Originalarbeit

Berg Huettenmaenn Monatsh

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00501-019-00917-7
© Austrian Society for Metallurgy of Metals (ASMET) and
Bergmännischer Verband Österreich (BVÖ) 2019

New American Concrete Institute (ACI) Code for Design,

Manufacturing and Construction of Tunnel Segmental
Lining
Mehdi Bakhshi and Verya Nasri

AECOM, New York, USA

Abstract: American Concrete Institute (ACI) as one of the Neue American Concrete Institute (ACI) Richtlinie für
most powerful advocates for concrete construction in the Entwurf, Produktion und Errichtung von Tübbingschalen
world is aiming to publish its first guide (ACI 533.2R) led by im Tunnelbau
the authors of this paper on general aspects of precast tun-
nel segments. This paper is intended to present salient fea- Zusammenfassung: Das American Concrete Institute (ACI)
tures of the guide including the most recent developments als eines der weltweit mächtigsten Fürsprecher für Beton-
on all aspects of design, manufacturing and construction. bau beabsichtigt unter Führung der Autoren dieses Bei-
This document is drafted based on the knowledge and the trags seinen ersten Leitfaden (ACI 533.2R) mit allgemeinen
experience gained on projects in Asia, Europe, and North Grundlagen für Tübbingausbau im Tunnelbau zu veröf-
America, and available national and international reports fentlichen. In diesem Beitrag werden wichtige Teile des
and recommendations. Procedures to perform structural Leitfadens einschließlich der neuesten Entwicklungen bei
design for Ultimate and Serviceability Limit States (ULS, Entwurf, Produktion und Errichtung von Tübbingschalen
SLS) during production, transportation, construction and vorgestellt. Dieses Dokument basiert auf bei Projekten in
final service stages are explained. Details of segmental ring Asien, Europa und Nordamerika gewonnenen Erkenntnis-
geometry and systems, concrete strength, curing, and rein- sen und Erfahrungen, welche durch nationale und interna-
forcement detailing are discussed. Gasket design, segment tionale Berichte und Empfehlungen zur Verfügung stehen.
connection devices, anchorage systems, tolerances, mea- Verfahren zur Bemessung im Grenzzustand der Tragfähig-
surement and dimensional control, and repair of defects keit (ULS) und Gebrauchstauglichkeit (SLS) während der
are among other topics that are presented. This document Produktion, des Transports, des Baus und des Betriebs-
also addresses testing and performance evaluation, dura- zustands werden erläutert. Einzelheiten zu Ringgeome-
bility and degradation mechanisms of tunnel linings and trien und Ringsystemen, Betonfestigkeiten, Aushärtung
their mitigation methods. While some design parts of this und Ausbaudetails werden behandelt. Die Auslegung von
guide may only consider the procedures adopted by ACI, Dichtungen und Verbindungselementen, Ankersysteme,
they can be extended to other national and international Toleranzen, die messtechnische Überwachung, Dimensi-
codes and used worldwide. onskontrollen und Reparatur von Schäden sind weitere
Themen, welche dargelegt werden. Dieses Dokument be-
Keywords: Annular gap grouting, Concrete, Design, fasst sich auch mit der Beurteilung von Prüfverfahren und
Durability, Lining, Reinforcement, Ring, Segment, TBM, der Ausführung, der Lebensdauer und Alterungsprozessen
Tolerance, Tunnel, Tunnel boring machine von Tunnelschalen und entsprechenden Schutzmaßnah-
men. Obwohl einige Designteile dieses Leitfadens nur die
Vorgehensweise der ACI berücksichtigen, können sie auf
andere nationale und internationale Richtlinien ausgewei-
tet und weltweit genutzt werden.

Schlüsselwörter: Ringspaltverpressung, Beton, Entwurf,

M. Bakhshi, PhD, PE () Dauerhaftigkeit, Tunnelschale, Bewehrung, Ring, Tübbing,
AECOM, TVM, Toleranz, Tunnel, Tunnelvortriebsmaschine
125 Broad St, 16th Floor,
10004 New York, USA
[email protected]

Berg Huettenmaenn Monatsh © Austrian Society for Metallurgy of Metals (ASMET) and Bergmännischer Verband Österreich (BVÖ)
Originalarbeit

1. Introduction 2. Design Philosophy

Precast concrete segments are installed to support the ex- Concrete precast tunnel segments should be designed us-
cavation behind the tunnel boring machine (TBM) in soft ing load and resistance factor design (LRFD) method. The
ground, fractured rock, and weak rock applications. TBM current practice in the tunnel industry is to design segmen-
advances by reacting against the completed rings of pre- tal tunnel linings for the governing load cases presented in
cast concrete segments that typically provide both the ini- Table 1, which occur during segment manufacturing, han-
tial and final ground support as part of a one-pass lining dling, transportation, installation, and final service condi-
system. These segments are designed to resist the perma- tions. In the LRFD design method, the required strength (U)
nent loads from the ground and groundwater as well as is expressed in terms of combination of factored loads pre-
the temporary loads from production, transportation, and sented in Table 1, and strength reduction factors that are
construction. Currently, very little guidance is provided defined by structural codes such as ACI 318 [2]. A com-
for tunnel designers and contractors by local or interna- mon design approach starts with selecting appropriate seg-
tional authorities, and there was an acute need for a docu- ment geometry, concrete compressive strength and type
ment to clearly highlight the practical design principles, ad- and amount of reinforcement. The design strength of seg-
vances in construction, and the research needs in this area. ments is compared with required strength against all crit-
ACI 533.2R [1] guide is intended to address such needs by ical load cases in ULS conditions as well as satisfying all
providing procedures required for the ultimate limit states service conditions.
(ULS) and the serviceability limit state (SLS) designs. In ad-
dition, detailed design considerations are presented such
as concrete strength and reinforcement. Gasket design as 3. Segmental Ring Geometry and Systems
sealing elements against groundwater inflow, connection
devices, and fastening systems are introduced, followed by 3.1 Internal Diameter of the Bored Tunnel
segment tolerances, measurement, and dimensional con-
trol systems. Durability of segmental lining with respect to The dimension of the tunnel intrados is determined by con-
major degradation mechanisms and their mitigation meth- sidering the internal space requirements, which depends
ods are also covered. This document will be the first guide on the intended use of the tunnel and client requirements.
in the world published by an international code agency that ACI 533.2R [1] classifies intended use of tunnels in four
covers all aspects of design, manufacturing and construc- main categories of railroad and subway tunnels, road tun-
tion of the segments in a single publication. For drafting this nels, utility tunnels, and tunnels for water and wastewa-
document, most of available guidelines, reports and codes ter or Combined Sewer Overflow. Major governing re-
published by major standard authorities as well as most of quirements and elements that impact the internal size of
relevant research, professional publications and technical tunnels for each of these four tunnel categories are ex-
data by manufacturers were directly used. Salient features plained separately, and the minimum tunnel intrados is in-
of this guide are summarized in this paper. troduced as the smallest tunnel which encircles all these
elements. For example as shown in Fig. 1, for the road
tunnels, the geometrical configuration of the tunnel cross
section should satisfy the required horizontal and vertical
traffic clearances; shoulders or sidewalks; barriers; fans
and suitable spaces for ventilation, lights, traffic control

TABLE 1
Governing load cases, and their factored load combinations
Stage Load case Required strength in terms of factored loads (U)
Production and Load case 1: stripping (demolding) U = 1.4w
transient stages
Load case 2: storage U = 1.4(w + F)
Load case 3: handling U = 1.4(w + F) or 1.4w
Load case 4: transportation U = 1.4(w + F)
Construction Load case 5: TBM thrust jack forces U = 1.0J (1.2 if machine thrust is unavailable)
stages
Load case 6: tail skin grouting U = 1.25(w + Pgr)
Load case 7: secondary grouting U = 1.25(w + Pgr)
Final service Load case 8: earth pressure and groundwater load U = 1.25(w + WAp) + 1.35(EH + EV) + 1.5 P0
stages
Load case 9: longitudinal joint bursting U = 1.25(w + WAp) + 1.35(EH + EV) + 1.5 P0
Load case 10: additional distortion U = 1.4Mdistortion
w is the segment self-weight (kN/m), F is the force acting on designed segment due to self-weight of segments positioned
above when segments are piled up within one stack during storage or transportation phases or handled by forklift (N), J is
the TBM thrust jack forces (kN), Pgr is the radial annular gap grouting pressure (MPa), WAp is the groundwater pressure
(MPa), EH is the horizontal earth pressure (MPa), EV is the vertical earth pressure (MPa), P0 is the surcharge load (N),
Mdistortion is the bending moment due to additional distortion effect (N.m).

© Austrian Society for Metallurgy of Metals (ASMET) and Bergmännischer Verband Österreich (BVÖ) Berg Huettenmaenn Monatsh
Originalarbeit

Fig. 1: Schematics of interior

space of road tunnels: a typical
section, b section at low-point
pump station

Fig. 3: Typical 6 segment ring configuration (5 + 1) used for tunnels 6m in

diameter or less

3.2 Thickness, Length and System of the

Segmental Lining Ring
Fig. 2: Different ring systems, tapering and curve negotiation schemat-
ics: a parallel rings, b right/left rings, c universal rings
Initially a thickness is assumed for the segmental lining ring
which is later optimized during detailed design. The guide-
line given is in the format of the ratio of internal tunnel
system, and fire life safety systems including water sup- diameter (ID) to the lining thickness and falls in the range of
ply pipes for firefighting, cabinets for hose reels, fire extin- 18–25 for tunnels with an ID of more than 5.5 m, and 15–25
guishers, and emergency telephones. In determining the for tunnels with an ID of 4.0 m to 5.5 m.
tunnel intrados, allowance should be made for construction The length of the lining ring needs to be optimized for
tolerances. For example, DAUB [3] recommends a radius the efficiency of the tunnel works. Depending on the tunnel
tolerance of R = ±100 mm for TBM-bored tunnels. diameter, the ring length can range between 0.75 m and
2.50 m [3]. Typically, a ring length of 1.5 m would be used for
tunnel diameters of 6 m to 7 m, increasing to a ring length
of 2 m for tunnels larger than 9 m in diameter.

Berg Huettenmaenn Monatsh © Austrian Society for Metallurgy of Metals (ASMET) and Bergmännischer Verband Österreich (BVÖ)
Originalarbeit

Fig. 4: Main systems for seg-

ment geometry: a hexagonal,
b rectangular, c trapezoidal,
d rhomboidal systems

Different systems exist for tunnel segmental rings; these quired to restore line and grade. These joints cannot always
include parallel rings, parallel rings with corrective rings, be properly sealed as the packing reduces the compression
right/left-tapered rings, and universal ring systems (see in the gasket.
Fig. 2). The parallel rings with corrective rings system utilize the
Parallel ring systems consist of rings with parallel end corrective rings for directional corrections. With this sys-
faces and with circumferential faces perpendicular to the tem, the requirement for different types of formwork set is
tunnel axis. This system is not inherently suitable for curves the main disadvantage.
and is problematic where packing between the rings is re-

© Austrian Society for Metallurgy of Metals (ASMET) and Bergmännischer Verband Österreich (BVÖ) Berg Huettenmaenn Monatsh
Originalarbeit

Fig. 5: Main load cases during

segment production and tran-
sient stages: a segment strip-
ping (demolding), b segment
storage, c segment handling,
d segment transportation

Fig. 6: a Forces acting on segments during stripping/demolding and handling by lifters, b and c Forces acting on segments during storage, handling by
forklifts, and transportation, d scheme of handling by forklift

Berg Huettenmaenn Monatsh © Austrian Society for Metallurgy of Metals (ASMET) and Bergmännischer Verband Österreich (BVÖ)
Originalarbeit

TABLE 2
Summary of maximum unfactored bending moments, shear forces and dynamic impact factors for various load-
ing cases during production and transient stages [5]
Load Case Load case Dynamic impact Maximum unfactored bending Maximum unfactored shear
Number factor moment force
1 Stripping (demolding) – wa2/2 wa
2 Storage – w(L2/8 – S2/2) + F1e wS
w(S2/2) + F1e wL/2 + F1
3 Handling (forklift) 2.0 w(L2/8 – S2/2) + F2e wS
w(S2/2) + F2e wL/2 + F2
handling (others) wa2/2 wa
2 2
4 Transportation 2.0 w(L /8 – S /2) + F2e wS
w(S2/2) + F2e wL/2 + F2
F1 is the self-weight of all segments completing a ring, excluding bottom segment; F2 is the self-weight of all segments
carried by forklifts or placed in one carriage for transportation phase, excluding bottom segment

The right/left ring system generally consists of tapered be adopted. Finally, for tunnels larger than 14 m, a 9 + 1
rings with one circumferential face perpendicular to the configuration is the most common configuration.
tunnel axis and the other one inclined to the tunnel axis.
A sequence of alternating right-tapered and left-tapered
rings produces a straight drive. Alternatively, a sequence 3.4 Segment Geometry
of right-tapered rings or left-tapered rings results in a curve
with the minimum radius of curvature. Up and down di- The geometry of individual segments, as shown in Fig. 4,
rectional corrections are achieved by rotating the tapered can be divided into four main categories or systems: hexag-
segment ring through 90° [4]. This ring system provides onal, rectangular, trapezoidal, and rhomboidal.
good sealing performance for an impermeable tunnel but Because hexagonal segments (Fig. 4a) prevent the effec-
the requirement for different types of formwork set is a dis- tive use of gaskets, they compromise the watertightness of
advantage. the lining and are rarely used nowadays.
Currently, the universal ring system is the most conven- Rectangular systems are assembled in rings which con-
tional system, where both circumferential faces of the ring sist of rectangular segments with a wedge-shaped key seg-
are inclined to the tunnel axis. As indicated in Fig. 2, the ment (Fig. 4b). This system can provide adequate wa-
ring taper is split between the two circumferential faces tertightness and has the advantage of simple longitudi-
and all curves and directional corrections can be negoti- nal joint geometry. However, staggered longitudinal joints
ated through the rotation of the segmental ring. The main cannot always be guaranteed, and star or crucifix joints
advantage of this system is that only one type of formwork may present themselves which may cause leakage.
set is required [4]. Using the universal rings, a straight Trapezoidal systems are assembled from an even num-
alignment can be achieved by rotating each alternate ring ber of trapezoidal segments in a ring often with the same
by 180°. Horizontal and vertical curves can be negotiated length at centerline. Initially half the segments are installed
by partial rotation of the rings. as counter key segments and then gaps are filled with other
half as key segments (Fig. 4c). Staggered longitudinal joints
eliminate the possibility of star or crucifix joints, but the
3.3 Ring Configuration installation process makes it difficult to place several key
segments between the counter key segments.
One of the main considerations in segmental lining design Rhomboidal or parallelogrammic-trapezoidal systems
is the number of segments required to form a ring. ACI are assembled from ordinary segments in the shape of
533.2R [1] recommendations indicate that rings generally a parallelogram with key and reverse key segments in the
contain a number of segments that yields a segment slen- shape of a trapezoid (Fig. 4d). The assembly procedure is
derness ratio of 8–13, with FRC segments generally around carried out by initially installing the reverse key trapezoidal
the lower bound. However, with recent developments in element and then placing alternate parallelogrammic seg-
fiber technology, FRC segments with segment slenderness ments (left and right) around the ring. Ring assembly is
of up to 12–13 have been successfully utilized. General rec- completed by inserting an often smaller trapezoidal key
ommendation for tunnels with a diameter of up to 6 m is to segment. This system is currently the most common
divide the ring into 6 segments and use 5 + 1 (see Fig. 3) or system as it eliminates crucifix joints, has improved seal-
4 + 2 configurations as former number refers to the num- ing performance and allows for continuous ring erection.
ber of ordinary segments and the latter to the number of Other major advantages are that the angled segment joints
smaller key segments. When the tunnel diameter ranges prevent early rubbing of the gaskets during segment inser-
between 6 m to 8 m and 8 m to 11 m, a 7-segment ring and tion and also facilitate the use of fast connecting dowels in
an 8-segment ring can be adopted, respectively. For tun- circumferential joints.
nel diameters between 11 m to 14 m a 9-segment ring can

© Austrian Society for Metallurgy of Metals (ASMET) and Bergmännischer Verband Österreich (BVÖ) Berg Huettenmaenn Monatsh
Originalarbeit

the required strength when segments are stripped or de-

molded (i.e. 6 h after casting) and as schematically pre-
sented in Fig. 6a, it is modeled as two cantilever beams
loaded under their own self-weight (w).

4.2 Segment Storage

Segment stripping (demolding) is followed by segment

storage, where segments are stacked to gain their required
strength before transportation to the construction site. As
shown in Fig. 5b, generally all segments comprising a full
ring are piled up in one stack. The design considers an ec-
centricity of e = 100 mm between the locations of the stack
support for the bottom segment and the supports of the
upper segments. This load case can be modeled as a sim-
ply supported beam loaded under its self-weight (w) and
point loads from upper segments (F) as shown in Fig. 6b, c.

4.3 Segment Handling

Segment handling is carried out by specially designed lift-

ing devices such as mechanical clamping, vacuum lifters
and forklifts (Fig. 5c). For handling by mechanical clamping
and vacuum lifters the loading scheme utilized for segment
stripping (demolding) should be applied. However, when
segments are handled by forklifts as schematically shown
in Fig. 6c, a loading scheme similar to 6b should be adopted.
In this case, the total eccentricity is equal to sum of spac-
ing of forklift contact point from wooden blocks axis and
minimum design eccentricity of e = 100 mm.

4.4 Segment Transportation

During the segment transportation phase, precast seg-

ments are transported to the construction site and ulti-
mately to the TBM trailing gear. As shown in Fig. 5d, half
Fig. 7: Load case of TBM jack forces: a schematic view of thrust jacks of the ring or in some cases all segments of each ring are
pushing on circumferential joints, b schematics of bursting tensile forces transported to the TBM on one carriage. An eccentricity
and corresponding parameters when using simplified equations of
post-tensioned anchorage zones in pre-stressed concrete, c Iyengar of 100 mm is generally recommended for design. Similar
(1962) diagram as a common analytical method, d results of 3D FEM to the segment storage phase, the load case can be mod-
analysis
elled as a simply supported beam loaded under its self-
weight (w) and the point loads from the upper segments (F)
The key segment tapering is defined by the angle of the as shown in Fig. 6b, c.
side faces with respect to the longitudinal tunnel axis com- The applied load factor for all these four load cases in
monly ranging between 8–12o. When adopting the rhom- ULS is 1.4 (Table 1) and maximum generated bending mo-
boidal or parallelogrammic-trapezoidal system, the same ment and shear force are given in Table 2. For the load cases
joint angle for key segments are used for all other segments of handling and transportation segments may encounter
in the ring. dynamic shock loads and therefore a dynamic impact fac-
tor of 2.0 is recommended.

4. Segment Design—Production and

Transient Stages 5. Segment Design—Construction Stages
4.1 Segment Stripping (Demolding) Construction loads on the segmental lining include TBM
jacking thrust loads on the circumferential ring joints and
After casting and initial curing, as shown in Fig. 5a, seg- the pressures exerted against the exterior of the completed
ments are stripped from formwork. The design considers rings during grouting operations.

Berg Huettenmaenn Monatsh © Austrian Society for Metallurgy of Metals (ASMET) and Bergmännischer Verband Österreich (BVÖ)
Originalarbeit

Fig. 8: aDoubleringbeam-spring
model with radial springs sim-
ulating ground, and joint
springs simulating longitudi-
nal and circumferential joints;
and b scheme of ring joint [10]

5.1 TBM Thrust Jack Forces ing pads can be up to four times higher than transverse
bursting stresses under the jack pads. This is the main
After assembly of a complete ring, the tunnel boring ma- advantage of this method because other two methods can-
chine (TBM) advances by thrusting against the most re- not provide accurate solutions for excessively high spalling
cently assembled ring (a partially assembled ring is shown stresses between jack pads.
in Fig. 7a). As part of this process, the TBM jacks bear
against the jacking pads placed along the exposed circum-
ferential joint. High compression stresses develop under 5.2 Tail Skin and Localized Back-Grouting
the jacking pads which result in the formation of significant Pressure
bursting tensile stresses deep within the segment. Further-
more, spalling tensile forces are generated between ad- Tunnel rings are assembled within the TBM shield. At this
jacent jack pads along the circumferential joint. Different location, the excavated diameter of the tunnel is larger than
analytical and design methods are available which include the external diameter (extrados) of the tunnel ring. A void
simplified equations for bursting forces [2, 3], the analyt- is created between the ground and the tunnel segmental
ical method of Iyengar [6] diagram, and two- and three- lining. Loads on the lining are generated when back-grout-
dimensional finite element simulations. ing or filling this annular space with semi-liquid grouts un-
For post-tensioned anchorage zones in pre-stressed con- der high pressure. Back-grouting is carried out to control
crete sections, structural concrete codes such as ACI 318 and restrict settlement at the ground surface as well as to
[2] permit the use of simplified equations to determine the ensure intimate contact between the ring and the ground.
bursting force, and the centroidal distance from the face of The maximum grout pressure on the lining should not be
the section. Same equations can be adopted for this load greater than 70–150 kPa above the groundwater pressure.
case as also recommended by DAUB [3] specifically for the In this load case, the segmental lining ring is evaluated in
design of tunnel segments. The schematic representation cross-section perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of
of these equations is shown in Fig. 7b. If no specific value the tunnel and modeled as a ring with joints or a contin-
has been provided for the eccentricity (eanc) then the ec- uous ring with reduced flexural rigidity to account for the
centricity of the jacking forces is generally assumed to be segment joints. Because the lining is initially surrounded by
30 mm. High compressive stresses developed under the semi-liquid and fresh grout materials, no interaction is con-
jacking pads are analyzed using the concrete code formu- sidered between the ring and ground. The back-grouting
lations for the bearing action. (cavity filling) load is modeled by applying radial pressure
The analytical method utilizing the Iyengar [6] diagram varying linearly from the minimum grout pressure at the
(Fig. 7c) may also be used to calculate the bursting ten- crown to the maximum grout pressure at the invert of the
sile stresses in the design of tunnel segments. The ex- tunnel. The self-weight of the lining and the grouting pres-
tent of load spread and the resulting magnitude of the ten- sure are the only loads applied to the tunnel lining at this
sile stresses depend on the dimensions of the loaded sur- stage. For the load combination of self-weight and grout
face (β), and the final distribution surface (a), as shown in pressure, a load factor of 1.25 is recommended for both
Fig. 7c. Using this approach, the bursting tensile stresses loads.
(σcx), which vary significantly from the face that the TBM Localized back-grouting, also known as secondary or
jacks bear against to the centerline of segment, are de- check grouting is performed through holes that are pre-
termined as a fraction of the fully distributed compressive cast into the segments. Because secondary grouting oc-
stress (σcm = F / ab). curs long after the primary grouting materials have cured,
This problem can be accurately analyzed with the three- it can be assumed that the tunnel lining is in full contact
dimensional finite element method (FEM). Typical results with the surrounding ground except in the local area where
of 3D FEM analysis illustrated in Fig. 7d indicate that the the secondary grouting is to be performed. The interaction
transverse spalling stresses in the areas between the jack- between lining and surrounding ground or primary hard-

© Austrian Society for Metallurgy of Metals (ASMET) and Bergmännischer Verband Österreich (BVÖ) Berg Huettenmaenn Monatsh
Originalarbeit

Fig. 9: Force transfer recom-

mended by DAUB (2013) in lon-
gitudinal joints using the sim-
plified stress block concept

ened grout should be modeled using radial springs with the cause the lining and ground are represented by a series
segments supported radially simulating ground/hardened of beams and springs, this method is commonly referred
grout interaction. A localized triangular grout pressure dis- to as the beam-spring method. Various two-dimensional
tribution at the crown is advisable for simulation of the load- approaches are used to evaluate the effect of the segment
ings of the grout in this case. joints, including continuous ring models with full bending
rigidity, ring models with reduced bending rigidity [7], ring
models with multiple hinged joints, and ring models with
6. Segment Design—Final Service Stages rotational springs.
The DEM method is generally considered more appro-
6.1 Ground Pressure, Groundwater and priate for tunnels in fractured rock. A two-dimensional ap-
Surcharge Loads proach is generally sufficient for continuous linear struc-
tures that do not contain sudden changes in cross sectional
Precast concrete segments are designed to withstand var- geometry or high concentrations of loadings. Three-di-
ious loads including vertical and horizontal ground pres- mensional techniques are generally used with more com-
sure, groundwater, self-weight and surcharge. In accor- plex geometry and loadings such as at crosscuts that inter-
dance with Limit State Design (LSD), load factors as shown sect the main tunnel.
in Table 1 (Load Case 8) can be used to compute the ultimate FEM is used to model the soft ground surrounding the
limit state (ULS). Among other methods, this load case can lining. The advantage of this method is that one is able
be analyzed using elastic equations, beam-spring models, to determine the ground deformations and the post yield-
finite element methods (FEM) and discrete element meth-
ods (DEM). TABLE 3
The elastic equation method is a simple method for cal- Recommendations for compressive strength of pre-
culating lining internal forces for circular tunnels. The load cast tunnel segments
distribution model consists of applying uniform vertical Authority Compressive Compressive
ground and groundwater pressures, linearly varying lateral Strength Strength
earth and groundwater pressures, self-weight of the lining, Stripping 28 day (MPa)
and a triangularly distributed horizontal ground reaction. (MPa)
For this method, the segmental tunnel lining is modeled as AASHTO [12] N.P. 34 to 48
a continuous ring using a uniform reduced bending rigidity Japan’s Railway Techni- N.P. 42 to 60
[7] that considers the effect of longitudinal joints between cal Research Institute,
RTRI [13]
the segments. Closed-form solutions are available in refer-
ences [8, 9] in format of easy-to-use equations for calculat- ÖVBB [4] 12 MPa 40 (minimum)
ing member forces. DAUB [3] (referring to 15 MPa 35 to 50
Using the beam-spring methods, the lining can be mod- local German guideline
ZTV-ING [14])
eled in cross-section as a series of beam elements that span
between the longitudinal joints of the segments. As shown LTA [15] N.P. 60 (minimum)
in Fig. 8, the interaction between the ground and the lin- USACE EM 1110-2-2901 N.P. 42 (minimum)
[16]
ing is generally modeled using linear translational springs
in the radial, tangential, and longitudinal directions. Be- N.P. Not Provided

Berg Huettenmaenn Monatsh © Austrian Society for Metallurgy of Metals (ASMET) and Bergmännischer Verband Österreich (BVÖ)
Originalarbeit

Fig. 10: Reinforcement lay-

out in segments: a typical plan
view (half-segment shown),
b typical sectional view of cir-
cumferential joint, c typical
sectional view of longitudinal
joint

ing behavior of the segmental lining materials, including present. Bursting tensile stresses can develop along the
any redistribution of stress that result from deformation longitudinal joints in a comparable manner to TBM thrust
of the lining and excavation of the tunnel. FEM analy- jacking loads on the circumferential joints. The maximum
sis techniques can also be used to represent non-uniform normal force obtained from the ground pressure, ground-
and anisotropic stresses such as when nonsymmetrical fea- water and surcharge loads should be applied to the longi-
tures are present in the ground. This can be the case when tudinal joints in order to obtain the maximum ULS design
several different geologic formations or external loads are compressive force. Similar to Load Case 5, general equa-
present within close proximity of an existing structure. tions from ACI 318 [2] and DAUB [3] according to stress
block scheme of Fig. 9, the analytical method of Iyengar
[6] diagram, and 2D or 3D finite element method (FEM)
6.2 Longitudinal Joint Bursting simulations are various methods utilized for the design of
longitudinal joint bursting.
Normal (hoop) forces developed in the lining are trans-
ferred through a reduced cross-sectional area along the lon-
gitudinal joints where gaskets and stress relief grooves are

© Austrian Society for Metallurgy of Metals (ASMET) and Bergmännischer Verband Österreich (BVÖ) Berg Huettenmaenn Monatsh
Originalarbeit

TABLE 4 TABLE 6
Recommended minimum concrete cover for RC pre- Recommended allowable crack width for precast
cast segments segments
Authority Minimum Comment Authority Allowable Comment
Cover Crack Width
(mm) (mm)
DAUB [3] 40 Surface of segment ACI 224 [23] 0.30 Structures exposed to
20 End faces and bolt soil
sockets EN 1992-1-1 [19] 0.30 RC members
ACI 318 [2] 38 Exposed to earth Fib Model Code 0.20 Leakage to be limited
JSCE [8] 25 Over reinforcement 2010 [24] with some surface
35 Corrosive environment staining
ÖVBB [4] referring to 25 to 45 Depending on expo- LTA [15] 0.30 –
EN 1992-1-1 [19] sure conditions DAUB [3] 0.20 0.15 mm when below
AFTES [20] 30 Intrados and extrados groundwater table
20 Other zones JSCE standard 0.004dc dc is the concrete cover
NEN 6720 [21] 35 – [8] over the rebar
RILEM TC 0.30 Fiber-reinforced con-
162-TDF [25] crete
TABLE 5
Recommended rebar spacing for RC precast seg-
ments for future development in the vicinity of the tunnel. Solu-
Authority Rebar Spacing Comment tions for this load case include Morgan [11] formula to cal-
(mm) culate the additional distortional bending moment, while
ACI 318 [2] 25 Minimum bar other approaches such as the theory of elasticity or finite
(not specific to pre- 457 spacing element method (FEM) can be also used.
cast tunnel segments) Maximum bar
spacing
DAUB [3] 100 to 150 Typical range
90 Minimum 7. Detailed Design Consideration
clear bar
spacing Table 3 summarizes available guidelines on the recom-
AASHTO DCRT-1 [12], 1.25 × max aggre- Minimum bar mended compressive strength of precast concrete tunnel
ÖVBB [4], and JSCE gate size plus bar spacing segments.
[8] diameter The reinforcement is often categorized to three differ-
AFTES [20] referring Smaller of: Minimum bar ent types: a) transverse reinforcement—the main reinforce-
to Section 4.4.5 of 200 spacing ment placed perpendicular to the tunnel axis to resist forces
BAEL 91 [22] 1.5 × segment
thickness and moments, b) longitudinal reinforcement—placed par-
allel to tunnel axis and often designed as minimum tem-
NEN 6720 [21] Largest of: Minimum bar
25 mm spacing perature and shrinkage reinforcement, c) joint reinforce-
4/3 × max aggre- ment—placed in the vicinity of joints to resisting bursting
gate size and spalling stresses. A typical plan view of transverse and
Largest bar diame- longitudinal bars in a precast concrete tunnel segment is
ter
shown in Fig. 10a. Transverse bar size generally ranges
between φ10 and φ16 metric sizes, while bar size in the
6.3 Loads Induced due to Additional Distortion longitudinal direction ranges between φ6 and φ16 metric
sizes. Typical sectional views of joint reinforcement in cir-
Segmental tunnel linings are designed to take an additional cumferential and longitudinal joints in segments are shown
diametrical distortion in addition to the deflections caused in Fig. 10b, c. Radial bars in circumferential joints range be-
by the effects of ground, groundwater, and surcharge loads. tween φ10 or φ13 metric sizes and consist of ladder bars,
This additional distortion may occur due to construction- ties or U bars with more closely spaced bars around the
related events such as joint misalignment, yielding of joint TBM thrust pad locations. Radial bars in longitudinal joints
connectors, excessive grouting pressure or from ground range between φ10 and φ13 metric sizes. Similar to Table 3,
movement caused by the construction of an adjacent tun- general recommendations on concrete cover and reinforce-
nel. This distortion is the difference between the move- ment spacing are summarized in Tables 4 and 5, respec-
ments of the tunnel lining on opposite sides of the spring- tively.
line. Although ovalization should be considered as a matter For design and construction of fiber-reinforced concrete
of course, some authorities stipulate the diametrical distor- (FRC) precast segments, ACI 533.2R [1] refers to new guide-
tion to accommodate in the design. These recommenda- lines of ACI 544.7R [5] , fib Bulletin 83 [17], and ITA WG2 [18].
tions include a minimum additional diametrical distortion
of 0.5% of diameter due to imperfect lining erection or an
additional distortion of ±15 mm on the diameter to allow

Berg Huettenmaenn Monatsh © Austrian Society for Metallurgy of Metals (ASMET) and Bergmännischer Verband Österreich (BVÖ)
Originalarbeit

8. Serviceability Limit State Design sented. The designer should ensure that the flexural crack
width is not greater than the allowable crack width shown
The Serviceability Limit State (SLS) in segmental tunnel lin- in Table 6.
ing systems corresponds to excessive stresses, deflections
and cracking of concrete segments and segment joints.
These limit states may not only cause excessive deforma- 9. Design of Segment Gaskets
tions but may result in durability and watertightness issues
due to rebar corrosion, water leakage from segment cracks, In the one-pass segmental lining system, the watertight-
or enlarged gaps between segment joints. In ACI 533.2R [1] ness of the tunnel is guaranteed by the precast concrete
, verifications for SLS in tunnel segments are discussed segments and the segment gaskets which are placed be-
which include stress verification, deformation verification tween segments in the longitudinal and circumferential
and cracking verification. Special attention is paid to crack- joints. EPDM (Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer) has
ing in segments major contributor to reduction in service- been established as the preferred material for gaskets.
ability. Cracks induced in segments under service loads are Guidelines require the maximum hardness of 75–85 for
mainly caused by bending moments. Accordingly, flexu- the rubber compound, and minimum tensile strength of
ral crack width calculation methods for reinforced concrete 12 MPa and elongation of 300%. Today, water tightness
(RC) and fiber reinforced concrete (FRC) segments are pre- of up to 10 bar is often achievable with a standard mono-

Fig. 11: Standard, composite

and double gasket solutions
for projects with different wa-
tertightness requirements

Fig. 12: Gasket profile watertightness: a T-joint test setup as recommended by STUVAtec [26], b typical watertightness-gap diagrams as test results

© Austrian Society for Metallurgy of Metals (ASMET) and Bergmännischer Verband Österreich (BVÖ) Berg Huettenmaenn Monatsh
Originalarbeit

Fig. 13: Recent developments in gasket technology: a anchored gasket, b fiber-anchored gasket, c soft corners

Fig. 14: Segmentconnection devices: aboltsystemsin longitudinaljoints,b dowelsystemsin circumferentialjoints, cguiding rodsin longitudinaljoints

extrusion EPDM gasket profile. To resist higher ground effects into account. Considering the relaxation effects of
water pressures, as shown in Fig. 11, solutions consist of rubber (evident by aging tests using an accelerated pro-
a composite seal combining an EPDM compression gasket cedure with elevated temperatures) and the design life of
with hydrophilic cord; co-extruded EPDM gasket with a hy- most tunnels is 100 to 125 years, a safety factor of two is
drophilic layer; composite profile solution with a separate advisable to ensure that the gasket is able to withstand the
hydrophilic seal next to EPDM gasket; and a double gasket design pressure in the long term.
profile with one gasket near the extrados and one near the The width of the gasket profile is a function of the seg-
intrados of the segment. ment thickness which in turn is a function of tunnel diame-
It is crucial that the gasket profile uphold the designed ter. The following gasket profile widths are commonly used
reaction force to withstand the applied ground water pres- with regard to the tunnel diameter: 20 mm (tunnel inter-
sure years after its installation, and therefore, the design nal diameter <4 m), 26 mm (4 m < tunnel internal diameter
should include a safety factor that takes rubber relaxation

Berg Huettenmaenn Monatsh © Austrian Society for Metallurgy of Metals (ASMET) and Bergmännischer Verband Österreich (BVÖ)
Originalarbeit

Conventional gasket systems incorporate the gasket

groove in the segment molds, so that after casting, the
gasket can be glued into the groove. Recent developments
include anchored gaskets, fiber-anchored gaskets, and gas-
kets with soft corners. In anchored gaskets, as shown in
Fig. 13, 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.
In fiber-anchored gaskets as the most recent development,
the anchoring legs are replaced with plastic fibers as the an-
choring element. This offers additional pull-out resistance
compared to the conventional glued gasket system, and
easier installation compared to anchored gaskets. Prefab-
ricated corners with reduced stiffness, soft corners, reduce
the risk of spalling of concrete at the segment corners.

10. Connection Devices and Fastening

Systems
10.1 Bolts, Dowels and Guiding Rods

Fig. 15: New dowel connection system with pullout resistance of The connections between segments within a ring and be-
60–250 kN: a stage 1 inserting main dowel piece by hand into avail- tween rings can be divided into three categories; joint con-
able thread; b stage 2 pushing segment (with inserted main dowel piece) nections with bolts, dowels and guiding rods (see Fig. 14).
toward previously installed segment (with embedded socket) by TBM
erector, c final position in the ring In the bolt connections, the segment is first placed in posi-
tion and then the bolts are inserted and tightened. Bolt
<7 m), 33 or 36 mm (7 m < tunnel internal diameter <11 m), type of connection is generally used between segments
36 or 44 mm (12 m < tunnel internal diameter). within a ring, and between rings of rectangular systems.
Gasket profile performance is governed by the erection In the dowel type connection, the dowels are inserted into
tolerances. While tolerances may significantly vary, tunnel the segment during ring assembly and are either mortise
project specifications commonly specify a 5 mm gap and inserted or dove-tailed into the segment of the last assem-
10 mm offset for segment gaskets. Watertightness tests bled ring. Dowel connections require less work for the con-
should be carried out considering these tolerances on steel struction of the mold and less manpower in the tunnel. Be-
specimens because concrete specimens are prone to fail- cause of the kinematics of the assembling process, dowel
ure. Test approaches vary but following STUVAtec [26] rec- connection is only used between the rings in circumferen-
ommendations and as shown in Fig. 12a, the geometric sit- tial joints in rhomboidal and trapezoidal segment systems.
uation is simulated on a T-joint in the laboratory, whereby, Guiding rods can be used as a movable centering device
as on the circumferential joint, a straight piece of sealing that provides guidance and centering during segment in-
profile is pressed against the end of a longitudinal joint. stallation with locking functionality. The inserted guiding
Gaskets must guarantee the watertightness under all pos- rods can prevent the segments slipping away from each
sible gaps and offsets. Therefore, it is necessary to run other during ring building. Guiding rods are usually uti-
the watertightness test with different gaps and offsets. For lized in conjunction with dowel connection systems. Latest
every offset setting (0–20 mm), the test has to run through developments in connection devices include integration of
a range of different gaps (4 mm—smallest possible). For a screw-able socket on one side of the dowel in order to
every gap, the water pressure is built up in steps of 1 bar reduce the installation tolerance and provide the workers
and is held there for 5 min. In this manner, every combi- with a smoother assembly process (Fig. 15). Pull-out resis-
nation is tested until leakage occurs. Plotting all “failure tance and shear capacity of up to 250 kN is achievable with
points” results in a watertightness-gap diagram as shown this system.
in Fig. 12b. From the watertightness diagram, the gasket
resisting pressure corresponding to designed gap and off-
set should be higher than the maximum factored working 10.2 Fastening Systems to Segments
pressure for the project, considering advised safety factor
of 2. In addition, connection systems are designed based Fastening systems are used during fitting out of a tunnel,
on the initial reaction force of gaskets during segment in- i.e. when fixing system components of the railway over-
stallation. Therefore, gasket short-term behavior should head catenary systems and fixing mechanical and electri-
be also determined with a test and a load-deflection curve cal equipment. Other applications of fastening systems
obtained. include fixing and supporting intermediate slabs, cross-
passageway connecting doors, and platform screen doors.

© Austrian Society for Metallurgy of Metals (ASMET) and Bergmännischer Verband Österreich (BVÖ) Berg Huettenmaenn Monatsh
Originalarbeit

TABLE 7
Production segment tolerances specified by guidelines and standards
Type of Reference dimensions JSCE [8] Ril 853 ZTV-ING DAUB DAUB [3]
tolerance [27] [14] [3] ID >11m
ID <8m
Linear Width ±1 mm ±0.5 mm ±0.6 mm ±0.5 mm ±0.7 mm
segment Thickness +5 mm ±3 mm ±3 mm ±3 mm ±4 mm
dimen-
–1 mm
sions
Circumferential length (arc) ±1 mm ±0.6 mm – ±0.6 mm ±0.7 mm
Inside radius – ±1.5 mm ±1.5 mm ±1.5 mm ±2.5 mm
Outside radius – – ±2 mm – –
Diagonals – – – ±1 mm ±2 mm
Warping (Vertical spacing of fourth – – – ±5 mm ±8 mm
segment corner from plane formed
by other three corners)
Joints Longitudinal joint deviation – ±0.3 mm ±0.3 mm ±0.3 mm ±0.5 mm
angular (±0.04o)
devia-
Longitudinal joint taper/conicity devi- – ±0.5 mm ±0.5 mm ±0.5 mm ±0.7 mm
tions and ation (±0.01o)
flatness
Longitudinal/circumferential – ±0.5 mm ±0.5 mm ±0.3 mm ±0.5 mm
joint flatness
Gasket, Location of gasket groove axis – ±1 mm ±1.5 mm ±1 mm ±1 mm
connec-
Sealing groove width/depth – +0.2 mm ±0.2 mm ±0.2 mm ±0.2 mm
tors, and –0 mm
acces-
sories Bolt hole/Dowel insert location ±1 mm ±1 mm – ±1 mm ±1 mm
dimen- Shear cones/erector pocket location – ±2 mm – ±2 mm ±2 mm
sions
Closed- Outer diameter ±7 mm (2m<ID<4m) ±10 mm – ±10 mm ±15 mm
ring di- ±10 mm (4m<ID<6m)
mensions ±15 mm (6m<ID<8m)
±20 mm (8m<ID<12m)
Inner diameter – ±10 mm – ±10 mm ±15 mm
Outer circumference (to be measured – ±30 mm – ±30 mm ±45 mm
in three planes)
Assembly misalignment ±7 mm (2m<ID<4m) ±10 mm – – –
±10 mm (4m<ID<6m)
±10 mm (6m<ID<8m)
±15 mm (8m<ID<12m)

These fasteners can be divided into two main categories, in the precast plant and in the tunnel. Resistance to fa-
post-installed and cast-in place systems. tigue from dynamic loading for example in railway tunnels
Post-installed anchors as a traditional fastening system is a key requirement that is not easily met by post-installed
have some disadvantages, mainly the issues of drilling and anchors. Cast-in fastening systems also provide similar op-
installation quality, which have made this system less favor- portunities for road tunnels for fixing lighting, signal facili-
able. Post-installed straight or curved framing channels, ties, ventilation, and exhaust air ducts. Tension rod systems
as an alternative to direct anchor fastening systems, can as another quick and reliable type of mounting fasteners are
provide some advantages regarding fixing flexibility and utilized in road and rail tunnels for supporting intermediate
negate issues of drilling and damage to segments. This so- slabs.
lution includes 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. 11. Tolerances, Measurement and
Latest segmental lining systems are utilizing dowel con- Dimensional Control
nections in circumferential joints and therefore, circumfer-
ential pockets for fastening bolts are often not available. Tolerances are allowable deviations from the actual dimen-
To overcome this, fastening technology is shifting towards sions of the segmental lining (either as individual compo-
the use of cast-in channels with a mechanical interlock sys- nents or as a system) compared to their design dimensions.
tem. This cast-in system consists of framing channels with Segmental lining tolerances are often broken down into two
welded anchors which are placed in segment forms prior to main categories, i.e. production tolerances and construc-
casting the concrete segment. These systems have lower tion tolerances. Production tolerances are the allowable
maintenance cost and result in better quality control both deviations of individual segment dimensions from the de-

Berg Huettenmaenn Monatsh © Austrian Society for Metallurgy of Metals (ASMET) and Bergmännischer Verband Österreich (BVÖ)
Originalarbeit

Fig. 16: 3D measurement:

alaserInterferometerschematic,
b laser tracker system, c Spatial
analyzer 3D graphical software
platform output

TABLE 8 mental test-ring mock-up which is erected horizontally in

Construction tolerances after ring erection the precast plant.
Type of tolerance Allowable value A proper quality control system is essential to ensure
Maximum ring roll ±100 mm (4′′ ) the production of high-precision segments with tolerances
Ring shape (ovalization) on diame- ±0.25% × ID which fall within the limits imposed by contract documen-
ter to ± 0.5% × ID tation. The most traditional measurement methods are
Maximum relative ring roll ±10 mm (0.4′′ ) manual measurement by means of steel templates, micron
Step, slip or lip due to joint mis- ±5 mm (0.2′′ ) rods, caliper squares, precision measuring tapes and mea-
alignment surement arms. However, conventional instruments like
Maximum gap between joint con- ±5 mm (0.2′′ ) micron rods or templates lack global geometrical certifi-
tact faces cation. Measurement systems using theodolite and pho-
Tolerances on absolute vertical posi- ±75 mm (3′′ ) togrammetry are alternative methods which lack the nec-
tion of lining invert essary speed and accuracy (to within few tenths of a mil-
Planarity of the faces of the ring ±0.75 mm from theo- limeter) needed for regular quality control. 3D industrial
retical plane measurement prevails as the only accurate measuring sys-
tem that can meet such high demands at a rate required
for a quick quality control program. As shown in Fig. 16a,
sign dimension after manufacture. Construction tolerances 3D measurements using a laser interferometer system fa-
include installation tolerances of the segmental ring, and cilitate the accurate digitization of surfaces by direct po-
subsequent deformations of the ring during and after TBM lar coordinate measurement. A skilled operator can com-
advances. prehensively measure the full profile of over 20 segments
per shift. Fig. 16b shows typical output of 3D measure-
ments with laser interferometer using the spatial analyzer
11.1 Production Tolerances and Measurements 3D graphical software.

Table 7 illustrates the segment tolerances specified by var-

ious guidelines and standards. Note that the closed-ring
dimension tolerances relate to the tolerances of the seg-

© Austrian Society for Metallurgy of Metals (ASMET) and Bergmännischer Verband Österreich (BVÖ) Berg Huettenmaenn Monatsh
Originalarbeit

TABLE 9
Summary of durability factors for tunnel linings, sources and mitigation methods
Degradation Type of tunnels susceptible Main sources of degrada- Specific location Mitigation method
mechanism to this factor tion of tunnel prone
to factor
Chloride- Sub-sea tunnels Sea/salt water Lining extrados Delay corrosion initiation by:
induced Sea outfall tunnels Sea/salt water Sufficient cover over rebar
corrosion Dense/high quality concrete:
Transportation tunnels in Chloride ions present in – Low w/c ratio
cold regions deicing salts used during – High compressive strength
snow falls – High cement content
Carbonate- Heavily-trafficked roadway CO2 emission from car Lining intrados Cement w/high C3A content
induced tunnels exhaust near portals, en- Use of corrosion inhibitors
corrosion trance zones,
shafts
All types of tunnels embed- Bicarbonate (HCO3) ground Lining extrados
ded in carbonate bedrock water formed by the reac-
such as limestone or tion of water and carbonate
dolomite bedrocks
External All types of tunnels embed- Formation of ettringite due Lining extrados Dense/high quality concrete:
sulfate ded in ancient sedimentary to sulfate reacting with – Low w/c ratio
attack clays calcium aluminates or – High compressive strength
All types of shallow tunnels Ca(OH)2 – High cement content
exposed to weathered zone Cement w/low C3A content
(<10 m) of other geological (<8%)
strata Pozzolans/Blended cement
All types of tunnels exposed
to sulfate contamination
Internal Sewage/Wastewater Formation of H2S and oxi- Lining intrados Dense/high quality concrete
acid attack dization to sulfuric acid Coatings
Sacrificial layers
Use calcareous aggregates
Alkali All types of tunnels built Volcanic glass No specific Use inert aggregate
aggregate with reactive silica aggre- Opal/chalcedony location Control amount of soluble
reaction gate Deformed quartz alkalis in concrete
(AAR) Pozzolans/Blended cement
Sub-sea tunnels Warm seawater containing Lining extrados
dissolved alkalis
Frost attack/ All types of tunnels in cold Surface scaling due to in- Lining intrados Dense/high quality concrete:
Freeze- regions crease in volume when near portals, en- – Low w/c ratio
thawing water turn to ice near satu- trance zones, – High compressive strength
ration shafts – High cement content
Air-entraining admixture
Stray Subway tunnels OCS current leaking into Near rebar Reduce amount of current:
current lining when returning from – Decrease rail resistance
Railway tunnels
corrosion running rail – Improve rail/ground
insulation
– Substation close to max
current
Use of straps connecting bars
Use fiber reinforcement

11.2 Test Ring and Dimensional Control For dimensional control frequency, standard practice is
Frequency to measure the tolerances of every segment for the first
10 castings, and then measure every 50th segment after
In a test ring system, the recommendation is to build a sin- that. Testing should be resumed at the initial frequency
gle ring or a double ring where the bottom test ring is soon after detection of any inadmissible deviations.
measured completely. As indicated in Table 7, reference
dimensions should be verified on the assembled test ring
including outer and inner diameters (on at least two axes), 11.3 Construction Tolerances
outer circumference (to be measured in three planes) and
joint assembly misalignment. In addition, joint opening Construction tolerances are deviations from the design ge-
and joint misalignment as other system tolerances can be ometry of the segments during the installation phase that
verified on the test ring. are independent of production accuracies and are related to
construction activities. Construction deviations include in-

Berg Huettenmaenn Monatsh © Austrian Society for Metallurgy of Metals (ASMET) and Bergmännischer Verband Österreich (BVÖ)
Originalarbeit

stallation tolerances of the segmental ring, and subsequent rules and procedures for ultimate limit state and service-
deformations of the ring during and after TBM advances. ability design for loading conditions particular to segments,
Typical allowable construction tolerances for ring erection this guideline addresses details of segmental ring geome-
are summarized in Table 8. The maximum relative ring roll, try, shapes, configuration and systems, and detail concrete
which is defined as the roll of every single ring relative to ad- design considerations such as concrete strength, curing,
jacent rings relates to circumferential joint misalignment, and reinforcement detailing. Gasket design procedure and
while ring step or slips are related to longitudinal joint mis- most recent innovations in gasket systems are presented,
alignment. The maximum allowed gap between joint con- and special attention was devoted to other design and
tact faces ensures the best gasket performance, while tol- construction aspects such as segment connection devices,
erances on absolute vertical position of lining invert are anchorage systems, tolerances, measurements and di-
important where the tunnel lining is under excessive uplift mensional control of segments and durability. Prepared
pressure, or in transportation tunnels where accurate loca- guidelines are the state of the practice at the current time
tion of top of rail or profile grade is required. Planarity of on a continuously evolving technology field which makes
the leading face of the ring is also a critical tolerance and if future updates and revisions to the document inevitable.
not achieved leads to segment damage.
References
1. ACI 533.2R: Guide for Precast Concrete Tunnel Segments. American
12. Durability Concrete Institute (ACI), 2019
2. ACI 318: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and
Tunnels as important underground structures are typically Commentary. American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2019
designed for a service life of 100–125 years. In bored tun- 3. DAUB: Lining Segment Design: Recommendations for the De-
sign, Production, and Installation of Segmental Rings. German
nels, durability of tunnel is directly related to durability of
Tunnelling Committee (DAUB), 2013
concrete segments. As presented in Table 9, most-frequent 4. ÖVBB: Guideline for Concrete Segmental Lining Systems. Austrian
degradation mechanisms of concrete linings are briefly dis- Society for Concrete and Construction Technology (ÖVBB), 2011
cussed. This includes corrosion of reinforcement by chlo- 5. ACI 544.7R: Report on Design and Construction of Fiber Reinforced
ride attack and carbonation, as well as sulfate and acid Precast Concrete Tunnel Segments. American Concrete Institute
(ACI), 2016
attacks as major deterioration processes caused by exter-
6. Iyengar, K. T.: Two-Dimensional Theories of Anchorage Zone
nal agents. Alkali-aggregate reactions caused by internal Stresses in Post-Tensioned Beams. ACI 59 (1962), No. 10, pp.
chemical reactions and frost attack and freeze-and-thaw 1443–1466
damages are also explained in ACI 533.2R [1]. Stray current- 7. Muir Wood, A. M.: The Circular Tunnel in Elastic Ground. Géotech-
induced corrosion as one major durability concern spe- nique 25 (1975), H. 1, S. 115–127
8. JSCE: Standard Specifications for Tunneling-2006: Shield Tunnels.
cific to railway and subway tunnel linings is discussed.
Japanese Society for Civil Engineering (JSCE), 2007
Mitigation methods for different durability factor are also 9. ITA WG2: Guidelines for the Design of Shield Tunnel Lining. Inter-
presented in Table 9. Stray current corrosion mitigation national Tunneling Association (ITA), 2000
method including use of FRC segments are presented and 10. Plizzari, G.; Tiberti, G.: Tunnel Linings Made by Precast Concrete
durability of segments under coupling effects of stray cur- Segments. Construction Methodologies and Structural Perfor-
mance of Tunnel Linings (2009), G.A. Plizzari, ed., Brescia, Italy,
rent with other conventional degradation factors are ex- pp. 136–131
plained. Prescriptive approach for the durability design 11. Morgan, H. D.: A Contribution to the Analysis of Stress in a Circular
based on European standard (EN 206-1 [28], EN 1992-1-1 Tunnel. Géotechnique 11 (1961), H. 11, S. 37–46
[19]) and American Code ACI 318 [2] is explained and com- 12. AASHTO (DCRT-1): Technical Manual for Design and Construction
parison between these two methods is presented. Expo- of Road Tunnels—Civil Elements. American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), 2010
sure classes related to environmental actions as the main 13. RTRI: Design standards for railway structures and commentary
inputs to both prescriptive approaches are explained sepa- (shield tunnels). Japanese Railway Technical Research Institute
rately for each code. Conforming to these two major stan- (RTRI), 2008
dards, recommendations made on concrete to ensure typ- 14. ZTV-ING: Zusätzliche Technische Vertragsbedingungen und Richtlin-
ien für den Bau von Straßentunneln (ZTV-ING) – Teil 5, Tunnelbau,
ical service life of tunnels are explained including concrete
Abschnitt 3 Maschinelle Schildvortriebsverfahren. German Federal
strength, maximum water-to-cement (w/c) ratio, minimum Ministry of Transport (BMV), 2007
cement content and minimum air content. Shortcomings of 15. LTA: Civil Design Criteria for Road and Rail Transit Systems. Singa-
prescriptive approaches are highlighted and needs for de- pore Land Transport Authority (LTA), 2010
veloping a performance-based design approach for tunnel 16. USACE EM 1110-2-2901: Tunnels and Shafts in Rock. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE), 1997
linings are discussed.
17. fib Bulletin 83: Tunnels in Fiber Reinforced Concrete. Fédération
Internationale du Béton (fib), 2017
18. ITA WG2: Twenty years of FRC tunnel segments practice: lessons
13. Conclusion learnt and proposed design principles. Report n.16, April 2016,
pp. 71. International Tunneling Association (ITA), 2016
19. EN 1992-1-1: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1:
ACI 533.2R [1] guide consolidates most recent develop-
General rules and rules for buildings. Comité Européen de Normal-
ments, international best practices, and state-of-the-art isation (CEN), 2004
information on all aspects of design and construction of 20. AFTES: Recommendation for the design, sizing and construction
precast segments and can be used as a general guide for of precast concrete segments installed at the rear of a tunnel bor-
segmental tunnel linings. In addition to structural design

© Austrian Society for Metallurgy of Metals (ASMET) and Bergmännischer Verband Österreich (BVÖ) Berg Huettenmaenn Monatsh
Originalarbeit

ing machine (TBM). French Tunneling and Underground Engineer- 25. RILEM TC 162-TDF: Test and Design Methods for Steel Fibre Rein-
ing Association (AFTES), 2005 forced Concrete. σ–ε Design Method: Final Recommendation. Inter-
21. NEN 6720: Regulations for concrete—structural requirements and national Union of Laboratories and Experts in Construction Materi-
calculation methods. Dutch Standardization Institute (NEN), 1995. als, Systems and Structures (RILEM), 2003
22. BAEL 91 Révisé 99:2007: Règles techniques de conception et de cal- 26. STUVAtec: STUVA Recommendations for Testing and Application
cul des ouvrages et constructions en béton armé suivant la méth- of Sealing Gaskets in Segmental Linings. Tunnel 8 (2005), pp. 8–21
ode des états limites. French Ministry for the Economy and Fi- 27. Ril 853: Richtlinie Eisenbahntunnel planen, bauen und in Stand hal-
nance—Béton armé états limites, 2007 ten. German Railway Company (Deutsche Bahn AG), 2011
23. ACI 224.1R: Causes, Evaluation, and Repair of Cracks in Concrete 28. EN 206-1: Concrete–Specification, Performance, Production and
Structures. American Concrete Institute (ACI), 2007 Conformity. Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN), 2013
24. fib Model Code 2010: Model Code for Concrete Structures. Interna-
tional Federation for Structural Concrete (fib), 2013. Publisher’s Note. Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Berg Huettenmaenn Monatsh © Austrian Society for Metallurgy of Metals (ASMET) and Bergmännischer Verband Österreich (BVÖ)