SIG WG2 Research Report 1 Damages of Segmental Lining 2019

1 PREFACE
1.1 Introduction
Writing a report on “Damages of segmental lining” is one of the on-going activities of the International
Tunnelling Association (ITA-AITES) Working Group 2 – Research, animated by Elena Chiriotti. The
International Team Leader of this activity is Jon Hurt.
Aiming to contribute, in years 2016 – 2018 the Italian Tunnels Society - Società Italiana Gallerie (SIG) Working
Group 2 - Research, under the coordination of Andrea Sciotti and animated by Enrico Maria Pizzarotti, has
prepared the present draft report and submitted it to the ITA WG2 Animateur and to the International Team
Leader, as technical core of a possible final report to be further developed.
In order to be reviewed by the ITA WG 2 members and go through the formal approval process of ITA, a
conceptual and final agreement on the document should be achieved, through further discussion and meetings
within ITA WG 2; moreover, the technical part of the report itself should be completed with the ancillary
chapters (e.g. Preface, Glossary, List of Symbols and Abbreviations, Introduction, Scope, Concluding
Remarks). The final report should also take advantage of the results of an international survey on the subject,
which will constitute its possible Annexes (e.g. Case Studies, General Tendencies).
Nevertheless, after an independent evaluation of two experts, SIG decided to publish this draft report, in order
to illustrate what done by the SIG WG 2.
The members of the SIG Working Group 2, to whom the SIG’s thanks go, are: Chiara Agostini, Monica Barbero,
Gustavo Bomben, Vincenza Floria, Federico Foria, Valeria Mainieri, Davide Merlini, Matteo Moja, Ludovica
Pizzarotti, Giovanni Plizzari, Diego Sebastiani, Giovanni Tiberti, Giuseppe Vago, Alessandra Vecchiarelli.
1.2 Scope
In the construction of underground infrastructures, the use of mechanised tunnelling faces a continuous
increase; consequently, the production of precast segmental linings has become an increasingly important
part of the tunnel industry. Therefore, guaranteeing high quality and performance of precast linings gets more
and more crucial, both from the Project Owner and the Contractor points of view; in fact, the Owner of the
infrastructure requires (and pays for) a tunnel free from defects and water-tight in the long-term, whereas the
Contractor (and his potential Subcontractors) doesn’t want to spend for replacing damaged segments,
repairing defective segments or non performing rings after the erection, performing water-tightening injections,
etc.
The aim of this draft report is providing an overview of the aspects that affect the quality of the precast
segment's production and of the complete precast tunnel lining, thus equipping the parties involved in tunnel
industry with a set of tools that can help to improve the segments’ production and the precast lining quality, in
terms of: quality control; types, causes, mitigation and repair of possible damages; appropriate design
procedure; useful tests and checks, both preliminary and on the finished product.
References to the currently applicable standards and guidelines (Chapter 3) and of the principal bibliography
(Chapter 8) on the topic are given. Specific indications on Quality Control procedures (Chapter 4), Type and
Causes of damage, Mitigation and Repair actions (Chapter 5), Calculation Methods (Chapter 6) and On-Site
and Laboratory Test and Checks (Chapter 7) are provided.
All the phases of the segment life, from factory production, transportation and delivery on site, installation, until
handover and service life are considered.
SIG WORKING GROUP 2 – RESEARCH 1

Special attention is devoted to two different kinds of damage: non-structural driven damages, identified as
technological damages (Paragraph 5.1), and structural driven damages (Paragraph 5.2, Chapter 6), related to
the stress-response of segments and precast linings during the production.
2 SISIG WORKING GROUP 2 - RESEARCH

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PREFACE ................................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Scope ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... 3

3 IDENTIFICATION OF APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES ............................................... 9
4 QUALITY CONTROL ............................................................................................................................. 14
4.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 14
4.2 The Parties ............................................................................................................................................ 15
4.3 Production Phase ................................................................................................................................. 15
Traceability and Data Record ........................................................................................................... 16
Inspections, Acceptance and/or Repairs ........................................................................................ 17
4.4 Transportation and Delivery on Site................................................................................................... 19
4.5 Installation ............................................................................................................................................. 23
4.6 Handover and Service .......................................................................................................................... 24
4.7 Quality Enhancements ......................................................................................................................... 25
5 TYPES, CAUSES, MITIGATION AND REPAIR OF DAMAGES ..........................................................27

5.1 Technological damages ....................................................................................................................... 27
Post Casting, Demoulding, Handling, Overturning, Storage ........................................................27
Concrete Surface Defects .............................................................................................................. 27
5.1.1.1.1 Hollows ............................................................................................................................................ 28
5.1.1.1.2 Exposed reinforcement ................................................................................................................... 29

5.1.1.1.3 Exposed aggregates ....................................................................................................................... 30
5.1.1.1.4 Removal of concrete skin ................................................................................................................ 31
Defects due to inserts presence .................................................................................................... 32
5.1.1.2.1 Grout or grease leakage in dowels sockets .................................................................................... 32
5.1.1.2.2 Unscrewing/disconnection and insert absorption in the casting itself .............................................33
Gaskets’ damages ........................................................................................................................... 34
5.1.1.3.1 Anchored gaskets............................................................................................................................ 35
5.1.1.3.2 Glued gaskets ................................................................................................................................. 39
Chipping of sides and corners ...................................................................................................... 42
Handling and installation of the ring ............................................................................................... 44
Gasket damaging (expulsion or pull out during installation) .....................................................44
Chipping of sides and corners during handling .......................................................................... 46
Chipping of edges during installation........................................................................................... 46
Chipping of corners during installation ........................................................................................ 48
Thrust phase ...................................................................................................................................... 49
Gasket compression from jacks’ plate ......................................................................................... 49
Grouting and operational phases .................................................................................................... 50
Gap and Offset................................................................................................................................. 50
Water leakage from joints and bolt holes ..................................................................................... 52
Damages caused by contact with aggressive water ................................................................... 53
Damage caused by oil or fire ......................................................................................................... 54
Unscrewing joint bolts .................................................................................................................... 54
5.2 Structural damages .............................................................................................................................. 55
Post-casting, demoulding, handling, overturning, storage ..........................................................56
Description of damages ................................................................................................................. 56
Causes of damage........................................................................................................................... 56
Mitigation actions ............................................................................................................................ 56

Restoring actions ............................................................................................................................ 57
5.2.1.4.1 Defects due to inserts presence...................................................................................................... 57
5.2.1.4.2 Cracks and Fissures ....................................................................................................................... 57
Handling and installation of the ring ............................................................................................... 59
Description of damage.................................................................................................................... 59
Causes of damage........................................................................................................................... 60
5.2.2.3.1 Corner shape................................................................................................................................... 61
5.2.2.3.2 Length of the ring ............................................................................................................................ 61
5.2.2.3.3 Number of segment per ring ........................................................................................................... 62
Thrust phase ...................................................................................................................................... 64
5.2.3.1.1 Splitting / bursting cracks (transversal cracks perpendicular to the thrust force) ...........................64
5.2.3.1.2 Longitudinal cracks along the tunnel and spalling cracks ............................................................... 65
5.2.3.1.3 Chipping of sides and corners......................................................................................................... 65
Causes of damage........................................................................................................................... 65
Grouting and service phases ........................................................................................................... 68
5.2.4.1.1 Loss of connector and bolt performance ......................................................................................... 68
5.2.4.1.2 Spalling during fire........................................................................................................................... 69
5.2.4.1.3 Leaks from cracks on segments ..................................................................................................... 69
Causes of damage........................................................................................................................... 70

5.2.4.4.1 Loss of Connector and Bolt Performance ....................................................................................... 71
5.2.4.4.2 Spalling during Fire ......................................................................................................................... 71
5.2.4.4.3 Chipping of Sides and Corners ....................................................................................................... 71
5.2.4.4.4 Leaks from Cracks .......................................................................................................................... 72
5.2.4.4.5 Cracks (Wet or Dry)......................................................................................................................... 72
5.2.4.4.6 Cracks on Lining.............................................................................................................................. 73
6 CALCULATION METHODS TO AVOID STRUCTURAL-DRIVEN DAMAGES ....................................75

6.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................... 75
Codes, standards and key references ............................................................................................ 75
Design conditions ............................................................................................................................. 75
6.2 Geometrical dimensioning .................................................................................................................. 76
Geometrical tolerances..................................................................................................................... 78
Components....................................................................................................................................... 78
6.3 Concrete segment lining modelling ................................................................................................... 79
6.4 Structural verifications ........................................................................................................................ 81
Construction stages and main design verifications ...................................................................... 81
Structural verifications for the Prefabrication processing (at the prefabrication factory) ........83
Transportation, handling and installation ...................................................................................... 83
Structural verifications for the TBM-advance phase ..................................................................... 85
Local verifications ........................................................................................................................... 86
6.4.4.1.2 Verification of the induced tensile stresses ..................................................................................... 86
Global verifications ......................................................................................................................... 89
Grouting phase and long-term stability .......................................................................................... 92
Segment section design ................................................................................................................. 92
Structural fire design ...................................................................................................................... 92
Seismic design ................................................................................................................................ 92
Impact load design .......................................................................................................................... 94

Connection system design ............................................................................................................ 95
6.4.5.5.1 Gasket design ................................................................................................................................. 95
6.4.5.5.2 Bolt and dowel socket/pocket design .............................................................................................. 95
Junctions and interface with existing assets ................................................................................. 96
7 ON SITE & LABORATORY TESTS AND CHECKS ............................................................................. 98

7.1 Generalities ........................................................................................................................................... 98
7.2 Preliminary tests on steel materials ................................................................................................... 98
Tests on rebars .................................................................................................................................. 98
Chemical composition test............................................................................................................... 98
Tensile test ......................................................................................................................................... 98
Bend test ............................................................................................................................................ 99
Clamping force of the bolts .............................................................................................................. 99
7.3 Tests for post-casting, demoulding, handling, overturning and storage.......................................99
Tests on cylindrical cores ................................................................................................................ 99
Pull out test on rebars and sockets .............................................................................................. 100
Rebound Hammer Test ................................................................................................................... 101
Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test (UPV) ............................................................................................ 101
Impulse Response Test .................................................................................................................. 102
Crack Depth Measurement ............................................................................................................. 102
Impact Echo ..................................................................................................................................... 103
Geometrical test .............................................................................................................................. 103
7.4 Thrust phase ....................................................................................................................................... 104
Thrust load test (point load test) ................................................................................................... 104
Tests on lining elements edges ..................................................................................................... 105
7.5 GROUTING AND SERVICE PHASES................................................................................................. 106
Flexural testing ................................................................................................................................ 106
Tests on an assembled ring ........................................................................................................... 107

Sealing tests .................................................................................................................................... 107
Durability tests ................................................................................................................................ 108
Creep on sockets ............................................................................................................................ 109
Rebars corrosion ............................................................................................................................. 110
Fire testing ....................................................................................................................................... 110
8 CONCLUDING REMARKS AND FUTURE POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENTS .......................................112

9 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 114

3 IDENTIFICATION OF APPLICABLE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
The contractual management of the damaged segments is not regulated by specific standards as this aspect
is project-related and it is normally defined by the Client within the Quality Management plan or the project
specifications. In these documents the Client identifies the functional requirements which include operational,
security, durability, water tightness, repair and maintenance requirements that must be incorporated into the
design and sizing of the tunnel lining.
However most of the countries have published guidelines that suggest practical measures to avoid the
occurrence of defects in the concrete during the production, transport and installation phase as well as to
identify, interpret and repair specific types of damage or to carry out a general tunnel inspection, damage
assessment, rehabilitation and maintenance.
The most appropriate references currently available are:
[1] AFTES Recommendations: Geometry, concrete, formwork and concreting of tunnel lining:
Construction defects;
[2] AFTES Guidelines: The design, sizing and construction of precast concrete segments installed at
the rear of a tunnel boring machine;
[3] AFTES Recommendation n.GT38R1A1 (2013): Design, dimensioning and execution of precast steel
fibre reinforced concrete arch segments, Tunnels et espace souterrain, n. 238, July-August 2013,
pp. 312-324
[4] U.S. Department of Transportation: Technical Manual for Design and Construction of Road tunnels
– Civil Elements;
[5] BTS (British Tunnelling Society), 2016. PAS 8810. Tunnel Design-Design of concrete segmental
tunnel lining-Code of practice;
[6] BTS and ICE: Specifications for tunnelling third edition;
[7] DAUB Deutscher Ausschuss fur unterirdisches Bauen e. V. German Tunnelling Committee (ITA-
AITES): Recommendations for the design, production and installation of segmental rings;
[8] Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE), 2005. Standards on test methods of repairing materials
used for concrete structures;
[9] Japan Society of Civil Engineers (JSCE), 2006. Standard Specifications for Tunnelling: Shield
Tunnels, Tokyo;
[10] Australian Standards: AS 4825-2011, AS 3610-1995, AS 1170-SAA;
[11] BS EN 1504: Products and systems for the protection and repair of concrete structures - Definitions,
requirements, quality control and evaluation of conformity;
[12] BS 1881-208: Testing concrete. Recommendations for the determination of the initial surface
absorption of concrete.
[13] BS 1881-122: Method for determination of water absorption.
[14] BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005, 3.2
[15] BS EN 1992-1-1.
[16] CIRIA C671 – Tunnels: inspection, assessment and maintenance;
[17] FHWA: Tunnel Operations, Maintenance, Inspection and Evaluation Manual;
[18] FHWA: Highway and Rail Transit Tunnel Maintenance and Rehabilitation Manual;
[19] ACI 318-95: Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete;
[20] ACI 544.7R-16: Report on Design and Construction of Fiber- Reinforced Precast Concrete Tunnel
Segments;
[21] Model Code 2010 - Final draft (2012), “fib Bulletin 65”, Volume 1, pp. 350, ISBN 978-2-88394-105-
2; “fib Bulletin 66”, Volume 2, pp. 370, ISBN 978-2-88394-106-9;
[22] fib bulletin, n. 83, state-of-art report, fib WP 1.4.1, “Precast tunnel segments in fibre-reinforced
concrete”, October 2017, pp. 168, ISBN: 978-2-88394-123-6

[23] fib Bulletin n. 58, fib – International Federation for Structural Concrete (2011). “Design of anchorages
in concrete”, Lausanne, Switzerland.
[24] ITATECH: Design Guidance for Precast Fibre Reinforced Concrete Segments;
[25] EN 14889-2006: Fibres for concrete;
[26] EN 14651 (2005), “Test method for metallic fibre concrete - Measuring the flexural tensile strength”
(limit of proportionally (LOP), residual), European Committee for Standardization, 18pp.
[27] Eurocode 2 EN 1992-1-1 (2004), CEN, (European Committee for Standardization), “Design of
Concrete Structures, General rules and Rules for Buildings”.
[28] Eurocode 0 EN 1992-2002: (2002), CEN (European Committee for Standardization), “Basis of
Design”. Brussels, Belgium: CEN, 2002.
[29] EN 206-1 Concrete-Part 1: Specification, performance, production and conformity;
[30] EN 45001
[31] EN ISO /IEC 17025: General requirements for the competence of testing and calibration laboratories.
[32] ITA, International Tunnelling Association, Official report, (2000), “Guidelines for the design of shield
tunnel lining”, Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, Vol.15, No.3, pp.303-331.
[33] ITA Working Group 6 (2004), “Guidelines for Structural Fire Resistance for Road Tunnels”, May
2004, pp. 81.
[34] CEN/TS 1992-4 (2009), CEN (European Committee for Standardization), “Design of fastenings for
use in concrete”, Parts 4-1 to 4-5, Brussels
[35] DS/EN 1504, Repair of Concrete Parts 1-10;
[36] IS: 13311 Part I
[37] IS: 13311 Part II standard
[38] IS: 2770-1997: Methods of testing bond in reinforced concrete.
[39] ISO 9223 - Corrosion of metals and alloys -- Corrosivity of atmospheres -- Classification,
determination and estimation.
[40] DIN 1048
[41] DIN EN 1992-1-1 (Eurocode 2): Bemessung und Konstruktion von Stahlbeton – und Spannbetontrag
– werken, Teil 1-1: Allgemeine Bemessungsregeln und Regeln für den Hochbau, Januar 2011
[42] ASTM C1202-97: Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete's Ability to Resist
Chloride Ion Penetration.
[43] ASTM A370-15 Standard Test Methods and Definition for Mechanical Testing of Steel Products
[44] ASTM A615-16 Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain Carbon-Steel Bars for Concrete
Reinforcement.
[45] ASTM C1393- 98a
[46] ASTM C1740-10
[47] ASTM D7205 Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Fiber Reinforced Polymer Matrix
Composite Bars
[48] ASTM E290
[49] D.M. Norme Tecniche sulle Costruzioni 2018
[50] ISO 15630-1
[51] ISO 6892-1
[52] ISO Guide 25
[53] STUVA Recommendation for the Use of Gasket for sealing segmental Linings
[54] UNI EN ISO 9227: 2012: Corrosion tests in artificial atmospheres -- Salt spray tests
[55] UNI EN ISO 14713 - Zinc Coating, Guidelines and recommendations.
[56] UNI 11039-2003: Calcestruzzo rinforzato con fibre di acciaio;
[57] UNI 3740/3
[58] UNI 5712
[59] UNI 5713
[60] UNI EN 14399/3/4
[61] UNI EN 20898/1
[62] UNI EN 20898/2

[63] UNI EN ISO 898/1
[64] UNI EN ISO 898/6
[65] SIA 162/5 Erhaltung von Betontragwerken
[66] Bundesministerium für Verkehr: Zusätzliche Technische Vertragsbedingungen und Richtlinien für
den Bau von Straßentunneln (ZTV-ING) – Teil 5, Tunnelbau, Abschnitt 3 maschinelle
Schildvortriebsverfahren, 2007
[67] RETC 2001 (Chapter 79 – Single-shell tunnel lining with reinforced concrete ring: critical loads and
damage prevention);
[68] NAT 2008 (Recent Developments in North America in the Design of Precast Concrete Tunnel
Linings);
[69] Deutsche Bahn AG: Richtlinie Eisenbahntunnel planen, bauen und in Stand halten, Ril. 853, gültig
ab 01.12.2012;
Some references have been summarised in Table 1 with a summary of the relevant topics covered in the
documents.
Reference Relevant sections Topic

General overview on the construction defects
occurring in concrete lining (not only
Appendix 1 Construction defects: faults, segmental lining), the interpretation of the
[1]
bad workmanship and imperfections probable causes of the defect, the precautions
to be taken during construction and the
measures to repair the damage.
Design, sizing and construction of precast
[2] concrete segments installed at the rear of a
tunnel boring machine
Identification, characterization and
rehabilitation of structural defects in a tunnel
[4] Chapter 16 – Tunnel rehabilitation
system (different types of tunnel linings are
analysed)
List of Client’s project-specific functional
[5] Chapter 4 requirements of the tunnel lining, including
repair and maintenance.
Specifications for the correct installation of the
[6] 321 Construction of segmental lining
segmental lining to prevent potential defects.
Guideline on the requirements that should be
covered in the quality management plan for
segment production
[7] Appendix A
Segment Design
Durability
Segment production
JSCE-SF4
Test methodology for the evaluation of flexural
[9]
strength and flexural toughness of steel fibre
reinforced concrete
Tunnel fire safety
Formwork for concrete /AS 3610 Supp. 2-
[10] 1996/Amdt 1-2003.
Loading Code, AS 1170.4 Supp. 1-
1993/Amdt 1-1994

Part 1: Definitions
Part 2: Surface protection systems for
concrete
Part 3: Structural and non-structural
repair
Details are given for the identification,
Part 4: Structural bonding
performance, safety and evaluation of
Part 5: Concrete injection
conformity of products and systems to be used
Part 6: Anchoring of reinforcing steel bar1
[11] for surface protection of concrete, to increase
Part 7: Reinforcement corrosion
the durability of concrete and reinforced
protection1
concrete structures, as well as for new
Part 8: Quality control and evaluation of
concrete and for maintenance and repair work.
conformity
Part 9: General principles for use of
products and systems
Part 10: Site application of products and
systems and quality control of the works
Guideline on condition appraisal and remedial
repairs/structural improvement of masonry
[16] Chapter 4 and Chapter 5
tunnels, cast iron tunnels and concrete tunnel
linings.
Building Code Requirements for
[19] Structural Concrete, American Concrete
Institute
Design for production and transient stages
Design for construction
[20]
Design Examples
Hybrid reinforcement
Chap. 5.6 Fibres/Fibre Reinforced
Concrete;
[21]
Chap. 7.7 Verification of safety and
serviceability of FRC structures
Design approach based on fib MC2110
Case-studies
[24]
Fire protection
Testing Procedure
Requirements of fibres for structural or non-
[25]
structural use in concrete, mortar and grout
Test methodology for metallic fibre concrete.
[26] Measuring the flexural tensile strength (limit of
prop. (LOP), residual);
Teil 1-1: Allgemeine Bemessungsregeln
[41]
und Regeln für den Hochbau
Part 1: Definitions and classification.
Part 2: Test methodology for the
[56]
assessment of the first crack strength and
of the ductility indexes
Teil 5, Tunnelbau, Abschnitt 3
[66]
maschinelle Schildvortriebsverfahren

Chapter 79 – Tunnel rehabilitation Single-
[67] shell tunnel lining with reinforced concrete
ring: critical loads and damage prevention
Recent Developments in North America in the
[68]
Design of Precast Concrete Tunnel Linings
Table 1 Applicable standard and guidelines for damaged segments

4 QUALITY CONTROL
4.1 Introduction
Quality control is an integral part of the whole segment journey from the precast factory to the tunnel
construction. Given that the precast elements are made under controlled conditions and closed supervision, a
high level of quality can be achieved during the manufacturing process; however critical activities such as
lifting, handling, transportation and installation may impact the quality criteria requirements for a specific
project. The quality level can be measured in terms of serviceability, aesthetic, performance in health and
safety, etc. and these requirements are normally stated within the Contract Specifications.
The following paragraphs describe the general quality control procedures for the precast elements carried out
during each phase of the segment life, from factory production (Paragraph 4.3), transportation and delivery on
site (Paragraph 4.4), the installation (Paragraph 4.5), until the handover and service (Paragraph 4.6). These
main phases are schematically shown in Figure 1.
Segments Production Segments Transportation Installation Handover & Service

and Delivery on site
Precast Storage Area for Construction

Adit TBM Tunnel
Factory Transport Site
Figure 1 Phases of the segment Life
Each phase normally involves three fundamental operations which are defined and detailed within the general
quality plan: traceability and data record, inspection, acceptance and/or repair works. Each segment
undergoes these activities at every phase of its life and cannot be moved to the next stage of the process until
all the quality criteria are fulfilled (Figure 2). A description of the most common procedures for segment
tracking, control and repair is provided as guidance for each stage of the segment journey.
Figure 2 Segment Quality Acceptance Process

4.2 The Parties
Usually there are many parties involved in the quality management of the precast segments and each one of
them owns a part of the process. Collaboration and communication between the parties are therefore the base
for a successful project.
A general scheme of the parties involved can be the following:
• The Project Owner (Client): is generally directly involved in the construction process and is the
recipient of the inspection reports on segmental lining, mining, settlements measurements etc.
• The Main Contractor: executes the construction works. It is usually responsible for the manufacturing
and delivering of the segments on site. It is an intermediary between the Subcontractor (if any) and
the Project Owner. It is also responsible of all the communications with the Project Owner.
• The Subcontractor (if any, for the tunnel construction; otherwise the Main Contractor is the only
responsible): is usually, in charge of the tunnel excavation and lining installations and carries on a
separate quality process related to the tunnel activities.
• The Segment Manufacturer: manufactures the lining in its own facility.
• Transport Companies: oversee the segmental lining transportation.
• Project Supervision / Construction Administration
The wide number of organisations and people involved require cooperation between the parties. The
collaboration can allow easy and smooth sharing of documents among them and access to different databases.
Contractors, Subcontractors and Segment Manufacturer should have an internal Quality Assurance (QA) team
that assures the implementation of quality measures during the production, delivery and installation and it is
responsible for the fulfilment of all quality related terms. The QA Manager assures that all requirements
prescribed in the tender documents or in relevant standards are respected. He is also responsible for providing
the quality plan as well as compiling all certificates and test results.
Under the conditions stated in the Contract, an Inspection Agency shall be an independent party to ensure
quality of the precast segment production. It shall conduct on-site quality control audits and inspection on
behalf of the Project Owner.
4.3 Production Phase

The quality plan should cover the production process from the materials selection to the final product approval
before transportation and delivery on site.
An overview of the main aspects that a general quality plan should cover can be summarized as follows:
• Meet requirements given in the tender documents or in relevant standards for production and repairs
materials, equipment and plants.
• Supervise, sample and test all segments’ constituent materials and concrete, at the batching plant or
in lab.
• Supervise, sample and test all segments repairs materials.
• Compile certificates and test results.
• Implement quality measures on the production yard. Moulds, steel cages, assembly parts and segment
production must be in accordance with the production plans.
• Implement quality measures on the production activities (cleaning and oiling of moulds, transport and
mounting of steel cages, casting of segments, surface finishing, curing, demoulding, repair works,
applying of gaskets and transport to the storage).
• Foresee an inspection plan and segments’ repairing procedure.

• Fulfil production target and meet workplace regulations.
Traceability and Data Record

During the segments production phase in the factory, a first database of segments should be compiled by the
Manufacturer and should be always accessible until the end of the project (handover and service phase).
Moreover, the following track should be recorded:
• Concrete mix and Reinforcement

• Mould
• Casting
• Repair
• Storage
• Transportation
Each segment is identified by a unique barcode (Figure 3) that can be scanned to keep track of its journey
from the factory to the construction site.
Figure 3 Example of segment barcode
The Manufacturer database should contain the following information per each ring pack:
• Production date
• Production ring number
• Segments unique Identification Number ID (which the entire tracked history of the segment, from
production to service, will be related)
• Reinforcement ID and Type
• Mould ID and Type
• Start – End Date of casting
• Segments drawings
• Check list (Inspections) to compile after demoulding and for final acceptance for each segment
• General Materials Specifications and Quantities

Inspections, Acceptance and/or Repairs
After demoulding, before being processed for final acceptance, segments stand in a dedicated pre-storage
area to be visually inspected for damages, hammer tested for unsound concrete and measured for dimensional
tolerances checks.
As a general outline, damages can be categorized as follow:
• Weakness points or minor defects for which no action or general repairs are needed
• Hold point or major defects, known as non-conformities (NCR), for which a special concept has to be
defined or the segment is rejected
If there is a non-conformity, the following steps must be achieved:
• Identification and mitigation of the non-conformity

• Definition of the causes of the non-conformity (e.g. analysis of production, test results, equipment
etc.)
• Corrective actions (e.g. remove potential causes for the non-conformity, preventive measures,
revision of QP, etc.)
A Close Out Criteria should be defined and included in the Quality Plan as a guideline to identify the type of
damage during the inspection and the related corrective actions to adopt (see Chapter 5 for more details on
the type of damages, mitigations and repairs). These criteria can vary for each project depending on the
different Manufacturers, Design specifications, Contract requirements and local standards and regulations.
An example of how a Close Out Criteria can be structured is shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5.
Figure 4 Production Phase - Close Out Criteria Scheme

Figure 5 Production Phase - Close Out Criteria Definition
Figure 6 shows the steps of the inspection and acceptance process. If the segment has been repaired after
the first inspection, a final inspection is carried out for acceptance. At this point, the segment can be stacked
with the other ring components at the storage area, ready to be transported.

Figure 6 Production Phase – Segment Acceptance Process
4.4 Transportation and Delivery on Site

The Quality Plan, during transportation and delivery phase, should address and cover:
• Roles and responsibilities during transportation

• Records of information provided and exchanged between the Manufacturer, the Main Contractor and
the Transport Company
• Segments inspections and acceptance for the delivery on site
A general work organization scheme can be summarized as follow:
• Meet requirements given in the tender documents or in relevant local regulation and standards.
• Supervise segments handling and transportation process.
• Compile transport permits, notes and inspections check lists.
• Foresee an inspection plan and segments repairing procedure.
• Implement quality measures during handling and transportation.

The segments storage area may be in the factory or at any designated temporary storage area.

The Main Contractor is responsible for sending to the Manufacturer a shipping schedule request some months
in advance, based on the estimated excavation production and the site storing capacity.
The Main Contractor is, in most cases, responsible also to inform the transport company about the shipped
quantities and their destination.
The segments are therefore transported either from the Production Factory to the site or to a temporary storage
area and then to the site.
Together with the transportation and delivery permits and notes, it is good practice to issue and record within
the Manufacturer and Main Contractor database the following documents:
1) The Shipping request handed over to the Manufacturer by the Main Contractor.
2) The Shipping list handed over to the Main Contractor by the Manufacturer. This list is the output of
Manufacturer database and provides the list of segments to be transported and delivered, previously
inspected at the factory (usually signed by the Main Contractor QC representative for acceptance).
3) Loading Pack list handed over to the Transport Company by the Main Contractor. This document
provides the list of elements loaded on each transportation mean, including important data such as
production ring number, segment ID and type of reinforcement.
Once segments have been delivered on site, delivery notes and shipping lists are checked by the Main
Contractor Site Personnel.
Whenever a new pack of segments is planned to be delivered on site, the Main Contractor should track the
rings and notifies verbally or by e-mail the Tunnelling Subcontractor (if any) responsible personnel. The
shipping list (Ring Pack list) should be shared among all the parties involved and recorded.
In this phase, a new reference number related to the ring building sequence should be assigned to each ring
pack. The new numbering system of the segments must be correctly correlated to the segments information
recorded during the previous phases, from the factory to the site and the history of each ring/segment should
be stored in a database (Figure 7) for long-term traceability.
Figure 7 Example of a Database structure

Before each transport and after each loading on the transportation mean, an inspection should be carried out
by the responsible QC inspector and recorded. A check list report is issued per each segment and co-signed
by the parties involved, shared and archived.
Each segment is inspected for damages and can be accepted, marked for repairs or rejected as per defined
Close Out Criteria (see Chapter 5 for more details on damages after the production phase). Only accepted
segments can be transported to the site.
Once the rings arrive on site, another inspection by the Main Contractor QC inspector should take place to
ensure proper unloading, handling and storage. Another checklist is issued and recorded in the system per
each segment.
The Quality Department representatives of the Tunnelling Subcontractor (if any) might perform joint inspections
with the Main Contractor personnel for the acceptance of the segments on site.
At the arrival, the segments are inspected for damages as per Close Out Criteria (see Chapter 5 for more
details) and can be:
• Accepted;
• Marked for repair;
• Rejected.
In case of rejection, if permitted, they can be re-used for temporary purposes such as sacrificial segments at
the interface with other structures (such as stations, shafts and adits that will be demolished after the passage
of the TBM). Those requiring repair, should be stored in a separate area until they are ready to be re-inspected
and eventually accepted.
The following operations are carried out during each inspection at site:
• Each ring stack (identified by an ID which is indicated on its barcode label) is scanned and registered;
• The n. segment IDs as they appear on the barcode labels in compliance with the ring numbering given
by the manufacturer are registered;
• Each segment is checked at this point for the detection of any possible spalling, cracks, surface defects
and/or damage to the gasket. The defect is registered with reference to specific ring number and
segment ID number.
The criteria to be met for the acceptance are specified in Chapter 5 and usually are:
• Gasket in good condition and fitting inside the groove (no humps) along its entire length;
• No broken edges or surface breakouts affecting the gasket groove area of the segment;
• Segments with complete absence of cracks within a certain width and broken edges or surface
breakouts within a certain depth outside gasket groove.
A “traffic light” system can be followed for the segment acceptance process:
• Accepted: the segment has no substantial defects and it is accepted. Therefore, when a ring is wholly
accepted can be supplied directly to TBM after the first inspection.
• Marked for repairs: the segment needs to undergo repairs. In case one segment from a ring stack
does not meet the acceptance, criteria but is still repairable according to relevant repairs criteria, the
whole ring is then considered in a “Stand-by Status” for repair.

• Rejected: the segment is rejected. In case one segment from a ring stack is subject to rejection, then
it must be replaced. The ring is temporarily considered in a “Rejection Status” until segments
replacement and a new inspection take place for final acceptance.
• Non-Conformity: the segment is under NCR and is considered in “quarantine”. In case one segment
with defects cannot meet the criteria to undergo repairs as per accepted procedure and it is not subject
to rejection, then it can be repaired subject to NCR issue. In this case a non-standard repair solution
for the segment should be proposed and accepted by the Designer and the Project Owner.
• The related ring is then temporarily considered in quarantine until the segment gets repaired and re-
inspected. If the stated conditions on the accepted NCR are fulfilled, the NCR is closed.
An example of traffic light system is shown in Figure 8.
Figure 8 Transportation and Delivery on Site - Traffic Light Table
In case a segment is rejected for any reason, it is possible to replace it with an accepted one if available on
site. The segments substituting other should be:
• Of the same segment type

• Of the same reinforcement type
Once ring packs are accepted, they are ready to be transported and delivered on the TBM for installation.
4.5 Installation
The Quality Plan, during delivery on TBM and installation phase, should address and cover:
• Roles and responsibilities during segment handling, transportation and ring building.
• Records of information provided and exchanged between the Main Contractor, the Subcontractor (if
any) and the Tunnel Personnel.
• Segments inspections and acceptance for ring building.
• Meet requirements given in the tender documents and in relevant working procedures.
• Supervise segments handling, transportation and installation process.
• Compile TBM production reports and inspections check lists.
• Implement quality measures during handling, transportation and installation.

Along with the TBM’s advancing, rings need to be installed. They are transported from the construction site
yard to the tunnel adit and finally uploaded on the train/multi service vehicle that goes inside the tunnel to
supply the TBM.
During this last handling and transportation process, before reaching the TBM, segments should be tracked
and inspected for damages (by the Subcontractor or Main Contractor operators). All the information should be
recorded in the Subcontractor/Main Contractor system.
Once the segments reach the TBM and are in proximity of the erector, a last tracking and inspection, before
installation, should be done by the TBM responsible personnel.
Ring Building operations should be always supervised by the TBM responsible personnel. It’s fundamental to
correctly install and align the segment with each other to avoid severe damages and misalignments during the
next steps (thrust phase during TBM advancing and servicing).
Ring Erection Reports are usually compiled to keep track of TBM daily production and inspected segments
damages.
The report can collect the following data: date, TBM number, ring build number, segment ID, key position,
previous key position, invert position, strain gauges installed/monitoring ring and inspected damages.
At the end of each TBM shift, Ring Erection Reports should be delivered to the Technical and Production
Department (of the Subcontractor and/or Main Contractor) in charge of recording and updating the segments
database.

Before the ring is installed, the same acceptance procedure described in Paragraph 4.4.2 can be adopted.
Each segment can still be accepted, marked for repairs or rejected as per defined Close Out Criteria (see
Chapter 5 for more details). Only accepted rings can be installed.

Once the ring is built, segments can’t of course be rejected and if severe damages compromise the structural
integrity of the tunnel, special mitigations and repair procedures should be adopted (refer to Chapter 5 for more
details).
4.6 Handover and Service

The Quality Plan, during tunnel handover and service phase, should address and cover:
• Roles and responsibilities during tunnel handover process (from the Subcontractor and/or Main
Contractor to the Project Owner)
• Records of information provided and exchanged between the above-mentioned parties
• Segments inspections and acceptance for the final handover
• Meet requirements given in the tender documents and in relevant working procedures.
• Supervise segments’ inspections and repairs process.
• Compile inspections, repairs and handover reports.
• Implement quality measures during repairing operations.

Once the ring building phase is finished and a tunnel stretch completed a new set of inspections should be
carried out before the final handover of the tunnel to the Project Owner.
Before starting any quality inspection after the ring building, it is important to ensure that all the rings’ segments
have been recorded and the system contain all the ring life cycle data from the factory up to the tunnel
(Segments IDs, Damages Records, Inspections, Reparations, etc.).
The segment tracking is therefore finally checked segment by segment and filled in with any missing
information.
When completed, the database should be shared between the parties involved.

A general inspections practice for each completed tunnel stretch can include the following phases:
• First Internal Inspection before repairs carried out by Subcontractor/Main Contractor and
independently by the Project Owner Inspector (or by the Project Supervision / Construction
Administration)
1) : a Ring Condition report is filled up from each party to show the Quality-structural status of the ring
(segments at invert are generally excluded if not cleaned). The position and the type of damage are
marked on a ring scheme; remarks, descriptions, pictures, date and inspectors should be listed.
2) Joint Inspection between Subcontractor/Main Contractor and the Project Owner Inspector before
repairs: the damages recorded during the independent inspections will be discussed within the tunnel.
An agreement between parties will take place. The Ring Conditions Reports will be updated and
shared between the parties.
3) Repairs: Repairs can be done on the inspected rings. Subcontractor/Main Contractor Repairs team is
responsible to compile a special repair report for each work carried out. For example: for leaks and
cracks the number of injected points, the injection pressure, the injected volume or quantity and the

type of material should be recorded; for spalling and broken edges, the position of the damage could
be recorded. The Repair Reports should be signed by the repairs operator and the Technical
Supervisor for acceptance and then archived.
4) Joint Inspection of the invert: during this inspection, it is important to check the bottom for broken parts,
cracks or leaks. The bottom needs to be totally cleaned before proceeding with invert inspection. If the
invert is going to be covered with a layer of cast-in situ concrete, unless any steel is exposed, broken
sections could not be repaired. Cracks and leaks are usually repaired. After the Subcontractor/Main
Contractor and the Project Owner reach the agreement on the damages, ring condition reports are
updated and shared.
5) Invert Repairs: see point 3)
6) Final Joint Inspection: this is the last joint inspection: after repairs, every ring is checked to ensure
every damage has been fixed. If so, the ring is accepted. If not, point 3) and 6) should be repeated.
During the final inspection, new damages may be found. All the process should be repeated until every
damage is repaired and accepted.
7) Handover of the tunnel to the Project Owner: after Final inspection, the Subcontractor/Main Contractor
send a Final Inspection report to the Project Owner. This report is composed by Repairs Reports and
Ring Condition reports. All the documentation will be archived, and the tunnel handed over to be
accessible for further construction activities (first stage concreting, finishes installation etc.).
4.7 Quality Enhancements

Operators in the tunnelling sector should be aware of the importance of the Quality Control in the everyday
work. Historically, “doing things right” was the informal definition of goals, but it has emerged and established
as an integrated and systematic contractual requirement. Implementing the contractual requirements is
challenging in terms of organizing work, resources and managing the vast reporting requirements resulting.
The project development, strong planning, software design, field-testing and execution (the paramount PDCA,
Plan, Do, Check, Act of the Quality Assurance Management Systems - Figure 9) can make this task more
streamlined and more efficient.
Figure 9 Segment Scanning Process
An implementation aimed for the project users and workers involved rather than fulfilling mere regulatory and
contractual requirements can boost project success and nowadays technologies make this possible. The
application of a software/service integrated to the project system and a cloud service is the optimal solution.
The process is integrated starting with two basic keywords: paperless and cloud service.

The first aim is to streamline the processes, avoiding, as much as possible, the production of paper reports.
This is particularly relevant as far as segment tracking is concerned: the strict requirement of traceability
caused, in the past, the adoption of more and more paper reports that had the intention of recording the
localisation of a certain segment at a certain time. The result was a massive creation of paper report, that
made the traceability more difficult and, eventually, created more problems than it solved.
By using the cloud service all TBM reports and Inspections production is automated. The segment tracking,
including not only damage recording and repair recording, but also acceptances and signatures, happens by
handheld device, such as portable media players (smartphones or similar). All the data is stored in the cloud
to be immediately accessible for processing and or sharing among the parties. The rings library is built, and
the complete traceability target achieved having more than one point of scanning and control (Figure 10).
Figure 10 Segment Scanning Process
One of the biggest result in implementing this kind of automated process is that, once the ring package library
is archived after all the scanning process, only one segment needs to be scanned to have the direct access to
the ring pack data.
Other advantages of having an integrated tracking system is that at any given moment of the flow it is possible
to take pictures, signal different type of damage, write comments, and produce reports. At any time, it is
possible to extract statistical information to show amount and distribution of the defects which can be easily
put in relation to the alignment and the position of the TBM.
This could be used as part of the tunnel handover protocol to the Project Owner.

5 TYPES, CAUSES, MITIGATION AND REPAIR OF DAMAGES
With regards to segments repairs, the following guidelines must be read in conjunction with the relevant
technical data sheets of the adopted materials.
Sampling, pre-testing, full-scale test and laboratory tests should be carried out prior the commencing the
repairs operations to test the material, the repair operators and the operations. These preliminary activities
(type of inspections, testing, responsibilities, frequency and acceptance criteria) should be, generally, strictly
identified by the contract requirements and developed differently for each construction phases (before and
after ring building).
Materials and suppliers should be certified in relation to local standards or regulations.
Repairs operators and supervisors should be certified by the supplier for having attended the training on the
use of the relevant repairs materials. Moreover, full-scale tests on segments (usually pull-off testing and
Petrographic analysis on cores) should be carried out to certificate the operators and the company on the
repairs methods and procedures adopted. In case of fulfilment of the project specifications, the company is
certified.
For each repair, a report should be issued and recorded.
Figure 11 Damages of Segmental Lining: Cause – Effect schematic diagram
5.1 Technological damages

Post Casting, Demoulding, Handling, Overturning, Storage
Concrete Surface Defects
Concrete Surface Defects are identified as:
• Hollow
• Exposed reinforcement
• Exposed aggregates (gravel nests or honeycombs)
• Removal of concrete skin
Depending on the position of the affected area, the importance of defects varies.

For this reason, they should be classified in relation to the segment affected area:
• Extrados
• Intrados
• Perimetric surfaces
• Gasket grooves and other niches, pockets, holes, etc.
5.1.1.1.1 Hollows
Generally, hollows located at extrados, intrados and perimetric surfaces are considered defects, when their
dimension exceed 5 mm.
Hollows on gaskets groove can be considered non-conformities when bigger than 1 mm [53].
To ensure gaskets and lining correct water tightness, grooves (Figure 12) should be free from this type of
defect.
Figure 12 Example of groove with (left)and without (right) hollows
Causes
Hollows are mainly due to a non-complete or non-optimal air expulsion from the surface between mould and
concrete or from the concrete itself.
In addition to the air trapped inside the mould during concrete pouring, the concrete can absorb air also during
segment casting and concrete transport.
Every time the concrete is unloaded from one recipient to another, air can be absorbed (i.e. from mixer to
hopper, from shuttle hopper to casting hopper, from concrete conveyor belt to casting hopper, from truck mixer
to mould)
Surfaces located in an undercut section in relation to demoulding direction, are more likely to be affected by
this type of defect because air can get stuck and be absorbed.
A poor or unevenly distributed vibration inside the mould, can cause segment surface hollows.
Other causes can be related to:
• Incorrect mix design

− Poor concrete workability
− Mix segregation

Mitigations
Mitigation measures that can be adopted to reduce hollows formation on segments surfaces, consist in
adjusting:
• Mix design
Enhance mix workability adding water and/or fluidifiers. This kind of correction has a limit: the concrete
final strength must always be reached and mix segregation avoided.
• Casting process
Proper pouring elevation and adequate vibration (correct intensity, duration and distribution).
5.1.1.1.2 Exposed reinforcement

This defect occurs when the segment reinforcement is visible and exposed and so, steel rebars are exposed
to:
- Moist, rain and snow during storage and transport phases

- Tunnel environment (moist and exhaust gases)
- Anular gap backfilling material (gravel, resins and possible water leaks) during installation.
Reinforcement exposure is due to an uncomplete concrete cover filling.
Causes
Possible causes can be related to:
• Reinforcement design and aggregates size

Dense reinforcement spacing and aggregates having dimension like reinforcement spacing.
• Poor or unevenly distributed vibration
When vibration distribution or intensity is not enough to lead the concrete to fill completely the area
between the reinforcement and the mould surface.
• Incorrect positioning of the reinforcement cage
Mitigations
Possible mitigation measures to reduce the risk of reinforcement exposure are described as follows:
• Control on the aggregates size

If not already included in the process check list, it can be convenient to check aggregates size to be
compliant with the mix design.
In this way, exact quantities of different aggregates sizes can be evaluated and then adjusted.
It’s important to remark that fine and coarse fractions of aggregates for fixed aggregate sizing, can
deeply vary from supplier to supplier depending on different mills. For that reason, different dimension
corrections can be required by different suppliers.
• Reinforcement design
The reinforcement design must consider aggregates size so that the right rebar spacing is adopted
and concrete can flow without obstructions.
• Vibration
Proper vibration modulation, in duration and intensity. The vibration must not generate concrete
segregation.
• Positioning of the reinforcement cage

Checking the dimension of the rebars cover before pouring concrete. Placing a correct number of suitable
spacers. Use of prefabricated cage system with strict control.
5.1.1.1.3 Exposed aggregates

Aggregates are exposed when aggregates of major dimension are visible and detectable in some areas of the
segment (Figure 13).
Exposures occur at segment surface where the fine fraction (sands, cement, additives) of the mix design is
absent whereas the coarse fraction (gravels) is visible.
EXPOSED
AGGREGATES
Figure 13 Example of exposed aggregates
Causes
Aggregates exposures main causes can be related to:
• Washout
When a very fluid concrete is adopted and/or the water amount of the mix design is excessive,
washouts might occur. The fine fraction of the mix is washed out toward other areas or outward of the
mould, exposing the coarse fraction.
• Poor mixing
A poor mixing can lead to the formation of coarse fraction conglomerates. If conglomerates don’t break
up during the following concrete transport phases (pouring in transport buckets/hoppers, casting in the
mould), nests and combs can form inside the segment or outside at the segment-mould contact
surface.
Mitigations
Mitigation measures to be adopted can be:
• Washout
Reduce mix design water content (if possible) and build watertight moulds, avoiding the outflow of fine
and fluid fractions.
• Poor mixing
A correct management of mixing times and a proper batching of aggregates, cement, additives and
water in the mixer ensures a uniformly mixed concrete.
The batch volume must be suitable for the size of the adopted mixer. As a guideline the batch volume
should be comprised between 75-100% of the maximum volume mixable by the mixer (it’s important
to discuss this aspect with the supplier when choosing the mixer to use).

5.1.1.1.4 Removal of concrete skin
This type of defect consists in the removal of concrete surface portion, in general for depth lower than the
concrete cover and for rather extensive surfaces (from 1 to 3 cm).
If no fibre-reinforced concrete is used, concrete layers between the segment surface and the concrete cover
are the weakest areas.
Statistically these defects affect more corner areas than circumferential edges.
Concrete removals must not be mistaken with chipping of corners, damage that will be discussed further on.
Concrete removals can be identified also on:
• Edges of segments dowels sockets

• Edges between segment intrados and erector gripper pockets
• Edges of areas near inserts installation
Causes
Removals of concrete skin can be caused by:
• Incorrect demoulding
If the segment is demoulded applying a force that excessively deviate from the optimal demoulding
direction, some areas of the segment can cling on the mould causing surface scratches and/or
removals.
The deviation from demoulding direction can be related to error in the mould construction or usually to
a mispositioning of the demoulding equipment (sling bar and vacuum).
When a mechanical sling bar is used, if the clamping force or the clamping pads dimension are not
well sized, the segment can slide, tilt and cling during demoulding and consequently break.
• Insufficient undercuts and draft angles
Undercut surfaces or more often insufficient draft angles can cause localized concrete surface removal
during demoulding. A correct mould design is fundamental to avoid these defects.
• Demoulding agent non-homogeneous distribution
Whenever the demoulding agent is not uniformly distributed on the whole mould surface, concrete
removals can occur.
Mitigations
Mitigation measures to adopt can be:
• Incorrect demoulding
To avoid or minimize an incorrect demoulding, caused by the demoulding system mispositioning, the
gantry crane lifting height can be increased (in this case, the pull force deviation decreases when lifting
height increases). Heights higher than 8 m can minimize this issue.
• Insufficient undercuts and draft angles
In the design phase, it’s important to carefully evaluate draft angles and possible undercuts.
The adoption of modular inserts that can be removed from the segment after demoulding can avoid
surface scratches and/or segment breaks.
If it’s not possible to use them, surfaces with not very pronounced draft angles, should be carefully
and uniformly covered with a proper demoulding agent or grease.
As an alternative, single-use inserts can facilitate demoulding operations eliminating the necessity to
treat inserts surfaces in contact with concrete.

• Demoulding agent non-homogeneous distribution
On surfaces with a low draft angles, the demoulding agent distribution must be carried out carefully.
Attention must be paid if demoulding agent stagnate on the lower part of the mould. Stagnation points
must be removed dabbing the area to avoid mix design alteration that can cause concrete local
weakening.
Repairs
For the previously described type of damages (5.1.1.1) the following repair procedures can be defined:
• If the defect (hollow, exposed aggregates, removal of concrete skin) is deeper than 5 mm at the
intrados, extrados and perimetric surface or deeper than 1 mm on the gasket groove, the repair
method plans to clean and level the surface with a fine mortar or liquid cement plaster. Up to 10 mm,
an extra bonding coat is not necessary when fine mortars are applied.
• For blowholes, honeycombs, deep voids, breakouts and broken edges depths indicatively between
10 to 50 mm, a repair mortar is poured in combination with a bonding agent primer. In the worst
cases, rheoplastic mortar is suggested and if the reinforcement is exposed it must be treated with a
passivating corrosion inhibitor before pouring the admixture.
• When the damage is deeper or excessively extended, if it’s repairable in terms of contract, repair
mortars are applied. If drill holes are made to take off the damaged part, the surface is filled with
grout.
For any information about mixing, application, finishing, overcoating and curing the instructions of the relevant
product supplier have to be followed.
Defects due to inserts presence

5.1.1.2.1 Grout or grease leakage in dowels sockets
Dowels sockets, in order to maintain the proper pull-out and shear strength of the connection system, must
not be affected by leakages of:
• Grease, that can be wrongly applied on link-points for the assembly on the mould
• Grout, that can leak during casting
During inserts assembling, the grease is often used improperly, spread on inserts retention link-points on the
mould. This operation is not correct when these systems are not in direct contact with the concrete and don’t
need to be lubricated (there is the possibility that some surfaces of the insert application mechanical system
are in contact with the concrete and these can be covered with demoulding agents or greases but it’s obvious
that those surfaces in contact with sockets teeth or threads must be free of grease or demoulding agent to
allow the correct connection system).
At the beginning of the production or after a long stoppage, it’s possible that grease has been applied to protect
retention mechanical systems. If present, it must be removed before starting the segments production.
Causes
Grout leaks have two main root causes:
• Incorrect insert assembling

If the insert is not assembled in conformity with manufacturer instructions (i.e. insufficient tightening
torque) during casting phase, unscrewing and consequently grout leaks can take place.
• Incorrect coupling between insert and related lodging in the mould

Insert assembling system in the mould should be adequate to avoid grout leaks inside the insert. O-
ring or insert tackling system on the lodging can be applied as countermeasure.
If these solutions are not sufficient, the grout may leak during casting operation.
Mitigations
Grout leakages can be avoided by applying the correct tightening torque between the insert and the related
lodging. Personnel should be properly trained on inserts assembling.
At the same time inserts retaining systems on the mould should be adequate to avoid leaks, adopting O-ring
or other sealing systems can reduce the leak.
Repairs
Grout or grease inside inserts components must be eliminated without damaging the insert.
Grout can be removed with the use of acidulated water. Since inserts are horizontally oriented, it’s important
to foresee systems that allow to keep the water inside the insert for the time needed (or as an alternative place
the segment sidewise). Moreover, concrete around the insert to be treated must be covered to avoid water
reaches segment surfaces.
Greases can be mechanically removed or with the use of solvents that do not affect mechanical properties of
the insert.
5.1.1.2.2 Unscrewing/disconnection and insert absorption in the casting itself

This type of damage (Figure 14) represents the disconnection of the insert (e.g. connection caps, threaded
bearings, injection bearings) from the related mould lodging and its consequent absorption in the segment
casting.
Causes
Main root causes can be:
• Incorrect assembling of the insert

If the insert is not assembled in conformity with manufacturer instructions (i.e. insufficient tightening
torque) during casting phase, unscrewing and consequently grout leaks can take place.
• Incorrect coupling between insert and related lodging in the mould
Insert assembling system must be suitable to avoid disconnections.
Figure 14 Disconnection of an insert from the related mould lodging and its consequent absorption in the segment
casting

Mitigations
Defining and applying a correct tightening torque it’s the first thing to set to avoid disconnections and insert
absorptions.
If the tightening torque is not sufficient to ensure the connection, a dimensional check of the insert and its
lodging is required. Dimensional alterations can affect both the insert (if the production cycle parameters are
not completely controlled by the manufacturer) and the lodging (usually made of steel, after a x number of
production cycles can be affected by wear). Doublechecks on inserts and different lodgings are then advisable.
Repair
In case of insert absorption in the casting, a core must be drilled where the insert is positioned.
The core and the insert diameter must have approximately the same dimension (core diameter should be 10-
20 mm bigger than the insert one).
Core and insert replacement positions are defined by properly shaped jigs considering the position of other
installed inserts.
The insert is placed inside the drill hole and fixed with bicomponent resins injection.
Gaskets’ damages
During concrete casting, during and after demoulding operations and during segment handling operations, the
gasket can be damaged (Figure 15), ripped or deformed.
Main causes of damage can be:
• Collisions, the gasket can be hit and ripped or deformed.

• Excessive contact with demoulding, overturning and handling equipment whenever segment clamping
systems are not adequate to handle the segment without damaging its gasket (i.e. overturning
clamping on the gasket)
Figure 15 Example of gasket’s damages
Possible gaskets damages can be decreased by reducing the number of segment handling operations.
Other gasket related damages are classified in relation to how the gasket is installed, if anchored or glued:
• If anchored: the gasket is installed in the mould, before casting

• If glued: the gasket is stuck on the concrete after the segment is cast (generally during the curing
phase before the storage)
Different damages can occur in relation to the type of gasket installation.
5.1.1.3.1 Anchored gaskets

Gasket sinking in the concrete
The gasket doesn’t come out properly from the segment contact zone, for this reason it sinks in the segment.
Gasket can sink along longitudinal and circumferential joints or/and at the corners (Figure 16).
Figure 16 Example of gasket’s damages in the corner
Causes
The sinking is caused by:
• Incorrect gasket installation

If the gasket is not properly inserted in its groove during casting, can come over the groove not
maintaining the correct position in the mould and consequently in the segment.
The same can happen if during its installation it deforms forming a crease and this latter it’s forced
inside the groove without being distributed along all the segment side. This can come out during
casting.
• Inadequate Anchoring system
Gasket configuration must ensure a sufficient connection force at the mould during casting but at the
same time it can easily removable (without coming out) from the mould when opening it.
Gasket corners can result in being sunk in the segment if:
• The length of the gasket is not correct

If the length is insufficient in one or more sides of the segment, even if the installation seems correct,
during casting when vibration is carried out, the gasket can come out of the groove causing corner
deformation.
• The gasket installation is not correct
During installation, the gasket must be inserted carefully at the corner checking the right coupling with
the mould and avoiding coming out during casting.
• The design of the gasket groove at the corner is not correct
Mitigations
The following mitigation measures can be adopted:

• Incorrect installation of the gasket
Personnel must be trained, able to install the gasket properly and to inspect it after installation. After
the installation they should be able to carry out a final inspection of the gasket
• Inadequate anchoring system
The anchoring system should be sufficiently solid to avoid the disconnection of the gasket from the
mould during casting. Installation and removal test can be done to verify the anchoring system.
The following actions can be adopted to reduce corner deformations:
• Incorrect gasket length

The gasket length is determined with the segment 3D model and after this, it’s a good practise that
the gasket supplier carries out a fitting-test to evaluate gasket installation inside the mould applying
modifications at the gasket length, if needed.
The length is affected by the production and installation environment temperatures. High delta of
temperatures can require a modification of gasket length. During segment manufacturing, personnel
must be trained to detect gaskets moulds non-conformities. Recording deviations and carrying out
dimensional checks involving also the supplier can reduce the number of gaskets damages.
• Design of the gasket groove at the corner
The groove at the corner must be defined together with the mould operator and the gasket supplier.
The installation should be tested with a fitting-test.
Repairs
The repair work for this type of damage are the following (Figure 17):
1) Lift the gasket from its seat with a screwdriver and keep the gasket lifted at the correct height with
some thicknesses. Fill with the epoxy anchoring gel underneath the gasket to fix it in its correct
position.
ATTENTION: Avoid lacerating the gasket when lifting it with the screwdriver
2) Level the restored gasket with a straight iron or wooden edge.
Figure 17 Example of work for repair the gasket
Concrete damaging
This damage represents the concrete cracking or breaking (Figure 18) near the gasket groove without any
gasket damage.

Figure 18 Example of corner’s breaking
Causes
For causes and mitigations see below at the Paragraph 5.1.1.4 Chipping sides and corner
Repairs
These damages, if possible in terms of contract, can be repaired as follows (Figure 19):
• Clean the part to recover and apply mortar, with a spatula, ensuring the incorporation of the gasket
base foot.
• Apply the appropriate restraint with a support to maintain the mortar in place during curing time.
• Clean the gasket.
Figure 19 Example of corner repair
Concrete damaging around a wide gasket area
This damage concerns concrete detachments around the gasket along quite extended areas (Figure 20).
Figure 20 Example of concrete detachments around the gasket

Causes
For causes and mitigations See below at the Paragraph 5.1.1.4 Chipping sides and corner
Repairs
The remedial actions for this kind of damage are described below (Figure 21, Figure 22 and Figure 23):
1) Cut the gasket in the damage area, remove it and recover the groove with a proper mortar
2) Take a piece of gasket 5% longer than the damaged part. Cut the base foot of the gasket as shown
below in Figure 21
Figure 21 Cutting of the gasket’s foot
3) Apply a glue along the empty part of the groove and on the new piece. After few minutes insert the
gasket into the groove, ensuring the fitting. Be careful to match perfectly the two extremities. Remove
the extra glue.
Figure 22 Appliction of a peace of gasket into the groove
4) Level the restored gasket with a straight iron or wooden edge.
Figure 23 Repaired gasket

5) Repair the segment edge as described previously in “Concrete damaging” (Figure 19)
Gasket and concrete heavily damaged
After demoulding, damages affecting gaskets and concrete can occur together with cracks and concrete
detachments.
Figure 24 Example of heavily damege of gasket and concrete
Causes and mitigations
The causes and mitigations can be referred at the main cases reported at the beginning of this paragraph, also
see Paragraph 5.1.1.4 Chipping sides and corner.
Repairs
Repairs should be carry out starting from gasket repair, as described in the repair actions for “Concrete
damaging around a wide gasket area”
5.1.1.3.2 Glued gaskets

Corners deformation
Corners deformations are represented by a mispositioning of the gasket at the segment corner.
The two corners (gasket and segment) are not aligned and the gasket corner is moved toward the
circumferential or longitudinal side of the segment (Figure 25).
Figure 25 Example of corners deformation

Causes
The main causes can be:

If the length is insufficient in one or more sides of the segment, during the installation, gasket internal
stresses (caused by the insufficient length) can lead to the movement of the corner toward the side
where the length is not sufficient.
• Incorrect installation
The gasket installation is not correct
During installation, the gasket must be inserted carefully at the corner checking the right alignment
with the segment corner.
Mitigations
This damage can be reduced as follows:

see anchored gasket sinking corners repair procedure.
personnel should be trained on gasket installation process and must pay attention to segment and
gasket correct alignment.
Repairs
The repairing procedure consists in:
1) Completely remove the gasket from the segment

2) Apply a new layer of glue over the old one, groove sides included
3) Wait for the evaporation of glue solvents
4) Refit a new gasket with a rubber hammer
Gasket detachments
The gasket comes off the segments along quite extended longitudinal sections (Figure 26).
Figure 26 Example of gasket detachments

Causes
Main causes of this type of damage can be:
• Incorrect gluing
Non-homogeneous or insufficient distribution of the glue along the affected area
• Moisture on sprayed glue
When the glue for gasket installation is sprayed on the segment, moisture can form and a white layer
will cover the glue surface. This affects the characteristics of the gasket bonding, that results weakly
causing gasket detachments. Moisture formation occurs when the sprayed glue reaches the dew point
causing the condensation of the glue moist. Factors that can influence this phenomenon are:
• Environmental condition
Temperature and air moisture content can lead to the dew point of the glue
• Moisture in the compressed air
Using not completely dried compressed air can facilitate moisture formation on the glue.
• Collisions or rubbing
If during handling the gasket is hit or rubbed against other surfaces, the gasket can come off.
• Glue weakening
The exposure of the glue to unborn storage environmental conditions can weaken the gluing effect
until gasket detaches.
Mitigations
The following mitigation measures can be adopted to reduce this damage occurrence:
Gluing Personnel must be trained and must carry out a final inspection to verify the correct installation.
• Moisture on sprayed glue
Moisture can be reduced adopting the following shrewdness:
• Environmental condition
If the air is excessively moist and cold, gluing might be performed in an environment at controlled
temperature and moisture (just moving the segment from the outside to the inside can be enough, for
example inside the manufacturing plant). Using spray guns, warming up the glue before spraying it,
avoid the moisture formation on the glue.
• Moisture in compressed air
Compressed air adopted for spraying the glue must be dried to remove the internal moisture.
Compressed air plant must be equipped with a drier and/or moisture removal device.
• Collisions or rubbing
Segments handling operator must pay attention not to hit or rub the handling equipment against
installed gasket.
• Glue weakening
Gluing the gasket few days before the segment can avoid glue weakening during storage exposure.
Repairs
The repairing procedure consists in:
1) Lift the gasket from the groove without causing new detachments.
2) Apply with a brush a new glue layer and wait for the evaporation of glue solvents (15-20 min)
3) Push the lifted part inside the groove again. Keep the gasket in place with a clamp for 5-10 min.

Small gasket detachment at corners
At corners areas, limited gasket sections can come off (< 200 mm). The gasket at the corner can bulge and
consequently come off (Figure 27).
Figure 27 Example of small gasket detachment at corners
Small detachments at corners are caused by a gasket mispositioning and excess that leads to a bulging effect
and then to detachment.
Causes
Root causes can be related to:
Non-uniform distribution of gasket length or insufficient amount of glue at the corner
• Excessive gasket side length
Mitigations
For mitigation measure (see Paragraph 5.1.1.3.2 Glued gaskets):
• Corners deformation
and
Repairs
This defect can be recovered as follows:
1) Apply a line of suitable glue along the detached side of the gasket
2) Push the gasket against the groove
Chipping of sides and corners

This type of damages represents a break, more or less extended, of segments sides and corners. Generally,
these damages can be classified in three groups in relation to their depth:
• ≤ 25mm
• 25-50mm
• ≥ 50mm

Figure 28 Example of chipping of side
During casting phases, causes of chipping can be mainly related to:
• Incorrect distribution of demoulding agent

A non-uniform and/or insufficient distribution of the demoulding agent on mould surfaces can lead to
chippings during demoulding.
• Collisions
It’s fundamental to pay attention during demoulding to avoid segments chippings.
Demoulding must take place following the vertical direction, the mould and the equipment must be aligned in
order to reduce the mispositioning error, main cause of chipping during demoulding. Demoulding equipment
with lasers can be adopted to facilitate the operator in the alignment operation.
Excessive concrete cover thickness is one of the parameters that can affect the segment surfaces resistance.
Mitigations
As already said, mispositioning errors can be avoided increasing the gantry crane lifting height at demoulding.
The use of hand pumps and rugs allows to reach all the surfaces in contact with concrete.
Dabbing demoulding agent stagnations with sponges is fundamental to avoid alteration of concrete mechanical
properties and consequently chipping occurrence.
The reinforcement cover thickness must be well defined, monitored and ensured with spacers or other devices
during the production phase.
In order to increase corners and edges strength, specific fiberglass or synthetic reinforcements can be adopted
at corners and fiberglass or plastic material protections at edges (especially at the extrados).
As an alternative to this punctual reinforcement, a distributed one can be adopted, for example SFRC.
A good practice is to minimize the number handling operations avoiding collisions and chippings.

Repairs
If all the mitigation measures aren’t enough to avoid the damaging of the segment the advisable repair
procedures for different damages’ depths are:
• ≤ 25mm
− good surface cleaning, possibly with compressed air not to have residuals or unstable parts
− application of an epoxy adhesive on the construction joint on which a one-component
thixotropic cementitious mortar (it must harden without shrinking) will be led.
• 25-50mm
− surface cleaning until a solid, resistant and coarse base is reached
− application of an epoxy adhesive on the construction joint on which a one-component
thixotropic cementitious mortar (shrinkage-compensated, sulphate-resistant and with suitable
hardening timings) will be led.
• ≥ 50mm
− surface cleaning until a solid, resistant and coarse base is reached
− application of an epoxy adhesive on the construction joint on which will be led a ready-mixed
mortar composed by highly resistant cements, selected aggregates, special admixtures and
synthetic fibres (when mixed with water becomes a highly fluid mortar, suitable for pouring
into formwork and its workability lasts for about 1 hour).
Handling and installation of the ring

Gasket damaging (expulsion or pull out during installation)
The gasket, during handling (transportation, shipping, transfer to job-site, etc.) and installation phases, can be
damaged by collisions or rubbing.
Moreover, during ring installation, when a segment is positioned close to the one already installed, the gasket
of the segment to be installed can be expelled from the longitudinal side of the segment. In addition to the
expulsion, the gasket section is also stretched and compressed (Figure 29).
Gasket deformations alter the tunnel water tightness capacity.
INSTALLATION INSTALLED
OF THE RING RING
Figure 29 Example of gasket expulsion
Root causes during handling are mainly due to collisions and rubbing against handling equipment, inadequate
to preserve gasket integrity.

For what concerns the installation phase damage causes can be:
• Longitudinal cut angle and longitudinal connection system

Longitudinal cut angles close to 0° (rectangular segments) and connection systems that need to be
perfectly aligned during the insertion operation, increase the probability of gaskets to be expelled
during installation.
• Poor gasket lubrication
When the gasket of the segment to be installed touches the one of the already installed segment,
friction between the two can lead to the gasket expulsion or its dragging out of the groove.
• Poor anchoring or gluing force
For anchored gaskets, the only cause can be linked to an incorrect anchoring design.
For glued gaskets, causes can result from the following:
− Poor amount of glue
− Non- uniform distribution of the glue
− Setting time not respected
− Gasket deterioration due to storage condition exposure
− Exposure to environmental conditions can weaken the gluing force.
Reducing the number of handling operations or adopting proper handling system that do not damage gaskets
are the two principal actions to be taken to reduce the damage occurrence.
Mitigations
Mitigations are strictly related to causes:
• Longitudinal cut angles and connection system

During design phase the adoption of cut angles of 8°-12° are preferable to 0°-4°. In this way, the
contact length of adjacent gasket is reduced. Choose connection systems that allows to reduce at
minimum the gasket longitudinal rubbing during the positioning phase.
• Poor gasket lubrication
Lubrication is fundamental to avoid gaskets expulsion during installation. Proper lubricants must be
used and supplier product distribution instructions must be followed during installation.
• Poor anchoring or gluing force
The gasket selection must be done in connection with the concrete anchoring force. Gasket with high
anchoring force are advisable to avoid expulsion during installation.
If gaskets are glued, gluing installation procedures must be properly followed and storage operations
must be carefully carried out to avoid gluing deterioration.
Repairs
As far as gaskets and concrete repairs are concerned, refer to Paragraph 5.1.1.3, even if, when gaskets
expulsions occur, it is better to adopt preventive measure than remedial actions (see mitigation measures
described in this paragraph). If the gasket expulsion compromises the water tightness of the segment, resin
injections should be performed to restore the sealing.

Figure 30 Detail of the intrados corner with the pipe prepared for the injection
Chipping of sides and corners during handling

During post-casting phase, before installation, the segment is subjected to many handling operations, i.e.:
1) Segments stack are stored at the construction site

2) Segments are transported, individually, through the tunnel
3) Segments are downloaded in the TBM
4) Segments are handled by segment crane, segment feeder and erector and then
5) Installed to form the ring
During handling operations, the segment can be damaged at corners and/or edges.
Sharp corners are more exposed to damages, for instance, during erector segment rotation phase, where the
space is narrow and the possibility of collision is high.
Chipping of segments edges are caused by collisions during handling too.
Minimizing the number of segment handling operations can help to reduce damages occurrence.
For damages repair procedure, considering the segment’s manufacturer quality plan for repair works, the
tunnel lining designer’s recommendation and the adjustments for the relevant works on site, please refer to
the final part of Paragraph 5.1.1.4.
Chipping of edges during installation

These type of damages are particularly related to chipping of edges at a distance from the gasket lower than
30 mm.
During installation, if the jack plate comes over the gasket, breaks and detachments of concrete can occur
between the gasket and the edge (Figure 31).

Figure 31 Example of chipping of edge during installation
Causes
Damage causes can be related to:
• Gasket distance from the segment edge

The distance of the gasket position from the segment edge influence on the point of application of the
gasket resultant force while compressed.
The higher is the distance the lesser is the damage occurrence because compression loads, in this
case, are applied on the most resistant part of the segment.
• Concrete mechanical properties at the edge
Edges are segment extremities where concrete might have different mechanical properties, for
example because of segregation. Concrete is weaker in these areas, even because there is no
reinforcement out of the concrete cover zone.
• Compliance with the design
During waterproofing system design phase, the joint gap has to stay within pre-determinate values to
ensure the required water tightness.
Bituminous packers for loads distribution, if needed, should be considered in the design because they
can influence the joint gap.
If the design is not respected, if joints are more closed, the gasket transmits to the segment loads
higher than the designed ones and can lead to edges breaks.
• Incorrect gasket design
If the design is not well addressed (i.e. gasket section filled at compression > 100%), during installation
the gasket can apply loads on the segment that can exceed concrete ultimate resistance.
Mitigations
Mitigation measures to be adopted can be:
• Gasket distance from the segment edge

Maximize the distance of the gasket from the extrados and/or intrados surfaces during design phase.
• Steel fibers or GFRP reinforcements can be adopted to increase concrete resistance at the edges.
• Compliance with the design
Whenever is needed to modify the design, the gasket must be compliant in its modified condition.
Verify if packers use is foreseen, respect the joint design.
• Incorrect gasket design and rubber compound
Numerical modelling (supported by test validation) and gasket compression tests at the service phase
can predict the gasket behaviour during installation, avoiding possible breaks.

Repairs
For damage repairs refer to Paragraph 5.1.1.4. The repair action can be difficult if carried out in presence of
water, debris or narrow spaces.
Chipping of corners during installation

During installation, chipping of corners can occur (Figure 32).
This damage represents the formation of cracks with or without concrete detachment at intrados and/or
extrados corners areas.
Figure 32 Example of chipping of corner during installation
Main root causes are:
• Collisions
• Concrete mechanical properties at the corner
Corner zones, as already said for edges, are segment extremities where concrete can have different
mechanical properties. Concrete is weaker in these areas, even because there is no reinforcement
out of the concrete cover zone.
• Gasket loads incompatible with concrete mechanical properties
The gasket, when compressed, transmits to the segment area a reaction that stress the concrete. If
this reaction force is higher than concrete ultimate strength, concrete breaks.
The gasket must be properly designed and manufactured in relation to its use, defining the geometry
of the section and materials to use for straight and corner areas.
• Compressibility of gasket corner
The gasket corner represents a discontinuity section for the gasket functionality itself since the
transversal section is different from the longitudinal one.
It can happen that the gasket joint at the corner is not properly designed and manufactured for its
specific use.
In this case, when gaskets are compressed during installation the loads applied on the concrete can
cause concrete breaks.
Mitigations
Mitigation measures that can be applied are described as follows:
• Collisions
To reduce collisions occurrence the following actions can be applied:
− Foresee enough room for handling inside the TBM

− Regulation of the erection system to be as smooth as possible
− Select and train personnel on segment installation procedure
• Concrete mechanical properties at the corner
Steel fiber or GFRP reinforcements can be adopted to increase concrete strength at the extremities.
• Gasket loads incompatible with concrete mechanical properties
During design, loads that the compressed gasket applies on segment surfaces must be considered.
Depending on the geometry and the adopted rubber properties, loads during gasket compression,
transmitted to concrete, must be calculated. With compression tests the segment strength at the
gasket area can be verified.
Mitigation measures that can be adopted, are:
− Installing the gasket at a certain distance from intrados and extrados
− Adopt gaskets that on equal water tightness condition transmit lower loads on the segment.
• Compressibility of gasket corner
It’s important to evaluate carefully the joint at the corner when choosing the right gasket to use. Each
supplier has different production techniques and adopts different design choices for gaskets
manufacture. Modelling and carrying out compression test to represent, close enough, service
conditions can help to foresee possible damages at corners.
Repairs
Considering the segment’s manufacturer quality plan for repair works, the tunnel lining designer’s
recommendation and the adjustments for the relevant works on site, please refer to the previous Paragraph
5.1.1.4 methods (Figure 33).
Figure 33 Example of corner repair
Thrust phase
Gasket compression from jacks’ plate
During thrust phase, TBM jacks’ plates compress segment gasket (Figure 34).
Loads applied by TBM jacks lead to a reduction of gaskets water tightness capacity because, after the
compression, this property can’t be completely recovered.

Figure 34 Compression of gaskets during TBM thrust phase
Causes related to this damage can be reconducted to the interaction, and its design, of TBM and Segments.
The necessity of adopting TBMs and moulds for/from different projects can be a primary cause.
Segmental rings and TBM jacks design must include considerations on the presence of segment gaskets that
should not be overcome by TBM jacks.
If these considerations are not carried out during the design phase, it’s possible to reshape jacks’ plates to
avoid the gaskets compression.
If the compression cannot be avoided with reshaping, another solution can be to use specific segments gaskets
whose water tightness capacity do not deteriorate under compression.
This damage can be repaired if punctual and accidental. Whenever it is repeated at each following thrust
phase, jacks’ plates must be reshaped.
Grouting and operational phases

Gap and Offset
Gap and offset tolerances (Figure 35) of the segments are defined by project specifications. These thresholds
(Figure 36) are linked to the type of joints connection and waterproofing system chosen by the designer, with
reference to the operating conditions envisaged for the specific tunnel.

Figure 35 Examples of Offset (left) and Gap (right)
Figure 36 Relation Offset – Gap – Maw Water Pressure of a gasket
Causes
Excessive gaps and offsets are due to the following possible causes:
• Factors related to the installation of the segments

In case of a universal ring, for example, some rings may be mounted in a position not allowed by the
ring design. At these locations, the connection systems may not maintain gaps and offsets within the
values specified by the designer.
• Incorrect sizing of bituminous pads (if present).
The presence of bituminous pads for the distribution of the thrust force may cause excessive gap, not
allowing the joint to close if the pad is too wide or low compressible.
• Excessive thrust of the gaskets not balanced by the connection system.
The gaskets, compressed after the segments are assembled, exert a reaction that tends to open the
joint. This reaction, if not correctly counterbalanced by the connection system, generates excessive
gaps.

In order to contain gaps and offsets within the prescribed specifications (e.g.: max reference value or gaps: 5
mm; for offset: 10 mm), the choice of the connection system plays a fundamental role. The connection system
must be able to bear the following actions:
• Pull-out resistance
The pull-out resistance of the connection system must counteract the tendency of the section to slide
from the connection system itself. The connection system must therefore contrast the following
forces:
− Reaction of the compressed gaskets between the segments
− Bending moment generated by the weight of the segment installed, hanging on the previous
ring
• Shear resistance
The shear strength must bear the stresses caused by:
− Segment weight
− Cross-passage openings or other discontinuities within the ring.
The pull-out resistance is closely linked to the gap values obtained on the assembled ring. In case of insufficient
pull-out resistance, excessive gaps may occur. Therefore, the connection system must offer the highest
possible pull-out resistance at minimum gap values and its design must be conceived not to allow any space
between neighbouring segments, as these would add up to the gaps due to the assembly of the ring,
contributing to increase their size.
At the same time, the stresses generated by the reaction of the compressed gaskets must be as low as
possible. The seal must therefore guarantee the maximum hydraulic sealing with the least possible
compression reaction.
The containment of offset can be managed through the following aspects:
• Shear resistance of the connection system

The shear strength of the connection system is primarily responsible for containing or not the offset
between the segments. An incorrect evaluation of the shear forces between the rings gives rise to
excessive offsets.
• Use of alignment systems (centring devices)
If the shear strength provided by the connection system is not sufficient, or the assembly sequence
of the rings requires it, centring devices may be used to increase the shear strength and improve the
alignment of the tunnel.
• Ring assembly sequence
If the assembly sequence of the rings allows that connectors on a ring coincide with the connectors
on different segments of the next ring, the connection system also acts as a centring device, further
reducing the offset values.
Any gap higher than 5 mm and any offset (lip sealing or step) higher than 10mm should be recorded and
monitored.
If necessary, the following remedial actions can be taken:
• Joint injections of epoxy, acrylic or polyurethane resins.

• Intrados joint's groove silicon or cement water-plug plastering.
Water leakage from joints and bolt holes

It consists of water inlets which, by succeeding in by-passing the waterproofing system, infiltrate the joints and
the holes for the assembly of the connecting bolts between the segments (Figure 37).

Figure 37 Example of water leakage from joints
Causes
The infiltration of water is due to the insufficient hydraulic seal of the gaskets which are not able to completely
waterproof the tunnel. Also, there may be leaks from fissures affecting the entire thickness of the segment.
Mitigations
When this type of infiltration occurs, it is necessary to change the type of gasket used and / or the connection
system. The waterproofing action is a direct effect of the joint action coming from the gasket and the connection
system. Laboratory tests of the connection and sealing system, also with gap and offset allowance are useful
for the selection of the latter in the tunnel design phase (see Chapter 7).
Repairs
Every type of concrete damage or ring erection imperfection that cause water seepage inside the tunnel
through the joints or from the bolts’ sockets must be repaired to guarantee the waterproofing of the lining and
comply with all the requirements defined within the contract.
Prior to any type of repairing, the surface must be cleaned and dried. It’s necessary to stop any leakage
affecting the surface to be repaired.
A local plastering with silicon and previous cement water-plug should be applied.
For small and punctual leaks or for a temporary sealing, polyurethane resins should be injected within the
affected joint behind the ring. Polyurethane resins guarantee a fast reaction with water and its expansion
ensures the filling of all the remaining voids, avoiding the resin wash out. This gives time to the following
application (if needed) of acrylic resin to be injected without running waters.
In case of leak spread over more rings is envisaged to evaluate the possibility of injecting a water/cement mix
or bi-component grouting (grout-silicate) within the primary grouting and the lining extrados to fill any
unexpected void gap. After that, acrylic or epoxy resin injections are performed.
Injections from bolts’ sockets are possible with the use of ad hoc packers that fit the bolt hole.
Damages caused by contact with aggressive water

The damage caused by contact with aggressive water can be traced back to the lack of consideration of the
type of strata that the tunnel intercepts, which are not always predictable and must be verified during

construction. First of all, the determination of the thickness of the iron cover must be adequate in order to avoid
that the reinforcement comes into contact with aggressive water damaging the concrete layer.
Furthermore, the use of HSR (High Sulphate Resistant) cements, with high resistance to sulphates, which may
be present in the substrate outside the tunnel or, in the case of a tunnel for pipelines, in the fluids that flow
inside the tunnel, allows to reduce and / or eliminate the damage to surfaces exposed to contact with
aggressive water.
If the use of such HSR cements is insufficient, then dressed concrete coatings may be used.
These coatings can be used:
• Protection with epoxy, polyurethane, polyurethane (extrados, intrados, contact faces)

• Protection with thermoplastic film (intrados, also with integration with gasket).
Damage caused by oil or fire

This involves damage or loss of the hydraulic seal capacity of the seal due to contact with hydrocarbons
present in the subsoil or exposure of the gasket to the flames, fumes and high temperatures generated by fires
developed inside the tunnel. If the presence of hydrocarbons in the subsoil has not been correctly assessed,
damage to the gasket may occur.
The accidental event of a fire is related to the common causes of fires in the tunnels.
The actions to mitigate this type of damage are the following:
• Gaskets resistant to hydrocarbons

The use of gaskets made of materials resistant to hydrocarbons eliminates the harmful effects that
these can cause to the gasket, without affecting its performance.
• Sealing the joint with putty
Sealing the joint by means of fire-resistant putty and / or systems with strong resistance to specific
chemical agents and which allow to maintain an excellent resistance to compression relaxation.
Unscrewing joint bolts

When bolts, dowels or other connections between segments of the same ring (radial joints) or between
adjacent rings (circumferential joints) are necessary in terms of design, loosening of the connection devices
must be avoided:
The unscrewing of the bolts can be caused by:
• Vibration
Excavation activities, TBM movements, other activities can induce vibrations that generate unscrewing
of bolted joints;
• Low tightening torque
Bolted joints must be tightened with the correct tightening torque. Excessive torque can damage the
joint or reduce its ability to react to stresses that tend to open the joint. Poor tightening torque may
cause unscrewing of bolted joints.
In case of unscrewing the bolts connecting the segments, the first mitigating action to be implemented is the
redefinition of the tightening torque to be applied. If this correction is not sufficient to eliminate the defect,
washers or anti-unscrewing accessories can be used.

5.2 Structural damages
According to [8], different types of structural damages may occur on segments during construction life cycle.
A classification of segment damages is shown in Table 2.
Shield segment damage Figure
Crack in axial direction
Crack in circumferential direction
Chipping at segment corner
Scraping around segment joint
Scraping around ring joint
Crack/scraping around ring joint box
Crack/scraping around segment joint box
Scraping at outer surface
hair crack at inner surface
appearance of non-visible crack
buckling of longitudinal rib (steel segment)
deformation of rib (steel segment)
break of joint bolt
Table 2 Classification of segment damages during construction life cycle (modified from [8]).

Post-casting, demoulding, handling, overturning, storage
Description of damages
Segments are usually subjected to many operations during their life cycle from the manufacture to the TBM.
Therefore, in some cases they can be significantly overloaded. Each project has its own operations but some
of them recurs systematically (i.e. turning stages, storage phases, handling, transport, delivery on site and
delivery to the TBM). During the first phase of segments life cycle, the most common structural
defects/damages are cracks and fissures and can be distinguished as follows:
• Defects due to inserts presence: through going cracks between erector gripper pockets and grout
holes;
• Defects due to demoulding: cracks due to an incorrect demoulding process;
• Defects due to handling: cracks due to an incorrect handling process;
• Defects due to overturning: cracks due to an incorrect overturning process;
• Defects due to storage: cracks due to an incorrect storage process.
It is worth to note that, before ring installation, cracked segments (or not repaired) are generally not allowed to
be delivered to the TBM for erection. Different project specifications and acceptance criteria are defined
depending on the crack width and position (extrados, intrados, joint, gasket groove and pocket) and on the
impact on the segment integrity.
Causes of damage
During this first phase, cracks are generally stress-induced during demoulding, handling, overturning and
storage operations. Defects due to inserts presence: through going cracks between erector gripper pockets
and grout holes. Cracks due to type of structural damage are identified for their width opening: less than 0.2
mm, between 0.2 and 0.3 mm, more than 0.3 mm
Mitigation actions
Demoulding, handling and overturning phase
Usually, during demoulding phase the contractor tends to prefer to demould the segment early to increase
production, but an early demoulding means low concrete strength. It’s worth considering the following
suggestions: 1) the minimum concrete strength to be specified together with the process of demoulding; 2) a
correct analysis approach requires a factor of safety of 1.5 to account for adhesion, and it considers the
segment as a simple beam subjected to bending moment (verifications performed to be below the cracking
moment).
Storage phase
Once removed from the mould, segment needs to be stacked waiting for supply to the tunnel. At this stage,
usually specifications require a tolerance associated with stacking (Figure 38). In the ideal scenario all the
segments would line up, and all the load is transferred to the ground. The worst case occurs when segments
are not aligned in the designed stack position and their self-weight is transferred onto the bottom segment. For
this reason, a good control on segment stack alignment during storage stage is an essential action to prevent
damages.

Figure 38 Segment stacking phase. This image shows a poorly aligned Segment Stack (26).
Restoring actions
5.2.1.4.1 Defects due to inserts presence
Specifications should state which damage could be repaired, planning actions and methods that could be used
at this purpose.
An indication of which damages should be rejected or repaired is given in Table 3.
Reject damages effecting gaskets, cracks through the segment, or exposure of reinforcement.
Usually damages impacting the effectiveness of the gasket groove or the bearing surface should
Reject not be repaired (unless very tight tolerances can be obtained in repairs). It is worth to note that
gaskets require tight tolerances to be effective, and if the bearing surfaces have a high point that
attracts all the load, the repaired section will suffer damage.
Repair chips or edge damage not effecting bearing area, surface damage along face of segment.
Repair Indeed, superficial damage (intrados/extrados) should be repaired, provided integrity of
reinforcement (if present) is not compromised.
Table 3 Suggested actions depending on type and localization of damage.
Useful references can be found in [2], [5], [7], [66], [32] and [68].
5.2.1.4.2 Cracks and Fissures

A repair recommendation can be provided: the surface is cleaned, moistened and shaved with a proper
sandpaper to apply a protective and anti-cracking elastomeric coating, avoiding the crack extension and
expansion in the next transportation phases of the segment. A distinction should be made for cracks with
widths between 0.2-0.3mm, depending on the damage position:
- Cracks at extrados, gasket groove and area between gasket groove and extrados are recorded,
measured, repaired and monitored.
· The surface must be cleaned, shaved with a proper sandpaper and cleaned again via moistening.
Once the water is absorbed, a water-repellent one-component cementitious skimming mortar (with a
fine-textured, normal hardening and high-resistance special binders) is applied.

- Cracks at intrados: in general, no action is required, the crack can be accepted. If actions are required,
refer to above-mentioned point.
Segments with cracks equal or higher than 0.3 mm or wide through going cracks, are often rejected to avoid
the occurrence of any impact on the segment’s structural integrity during the following phases (see for example
Table 4). If not rejected, a special concept is applied: the surface is cleaned eventually with compressed air
then is deepened to create a hollow to fill with epoxy resin. The repair must guarantee the waterproofing. If the
structural integrity is compromised, the segment is rejected.
Allowed for
installation
Damage Criteria and measures 1)
yes not
Crack width Check of the production process, of the concrete

X
< 0.3mm technology and realizing of optimization actions.
Check of geometry of prefabricated segments (rope)

Rehabilitation allowed only if the production tolerance
has been respected
Injections of synthetic resin
Crack width
Hollow cracks X
−
Cracks
≤ 0.5mm Drilling as prescribed in the rules for the

rehabilitation of water tank
− Install shutter and inject
− If not suitable as foundation surface for
waterproofing, smooth
Crack width ≥ 0.5mm Not restorable X
Cracks through
Not restorable X
the whole section
Surface < 200 cm2 Remove the gravel nests with a hammer, then apply ah
X
or depth < 5 cm adhesive bridge and restore 2)
Gravel nests
Surface < 200 cm2

Not restorable X
Gravel nests or depth > 5 cm
In the places having in-

traction of flexed segments Not restorable X
at the top of the tunnel
− Maximum three points

− Total length of damaged edges < 50 cm
restore damages due to the transport before the
Surface of damaged concrete
installation
Length of the damaged
edges < 30cm − Give the first layer of anti-rust paint (cement- X
Damage of based) to the exposed in-traction or flexed
corners and edges reinforcement
− And/or measures in order to meet the requirements
of the waterproofing substrate
Length of the damaged
Not restorable X
edges > 30 cm
Damaged surface < 50 cm X

Restoration 2)
Surface damages (very extended)
(mountain side) Damaged surface > 50 cm
Not restorable X
(very extended)

Allowed for
installation
Damage Criteria and measures 1)
yes not
− Restoration 3)
Air bubbles X
− In case of frequent passing: check and
Air bubbles
(mountain side) improvement of the production process (eg.

smooth, cover during hardening)
Air bubbles − As “air bubbles” (mountain side) X

(tunnel side) − Realization of the substrate for waterproofing
Table 4 from Galleria di base del Ceneri “Segments production – technical control”
Note:
1)
For mitigation actions, see [65].
2) Rehabilitation of damages and gravel nests:
− Remove any detached parts
− Make the reinforcements free
− Make the connection to the intact concrete
− Apply the cement-based protective paint against corrosion on the reinforcements’ surface
− Rehabilitation of the concrete system in accordance to the needs of the manufacturer
− Adhesive bridge
− Application of mortar to reprofile in thickness (maximum 20mm)
− Grouting
3) Rehabilitation of the cavities from air bubbles:
− Remove any detached parts

− Rehabilitation of the concrete system in accordance to the needs of the manufacturer
− Adhesive bridge
− Application of mortar to reprofile in thickness (maximum 20mm)
− Grouting
Handling and installation of the ring

Description of damage
Segments are installed to form rings by means of the erector (Figure 39). During this phase, they are subjected
to many loads such as the load applied by the segment crane, the loads applied to compress the gasket, the
possible loads due to collisions, etc. Stress induced cracks and fissures are usually the most common
damages occurring in this phase due to the complexity and multiple steps of handling and installation process
(from the manufacturing to the tunnel). The same specifications as per above are defined. Generally, before
the ring installation, cracks possible extension and opening are monitored and measured to avoid any kind of
structural and sealing inefficiency once the segment is installed.

Figure 39 Example of handling before the installation: the operator is picking up the segment at the center. Single point
lifting (bending moment and shear capacity) need to be verified applying a dynamic load at this phase (27).
Examples of damages during ring erection are given in the Figure 40 and Figure 41.
Figure 40 Example of segments erection left and damages during ring erection right (27).
Figure 41 Broken corners and broken edges (28).
Causes of damage
Cracks can be due to incorrect handling and installation of the ring. Cracks due to type of structural damage
are identified for their width opening: less than 0.2 mm, between 0.2 and 0.3 mm, more than 0.3 mm.
Mitigation actions
Some mitigation actions aimed to reduce cracks and fissures during handling and installation of the ring are
given in terms of: corner shape, length of the ring, number of segments per ring.
Furthermore, among the mitigation actions, the check of dimensional tolerances (Limit deviation -Table 5) can
be considered:

Width ± 1.0 mm
Thickness 0/+ 3.0 mm
Length of an arc of circumferences ± 1.0 mm
Radius of intrados ± 2.0 mm
Diagonal of the segment ± 1.0 mm
Position of the holes for the connections ± 0.5 mm
Position of the hole for the erector ± 2.0 mm
Depth of the grove for the gasket -0.5 + 0.1 mm
Planarity of the face which meet other
± 1.0 mm
elements
Table 5 Tolerances – example of limit deviation (27).
5.2.2.3.1 Corner shape

A particular shape of the segment corner reduces the risk of damaging Figure 42 shows some geometrical
suggestions concerning the corner shape.
Figure 42 Detail of the shape of corner (27).
The segment corners are always the critical point in the assembled segmental ring [7]. The risk of leaks and
of spalling is greater between the corners than at any other point. Against leakage particularly strong
compression tends to help, against spalling as little compression as possible. When designing the segment
corners, it must be considered that through the vulcanization process during insertion of the corners, material
can easily get into the cavities of the extruded profile, unintentionally making it more rigid locally. In addition,
there is usually some excess material on the segment corners created during assembly, which also increases
the restoring force generated.
5.2.2.3.2 Length of the ring

To prevent cracks and fissures during the installation phase, the average length of the ring can be assumed
to vary between:
- 1.50 m and 2.20 m for big rings (diameter >10 m and big radius of alignment bends);
- 1.25 m and 1.60 m for small rings (diameter ≤10 m and small radius of alignment bends).
Furthermore, the choice of the adequate length of the segment/ring is influenced by different and sometimes
opposite needs such as time of excavation, weight of the single segment, risk of damaging the segments while
handling, geometrical compatibility with the rear of the TBM while the ring is coming out in the condition of the
minimum radius of curvature.

5.2.2.3.3 Number of segment per ring
The number of segment per rings is influenced by almost the same factors listed above for the length of the
ring.
Figure 43 Example of number of segments with the internal diameter of the ring (27).
Furthermore, to reduce the risk of damaging during the ring assembling and ring erection, some considerations
should be taken into account during these activities, as reported in Table 6.
Ring erection Ring assembling

Marking the erector cylinders by different colours The order of arrival of the segments near the
erector must respect the order of handling for
Never negate (never say “not turning” but “hold”) the assembling process
Clear responsibility, never interfere in decisions given by The dimensions of the segment and of the
others back-up are inter-related with respect to the
movements (rotation and translation) that the
Order “STOP” at the end of each movement segment itself must undertake
The order "STOP" is obligatory and it must not be The segments can arrive to the erector both in
discussed the upper and in the lower part
Table 6 General safety considerations to prevent crack of rings during ring assembling and erection (27)).
An example of good practice in rotating the segment near the erector and sequence for ring assemblage is
given in the Figure 44.

a) b)
Figure 44 a) Ring erection: rotation of the segment near the erector. b) Ring assembling: sequence to assemble the TBM
ring (27).
In Table 7, advantages of a small or large key segment are listed.
Advantages of a small key segment Advantages of a large key segment

The ring can be designed with less segments and the ring
erection will take less time.
In order to better insert the key segment,
the longitudinal joints can be conic. All segments have the same size, so from the structural point of
Using a small key, the angle is near 90°, view the segment is more stable.
so the danger of scaling is reduced.
All segments are loaded with the same number of rams.
· Handling of a smaller and Advantageous are two rams / pair of rams per segment.
lighter key is easier.
· All segments have the same weight and same size, implying that
On the longitudinal joints often only a the design of the ring erector is easier.
ram pushes, so the joints are equalized.
During ring erection, the large key segment is to be handled like
a normal segment and has not the tendency to the ring axis.
Table 7 Advantages of small and big key segment (27).
Restoring actions
Figure 45shows an example of repair criteria for cracks and fissures.

Figure 45 Example of repair criteria for cracks and fissures (26).
Thrust phase
The concentration of stresses induced by the thrust cylinders during the TBM advancing coupled to a poor
segmental design and manufacture can lead to:
5.2.3.1.1 Splitting / bursting cracks (transversal cracks perpendicular to the thrust force)
In most cases, cracks are < 0.2 mm and are circumscribed around the contact between surface and concrete
cover zone. Sever damage can invalidate the waterproofing (Figure 46).
Figure 46 Splitting / bursting cracks (27).

5.2.3.1.2 Longitudinal cracks along the tunnel and spalling cracks
These damages can affect even the entire segment length; if deep, the water can leak in (Figure 47). Widths
can vary.
Figure 47 Longitudinal cracks along the tunnel and spalling cracks (27).
Consecutive segments can be affected, in curves or where the contact between the two adjacent segments is
not continuous or planar.
5.2.3.1.3 Chipping of sides and corners

They are defined as general surface breakouts due to contact stresses. Specific procedures and acceptance
criteria are defined depending on their position, affected surface extension and depth. Severe cases are when
(Figure 48):
- rebars are visible and exposed to corrosion agents

- structural integrity is compromised
- water tightness is not ensured
Figure 48 Severe chippings in the corners (27).
Causes of damage
Possible causes of these damages are:
• Splitting / bursting cracks (transversal cracks perpendicular to the thrust force);

• Longitudinal cracks along the tunnel and spalling cracks;
• Chipping of sides and corners.
During the thrust phase, segments damages can be due to:

• asymmetric thrust of the TBM;
• eccentricity of the jacks;
• interaction between TBM and segmental ring.
The necessity to maintain the correct

alignment implies the application of
asymmetric different thrust forces on different
thrust of the groups of jacks. Generally, lower jacks
TBM are more loaded because of the self-
weight related downward deviation of
the TBM.
Forces at different groups of jacks (27).
eccentricity Due to different reasons, jacks very

of the jacks often push on segments with a certain
degree of eccentricity.
Layout of jacking cylinders and thrus system (27).
interaction
Tail shield gap should be more than 30
between a) Tail gap around the tail and
mm all around the ring, while the axis
TBM and
of thrust cylinders (rams) should be
segmental
proximate to ring axis.
ring.
b) rams (28).
Table 8 Causes of segments’ damage during thrust phase.
Figure 49 shows an example of negative ram positions.

Figure 49 Negative ram positions: rams distribution is not regularly spaced (different angels between the rams); rams
radius differs from segment axis radius (Rrams = 4’500 mm, Rseg = 4’650 mm); segments do not perfectly fit with rams.
(28).
Mitigation actions
Cracks of segmental linings due to the high compressive stresses developed under the jack shoes at the
contact surface due to TBM advance, are common. Experience gained in the past suggests that cracks could
be prevented by having high care in designing segment flanks in order to 1) minimize breakage at their edges
and 2) not changing the durability of the works due to water inflow, corrosion of reinforcement, etc.[1].
Damages and cracks during the TBM advance can already be mitigated during the assembly phase. Indeed,
according to [7], inaccuracies and a not perfect alignment of adjacent segments during the ring assembly
phase, can result in a tensile stress and damage to the segments during the TBM advance.
a) b)

c) d)
Figure 50 a), b) Thrust of TBM jacks on segments. c) Spalling and cracking of concrete cover. d) Damage from
displacement in the ring grove. (AFTES recommendations and (26)).
At this purpose, two considerations can be done to avoid the above-mentioned problems:
• detailed geometrical design of large flanks in the contact zone must be aimed at guaranteeing the
highest possible strength;
• in the same time, stresses acting on the contact surface must remain acceptable also under
unfavourable loading configurations (eccentric loads from TBM thrust in curved alignments etc.).
According to [7] and [1], high surface pressures developed under the jack shoes due to TBM advance must
be verified by performing a difference between standard values of the jacking forces and extraordinary jacking
forces for unusual control movements (maximum allowed thrust, maximum allowed eccentricity or both) by
considering different design situations with the respective safety factors.
Restoring actions
For repair remedial actions usually taken after the ring has been built, please refer to the relevant Paragraph
5.2.4 for Grouting and Service Phases.
Grouting and service phases

During last phases, the following damages can occur:
5.2.4.1.1 Loss of connector and bolt performance

Longitudinal and transversal connections are not totally ensured. This usually leads to a tunnel misaligning or,
more simply, to rotations, sliding and overlapping of segments. Examples of damages when using pot and
cam in circumferential joints and recesses in segment corners are shown in Figure 51.

·
Figure 51 Damages when using pot and cam in circumferential joints(28).
5.2.4.1.2 Spalling during fire

In case of fire, concrete spalling may occur if the concrete fire resistance is insufficient, the concrete is not
well-established, or fire protections are not sufficient.
Small pieces of concrete, up to 20mm in size, are gradually and non-violently dislodged from the surface during
the early phase of the fire. In the case of surface spalling, the degradation of the concrete is relatively slow
and involves the dehydration of the cement matrix followed by the loss of bond between aggregate and matrix.
The sloughing off, corner break-off, occurs at edges and corners of concrete elements during the latter stages
of the fire when the concrete has cracked and weakened.
Explosive spalling is the most serious and dangerous form of spalling that occurs during the first 20–30 minutes
of a fire when the temperature in the concrete is in the range of 150-250°C. Very large pieces of concrete can
be violently ejected for several metres. As a fresh concrete face is exposed to fire, progressive explosive
spalling deep into the concrete thickness occurs, threatening the structural integrity of the construction.
Figure 52 Fire damage in Channel tunnel (left) and in Cracks in the Storebelt tunnel (26).
5.2.4.1.3 Leaks from cracks on segments

Every type of concrete damage or ring erection imperfection that cause water seepage inside the tunnel (Figure
53) must be repaired to guarantee waterproofing and be compliant with relevant requirements defined within
the contract.

Figure 53 Leaks from cracks on segments (left insert reference) (27).
• Chipping of sides and corners

• Cracks (wet or dry): during these phases, wider cracks can occur 1) dry ≤ 1 mm (filature), 2) wet ≤ 1
mm (filature), 3) dry > 1 mm (microcracks), 4) wet > 1 mm (microcracks)
• Cracks on lining: If the crack is too open, affects more than 1 ring or, in general, the structural integrity
of the lining, ad hoc evaluations and remedial actions must be adopted.
Causes of damage
Possible causes for this kind of damages can be due to loss of connector and bolt performance, spalling during
fire, chipping of sides and corners, leaks from cracks on segments, cracks (wet or dry), cracks on lining
Mitigation actions
Some rules in terms of concrete cover, reinforcing spacing and minimum reinforcement must be followed to
prevent cracks on lining, chipping of sides/corner and leaks from cracks on segments as given in Table 9.
A minimum concrete cover of cmin = 40 mm should be maintained on the surfaces. The

minimum value of concrete cover on the end faces and in local areas could be assumed
cmin,red = 20 mm. As a guide, a tolerance Δc of 5 mm can be assumed.
Concrete The increasing the concrete cover may be required for reasons of durability (i.e. [41]),but
cover has some structural disadvantages such as reduced statically effective height, poorer
enclosure of the split tensile forces. For these reasons the increasing of concrete should
be weighed and alternative measures examined.
Another possible mitigation action could be represented using GFRP skin rebars.
Usually, reinforcing grids range between 100 mm and 150 mm. Higher values of spacing
are possible, but have a negative effect on the calculated crack widths. After the
Reinforcing
reinforcing cage has been lifted into the mould, it must be possible to locally reach through
spacing
the upper layers of steel to fix built-in parts in the mould, so openings in the reinforcing
cage of at least 90 mm - 120 mm must be provided.
A minimum reinforcement for the segments of d = 10 mm, a = 150 mm is recommended.
[66] (section 5) for road tunnels requires a minimum reinforcement of d = 10 mm, a = 100
Minimum mm on all segment surfaces.
reinforcement According to [69], a surface reinforcement of at least 0.15 % per direction on all surfaces
is required for railway tunnels.
A possible mitigation action could be represented using fiber reinforced concrete (FRC)
Table 9 Notes for the design at service phase (modified from DAUB recommendations, chapter 3.5 [7]).

To prevent spalling during fire, polypropylene fibres can be added at the concrete. If polypropylene fibres are
added at concrete segments, damages due to fire are reduced because of the mechanisms shown in Table
10.
Vapour pressure increases as

heat front advances.
Normal
Concrete
Vapour pressure > tensile
(a)
strength of concrete and
explosive spalling occurs.
Concrete with
Fibres melt at 160°C forming
polypropylene
interconnecting passages for
fibers
vapour pressure to escape.
(b)
Table 10 Mechanism and examples from fire testing on concrete sections. Note: (a) loss of section of normal concrete
exposed at fire and (b) concrete with polypropylene fibres (26).
Restoring actions
5.2.4.4.1 Loss of Connector and Bolt Performance
The performance of connectors and bolts can be fundamental for the correct tunnel alignment and structural
capacity. A loss of the inserts performance can lead to segment sliding, ring rotation and tunnel eye
deformation. To avoid this kind of induced damages, ad hoc structural reinforcements can be installed locally.
Some examples are:
- longitudinal/transversal plates or beams;

- longitudinal/transversal/circular steel ribs;
- steel inner rings;
- struts;
- bolts or anchors.
5.2.4.4.2 Spalling during Fire

Any affected parts of the lining must be removed and the surface cleaned. Small-medium spallings are repaired
applying a rheoplastic cement kind. If steel reinforcement is visible it must be treated by passivation before
pouring the concrete cover. In case of cracking with loss of structural integrity, the injection of epoxy resins
and structural reinforcement installation are envisaged.
5.2.4.4.3 Chipping of Sides and Corners

The surface if firstly prepared: all damaged parts are removed, if relevant with the help of a grinder, exposing
sound concrete then the area is cleaned with a steel brush, flushed and moistened.
Depending on the entity of the damage the following restoration products should be sequentially applied on
the surface:
- Bonding Primer and reinforcement corrosion protection (by a brush to fill all unevenness).

- Structural (quick-hardening thixotropic) repair mortar (min thickness 5mm up to 30-35mm per layer)
when the primer is still wet by means of a trowel to press the firmly the substrate.
- Pore sealer and levelling mortar
Deep spalling and broken edges at the crown, where steel reinforcement is visible must be repaired following
a special concept, described underneath. If the steel is not exposed repairs could not be required.
For any kind of damages where the concrete cover has been severely compromised, two solutions can be
suggested depending on the damaged area (see Table 11).
Broken corner/edge or spalling surface < Broken corner/edge or spalling surface >
Cases
0.10 m2. 0.10 m2.
Surface preparation (as previously Surface preparation (as previously
described) described)
Injection through a fixed formwork of a quick- Injection through a fixed formwork of a quick-
hardening cementitious mortar for repairs up hardening cementitious mortar for repairs up
Solutions
to 150mm of thickness, prior embedding to 150mm of thickness, prior embedding
stainless-steel rods with resin in sound stainless-steel rods with resin in sound
concrete and a stainless-steel nut with concrete and a stainless-steel mesh fixed at
washer at the free end of the rod. the rods.
Table 11 Suggested solutions depending on the damaged area
5.2.4.4.4 Leaks from Cracks

Every type of concrete damage or ring erection imperfection that cause water seepage inside the tunnel must
be repaired to guarantee the waterproofing of the lining and comply with all the requirements defined within
the contract.
Injections of acrylic or epoxy resins are advisable. Acrylic product can successfully be used to inject cracks
and fissures since the cracks in the lining are not structural.
A first injection of acrylic or polyurethane resin is made behind the ring to fill the possible voids not completely
backfilled. Then packers will be drilled and placed in staggered spacing from each other and at a certain
distance and inclination from the crack to intercept it. It’s important to drill where the predefined lining markers
are not to catch the rebars. A preliminary water injection is made to wash the crack. This step will end once
the clean water will come out from the crack.
After this phase, the acrylic or epoxy resin will be injected through the same packers at low pressure (action
to be taken also for dry cracks with width higher than 0.2 mm).
All the packers are removed once the leak is stopped and the holes are closed with a water-plug mortar.
If the leak is not conspicuous a crack surface cleaning and a liquid mortar filling of the opening can be adopted.
5.2.4.4.5 Cracks (Wet or Dry)

Every type of concrete damage or ring erection imperfection that causes water seepage inside the tunnel must
be repaired to guarantee the waterproofing of the lining and comply with all the requirements defined within
the contract. Prior to any type of repair, the surface must be cleaned and dried. It’s necessary to stop any
leakage affecting the surface to be repaired. The following repairs are foreseen for different crack widths and
condition (wet or dry):

- Dry ≤ 1mm (filature) – First an exterior treatment of the crack by quick-grip hydraulic binder sealing is
used, then packers’ holes of 10mm diameter are drilled aside the opening with an inclination of 45°
and a spacing of 20-30cm, at 5cm to intercept the crack. Packers are inserted and a low viscosity
epoxy resin is injected from one packer at time to fill the crack along its hole length. At the end, packers
are removed, the holes sealed with a water-plug epoxy mortar and the surface shaved.
- Wet ≤ 1mm (filature) – First an exterior treatment of the crack by quick-grip hydraulic binder sealing is
used, then packers’ holes of 10mm diameter are drilled aside the opening with an inclination of 45°
and a spacing of 20-30cm, at 5cm to intercept the crack. Packers are inserted and a very low viscosity
polyurethane (bi-component) resin is injected from one packer at time to fill the crack along its hole
length and stop the leak. At the end, packers are removed, the holes sealed with a water-plug mortar
and the surface shaved.
- Dry ≥ 1mm (microcracks) - same as above but injecting a non-expansive organic-mineral resin with
very low viscosity.
- Wet ≥ 1mm (microcracks) - same as above but injecting a hydro-expanded organic-mineral resin
based on highly viscous polyurethane and silicates.
5.2.4.4.6 Cracks on Lining

For this kind of damages, structural restoration interventions such as local reinforcement treatments, closures
and counterparts, must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. An example of damaged segments is given in
the Figure 54.
Figure 54 Cracks and multiple cracks (27).
An example of bending tensile cracks in the absence of correct annular grouting is shown in Figure 55 and
Figure 56.
Figure 55 Bending tensile cracks in the absence of annular grouting (28).

Figure 56 Steps in annular joints caused by incorrect grouting(28).

6 CALCULATION METHODS TO AVOID STRUCTURAL-DRIVEN DAMAGES
6.1 Introduction
The segment lining design is provided with consideration of the following key elements:
a) Clearance of the tunnel to meet the project functional requirements, considering geometric tolerances;
b) Review of the tunnel construction methodology and type of lining structure considering interactions
between multiple drifts, adjacent excavations, geotechnical and hydrogeological conditions (including
hazardous substances such as gases), third party and environmental impact;
c) Estimation of the tunnel lining structural types and thickness in relation to concrete grade;
d) Feasibility study structural integrity of the tunnel lining under the expected critical loading conditions
(e.g. Under high internal pressure for water tunnel);
e) Identified project-specific technical challenges;
f) Tunnel-to-tunnel junctions, such as cross passages;
g) Connections with other underground structures such as portals, station box and shafts;
h) Development of tunnel lining design concepts.
The geometrical and structural design of the segmental lining is essential to evaluate the risk mitigation
measures. The design includes structural elements, gaskets, sealing materials and the ability of all the
materials to resist the degradation due to ground, the groundwater and the environment throughout the design
working life.
Fiber Reinforced Concrete (FRC) was adopted in several tunnel projects (5) [22]. The most important benefit
due to the inclusion of fibers is the noticeable increase of the post-cracking residual tensile properties.
Moreover, the use of fiber reinforcement enables an improvement and a boost of the industrialized production
of precast tunnel segments.
Codes, standards and key references

The most appropriate references currently available have been summarised in Table 1 of Chapter 3 In
particular, it is worth mentioning the recent publication [5].
Among the current national and international standards regarding the design of FRC tunnel linings (see
Chapter 3), it is worthwhile mentioning the ITA Report n.16 (5) and fib bulletin n.83 [22]. Both documents are
based on the performance approach suggested by MC2010 [21] for considering the post-cracking residual
strengths exhibited by FRCs. The former presents general rules, principles and procedures for FRC tunnel
linings with special emphasis to the requirements and loading conditions of these elements. The latter also
provides a detailed design procedure based on on-going research or recently developed research.
Design conditions
In current Eurocode [28] design scenarios are defined as a series of circumstances or conditions that the
tunnel lining might experience during its life. These design scenarios are classified as transient, persistent,
accidental or seismic (see Table 12):
• Transient: refers to temporary conditions applicable to the structure, e.g. during construction or repair;
• Persistent: refers to the conditions of normal use;
• Accidental: refers to exceptional conditions applicable to the structure or to its exposure;
• Seismic: refers to conditions applicable to the structure when subjected to seismic events.

Table 12 Typical design situations for precast concrete segmental tunnel lining [5]
6.2 Geometrical dimensioning

A precast lining is a sequence of elements with prescribed dimensions and shapes in order to ensure:
• The construction of a stable lining, for both the short and long term, considering all the foreseeable
load.
• Longitudinal continuity with respect to the tunnel alignment.
• Fast and safe assembling in the rear part of the TBM and under the protection of the shield.
The geometrical dimensioning includes the definition and validation of the following key elements (Figure 57):
• Geometry of the segments

• Geometry of the segment corners
• Ring assembly
• Assembling the k-segment
• The thickness
• The length and number of segments per ring

• The conicity of the universal ring and its rotations
Figure 57 Typical geometry of precast concrete segment lining
Figure 58 Key segment insertion verification
Regarding the thickness of the lining, is mainly related to the normal ring force (hoop-force) occurring in final
stage (embedded in ground condition) and the concrete grade adopted. In this regard a kind of rule of thumb
regarding the ratio between internal diameter and thickness, around 20, was early reported in [1].

of the concrete reinforcement (conventional steel rebar, fibre reinforcement or a combination) in tunnel
elements, based on the data available of more than seventy case studies collected in (5) and in [22] regarding
tunnel linings reinforced by fibres in combination or not with conventional rebars, the following tendencies can
be pointed out:
• the tunnel linings reinforced only with fibres are the 71% and the remaining 29% are a hybrid
solution (fibres and conventional rebars are used);
• the solution with fibres only has been mainly used with diameter less than 8 m, even though in three
case studies with large diameters the solution with fibres only was successfully adopted. The hybrid
solution has generally not been used for lining having very small diameter (less than 4 m);
• it seems that the hybrid solution was used with ratio internal diameter/thickness higher than 20, even
though it is worthwhile noticing that is a simplified ratio which does not provide any information on
issues such as, for instance, the TBM ram loads or the expected ground conditions.
The assembly process generally involves the construction of the ring starting from the first segment, and
finishing up with the key element, the k-segment, whose presence is always foreseen and is, of course, placed
at the opposite side of the ring that has the counter k-segment (Figure 58). The k-segment has a trapezoidal
shape with the largest side facing the front of excavation and it can be smaller than all the other elements. In
order to install the key segment, it is necessary to have two side-key segments with inclined sides to
correspond with the shape of the key segment.
The current tendency is to use the universal ring systematically in straight and curved parts of the tunnel. This
approach allows the horizontal and vertical trend of the alignment to be followed without the use of any other
special elements and to correct any deviations made by the TBM during advancement. In addition, the current
tendency is to define the key segment with similar dimensions of the other segments.
Geometrical tolerances
Due to the needs of a very accurate coupling among the various segments to compose a lining ring and of
placing the rings following a sequence compatible with the alignment to form the complete tunnel lining, the
geometrical tolerances of the pre-cast segments are a very important issue and this is especially true for
mechanized tunnels lined with universal segments. The order of magnitude of the relevant tolerances ranges
between 0.1 mm and 1 mm, depending on the specific part of each segment considered and on the dimension
of the ring.
Indications of the tolerances of segments and rings are given in [6].
The moulds shall be designed and manufactured with the high precision normally adopted for steel structures,
and the inner surfaces of the moulds should be finished by a machine tool.
The direct geometrical check of an assembled ring is made just at the beginning of the segment production
process, at the prefabrication plant where the first few sets of segments from the trial production are assembled
to form 2 or 3 rings, laid down on a levelled platform one above the other (see Chapter 7).
Components
The single segment is composed of different elements and particular geometries that protect from failure and
make their assemblage easier:
• Connections between segments and rings

• Segment-erection system
• Waterproofing system
• Thrust-pressure distribution element

In the geometrical design, particular attention should be paid to the following geometrical details:
• The pockets should be large enough to allow the head of the bolt and the pneumatic wrench to be
easily inserted; and the minimum distance from the bolt axis to the walls of the pocket should be at
least 60 mm.
• The slot side of the pocket should have a conicity of at least 1°.
• The bolt slot in the segment that houses the nut should have a compatible conicity so that the
insertion of the bolt into the tunnel will be well guided and fast.
• The bolt axis should pass through the center of the segment.
• The distance between the end part of the nut and the extrados of the segment should be sufficient to
not interfere with the lining bars and, therefore, as a minimum, it should be 1.5–2.5 cm more than the
cover side.
The different types of connection system and guidance to their selection is given in [1] for the design, sizing
and construction of precast concrete segments installed at the rear of a tunnel boring machine.
6.3 Concrete segment lining modelling

In order to achieve a robust tunnel lining design model, it is necessary to:
− Select a suitable geotechnical model and choose representative constitutive law and strength
criterion for the soil or rock mass involved and hydrological parameters;
− Select a suitable method to model the structural behaviour of the tunnel;
− Select a suitable method to simulate the interaction between the geotechnical model of the soil or
rock mass and the lining model.
The main issues of the tunnel lining design model are listed below.
− Selection of modelling approach (analytical methods, numerical methods)

− Selection of the geotechnical model
− Definition of the lining model
− Study of particular conditions (junctions and interface with existing assets).
Numerical approaches attempt to satisfy all theoretical requirements, include realistic ground and lining
constitutive models and incorporate boundary conditions that more accurately simulate field conditions.
Approaches based on finite differences (FD) and finite elements (FE) methods are most widely used for tunnel
lining design when the continuum or equivalent continuum models can be assumed to represent the soil or
rock mass. These methods involve a computer simulation of the full stress path from green field conditions,
through to the construction, and in the long term. Other methods such as boundary elements (BE) method or
the discrete elements (DE) method can be more suitable in certain cases such as analysis of small-scale
features or extremely complex geometries, the latter being used when a discontinuous model has to be
assumed for the soil or rock mass.
Simplified methods such as bedded beam spring model can be adopted (Figure 59), since they are able to
capture the lining internal actions even though the interaction between lining and surrounding ground is
simulated by means of springs. The lining can be modelled through beam elements or plates (Figure 60). In
case of beam elements typical internal actions like bending moment, shear and normal force are retrieved,
whereas in case of plate elements (Figure 60) a more comprehensive evaluation of internal actions can be
done by considering bending moments, shear in two directions as well as torque.

Figure 59 Bedded beam spring model
Figure 60 FEM model with plate elements
When the tunnel ring has more than four radial joints, the designer can consider the reduction of the ring
stiffness. The following equation can be used as a first method of determination of the reduced ring stiffness:
Figure 61 Reduction factor for fictitiously reducing the flexural stiffness of the whole tunnel ring by indirectly considering
the effects of longitudinal joints

Alternative methods proposed by various authors to determine the reduced ring stiffness are available for
example (10) and (12). In the latter case, it is also underlined that besides the reduction of stiffness due to
longitudinal joints, it is also recommended to consider numerical simplified models where the stiffness of
longitudinal joints is simulated together with the interaction between rings. The bending moments can be better
captured by considering the interaction between rings.
6.4 Structural verifications

Construction stages and main design verifications
In order to avoid damages of the segmental lining, the adequacy of the structural elements (segments and
connections) has to be checked taking into account construction stages, load conditions and the main risk
scenarios.
According to the design conditions (transient, persistent, accidental, seismic) mainly introduced in Paragraph
6.1.2, the following main structural verifications have to be provided (Table 13).
Segment
Demoulding Stacking
casting
Handling at early Storage forces

age verification verification
Ground loading Ram thrusting Ring assembly
Ground loading Ram forces Handling final age

verification verification verification
Radial joints Circumferential Assembly states
(between joints (between segments
segments) rings) verification verification
verification
Figure 62 Construction stage of the segmental lining and main design verifications
Stage Details Verifications
Extraction
handling, overturning
prefabrication factory
from mould Examine the segment subjected to the extraction force

and storage at
De-moulding,
and first and or fist handling

handling
A
Handling, Examine the segment to be moved, overturned and lifted
Overturning under effect of dynamic action
Examine the segment carrying the weight of overlying
Storage
segments
handling,
Transpor
i t ll ti
storage
tation,
Handling, Examine the segment to be moved, overturned and lifted

and
B
Overturning under to effect of dynamic action

Examine the segment carrying the weight of overlying
Storage
segments
Contact with
TBM
TBM advancement (thrust phase)
(interaction
Examine the segments in terms of contact stress results
between
from TBM thrusting force, taking into account the effect
jacks, rams
of the load eccentricity
and
Segmental
B ring)
Induced
tension from
rams of
Examine the segments in terms of induced traction
jacks (due
stresses induced by rams
to effect of
thrusting
force)
Grouting and Service life
Service Structural verification for long-term condition taking into

stage account the ground and water loads
Examine the segments in terms of contact stress at
Contact
longitudinal joints results from loads of long-term
between
C condition, leading to examine the longitudinal joints
segments
taking also into account the load eccentricity and the
(joint action)
gaps that may occur
Sealing Examine the performance of the sealing gasket and its
gasket interaction with longitudinal connectors
Table 13 Verifications for segmental lining from pre-cast phase to service life
All the structural checks must be carried out also to guarantee the durability requirements.
Beside recommendations or guidelines devoted to the design of FRC tunnel linings [20] [24] [25], it is
worthwhile noticing the principles reported in (5). In the latter the following general aspects are clearly
underlined:
- splitting stresses, which occurs as result of the diffusion of TBM high concentrated forces into tunnel
segments, are better resisted by a spread reinforcement such as fibres; of course, it must be always
checked that a spread reinforcement alone can resist the actual stresses. In fact, in the post-
cracking stage, splitting stresses can be re-distributed and diffused along the segment depth by
exploiting residual strengths provided by fibre reinforcement;
· bending stresses are generally better resisted by localized reinforcement such traditional steel
reinforcing bars (rebars). In the latter case, it is worthwhile noticing that the actual flexural demand
occurring in the segments in the final stage (embedded in ground condition) and temporary stages
(such as de-moulding, storage and positioning by the erector) as well as the FRC post-cracking
strengths have a key role in a partial or total substitution of traditional curved steel rebars. Localized
traditional reinforcement is also recommended in case of high in plane-bending stresses (in the
plane of the segment), which may occur in presence of some irregularities occurring during the TBM
thrust phase (e.g. gaps between rings);

- fibre reinforcement is generally effective with respect to shear stresses and, depending on the post-
cracking residual strengths, it could often substitute the minimum shear reinforcement required by
typical international standards.
The fibre type or content are not complete information for design purposes; the key factor is the quantification
of post-cracking strengths that a given fibre content or type of fibre can provide in a specific concrete matrix.
Structural verifications for the Prefabrication processing (at the prefabrication

factory)
Generally, it can be said that the damage to the segments in these phases does not derive from inadequate
design checks, which are very simple to carry out, but from the use of equipment not entirely suitable. In any
case, the phases of demoulding, handling and storage require the greatest attention, because the concrete
strength is lower than the long term one.
The verification for the extraction from the mould defines the minimum amount of concrete strength of the
segment to be extracted without cracking (Figure 63). The check consists in the comparison of the maximum
bending moment applied in the extraction with the first cracking moment Mcr. The extraction can be modelled
with standard static schemes considering the dynamic effect of adherence. The other verifications are carried
out similarly to the extraction from the mould (changing the static scheme) always checking that there isn’t
cracking during operations.
Regarding FRC elements, [22] confirms that it is desirable to avoid cracking in this stage even though fibre
reinforcement is not exploited in un-cracked state. The same approach is suggested by (5); in addition, it is
also underlined that a minimum bearing capacity must be provided to avoid collapse. In this case, the post-
cracking residual properties of FRC will be exploited but with aim to guarantee the safety of workers.
Figure 63 Static scheme for extraction from the mould
Transportation, handling and installation

For the phase of transportation from the storage to the TBM site, temporary storage, moving, overturning,
lifting, handling in the TBM (Figure 64) and installation of the ring, segments verification must guarantee that
there isn’t cracking during operations. The checks are performed similarly to the previous phase (changing the
static scheme depending on the condition) but with the design strength of the concrete.
In final storing to avoid cracking phenomena, particular attention should be devoted to the position of the
segments on supports. In this regard, [20] suggests some maximum admissible eccentricities between
supports (misalignment of the supports) of about 10 cm.

Figure 64 Examples of vertical storage and relative handling

Structural verifications for the TBM-advance phase
During the lining construction process, after assembly a complete ring, the TBM moves forward by pushing its
thrust jacks on the bearing pads of the latest assembled ring; therefore, high thrust jack forces are introduced
in the back lining during the excavation process by means of the TBM cutter head. It is worthwhile noticing that
the magnitude of these forces depends on several factors, such as the support of ground in front of the TBM,
tunnel overburden, friction forces between ground and shield, cutting force at the front of the TBM (16). In
addition, the force exerted by each jack on the tunnel segment depends also by the numbers of adopted jacks
as well as from their configuration (French, German or Japanese (10)). The latter are schematically reported
in Figure 65.
(a) (b)
(c)
Figure 65 TBM thrust configurations: German (a), French (b) and Japanese (c) configurations (10)
The structural verifications of this load condition are generally developed according to two main different level
of investigation:
• local segment behaviour: generally corresponding to stress concentrations under and/or between
TBM rams;
• global segment behaviour: normally related to the distribution of the highly-concentrated applied
loads throughout the segment.
To prevent damage of precast tunnel segments the local behaviour as well as the global one should be
carefully considered. Consequently, special attention will be devoted to the former in Paragraph 6.4.4.1, while
the latter will be deeply described in Paragraph 6.4.4.2.
The local behaviour is mainly related to transverse stresses under the TBM thrust shoes and between them.
To the contrary, the global behaviour is strongly affected by the adopted TBM thrust shoes configuration and
rear supports layout (Figure 65).
In fact, with regard to local behaviour, the spreading of the thrust forces into the segments leads to a disturbed
region (D-region) that has to be carefully analysed since transverse tensile stresses (defined as splitting or
bursting stresses, Figure 66, Figure 67a) occur perpendicular to the loading direction. Consequently, splitting
cracks (due to transverse tensile stresses) can occur under the TBM rams. Moreover, spalling cracks (due to
transverse tensile stresses occurring between the TBM thrust shoes) could occur between the TBM rams.

Most of these cracks will self-heal but larger cracks, which may cause leakage, will always remain. Although
there is no danger for collapse, the leaking cracks must be repaired.
With reference to the global segment behaviour, the possible no-perfect arrangements of TBM thrust shoes
as well as no-perfect contact with the previous assembled ring may cause damages.
With regards to FRC elements, the roles of these possible irregularities are pointed out in [22], (5) and [20].
Local verifications
Verification of the contact pressures

The contact pressures can be verified with the approach proposed in [27]. This method was contextualized in
detail to issues related to precast tunnel linings (contact pressure under the TBM thrust shoes as well as over
the limited contact areas of longitudinal joints) in [7].
6.4.4.1.2 Verification of the induced tensile stresses

High concentrated forces must be introduced in the lining. The latter should be spread and diffused into the
tunnel lining. As a result, a so-called disturbed region (D-region) developed, as schematically shown in Figure
66 for a load acting on a 2D element (14), leading to:
− tensile transverse stresses (defined as splitting or bursting), perpendicular to the direction of the load
P, occur;
− tensile stresses in the “dead corners” near the loading area (generally defined as spalling stresses,
Figure 66). It is worthwhile noticing that these stresses in case of two adjacent high concentrated
loads, correspond to the spalling stresses occurring between two adjacent TBM rams.
The amount and direction of these stresses can be evaluated according to well-known elastic solution
proposed by Iyengar (6) and cited by Leonhardt (7); based on this solution the bursting transverse stresses
along a longitudinal axis centred with the applied force (Figure 67a).
This approach can be used for evaluating, as a first approximation, the risk of incipient cracking phenomena
at SLS since the maximum tensile bursting stress can be evaluated: this issue is very important since it is
desirable to avoid cracks when service load is applied by the jacks. It is worthwhile noticing that also the global
resultant tensile force (Z) can be calculated, which represents basically the local bearing capacity required to
fulfil equilibrium in the direction perpendicular to the applied load.
A local strut-and-tie model can be adopted in order to directly evaluate the resultant transverse tensile force
under the point load due to the jack (Z, Figure 67b, Mörsch (8) as quoted by Leonhardt (7)). It is well known
that this approach is directly focused on the bearing capacity, since it is a solution only based on equilibrium
equations. Nevertheless, this simplified approach can be also applied after cracking. Hence, it can be generally
used for designing the necessary local reinforcing bars for withstanding to these tensile stresses after cracking.
In fact, designers generally estimate the total transverse bursting force “Z” (Figure 67b), by means of the
following relationship:
 a
Z = 0.25 ⋅ P ⋅  1 − 
 d 
In the aforementioned equation, P corresponds to the applied load by the jack and the ratio a/d basically
governs the amount of expected bursting stresses (as depicted in Figure 67a). Note that similar relationships
are reported in recommendations concerning precast tunnel segments [1] [32] and [7].

The precast tunnel element is a 3D structural element, presenting a certain curvature. Therefore, the regions
of the segment under the jacks, during the construction process, are characterized by a tri-axial state. As a
consequence, splitting stresses appear under these loading areas according to the two theoretical local
directions (radial/tangential).
Leonhardt (7) suggested a simplified approach for estimating the resulting transverse forces in case of a 3D
D-region, basically based on the superposition of the previously mentioned 2D solutions: two transverse forces
(Zz, Zy) representing the resultants of the splitting stresses according to two orthogonal directions are
introduced (Figure 68a and b).
As a first approximation, the approach proposed by Leonhardt (7) can be used for predicting the resulting
transverse forces in tunnel segments at SLS by referring to local reference system illustrated in Figure 68b
(before cracking). Similarly, the bearing capacity can be also investigated by assuming two local strut-and-ties
models corresponding to the radial and tangential direction of the tunnel segment (as a simplified approach
after cracking).
Figure 66 Single concentrated load acting on a slab. Example of 2D D-region (14).

a) b)
Figure 67 a) Distribution of transverse stresses due to point load (6), b) strut-and-tie resistant mechanism (8).
Zy
Zz
a) b)
Figure 68 Scheme of the superposition of principal compressive trajectories (two-planes) in presence of a 3D D-region
(7) b) 3D D-region as the sum of two 2D contributions
To better evaluate the local splitting behaviour under the TBM rams, numerical models (FEM) can be used
(Figure 69). In fact, the analytical approaches previously mentioned, are generally probably more conservative
even though they are very useful for a preliminary evaluation and as a reference for more advanced FEMs.
The advanced modelling enables a better understanding of the phenomena leading to a better control or
avoidance of possible damages. The numerical analyses can be developed within the linear elastic behaviour
of concrete or they could be also carried out by including the actual post-cracking tensile behaviour of concrete,
especially in case of Fiber Reinforced Concrete (Non-Linear Finite Element Analyses, NLFEA).

Figure 69 An example of simplified 2D FEM for simulating local radial splitting phenomena.
To avoid the risk of damage in the local verification under the TBM rams, possible unfavourable scenarios are
recommended to be considered:
• eccentricity of pressure applied by TBM rams;

• in advanced modelling considering different friction conditions under the TBM thrust shoes.
The latter are generally aspects which are desirable to include in the process of structural verifications to avoid
damages as much as possible.
Regarding the local behaviour under TBM thrust shoes, in (5), it is stated that, since cracks due to splitting
stresses remain relatively small, also FRCs having post-cracking properties corresponding to class “2e”
(according to the performance classification reported in [21]) can be probably satisfactory. Nevertheless,
analytical or semi-empirical well-known relationships are still not available for the precise prediction of the
bearing capacity as well as the expected splitting crack width in FRC elements. Schnütgen (11) proposed a
simplified analytical approach based on a constant distribution of post-cracking FRC strengths as is similarly
currently reported in current [20]. The issue is still under discussion in the scientific community. In fact, in recent
[22], no specific simplified analytical relationships are reported for local splitting behaviour.
Global verifications
The analysis of the global behaviour exhibited by tunnel segments when the forces exerted by TBM’s thrust
rams are applied is an important step of the design process of precast tunnel elements. It is a matter of fact
that if local damages are avoided (Paragraph 6.4.4.1) not necessarily global damaging mechanisms are
prevented.
This phase should be analysed by considering the global behaviour of segments and ring, according to the
following aspects:
• study of the possible boundary conditions that could interest the tunnel segments during this phase;
• choice of a realistic load scheme;
• choice of an opportune resistant mechanism.
Referring to traditional RC tunnel elements, this stage is generally considered by designers by assuming that
the tunnel element behaves like a 2D deep beam, which exhibits the schematic typology of expected stresses
illustrated in Figure 70 (9). Based on this assumption, the global segment behaviour during this stage can be
predicted by means of analytical approaches (e.g. strut-and-tie models, as previously described, for predicting

the bearing capacity) as well as by numerical elastic analyses based on a simplified 2D model, in order to
capture the most critical regions where cracking can occur.
(a) (b)
Figure 70 Distribution of stresses in the tunnel segment loaded by the TBMs jacks: French segment configuration (a);
German segment configuration (b) (13).
Tensile forces
between the
jacks
Tensile forces Tensile forces

under the under the
jacks jacks
a) b)
Figure 71 Strut-and-tie model for evaluating the global tunnel segment behavior
The numerical methods, from a design point of view, can be generally accepted if a critical analysis of relevant
factors, such as the choice of boundary conditions, is preliminary developed. Similar to the local behaviour,
simplified strut-and-tie models can be applied (11) (13) as shown in Figure 71 a, b.
The location of the introduction of the jack’s forces and the position of bearing pads (thrust jack configurations)
determine where the stress concentrations in the tunnel lining take place.

The aforementioned simplified methods cannot take into account the real three-dimensional behaviour of the
curved segment and concrete post-cracking properties. Moreover, regarding the strut-and-tie global model
(Figure 71a), the corresponding estimation of the necessary amount of traditional steel reinforcement (rebars)
can be rather conservative with respect to more advanced non-linear finite element methods.
Refinement of the calculation can be done with 3D numerical models (Figure 72), where the distribution of the
stresses is studied in a segment with the jack forces applied. The boundary conditions are induced by the
transversal connections (guidance rod) with the other segments and the longitudinal connections (bolts,
dowels) with the previous installed ring. The latter issues can be included in more complicated numerical
models (Figure 73).
Figure 72 3D numerical model of a tunnel segment loaded by TBM rams.
In order to avoid the risk of damage in the global verification under the TBM rams, the following aspects should
be probably included in the design process:
• possible eccentricities of pressure applied by TBM jacks;

• possible gaps or offsets arising between a ring and the previously assembled ring. The latter condition
changes considerably the distribution of stresses in the segment and, hence, it must be carefully
considered;
• in case of numerical simulations, it is recommended to initially develop simplified 2D model of the
segment and, afterwards, improve progressively the model: 3D (Figure 72), 3D with interactions with
other segments (Figure 73) etc.
The assumption of post-cracking residual properties exhibited by FRCs can be done by means of non-linear
numerical simulations. As underlined in Appendix 3 of [22], such numerical simulations required engineers
with specific know-how, who should be aware of all issues and pitfalls related to NLFEA on cementitious
composites exhibiting softening uniaxial tensile constitutive laws. In (5) is underlined that the frequency and
entity of the possible aforementioned irregularities (eccentricity, gaps etc.) can govern the amount of localized
stresses (e.g. in-plane segment localized stresses) and consequently, the possible complete or partial
substitution of traditional rebars with fiber reinforcement. This phenomenon can be captured with advanced
non-linear numerical simulations or through full-scale experimental tests.

1 Rigid supports in local tangential direction
2 Ring joints: uniform distribuited springs

1
3 Uniform pressure of the hydraulic jacks
4 Longitudinal joints: interface elements for friction 2

and guidance rods
Analysed segment
Figure 73 3D numerical model of a tunnel segment loaded by TBM rams with evidenced the interaction with adjacent
tunnel segments.
Grouting phase and long-term stability

Segment section design
The segment element is modelled as a beam element that receives both axial load and bending moment at
the same time for the verification of flexural tension and compression failure. Further information on the
development of the moment-hoop thrust envelope (M-N envelope) is given in [27].
With regards to FRC tunnel elements, the M-N diagram at ULS can be determined by using the typical
analytical sectional analysis as suggested by several standards for the design of FRC elements; among them,
the current [21] can be cited. The applications of this general approach in tunnel linings are reported in Section
5 of [22] and in [20].
For evaluating the tunnel lining behaviour at SLS to estimate the crack width (if any), the sectional response
of the tunnel segment can be analytically (by means of layer-by-layer sectional model) determined based on
the uniaxial simplified constitutive law proposed by current [21]. The application of this general approach is
reported in Appendix 2 of [22] where M-N envelopes at SLS are presented.
Fiber reinforcement generally enables a possible complete replacement of shear reinforcement occurring at
this stage. Details on the evaluation of the shear resistance capacity in presence of fiber reinforcement in case
of precast tunnel linings can be found in [22].
Structural fire design

For road tunnels, the structural fire resistance can be obtained with reference to the research developed by
the ITA Working Group No. 6 [33]. This ITA guideline is focused on road tunnels which are exposed to severe
fire scenarios induced by vehicles’ fuel.
In (5) the advantages of monofilament polypropylene (PP) microfibers against explosive-spalling are briefly
reported, while in [22], by referring to fibres for structural purposes, a procedure is proposed for taking into
account the post-cracking strengths after exposure to high temperatures.
Seismic design
Seismic design scenarios are characterized by the probability of seismic events in the specific project location.
As indicated in the [5], the designer of segmental lining should assess and document the frequency, magnitude
and loads associated with seismic design situations with reference to (17). The study of the ITA Group No 9

provides a state-of the-art review of the design and analysis of tunnels subject to earthquake shaking and
define the ground rules of the Deterministic and Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis procedure.
The change of internal force in the segmental lining during earthquakes can be calculated following several
approaches. Relevant guidelines suggest closed form solutions (18), pseudo-static and uncoupled dynamic
analyses. However, to take into account, the influence of the existing state of stress around the tunnel and the
permanent ground deformation during dynamic actions, full dynamic analysis by numerical methods should be
performed. One of the most important input data for dynamic analysis is the time histories which should be
site-compatible. In Figure 74 a scheme of the main steps of a full dynamic analysis by numerical modelling is
provided.
72 years return period

8 1.5
Mean Response spectrum of set
UHS for 72 years
7 1
Response spectrum of individual input
6
0.5
5
0
Sa [m/s2]
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Sa[m/s2]
4
-0.5
3
-1
2
-1.5
1
-2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Period [s] -2.5
Time [s]
10m
D=6.3m Control points
5D
∆l=2mx1m L=15m
40m ∆l=1mx1m
≈4D
∆l=1mx2m ∆l=2mx2m
102 m
Figure 74 Example of dynamic analysis (Finite Difference Element model) - Moment and Axial Force time history of the
control points on the segmental lining
The seismic performance of the tunnel linings is generally good because they are constrained by the ground
around them and not subjected to inertial effects like above-ground structures. In addition to that constriction,
their circular, largely symmetrical shape and ample flexibility ensure them to perform well in earthquakes. The
flexibility of the segments is achieved through steel reinforcing bars or steel fibre reinforcing and flexibility of
the overall structural system is achieved through joints between the segments that accommodate deformations
with little or no damage. In addition, joint contact areas contain packing materials which prevent high contact
stresses. An extensive literature analysis on the performance of concrete segmental lining in seismic areas
was conducted (Dean et Al. – 2006). It is concluded that since the reconnaissance reports of earthquakes
focus on the poor performance in general, there are not many published inspection reports about the
performance of linings because of their good seismic performance.

Impact load design
As indicated in the Paragraph 6.1.2 Design Conditions, the typical design situations for precast concrete
segmental lining include also accidental events like bomb blast events, internal collisions (internal impact such
as a vehicle crash or train derailment), external collisions (external impact load such as a ship anchor).
Nowadays, the recent technical requirements for the design of tunnel and underground structures include the
structural verifications related to these additional loads with definition of the maximum level of security against
collapse. Impact loads generated by derailed trains can be extremely high, especially in the case of heavy
trains running at high speeds, which usually cause significant safety issues to the rail infrastructures. The
increase in the number of terrorist attacks has shown that the effect of blast loads on buildings is a serious
matter that should be taken into consideration in the design process.
Impact and blast loads are dynamic loads that need to be calculated just like earthquake and wind loads. In
shield tunnels, such loads may cause the damage and deformation of concrete segments and the failure of
segmental joint connections. Simplified design methods may not give an accurate result for the ultimate
capacity of the structure under impact and blast loads. The design should include advanced numerical analysis
on the failure behaviour of segmental lining and dynamic response of the elements should be investigated.
The interaction of a precast structure with the surrounding soil should be considered in analysing the behaviour
of the structure under impact loads. The analysis should consider the non-linearity in material behaviour and
geometric non-linearity. Considering the probability of the event and the associated return period, it is
reasonable in some cases to include the plastic response of the structural elements (damage control zone of
the Potential Deformation Limit State).
Figure 75 Train impact analyses according to AS 5100 - No-linear analysis: maximum displacement and bending
moment
Figure 76 Blast loading analyses (10 kg equivalent TNT blast event located at a 1m distance from the internal surface of
the concrete lining) – Dynamic analysis: maximum displacement and bending moment during the time history

Connection system design
The design and the selection of the connection systems is needed to:
a) meet the required construction tolerances;

b) maintain the integrity of the waterproofing system under all load configurations;
c) be capable of being installed from a safe place.
6.4.5.5.1 Gasket design

The designer should verify the gasket design for all possible combinations of pressure (Figure 77), offset
induced by the construction tolerance (lips and steps) and maximum gap due to birds mouthing at the joint
associated with ring diametrical deformations induced by construction tolerances and loading conditions
(Figure 78).
Figure 77 Edge spalling schematic
Figure 78 Example of EPDM Gaskets gap pressure curve
6.4.5.5.2 Bolt and dowel socket/pocket design

Tunnel lining segment connections mainly consist of bolt or dowel type. Nowadays, various connector products
and product types are available on the market and different functional requirements of the connectors probably
involve different design principles. To prevent damage a proper design procedure should be adopted. Among
the available standards, in recent [22], it is suggested to mainly refer to [34] and [23]. In fact, it is recommended
to consider the following design procedure: design against steel rupture, design for loss of interface bearing in

sockets, design of concrete failure based on the Concrete Capacity Design Method (CCD). It is also underlined
to consider in the aforementioned failure modes, the combination of both, axial and shear loads.
With regard to the possible advantages related to the adoption of FRC in preventing damages, in [22], it is
stated: “only a limited amount of studies has been carried out with respect to the influence of fibre reinforcement
on fastenings to concrete. Certain enhancement in ductility is evident in all the available literature. However,
conclusions with regard to the effects of fibres when it comes to the load-bearing capacity of bolts and dowels
vary, showing some enhancement in load bearing capacity but not in a consistent fashion. It is also important
to note that the available studies have been performed in uncracked concrete with standard steel or synthetic
fibres”.
Junctions and interface with existing assets

The design of junctions is one of the most challenging tasks in tunnel lining design in soft ground. This is due
to the complex construction sequence and high proportion of ground-structure interaction, as well as the
interaction between various structures often built using different construction methodologies and at different
times. For segmental lining design, the most common case is the design of a junction between a segmental
lining and a cross passage, which includes analysis of the stability of the segments next to the opening,
temporary works for the cross-passage excavation and the collar structure linking the segmental lining to the
secondary lining of the cross passage, replacing the continuity of the ring.
In particular situations, the longitudinal connections could be different among the cross-passages compared
to the rest of the tunnel. The required shear forces of the connections in by-pass area can be computed (Figure
79): analytically (with static schemes that take into account the repartition of the internal forces from the cut
rings through the connections) or numerically (with 3D numerical models, Figure 80). In the latter case, special
attention should be devoted to modelling the boundary conditions through non-linear springs with force-
displacement relations coming from lab test of the manufacturer.
By the way of example, in (5) is underlined that in a case study of tunnel lining having large diameter (internal
diameter of 11.3 m) a solution with fibre reinforced only was adopted expect for high-loaded sections or cross-
passages, where a hybrid RC+SFRC was used, confirming the needed to pay attention in terms of connections
but also in terms of localized stresses which can occurs in precast tunnel elements in presence of cross-
passages.
Figure 79 Shear force in the by-pass in the hypothesis of tension rebalancing acting exclusively to the connection system

Figure 80 Example of 3D model in the by-pass

7 ON SITE & LABORATORY TESTS AND CHECKS
7.1 Generalities
This chapter describes experimental activities and tests that can be performed in the laboratory or in the
prefabrication plant on the lining elements to verify their characteristics.
In Chapter 4, several non-invasive controls and checks, that are usefully performed on the segments to verify
their characteristics in an expeditious way, are listed; this part of the document is dedicated to the tests to be
carried out in laboratory.
The described tests can be performed on a whole segment, to verify the strength to the state of stress which
will be subject during the installation and on the final configuration, or on specific parts such as gaskets,
reinforcements or edges. Finally, some tests will be briefly described to verify the behaviour of the segments
when they are subjected to stresses in non-optimal conditions, such as non-axial differential loads or loads
applied to incorrectly positioned segments.
The same tests are performed to verify the effectiveness of innovative technological solutions such as fiber-
reinforced concrete or fiberglass reinforcement.
The list of laboratory tests described in the following paragraphs does not claim to exhaust all the tests that
can be performed, rather to describe the most common tests whose results can be considered more reliable.
On this point, more insights can be obtained following the bibliographical references cited for each described
test.
7.2 Preliminary tests on steel materials

Tests on rebars
For tests on rebars the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) developed specific standards for
such as the minimum upper yield strength (Reh), Rm/Reh ratio, and elongation values for ribbed steel bar
products. The standard references on this topic are the [50], which focuses specifically on test methods, and
[51].
Chemical composition test

Several recent studies have shown that the chemical composition of the reinforcing bars, and particularly the
sulfuric content, has a marked influence on its corrosion resistance of rebar.
Consequently, laboratory tests, based on the use of X-Ray Diffraction analysis (XRD), aimed at verifying the
exact chemical composition of the bars are carried out in cases where a high risk of corrosion phenomena is
expected.
Tensile test
This test is performed to determine the tensile properties of reinforcing bars. The general standard reference
is [43] and [44].

Figure 81 Detail of the apparatus for the tensile test on rebars.
For GFRP (glass fiber reinforced polymer), the test is performed according [47].
Bend test
The bend test consists of submitting a test fraction of rebars to plastic deformation by bending, without
changing the direction of loading, until a specified angle of bend is reached. This test is conducted for
determining the ability of metallic materials to undergo plastic deformation in bending. The [48] covers bend
testing of bars primary for the evaluation of their ductility.
Clamping force of the bolts

The verification of the tightness of the bolts is carried out by means of a series of standard tests, described in
the documents briefly listed below.
• Tensile test on bolts, with or without a nut [49] [58] [60] [61] [63]
• Shear test on bolts [49] [57] [58] [60] [61] [63]
• Load test on nuts [64] [62] [59] [60] [49]
7.3 Tests for post-casting, demoulding, handling, overturning and storage

In this paragraph several laboratory tests and checks commonly performed in post-casting phases until the
lining elements are stored are listed. Some of them are suitable also for the successive stages of construction.
In general, for this purpose, the most commonly performed tests are the non-destructive ones and only in
particular circumstances the lining elements are subjected to destructive tests.
Tests on cylindrical cores

To verify the strength characteristics of the concrete of the precast lining elements, it is possible to perform
tests on samples taken directly from a segment by means of a coring equipment.
This provides cylindrical samples representative of the entire lining element on which it is possible to perform
the most common laboratory tests such as the uniaxial compression test, the indirect tensile test (Brazilian
test) or non-destructive tests.
Figure 82 shows the apparatus necessary to perform the coring and sampling of the lining element; while in
Figure 83 there are two images of the most common tests that can be carried out on cylindrical concrete
samples.

Figure 82 Core equipment picture.
Figure 83 Uniaxial compression test and indirect tensile test performed on concrete samples.
Pull out test on rebars and sockets

Main bar is embedded in each concrete sample with different confinements. The test specimen is basically a
concrete cube with a bar embedded coaxially [38] or an equivalent cylinder as showed in Figure 84. One end
of the rebar is projected about 15 mm to measure the free end slip, while the loaded end is jutted out about
750 mm to grip the rebar for applying the tensile force.
The same typology of tests can be usefully performed to verify the tensile strength of sockets.
Figure 84 Sample and apparatus for the pull-out test on rebars

The same test is performed also on samples of sockets to verify the strength of the combination socket-
concrete; in the Figure 85 below are some pictures of particularly arranged samples and the final part of the
test execution.
Figure 85 Samples and apparatus for the pull-out test on sockets.
Rebound Hammer Test

Rebound Hammer test measures the surface hardness of concrete with approximate correlations to estimate
its unconfined strength. Although the intrinsic limitations of the test may result in large variations in the
estimated strength, ease of conducting the test and low initial cost has made the test quite popular.
Rebound Hammer tests are conducted in accordance with [37].
Figure 86 Rebound hammer test apparatus.
Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test (UPV)

Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV) Test involves the transmission of ultrasonic pulses through the structural
element and computing the wave velocity in it. The computed velocity is an indicative of the quality of concrete
and if the member is suffering from any structural flaw like honey-combing, voids etc.
The measurement equipment is composed by a couple of transducer, a pulse receiver unit and a data
acquisition/recording system.

Tests can be performed in three different configurations on the lining element, as presented in Figure 87; the
same test can be performed on a single fracture, once it has formed, to highlight its depth or after a technical
rehabilitation intervention to verify its effectiveness.
UPV tests must be conducted according to [36]
Figure 87 Test mode for Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test (UPV).
Impulse Response Test

Impulse Response Test uses a low-strain impact to cause the structural element to vibrate in a bending mode
and compute the amplitude of the response through the probe placed on the surface.
The test system allows quick screening of structure for flaws like honeycombing, de-laminations, voids etc.
and identifies suspect areas for subsequent detailed assessment.
The Impulse Response Test should be performed in accordance with [46].
Figure 88 Impulse response test apparatus.
Crack Depth Measurement

The Crack Depth is calculated by using the principle of acoustic diffraction of ultrasound waves. The method
uses a specially designed test instrument in which the transducers are positioned on the surface in a line
across the crack. The average depth of crack is calculated by measuring the transit time at different distances
of transducers from the crack, viz at 100 mm, 150 mm and 200 mm.

Figure 89 Crack depth measurement apparatus and test scheme.
Impact Echo
Impulse Echo tests consists in applying a stress pulse by a mechanical impact and studying the frequency
response of the reflected waves. The dominant frequency in the frequency response is used to compute either
the depth of the member or the possible depth of the flaw.
Measurement of Thickness of Concrete Members is governed by [45].
Avantech Engineering Consortium has carried out Impact Echo tests to assess thickness of tunnel walls, crack
depths and voids in tendons ducts in bridge girders.
Figure 90 Impact Echo test apparatus and data recording instrument.
The principal components of the device required to perform this test are a hand-held transducer unit, a set of
spherical impactors, a notebook computer, a high-speed analogic/digital data acquisition system and a
software system.
Handling and installation of the ring. In this paragraph several laboratory tests and checks that can be
performed to verify features of the lining elements in the installation phase are listed. The main aim involves
geometric matters to verify that all the elements will adhere perfectly to each other and stay in perfect contact.
There are a series of laboratory tests and checks aimed at verifying if the elements produced are in conformity
with the project specifications; these tests are useful to simulate the assembly of one or more coating rings to
verify their correctness.
Geometrical test
This verification consists in the assembly of one or more lining rings simulating the operations that are
performed on site. Once the lining elements are assembled, several measurements are performed to verify
that the dimensions and alignment of the joints comply with the limits set by the technical specifications.

Figure 91 Laser scanner measurement performed on a single segment and on an assembled ring.
7.4 Thrust phase

In this paragraph several laboratory tests and checks specifically developed to verify the to verify the ability of
the lining elements to withstand the stresses applied by the jacks of the TBM during the pushing phase are
listed.
Thrust load test (point load test)

The thrust load test is commonly performed to evaluate the tensile splitting and spalling stresses and thrust
induced in the concrete ring by the thrust jacks of the TBM during the positioning and advancement phases
(20). To perform this test, the segment is directly placed on specially prepared platform and an incremental
load is applied to its edge in the direction of the maximum dimension of its transversal section as showed in
Figure 92. As reported in (25), a series of displacement transducers are positioned to the top concrete surface
and on the loading steel plate for measuring the horizontal and vertical displacements of the segment. The
same Figure 92 illustrates the laboratory setup for the thrust load test available in the Laboratory of Materials
and Structures of the Università degli Studi di Rome Tor Vergata.
One or several jacks are used for each steel plate; the load was continuously measured by pressure
transducers. Several transducers (at the intrados and at the extrados) measure the shoes displacements, while
one LVDT transducer is applied between the load shoes, at the top, to measure the crack openings.
The tests are performed using a single jack for the application of the load or parallel jibs to study the
combination of the applied loads.
Figure 92 Thrust load test response

The same test can be performed using a particular configuration of the lining elements in which they are
voluntarily misaligned, so as to simulate an assembly error.
A gap of 5 mm is given at the segment base, and the point load test is performed by applying three-point loads
at the segment, by adopting the same steel plates used by the TBM machine.
Each jack, having a loading capacity of 2000 KN, is inserted in a close ring frame made with HEM 360 steel
beams and 50 mm diameter bars, see Figure 93.
Figure 93 Point load test with gap (Università degli Studi di Roma Tor Vergata)
A non-uniform support is considered, since a gap of 5 mm is given as shown in Figure 94.
Figure 94 Instrumentation and contact zone
The load was continuously measured by pressure transducers. Several transducers, located at the intrados
and at the extrados, measure the vertical displacements while others are placed close to the gap onset to
measure the crack openings (25).
Tests on lining elements edges

To assess the strength of the edges of a concrete lining element to non-centred loads, tests are carried out on
samples specifically made to allow the application of a load directly on the outer edge of the sample.
These tests are not included in any standard but are performed to meet the needs of specific projects. In Figure
95 are presented two pictures of the test configuration before and after different tests. The comparison of the
results obtained performing this tests on samples specifically realized using different mix design, materials (i.e.
fiber reinforced concrete) provide useful insights on the effectiveness of each solution.

Figure 95 Tests on tunnel lining edges performed Laboratory of Materials and Structures of the Università degli Studi di
Roma Tor Vergata.
Several studies have described the formation of cracks in the lining segments in a condition of uneven support
generated by contact deficiencies between the segments. Tests similar to the one described in this paragraph
can be performed to simulate the application of the load in a non-orthogonal direction to the sample surface.
7.5 GROUTING AND SERVICE PHASES

In this paragraph several laboratory tests designed to verify the behaviour of the elements of the lining
elements in the conditions during the service phase and, in general, in the long-term conditions are listed.
Flexural testing
Figure 96 shows the experimental apparatus for flexural testing. It is composed by a couple of reaction frames
which support the lining element and a tree loading frame, commonly used to apply a uniformly distributed
load.
Figure 96 Flexural test apparatus pictures in the Laboratory of Materials and Structures of the Università degli Studi di
Roma Tor Vergata.

According to several studies, (21) (22) and (23), a compressive load is applied in terms of percentage of
maximum displacement (Δmax) achieved during the monotonic tests at the failure point.
One or two cycles of loading-unloading are conducted for several load steps (1.25%, 2.5%, 5%, and 10% of
Δmax) and subsequently, three cycles are applied for 20%, 40%, 60%, 80%, 100% of Δmax. This loading cycles
are continuously applied until the tested segment fails, splitting into two pieces.
A series of displacement transducers are positioned at the segment mid-span to measure vertical
displacements.
The load and displacement measures are collected simultaneously at proper time intervals using a data
acquisition system. The measurement of the crack widths can be measured using a crack width ruler.
The described test can be performed using a similar methodology which involves the same lining element
positioned in the opposite direction to the one described, namely rotated by 180 degrees.
Tests on an assembled ring

In particularly specific cases it was necessary to develop load tests to be performed on one or a series of
aligned rings.
These tests are carried out in particularly equipped laboratories and include the application of both longitudinal
and transverse loads and, at the same time, the measurement of the induced displacements. In Figure 97 are
pictures of the test set up configuration for these typologies of tests.
Figure 97 Picture and scheme of the test set-up available in the laboratories in Delft University.
Sealing tests
The test consists in verifying the behaviour of the sealing elements between the segments under the effect of
the hydrostatic pressure. The test is generally performed on two assembled and connected rings positioned
one over the other.
These tests are designed to verify the tightness of joints in water when the joints are correctly aligned but also
when they are misaligned (gap and/or offset).
The test procedure can be described by the following points (Figure 98):
- assembling 2 vertically mounted rings;

- applying of a vertical load.
- positioning elements for fixing the test equipment;

- closing the space between the joints at the junction with the joint of the test apparatus;
- positioning the test equipment;
- filling the test equipment with water at certain pressure;
- measuring the pressure at defined and regular time intervals.
Figure 98 Test arrangement and details of the test equipment.
Specific tests (Figure 99) are developed to verify the effectiveness of the sealing elements; the most common
tests are the tightness tests, which require the application of increasing values of water pressure in a chamber
composed of two half-boxes between which the gaskets to be tested are affixed (also with gap and / or offset).
Other more specific tests have been developed to verify the strength of the seals with respect to the risk of
being torn or removed during the handling and installation phases.
The details of these tests are generally agreed during the design phase based on the characteristics of the
work to be carried out, the hydrogeological conditions and the final use of the tunnel.
Figure 99 Tightness tests apparatus.
Durability tests
To verify the variation of the characteristics of the concrete over time, several tests can be performed. The
water permeability test is performed according to the standard [40]; Rapid Chloride Ion Penetration Test
according to [42]; the water absorption test according to [13] and the Initial Surface Absorption Test following
the [12]. All the cited tests can be performed according with the specific tunnel project following different
procedures.

Figure 100 Salt deposition and surface degradation of concrete after Cl- exposure (24).
Figure 101 Water absorption tests (left) and rapid chloride ion penetrability test (right)(24).
Creep on sockets
If the tunnel project foresees that parts incorporated in the concrete are subjected to continuous loads, it is
necessary to consider the creep phenomena, both during the validation of the project and through a validation
test campaign.
In evaluating the creep, it is appropriate to consider the presence of external agents to the embedded part,
such as humidity or water, which can significantly alter the performance of the same.
It is advisable to know the aging process of the materials used to evaluate the chemical-physical performances
over the design time.
Figure 102 shows the graph that represents the set of factors considered for a polyamide bush.

Figure 102 Results of several creep evaluations and tests with a synthesis of several effects.
Rebars corrosion
Monitoring the corrosion activity and determining the rate of corrosion in the RCC structures is essential for
estimating the service life of the structural member.
If the project involves permanent metal connection systems, it is necessary to evaluate how the environmental
characteristics interact with the system.
The salt spray test, defined by [54], can be used in the design phase to define the corrosion resistance required.
Some standard references in which are defined the classes of corrosion of the various environments and the
annual consumption of the zinc coating are.
• ISO 9223 - Corrosion of metals [39]

• UNI EN ISO 14713 - Zinc Coating, Guidelines and recommendations [55]
There is no standard that indicates the results to be obtained from the salt spray test according to the class of
corrosion of the environment, this definition must be made in the design phase based on previous experiences.
Furthermore, the aging of the material the related causes must be considered, which may alter its chemical-
physical characteristics.
Fire testing
Some tests are specifically arranged to verify the resistance of a concrete mixture to face sudden variations in
temperature, situation that occurs, for example, in the event of a tunnel fire.
To perform this test, a chamber in which it is possible to increase the temperature up to extremely high values
such as those occurring during a fire is required; the chamber is closed by the sample to be tested.
Tests are carried out progressively increasing the temperature and the exposure time of the sample, evaluating
at the end the conditions of the sample and the thickness of material which suffered from spalling or strength
reduction.

In Figure 103 the test chamber and a photo of 4 different concrete mixture subjected to fire test are shown.
Figure 103 Fire testing apparatus and comparative test sample

8 CONCLUDING REMARKS AND FUTURE POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENTS
In the construction of underground infrastructures, the use of mechanised tunnelling faces a continuous
increase; consequently, the production of precast segmental linings has become an increasingly important
part of the tunnel industry. Therefore, guaranteeing high quality and performance of precast linings gets more
and more crucial, both from the Project Owner and the Contractor points of view; in fact, the Owner of the
infrastructure requires (and pays for) a tunnel free from defects and water-tight in the long-term, whereas the
Contractor (and his potential Subcontractors) doesn’t want to spend for replacing damaged segments,
repairing defective segments or non performing rings after the erection, performing water-tightening injections,
etc.
In this regard, the production processes have to be to analysed in an industrial logic, aiming to a strong
standardisation and to constantly satisfactory results. Despite that, craft approaches still resist that are not
guided by past experiences. To eliminate or, at least, statistically reduce the onset of defects in precast
segments, they should be considered as an increasingly advanced industrial product, which presupposes
complex and advanced systems and equally advanced and expert workers, which is not always the case.
In fact, as in other industrial sectors, all operators in the production chain should be trained and qualified. This
implies that a third body should certify the suitability of the workers, even after specific training courses, since
experience and training would help guaranteeing the success. On the other hand, Project Owners should
contractually require the employment of certified and specialised personnel, suited for the different roles of the
production chain.
Linings geometry (thicknesses, angles, lengths, no. of segments per ring, diameters, etc.) should also be the
subject of guidelines and standards, that could lead to a kind of quality mark, with different benefits for
Contractors, Manufacturers and Project Owner, together with certification of environmental compatibility (e.g.
LEED).
Again, specific standards should be defined for segments storage , such as how and how many segments can
be piled up, after how long they can be exposed to the external environment and put in place, how they have
to be protected them from environmental/climatic conditions (the gaskets can be particularly sensitive), also
with reference to transport and handling.
Another critical issue is that all the accessories of the segments, which significantly affect the design (gaskets,
connectors, bolts, corners’ and edges’ guards, etc.), are considerably influenced by technical and commercial
factors. Often these components are defined in the tender project, but after tender awarding the Contractor try
to modify these choices, so that the whole design and implementation process restarts, with great expenditure
of economic and time resources.
The topics discussed in sections 6.4.5.2 (Structural fire design) and 6.4.5.3 (Seismic design) are becoming
increasingly important in the design of underground works as well, and they are still the subject of in-depth
studies; thus, at present a design direction to be followed in structural checks is not identified yet. Moreover,
as far as underground works are concerned, standards and guidelines (not only the Italian ones) are not very
clear and do not fully support the designer. As a result, these two essential themes are often disregarded or
analysed differently from what suggested by recent research. Given this situation of uncertainty, the Project
Owner should provide the designer with guidelines to evaluate the loads from thermal actions and those
resulting from an earthquake. This Report illustrates (necessarily in a synthetic way) the peculiar
characteristics of the seismic verification of a tunnel compared to that of an above ground structure; a future
development of the Report itself could then briefly suggest how to verify tunnel fire resistance and deepen the
fire testing subject.

Other topics of future insights, not diffusely discussed in this Report, are the damages caused by chemically
aggressive water or environment and by stray currents, together with their relative tests.
Furthermore, the reduction of defects occurrence and the improvement of segments durability could be
achieved using/experimenting new technologies, as for example:
- Surface protective layers on intrados or extrados of segments
- Steel, mineral and synthetic fiber reinforcements
- Edges’ and corners’ GFRP reinforcements
- GFRP perimetric rebar cages, combined with fiber reinforcements.
Another important subject to be developed is the study, at the design stage, of the interaction between TBM
and lining or, in other words, that of the TBM design, which should be duly analysed to allow multiple TBM’s
uses, with increased safety and reliability.
A final cause for reflection could be the use of double lining, particularly frequent in hydraulic tunnels, which
combines precast segment rings with an internal cast in situ lining. In these cases, the long-term integrity of
the first lining must not be ignored, not to compromise the integrity of the whole system.

9 REFERENCES
(1) Calavaro et al., (2011)

(2) NAT 2008 (Recent Developments in North America in the Design of Precast Concrete Tunnel
Linings),
(3) RETC 2001 (Chapter 79 - SINGLE-SHELL TUNNEL LINING WITH REINFORCED CONCRETE
RINGS: CRITICAL LOADS AND DAMAGE PREVENTION);
(4) Ril 853.4005
(5) ITA report n. 16 (2016), “Twenty years of FRC tunnel segments practice: lessons learnt and proposed
design principles”, April 2016, pp. 71, ISBN 978-2-970-1013-5-2.
(6) Iyengar, K.T. (1962), “Two-dimensional theories of anchorage zone stresses in post-tensioned
beams.” Journal of the American Concrete Institute (ACI). 59(10), pp.1443–1466.
(7) Leonhardt, F., and Mönning, E. (1975), C.A. & C.A.P. “Calcolo di progetto e tecniche costruttive
Vol.II”, Casi speciali di dimensionamento nelle costruzioni c.a. e c.a.p., Edizioni tecniche.
(8) Mörsch, E. (1924), Über die Berechnung der Gelenkquader. Beton u. Eisen 23(12), 1924, pp. 156-
161.
(9) Waal, R.G.A. (1999), “Steel fibre reinforced tunnel segments”, Ph.D Thesis, Delft University of
Technology, The Netherlands.
(10) Slenders, B.M.A (2002), “Modelling of the assembly of shield driven tunnels”, Delft University of
Technology, The Netherlands, Delft, 2002 (in Dutch).
(11) Schnütgen, B. (2003), “Design of precast steel fibre reinforced tunnel elements”, Proceedings of the
RILEM TC 162-TDF Workshop, Test and design methods for steel fibre-reinforced concrete –
background and experiences, Bochum, Germany, pp.145-152.
(12) Blom, C.B.M. (2002), “Design philosophy of concrete linings for tunnels in soft soils”, Ph.D Thesis,
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.
(13) Blom, C.B.M. (2006), “Concrete linings for shield driven tunnels”, Lecture notes, Delft University of
Technology, The Netherlands.
(14) Collins, M.P, and Mitchell, D. (1997), “Prestressed Concrete Structures”, Response Publication,
Toronto and Montreal, Canada.
(15) Muir Wood (2000), “Tunneling: management by design”, CRC press, pp.328, ISBN 9780419232001.
(16) Rijke, Q.C. de (2006), “Innovation of stress and damage reduction in bored tunnels during
construction based on a shield equilibrium model”, Graduate Thesis, Utrecht, Delft University of
Technology and Holland Railconsult.
(17) ITA, International Tunnelling Association, Official report, (2001), Hashash Y.M.A, J. Hook J., Schimdt
B. and Yao J.I.C, “Seismic design and analysis of underground structures”, Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, Vol. 16, n. 4, pp. 247-293.
(18) Muir Wood, (1975). “The circular tunnel in elastic ground”, Geotechnique, 25, 115-127,
10.1680/geot.1975.25.1.115.
(19) Shuttleworth, P. (2001, October). Fire protection of concrete tunnel linings. In Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on
Tunnel Fires and Escape from Tunnels, Washington DC, USA (pp. 9-11).
(20) Burgers et al., (2007)
(21) Nishikawa, K. (2003). Development of a prestressed and precast concrete segmental lining.
Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 18(2-3), 243-251.
(22) Moccihino, M., Romualdi, P., Perruzza, P., Meda, A., & Rinaldi, Z. (2010). Experimental tests on
tunnel precast segmental lining with fiber reinforced concrete. In Proceedings of 36th World Tunnel
Congress ITA-AITES (pp. 1-8).
(23) Nehdi, M. L., Abbas, S., & Soliman, A. M. (2015). Exploratory study of ultra-high performance fiber
reinforced concrete tunnel lining segments with varying steel fiber lengths and dosages. Engineering
Structures, 101, 733-742. ISO Guide 25
(24) Abbas, S. (2014). Structural and durability performance of precast segmental tunnel linings.

(25) Caratelli, A., Meda, A., Rinaldi, Z., & Spagnuolo, S. (2016). Precast tunnel segments with GFRP
reinforcement. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 60, 10-20.
(26) J. Hurt. Precast concrete segmental liners (2016).
(27) Post graduate Master Course Politecnico di Torino (2016).
(28) Fritz Grübl. Principal of Segmental Lining design, TBM-Drive and segmental linings - Post Graduate
Master Course Politecnico di Torino (2016).

SIG WG2 Research Report 1 Damages of Segmental Lining 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SIG WG2 Research Report 1 Damages of Segmental Lining 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 PREFACE

SIG WORKING GROUP 2 – RESEARCH 1

2 SISIG WORKING GROUP 2 - RESEARCH

1.2 Scope ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... 3

4.2 The Parties ............................................................................................................................................ 15

4.3 Production Phase ................................................................................................................................. 15

Traceability and Data Record ........................................................................................................... 16

Inspections, Acceptance and/or Repairs ........................................................................................ 17

4.4 Transportation and Delivery on Site................................................................................................... 19

Traceability and Data Record ........................................................................................................... 19

Inspections, Acceptance and/or Repairs ........................................................................................ 21

4.5 Installation ............................................................................................................................................. 23

Traceability and Data Record ........................................................................................................... 23

Inspections, Acceptance and/or Repairs ........................................................................................ 23

4.6 Handover and Service .......................................................................................................................... 24

Traceability and Data Record ........................................................................................................... 24

Inspections, Acceptance and/or Repairs ........................................................................................ 24

4.7 Quality Enhancements ......................................................................................................................... 25

5 TYPES, CAUSES, MITIGATION AND REPAIR OF DAMAGES ..........................................................27

Post Casting, Demoulding, Handling, Overturning, Storage ........................................................27

Concrete Surface Defects .............................................................................................................. 27

5.1.1.1.1 Hollows ............................................................................................................................................ 28

5.1.1.1.2 Exposed reinforcement ................................................................................................................... 29

SIG WORKING GROUP 2 – RESEARCH 3

5.1.1.1.4 Removal of concrete skin ................................................................................................................ 31

Defects due to inserts presence .................................................................................................... 32

5.1.1.2.1 Grout or grease leakage in dowels sockets .................................................................................... 32

5.1.1.2.2 Unscrewing/disconnection and insert absorption in the casting itself .............................................33

Gaskets’ damages ........................................................................................................................... 34

5.1.1.3.1 Anchored gaskets............................................................................................................................ 35

5.1.1.3.2 Glued gaskets ................................................................................................................................. 39

Chipping of sides and corners ...................................................................................................... 42

Handling and installation of the ring ............................................................................................... 44

Gasket damaging (expulsion or pull out during installation) .....................................................44

Chipping of sides and corners during handling .......................................................................... 46

Chipping of edges during installation........................................................................................... 46

Chipping of corners during installation ........................................................................................ 48

Thrust phase ...................................................................................................................................... 49

Gasket compression from jacks’ plate ......................................................................................... 49

Grouting and operational phases .................................................................................................... 50

Gap and Offset................................................................................................................................. 50

Water leakage from joints and bolt holes ..................................................................................... 52

Damages caused by contact with aggressive water ................................................................... 53

Damage caused by oil or fire ......................................................................................................... 54

Unscrewing joint bolts .................................................................................................................... 54

5.2 Structural damages .............................................................................................................................. 55

Post-casting, demoulding, handling, overturning, storage ..........................................................56

Description of damages ................................................................................................................. 56

Mitigation actions ............................................................................................................................ 56

4 SISIG WORKING GROUP 2 - RESEARCH

5.2.1.4.1 Defects due to inserts presence...................................................................................................... 57

5.2.1.4.2 Cracks and Fissures ....................................................................................................................... 57

Handling and installation of the ring ............................................................................................... 59

Mitigation actions ............................................................................................................................ 60

5.2.2.3.1 Corner shape................................................................................................................................... 61

5.2.2.3.2 Length of the ring ............................................................................................................................ 61

5.2.2.3.3 Number of segment per ring ........................................................................................................... 62

Restoring actions ............................................................................................................................ 63

Thrust phase ...................................................................................................................................... 64

5.2.3.1.3 Chipping of sides and corners......................................................................................................... 65

Mitigation actions ............................................................................................................................ 67

Restoring actions ............................................................................................................................ 68