WG2 - ITA REPORT DesignSegment PDF

Guidelines for the Design of Segmental
Tunnel Linings
ITA Working Group 2 - Research
N° ISBN: 978-2-9701242-1-4 ITA REPORT N°22 / APRIL 2019
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 1 17/04/2019 17:35

ITA Report n°22 - Guidelines for the Design of Segmental Tunnel Linings
N°ISBN : 978-2-9701242-1-4 / APRIL 2019 - Layout : Longrine – Avignon – France – www.longrine.fr
The International Tunnelling and Underground Space Association/Association Internationale des Tunnels et de l’Espace Souterrain (ITA/AITES) publishes this report to, in accordance with its
statutes, facilitate the exchange of information, in order: to encourage planning of the subsurface for the benefit of the public, environment and sustainable development to promote advances
in planning, design, construction, maintenance and safety of tunnels and underground space, by bringing together information thereon and by studying questions related thereto. This report
has been prepared by professionals with expertise within the actual subjects. The opinions and statements are based on sources believed to be reliable and in good faith. However, ITA/AITES
accepts no responsibility or liability whatsoever with regard to the material published in this report. This material is: information of a general nature only which is not intended to address the specific
circumstances of any particular individual or entity; not necessarily comprehensive, complete, accurate or up to date; This material is not professional or legal advice (if you need specific advice,
you should always consult a suitably qualified professional).
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 2 17/04/2019 17:35

Guidelines for the Design of Segmental
Tunnel Linings
ITA Working Group 2 - Research
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 3 17/04/2019 17:35

>> Table of contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................................4
MAIN AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS AND REVIEWERS IN ALPHABETIC ORDER...............................6
LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS.............................................................................................7
PREFACE.................................................................................................................................................10
1 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS..................................................................................................................11
2 DESIGN PHILOSOPHY .......................................................................................................................12
2.1 Limit state or load and resistance factor design ........................................................................................ ..........12
2.2 Governing load cases and load factors............................................................................................... ................12

2.3 Design approach................................................................................................................................ .................12
3 SEGMENTAL RING GEOMETRY AND SYSTEMS..............................................................................13

3.1 Internal diameter of the bored tunnel......................................................................................................... ..........13
3.2 Thickness of the segmental lining ring........................................................................................................... ......13
3.3 Length of the ring................................................................................................................................................ 14

3.4 Segmental ring systems...................................................................................................................................... 14
3.5 Ring configuration............................................................................................................................................... 16

3.6 Segment geometry.............................................................................................................................................. 16
3.7 Key segment geometry....................................................................................................................................... 18
4 SEGMENTAL LINING DESIGN - PRODUCTION AND TRANSIENT STAGES . ................................39

4.1 Segment stripping (demolding)...................................................................................................... ......................19
4.2 Segment storage...................................................................................................................... ..........................19

4.3 Segment transportation............................................................................................................. ..........................19
4.4 Segment handling..................................................................................................................... ..........................20

4.5 Dynamic load factors, maximum unfactored bending moments and shear forces...................... ..........................20
5 SEGMENTAL LINING DESIGN FOR CONSTRUCTION STAGES......................................................21

5.1 Tunnel boring machine thrust jack forces............................................................................................................. 21
5.2 Tail skin back-grouting pressure.......................................................................................................................... 23
5.3 Localized back-grouting (secondary grouting) pressure....................................................................................... 24

5.4 TBM Backup Load.............................................................................................................................................. 25
6 SEGMENTAL DESIGN FOR FINAL SERVICE STAGES......................................................................26

6.1 Ground pressure, groundwater, and surcharge loads.......................................................................................... 26
6.2 Longitudinal joint bursting load............................................................................................................................ 28

6.3 Loads induced due to additional distortion.......................................................................................................... 30
6.4 Other loads......................................................................................................................................................... 30
4 GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGN OF SEGMENTAL TUNNEL LININGS
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 4 17/04/2019 17:35

>> Table of contents
7 DETAILED DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS.............................................................................................33

7.1 Concrete strength and reinforcement.................................................................................................................. 33
7.2 Concrete cover................................................................................................................................................... 34
7.3 Reinforcement spacing........................................................................................................................................ 34
7.4 Fiber reinforcement ........................................................................................................................................... 34

8 TESTS AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION.....................................................................................36
9 DESIGN FOR SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE...................................................................................37
9.1 Verification for SLS in tunnel segments...................................................................................................... ..........37
9.2 Stress verification................................................................................................................................ ................37
9.3 Deformation verification .................................................................................................................... .................38

9.4 Cracking verification........................................................................................................................... .................38
10 GASKET DESIGN...............................................................................................................................10
10.1 Gasket Materials..................................................................................................................................... ..........40
10.2 Water pressure and gasket design.................................................................................................... ................40

10.3 Gasket relaxation and factor of safety .............................................................................................. .................40
10.4 Tolerances and design for required gap/offset.................................................................................. .................41
10.5 Gasket load deflection............................................................................................................................. ..........43
10.6 Gasket groove design....................................................................................................................... ................43

10.7 New development in gasket systems............................................................................................... .................43
10.8 New development in gasket repair systems...................................................................................... .................44
11 CONNECTION DEVICES AND FASTENING SYSTEMS....................................................................45

11.1 Bolts, dowels and guiding rods............................................................................................................... ..........45
11.2 Design of connection device for gasket pressure............................................................................... ................45
11.3 Latest developments in joint connection systems ............................................................................ .................46
11.4 Fastening systems to segments....................................................................................................... .................46
12 TOLERANCES, MEASUREMENT, AND DIMENSIONAL CONTROL...............................................49

12.1 Production tolerances............................................................................................................................. ..........49
12.2 Measurement and dimensional control.............................................................................................. ................51

12.3 Test ring and dimensional control frequency .................................................................................... .................52
12.4 Construction tolerances................................................................................................................... .................53
13 CONCLUDING REMARKS . .............................................................................................................54

14 REFERENCES...................................................................................................................................55
GLOSSARY..............................................................................................................................................59
ITA WORKING GROUP 2 : RESEARCH 5
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 5 17/04/2019 17:35

>> Main authors, contributors and reviewers in alphabetic order
MAIN AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS AND REVIEWERS

IN ALPHABETIC ORDER
Main Authors
Mehdi Bakhshi, Aecom
Verya Nasri, Aecom
Contributors
Elena Chiriotti, Incas Partners
Ron Tluczek, Gibb
WG2’s Reviewers
Christoph Eberle, Mott MacDonald
Gernot Jediltschka, Geoconsult
Giovanni Plizzari, University of Brescia
Jon Hurt, Arup
Markus Thewes, Ruhr University
ITA’s Reviewers
Benoît de Rivaz, BM-Underground
Chungsik Yoo, Sungkyunkwan University
Eric Leca, Arcadis
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 6 17/04/2019 17:35

>> List of symbols and abreviation
A = effective tension area of concrete around rebar divided by number of steel bars, mm2
Ad = load distribution area inside segment under thrust jack forces, mm2
Ag = gross area of concrete section, mm2
Aj = area of contact zone between jack shoes and the segment face, mm2
As = area of reinforcing bars, mm2
a = distance from edge of vacuum lift pad to edge of segment in the load case of stripping (demolding), or dimension
of final spreading surface under thrust jack forces, mm
al = transverse length of contact zone between jack shoes and the segment face, mm
at = transverse length of stress distribution zone at the centerline of segment under thrust jack forces, mm
b = average width of tunnel segment also known as the ring length, or width of tested specimen, m
C = cos(θ) in the elastic equation method
C2 = cos2(θ) in the elastic equation method
C3 = cos3(θ) in the elastic equation method
Cc = compression force in the concrete section, N
Ct = tensile force in the section due to fiber reinforcement, N
De = external diameters of the tunnel segmental lining, m
Di = internal diameter of the tunnel segmental lining, m
d = thickness of tested specimen, or total width of the segment cross section, mm
d1 = length of load transfer zone for the case of longitudinal joint bursting load, mm
dburst = centroidal distance of bursting force from the face of section, mm
dc = concrete cover over rebar, mm
dk = contact width for the case of longitudinal joint bursting load, mm
ds = distributed width of tension block inside the segment for the case of longitudinal joint bursting, mm
E = modulus of elasticity of concrete, MPa
Ecm = modulus of elasticity of concrete, MPa
Es = oedometer stiffness of the ground also known as Eoed; or modulus of elasticity of rebar, MPa
EI = flexural rigidity of segmental lining considering a unit width, N.m2
e = eccentricity, mm
el = eccentricity of normal (axial) force defined as M/N, mm
ek = eccentricity of joint contact zone considering gasket and caulking recesses, mm
eanc = eccentricity of jack pads with respect to the centroid of cross section, or maximum total eccentricity in longitudinal
joints consisting of force eccentricity and eccentricity of load transfer area, mm
F = forces acting on bottom segment due to self-weight of segments positioned above, N
Fsd = bursting tensile forces developed close to longitudinal joints, N
Fsd,r = spalling tensile forces developed close to longitudinal joints, N
Fsd,2 = secondary tensile forces developed close to longitudinal joints, N
fy = yield stress of required reinforcing bars, MPa
f1 = first peak flexural strength, MPa
fbot = stress at the extreme bottom fiber of concrete section, MPa
f’c = specified compressive strength of concrete segment, MPa
fcd = concrete design compressive strength, MPa
fck = concrete characteristic compressive strength, MPa
fctd = fiber-reinforced concrete design tensile strength, MPa
fct,eff = concrete tensile strength, MPa
f’co = compressive strength of partially loaded concrete surface, MPa
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 7 17/04/2019 17:35

fD150 = residual flexural strength at net deflection of L/150, MPa

fD600 = residual flexural strength at net deflection of L/600, MPa
f’D150 = specified residual flexural strength at net deflection of L/150, MPa
f’D600 = specified residual flexural strength at net deflection of L/600, MPa
fD150r = required average residual flexural strength at net deflection of L/150, MPa
fD600r = required average residual flexural strength at net deflection of L/600, MPa
fFtu = fiber-reinforced concrete tensile strength at ultimate limit state, MPa
fR3 = residual flexural strength of fiber-reinforced concrete beam corresponding to crack mouth opening displacement
of 2.5 mm, MPa
fR4 = residual flexural strength of fiber-reinforced concrete beam corresponding to crack mouth opening displacement
of 3.5 mm, MPa
fR1 = residual flexural strength of FRC beam corresponding to crack mouth opening displacement of 0.5 mm, MPa
fr1k = characteristic residual flexural strength of fiber-reinforced concrete for serviceability limit state, MPa
fr3k = characteristic residual flexural strength of fiber-reinforced concrete for ultimate limit state design, MPa
fs = stress in rebar, MPa
ft = specified splitting tensile strength, MPa
g = self-weight of the segments per unit length, N/mm
H = overburden depth, m
Hw = groundwater depth, m
h = thickness of tunnel segment, mm
hanc = length of contact zone between jack shoes and the segment face, mm
I = moment of inertia of segment for nominal lining thickness, mm4
Ij = moment of inertia at the joint (often taken as zero in the design), mm4
Ir = reduced moment of inertia of the lining due to the presence of segment joints, mm4
k = required ring taper, mm; or coefficient of subgrade reaction, kg/m3
kr = subgrade reaction modulus in the radial direction, MN/m3; or Janssen rotational spring stiffness of segment joints,
kN.m
kt = subgrade reaction modulus in the tangential direction, MN/m3; or in crack width analysis, a factor depending on the
duration of loading (0.6 for short and 0.4 for long term loading)
L = distance between the supports, mm
lt = height of contact area between segments in longitudinal joints, mm
M = bending moment, kN.m
Mn = nominal resistance bending moment, kN.m
n = number of segments per ring excluding the key segment (n ≥ 4); or number of layers of tensile rebar in crack with
analysis
N = axial hoop force, N
NEd = maximum normal force due to permanent ground, groundwater and surcharge loads, N
P0 = surcharge load, N
Pe1 = vertical earth pressure at crown of lining applied to the elastic equation method, MPa
Pe2 = vertical earth pressure at invert of lining applied to the elastic equation method, MPa
Pg = segment dead load, MPa
Pw1 = vertical water pressure at crown of lining applied to the elastic equation method, MPa
Pw2 = vertical water pressure at invert of lining applied to the elastic equation method, MPa
Ppu = factored jacking force applied on each jack pad in circumferential joints, or maximum factored normal force from
the final service loads transferred in longitudinal joints, MPa
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 8 17/04/2019 17:35

qe1 = horizontal earth pressure at crown of lining applied to the elastic equation method, MPa
qe2 = horizontal earth pressure at invert of lining applied to the elastic equation method, MPa
qw1 = horizontal water pressure at crown of lining applied to the elastic equation method, MPa
qw2 = horizontal water pressure at invert of lining applied to the elastic equation method, MPa
R = radius from centerline of lining, m; or minimum radius of alignment curvature, m; or reaction force in the scheme of
segments stacking for storage and transportation, kN
ro = radius of excavated tunnel, m
s = maximum rebar spacing, mm
S = distance between stack supports and free edge of segments in the load case of segment storage, m; also sin(θ) in
the elastic equation method
S2 = sin2(θ) in the elastic equation method
S3 = sin3(θ) in the elastic equation method
ss = sample standard deviations of test results
sr,max = maximum crack spacing, mmTburst = bursting force, N
w = segment self-weight, kg/m; or maximum crack width, mm
yc = distance from extreme compression fiber to centroid of equivalent compression force in the section, mm
y = distance from extreme tension fiber to the neutral axis, mm
β = dimension of the loaded surface under thrust jack forces according to Iyengar diagram, mm; or in crack width
analysis, ratio of the distance between neutral axis and tension face to the distance between neutral axis and
centroid of rebar
ΔPg, invert = vertical gradient of radial grout pressure between the crown and invert of tunnel, MPa
δ = displacement of lining applied to the elastic equation method; or opening distance of longitudinal joint on one side
due to poor ring build and tunnel deformation, mm
δd = diametrical distortion, mm
εtu = ultimate tensile strain
εcu = ultimate compressive strain
ε’csd = compressive strain due to shrinkage and creep equal to 150×10-6
φ = strength reduction factor; or rebar diameter, mm
φA = outer diameter of the segmental ring
γ = material safety factor
λ = slenderness defined as the ratio between the developed segment lengths and its thickness
θ = angle from crown in the elastic equation method; or rotation of segment joints, radian
ρconcrete = specific weight of concrete, kg/m3
ρeq = equivalent specific weight of grout, kg/m3
σc,j = compressive stresses developed under jack pads because of axial effects of thrust jack forces, MPa
σcm = fully spread compressive stress in method of the Iyengar diagram, MPa
σcx = bursting tensile stresses using the Iyengar diagram, MPa
σp = specified post-crack residual tensile strength of FRC segment, MPa
τ = birdsmouthing or opening of longitudinal joint on one side due to deformation of the tunnel lining, radian or degrees
τyield = shear yield strength of grout, MPa
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 9 17/04/2019 17:35

>> Preface
The rapid progress of mechanized tunneling

to market prominence has continued and
even exceeded expectations following the
general worldwide trend in construction
towards mechanization and automation.
Mechanized tunneling utilizing a shield

Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) is often
associated with installing precast concrete
segmental linings. The design and
construction of these elements requires
comprehensive knowledge and a good
understanding of the principles specific to
this type of lining.
ITA WG2 published the “Guidelines

for the design of shield tunnel design”
in 2000. However, continuously
evolving technologies and consequent
developments and clarifications of related
design approaches make updates and
revisions of ITA guidelines inevitable.
The ITA WG2 2019 Guideline is intended

to fully update the original WG2 publication
“Guidelines for the design of shield tunnel
design” (2000) and it is a stand-alone
document. However, in the text reference
is still made to 2000 guideline for few
specific aspects which general description
is considered to remain valid.
The 2019 document consolidates most

recent developments, international best
practices, and state-of-the-art information
on all aspects of design and construction
of precast segmental tunnel linings. It is
addressed to experienced tunnel engineers
for specific needs of each project, and
to entry-level engineers to provide a
comprehensive general guide on major
design and construction concepts related
to segmental lining.
Elena Chiriotti, Incas Partners

ITA WG2 Animator
Ron Tluczek, Gibb

ITA WG2 Vice-Animator
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 10 17/04/2019 17:35

1 >> Scope ans limitations
This document provides guidelines for

CODE INSTITUTION TITLE
the design and construction of one-pass
precast reinforced concrete segmental Report on Design and Construction of
ACI 544.7R (2016) American Concrete Institute (ACI) Fiber Reinforced Precast Concrete Tunnel
linings for TBM tunneling in soft ground, Segments
weak and fractured hard rock. Two- Recommendation for the design, sizing
pass lining systems, which are less French Tunneling and Underground and construction of precast concrete
AFTES (2005)
frequently used in modern tunnels, are Engineering Association (AFTES) segments installed at the rear of a tunnel
boring machine (TBM)
not specifically discussed but the basic
Tunnel design. Design of concrete
guidelines presented in this report will still BSI PAS 8810 (2016) British Standards Institute (BSI) segmental tunnel linings. Code of
be applicable. If required, more information practice.
on the two-pass lining system can be found Lining Segment Design:
in the ITA WG2 (2000) guidelines. The DAUB (2013) German Tunnelling Committee (DAUB)
Recommendations for the Design,
Production, and Installation
guidelines and recommendations in this
of Segmental Rings
document can be applied to various tunnels
Standard Specifications for
including road, railway, subway and water JSCE (2007) Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE)
Tunneling-2006: Shield Tunnels
transfer, as well as utility tunnels for potable
Civil Design Criteria for Road and Rail
and waste water, gas pipelines, and power LTA (2008) Singapore Land Transport Authority (LTA)
Transit Systems
cables.
Austrian Society for Concrete and Guideline for Concrete Segmental Lining
ÖVBB (2011)
Construction Technology (ÖVBB) Systems
The structural considerations presented
in this document outline the procedures STUVA Recommendations for Testing
German Research Association for
STUVAtec (2005) and Application of Sealing Gaskets in
for designing concrete tunnel segments Underground Transportation Facilities
Segmental Linings, Tunnel, 8 (2005)
to withstand the commonly encountered
temporary and permanent load cases Table 1: Relevant Codes
occurring during the production,

transportation, construction and final
service phases.
Segmental ring geometry, design

procedures, detailed design considerations
for concrete, reinforcing bars and fiber
reinforcement, and construction aspects
(e.g., gasket systems, connection devices
and segment tolerances) presented in this
guideline reflect current global practice, and
are based on design codes, standards, and
guidelines related to precast segments in
the tunneling and concrete industries.
This document does not address the

actions of non-linear effects (e.g. bedding),
thermal variations, or internal loads (such
as internal pressure, impact loads, brake
loads, etc.) within the tunnels. While some
structural design portions of this guideline
present the procedures adopted by specific
codes, they are indicative and can be
extended to other structural regional or
international codes.
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 11 17/04/2019 17:35

2 >> Design philosophy
2.1 LIMIT STATE OR LOAD AND • Service Stages selected (i.e. thickness, width and length) with
RESISTANCE FACTOR DESIGN (h) ground pressure, groundwater respect to tunnel size and anticipated loading
pressure, and surcharge loads cases. Using load factors recommended
Currently, Limit State Design (LSD) also (i) longitudinal joint bursting load by structural codes, the design strength of
known as Load and Resistance Factor (j) loads induced due to additional the segments is compared with the required
Design (LRFD) is utilized to design precast distortion strength for specific load cases in order to
concrete tunnel segments. Limit State (k) other loads (for example, earthquake, determine the required concrete compressive
Design requires the structure to satisfy two fire, explosion, aerodynamic, strength (fc or fcd) and type and amount of
principal criteria: the Ultimate Limit State mechanical, electrical and temperature reinforcement. The final designed geometry,
(ULS) and the Serviceability Limit State (SLS). loads as well as internal loads and the compressive strength, and reinforcement are
A limit state is a condition of a structure effect of adjacent tunnels) specified in order to ensure that the precast
beyond which it no longer fulfils the relevant segmental lining satisfies all service conditions.
design criteria. LSD is a design philosophy In the design procedure, load factors are
that considers the variability in the prediction applied for specific load combinations. ITA WG2 (2000) provides a flowchart
of loads, and properties of the structural Typical load factors are shown in Table 2 of shield tunnel lining design that start
elements and employs specified limit states for various governing load cases. Utilizing with inputs related to “Planning of Tunnel
to achieve its objectives for constructability, these load factors, the resulting axial forces, Project” including alignment, geology,
safety, and serviceability. bending moments, and shear forces may be specification/code/standard to be used
calculated to design the reinforced concrete and function/capacity to be given to tunnel.
Concrete precast tunnel segments should be segmental lining. For illustration, as an These inputs are connected to different
designed using load and strength reduction example the table below provides factored design processes such as load condition,
factors for specific load combinations as load combinations for segmental tunnel lining condition, computation of lining
specified in concrete design codes such linings according to ACI 544.7R, 2016. If internal forces and check of lining safety. All
as ACI 318-14, EN 1992-1-1 (2004), ACI different load factors are provided by local these processes are connected to decision
544.7R (2016), fib Bulletin 83, (2017), codes, these should be used in preference. boxes such as safe and economical design
AASHTO DCRT-1-2010 or the WG2 report and final approval and end with execution
21373-ITA-Report-16-WG2-BD_P “Twenty 2.3 DESIGN APPROACH of construction works, For more details on
years of FRC tunnel segments practice” the design approach for precast concrete
(2016). Care should be taken to ensure that Initially an appropriate segment geometry is tunnel segments, refer to ITA WG2 (2000).
a consistent set of load or strength reduction
factors are utilized and that various codes
are not “mixed and matched”. LOAD CASE LOAD FACTORS
2.2 GOVERNING LOAD CASES AND Load case 1: stripping (demolding) 1.4w
LOAD FACTORS
Load case 2 : storage 1.4 (w + F)
Current practice in the tunnel industry is to Load case 3 : transportation 1.4 (w + F)

design the segmental tunnel lining for the
following load cases, which occur during Load case 4 : handling 1.4w
segment manufacturing, transportation, Load case 5 : thrust jack forces 1.2J (1.0 if max machine thrust available)
installation, and service conditions :
Load case 6 : tail skin grouting 1.25 (w + G)
• Production and Transient Stages
(a) segment stripping (demolding) Load case 7 : secondary grouting 1.25 (w + G)
(b) segment storage Load case 8 : earth pressure and groundwater
(c) segment transportation 1.25 (w +WAp) + 1.35 (EH + EV) +1.5 ES
load
(d) segment handling including segmental Load case 9 : longitudinal joint bursting 1.25(w + WAp) + 1.35 (EH + EV) +1.5 ES
ring erection
Load case 10 : additional distortion 1.4Mdistortion
• Construction Stages
(e) tunnel boring machine (TBM) thrust
Note: w = self-weight; F = self-weight of segments positioned above; J = TBM jacking force; G = grout pressure;
jack forces WAp = groundwater pressure; EV = vertical ground pressure; EH = horizontal ground pressure; ES = surcharge load;
(f) tail skin back grouting pressure and Mdistortion = Additional distortion effect
(g) localized back grouting (secondary
grouting) pressure Table 2 : Example of load factors for various governing load cases (ACI 544.7R, 2016)
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 12 17/04/2019 17:35

3 >> Segmental ring geometry and systems
Segmental tunnel linings are installed in the The tunnel intrados for water and Initially a thickness is assumed for the
rear of the TBM shield and are generally in wastewater or Combined Sewer Overflow segmental lining ring which is later
the shape of circular rings. The size of the (CSO) tunnels will be governed by the optimized during detailed design. The
ring is defined by the tunnel internal diameter design volumes of conveyed water or following guidelines are given to assist in
(intrados), thickness, and length of the ring. design storm (e.g. 1 year, 25 years, 100 choosing an initial lining thickness.
years) specified by local authorities or A review of more than 100 projects
3.1 INTERNAL DIAMETER OF THE predicted by system modeling. published in ACI 544.7R (2016), AFTES
BORED TUNNEL (2005), Groeneweg (2007) and Blom (2002)
The minimum tunnel intrados is the smallest indicates that the ratio of internal tunnel
The dimension of the tunnel intrados is tunnel which encircles all these elements. diameter (ID) to the lining thickness falls in
determined by considering the internal space Note that for the spaceproofing of road the range of 18-25 for tunnels with an ID
requirements, which depends on the intended and railway tunnels, it is crucial to consider of more than 5.5m, and 15-25 for tunnels
use of the tunnel and client requirements. the impact of maximum super-elevation with an ID of 4.0m to 5.5m. JSCE (2007)
due to the rotation of clearance envelopes. recommends that the ring thickness should
For railroad and subway tunnels, the inner In determining the tunnel intrados, be less than 4% of the outer diameter of the
dimensions of the tunnel are typically allowance should be made for construction segmental ring, which translates into an ID
governed by the train clearance envelope tolerances. For example, DAUB (2013) to thickness ratio of 23. For tunnels under
(i.e. structural gauge), track structure, recommends a radius tolerance of R = 4m diameter, no correlation could be found
drainage trough, structure of the overhead ±100 mm for TBM-bored tunnels. and the lining thickness generally ranges
catenary, when applicable, and emergency from 150mm to 280mm. Here the lining
walkways (i.e. egress space). For double 3.2 THICKNESS OF THE SEGMENTAL thickness is dictated by construction and
track tunnels, the tunnel intrados is LINING RING design loading requirements.
additionally governed by the distance
between the centers of tracks. Having set
the tunnel intrados, the utility services (i.e.
electrical, water, telecommunication, etc.)
are installed in the unoccupied space.
Sufficient ventilation space is generally
provided if egress space and cross
passageways are provided (RTRI, 2008).
For road tunnels, the geometrical

configuration of the tunnel must satisfy
the required horizontal and vertical traffic
clearances including lane widths, shoulders,
sidewalks and barriers. Additional space
may be required for drainage, ventilation,
lights, traffic control systems, safety
systems including water supply pipes
for firefighting, emergency telephones,
monitoring equipment of noxious emissions
and visibility (AASHTO, 2010). Beyond
vehicle envelope and space required
for operation equipment, other aspects
such as ventilation modes and safety
considerations may have considerable
influence on the tunnel size.
For utility tunnels, the tunnel intrados will

be governed by the size of the utilities
(i.e. electrical cables, wet services,
telecommunications, etc.) and by the space
required for maintenance.
Figure 1 : Example of spaceproofing section for TBM-bored road tunnel (dimensions variable according to national
standards).
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 13 17/04/2019 17:35

The segment wall thickness should optimized for the efficiency of the tunnel sequence of alternating right-tapered and
provide sufficient space and clear distance works. Depending on the tunnel diameter, left-tapered rings produces a straight drive.
for gaskets and caulking recesses. The the ring length can range between 0.75m Alternatively, a sequence of right-tapered
minimum segment wall thickness must also and 2.50m (DAUB, 2013). On one hand, rings or left-tapered rings results in a curve
be compatible with the bearing surface it is desirable to have a short ring length with the minimum radius of curvature.
area of the TBM longitudinal thrust cylinders for ease of transportation and erection, Up and down directional corrections are
(AFTES, 2005). construction of curved sections, and to achieved by rotating the tapered segment
reduce the length of the shield tail. On the ring through 90° (ÖVBB, 2011). This ring
To achieve a robust design, the segment other hand, it is desirable for the ring length system provides good sealing performance
thickness should be capable of handling all to be larger to reduce production cost, for an impermeable tunnel but the
loading cases and service conditions. The the number of joints, the total perimeter of requirement for different sets of formwork is
lining thickness may be increased in order segments and gasket length, the number a disadvantage.
to cater for unforeseen loads, particularly if of bolt pockets where leakage can occur,
sealing gaskets are installed. as well as increasing the construction Currently, the universal ring system is the
speed (JSCE 2007). Generally, for smaller most conventional system, where both
In addition to structural factors, the final diameters, the available space for segment circumferential faces of the ring are inclined
lining thickness should consider durability supply and handling defines the limitation to the tunnel axis. As indicated in Figure
and if a sacrificial layer is considered for of the ring length, whereas for larger 2, the ring taper is split between the two
the design life of the tunnel, (for instance, diameters, segment weight and production circumferential faces and all curves and
for CSO tunnels) then the sacrificed layer are the limiting factors. Typically, a ring directional corrections can be negotiated
thickness should be added to the required length of 1.5m would be used for tunnel through the rotation of the segmental ring.
structural thickness. diameters of 6m to 7m, increasing to a ring The main advantage of this system is that
length of 2m for tunnels larger than 9m in only one type of formwork is required
The TBM shield outer diameter is diameter. (ÖVBB, 2011). The required ring taper (k)
determined by adding the tail clearance to cater for the designed alignment can be
and shield skin plate thickness, also known 3.4 SEGMENTAL RING SYSTEMS calculated with the following formula :
as overcut, to the segmental lining outer
diameter (RTRI, 2008). The shield outer Different systems exist for tunnel segmental
Eq. (1)
diameter has an influence on the minimum rings, these include parallel rings, parallel
radius of curvature of the alignment. A rings with corrective rings, right/left-tapered
review of the more than 100 tunnel projects rings, and universal ring systems (see Figure
with different sizes (JSCE 2007) indicates 2).
Besides the minimum radius of curvature
that when the shield outer diameter is less
(R), a correction curve radius should be
than 6m, between 6-10m, or more than Parallel ring systems consist of rings with
catered for which assists in returning a TBM
12m, the minimum radius of curvature parallel end faces and with circumferential
back to the designed tunnel alignment. The
can be limited to 80m, 160m, and 300m, faces perpendicular to the tunnel axis.
correction curve radius should be at least
respectively. In practice, however, larger This system is not inherently suitable for
20% less than the smallest designed curve
radii are being utilized and the above- curves and is problematic where packing
radius (DAUB, 2013).
mentioned limits may be considered to between the rings is required to restore line
be lower bound limits for the radius of and grade. These joints cannot always be
Using the universal rings, a straight
curvature. It should be noted however, properly sealed as the packing reduces the
alignment can be achieved by rotating
that the minimum radius of curvature is compression in the gasket.
each alternate ring by 180°. Horizontal and
a function of ring geometry (taper, ring
vertical curves can be negotiated by partial
width), overcut, shield design (articulated The parallel rings with corrective rings
rotation of the rings. In recent years, by
or not) and radial gap between segment system utilizes the corrective rings for
using advanced software for guiding TBM’s,
and tailskin rather than just the shield outer directional corrections. With this system, the
universal rings can produce straight drives
diameter. All these parameters should be requirement for different sets of formwork is
with the key segments always above the
taken into account when determining the the main disadvantage.
springline by adjusting the drive error (of
minimum curve radius.
less than a few millimeters) in two or three
The right/left ring system generally consists
consecutive rings.
3.3 LENGTH OF THE RING of tapered rings with one circumferential
face perpendicular to the tunnel axis and
The length of the lining ring needs to be the other one inclined to the tunnel axis. A
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 14 17/04/2019 17:35

(a) Parallel rings
(b) Right/left tapered rings
(c) Universal rings
Figure 2 : Different ring systems, tapering and curve negotiation schematics
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 15 17/04/2019 17:35

3.5 RING CONFIGURATION cases. A construction consideration is that the

number of segments should be compatible
One of the main considerations in segmental with the location of the TBM thrust jacks which
lining design is the number of segments are used to install the segments.
required to form a ring. Similar to the ring
length, the number of ring segments needs A review of tunnel projects indicates
to be optimized for the efficiency of the that for tunnels with a diameter of 6m or
tunnel works. The shorter the length of each less, a ring with 6 segments is common.
segment, the easier the transportation and This configuration, also known as a 5+1
erection process. However, longer segments configuration, generally consists of 5 ordinary
have less joints which result in a much stiffer segments and one smaller key segment
segmental ring, reduced production cost as (Figure 3). However, a 4+2 configuration with
well as less hardware for segment connection, 4 ordinary segments and two key segments
i.e. less gasket length and fewer bolt pockets alternating above and below the springline is
where leakage can occur. More importantly, also common.
with fewer segments, the construction speed
can increase significantly. In tunnels under 4m diameter, the ring can be
divided into less segments, however, a ring of
The space available in the back up of the TBM 6 segments is still common.
to turn and erect the segments is a major Figure 3 : Typical 6 segment ring configuration (5+1)
factor in setting the limit for maximum length When the tunnel diameter ranges between used for tunnels 6m diameter or less
of segment. In very large diameter tunnels, 6m to 8m, a 6-segment ring may result in
however, the segment weight is a decisive excessively long segments while an 8-segment 3.6 SEGMENT GEOMETRY
factor in selection of the maximum length of ring can result in too short segments. In some
segment rather than the available space for cases, the size of the key segment is increased The geometry of individual segments
handling the segment. to reduce the size of the ordinary segments so can be divided into four main categories
that a 7-segment ring can be adopted. or systems: hexagonal, rectangular,
The slenderness of the tunnel segment trapezoidal, and rhomboidal.
(λ), which is defined as the ratio between For tunnels between 8m to 11m in diameter,
the curved length of the segment along its a ring commonly contains 8 segments which Hexagonal systems are assembled
centroid and its thickness, is a key parameter consists of 7 ordinary segments and one continuously from hexagonal shaped
in deciding segment length. A review of tunnel smaller key segment, i.e. a 7+1 configuration. elements, with each element acting as a key
projects indicates that tunnel lining rings segment (Figure 4a). The geometry of this
generally contain a number of segments that For tunnel diameters between 11m to 14m system prevents the effective use of gaskets
yields a segment slenderness ratio between a 9 segment ring is not preferred. Special which compromises the watertightness of the
8 to 13, with FRC segments generally solutions are required, such as dividing the lining. Because of this, this system is rarely
around the lower bound of this range. The ring into 8 segments (each covering 45o) used. This system does however allow for very
number of segments in a ring or thickness and dividing one of the ordinary segments rapid advance rates. In tunnels where water
of segments can be increased to reduce the into key and counter-key segments (which tightness is not a requirement, this system may
slenderness and flexural stresses especially cover 15o and 30 o). By utilizing such be adopted as part of a two-pass lining system
during production and transient stages. With a configuration, excessively large key in combination with double-shield TBMs.
latest developments in fiber technology, segments can be avoided, while at the same
FRC segments with segment slenderness time the configuration is compatible with the Rectangular systems are assembled in rings
of more than 10 and up to 12-13 have TBM thrust jacking pattern for an 8-segment which consist of rectangular or slightly tapered
been successfully used in recent projects. ring. segments with a wedge-shaped key segment
However, with recent developments in fiber (Figure 4b). This system can provide adequate
technology, FRC segments with segment For tunnels larger than 14m, a 9+1 watertightness and has the advantage of
slenderness ratios between 12 to 13 have configuration is the most common simple longitudinal joint geometry. However,
been successfully utilized. Since segment configuration. staggered longitudinal joints cannot always
thickness depends on several factors which Note that the above mentioned ring be guaranteed, and star or crucifix joints may
are mostly project-specific (such as related configurations are typical in practice, and present themselves which may cause leakage.
design criteria and critical load cases) the there are segmental lining configurations that The main disadvantage of this system is that
resulting slenderness values can fall outside differ. if dowels are pre-inserted into the segments,
of the mentioned ranges in some specific
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 16 17/04/2019 17:35

it is difficult to place rectangular segments a

without impacting or rubbing the gasket on the
adjacent segment. This may limit the use of
fast-connecting dowels and promote the use
of time-consuming bolt systems. This system,
with fastening bolts, is still in use in large-
diameter tunnels where the shear capacity of
the dowel system connection between the
Figure 4a : Hexagonal system
circumferential joints may not be sufficient.
Trapezoidal systems are assembled from an b

even number of trapezoidal segments in a
ring often with the same length at centerline.
Half the segments are installed as counter
key segments (wider on the side of the
previously placed ring) and the other half as
key segments (narrower on the side of the
previously placed ring). Initially, all counter key
segments are installed and then the gaps
are infilled with the key segments to form the
complete ring (see Figure 4c). Advantages of
this system are that the staggered longitudinal
joints eliminate the possibility of star or crucifix Figure 4b : Rectangular system
joints and the fact that every alternate segment
can be used as a key segment. The main
disadvantage of this system is that in order to
maintain a continuous penetration rate, higher c
TBM thrust jack forces are applied to the
counter key segments while the key segments
are installed. Also the installation process
makes it difficult to place several key segments
between the counter key segments.
Rhomboidal or parallelogrammic-trapezoidal
systems are assembled from ordinary
segments in the shape of a parallelogram with
key and counter key segments in the shape
of a trapezoid (Figure 4d). The assembly
procedure is carried out by initially installing
the counter key trapezoidal element and then Figure 4c : Trapezoidal system
placing alternate parallelogrammic segments
(left and right) around the ring. Ring assembly
is completed by inserting an often smaller d
trapezoidal key segment. This system is
currently the most common system as it
eliminates crucifix joints, has improved sealing
performance and allows for continuous ring
erection. Other major advantages are that the
angled segment joints prevent early rubbing
of the gaskets during segment insertion and
also facilitate the use of fast connecting dowels
in circumferential joints. Bolted connections
are usually required for longitudinal joints but
in certain cases, longitudinal bolts may be
replaced by guiding rods (see later). Figure 4d : Rhomboidal system
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 17 17/04/2019 17:35

3.7 KEY SEGMENT GEOMETRY
ITA WG2 (2000) and JSCE (2007) present

two different key segment tapering
geometries according to methods
historically utilized for ring assembly.
ITA WG2 (2000) provides a geometry
formulation which is specifically suitable for
key segment insertion in the radial direction.
In this method the key segment is inserted
from the inside of the tunnel and the
longitudinal side faces of the key segment
are tapered in the direction of the tunnel
radius.
The currently preferred method is to insert

the key segment from the cut face side
in the longitudinal direction of the tunnel,
where the longitudinal side faces of the
key segment are tapered in the longitudinal
direction of the tunnel. The key segment
tapering is defined by the angle of the
side faces with respect to the longitudinal
tunnel axis. Depending on the designers
and contractors’ previous experience, this
tapering can be selected differently, but
a taper angle of 8o to 12o defined with
respect to the centerline of key segment
is common. Tapering the joints results in
reduced bearing surface available for TBM
thrust jacks pushing against segments
during the boring process. Therefore,
design of taper angle has to be accounted
for providing sufficient space between
jack pads and segment corners to avoid
spalling. Note that when adopting the
rhomboidal or parallelogrammic-trapezoidal
system, the same joint angle for key
segments should be used for all other
segments in the ring.
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 18 17/04/2019 17:35

4 >> Segment lining design - production and transient stages
Production and transient loadings include all 4.2 SEGMENT STORAGE b

the loading stages from stripping (demolding)
of the segment up to the time of segment Segment stripping (demolding) is followed
erection within the TBM shield. During these by segment storage, where segments are
phases, the internal forces and stresses stacked to gain their required strength
developed during stripping (demolding), before transportation to the construction
storage, transportation, and handling are site. As shown in Figure 6(a), generally
considered for the design of the precast all segments comprising a full ring
concrete segments. The loads developed are piled up in one stack. Designers,
during these stages result in significant in coordination with the segment
bending moments with no axial forces. manufacturer, provide the distance
between the stack supports considering
4.1 SEGMENT STRIPPING an eccentricity of e = 100mm between
(DEMOLDING) the locations of the stack support for
the bottom segment and the supports
Figure 5(a) shows a segment being stripped of the upper segments. This load case
(demolded) from its formwork. The design can be modeled as a simply supported
considers the required strength when beam loaded under its self-weight (W)
segments are stripped or demolded (i.e. 6 as well as the point loads from the upper
hours after casting) and is modeled as two segments (F) as shown in Figure 6(b).
cantilever beams loaded under their own The applied load factor in ULS can be
self weight (w). As indicated in Figure 5(b), taken as 1.4 (see Table 2). This load
the self-weight (w) is the only force acting factor does not consider dynamic loading
on the segment, and therefore, the applied during stacking. The maximum generated
load factor in ULS can be taken as 1.4 (see bending moment and shear force are Figure 6(b) : schematics of forces acting on bottom
segment with eccentricity on either side of bottom
Table 2). The maximum generated bending given in Table 3. support.
moment and shear force are given in Table 3.
a a 4.3 SEGMENT TRANSPORTATION
During the segment transportation phase,

precast segments are transported to the
construction site and ultimately to the TBM
trailing gear. Segments may encounter
dynamic shock loads during this phase
and as shown in Figure 6a, usually half of
the segments of each ring are transported
to the TBM on one carriage. Wooden
blocks provide supports for the segments
Figure 5(a) : Stripping (Demolding) segments from forms
and these should be installed parallel
to the segment axis. An eccentricity of
b
100mm is generally accepted for design.
Similar to the segment storage phase, the
load case can be modelled as a simply
supported beam loaded under its self-
weight (W) as well as the point loads from
the upper segments (F) as shown in Figure
6(b). In addition to the load factor of 1.4
(see Table 2), it is recommended that a
Figure 5(b) : forces acting on segments. Figure 6(a) : Segments stacking for storage and dynamic impact factor of 2.0 be applied to
transportation the forces during the transportation phase
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 19 17/04/2019 17:35

4 >> Segment lining design - production and transient stages
(see Table 3). The maximum generated MAXIMUM

DYNAMIC LOAD
bending moment and shear force are given LOAD CASE NUMBER LOADING CASE UNFACTORED LOAD FACTORS
FACTOR
in Table 3. BENDING MOMENT
1 stripping (demolding) - wa2/2 wa

4.4 SEGMENT HANDLING
w(L2/8-S2/2)+F1e wS
2 storage -
Segment handling is carried out by specially w(S2/2)+ F1e wL/2+F1
designed lifting devices such as lifting lugs
w(L2/8-S2/2)+F2e wS
(Figure 7a) or vacuum lifters (Figure 7b). In 3 transportation 2.0
w(S2/2)+F2e wL/2+F2
such cases the design philosophy utilized
for segment stripping (demolding) should 4 handling 2.0 wa2/2 wa
be applied. However, when segments are
handled by lifting lugs, the pullout capacity Notes: F1 is self-weight of all segments completing a ring, excluding bottom segment; F2 is self-weight of all
segments placed in one truck or rail car for transportation phase, excluding bottom segment.
of the lifting inserts and concrete should be
calculated (Figure 7c). Table 3: Example of dynamic load factors, maximum unfactored bending moments and shear forces for various
loading cases by ACI 544.7R (2016)
4.5 DYNAMIC LOAD FACTORS,
MAXIMUM UNFACTORED BENDING
MOMENTS AND SHEAR FORCES a b
Table 3 presents a summary of load

cases with typical applied dynamic load
factors and maximum unfactored bending
moments for the various manufacturing,
transportation, and handling stages.
Designers should follow structural codes
such as ACI 318-14, EN 1992-1-1 (2004)
or any applicable local code to calculate
the specific bending moments and shear
forces in order to determine the required
reinforcement to withstand these forces.
Figure 7 : Segment handling: (a) using lifting devices; (b) using vacuum lifter; and (c) diagram of pullout capacity of concrete during handling.
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 20 17/04/2019 17:35

5 >> Segmental lining design - construction stages
Construction loads on the segmental lining of Mines (CSM) (Rostami 2008) can be used to account for the increased loading
include the tunnel boring machine (TBM) used to evaluate the rock thrust based on on the convex side is to double the jacking
jacking thrust loads on the circumferential rock strength, tunnel diameter, and cutter loads. Different jacking loads on individual
ring joints and the pressures exerted characteristics (Bakhshi and Nasri 2013a). segments should also be taken into
against the exterior of the completed For soft ground tunneling applications, the account. When the machine characteristics
rings during grouting operations. Precast method presented by JSCE (2007) can be are unknown, a load factor should be used.
concrete segments are designed to used to calculate penetration resistance For illustration, as an example, ACI 544-7R
resist significant bursting and spalling based on earth or slurry pressure that acts (2016) recommends a value of 1.2 for this
tensile stresses that develop along the at the cutting face. load factor. However, when the machine’s
circumferential joints due to advancement characteristics and total thrust are known,
of the TBM. The segments must also be the maximum jacking forces cannot be
able to resist the axial forces and bending exceeded and a load factor of 1.0 should
moments that develop when the annular be used.
space between the segment and the
ground is pressure-filled with grout, initially Different analytical and design methods are
during backfilling of the tail skin void and available which include simplified equations
then during secondary grouting that may for bursting forces (ACI 318-14, DAUB,
be required to ensure complete contact is 2013), the Iyengar (1962) diagram, and
achieved with the ground. two- and three-dimensional finite element
simulations. These are discussed in the
5.1 TUNNEL BORING MACHINE following sections.
THRUST JACK FORCES
5.1.1 Simplified equations
After assembly of a complete ring, the
tunnel boring machine (TBM) advances For post-tensioned anchorage zones in
by thrusting against the most recently pre-stressed concrete sections, structural
assembled ring (a partially assembled concrete codes such as ACI 318-14 permit
ring is shown in Figure 8a). As part of this the use of simplified equations (Eq. 2) to
process, the TBM jacks bear against the determine the bursting force, Tburst, and the
jacking pads placed along the exposed centroidal distance from the face of the
circumferential joint. High compression section, dburst. These equations determine
stresses develop under the jacking pads the forces and stresses that develop in
which result in the formation of significant the circumferential joints due to TBM
bursting tensile stresses deep within the advancement. DAUB (2013) recommends
segment (see Figure 8b). Furthermore, disturbance area disturbance similar equations (Eq. 3) specifically for the
spalling tensile forces are generated for strut stress in area for design of tunnel segments.
transverse direction strut stress
between adjacent jack pads along the
in radial
circumferential joint. direction
Figure 8(a) : Thrust jacks pushing on circumferential
Due to the various geologic materials that joints; and (b) schematics of a simplified disturbance
can be encountered, different methods area of strut under TBM jack shoes (Groeneweg 2007). (Eq. 2)
are used for estimating TBM thrust. For
tunnel excavation through rock, TBM
thrust can be estimated by summing the Once the required machine thrust has
forces required to advance the machine. been estimated for the ground conditions,
These forces include the forces necessary the average thrust force per jack pair is (Eq. 3)
for boring through the rock, the friction determined. On sharp curves, the machine
between the surface of the shield and the thrust is higher on the convex side of the The schematic representation of these
ground, and the hauling resistance of back- curve than on the concave side and the equations is shown in Figure 9. If no specific
up systems. Methods proposed by Fukui different jacking loads on the segments value has been provided for eanc, then the
and Okubo (2003) or the Colorado School should be considered. A simple technique eccentricity of the jacking forces is generally
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 21 17/04/2019 17:35

assumed to be 30mm. Figure 9 and Eqs. 14 recommends a formula to design the 5.1.3 Finite element method simulations
2 and 3 represent the radial bursting bearing strength of concrete (Eq. 7) with
stresses in the circumferential joints, but a partially loaded segment face. DAUB As shown in Figure 11, due to the
these equations are equally applicable to (2013) recommends a similar formula which concentration of the jacking forces, in
the tangential bursting stresses developed is specifically used in the design of tunnel addition to the bursting stresses under the
in the circumferential joints provided any segment faces. jacking pads, spalling stresses develop in
eccentricity of the jack shoe relative to the the areas between the jacking pads and
joint is accounted for. (Eq. 7) in the areas between the jacking pads
and the end faces of the segments. This
problem has been analyzed with the three-
5.1.2 The Iyengar diagram dimensional finite element method (FEM),
(Groeneweg 2007, Bakhshi and Nasri
The analytical method utilizing the Iyengar 2013b; 2014d).
(1962) diagram may also be used to
calculate the bursting tensile stresses in While both linear elastic and non-linear
the design of tunnel segments (Groeneweg FEM simulations can be performed for
2007). Again, the extent of load spreading strength design, the latter is considered
and the resulting magnitude of the tensile more suitable for service design as the
Figure 9 : Bursting tensile forces and corresponding stresses depends on the dimensions of the non-linear analyses capture the response
parameters recommended by ACI 318-14; and DAUB loaded surface (β), and the final distribution of the materials after failure with respect
(2013). surface (a), as shown in Figure 10. Using to crack opening. As shown in Figure 12,
this approach, the bursting tensile stresses this load case is simulated by modeling
Reinforcing rebar or fiber reinforcement is (σcx), which vary significantly from the face segments from two adjoining rings.
designed to accommodate the significant that the TBM jacks bear against to the Factored jacking forces are applied
bursting stresses developed by the jacking centerline of segment, are determined as a along the contact area between the
forces. Equations 4 and 5 may be utilized fraction of the fully disbursed compressive jacking pads and the segment face.
to determine the required area (As) of stress (σcm = F/ab). Reinforcing bars are Recesses for the gasket and stress relief
reinforcing bars with a yield stress of fy for a designed to accommodate the total grooves are modeled between the two
reinforced concrete segment. bursting tensile stresses which can be segments to simulate the transfer of
obtained from the integration of stresses force through a reduced cross section.
for radial direction or the area under the curve. The area of Just after installation, the compressive
(Eq. 4) reinforcing bar required can be determined forces within the gasket are simulated
for tangential from Eqs. 4 and 5. by applying a reaction force using solid
direction (Eq. 5) elements in the FEM program. With this
approach, the translational degrees
High compressive stresses can develop of freedom are fixed in all directions
under the jacking pads due to the TBM between the two installed segments.
thrust jacking forces. Assuming constant Results from the analysis are illustrated in
stress, these compressive stresses, σc,j, can Figure 13 which indicates the transverse
be estimated using Eq. 6. and radial bursting loads under the jack
pad and the spalling stresses in the
(Eq. 6) areas between the jacking pads. The
compressive stresses developed in this
load case are illustrated in Figure 14
Because only part of the circumferential (Bakhshi and Nasri 2013b; 2014d).
segment face is actually in contact with the
pads, the allowable compressive stresses
(f’c or fcd) can be factored to account for the Figure 10 : Iyengar (1962) diagram for determining
bursting tensile stresses (Groeneweg 2007).
strength of a partially pressurized surface.
For illustration, as an example, ACI 318-
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 22 17/04/2019 17:35

and end faces can be as significant as

the transverse bursting tensile stresses
under the jacking pads (Bakhshi and Nasri
2013b). Precast tunnel segments should
therefore be designed to withstand these
high tensile stresses. Reinforcement is
designed to accommodate the tensile
forces which are determined by the
integration of stresses through the tensile
zone, similar to the Iyengar (1962) diagram
method.
Figure 11 : Spalling and bursting stresses in segment joints due to jack thrust forces (Groeneweg 2007). 5.2 TAIL SKIN BACK-GROUTING
PRESSURE
Tunnel rings are assembled within the shield

of the tunnel boring machine (TBM). At this
location, the excavated diameter of the
tunnel is larger than the external diameter
(extrados) of the tunnel ring. As shown in
Figure 15, a void is created between the
ground and the tunnel segmental lining.
Loads on the lining are generated when
back-grouting or filling this annular space
with semi-liquid grouts under high pressure.
Figure 12 :Three-dimensional FEM model for load case Figure 14 : Compressive stresses Back-grouting is carried out to control and
of TBM thrust jack forces. developed in tunnel segments due to
restrict settlement at the ground surface
TBM thrust jack forces (Bakhshi and
a Nasri 2013b; 2014d). as well as to ensure intimate contact
between the ring and the ground. Grouting
material generally consists of sand, water,
cement, and additives such as bentonite
or plasticizers. Grout can be continuously
injected into the annular space behind
As can be seen from the above figures, the TBM by means of grout pipes routed
the three-dimensional FEM simulation through the tail skin (Figure 15). Prior to its
indicate that the spalling tensile stresses hardening, the grout has a very low shear
between the jack pads, and the jack pads strength of between 20Pa to 100Pa.
Figure 13 : Bursting and spalling tensile stresses Figure 15 : Backfilling of tail-skin void (Guglielmetti et al. 2007).
developed in segments due to TBM thrust jack forces
and gasket pressure: (a) transverse stresses; and (b)
radial stresses (Bakhshi and Nasri 2013b; 2014d).
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 23 17/04/2019 17:35

To fill the annular space, the grout pressure

needs to be greater than the hydrostatic
head on the segmental lining. The grout
pressure should also be less than the
overburden pressure to prevent heave,
hydrojacking, or hydrofracturing of the
surrounding in-situ material. Grouting
models (Zhong et al. 2011) can be
developed that predict the optimal grout
pressure by considering the combined
effects of groundwater level, plasticity of
grout, rate of advancement of the TBM,
and the filling rate of the tail void.
Figure 16 : Forces and definitions for load case of tail void back-grouting (Groeneweg 2007).
AASHTO DCRT-1-2010 specifies that the
maximum grout pressure on the lining
should not be greater than 69 kPa above
the groundwater pressure. However, in
5.3 LOCALIZED BACK-GROUTING
South East Asia, a maximum permissible
(SECONDARY GROUTING) PRESSURE
grouting pressure of up to 150 kPa above
the maximum groundwater pressure is
Localized back-grouting, also known as
often considered.
secondary or check grouting, is performed
through holes that are pre-cast into the
In this load case, the segmental lining ring
segments (Figure 17). The holes in the
is evaluated in cross-section perpendicular
segments can be fitted with grout sockets
to the longitudinal direction of the tunnel
that are screwed into position and remain
and modeled as a solid ring with reduced
closed with non-return valves and plastic
flexural rigidity to account for the segment
covers during the ring installation process.
joints. Because the lining is initially
Prior to the introduction of modern
surrounded by semi-liquid and fresh grout
pressurized face machines, this grouting
materials, no interaction is considered
method was used to fill the annulus;
between the ring and ground. As illustrated
however, delayed cavity grouting could
in Figure 16, the back-grouting (cavity
result in the collapse of unstable ground
filling) load is modeled by applying radial
into the annular space which could
pressure varying linearly from the minimum
result in significant settlements. As such,
grout pressure at the crown to the
this method is now primarily used for
maximum grout pressure at the invert of
secondary grouting to verify whether the
the tunnel. The self-weight of the lining and
annular gap has been filled.
the grouting pressure are the only loads
applied to the tunnel lining at this stage.
To model the effects of secondary Figure 17 : Secondary grouting through segment grout
For the load combination of self-weight hole (Guglielmetti et al. 2007).
grouting, the force is only applied to an
and grout pressure, implementing load
isolated area of the lining. Following the ITA
factors is suggested. For illustration, as an rigidity to represent the segment joints.
WG2 (2000) guidelines, this load case can
example, ACI 544.7R (2016) recommends Because secondary grouting occurs
be simulated utilizing the force distribution
a load factor of 1.25 for both loads. long after the primary grouting materials
indicated in Figure 18. In this figure, the
The analysis is performed using general have cured, it can be assumed that the
secondary grouting pressure is applied
structural analysis packages. As a result tunnel lining is in full contact with the
over one-tenth of the lining perimeter in
of these loads, significant axial forces and surrounding ground except in the local
the crown.
bending moments can be developed in area where the secondary grouting is to
the tunnel segmental lining. The precast be performed. To simulate the boundary
The lining for this load case is again
segments should be designed to cater for condition for this case, the interaction
modeled in cross-section perpendicular
the combined maximum bending moments between lining and surrounding ground or
to the longitudinal direction of the tunnel
and axial forces. primary hardened grout can be modeled
using a solid ring with reduced flexural
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 24 17/04/2019 17:35

using radial springs with the segments 5.4 TBM BACKUP LOAD axial forces and punching shear for all
supported radially. Linear translational critical cases (e.g. shallow cover, deep
springs have been used to represent this The TBM backup load is applied on the tunnel, etc) using axial force-bending
type of interaction. The method described segmental lining behind the shield. In order moment interaction diagrams. This load
by USACE EM 1110-2-2901 (1997) is one to control buoyancy, additional weight may case is often a governing load case in sub-
method that can be used to determine the be provided by the backup system inside sea and river crossing projects.
spring stiffness per unit of exterior tunnel the tunnel after ring installation and before
surface. Using the same grout pressure placing ballast or installation of any precast A consideration for the TBM backup load
in the crown as for cavity filling and with buoyancy unit. TBM drawings as in Figure is the early stage strength (setting time) of
the radial spring stiffness, the bending 19 indicate that this backup load is applied the tail void grout and the TBM advance
moments and axial forces developed at specific locations on the tunnel lining rate. The TBM advance rate may have to
within the lining can be determined. This intrados with two wheels on each ring. be limited to allow the tail void grout to
loading case results in small incremental For this load case, punching shear should achieve the strength required to support
axial forces with large bending moments. be considered with the assumption that the first and second gantry.
Precast segments should be designed for the backup load is applied uniformly. The
this load combination using axial force- precast segments should be designed for
bending moment interaction diagrams. the resulting factored bending moments,
Figure 18 : Modeling localized grouting pressure applied Figure 19 : Typical TBM details for a section behind the shield where backup loads are
over one-tenth of the lining (The grouting pressure applied on segmental ring.
of 250 kPa presented in this figure is indicative. The
appropriate value will be project specific).
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 25 17/04/2019 17:35

6 >> Segment design - final service stages
Forces in the lining during the final W, EH,

ES
service stage are generated by the long- WAP EV
term loads imposed on the lining from
Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum Minimum
the ground; groundwater; surcharges;
internal loading and other factors such ULS 1.25 0.90 1.35 0.90 1.50 0.75
as, earthquake, fire, explosion, adjacent
SLS 1.0 1.0 1.0
tunnels, and longitudinal bending moments
which are generally specific to each tunnel. Note: w = self-weight; WAp = groundwater pressure; EV = vertical ground pressure; EH = horizontal ground
In addition, specific load cases such as pressure; and ES = surcharge load.
hoop force transfer along the longitudinal
joints between segments and additional Table 4: Load factors for design parameters (final service stage) (AASHTO DCRT-1-2010)
distortion should be considered. For the
most part, service loads generally result
in axial forces and bending moments
in the lining segments; however, with 6.1.1 Elastic equation method For this method, the segmental tunnel
hoop forces in the longitudinal joints, lining is modeled using a uniform reduced
significant bursting tensile stresses can be The elastic equation method (ITA WG2 bending rigidity that considers the effect of
developed. 2000; JSCE 2007) is a simple method for longitudinal joints between the segments.
calculating lining internal forces for circular In order to take account of the reduced
6.1 GROUND PRESSURE, tunnels. As shown in Figure 20, the load flexural rigidity in the lining due to the
GROUNDWATER, AND SURCHARGE distribution model consists of applying presence of segment joints, the segmental
LOADS uniform vertical ground and groundwater lining moment of inertia should be reduced
pressures, linearly varying lateral earth in accordance with Muir Wood’s (1975)
Precast concrete segments are designed and groundwater pressures, self-weight proposed method. The relevant formula is
to withstand various loads including of the lining, and a triangularly distributed given in Equation 8.
vertical and horizontal ground pressure, horizontal ground reaction.
groundwater, self-weight and surcharge. In Ir = Ij + (4/n)² x I (Eq. 8)
accordance with Limit State Design (LSD),
load factors as shown in Table 4 can be Subgrade reaction modulus (spring
used to compute the ultimate limit state stiffness) formulations as recommended by
(ULS) and serviceability limit state (SLS) different guidelines are shown in Table 5.
loads and forces. In Table 5, Es or oedometer stiffness (Eoed)
has the following relationship with young’s
The methods presented for analysis of modulus:
segmental tunnel linings during the final
service stage are in line with standards
and guidelines from Europe, Asia, and (Eq. 9)
America (Bakhshi and Nasri 2014a). The
effect of ground pressure, groundwater,
and surcharge loads on segments can be
analyzed using elastic equations, beam- Assuming ν = 0.25 for the rock, Es = 1.2 E.
spring models, finite element methods Lining internal forces are calculated using
(FEM) and discrete element methods the elastic equations contained in Table 6
(DEM). Other methods of analysis include (JSCE 2007; ITA WG2 2000).
Muir Wood’s (1975) continuum model
with discussion from Curtis et al. (1976),
Duddeck and Erdmann’s (1982) model,
and an empirical method based on tunnel
distortion ratios (Sinha 1989; Deere et
al. 1969) that was originally developed
by Peck (1969). The results from these Figure 20 : Distribution of loads used in elastic equations
analyses are used to determine the method (JSCE 2007; ITA WG2 2000).
required concrete strength and level of
reinforcement.
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 26 17/04/2019 17:35

SUBGRADE REACTION MODULUS SUBGRADE REACTION MODULUS 6.1.2 Beam-spring method

CODE
(RADIAL) (TANGENTIAL)
USACE
Using the beam-spring method (AASHTO
Kr = E/(R.(1+ν)) kt = 0.5 kr/(1+ν) (DCRT-1-2010), JSCE (2007), and ÖVBB
EM 1110-2-2901 (1997)
(2011)), the lining can be modeled in cross-
Austrian (ÖVBB, 2011) Kr = Es/R kt =0
section as a series of beam elements that
JSCE (2007) Kr = not reported kt = 1/3 Kr span between the longitudinal joints of
the segments. The interaction between
AFTES (1993) Kr = E/(R.(1+ν)) kt = not reported the ground and the lining is generally
DAUB (2005) Kr = Es/R kt = 0 modeled using linear translational springs
in the radial, tangential, and longitudinal
Table 5 : Subgrade Reaction Modulus directions. Because the lining and ground
are represented by a series of beams and
springs, this method is commonly referred
to as the beam-spring method. Various
LOAD BENDING MOMENT AXIAL FORCE SHEAR FORCE two-dimensional approaches are used to
evaluate the effect of the segment joints,
including solid ring models with full bending
rigidity, solid ring models with reduced
bending rigidity (Muir Wood 1975), ring
models with multiple hinged joints, and ring
models with rotational springs.
Two-dimensional models cannot be used to

represent circumferential joints or staggered
arrangements of segments between rings.
However, as shown in Figure 21, a so-
called “two-and-a-half-dimensional multiple
hinged segmented double ring beam-spring”
has been used to model the reduction
of bending rigidity and the effects from a
staggered geometry. This manipulation is
achieved by modeling the segments as
curved beams, the flat longitudinal joints
as rotational springs (Janssen (1982),
Groeneweg (2007)), and the circumferential
joints as shear springs. Under final service
loads, the longitudinal joints may be open or
closed, and the critical rotation is given by
the following equations:
Closed joint: (Eq. 10)
Open joint: (Eq. 11)
The Janssen rotational spring stiffness (kr)

is derived from the following equations.
Closed joint: (Eq. 12)

Notes: φ = angle from crown; S = sin φ; S2 = sin2 φ ; S3 = sin3 φ ; C = cos φ ; C2 = cos2 φ ; C3 = cos3 φ ;
EI = flexural rigidity in unit width.
Open joint: (Eq. 13)

Table 6 : Equations for calculating lining internal forces using elastic theory (JSCE 2007; ITA WG2 2000)
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 27 17/04/2019 17:35

Figure 21 (c) illustrates the various 6.1.3 Finite element method (FEM), strength; and where relevant, properties of
parameters used in the Janssen model. finite difference method (FDM,) and discontinuities such as joint spacing, joint
discrete element method (DEM) apparent dip direction and joint apparent
Two rings are required to evaluate simulations dip, peak and residual joint friction angle,
the coupling effects; however, in this peak and residual joint cohesion, joint
method, only half of the segment width In soft ground, loose rock, and partially normal stiffness, joint shear stiffness,
is considered from each ring for the homogeneous solid rock, ÖVBB (2011) Eintact/Emass, GSI and Mi (based on
longitudinal and circumferential joint and AFTES (1993) recommend using Hoek-Brown).
zone of influence. This approach utilizes the FEM and FDM methods to calculate
symmetry to remove complex support the forces in the tunnel lining. The DEM Precast segments are designed using an
conditions on both rings. Considering the method is generally considered more axial force-bending moment diagram.
self-weight of the lining, and distributing appropriate for tunnels in fractured
the ground, groundwater, and surcharge rock. A two-dimensional approach is 6.2 LONGITUDINAL JOINT BURSTING
loads along the beam, lining internal forces generally sufficient for continuous linear LOAD
can be calculated using a conventional structures that do not contain sudden
structural analysis package. changes in cross sectional geometry or Normal (hoop) forces developed in the
high concentrations of loadings. Three- lining are transferred through a reduced
a
dimensional techniques are generally used cross sectional area along the longitudinal
with more complex geometry and loadings joints where gaskets and stress relief
such as at crosscuts that intersect the grooves are present. Bursting tensile
main tunnel (ÖVBB 2011), or in soft stresses can develop along the longitudinal
ground with 3D arching. joints in a comparable manner to the
tunnel boring machine (TBM) thrust jacking
FEM is used to model the ground loads on the circumferential joints. The
surrounding the lining (Bakhshi and Nasri maximum normal force obtained from
2013c). The advantage of this method is the ground pressure, groundwater and
that one is able to determine the ground surcharge loads plus the gasket pressure
deformations and the post yielding should be applied to the longitudinal
behavior of the segmental lining materials, joints in order to obtain the maximum
including any redistribution of stress that ULS design compressive force. General
b result from deformation of the lining and equations from ACI 318-14 and DAUB
excavation of the tunnel (ÖVBB 2011). (2013), the Iyengar (1962) diagram, and 2D
FEM analysis techniques can also be used finite element method (FEM) simulations
to represent non-uniform and anisotropic are various methods utilized for the design
stresses such as when nonsymmetrical of longitudinal joint bursting (Bakhshi and
features are present in the ground. This Nasri 2014b).
can be the case when several different
geologic formations or external loads 6.2.1 General equations
are present within close proximity of an
existing structure (AFTES 1993). Using The general equation of post-tensioned
c FEM techniques, complex underground anchorage zone by structural codes
conditions, and tunnel characteristics can such as ACI 318-14 (Eq. 2) is used to
be analyzed and the large axial forces analyze this load case, where Ppu is the
and bending moments developed in the maximum normal force, and eanc is the
segments can be determined. maximum eccentricity comprising the
normal force eccentricity (M/N) and the
For DEM modeling, engineering properties eccentricity of the load transfer area.
for analysis of segmental linings in rock Alternatively, the simplified equation by
formations include properties of intact rock DAUB (2013) (Eq. 3) is used for evaluating
such as unit weight, modulus of elasticity, bursting stresses in the longitudinal joints.
UCS, internal friction angle, tensile DAUB (2013) presents more detail on
Figure 21: (a) Double ring beam-spring model with radial springs simulating ground, and joint springs simulating
longitudinal and circumferential joints; and (b) scheme of ring joint (Plizzari and Tiberti 2009), (c) presentation of parameters
used in Janssen model for determining rotational spring stiffness.
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 28 17/04/2019 17:35

this specific load case using an approach tensile stresses, if necessary, are placed misalignment during erection of the ring.
that transfers force by means of a tension at 0.1ds and 2/3d from the face of the Such load cases are referred to as ring
block as shown in Figure 22. DAUB (2013) segment respectively. General equations, ovalization (due to the out of round ring
endorses placing additional reinforcement which include Eq. 6 and Eq. 7, can be build) or birdsmouthing (where, due to
for spalling and secondary tensile stresses used to determine the compressive stress rotation, only the inner or outer surface
when there are high eccentric normal and the required strength of the partially of the longitudinal joint is in contact). The
forces (e > d/6). Bursting, spalling, and loaded surface. design procedure assumes that the ring
secondary tensile stresses are calculated is initially built in the shape of an ellipse,
using the following equations. 6.2.2 The lyengar diagram and FEM and that the chord length of the displaced
simulations segment, as shown in Figure 23(c) does
(Eq. 14) not change. An assumption is made on the
The Iyengar diagram method (Figure 10) out of round build allowance over diameter,
and FEM simulation can be used as an say 15mm. The joint rotation causing
(Eq. alternative approach to determine the birdsmouthing (τ in Figure 23c) and
15) stresses within the longitudinal joints. opening distance due to poor ring build
Two-dimensional FEM models can be (δ in Figure 23c) are calculated. The load
used to simulate the longitudinal joint and required to close the gap under minimum/
The total eccentricity, e, consists of gasket using appropriately shaped ends maximum embedment loads is assessed
the normal force eccentricity and the to represent the recess for the gasket and and compared to the hoop force under the
eccentricity of hinge joint considering the stress relief grooves (curvature of the embedment loads. Depending on whether
gasket and caulking recesses (e = el + ek = elements is neglected in this analysis). the joint remains open or close, one of
M/N + ek), d1 = dk – 2e, and ds = 2e’ = d - Figure 23 illustrates generalized analytical the two diagrams shown in Figure 23 (d)
2el. These parameters are shown in Figure results, including bursting tensile stresses is used for calculation of birdsmouthing
22. Where appropriate, the build tolerance and compressive stresses, in the area eccentricity.
and system deflection should be taken into around longitudinal joints.
account. The above discussion only considers flat
Besides considering the normal force joints as they are the most conventional
DAUB (2013) further endorses placing eccentricity (M/N) and the eccentricity joint shape. For convex joints, the design
bursting tensile reinforcement at of the load transfer area, it may be approach is similar except a line load is
0.4ds from the face of the segments. necessary to consider the eccentricity assumed instead of a distributed load at
Reinforcement for spalling and secondary due to ovalization of the segment and the joint locations.
Figure 22 : Force transfer recommended by DAUB (2013) in longitudinal joints using the tension block concept.
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 29 17/04/2019 17:35

6.3 LOADS INDUCED DUE TO Other approaches, such as the theory of

ADDITIONAL DISTORTION elasticity or finite element method (FEM)
may be used to calculate the maximum
Segmental tunnel linings are designed to distortion.
take an additional diametrical distortion
in addition to the deflections caused by 6.4 OTHER LOADS
the effects of ground, groundwater, and
surcharge loads. This additional distortion Depending on the intended use of the
may occur due to construction-related tunnel, other loads such as earthquake,
events such as joint misalignment, yielding fire, explosion, internal loads and
of joint connectors, excessive grouting breakouts at cross passageways, portals,
pressure or from ground movement and shafts should also be considered. This
caused by the construction of an adjacent document does not address all of these
tunnel. This distortion is the difference load cases, but some of the major ones
between the movement of the tunnel are briefly discussed below.
lining on opposite sides of the springline.
a Although ovalization should be considered 6.4.1 Seismic design
as a matter of course, some authorities
such as LACMTA (2013) and LTA (2010) Seismic design of tunnels to resist the
stipulate the diametrical distortion to maximum design earthquake (MDE)
accommodate in the design. The former and operating design earthquake (ODE)
specifies a minimum additional diametrical is often performed using a ground
distortion of 0.5 percent of diameter due deformation approach that includes
to imperfect lining erection and the latter ovaling, axial, and curvature deformations.
specifies an additional distortion of +/-5/8 LACMTA (2013) contains the criteria for
in. (15 mm) on the diameter to allow for determining the maximum axial forces
future development in the vicinity of the and bending moments due to seismic
tunnel. ovaling deformation. For the ovaling
analysis, LACMTA (2013) recommend
The following formula introduced by that two approaches be used based on
Morgan (1961) is commonly used to closed-form solutions and numerical
calculate the additional distortional modeling. Pseudo-dynamic time-history
bending moment. and dynamic time-history analyses are
b
other alternatives. The deformation
(Eq. 16) analysis provided by AASHTO DCRT-1-
c d
Figure 23 : Developed bursting tensile stresses around longitudinal joints under hoop (normal) forces due to service loading condition and gasket pressure: (a) no eccentricity; and
(b) eccentric contact stresses (Francis and Mangione 2012), (c) ring ovalization due to out of round ring build, (d) stress diagrams for joint closure (Case 1) or non-closure (Case 2)
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 30 17/04/2019 17:35

2010 is often used for the longitudinal a b

seismic response (axial and curvature
deformations) of tunnels located within
uniform geologic deposits. This approach
is based on the calculation of combined
axial and bending strains from the pressure
waves (P-Waves), shear waves (S-Waves),
and Rayleigh waves (R-Waves).
When tunnels run through highly variable

geological conditions, a numerical
modeling approach is preferred.
6.4.2 Breakout Analysis and Shear

Recovery Systems
Utilization of shear recovery systems c

minimize the problems associated with
the creation of openings in the segmental
lining by reducing the amount of temporary
work. A system which utilizes Bicones, as
shown in Figure 24, prevents any offset
between the rings during ring assembly
and absorbs energy when an opening is
created in the tunnel lining, such as at
entrances, ventilation adits and elevator
adits. Although other methods such as
anchors, steel connectors, and shear keys
have been used, the Bicone has technical
advantages which currently make it a
preferred option. A Bicone with a steel d
insert can provide a shear strength of up
to 350 kN.
Analysis is performed for the case where

several segments are removed to create
an opening. A three-dimensional, non-
linear modeling approach, using an FEM
package is adopted to evaluate the impact
of excavation. Figure 24 indicates the
typical geometry for a breakout and the
shear stresses that develop around the
penetration zone. The total shear force
for a ring around the penetration area is
calculated to determine the shear strength
required for the shear recovery system to Figure 24 : (a) Bicone dowels for shear recovery, (b) 3D Model, (c) developed shear stresses, and (d) installation
pattern of Bicone shear dowels for an adit penetration
provide.
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 31 17/04/2019 17:35

6.4.3 Design for fire incident and depth is calculated and the resulting
explosion reduction in concrete and reinforcement
properties (modulus and strength) is
A load case specific to road and railway determined based on available data. This
tunnels is tunnel fires. One of the decisive will determine of the amount of the lining
factors for the design of tunnel structures thickness lost during the fire. If using basic
in the load case of fire is the heat release structural analysis programs, applying
rate. Rates from 10 MW up to 200 MW non-linear temperature gradients are not
have been proposed at different projects allowed for, an equivalent temperature
with the majority ranging around 100 MW. load can be established that has the same
Another important factor is the duration impact on the equivalent section as the
of the design fire with values ranging original temperature gradient has on the
from 30 minutes to 3 hours, sometimes original section (Neun, 2012). This can be
with an added cooling phase. Both heat followed by adopting a layered section
release rate and duration will depend on analysis where the normal force (N) and
intended use of tunnel and project specific bending moment (M) can be determined
conditions such as the type of traffic (train, by integration/summation of the stresses in
cars, heavy goods or dangerous goods the individual layers.
transport) and the required safety level
(with stricter requirements in case of a Explosions, on the other hand, are
possible impact on structures above the simulated by increasing the internal
tunnel, or the risk of inundation) (Neun, radial pressure on the tunnel lining at the
2012). The actual time-temperature curve service condition, by a representative
resulting from such a design fire which value such as one atmosphere (14.5
depends on the individual cross section psi or 1 bar) (Caan et al. 1998). This
and wind speeds inside the tunnel can internal radial pressure results in reduced
be used for simulation of a temperature axial forces without significant change
gradient between the intrados and in the bending moments. Recently an
extrados of the tunnel lining. However, advanced and detailed design procedure
since adequate Computational Fluid for tunnels subjected to internal explosion
Dynamics (CFD) modelling is very time and possibly preceded by fire accidents
consuming and the results are not easily was developed (Colombo et al. 2015).
transferred to a structural model, it is Simplified FE model and dynamic analyses
common to use standard deterministic were carried out to study the tunnel’s
time-temperature curves for the projects response under internal blast loads in the
(Neun, 2012). Most common standard form of pressure-impulse (p-i) diagrams
design fire curves for the structural design and an ultimate limit state criteria based on
of tunnel structures include RABT-ZTV eccentric flexural capacity (M-N interaction
(Railways) also known as EBA, RABT-ZTV diagram) was generated. Also a limit state
(Highways) also known as ZTV, ISO 834 criterion taking into account the fire-blast
Cellulose, HC Hydrocarbon Eurocode interaction was introduced through the
1, HCM Modified Hydrocarbon (HCinc) modification of the M-N diagram. This
and Rijkswaterstaat also known as RWS procedure is suggested for an advanced
(ITA WG6, 2004). The ISO 834 curve is blast-fire analysis.
recommended up to an expected fire
heat release rate of 50MW, above which
the hydrocarbon curve (up to 100MW)
and thereafter the RWS curve (up to the
stoichiometric limit) should be applied
(ITAtech Vol1, 2016). Accordingly, one
of the standard design fire curves can
be selected (temperature versus time)
and applied on the tunnel intrados. The
increase in lining temperature versus
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 32 17/04/2019 17:35

7 >> Detailed design considerations
7.1 CONCRETE STRENGTH AND COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

AUTHORITY
REINFORCEMENT STRIPPING (MPA) 28 DAY (MPA)
AASHTO (DCRT-1) 34 to 48
Several guidelines are available which Not provided
(2010) (5000 psi to 7000 psi)
recommend the compressive strength of Japan’s Railway
precast concrete tunnel segments and Technical Research Not provided 42 to 60
these are summarized below. Institute (RTRI 2008)
ÖVBB (2011) 12 MPa (minimum) 40 (minimum)

Precast concrete segments are generally
reinforced with either steel bar, welded DAUB (2013)
(referring to local
steel wire fabric or discrete steel fibers. German guideline ZTV-
15 MPa 35 to 50
Specifications for various grades of the ING (2007))
above elements can be found in local
LTA (2010) Not provided 60
codes and standards. When segments
are reinforced with steel bar or welded USACE EM 1110-2-2901
Not provided
42 (or higher)
wire fabric, the reinforcement is often (1997) (6000 psi)
categorized to three different types: Table 7 : Recommendations for compressive strength of precast tunnel segments
a) transverse reinforcement - the main
reinforcement placed perpendicular
to the tunnel axis to resist forces and
moments
b) longitudinal reinforcement – placed
parallel to tunnel axis and often
designed as minimum temperature and
shrinkage reinforcement
c) joint reinforcement - placed in the
vicinity of joints to resisting bursting and
spalling stresses.
A typical plan view of transverse and
longitudinal bars in a precast concrete
tunnel segment is shown in Figure 25.
No specifications or requirement have
been found in tunnel guidelines for
minimum bar size. However, a review of
segmental tunnel projects reveals that
transverse bar size generally ranges
between φ10 and φ16 metric sizes, while
bar size in the longitudinal direction ranges
between φ6 and φ16 metric sizes. The
choice of bar size will be influenced by
local availability, design code requirements,
bending radii, weldability, and improved
crack control.
A general trend in recent projects is to use

smaller more closely spaced bars.
Figure 25 : A typical plan view of transverse and

longitudinal bars in precast concrete tunnel segment.
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 33 17/04/2019 17:35

Typical sectional views of joint

reinforcement in circumferential and
longitudinal joints in precast concrete
tunnel segments are shown in Figure 26.
Circumferential joint reinforcement includes

transverse and radial reinforcement.
Transverse reinforcement in circumferential
joints is usually the same size as the Typical sectional view of circumferential joint
main transverse reinforcing bars, except
where excessively high TBM thrust jack
forces may be present. Radial bars in
circumferential joints range between φ10
or φ13 metric sizes and consist of ties or U
bars with more closely spaced bars around
the TBM jack shoe locations.
Longitudinal joint reinforcement in the

radial direction is sometimes designed Typical sectional view of longitudinal joint
as ladder bars (instead of ties or U bars)
Figure 26 : Typical sectional views of joint reinforcement in precast tunnel segments.
due to the simplicity of welding ladder
bars along a flat surface compared to
the curved face for the circumferential MINIMUM COVER
AUTHORITY COMMENT
joint. Radial bars in longitudinal joints (mm)
range between φ10 or φ13 metric sizes. 40 Surface of segment
DAUB (2013)
Longitudinal reinforcing bars in longitudinal 20 End faces and bolt sockets
joints are generally the same size as ACI 318-14 1-1/2 in (38 mm) Exposed to earth
the longitudinal reinforcement inside the
25 Over reinforcement
segment. JSCE (2007)
35 Corrosive environment
7.2 CONCRETE COVER ÖVBB (2011) refers to Austrian

25 to 45 Depending on exposure conditions
standard ÖNORM EN 1992-1-1
Several guidelines are available for AFTES (2005)

30mm Intrados and extrados
20mm Other zones
minimum concrete cover and these are
summarized below. Note should be taken NEN 6720 (1995) 35 -
however of durability requirements as
Table 8 : Recommended minimum concrete cover for RC precast segments
defined in codes, which take priority.
7.3 REINFORCEMENT SPACING AUTHORITY REBAR SPACING COMMENT
General guidelines for spacing of ACI 318 (2014)

25 mm (1 in) Minimum spacing
reinforcement are given in the table below. (not specific to precast tunnel
457 mm (18 in) Maximum spacing
segments)
Note should be taken however of specific
100 mm to 150 mm Typical range
design code requirements such as for DAUB (2013)
90 mm Minimum clear spacing
crack control. AASHTO DCRT-1 (2010),
1.25 x max aggregate size
ÖVBB (2011), and Minimum bar spacing
plus bar diameter
7.4 FIBER REINFORCEMENT JSCE (2007)
Smaller of :
AFTES (2005) referring to
200 Maximum bar spacing
Fiber reinforcement has emerged as an Section 4.4.5 of BAEL 91 (2007)
1.5 x segment thickness
alternative to traditional reinforcing bars
Largest of :
and welded wire mesh reinforcement for 25 mm
NEN 6720 (1995) -
precast concrete tunnel segments. Due 4/3 x max aggregate size
to significantly improved post-cracking Largest bar diameter
behavior and crack control characteristics, Table 9 : Recommended rebar spacing for RC precast segments
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 34 17/04/2019 17:35

fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) segments a

offer advantages over traditionally reinforced
concrete segments such as cost saving
and reduction in production time while
providing a robust product with improved
handling and long-term durability.
FRC technology has developed in recent

years with the introduction of high-strength
concrete, allowing the use of fibers as
the sole reinforcement system. In some
cases, fiber and reinforcing bars have
been used in conjunction to reinforce b
the tunnel segments. Ladder bars at the
longitudinal joint as well as bursting ties at
the circumferential joint may be significantly
reduced by adding fibers. Tunnels with
point load (in a 3-point loading condition)
internal diameters ranging from 2.2 m
just along this section. On the other hand,
to 13.9 m have been built using fiber
ASTM C1609 test has the advantage of
reinforcement. Minimum and maximum
finding the fracture section at the weakest
thickness of the FRC precast segments
point in the middle 1/3rd length of the
range from 0.15 m to 0.46 m, respectively.
beam and therefore giving a more realistic
strength determination due to a 4-point
Recently, new guidelines have been
loading condition rather than enforcing
produced for the design and construction
crack to propagate at a specific location. As
of these segments (ACI 544.7R, (2016);
shown in Figure 27a, the specified residual
fib Bulletin 83, (2017), PAS 8810 (2016),
tensile strength parameter σp along with
ITAtech Vol1 (2016), ITA WG2 (2016)).
the specified compressive strength (f’c or
These guidelines provide design procedures
fcd) are used to obtain strain and stress
for FRC tunnel segments to withstand all
profiles through the section, in order to
the appropriate temporary and permanent
construct the axial force-bending moment
load cases occurring during the production,
diagram which is the key design tool for
construction and design life of segmental
segments. Although several different FRC
tunnels. To classify the post-cracking
Figure 27(a) Strain and stress distributions through the constitutive laws (fib Model Code 2010,
strength of FRC, a linear elastic behavior section as part of it undergoes tension, (b) effect of DBV 2001, RILEM TC 162-TDF 2003,
can be assumed by considering the choice of constitutive law on the axial force-bending
moment interaction diagrams as a key design tool CNR-DT 204/2006, EHE-08) have been
characteristic residual flexural strength.
(Bakhshi and Nasri 2014c) used for the design of these elements,
The guidelines utilize the post-cracking
results from studies by Bakhshi and Nasri
characteristic residual tensile strengths of
post-crack flexural strength parameters (2014c) shown in Figure 27b, reveal that the
fr1k and fr3k which are the most important
determined in accordance with standards choice of constitutive law does not have a
parameters for the design of FRC segments
(ASTM C1609/C1609M; EN 14651) can significant effect on the axial force-bending
for the serviceability limit state and the
be scaled by an adjustment factor ranging moment interaction diagrams and therefore
ultimate limit state, respectively.
from 0.33 to 0.37 (Bakhshi et al. 2014; on the design outcome.
Mobasher et al. 2014; Vandewalle, 2000;
It should be noted that applying raw
Barros et al. 2005; fib Model Code 2010, For Fiber Reinforced Concrete (FRC)
parameters from standard ASTM C1609 or
2013). Note that EN 14651 standard test elements, ACI 544-7R (2016) and fib
EN 14651 beam tests, such as fD150 or fR,3,
has the advantage of a better testing Bulletin No. 83 (2017) suggest appropriate
requires caution to prevent over-estimating
control compared to ASTM C1609. This strength reduction factors or material safety
the residual tensile strength when using
is because test controlling parameter of factors for flexure, compression, shear,
elastic analysis (Bakhshi et al. 2014). A
EN 14651 which is crack mouth opening and bearing actions of concrete segments.
back-calculation procedure can be adopted
dimension (CMOD) is measured at a known Such factors account for the uncertainty of
to obtain the specified residual tensile
location which is the middle of the beam post-crack tensile strength when calculating
strength parameter σp (Soranakom and
due to cutting a notch and applying a the design strength of FRC elements.
Mobasher 2007). Alternatively, the
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 35 17/04/2019 17:35

8 >> Tests and performance evaluation
Performance testing or proof testing as a b

a means to validate design assumptions
or models is endorsed by most structural
codes. This is especially true for repetitive
units, where large numbers are required
to meet performance criteria such as
with the manufacture of precast concrete
segments. Full-scale tests are often
conducted to evaluate the design and
performance of FRC segments with
slenderness ratios between 10 to 13.
Nonstructural tests on precast concrete

tunnel segments include ASTM E119,
which helps to ensure the 4-hour
fire resistance using standard time-
temperature curves (Alder et al. 2010).
Full scale bending and point load tests

are conducted to loads much higher than
Figure 28 : Bending test: (a) test setup; and (b) measurement instrumentation (Moccichino et al. 2010).
the TBM nominal service load, and the
strength results are compared with the
results predicted from design.
Bending tests, as shown in Figure 28,

are performed to verify the design and
performance of segments during the
production stages of stripping (demolding),
storage, transportation, and handling, as
well as for asymmetrical earth pressure
during the service stage.
Full-scale point load tests, as shown Figure 29 : Point load test setup and measurement instrumentation
in Figure 29, simulate the TBM thrust simulating TBM thrust jack force (Caratelli et al. 2012).
jack forces on the segment during the
excavation process (Caratelli et al. 2012),
as well as the force transfer through the a
reduced cross section in longitudinal joints.
The cantilever load test, as shown in

Figure 30, is another full-scale test that
is used to investigate the circumferential
joint strength under misaligned jacking
loads (Poh et al. 2009). Concrete tunnel
lining strength has also been evaluated
by full-scale tests, such as those shown a
in Figure 31 to simulate dominant effects
Figure 30 : Cantilever load test set-up and instrumentation (Poh et al. 2009).
of axial forces, bending moments, and
the combined action of axial loads and
bending moments (Mashimo et al. 2002).
Figure 31 : Full scale loading cases simulating

dominant effects of axial forces, bending moments,
and combined action of axial loads and bending
moments (Mashimo et al. 2002).
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 36 17/04/2019 17:35

9 >> Serviceability limit state design
Considering the requirements of the LSD or

LRFD method, the design engineer needs
to design precast concrete tunnel segments
for the ultimate limit and serviceability limit
state (JSCE, 2007). A limit state (ULS or
SLS) is a state beyond which the specified
service requirements for the precast
tunnel lining are no longer met. The SLS in
segmental tunnel lining systems correspond
to excessive stresses, deflections and
cracking of concrete segments and
segment joints. These limit states may not
only cause excessive deformations, but
may result in durability and watertightness
issues due to rebar corrosion, water
leakage from segment cracks, or enlarged
gaps between segment joints (JSCE,
Figure 32 : Design flowchart for Serviceability Limit State-SLS (JSCE 2007)
2007; Mendez Lorenzo, 1998; Çimentepe,
2010). Figure 32 and Table 10 illustrate a
flowchart and the required design checks
for verifying the serviceability limit states of
tunnel segments. These various states and SLS States Location Items to Check Critical Design Parameter
particularly SLS of cracking are discussed
below. Allowable compressive
Stress in concrete
stress of concrete
Segment section
9.1 VERIFICATION FOR SLS IN TUNNEL Stress in reinforcement
Allowable tensile stress of
steel bars
SEGMENT Stress
Allowable compressive
Stress in concrete
The SLS design for the tunnel segments stress of concrete
Segment joints
considers different load combinations Allowable stress of
Stress in connectors
which act on the tunnel lining from the connecting bolts
time of production through to the final Segmental ring Ring deformation Allowable deformation
service stage. Different SLS conditions are
discussed and corresponding calculation Allowable gap between
Deformation Joint opening
segments joints
methods and limiting values are presented Segment joints
according to international standards and Joint offset
Allowable offset between
segments joints
guidelines.
Allowable concrete crack
Flexural crack width
As previously discussed, critical load width
Cracking Segment section
cases for segment design include Shear crack capacity
production and transient load cases for
segment demolding, storage, transportation Table 10: Design checks and critical design parameters for SLS of tunnel segments
and handling, while construction loads
include TBM thrust jack forces, tail skin 9.2 STRESS VERIFICATION 0.4f’c according to JSCE (2007), and to
and localized back grouting pressure. 0.6f’c according to EN 1992-1-1 (2004),
Final service loads include earth pressure, Critical stresses in the segments at SLS are AFTES (1993) and fib Model Code 2010
groundwater and surcharge loads, calculated for a combination of maximum (2013). On the other hand, tensile stresses
longitudinal joint bursting load, and special bending moments and corresponding axial in the rebar are limited to fy according to
loads such as earthquake, fire, explosion forces. Compressive stresses are limited JSCE (2007) and to 0.8 fy according to EN
and loads induced due to additional in the structural codes in order to avoid 1992-1-1 (2004) and fib Model Code 2010
distortion. The design engineer can refer microcracking which may lead to a reduction (2013). AFTES (1993) limits reinforcement
to Table 2 and use all possible SLS load in durability. Maximum compressive stresses tensile stresses to 240 MPa (34.8 ksi) for
combinations considering a load factor in both rebar reinforced and fiber-reinforced detrimental cracking and 200 MPa (29 ksi)
of 1. concrete at SLS are limited to values of for highly detrimental cracking.
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 37 17/04/2019 17:35

Flexural stresses in the joints are evaluated 9.4 CRACKING VERIFICATION Fib Model Code 2010 (2013), Italian
using the maximum bending moments and standard CNR-DT 204 (2006), RILEM
corresponding axial forces obtained from Cracking in segments is a major TC 162-TDF (2003) recommendation,
analysis such as beam-spring modelling, contributor to reduction in serviceability and German DAfStb guideline (2012) can
considering the joints as reinforced due to reduction of watertightness and be used to calculate the crack width in
concrete sections with bolts acting as reinforcement corrosion. In particular, concrete sections reinforced by fibers with
tension rebar (where the bolts comply with cracking has a significant effect on the and without conventional reinforcement.
the durability and design life requirements). durability of the tunnel in an environment The flexural crack width of FRC segments
Developed stresses in the concrete at with frequent freeze-thaw cycles. Analyses is well documented in fib Bulletin No. 83
segment joints are limited to the allowable using appropriate methods should be (2017) which considers analytical sectional
compressive stress of concrete. Developed carried out to ensure that cracking in approaches as well as finite element
stresses and forces in the bolts are limited segments does not impair the serviceability, methods.
to the allowable stress of the connecting durability or intended purposes of the tunnel
bolts as published by the manufacturer. lining. Cracks induced in segments under 9.4.2 Maximum allowable crack width
service loads are mainly caused by bending
9.3 DEFORMATION VERIFICATION moments and axial forces and the designer Cracking in tunnel segments is controlled
should ensure that the flexural crack width by limiting the crack width to prevent
Segment deformations are obtained from is not greater than the allowable crack durability issues as a result of increased
the different analytical models presented width (see Table 11 below). The flexural permeability, excessive water leaks, and
above. However, joint gap and joint offset crack width calculation for reinforced reinforcement corrosion. Allowable crack
are only obtained from models that simulate concrete (RC) and fiber reinforced concrete widths are recommended by standards
joints between segments and rings. For (FRC) segments is presented below. Note and guidelines which consider the function,
SLS verification, these deformations are that in the SLS, the maximum shear force importance, service, life span, purpose,
limited to allowable values recommended developed at segment joints as a result of surrounding environment, and surrounding
by standards, guidelines and often project modeling with joint simulation should be soil conditions of the tunnel (JSCE, 2007).
specifications. As an example, the Austrian limited to the shear crack capacity. General guidelines for allowable crack
Society for Concrete and Construction widths are given in the Table 11.
Technology (ÖVBB, 2011) recommends 9.4.1 Flexural crack width in segments
allowable deformations, shown in Figure As a most comprehensive guideline,
33, for both segments and joints for tunnels The flexural crack width in reinforced the Austrian Society for Concrete and
with diameters up to 8 m (26 ft). concrete tunnel segments due to bending Construction Technology (ÖVBB, 2011)
moment and axial force is calculated using specifies the allowable crack width in
ACI 224.1R (2007), JSCE (2007) and EN segments based on the tunnel function,
1992-1-1 (2004) formulas as shown in Eqs. and corresponding watertightness
17, 18 and 19, respectively. requirements, as illustrated in Table 12.
(Eq. 17)
Figure 33 : Ring deformation criteria (ÖVBB, 2011). (Eq. 18-19)
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 38 17/04/2019 17:35

AUTHORITY ALLOWABLE CRACK WIDTH COMMENT
ACI 224 (2007) 0.30 mm Structures exposed to soil
EN 1992-1-1 (2004) 0.30 mm RC members
Leakage to be limited
fib Model Code 2010 (2013) 0.20 mm
with some surface staining
Singapore Land Transport

0.30 mm -
Authority design criteria (2010)
(DAUB, 2013) 0.20 mm 0.15 mm when below groundwater table
JSCE standard (2007) 0.004dc dc is the concrete cover over the rebar
RILEM TC 162-TDF (2003) 0.30 mm Fiber-reinforced concrete
Table 11 : Allowable Crack Widths
REQUIREMENT ALLOWABLE CRACK

DESIGNATION APPLICATION REQUIREMENT
CLASS WIDTH
One-pass lining with very tight 0.20 mm

AT1 Largely dry Impermeable
waterproofing requirements (0.008 in)
One-pass lining for road and
railway tunnels with normal Moist, no running 0.25 mm
AT2 Slightly moist
waterproofing requirements water in tunnel (0.010 in)
(excluding portals)
Water dripping
One-pass lining without 0.30 mm
AT3 Moist
from individual
Water running
One-pass lining without 0.30 mm
AT4 Wet
in some places
Table 12 : Allowable crack width for tunnel segments (ÖVBB, 2011)
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 39 17/04/2019 17:35

10 >> Design of segment gasket
Watertightness of service tunnels (i.e. utility, ASTM D2240), whereas STUVAtec (2005) Figure 37 indicates how the hydrophilic
rail and road) must be ensured during and AFTES (2005) call for a maximum insertion improves the sealing performance
design and construction in order to prevent hardness of 85. Other important properties of a composite EPDM gasket in terms of
water infiltration, minimize maintenance include tensile strength and elongation resisting higher water pressure after several
and repair costs, maintain operational (as determined by ASTM D412) which are days of immersion in water. The hydrophilic
safety, and protect mechanical and recommended to be greater than 12 MPa insertion swells under water pressure and
electrical equipment inside the tunnels. In (1700 psi) and 300 percent, respectively. acts as an extra backup to the EPDM
the one-pass segmental lining system, the Regardless of the design parameters, the profile. About 50% of the swelling occurs
watertightness of the tunnel is guaranteed ultimate performance of the gasket will within 7 days with nearly 100% of the
by the individual components of the support be tested when the lining is installed. The swelling occurring within 30 days.
system, namely the precast concrete technical solutions that engineers need
segments and the segment gaskets which to implement to achieve the required A second solution is to install two sealing
are placed between segments in the watertightness depend on specific project gaskets, one near the extrados and
longitudinal and circumferential joints. As circumstances. The important factors for one near the intrados of the segment,
shown in Figure 34, gaskets are positioned sealing gaskets are the water pressure, thus providing double security for the
around the individual segment like a frame safety factor, size of tunnel and segments, waterproofing performance. When used
and primarily near the lining extrados to gap and offset between segments, and in combination with sealing bars installed
provide the joint watertightness. tolerances. between the extrados and intrados
gaskets, isolation chambers can be created
10.2 WATER PRESSURE AND GASKET that confine any localizing leakages thus
DESIGN permitting precise repairs by grout injection
methods. The connecting gasket bars are
An important consideration in the design generally glued in place at the segment
of gaskets is the maximum ground water precast plant. Note should be taken that
pressure. Depending on the expected the watertightness of a double gasket
ground water pressure, different gasket system is defined by the higher capacity of
profiles may be selected. The first the two gaskets, not by the sum of both
generation of gaskets could only withstand gaskets’ capacity (BSI PAS 8810, 2016).
a maximum water pressure of 3 bar. Today,
with the advance of technology and limited 10.3 GASKET RELAXATION AND
Figure 34 : Segment gaskets positioned near the lining offset between adjacent segments due to FACTOR OF SAFETY
extrados for joint watertightness.
more accurate segment erection inside
the TBM, water tightness of up to 10 bar In addition to the expected ground water
10.1 GASKET MATERIALS is often achievable with a standard mono- pressure, the design has to define the
extrusion EPDM gasket profile. As shown watertightness performance of a sealing
The gasket material must be suitable for in Figure 35, water tightness between gasket and include a safety factor that
the encountered ground and groundwater segments is created through compression takes rubber relaxation effects into account.
conditions. EPDM (Ethylene Propylene of the gaskets during the assembly process It is crucial that the gasket profile and
Diene Monomer) has been established of the segments. rubber compound uphold the designed
as the preferred material, however, it is reaction force to withstand the applied
not resistant to hydrocarbons. Alternative To resist higher ground water pressures, ground water pressure years after its
materials such as Chloroprene Rubber/ two main solutions are available. The first installation. The majority of the relaxation
Styrene Butadiene Rubber (CR/SBR) are solution consists of a composite seal occurs within months after installation. The
available for such situations, but they do not which combines the two different sealing relaxation can be tested with so-called
perform well in acidic environments. technologies of an EPDM compression aging tests using an accelerated procedure
gasket and a hydrophilic seal. As shown in with elevated temperatures in order to
For the gasket to perform as intended, Figure 36, this may consist of co-extruded get results within a reasonable timeframe
several material-specific requirements gaskets with a hydrophilic layer, composite (Figure 38). As the relaxation behavior of a
must be met. One of these properties is profiles with hydrophilic cord, or designing sealing gasket is mainly influenced by the
the hardness of the rubber compound. a composite solution with a separate geometry of the gasket profile, such aging
BSI PAS 8810 (2016) requires a maximum hydrophilic seal next to the standard EPDM tests should be carried out for each profile
shore hardness of 75 (as determined by gasket. type.
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 40 17/04/2019 17:35

Most of the specifications ask for a

minimum residual compressive stress of
60% after 100 years which equates to
a safety factor of 1.67 (1/0.60=1.67) for
gasket profiles. Considering the relaxation
effects of rubber and the design life of most
tunnels is 100 to 120 years, a safety factor
of two is advisable to ensure that the gasket
is able to withstand the design pressure in
the long term.
10.4 TOLERANCES AND DESIGN FOR

REQUIRED GAP/OFFSET
Figure 35 : Water tightness between segments created through gasket compression The width of the gasket profile is a function
of the segment thickness which is a
function of tunnel diameter. The following
gasket profile widths are commonly used
with regard to the tunnel diameter:
• Tunnel Diameter < 4m,
Gasket Width = 20mm
• 4m < Tunnel Diameter < 7m,
Gasket Width = 26mm
• 7m < Tunnel Diameter < 11m,
Gasket Width = 33 or 36mm
• 12m < Tunnel Diameter,
Gasket Width = 36 or 44mm
Figure 36 : Standard, composite and double gasket solutions for projects with different watertightness requirements
Figure 37 : Effect of hydrophilic swelling cord on improving sealing Figure 38 : Typical long term relaxation test results according to ISO 11346
performance of a composite EPDM gasket in terms of resisting higher water
pressure after several days of immersion in water
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 41 17/04/2019 17:35

Gasket size, however, is also governed by

erection tolerances which in turn depend
on the diameter of the tunnel (segment
size) and the connection system. Bolts
and dowels are two typical connection
systems that allow for different gap and
offset tolerances during the segment
erection process. Gap openings and offsets
are illustrated in Figure 39. A connection
system with bolts usually allows offsets up
to 15mm, which can be reduced to 5mm
with high precision workmanship. Dowels,
however, work to much lower tolerances.
Figure 39 : llustration of gap opening and offset before and after compression
Reducing the offset tolerance has the

following advantages: firstly, the gasket
needs to cover a smaller offset range and
therefore a narrower gasket profile can be
selected, and secondly, the required gasket
resistance pressure is reduced. In addition
to being able to utilize a smaller gasket with
a lower cost, other advantages of a sealing
system with reduced offset tolerances
include:
• reduction of TBM erector forces
(up to ~50%)
• reduction of induced forces in connectors
(up to ~50%) and in turn reduction in size
of connection system
• reduction of designed space for
connection and gasket systems Figure 40 : T joint watertightness test setup for segment gaskets as recommended by STUVAtec (2005)
Some tunnel project specifications specify time consuming and prone to failure so in Figure 41. From the watertightness
a 5 mm gap and 10 mm offset for segment practically all tests are currently carried diagram, the gasket resisting pressure
gaskets. Dowels can easily provide this out on steel specimens. Test approaches corresponding to designed gap and offset
requirement, and the segment installation vary, but following STUVAtec’s (2005) should be higher than the maximum
process is easier than when using bolts. recommendations and as shown in Figure factored working pressure for the project.
Bolts are generally the preferred connection 40, the geometric situation is simulated on
system in longitudinal joints, and in order a T-joint in the laboratory, whereby, as on
to avoid additional time and labor costs to the circumferential joint, a straight piece of
achieve the above tolerances, contractors sealing profile is pressed against the end of
tend to change to higher gap and especially a longitudinal joint. Gaskets must guarantee
higher offset values. While engineers design the water tightness under all possible gaps
gaskets for a specified gap and offset, they and offsets. Therefore, it is necessary to run
are encouraged to consider possible larger the watertightness test with different gaps
gap and offset tolerances. Although this will and off-sets. For every offset setting (0 – 20
result in a larger, more expensive gasket, mm), the test has to run through a range
it will result in potential cost saving due to of different gaps. For every gap, the water
faster erection and construction time. pressure is built up in steps of 1 bar and
is held there for 5 minutes. In this manner,
Watertightness tests using gaskets can be every combination is tested until leakage
performed on steel or concrete specimens. occurs. Plotting all “failure points” results
Working with concrete specimens is in a watertightness-gap diagram as shown Figure 41 : Typical watertightness-gap diagram
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 42 17/04/2019 17:35

10.5 GASKET LOAD DEFLECTION a b
If during segment installation the reaction

force from the gasket is too high, a strong
erection force has to be provided to properly
compress the segments and there is a risk
of cracking in the concrete groove near the
segment edge. This could result in water
penetration beneath the gaskets and result in
durability and serviceability issues in the lining.
Connection systems are designed based on

the initial reaction force of gaskets during
segment installation. Therefore gasket
short-term behavior should be determined
and a load-deflection curve obtained which
will depend on the shape of gasket profile
and required gap and offset (see Figure
42a where deflection is represented by the
gap). Connection systems are designed Figure 42a) : typical gasket load-deflection or reaction force test results, b) typical short-term relaxation
for maximum gasket load, which in Figure
42a corresponds to a zero gap. However,
connection systems can be designed less However, segments with narrow deep flanks is directly dependent on the groove
stringently by designing for the maximum grooves and high TBM jack forces have depth. The larger spalling force (P2) is only
reaction force from the gasket after displayed failure of the concrete segment partially compensated for by the slightly
short-term relaxation (within 5 minutes) corners even when the above criterion longer shear area (a≈b). This leads to the
as indicated in Figure 42b. Note that 5 of volume ratio is fulfilled. A simplistic conclusion that the danger of spalling
minutes would be the minimum time before explanation may be that when the gasket increases with a deeper gasket groove and
the connectors are required to start acting reaches its full compression (no voids), the that a flat profile design is more favorable.
against the compressive force from the applied force (R) will be redistributed along In the end, a successful installation without
gaskets, and the minimum time required the groove flanks and the groove bottom spalling depends on the experience of the
prior to TBM thrust jack force release. (p) as indicated in Figure 43. Therefore, the involved parties, especially on the skills of
spalling force (P1 or P2 in Figure 43) on the the worker guiding the TBM-erector.
10.6 GASKET GROOVE DESIGN
The watertightness of a segmental joint is

dependent on the groove geometry which
has to be in line with the chosen gasket.
In addition, cracking in the concrete can
occur when the gasket and its groove
are placed too close to the edge of the
segment. To avoid spalling of concrete, it
is crucial that the net volume of the rubber
can be housed within the groove when Figure 43 : Re-distribution of impact force R in (a) a shallow and (b) deep gasket groove
the tunnel segments are fully closed or the
gap is zero. To achieve this, the net profile 10.7 NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN GASKET gaskets is carried out to ensure that they
volume of the gasket (seen in cross section) SYSTEMS remain in their grooves. A drawback with
should be slightly smaller than the groove this system is the low bond strength of
cross section (smaller than approximately Conventional gasket systems incorporate glued gaskets to the segments to prevent
90% of the groove cross section). This will the gasket groove in the segment molds, so the gasket coming loose, especially during
ensure that, even in case very high forces that after casting, the gasket can be glued key segment installation.
are applied to the segment joints (e.g. TBM into the groove. In this gasket system, also
jacks) there is enough space for the gasket referred to as glued gasket, gluing of the
to ‘fit’ in the groove.
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 43 17/04/2019 17:35

A recent development incorporates

anchored gaskets which provide higher
bonding forces between the gasket and the
segment. As shown in Figure 44, the gasket
has anchoring legs which are embedded
in concrete in the process of segment
production. This results in an extended
seepage path beneath the gasket and
the gasket is held safely in place during
installation (ÖVBB, 2011).
Another development is the design and

Figure 44 : Anchored gaskets fixed into the concrete segment during segment production
production of gasket corners. Most of the
manufactures now provide prefabricated
corners with reduced stiffness. This
technology provides soft corners and
reduces the risk of spalling of concrete at the
segment corners.
A recent development in gasket design is

the use of fiber anchored technology. This
essentially replaces the anchored feet with
plastic fibers as the anchoring element
(Figure 45). This offers additional pull-out
resistance compared to the conventional
glued gasket system. Figure 45 : Anchored segment gasket using fiber anchorage system
10.8 NEW DEVELOPMENT IN GASKET

REPAIR SYSTEMS The advantages of this repair system are an
efficient injection procedure with less time,
A new repair methodology for post sealing material and labor cost; less drilling work
segment joints has been developed. Leaking with no significant damage to the concrete
joints in segmentally lined tunnels is a well- or steel reinforcement; and injection works
known phenomenon which is caused by are restricted to the leaking areas.
displacement of the gasket during segment
installation, lack or loss of compression
force on gaskets (due to an unprecedented
increased gap between the segments
faces), or damaged concrete segments and
cracked concrete edges due to eccentric
forces during TBM jacking. This repair
method is based on drilling and injection
through the joint sealing gasket (Kirschke
et al. 2013). The four steps for this repair
method (shown on Figure 46) are:
Step 1: P re-drilling Ø 14 mm to the joint
sealing profile
Step 2: D rill and push injection needle
through the entire joint gasket
Step 3: Injection using accelerated injection
material
Step 4: R emoval of extension tube. The
injection needle remains in the joint Figure 46 : A step-by-step schematics of a recently developed repair method to control groundwater inflow using
injection through gaskets in leaking segmental tunnels (Kirschke et al. 2013)
gasket
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 44 17/04/2019 17:35

11 >> Connection devices and fastening systems
11.1 BOLTS, DOWELS AND GUIDING The bolts are metallic while the embedded In the dowel type connection, the dowels
RODS threads are generally plastic. Figure 47 are inserted into the segment during ring
shows a typical arrangement for a straight assembly and are either mortise inserted
The connections between segments within bolt. Note should be taken of the following or dove-tailed into the segment of the last
a ring and between rings can be divided geometrical details: assembled ring. Dowel connections require
into three categories; joint connections with • The pockets should be large enough for less work for the construction of the mold
bolts, dowels and guiding rods. head of the bolt and pneumatic wrench to and less manpower in the tunnel. The
be easily inserted dowels and sockets are made of plastic
In the bolt type connection, the segment • The slot side of the pocket should have a and sometimes have a core of steel. Figure
is first placed in position and then the conicity of at least 1°. 48 shows a typical arrangement of a dowel,
bolts are inserted and tightened. Bolt • The bolt slot in the segment that houses which is placed on the neutral axis at the
connections require more effort in the the plastic bolt socket should have a middle point of the segment. Because of
construction of the mold as it is necessary compatible conicity. the kinematics of the assembling process,
to create pockets and grooves into which • The bolt axis should pass through the this type of connection is only used
the bolts are inserted. It is also necessary center of the segment. between the rings in circumferential joints.
to have more personnel in the tunnel to • The distance between the end of the nut In most cases, the dowel connections
insert the bolts. This type of connection and the extrados of the segment should are used with rhomboidal and trapezoidal
is traditionally associated with rectangular be sufficient. segments to avoid early crawling or
segments and is generally used between creeping of the gaskets when the segments
rings and between segments within a ring. are being inserted.
Besides bolts and dowels, guiding rods

(Figure 49) can be used as a movable
centering device that provides guidance
and centering during segment installation
with locking functionality. In addition,
guiding rods absorb shear forces in
the longitudinal joints (OVBB 2011). An
advantage of using guiding rods in the
longitudinal joints is that the inserted rods
can prevent the segments slipping away
from each other during ring building (DAUB,
2013). Guiding rods are usually utilized
in conjunction with dowel connection
systems.
Figure 47 : Bolt connection in longitudinal joints 11.2 DESIGN OF CONNECTION DEVICE

FOR GASKET PRESSURE
Dowels are designed to withstand the

reaction force of the gasket profile after
short term relaxation has taken place.
Depending on the size of the tunnel lining,
as well as the total number of dowels in
the ring, the gasket force per dowel can be
calculated. A safety factor of 1.25 should
be considered for the dowel connection
system, and the required pullout force will
determine the selection of dowel types.
Bolts are designed in a similar way, taking

into account their designed angle with the
centerline of the longitudinal joints (e.g.
Figure 48 : Dowel connection in circumferential joints Figure 49 : Location and geometry of guiding rod and
guiding rod groove (ÖVBB, 2011)
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 45 17/04/2019 17:35

24o in Figure 47). The length of gasket in

a longitudinal joint is approximately equal
to the ring length. Taking account of the
number of bolts in each longitudinal joint
(generally two) , the gasket force per bolt is
calculated. Again, a factor of safety of 1.25
is advisable and the bolt connection system
should be selected based on the required
pullout force and tensile yield strength.
11.3 LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN JOINT

CONNECTION SYSTEMS
Dowels have become the preferred

connection system in circumferential
joints replacing conventional bolts. Their
advantages are faster installation and
reduction of offset between the rings.
However, in large-diameter tunnels they
may provide insufficient shear capacity. To
overcome this issue, new dowel systems
have been introduced utilizing new plastic
materials which have a higher resistance
(i.e. less displacement) and are less Figure 50 : New dowel connection
susceptible to variations in humidity. system with pullout resistance of
60-250 kN. a) stage 1 inserting
Another modification includes integration of a main dowel piece by hand into
available thread; b) stage 2 pushing
screw-able socket on one side of the dowel segment (with inserted main dowel
in order to reduce the installation tolerance, piece) toward previously installed
and provide the workers with a smoother segment (with embedded socket)
by TBM erector
assembly process (see Figure 50). Pull-out
resistance and shear capacity of up to 250
kN is achievable with this system.
include fixing and supporting intermediate sealing performance, corrosion protection
Currently bolts are used in longitudinal slabs, cross-passageway connecting and long-term durability.
joints as the pre-dominant connection doors, and platform screen doors. Fixing Fixing failures generally occur as a result
system. Although bolts provide high pull- failures in tunnels are rare but when they of poor installation quality where incorrect
out and yield tensile strength, bolting is a happen, the consequences can be very adhesives or installation procedures have
time-consuming process and recesses are costly and tragic. In general, these fasteners been adopted.
required to be provided for fastening the can be divided into two main categories, Some of the issues with traditional post-
bolts. post-installed and cast-in place systems. installed anchor systems are illustrated in
Figure 51.
11.4 FASTENING SYSTEMS TO 11.4.1 Post-Installed Fastening Systems
SEGMENTS Post-installed straight or curved framing
Post-installed anchors as a traditional channels, as an alternative to direct anchor
Fastening systems to segments are fastening system have some disadvantages, fastening systems, can provide some
important elements for service tunnels (i.e. mainly the issues of drilling and installation advantages regarding fixing flexibility. With
utility, rail and road). quality, which have made this system less framing channels, subsequent installation
favorable. Drilling procedures generate dust or fixing of further components is always
They are used when fitting out a tunnel, and noise during installation, and power possible. This is important for repair and
i.e. when fixing system components of the tools are needed when installing anchors in rehabilitation projects where expansion or
railway overhead catenary systems, and high-strength concrete. Drilling may damage upgrade of utility equipment and production
fixing mechanical and electrical equipment. concrete, reinforcement or segment gaskets facilities are required. However, the main issue
Other applications of fastening systems with negative impacts on structural behavior, of drilling and installation quality still remains.
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 46 17/04/2019 17:35

a b c
Figure 51 : Issues with post-installed anchors: a) drilling, b) installation quality, c) fixing failure
11.4.2 Cast-in-Place Fastening systems
In order to overcome these problems,

a solution has been developed by
fixing framing channels to segments
via the connection bolts without drilling
as illustrated in Figure 52.The figure
illustrates the installation of curved framing
channels with mounting plates at the back
which are held in position with the bolt
connection system in the circumferential
joints. This fastening system is suitable for
fixing utilities, mechanical and electrical
equipment in the tunnel and can provide
over 30 kN service point load capacity
every 300 mm.
Latest segmental lining systems are utilizing

dowel connections in circumferential joints
and therefore, circumferential pockets for
fastening bolts are often not available. To
overcome this, fastening technology is
shifting towards the use of cast-in channels
with a mechanical interlock system, as
illustrated in Figure 53. This cast-in system
consists of framing channels with welded
anchors which are placed in segment forms
prior to casting the concrete segment.
Cast-in place systems have lower

maintenance cost and result in better
quality control both in the precast plant and
in the tunnel.
One application of cast-in channels is in Figure 52 : Post-installed framing channels fixed to segments using connection bolts and mounting plates at the back
railway tunnel and especially high-speed
rail tunnels because of the requirement to
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 47 17/04/2019 17:35

fix many electrification components to the

tunnel lining, as illustrated in Figure 54.
In addition, in these tunnels, resistance
to fatigue from dynamic loading is a key
requirement that is not easily met by post-
installed anchors.
To provide protection against fresh

concrete penetrating the anchor channels,
a filling strip is provided which can be
removed once the segment is installed.
This integrated fastening system can be
employed for the temporary assembly of
Figure 53 : Cast-in fastening system for segments including channels with welded anchors and bolts
walkways or working platforms while the
tunnel is being driven.
Cast-in fastening systems also provide

similar opportunities for road tunnels for
fixing lighting, signal facilities, ventilation,
and exhaust air ducts. Figure 55 illustrates
another major opportunity for modern
fastening systems in road and rail tunnels
for supporting intermediate slabs. Tension
rod systems are quick and reliable
mounting fasteners and favorable solutions
when there is a high demand for load
capacity and corrosion and fire protection.
Figure 54 : Curved cast-in channels used as fastening system in railway and high-speed rail tunnels
Figure 55 : Modern fastening systems with tension rods for supporting intermediate slab
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 48 17/04/2019 17:35

12 >> Tolerances, measurements and dimensional control
Tolerances are allowable deviations from the

actual dimensions of the segmental lining
(either as individual components or as a
system) compared to their design dimensions.
Deviations from the designed geometry are
acceptable as long as they don’t result in
damage to the segmental lining and don’t
negatively impact on the intended function of
the tunnel. Although it is important to achieve
the highest possible level of accuracy during
the production and installation of segments,
tolerances should not be unjustifiably
tight which would drive costs up through
extravagant demands in terms of accuracy.
Accordingly, the design engineer should
specify tolerances on a project-specific basis
and consider them in all the relevant stages of
segment design.
Segmental lining tolerances are often
broken down into two main categories, i.e.
production tolerances and construction
tolerances. Production tolerances are the
allowable deviations of individual segment
dimensions from the design dimension after
manufacture. Construction tolerances which
include installation tolerances of the segmental
ring, and subsequent deformations of the
ring during and after TBM advances need to
be considered separately from production
tolerances.
12.1 Production tolerances
When considering production tolerances, a

distinction should be made between formwork
tolerances and segment tolerances. Tolerances
for formwork should be stringent enough to
guarantee the required production tolerances.
High-precision formwork is therefore required
for the production of precast tunnel segments.
ÖVBB (2011) generally specifies ±0.1 to
± 0.3 mm as the range of tolerances for
high-precision steel forms for the reference
dimensions indicated in Figure 56.
Tolerances of manufactured segments before

storage, transportation and installation should
take into account the effects of temperature,
shrinkage, creep, and segment self-weight.
The effect of creep is generally negligible
and guidelines such as ÖVBB (2011) define
segment tolerances as a summation of
formwork tolerances and allowable segment
deformations due to temperature and Figure 56 : Typical segment formwork tolerances for mid-size tunnel projects (values are in mm)
shrinkage. Table 13 compares formwork
and segment tolerances for the reference
dimensions shown in Figure 56.
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 49 17/04/2019 17:35

Current practice is to specify segment

REFERENCE DIMENSIONS FORMWORK TOLERANCES SEGMENT TOLERANCES
dimension tolerances in contract drawings
and specifications, and to control these Width ±0.3mm (1/84") ±1.6mm (1/16")
during manufacture of the segments. The Thickness ±1mm (1/25") ±3.2mm (1/8")
allowable dimensional tolerances for segments Circumferential length (arc) ±0.8mm (1/32") ±1.6mm (1/16")
depends mainly on serviceability requirements Inside radius ±1mm (1/25") ±1.6mm (1/16")
of the tunnel, as well as the size of the tunnel
Outside radius ±1.5mm (1/17") ±6.3mm (1/4")
segmental ring. Different guidelines provide
Diagonals ±1.5mm (1/17") ±1.6mm (1/16")
different ranges of segment tolerances. Besides
Warping ±1.5mm (1/17") ±2mm (1/12")
the recommendations given in Table 13, Table
Longitudinal/Radial joint
14 illustrates the segment tolerances specified deviation
±0.2mm (1/42") ±0.8mm (1/32")
by various guidelines and standards, i.e. Sides flatness ±0.3mm (1/84") ±0.8mm (1/32")
JSCE (2007), Ril 853 (2011), ZTV-ING (2007), Location of gasket groove axis ±0.3mm (1/84") ±0.8mm (1/32")
and DAUB (2013). Production tolerances Dowel insert location ±0.5mm (1/50") ±0.8mm (1/32")
specified by DAUB (2013) in Table 14 are Bolt hole location ±0.5mm (1/50") ±0.8mm (1/32")
for segmental rings with an internal diameter Shear cones/erector pocket
±0.5mm (1/50") ±1.6mm (1/16")
either less than 8m or larger than 11m. DAUB location
(2013) recommends a linear interpolation of Table 13 : Comparison between formwork tolerances and segment tolerances for mid-size tunnel projects
tolerances between these two size categories.
The specified tolerances for each reference TYPE OF REFERENCE RIL 853 ZTV-ING DAUB (2013) DAUB (2013)
JSCE (2007)
TOLERANCE DIMENSIONS (2011) (2007) ID <8M ID >11M
dimension presented in Table 14 are in general
agreement, with DAUB (2013) specifying the Width ±1mm ±0.5mm ±0.6mm ±0.5mm ±0.7mm
most stringent and complete set of tolerances. +5mm
Thickness ±3mm ±3mm ±3mm ±4mm
-1mm
Circumferential length ±1mm ±0.6mm - ±0.6mm ±0.7mm
The reference dimensions in Table 14 are (arc)
Linear
divided to four major categories, namely: segment
Inside radius - ±1.5mm ±1.5mm ±1.5mm ±2.5mm
a) linear segment dimensions; dimensions Outside radius - - ±2mm - -
b) angular deviations and flatness of joints (or Diagonals - - - ±1mm ±2mm
sides); Warping (Vertical spacing
c) dimensions of gasket, connectors and of fourth segment corner - - - ±5mm ±8mm
from plane formed by
accessories; and other three corners)
d) closed-ring dimensions. Longitudinal joint deviation -
±0.3mm
±0.3mm ±0.3mm ±0.5mm
(±0.04o *)
Joints
Longitudinal joint taper/
Note that the closed-ring dimension tolerances angular
conicity deviation
- ±0.5mm ±0.5mm ±0.5mm ±0.7mm
deviations
relate to the tolerances of the segmental test- and flatness Longitudinal/
ring mock-up which is erected horizontally in the circumferential - ±1mm ±0.5mm ±0.3mm ±0.5mm
joint flatness
precast plant. This is a production tolerance and Location of gasket groove
not a construction tolerance. - +0.2mm ±1.5mm ±1mm ±1mm
axis
Gasket,
Sealing groove width/
connectors, - -0mm ±0.2mm ±0.2mm ±0.2mm
Among the tolerances described in Table 14, depth
and
four major categories emerge as the most accessories Bolt hole/ Dowel insert
location ±1mm ±1mm* - ±1mm ±1mm
critical and which need special attention. These dimensions
Shear cones/erector - ±2mm* - ±2mm ±2mm
four categories include: pocket location
a) Segment width ±7mm (2m<ID<4m)
±10mm
b) Longitudinal joint taper/conicity deviation (4m<ID<6m)
Outer diameter ±15mm ±10mm - ±10mm ±15mm
c) Segment circumferential (arch) length, and (6m<ID<8m)
d) Gasket groove (Handke, 2012). ±20mm
(8m<ID<12m)
Inner diameter - ±10mm - ±10mm ±15mm
Segmental width inaccuracies may Closed-ring
cause severe damage as a result of wide dimensions Outer circumference (to
be measured in three - ±30mm - ±30mm ±45mm
longitudinal cracks. Excessive deviations planes)
in longitudinal joint conicity may result in ±7mm (2m<ID<4m)
excessive forces being transferred between ±10mm
(4m<ID<6m)
segments in the longitudinal joints which Assembly misalignment ±10mm ±10mm - - -
(6m<ID<8m)
may result in the concrete crushing or ±15mm
(8m<ID<12m)
Table 14 : Production segment tolerances specified by
guidelines and standards * Only available in Ril (DS) 853 1993 version
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 50 17/04/2019 17:35

spalling. Circumferential length (arc) and to temperature, shrinkage and creep lack global geometrical certification.
gasket groove tolerances may have a deformations after casting. However, due Measurement systems using theodolite
major impact on the sealing performance to the fact that the temperature, relative and photogrammetry are alternative
of gaskets as a result of excessive gap or humidity and other ambient conditions methods which lack the necessary speed
offset. are maintained relatively constant in the and accuracy (to within few tenths of
production plant, any dimensional deviation a millimeter) needed for regular quality
Some project specifications do not due to temperature and shrinkage can be control. 3D industrial measurement prevails
allow for the use of segments that have neglected. Therefore, it is not necessary as the only accurate measuring system
been produced outside the tolerance to wait until the concrete segments have that can meet such high demands at a rate
requirements. DAUB (2013), however, gained full maturity (i.e. at 28 days) to carry required for a high speed quality control/
permits these segments to be used in out the dimensional control measurements. quality assurance program. As shown
areas with low projected tunnelling forces, However, it is highly recommended to in Figure 57, 3D measurements using a
providing gasket performance is not conduct these measurements at one laser interferometer system facilitates the
compromised and calculations demonstrate specific phase of the production cycle, accurate digitization of surfaces by direct
adequate capacity of reinforcement in for instance after segment stripping polar coordinate measurement. A skilled
the joints in the event of exceeding joint (demolding). operator can comprehensively measure
distortion and segment width tolerances. the full profile of over 20 segments per shift
The dimensional control program should (Clarke-Hackston et al. 2006). In addition
12.2 Measurement and Dimensional be implemented on individual segments to measurements taken from a single
Control as well as segmental systems in the standpoint, a laser tracker system can be
form of test rings. The most traditional employed where a second instrument is
A proper quality control system is measurement methods are manual utilized (see Figure 57b) in order to perform
essential to ensure the production of measurement by means of steel templates, a complete measurement of form. Figure
high-precision segments with tolerances micron rods, caliper squares, precision 58 indicates typical output from the spatial
which fall within the limits imposed by measuring tapes and measurement arms analyzer 3D graphical software platform
contract documentation. Segments, like (ÖVBB, 2011). However, conventional with tolerances, best-fit of external surfaces
any other concrete element, are subject instruments like micron rods or templates and deviations from referenced dimensions.
a b
c d
Figure 57 : 3D measurement: (a) laser Interferometer schematic, (b) laser tracker system, (c) instrument location for mold, (d) stacked segments for rapid measurement
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 51 17/04/2019 17:35

a b c
Figure 58 : Spatial analyzer 3D graphical software platform output: (a) typical segment tolerances, (b) best-fit of external surfaces and typical deviations from referenced dimensions,
(c) tolerances on virtual (test) ring build.
12.3 TEST RING AND DIMENSIONAL place, in order to avoid recovery forces. As
CONTROL FREQUENCY indicated in Table 14, reference dimensions b) Dimensional Control Frequency
to be verified on the assembled test ring Two major factors are considered to ensure
Dimensional control is carried out on include outer and inner diameters (on at dimensional control during the production
formwork or segments to measure tolerances least two axes), outer circumference (to phase, i.e. the testing objects and testing
on reference dimensions, and on the test be measured in three planes) and joint frequency. Forms, individual segments and
rings for controlling system tolerances. assembly misalignment. (ÖVBB, 2011), test rings are the three main testing objects
in addition, recommends joint opening that can be measured. Standard practice
a) Test Ring Assembly and Tolerances and joint misalignment as other system is to measure the tolerances of every
tolerances to be verified on the test ring. segment for the first 10 castings, and then
One of the original goals of early test ring measure every 50th segment after that.
assembly was to check for alignment of A 10-measurement system as illustrated Some projects, however, call for a more
bolting systems and general ring assembly in Figure 59 has recently been presented frequent controlling program. A dimensional
including segment to segment and ring to as an alternative formwork tolerance controlling program based on monthly
ring connections. However, with current 3-D measurement method as opposed to the measurements is not recommended.
computational modelling, the risk of bolting individual reference dimensions given in Some tender design documents require
or assembly location errors within the forms Figure 56 and Table 14. Both systems are assembling an extra ring on the test ring
is minimal. acceptable as they both assure segment after a specific number of castings. This is
dimension accuracies compatible with the not recommended considering the degree
In a test ring system, the recommendation reference dimensions given in Table 14. of difficulty, the high cost and little value of
is to build a single ring or a double ring With this alternative method, if there are any such a practice. For segment dimension
where the bottom test ring is measured issues with the 10 measurements, then the control, testing should be resumed at the
completely. Generally, the test rings are segment direct measurements are to be initial frequency soon after detection of any
assembled without the elastomer gasket in followed as per Table 14. inadmissible deviations.
Figure 59 : Alternative tolerance measurement method for formwork dimension control Figure 60 : Typical construction tolerances in contract documents
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 52 17/04/2019 17:35

12.4 CONSTRUCTION TOLERANCES significantly low values through controlled

ring assembly systems and self-guiding Typical allowable construction tolerances
Accurate segment geometry is a pre- connectors such as dowels and guiding for ring erection are summarized in Table
requisite for the smooth installation rods. Ovalization tolerance depends on 15. The maximum relative ring roll, which
of segments without any significant diameter and the number of segment is defined as the roll of every single
constraints. However, deviations from joints in a ring and is generally specified ring relative to adjacent rings relates to
the design geometry of the segments as an allowable deviation from the nominal circumferential joint misalignment, while
occur during the installation phase that diameter. Generally it is recommended to ring step or slips are related to longitudinal
are independent of production accuracies limit the deviation to between 0.25-0.5% joint misalignment. The maximum allowed
and are related to construction activities. of the internal diameter, but BTS specifies gap between joint contact faces ensures
Construction deviations include installation an upper bound of 1%. Figure 60 illustrates the best gasket performance, while
tolerances of the segmental ring, and typical allowable ring diameter and ring tolerances on absolute vertical position of
subsequent deformations of the ring during location tolerances which are specified in lining invert are important where the tunnel
and after TBM advances. These deviations contract documents. lining is under excessive uplift pressure, or
are referred to as construction tolerance. in transportation tunnels where accurate
Ovalization of the ring with corresponding Joint misalignment and deviations from location of top of rail or profile grade is
angular deviations and joint misalignment the designed full contact area are also required. Planarity of the leading face of
are among the unavoidable construction unavoidable and need to be limited the ring is also a critical tolerance and if not
tolerances. Excessive construction to acceptable values. Ring installation achieved leads to segment damage.
deviations have significant implications inaccuracies can impact joint misalignment
including reduction in quality of the finished and joint opening. In addition, uneven
tunnel, reduction in advance rate, and segmental ring bedding, ovalization
decreased sealing performance at segment and uncontrolled torsion in longitudinal
and ring joints. joints, can cause joint misalignment
in circumferential joints. ÖVBB (2011)
Newly-assembled segmental rings may recommends ± 5mm as the joint
undergo ovalization due to segment misalignment tolerance for tunnel diameters
self-weight or yielding of bolts or dowels. in the range of 3-8 m, while DAUB (2013)
Ovalization can also occur due to loading specifies ± 10mm. Nonetheless, allowable
exerted by the back-up system, uneven joint misalignment can be modified
bedding of the segmental ring in the taking into account the required sealing
backfill grout or tunnel uplift after passing performance and the maximum allowable
of the TBM. While ovalization cannot be offset for the type of gaskets selected for
completely avoided, it can be limited to the project.
Maximum ring roll ±100mm (4")
Ring shape (ovalization) on diameter ±0.25% x ID to ±0.5% x ID
Maximum relative ring roll ±10mm (0.4")
Step, slip or lip due to joint misalignment ±5mm (0.2")
Maximum gap between joint contact faces ±5mm (0.2")
Tolerances on absolute vertical position of lining invert ±75mm (3")
Planarity of the faces of the ring ±0.75mm from theoretical plane
Table 15 : Construction tolerances for ring erection
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 53 17/04/2019 17:35

13 >> Concluding remarks
This document has been prepared by

Working Group 2 of the ITA after numerous
rounds of internal and external reviews,
and is intended to update the original WG2
publication “Guidelines for the design of
shield tunnel design” (2000). The document
consolidates most recent developments,
international best practices, and state-of-
the-art information on all aspects of design
and construction of precast segments,
and can be used as a general guide for
segmental tunnel linings. In addition to
structural design rules and procedures
for ultimate limit state and serviceability
design for loading conditions particular
to segments, this guideline addresses
details of segmental ring geometry,
shapes, configuration and systems, and
detailed concrete design considerations
such as concrete strength, curing, and
reinforcement detailing. Gasket design
procedure and most recent innovations in
gasket systems are presented, and special
attention was devoted to other design and
construction aspects such as segment
connection devices, anchorage systems,
tolerances, measurement and dimensional
control of segments. This document has
been written in a fashion that in addition
to being useful to experienced tunnel
engineers for addressing specific needs
of each project, it is focused on helping
students and entry-level engineers to
understand major design and construction
concepts. Prepared guidelines are the
state of the practice at the current time on
a continuously evolving technology field
which makes future updates and revisions
to the document inevitable.
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 54 17/04/2019 17:35

14 >> References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO)

DCRT-1-2010—Technical Manual for Design and Construction of Road Tunnels - Civil Elements
American Concrete Institute (ACI)
ACI 224.1R-07 (2007)—Causes, Evaluation, and Repair of Cracks in Concrete Structures
ACI 318 (2014)—Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary
ACI 544.7R (2016)—Report on Design and Construction of Fiber Reinforced Precast Concrete Tunnel Segments
ACI 544.8R (2016)—Report on Indirect Method to Obtain a Stress-Strain Diagram for Strain Softening Fiber-Reinforced Concretes (FRCs)
ASTM International
ASTM C1609/C1609M (2012)—Standard Test Method for Flexural Performance of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (Using beam with Third-Point
Loading)
ASTM D412 (2016)—Standard Test Methods for Vulcanized Rubber and Thermoplastic Elastomers—Tension
ASTM D2240 (2015)—Standard Test Method for Rubber Property—Durometer Hardness
ASTM E119-14—Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials
Austrian Society for Concrete and Construction Technology (ÖVBB)
ÖVBB 2011—Guideline for Concrete Segmental Lining Systems
British Standards Institute (BSI)
PAS 8810:2016—Tunnel design. Design of concrete segmental tunnel linings. Code of practice.
British Tunneling Society (BTS)
Specification for Tunneling, 3rd Edition
Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN)
EN 1992-1-1 :2004: E—Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1-1 : General rules and rules for buildings
EN 14651:2005+A1-2007—Test Method for Metallic Fiber Concrete. Measuring the Flexural Tensile Strength (Limit of Proportionality (LOP),
residual)
Concrete Society (CS)
TR63 2007—Guidance for the design of steel-fibre-reinforced concrete
French Tunneling and Underground Engineering Association (AFTES)
AFTES–WG7 (1993)—Considerations on the Usual Methods of Tunnel Lining Design. Working Group No.7-Temporary Supports and
Permanent Lining
AFTES (2005) —Recommendation for the design, sizing and construction of precast concrete segments installed at the rear of a tunnel
boring machine (TBM)
German Committee for Structural Concrete within German Institute for Standardization (DafStb)
DAfStb Stahlfaserbeton:2012-11. Richtlinie Stahlfaserbeton/Technical Guidelines for Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete, part 1-3.
German Concrete Association (DBV)
DBV 1992—Design Principles of Steel Fibre-Reinforced Concrete for Tunneling Works
German Federal Ministry of Transport (BMV)
ZTV-ING (2007) —Zusätzliche Technische Vertragsbedingungen und Richtlinien für den Bau von Straßentunneln (ZTV-ING) - Teil 5,
Tunnelbau, Abschnitt 3 Maschinelle Schildvortriebsverfahren, 2007
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 55 17/04/2019 17:35

14 >> References
German Railway Company (Deutsche Bahn AG)

Ril 853 (2011)—Richtlinie Eisenbahntunnel planen, bauen und in Stand halten
German Research Association for Underground Transportation Facilities (STUVA)
STUVAtec (2005)—STUVA Recommendations for Testing and Application of Sealing Gaskets in Segmental Linings, Tunnel, 8 (2005)
German Tunnelling Committee (DAUB)
DAUB 2013—Lining Segment Design: Recommendations for the Design, Production, and Installation of Segmental Rings
DAUB 2005— Recommendations for static Analysis of Shield Tunnelling Machines. Tunnel 7/2005.
International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib)
fib Model Code 2010 (2013)—Model Code for Concrete Structures
fib Bulletin n.83 (2017)—fib Working Party 1.4.1 (Fédération Internationale du Béton, Lausanne, Switzerland): «Tunnels in fiber reinforced
concrete», fib Bulletin n.83, «Precast tunnel segments in fibre-reinforced concrete», ISSN 1562-3610, ISBN 978-2-88394-123-6, October
2017.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO)
ISO 11346:2004—Rubber, vulcanized or thermoplastic—Estimation of life-time and maximum temperature of use
International Tunneling Association (ITA)
ITA WG2 2000—Guidelines for the Design of Shield Tunnel Lining
ITA WG2 2016—Twenty years of FRC tunnel segments practice: lessons learnt and proposed design principles. Report n.16, April 2016,
pp. 71, ISBN 978-2-970-1013-5-2.
ITA WG6 2004— Guidelines for structural fire resistance for road tunnels.
ITAtech Guidance for Precast Fibre Reinforced Concrete Segments – Vol 1 Design Aspects, 2016. Report 21374-ITATECH-REPORT-7-
PFRCS-BD_P.
ITAtech Guideline for Good Practice of Fiber Reinforced Precast Segment – Vol 2: Production Aspects 2018. Report 21786-ITATECH-
REPORT-9-PFRCS-V2-WEB-PAP.
Italian National Research Council (CNR)
CNR DT 204/2006 2007—Guidelines for the Design, Construction and Production Control of Fibre Reinforced Concrete Structures
Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE)
JSCE 2007—Standard Specifications for Tunneling-2006: Shield Tunnels
Japanese Railway Technical Research Institute (RTRI)
RTRI 2008—Design standards for railway structures and commentary (shield tunnels)
Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA)
LACMTA 2013—Metro Rail Design Criteria–Section 5 Structural/Geotechnical
Dutch Standardization Institute (NEN)
NEN 6720 (1995)—Regulations for concrete - structural requirements and calculation methods. Dutch Code NEN 6720
International Union of Laboratories and Experts in Construction Materials, Systems and Structures (RILEM)
RILEM TC 162-TDF 2003—Test and Design Methods for Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete. σ–ε Design Method: Final Recommendation
Singapore Land Transport Authority (LTA)
LTA 2010—Civil Design Criteria for Road and Rail Transit Systems
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 56 17/04/2019 17:35

14 >> References
Spanish Ministry of Public Works and Transport

EHE-08 2010—Code on Structural Concrete, ANNEX 14 – Recommendations for Using Concrete with Fibres
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) EM 1110-2-2901 1997—Tunnels and Shafts in Rock
AUTHORED DOCUMENTS
Alder, A.; Dhanda, D.; Hillyar, W.; and Runacres, A., 2010, “Extending London’s Docklands Light Railway to Woolwich”, Proceedings of the
ICE-Civil Engineering, V. 163, No. 2, pp. 81-90.
Bakhshi, M.; and Nasri, V., 2014a, “Review of International Practice on Critical Aspects of Segmental Tunnel Lining Design”, Proceedings of
the 2014 North American Tunneling (NAT) Conference, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 274-282.
Bakhshi, M.; Nasri, V., 2014b, “Guidelines and Methods on Segmental Tunnel Lining Analysis and Design – Review and Best Practice
Recommendation”, Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2014. Iguassu Falls, Brazil.
Bakhshi, M.; and Nasri, V., 2014c, “Developments in Design for Fiber Reinforced Concrete Segmental Tunnel Lining”, 2nd FRC International
Workshop (1st ACI–fib Joint Workshop) on Fibre Reinforced Concrete, Montreal, Canada, pp. 441-452.
Bakhshi, M.; and Nasri, V., 2014d, “Design Considerations for Precast Tunnel Segments According to International Recommendations,
Guidelines and Standards”, TAC 2014, Vancouver, Canada.
Bakhshi, M.; Nasri, V., 2013a., “Latest Developments in Design of Segmental Tunnel Linings”, Proceedings of the Canadian Society for Civil
Engineering General Conference (CSCE 2013), Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Bakhshi, M.; and Nasri, V., 2013b, “Practical Aspects of Segmental Tunnel Lining Design”, Underground—The way to the future:
Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2013., G. Anagnostou, and H. Ehrbar, eds., Geneva, Switzerland.
Bakhshi, M.; and Nasri, V., 2013c, “Structural Design of Segmental Tunnel Linings”, Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on
Computational Methods in Tunnelling and Subsurface Engineering: EURO: TUN 2013. Ruhr University, Bochum, Germany, pp. 131-138.
Bakhshi, M.; Barsby, C.; and Mobasher, B., 2014, “Comparative Evaluation of Early Age Toughness Parameters in Fiber Reinforced
Concrete,” Materials and Structures, V. 47, No. 5, pp. 853-872.
Barros, J. A. O.; Cunha, V. M. C. F.; Ribeiro, A. F.; and Antunes, J. A. B., 2005, “Postcracking Behaviour of Steel Fibre Reinforced
Concrete,” Materials and Structures, V. 38, No. 1, pp. 47-56.
Blom, C.B.M., 2002, “Design philosophy of concrete linings for tunnels in soft soil,” PhD dissertation. Delft University Press, December
2002.
Caan, C.P.; Jansen, J. A. G.; Heijmans, R. W. M. G.; and van der Put, J. L., 1998, “High Speed Line – South: The Groene Hart Tunnel-
Lining Design”, Reference Design. Report No. 9G4 0001 981028, 52p.
Caratelli, A.; Meda, A.; Rinaldi, Z., 2012, “Design According to MC2010 of a Fibre-Reinforced Concrete Tunnel in Monte Lirio, Panama”,
Structural Concrete, V. 13, No. 3, pp. 166-173.
Cavalaro, S. H. P., Blom, C. B. M., Aguado, A., & Walraven, J. C., 2011, “New design method for the production tolerances of concrete
tunnel segments”. Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 26(6), 824-834.
Çimentepe, A.G. 2010, “Evaluation of Structural Analysis methods used for the Design of TBM Segmental Linings”, MSc Thesis, Middle
East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
Clarke-Hackston, N., Messing, M., Loh, D., & Lott, R., 2006, “Modern high precision high speed measurement of segments and moulds”,
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 21(3), 258-258.
Colombo, M.; Martinelli, P.; di Prisco, M., 2015, “A design approach for tunnels exposed to blast and fire”, Structural Concrete, V. 16, No.
2, pp. 262-272.
Curtis, D.J.; Hay, M.; and Croydon, A., 1976, “Discussion on ‘The Circular Tunnel in Elastic Ground’” Géotechnique, V. 26, No. 1, pp. 231-
237.
Deere, D. U.; Peck, R. B.; Monsees, J. E.; and Schmidt, B., 1969, “Design of Tunnel Liners and Support Systems”, Highway Research
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 57 17/04/2019 17:35

14 >> References
Record 889, Final Report to Urban Mass Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
Duddeck, H.; and Erdmann, J., 1982, “Structural Design Models for Tunnels”, Tunneling ’82-Proceedings of the Third International
Symposium. Inst. of Mining and Metallurgy S, London, UK, pp. 83-91.
Francis, O.; and Mangione, M., 2012, “Developments in Joint Design for Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete Segmental Tunnel Linings”,
Proceedings of the World Tunnelling Congress 2012. Bangkok, Thailand.
Fukui, K.; and Okubo, S., 2003, “TBM Cutting Forces with Particular Reference to Cutter and Tunnel Diameters”, ISRM 2003–Technology
Roadmap for Rock Mechanics, South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
Groeneweg, T., 2007, “Shield Driven Tunnels in Ultra High Strength Concrete: Reduction of the Tunnel Lining Thickness”, MSc Thesis, Delft
University of Technology, The Netherlands.
Guglielmetti, V.; Grasso, P.; Mahtab, A.; and Xu, S., 2007, Mechanized Tunnelling in Urban Areas: Design Methodology and Construction
Control, CRC Press, 528p.
Handke, D., 2012, “High-Precision Segments: Prerequisite for a high-quality monocoque tunnel”, Tunnel, 8: 42.
Iyengar, K. T., 1962, “Two-Dimensional Theories of Anchorage Zone Stresses in Post-Tensioned Beams”, Journal of the American Concrete
Institute (ACI), V. 59, No. 10, pp. 1443–1466.
Kirschke, D.; Schälicke, H.; and Fraas, D., 2013, “Finne Tunnel: Innovative targeted resealing of segment bore joints – Part 2”, Tunnel,
4/2013. pp. 30-40.
Mashimo, H.; Isago, N.; Yoshinaga, S.; Shiroma, H.; and Baba, K., 2002, “Experimental Investigation on Load-Carrying Capacity of
Concrete Tunnel Lining”, Proceedings of AITES-ITA 2002 - 28th General Assembly & World Tunnelling Congress 2002, Sydney, Australia,
pp. 1-10.
Mendez Lorenzo, M.G., 1998, “Reliability analysis of a steel fibre reinforced concrete tunnel lining”, Master Thesis. Delft University of
Technology, Delft, the Netherlands.
Mobasher, B.; Bakhshi, M.; and Barsby, C., 2014, “Backcalculation of Residual Tensile Strength of Regular and High Performance Fiber
Reinforced,” Construction & Building Materials, V. 70, pp. 243-253.
Moccichino, M.; Romualdi, P.; Perruzza, P.; Meda, A.; and Rinaldi, Z., 2010, “Experimental Tests on Tunnel Precast Segmental Lining with
Fiber Reinforced Concrete”, ITA 2010 World Tunnel Congress, Vancouver, Canada.
Morgan, H.D., 1961, “A Contribution to the Analysis of Stress in A Circular Tunnel”, Geotechnique, V. 11, pp. 37-46.
Muir Wood, A. M., 1975, “The Circular Tunnel in Elastic Ground”, Géotechnique, V. 25, No. 1, pp. 115–127.
Neun, E., 2012, “Structural Fire Safety Engineering. Eurocode Approach and Practical Application”, Proceedings of the World Tunnelling
Congress 2012. Bangkok, Thailand.
Peck, R. B., 1969, “Deep Excavation and Tunnelling in Soft Ground, State of the Art Report”, 7th International Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, Mexico, pp. 225-290.
Plizzari, G.; Tiberti, G., 2009, “Tunnel Linings Made by Precast Concrete Segments”, Construction Methodologies and Structural
Performance of Tunnel Linings, G.A. Plizzari, ed., Brescia, Italy, pp. 136-131.
Poh, J; Tan, K. H.; Peterson, G. L.; and Wen, D., 2009, Structural Testing of Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete (SFRC) Tunnel Lining
Segments in Singapore”, Proceedings of the World Tunnelling Congress (WTC) 2009, Budapest, Hungary.
Rostami, J., 2008, “Hard Rock TBM Cutterhead Modeling for Design and Performance Prediction”, Geomechanics and Tunneling, V. 1, No.
1, pp. 18-28.
Sinha, R. S., 1989, Underground Structures: Design and Instrumentation, Elsevier Science, New York, NY, 500p.
Soranakom, C., and Mobasher, B., 2007, “Closed Form Solutions for Flexural Response of Fiber Reinforced Concrete Beams,” Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, V. 133, No. 8, pp. 933-941.
Vandewalle, L., 2000, “Cracking Behaviour of Concrete Beams Reinforced with a Combination of Ordinary Reinforcement and Steel Fibers,”
Materials and Structures, V. 33, No. 3, pp. 164-170.
Zhong, X.-C.; Liu, Q.-W.; and Zhao, H., 2011, “Study on the Grouting Pressure of Shield Tunnel”, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication,
V. 215, pp. 183-190.
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 58 17/04/2019 17:35

15 >> Glossary
Annular gap – space between the surrounding ground and the outer surface of the segments.
CIP – Cast-in-Place.
Circumferential joint – joint between two adjacent segmental rings.
Connections – devices for temporary or permanent connection of two segments or segment rings in the longitudinal and circumferential
joints.
Cover – vertical distance to nearest ground surface from the tunnel crown.
Crosscut – connecting structure between two tunnel tubes or between a tunnel tube and the ground surface or a shaft
Crown – the highest part of a tunnel in cross section.
CSO – Combined Sewer Overflow.
DEM – Distinct Element Method.
Demolding – process of removing a precast concrete segment from the form in which it was cast.
Extrados – the exterior curve of an arch, i.e. the outer surface of the segment or the segment ring
FEM – Finite Element Method, the model representation of a structure as a combination of a finite number of two-dimensional or three-
dimensional components.
Gasket – sealing strips placed in one or more layers around individual segments to ensure permanent sealing of the tunnel tube against the
ingress of water from the surrounding rock mass.
Grout – cement mortar which is injected into the annular gap behind segments to fill the void between segments and excavated ground
profile.
Intrados – the inner curve of an arch, i.e. the inner surface of the segment or segment ring
Invert – the lowest part of a tunnel in cross section.
Longitudinal joint – joint between adjacent segments in a ring.
One-pass lining – segmental lining is considered a one-pass lining when all static and structural requirements of the tunnel lining are
catered for and no further internal lining is required.
Ovalization – deformation of an initially circular segmental ring to an oval shape due to earth pressure, grout pressure, segment self-weight
or uplift.
Ring width – dimension of the segment ring in the longitudinal direction of the tunnel.
Segment – curved prefabricated element that forms part of a ring of support or tunnel lining; commonly precast concrete.
Segment thickness – distance between the inner and outer surfaces of the lining segment, i.e. the distance between the lining intrados
and extrados.
Segmental lining – a set of precast segments assembled in a ring to form the tunnel lining
Springline – opposite sides of the tunnel at center line level.
Stripping – see demolding.
Tail void – annular space between the outside diameter (extrados) of the shield and the extrados of the segmental lining.
TBM – Tunnel boring machine which consists of a cutterhead in front of a shield which excavates tunnels with a circular cross section
through different rock and soil strata.
Test ring – complete segment ring, usually assembled in horizontal position at segment precast plant, for test purposes.
Thrust jacks – hydraulic jacks serving to transmit the thrust forces of the tunnel boring machine to the segment ring, facilitating installation,
or both.
Two-pass lining – tunnel lining consisting of two shells with different structural and constructional requirements which are produced in
independent operations and with different construction methods (e.g. outer shell as a segmental lining, inner shell as a CIP).
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 59 17/04/2019 17:35

longrine 04 90 14 48 48 - (21946 - 04/19)
ITA Secretariat - c/o MIE2 – Chemin de Balexert 9 - CH-1219 Châtelaine (GE) - Switzerland
Tel: + 41 22 547 74 41 - Email : [email protected] - Web : www.ita-aites.org
21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 60 17/04/2019 17:35

WG2 - ITA REPORT DesignSegment PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

WG2 - ITA REPORT DesignSegment PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WG2 - ITA REPORT DesignSegment PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Guidelines for the Design of Segmental

ITA Working Group 2 - Research

N° ISBN: 978-2-9701242-1-4 ITA REPORT N°22 / APRIL 2019

21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 1 17/04/2019 17:35

21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 2 17/04/2019 17:35

ITA Working Group 2 - Research

21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 3 17/04/2019 17:35

2.2 Governing load cases and load factors............................................................................................... ................12

3 SEGMENTAL RING GEOMETRY AND SYSTEMS..............................................................................13

3.2 Thickness of the segmental lining ring........................................................................................................... ......13

3.3 Length of the ring................................................................................................................................................ 14

3.5 Ring configuration............................................................................................................................................... 16

3.7 Key segment geometry....................................................................................................................................... 18

4 SEGMENTAL LINING DESIGN - PRODUCTION AND TRANSIENT STAGES . ................................39

4.2 Segment storage...................................................................................................................... ..........................19

4.4 Segment handling..................................................................................................................... ..........................20

5 SEGMENTAL LINING DESIGN FOR CONSTRUCTION STAGES......................................................21

5.2 Tail skin back-grouting pressure.......................................................................................................................... 23

5.3 Localized back-grouting (secondary grouting) pressure....................................................................................... 24

6 SEGMENTAL DESIGN FOR FINAL SERVICE STAGES......................................................................26

6.2 Longitudinal joint bursting load............................................................................................................................ 28

6.4 Other loads......................................................................................................................................................... 30

4 GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGN OF SEGMENTAL TUNNEL LININGS

21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 4 17/04/2019 17:35

7 DETAILED DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS.............................................................................................33

7.3 Reinforcement spacing........................................................................................................................................ 34

7.4 Fiber reinforcement ........................................................................................................................................... 34

9.2 Stress verification................................................................................................................................ ................37

9.3 Deformation verification .................................................................................................................... .................38

10.2 Water pressure and gasket design.................................................................................................... ................40

10.4 Tolerances and design for required gap/offset.................................................................................. .................41

10.5 Gasket load deflection............................................................................................................................. ..........43

10.6 Gasket groove design....................................................................................................................... ................43

10.8 New development in gasket repair systems...................................................................................... .................44

11 CONNECTION DEVICES AND FASTENING SYSTEMS....................................................................45

11.2 Design of connection device for gasket pressure............................................................................... ................45

11.3 Latest developments in joint connection systems ............................................................................ .................46

11.4 Fastening systems to segments....................................................................................................... .................46

12 TOLERANCES, MEASUREMENT, AND DIMENSIONAL CONTROL...............................................49

12.2 Measurement and dimensional control.............................................................................................. ................51

12.4 Construction tolerances................................................................................................................... .................53

13 CONCLUDING REMARKS . .............................................................................................................54

ITA WORKING GROUP 2 : RESEARCH 5

21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 5 17/04/2019 17:35

MAIN AUTHORS, CONTRIBUTORS AND REVIEWERS

6 GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGN OF SEGMENTAL TUNNEL LININGS

21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 6 17/04/2019 17:35

ITA WORKING GROUP 2 : RESEARCH 7

21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 7 17/04/2019 17:35

fD150 = residual flexural strength at net deflection of L/150, MPa

8 GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGN OF SEGMENTAL TUNNEL LININGS

21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 8 17/04/2019 17:35

ITA WORKING GROUP 2 : RESEARCH 9

21946-ITA-REPORT-22-2019.indd 9 17/04/2019 17:35

The rapid progress of mechanized tunneling

Mechanized tunneling utilizing a shield

ITA WG2 published the “Guidelines

The ITA WG2 2019 Guideline is intended

The 2019 document consolidates most

3.3 Length of the ring................................................................................................................................................ 14

3.5 Ring configuration............................................................................................................................................... 16

3.7 Key segment geometry....................................................................................................................................... 18

4.2 Segment storage...................................................................................................................... ..........................19

4.4 Segment handling..................................................................................................................... ..........................20

5.2 Tail skin back-grouting pressure.......................................................................................................................... 23

6.2 Longitudinal joint bursting load............................................................................................................................ 28

6.4 Other loads......................................................................................................................................................... 30

7.4 Fiber reinforcement ........................................................................................................................................... 34

9.3 Deformation verification .................................................................................................................... .................38

10.4 Tolerances and design for required gap/offset.................................................................................. .................41

10.8 New development in gasket repair systems...................................................................................... .................44

11.3 Latest developments in joint connection systems ............................................................................ .................46

11.4 Fastening systems to segments....................................................................................................... .................46

12.4 Construction tolerances................................................................................................................... .................53