic event and, eventually, further
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

1070 A. Amorosi, D. Boldini / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1059–1072

visco-elastic analysis
visco-elasto-plastic analysis
θ

0 400
θ = 180° θ = 180°

M (kNm/m)
N (kN/m)

-900 0

-1800 -400
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
t (s) t (s)

0 400
θ = 225° θ = 225°

M (kNm/m)
N (kN/m)

-900 0

-1800 -400
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
t (s) t (s)

0 400
θ = 270° θ = 270°
M (kNm/m)
N (kN/m)

-900 0

-1800 -400
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
t (s) t (s)

0 400
θ = 315° θ = 315°
M (kNm/m)
N (kN/m)

-900 0

-1800 -400
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
t (s) t (s)

Fig. 24. Evolution of hoop force and bending moment during the earthquake for the stiff clay deposit (1801pyp3151).

evolution of loads with time due to the post-seismic consolidation
stage.
The hypothesis of visco-elasto-plastic soil behaviour induces
important permanent increments of loads for both the investi-
gated geotechnical conditions. This feature should be carefully
considered in the design of underground structures in seismic
areas. In the author’s opinion, this outcome underlines the need
for further research in the direction of adopting more advanced
constitutive models for both soil and tunnel lining, capable of
reproducing more realistically their behaviour under dynamic
conditions (e.g. [35]).
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of
the Italian Ministry of Instruction, University and Research
(Grants: PRIN 2005 ‘‘Monitoraggio e Valutazione della Sicurezza
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

A. Amorosi, D. Boldini / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1059–1072 1071

200.00 radius. The lining response coefficient K1 is given by the following

visco-elastic analysis expression:
visco-elasto-plastic analysis 12ð1  nu Þ
100.00 K1 ¼ (A3)
2F þ 5  6nu
where F is the flexibility ratio. This latter parameter indicates the
τ (kPa)

flexural stiffness (i.e., the resistance to ovaling) of the soil relative

0.00 to the lining [36] and can be calculated as follows:

Eu ð1  n2l Þr 3
F¼ (A4)
6El Ið1 þ nu Þ
-100.00
with I corresponding to the moment of inertia of the tunnel lining
in the transverse direction.
For the no-slip case, the maximum increment in the hoop force
-200.00
-0.15 -0.1 -0.05 0 0.05 in the tunnel lining is equal to
Eu
γ (%) DNmax ¼ K 2 rg (A5)
2ð1 þ nu Þ max
Fig. 25. Comparison between visco-elastic and visco-elasto-plastic shear stress–
while for the specific case of undrained conditions (e.g. [13]), the
strain curves of for the stiff clay deposit relative to a Gauss point at 15 m depth and
3 m distant from the tunnel lining. maximum increment in the bending moment coincides with that
provided by Eq. (A2). K2 is given by the following expression:

F½ð1  2nu Þ  ð1  2nu ÞC  ð1=2Þð1  nu Þ2 þ 2

0.15 K2 ¼ 1 þ
F½ð3  2nu Þ þ ð1  2nu ÞC þ C½ð5=2Þ  8nu þ 6n2u  þ 6  8nu
visco-elastic analysis (A6)
visco-elasto-plastic analysis where
Fourier amplitude (g⋅s)

0.10 Eu ð1  n2l Þr
C¼ (A7)
El tð1 þ nu Þð1  2nu Þ
is the compressibility ratio and t is the thickness of the tunnel
lining in the transverse direction.
0.05
References

[1] Hashash YMA, Hook JJ, Schmidt B, Yao JJ. Seismic design and analysis of
underground structures. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology
2001;16:247–93.
0.00 [2] Yashiro K, Kojima Y, Shimizu M. Historical earthquake damage to tunnels in
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Japan and case studies of railway tunnels in the 2004 Niigataken-Chuetsu
earthquake. Quarterly Report of Railway Technical Research Institute
frequency (Hz) 2007;48(3):136–41.
[3] Manolis GD, Beskos DE. Underground and lifeline structures. In: Computer
Fig. 26. Comparison between visco-elastic and visco-elasto-plastic Fourier spectra
analysis and design of earthquake resistant structures. Southampton:
for the stiff clay deposit relative to a Gauss point at 15 m depth and 3 m distant Computational Mechanics Publication; 1997. p. 775–837.
from the tunnel lining. [4] Owen GN, Scholl RE. Earthquake engineering of large underground structures.
In: Report No. FHWA/RD-80/195. Federal Highway Administration and
National Science Foundation, 1981.
nelle Dighe in Terra e negli Argini Fluviali’’ and PRIN 2006
[5] Lu JF, Jeng DS, Lee TS. Dynamic response of a piecewise circular tunnel
‘‘Effetti Sismici sulle Costruzioni in Sotterraneo’’) and the ReLUIS embedded in a poroelastic medium. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
(Italian University Network of Seismic Engineering Laboratories) Engineering 2007;27:875–91.
network. [6] Hasheminejad SM, Kazemirad S. Dynamic response of an eccentrically lined
circular tunnel in poroelastic soil under seismic excitation. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering 2008;28:277–92.
[7] Mei CC, Foda MA. Wave-induced responses in a fluid-filled poro-elastic solid
Appendix A with a free-surface—a boundary layer theory. Geophysical Journal of the
Royal Astronomical Society 1981;66:597–631.
[8] Mei CC, Si BI, Cai D. Scattering a simple harmonic waves by a circular cavity in
For full-slip conditions, the maximum increments in the hoop a fluid-infiltrated poro-elastic medium. Wave Motion 1984;6:265–78.
force and bending moment in the transverse direction of the [9] Senjuntichai C, Rajapakse RKND. Transient response of a circular cavity in a
poroelastic medium. International Journal for Numerical and Analytical
tunnel lining are given by Methods in Geomechanics 1993;17:357–83.
[10] Hasheminejad SM, Avazmohammadi R. Harmonic wave diffraction by two
1 Eu circular cavities in a poroelastic formation. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
DNmax ¼  K 1 rg (A1)
6 ð1 þ nu Þ max Engineering 2007;27:29–41.
[11] St John CM, Zahrah TF. Aseismic design of underground structures. Tunnelling
and Underground Space Technology 1987;2(2):165–97.
1 Eu
DMmax ¼  K 1 r 2 gmax (A2) [12] Penzien J, Wu CL. Stresses in linings of bored tunnels. Earthquake Engineering
6 ð1 þ nu Þ and Structural Dynamics 1998;27:283–300.
[13] Wang JN. Seismic design of tunnels: a state-of-the-art approach. Monograph
where Eu is the mobilised undrained soil Young’s modulus 7. New York, Parsons, Brinckerhoff: Quade & Diuglas Inc.; 1993.
(evaluated with reference to the previously calculated shear [14] Stamos AA, Beskos DE. Dynamic analysis of large 3-D underground structures
modulus G), nu indicates the corresponding Poisson’s ratio (here by the BEM. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 1995;24(6):
917–34.
assumed equal to 0.5 consistently with the expected undrained [15] Stamos AA, Beskos DE. 3-D seismic response of long lined tunnels in half-
conditions during the seismic excitation) and r is the tunnel space. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 1996;15:111–8.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
1072 A. Amorosi, D. Boldini / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 29 (2009) 1059–1072
[16] Yang D, Naesgaard E, Byrne PM, Adalier K, Abdoun T. Numerical model
verification and calibration of George Massey Tunnel using centrifuge models.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal 2004;41:921–42.
[17] Gazetas G, Gerolymos N, Anastasopoulos I. Response of three Athens metro
underground structures in the 1999 Parnitha earthquake. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering 2005;25:617–33.
[18] Khoshnoudian F, Shahrour I. Numerical analysis of the seismic behaviour of
tunnels constructed in liquefiable soils. Soils and Foundations 2002;42(6):1–8.
[19] Gil LM, Hernandez E, De la Fuente P. Simplified transverse seismic analysis of
buried structures. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 2001;21:735–40.
[20] Viggiani GMB, Atkinson HJ. Stiffness of fine-grained soils at very small strains.
Géotechnique 1995;45(2):249–65.
[21] Bardet JP, Ichii K, Lin CH. EERA—a computer program for Equivalent-linear
Earthquake site Response Analyses of layered soils deposits. User Manual,
2000.
[22] Vucetic M, Dobry R. Effects of the soil plasticity on cyclic response. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering Division, ASCE 1991;117(1):89–107.
[23] Hashash YMA, Park D, Yao JIC. Ovaling deformations of circular tunnels under
seismic loading, an update on seismic design and analysis of underground
structures. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 2005;20:435–41.
[24] Plaxis 2D. Reference Manual, version 8, 2003.
[25] Biot MA. General theory of three-dimensional consolidation. Journal of
Applied Physics 1941;12:155–64.
[26] Katona MC, Zienkiewicz OC. A unified set of single step algorithms. III. The
beta-m method, a generalization of the Newmark scheme. International
Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering 1985;21(7):1345–59.
[27] Clough R, Penzien J. Dynamics of structures. New York: McGraw Hill; 1993.
[28] Lysmer J, Kuhlemeyer RL. Finite dynamic model for infinite media. ASCE EM
1969;90:859–77.
[29] Bathe KJ. Finite element procedures in engineering analysis. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 1982.
[30] Kramer SL. Geotechnical earthquake engineering. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall; 1996.
[31] Woodward PK, Griffiths DV. Influence of viscous damping in the dynamic
analysis of an earth dam using simple constitutive models. Computers and
Geotechnics 1996;19(3):245–63.
[32] Amorosi A, Boldini D, Sasso M. Modellazione numerica del comport-
amento dinamico di gallerie superficiali in terreni argillosi. Technical Report,
p. 490. Published on-line in /http://amsacta.cib.unibo.it/archive/00002392/S,
2008.
[33] Shahrour I, Khoshnoudian F. Analysis of the seismic behavior of tunnels
constructed in soft soils. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on
geotechnics of soft soils—theory and practice. Noordwijkerhout, The Nether-
lands, 2003, p. 339–44.
[34] Bilotta E, Lanzano G, Russo G, Santucci de Magistris F, Silvestri F. Methods for
the seismic analysis of transverse section of circular tunnels in soft ground.
In: Proceedings of the ISSMGE-ERTC 12 workshop at XIV ECSMGE geotechni-
cal aspects of EC8. Madrid, Spain, 2007, Chapter 22.
[35] Zienkiewicz OC, Chan AHC, Pastor M, Schrefler BA, Schiomi T. Computational
geomechanics with special reference to earthquake engineering. Chichester,
UK: Wiley; 1999.
[36] Merrit JL, Monsees JE, Hendron AJ. Seismic design of underground structures.
In: Proceedings of the 1985 rapid excavation tunneling conference, vol. 1. New
York, 1985, p. 104–31.