Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 178 (2024) 108479

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering

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

Seismic analysis of segmental shallow tunnels adjacent to building

foundations under soil liquefaction and its mitigation
Alireza Rashiddel a, Mohammadmahdi Abedi a, *, Daniel Dias b, Asma Ramesh c
a
University of Minho, ISISE, ARISE, Department of Civil Engineering, 4800-058, Guimarães, Portugal
b
Laboratory 3SR, Department of Civil Engineering, Polytech Grenoble, Grenoble Alpes University, 38400, Grenoble, France
c
Department of Mining, Faculty of Engineering, Urmia University, Urmia, 5756151818, Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In many densely populated cities, buried networks of urban services, such as facilities and sewage tunnels or
Tunnel uplift sewer pipes are constructed adjacent to or beneath nearby building foundations. It is vital to consider the seismic
Cyclic liquefaction interaction of shallow tunnels with these foundations in liquefiable deposits. In such circumstances, segmental
Shallow foundation
tunnels are of interest due to being considered non-rigid structures, and their utilization has increased in shallow
Five-story building
Permeation grouting
urban tunneling. Using a two-dimensional finite difference code, a shallow tunnel subjected to uplift pressures
PM4Sand due to soil liquefaction is studied. An advanced constitutive model (PM4Sand) is employed in the numerical
model along with a fully coupled Fluid-Solid solution to simulate soil liquefaction. First, a centrifuge laboratory
model was used to validate the coupled hydrodynamic numerical simulations. Additionally, it allows for the use
of real sand properties. The validation results indicated a good agreement between the numerical simulations and
the centrifuge tests for tunnel uplift (maximum difference of 7 %) and the excess pore water pressure ratio (ru).
Next, based on the results, segmentation of the tunnel lining was found to be effective in reducing ground surface
uplift by 23 %. Then, a segmental tunnel lining with and without a five-story building on a combined footing
foundation is considered under soil liquefaction. The interaction between the shallow foundation of the five-story
building and the segmental lining highlights the significant influence of tunnel uplift on shear force, bending
moment, tilting and rotation of the foundation and surface structure. Additionally, the presence of the foundation
and surface structure leads to a reduction in tunnel uplift (by 29 %) and ground surface uplift (by 21 %). Lastly, a
permeation grouting method has been utilized to mitigate seismic soil-surface structure-underground structure
interaction (SSSSUSI) during liquefaction, resulting in a 90.7 % reduction.

1. Introduction and background
Recent decades have witnessed an increase in the utilization of un­
derground spaces as part of modern urbanization [1,2]. Mechanized
shield tunneling has been the dominant method employed in the exca­
vation of transportation urban tunnels. In addition, a recent trend in­
volves the use of mechanized tunneling at shallow depths, utilizing
small-diameter tunnels for sewage and facilities usage (underground
networks for urban services). Countries such as Germany, the United
States, the United Kingdom, China, Austria, Singapore, Mexico, Turkey,
Panama, and New Zealand have utilized mechanized shields (Earth
Pressure Balance and Slurry) for the construction urban services tunnels
[3]. In saturated ground, Earth Pressure Balance and Slurry tunneling
techniques are effective in reducing surface settlements and enhancing
safety [2,4]. Fig. 1 illustrates the use of prefabricated concrete segments
in this type of tunnel boring machine. These segments are assembled
with staggered segment blocks and are interconnected through tongue
and groove joints. The concrete segments are also equipped with several
holes for injecting secondary grout. It is important to note that there
exists a difference in structural behavior between segmental linings
(with joints) and continuous linings (without joints) of the same thick­
ness [5–12]. While numerous numerical studies have considered the
seismic analysis of segmental and continuous tunnel linings [13,14], few
studies have investigated the seismic interaction between the flexible
segmental lining and liquefiable soil (saturated sands or silty sands).
Therefore, further research should be conducted on shallow-segmented

* Corresponding author. University of Minho, ISISE, ARISE, Department of Civil Engineering, 4800-058, Guimarães, Portugal.
E-mail addresses: a.rashiddel@civil.uminho.pt (A. Rashiddel), id8012@alunos.uminho.pt (M. Abedi), daniel.dias@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr (D. Dias), st_a.ramesh@
urmia.ac.ir (A. Ramesh).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2024.108479
Received 22 August 2023; Received in revised form 19 December 2023; Accepted 10 January 2024
Available online 19 January 2024
0267-7261/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
A. Rashiddel et al.
structures in liquefiable soil deposits.
Shallow tunnels in loose saturated soils like granular materials that
are prone to liquefaction, can encounter various challenges. Among
these, the most critical issues are the uplift and lateral deformations due
to the soil liquefaction under cyclic loading. These uplifts and de­
formations are a result of the weight difference between the tunnel and
the surrounding environment, as well as the shear strength loss at the
soil-tunnel interface [15–21]. While tunnel damages caused by soil
liquefaction are not frequent, studies on shallow storage uplifts, pipeline
uplifts and physical modeling have demonstrated that the high liquefied
soil mobility near the surface can induce a flotation of very shallow
tunnels [22].
Investigations into shallow underground structures, such as
segmental sewage tunnels facing soil liquefaction, have been simplified
in numerical analyses due to the lack of advanced structural elements,
constitutive models, and difficulties in modeling the nonlinear seismic
soil-structure interaction (SSSI). Although there has been extensive
research in the field of soil liquefaction and tunneling in recent decades,
the behavior of segmental tunnel structures in liquefiable soils has not
been adequately studied. However, only simple and rigid continuous
structures with uniform flexural rigidity are assumed, or box-type tun­
nels such as subway stations or parking structures against soil lique­
faction, are studied. Therefore, there is a pressing need to investigate the
behavior of such shallow segmental structures, particularly segmental
sewages and facilities tunnels, in the context of seismic soil liquefaction.
2. Literature review: Tunnel-soil interaction under liquefaction
Before the 1964 Alaska and Niigata earthquakes, geotechnical en­
gineers did not consider liquefaction as a seismic hazard until they
observed liquefaction occurring during these events [17,21,23]. Several
studies were carried out to analyze underground structures against
earthquake loadings. Castro [24]; Kramer [25]; Seed et al. [26] are
among the researchers who have studied this phenomenon.
During an earthquake, the load is rapidly applied, and the saturated
coarse-grained soils cannot dissipate the dynamic excess pore water
pressures (EPWP) created. Thus, periodic loads and non-drained con­
ditions reduce the soil stiffness and shear strength of cohesionless soils
during these loading types. As a result, the created additional dynamic
Fig. 1. Detail of the segmental tunnel lining with secondary grout injection holes.
2
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 178 (2024) 108479
pore pressures can lead to dynamic liquefaction. Therefore, under­
ground structures built on liquefiable soils may be subjected to severe
damage. These damages include uplifts, floating, or sinking of the un­
derground structure, lateral displacements, post-earthquake sub­
sidences, reduced soil bearing capacity, and increased lateral pressure
[1]. For example, the real cases of tunnel-soil interaction problems
under liquefaction were reported for the 1976 Tangshan earthquake in
China [27], the 1995 Kobe earthquake in Japan [17,28,29], the 1998
Loma-Prieta earthquake in America [15], the 2010 Maule earthquake in
Chile [30], the 2011 Pacific Coast of Tohoku-Oki earthquake in Japan
[18,31], the 2011 Canterbury- Christchurch earthquake in New Zealand
[32], the 2012 Emilia earthquake in Italy [33], and the 2014 Valparaiso
earthquake in Chile [34]. Historically, many earthquakes caused dam­
age to rocky transport tunnels located in non-urban areas. However, in
recent times, many shallow urban tunnels are being constructed. Most of
these subsurface structures, especially those associated with facilities
and sewage, are often situated below or adjacent to surface structures
(refer to Fig. 2). The uplift of shallow tunnels due to soil liquefaction can
have severe consequences, including the shifting of foundations, which
can lead to serious damage to buildings and even loss of life. Therefore,
understanding the reciprocal influence of a tunnel and an adjacent
building becomes crucial when soil liquefaction occurs. Despite many
studies on the static and dynamic interaction of tunnel-aboveground
structures, SSSSUSI under soil liquefaction studies is limited. Given
this knowledge gap, it is essential to conduct further investigations into
SSSSUSI in liquefiable soil deposits.
Table 1 summarizes the significant studies based on tunnel numeri­
cal modeling under seismic soil liquefaction. In the laboratory, re­
searchers have investigated the interaction of a non-segmental tunnel
structure considering liquefiable soils: Miranda et al. [35]; Zhu et al.
[36]; An et al. [37]; Yue et al. [38]; Taylor and Madabhushi [39];
Haiyang et al. [20]; Zhang and Chian [19]; Lee et al. [40]; Dashti et al.
[41]; Otsubo et al. [18]; Watanabe et al. [42]; Zhuang et al. [17]; Chen
et al. [43]; Zhou et al. [44]; Chian et al. [31]; Chen et al. [45]; Chian and
Madabhushi [16]; Chou et al. [46]; Kutter et al. [47]; Tamari and
Towhata [48]; Koseki et al. [49]. Among the researchers mentioned,
Dashti et al. [41]; Zhu et al. [36]; Miranda et al. [35] have studied the
interaction between tunnels and shallow foundations under seismic
liquefaction. They examined the interaction between the box-type
A. Rashiddel et al.
Fig. 2. A schematic representation of surface structures and different types of subsurface structures in urban areas.
tunnel and the building using centrifuge tests.
Table 1 shows that Wu et al. [50] and Shen et al. [51] worked on the
interaction between concrete segmental tunnels and liquefiable soils
under seismic excitations. Only one of these articles modeled the
segmental lining considering a nonlinear elastic-plastic constitutive
model. The segmental lining has not been compared with continuous
lining in detail in these articles. In none of the studies examined, the
tunnel uplift effects on surface structures and their foundations under
seismic liquefaction were examined.
This paper focuses on examining the seismic behavior of tunnels in
loose and fully saturated soil as well as the seismic soil-surface structure-
underground structure interaction (SSSSUSI) under the phenomenon of
liquefaction considering segmental linings. A soil constitutive model
named PM4Sand Version 3.2 [66] was used. Solid-Interface elements
were created to model the body of segments and joints of the segmental
structure, and these elements were modeled using Elastic-Plastic
constitutive models with Drucker-Prager and Mohr-Coulomb failure
criteria, respectively. The paper addresses three main objectives. First, it
investigates the behavior of shallow segmental structures in comparison
with continuous structures under soil liquefaction. Second, it examines
the impact of interaction between the segmental lining and surface
structure on uplift and tilting. And finally, it explores mitigation tech­
niques for soil liquefaction using permeation grouting. There was no
need to investigate other parameters such as tunnel diameter, tunnel
depth, tunnel cross-section, and seismic excitation intensity since their
impact was already qualified (see Table 1).
3. Numerical simulations
In this section, we first examine the numerical modeling of the
centrifuge test as a validation model. We will also discuss considerations
and techniques related to hydrodynamic analysis involving SSSI. Then,
numerical models of the segmental tunnel with and without a shallow
foundation under seismic liquefaction will be simulated and analyzed as
the main body of research.
3
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 178 (2024) 108479
3.1. Validation
3.1.1. Centrifuge test conducted by Chian et al. [31]
Centrifuge tests are widely recognized as an effective research
technique in geotechnical engineering as they can combine a physical
modeling considering a field stress close to a real one. An advanced
numerical modeling of the SSSI nonlinear analysis with a fully coupled
Fluid-Solid solution was performed to simulate the centrifuge tests of
Chian et al. [31]. At Cambridge University, these authors conducted
centrifuge tests on a shallow tunnel structure in liquefiable soil (Hostun
sand). The data required for the numerical modeling was derived from
Chian et al. [31], with the acceleration level used for the centrifuge tests
set at 66.7 g. The parameters for the soil, tunnel lining, and dynamic
loading are presented in Table 2. The dimensions of the centrifuge box
are 670 mm in the horizontal direction and 240 mm in the vertical di­
rection. The centrifuge test box used was an Equivalent Shear Beam
(ESB), and its lateral boundary conditions were flexible [31]. Fig. 3 il­
lustrates the geometry and boundary conditions of the centrifuge box
used by Chian et al. [31]. Chian et al. [31] investigated soil
liquefaction-tunnel interaction at two depths (5.5 and 7.5 m at a pro­
totype scale) for both shallow and deep tunnels. For the numerical
validation model, a depth of 5.5 m was selected to represent a shallow
tunnel.
3.1.2. Validation numerical model
A two-dimensional plane-strain Finite Difference code (FLAC2D) was
developed to simulate the centrifuge test numerically. The automatic
rezoning option was used with the large-strain mode since liquefaction
can result in highly deformed mesh zones.
It is essential to choose appropriate constitutive models for numer­
ical analyses, especially for soil liquefaction simulations. The PM4Sand
[66] plasticity constitutive model was used to numerically simulate the
centrifuge test liquefaction. The PM4Sand model is a stress-ratio
controlled, critical state compatible, bounding-surface plasticity model
for sand (silts can also be considered) [67]. There are six primary pa­
rameters (three properties, two flags, and atmospheric pressure) and 21
secondary parameters required by PM4Sand. As a result, the PM4Sand
model can accurately depict the effects of different confining pressures,
the initial soil density on the stress-strain curve during loading, and the
A. Rashiddel et al.
Table 1
Numerical simulation studies of soil liquefaction along with tunnels.
References Constitutive Damping Main results
model
[50] DM04 Rayleigh Because of the difference in
soil liquefaction
susceptibility, the tunnel
structure near the interface
between dense and loose
ground experienced
distinctive displacements.
[51] PM4Sand Rayleigh Compared to free-field soil at
the same elevation, dilation
induced by shear and
negative excess pore
pressures at the soil-lining
interface reduce the excess
pore water pressure beneath
the tunnel.
[38] Finn Rayleigh During the main excitation,
soil on both sides of the
tunnel experiences a
reduction in shear resistance
and undergoes stretching
from the soil above, which
leads to a greater uplift of the
tunnel.
[52] PM4Sand Rayleigh Uplift requires excess pore
pressure and soil liquefaction
to occur around the tunnels.
Twin tunnels’ uplift behavior
is influenced by their
interaction.
[21] Energy-Based Hysteretic Surrounding the tunnel
approach (sig4) and structure with gravel drains
Rayleigh and an impermeable layer
beneath the tunnel effectively
reduces structural uplift.
[53] Finn Rayleigh It has been discovered that
replacing the soil surrounding
the tunnel structure with a 2D
width and spacing of D can
minimize the maximum uplift
by 50 % (D: tunnel diameter).
[54] An existing Hysteretic Based on the cyclic plasticity
Masing extended behavior of marine deposits,
model the ocean current
significantly alters the
original wave-driven
liquefaction properties, as
well as the generated uplift.
[55] Finn Rayleigh It is more complicated if the
tunnel is partially embedded
in the liquefied deposit and its
top or bottom parts in a non-
liquefied deposit.
[56] Model of Zhuang Rayleigh Diaphragm walls cut off the
and Chen [57] pore water pressure
connection between the
bottom and the lateral soil of
the tunnel structure
extension.
[19] Finn Rayleigh As a result, the created MARS
(multivariate adaptive
regression spline) model is a
relatively reliable tool for
predicting structural uplift
displacement during
earthquakes and can simulate
complex nonlinear
connections among variables.
[58] A cyclic Rayleigh The uplift response was
elastoplastic shown to be connected to the
model [59] ru and its timing, as well as
the area of liquefiable soil
beneath the subsurface
structure.
4
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 178 (2024) 108479
Table 1 (continued )
References Constitutive Damping Main results
model
[60] Elastic equivalent Hysteretic The diameter of the tunnels
linear does not significantly affect
the liquefaction potential of
the soils above the tunnel
structure. Liquefaction
potential is not affected by the
thickness of the linings of
underground structures. The
tunnel depth was the most
effective parameter for uplift
under liquefaction.
[31] Wang Rayleigh The structures began to float
in the presence of substantial
excess pore pressure, but this
halted after the earthquake
shaking stopped. After the
soil liquefied, a constant rate
of uplift of the structure was
achieved, implying a possible
limit to shear modulus
deterioration of the
surrounding soil induced by
soil-structure interaction
(SSI).
[61] Finn – The friction and dilatancy
angle of soils can be raised to
prevent tunnel uplift due to
soil liquefaction.
[62] Finn Local When the tunnel lining
materials are rigid, the effect
of liquefaction-induced
uplifting in the position of the
tunnel axis should be
considered more.
[63] Model of Ling Rayleigh Cutoff walls may limit the
and Liu [64] flow or deformation of
liquefied soils and prevent the
uplifting of tunnels, but they
couldn’t guarantee that the
enclosed soils wouldn’t
liquefy.
[1] Model of Ling Rayleigh Injection grouting was used as
and Liu [64] a mitigating approach against
the flotation of tunnels, and it
was found to be effective.
[65] MODSOL Rayleigh The presence of a lined tunnel
decreases the build-up of pore
pressure in the soil beneath
the tunnel. As increased pore
pressure degrades soil
stiffness and resistance, the
bending moment in the liner
increases significantly,
especially in the lower
section. It also causes the liner
to lift.
dilatancy, contraction, and strain-softening characteristics of the soil. It
allows us to provide a realistic depiction of soil deformations under
different confining pressure conditions. Additionally, the PM4Sand
model can predict the post-liquefaction reconsolidation strains during
the post-shaking phase [51,66].
The parameter values of the PM4Sand constitutive model are pre­
sented in Table 3. Parameter calibration was conducted using equations
from the PM4Sand model manual [66]. The dimensions of the numerical
model are the same as the prototype scale dimensions (66.7 times larger
than the centrifuge box dimensions). Fig. 4 shows the geometry, mesh­
ing, and dynamic boundary conditions used for the validation of the
numerical model with the prototype scale. There are radial and quad­
rilateral zones around the tunnel. Meshes with a quadrilateral shape
contain two layers of sub-meshes, which provide a more accurate so­
lution for materials undergoing plastic yielding [67].
A. Rashiddel et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 178 (2024) 108479

Table 2 was limited to less than one-tenth of the input wavelength during
Centrifuge test parameters at the prototype scale [31]. seismic loading for an accurate high-frequency shear wave transmission.
Parameters Symbol Unit Value A mesh length with a maximum size of 1.1 m was considered.
The PM4Sand constitutive model is able to reproduce the Hysteretic
Properties of the soil (Hostun sand)
Dry density ρd Kg/m3 1450 damping [66]. However, the plastic Hysteretic would not be able to
Saturated density ρsat Kg/m3 1860 capture the complete soil damping in the small strain range [67,68].
Young’s modulus E MPa 14.70 Ishihara [70] demonstrated the importance of soil damping for low
Poisson’s ratio ν – 0.336 confining pressures, making it challenging to simulate using the
Critical friction angle Degrees 33.0
stress-strain relationship [1]. The PM4Sand simulates plastic strains
φ
Dilation angle ψ Degrees 3.0
Cohesion C kPa 0.0 considering Hysteretic damping. A small amount of damping is then
Permeability K cm/s 0.1 necessary for addressing small strain damping and controlling numerical
Initial void ratio e – 0.8 noise during dynamic calculations [66,67]. Therefore, Rayleigh damp­
Relative density Dr 45 %
–
ing was specified with a 0.5 % damping ratio at the center frequency of
Properties of the tunnel lining (rigid structure)
Density ρ Kg/m3 2650 1.9 Hz for the Hostun sand. Additionally, a Rayleigh damping ratio of 5
Young’s modulus E GPa 30.0 % was assigned to the tunnel structure.
Poisson’s ratio ν – 0.2 The water’s bulk modulus is one of the most significant parameters in
Thickness t m 0.35 coupled Mechanical-Fluid flow analyses. It highly affects the numerical
External tunnel diameter D m 5.0
solution time step. In a coupled Mechanical-Fluid flow analysis, the
Buried depth H m 5.5
Dynamic loading (near-sinusoidal shaking) behavior of the model is affected by the ratio of the fluid to the solid
Shaking duration td s 27.0 stiffness (stiffness ratio). The stiffness ratio in Eq. (1) refers to the water
Post-shaking duration tps s 8.0 to soil stiffness ratio. This equation is used to determine the appropriate
Shaking frequency f Hz 0.75 value of the water bulk modulus. During the water bulk modulus
Peak input acceleration (PIA) amax m/s2 2.16
calculation (Kw ), it is assumed that Rk is equal to 20 (if the stiffness ratio
value has a value greater than 20 with the bulk modulus of pure water, 2
A plane-strain numerical analysis was conducted in two stages: static GPa) [67]. Based on our numerical model with Eq. (1), the water bulk
and dynamic analysis. In the first stage of analysis, the base of the model modulus (Kw ) was calculated equal to 0.196 GPa.
was fixed horizontally and vertically. In contrast, the lateral boundaries Kw/
were only fixed horizontally. After the initial equilibrium, a fully Rk = n (1)
K + 4G 3
/
coupled Fluid-Solid analysis is conducted considering the water table.
Based on the centrifuge test design, the water table was determined from where Kw is the water bulk modulus (Pa), n is the porosity, and K and G
the ground surface. Following the static analysis and establishing the are the unsaturated soil bulk and shear moduli (Pa), respectively.
pore water pressure and initial stresses, a shear excitation was applied at
the model base with a maximum acceleration of 0.22 g. The seismic 3.1.3. Validation model results
analysis was conducted after applying dynamic boundary conditions, Figs. 5 and 6 show the time histories of the acceleration, tunnel uplift
fixed boundaries at the base and free fields for the lateral boundaries. displacement, and liquefaction ratio (ru) for both the validation model
For the vertical sides, free-field boundaries were used to reproduce and centrifuge test. The seismic excitation duration was 27 s, followed
infinite conditions and avoid wave reflection (a free-field boundary has by a post-liquefaction period of 8 s. The liquefaction ratio or excess pore
been defined in the numerical model in contrast to a flexible boundary water pressure ratio (ru) is defined as the excess pore water pressure
that was determined in the centrifuge test box). To avoid the discrep­ during soil shaking (EPWP or Δu) divided by the initial static vertical
ancy between the small-strain calculations considered for the free-field /
effective stress before soil shaking at a specific depth (ru = Δu ′ ).
boundary and the large-strain ones for the main mesh, an elastic col­ σv
umn was applied to the left and right boundaries [67]. Additionally, the According to Fig. 5 (a) and 5 (b), the dynamic far-field acceleration at
FLAC software does not support the simultaneous use of the PM4Sand the bottom depth of the numerical model (16 m) is more consistent than
model under free-field boundary conditions. It is then necessary to use a the dynamic acceleration at the depth of the spring line of the tunnel
column with an elastic model at the free-field boundary [66]. As the (5.5 m) with the results of the centrifuge test. It can be seen from Fig. 5
lateral boundaries of the centrifuge numerical model (A and B sides in (c), the maximum tunnel uplift displacement in the numerical model
Fig. 4) must act together, they were connected by attaching elements to and centrifuge test is approximately 88 cm and 81 cm, respectively. Both
reproduce the centrifuge container ESB [50,68,69]. The soil zone’s size models show that the maximum tunnel uplift displacement occurs at the
end of shaking, i.e., seconds 27. There is little change in tunnel uplift

Fig. 3. Schematic layout of the centrifuge test with the ESB box.

5
A. Rashiddel et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 178 (2024) 108479

Table 3 dynamic analysis (shaking and post-shaking) is presented at a depth of

Calibrated parameters of the PM4Sand constitutive model used in the validation 5.5 m along the tunnel’s spring line in the far-field. There is a satisfac­
model. tory correlation between the numerical model’s liquefaction ratio (ru =
Parameters Symbol Unit Value 0.9 to 1.0) and the centrifuge test’s liquefaction ratio (ru =
Apparent relative density Dr – 0.45
0.75 to 0.95), despite the fact that the numerical model shows a higher
Shear modulus coefficient Go – 566.32 liquefaction ratio than the centrifuge test. The numerical model in­
Contraction rate parameter hpo – 0.48 dicates that the complete liquefaction occurs within 5 s, while in the
Atmospheric pressure pA kPa 101.300 centrifuge test, it occurs between 5 and 10 s. At the beginning of seismic
Flag for first call (flag used to re-set the back- FirstCall 0.0
–
loading, both models exhibit the highest liquefaction ratio rate. Based on
stress ratio history)
Flag for post-shake (Flag used during post- PostShake – 1.0
the numerical model and centrifuge test, Fig. 6 (b) illustrates the
shaking portion for reconsolidation strains) liquefaction ratio history during the dynamic analysis (shaking and post-
Adjusts the ratio of plastic modulus to elastic ho – 0.35 shaking) along the spring line on the right side of the tunnel. According
modulus to this history, the liquefaction rate at the beginning shows good
Maximum void ratio emax 1.01
agreement for both models. Although the average liquefaction ratio for
–
Minimum void ratio emin – 0.555
Parameter controlling dilatancy nb – 0.50 both models is very similar, the range of changes in liquefaction ratios in
Parameter controlling the stress-ratio nd – 0.10 the centrifuge test is greater than in the numerical model. As seismic
Constant volume friction angle φcv Degrees 33.0 loading time increases, the difference between the average results of the
Dilatancy angle ψ Degrees 3.0 liquefaction ratio decreases. It is worth noting that changes in sand
Poisson’s ratio 0.336
νo –
permeability may be observed in the centrifuge test, especially in the
Coefficient of lateral earth pressure at 1-D Ko – 0.5
consolidation post-shaking phase, while in the numerical model, permeability is
Parameter controlling the rotated dilatancy CDR – 7.5 assumed to be constant. Moreover, the centrifuge test exhibits a near-
surface sinusoidal shaking, whereas the numerical validation model assumes a
Parameter controlling the effect that sustained CK α f – 6.5 completely sinusoidal shaking.
static shear stresses have on plastic modulus
At the end of the dynamic analysis, Fig. 7 (a) and 7 (b) display the
vertical displacements and maximum liquefaction ratio of the numerical
between 27 and 35 s during post-shaking phase, and the deformations validation model, respectively. The liquefaction of soil results in the
have stabilized. Both the numerical model and the centrifuge test indi­ upward movement of the tunnel and the surrounding area towards the
cate that the rate of the tunnel uplift was higher during the first 10 s ground surface. Several settlements are observed on the ground surface,
loading, after which the uplift slope decreased. The best agreement located far from the tunnel axis and inclined below the tunnel. As a
between the results of the numerical model and the centrifuge test are in result of the uplift of the tunnel structure, 73 cm of the tunnel structure’s
the range of 10 s. The largest difference between the results is at seconds maximum vertical displacement (out of a total of 88 cm) has reached the
27. In both the numerical and centrifugal models, the maximum dif­ ground surface. The extent of the uplift effect of the tunnel due to soil
ference in tunnel uplift displacement is 7 %, which can be considered liquefaction is 13.7 m. For additional clarification, a video component is
acceptable. available with the electronic version of the paper, accessible through
As shown in Fig. 6 (a), the liquefaction ratio history during the video 1 in the Supplementary section (online only). As depicted in Fig. 7

Fig. 4. Validation numerical model with the prototype scale and boundary conditions.

6
A. Rashiddel et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 178 (2024) 108479

Fig. 5. Time histories for both the numerical validation model and the centrifuge test: (a) time histories of the far-field acceleration at the model base (16 m depth),
(b) time histories of the far-field acceleration at the tunnel spring line (5.5 m depth), (c) time histories of the tunnel uplift displacement.

(b), the entire area surrounding the tunnel, except for the area above the
tunnel and near the ground surface, has experienced liquefied. It appears
that this phenomenon is caused by the uplift of the tunnel, which creates
tensile stress. As a result, tensile cracks develop in the soil above the
tunnel and near the ground surface. These cracks facilitate the dissipa­
tion of seismic excess pore water pressure, thereby preventing soil
liquefaction. Additionally, the presence of the tunnel leads to an
increased depth of soil liquefaction beneath it compared to the left and
right far-fields. The mechanism behind this phenomenon is related to the
excavation of materials inside the tunnel. This excavation results in a
decrease in the initial static vertical effective stress of the soil in the area
under the tunnel, thereby increasing the ratio of the seismic excess pore
water pressure to the initial static vertical effective stress (ru).

7
A. Rashiddel et al.
Fig. 6. Time histories of the liquefaction ratios (ru) for both the numerical validation model and the centrifuge test: (a) at the far-field of the tunnel spring line (5.5 m
depth), (b) at the right tunnel spring line (5.5 m depth).
3.2. Tunnel-soil-building system
In order to investigate the seismic interaction of a shallow founda­
tion with a shallow tunnel in liquefiable sand, combined footing foun­
dations were used as a hypothetical case study according to the
simplified foundation of the CTUC office building in New Zealand. The
CTUC building structure and foundation were seriously damaged during
the 2011 Canterbury-Christchurch earthquake in New Zealand [32,71].
The CTUC building is a six-story reinforced concrete (RC) frame building
with shallow foundations. The majority of the CTUC building foundation
consists of RC columns with a 0.5 m width mounted on 2.44 m of RC
isolated square footings embedded in 0.46 m [71]. An extremely
simplified model of the CTUC building foundation was developed. A
simplified version of the CTUC building foundation is illustrated in Fig. 8
(for five-story building with combined footings foundation).
The adopted numerical process for segmental tunnel-surface struc­
ture interaction under soil liquefaction with a combined footing foun­
dation consists of the following steps:
• Phase 0 (in-situ stress field): The size of the finite difference grids is
defined to be able to transmit the dynamic wave and avoid distur­
bance. After determining the static boundary conditions, in-situ
8
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 178 (2024) 108479
stresses were determined. In the end, the model reached an initial
equilibrium state.
• Phase 1 (coupled static fluid-solid analysis): A groundwater table is
established based on the porosity and permeability of the soil
considering a fully coupled Fluid-Solid solution.
• Phase 2 (excavation and segment installation): The soil is excavated
inside the tunnel. A segmental solid zone with a Drucker-Prager
constitutive model was installed on the excavated tunnel wall
based on the SIM (Solid-Interface Method).
• Phase 3 (surface structure): A five-story building with combined
footings foundation is modeled using beam elements, and equilib­
rium is achieved.
• Phase 4 (coupled dynamic fluid-solid analysis): The displacements
and velocities due to static stages are initialized. The PM4Sand
constitutive model is allocated. The water bulk modulus (Kw =
0.196 GPa) is assigned. The large-strain mode is adopted. Dynamic
boundary conditions are set up to avoid wave reflections at the
boundaries. The numerical model is loaded using a sinusoidal shear
loading (27 s without Rayleigh damping).
• Phase 5 (coupled post-shaking fluid-solid analysis): The numerical
model is dynamically solved for 8 s without sinusoidal shear loading
(reconsolidation).
A. Rashiddel et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 178 (2024) 108479

Fig. 7. Output contours of the numerical validation model at the end of the dynamic analysis (35 s): a) vertical displacements, b) maximum liquefaction ratio
(max ru).

Fig. 8. Schematic plan view of the combined footing foundation connected with tie beams.

The depth and diameter of the centrifuge test tunnel were used in the tunnel model, with a few exceptions outlined below:
shallow segmental tunnel model. To establish a benchmark, all param­
eters from the validation model were incorporated into the segmental

9
A. Rashiddel et al.
1. The tunnel structure was segmented, and the model’s length
increased (north-south direction).
2. No attachments are considered for the model A and B side boundaries
(no tied degrees of freedom).
3. A five-story building was constructed on the ground surface, sup­
ported by combined footings as the foundation.
4. Non-liquefiable layer, with a thickness of 1.5 m, was included
beneath the building.
5. Soil and structure Rayleigh damping was not considered (only Hys­
teretic damping was considered).
Fig. 9 shows the geometry, the mesh, and the dynamic boundary
conditions of the numerical model, including the soil layers, a
segmented tunnel, and a building with a foundation. The building
comprises five floors, each with a height of 3.3 m, along with a basement
that has a depth of 1 m. The soil layers were meshed with a maximum
size of 1.2 m. According to this model, the tunnel lining is made up of
segmental rings formed of 8 concrete blocks with planar joints and
gaskets. To capture the most critical stress and strain conditions in the
segmental tunnel lining uplift and the footing foundation displacement,
soil Rayleigh damping was not considered in the numerical model. The
liquefiable soil was considered only with PM4Sand Hysteretic inherent
damping. As depicted in Fig. 9, the tunnel axis is situated on the right
side (edge) of the footing foundation to create asymmetrical deforma­
tion and shear forces on the tunnel, the foundation and the building’s
structural elements. Zhu et al. [72] have demonstrated that placing the
tunnel at the edge of the basement foundation can lead to a critical
situation regarding structural forces and displacements.
According to all seismic codes, liquefiable soils are considered
extreme ground conditions in which, following a positive identification
of liquefaction hazard, the construction of shallow foundations neces­
sitates appropriate soil treatment. For surface structures, the most
effective remediation method is to improve the ground beneath the
structures [73]. Therefore, 1.5 m of the ground surface were considered
non-liquefiable sand in the numerical model. Unlike the lateral and base
boundaries, the ground surfaces of the models have free drainage.
The parameters of the Drucker-Prager constitutive model used for
the tunnel segments are listed in Table 4. The Drucker-Prager shear
criterion (f s = 0) is represented in the principal stress space (σ 1 , σ 2 , σ 3 )
by a cone with an axis along σ 1 = σ2 = σ3 and an apex at (σ1 , σ 2 , σ 3 ) =
(a, a, a), with a = k∅/q . The Mohr-Coulomb criterion, characterized by
∅
two parameters (cohesion, C, and friction angle, ∅), is represented there
by an irregular hexagonal pyramid with the same axis and three ‘outer’
Fig. 9. Numerical model of the segmental tunnel with the building structure (foundation and skeleton).
10
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 178 (2024) 108479
and three ‘inner’ edges. The parameters q∅ and k∅ can be adjusted so
that the Drucker-Prager cone will pass through either the outer or the
inner edges of the Mohr-Coulomb pyramid. For the average adjustment
(of outer and inner adjustments), Eqs. (2) and (3) were considered (see
Fig. 10) [67].
√̅̅̅
6 3
qφ = ( ) sin φ (2)
9 − sin2 φ
√̅̅̅
kφ = (
6 3
) c cos φ (3)
9 − sin2 φ
Additionally, the elastic, strength, and geometry parameters of the
beam elements of the footing foundation and skeleton structure are
provided in Table 5. To account for the out-of-plane effects of the
building skeleton (beams and columns), the beam element Z-Spacing
tool (2D/3D Equivalence) was utilized in the FLAC software. This
allowed for consideration of the skeleton in the out-of-plane direction.
The spacing parameter mentioned earlier is used to automatically scale
properties and parameters, considering the distribution of the beams
over a regularly spaced pattern (spacing is 9.2 m). This helps to account
for the effects of this beam distribution. In spite of this, because the
continuity of the combined footings foundation out-of-plane, the
continuous condition was used for it, i.e., without the use of Z-Spacing
tool. Tables 2 and 3 present the parameters of the Mohr-Coulomb soil
model (non-liquefiable sand), the PM4Sand soil model (liquefiable
sand), and the seismic loading characteristics.
3.3. Segmental tunnel lining considering the SIM approach
As shown in Fig. 9, embedded tunnel segments and segmental tunnel
joints were modeled as solid elements (volume) and interface elements,
respectively. The Solid-Interface Method (SIM) has been discussed in
previous articles of the first author [12,74]. Due to their geometric
complexity, solid elements have a longer calculation time than beam
structural elements [75]. Despite this disadvantage, exact shape gener­
ation does not require the calculation of segmental joint rotational
stiffness in the SIM model (see Fig. 11 (a)). For beam and shell elements,
rotational, axial, and shear stiffnesses are required to simulate the
behavior of structural segmental joints with springs (see Fig. 11 (b)). It is
costly and time-consuming to conduct full-scale in-situ tests to deter­
mine the rotational stiffness of segmental joints. In contrast, the SIM
approach considers the non-uniform rotational stiffness of segmental
joints automatically based on solid geometry and interfaces. SIM
A. Rashiddel et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 178 (2024) 108479

Table 4
Parameters of the Drucker-Prager constitutive model used in the segmental and continuous tunnel lining.
Density (kg/ Elastic bulk modulus Elastic shear modulus Tension limit Material parameter, k- Material parameter, q- Material parameter, q-
m3) (GPa) (GPa) (MPa) phi psi phi

2650 16.7 12.5 0.74 503630 0.0 0.68

Fig. 10. Drucker-Prager, Mohr-Coulomb and Von Mises yield surfaces in principal stress space (adapted from Ref. [67]).

Table 5
Parameters of the beam structural elements used in the five-story building (reinforced concrete).
Mass density (kg/ Poisson’s Young’s modulus Tensile strength Compressive strength Plastic moment Area Moment inertia
m3) ratio (GPa) (MPa) (MPa) (N.m) (m2) (m4)

Beam 2400 0.2 31.25 1.71 25 0.85 × 106 0.114 0.0008

Column 2400 0.2 31.25 1.71 25 3.12 × 106 0.25 0.0052
Foundation 2400 0.2 31.25 1.71 25 12.9 × 106 1.1224 0.0198

considers the relationship between the segment-segment (longitudinal (sand to segment) [12,74,77]. The interface element properties of the
joints) and the soil-segment by setting interface elements. For more in­ segment-segment and the sand-segment are presented in Table 6.
formation on the SIM, please refer to Rashiddel et al. [12] and Rashiddel
kn = 1.1186σ n + 0.6329 (4)
et al. [74].
In this research, the SIM model is utilized to simulate the segmental
ks = 1.4948σ n − 0.2504 (5)
tunnel lining under seismic excitation. Eqs. (4) and (5) are employed to
consider normal and shear stiffness coefficients of the contact surface Pr
between longitudinal joints of the segmental lining (segment to σn = (6)
t
segment) in the presence of a gasket. Salemi et al. [76] obtained Eqs. (4)
and (5) using laboratory tests. They performed several laboratory tests Es
Kr = (7)
using a direct shear test (DST) to determine the normal and shear stiff­ R(1 + ν)
ness of the longitudinal joints of segmental tunnel linings with and
without gaskets [76]. Eqs. (7) and (8) were used to consider the radial Kt =
Kr
(8)
and tangential stiffness coefficients of the soil-tunnel contact surface 3

11
A. Rashiddel et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 178 (2024) 108479

Fig. 11. A comparison of the Beam and Spring method and the Solid and Interface method for segmental lining: (a) normal and shear stiffness inside the interface
element for a segmental joint, (b) Kaxi , Krad , Krot stiffness in the axial, radial, and rotational directions of a segmental joint.

where σ n is normal stress applied to the contact surface of the segmental
joints (MPa), P is hydrostatic pressure around tunnel due to overburden
(MPa), Es is the Young’s modulus of soil (Pa), R is the external tunnel
radius (m), and ν is the soil Poisson’s ratio, and r and t are the inner
radius of tunnel and thickness of lining (m), respectively.
4. Result and discussion
4.1. Comparing segmental and continuous lining under soil liquefaction
One of the key objectives of this study is to investigate the influence
of the flexibility of the segmental tunnel lining on the uplift of the
ground surface and the uplift area under soil liquefaction. Numerical
models were developed to analyze both segmental and continuous
tunnels, as depicted in Fig. 9. The models were specifically designed to

12
A. Rashiddel et al.
Table 6
Unbonded interface properties in the SIM model with different usage.
Segment-Segment Sand-Segment
interface interface
Normal stiffness coefficient 1.34 × 109 4.4 × 106
(Pa/m)
Shear stiffness coefficient (Pa/ 0.69 × 109 1.46 × 106
m)
Cohesion (Pa) 0.0 0.0
Dilation angle (∘ ) 0.0 0.0
Friction angle (∘ ) 35.0 21.8
Tensile bond strength (Pa) 0.0 0.0
represent a scenario with a single liquefiable layer (without a surface
non-liquefiable layer) and a water table located at the ground surface.
Furthermore, the models excluded any foundation or buildings at the
ground surface.
Fig. 12 shows the time history of ground uplift displacement in both a
segmental and continuous tunnel lining at the tunnel axis. In the
segmental model, the ground surface uplift decreases after 3 s, and this
decrease continues as the seismic loading duration increases. As a result,
with the seismic loading duration increase, the ground surface uplift
difference in the segmental and continuous tunnel models increases. The
maximum ground surface uplift in the segmental and continuous tunnel
models is 0.68 and 0.89 m, respectively. This represents a 23 % reduc­
tion in maximum ground surface uplift in the segmental tunnel model
compared to the continuous tunnel model. From a structural and
physical standpoint, one of the reasons for reducing the ground surface
uplift is the flexibility of the segmental structure and its ability to
become oval under large deformations caused by the uplift pressure. In
other words, the ground surface uplift is caused by the uplift of the
tunnel structure and the pressure exerted on it. According to Fig. 13,
segmental and continuous tunnel models show that the ground surface
uplift area is 19.5 and 22.75 m, respectively. This is determined by the
ground surface uplift influences range. Therefore, a better performance
of the segmental tunnel than the continuous tunnel under seismic soil
liquefaction can be observed. In the segmental tunnel model, the ground
surface uplift decreases during the post-shaking phase as shown in
Figs. 12 and 13. While in the continuous tunnel model, in the post-
shaking phase, the ground surface uplift continues its upward trend.
As a result, the joints experienced further localized seismic de­
formations and played an important role in the seismic ovalization of
underground structures. It can be stated that the longitudinal joints
contributed to the tunnel’s bearing capacity and caused local openings
in the tunnel structure. The deformations and opening of the segmental
joints align with the results obtained by Yu et al. [10] and Wang et al.
[78]. These authors examined precast underground structures under
seismic loading without investigating the liquefaction (with lab tests).
Fig. 12. Ground surface uplift time histories in the segmental and continuous lining models.
13
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 178 (2024) 108479
According to them, most of the segmental tunnel lining deformations
occur at the joint location, so the joint opening is useful for reducing the
segment body deformation. Azadi and Hosseini [62] reported similar
results regarding the effect of tunnel lining flexibility on the uplift of the
ground surface. According to these authors, reducing Young’s modulus
of the tunnel lining (increasing the structure’s flexibility) leads to a
decrease in ground surface deformation.
4.2. Tunnel-foundation-surface structure interaction under soil
liquefaction
Another key part of this research is to investigate the seismic inter­
action of a shallow segmental tunnel-surface building under soil lique­
faction. In the previous section, segmental and continuous tunnel linings
without shallow foundations were examined. This section analyzes the
tunnel segmental lining in the presence of shallow foundation and
building skeleton, considering both liquefiable and non-liquefiable
layers.
For cases with and without building and tunnel, Fig. 14 (a), 14 (b),
and 14 (c) illustrate the vertical deformations and displacements that
occur after 27 s of shaking, followed by 8 s of post-shaking. By
comparing Fig. 14 (a) and 14 (b), it was observed that the presence of a
segmental tunnel contributes to the uplift of the foundation and the
surface structure above the tunnel axis, as well as an increase in surface
soil settlement on the opposite side of the foundation. This indicates that
the interaction between the segmental tunnel and the surface structure
leads to an enhanced tilting of the surface structure and reverse vertical
displacement on both sides of the foundation. Furthermore, a compari­
son of the internal forces acting on the foundation and the surface
structure in Fig. 14 (a) and 14 (b) indicates a notable increase in shear
forces and bending moments within the structural elements of the sur­
face structure as a result of tunnel uplift. Specifically, in the area of the
foundation where a maximum settlement of 0.59 m occurs, the most
pronounced increase in bending moment and shear forces is observed.
These observations emphasize the importance of considering seismic
soil-surface structure-underground structure interaction (SSSSUSI) in
the seismic design process.
When comparing Fig. 14 (a) and 14 (c), it becomes evident that the
presence of a foundation and surface structure mitigates the uplift of the
ground surface and tunnel structure. This phenomenon can be attributed
to an increase in the total vertical compressive stress exerted by the soil
above the tunnel due to the gravitational weight of the surface structure.
These findings align with the research conducted by Zhu et al. [72] on
box-type tunnels and surface structures.
The time histories of the tunnel uplift and ground surface displace­
ments on the tunnel axis are presented in Fig. 15 for the cases with and
without foundation and the building under soil liquefaction. They
A. Rashiddel et al.
Fig. 13. Ground surface vertical displacements versus the tunnel axis distance in the segmental and continuous lining models (end of the post-shaking).
indicate that the tunnel structure and the ground surface uplifts with the
foundation and surface structure are smaller than without the founda­
tion and surface structure. The maximum tunnel and ground surface
uplifts, with the surface structure and foundation presence, are equal to
0.59 and 0.55 m, respectively. The maximum tunnel and ground surface
uplifts without a surface structure and foundation are equal to 0.83 and
0.70 m, respectively. The mentioned displacement values indicate that
the surface structure presence decreases the vertical ground surface
displacements by 21 % and the uplift of the tunnel structure by 29 %.
Fig. 16 illustrates the excess pore water pressure (EPWP) development in
two important tunnel parts with and without the surface structure. At
approximately 0.5 m above the tunnel lining crown (2.5 m depth and at
an effective vertical stress value of 36.25 kPa), and 0.5 m below the
tunnel lining bottom (8.5 m depth and at an effective vertical stress
value of 123.25 kPa). The graphs illustrating the EPWP show that the
presence of the surface structure does not affect the EPWP above the
segmental tunnel. However, it does have a minor influence on the EPWP
below the segmental tunnel, resulting in a slight increase in seismic
EPWP.
5. Mitigation techniques
In the case of tunnel structures built in liquefiable soil and near
foundations, a practical solution should be used to reduce the soil
liquefaction around the tunnel. Generally, there are two main ap­
proaches to prevent and reduce the tunnel structure uplifts and buoy­
ancy. The first is related to the improvement of the soil surrounding the
tunnel and mitigation of the soil liquefaction potential by adding
drainage columns, in-situ densification, and cementation by grouting.
The second relates to the use of structural components such as piles,
sheet piles, cutoff walls, and anchors to prevent the tunnel structure
uplifts [35,39,73]. In this study, the soil liquefaction potential around
the tunnel is reduced by injecting cement grout around the tunnel using
some injection pipes by the permeation grouting method (Fig. 17). This
technique involves injecting a low-viscosity fluid into the soil to
waterproof the uncompacted soil and fill voids. This technique reduces
the liquefaction risk by locally solidifying the soil [79]. One of the
reasons for selecting this method for mitigating the soil liquefaction
around the tunnel is the fact that it is easy to implement it inside the
tunnel without stopping the mechanized excavation process. According
to Fig. 1, in shield tunneling, holes can be made for the segment’s sec­
ondary injection. In this method, the holes can be used to inject
cement-based suspension under pressure. This method has been used in
14
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 178 (2024) 108479
shield tunnels in Taiwan and Japan to mitigate liquefaction [80].
Based on numerical studies and laboratory tests, the soil beneath and
adjacent to the tunnel structure is the most effective area for liquefac­
tion. The increase in the excess pore water pressure of the soil beneath
the tunnel provides the main tunnel structure uplifts [21,22,73,80].
Therefore, soil remediation beneath and beside the tunnel can signifi­
cantly reduce the tunnel uplifts [39]. As a result, four holes beneath and
near the tunnel spring line, which are shown in gray in Fig. 17 (a), were
used for the numerical modeling of the grout injection process. A nu­
merical model of the injection process was developed using FLAC’s FISH
programming feature. FISH code automatically recognizes the injected
meshes by specifying the pressure and viscosity of the cement fluid and
transforms them into grouted sand properties. Based on Liu and Song
[1], the mesh zone properties converted to grouted sand followed the
elastic constitutive model have the following properties: 500 MPa of
Young’s modulus, 0.3 of Poisson’s ratio, 20 kN/m3 of unit weight, and
0.001 cm/s of permeability. Additionally, the injection pipes had a
length of 3.5 m and a pressure of 150 kPa. Fig. 17 (b) illustrates the
geometry and mesh of the numerical model in the presence of the
mitigation grout hole. The injection grout area is assumed not to have
any spacing in the direction of the tunnel axis in order to use a
two-dimensional plane-strain condition (see Fig. 17).
The time histories of the tunnel and ground surface uplifts on the
tunnel axis are presented in Fig. 18 for hypothetical case studies with
and without mitigation techniques. In all cases, there are foundations
and building surface structures. The figure indicates that the mitigation
techniques is highly effective in reducing the tunnel and the ground
surface uplifts. The use of mitigation grout holes around the tunnel
resulted in a reduction of 87.4 % and 90.7 % of the tunnel and ground
surface uplifts, respectively. Fig. 19 illustrates the EPWP development in
two crucial parts of the tunnel (0.5 m above and below the tunnel
structure) with and without the mitigation grout holes. As it is shown,
the mitigation grout holes have significantly reduced the EPWP at the
tunnel bottom. With mitigation grout holes, the area below the tunnel
will not experience liquefaction based on the values of maximum seismic
EPWP (105 kPa) and initial static vertical effective stress (123.25 kPa).
As a result of the lack of mitigation grout holes at the top of the tunnel
crown, the EPWP at the tunnel top is similar to the one what was
observed without mitigation grout holes.
6. Conclusion
In this study, we conducted an examination of the seismic interaction
A. Rashiddel et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 178 (2024) 108479

Fig. 14. Outputs of the vertical displacement contours (uplifts and settlements), shear forces and bending moments for the foundation and building skeleton: (a)
tunnel-soil-building system, (b) soil-building system, (c) tunnel-soil system.

15
A. Rashiddel et al.
Fig. 15. Time histories of the vertical displacements for the segmental tunnel and the ground surface with and without buildings.
Fig. 16. Time histories of the excess pore water pressure above and below the segmental tunnel with and without buildings.
between segmental tunnels and nearby building systems in soil areas.
Additionally, we evaluated the ability of segmental linings to withstand
seismic liquefaction, which includes both shaking during seismic events
and the post-shaking period. The paper presents a high-fidelity, fully
coupled Fluid-Solid analysis of surface and underground structures
subjected to soil liquefaction. This dynamic analysis was conducted
using the FLAC2D finite difference code and advanced constitutive
models. Three main objectives were pursued after thorough numerical
validation: (1) comparing the seismic behavior of segmented tunnels
under soil liquefaction with rigid underground structures, (2) examining
the seismic interaction between the five-story surface structure and the
segmental tunnel under soil liquefaction, and (3) reducing soil lique­
faction around the tunnel through permeation grouting. According to
this study, nearby surface structures have a significant influence on the
seismic response of underground structures and are therefore important
to take into consideration in seismic design. The basic results of the
study are as follows:
(1) The presence of segmental joints in the tunnel lining, along with
their local opening under the pressures induced by seismic
liquefaction of the surrounding soil, can bring about beneficial
changes in the structural behavior of the segmental tunnel lining.
Compared to a rigid and continuous lining, it shows less impact
from the liquefaction of the soil around the tunnel, leading to a
reduction in the uplift of the ground surface and the affected area
of influence.
16
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 178 (2024) 108479
(2) The analysis of the interaction between a shallow segmental
tunnel, liquefiable soil, and a five-story surface structure revealed
several findings. Firstly, the presence of the underground struc­
ture resulted in an increased tilting and rotation of the surface
structure and higher settlement on the opposite side of the surface
structure’s foundation. Additionally, the underground structure
uplift induced the development of bending moments and shear
forces in the foundations and members of the surface structure.
Conversely, the presence of the surface structure and its foun­
dation led to a reduction in the uplift of the underground struc­
ture caused by liquefaction, as well as a decrease in the vertical
displacement of the ground surface.
(3) In the research, a soil remediation method was used to mitigate
soil liquefaction around the tunnel. As a result of the importance
of soil liquefaction below the tunnel and on the spring line of the
tunnel, four grout holes were installed in these areas. Using
mitigation grout holes reduces the uplift of the tunnel and the
ground surface by 87.4 % and 90.7 %, respectively. Additionally,
the results indicate that the use of the mitigation techniques re­
duces seismic excess pore water pressure in the lower areas of the
tunnel structure.
It is important to note that the current research is based on 2D nu­
merical models with plane-strain conditions, which do not account for
the transverse joints of segmental linings along the tunnel axis or the
spacing of grout holes in the tunnel axis. To fully capture the interaction
A. Rashiddel et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 178 (2024) 108479

Fig. 17. Liquefaction mitigation techniques with permeation grouting around the segmental tunnel lining: (a) schematic layout, (b) numerical model with meshing.

Fig. 18. Time histories of the vertical displacements for the segmental tunnel and ground surface with and without mitigation techniques (with building).

between the segmental tunnel, surface structure, and foundation under
liquefaction, it is useful to conduct studies using 3D numerical models.
Additionally, investigating the interaction between different types of
shallow foundations and near-surface tunnels under liquefaction
through a 3D numerical model would contribute to the research in the
practical designs of tunnel-soil-building systems.
Funding
The corresponding author acknowledges also the support provided

17
A. Rashiddel et al.
Fig. 19. Time histories of the excess pore water pressure above and below the segmental tunnel with and without mitigation techniques (with building).
by the FCT/PhD individual fellowship with reference of “2021. 07596.
BD.”
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Alireza Rashiddel: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal anal­
ysis, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Validation, Visualization,
Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Funding acquisition.
Mohammadmahdi Abedi: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal
analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Software,
Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review &
editing. Daniel Dias: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Method­
ology, Project administration, Supervision, Visualization, Writing –
original draft, Writing – review & editing. Asma Ramesh: Conceptu­
alization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Resources,
Software, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2024.108479.
References
[1] Liu H, Song E. Seismic response of large underground structures in liquefiable soils
subjected to horizontal and vertical earthquake excitations. Comput Geotech 2005;
32(4):223–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2005.02.002.
[2] Ramesh A, Hajihassani M, Rashiddel A. Ground movements prediction in shield-
driven tunnels using gene expression programming. Open Construct Build Technol
J 2020;14(1). https://doi.org/10.2174/1874836802014010286.
[3] Herrenknecht – pioneering underground together - herrenknecht AG. https://www
.Herrenknecht.com; 2023.
[4] Rashiddel A, Ramsheh FA, Ramesh A, Dias D, Hajihassani M. Clogging potential of
earth-pressure balance shield driven tunnels. Open Construct Build Technol J 2020;
14(1). https://doi.org/10.2174/1874836802014010185.
18
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 178 (2024) 108479
[5] Lee KM, Hou XY, Ge XW, Tang Y. An analytical solution for a jointed shield-driven
tunnel lining. Int J Numer Anal Methods GeoMech 2001;25(4):365–90. https://doi.
org/10.1002/nag.134.
[6] Lambrughi A, Medina Rodríguez L, Castellanza R. Development and validation of a
3Dnumerical model for TBM–EPB mechanised excavations. Comput Geotech 2012;
40:97–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2011.10.004.
[7] Do NA, Dias D, Oreste P, Djeran-Maigre I. 2D numerical investigation of segmental
tunnel lining behavior. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2013;37:115–27. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tust.2013.03.008.
[8] Hasanpour R. Advance numerical simulation of tunneling by using a double shield
TBM. Comput Geotech 2014;57:37–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compgeo.2014.01.002.
[9] Kavvadas M, Litsas D, Vazaios I, Fortsakis P. Development of a 3D finite element
model for shield EPB tunnelling. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2017;65:22–34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2017.02.001.
[10] Yu H, Yuan Y, Xu G, Su Q, Yan X, Li C. Multi-point shaking table test for long
tunnels subjected to non-uniform seismic loadings-part II: application to the HZM
immersed tunnel. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2018;108:187–95. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.08.018.
[11] Wang YX, Shan SB, Zhang C, Guo PP. Seismic response of tunnel lining structure in
a thick expansive soil stratum. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2019;88:250–9.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2019.03.016.
[12] Rashiddel A, Kharghani M, Dias D, Hajihassani M. Numerical study of the
segmental tunnel lining behavior under a surface explosion – impact of the
longitudinal joints shape. Comput Geotech 2020;128:103822. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103822.
[13] Do NA, Dias D, Oreste P, Djeran-Maigre I. 2D numerical investigation of segmental
tunnel lining under seismic loading. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2015;72:66–76.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2015.01.015.
[14] Pitilakis K, Tsinidis G. Performance and seismic design of underground structures.
In: Earthquake geotechnical engineering design. Cham: Springer International
Publishing; 2014. p. 279–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03182-8_11.
[15] Schmidit B, Stimac T, Hashash Y. US immersed tube retrofit. Tunnels Tunn Int
1998;30. NO. 11: 22–24, https://trid.trb.org/view/581680.
[16] Chian SC, Madabhushi SPG. Effect of buried depth and diameter on uplift of
underground structures in liquefied soils. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2012;41:181–90.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2012.05.020.
[17] Zhuang H, Chen G, Hu Z, Qi C. Influence of soil liquefaction on the seismic
response of a subway station in model tests. Bull Eng Geol Environ 2016;75(3):
1169–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10064-015-0777-y.
[18] Otsubo M, Towhata I, Hayashida T, Shimura M, Uchimura T, Liu B, Rattez H.
Shaking table tests on mitigation of liquefaction vulnerability for existing
embedded lifelines. Soils Found 2016;56(3):348–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sandf.2016.04.003.
[19] Zhang Z, Chian SC. Importance of sidewall friction on manhole uplift during soil
liquefaction. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2019;119:51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
soildyn.2018.12.028.
[20] Haiyang Z, Xu W, Yu M, Erlei Y, Su C, Bin R, Guoxing C. Seismic responses of a
subway station and tunnel in a slightly inclined liquefiable ground through shaking
table test. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2019;116:371–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
soildyn.2018.09.051.
[21] Mahmoud AO, Hussien MN, Karray M, Chekired M, Bessette C, Jinga L. Mitigation
of liquefaction-induced uplift of underground structures. Comput Geotech 2020;
125:103663. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103663.
[22] Maddaluno L, Stanzione C, Nappa V, Bilotta E. A numerical study on tunnel-
building interaction in liquefiable soil. In: Earthquake geotechnical engineering for
A. Rashiddel et al.
protection and development of environment and constructions. CRC Press; 2019.
p. 3708–15. https://doi.org/10.1201/9780429031274.
[23] Hamada M, Isoyama R, Wakamatsu K. Liquefaction-induced ground displacement
and its related damage to lifeline facilities. Soils Found 1996;36:81–97. https://
doi.org/10.3208/sandf.36.Special_81.
[24] Castro G. On the behavior of soils during earthquakes – liquefaction. In:
Cakmak AS, editor. Developments in geotechnical engineering, vol. 42. Elsevier;
1987. p. 169–204.
[25] Kramer L, Steven. Geotechnical earthquake engineering. first ed. Berkeley: Pearson
publication. University of California; 1996. ISBN-13: 978-0133749434.
[26] Seed HB, Martin PP, Lysmer J. The generation and dissipation of pore water
pressures during soil liquefaction. College of Engineering, University of California;
1975. https://books.google.com/books?id=j4HEGwAACAAJ.
[27] Jing-Ming W, Litehiser JJ. The distribution of earthquake damage to underground
facilities during the 1976 tang-Shan earthquake. Earthq Spectra 1985;1(4):741–57.
https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1585291.
[28] Iida H, Hiroto T, Yoshida N, Iwafuji M. Damage to daikai subway station. Soils
Found 1996;36:283–300. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.36.Special_283.
[29] Hashash YM, Hook JJ, Schmidt B, John I, Yao C. Seismic design and analysis of
underground structures. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2001;16(4):247–93. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0886-7798(01)00051-7.
[30] Lew M, Naeim F, Carpenter LD, Youssef NF, Rojas F, Saragoni GR, Adaros MS. The
significance of the 27 February 2010 offshore Maule, Chile earthquake. Struct Des
Tall Special Build 2010;19:826–37. https://doi.org/10.1002/tal.668.
[31] Chian SC, Tokimatsu K, Madabhushi Santana Phani G. Soil liquefaction–induced
uplift of underground structures: physical and numerical modeling. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 2014;140(10):04014057. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
GT.1943-5606.0001159.
[32] Bray J, Cubrinovski M, Zupan J, Taylor M. Liquefaction effects on buildings in the
central business district of Christchurch. Earthq Spectra 2014;30(1):85–109.
https://doi.org/10.1193/022113EQS043M.
[33] Bilotta E. Seismic behaviour of urban underground structures in liquefiable soil. In:
Conference on performance-based design in earthquake. Geotechnical engineering.
Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2022. p. 2265–76. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-031-11898-2_211.
[34] Rashiddel A, Koopialipoor M, Hadei MR, Rahmannejad R. Numerical investigation
of closed-form solutions for seismic design of a circular tunnel lining (by quasi-
static method). Civil Eng J 2018;4(1):239. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-030983.
[35] Miranda G, Nappa V, Bilotta E, Haigh SK, Madabhushi GS. Physical modelling of
the interaction between a tunnel and a building in a liquefying ground and its
mitigation. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2023;137:105108. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tust.2023.105108.
[36] Zhu T, Hu J, Zhang Z, Zhang JM, Wang R. Centrifuge shaking table tests on precast
underground structure–superstructure system in liquefiable ground. J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 2021;147(8):04021055. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
GT.1943-5606.0002549.
[37] An J, Tao L, Jiang L, Yan H. A shaking table-based experimental study of seismic
response of shield-enlarge-dig type’s underground subway station in liquefiable
ground. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2021;147:106621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
soildyn.2021.106621.
[38] Yue F, Liu B, Zhu B, Jiang X, Chen L, Liao K. Shaking table test and numerical
simulation on seismic performance of prefabricated corrugated steel utility tunnels
on liquefiable ground. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2021;141:106527. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.soildyn.2020.106527.
[39] Taylor EJ, Madabhushi SPG. Remediation of liquefaction-induced floatation of
non-circular tunnels. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2020;98:103301. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tust.2020.103301.
[40] Lee C-J, Wei Y-C, Chuang W-Y, Hung W-Y, Wu W-L, Ho T-Y. Uplift mechanism of
rectangular tunnel in liquefied soils. In: Paper presented at the geotechnical
hazards from large earthquakes and heavy rainfalls; 2017. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-4-431-56205-4_6. Tokyo.
[41] Dashti S, Hashash YMA, Gillis K, Musgrove M, Walker M. Development of dynamic
centrifuge models of underground structures near tall buildings. Soil Dynam Earthq
Eng 2016;86:89–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2016.04.014.
[42] Watanabe K, Sawada R, Koseki J. Uplift mechanism of open-cut tunnel in liquefied
ground and simplified method to evaluate the stability against uplifting. Soils
Found 2016;56(3):412–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sandf.2016.04.008.
[43] Chen G, Chen S, Qi C, Du X, Wang Z, Chen W. Shaking table tests on a three-arch
type subway station structure in a liquefiable soil. Bull Earthq Eng 2015;13(6):
1675–701. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10518-014-9675-0.
[44] Zhou J, Jiang J, Chen X. Micro- and macro-observations of liquefaction of saturated
sand around buried structures in centrifuge shaking table tests. Soil Dynam Earthq
Eng 2015;72:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2014.12.017.
[45] Chen G, Wang Z, Zuo X, Du X, Gao H. Shaking table test on the seismic failure
characteristics of a subway station structure on liquefiable ground. Earthq Eng
Struct Dynam 2013;42(10):1489–507. https://doi.org/10.1002/eqe.2283.
[46] Chou JC, Kutter BL, Travasarou T, Chacko JM. Centrifuge modeling of seismically
induced uplift for the BART transbay tube. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2011;137(8):
754–65. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000489.
[47] Kutter Bruce L, Chou J-C, Travasarou T. Centrifuge testing of the seismic
performance of a submerged cut-and-cover tunnel in liquefiable soil. Geotech
Earthquake Eng Soil Dynam 2008;IV:1–29. https://doi.org/10.1061/40975(318)
204.
[48] Tamari Y, Towhata I. Seismic soil-structure interaction of cross sections of flexible
underground structures subjected to soil liquefaction. Soils Found 2003;43(2):
69–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0806(20)30803-9.
19
Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 178 (2024) 108479
[49] Koseki J, Matsuo O, KoGa Y. Uplift behavior of underground structures caused by
liquefaction of surrounding soil during earthquake. Soils Found 1997;37(1):
97–108. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.37.97.
[50] Wu H, Ye Z, Zhang Y, Liu H, Liu H. Seismic response of a shield tunnel crossing
saturated sand deposits with different relative densities. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng
2023;166:107790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.107790.
[51] Shen Y, Zhong Z, Li L, Du X, El Naggar MH. Seismic response of shield tunnel
structure embedded in soil deposit with liquefiable interlayer. Comput Geotech
2022;152:105015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2022.105015.
[52] Zheng G, Yang P, Zhou H, Zhang W, Zhang T, Ma S. Numerical modeling of the
seismically induced uplift behavior of twin tunnels. Int J GeoMech 2021;21(1):
04020240. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0001897.
[53] Sudevan PB, Boominathan A, Banerjee S. Mitigation of liquefaction-induced uplift
of underground structures by soil replacement methods. Geomech Eng 2020;23(4):
365 379. https://doi.org/10.12989/GAE.2020.23.4.365.
[54] Zhao K, Wang Q, Chen W, Zhuang H, Chen G. Uplift of immersed tunnel in
liquefiable seabed under wave and current propagation. Eng Geol 2020;278:
105828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2020.105828.
[55] Lu C-C, Hwang J-H. Safety assessment for a shield tunnel in a liquefiable deposit
using a practical dynamic effective stress analysis. Eng Fail Anal 2019;102:369–83.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engfailanal.2019.04.045.
[56] Wang J, Ma G, Zhuang H, Dou Y, Fu J. Influence of diaphragm wall on seismic
responses of large unequal-span subway station in liquefiable soils. Tunn Undergr
Space Technol 2019;91:102988. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2019.05.018.
[57] Zhuang HY, Chen G. Constitutive model for large liquefaction deformation of sand
and its implementation in ABAQUS software. Chin J World Earthq Eng 2011;27(2):
45–50.
[58] Hu J, Chen Q, Liu H. Relationship between earthquake-induced uplift of
rectangular underground structures and the excess pore water pressure ratio in
saturated sandy soils. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2018;79:35–51. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tust.2018.04.039.
[59] Oka F. A cyclic elasto-viscoplastic constitutive model for clay based on the
nonlinear hardening rule. In: Swansea, Pande GN, Pietruszczak S, editors. Proc. 4th
int. Sym. On numerical models in geomechanics, vol. 1; 1992. p. 105–14. Balkema.
[60] Unutmaz B. 3D liquefaction assessment of soils surrounding circular tunnels. Tunn
Undergr Space Technol 2014;40:85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tust.2013.09.006.
[61] Yang J, Wang H. Seismic response analysis of shallow utility tunnel in liquefiable
soils. ICPTT 2012:1606–18. https://doi.org/10.1061/9780784412619.163.
[62] Azadi M, Mir Mohammad Hosseini SM. Analyses of the effect of seismic behavior of
shallow tunnels in liquefiable grounds. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2010;25(5):
543–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2010.03.003.
[63] Liu H, Song E. Working mechanism of cutoff walls in reducing uplift of large
underground structures induced by soil liquefaction. Comput Geotech 2006;33(4):
209–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2006.07.002.
[64] Ling Hoe I, Liu H. Pressure-level dependency and densification behavior of sand
through generalized plasticity model. J Eng Mech 2003;129(8):851–60. https://
doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2003)129:8(851).
[65] Khoshnoudian F, Shahrour I. Numerical analysis of the seismic behavior of tunnels
constructed in liquefiable soils. Soils Found 2002;42(6):1–8. https://doi.org/
10.3208/sandf.42.6_1.
[66] Boulanger RW, Ziotopoulou K. PM4SAND (Version 3.2): a sand plasticity model for
earthquake engineering applications. Report No. UCD/CGM-22/02. Center for
Geotechnical Modeling, University of California at Davis; 2022.
[67] Itasca Consulting Group Inc. FLAC-fast Lagrangian analysis of continua (version.
8.1). 2019. Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, User’s manual.
[68] Dashti S, Bray JD. Numerical simulation of building response on liquefiable sand.
J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2013;139(8):1235–49. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
GT.1943-5606.0000853.
[69] Tsantilas L, Garini E, Gazetas G. Seismic response of retaining walls: theoretical
parametric insights after centrifuge validation. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng 2024;176:
108314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2023.108314.
[70] Ishihara K. Soil behavior in earthquake engineering. Clarendon: Oxford University
Press; 1996. ISBN-13: 978-0198562245.
[71] Luque R, Bray JD. Dynamic analyses of two buildings founded on liquefiable soils
during the Canterbury earthquake sequence. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 2017;143
(9):04017067. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001736.
[72] Zhu T, Wang R, Zhang JM. Effect of nearby ground structures on the seismic
response of underground structures in saturated sand. Soil Dynam Earthq Eng
2021;146:106756. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soildyn.2021.106756.
[73] Pitilakis KD, editor. Earthquake geotechnical engineering: 4th international
conference on earthquake geotechnical engineering-invited lectures, vol. 6.
Springer Science & Business Media; 2007.
[74] Rashiddel A, Hajihassani M, Kharghani M, Valizadeh H, Rahmannejad R, Dias D.
Numerical analysis of segmental tunnel linings - use of the beam-spring and solid-
interface methods. Geomech Eng 2022;29(4):471–86. https://doi.org/10.12989/
GAE.2022.29.4.471.
[75] Yanzhi Y, Weiwei Z, Jianwei W, Zhihao Y. Three-dimensional orthotropic
equivalent modelling method of large-scale circular jointed lining. Tunn Undergr
Space Technol 2014;44:33–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2014.07.002.
[76] Salemi A, Esmaeili M, Sereshki F. Normal and shear resistance of longitudinal
contact surfaces of segmental tunnel linings. Int J Rock Mech Min Sci 2015;77:
328–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrmms.2015.04.014.
[77] Plizzari GA, Tiberti G. Steel fibers as reinforcement for precast tunnel segments.
Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2006;21(3):438–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tust.2005.12.079.
A. Rashiddel et al. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering 178 (2024) 108479

[78] Wang J, Liu H, Liu H, Zou Y. Centrifuge model study on the seismic responses of
shield tunnel. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2019;92:103036. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tust.2019.103036.
[79] Maithili KL. A discussion of liquefaction mitigation methods. Int Res J Eng Technol
2017;4(12):1830–3.
[80] Chou HS, Yang CY, Hsieh BJ, Chang SS. A study of liquefaction related damages on
shield tunnels. Tunn Undergr Space Technol 2001;16(3):185–93. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0886-7798(01)00057-8.

20