In most tunnel projects, closed-form analytical methods are used to estimate the initial dynamic response of tunnels to seismic loading. In the first part of the article, to examine the validity of the analytical methods presented by Wang, Penzein, Park et al., first the final cover of Tehran Metro Line 6 was subjected to elliptical seismic loading using analytical methods. Then, the validation of the analytical methods was carried out through the quasi-static method in the FLAC2D finite difference code under the same assumptions as the analytical method. In both numerical and analytical methods, the linear equivalent soil properties obtained from the ground response analysis in the EERA software were used to consider the nonlinear behavior of the soil. The validation of the results showed that the Penzein method under no-slip conditions in estimating the axial force is very different from the numerical modeling and greatly underestimates the axial force. Also, Wang's method and Park et al.'s method under no-slip conditions have very high accuracy in estimating axial force and show almost the same results as numerical modeling. In another part of the article, to show the importance of the real interaction between the tunnel lining and the soil, a numerical study of quasi-static earthquakes under real interaction conditions was carried out. The results show that the real interaction conditions play a very important role in estimating axial force and one of the most important limitations of analytical methods for seismic loading of tunnels is the lack of simulation of real sliding conditions between the tunnel lining and the soil.