Bull Earthquake Eng (2016) 14:413–431

DOI 10.1007/s10518-015-9835-x

ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER

Damage analysis of cut-and-cover tunnel structures

under seismic loading

Tae-Hyung Lee1 • Duhee Park2 • Duy Duan Nguyen1 •

Jeong-Seon Park2

Received: 13 April 2015 / Accepted: 10 October 2015 / Published online: 3 November 2015
 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Abstract Damage analyses of rectangular cut-and-cover tunnels are performed to define

the damage states and corresponding damage indices (DIs) under seismic loading. Single,
double, and triple box structures designed for metro subway systems in South Korea are
used. The tunnel structures are modeled by nonlinear frame elements attached to a series of
normal and shear springs to simulate the soil–tunnel interaction. Pushover analyses are
performed to develop the capacity curves and to monitor the development of plastic hinges.
Parallel elastic analyses are also performed to determine the elastic moments at which
plastic hinges form. For each tunnel and site condition, three damage states, which are
minor, moderate, and extensive, are defined in terms of number of plastic hinges that form
at the corners of the tunnel structure. Each damage state is linked to the corresponding DI,
which is defined as the ratio of the elastic moment to the yield moment and free-field shear
strain. DI for the single box tunnel is shown to be mostly independent of the shear wave
velocity of soil. The values of DIs for single, double, and triple box tunnels range from 1.0
to 2.0. It is highlighted that the proposed damage state associated with DI and shear strain
provide an enhanced estimate of the seismically induced damage of box tunnels and can be
easily utilized in a performance-based design.

Keywords Cut-and-cover tunnel  Seismic design  Damage analysis  Inelastic frame

analysis  Damage state  Damage index

& Duhee Park

dpark@[Link]
1
Department of Civil Engineering, Konkuk University, Seoul, Korea
2
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Hanyang University, Rm 506 Jaesung Civil
Eng Bldg., Wangsimni-ro 22, Sungdong-gu, Seoul 133-791, Korea

123
414 Bull Earthquake Eng (2016) 14:413–431

1 Introduction

Underground structures are known to be less vulnerable to earthquake induced damage

compared to structures built above-ground (Dowding and Rozan 1978). However, strong
earthquakes have shown that even underground structures can suffer significant structural
damage under severe seismic excitation (Hashash et al. 2001). The tunnel damage pattern
has been identified through various case studies (Dowding and Rozan 1978; Hashash et al.
2001; Owen and Scholl 1981; Sharma and Judd 1991; Wang 1985). Nakamura et al. (1996)
presents a detailed report on the damage of Daikai station during the 1995 Kobe earth-
quake. Wang et al. (2001) provides an extensive analysis of damage observed in mountain
tunnels during the 1999 Chi–Chi earthquake. Wang and Zhang (2013) classify the seismic
damage of mountain tunnels, which is validated through 2008 Wenchuan earthquake.
Considering the important roles that underground structures play in modern urban areas,
accurate evaluation of the seismic performance of underground structures is critical for
ensuring sustainability.
Since underground structures are completely enclosed within the ground and cannot
vibrate freely, they conform to the ground movement. Therefore, a pseudo-static analysis,
where the free-field horizontal displacement profile calculated from a one-dimensional site
response analysis is imposed to the ground surrounding the tunnel, is most often performed
in practice. It ignores the dynamic interaction between the tunnel and the ground. Ana-
lytical pseudo-static methods for calculating tunnel response under vertically propagating
shear waves have been presented (Bobet 2003; Hashash et al. 2001; Huo et al. 2006; Park
et al. 2009; Penzien 2000; Wang 1993). Pseudo-static numerical analyses are also widely
performed in practice (Hashash et al. 2001, 2005; Wang 1993). Dynamic analyses were
also performed to simulate the dynamic underground structure–soil interaction. Several
studies compared the pseudo-static and dynamic analyses of underground structures.
Hashash et al. (2010) compared the calculated racking ratio (R) of pseudo-static and
dynamic analyses for box structures with flexibility ratio (F) ranging from less than 1 up to
12. R is defined as the ratio of the relative displacement between the top and bottom
corners of the structure to the free field relative displacement. F represents the relative
flexibility between the structure and the soil. If F \ 1, the structure is stiffer than the
surrounding soil, whereas the soil is stiffer than the structure if F [ 1. The results were
almost identical for single boxes. For double box tunnels, R calculated from dynamic
analysis were shown to be up to 25 % higher than those determined from pseudo-static
analyses. Argyroudis and Pitilakis (2012) also compared pseudo-static and dynamic
analysis results of underground structures. They concluded that the difference between the
pseudo-static and dynamic analyses is not significant, and the pseudo-static analysis pro-
vides sufficiently accurate estimate of the dynamic response tunnels.
To overcome the evident limitations of an elastic analysis, studies employing nonlinear
models for the underground structure have been carried out. A pushover analysis of Daikai
subway station during the Kobe earthquake 1995 was executed by Liu and Liu (2008)
through inelastic finite element analysis to identify the failure mechanism of the double
rectangular tunnel. The study showed that the tunnel fails due to the development of plastic
hinges in the weak center column, which led to collapse of the column and the upper slab.
Andreotti et al. (2013) performed pseudo-static analysis of horseshoe shaped tunnels using
the finite difference approach. Elastic beams with six plastic hinges represent tunnel lining
and damage states were defined based on the number of plastic hinges. Because the
numerical model pre-assigns the location of plastic hinges, it cannot accurately model the

123
Bull Earthquake Eng (2016) 14:413–431 415

propagation of the plastic hinges during seismic loading. Khani and Homami (2014)
performed pushover analyses on a one bay and two story rectangular tunnel. From the
analysis results, the capacity curve of the double-stacked box was proposed.
Previous studies deal with specific sites and tunnels. For performance-based design,
there is a need to define the failure mechanisms for different types of tunnels, a wide range
of soil profiles, and ground motion intensities based on damage analyses. In addition,
representative damage states of tunnels and associated quantitative indices need to be
characterized. Argyroudis and Pitilakis (2012) proposed four damage states for circular and
rectangular tunnels, which are minor/slight, moderate, extensive, and collapse. Each
damage state was linked to the damage index (DI), which is defined as the ratio of elastic
moment (M) to resisting design moment (Md). However, since damage analyses were not
performed, representative damage indices (M/Md) were assumed without a clear engi-
neering rationale.
In this study, we investigate the accumulation of damage of rectangular single-story cut-
and-cover tunnels under seismic loading from pseudo-static inelastic frame analysis and
present a new criterion for defining the damage states. Three types of single-story box
structures, which are single, double, and triple box tunnels, were modeled. The tunnels
were modeled with a series of nonlinear beam–column elements to capture the develop-
ment and evolution of plastic hinges. Each damage state defined in this study is associated
with the DI proposed by Argyroudis and Pitilakis (2012). The damage indices of single,
double, and triple tunnels for various soil conditions are compared. Representative free-
field shear strains for each damage state are also presented.

2 Site conditions and tunnel sections

We modeled three types of rectangular box structures, of which the cross-sectional

dimensions are depicted in Fig. 1. Single, double, and triple boxes shown are actual cut-
and-cover metro tunnels designed and built in South Korea. For simplicity, tunnels were
assumed to be located within a uniform soil layer. The depth of overburden was 7 m for all
tunnels, as shown in Fig. 1. K0 of 0.5 was assumed for all profiles. Both the center-to-
center width and height were 6.0 m for each box. The thickness of ceiling slab, walls, and
bottom slab was 1.0 m. For the double and the triple boxes, the cross-sectional dimension

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 1 Cross sections of cut-and-cover tunnels: a single tunnel, b double tunnel and c triple tunnel

123
416 Bull Earthquake Eng (2016) 14:413–431

of the interior column was 0.4 m by 1.0 m. The cross-sectional dimensions of structural
members including reinforcement details are depicted in Fig. 2. The nominal compressive
strength of concrete (f0 c) used was 27.5 MPa, while the nominal yield strength of the
reinforcing steel (fy) assigned was 413 MPa.

3 Numerical modeling

To evaluate the capacity of the box tunnels, we performed a series of pseudo-static

analyses. Dynamic analyses were not performed because the difference between pseudo-
static and dynamic analyses was shown to be not significant, as explained previously. A
continuum analysis was not used because it was demonstrated that the difference between a
frame and continuum analyses is not pronounced if the spring coefficients are selected
appropriately (Chang et al. 2014). Only the racking of the rectangular tunnel was simu-
lated, because it is the critical mode of deformation in most cases.
Finite element models of three tunnels were developed within the capability of
SAP2000 (ver. 15), a commercial program. Each structural member of the tunnel, namely
ceiling slab, wall, bottom slab, and interior column, was modeled using frame elements
with joint-offset feature at the corner of tunnels to reflect the rigidity of the wall-slab joint
connection. We used conventional line-type elements based on the Euler–Bernoulli beam
theory using a cubic shape function for the displacement interpolation. The number of

Fig. 2 Dimensions and reinforcement details of structural members

Fig. 3 Convergence of the bending moment at location C with increase in the number of elements per
structural member

123
Bull Earthquake Eng (2016) 14:413–431 417

elements was determined from mesh convergence analysis, as shown in Fig. 3. The
bending moment at top right corner (location C) of the single box is shown to converge
when 48 elements are used. We used 64 elements per structural member in all analyses.
Because Euler–Bernoulli beam elements were used, shear failure of the structural member
was not allowed. Even though a flexural failure is expected considering the slenderness of
the walls and slabs, future studies are needed to investigate the possibility of shear failure.
A plastic hinge model was used for all frame elements, not only to capture the nonlinear
behavior of the tunnel, but also to capture the propagation of plastification along the length
of the structural members. The behavior of the plastic hinge, which is located at each end
of a frame element, is dictated by the section model, namely the nonlinear moment–
curvature relation. The nonlinear section model was determined by the section analysis for
each cross section using nonlinear material models. Material behaviors of concrete and
reinforcing steel are dictated by the nonlinear stress–strain relationships as shown in Fig. 4.
The elastic moduli of concrete and reinforcing steel used were 24.8 and 200 GPa,
respectively. The moment–curvature relationships of sections A–A and D–D are presented
in Fig. 5 for an illustrative purpose.
The surrounding soil was modeled by a series of springs in the normal and the shear
directions to simulate the soil–tunnel interaction. The spring constants were determined by
the procedure specified in the Seismic design code for metropolitan subway of Korea
(MLTM 2009). According to the design code, the spring constants of horizontal (KH) and
vertical (KV) subgrade reactions are defined as
 3=4
h
KH ¼ kh0 ð1Þ
30
 3=4
b
KV ¼ kh0 ð2Þ
30
1


where kh0 ¼ 30 ED , h and b are the height and the width of the tunnel, respectively, ED is
dynamic elastic modulus. The shear springs for vertical and horizontal frames, KSS and KSB
respectively, are defined as

(a) (b)
Fig. 4 Material model: a concrete and b steel

123
418 Bull Earthquake Eng (2016) 14:413–431

(a) (b)
Fig. 5 Moment–curvature relations: a section A–A and b section D–D

1
KSS ¼ KH ð3Þ
4
1
KSB ¼ KV ð4Þ
4
We used the guidelines outlined in Iai (2005) to perform the pseudo-static analyses.
Figure 6 shows the boundary conditions, applied forces, and displacements. Firstly, the
geostatic forces were applied to the normal springs. Secondly, the free-field soil dis-
placements were applied to the normal springs. The deformation at the top of the structure
was applied to the shear springs. In addition, the shear stress induced at the soil-interface
was imposed directly on the structure.
In a typical pseudo-static analysis, a one-dimensional (1D) site response analysis is
performed to determine the free-field shear strain and horizontal displacement profile. We
assumed that the shear strain is uniform within the site profile, and therefore the horizontal
displacement was applied as an inverted triangle that decreases linearly with depth.
Nonlinear static analysis procedure, also known as the pushover analysis, was performed
by continuously increasing the deformation. From the pushover analysis, the base shear–
shear deformation curve, development of plastic hinges, and the changes in the bending
moment distribution were monitored. The analyses were performed on soils of various
shear wave velocities, which were 50, 100, 200, 300, and 400 m/s.

4 Calculated tunnel response

In this section, nonlinear behaviors of three tunnels are discussed in detail. Development of
plastic hinges, collapse mechanisms, and parallel elastic analysis results are presented herein.

4.1 Capacity curves of the tunnels

The capacity curve is expressed as a force–deformation relationship, most commonly the

base shear versus top displacement in case of a structural system. It is a useful tool to

123
Bull Earthquake Eng (2016) 14:413–431 419

Fig. 6 Boundary conditions and applied loads to the box

evaluate both the strength capacity and the ductility of the structure. In this study, the
capacity curve is expressed as the base force (total lateral force) versus the free field shear
strain.

4.1.1 Single box

Figure 7 shows the capacity curves of the single box tunnel for various soil properties. It is
observed that a softer soil (with a lower shear velocity) yields a larger free field shear strain
of the tunnel. It is attributed to difference in the rigid body rotation of the tunnel and
resisting support from the soil spring. A soft soil allows a larger rigid body rotation and a
larger shear deformation of the tunnel simultaneously compared to a stiffer soil.
Figure 8 shows the capacity curves and the development of plastic hinges for all soil
conditions, where red circles indicate plastic hinges. If the single box is an above-ground
structure which stands freely, plastic hinges at four different corners would form a collapse
mechanism. However, none of the single box tunnels shows the collapse behavior after
four plastic hinges are developed as shown in Fig. 8. Even though the single box tunnel is
in an unstable state from the structural point of view, the surrounding soil supports the
tunnel and prevents it from collapsing.

123
420 Bull Earthquake Eng (2016) 14:413–431

Fig. 7 The capacity curves of

the single tunnel

4.1.2 Double box

Figure 9 shows the capacity curves of the double box tunnel for various soil properties.
Similarly to the case of the single box tunnel, it is observed that a softer soil (with a smaller
shear velocity) yields a larger free field shear strain. Figure 10 shows the development of
plastic hinges for the cases of Vs = 50 m/s and Vs = 400 m/s. The double box tunnel does
not collapse even after developing plastic hinges at six different corners including both
ends of the interior column. It is because the surrounding soil supports the tunnel and
prevents it from collapsing, similarly to the case of the single box tunnel. It is observed that
the plastic hinges at the interior column do not form until the plastic hinges at the four
corners of the outer frame form. The stiffness of the interior column is much smaller than
the other structural element as shown in Fig. 2 and the applied forces are mostly resisted by
strong elements, which lead to the development of plastic hinges. After plastic hinges are
formed at all four corners, the bending moments are redistributed and induce increments of
moments at the interior columns until eventually plastic hinges are formed. It is interesting
to note that the 6th plastic hinge forms immediately after the 5th plastic hinge develops. In
other words, after forming 5th plastic hinge, the box tunnel may suddenly reach an
unstable state once a plastic hinge is developed in the interior column.
A hypothetical collapse mechanism is a flexural failure of the ceiling slab after losing
the axial capacity of the interior column, as Daikai subway station collapsed during the
Kobe earthquake (Liu and Liu 2008; Parra-Montesinos et al. 2006). A number of studies
showed that the axial capacity of the reinforced concrete column is reduced once the
column loses the flexural capacity (An and Maekawa 1997; Moehle et al. 2002; Yoshimura
et al. 2004). However, such failure mechanism cannot be simulated in this study due to the
limitation of the modeling scheme adopted herein. A special element that can simulate the
reduction of the axial capacity as the element loses its flexural capacity is required to
simulate the hypothetical failure mechanism involving the collapse of the ceiling slab.

4.1.3 Triple box

Figure 11 shows the capacity curves of the triple box tunnel for various soil properties.
Similarly to the cases of the single box and double box tunnels, it is observed that a softer
soil (with a smaller shear velocity) yields a larger free field shear strain of the tunnel.

123
Bull Earthquake Eng (2016) 14:413–431 421

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)
Fig. 8 Development of plastic hinges for single tunnel: a Vs = 50 m/s, b Vs = 100 m/s, c Vs = 200 m/s,
d Vs = 300 m/s and e Vs = 400 m/s

Figure 12 shows the development of plastic hinges for the case of Vs = 50 m/s and
Vs = 400 m/s.
It is again observed that the plastic hinges at the interior columns form after hinges
develop at all four outer corners. We may conclude that the interior columns play an
important role in the collapse capacity of multiple box tunnels. As in the case of the double
box tunnel, the 5th to the 8th plastic hinges are very closely spaced, indicating that the
triple box may become unstable immediately after a plastic hinge develops in the interior
column.

123
422 Bull Earthquake Eng (2016) 14:413–431

Fig. 9 The capacity curves of

the double tunnel

(a) (b)
Fig. 10 Development of plastic hinges for double tunnel: a Vs = 50 m/s and b Vs = 400 m/s

Fig. 11 The capacity curves of

the triple tunnel

123
Bull Earthquake Eng (2016) 14:413–431 423

(a) (b)
Fig. 12 Development of plastic hinges for triple tunnel: a Vs = 50 m/s and b Vs = 400 m/s

4.1.4 Sequence of the plastic hinge formation

The sequences of the development of plastic hinges for single, double, and triple boxes are
presented in Fig. 13. It is observed that the sequences of the development of plastic hinges
are different for different soil conditions for each of the single box, double box, and triple
box cases. For the single box tunnel, the plastic hinge develops at the position A followed
by D or C. The fourth plastic hinge develops at position B. It should be noted that the

(a) (b)

(c)

Soil conditions
Tunnel type
Vs = 50 m/s Vs = 100 m/s Vs = 200 m/s Vs = 300 m/s Vs = 400 m/s

Single box A-D-C-B A-D-C-B A-C-D-B A-C-D-B A-C-D-B

Double box C-A-D-B-F-E A-C-D-B-F-E A-C-D-B-F-E A-C-D-B-F-E A-C-D-B-F-E

C-A-D-B-F-H- C-A-D-B-F-H- A-C-D-B-H-G- A-C-D-B-H-F- A-C-D-B-H-F-

Triple box
G-E G-E E-F E-G G-E

Fig. 13 Locations of possible hinges and sequence of plastic hinge formation

123
424 Bull Earthquake Eng (2016) 14:413–431

Fig. 14 Bending moment diagrams of single box tunnel, Vs = 50 m/s. a Elastic range, b after 1st plastic
hinge is formed, c after 2nd plastic hinge is formed, d after 3rd plastic hinge is formed

lateral load is applied from left to right. For the double and triple box tunnels, the plastic
hinge initially develops at positions A or C. As reported earlier, plastic hinges at the
interior columns do not developed until the plastic hinges at the four corners of the outer
frame are developed. The sequence of the plastic hinge formation is different due to
differences in the stiffness ratio between the structural members and supporting soil springs
for various soil conditions. Consequently, the moment distributions are different. Fig-
ures 14 and 15 show the bending moment diagrams of the single box tunnel at different
damage states for Vs = 50 m/s and Vs = 400 m/s. It is observed that the moment distri-
butions are different for the two cases where sequences of the plastic hinge formation are
different.
It should be noted that any plastic hinge formation in the middle of the frame element is
not observed in Figs. 14 and 15, even though the computational model is capable of
simulating it. It is also observed that the plastic hinge formation does not dramatically
change the bending moment distributions. Even though the sectional moment–curvature

123
Bull Earthquake Eng (2016) 14:413–431 425

Fig. 15 Bending moment diagrams of single box tunnel, Vs = 400 m/s. a Elastic range, b after 1st plastic
hinge is formed, c after 2nd plastic hinge is formed, d after 3rd plastic hinge is formed

relations show a softening behavior as shown in Fig. 5, the cross sections are ductile
enough such that the softening phase is not reached before the plastic hinges are formed at
all corners.

4.2 Comparison between elastic and inelastic analysis

An inelastic analysis makes it possible to estimate the level of damage of the structure,
which is crucial for the performance-based seismic design. However, it is seldom per-
formed in practice to determine the seismic response of tunnels, primarily due to diffi-
culties in performing the analysis. It would be useful if corresponding elastic moment is
determined such that the damage level can be estimated from elastic analyses. We per-
formed parallel elastic analyses and computed the moments induced in the tunnel structure.
Figure 16 compares the nonlinear capacity curve and the elastic moment response at the
top-right corner section of the wall (C0 s in Fig. 13) of the single, double and triple boxes
for Vs = 100 m/s. Triangular markers on the nonlinear capacity curve represent the

123
426 Bull Earthquake Eng (2016) 14:413–431

Fig. 16 Comparison of elastic

and inelastic behaviors at the
point C (top-right corner
section): a single box, b double C
box and c triple box tunnel

(a)

(b)

(c)

123
Bull Earthquake Eng (2016) 14:413–431 427

inelastic moments and induced shear strains at which plastic hinges develop within the
tunnel structure, whereas rectangular markers on the elastic curve represent corresponding
elastic moments. For example, 2800 kN-m is the elastic moment at the free field shear
strain at which the fourth plastic hinge forms as shown in Fig. 16a. Similarly, 5400 and
5500 kN-m are the elastic moments corresponding to the sixth and the eighth plastic hinges
of the double and triple box tunnels, respectively.
From Fig. 16, it is observed that the elastic moments at the top-right corner section of
the single, double, and triple box tunnels are approximately 34, 24 and 13 % larger than the
inelastic moments, respectively, at 0.5 % free field shear strain. We performed elastic
analyses on all tunnels and soil profiles. The results of the analyses are used to predict the
damage level, which are explained in detail in the following section.

5 Damage analysis

A damage state represents the damage condition of a facility and is associated with a limit
state of the mechanical response, often termed as DI. The damage states and corresponding
indices of above-ground structures are well defined, but they have not been clearly iden-
tified for underground structures. In this section, the damage states of cut-and-cover box
tunnels and associated DIs are presented. We propose to use the number of plastic hinges
as an indicator of damage level, since we believe that it best reflects the accumulation of
damage of a box tunnel structure. Three damage states of cut-and-cover tunnels are
classified, which are minor/slight, moderate, and extensive. The collapse damage state is
not defined because a box tunnel is not likely to collapse due to formation of plastic hinges.
DI is defined as the ratio of the elastic moment demand to the yield moment (My). In all
damage analyses, the values of DIs were recorded whenever a new plastic hinge is formed
within the structure. Figure 17 shows DIs for various soil conditions and tunnel types. The
free field shear strain is presented on a logarithmic scale for a visual efficiency. The
damage states, number of plastic hinges (NPH), and corresponding DIs defined in this
study are summarized in Table 1.
NPH associated with each damage state is identical regardless of the box type, whereas
the corresponding DIs are different. The minor/slight, moderate, and extensive damage
states initiate when the NPH exceeds one, two, and three, respectively. For the single box
tunnel, DIs are almost independent of the stiffness of the soil. The DI ranges from 1.0 to
1.2 for minor/slight damage state, and from 1.2 to 2.0 for the moderate state. The extensive
damage state initiates when DI exceeds 2.0. DI corresponding to each damage state is
shown to be similar for double and triple box tunnels. As for the single tunnel, it is
demonstrated that DI is not highly influenced by the stiffness of the soil until plastic hinges
are formed at all outer corners (NPH = 4). At higher NPH, DI is shown to vary signifi-
cantly according to the soil stiffness. DIs for minor/slight and moderate damage states are
identical to those of the single box tunnel and range from 1.0 to 1.2 and from 1.2 to 2.0,
respectively.
It should be noted that in the design of reinforced concrete structures, Md is used instead
of My to account for the uncertainties in the structural capacity. Therefore, when applying
the results of this study in design, it is recommended to replace My with Md. In Table 1,
DIs proposed by Argyroudis and Pitilakis (2012) for single box tunnels are shown for
comparison purposes. The proposed indices are shown to be lower and therefore more
conservative than those by Argyroudis and Pitilakis (2012). Since the damage states and

123
428 Bull Earthquake Eng (2016) 14:413–431

Fig. 17 M/My ratios at the

formation of plastic hinges:
a single box, b double box and
c triple box tunnel

(a)

(b)

(c)

123
Bull Earthquake Eng (2016) 14:413–431 429

Table 1 Proposed definition of damage states, corresponding damage indices, and indices of Argyroudis
and Pitilakis (2012)
Tunnel type Damage state Number of plastic Damage index Damage index
hinges (NPH) (DI, M/My) (DId, M/Md)
(Argyroudis and
Pitilakis 2012)

Single box None 0 DI \ 1.0 DId \ 1.0

Minor/slight 1 B NPH \ 2 1.0 B DI \ 1.2 1.0 \ DId B 1.5
Moderate 2 B NPH \ 3 1.2 B DI \ 2.0 1.5 \ DId B 2.5
Extensive 3 B NPH 2.0 B DI 2.5 \ DId B 3.5
Double box None 0 DI \ 1.0 N.A.
Triple box Minor/slight 1 B NPH \ 2 1.0 B DI \ 1.2 N.A.
Moderate 2 B NPH \ 3 1.2 B DI \ 2.0 N.A.
Extensive 3 B NPH 2.0 \ DI N.A.

indices determined in this study are all based on detailed nonlinear inelastic analyses, we
believe that the proposed criteria are more representative than previous recommendations.
The damage states and the corresponding DIs in Table 1 will be useful in design of cut-
and-cover tunnels based on the performance-based design concept.
It should noted that even though representative metro tunnel sections were selected and
used in this study, tunnel sections may differ for different regions. A comprehensive study
on the effect of tunnel section on DI is warranted to evaluate its variability. The use of the
proposed DIs should be limited to box tunnels with similar dimensions and depth of
overburden to those used in this paper.

6 Conclusions

The damage analyses of cut-and-cover tunnels under seismic loading were performed.
Typical cut-and-cover tunnels of single, double, and triple box structures designed for
metro subway systems in South Korea were selected for this study. The tunnel structures
were modeled by nonlinear frame elements with series of normal and shear springs to
consider the soil–tunnel interaction. The pushover analyses with the pseudo-static analysis
procedure were applied to the tunnels to develop the capacity curves. For each tunnel, the
accumulation of damage defined in terms of plastic hinges was monitored. The following
conclusions are drawn from the results of the numerical simulations.
• The box tunnel will experience a rigid body rotation and shear deformation (racking)
when subjected to earthquake loading. The amount of the rotation and racking depends
on the stiffness of the surrounding soil. Significant rigid body rotation is shown to occur
for soft soils with Vs less than 100 m/s.
• The sequence of the development of plastic hinges depends on the stiffness ratio of the
box tunnel to the surrounding soil. For all tunnels modeled in this study, plastic hinges
formed at the inner columns after they developed at all four outer corners.
• The box tunnels do not immediately collapse even when plastic hinges form at all outer
corners of the structure, primarily due to the support from the surrounding soil.
However, double and triple box tunnels may collapse due to flexural failure when inner
column collapses.

123
430 Bull Earthquake Eng (2016) 14:413–431

• The three damage states of tunnels and associated DIs are proposed. The damage state
is defined in terms of NPHs that form in the tunnel structure, because we believe that it
best represent the damage accumulated in the structure. DI is defined as the ratio of the
elastic moment demand to the yield moment of the structural members of the box
tunnel. DIs corresponding to the damage states range from 1.0 to 2.0. We recommend
to replace My with Md in using the proposed criteria in a seismic design.

Acknowledgments This research was supported by Basic Science Research Program through the National
Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning (NRF-
2015R1A2A2A01006129).

References
An X, Maekawa K (1997) Failure analysis of underground RC frame subjected to seismic actions. J Mater
Concr Struct Pavements Jpn Soc Civ Eng (JSCE) 36:251–267
Andreotti G, Lai CG, Martinelli M (2013) Seismic fragility functions of deep tunnels: a new cumulative
damage model based on lumped plasticity and rotation capacity. Paper presented at the ICEGE
Istanbul, Turkey
Argyroudis S, Pitilakis K (2012) Seismic fragility curves of shallow tunnels in alluvial deposits. Soil Dyn
Earthq Eng 35:1–12
Bobet A (2003) Effect of pore water pressure on tunnel support during static and seismic loading. Tunn
Undergr Space Technol 18:377–393
Chang J, Park D, Kim D-K (2014) Seismic analysis of shallow cut and cover tunnel via frame analysis.
J Korean Geotech Soc (submitted)
Dowding CH, Rozan A (1978) Damage to rock tunnels from earthquake shaking. J Geotech Eng Div
104:175–191
Hashash YM, Hook JJ, Schmidt B, John I, Yao C (2001) Seismic design and analysis of underground
structures. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 16:247–293
Hashash YMA, Park D, Yao JIC (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
Hashash Y, Karina K, Koutsoftas D, O’Riordan N (2010) Seismic design considerations for underground
box structures. Paper presented at the Earth Retention Conference, Washington
Huo H, Bobet A, Fernández G, Ramı́rez J (2006) Analytical solution for deep rectangular structures
subjected to far-field shear stresses. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 21:613–625
Iai S (2005) International standard (ISO) on seismic actions for designing geotechnical works—an overview.
Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 25:605–615
Khani S, Homami P (2014) Seismic performance of shallow underground subway stations in soft soil. J Eng
Geol 8:1983–2002
Liu J, Liu X (2008) Pushover analysis of Daikai subway station during the Osaka-Kobe earthquake in 1995.
Paper presented at the 14th world conference on earthquake engineering, Beijing, China
MLTM (2009) Earthquake resistance design regulations for subway structures. Ministry of Land, Transport
and Maritime Affais
Moehle J, Elwood K, Sezen H (2002) Gravity load collapse of building frame during earthquakes ACI
Special Publication 197
Nakamura S, Yoshida N, Iwatate T (1996) Damage to Daikai subway station during the 1995 Hyogoken-
Namvu earthquake and its investigation. JSCE, Committee of Earthquake Engineering
Owen GN, Scholl RE (1981) Earthquake engineering of large underground structures: final report. The
Division; National Technical Information Service
Park D, Sagong M, Kwak DY, Jeong CG (2009) Simulation of tunnel response under spatially varying
ground motion. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 29:1417–1424
Parra-Montesinos GJ, Bobet A, Ramirez JA (2006) Evaluation of soil–structure interaction and structural
collapse in Daikai subway station during Kobe earthquake. ACI Struct J 1:113–122
Penzien J (2000) Seismically induced racking of tunnel linings. Int J Earthq Eng Struct Dyn 29:683–691
Sharma S, Judd WR (1991) Underground opening damage from earthquakes. Eng Geol 30:263–276

123
Bull Earthquake Eng (2016) 14:413–431 431

Wang JM (1985) The distribution of earthquake damage to underground facilities during the 1976 Tangshan
earthquake. Earthq Spectra 1:741–757
Wang JN (1993) Seismic design of tunnels: a state-of-the-art design approach. Monograph 7, Parsons
Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., New York
Wang Z, Zhang Z (2013) Seismic damage classification and risk assessment of mountain tunnels with a
validation for the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake. Soil Dyn Earthq Eng 45:45–55
Wang W, Wang T, Su J, Lin C, Seng C, Huang T (2001) Assessment of damage in mountain tunnels due to
the Taiwan Chi-Chi earthquake. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 16:133–150
Yoshimura M, Takaine Y, Nakamura T (2004) Axial collapse of reinforced concrete columns. Paper
presented at the 13th world conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, BC, Canada

123