Design of Segmental Tunnel Linings

for Serviceability Limit State

Mehdi Bakhshi, PhD, PE
ACI Committee 544 & AECOM, New York
Mehdi.bakhshi@aecom.com

April, 2015

AASHTO SCOBS T-20: Technical Committee for Tunnels

 Outline
• Introduction on FRC Segments
• Summary of ACI Guideline for FRC Segments
• Design Example for Mid-Size Tunnels
• Design for Serviceability Limit States
• Current and Future Research Studies
• Conclusion
Introduction on
FRC Segments
 Precast Segmental Tunnel Lining
• Serves as both initial ground support and final
lining in modern TBM tunnels
• Providing the required operational cross-section
• Controlling groundwater inflow

Reference: AECOM tunnel design (2013) – North Shore Connector, Pittsburg, PA

 FRC Precast Tunnel Segments
• Used in more than 50 tunnel projects
• First FRC tunnel segments: Metrosud (1982)

Reference: ACI 544.AR (2015)—Draft Emerging Technology Report on Design and Construction of Fiber-
Reinforced Precast Concrete Tunnel Segments
 General Information on FRC Segments
Used in Tunnel Projects
• Tunnel functions: water/waste water, gas pipeline,
power cable, subway, railway, and road tunnels
• Internal diameters: 7.2’-37.4’ (2.2-11.4 m)
• Min. & max thickness:
6” (15 cm) & 16” (40 cm)
• Steel fiber dosages:
40-100 pcy (25-60 kg/m3)
• Diameter-to-thickness:
12-30
Reference: ACI 544.AR (2015)—Draft Emerging Technology Report on Design and Construction of Fiber-
Reinforced Precast Concrete Tunnel Segments
 Advantages of FRC Segments
• More ductility & robustness
• Crack width reduction
• High strength against
unintentional impact loads
• Improved precast production
efficiency
• Reduce spalling or bursting of
concrete cover at vulnerable
edges and corners
Reference: Maccaferri Asia (2013)—Segmental tunnel linings with fibre reinforced concrete, TUTG,
Bangkok, 12 September 2013
Spalling/Bursting of Rebar-Reinforced-
Concrete at Edges and Corners

Reference: SR99 Alaskan Way Viaduct

 Evolution of Design Procedures for FRC
Segments
• Design by performance testing: before 1992
still being used occasionally in some projects

• Design by pioneer tunneling guidelines: from 1992-2003

1. BV recommendation - German concrete association (1992)
2. Japan railway construction public corporation (1992)
3. Bekaert technical approach for tunnel linings by Moyson (1994)

• Design by recent FRC codes/guidelines: from 2003-present

1. RILEM TC 162-TDF (2003)
2. Concrete Society TR63 (2007)
3. Italian Standard CNR DT 204/2006 (2007)
4. Spanish Standard EHE-08 (2010)
5. fib Model Code (2010)
6. ACI 544.FR (2015)
 Design by Performance Testing
Full-scale point load test

TBM

Full-scale bending test Misalignment

References:
-Moccichino et al. (2010). Experimental Tests on Tunnel
Precast Segmental Lining with Fiber Reinforced Concrete”,
2010 World Tunnel Congress, Vancouver, Canada.
-Poh et al. (2009). Structural Testing of Steel Fibre
Reinforced Concrete (SFRC) Tunnel Lining Segments in
Cantilever
Singapore. Proc. of the World Tunnelling Congress (WTC)
load test
2009, Budapest, Hungary.
 Design of FRC Segments By Pioneer
Tunneling Guidelines (from 1992-2003)
BV recommendation - German Japan railway recommendation
concrete association (1992) (1992)

fbr = fL (EN 14651)

bbr = 0.45 feqm,Ι (fR1 from EN 14651)
mbr = 0.37 feqm,ΙΙ (fR4 from EN 14651)

-FRC constitutive models provided

-Suitable for constructing axial force bending
Bekaert moment interaction diagrams
method by - Load case of ground & groundwater discussed
Moyson (1994)
- Presentations of all load cases missing
 Summary
of ACI
Guideline
for FRC
Segments

Covering Design for Strength

or ULS
 Governing Loads Cases
• Production and transient load cases:
Demolding, storage, transportation and handling
• Construction load cases :
TBM thrust, tail skin grouting, secondary (localized)
grouting
• Final service load cases:
Ground and groundwater loads, longitudinal
joint bursting, additional distortion, other loads

Reference: ACI 544.AR (2015)—Draft Emerging Technology Report on Design and Construction of Fiber-
Reinforced Precast Concrete Tunnel Segments
 Segment Demolding
• Simulated by two cantilevers loaded under its self weight
(e.g. at 4 h)

Phase Maximum Developed Bending Moment Key Design Parameters

demolding wa2/2 sp* and f ’c at 4 h

* sp is the back calculated residual tensile strength for fiber reinforced concrete

Reference: ACI 544.AR (2015)—Draft Emerging Technology Report on Design and Construction of Fiber-
Reinforced Precast Concrete Tunnel Segments
 Segment Storage
• Simulated by simply supported beams loaded under its self-
weight and eccentricity loads (e.g. at 4 h)
• Segments comprising a ring piled up within one stock

Phase Maximum Developed Bending Moment Key Design Parameters

w(L2/8-S2/2)+F1e
storage sp* and f ’c at 4 h
w(S2/2)+ F1e
* sp is the back calculated residual tensile strength for fiber reinforced concrete

Reference: ACI 544.AR (2015)—Draft Emerging Technology Report on Design and Construction of Fiber-
Reinforced Precast Concrete Tunnel Segments
 Segment Transportation
• Simulated by simply supported beams loaded under its self-
weight and eccentricity loads (at 28 d)
• Half of segments of each ring transported in one car

Dynamic Shock Maximum Developed Bending Key Design

Phase
Factor Moment Parameters

w(L2/8-S2/2)+ F2e
transportation 2.0 sp* and f ’c at 28 d
w(S2/2)+ F2e
* sp is the back calculated residual tensile strength for fiber reinforced concrete

Reference: ACI 544.AR (2015)—Draft Emerging Technology Report on Design and Construction of Fiber-
Reinforced Precast Concrete Tunnel Segments
 Segment Handling
• Simulated by simply supported or cantilever beams
• handling from stack yard to trucks or rail cars carried out by
slings, lifting devices or vacuum lifters.

Key Design
Phase Dynamic Shock Factor Maximum Developed Bending Moment
Parameters

w(L2/8-S2/2)+w(L/2+S)f (slings)
Handling 2.0 sp* and f ’c at 28 d
wa2/2 (others)
* sp is the back calculated residual tensile strength for fiber reinforced concrete

Reference: ACI 544.AR (2015)—Draft Emerging Technology Report on Design and Construction of Fiber-
Reinforced Precast Concrete Tunnel Segments
 TBM Thrust Jack Forces
Design checks:
• Bursting tensile stresses
• Spalling tensile stresses
• Compressive stresses
Analysis and design methods:
• Simplified equations
• Analytical methods
• Finite Element Analyses (2D/3D)
• Non-linear Fracture Mechanics
Reference: ACI 544.AR (2015)—Draft Emerging Technology Report on Design and Construction of Fiber-
Reinforced Precast Concrete Tunnel Segments
 Simplified Equations for TBM Thrust Action

hanc

h-2e

ACI 318 DAUB

 h 
Bursting Design: ACI 318 : Tburst  0.25 Ppu 1  anc  ; d burst  0.5 (h  2eanc )
 h 
 hanc 
DAUB : 
Tburst  0.25 Ppu 1   ; d burst  0.4 (h  2eanc )
 h  2eanc 
Ppu A
Compression Design: ACI 318 : s c, j   f co  0.85 f c d
Aj Aj
 Analytical Method for TBM Thrust Action

Iyengar (1962) Diagram

for Bursting Design

• Bursting stresses (scx) vary from face toward inside segment

• Determined as a fraction of fully spread compressive stress (scm = F/ab).
 Finite Element (FE) Simulations for
TBM Thrust Action

Transverse Bursting and Spalling Stresses Compressive Stresses

Reference: ACI 544.AR (2015)—Draft Emerging Technology Report on Design and Construction of Fiber-
Reinforced Precast Concrete Tunnel Segments
 Tail Skin Grouting Pressure
• Simulated in 2D by a solid ring
• Grout pressure at crown is slightly higher than groundwater
pressure
• Invert grout pressure is calculated from equilibrium b/w grout
pressure, self-weight and shear stresses of semi-liquid grout
• Radial pressure is applied with a linear distribution
sg = 225 kPa

Axial 114 kN.m

Forces
sg = 245 kPa Bending
1573 kN Moments

sg = 264.5 kPa

Reference: ACI 544.AR (2015)—Draft Emerging Technology Report on Design and Construction of Fiber-
Reinforced Precast Concrete Tunnel Segments
 Secondary Grouting Pressure
• To fill a local gap between lining
and excavation profile after primary grouting
• Simulated in 2D by a solid ring
• Interaction with ground is modeled
by radial springs
• Grout pressure applied with a triangular distribution
max sg = 225 kPa distributed
triangularly over a 36o
-159 kN.m

1734 kN
36O

Axial Forces Bending

Moments

Reference: International Tunneling Association (ITA) Working Group 2 (2000). Guidelines for the Design of
Shield Tunnel Lining”, Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, 15 (3): 303–331.
 Ground and Groundwater Loads
(Elastic Equation Method)
Recommended by International Tunnel Association (ITA) and
Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE)
 Ground and Groundwater Loads
(Beam-Spring Method Simulation)
Recommended by JSCE, AASHTO and Austrian Society for Concrete and
Construction Technology (ÖVBB)
• Model: Segmented Double Ring Beam-Spring
• Ground Interaction: Radial, Tangential and longitudinal Springs
• Segment and Ring Joints Simulated by Springs

Axial Bending
Forces Moments

-1,666 kN 156 kN.m

Interaction spring stiffness calculated by US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) method

 Ground and Groundwater Loads
( 2D FEM Simulations)
Recommended by ÖVBB & AFTES for Tunnels in Soft Ground
• 2D Continuum Analyses with FEM
Usually Sufficient for Tunnels without
Sudden Changes in Cross Section or
Concentrated Load Intensities
Advantages:
• Considering Ground Behavior After
Failure
• Redistribution of Loads Resulting
from Lining Deformation
• Considering Excavation Stages
• Validity for Non-Uniform and
Anisotropic Initial Stresses
 Ground and Groundwater Loads
(Discrete Element Method Simulations)
Recommended for Tunnels in Fractured Rock
• 2D Discontinuum Analyses
• Intact Rock & Joint Set Properties Used for Modeling
• Bending Moment Distribution is Different than in Soft Ground

0 2 4 6 8m

Reference: Bakhshi & Nasri (2013). Practical Aspects of Segmental Tunnel Lining Design. Proceedings of the
World Tunnel Congress (WTC) 2013. Geneva, Switzerland.
 Longitudinal Joint Bursting Forces
Design checks:
• Bursting tensile stresses
• Compressive stresses
Analysis and design methods:
• Simplified equations
DAUB (2013)
• Finite Element Analyses (2D/3D) • Analytical methods
Compressive
Tensile Stresses
Stress

Reference: Bakhshi & Nasri (2014). Guidelines and Methods on Segmental Tunnel Lining Analysis and
Design – Review and Best Practice Recommendation. World Tunnel Congress 2014. Iguassu Falls, Brazil.
 Other Loading Cases
• Earthquake
• Fire
• Explosion
• Breakouts Seismic Analysis
• Excessive Longitudinal
Bending Moments
• Additional Distortion
• Seismic Analysis: Ovaling, Axial and Curvature
Deformations Analysis
• Fire Loading Simulated by Temperature Gradient b/w
Intrados and Extrados of Lining
• Explosion Simulated by Increasing Radial Pressure at
Service Condition (e.g. 1 bar or 14.5 psi)
 Breakouts & Additional Distortion Loading
Cases Simulated by 3D FEM
• Simulation of Tunnel in Areas of Intersection between
Crosscuts and Main Tunnel
• Simulation of External Loads due to Nearby Existing Structures
(other Tunnels/Bridge Piles) Tensile
Stress in
Invert of
Existing
Tunnel

Induced Bending
Moment due to Opening

Reference:
Design Example
for Mid-Size
Tunnels (ULS)
 Geometry and Strength Parameters
• Di = 5.5 m (18 ft) • Ring composed of 5+1
• b = 1.5 m (5 ft) segments
• h = 0.3 m (12 in) • The tunnel is excavated in
• Lcurved = 3.4 m (11.2 ft) fractured rock
• f’c @ 4h: 15 MPa (2,200 psi)
• f’c @ 28d: 45 MPa (6,500 psi)
• f1 = 3.8 MPa (540 psi)
• f’D150 @ 4h: 2.5 MPa (360 psi)
• f’D150 @ 28d: 4 MPa (580 psi)
• THTBM = 20,000 kN on 16 jack pairs
• Jack Shoes Contact Area: 0.2 x 0.87m
Reference: Bakhshi & Nasri (2015)—New ACI report on design of fiber reinforced concrete tunnel
segmental linings, IoM3 UDCC 2015, 11 - 12 September, 2015 - Hong Kong
 Constructing Axial Force-Bending
Moment Interaction Diagram
Zones 1 & 2

Zone 3

Reference: ACI 544.AR (2015)—Draft Emerging Technology Report on Design and Construction of Fiber-
Reinforced Precast Concrete Tunnel Segments
 Design Checks for Different Load Cases

ACI 318
1.2 Tburst 1.2  17.32  1000
Tangential direction : sp  174 psi (1.2 MPa)
 hanc d burst 0.7  8  1.77  12
1.2 Tburst 1.2  17.55  1000
Radial direction : sp  177 psi (1.22 MPa)
 al d burst 0.7  34  5
Specified Residual Strength, Maximum Bending Moment Bending Moment Strength,
Phase
MPa (psi) kNm/m (kipf-ft/ft) kNm/m (kipf-ft/ft)
Demolding 2.5 (360) 5.04 (1.13) 26.25 (5.91)
Storage 2.5 (360) 18.01 (4.05) 26.25 (5.91)
Transportation 4.0 (580) 20.80 (4.68) 42.00 (9.44)
Handling 4.0 (580) 10.08 (2.26) 42.00 (9.44)

Reference: Bakhshi & Nasri (2015)—New ACI report on design of fiber reinforced concrete tunnel
segmental linings, IoM3 UDCC 2015, 11 - 12 September, 2015 - Hong Kong
Design for Serviceability
Limit States (SLS)
 Design Flowchart for SLS
Start

Determine design load Assume structural dimensions of members

Structural analysis

Examine stresses Examine cracks Examine deformation

NG
Check
OK

End

Reference: JSCE. 2007. Standard Specifications for Tunneling: Shield Tunnels. Japan Society of Civil Engineers.
 Design Checks & Limiting Values for
SLS of Tunnel Segments

SLS States Location Items to Check Limiting Values

Stress in concrete Allowable compressive stress of concrete
Segment section
Stress in reinforcement Allowable tensile stress of steel bars
Stress Stress in concrete Allowable compressive stress of concrete
Segment joints
Stress in connectors Allowable stress of connecting bolts
Segmental ring Ring deformation Allowable deformation
Deformation Joint opening Allowable gap between segments joints
Segment joints
Joint offset Allowable offset between segments joints
Flexural crack width Allowable concrete crack width
Cracking Segment section
Shear force Shear crack capacity

Reference: JSCE. 2007. Standard Specifications for Tunneling: Shield Tunnels. Japan Society of Civil Engineers.
 Calculation of Flexural Crack Width
for Reinforced Concrete Segments
2
f s
w  0.011b f s 3 d c A 10 3
w  2 s b dc   
2
- ACI 224.1R (2007) Es 2

 f   15  5(n  2)
- JSCE (2007) w  s  s   csd
 ; s  0.55  0.7    4  d c  0.7  ( s   ) 
 Es   f c  20  7n  8

 f ct ,eff E s As 
 f s  kt (1   )
  As  Ecm A 
   
 A  f 
- EN 1992-1-1 (2004) w  sr ,max    sr ,max  0.6 s 
 Es   Es 
 
 
 
 Allowable SLS Crack Width
Concrete Codes: Tunnel Codes:
- ACI 224.1R (2007): 0.3 mm (0.012 in) - LTA (2007): 0.3 mm (0.012 in)
- EN 1992-1-1 (2004): 0.3 mm (0.012 in) - DAUB (2013): 0.2 mm (0.008 in)
- fib Model Code (2010): 0.2 mm (0.008 in) - JSCE (2007): 0.004 dc
- ÖVBB (2011):
Requirement Designation Application Allowable
Class Requirement Crack
Width
- One-pass lining with very tight
0.20 mm
AT1 Largely dry waterproofing requirements Impermeable
(0.008 in)
- Portal areas
- One-pass lining for road and railway
Slightly Moist, no running 0.25 mm
AT2 tunnels with normal waterproofing
moist water in tunnel (0.010 in)
requirements (excluding portals)
- One-pass lining without Water dripping
0.30 mm
AT3 Moist waterproofing requirements from individual
(0.012 in)
- two-pass lining systems spots
- One-pass lining without
Water running 0.30 mm
AT4 Wet waterproofing requirements
in some places (0.012 in)
- two-pass lining as drained system

Reference: ÖVBB Guideline, 2011, “Guideline for Concrete Segmental Lining Systems”, Austrian Society for
Concrete and Construction Technology.
Current and Future
Research Studies
 Current Studies: Reinforcement
Alternatives for SLS of Cracking
Alternatives: Service Loads:
1- Conventional Reinforcement M = 239 kN.m (177 kips-ft)
2- Fiber Reinforcement N = 2,068 kN (465 kips)

Reference: Bakhshi & Nasri (2015). Design of Segmental Tunnel Linings for Serviceability Limit State. Proc
of the World Tunnel Congress (WTC) 2015. May 22-28, 2015, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
 Current Studies: Design for Cracking
Serviceability Limit States
top ftop = 17.1 MPa (2.48 ksi)

Steps for FRC x=179 mm

Fiber properties:
f’D150 = 4 MPa (0.58 ksi)
(7.04 in)
segments: sp = 0.34 x 4 MPa = 1.36 MPa (0.197 ksi) 305 mm
(12 in)

1- Determination of sp = 1.36 MPa

(0.197 ksi)

neutral axis
fc,t
1524 mm
2- Determination of (60 in)
38 mm
(1.5 in)
strains stresses
ftop = 18.45 MPa
top
compressive/tensile (2.676 ksi)

st
strains at extreme x=148 mm Fst = 1,956 kN
10 #4 (Ast = 1290 mm2)
fibers (5.8 in) 305 mm
(12 in)
(440 kips)

229 mm
3- Calculation of (9 in)

crack width using 10 #4 (Asb = 1290 mm2)

sb
Fsb = 2,122 kN
(477 kips)

gauge length concept

1524 mm strains stresses
(60 in) 38 mm
(1.5 in)

Reference: Bakhshi & Nasri (2015). Design of Segmental Tunnel Linings for Serviceability Limit State. Proc
of the World Tunnel Congress (WTC) 2015. May 22-28, 2015, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
 Current Studies: Comparing Fibers vs.
Rebars for Cracking Under Service Loads
RILEM TC 162  TDF (2003) : w   fc ,t (h  x)
DAfStb (2012) : w  0.14  fc ,t
fib Model Code (2010) &
CNR  DT 204 / 2006 (2007) : w   fc,t h

Maximum Crack Width in RC Segments Maximum Crack Width in FRC Segments

ACI 224.1R (2007) - Gergely 0.10 mm fib Model Code (2010) 0.10 mm
& Lutz (0.0039 in) CNR-DT 204 (2006) (0.0040 in)

ACI 224.1R (2007) - Frosch 0.14 mm 0.04 mm

(0.0056 in) RILEMTC 162-TDF (2003) (0.0017 in)

JSCE (2007) 0.14 mm

(0.0053 in)
DAfStb (2012) 0.047 mm
(0.0018 in)
EN 1992-1-1 (2004) 0.07 mm
(0.0028 in)

Reference: Bakhshi & Nasri (2015). Design of Segmental Tunnel Linings for Serviceability Limit State. Proc
of the World Tunnel Congress (WTC) 2015. May 22-28, 2015, Dubrovnik, Croatia.
 Future Research Studies
• Optimized hybrid (fiber+rebar) design for large-
diameter tunnels > 24 ft (7.3 m)
 Future Research Studies
• Minimum FRC characteristics as sole
reinforcement for ductility requirement and crack
control f  3.8MPa (540 psi )
L f R1  4 MPa (580 psi )
 Future Research Studies
• Allowable crack width for segmental tunnel linings
considering tunnel infiltration/exfiltration (flow)
Flow through parallel plates
 Conclusion
• In mid-size tunnels use of fibers in segment can
lead to elimination of steel bars at the ultimate
limit state (ULS), which in turn results in
significant construction cost saving.
• Use of fiber in tunnel segments results in
reduction of crack width in under the service load
for Serviceability Limit State (SLS) design.
• Different standard FRC constitutive laws give
similar axial force-bending moment interaction
diagrams as the key design tool for designing
precast tunnel segments.
Thank you