Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 35 (2012) 1–12

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

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

Seismic fragility curves of shallow tunnels in alluvial deposits

S.A. Argyroudis n, K.D. Pitilakis
Department of Civil Engineering, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, P.O.B. 424, GR-54124, Thessaloniki, Greece

a r t i c l e i n f o abstract

Article history: In this paper a numerical approach is proposed for the construction of fragility curves for shallow metro
Received 4 February 2011 tunnels in alluvial deposits, when subjected to transversal seismic loading. The response of the tunnel is
Accepted 27 November 2011 calculated under quasi static conditions applying the induced seismic ground deformations which are
Available online 15 December 2011
calculated through 1D equivalent linear analysis for an increasing level of seismic intensity. The results
Keywords: of the present numerical analyses are compared with selected closed form solutions, highlighting the
Seismic vulnerability limitations of the latter, while indicative full dynamic analysis are performed in order to validate the
Shallow tunnels results of the quasi-static method. The proposed approach allows the evaluation of new fragility curves
Fragility curves considering the distinctive features of the tunnel geometries and strength characteristics, the input
Numerical analysis
motion and the soil properties as well as the associated uncertainties. The comparison between the new
1D ground response analysis
fragility curves and the existing empirical ones highlights the important role of the local soil conditions,
which is not adequately taken into account in the empirical curves.
& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction approaches are commonly used in case of bridges [17,7,15],

Underground structures have been proven in most strong
earthquakes less vulnerable than above ground structures, however
they may still be susceptible to seismic damage, especially the
shallow ones in poor geological conditions [12,29]. The damage of a
metro underground line may produce important indirect effects to
human lives and to the operation of the global transportation
system of an urban area. The Kobe’s metropolitan line failure is a
typical example ([34]). Hence, it is of high importance for risk
managers, city planners and authorities to know the expected
degree of damage of each transportation component due to various
earthquake scenarios. Fragility curves, which express the probability
of a structure reaching a certain damage state for a given earthquake
parameter, play an important role in the overall seismic risk
assessment of a transportation network.
So far the vulnerability assessment of tunnels has been mainly
based on expert judgment [3,19] or empirical fragility curves [1],
derived from actual damage in past earthquakes all over the
world [9,21,37,33]. American Lifelines Alliance [1] produced
empirical fragility curves for peak ground acceleration for bored
and cut and cover tunnels with poor-to-average and good con-
struction, based on regression analysis of a worldwide damage
database. Recently, fragility curve methodologies using numerical
approaches have become widely adopted as they are more readily
applied to different structure types and geographical regions
where seismic damage records are insufficient. Although such
n
Corresponding author. Tel./fax: þ 30 2310 995842.
E-mail address: sarg@civil.auth.gr (S.A. Argyroudis).
buildings [14] and other elements, their use for the fragility
analysis of tunnels is still limited.
The objective of this paper is to develop, check and apply a
comprehensive numerical approach for the construction of fragi-
lity curves for shallow metro tunnels in alluvial deposits, con-
sidering structural parameters, local soil conditions and the input
ground motion characteristics. The comparison between the new
fragility curves and the existing empirical ones highlights the
important role of the local soil conditions, which is not ade-
quately taken into account in the empirical curves.
The response of tunnels to seismic shaking may be described
in terms of two principal types of deformations; the first includ-
ing both axial and curvature deformations, occur along the long-
itudinal axis of the tunnel; the second one, perpendicular to the
longitudinal axis of the tunnel cross section, is resulting in
‘‘ovaling’’ deformations of a circular tunnel cross section and
‘‘racking’’ deformations of a rectangular cross section [38,12]. This
paper considers the seismic response of tunnels along the
transversal direction, and thus the ovalisation and racking of the
lining are the only mechanisms taken into account for the circular
and rectangular tunnel sections respectively.
In particular, the transversal seismic response of the tunnel
due to upward traveling SH or SV waves is evaluated under quasi-
static conditions, applying the induced on the tunnel cross section
and the surrounding soil free field seismic ground deformations,
which are calculated independently through a 1D equivalent
linear analysis (EQL). Different tunnel cross sections, input
motions and soil profiles are employed. Defining the damage
levels according to the exceedance of strength capacity of the
most critical sections of the tunnel, the fragility curves could be

0267-7261/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.soildyn.2011.11.004
2 S.A. Argyroudis, K.D. Pitilakis / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 35 (2012) 1–12
constructed, as a function of the level and the type of the seismic
excitation, considering the related uncertainties.
The problem of the tunnel’s seismic response has been
addressed through analytical closed-form solutions by several
authors [38,25,6,18,24], based on a number of assumptions (i.e.
linear elastic soil and lining behavior, homogeneous ground
medium, full-slip or no-slip conditions between soil and lining,
the effect of structure sequence is not considered). The present
numerical analyses are compared with these closed form solu-
tions, reaching to similar conclusions and results with other
studies [13,32]. For completeness, representative indicative full
dynamic analysis are performed in order to validate the results of
the quasi-static approach.
2. Procedure for deriving fragility curves
2.1. Overview
The proposed approach is based on the quasi static analysis of
tunnels in the transversal direction, considering the soil-structure
interaction through 2D coupled numerical analyses. The general
flowchart of the procedure is illustrated in Fig. 1 [4]. In general,
the transversal seismic analysis of underground structures based
on imposed seismic ground displacements is quite common in
practice (e.g. [12,27]). Being essentially a static analysis, this
approach is cost effective compared to more elaborate full
dynamic time–history analysis. Especially for the needs of a
comprehensive parametric fragility study like the present one,
where different soil profiles, input motions and tunnel geometries
are used, the aforementioned approach is adequate.
The effect of soil conditions and ground motion characteristics
in the global soil and tunnel response is taken into account by
using different typical soil profiles and seismic input motions. The
response of the free field soil profiles and the induced seismic
ground deformations are calculated through an 1D numerical
analysis, for an increasing level of seismic intensity. The nonlinear
soil behavior is considered through the variation of shear mod-
ulus and damping ratio with shear strain in the framework of a 1D
EQL ground response analysis; the Mohr-Coulomb criterion is
used to model the 2D soil-tunnel behavior. The results of the 1D
free field soil response analyses are also employed to define the
appropriate stiffness parameters in the finite element analyses,
Tunnel typology Soil type
Basic models Typical soil profiles (P)
Damage index (DI), Quasi static response
damage states (ds), of the soil-tunnel
thresholds values of models
DI for each ds
Evolution of damage with earthquake
parameter (EP), median threshold
value of EP for each ds
Fragility curves
for each tunnel and soil type
Fig. 1. General flowchart of the procedure for deriving numerical fragility curves for tunnels in alluvial deposits.
varying along the tunnel sides and compatible to the strains
developed during the ground shaking. On the other hand the
closed form solutions usually assume elastic soil behavior com-
patible, at the best, to a single average value of soil deformation
(i.e. at the tunnels mid-depth) estimated through empirical or
semi-empirical expressions.
The level of tunnel damage is described by a damage index
expressing the exceedance of the lining strength capacity and the
fragility curves are estimated based on the evolution of damage
index with the increasing earthquake intensity, considering
associated uncertainties. The proposed approach allows the
evaluation of new fragility curves considering the distinctive
features of the tunnel geometries and strength characteristics,
the input motion characteristics and the soil properties. In
contrast, the available empirical fragility curves do not consider
adequately soil characteristics and they rather describe an aver-
age behavior of the tunnel in seismic action.
2.2. Definition of damage states
The damage states of already existing empirical fragility curves
for tunnels are based on a qualitative damage description from
past earthquakes. Although various damage indexes and related
parameters have been proposed for the fragility analysis of
buildings and bridges, no such information is available for
tunnels. Considering this serious lack of references, in the present
approach the damage index (DI) is defined as the ratio between
the actual (M) and capacity (MRd) bending moment of the tunnel
cross section. A definition based on moments is compatible with
the use of displacements, according to the equal displacement
approximation. In line with other approaches, it is assumed that
the tunnel’s behavior is approximated to that of an elastic beam
subjected to deformations imposed by the oscillating surrounding
ground due to seismic waves propagating perpendicular to the
tunnel axis [12]. The actual bending moment (M) is calculated as
the combination of static and seismic loads. The capacity of the
tunnel is estimated based on material and geometry properties of
the beam considering the induced static and seismic axial forces
(N) and bending moments (M).
According to previous experience of damages in tunnels and
applying engineering judgment, four different damage states are
considered due to ground shaking. They refer to minor, moderate,
extensive and complete damage of the tunnel lining and they are
Seismic input motion
Accelerograms (A), intensity levels (S)
1D equivalent linear analysis of
the soil profiles - input motions
models (PxAxS)
Soil deformations and soil
stiffness parameters
Uncertainties
(seismic demand, tunnel
capacity, definition of DI and ds)
 S.A. Argyroudis, K.D. Pitilakis / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 35 (2012) 1–12 3

described in Table 1. Although the proposed limits of damage
index are not yet fully documented, they give a realistic descrip-
tion for the expected damage.
2.3. Estimation of fragility curve parameters
HAZUS [19] for buildings; bC is assigned equal to 0.3 according to
analyses for bored tunnels of BART system [30]. The last source of
uncertainty, associated with seismic demand, is described by the
average standard deviation of the damage indices that have been
calculated for the different input motions at each level of PGA.

In line with similar procedures ([35,19,17]) the proposed

fragility curves are described by the lognormal probability dis-
tribution function (Eq. (1)):
  
1 S
P f ðds Z dsi 9SÞ ¼ F Uln ð1Þ
btot Smi
where Pf (  ) is the probability of being at or exceeding a particular
damage state, ds, (Table 1), for a given seismic intensity level
defined by the earthquake parameter, S (given here as Peak
Ground Acceleration-PGA), F is the standard cumulative prob-
ability function, Smi is the median threshold value of the earth-
quake parameter S required to cause the ith damage state, and btot
is the total lognormal standard deviation. The development of
fragility curves according to Eq. (1) requires the definition of two
parameters, Smi and btot.
Using the results of the coupled numerical analysis, the damage
versus the selected earthquake intensity parameter (PGA in this
case) diagram can be plotted, which represents the evolution of
damage index with increasing earthquake intensity. The median
threshold value of the earthquake parameter, Smi, can be obtained
for each damage state based on the aforementioned diagram and
the damage index definitions given in Table 1. A lognormal
standard deviation (btot) that describes the total variability asso-
ciated with each fragility curve has to be estimated. Three primary
sources of uncertainty are considered [19], namely the definition
of damage states (bds), the response and resistance (capacity) of
the tunnel (bC) and the earthquake input motion (demand) (bD).
The total variability is modeled by the combination of the three
contributors, assuming that they are statistically independent and
lognormally distributed random variables (Eq. (2)):
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
btot ¼ b2DS þ b2C þ b2D ð2Þ
3. Application for typical shallow tunnels and soil profiles
3.1. Tunnel sections
Two typical shallow tunnel sections are considered, a circular
(bored) tunnel with a 10 m diameter and a rectangular (cut and
cover) one-barrel frame with dimensions 16  10 m. The lining of
the circular tunnel is composed of 0.50 m thick precast concrete
segments, while that of the rectangular tunnel is composed by
0.9 m thick side concrete walls, 1.2 m thick roof slab and 1.4 m
thick base slab. The upper points of the circular and rectangular
section are in a depth of 10 m and 3.5 m respectively. The
concrete material is characterized by the following linear elastic
parameters: Young’s modulus E¼ 30.5 GPa, Poisson ratio n ¼0.2.
3.2. Input motions
Records from different earthquakes, in soil conditions similar
to soil class A of Eurocode 8, were selected as input motion in
outcrop conditions for the 1D ground response analyses (Table 2).
The mean acceleration spectrum of the selected input signals is
plotted together with the EC8 spectra for soil class A in Fig. 2.
The time histories are scaled from 0.1 to 0.7 g in order to
calculate the induced stresses in the tunnel for gradually increas-
ing level of seismic intensity. In particular, for amplitudes equal
4
Mean
Mean +σ
3 Mean -σ
EC8-Soil Class A
Sa/Amax

Due to the lack of a more rigorous estimation, for the parameter

2
bds we assigned a value equal to 0.4 following the approach of

Table 1
Definition of damages states for tunnel lining.
1

Damage state (dsi) Range of damage Central value of

index (DI) damage index 0
0 1 2 3 4 5
ds0. None M/MRd r1.0 –
ds1. Minor/slight 1.0o M/MRd r1.5 1.25 T (sec)
ds2. Moderate 1.5o M/MRd r 2.5 2.00
ds3. Extensive 2.5o M/MRd r 3.5 3.00 Fig. 2. Mean acceleration spectra 7 1 standard deviation of the input time
ds4. Collapse M/MRd 43.5 – histories for the 1D ground response analyses and comparison with the spectrum
provided by EC8 (soil type A).

Table 2
Selected records applied to the bedrock of the soil profiles.

Record station Earthquake Magnitude Mw Epicentral PGA (g) Predominant

distance (km) period (sec)

1 OTE Kozani, 1995 6.5 17.0 0.142 0.50

2 Kypseli Parnitha, 1999 6.0 10.0 0.120 0.43
3 Gebze Kocaeli, 1999 7.4 41.8 0.218 1.06
4 Cubbio-Piene Umbria-Marche, 1998 4.8 18.0 0.235 1.08
5 Hercegnovi Novi Montenegro, 1979 6.9 65.0 0.256 0.74
6 Sturno Campano Lucano, 1980 7.0 32.0 0.323 2.30
7 Gilroy1 Loma Prieta, 1989 6.9 28.6 0.440 0.37
8 Griffith Park Observ. Northridge, 1994 6.7 25.4 0.289 0.10
9 Whitewater Trout Farm Palm Springs, 1986 6.2 7.3 0.517 0.52
4 S.A. Argyroudis, K.D. Pitilakis / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 35 (2012) 1–12

or lower to 0.3 g, the first four records were used, while for
amplitudes greater of 0.3 g the next six records were applied. This
distinction was made in order to scale the real records to
amplitudes as much as possible consistent with their frequency
characteristics.
3.3. Soil profiles
Fourteen ideal soil deposits were considered, corresponding to
soil types B, C and D of Eurocode 8 [10], ranged according to the
shear wave velocity (Vs30) values (Fig. 3). Three different thick-
nesses were assumed, equal to 30 m (profiles: B30sand, B30clay,
C30sand, C30clay, D30sand, D30clay), 60 m (profiles: B60a, C60a,
D60a, B60, C60, D60) and 120 m (profiles: B120, C120). Typical
values of the different soil properties were selected for each soil
layer. The 60 m and 120 m profiles constitute of a surface 5 m
thick sand layer overlaying clay layers, while the 30 m profiles
consist solely of sand or clay.
3.4. Estimation of the imposed seismic ground displacements
The imposed quasi-static seismic ground displacements have
been computed using a 1D EQL approach with the code EERA [5],
assuming an equivalent linear elastic soil behavior. The variations
of shear modulus G/Go and damping ratio D with the shear strain
level g were defined according to the available data in the
literature as a function of plasticity index and effective stress [8].
Curves with PI¼ 30% for clay and PI ¼0% for sand materials were
selected in this study (Fig. 4). For the seismic bedrock, the curves
proposed by Schnabel et al. [31] were applied.
Each soil profile is discretised by appropriate number of layers
varying from 2.5 to 10 m thick. In the iterative procedure, the
ratio of effective and maximum shear strain is assumed equal to
0.65. The cumulative displacements in each soil layer and depth
were estimated for each soil profile and input motion, based on
the computed peak shear strain versus depth. These peak dis-
placements’ profiles are imposed on the lateral boundaries of the
plain strain soil model in order to estimate the response of the

Vs (m/s) Vs (m/s)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
0 0
Β60a B60
C60a C60
10 D60a 10 D60

20 20
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

30 30

40 40

50 50

60 60
Vs (m/s) Vs (m/s)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000
0 0
B30sand/clay B120
C30sand/clay C120
5 20
D30clay/sand

10 40
Depth (m)
Depth (m)

15 60

20 80

25 100

30 120

Fig. 3. Variation of shear wave velocities of the examined soil profiles.

 S.A. Argyroudis, K.D. Pitilakis / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 35 (2012) 1–12 5

1.0 25.0
PI = 30%, σο' = 0.25atm
PI = 30%, σο' = 1.0atm
0.8 20.0
PI = 30%, σο' = 4.0atm
PI = 0%, σο' = 0.25atm
PI = 30%, σο' = 0.25atm
0.6 15.0 PI = 0%, σο' = 1.0atm
PI = 30%, σο' = 1.0atm
G/Gmax

PI = 0%, σο' = 4.0atm

D (%)
PI = 30%, σο' = 4.0atm
Rock
0.4 PI = 0%, σο' = 0.25atm 10.0
PI = 0%, σο' = 1.0atm
PI = 0%, σο' = 4.0atm
0.2 5.0
Rock

0.0 0.0
0.000 0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000 0.000 0.001 0.010 0.100 1.000
Shear strain γ (%) Shear strain γ (%)

Fig. 4. Shear modulus reduction (G/Gmax) and variation of damping ratio (D) with shear strain (g).

Maximum Acceleration amax (g) G/Gmax Peak shear strain γmax (%) Cummulative displacement Dn (m)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15
0 0 0 0

10 10 10 10

20 20 20 20
Depth (m)

30 30 30 30

40 40 40 40

50 50 50 50

60 60 60 60

Fig. 5. Example of 1D ground response analysis results with EERA and estimation of displacements versus depth (Soil profile: C60, Input motion: Montenegro, 0.5 g for
outcrop conditions).

tunnel lining under quasi-static conditions. We avoided to apply
the computed displacements’ pattern directly on the tunnel lining
through springs and dashpots because recent studies [27] have
proved that there is no accurate enough way to choose these
parameters, and consequently the associated scatter may be very
important, affecting the final results. Moreover, it was found that
the displacements that are estimated from the displacement time
histories in each layer for the time instance where the shear strain
takes the maximum value at the tunnel depth, are similar or even
lower than the aforementioned ones based on the peak values.
Therefore, the displacements’ pattern used herein, which are
based on the peak shear strains, constitute a more conservative
and easier to apply approach.
The computed variation of G versus depth was also used to
evaluate the corresponding modulus of elasticity (E) of each soil
layer, which is used in the quasi static analysis of tunnel. In
particular, an average value of E is calculated for each soil layer
based on the average values computed for the different input
motions. Fig. 5 shows a typical example of the computed ground
response in terms of maximum acceleration amax, normalized
shear stiffness G/Gmax, peak shear strain gmax, and cumulative
displacement Dn. The computed PGA value at the surface of each
soil profile is selected as the representative parameter of the
seismic intensity in the fragility curves.
The relative stiffness of the structure and the surrounding soil is
an important parameter describing the soil–structure interaction
identity of underground structures [12]. It is quantified by the
flexibility ratio (F), which is a measure of the flexural stiffness
(resistance to ovaling for circular tunnel or racking for rectangular
frame) of the medium relative to the lining. The flexibility ratio is the
most important factor that contributes to the soil–structure interac-
tion. It depends on the characteristics of the medium (modulus of
elasticity Em or shear modulus Gm) and the geometrical and material
properties of the tunnel. The flexibility ratios that correspond to the
different soil profiles and the two tunnels of the present study are
given in Fig. 6. The modulus of elasticity of the surrounding soil has
been estimated through the 1D ground response analyses for the
different input motions, as described above. They vary from 0.2 to 55
covering a wide range of soil-structure interaction cases.
3.5. Numerical analyses
The response of the tunnel is calculated under quasi-static
conditions applying the induced free field cumulative displacements,
6 S.A. Argyroudis, K.D. Pitilakis / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 35 (2012) 1–12

which were calculated through the 1D EQL analysis. A plane strain shear stiffness moduli, are used for the quasi-static analysis. Fig. 7
ground model with the tunnel cross section is simulated using the shows a representative example of the tunnel response after
finite element code PLAXIS 2D [28]. The lateral extent of the model is imposing the shear ground displacements.
properly selected in order to simulate the soil structure interaction
and to avoid boundary effects. Based on sensitivity analysis it was
found that a distance equal to three times the diameter of the 4. Comparison of the numerical results with other solutions
circular section (i.e. 30 m) from both sides of the tunnel axis is
adequate for the analysis. 4.1. Free field shear strains
The side boundary conditions were fixed in the vertical
direction and free to move in the horizontal direction, while the The computed maximum free field shear strains for the 60 m
nodes at the bottom of the mesh were fixed in both directions. soil profiles (B, C and D soil categories) and the different input
Prior to the application of the imposed displacement, a set of motions, are compared with the simplified analytical solution
initial static analyses was performed to properly model the initial proposed by St. John and Zahrah [36], which corresponds to the
static conditions, the excavation of the tunnel and the construc- S-waves propagation (Fig. 8). The latter one is expressed as the
tion of the lining. The circular tunnel excavation was simulated ratio of the peak ground velocity (PGV) to the velocity of S-wave
through the volumetric contraction of the tunnel section corre- propagation (Vs). The PGV values are estimated according to the
sponding to volume loss equal to 0.2–0.5% for soil type B and 1% suggestion by Hashash et al. [12], based on the ratios of peak
and 2% for the soil types C and D, respectively. ground velocity to peak ground acceleration [29] and the soil
The behavior of the tunnel lining was assumed to be linear
elastic, while the soil was characterized by a Mohr–Coulomb yield Maximum shear strain γmax (-15m)
criterion for all the stages of the analysis. Strain compatible soil 1E-01

60
Numerical analysis (EERA)
<=0.3g, Circular section
50 1E-02
>0.3g, Circular section
Flexibility Ratio F

<=0.3g, Rectangular section

40 B60a
>0.3g, Rectangular section
B60
30
C60a
1E-03
C60
20
D60a
D60
10
1:1
0 1E-04
B30sand

B30clay

Β60a

B60

B120

C30sand

C30clay

C60a

C60

C120

D30sand

D30clay

D60a

D60

1E-04 1E-03 1E-02 1E-01

Analytical solution (St. John & Zahrah, 1987)

Soil Profile Fig. 8. Comparison between 1D numerical (EERA) and analytical (St. [36]) values
of the maximum shear strains (gmax) at the circular tunnel depth (  15 m) for the
Fig. 6. Variation of flexibility ratios F for the different soil profiles and the two 60 m soil profiles (B60, B60a, C60, C60a, D60, D60a correspond to the Vs profiles
tunnel sections. described in fig.3 according to EC8).

M max = -84.3 kNm/m M max = 1480 kNm/m

Axial forces
N max = -692.7 kN/m
Extrem e axial force -1.06*103 kN/m
Deformed Mesh
Extreme total displacement 43.07*10-3 m N max = -1060 kN/m
(displacements scaled up 100.00 times)

Fig. 7. Example of 2D analysis results: deformed mesh (a), total moment and axial forces of the circular (b), and rectangular (c), tunnel lining (Soil profile: B60a, Input
motion: Kypseli, 0.3 g).
 S.A. Argyroudis, K.D. Pitilakis / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 35 (2012) 1–12
type; B and C are considered as stiff, while D as soft soil. For the
moment magnitude it is assumed that PGA values up to 0.3g
correspond to Mw ¼6.5, while the higher values correspond to
Mw ¼7.5. Finally, the source to site distance is taken between 20
and 50 km. The Vs value is referred to the soil layer at the tunnel
depth (Fig. 3). The different points in Fig. 8 correspond to the
various seismic excitations. While we observe a large scatter, in
general the agreement is rather good for soil type B, but rather
poor for soil type C and soil type D, where the computed strains
are clearly larger. This is certainly due to the non-linear effects of
soil response. Consequently, it is concluded that in many cases,
and in particular for strong events, the simplified analytical
expressions of the seismic ground strains are not conservative
enough to be applied in engineering applications.
The limitations of such expressions have been also discussed
by Paolucci and Pitilakis [23]. They concluded that the transient
ground strains are not only affected by wave passage effects, as
generally assumed in these formulas, but also by site effects,
especially in terms of lateral variations of soil properties and
spatial incoherency of ground motion. The comparison of the
present numerical results with a recently proposed relationship
by Paolucci and Pitilakis [23] is quite good considering the fact
that this relationship is referring to the ground surface.
4.2. Moment and axial force in circular tunnel
The values of gmax and modulus of elasticity (Em) obtained at
the circular tunnel axis depth (i.e. 15 m) with the 1D ground
response analyses for each soil profile and input motion, are used
to estimate the bending moment and axial force in the tunnel
lining applying the analytical expressions provided by Wang [38].
Then the results are compared with the 2D numerical modeling
using PLAXIS. In both cases no-slip conditions between soil and
lining are assumed. The comparison between the analytical
solution and the numerical results for the three soil types is
shown in Fig. 9. The analytical solutions are generally over-
estimate both moments and axial forces especially at higher
strain levels. Similar conclusions have been reached by other
researchers when they compared closed form solutions with
numerical analysis results following the same assumptions with
the analytical approach [13,32,2]. The differences between the
two solutions are larger when elasto-plactic models are applied
for the soil in the numerical analyses [22,16,2] as it is the case of
the present study. In particular, the redistribution of stresses
around the tunnel due to the non linear soil behavior and the
plastic deformations that are developed, contribute to the
reduced structure deflections and consequently to reduced values
of generated loads in the tunnel lining, in contrast to the elastic
approach. Additionally, when the elasto-plastic approach is
adopted, the computed thrusts are generally compressive for
the full range of strains, resulting in a stiffer lining and tending
to prevent the tensile strains that would occur using a linear
elastic model. The simulation of the excavation in the numerical
approach, considering the volumetric contraction of the tunnel
section and the corresponding volume loss that modifies the
initial stress conditions around the tunnel, also contributes to
the different results between the two solutions. Finally, another
possible source of differences is the fact that in our analyses the
imposed soil deformations vary with depth, while in the analy-
tical solutions only an average value of strain at the tunnel axis
depth is considered.
4.3. Ovaling and racking deformations
The normalized structure deflection i.e. the ratio of lining
diametric deflection of circular tunnel and free field ground
7
deflection, is defined as a function of the flexibility ratio F based
on analytical solutions provided by Wang [38] for full slip
conditions and by Penzien [25] and Park et al. [24] for no slip
conditions between the circular tunnel and surrounding soil. In
Fig. 10 the normalized structure deflections that have been
computed based on the quasi-static numerical approach are
compared with the aforementioned analytical solutions for the
circular tunnel. The same solutions are used for the case of
rectangular cross section considering the approximation of 10%
reduction in the normalized distortion (i.e. ratio of racking and
free field deflection) as it is described by Wang [38] and Hashash
et al. [12]. In the same diagrams, an average logarithmic regres-
sion curve is fitted to the data set, bounded from the correspond-
ing standard deviation. We observe that the analytical solutions
overestimate the tunnel response, especially in the case circular
sections. However in the case of the rectangular section the
regression curve fits rather satisfactorily with both analytical
solutions (slightly better that for the Park et al. case, which was
developed for no slip conditions and corresponds better to our
model). The differences between the two approaches (numerical
and analytical) are attributed to the different assumptions of the
interface conditions previously described, i.e. full slip conditions
and linear elastic soil behavior in analytical solution, no slip
conditions and elasto-plactic soil behavior, together with the
better simulation of excavation in the numerical approach.
According to the mean regression curves of the numerical results,
the structure deformation is expected to be higher than the free
field one, when F435 for circular and for F 41.5 for rectangular
tunnel section.
4.4. Comparison with full dynamic analysis for circular tunnel
Representative dynamic analyses were performed with the
finite element code PLAXIS 2D [28] in order to compare and
validate the results of the quasi-static approach for the circular
tunnel section. The analyses are performed for the 60 m soil
profiles (B60a, C60a) considering the acceleration time histories
of Kypseli and Gebze (scaled at 0.3 g). The mesh of the model is
characterized by a width equal to eight times its height in order to
minimize the boundary effects [2]. The discretization of the model
includes a total number of 1786 15-node plane strain triangular
elements and is refined around the tunnel section.
The initial static and the following dynamic analysis of the
present time–history and quasi-static modeling have been per-
formed assuming linear elastic range. The seismic induced bend-
ing moments and axial forces of the tunnel section are compared
in Table 3 for the two approaches. In case of the dynamic
analyses, the maximum and effective (65% of the maximum)
values of the loads are given. In general, the dynamic analysis
results, as expected, in higher values; however an overall satis-
factory agreement is observed when the effective and more
realistic from engineering point of view, values of the dynamic
analysis are compared to the quasi-static approach.
5. Fragility curves
The derivation of fragility curves (i.e. the definition of the
median threshold value of PGA for each damage state) is based on
the construction of diagram of the computed damage indices
versus PGA at the ground surface according to the definitions of
Table 1. The diagram is estimated by linear regression analysis,
considering the natural logarithm of the damage index (LnDI) as
the dependent variable and PGA as the independent variable.
Similar approaches are used for the derivation of fragility analysis
for bridges (e.g. [15,7,20,26]). Examples of the evolution of
8 S.A. Argyroudis, K.D. Pitilakis / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 35 (2012) 1–12

Moment [kNm] Axial force [kN]

10000 10000
B30clay B30clay
B30sand B30sand
B60 B60
Numerical analysis (Plaxis)

Numerical analysis (Plaxis)

B60a B60a
B120 B120
1:1 1:1
100 100

1 1
1 100 10000 1 100 10000
Analytical solution (Wang,1993) Analytical solution (Wang,1993)
Moment [kNm] Axial force [kN]
10000 10000
C30clay C30clay
C30sand C30sand
C60 C60
Numerical analysis (Plaxis)

Numerical analysis (Plaxis)

C60a C60a
C120 C120
1:1 1:1
100 100

1 1
1 100 10000 1 100 10000
Analytical solution (Wang,1993) Analytical solution (Wang,1993)
Moment [kNm] Axial force [kN]
10000 10000
D30clay D30clay
D30sand D30sand
D60 D60
Numerical analysis (Plaxis)

Numerical analysis (Plaxis)

D60a D60a
1:1 1:1

100 100

1 1
1 100 10000 1 100 10000
Analytical solution (Wang,1993) Analytical solution (Wang,1993)

Fig. 9. Comparison between numerical (PLAXIS) and analytical [38] solution of maximum moment and axial forces of circular tunnel lining for the different soil profiles
(type B, C, D according to EC8).

damage with PGA are given in Fig. 11 for the two tunnel sections, The sets of fragility curves derived for each soil type (B, C and D)
where an average linear regression is fitted to the data set, following the procedure that is described in this paper, are given in
bounded by the corresponding standard deviation. Figs. 12 and 13 for the circular and rectangular tunnel section
 S.A. Argyroudis, K.D. Pitilakis / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 35 (2012) 1–12 9

Circular tunnel Rectangular tunnel

3.0 3.0

2.5 2.5

Free field deformation

Free field deformation

Structure deformation
Structure deformation

2.0 2.0

1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0

0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 5 10 15 20 25
Flexibility ratio, F Flexibility ratio, F
Wang, 1993 (full slip) Park et al, 2009 (no slip) Wang, 1993 (full slip) Park et al, 2009 (no slip)
Penzien, 2000 (no slip) Numerical analysis Penzien, 2000 (no slip) Numerical analysis
+1σ -1σ +σ -1σ
Average Average

Fig. 10. Comparison between numerical (all soil profiles – PLAXIS) and analytical [38,25,24] solutions of normalized structure deflection for circular and rectangular
tunnels.

Table 3 2.0
Circular tunnel - Soil type: C
Comparison between full dynamic and quasi-static approach.
1.5 +σ
Soil profile and Dynamic analysis Quasi-static Extensive damage
input motion Maximum (Effective) analysis
Damage Index (lnDI)

1.0
Moderate damage -σ
B60a Gebze (0.3 g) 9DM9max 94.3 (61.3) 40.6
(kNm/m) 0.5
Minor damage
9DN9max 381.1 (247.7) 215.8
(kN/m) 0.0
C60a Gebze (0.3 g) 9DM9max 810.3 (526.7) 535.6
(kNm/m) -0.5
9DN9max 828.1 (538.3) 719.9
(kN/m)
C60a Kypseli (0.3 g) 9DM9max 397.3 (258.2) 184.3 -1.0
(kNm/m)
9DN9max 409.8 (266.4) 251.4 -1.5
(kN/m) 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
PGA surface (g)
2.0
respectively. In the same figures the parameters of the lognormal Rectangular tunnel - Soil type: B
distribution in terms of median and standard deviation are
1.5
presented. Comparing the fragility curves derived for the three
Extensive damage
soil types, it is noted that for the same PGA in both tunnel types the
Damage Index (lnDI)

1.0 +σ
vulnerability is gradually increasing from soil type D to C and from Moderate damage
soil C to D. The fragility curves for extensive damages for soil type B 0.5 -σ
Minor damage
in both tunnel sections, and for soil type D in case of rectangular
tunnel, (dashed lines), are derived based on extrapolation of the 0.0
available computation results. The extrapolated values of damage
index for the extensive damages could be attributed to several -0.5
reasons, i.e. higher stiffness in case of soil class B and predomi-
nance of non-linear soil behavior and internal damping expected in -1.0
the case of soil class D.
A practical consequence of these observations is that the -1.5
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4
probability of extensive damages is very low for circular tunnels
in stiff soils, even for very important ground accelerations. The PGA surface (g)
same is expected for rectangular tunnels in soft soils. These Fig. 11. Examples of the evolution of damages with PGA at the ground surface for
remarks are consistent with the few available observations from circular and rectangular tunnel cross-sections. Estimation of the median threshold
recent strong earthquakes as it is further discussed in the next values of PGA for each damage state.
section.
Comparing the fragility curves derived for the two tunnel
types, it is observed that the rectangular shallow tunnel, con- deviation values are estimated in the case of the circular section
structed with cut and cover, is more vulnerable than the circular, in soil type C and D, which reflects the variability in the results in
normally bored, tunnels, for all soil types. The higher standard terms of PGA at the surface and damages indices values.
10 S.A. Argyroudis, K.D. Pitilakis / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 35 (2012) 1–12

1.00 1.00
Soil type: Β Soil type: Β

Μinor damage Μinor damage

Median: 1.24g, βtot = 0.55 Median: 0.75g, βtot = 0.53
0.75 0.75
Probability of damage

Μoderate damage

Probability of damage
Μoderate damage

.
Median: 1.51g, βtot = 0.55 Median: 1.28g, βtot = 0.53
Extensive damage Extensive damage
Median: 1.74g, βtot = 0.55 Median: 1.73g, βtot = 0.53
0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25

0.00 0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
PGA (g) PGA (g)

1.00 1.00
Soil type: C Soil type: C

0.75 0.75
Probability of damage

Probability of damage
0.50 0.50

Μinor damage Μinor damage

Median: 0.55g, βtot = 0.70 Median: 0.38g, βtot = 0.56
0.25 0.25 Μoderate damage
Μoderate damage
Median: 0.82g, βtot = 0.70 Median: 0.76g, βtot = 0.56
Extensive damage Extensive damage
Median: 1.05g, βtot = 0.70 Median: 1.08g, βtot = 0.56
0.00
0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
PGA (g) PGA (g)

1.00 1.00
Soil type: D Soil type: D

0.75
Probability of damage

0.75
Probability of damage

0.50
0.50

Μinor damage Μinor damage

Median: 0.47g, βtot = 0.75 Median: 0.36g, βtot = 0.56
Μoderate damage 0.25 Μoderate damage
0.25
Median: 0.66g, βtot = 0.75 Median: 0.73g, βtot = 0.56
Extensive damage Extensive damage
Median: 0.83g, βtot = 0.75 Median: 1.05g, βtot = 0.56
0.00
0.00 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
PGA (g)
PGA (g)
Fig. 13. Fragility curves for rectangular (cut and cover) tunnel section (dashed
Fig. 12. Fragility curves for circular (bored) tunnel section (dashed curve derived curves derived by extrapolation of numerical results).
by extrapolation of numerical results).

6. Comparison between numerical and empirical damage
data
The numerically derived fragility curves are compared with
the empirical ones that are proposed by ALA [1] based on
observed damage data in tunnels from past earthquakes
(Fig. 14). In these empirical curves PGA values have been
estimated using available ground motion prediction equations,
with all the uncertainties associated to these models. Moreover,
the database includes tunnels of various functions (i.e. highway,
transit, railroad, water supply and communications). They are
classified as tunnels in rock and tunnels in soil, and for poor-to-
average and good construction practices and maintenance condi-
tions. Finally, the definition of the damage states is strictly
qualitative, based mainly on the extent of the observed cracking
of the tunnel liner, independently of the type of damage produ-
cing these cracking; for example cracking due to transversal
stressing is not differentiated from cracking in the longitudinal
axis. In the present comparison, we selected to compare our
resulting fragility curves with the empirical fragility curves for
alluvial (soil) and cut and cover tunnels with good quality
construction. For this type of tunnels no empirical curves are
provided for extensive damages, which is consistent with the
numerical results. In particular, the threshold PGA values for
extensive damages are very high or they are estimated based on
extrapolation of the numerical results since the computed
damage indexes are low, as it is described in the previous section.
The role of the soil conditions is very important to be
neglected. The numerical fragility curves are seriously modified
with the soil conditions, contrary to the empirical curves, which
are rather describing an average response of the tunnels inde-
pendently of soil conditions. Therefore, the empirical curves may
over or underestimate the probability of damage. It is also
interesting to remark that the empirical curves are well compared
with the numerical ones for soil types C or D. This is due to the
fact that the majority of damages have been reported in ‘‘mod-
erate’’ and ‘‘poor’’ soil conditions that correspond to soil type
C and D.
 S.A. Argyroudis, K.D. Pitilakis / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 35 (2012) 1–12 11

Circular (bored) tunnel - Minor damage Circular (bored) tunnel - Moderate damage
1.00 1.00

0.75 0.75
Probability of damage

Probability of damage
0.50 0.50

0.25 0.25

0.00 0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
PGA (g) PGA (g)
Rectangular (cut & cover) tunnel - Minor damage Rectangular (cut & cover) tunnel - Moderate damage
1.00 1.00

0.75 0.75
Probability of damage

0.50 Probability of damage 0.50

0.25 0.25

0.00 0.00
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
PGA (g) PGA (g)

Soil type Β Soil type C Soil type D ALA - Good quality construction

Fig. 14. Comparison between numerical and empirical [1] fragility curves for circular (up) and rectangular (down) tunnel cross section.

Table 4
Comparison between observations and estimations from fragility curves for cut and cover tunnels.

Earthquake Tunnel type and PGA on site Soil type Observed Probability of
location (free field) damage damage

Parnitha, 1999 Monastiraki 0.34 g Stiff sandy clays and highly weathered rock formations None None: 0.93
station down to at least 60 m depth, Vs30 ¼ 400 m/s Min.: 0.06
Mod.: 0.01
Ext.: 0.00
Parnitha, 1999 Sepolia station 0.31 g 0–7 m: sandy to silty clay, 7–15 m: stiff sandy clay with None None: 0.95
gravels, 15–25 m: fractured conglomerate, ‘Athenian Schist’, Min.: 0.04
Vs30 ¼ 390 m/s Mod.: 0.00
Ext.: 0.00
Kobe, 1995 Dakai station  0.70 g alternations of mostly saturated loose sandy and soft clayey, Extensive None: 0.14
Vs30 ¼ 300 m/s Min.: 0.42
Mod.: 0.23
Ext.: 0.22

The proposed fragility curves are applied to estimate the while Dakai station was not designed according to modern codes.
damage probabilities of cut and cover tunnels that were subjected Moreover, the curves were developed for one-barrel rectangular
to strong ground motion in recent earthquakes (Table 4). Two section, without the presence of the vulnerable central columns
rectangular stations in Athens (Monastiraki, Sepolia) and one in as it is the case of Dakai station.
Kobe (Dakai) are examined. The details about the structure
geometry and response, site soil conditions and recorded ground
motions are given by Gazetas et al. [11]. The observations are well 7. Conclusions
predicted by the fragility curves in case of Athens metro. The
prediction is less satisfactory in case of Dakai station. This A simple yet comprehensive numerical methodology is pro-
divergence may be attributed to the fact that the present fragility posed to construct fragility curves for shallow metro tunnels in
curves are referring to modern structures designed and con- alluvial deposits, when subjected to transversal seismic loading.
structed according to recent improved seismic code prescriptions, Tunnel response is calculated under quasi static conditions,
12 S.A. Argyroudis, K.D. Pitilakis / Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 35 (2012) 1–12
applying at a certain distance from the tunnel the induced seismic
ground deformations, which are calculated through a 1D equiva-
lent linear analysis. Seismic inputs with different frequency
content are used, scaled in different levels of seismic loading.
Typical tunnel cross sections (circular and rectangular) and soil
profiles, classified as B, C and D according to EC8, are employed.
Defining different damage states, the fragility curves could be
derived as a function of the level of peak ground acceleration at
the ground surface, considering the related uncertainties in the
definition of damage states, the demand and the capacity of the
tunnel.
Prior to the construction of the fragility curves the results of
our numerical analyses are compared and validated with avail-
able analytical expressions as well as dynamic analyses. The
comparisons proved the reliability of the proposed numerical
approach, while at the same time they highlighted the inherent
limitations of the closed-form solutions. The observed general
trend of the analytical solutions to overestimate the tunnel
response, especially at higher strain levels, is mainly due to the
inelastic soil behavior and the simulation of volume loss during
tunnel excavation in the numerical approach, which could not be
properly accounted for in the close form analytical solutions.
So far the vulnerability assessment of tunnels is based on
simple empirical fragility curves, without properly considering
soil and tunnel characteristics. With the proposed numerically
derived fragility curves we consider in a more systematic way the
distinctive features of the tunnel geometric and strength proper-
ties, as well the input motion characteristic and the soil proper-
ties. The proposed fragility curves should be used for shallow
tunnels, circular or rectangular, in shallow alluvial deposits
classified according to EC8 soil categories.
Acknowledgments
This work is partially developed in the framework of the
research project SYNER-G: systemic seismic vulnerability and risk
analysis for buildings, lifeline networks and infrastructures safety
gain, funded by the European Commission (FP7-ENV-2009-1-
244061).
References
[1] American Lifelines Alliance (ALA), Seismic Fragility Formulations for Water
Systems, part 1– Guideline, ASCE-FEMA, Reston, VA2001, 104 p.
[2] Amorosi A, Boldini D. Numerical modelling of the transverse dynamic
behaviour of circular tunnels in clayey soils. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering 2009;29:1059–72.
[3] ATC-13, Earthquake Damage Evaluation Data for California, Applied Technol-
ogy Council, Redwood City, 1985.
[4] Argyroudis, S. Contribution to seismic vulnerability and risk of transportation
networks in urban environment, PhD thesis, Department of Civil Engineering,
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece, 2010.
[5] Bardet JP, Ichii K, Lin CH. EERA: A Computer Program for Equivalent-Linear
Earthquake Site Response Analyses of Layered Soil Deposits, University of
Southern California. Department of Civil Engineering; 2000. 40 p.
[6] Bobet A. Effect of pore water pressure on tunnel support during static and
seismic loading. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 2003;18:
377–93.
[7] Choi E, DesRoches R, Nielson B. Seismic fragility of typical bridges in
moderate seismic zones. Engineering Structures 2004;26:187–99.
[8] Darendeli, MB. Development of new family of normalized modulus reduction
and material damping curves, PhD thesis, University of Texas, Austin, 2001.
[9] Dowding CH, Rozen A. Damage to rock tunnels from earthquake shaking.
Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division 1978;104:175–91.
[10] EC8. Eurocode 8: Design of Structures for Earthquake Resistance. Brussels,
Belgium: European Committee for Standardisation; 2004. The European
Standard EN 1998–1.
[11] Gazetas G, Gerolymos N, Anastasopoulos I. Response of three Athens metro
underground structures in the 1999 Parnitha earthquake. Soil Dynamics and
Earthquake Engineering 2005;25:617–33.
[12] Hashash YA, Hook J, Schmidt B, Chiangyao J. Seismic design and analysis of
underground structures. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology
2001;16:247–93.
[13] Hashash YA, Park D, Chiangyao J. Ovaling deformations of circular tunnels
under seismic loading, an update on seismic design and analysis of under-
ground structures. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 2005;20:
435–41.
[14] Kappos A, Panagopoulos G, Panagiotopoulos Ch, Penelis G. A hybrid method
for the vulnerability assessment of R/C and URM buildings. Bulletin of
Earthquake Engineering 2006;4:391–413.
[15] Karim KR, Yamazaki F. Effect of earthquake ground motions on fragility
curves of highway bridge piers based on numerical simulation. Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2001;30:1839–56.
[16] Kramer, G, Sedarat, H, Kozak, A, Liu, A, Chai, J. Seismic response of precast
tunnel linings, in: Proceedings of Rapid Excavation and Tunneling Confer-
ence, Toronto, 2007.
[17] Moschonas I, Kappos A, Panetsos P, Papadopoulos V, Makarios T, Thanopou-
los P. Seismic fragility curves for Greek bridges: methodology and case
studies. Bulletin of Earthquake Engineering 2009;7:439–68.
[18] Nagar H, Hinchberger SD, Nagar MH. Simplified analysis of seismic in-plane
stresses in composite and jointed tunnel linings. Soil Dynamics and Earth-
quake Engineering 2008;28:1063–77.
[19] NIBS. HAZUS-MH: Technical Manuals. Washington, DC: Federal Emergency
Management Agency and National Institute of Building Science; 2004.
[20] Nielson BG, DesRoches R. Seismic fragility methodology for highway bridges
using a component level approach. Earthquake Engineering and Structural
Dymamics 2007;36:823–39.
[21] Owen, GN, Scholl, RE. Earthquake engineering of large underground struc-
tures, in report No. FHWA/RD-80/195, Federal Highway Administration and
National Science Foundation, (1981) 279p.
[22] Pakbaz M, Yareevandb A. 2-D Analysis of circular tunnel against earthquake
loading. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 2005;20:411–7.
[23] Paolucci, R, Pitilakis, K. Seismic risk assessment of underground structures
under transient ground deformations, in: K. Pitilakis (Ed.), Earthquake
Geotechnical Engineering: 4th International Conference on Earthquake
Geotechnical Engineering – Invited Lectures, Springer, Netherlands, 2007,
pp. 433–459.
[24] Park KH, Tantayopin K, Tontavanich B, Owatsiriwong A. Analytical solution
for seismic-induced ovaling of circular tunnel lining under no-slip interface
conditions: a revisit. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology
2009;24:231–5.
[25] Penzien J. Seismically induced raking of tunnel linings. Earthquake Engineer-
ing and Structural Dynamics 2000;29:683–91.
[26] Pinto, PE (Ed.), Probabilistic methods for seismic assessment of existing
structures, LESSLOSS Report No. 2007/06, Istituto Universitario di Studi
Superiori di Pavia, IUSS Press, 2007.
[27] Pitilakis, K, Tsinidis, G. Seismic design of large, long underground structures:
metro and parking stations, highway tunnels, in: Proceedings of International
Geotechnical Conference: Geotechnical Challenges in Megacities (GEO-
MOS2010), Moscow, 2010.
[28] Plaxis 2D, Reference Manual, version 7, 1998.
[29] Power, M, , Rosidi, D, Kaneshiro, J, Gilstrap, S, Chiou, SJ. (1998). ‘‘Summary
and Evaluation of Procedures for the Seismic Design of Tunnels’’, Final Report
for Task 112-D-5.3(c), MCEER Highway Project, Sponsored by US Department
of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, FWHA Contract Number
DTFH61-92-C-00112.
[30] Salmon, M, Wang, J, Jones, D, Wu, Ch. Fragility formulations for the BART
system, in: Proceedings of the 6th U.S. Conference on Lifeline Earthquake
Engineering, TCLEE, Long Beach, 2003.
[31] Schnabel, PB, Lysmer, J, Seed, HB. SHAKE: a computer program for earthquake
response analysis of horizontally layered sites, Report No. UCB/EERC-72/12,
Earthquake Engineering Research Center, University of California, Berkeley,
December, (1972)102p.
[32] Sedarat H, Kozak A, Hashash YMA, Shamsabadi A, Krimotat A. Contact
interface in seismic analysis of circular tunnels. Tunnelling and Underground
Space Technology 2009;24:482–90.
[33] Sharma S, Judd WR. Underground opening damage from earthquakes.
Engineering Geology 1991;30:263–76.
[34] Shinozuka, M. The Hanshin-Awaji earthquake of January 17, 1995: perfor-
mance of lifelines, Technical Report NCEER-95-0015, 1995.
[35] Shinozuka M, Feng MQ, Kim H-K, Kim S-H. Nonlinear static procedure for
fragility curve development. Journal of Engineering Mechanics 2000;126:
1287–96.
[36] John St. CM, Zahrah TF. Aseismic design of underground structures. Tunnel-
ing and Underground Space Technology 1987;2:165–97.
[37] Wang JM. The distribution of earthquake damage to underground facilities
during the 1976 Tang-Shan earthquake. Earthquake Spectra 1985;1:741–57.
[38] Wang JN. Seismic Design of Tunnels. A Simple State-of-the-Art Design
Approach, Monograph 7. Parsons, Brinckerhoff: Quade & Diuglas Inc.,
New York; 1993.