Paper No.

1502
SECOND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON PERFORMANCE-BASED
DESIGN IN EARTHQUAKE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
May 28-30, 2012 - TAORMINA (ITALY)

SEISMIC PERFORMANCE OF CIRCULAR TUNNELS: CENTRIFUGE

TESTING VERSUS NUMERICAL ANALYSIS
Grigorios TSINIDIS 1, Kyriazis PITILAKIS2
ABSTRACT
Tunnels constitute significant components of the build environment. The importance of this type of
structures, for life safe and from an economic point of view, reveals the need for proper seismic design.
Taking into consideration the specific conceptual features of tunnels that makes their seismic behavior
very distinct from aboveground structures and the lack of knowledge on many crucial issues, their seismic
design becomes a very demanding procedure. Several methods have been proposed in the literature for the
seismic design. However their results may vary considerably, proving again the need for further
improvement of the existing knowledge and design practices. To this end, dynamic centrifuge tests were
carried out in 2007, on circular tunnel models embedded in sand, within the framework of ReLUIS
Project. Experimental data of one test case made available to the scientific community within a blind
prediction contest, the Round Robin Tunnel Test (RRTT) organization. In this paper, we describe the
numerical procedure to simulate the test, emphasizing on the success of the simulation and the good
validation of the numerical analysis with the experimental data. The numerical predictions compared with
the experimental results, in terms of ground acceleration and bending moment of the tunnel lining. This
first blind prediction test is successful providing better insight in the physical problem and the numerical
modeling. The ongoing further numerical modeling of the test and the further analysis of both the
experimental and numerical results will contribute to the better understanding and modeling of the seismic
behavior of circular tunnels in alluvial deposits, with a final goal to develop a comprehensive
methodology for the seismic design of tunnels and underground structures using in a certain extend the
PBD approach.
Keywords: Tunnels, Soil-tunnel interaction, Centrifuge experiments, Numerical analysis
INTRODUCTION
Tunnels constitute crucial components of the transportation network and the build environment. The last
decades, tunnels were more frequently constructed to facilitate different needs (i.e. subways, underground
parking stations, mountain tunnels, sewages etc.), especially in densely populated areas. Considering their
significance for life safe and economy, their proper seismic design is of prior importance, especially in
seismic prone areas.
1

Civil Engineer, MSc, PhD Candidate, Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of
Thessaloniki, Greece, e-mail: gtsinidi@civil.auth.gr
2
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece, e-mail:
kpitilak@civil.auth.gr

II International Conference on Performance Based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering

May 2012, 28-30 - Taormina, Italy
Seismic Performance and behavior of tunnels
The available data shows that, in general, tunnels seem to be less vulnerable than aboveground structures,
but not always. The collapse of the under construction (up to that date) twin Bolu tunnels, during the 1999
Kocaeli earthquake, is an indicative example of bad performance (Hashash et al., 2001, Kontoe et al.
2008) (Figure 1).
Buckledand
shearedHEB
steelribs

Detail

0. 3

Invertheaveup
to0.5m

.4

Backfillfoam
concrete

Previous
shotcrete
shell

Figure 1. Collapse of Bolu tunnel during the 1999 Kocaeli earthquake (after Kontoe et al., 2008)
Generally, moderate to heavy damages were observed for PGAs larger than 0.5g, whereas for PGAs
smaller than 0.2g, none to slight damages were reported. The lining type and the soil-lining interface
conditions are of prior importance for the seismic behavior of a tunnel. Unlined tunnels or tunnels
constructed by masonry found to be more vulnerable.
Tunnels have geometrical and conceptual features that make their seismic behavior very distinct from
aboveground structures (i.e. Owen and Scholl, 1981 etc.). The ground deformations, introduced by the
surrounding soils, are prevailing, while the inertial forces are of secondary importance. During an
earthquake, tunnels can be affected by: (i) ground shaking and/or (ii) permanent displacements by ground
failure (i.e. liquefaction, slope instabilities, fault displacements). During ground shaking the tunnel can be
deformed in various modes, both in the longitudinal and transverse direction, i.e. longitudinal axial
deformation, longitudinal bending, cross sectional compression and cross sectional ovaling (Owen and
Scholl, 1981). The latter is of prior importance, as it can cause large stresses on the tunnels lining.
Seismic analysis methods
Several methods have been proposed in the literature for the seismic design, ranging from closed form
solutions (i.e. to compute the lining internal forces) and simplified uncoupled methods, to the more
accurate full dynamic time history analysis of the soil-tunnel system (i.e. Wang, 1993, Penzien, 2000,
Hashash et al., 2001, ISO 23469, 2005, FWHA, 2009 etc). A comprehensive review is made by Pitilakis
and Tsinidis (2012). The results of these methods may significantly vary, demonstrating the relative lack
of knowledge regarding the seismic behavior and design of tunnels.
The proper estimation of several crucial parameters like of the design input motion, the distribution and
the magnitude of the seismic shear stresses around the tunnel and the impedance functions, adequate for
circular tunnels, are among the open issues that need further research. To this end, dynamic centrifuge
tests were carried out on circular tunnel-models embedded in dry sand. The tests were performed in 2007
at the geotechnical centrifuge facility of the University of Cambridge (Schofield Center), by researchers of
University of Napoli Federico II, within the framework of the ReLUIS Project (2005-2009) (i.e. Bilotta et
al., 2009, Lanzano et al., 2009, Lanzano et al., 2010 etc).

II International Conference on Performance Based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering

May 2012, 28-30 - Taormina, Italy
Experimental data of one of these tests were made available to the scientific community within a blind
prediction program, the Round Robin Tunnel Test (RRTT) organization. In this paper, we describe the
numerical modeling of the test, emphasizing more on the successful simulation of the tunnel and ground
response. The numerical predictions are presented and compared with the experimental results, in terms of
accelerations and bending moment of the tunnel lining.
DYNAMIC CENTRIFUGE TESTS
Four centrifuge tests were carried out on circular aluminum models embedded in dry sand (in two
different burial depths), under a centrifugal acceleration of 80g (Bilotta et al., 2009, Lanzano et al., 2009,
Lanzano et al., 2010, Bilotta et al., 2011). The tests were performed, using a small laminar box
(500x250x300 mm3), at the 10m-diameter Turner Beam Centrifuge of the Schofield Center at the
University of Cambridge. The beam-like structure that is rotating around a central vertical axis
accommodates a swinging platform with the model and the actuator on the one end, and a counterweight
on the other. Earthquake input motions are applied using the Stored Angular Momentum (SAM) actuator
(Madabhushi, 1996), which is designed to apply sinusoidal input motions at a maximum frequency up to
60Hz and at a maximum amplitude of 20g (in model scale).
All the models were made using dry Leighton Buzzard sand (grade E) reconstituted at two different
relative densities (about 50% and 80%). Special care was taken during the pooring procedure to keep the
soil models as uniform as possible. The circular tunnel models were manufactured by an aluminum tube
having an external diameter D=75mm and a thickness t=0.5mm. Taking into consideration the scale factor
N=80, this correspond to a 6m diameter prototype tunnel with a shotcrete lining of about 6cm. To avoid
interaction of the model with the laminar box, the model was shorter than the box. Two square plates were
placed at each end of the model, to avoid the entrance of the sand inside the model. The plates were
lubricated to reduce any friction between the plate and the model that could affect the plane strain
behavior of the model. The models were instrumented using miniature piezoelectric accelerometers to
measure the horizontal and the vertical accelerations at several points into the soil and on the laminar box.
Moreover the tunnel-model was instrumented with strain gauges to measure the bending moments and the
hoop forces at four locations along 2 transverse sections (at the mid-span of the tunnel-model and 50mm
aside to check the plane strain conditions). Two linear variable differential transducers (LVDTs) were
attached on two gantries above the model to measure the soil surface settlements.
During the test, the model was swung up to 80g in steps of 10g. Then the earthquakes (sine waves of
increasing amplitude and frequency) were fired in a row, leaving some time between each earthquake.
After four earthquakes, the centrifuge was slowed to 40g and one final earthquake was fired.

(b)
(c)
(a)
Figure 2. (a) Turner beam centrifuge, (b) Tunnel-model with strain gauges, (b) Tunnel-model
placement in the laminar box (after Bilotta et al., 2011)

II International Conference on Performance Based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering

May 2012, 28-30 - Taormina, Italy
The experimental data of one of the tests, namely T3, were made available to the scientific community
within a blind prediction program, the Round Robin Tunnel Test (RRTT) organization that was formed as
a joint venture among technical committees TC104, TC203 and TC204 of ISSMGE. The main objective
of this program was to numerically model the test and predict the experimental results, having only some
general information about the layout of the test (Figure 3).The experimental data were made available for
comparisons and further study after the submission of the numerical predictions.
NUMERICAL SIMULATION
For the numerical simulation of the test we used the general purpose FE code ABAQUS (ABAQUS,
2009). Full dynamic time history analyses of the coupled soil-tunnel system were performed, under plane
strain conditions, on prototype scale models (Figure 4). Appropriate scaling laws were used to convert the
computed quantities from prototype scale to model scale (i.e. Schofield, 1981).
The soil was meshed with quadratic planestrain elements, while the tunnel-model was modelled with
beam elements. Linear elastic behavior was assumed for the tunnel specimen (E=70GPa, v=0.33 for the
aluminum alloy), while soil behavior was modelled as (i) a linear visco-elastic material or (ii) an
elastoplastic MohrCoulomb material, as described in detail in the ensuing. The base boundary of the
model was simulated as rigid bedrock, while for the vertical boundaries kinematic constrains were
introduced, forcing the opposite vertical sides to move simultaneously preventing any rotation. The soiltunnel interface was modelled using a Coulomb friction model, introducing a coefficient of friction
between the soil and the aluminum tunnel lining, =0.4. The later was estimated using available data from
the literature (i.e. Uesugi & Kishida, 1986, Kishida and Uesugi, 1987) and assuming a rather smooth
surface for the lining. It is noted that this parameter might be very crucial for the tunnels behavior.
Neither separation nor penetration between the soil and the model was allowed, assuming full contact in
normal direction during the test. The input motion was introduced at the base boundary in terms of
acceleration time histories, referring to the motion recorded at the reference accelerometer (Acc 13). The
signals were filtered using a 4th order Butterworth band-pass filter embedded in SeismoSignal software
(Seismosoft, 2011). In all cases, the analyses were performed in two steps. In the first step the gravity
loads were introduced (i.e. geostatic step), while in the second step the earthquake input motion was
applied in a dynamic step.
Soil constitutive model
To describe the inelastic soil behavior under seismic loading, in the case of the visco-elastic analyses, the
soil shear modulus was reduced and the material damping was adequately increased according to the shear
deformation level estimated for each earthquake scenario by means of 1D equivalent linear soil response
analysis. The calculation was performed in the frequency domain using the code EERA (Barbet et al.,
2000). The G--D curves required for the analyses were derived from available laboratory tests results
(Visone, 2009). In the 2D full dynamic time history analyses, the soil shear modulus and the damping
were assumed to be constant with depth (mobilized values in Table 1).
In the final analysis of the test the soil was modelled with an elasto-plastic Mohr Coulomb material. The
elastic stiffness was kept constant with depth and assumed to be reduced with respect to the small strain
elastic stiffness corresponding to the computed (from the 1D EQL response analysis) shear strain level of
the fourth earthquake (EQ4). Regarding the shear strength parameters of the soil model, the values were
adopted according to the laboratory test results for the specific fraction of sand (Visone, 2009). All the
mechanical properties for the sand, utilized in the analyses, are tabulated in Table 1.

II International Conference on Performance Based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering

May 2012, 28-30 - Taormina, Italy

500mm
124mm
124mm

Accelerometersensing
directiontowardsleft

110mm

LVDT045

LVDT059

130mm

Acc9

Acc6

Acc14

Acc12

SW

NE
Acc3
Acc4
Acc1

Acc10

ScaleFactorN=80

SE

Accelerometersensing
directionvertical

Referenceaccelerometer
recordinginputsignal

Acc16
Acc7

125mm

NW
Tunneld=75mm
57.5mm

45mm

57.5mm

290mm

Acc8

144mm

Acc15
Acc11

Acc5 DryFraction
Esand
Dr=75.9%

Straingauge

LVDT

Acc13

Shakedirection

Figure 3. Layout of model T3 (modified after Bilotta et al., 2011)

0.0001

G/Go

23.2m

1g

0.001

GD
0.01

0.1

50

0.8

40

0.6

30

Fitting
TSTests
RCtests

0.4

20

0.2

Displacement
constrains

a(t)

(a)

DT(%)

110mm

10

0
0.0001

0
0.001

(b)

0.01
(%)

0.1

40.0m

Figure 4. (a) Numerical model in ABAQUS, (b) G--D curves adopted in the analyses (black solid
line) vs. triaxial shear and resonant column tests results (experimental results after Visone, 2009)
Table 1 Mechanical properties in case of visco-elastic dynamic analyses of the coupled system
Test
case

Vsm
(m/sec)

(t/m3)

Gm
(MPa)

EQ1
EQ2
EQ3
EQ4

136
129
126
116

1.55

28.8
25.8
24.5
20.9

All

116

1.55

20.9

Rayleigh damping
parameters
a
b
Equivalent linear analyses
3.0
0.1371
0.0039
5.0
0.2218
0.0047
0.333
7.0
0.4423
0.0062
12.0
0.8815
0.0103
Elasto-plastic analyses
0.333
10.0
0.734
0.0085
v

Damping
(%)

()

()

c (MPa)

38

0.001

II International Conference on Performance Based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering

May 2012, 28-30 - Taormina, Italy
A crucial parameter for the numerical analyses was the determination of the small strain shear modulus.
According to Brennan et al. (2005), it is better to obtain the small strain shear modulus through the actual
test results rather than using empirical formulations, as the latter can lead to an overestimation of the
modulus. Unfortunately, we did not have enough data to compute the small strain shear modulus from test
results and so we proceeded with the estimation of the modulus using the following procedure. First, the
shear modulus was computed according to Hardin and Drnevich (1972) formulation. Using the estimated
shear modulus distribution with depth, in a 1D equivalent linear soil response analysis of the free field soil
deposit (EERA), the G/Gmax ratios were computed, for each earthquake scenario. The reduced shear
moduli (mean values) were compared with the mobilized shear moduli, evaluated from the experimental
data of this specific case study (Test T3), as were reported by Lanzano et al. (2010). The comparison
indicated an overestimation of the small strain shear modulus. To this end we applied a try and error
procedure to evaluate the accurate small strain shear modulus, assuming gradually reduced small strain
shear modulus distribution (in respect with the initial estimation) (Figure 5a). The comparisons of the
computed shear moduli (from the 1D soil response analyses) with the experimentally derived shear moduli
(Lanzano et al. 2010) are presented in Figure 5b, for the final iteration of the aforementioned procedure.

Gmax(MPa)
20
40

10

60

Depth(m)

0.06
0.12
0.17
0.23
0.29

Depth(m)

0.00

15

Shearmodulus(kPa)
20

25

30

0.00
0.06
0.12
0.17
0.23
0.29
TestresultsEQ1
TestresultsEQ3
EERAEQ1
EERAEQ3

TestresultsEQ2
TestresultsEQ4
EERAEQ2
EERAEQ4

(a)
(b)
Figure 5 (a) Small strain shear modulus distribution to depth at the final iteration of the
procedure, (b) Comparisons of the mobilized shear moduli computed from the 1D equivalent linear
analyses in EERA with the derived from experimental data shear moduli (after Lanzano et al.,
2010)
NUMERICAL PREDICTIONS VS EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
In this section, indicative numerical predictions are presented, compared with experimental records, and
discussed, in terms of accelerations and dynamic increments of bending moments of the tunnel lining. All
the comparisons are made in model scale.
Accelerations
As mentioned the acceleration time histories were recorded at several points in the soil deposit and on the
laminar box, by miniature accelerometers forming three arrays, namely the reference array, the free field
array and the tunnel array. In Figures 6-10 indicative computed acceleration time histories are presented
and compared with the recorded data. It is noted that both time histories were filtered. Considering the
general character of the assumptions we made for the numerical simulation, as we did not have all the
experimental data, the numerical predictions are compared to the experimental results reasonably well.

II International Conference on Performance Based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering

May 2012, 28-30 - Taormina, Italy
Acc7

t(s)
0

0.5

1.5
Acc4

0.5

8
4
0
4
8

A(g)

t(s)

Acc7

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

t(s)
0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

Acc7
Numericalprediction

t(s)
0

1.5

A(g)

8
4
0
4
8

t(s)

Acc8

8
4
0
4
8

A(g)

8
4
0
4
8

A(g)

A(g)

Acc4

0.5

1.5

8
4
0
4
8

Acc8

A(g)

8
4
0
4
8

0.7

t(s)
0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

Experimentalresults

Figure 6. Indicative acceleration time histories for EQ1; Experimental records vs. equivalent linear
analysis results
Acc7

t(s)
0

0.5

1.5
Acc4

0.5

A(g)

t(s)
0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

8
4
0
4
8

0.7

t(s)
0.55

0.6

0.65

Acc7
Numericalprediction

t(s)
0

Acc7

0.5

Acc8

1.5

A(g)

8
4
0
4
8

t(s)

8
4
0
4
8

A(g)

A(g)

A(g)

8
4
0
4
8

0.5

1.5
Acc8

8
4
0
4
8

A(g)

Acc4

8
4
0
4
8

0.7

t(s)
0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

Experimentalresults

Figure 7. Indicative acceleration time histories for EQ1; Experimental records vs. Mohr-Coulomb
analysis results

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1
Acc3

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1
Acc6

8
4
0
4
8

0.4

0.45

t(s) 0.5

Acc9

t(s)
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1
Acc9

8
4
0
4
8

A(g)

A(g)

A(g)

8
4
0
4
8

t(s)

8
4
0
4
8

A(g)

A(g)

t(s)

Acc6

8
4
0
4
8

A(g)

Acc3

8
4
0
4
8

0.4
Acc7
Numericalprediction

0.45

t(s) 0.5

0.4

0.45

t(s) 0.5

Experimentalresults

Figure 8. Indicative acceleration time histories for EQ2; Experimental records vs. Mohr-Coulomb
analysis results

II International Conference on Performance Based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering

May 2012, 28-30 - Taormina, Italy
Acc5

14
7
0
7
14

Acc14

t(s)
0.45

Acc5

0.45

t(s) 0.9
Acc14

14
7
0
7
14
0.25

t(s)
0.3

0.35

0.45

t(s) 0.9

Acc15

14
7
0
7
14
0.25

A(g)

A(g)

14
7
0
7
14
0.25

0.9

A(g)

Acc15

14
7
0
7
14

A(g)

A(g)

A(g)

14
7
0
7
14

0.3

Acc7
Numericalprediction

t(s) 0.35

0.3

t(s) 0.35

Experimentalresults

Figure 9. Indicative acceleration time histories for EQ3; Experimental records vs. equivalent linear
analysis results
Acc5

20
10
0
10
20

Acc6

0.45

Acc5

0.3

t(s) 0.35

Acc8

0.45

t(s) 0.9
Acc6

20
10
0
10
20
0.25

0.45

20
10
0
10
20
0.25

t(s) 0.9

Acc8

A(g)

A(g)

20
10
0
10
20
0.25

t(s) 0.9

A(g)

20
10
0
10
20

A(g)

A(g)

A(g)

20
10
0
10
20

0.3

Acc7
Numericalprediction

t(s) 0.35

0.3

t(s) 0.35

Experimentalresults

Figure 10. Indicative acceleration time histories for EQ4; Experimental records vs. Mohr Coulomb
analysis results
Experimentaldata

0.6
0.3
0

0.9
0.6
0.3
0

100
200
f(Hz)

300

MCanalyses

1.2
Amplitude

0.9

EQLanalyses

1.2
Amplitude

Amplitude

1.2

0.9
0.6
0.3
0

100
200
f(Hz)

300

100
200
f(Hz)

Figure 11. Fourier Spectra of Acc8 as computed from numerical and experimental results for EQ3
The relatively minor discrepancies are mainly attributed to the difference of the assumed soil stiffness and
damping with the actual one. Generally, the predictions of the Mohr-Coulomb analysis were closer to the
experimental results. This is again attributed to the different soil stiffness assumed in the two analyses
cases. Actually, when applying the Mohr-Coulomb criterion, the small strain shear modulus was assumed
to be smaller than the equivalent static analyses for the test cases EQ1, EQ2 and EQ3.

300

II International Conference on Performance Based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering

May 2012, 28-30 - Taormina, Italy
Similar results, to the time domain, are observed in the frequency domain. In Figure 11, the computed
Fourier spectra are compared with the experimental results at the soil surface just above the tunnel (Acc8),
for the EQ3 earthquake scenario. It can be seen, that both the numerical models are generally reproducing
the frequencies recorded during the test. There are some differences around 50-120Hz that are attributed,
as mentioned before, to the difference of the assumed and the actual soil stiffness.
Tunnel lining internal forces
Both bending moments and axial loads were measured at four locations of the lining. However, only the
bending moments were made available after the blind prediction phase. During each shaking, three
distinctive stages were observed for the tunnel lining bending moments, namely: a transient stage
following by steady state circles and finally a post-earthquake residual stage (Figure 12). This behavior is
expected in case of flexible structures (i.e. Cilingir and Madabhushi, 2010) and it is probably attributed to
the soil plastic deformations that can lead to large stress redistributions in the soil around the tunnel.
Numerical models did not manage to capture the exact evolution of these experimental bending moments,
although similar phenomena (residual values for the elasto-plastic analysis etc.) were observed. The
accuracy of the measured values, the relatively higher shear strength parameters adopted in the analyses or
even the modeling of the soil-tunnel interface could possibly cause the discrepancies between the
experimental and the computed values. Probably, the plastic deformations predicted by the numerical
model where much lower that the actual ones.

M(Nmm/mm)

Experimentaldata
NW
SW

6
4

NE
SE

2
0
2 0

3
t(s)

Figure 12. Bending moment records at four locations

In Figure 13 the experimental results are compared with the numerical predictions and the results of the
closed form solutions proposed by Wang (1993) for the full slip case. As mentioned, the computed total
bending moments, are not always matching the experimental results. However, the dynamic increments
were in a relatively better agreement. These increments were computed as the maximum values of the
semi-amplitude of cycles in the time histories, during the steady state stage. It can be also seen that the soil
plastic deformations in case of the Mohr Coulomb analyses (Figure 14) are leading to important
redistributions of the bending moment increments. Generally, the experimental results are closer to the
Mohr Coulomb analysis results, while the predictions of the closed form solution are quite close to the
numerically computed results.
As we did not have any detailed information on several important issues we were forced to make general
assumptions, as mentioned above, causing in a certain degree the differences between the experimental
results and the numerical predictions. Having all the experimental data, we will proceed with a second
phase of analyses, where the comparisons between the numerical and the experimental bending moments
and strains in the tunnel lining are expected to be better and more reliable.

II International Conference on Performance Based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering

May 2012, 28-30 - Taormina, Italy

EQ1

0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
60

0.1

0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08

0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0

120 180 240 300 360

(deg)

60

0.3

EQ3

120 180 240 300 360

(deg)

EQ4

0.25

|Mpk|(Nmm/mm)

|Mpk|(Nmm/mm)

EQ2

0.12
|Mpk|(Nmm/mm)

|Mpk|(Nmm/mm)

0.06

0.2

0.15

0.06
0.04
0.02
0

0.1

0.05

60

0
0

120 180 240 300 360

(deg)

2|Mpk|

60

120 180 240 300 360

(deg)

EQLanalyses
Experimentaldata
MCanalyses
Wang(1993)

Figure 13. Bending moment increments; Numerical predictions vs. experimental data
CONCLUSIONS
A first attempt to model numerically a dynamic centrifuge test of a circular tunnel embedded in dry sand is
presented. The simulation was done in the framework of a blind prediction test within the Round Robin
Tunnel Test (RRTT) organization. One test (T3), of a series of centrifuge tests that were performed on
circular tunnels within the ReLUIS Project, at the Schofield Centre of University of Cambridge, is used as
the benchmark case. The test was performed on an aluminum circular tunnel model embedded in dry sand
and excited with sine wavelets of increasing amplitude and frequency, under centrifugal acceleration of
80g. Full dynamic time history analyses of the coupled soil-model system were performed using
ABAQUS, under plane strain conditions. We were forced to make several assumptions regarding crucial
parameters of the problem as the experimental data were not known at that time. In a first series of
analyses the soil non-linear behavior was modeled as a linear visco-elastic material according to the
equivalent linear approach, while in the final analysis an elastoplastic Mohr Coulomb material was
adopted. The soil-tunnel interface was modelled using a Coulomb friction model.

II International Conference on Performance Based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering

May 2012, 28-30 - Taormina, Italy

Figure 14. Plastic deformations around the tunnel at the end of the dynamic analysis
The numerical predictions in terms of soil acceleration time histories and dynamic increments of bending
moments at several locations of the tunnel lining are in good, if not excellent (i.e. accelerations)
agreement, considering the absence of detailed experimental data. Having all the experimental data,
further analysis will be performed, trying to better model the test and better understand the seismic
behavior of this type of structures.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The support we had by Prof. Emilio Bilotta and Prof. Francesco Silvestri, during the running of the Round
Robin numerical test program, is kindly acknowledged. The work is partially supported by the SERIES
research project.
REFERENCES
ABAQUS (2009). Analysis Users Manual Volumes I - IV v6.9 [Computer Program], Dassault
Systmes, SIMULIA Inc, USA.
Bardet, J. P., Ichii ,K. and Lin, C. H. (2000). EERA a Computer Program for Equivalent-linear Earthquake
site Response Analyses of Layered Soil Deposits. Univ. of Southern California, Dep. of Civil Eng.
Bilotta, E., Lanzano, G., Madabhushi, S.P.G., Russo, G., Santucci de Magistris, F. and Silvestri, F. (2011)
RRTT, Round Robin numerical Test on Tunnels under seismic loading A joint venture between
TC104, TC203 and TC204.
Bilotta, E., Lanzano, G., Russo, G., Silvestri, F. and Madabhushi, S.P.G. (2009). Seismic analyses of
shallow tunnels by dynamic centrifuge tests and finite elements. Proc. 17th Int. Conf on Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Alexandra, Egypt.
Brennan, A. J., Thusyanthan, N. I. and Madabhushi, S.P.G. (2005). Evaluation of shear modulus and
damping in dynamic centrifuge tests. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 131, No. 12, pp. 1488 1497.

II International Conference on Performance Based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering

May 2012, 28-30 - Taormina, Italy
Cilingir, U., Madabhushi, S.P.G. (2010). A model study on the effects of input motion on the seismic
behavior of tunnels. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Vol. 31, pp.452 462.
EERA, Equivalent-linear Earthquake site Response Analysis (Version 2000). [Computer Program Addin]. Available at: http://gees.usc.edu/GEES/Software/EERA2000/Default.htm (Accessed: March 2011).
FWHA (2009). Technical manual for design and construction of road tunnels Civil elements. U.S.
Department of transportation. Federal Highway Administration. Publication No. FHWA NHI 09
010 March 2009. 629p.
Hardin, B.O. and Drnevich, V.P. (1972). Shear modulus and damping in soils: design equations and
curves. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division 98 (SM7), pp. 667 92. ASCE.
Hashash, Y.M.A., Hook, J.J., Schmidt, B. and Yao, J.I-C. (2001). Seismic design and analysis of
underground structures. Tunnel and Underground Space Technology, Vol. 16, No. 2, pp. 247 293.
ISO 23469 (2005). Bases for design of structures - Seismic actions for designing geotechnical works. ISO
International Standard. ISO TC 98 / SC3 /WG10.
Kishida, H. and Uesugi, M. (1987). Tests of the interface between sand and steel in the simple shear
apparatus. Geotechnique Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 45 52.
Kontoe, S., Zdravkovic, L., Potts, D. and Mentiki, C. (2008). Case study on seismic tunnel response.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 45, pp. 1743 1764.
Lanzano, G., Bilotta, E., Russo, G., Silvestri, F. and Madabhushi S.P.G. (2009). Experimental assessment
of performance-based methods for the seismic design of circular tunnels, Performance-Based design in
Earthquake Geotechnical Engineering, Kokusho, Tsukamoto & Yoshimine (eds.), Taylor & Francis
Group, London.
Lanzano, G., Bilotta, E., Russo, G., Silvestri, F. and Madabhushi S.P.G. (2010). Dynamic centrifuge tests
on shallow tunnel models in dry sand. VII International Conference on Physical Modelling in
Geotechnics, Zurich, Springman, Laue & Seward (eds.), Taylor & Francis Group, London.
Madabhushi, S.P.G., Schofield, A.N. and Lesley, S. (1998). A new stored angular momentum (SAM)
based earthquake actuator. Proceedings of centrifuge 98. Rotterdam: Balkema, pp. 111 116.
Owen, G. N. and Scholl, R.E. (1981). Earthquake engineering of large underground structures. Report No.
FHWA/RD-80/195, Federal Highway Administration and National Science Foundation, 279p.
Penzien, J. (2000). Seismically induced racking of tunnel linings. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dynamics, Vol. 29, pp. 683 691.
Pitilakis, K. and Tsinidis, G. (2012). Performance and seismic design of underground structures.
Proceedings of II International Conference on Performance Based Design in Earthquake Geotechnical
Engineering (State of the art lecture). May 2012, Taormina, Italy.
Schofield, A. N. (1981). Dynamic and earthquake geotechnical centrifuge modelling. Proc. of Int. Conf.
on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics, University of
Missouri-Rolla, MO, USA, 10811100.
Seismosoft, Seismosignal (Version 4.1.2). [Computer Program]. Available at: http://www.seismosoft.com
(Accessed: March 2011).
Uesugi, M. and Kishida, H. (1986). Frictional resistance at yield between dry sand and mild steel. Soils
and Foundations, Vol. 26, No. 4, pp. 139 149.
Visone, C. (2009). Performance based design of embedded retaining walls. Ph.D. Thesis, Universit di
Napoli Federico II.
Wang, J.N. (1993). Seismic Design of Tunnels: A Simple State-of-the-Art Design Approach. New York:
Parsons Brinckerhoff Inc.