Design considerations for precast tunnel

segments according to international

recommendations, guidelines and
standards
Mehdi Bakhshi & Verya Nasri
AECOM, New York, NY, USA
ABSTRACT
Segmental tunnel linings are designed as initial ground support and final lining in TBM-bored tunnels. Procedures to
design concrete lining for ground and groundwater loads, cross sectional changes in joints, and checks against
production and construction loads such as segment demolding, storage, transportation, handling, TBM jack thrust forces
and grouting pressure are presented. Several recommendations, guidelines and standards are available for analyses
and design of precast concrete segmental linings. These guidelines and standards from various countries in Europe,
Asia and America including Austria (VBB), France (AFTES), Germany (DAUB), Japan (JSCE), the Netherlands (NEN),
United States (FHWA) and International Tunneling Association (ITA) are evaluated. Standard code requirements are
presented and their merits are discussed for the case of design of segments. In this paper, special attention is given to
recommendations and guidelines for analyses of segments for determining ground and groundwater loads in one hand,
and tensile stresses in joints due to jack thrust forces and cross section change in the other. Standard design methods
for precast concrete segments are presented. Best method of practice for analysis and design of these elements is
recommended. Latest developments and technologies in segmental tunnel lining systems are presented including
anchored gaskets, Bicones as shear recovery systems for tunnel openings and fiber reinforced concrete (FRC)
segments. Design of FRC lining for aforementioned load cases are discussed with presentation of specified residual
tensile strength and specified compressive strength as two key design parameters.

INTRODUCTION

Segmental tunnel linings are designed as initial ground

support and final lining in TBM-bored tunnels. Procedures
to design concrete lining for embedment loads, cross
sectional changes in joints, and checks against
construction loads such as segment demolding, stacking,
handling, TBM jack thrust forces and grouting pressure
have been presented elsewhere (Bakhshi and Nasri,
2013a; 2013b; 2013c).
Several recommendations, guidelines and standards
are available for analyses and design of precast concrete
segmental linings. In this paper, special attention is taken
to recommendations and guidelines for analyses of
segments for determining embedment loads in one hand,
and tensile stresses in joints due to jack thrust forces and
cross section change in the other. Standard design
methods for precast concrete segments are presented.
Best method of practice for analysis and design of these
elements is recommended. Finally, latest developments
and technologies in segmental tunnel lining systems are
presented.

(JSCE, 2007). The most significant and widely accepted

methods in the field are presented in the followings
sections.
2.1

Elastic equations method recommended by JSCE (2007)

and ITA (2000) is a simple method for calculating member
forces of circular tunnels. Load distribution model consist
of uniform vertical soil and water pressures, a triangularly
distributed horizontal soil reaction between 45 to 135
from the crown on both sides in addition to a linearly
varying lateral earth pressure, and dead weight of the
lining. Distribution of loads used in this method is shown
in Figure 1. Member forces are calculated using elastic
equations available in the literature (JSCE, 2007 and ITA,
2000). In this method, a uniform bending rigidity is
assumed for the lining which cannot represent the
staggered geometry of segmental lining. This method is
mostly used in preliminary design and cost estimation for
new tunnel projects.
2.2

METHODS OF ANALYSIS FOR GROUND AND

GROUNDWATER LOADS

Selection of a suitable analysis method to calculate

member forces due to embedment loads depends on
many factors such as functions of the tunnel, ground
conditions, design loads, structures of segments, required
accuracy of analyses, and the required check items

Elastic Equations Method

Beam Spring Method

In the beam spring method, recommended by JSCE

(2007), VBB (2011) and FHWA (2009), the lining is
modeled in the cross-sectional plane perpendicular to the
longitudinal direction of tunnel as a series of beam
elements spanning between longitudinal joints of
segments. The interaction between the ground and the
lining is modeled by linear translational springs in radial,
tangential and longitudinal directions.

Figure 2. Multiple hinged segmented double ring beam

spring model
Figure 1. Distribution of loads used in Elastic Equations
method (ITA, 2000)
Since the lining and ground are represented by a series of
beams and springs, this method is referred to as beam
spring method. Method of calculation of the springs
stiffness can be found elsewhere (Bakhshi and Nasri,
2013b). Various 2D approaches have been developed in
order to evaluate effect of the segment joints, including
models that assume the segmental ring as a solid ring
with fully bending rigidity, solid ring with reduced bending
rigidity (Muir Wood, 1975), ring with multiple hinged joints
and ring with rotational springs. However, 2D models
cannot represent circumferential joints and the staggered
arrangement of segments in adjoining rings. As shown in
Figure 2, a 3D or a so-called 2-dimensional multiple
hinged segmented double ring beam spring model can
be used to evaluate the reduction of bending rigidity and
effects of staggered geometry by modeling segments as
curved beams, longitudinal joints as rotational springs
(Janen joints) and circumferential joints as shear
springs. Equations and estimations regarding rotational
spring stiffness and shear spring constant of the joints
have been presented in previous publications (Bakhshi
and Nasri, 2013a, 2013b, 2013c). Two rings are used in
this analysis in order to evaluate the coupling of rings;
however, only half of the segment width is considered in
this model to include only influence zone of longitudinal
and circumferential joints of one ring. Considering dead
weight of the lining, and applying ground and water
pressures as distributed member loads projected along
the beam direction, member forces are calculated using a
structural analysis package.
2.3

Finite Element and Finite Difference Methods

Two-dimensional Finite Element Method (FEM) or the

Finite Difference Method (FDM) is recommended by
VBB (2011) and AFTES (2005) for calculation of tunnel
lining forces in soft ground, loose rock and in solid rock
classified as partly homogeneous.

A two-dimensional approach is sufficient for a continuous

linear structure without sudden changes in cross section
or concentrated load intensities, while three-dimensional
approaches are only recommended for areas of
intersection between crosscuts and the main tunnel
(VBB, 2011). In FEM, as shown in Figure 3, the
surrounding ground is modeled as a continuum medium
discretized into a limited number of smaller elements
connected at nodal points. The stress, strain, and
deformation to be analyzed are caused by changing the
original subsurface conditions due to tunneling process.
Results of analysis including deformations and
subsequently member forces are obtained by solving a
matrix equation which relates the unknown quantities to
known quantities using a global stiffness matrix based on
stress-strain relationships of the materials.
This method of analysis has the advantage of taking
into account the deformability of the ground and in
particular, its behavior after failure, the redistribution of
loads resulting from lining deformation, and excavation
stages (VBB, 2011). This numerical method of analysis
is also valid for non-uniform and anisotropic initial
stresses, i.e. when a dissymmetrical feature is present in
the surrounding ground due to several different formations
or in the external loads due to nearby existing structures
(AFTES, 2005). By means of FEM, complex underground
conditions and tunnel characteristics can be analyzed.
Furthermore, this method enables the simulation of
complex constitutive laws, non-homogeneities, and the
impact of advance and time dependent characteristics of
the construction methods.
3

METHODS OF ANALYSIS FOR JACK THRUST

FORCES AND CROSS SECTION CHANGE

TBM jack thrust force are studied as one of the most

significant construction load cases in design of precast
segmental tunnel lining. After assembly of a complete
ring, the TBM moves forward by pushing its jacks on the
bearing pads placed on the circumferential joints of the
newest assembled ring. This action results in developing
high compression stresses under the jack pads, as well as

Figure 4. Bursting tensile forces and associated

parameters recommended by ACI 318 R18.13
Figure 3. FEM model for tunnel excavation in soft ground
bursting tensile stresses deep in the segment and splitting
tensile forces between the pads. In a similar action to the
effect of jack thrust forces in circumferential joints,
bursting tensile stresses are present at the longitudinal
joints due to change of cross section because of the
gasket and the stress relief grooves . Different standards,
guidelines and recommendations to analyze such effects
are discussed herein.
3.1

ACI Simplified Equations Methods

ACI 318 section 18.13 (ACI, 2008) specifies simplified

equations to determine the magnitude of the bursting
force, Tburst, and its centroidal distance from the face of
the segment, dburst as:

Tburst = 0.25 Ppu (1

h anc
) ; d burst = 0.5 ( h 2e anc )
h

[1]

where Ppu is the normal force, hanc is the width of load

transfer area on the face of segment, h is the width of the
load distribution area deep inside the segment, and eanc is
the total eccentricity with respect to the centroid of the
cross section.
As shown in Figure 4, for the case of jack thrust forces
applied on the circumferential joints, Ppu is the maximum
extraordinary jacking force applied on each jack pad, hanc
is the length of contact area between jack pads and
reduced depth of cross section on the segment face, h is
the depth of cross section, and eanc is the maximum
possible eccentricity of jack pads with respect to the
centroid of the cross section. For the case of cross section
change at the longitudinal joints, Ppu is the maximum
normal force due to permanent embedment loads, and
eanc is the maximum total eccentricity consists of normal
force eccentricity (M/N) and eccentricity of load transfer
area.
3.2

[2]

Fsd = 0.25 N Ed (1 d1 / d s )

Fsd , R = N Ed (

e 1
) ; Fsd , 2 = 0.3 Fsd , R
d 6

[3]

where Fsd, Fsd,R and Fsd,2 are bursting, splitting and

secondary tensile stresses developed close to the
segment face and NEd is the maximum normal force due
to jack thrust force or embedment loads.
As shown in Figure 5, for the case of cross section
change at the longitudinal joints, e is the total eccentricity
consisting of eccentricity of normal force and the hinge
neck (e = el + ek = M/N + ek), dk is the width of the hinge
neck, d1 is the length of load transfer zone on the face of
segment (d1 = dk 2e), ds is the distributed width of
tension block inside the segment (ds = 2e = d - 2el) and d
is the total width of the segment cross section. Note that
DAUB recommends splitting and secondary tensile
reinforcement for only highly eccentric normal force
conditions (e > d/6).

(a)

DAUB Simplified Equations Methods

Similar to ACI, DAUB (2013) is recommending simplified

equations for bursting and splitting tensile stresses in the
joints based on the assumption of force transfer by means
of a tension block.

(b)
Figure 5. Force transfer recommended by DAUB in: (a)
longitudinal joints using a tension block concept, (b)
circumferential joints under an eccentric jack thrust force
load case (e = 50 mm)

According to DAUB (see Figure 5), bursting tensile

reinforcement are placed at a distance of 0.4ds from the
face of segments, while splitting and secondary tensile
reinforcement, if necessary, are placed at 0.1ds and 2/3d
from the face of segment, respectively.
3.3

Method of Diagram of Iyengar

The analytical method of Iyengar Diagram (1962) for

calculation of bursting tensile stresses has been used in
design of tunnels in Netherland (Groeneweg, 2007).
Similar to previous methods, the extent of the spreading
and therefore the magnitude of the tensile stresses, as
shown in Figure 6, depend on the dimensions of the
introduction surfaces () and final spreading surfaces (a).
According to this diagram, bursting tensile stresses (cx),
which varies significantly from the face toward inside the
segment, are determined as a fraction of the fully spread
compressive stress (cm = F/ab).

Figure 7. 3D FEM model for case of jack thrust force

(a)

Figure 6. Diagram of Iyengar (1962) for determining

bursting tensile stresses
3.4

Finite Element Methods

Three-dimensional and two-dimensional analyses using

finite element methods are performed to simulate effect of
TBM jack thrust forces on the circumferential joints and
normal force transfer through the longitudinal joints,
respectively. As shown in Figure 7, effect of jack thrust
force is simulated modeling typical segments of two
adjoining rings. The jack thrust forces are applied on the
net contact area of the jack pads and segment face on the
front circumferential joint. The recess (due to the gasket
and the stress relief grooves) is modeled on the
connection between two segments to simulate force
transfer through a reduced cross section through the
middle circumferential joint. Compressive forces of the
gasket in the early hours of installation are simulated by
applying maximum reaction force of gasket. Solid
elements are used for this analysis. The translational
degrees of freedom are fixed in all directions at the end of
the back segment which is assumed to be installed before
the front segment. As shown in Figure 8, typical results of
analysis consists of transversal and radial bursting and
spalling tensile stresses developed under the jack pad
and in the areas between the pads.

(b)
Figure 8. Bursting and spalling tensile stresses developed
in segments due to TBM jack thrust forces and gasket
pressure: a) transversal stresses, b) radial stresses
Bursting stresses at the vicinity of the longitudinal
joints are analyzed for the case of maximum normal force
and gasket pressure. Two-dimensional FE model to
simulate the longitudinal joint consists of small end parts
of two adjacent segments in a ring (curvature of elements
are neglected) modeled with recess of the gasket and the
stress relief grooves. The contact zone is modeled as a
discontinuity between two adjacent segments. Non-linear
non-tension springs attach segments faces in the
longitudinal joint, simulating behavior of the plywood
material. Translational degrees of freedom along the
farthest vertical face of one of segments are fixed in both
directions, while vertical face of other segment is loaded

with the uniformly distributed pressure of maximum

normal force. Figure 9 shows typical results of analysis
including bursting tensile and compressive stresses in the
area around longitudinal joints.

4.3

(b)
Figure 9. Developed stresses around longitudinal joints
due to maximum normal force and gasket pressure: a)
bursting tensile stresses, b) compressive stresses
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
CONCRETE SEGMENTS

4.1

Concrete Cover

4.2

Reinforcing Spacing

There is no specific recommendation available in ACI 318

(2008) for reinforcement in the precast segmental tunnel
linings. However, general spacing limits for reinforcement
include minimum and maximum clear spacing between
steel bars of 1 in (25 mm) and 18 in (457 mm),
respectively. DAUB (2013), provides a typical reinforcing
spacing range of 100 mm to 150 mm for segmental tunnel
linings. DAUB (2013) specifies a minimum clear spacing
range of 90 mm to 120 mm. In the absence of any
reinforcement spacing requirement by ITA (1988), FHWA
(2009), and VBB (2011), JSCE (2007) specifies a
minimum bar spacing of 1.25 times the width of the
maximum size of aggregates plus the diameter of the
reinforcement. AFTES (2005) referring to Section 4.4.5 of
BAEL 91 (2007) specifies the maximum spacing for
reinforcing bars as the smaller of 20 cm and 1.5 times the
segment thickness. NEN 6720 (1995) on the other hand
specifies minimum bar spacing as the greater of 4/3 of the
maximum size of aggregates, the largest bar diameter,
and 25 mm.

(a)

6720 (1995) specifies 35 mm as the minimum concrete

cover for precast elements.

FOR

PRECAST

DAUB (2013) recommends a minimum concrete cover of

40 mm on the surfaces of the tunnel segments. On the
end faces of segments and in areas close to bolt pockets,
the minimum concrete cover recommended by DAUB is
20 mm. However, ACI 318 (2008) specifies a minimum
concrete cover of 1-1/2 in (38 mm) for precast concrete
elements exposed to earth. ITA (1988) specifies a
minimum 50 mm cover only for the cast-in-place concrete
lining at its outer surface in contact with ground and
ground water. Nonetheless, it is clearly mentioned that
this specification does not apply to segmental lining
especially when a one-pass lining system is adopted.
Among other codes, guidelines and recommendations,
FHWA (2009) does not specify a minimum concrete
cover. JSCE (2007) specifies a minimum 25 mm concrete
cover over reinforcement and a minimum 35 mm in a
corrosive environment for a one-pass segmental lining
system. VBB Guideline (2011) refers to Austrian
standard NORM EN 1992-1-1 which specifies a
minimum concrete cover of 25-45 mm depending on
exposure conditions. AFTES (2005) specifies 30 mm as
the minimum cover on the intrados and extrados faces,
and 20 mm concrete cover on other zones, and NEN

Compressive Strength of a Partially Loaded Surface

In the standards, guidelines and recommendations, no

specific requirement is found for compressive strength of
precast concrete tunnel segments. However, in the joint
design, due to cross section change or jack thrust force,
end faces of segments are only partially loaded and
therefore developed compressive and tensile stresses
must be compared with the factored strength of a partially
pressured surface. Maximum allowed compressive stress
of a partially pressured surface (Rd) according to the ACI
318 (2008), Dutch code NEN 6720 (1995) and DAUB
(2013) is:

Rd = f c

Ac1
Ac 0

[4]

where Ac0 is the load transfer surface area in the face of

segment, Ac1 is the mathematical load distribution area
inside the segment, and fc is the 28-day compressive
strength of concrete.
5

BEST METHODS OF PRACTICE

Among different methods of analysis for determining

embedment loads, Elastic Equations Method gives largest
member forces since a uniform bending rigidity is
assumed for the lining. Multiple hinged segmented double
ring beam spring model gives reasonable forces as a
result of analysis especially for the transferred bending
moment in the longitudinal joints. Finite Element and
Finite Difference Methods are superior methods when a
dissymmetrical feature is present in the structure, in the
surrounding ground, or in the external loads.

Simplified equations methods of analysis for determining

jack thrust forces and cross section changes in the joints
result in a more conservative and uniformly distributed
reinforcement plan. Analytical and numerical methods of
analysis such as Iyengar Diagram and FEM may results in
a more cost effective and non-uniform reinforcement
design.
6

LATEST
TECHNOLOGIES
TUNNEL LINING

IN

6.1

Fiber Reinforced Concrete Segments

SEGMENTAL

Conventionally, steel bars are used in concrete segments

to resist tensile stresses developed due to all loading
cases from the time of casting through service condition.
However, there are some issues associated with the use
of steel bars including large crack widths, high labor costs
and long time for placement of curved bars in
manufacturing plant. As an alternative, Fiber Reinforced
Concrete (FRC) considerably improves the concrete postcracking behavior, allows for a better crack control and
offers plastic shrinkage resistance to the concrete mix and
improves the concrete durability. Considering all these
benefits, FRC represents a competitive material for tunnel
segments. The fiber presence close to segment surface is
very advantageous with high tensile stresses developed in
this zone induced by TBM thrust jack forces during
installation.
FRC has been used since 1982 in numerous projects
around the world, e.g. water/waste water, gas pipeline,
power cable, subway, railway, and road tunnels, as the
preferred material for the construction of tunnel precast
segmental lining. In most of the projects, small to mid-size
tunnels have been reinforced with only steel fibers at a
3
dosage ranging between 25 to 60 kg/m . Internal
diameters of these tunnels range between 2.2-11.4 m and
their thicknesses are between 0.15 and 0.4 m. The design
has
been
performed
using
constitutive
laws
recommended by international codes and standards such
as DBV (2001), RILEM TC 162-TDF (2003), CNR DT
204/2006 (2007), EHE (2008) and fib Model Code (2010).
This section presents a design example pertaining to a
case of mid-size tunnel and key material parameters for
design are summarized. Effects of residual strength and
different standard constitutive laws on axial force-bending
moment interaction diagrams as the key design tools are
discussed.
6.1.1 Design example for FRC segments
An example for design of a mid-size TBM tunnel lining
with precast FRC segments is presented. It is assumed
that internal diameter of the segmental ring is Di = 5.74 m,
and the ring composed of 5 large segments and one key
segment (one-third of the size of large segments). Width,
thickness and curved length at centerline of the large
segments are 1.5, 0.3 and 3.4 m, respectively. A stressstrain diagram according to ACI 544.FR report (2014) is
adopted. Key design parameters for aforementioned load
cases are the specified residual tensile or flexural strength

(p or f 150) and specified compressive strength (fc).

Following the approach of scaling the residual flexural
strength obtained by ASTM C1609 (2012) tests, a factor
D
of 0.34 is considered to convert f 150 to p. Designed
D
early-age and 28-day f 150 strengths are 2.5 and 4 MPa,
respectively. Specified compressive strengths are 15 MPa
for early-age and 45 MPa for 28-day FRC segment. As
shown in Figure 10, capacity of FRC segments are
calculated based on equilibrium conditions assuming a
post-crack plastic behavior in the tension zone. First crack
flexural strength (f1) is assumed as 4 MPa. Design checks
for the production and transitional loads are shown in
Table 1. The tunnel is excavated in soft ground. Twodimensional FEM packages are used for calculation of
tunnel lining forces in three different geological reaches
defined along the alignment of this tunnel case. Design
checks for the load case of the ground and groundwater
pressure is shown in Figure 11.
In this project, a TBM machine is used with the
maximum total thrust of 45,000 kN applied on 16 jack
pairs. Maximum thrust forces on each pair is therefore 2.8
MN. The length and width of the contact area between the
jack pads and segments, considering a maximum
eccentricity of e = 0.025 m, are al = 0.87 m and hanc = 0.2
m, respectively. Dimensions of fully spread stresses are at
= 3.4/3 = 1.13 m and h = 0.3 m in tangential and radial
directions, respectively. Conforming to simplified
equations of ACI 318 (2011), bursting force (Tburst) and its
centroidal distance from the face of section (dburst) in
tangential directions are:

d burst = 0.5 (a t 2e) = 0.5 (1.13 2 0.025) = 0.54 m

Tburst =

Ppu
al
2.8
0.87
1
= 0.25
(1
) = 0.68MN / m
4 at 2e
0.2
1.08

In the radial direction, Tburst and dburst are calculated as:

d burst = 0.5 (h 2eanc ) = 0.5 (0.3 2 0.025) = 0.125 m

Tburst =

Ppu
hanc
2.8
0.2
1
= 0.25
(1
) = 0.16MN / m
4 h 2eanc
0.87
0.25

Using this method of analysis, the maximum bursting

stress developed in radial and transverse directions are
determined.
Tangential: =
p

Tburst
0.68
=
= 0.9 MPa
(2d burst ) 0.7 2 0.54

Radial:

Tburst
0.16
=
= 0.9 MPa
(2d burst ) 0.7 2 0.125

p =

These stresses are less than 28-day specified residual

D
tensile strength of FRC segment as p= 0.34 f 150 = 1.36
MPa, and the design is valid for load case of TBM thrust
jack forces.

Figure 11) results in determining the required residual

parameter and the required fiber content based on fiber
manufacturer product datasheets. Effect of choice of
standard constitutive laws on a similar tunnel segment
with a residual strength of 4 MPa is shown in Figure 12b.
Results show that choice of constitutive laws does not
have a significant effect on the axial force-bending
moment interaction diagram of FRC segments and
subsequently does not affect the design outcome.
Figure 10. Strain and stress distributions through the
section as part of it undergoes tension

(a)

Table 1. Design checks (production and transport stages)

Phase

Specified
Residual
Strength
(MPa)

Maximum
Developed
Bending
Moment
(kNm/m)

Demolding

2.5 (early-age)

5.04

26.25

Storage

2.5 (early-age)

18.01

26.25

Transportation

4.0 (28d)

20.80

42.00

Handling

4.0 (28 d)

10.08

42.00

Resistance
Bending
Moment
(kNm/m)

(b)

Figure 11. Design checks for the load case of ground and
groundwater pressure
6.1.2 Parametric studies
Increasing the fiber content in the mix directly results in
D
increase of the residual flexural strengths (f 150) of FRC.
D
A parametric study on effects of increasing f 150 from 1 to
5 MPa on the axial force-bending moment interaction
diagrams are shown in Figure 12a. Other parameters and
segment geometry for this study are similar to the ones
presented in previous example.
Comparing such diagrams with the results of analyses for
aforementioned loading cases (e.g. results shown in

Figure 12. Effects of residual strength and constitutive law

on axial force-bending moment interaction diagrams

6.2

Anchored Gasket

Anchored gasket is a new generation of gaskets for

sealing segmental tunnel linings. This type of gasket is
directly installed inside the segment mold before casting,
and provides a direct anchoring of the gasket into the
concrete and an improved bond of the sealing on the
segment. It offers several advantages including time
savings for correction of imperfections and cleaning of the
groove area, and mounting the gaskets, saving costs for
glue and gluing equipment, no environmental pollution
due to solvents of the contact glue, and finally and more
importantly higher adhesion between gasket and concrete
which results in no detachment during assembly of the
key segment. Due to the anchors, the seepage path of
any water that might penetrate is maximized and as a
result, the sealing effect in the contact area of profile and
groove base is significantly improved.
6.3

Bicone as Shear Recovery System for Openings

Utilization of Shear recovery Bicone systems eases the

problems with the creation of openings in the segmental
lining by minimizing the amount of temporary work.
Bicones prevent any offset between the rings during ring
assembly in the construction stage and absorb energy
when the tunnel lining is partially suppressed for opening
or when instantaneous and temporary stresses occur in
exceptional instances (Bakhshi and Nasri, 2013b).
Bicones are designed to be used in the proximity of tunnel
penetration areas such as entrances, ventilation adits and
elevator adits (Bakhshi and Nasri, 2013b). A threedimensional, non-linear modeling approach, using an
FEM package is usually adopted to evaluate the impacts
of excavation. When developed shear stresses around a
penetration zone are determined, total shear force of a
ring around the penetration area is calculated and
compared to the shear strength of the Bicones, to
determine minimum number of Bicones required for this
action.
7

CONCLUSION

Recommendations and guidelines are discussed for

analysis of tunnel segments for the ground and
groundwater loads, and tensile stresses in joints due to
jack thrust forces and cross section changes. The existing
recommendations, guidelines and standards from various
countries in Europe, Asia and America are evaluated.
Standard code requirements are presented and their
merits are discussed for the case of design of segments.
Latest developments in segmental tunnel lining systems
are presented including fiber reinforced concrete (FRC)
segments, anchored gaskets and Bicones as shear
recovery systems for tunnel openings. Using FRC
methodology, results of analyses indicate that for a case
of mid-size tunnel, the use of fibers can lead to elimination
of steel bars, which in turn results in significant
construction cost saving in tunneling industry.

REFERENCES

ACI 318-08. 2008. Building Code Requirements for

Structural Concrete and Commentary. American
Concrete Institute Committee 318.
ACI 544.FR. 2014. Indirect method to obtain a stressstrain diagram for strain softening fiber-reinforced
concretes. American Concrete Institute.
AFTES. 2005. Recommendation for the design, sizing and
construction of precast concrete segments installed at
the rear of a tunnel boring machine (TBM) and AITES
Guideline. Tunnels et Ouvrages Souterrains. HS1
2005. Association Franaise des Tunnels et de
lEspace Souterrain (AFTES).
ASTM C1609-10. 2010. Standard test method for flexural
performance of fiber-reinforced concrete (using beam
with third-point loading). American Society for Testing
and Materials, West Conshohocken.
BAEL 91 rvises 99. 2007. Technical design rules and
calculation works for reinforced concrete structures
following the limit state method. 150thedn. GTCC
Works Section 1: reinforced concrete + Amendment
A1, CSTB, France.
Bakhshi, M.; Barsby, C. and Mobasher, B. 2013.
Comparative evaluation of early age toughness
parameters in fiber reinforced concrete. Materials and
Structures, 47(5): 853-872.
Bakhshi, M. and Nasri, V. 2013a. Structural design of
segmental tunnel linings. 3rd International Conference
on Computational Methods in Tunnelling and
Subsurface Engineering: EURO:TUN 2013. Ruhr
University Bochum, 17-19 April 2013.
Bakhshi, M. and Nasri, V. 2013b. Latest Developments in
Design of Segmental Tunnel Linings. Canadian
Society for Civil Engineering General Conference.
Montral, Qubec. May 29-June 1, 2013
Bakhshi, M. and Nasri, V. 2013c. Practical aspects of
segmental tunnel lining design. Underground the
way to the future: World Tunnel Congress 2013.
Geneva. May 31 June 7, 2013. G. Anagnostou & H.
Ehrbar (eds).
CNR DT 204/2006. 2006. Guidelines for the design,
construction and production control of fibre reinforced
concrete structures. Italian National Research Council
CNR.
DAUB working group. 2013. Recommendations for the
design, production and installation of segmental rings.
DBV Recommendation (German Concrete Association).
1992. Design principles of steel fibre reinforced
concrete for tunnelling works: 1929.
Dutch Code NEN 6720. 1995. Regulations for concrete structural
requirements
and
calculation
methods. Tech. Rep. NEN 6720, Nederlands
Normalisatie-instituut.
EHE-08 Code on Structural Concrete. 2008. ANNEX 14
Recommendations for using concrete with fibres.
fib Model code. 2010. Bulletin 55: Model Code 2010-First
complete draft. Fdration internationale du bton/the

International Federation for Structural Concrete.

Lausanne, Switzerland.
FHWA. 2009. Technical manual for design and
construction of road tunnels civil elements. US
Department of Transportation Federal Highway
Adminstration.
Groeneweg, T. 2007. Shield driven tunnels in ultra high
strength concrete: reduction of the tunnel lining
thickness. Thesis (MSc in Civil Engineering) Delft
University of Technology, The Netherlands.
International Tunneling Association (ITA) Working Group
No. 2. 2000. Guidelines for the Design of Shield
Tunnel Lining. Tunneling and Underground Space
Technology. 15(3): 303-331.
International Tunneling Association (ITA) Working Group
on General Approaches to the Design of Tunnels.
1988. Guidelines for the design of tunnels. Tunnelling
and Underground Space Technology. 3(3): 237-249.
Iyengar, K.T. 1962. Two-dimensional theories of
anchorage zone stresses in post-tensioned beams.
Journal of the American Concrete Institute (ACI),
59(10): 1443-1466.
JSCE. 2007. Standard Specifications for Tunneling:
Shield Tunnels. Japan Society of Civil Engineers.
Muir Wood A.M. 1975. Gotechnique, 25(1): 115-127.
VBB Guideline. 2011. Guideline for concrete segmental
lining systems. Austrian Society for Concrete and
Construction Technology. February 2011.
NEN 6720. 1995, TGB 1990. Concrete Standards
Structural requirements and calculation methods (VBC
nd
1995), 2 edition with revisions A2:2001 and A3:2004
(in Dutch). Netherlands Normalisation Institute NNI,
Delft, the Netherlands.
NORM EN 1992-1-1. 2011. Eurocode 2: Design of
Concrete Structures: Part 1-1: General Rules and
Rules for Buildings. Austrian Standards Institute.
ACI 318-08. 2008. Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete and Commentary. American
Concrete Institute Committee 318.
RILEM TC 162-TDF. 2003. Test and design methods for
steel fibre reinforced concrete. design method:
final recommendation. Materials and Structures,
36(262): 560567.