Accepted Manuscript Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami

Accepted manuscript to appear in JET
Accepted Manuscript
Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami
by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE on 03/18/20. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.
Article Title: Interaction of Urban Underground Twin Metro Tunnels Under Static and
Earthquake Loading
Author(s): Rama Bhadran Jishnu, Ramanathan Ayothiraman
DOI: 10.1142/S1793431120500190
Received: 28 August 2019

J. Earthquake and Tsunami Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com
Accepted: 12 February 2020
To be cited as: Rama Bhadran Jishnu, Ramanathan Ayothiraman, Interaction of Urban

Underground Twin Metro Tunnels Under Static and Earthquake Loading,
Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami, doi: 10.1142/S1793431120500190
Link to final version: https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793431120500190
This is an unedited version of the accepted manuscript scheduled for publication. It has been uploaded
in advance for the benefit of our customers. The manuscript will be copyedited, typeset and proofread
before it is released in the final form. As a result, the published copy may differ from the unedited
version. Readers should obtain the final version from the above link when it is published. The authors
are responsible for the content of this Accepted Article.
Manuscript Click here to access/download;Manuscript;WSPC-JET-D-19-
00062-ManuscriptR1.docx
T
IP
CR
Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami
 World Scientific Publishing Company
Interaction of Urban Underground Twin Metro Tunnels under Static and

Earthquake Loading
US
Rama Bhadran Jishnu
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas
New Delhi, 110016, India
jishnurb@gmail.com
AN Ramanathan Ayothiraman
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Hauz Khas
New Delhi, 110016, India
araman@civil.iitd.ac.in
Received (Day Month Year)

Revised (Day Month Year)
Accepted (Day Month Year)
New Delhi is a city affected by near/far-field earthquakes, where underground metro construction
DM
activities have been undertaken since the early 2000s. Due to the seismic effects, these structures are
designed by conventional force/displacement methods. The present study validates the efficacy of
these methods, numerically. For this, varying geotechnical conditions in static and seismic cases
were quantified with the expected ground motion. Bored tunnels at different cover depths were
modeled in 2D and 3D, to ascertain the static response of these structures, followed by a true
dynamic analysis. It was found that conventional design procedures using force methods gave
conservative estimates for increments on the tunnel liner. Also, the importance of a full dynamic
analysis could not be ignored because, (i) higher surface spectral responses were found at the tunnel
pillar location and, (ii) the cumulative strains on the tunnel liner were found to exceed permissible
limits.
Keywords: Pseudo-static; quasi-static; seismic analysis; tunnels.
TE
1. Introduction
In urban metro centers, especially in developing economies, transportation by
underground means has been on a steady rise. One such instance in India is the capital
city of Delhi itself, where seismic demands are high. The Indian subcontinent is divided
into four seismic zones ranging from Zone II to Zone V. This is based on the expected
EP
hazard of impending tectonic activities [IS 1893, Criteria for earthquake resistant design
of structures, 2002]. New Delhi, where underground metro construction activities have
been on the rise since the early 2000s, falls on seismic Zone IV. Hence it will be prudent
enough to ascertain the safety of these structures against such expected tectonic activities.
Two major methods are adopted for the seismic analysis/design of tunnels. They are
simplified or conventional design procedures using force (called pseudo-static
C
1
AC
T
IP
CR
2 Jishnu and Ayothiraman
approaches) or displacement (quasi-static approaches) approaches and true dynamic

methods. In force methods, additional inertial loads from soil to the tunnel have been
quantified using “seismic coefficients” [IS 1893, Criteria for earthquake resistant design
of structures, 2002]. However in displacement approaches, since the surrounding soil

inertia during seismic activity is large compared to the inertia of the structure, the
response is studied by imposing fictitious deformations resulting in ovalling or racking
US
[Hashash et al., 2001]. In this study, since circular tunnels are only discussed, ovalling
deformations are only considered. Various solutions in this regard have been reported in
the literature [Wang, 1993; Penzien and Wu, 1998; Penzien, 2000; Bobet, 2003; Park et
al., 2009; Corigliano et al., 2011]. However, after a detailed review of all these
methods[Hashash et al., 2005], it was recommended to use Wang’s [1993] method over
Penzein’s [1998; 2000] solutions, especially for rough tunnel soil interfaces. Also, these
AN
solutions were comparable to Park's [2009] and Bobet's [2003] solutions. From all the
quasi-static solutions, it is clear that relative stiffness between tunnel liner and
surrounding soil medium plays an important role in attracting seismic forces. Also from
both quasi and pseudo-static solutions, it is clear that at shallow tunnel cover depths,
seismic effects on tunnel liner could be more prominent. True dynamic methods are
generally divided into experimental methods and numerical methods. Most of the
experimental approaches were either centrifugal tests [Bilotta et al., 2009; Lanzano et al.,
2010; Cilingir and Madabhushi, 2011; Baziar et al., 2014; Ulgen et al., 2015; Tsinidis et
DM
al., 2015] or shake table tests [Gao et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2015; Kawamata et al., 2016;
Xianfeng et al., 2017; Zhou et al., 2018; Zhao et al., 2019]. Like quasi-static solutions, by
experimental methods also, it was found that tunnels with higher relative stiffness (low
flexibility ratios) could attract higher seismic forces [Cilingir and Madabhushi, 2011;
Ulgen et al., 2015]. Based on the experimental studies for tunnels at varying cover depths
[Zhao et al., 2019], it was concluded that shallow cover depths may result in the
accumulation of higher seismic forces. Some of these studies [Baziar et al., 2014]
suggested that the presence of underground structures could affect surface acceleration
and these effects should be incorporated during seismic zonation of urban areas. It was
also suggested [Kawamata et al., 2016] that by incorporating certain stiffness reduction in
TE
tunnel segment joints (making it more flexible), the tunnel liners could be economically
designed. While performing numerical approaches it was found that relative stiffness of
the tunnel liner [Pakbaz and Yareevand, 2005], flexibility of tunnel joints [Hashash et al.,
2001; Dean et al., 2006; Kaneshiro and Sinha, 2008] and non linearity of constitutive
models [Amorosi and Boldini, 2009; Shahrour et al., 2010; Sliteen et al., 2013] played an
important role in the seismic response of tunnels. After detailed studies on seismic
EP
interaction between twin tunnels it was found that pillar width [Liu and Wang, 2012;
Liang et al., 2014; Alielahi and Adampira, 2016], flexibility ratio [Lin et al., 2017] and
tunnel cover depth [Alielahi and Adampira, 2016] played an important role in these
responses. Although axial thrust [Chen and Gui, 2011; Hamdy et al., 2015] were not
found to be significantly affected by such interactions, it was observed that ground
responses [Anitha Kumari et al., 2012; Tsinidis, 2018] were significantly affected by the
C
AC
T
IP
CR
Interaction of Urban Underground Twin Metro Tunnels under Static and Earthquake Loading 3
presence of twin tunnels. However before carrying out the seismic studies on twin
tunnels, construction stage interactions between them needs to be simulated [Baziar et al.,
2014]
In the present study, static response for bored metro twin tunnels (excavated by
mechanized methods) is studied, incorporating construction sequence. Metro tunnels are
US
normally constructed one after the other with an appropriate tunnel lag distance[Do,
2014]. This will result in variation of surface settlement profiles [Chapman et al., 2007;
Suwansawat and Einstein, 2007; Choi and Lee, 2010; Chen et al., 2011; He et al., 2012]
and existing tunnel liner forces [Ng et al., 2004; Liu et al., 2008]. It was observed that
pillar width [Chapman et al., 2007; Choi and Lee, 2010; He et al., 2012], lag distance and
cover depth [Hage Chehade and Shahrour, 2008; Afifipour et al., 2011; Ercelebi et al.,
AN
2011; Mirhabibi and Soroush, 2012; Hasanpour et al., 2012; Chakeri et al., 2013; Pedro
et al., 2018] plays an important role in these responses. Studies on the effect of segment
joints on these interactions [Do, 2014] concluded that it is conservative to consider liner
as continuous elements. Hence these interactions need to be quantified for Delhi soil
conditions and pertaining tunnel geometries, to ensure such effects are not detrimental.
Further, seismic analyses need to be performed using site-specific earthquake to ensure
whether existing design practices (simplified methods based on force and displacement
approaches viz. pseudo-static and quasi-static methods respectively) could be safely
DM
continued. At this point, it has to be clearly mentioned that the scope of the current study
is applicable only for dry soil conditions.
2. Ground Profile, Ground Motion, Tunnel Parameters, and Mesh Domain
2.1. Ground profile

New Delhi, which covers a land area of about 1482 sq. km is characterized mainly by un-
oxidized sand, silt, and clay with occasional occurrences of kankar. Apart from these
deposits, minor intercalations of schist bands can be observed in the southern part [Parvez
et al., 2004]. Due to extensive construction activities in Delhi, umpteen geotechnical logs
TE
are available for such desk studies. However, geotechnical parameters obtained from
such tests resulted in a great scatter. As a result, tests conducted under the supervision of
the Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi [Hanumantharao and Ramana, 2008] only were
used in this study. Three representative geotechnical bore logs were adopted from this
literature, which gives the SPT ‘N’ variation along with the depth. These profiles had
been used in the same literature for small strain shear modulus deduction, applicable for
EP
the entire Delhi region. It could be seen that the uncorrected SPT 'N' values vary from 2-
40 for Profile-1, 6-46 for Profile-2, 5-20 for Profile -3, for the first 21.5m depth (Fig. 2,
[Hanumantharao and Ramana, 2008]). From these SPT 'N' profiles, effective friction
angles (φ') abiding Mohr-Coulomb criterion could be deduced [Meyerhoff, 1956], which
can then be corrected for cohesion, by reducing 5 o friction angle [Burt Look, 2007].
Effective cohesion (c') for these alluvial type of deposits (CL, SM- SP, ML-SM, CL-ML
C
AC
T
IP
CR
as per USGS classification) range from 15 - 30 kPa [Burt Look, 2007; Swiss Standard SN
670 010b, 1999], accounting for varying percentage fines [Hanumantharao and Ramana,
2008].
For dynamic analysis, geotechnical parameters and corresponding constitutive model

have to be identified. For Delhi soils, small strain shear modulus (Gmax) could be deduced
US
from Eq. (1) below, where 'ρ' represents density in kg/m3 and 'Vs' represents the shear
wave velocity in m/s.
𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 𝜌𝑉𝑠2 (1)
Here, shear wave velocity of soils in Delhi for various profiles computed using Eq. (2) is
AN
shown in Fig. 1(a). This literature also proposed to approximate modulus reduction and
damping curves for Delhi (Fig. 1(b)), as lower bound sand curves [Seed and Idriss, 1970]
like other locations in India [Dammala et al., 2017; Govindaraju and Bhattacharya, 2012;
Puri et al., 2018]. Site-specific design curves could be developed using various methods
[Assimaki et al., 2000; Cheng and Leong, 2018, 2014; Nyunt et al., 2011; Upreti and
Leong, 2018]. This deduction was based on the strain and stress-controlled cyclic triaxial
tests, conducted at IIT Delhi [ASTM D3999-91, 1991]
DM
𝑉𝑠 = 82.6𝑁 0.43 (2)

TE
Fig. 1. Geotechnical profiles and hysteretic behavior of deposits (a) Shear wave velocity plots for different soil
profiles in New Delhi (b) Modulus reduction and damping curves adopted for New Delhi
EP
Apart from the above expected hysteretic damping, a certain amount of Rayleigh
damping (here 5%, as recommended by [Schnabel et al., 1972]) is also assumed for these
deposits. This is to capture the irreversible behavior of soil at strain levels less than 10 -4
% [Laera and Brinkgreve, 2015]. Such responses were captured using formulations given
in Eq. (3) (Here [C] the damping matrix could be expressed as a summation of the
proportional product of mass [M] and stiffness [K] matrices). Here damping coefficients
C
AC
T
IP
CR
(α and β) were computed using recommendations [Amorosi et al., 2010; Hashash and
Park, 2002; Hudson et al., 1994]. In order to obtain these damping coefficients, two target
frequencies [Laera and Brinkgreve, 2015] have to be defined. The first frequency (f1) is
equal to the fundamental frequency [Hashash and Park, 2002] of the soil column
considered (Eq. (4)) whereas the second frequency (f2) is the closest odd number (higher)
given [Amorosi et al., 2010] by the ratio of fundamental frequency of the input signal at
US
the bedrock (fd) to the fundamental frequency of the whole layer (Eq. (5)). In Eq. (4),
‘vs,avg’ represents the average shear wave velocity for the considered geotechnical profile
for the top ‘H’ meters. In finite element tools at least two target Rayleigh damping ratios
(ξ) need to be defined. In this study, both values were assumed as 1% [Laera and
Brinkgreve, 2015]. Once these target damping ratios are assumed, the Rayleigh damping
coefficients ‘α’ and ‘β’ were given by Eqs. (6) and (7).
AN
[𝐶] = 𝛼[𝑀] + 𝛽[𝐾]
𝑓1 =
𝑣𝑠,𝑎𝑣𝑔
4𝐻
𝑓2 = 𝑂𝐷𝐷 ( )
𝑓𝑑
(3)
(4)
(5)
𝑓1
𝑓1 𝜉2 −𝑓2 𝜉1
𝛼 = 2𝑓1 𝑓2 (6)
𝑓12 −𝑓22
𝑓1 𝜉1 −𝑓2 𝜉2
𝛽=2 (7)
𝑓12 −𝑓22
DM
Then, for the simulation of ground response in Delhi under static and seismic conditions,
Hardening soil model with small-strain stiffness available in finite element package,
PLAXIS 2D 2015.02/3D AE.02 (Delft, Netherlands) is used. Deformation modulus of soil
(Es) has been computed from SPT ‘N’ logs as shown in Eq. (8) [Bowles, 1997]. For the
computation of oedometer modulus (constrained modulus, Eoed), Eq. (9) [Lambe and
Whitman, 1969] is used (Poisson’s ratio (μ) = 0.33). Thus at any confining stress (σ3') for
soft soil (Es< 30 MPa) deposits (power for stress level dependency, m= 0.8), oedometer
modulus at any reference pressure (Eoedref, at pref =100kPa), could be computed for Mohr-
Coulomb model (cohesion, c, friction angle, ϕ, Jaky’s coefficient, K0nc= 1-sinϕ) as shown
TE
in Eq. (10) [Laera and Brinkgreve, 2015]. As explained, to capture the hysteretic
behavior of the soil in the numerical model, modulus reduction behavior is approximated
by simplified hyperbolic laws [Hardin and Drnevich, 1972; Santos and Correia, 2001].
To simulate the modulus reduction behavior of lower bound sand curves [Seed and Idriss,
1970], threshold strain (γt) is taken as 0.007% (as shown in Eq. (11)) where small strain
shear modulus reduces to 70% of the maximum value (Gmax).
EP
𝐸𝑠 = 5000(𝑁 + 15) 𝑘𝑃𝑎 (8)
𝑠 𝐸 (1−𝜇)
𝐸𝑜𝑒𝑑 = (1−2𝜇)(1+𝜇) (9)
C
AC
T
IP
CR
′ 𝑚
𝜎3
𝑐 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜑− 𝑛𝑐 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜑
𝑟𝑒𝑓 𝐾0
𝐸𝑜𝑒𝑑 = 𝐸𝑜𝑒𝑑 ( ) (10)
𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑠𝜑+ 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑓 𝑠𝑖𝑛𝜑
𝐺⁄ 1
𝐺𝑚𝑎𝑥 = 1+0.385𝛾⁄𝛾𝑡 (11)
US
For any dynamic analysis, bedrock depth for the area under consideration need to be
ascertained. Metro construction activity happens mostly in the South and the
Southeastern parts of Delhi. Bedrock depth varies from 10-80m in these locations
[National Center for Seismology, 2016]. However, in this study, a variation of bedrock
depth from 25 m-50 m is only considered. This is due to the fact that, at shallow bedrock
depths (<25 m) where the cover depth of the tunnel > 3times tunnel diameter (general
AN
maximum depth of metro tunnels in Delhi), tunnel boring could happen on the rock.
These tunnels with high flexibility ratios tend to attract fewer liner forces [Pakbaz and
Yareevand, 2005]. Beyond 50 m, ground response analysis is ignored at these
geotechnical conditions, as it creates a negligible impact on tunnel liner forces and
surface spectral responses. Hence for this study, bedrock depths at 25 m, 40 m, and 50 m
were considered.
Once these geotechnical parameters for static and seismic conditions are arrived at,
DM
possible earthquake motion that can affect metro alignment (in the South and
Southeastern part of Delhi) could be generated.
2.2. Generation of artificial ground motion

Seismic hazard microzonation for New Delhi has been performed using tectonic
modeling by the Center of Seismology, Government of India [National Center for
Seismology, 2016], after identifying possible seismic source zones. Based on the seismic
hazard parameters, certain spectral values were arrived at, with their corresponding return
periods. From an engineering perspective, spectral values for MCE (Maximum
TE
Considered Earthquake return period of 2500 years) and DBE (Design Basis Earthquake-
return period of 475 years) conditions were deduced. As the analysis is site-specific, the
response spectrum developed at the closest location of the underground metro alignment
(i.e. at the southern part of Delhi, at Tigri) was used for the study. The spectrum for DBE
condition was being used for the generation of the artificial earthquake as the design life
of metro structures is around 120 years. For an expected magnitude (Mw) of 7.0, at
seismic Zone IV, the typical duration of ground motion near-fault rupture is around 20s
EP
[Day, 2002]. Conforming to the above-mentioned parameters, the artificial earthquake

was generated by the “Target Response Spectrum Method” using SIMQKE utility
(http://nisee.berkeley.edu/elibrary/getpkg?id=SIMQKE2). Mathematically this artificial
earthquake (Z(t)) is given by Eq. (12). Here ‘An’,‘ωn’,‘φn’ represents the amplitude,
frequency and phase angle of nth contributing sinusoid whereas ‘I(t)’ represents
C
AC
T
IP
CR
deterministic envelope function (to simulate transient nature of earthquakes, [Hou, 1968;
Jennings et al., 1968]).
𝑛
𝑍(𝑡) = 𝐼(𝑡) ∑𝑖=1 𝐴𝑛 𝑠𝑖𝑛(𝜔𝑛 𝑡 + 𝜑𝑛 ) (12)
US
This was further checked for high-frequency components (> 15 Hz) to produce ground
motion, applicable at the bedrock in Delhi. The comparison of Artificial Ground motion
Spectra (Sa/g-AGS) with Target Spectra (Sa/g-TS), artificial ground motion, and its power
spectra is shown in Fig. 2(a), Fig. 2(b) and Fig. 2(c), respectively. A comparison of the
Artificial Ground motion Spectra (Sa/g-AGS) with the design acceleration spectrum (Fig.
2, IS 1893) used in India, for DBE (0.12g), MCE (0.24g) and a mean case (0.18g) is
shown in Fig. 2(d).
AN
DM
TE
Fig. 2. Parameters pertaining to artificial ground motion (a) Spectra developed for Delhi based on seismic
EP
sources and Spectra of earthquake motion used in present study (Comparison) (b) Ground motion generated for
present study (c) Power spectra of generated ground motion (d) Comparison of artificial ground motion spectra
with spectra recommended by Indian Standard Codes
C
AC
T
IP
CR
2.3. Tunnel parameters
2.3.1. Idealization of segmental lining

For metro tunnels in Delhi, generally, a clear internal diameter of 5.8 m is specified as a
bare minimum to accommodate all the necessary units of transit. The thickness of the
US
segment should be of sufficient dimension, that the lining deformation should be limited,
to avoid joint openings (seepages). Such a thickness should be sufficient enough to limit
any cracking issue (durability). A thumb rule to cater to these constraints could be to have
a segmental thickness (290 mm in this case) of 1/20th of the tunnel diameter [Bakker and
Blom, 2009]. However, Delhi Metro Rail Corporation insists on keeping pre-cast
segment thickness to 275 mm. M45 concrete (28 days cube strength (fck) of 45 MPa) is
used for casting segments. These segments are normally erected in 5+1 configurations,
AN
i.e. 3 main segments at the invert subtending 72 o at the center, 2 main segments at the
crown subtending 64.5o at the center and 1 key segment at the crown subtending 15 o at
the center (Fig. 3(a)).
DM
TE
EP
Fig. 3. Idealization of longitudinal joints for tunnel liner (a) Typical cross section for the tunnel segment
arrangement in New Delhi (b) Deduction of joint stiffness ratio for varying joint thicknesses (c) Elasto plastic
joint behaviour for varying stiffness ratio
C
AC
T
IP
CR
Since the stiffness of the ring has a major effect on ring deformation, it is important to
model longitudinal joints for the tunnel. PLAXIS 2D could be used to model longitudinal
joints in the tunnel, by computing rotational stiffness (Kθ) at these junctions. Moment-
rotation relationships at longitudinal segmental joints have been reported in the literature
[Gladwell, 1980; Janssen, 1983]. Joint behavior in the terms of liner bending rigidity
(‘EI’, where ‘E’ represents modulus of concrete and ‘I’ represents the moment of inertia
US
of the liner) could be expressed [Lee and Ge, 2001]using joint stiffness ratio (λ) as shown
in Eq. (13).
𝐾𝜃
𝜆= (13)
𝐸𝐼
Direct computation of rotational stiffness is performed [Janssen, 1983] using Eq. (14). In
AN
this approach, longitudinal joints were assumed to behave in an elastoplastic manner with
a yield moment of 120 kNm/m [Blom, 2002]. Here, it is assumed that a moment, ‘M’
causes a rotation of ‘φ’ for a joint of length ‘b’, and thickness of ‘h’.
12𝑀
φ= (14)
𝑏𝐸ℎ2
For this study, a comparison (Fig. 3(b)) between the above two approaches (moment
DM
rotation computation using actual joint parameters and joint stiffness ratio) resulted in
joint stiffness ratios of 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5. These values are in agreement with the literature
[Lee and Ge, 2001]. In this study, along with these computed joint stiffness ratios, the
sensitivity of ignoring the joint rotation was also considered. Elastoplastic joints (Fig.
3(c)) were assumed for longitudinal connections of the tunnel liner, for the above
mentioned varying joint stiffness ratios. However, for three-dimensional analysis,
incorporating rotational stiffness is not possible because only fixed or free joints are
possible in PLAXIS 3D. Hence indirect methods [Blom, 2002; JSCE, 1996] for
incorporating joints are considered. For tunnels in soft ground (soil resistance coefficient,
Ks< 30000 kN/m3), it is recommended [Lee and Ge, 2001] to reduce the bending rigidity
TE
of tunnel liner (EIred) by 35% (η=0.65). This is in agreement with the similar design
guidelines [JSCE, 1996] which proposed to reduce the bending rigidity of the tunnel liner
from 20 – 40%. Hence, to account for the joints, bending rigidity of the liner has been
reduced by 35% (Eq. (15))
𝐸𝐼𝑟𝑒𝑑 = 𝜂𝐸𝐼 (15)

EP
2.3.2. Face pressure and grout pressure calculation

To control face loss during 3D excavation analysis of tunnel, where erection happens ring
by ring, adequate face pressure will be applied by the TBM (Tunnel Boring Machine).
C
AC
T
IP
CR
The calculation of the face pressure to be applied at the machine front is a challenge. For
soft ground tunneling, various analytical formulations have been proposed. Most of these
methods are based on limit equilibrium analysis [Anagnostou and Kovári, 1994; Broere,
2001; Leca and Dormieux, 1990]. However, for the present study, the calculation of face
pressure was accomplished by numerical methods. These methods give reasonable results
for the minimum face pressure at all cover depths (1D, 2D, and 3D, where 'D' represents
US
tunnel diameter). Also, it has to be ensured that excess displacements do not happen at
the face in a three-dimensional FE model. One such method [Vermeer et al., 2002],
which proposed a successive reduction of face displacement with the increase in face
pressure, was used in this study. To implement this method, three-dimensional models
were made for all geotechnical profiles at all cover depths, where the shield of the TBM
was allowed to enter fully into the numerical model without any face support. Then the
AN
face pressure was incremented in stages to obtain the minimum face pressure, where the
maximum face displacements remained negligible (<0.1% of tunnel diameter). For full-
scale excavation models, face pressure was incremented from these computed values at
the crown, using lateral earth pressure principles. Based on the uncorrected SPT 'N'
values of the three geotechnical profiles considered, Profile -1 will have intermediate
resistance to deformation, whereas Profile -3 will be weak and Profile-2 will be
sufficiently resistant. A caving phenomenon observed for Profile-1, at Cover depth =2.0D
is shown in Fig. 4(a). It is clear that for all geotechnical profiles, with an increase in the
DM
cover depth, there will be an increase in the face pressure (Fig. 4(b)). This is due to the
increase in the in-situ stresses with the depth. Also, the highest face pressure was
observed for the profile with the least deformation modulus (Profile-3) at all cover
depths. For the profile with the highest deformation modulus (Profile-2), lower face
pressure was observed. These observations are shown in Fig. 4(c).
For grout pressure calibration, certain recommendations are available in the literature
[Saveur, 2003]. Two cases have been stated here (1) High-pressure condition: pressure at
the crown = total stress of the soil, and increases downwards by 20 kPa/m. (2) Low-
pressure condition: pressure at the crown = water pressure + 50 % effective stress,
TE
pressure at the invert=water pressure. Here, since dry soil conditions have been used, case
1 was used for excavation modeling.
2.4. Mesh domain

For three-dimensional finite element analysis (for static interaction/pseudo-static
analysis), mesh domain around the excavation is decided based on similar works
EP
performed in the literature [Moller, 2006]. As per these studies, a minimum distance
(between tunnel invert and bottom boundary) of 1.45D (where ‘D’ represents tunnel
diameter), a width of 2D (1+H/D) (where ‘H’ represents cover above the tunnel crown),
and length of D (13+3.67H/D) is required. Thus in these studies for a 6m diameter tunnel,
and a possible pillar width of 2D and a maximum cover depth of 3D, a mesh domain of
C
AC
T
IP
CR
90m (width)*50m(height)*150m(length) is considered (Number of elements =126158,

Number of nodes = 182232).
US
AN
DM
Fig. 4. Tunnel Face Behaviour (a) Caving at the unsupported face of the tunnel (CD=2.0D, Profile-1)
(b)Variation of face pressure with maximum tunnel face deformation (Profile -1) at various cover depths
(c)Minimum face pressure (at crown) computation for all profiles at various cover depths
TE
For full dynamic analysis, two-dimensional approaches are used. For tunnels under
seismic loads, specific recommendations regarding mesh domain were given in the
literature [Do, 2014; Gomes, 2000]. The lateral extent from vertical boundary to the
tunnel periphery is considered to be 3.0 times tunnel diameter [Gomes, 2000] and 4.5
times tunnel diameter [Do, 2014] as per literature. In this study, from a conservative point
EP
of view, 7.5 times tunnel diameter is considered as a lateral extent. The vertical extent
during full dynamic analysis is decided based on bedrock depth. The mesh size is decided
based on literature [Kuhlemeyer and Lysmer, 1973] ensuring the fact that the size of the
element is sufficiently small compared to the transmitted wavelength.
C
AC
T
IP
CR
𝑉
𝑠𝑚𝑖𝑛
𝛥𝑙 ≤ 10𝑓 (16)
𝑚𝑎𝑥
In Eq. (16), the minimum shear wave velocity (Vs, min) was computed from Eq. (2). Based
on these correlations a minimum mesh size of 1.5 m is required. Thus for static and
seismic analysis, the element size is kept as 1.0 m. For three dimensional analyses,
US
standard boundary conditions (roller supports at vertical boundaries, fixity at the base and
free boundary at the top) were used. For full dynamic analyses, free boundary conditions
were used at the top, where absorbent boundary conditions were used at the sides and
seismic energy input was used at the base. In this study, for three-dimensional analyses,
10 noded tetrahedron elements were used whereas for two-dimensional analyses 6 noded
triangular elements were used. Typical geometry of two-dimensional and three-
dimensional mesh is shown in Fig 5.

AN
DM
TE
Fig. 5. Model geometry considered (a) Linear elastic plates used for tunnel modeling in 3D model (b) Three
dimensional mesh domain (c) Two dimensional model domain
3. Theory of Conventional Methods and Free Field Analysis

EP
3.1. Conventional approaches for seismic design of underground structures

Amongst practitioners in India, two general methods have been adopted for the seismic
analysis of underground structures, since true dynamic analysis requires elaborate
computational resources. They are (1) pseudo-static analysis for underground structures
C
AC
T
IP
CR
using IS 1893 [IS 1893, Criteria for earthquake resistant design of structures, 2002] (2)
quasi-static analysis. In this study, the applicability of these analyses for underground
structures was checked for DBE conditions. To apply pseudo-static analysis for
underground structures, it was recommended [IS 1893, Criteria for earthquake resistant
design of structures, 2002] to reduce the design horizontal seismic coefficient (Ah, as
computed in Eq. (12)) at the surface to its 50% at a depth of 30m. In Eq. (17), ‘Z/2’
US
represents zonal seismic coefficient in DBE condition, ‘I’ the importance factor (1.5 for
important structures), ‘R’ the response reduction factor (3.0 for concrete structures) and
‘Sa/g’ represents the maximum possible spectral response for design acceleration
spectrum (2.5 as per Fig. 2, [IS 1893, Criteria for earthquake resistant design of
structures, 2002]).
𝑍𝐼𝑆𝑎
𝐴ℎ =
AN 2𝑅𝑔
Thus at varying tunnel cover depths in New Delhi, pseudo-static coefficients were
obtained as shown in Table 1(a). Vertical coefficients were taken as 2/3 times of
(17)
horizontal acceleration coefficients. For quasi-static analysis, horizontal translations

compatible with free field strains are imposed on the ground surface. Further structural
responses on the tunnel are noted. Although various closed-form quasi-static solutions are
DM
available [Bobet, 2003; Kouretzis et al., 2013; Park et al., 2009; Penzien, 2000; Penzien
and Wu, 1998; Wang, 1993], it was recommended [Hashash et al., 2005] to use Wang
[1993] approach for these problems. A numerical simulation was performed in PLAXIS
2D for a classical problem [Hashash et al., 2005], and validated with Wang[1993]
approach to get close comparisons (Figs. 9 and 10 [Jishnu and Ayothiraman, 2017]).
Finally, horizontal translations (Δx), (compatible with free field strain) at the ground
surface, at any bedrock depth (hmod) is given by Eq. (18). Here strain variation (Δγ) along
the soil column is obtained from a one-dimensional ground response analysis [Schnabel
et al., 1972] as shown in Fig. 6(a). Thus computed free field translations are given in
Table 1(b).
TE
𝛥𝑥 = 𝛥𝛾 ∗ ℎ 𝑚𝑜𝑑 (18)
Table 1. Computation of parameters for conventional seismic analysis
(a) Computation of coefficients for pseudo static approach

EP
Cover Depth/Diameter Ah(g) Av(g)
1 0.128 0.085
2 0.113 0.075
3 0.098 0.065
C
AC
T
IP
CR
Table 1. (b) Computation of free field strain compatible displacements using quasi static
approach
hmod Profile Δγ (%) Δx(mm)

25 1 0.08 20.03
25 2 0.06 15.24
US
25 3 0.09 23.47
40 1 0.08 31.20
40 2 0.07 28.79
40 3 0.09 34.48
50 1 0.07 33.07
50 2 0.05 25.40
50 3 0.12 57.62
AN
To confirm the quasi coefficients, apparent propagation velocity (Cs) for individual
profiles was computed [Power et al., 1996] from shear wave velocity (Vs).
V
γmax = Cs (19)
s
DM
For all geotechnical profiles of Delhi, it was found that calculated apparent propagation
velocity varied from 1-5 km/s. This is in agreement with the reported values in the
literature [O’Rourke and Liu, 1999; Paulocci and Pitikalis, 2007; Power et al., 1996].
3.2. Free-field analysis

It has already been discussed that, for quasi-static methods, free field analysis has to be
performed. Therefore, the analysis was carried out [Schnabel et al., 1972] and some
significant observations were made. It was observed that the majority of amplification for
all geotechnical profiles in terms of a spectral response happened in the top 6-8 m as
reported in the literature [Hashash et al., 2018]. This trend for Profile -1 is shown in Fig.
TE
6(b). Such trends happen due to low confinement. Another important observation is the
effect of bedrock depth on surface spectral response. It was found that for shallow
bedrock depths (< 25 m), spectral response is maximum for all geotechnical profiles. This
could be due to two reasons (1) shallow depth of seismic source (2) low confinement of
deposits, due to shallow overburden. This trend for Profile-1 is shown in Fig. 6(c). The
free field spectral response is compared with the design acceleration spectrum (Fig. 2, IS
EP
1893) used in India, for DBE (0.12 g), MCE (0.24 g) and a mean case (0.18 g). It was
confirmed that for all geotechnical profiles, free field spectral response is well within the
limits of maximum expected response. The trend for Profile -2 (stiffer response is
expected) is shown in Fig. 6 (d). The dependency of profiles on free field response was
also studied, for which the maximum response happened for Profile -2. This was because,
for stiffer deposits, (soils of low deformation modulus) the loss of earthquake energy in
C
AC
T
IP
CR
the form of strain energy is less (Fig. 6(a)). The aforementioned comparison, i.e.
geotechnical profile dependency on free field spectral response at bedrock depth of 25 m
(where a maximum surface spectral response is expected) is also shown in Fig. 6(e).
US
AN
DM
TE
EP
Fig. 6. Free field responses (a) Strains at varying bedrock depths and profiles (b) Spectral Amplification
variation for top 7m for Profile-1 (c) Spectral sensitivity for varying bed rock depth for Profile-1 (d) Maximum
spectral amplification comparison with design spectra (e) Spectral variation for varying profiles at shallow bed
rock depth (25 m)
C
AC
T
IP
CR
4. Ground Response to Tunneling and Pillar Width Stability

For excavation analysis (in 2D and 3D), volume loss for Delhi metro tunnels has to be
assumed with reasonable precision to get reliable results. Generally, a volume loss of 0.5
- 1.0% is assumed for Delhi metro tunnels. In this study, a volume loss of 0.75% using
the contraction method [Vermeer and Brinkgreve, 1993] was adopted. In three
US
dimensional analysis, this volume loss value was assumed to increase linearly from 0%
(at TBM face) to 0.75% (at TBM tail), to simulate the conical shape of the TBM shield.
Computations of grout pressure (for two and three-dimensional analysis) and face
pressure for varying geotechnical conditions (for three-dimensional analyses) have been
explained in Sec. 2.3.2. For the TBM shield, a thickness of 0.17 m is considered. A
weight density of 7800 kg/m3, young’s modulus of 200 GPa and Poisson’s ratio of 0.10 is
assumed for the shield.
AN
The comparison of ground settlement trough between 2D and 3D analysis, at cover depth,
=3.0D for Profile-1 is shown in Fig. 7(a). To confirm the magnitude of maximum
settlements (as shown by Eq. (20)), these values were compared (Table 2) with values
reported in the literature [Atkinson and Potts, 1977; Attewell, 1977; Clough and Schmidt,
1981; Mair, 1993; O’Reilly and New, 1982; Peck, 1969], for a volume loss of 0.75%.
Here ‘VL’ represents volume loss, ‘D’ the tunnel diameter, and ‘i’ trough width due to
excavation. Similar observations were obtained for other cover depths for other
DM
geotechnical profiles.
0.313𝑉𝐿𝐷2
𝑆𝑚𝑎𝑥 = (20)
𝑖
Table 2. Surface settlement comparison between present analysis and classical methods
Study Maximum settlement (mm)

Peck,1969 10.16
Attewell,1977 9.01
TE
Atkinson and Potts,1979 11.44

Clough and Schmidt,1981 11.45
Oreilly and New,1982 9.34
Mair,1993 9.01
Present Study (2D analysis) 11.27
Present Study (3D analysis) 10.94
EP
For metro tunnels, settlements happen further as the latter tunnel is excavated after the
stabilization of the first tunnel, resulting in asymmetric settlement curves [Chapman et
al., 2007; Chen et al., 2011; Ng et al., 2004], which is shown in Fig. 7(b). Second tunnel
excavation happened only after the stabilization of settlements, which occurred due to
first tunnel excavation. Such settlements along tunnel drive direction become stable once
C
AC
T
IP
CR
the TBM of the first tunnel advances by a certain distance (For Profile -1, lag distance of
around 60 m (i.e. around 10D where ‘D’ represents the diameter of the tunnel-Fig. 7(c))
is obtained).
US
AN
DM
TE
EP
Fig. 7. Static tunnel excavation responses (a) Comparison of surface settlements (CD=3.0D,Profile 1) between
2D and 3D (b)Asymmetric twin tunnel settlements at varying cover depths (c) Longitudinal settlement trends
after a tunnel lag distance of 10D (d) Stability analysis for tunnel pillar using strength factor method (e) Arching
trends on the tunnel liner at varying cover depths
C
AC
T
IP
CR
To ensure the pillar stability, a pillar width of 2D (as generally adopted for Delhi metro
tunnels) was used. "Strength factor" (SF) of this pillar was computed using Rocscience
RS 2, V9.0. For soils showing elastoplastic behavior, strength factors were computed
(www.rocscience.com/help/rs2/pdf_files/theory/Strength_Factor.pdf). The results show

that, even for soil deposits with least deformation modulus (Profile-3), at the maximum
cover depth (CD/D= 3.0), a pillar width of 2D is sufficient (Fig. 7 (d)). These results are
US
also in agreement with the behavior of twin tunnels being reported in the literature [He et
al., 2012]. Also, arching trends for thrust in the tunnel drive direction has been observed
(Fig. 7(e)) as reported in literature [Bonnier et al., 2010]. As expected, at higher
overburden/cover depths, arching trends tend to diminish.
5. Interaction between Tunnels during Second Tunnel Excavation

AN
DM
TE
Fig. 8. Static Interaction study in two dimensions (a) Pillar width sensitivity on thrust increments for varying
cover depths (b) Pillar width sensitivity on induced moments for varying cover depths (c) Pillar width
sensitivity on induced moment for varying rotational stiffness (d) Pillar width sensitivity on thrust increments
EP
for varying rotational stiffness
As discussed in the Sec. 4, the second tunnel is constructed after the erection of the first
liner, and sufficient stabilization of longitudinal settlement trough. Thus, there could be
interaction happening on the erected liner [Chua and Leong, 2007; Li et al., 2010], when
it is known that surface settlement troughs would be affected [Chapman et al., 2007;
C
AC
T
IP
CR
Chen et al., 2011; Ng et al., 2004]. From the earlier sections, it is clear that a pillar width
of ‘2D’ is adequate from the perspective of stability. In this section, the importance of
provided pillar width in terms of imparted forces on the erected liner was studied (for
tunnels having least flexibility ratio i.e. at Profile -3). The results are summarized as:
(1) Excavation at close proximity of an erected liner could result in thrust
increments and induced moments on the existing liner. Magnitudes of them, at a
US
pillar width of 2D, were quite small (Fig. 8(a), and 8(b)).
(2) Higher thrust increments and induced moments would happen at maximum
confinement (CD =3.0D) (Fig. 8(a) and 8(b)).
(3) The above-mentioned trend of thrust increments happened due to the load
transfer of unsupported excavated mass on to the existing liner. The above trend
for moments is due to the moment restraint of erected liner against the
(a)
AN
contraction of approaching the TBM shield.
(b)
DM
(c)
TE
EP
Fig. 9. Static Interaction study in three dimensions (a) Thrust variation on reference ring during second TBM
approach (b) Moment variation on reference ring during second TBM approach (c) Arching forces trend after
erection of segments on both tunnels
C
AC
T
IP
CR
(4) Such moments on the erected liner would be the maximum when the presence of
joints is ignored (Fig. 8(c)). However, incorporating/ignoring joints will not
have much effect on the thrust increments (Fig. 8(d)).
(5) When this analysis was performed in three-dimension, at the lowest flexibility
ratio and maximum confinement, the highest thrust increment (around 16.52%)
US
and moment increment (about 8.96%) happened when TBM face had advanced
the plane of reference ring by +3D (Fig. 9(a) and 9(b)). Such three-dimensional
effects of tunneling is reported in the literature [Li et al., 2010; Ng et al., 2004].
(6) The effect of steady-state arching forces on the constructed liner was negligible
during the second tunnel drive. Also arching forces component on the second
tunnel was less than that of the first tunnel, as loads were primarily taken by the
AN
first erected tunnel (Fig. 9(c)).
6. Application of Conventional Seismic Methods for Delhi Metro Tunnels
As it has been discussed, two general methods are performed for under-ground structures
for seismic analysis: (1) pseudo-static analysis for under-ground structures using IS 1893
(2) seismic deformation method or quasi-static analysis [Wang, 1993]. Before performing
pseudo analysis, certain behavior of tunnel liners needs to be understood. For designers, it
DM
is a common practice to adopt two-dimensional approximations [Addenbrooke et al.,

1997; Vermeer and Brinkgreve, 1993] for computation of tunnel liner thrust and
moments. It is required to know whether seismic loads using conventional approaches
(pseudo and quasi methods in this case) exceed governing forces. Quasi analysis methods
(seismic deformation) are generally plain strain methods since deformational translations
are applied perpendicular to the vertical axis. Pseudo analysis methods could be
performed in 2D & 3D. While performing 3D analysis, seismic coefficients in both
horizontal axes are taken the same. Few significant observations were arrived at:
(1) Maximum magnitudes of pseudo and quasi moments induced on the tunnel liner
decreased with the tunnel cover depth, due to the decrease in the seismic
TE
coefficients (Table 1(a)) and the displacements (Table 1(b)), with depth. Their
magnitudes were less than design moments (Fig. 10(a)).
(2) Due to their low flexibility ratio, for tunnels erected in soils of low deformation
modulus (like in Profile -3), higher forces would be imparted on the liner (Fig.
10(b)).
(3) As far as tunnel liner thrusts are considered, increments (around 13%) could be
EP
observed in pseudo-static procedures performed in two-dimensions (Fig. 10(c)).

(4) It was found that rotational stiffness of joints did not have much effect on the
thrusts of the tunnel liner. As far as the moments are concerned, while traversing
from a joint stiffness ratio of 0.5 to the maximum (no joints considered), a
maximum moment increment of 74% was observed at the critical case (Cover
C
AC
T
IP
CR
depth =1.0D, Profile -3). Even these high moments were lesser than the
governing moments. For quasi-static analysis, such increments were only 19%.
US
AN
DM
Fig. 10. Two-dimensional conventional seismic analyses studies (a) Design (governing) moment comparison
with conventional seismic studies for varying cover depth (b) Profile dependency on quasi moments at varying
cover depth (c) Tunnel liner thrust comparison between static and conventional seismic studies for varying
TE
cover depth
Table 3. Thrust increment computation at varying cover depths using conventional seismic methods
2D- Quasi Static

Cover 2D-Pseudo Analysis- 3D-Pseudo Analysis-
Analysis- Thrust
Depth/Diameter Thrust Increment(%) Thrust Increment(%)
Increment
1 13.6 16.2 4.4

EP
2 10.8 15.1 3.2

3 9.4 13 2.7
(5) A good comparison could be observed for thrust increments (Table 3) between
pseudo-static analysis performed in 2D and 3D. The thrust and the moment
behavior of the left tunnel at the critical case (Cover Depth=1.0D, Profile-3) of
C
AC
T
IP
CR
earthquake excitation in both directions (up and down) is shown in Fig. 11(a),
and 11(b).
(6) In three-dimensional pseudo-static analysis, a thrust increment of 0.85% (Fig.

11(c)) and a moment increment of 31% (Fig. 11(d)) could be observed for
critical case (Cover Depth=1.0D, Profile-3), when joints were ignored (Eq.
US
(15)).
(7) It has been found that the thrust increments induced by pseudo methods (Table
3) could be safely handled by the tunnel liner, by adopting high safety factors
for the tunnel liners over-compression (For instance 1.5). Moment increments
deduced by these conventional methods fall well within the governing moments
[Vermeer and Brinkgreve, 1993].
AN
DM
TE
EP
Fig. 11. Three-dimensional pseudo static studies (a) Thrust variation on tunnels in static and pseudo static
condition (b) Moment variation on tunnels in static and pseudo static condition (c) Effect of liner bending
rigidity on liner thrust (d) Effect of liner bending rigidity on liner moment
7. Full Dynamic Analysis for Delhi Metro Tunnels

From conventional methods, it is clear that metro tunnels constructed in Delhi could be
assumed safe against the governing moments (contraction moments in 2D analysis) and
C
AC
T
IP
CR
the thrust increments (when safety factors like 1.5 for ULS condition). However
conventional seismic methods cannot perform the seismic analysis in time/frequency
domain. Hence full dynamic analysis was performed for Delhi metro tunnels using two-
dimensional approaches.
Three important parameters were quantified in these analyses (1) seismic forces (thrusts
US
and moments) (2) seismic strains on liner (3) surface spectral response (To understand
the effect of earthquake attenuation at the surface due to presence of cavities).
7.1. Seismic liner forces

While tunnel liners are affected by earthquakes, it needs to be understood if the response
on the liner could be quantified in terms of the forces: (1) residual forces, after the
AN
earthquake activity, and (2) peak forces, the maximum response during the duration of
earthquake. The governing force affecting the liner will be the one with the maximum. As
far as the seismic moments are concerned, their variation (during earthquake activity)
was found to be affected by rotational stiffness (i.e. joint stiffness ratio). It was found
that moments induced during seismic activity while ignoring joints, were slightly higher
than the responses while using flexible joints (Fig. 12(a)). But for practitioners, such
variations could be irrelevant, as governing moments were quite high in comparison.
DM
A variation of thrust with rotational stiffness during seismic activity had to be

understood. It was found that these variations at different tunnel locations (springing line,
crown and invert) were negligible. Maximum variation happened at the springing line
which was around 2.25%. This trend could be seen in Fig. 12(b), where apart from
location specifics, inside braces and joint stiffness ratios are also mentioned ('NJ'
represents the condition where the presence of joints was ignored). Since the left tunnel
was constructed first and it would be loaded more, responses are shown for the left
tunnel, which represents a critical case. From these responses, it is clear that, for
practitioners, the effect of rotational stiffness on thrust during seismic activity could be
ignored.
TE
Finally, it was required to be known whether maximum forces (peak or residual) in the
form of thrust or moments impacted the tunnel liner. Such studies were performed again
for tunnels, with the least possible flexibility ratio (i.e. at Profile -3). The study was
performed for both extreme cases (i.e. when the joint stiffness ratio was 0.5 and when
joints were ignored). This type of analysis was performed at all cover depths. It was
EP
found that, even for shallow cover depths where seismic responses were more
pronounced, the effect of the rotational stiffness on the peak thrust was negligible (Fig.
12(c)). When such a study was performed for peak moments, it was found that, for the
maximum possible variation of rotational stiffness, the peak moments fall well within the
envelope of the governing moments (Fig. 12(d)). To conclude this, it was required to
know if the dynamic peak thrust response exceeded static thrust values by any alarming
C
AC
T
IP
CR
limits. It was found that such maximum variations were less than 6% (Fig. 12(e)). These
variations were slightly higher than the similar values obtained from quasi-static
procedures (4.4%). But, for pseudo-static analysis, the increments were more than 10%.
Hence, it could be safely concluded, that pseudo-static approaches are a safe conservative
method to design tunnel liner in seismic conditions.
US
AN
DM
TE
EP
Fig. 12. Liner behaviour on full dynamic analysis (a) Effect of rotational stiffness on liner moments (b) Effect
of rotational stiffness on liner thrust (c) Comparison between maximum moment responses with governing
moments (d) Comparison between maximum thrust responses for varying rotational stiffness
C
AC
T
IP
CR
7.2. Seismic strains on tunnel liner

Another observation here could be the strains imparted on tunnel liner. The fore-
mentioned dynamic analysis could be used to compute the cumulative strains on the
tunnel liner. These cumulative strains on the tunnel liner at varying cover depths, were,
further compared with the strain limits of reinforced concrete [Clause 38.1.b, IS 456,
US
Indian Standard for Plain and Reinforced Code of Practice]. This value is 0.0035. Though
rotational joints were found to have minimum influence on axial thrust, to attain
maximum structural response, rigid joints were assumed for the liners. It has been found
that, for tunnels at lower confinement (CD-1.0D), the cumulative strain on the tunnel
liner is well within the permissible limits. This was due to the lower thrust values at these
locations, attributable to low confinement. However, for the confinement of 2.0D and
3.0D (which is the typical range for Delhi metro tunnels), these cumulative strains could
AN
well exceed such permissible thrust values. These observations are given in Fig. 13.
Hence, post-earthquake inspections of underground structures are important to ensure
their serviceability.
DM
TE
EP
Fig. 13. Cumulative strains on tunnel liner (arrested joints) for varying confinements (a) Cumulative strain at
cover depth = 1.0D (b) Cumulative strain at cover depth = 2.0D (c) Cumulative strain at cover depth =3.0D
C
AC
T
IP
CR
7.3. Surface spectral response

Another factor which needed to be considered for metro tunnels in congested cities is the
surface spectral response. Generally, it is seen that the presence of underground structures
necessitates [Ieronymaki et al., 2015, 2017; Kramer, 1996] a two-dimensional ground

response analysis [Kim et al., 2016]. Gazetas et al. [2005] studied Athens under-ground
US
metro structures under the Parnitha earthquake and concluded that, due to underground
structures, wave diffraction could occur, and that could result in enhanced PGAs at the
surface.
For this study, three points were considered at the surface. Here 2 points (‘B’ above the
left tunnel and ‘D’ above the right tunnel) were considered above the cavity; whereas one
point (‘C’ above the pillar) was considered above the pillar. It was found that the pillar
AN
would form a ‘channel’ to vent the earthquake energy to the surface. Such an effect could
be seen in Fig. 14(a) & Fig. 14(b), which is more prominent at shallow depths (at CD
<2.0D). Hence, a ground response analysis in this way is very important for twin metro
tunnels.
Another significant factor in Delhi could be the varying bedrock depth. Since it was
identified that shallow tunnels could cause more attenuation effects around the pillar, a
sensitivity analysis was performed at the pillar for varying bedrock depths. Here, since
DM
the maximum surface spectral response was expected around the pillar (Point C), the
same behavior was analyzed for varying bedrock depth. It was found that the maximum
response at the surface happened at shallow bedrock depths. This trend diminished at
higher cover depths (Fig. 14(c) & Fig. 14(d)). From the above observations it is clear
that, for shallow tunnels, especially at shallow bedrock depths, the spectral response
around pillar could not be ignored. The importance of this maximum response, in
comparison with the design acceleration spectrum had to be identified. In Fig. 14(e), the
design spectra have been plotted for all possible zero period acceleration in Delhi
[Seismic Zone IV, IS 1893]. A maximum zero period acceleration (ZPA) of 0.24 g was
assumed for Delhi in MCE condition. Similarly, zero-period acceleration (ZPA) of 0.12 g
TE
was assumed for Delhi in DBE condition. A mean value of 0.18 g was also considered. It
could be clearly seen that, for a cover depth of 1.0D, maximum response could exceed
the design spectra for MCE condition (at low time periods). Similarly, for a cover depth
of 2.0D, the maximum response could well exceed design spectra developed for 0.18 g.
From Fig. 6(d) it is clear that, by ignoring the presence of underground structures, the
EP
spectral acceleration values were well inside the design acceleration spectrum. Now, by
including the presence of underground structures, it was found that the maximum
earthquake energy focused around the pillar. Thus, the pillar formed a channel to vent out
earthquake energy. Such an accumulation of acceleration around the pillar around FE
mesh is depicted in Fig. 14(f). Thus, for zones where bedrock is encountered at shallow
cover depths and also where structures of low periods constructed above the pillar are
C
AC
T
IP
CR
encountered, due caution has to be exercised for the seismic design of buildings, from the
perspective of spectral responses.
US
AN
DM
TE
EP
Fig. 14. Two dimensional spectral response studies (a) Spectral response at designated points for tunnel cover
depth =1.0D (b)Spectral response at designated points for tunnel cover depth =2.0D (c) Maximum spectral
response variation for varying bed rock depth for tunnel cover depth =1.0D (d)Maximum spectral response
variation for varying bed rock depth for tunnel cover depth =2.0D (e) Comparison of design spectrum with
maximum spectral response at varying cover depths (f) Accumulation of maximum acceleration energy around
the pillar at cover depth =1.0D.
C
AC
T
IP
CR
8. Conclusions
In the present study, static, conventional seismic design procedures and full dynamic
analysis were performed. Responses in the tunnel liner in terms of structural forces and
strains were observed. Surface spectral responses were also noted. Some final
conclusions are as follows:
US
Maintaining a pillar width of 2D could be sufficient for Delhi metro tunnels, from the
perspective of liner forces increments and pillar width stability.
Conventional seismic design procedures using pseudo-static approximations are safe
enough methods, which could be adopted by practitioners for designing tunnel liners.
Structural strains inside concrete tunnels post-earthquake activity could exceed
permissible limits. Thus, after seismic events, inspection and repairing of such cracks are
necessary (for serviceability).
AN
It is required to perform a true dynamic analysis for soil masses with cavities than
limiting the same to its equivalent dynamic procedures. There could be attenuation of
earthquake energies around pillar locations, especially for shallow tunnels.
Flexible joints perform better under earthquake loads in terms of moments and thrusts.
But thrust variations are negligible, where moment variations could be safely handled by
designing the same against contraction moments.
DM
9. Acknowledgments
The authors would like to gratefully acknowledge the financial support received from the
Science & Engineering Research Board (SERB), Department of Science and
Technology, India (EMR/2015/001874).
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
TE
References
Journal reference:
Addenbrooke, T.I., Potts, D.M. and Puzrin, A.M. [1997] “The influence of pre-failure
soil stiffness on the numerical analysis of tunnel construction,” Géotechnique 47,
693–712.
EP
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1997.47.3.693
Afifipour, M., Sharifzadeh, M., Shahriar, K. and Jamshidi, H. [2011] “Interaction of twin
tunnels and shallow foundation at Zand underpass, Shiraz metro, Iran. Tunn.,”
Undergr. Space Technol. 26, 356–363.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2010.11.006
C
AC
T
IP
CR
Alielahi, H. and Adampira, M. [2016] “Effect of twin-parallel tunnels on seismic ground

response due to vertically in-plane waves,” Int. J. Rock Mech. Min. Sci. 85, 67–83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2016.03.010
Amorosi, A. and Boldini, D. [2009] “Numerical modelling of the transverse dynamic

behaviour of circular tunnels in clayey soils,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 29, 1059–1072.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2008.12.004
US
Amorosi, A., Boldini, D. and Elia, G. [2010] “Parametric study on seismic ground
response by finite element modelling,” Comput. Geotech. 37, 515–528.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2010.02.005
Anagnostou, G. and Kovári, K. [1994] “The face stability of slurry-shield-driven
tunnels,” Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 9, 165–174.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0886-7798(94)90028-0
AN
Anitha Kumari, S.D., Vipin, K.S. and Sitharam, T.G. [2012] “Seismic response of twin
tunnels in weathered rocks,” Geotechnical Special Publication, 3268–3274.
https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784412121.334
Assimaki, D., Kausel, E. and Whittle, A. [2000] “Model for dynamic shear modulus and
damping for granular soils,” J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. 126, 859–869.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:10(859)
Atkinson, J.H. and Potts, D.M. [1977] “Stability of a shallow circular tunnel in
cohesionless soil,” Géotechnique 27, 203–15.
DM
Bakker, K.J. and Blom, C.B.M. [2009] “Ultimate limit state design for linings of bored
tunnels. Tübbingbemessung im Grenzzustand der Tragfähigkeit beim Schildvortrieb,”
Geomech. Tunnelbau 2, 345–358.
https://doi.org/10.1002/geot.200900030
Baziar, M.H., Moghadam, M.R., Kim, D.-S. and Choo, Y.W. [2014] “Effect of
underground tunnel on the ground surface acceleration,” Tunn. Undergr. Space
Technol. 44, 10–22.
Bobet, A. [2003] “Effect of pore water pressure on tunnel support during static and
seismic loading,” Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 18, 377–393.
TE
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0886-7798(03)00008-7
Chakeri, H., Ozcelik, Y. and Unver, B. [2013] “Effects of important factors on surface
settlement prediction for metro tunnel excavated by EPB,” Tunn. Undergr. Space
Technol. 36, 14–23.
Chapman, D.N., Ahn, S.K. and Hunt, D.V. [2007] “Investigating ground movements
EP
caused by the construction of multiple tunnels in soft ground using laboratory model
tests,” Can. Geotech. J. 44, 631–643.
Chen, R.P., Zhu, J., Liu, W. and Tang, X.W. [2011] “Ground movement induced by
parallel EPB tunnels in silty soils,” Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 26, 163–171.
C
AC
T
IP
CR
Chen, S.L.and Gui, M.W. [2011] “Seismic performance of tunnel lining of side-by-side
and vertically stacked twin-tunnels,” J. Cent South Univ Technol 18, 1226–1234.
Cheng, Z. and Leong, E.C. [2018] “Determination of damping ratios for soils using
bender element tests,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 111, 8–13.

Choi, J.I. and Lee, S.W. [2010] “Influence of existing tunnel on mechanical behaviour of
US
new tunnel,” KSCE J. Civ. Eng. 14, 773–783.
Cilingir, U. and Madabhushi, S.P.G. [2011] “Effect of depth on seismic response of
circular tunnels,” Can. Geotech. J. 48, 117–127.
https://doi.org/10.1139/T10-047
Corigliano, M., Scandella, L., Lai, C.G. and Paolucci, R. [2011] “Seismic analysis of
deep tunnels in near fault conditions: A case study in Southern Italy,” Bull. Earthq.
Eng. 9, 975–995.
AN
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-011-9249-3
Dammala, P.K., Krishna, A.M., Bhattacharya, S., Nikitas, G. and Rouholamin, M. [2017]
“Dynamic soil properties for seismic ground response studies in Northeastern India,”
Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 100, 357–370.
Ercelebi, S.G., Copur, H. and Ocak, I. [2011] “Surface settlement predictions for Istanbul
Metro tunnels excavated by EPB-TBM” Environ. Earth Sci. 62, 357–365.
DM
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-010-0530-6
Gao, F., Sun, C.-X., Tan, X.-K., Zhu, Y. and Li, H. [2015] “Shaking table tests for
seismic response of tunnels with different depths,” J. Rock Soil Mech. 36, 2517–2522
and 2531.
https://doi.org/10.16285/j.rsm.2015.09.011
Govindaraju, L. and Bhattacharya, S. [2012] “Site-specific earthquake response study for
hazard assessment in Kolkata city, India,” Nat. Hazards 61, 943–965.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9940-3
Hage Chehade, F. and Shahrour, I. [2008] “Numerical analysis of the interaction between
twin-tunnels: Influence of the relative position and construction procedure,” Tunn.
TE
Undergr. Space Technol. 23, 210–214.

Hamdy, H.A., Enieb, M., Khalil, A.A. and Ahmed, A.S.H. [2015] “Seismic analysis of
urban tunnel systems for the Greater Cairo Metro Line No.4,” Electron. J. Geotech.
Eng. 20, 4207–4222.
Hanumantharao, C. and Ramana, G.V. [2008] “Dynamic soil properties for
EP
microzonation of Delhi, India”, J. Earth Syst. Sci. 117, 719–730.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-008-0066-2
Hardin, B.O., Drnevich, V.P. [1972] “Shear modulus and damping in soils : Design
equations and curves,” J. Soil Mech. Found. Div. 98, 667–692.
C
AC
T
IP
CR
Hasanpour, R., Chakeri, H., Ozcelik, Y. and Denek, H. [2012] “Evaluation of surface
settlements in the Istanbul metro in terms of analytical, numerical and direct
measurements,” Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 71, 499–510.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-012-0428-5
Hashash, Y.M., Hook, J.J., Schmidt, B. and Yao, J.I. [2001] “Seismic design and analysis
of underground structures” Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 16, 247–293.
US
Hashash, Y.M.A., Harmon, J., Ilhan, O., Stewart, J.P., Rathje, E.M., Campbell, K.W.,
Silva, W.J. and Goulet, C.A. [2018] “Modelling of site amplification via large scale
nonlinear simulations with applications to North America,” Geotechnical Special
Publication, 523–537.
https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784481462.051
Hashash, Y.M.A. and Park, D. [2002] “Viscous damping formulation and high frequency
AN
motion propagation in non-linear site response analysis” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 22,
611–624.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0267-7261(02)00042-8
Hashash, Y.M.A., Park, D. and Yao, J.I.-C. [2005] “Ovaling deformations of circular
tunnels under seismic loading, an update on seismic design and analysis of
underground structures” Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 20, 435–441.
He, C., Feng, K., Fang, Y. and Jiang, Y.C. [2012] “Surface settlement caused by twin-
DM
parallel shield tunnelling in sandy cobble strata,” J. Zhejiang Univ.-Sci. Appl.

Phys. Eng. 13, 858–869
Ieronymaki, E.S., Whittle, A.J. and Sureda, D.S. [2017] “Interpretation of free-field
ground movements caused by mechanized tunnel construction,” J. Geotech.
Geoenvironmental Eng. 143.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001632
Kawamata, Y., Nakayama, M., Towhata, I. and Yasuda, S. [2016] “Dynamic behaviors of
underground structures in E-Defense shaking experiments,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng.
82, 24–39.
TE
Kim, B., Hashash, Y.M.A., Stewart, J.P., Rathje, E.M., Harmon, J.A., Musgrove, M.I.,
Campbell, K.W. and Silva, W.J. [2016] “Relative differences between nonlinear and
equivalent-linear 1-D site response analyses,” Earthq. Spectra 32, 1845–1865.
https://doi.org/10.1193/051215EQS068M
Kouretzis, G.P., Sloan, S.W. and Carter, J.P. [2013] “Effect of interface friction on tunnel
liner internal forces due to seismic S- and P-wave propagation,” Soil Dyn. Earthq.
EP
Eng. 46, 41–51.

Kuhlemeyer, R.L. and Lysmer, J. [1973] “Finite element method accuracy for wave
propagation problems” J. Soil Mech. Found. 99, 421–427
C
AC
T
IP
CR
Leca, E. and Dormieux, L. [1990] “Upper and lower bound solutions for the face stability
of shallow circular tunnels in frictional material” Géotechnique 40, 581–606.
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1990.40.4.581
Lee, K.M. and Ge, X.W. [2001] “The equivalence of a jointed shield-driven tunnel lining
to a continuous ring structure,” Can. Geotech. J. 38, 461–483.
https://doi.org/10.1139/t00-107
US
Liang, J., Yu, J., Zhang, J. and Ba, Z. [2014] “Seismic response analysis of metro twin
tunnels by the viscous-spring boundary,” China Civ. Eng. J. 47, 274–279.
Lin, S.-Y., Hung, H.-H., Yang, J.P. and Yang, Y.B. [2017] “Seismic analysis of twin
tunnels by a finite/infinite element approach,” Int. J. Geomech. 17.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000940
Liu, H.Y., Small, J.C. and Carter, J.P. [2008] “Full 3D modelling for effects of tunnelling
AN
on existing support systems in the Sydney region” Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 23,
399–420.
Liu, Q. and Wang, R. [2012] “Dynamic response of twin closely-spaced circular tunnels
to harmonic plane waves in a full space,” Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 32, 212–
220.
Meyerhoff, G.G. [1956] “Penetration tests and bearing capacity of cohesionless Soils” J.
DM
Soil Mech. Found. 82, 1–19.

Mirhabibi, A. and Soroush, A. [2012] “Effects of surface buildings on twin tunnelling-
induced ground settlements” Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 29, 40–51.
Ng, C.W., Lee, K.M. and Tang, D.K. [2004] “Three-dimensional numerical
investigations of new Austrian tunnelling method (NATM) twin tunnel
interactions,” Can. Geotech. J. 41, 523–539.
Nyunt, T.T., Leong, E.C. and Rahardjo, H. [2011] “Strength and small-strain stiffness
characteristics of unsaturated sand” Geotech. Test. J. 34.
https://doi.org/10.1520/GTJ103589
TE
Pakbaz, M.C. and Yareevand, A. [2005] “2-D analysis of circular tunnel against
earthquake loading” Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 20, 411–417.
Park, K.-H., Tantayopin, K., Tontavanich, B. and Owatsiriwong, A. [2009] “Analytical
solution for seismic-induced ovaling of circular tunnel lining under no-slip interface
conditions: A revisit” Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 24, 231–235.
EP
Parvez, I.A., Vaccari, F. and Panza, G.F. [2004] “Site-specific microzonation study in
Delhi metropolitan city by 2-D modelling of SH and P-SV Waves,” Pure Appl.
Geophys. 161, 1165–1184.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00024-003-2501-2
C
AC
T
IP
CR
Penzien, J. [2000] “Seismically induced racking of tunnel linings,” Earthq. Eng. Struct.
Dyn. 29, 683–691.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(200005)29:5<683::AID-EQE932>3.0.CO;2-
1
Penzien, J. and Wu, C.L. [1998] “Stresses in linings of bored tunnels,” Earthq. Eng.
Struct. Dyn. 27, 283–300.
US
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1096-9845(199803)27:3<283::AID-EQE732>3.0.CO;2-
T
Shahrour, I., Khoshnoudian, F., Sadek, M. and Mroueh, H. [2010] “Elastoplastic analysis
of the seismic response of tunnels in soft soils,” Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 25,
478–482.
445–468.
AN
Suwansawat, S. and Einstein, H.H. [2007] “Describing settlement troughs over twin
tunnels using a superposition technique,” J. Geotech. Geoenvironmental Eng. 133,
Tsinidis, G. [2018] “Response of urban single and twin circular tunnels subjected to
transversal ground seismic shaking,” Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 76, 177–193.
Ulgen, D., Saglam, S. and Ozkan, M.Y. [2015] “Assessment of racking deformation of
rectangular underground structures by centrifuge tests” Geotech. Lett. 5, 261–268.
DM
https://doi.org/10.1680/jgele.15.00097
Upreti, K. and Leong, E.-C. [2018] “Dynamic properties of residual soil over a wide
range of strain” Geotechnical Special Publication, 388–397.
https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784481707.039
Wang, Z.Z., Jiang, Y.-J., Zhu, C.A. and Sun, T.C. [2015] “Shaking table tests of tunnel
linings in progressive states of damage,” Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol. 50, 109–117.
Xianfeng, M., Guobo, W., Jun, W. and Qianqian, J. [2017] “Experimental study on the
seismic response of subway station in soft ground,” J. Earthq. Tsunami 11.
https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793431117500208
TE
Zhou, H., Qin, X., Wang, X. and Liang, Y. [2018] “Use of large-scale shake table tests to
assess the seismic response of a tunnel embedded in compacted sand” Earthq. Struct.
15, 655–665
https://doi.org/10.12989/eas.2018.15.6.655
Book reference:
EP
ASTM D3999-91 [1991] ASTM International, Standard Test Methods for the
Determination of the Modulus and Damping Properties of Soils Using the Cyclic
Triaxial Apparatus. West Conshohocken, PA.
Blom, C.B.M. [2002] “Lining Behaviour - Analytical solutions of coupled segmented
rings in soil - Background document,” Ph.D. thesis, TU Delft.
C
AC
T
IP
CR
Bonnier, P.G., Moeller, S.C. and Vermeer, P.A. [2010] Bending Moments and Normal
Forces in Tunnel Linings (Institutte of Geotechnical Engineering, University of
Stuttgart,Germany)
Bowles, J.E. [1997] Foundation Analysis and Design (McGraw-Hill)

Broere, W. [2001] “Tunnel face stability & new CPT applications,” Ph.D. thesis, TU
Delft.
US
Burt Look, G. [2007] Handbook of Geotechnical Investigation and Design Tables (Taylor
and Francis, London, UK)
Clough, G.W. and Schmidt, B. [1981] Design and performance of excavations and
tunnels in soft clay in Soft Clay Engineering, ed. E. W. Brand and R. P. Brenner
(Developments in Geotechnical Engineering - Elsevier), pp. 567-634.
Day, R.W. [2002] Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering Handbook (McGraw Hill
AN
Group of Companies Inc.)
Do, N.A. [2014] “Numerical analyses of segmental tunnel lining under static and
dynamic loads,” Ph.D. thesis, Civil Engineering Dept., Ecole supérieure des Mines et
de Géologie, Hanoi, Vietnam.
Gladwell, G.W.L. [1980] Contact problems in the classical theory of elasticity (Springer
Science and Business Media).
Gomes, R.C. [2000] “Seismic behaviour of tunnels under seismic load,” Master’s
thesis, Instituto Superior Técnico, Technical University of Lisbon, Lisbon.
DM
Hou, S. [1968] Earthquake Simulation Models and Their Application (MIT Dep. Civ.
Eng. Res. Rep. R68).
Hudson, M., Idriss, I.M. and Beirkae, M. [1994] Quad 4M User’s Manual (Center for
Geotechnical Modeling, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of California, Davis, Calif, USA).
IS 1893 [2002] Bureau of Indian Standards, Criteria for earthquake resistant design of
structures, Part1., New Delhi.
Janssen, P. [1983] “Tragverhalten von tunnelausbauten mit gelenktubbings,” Ph.D.
thesis, Technischen Universitat Carolo-Wilhelmina, Braunschweig.
Jennings, P.C., Housner, G.W. and Tsai, N.C. [1968] Simulated Earthquake Motions
TE
(EERL Calif. Inst. Technol.)

JSCE [1996] Subcommitteee Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Japanese Standard for
Shield Tunnelling, Tokyo.
Kramer, S.V. [1996] Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering (Prentice Hall Int. Ser. Civ.
Eng. Engg Mech).
Laera, A. and Brinkgreve, R.B.J. [2015] Ground Response Analysis in Plaxis 2D
EP
(PLAXIS bv, Netherlands).

Lambe, T.W. and Whitman, R.V. [1969] Soil Mechanics (John Wiley and Sons, New
York).
Moller, S. [2006] “Tunnel induced settlements and structural forces in linings,”
Ph.D. dissertation, University of Stuttgart, Germany.
C
AC
T
IP
CR
National Center for Seismology [2016] A report on Seismic Hazard Microzonation of

NCT Delhi on 1:10,000 scale (Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India,
India).
O’Rourke, M.J. and Liu, X. [1999] Response of Buried Pipelines Subject to Earthquake
Effects. Monograph No.III. (Multidisciplinary Center for Earthquake Engineering
Research, USA).
US
Paulocci, R. and Pitikalis, K. [2007] “Seismic risk assessment of underground structures
under transient ground deformations,” in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, ed.
K. D. Pitilakis (Geotechnical, Geological and Earthquake Engineering, vol 6 -
Springer, Dordrecht), pp. 433-459.
Power, M.S., Rosidi, D. and Kaneshiro, J. [1996] Strawman: screening, evaluation, and
retrofit design of tunnels. Report Draft. Vol. II. (National Center for Earthquake
AN
Engineering Research, Buffalo, New York).
Schnabel, P.B., Lysmer, J. and Seed, H.B. [1972] SHAKE: A Computer Program for
Earthquake Response Analysis of Horizontally Layered Sites (Earthquake
Engineering Research Center,University of California, Berkeley)
Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M. [1970] Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic
Response Analyses (Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of
California, Berkeley)
Swiss Standard SN 670 010b [1999] Association of Swiss Road and Traffic Engineers,
DM
Characteristic Coefficients of Soils, Switzerland.

Vermeer, P.A. and Brinkgreve, R. [1993] Plaxis version 5 manual (PLAXIS bv.,
Netherlands).
Vermeer, P.A., Ruse, N. and Marcher, T. [2002] Tunnel Heading Stability in Drained
Ground (Felsbau No.6, Germany)
Wang, J.N. [1993] Seismic Design of Tunnels, A Simple State-of-the-Art Design
Approach. (1991 William Barclay Parsons Fellowship. Parsons Brinckerhoff,
Monograph 7, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.)
Proceedings reference:
TE
Attewell, P.B. [1977] “Ground movements caused by tunnelling in soil,” Proc. of the
Large Ground Movements and Structures Conference. Edited by Geddes, Pentech
Press, Cardiff, London, pp. 812–948.
Bilotta, E., Lanzano, G., Russo, G., Silvestri, F. and Madabhushi, G. [2009] “Seismic
analyses of shallow tunnels by dynamic centrifuge tests and finite elements,” Proc. of
the 17th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering:
EP
The Academia and Practice of Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 474–477.

https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-60750-031-5-474
Cheng, Z.Y. and Leong, E.C. [2014] “Effect of confining pressure and degree of
saturation on damping ratios of sand,” Proc. of the 6th International Conference on
Unsaturated Soils, pp. 277–282.
C
AC
T
IP
CR
Chua, H.C. and Leong, E.C. [2007] “Numerical analysis of interaction between
underground caverns,” Proc. of the 10th International Symposium on Numerical
Models in Geomechanics, pp. 393–398.
Dean, A., Young, D.J. and Kramer, G.J. [2006] “The use and performance of precast
concrete tunnel linings in seismic areas,” Proc. of 10th Congress of the International
Association for Engineering Geology and the Environment, pp. 1- 11
US
Gazetas, G., Gerolymos, N. and Anastasopoulos, I. [2005] “Response of three Athens
metro underground structures in the 1999 Parnitha earthquake” Proc. of 11th
International Conference on Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering Part 1 25,
pp. 617–633.
Ieronymaki, E., Whittle, A.J. and Simic, D. [2015] “Comparison of free-field ground
3674.
AN
movements caused by mechanized and open-face tunneling” Proc. of the XVI
European Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, pp. 3669–
Jishnu, R.B. and Ayothiraman, R. [2017] “Behaviour of Urban Metro Twin Tunnels
Under Earthquake Loads,” Proc. of the 1st GeoMEast International Congress and
Exhibition, Egypt 2017 on Sustainable Civil Infrastructures, Springer, Cham, Sherm
El Sheikh, Egypt, pp. 128–140.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61636-0_10
DM
Kaneshiro, J. and Sinha, M. [2008] “Simplified seismic design approach using

pushover considerations and ring compression theory for a concrete segmented liner,”
Proc. of World Tunnel Congress, Underground Facilities for Better Environment and
Safety - India, pp. 462–472.
Lanzano, G., Bilotta, E., Russo, G., Silvestri, F. and Madabhushi, S.P.G. [2010].
“Dynamic centrifuge tests on shallow tunnel models in dry sand,” Proc. of the 7th
International Conference on Physical Modelling in Geotechnics, pp. 561–567
Li, X., Du, S. and Zhang, D. [2010] “Numerical simulation of the interaction between
two parallel shield tunnels,” Proc. of International Conference on Pipelines and
Trenchless Technology, pp. 1521–1533.
TE
Mair, R.J. [1993] “Developments in geotechnical engineering research: application to

tunnels and deep excavations,” Proc. of Unwin Memorial Lecture, Institution of Civil
Engineers. Civil Engineering. pp. 27–41.
O’Reilly, M.P. and New, B.M. [1982] “Settlements above tunnels in the U.K – Their
magnitude and prediction”, Proc. of Tunnelling, pp. 173–181.
Peck, R.B. [1969] “Deep excavations and tunnelling in soft ground,” Proc. of 7th
EP
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico

City, pp. 225–290.
Pedro, A., Cancela, T., Almeida e Sousa, J. and Grazina, J. [2018] “Deformations caused
by the excavation of twin tunnels,” Proc. of the 9th International Symposium on
Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground, Sao Paulo, pp.
203–214.
C
AC
T
IP
CR
https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315099507-23
Puri, N., Jain, A., Mohanty, P. and Bhattacharya, S. [2018] “Earthquake Response
Analysis of Sites in State of Haryana using DEEPSOIL Software,” Proc. Computer
Science, pp. 357–366.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.12.047
Santos, J.A. and Correia, A.G. [2001] “Reference threshold shear strain of soil,its
US
application to obtain unique strain dependent shear modulus curve for soil,” Proc. of
15th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechical Engineering 1, pp.
267–270.
Saveur, J. [2003] “Reclaiming the Underground Space (2 Volume Set),” Proc. of the ITA
World Tunneling Congress, Taylor & Francis, AmsterDam
Sliteen, L., Mroueh, H. and Sadek, M. [2013] “Three-dimensional modeling of the
AN
behaviour of shallow tunnel under seismic load,” Proc. of 20ème Congrès Francais
de Méchanique, pp. 1-6
Tsinidis, G., Pitilakis, K., Madabhushi, G. and Heron, C. [2015] “Dynamic response of
flexible square tunnels: Centrifuge testing and validation of existing design
methodologies,” Proc. of Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering - Geotechnique
Symposium, pp. 71–87.
https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.SIP.15.P.004
Zhao, X., Li, R.H., Zhao, M. and Tao, L.J. [2019] “Shaking table model tests on tunnels
DM
at different depths,” Proc. of the 6th International Symposium on Life-Cycle Civil

Engineering, pp. 1599–1606.
TE
EP
C
AC

Accepted Manuscript Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accepted Manuscript Journal of Earthquake and Tsunami

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accepted manuscript to appear in JET

Author(s): Rama Bhadran Jishnu, Ramanathan Ayothiraman

Received: 28 August 2019

Accepted: 12 February 2020

To be cited as: Rama Bhadran Jishnu, Ramanathan Ayothiraman, Interaction of Urban

Link to final version: https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793431120500190

Interaction of Urban Underground Twin Metro Tunnels under Static and

Received (Day Month Year)

approaches) or displacement (quasi-static approaches) approaches and true dynamic

of structures, 2002]. However in displacement approaches, since the surrounding soil

2. Ground Profile, Ground Motion, Tunnel Parameters, and Mesh Domain

2.1. Ground profile

For dynamic analysis, geotechnical parameters and corresponding constitutive model

𝑉𝑠 = 82.6𝑁 0.43 (2)

𝐸𝑠 = 5000(𝑁 + 15) 𝑘𝑃𝑎 (8)

2.2. Generation of artificial ground motion

[Day, 2002]. Conforming to the above-mentioned parameters, the artificial earthquake

2.3. Tunnel parameters

2.3.1. Idealization of segmental lining

𝐸𝐼𝑟𝑒𝑑 = 𝜂𝐸𝐼 (15)

2.3.2. Face pressure and grout pressure calculation

2.4. Mesh domain

90m (width)*50m(height)*150m(length) is considered (Number of elements =126158,

dimensional mesh is shown in Fig 5.

3. Theory of Conventional Methods and Free Field Analysis

3.1. Conventional approaches for seismic design of underground structures

horizontal acceleration coefficients. For quasi-static analysis, horizontal translations

Table 1. Computation of parameters for conventional seismic analysis

(a) Computation of coefficients for pseudo static approach

Cover Depth/Diameter Ah(g) Av(g)

hmod Profile Δγ (%) Δx(mm)

3.2. Free-field analysis

4. Ground Response to Tunneling and Pillar Width Stability

assumed for the shield.

Study Maximum settlement (mm)

Atkinson and Potts,1979 11.44

(www.rocscience.com/help/rs2/pdf_files/theory/Strength_Factor.pdf). The results show

5. Interaction between Tunnels during Second Tunnel Excavation

for varying rotational stiffness

6. Application of Conventional Seismic Methods for Delhi Metro Tunnels

is a common practice to adopt two-dimensional approximations [Addenbrooke et al.,

observed in pseudo-static procedures performed in two-dimensions (Fig. 10(c)).

2D- Quasi Static

1 13.6 16.2 4.4

2 10.8 15.1 3.2

(6) In three-dimensional pseudo-static analysis, a thrust increment of 0.85% (Fig.

7. Full Dynamic Analysis for Delhi Metro Tunnels

7.1. Seismic liner forces

A variation of thrust with rotational stiffness during seismic activity had to be

7.2. Seismic strains on tunnel liner

7.3. Surface spectral response

necessitates [Ieronymaki et al., 2015, 2017; Kramer, 1996] a two-dimensional ground

necessary (for serviceability).

Alielahi, H. and Adampira, M. [2016] “Effect of twin-parallel tunnels on seismic ground

Amorosi, A. and Boldini, D. [2009] “Numerical modelling of the transverse dynamic

bender element tests,” Soil Dyn. Earthq. Eng. 111, 8–13.

Undergr. Space Technol. 23, 210–214.

microzonation of Delhi, India”, J. Earth Syst. Sci. 117, 719–730.

parallel shield tunnelling in sandy cobble strata,” J. Zhejiang Univ.-Sci. Appl.

Eng. 46, 41–51.

Soil Mech. Found. 82, 1–19.

Bowles, J.E. [1997] Foundation Analysis and Design (McGraw-Hill)

90m (width)50m(height)150m(length) is considered (Number of elements =126158,