Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 1367–1377

www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Numerical simulation for large-scale seismic response analysis of

immersed tunnel
Jun-Hong Ding a,∗ , Xian-Long Jin a,b , Yi-Zhi Guo a , Gen-Guo Li c
a High-Performance Computing Center, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200030, China
b State Key Laboratory of Vibration, Shock & Noise, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, 200030, China
c Shanghai Supercomputer Center, Shanghai, 201203, China

Received 2 June 2005; received in revised form 5 December 2005; accepted 5 January 2006
Available online 23 March 2006

Abstract

This paper presents a three-dimensional numerical simulation method for large-scale seismic response calculation based on a newly built
immersed tunnel in Shanghai. The whole analytical model consists of the surrounding soil, the tunnel segments, and the detailed flexible joints.
Both the number of nodes and the number of elements exceed one million. This model takes account of nonlinear material behavior such as soil,
non-reflecting boundary definition, and soil–tunnel interaction. Final calculation has been performed on the Dawning 4000A supercomputer using
the finite-element code LS-DYNA 970 MPP. The result provides a global understanding of this immersed tunnel under seismic loading and reveals
the weak parts. It also provides relevant data and references for the aseismic design of immersed tunnel and flexible joints in the future.
c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Immersed tunnel; Soil–tunnel interaction; Seismic response; Supercomputer; FEM; Non-linearity

1. Introduction a complex problem, which can only be solved accurately,

The Waihuan Tunnel is a newly built immersed tunnel under
the Huangpu River opened to traffic recently in the city of
Shanghai, China. Having a large cross-section size (42 m ×
9.55 m), it is a 2888 m-long bi-directional immersed tunnel
with eight lanes. This tunnel is ranked the biggest in Asia
and the third biggest in the world at present (Figs. 1 and 2).
Meanwhile, the local soft clayer soils are distributed widely and
in a complicated way in urban areas, having a direct influence
on the seismic response of an immersed tunnel located in the
soil.
The study of the dynamic behavior of long underground
structures, such as transportation tunnels or pipelines, to
seismic waves is an important engineering problem in dynamic
soil–structure interaction. Stamos and Beskos [1] pointed out
that seismic wave diffraction by underground structures was
∗ Corresponding address: High Performance Computing Center (Room
602), Department of Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University,
Huashan Road 1954, Shanghai 200030, China. Tel.: +86 21 62932256; fax: +86
21 62932177.
E-mail address: junhong ding@hotmail.com (J.-H. Ding).
economically and under realistic conditions with the aid of
numerical methods such as the finite-element method (FEM)
and the boundary-element method (BEM). Hashash et al. [2]
summarized several approaches in quantifying the seismic
effect on an underground structure, and pointed out that
it was most appropriate to utilize three-dimensional models
for analyzing axial and bending deformations of such long
underground structure.
Regarding the immersed tunnel, Kiyomiya [3] outlined
several seismic design methods and countermeasures to
earthquakes in Japan including the multi-mass-spring model,
quasi-three-dimensional ground model, and finite-element
model. However, he also pointed out that memory capacity and
time cost were two bottlenecks to the large calculation model
in the past. Ingerslev and Kiyomiya [4] provided guidance on
the magnitude to be selected for the seismic loads and how to
apply them to an immersed tunnel. It was also suggested that
all immersed tunnels should be designed for seismic effects
appropriate to their location.
There are also several examples involving the previous
practice of such analysis. Youakim et al. [5] investigated

0141-0296/$ - see front matter 

c 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.01.005
1368 J.-H. Ding et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 1367–1377

Fig. 1. General plan of the immersed tunnel project site.

nonlinear material behavior, large deformation effects, and

the nonlinear nature of the contact in the nonlinear analysis
of tunnels embedded in clayey or sandy soil using two-
dimensional (2-D) FEM analysis. Taylor et al. [6] described
the seismic retrofit strategy, the primary results obtained by
numerical analyses, using 2-D FLAC and ABAQUS software
for the upgrade of the George Massey Tunnel. Kozak et al. [7]
Fig. 2. Typical cross-section of the immersed tunnel (Unit: mm).
utilized finite-element analysis to study the soil–structure
interaction behavior due to earthquake ground motion in the Opteron processors. LS-DYNA is a general-purpose finite-
Alameda Tubes seismic retrofit project, considering wave element code for analyzing the large deformation dynamic
passage, scattering, and reflection effects. Hashash et al. [8] response of structures. The essential ingredient determining the
conducted a seismic retrofit study on assessing the vulnerability solution properties is the use of an explicit time integration
of the tubes to seismic shaking with three-dimensional scheme, which is a slight modification of the standard central
soil–structure interaction models of the tunnels and portal differential method (CDM).
buildings, using the beam element for the tunnel segments and
the so-called ‘spoke’ wheel for the joints. 2.1. Basic equations of CDM
Development of the computer has been promoting FEM to
Generally, the motion equation of a deformed body for
be a more effective approach to solving earthquake-engineering
nonlinear dynamic behavior [9] can be described as:
problems. With the appearance of high-performance computer
and its increasing application, it is possible that three- M ẍ(t) = P − F + H − C ẋ (1)
dimensional dynamic FEM can be a chance for the
where M is the global mass matrix, P accounts for the global
large-scale seismic response analysis of an immersed tunnel
load vector (nodal load, body force, surface force, etc.), C is
with its supercomputing and mass storage capability.
the damping matrix, H is the global hour-glass resisting force
This paper provides a large-scale numerical simulation
vector handling the hour-glass deformation modes, and F is
method for seismic response analysis and its corresponding
the assembly of equivalent nodal force vectors from all the
application to a recently built immersed tunnel in Shanghai.
elements
The structure of the paper is as follows: the methodology

n 
used for analysis is briefly introduced in Section 2 (such
F= B T σ dV (2)
as the explicit time integration scheme and various material m=1 Vm
modeling); the analytical model is described in Section 3 (such
as the CAD model and finite-element model); the results where B is the strain-displacement matrix, σ is the stress vector,
and the corresponding discussion are shown in Section 4; the and V is the volume in the current configuration.
conclusion and direction for potential future work are given in The explicit CDM is adopted to solve the motion equation
Section 5. by time integration [9,10]:
ẍ(tn ) = M −1 [P(tn ) − F(tn ) + H (tn ) − C ẋ(tn−1/2 )] (3)
2. Methodology ẋ(tn+1/2 ) = ẋ(tn−1/2 ) + (tn−1 + tn )ẍ(tn )/2 (4)
x(tn+1 ) = x(tn ) + tn ẋ(tn+1/2 ) (5)
This simulation was performed with the Mpp970 version
of LS-DYNA on a Dawning 4000A supercomputer. This where ẍ(tn ) is the nodal acceleration vector at time tn , ẋ(tn+1/2 )
supercomputer has a peak speed of 10 trillion floating-point is the nodal velocity vector at time tn+1/2 , and x(tn+1 )
operations per second and uses an array of 2192 AMD 64-bit represents the nodal displacement vector at time tn+1 .
 J.-H. Ding et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 1367–1377
After the nodal location and the nodal acceleration at time tn
are acquired together with the nodal velocity at time tn+1/2 , the
nodal displacement at time tn+1 can be calculated by Eq. (5). In
the time domain, the displacement, velocity, and acceleration
of each discrete point can be calculated through such integral
recursive formulae.
CDM is suitable for solving complicated problems such
as wave propagation [11] due to the fact that, when some
nodes are first disturbed, neighboring nodes and then other
nodes will behave gradually with time, which is consistent with
the features of wave propagation. However, it is necessary to
guarantee a small time step for modeling wave propagation,
because the explicit CDM is conditionally stable. In fact, the
time step size depends on the minimum natural period of the
whole mesh to guarantee the calculation stability of the central
difference method. Hence, during the solution, a new time
step size is determined by taking the minimum value over all
elements:
t n+1 = α · min{t1 , t2 , t3 , . . . , t N }
where α is a scale factor, N is the number of elements, and t
is the critical time step size.
2.2. Parallel algorithm for contact interface
In the soil–tunnel analytical model, some parts that contact
each other will possibly have extrusion and sliding behaviors
under seismic loading. To handle this problem, it finally comes
down to the search for contact objects and the calculation of
contact forces as a nonlinear boundary condition.
Such a contact problem is often solved by the symmetrical
penalty method [9], which consists of placing normal interface
springs between all penetrated nodes and the contact surface.
First, the penetration between the slave node n s and the master
segment si is judged within each time step. If there is no
penetration, there is no treatment; otherwise, a normal contact
force f s will be calculated:
fs = mki n i
where m is the amount of penetration, n i is the normal to the
master segment at the contact point, and ki is the stiffness factor
for the master segment,
f K i A2i
ki = . (8)
Vi
Here, f is a scale factor for interface stiffness, and K i , Ai
and Vi are the bulk modulus, the volume, and the surface area
of the element that contains si , respectively. Meanwhile, each of
the four nodes ( j = 1, 2, 3, 4) that comprise si adds a contact
force,
j
fm = φ j (ξc , ηc ) f s
where φ j (ξc , ηc ) is the value of the shape function of si at the
contact point coordinates (ξc , ηc ). Similarly, the treatment will
then be applied to the master nodes and the slave surfaces again.
1369
Friction in LS-DYNA is based on a Coulomb formulation,
and the maximum frictional force Fv is defined as:
Fv = µ| f s | (10)
where µ is the coefficient of friction and f s is the normal force
at slave node n s .
The possible frictional force f ∗ of the tn+1 time step
can be obtained through the friction force f n of time step
tn . Meanwhile, since the value of f ∗ should not exceed the
maximum frictional force Fv , the real friction force f n+1 of
the next time step will be treated differently according to the
contrast between | f ∗ | and Fv :
f n+1 = f ∗ (| f ∗ | ≤ Fv );
f n+1 = Fv f ∗ /| f ∗ | (| f ∗ | > Fv ). (11)
The time cost of common calculations using explicit
algorithms such as LS-DYNA depends on the element size and
wave speed. However, when it comes to parallel calculation,
(6) it is the parallel algorithm involving contact that affects the
calculation efficiency.
Hallquist et al. [12] developed a standard algorithm in LS-
DYNA for problems with contact. According to Eq. (1), this
algorithm can be extended and described as follows:
1. Determine the mass matrix M (diagonal matrix).
2. Sub-divide the finite-element mesh into groups, adjust the
numbers of elements in the groups for load balancing, then
assign the shared nodes to the groups for contact checking.
For each time step:
3. Perform a calculation to determine (P − F + H − C ẋ),
calculate the contact force vector Rc (including the normal
contact force and the tangential frictional force), and add the
contact force vector Rc to the global load vector P to form a
new one P  (within each group).
4. Compute acceleration (within each group): ẍ = M −1 (P  −
F + H − C ẋ).
5. Adjust the accelerations of shared nodes between the groups
(communicate between processors):
(7)
ẍ = ẍ g1 + ẍ g2 + ẍ g3 + · · · .
6. Compute the velocity and the displacement (within each
group).
7. Continue with step 3.
2.3. Material model for soil
Several soil layers close to the tunnel mainly influence
the seismic response of the underground tunnel. Here, the
soil’s behavior is assumed to be governed by an elastic–plastic
constitutive relation based on the Drucker–Prager criterion.
Considering the possible influence by the hydrostatic stress
(9) component on the yield strength of soil and rock material,
the Drucker–Prager criterion [13] is described on the basis of
modification of the von-Mises yield criterion:
F = α J1 + (J2 )1/2 − k = 0 (12)
1370 J.-H. Ding et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 1367–1377
where J1 is the first invariant of the stress tensor, and J2 is
the second invariant of the stress deviator tensor. The material
constants α and k can be calculated as:
2 sin φ 6c cos φ
α= √ ; k= √
3(3 ± sin φ) 3(3 ± sin φ)
where ϕ is the angle of internal friction and c is the cohesion
value. Here, the positive and negative signs indicate the tensile
and compressive conditions, respectively.
The flow rule defining the direction of the plastic flow is
given by
∂G
ε̇ p = λ̇
∂σ
where G is a plastic potential and λ̇ is a positive scalar quantity
defining the amplitude of plastic flow. For non-associative
plasticity, the plastic potential is selected so that its derivative
with respect to the stress tensor yields
∂G 1 surface σ y is the sum of the initial yield strength σ0 plus the
= αψ δi j + √ si j
∂σi j 2 J2
where δi j is the Kronecker delta, si j is the stress deviator,
and αψ is defined by a given dilation angle ψ and relations
analogous to Eq. (13). Moreover, a Drucker–Prager criterion
with elastic–perfectly plastic material response is considered
with respect to the hardening behavior.
The surrounding soil layers in the study can be modeled
with the use of the card “MAT DRUCKER PRAGER” in
LS-DYNA [14].
2.4. Material model for rubber
As two kinds of flexible joint components, GINA gasket and
vibration isolation bearing are both made of rubber material.
Rubber shows nonlinear features in both geometric and material
behavior. The Mooney–Rivlin model is a model that is widely
used for simulating rubber material in many finite-element
analysis software products [15]. In this model, the strain energy
density function [9] is used to describe incompressible rubber
material behavior as follows:
W = C10 (I1 − 3) + C01 (I2 − 3) + C(I3−2 − 1) + D(I3 − 1)2
where I1 , I2 , and I3 are invariants of the right Cauchy–Green
Tensor; and C10 and C01 are two material constants that can
be obtained through the calculation based on uniaxial stretch
or shear experimental data. Here, C and D are two constants
decided by C10 and C01 , which can be described as:
C10 (5υ − 2) + C01 (11υ − 5)
C = 0.5C10 + C01 ; D=
2(1 − 2υ)
where υ is Poisson’s ratio.
In LS-DYNA, this model has been incorporated and can be
used with the card “MAT MOONEY RIVLIN RUBBER” [14].
2.5. Material model for steel shear key
The material model called “MAT PLASTIC KENEMATIC”
in LS-DYNA [14] can be used to model the material behavior
(13) of the steel shear key among the flexible joint components.
This model is suitable for modeling isotropic and kinematic
hardening plasticity with the operation of including rate
effects. Varying a parameter called β between 0 and 1 can
specify isotropic, kinematic, or a combination of isotropic and
kinematic hardening.
Meanwhile, the strain rate is accounted for by using the
Cowper–Symonds model [9,16], which scales the yield stress
by a strain rate dependent factor
(14)
  1/ p 
ε̇ p
σy = 1 + (σ0 + β E p εeff ) (18)
C
where p and C are the Cowper–Symonds strain rate parameters,
and ε̇ is the strain rate. Therefore, the current radius of the yield
(15) p p
growth β E p εeff . Here, εeff is the effective plastic strain, and E p
is the plastic hardening modulus, defined as:
E tan E
Ep = (19)
E − E tan
where E tan is the tangent modulus and E is the Young’s
modulus.
2.6. Material model for cable
The material model called “MAT CABLE DISCRETE
BEAM” in LS-DYNA [14] can be selected to modify the
material behavior of prestressed steel cable acting as another
kind of flexible joint components.
This material can be used as a discrete beam element. The
force, F, generated by the cable is nonzero if and only if the
cable is in tension. The force is given by:
F = max(F0 + K L, 0.) (20)
where F0 is the initial tensile force, L is the change in length,
and K is the stiffness. In Eq. (14), L can be calculated
by:
L = L cur − (L ini − Doff ) (21)
(16)
where L cur is the current length, L ini is the initial length, and
Doff accounts for the offset used for F0 . Here, the stiffness K is
defined as:
E · Ac
K = (22)
(L ini − Doff )
where E is the Young’s modulus and Ac is the cross-sectional
area. The offset Doff can be input as a positive length for an
initial tensile force in this study.
(17)
2.7. Non-reflecting boundary
It is inevitable that the finite boundary of the finite-
element model will cause the seismic waves to be reflected
 J.-H. Ding et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 1367–1377 1371

and then superimpose the waves, because such a soil–tunnel

model is achieved by truncating the infinite domain via an
artificial boundary. Therefore, it needs to properly define a
finite computational domain with the appropriate definition of
an artificial boundary. There are typically three approaches
to model such a boundary, including the boundary-element
method, the non-reflecting boundary condition, and the use of
infinite elements [17].
Non-reflecting boundaries are used on the exterior bound-
aries of the surrounding soil model of an infinite domain to
prevent artificial stress wave reflections generated at the model
boundaries from reentering the model and contaminating the Fig. 3. The three-dimensional model of the whole immersed tunnel.
results. In LS-DYNA, this approach is defined by providing a
complete list of boundary segments, to which viscous normal
shear stresses will be applied. It is useful for limiting the size
of models in the case of handling geomechanical problems, and
this approach can be described as:
σnor = −ρcd vnor ; σshear = −ρcs vtan (23)
where ρ, cd and cs are the material density, the dilatational
wave speed, and the shear wave speed of the transmitting media,
respectively. The magnitude of these stresses is proportional to
the particle velocities in the normal, vnor , and tangential, vtan ,
directions. This approach is consistent with the normal viscous
boundary presented by Lysmer [18], which is accomplished
by adding concentration dashpots on the nodes at the artificial
boundary to modify radiation damping of the infinite domain. Fig. 4. The surrounding soil with multi-layers (explosive view of some upper
In LS-DYNA, this approach has also been incorporated and can soil layers).
be used with the card “BOUNDARY NON REFLECTING”.

3. Finite-element modeling

3.1. Solid model

First, the EDS-Unigraphics software has been used to

construct the three-dimensional solid model describing the
shape of the immersed tunnel, the surrounding soil, and the
flexible joints between adjacent tunnel segments. This step
is necessary, and prepared for the following finite-element
modeling process.
This immersed tunnel is composed of 13 segments,
including two connecting roads, two opening segments, two
grating segments, and seven immersed segments, as well as
flexible joints at eight different places (from J1 to J8) (Fig. 3).
Among them, seven immersed segments include: E1 (108 m);
E2 (104 m); E3 (100 m); E4 (100 m); E5 (108 m); E6 (108 m);
and E7 (108 m).
Apart from those tunnel segments and flexible joints, the
Huangpu River model and the surrounding soil model (300 m
deep into the local bedrock) have also been constructed
according to the geological exploration data. With a total 755
solid parts, the final soil–tunnel model can not only portray
the serpentine shape of this tunnel and surrounding soil as a
whole (Fig. 4) but also describe special parts in detail such as
the flexible joints (Fig. 5).
Fig. 5. The three-dimensional model of the tunnel segment with flexible joints.
3.2. Finite-element model
Based on geometrical modeling, the finite-element model
can then be constructed by utilizing the preprocessor
Hypermesh. The finite element model of this immersed
tunnel has been built with the eight-node hexahedron solid
element, except the beam element for the prestressed cable.
Fig. 6 shows the mesh model of the tunnel segment with a
detailed description of the flexible joints between two adjacent
segments.
The surrounding soil is meshed by the four-node tetrahedral
element, because the three-dimensional CAD model of the
surrounding soil is divided into 21 layers with various
geometrical configurations. Both the linear hexahedron
1372 J.-H. Ding et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 1367–1377

Fig. 6. The mesh of an the immersed segment with flexible joints.

Fig. 7. An example of the mesh of one surrounding soil layer.

Fig. 8. The mesh of the whole soil–tunnel system: (a) global mesh effect; (b)
detailed mesh at one entrance.
Table 1
Mesh details of the global finite-element model Table 2
Component Element Node Selected material models in LS-DYNA for simulation

Tunnel segments 688,283 880,748 Name Material model for simulation

Flexible joints 18,495 40,387 Tunnel segment *MAT ELASTIC
Surrounding soil 497,176 93,397 Concrete shear key *MAT ELASTIC
Total 1,203,954 1,014,532 Steel shear key *MAT PLASTIC KINEMATIC
GINA gasket *MAT MOONEY-RIVLIN RUBBER
Isolation bearing *MAT MOONEY-RIVLIN RUBBER
elements and the linear tetrahedral elements have the following Prestressed cable *MAT CABLE DISCRETE BEAM
Surrounding soil *MAT DRUCKER PRAGER
degrees of freedom at each node: translations, velocities, and
accelerations in the nodal x, y, and z directions. The distance
between the boundary of the surrounding soil and the tunnel contact settings in order to improve the calculation of stability
contour on the same side is more than four times the section and efficiency.
width of this immersed tunnel. Fig. 7 shows one typical layer of
soil with the feature of tunnel penetration and the whole three- 3.3. Material property data
dimensional soil–tunnel mesh modeling.
The final three-dimensional size of this soil–tunnel system LS-DYNA currently contains over 200 constitutive models
model is 1670 m × 1110 m × 296 m. As shown in Table 1, to cover a wide range of material behavior. Several appropriate
the number of nodes and elements reaches 1,014,532 and material models adopted for this seismic simulation are shown
1,203,954, respectively. The global finite-element model of this in Table 2. The elastic material model is assumed for tunnel
soil–tunnel system and a detailed view of one entrance of the segments and concrete shear key, with material parameters
tunnel are illustrated in Fig. 8. shown as follows: Young’s modulus, 31.5 GPa; density,
To deal with contact, the card “CONTACT SINGLE 2.5 g/cm3 ; Poisson’s ratio, 0.167. Material parameters of
SURFACE” has been selected for the interaction setting steel shear key include: Young’s modulus, 210 GPa; density,
between the flexible joint components and the tunnel segments, 7.85 g/cm3 ; Poisson’s ratio, 0.3; yield stress, 235 MPa;
and the card “CONTACT SURFACE TO SURFACE” has tangent modulus, 1.18 GPa. The Mooney–Rivlin material
been adopted for the interaction setting between the tunnel model is assumed for the GINA gasket and isolation bearing
segments and the surrounding soil. Furthermore, the addictive with material parameters such as isolation bearing including:
“AUTOMATIC” contact option has been employed for both density, 1.1 g/cm3 ; Poisson’s ratio, 0.499; C10 , 0.293 MPa;
 J.-H. Ding et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 1367–1377 1373

Table 3
Material parameters of several upper soil layers surrounding tunnel

Soil layer Dynamic shear modulus (MPa) Poisson’s ratio Density (g/cm3 ) Cohesion (kPa) Angle of internal friction (◦ )
Drab yellow silty clay 15.38 0.40 1.93 19 20.6
Gray sandy silt 16.64 0.35 1.86 7 24.8
Gray mucky silty clay 31.37 0.45 1.76 14.1 13.5
Gray sandy silt 68.74 0.35 1.86 8.4 19.4
Gray mucky clay 31.35 0.45 1.75 12 15.3
Gray silty clay 40.42 0.45 1.72 12.5 7.4
Gray sandy silt 56.74 0.40 1.76 9.8 10.2

Fig. 9. A Tangshan seismic wave record acceleration time history.

C01 , 0.189 MPa. Moreover, each beam for cables has been
given an initial prestress of 30 kN.
As has been mentioned, the seismic response of a tunnel is
mainly affected by the layers of surrounding soil closer to the
tunnel. Material property data for seven layers of soil through
which this tunnel is excavated are illustrated in Table 3 as an
emphasis.
3.4. Boundary condition and calculation
A Tangshan seismic wave record in 1976 has been applied
as ground motion at the bedrock (Fig. 9). According to the
exceeding probability of 10% in 50 years and the designed
7-degree preventive intensity of the tunnel, amplitude
modulation has been applied to make the maximum ground
acceleration value of this seismic wave equal 1 m/s2 .
The seismic wave has been input at the bedrock surface
under two conditions: one is that the seismic wave will
propagate along the longitudinal direction (Y -direction in
Fig. 3), while the transverse (X-direction in Fig. 3) and vertical
(Z -direction in Fig. 3) displacements are constrained; the other
is that the seismic wave will propagate along the transverse
direction, while the longitudinal and vertical displacements
are constrained. Meanwhile, the lateral boundary surfaces of
the surrounding soil have been modeled with non-reflecting
characteristics in both of these two cases, in spite of the large
size of the soil model.
There are two domain decomposition methods supported in
LS-DYNA 970 MPP, including RCB (the Recursive Coordinate
Bisection algorithm) and GREEDY (a simple neighborhood
Fig. 10. The resultant displacement in E6 and E7.
expansion algorithm). RCB, the default method, has been used
in this seismic response simulation because of its generally
better performance. Each time it costs about 45 h for the
calculation of each case with 32 CPUs in the Dawning 4000A
supercomputer.
4. Results and discussion
Final calculations have produced plenty of data describing
the response of the immersed tunnel under seismic excitation,
where the results can be post-processed in several styles. For
example, Fig. 10 shows the resultant displacement distribution
in the segments E6 and E7 at time 10.7 s as the seismic
wave propagates along the longitudinal direction. Such graphs
provide a direct and global understanding of the tunnel
segments’ deformation, however they cannot reflect the seismic
response of the flexible joints in detail.
The flexible joints between segments are important but
weaker parts of the earthquake-resistant design of an immersed
tunnel. Not only must they have superior anti-seepage
properties, but they are also observed to prevent unacceptable
deformation under seismic loading. Hence, more attention
should be paid to seismic response analysis of the flexible
joints.
The function performed by the flexible joints depends on
the inner component parts such as the GINA gasket and
the steel/concrete shear key. Here, the relative displacement
between the tunnel segments, the axial force of the cable, the
amount of compression of the GINA gasket, and that of the
isolation bearings are all measured for analysis.
1374 J.-H. Ding et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 1367–1377
Fig. 11. Analytical targets and measuring positions in each flexible joint:
(a) relative displacement between segments; (b) axial force in the cable; (c)
compression of the GINA gasket, (d) compression of the isolation bearings.
As shown in Fig. 11, four points at the outside corner along
the tunnel axis direction are chosen to evaluate the degree of
deformation between adjacent tunnel segments. Using the same
method, the maximum compression of the GINA gaskets at
eight flexible joints can also be measured (Fig. 12).
Fig. 12(a) shows the variation in relative displacements
with time between adjacent tunnel segments at the position
Fig. 12. Examples of relative displacement time histories at different flexible
joints: (a) position of J3-Point 3; (b) position of J7-Point 4.
of Point1 in the flexible joint J3, when the seismic wave
is propagating along the longitudinal direction. Furthermore,
Fig. 12(b) shows the variation in relative displacement with
time between adjacent tunnel segments at the position of Point1
in the flexible joint J7, when the seismic wave is propagating
along the transverse direction. These two figures indicate
explicitly that the two flexible joints are at the tensile and
compressive stages, respectively.
In the tensile stage, Fig. 13(a) and (b) describe the maximum
relative displacements between adjacent segments where there
are flexible joints as the seismic wave propagates along the
longitudinal and transverse directions, respectively. In addition,
Fig. 14 illustrates the maximum axial force in the prestressed
cables in each flexible joint under the same conditions.
The maximum compression amounts (D) of the GINA
gasket between the adjacent tunnel segments (from J1 to J8)
are measured one by one and shown in Table 4 (original width:
15 cm). Furthermore, the compression amounts of 24 isolation
bearings (original width: 8 cm) at each point of the flexible
joint are also measured. The maximum compression amounts of
these 24 isolation bearings are selected as the maximum values
(d) listed in Table 4.
There is another calculation model, designed by using the
mass-spring system method, for comparison; see Fig. 15. This
is provided by the Shanghai Tunnel Engineering & Rail Transit
Design and Research Institute (STEDI). In the mass-spring
 J.-H. Ding et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 1367–1377 1375

Fig. 13. Maximum relative displacement between adjacent tunnel segments: Fig. 14. Maximum cable tension at eight flexible joints: (a) seismic wave along
(a) seismic wave along the transverse direction; (b) seismic wave along the the transverse direction; (b) seismic wave along the longitudinal direction.
longitudinal direction.

Table 4
Compression measuring results of GINA gaskets and isolation bearings

Joint number Seismic wave along Seismic wave along

X-direction Y -direction
D (mm) d (mm) D (mm) d (mm)
J1 15.7 3.84 14.1 5.71
J2 21.2 5.22 19.3 4.35
J3 20.7 7.17 22.9 5.83
J4 18.1 3.92 17.4 4.37
J5 14.6 6.37 6.46 6.21
J6 13.7 5.83 6.74 6.78
J7 16.2 5.19 5.57 5.93
J8 14.6 5.62 5.13 5.36

model, the surrounding soil is divided into several strips and

each strip is considered as a lumped mass. Each strip is
connected to each another by the springs K 2 and K 5 , and
connected to the bedrock by the springs K 3 and K 6 at the same
time. Here, the tunnel is simplified as several beams, and each
beam is connected to each another by the springs K 7 , K 8 , and
K 9 . Meanwhile, the tunnel is connected to the soil by the linear
springs K 1 and K 4 . In addition, each of the springs mentioned
above is coupled with a viscous damper.
The result acquired using this mass-spring model is also
shown here. At the location of segment connections where
Fig. 15. The spring-mass model of the soil–tunnel system.
there are flexible joints, Fig. 16 illustrates the maximum relative
displacements of adjacent tunnel segments when the seismic
wave is propagating along the longitudinal direction, and the
maximum relative transverse displacements when the seismic
wave is propagating along the longitudinal direction.
1376 J.-H. Ding et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 1367–1377
Fig. 16. Maximum displacements in all the flexible joints.
By comparison, it is found that, apart from joints J1 and J8
on each end of the tunnel, J3, J5, and J6 are the other three
flexible joints exhibiting more relative displacement between
adjacent segments. The reason for the behavior of J3 lies in
the fact that the top of segment E2 is slightly higher than
the riverbed, and is thus exposed to the water. Furthermore,
compared with the tunnel segments from E1 to E4, E5 and E6
have longer segment length and show a straighter configuration.
Most importantly, the flexible joint J5 is located at the deepest
position in the surrounding soil from the point of view of the
whole immersed tunnel. All these reasons have direct influences
on the relatively noticeable behavior of joints J5 and J6 under
earthquake conditions.
5. Conclusions
This paper presents a novel and reliable simulation method
for estimating the seismic response of an immersed tunnel in
the city of Shanghai. The three-dimensional large-scale solid
model of a soil–tunnel system is constructed using Unigraphics;
the corresponding finite-element model uses Hypermesh.
Meanwhile, several important and necessary factors such as
material nonlinearity and contact nonlinearity are also taken
into consideration. The analytical model put forward in this
study fully depicts the real three-dimensional configuration of
the immersed tunnel and geological features of the construction
site. The calculation has been accomplished successfully
using LS-DYNA MPP on the “Dawning” supercomputer.
Finally, there are some detailed and meaningful results with
respect to the flexible joints and the tunnel segments, as
well as an overall understanding of the behavior of this
tunnel.
In general, the seismic response numerical simulation
presented in this study proves that explicit FEM combined
with parallel computing is a feasible and effective approach
for dealing with such a large analytical model for seismic
response simulation. Furthermore, compared with the mass-
spring system method, new results obtained through the
approach described in this paper not only accord with the
conclusion that attention should be paid to the flexible joints
on the two ends (J1 and J8) of this tunnel, but also that
other flexible joints such as J3 are also vulnerable and worthy
of more attention. Through the analysis, it is concluded that
the application of eight flexible joints plays a remarkable
role in decreasing the inner stresses on parts and increasing
the whole structural aseismic capability. Nevertheless, strict
measures should also be taken to control the deformation
and displacement of tunnel segments to ensure the waterproof
capability of the flexible joints effectively.
Future work will include a more in-depth analysis of the
current abundant results, research on the influence on the final
results of the choice of different material models, and a study
of modified RCB decomposition to get better load balance and
overall performance, according to the particular distribution of
contact zones in the analytical model.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Shanghai Tunnel
Engineering & Rail Transit Design and Research Institute for
support and cooperation, the Earthquake Administration of
Shanghai Municipality for professional guidance in seismic
analysis, and the Shanghai Super Computing Center for
offering access to the Dawning 4000A supercomputer with LS-
DYNA 970 MPP. The authors also wish to express special
thanks to Dr. Li-Jun Li, Dr. Yuan Cao, and Hong Chen for
helpful advice. This research is supported financially by the
National Natural Science Foundation of the People’s Republic
of China (Serial Number: 60273048).
References
[1] Stamos AA, Beskos DE. 3-D seismic response analysis of long lined
tunnels in half-space. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 1996;
15:111–8.
[2] Hashash YMA, Hook JJ, Schmidt B, Yao JI-C. Seismic design and
analysis of underground structures. Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology 2001;16(4):247–93.
[3] Kiyomiya O. Earthquake-resistant design features of immersed tunnels
in Japan. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology 1995;10(4):
463–75.
[4] Ingerslev C, Kiyomiya O. Earthquake analysis. Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology 1997;12(2):157–62.
[5] Youakim SAS, El-Metewally SEE, Chen WF. Nonlinear analysis of
tunnels in clayey/sandy soil with a concrete lining. Engineering Structures
2000;22(6):707–22.
[6] Taylor PR, Ibrahim HH, Yang D. Seismic retrofit of George Massey
tunnel. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics 2005;34(4–5):
519–42. Earthquake Engineering for Transportation Structures.
[7] Kozak A, Sedarat H, Krimotat A. Alameda tubes seismic retrofit studies.
Computers & Structures 1999;72(1–3):233–51.
[8] Hashash YMA, Tseng WS, Krimotat A. Seismic soil-structure interaction
analysis for immersed tube tunnels retrofit. Geotechnical Special
Publication 1998;2:1380–91.
[9] Hallquist JO. LS-DYNA theoretical manual. Livermore: Livermore
Software Technology Corporation; 1998.
[10] Jiang WC, Ding GY. ANSYS/LS-DYNA algorithm and application.
Beijing: Beijing Institute of Technology Press; 1996 [in Chinese].
[11] Kang JX, Zhang YM, Zhang DS. Numerical simulation of seismic wave
generation process of high-energy explosive underground explosion. In:
Progress in safety science and technology Volume 4: proceedings of the
2004 international symposium on safety science and technology; 2004.
 J.-H. Ding et al. / Engineering Structures 28 (2006) 1367–1377
[12] Hallquist JO, Wainscott B, Schweizerhof K. Improved simulation of thin-
sheet metal forming using LS-DYNA3D on parallel computers. Journal of
Materials Processing Technology 1995;50(1–4):144–57.
[13] Oettl G, Stark RF, Hofstetter G. A comparison of elastic-plastic soil
models for 2D FE analysis of tunneling. Computers and Geotechnics
1998;23:19–38.
[14] Hallquist JO. LS-DYNA keyword users manual version 970. Livermore:
Livermore Software Technology Corporation; 2003.
[15] Batra RC, Ching HK. Energy release rates in a constrained epoxy disc
with Hookean and Mooney–Rivlin materials. Theoretical and Applied
1377
Fracture Mechanics 2002;38:165–75.
[16] Jones N. Structure impact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;
1989. p. 211–47.
[17] Harari I, Barbone PE, Montgomery JM. Finite-element formulations
for exterior problems: Application to hybrid methods, non-reflecting
boundary conditions, and infinite elements. International Journal for
Numerical Methods in Engineering 1997;40(15):2791–805.
[18] Lysmer J, Kuhlemeyer RL. Finite dynamic model for infinite media.
Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division ASCE 1969;95(EM4):
859–77.