TBM, Lining, Seggement

© All Rights Reserved

6 vues

TBM, Lining, Seggement

© All Rights Reserved

- TYPES OF REINFORCEMENT
- REBEND TEST
- Joints
- 05.08.2009 - Cable Trench Sections
- Aci White Paper Draft4
- ICBO CIA-7000 Anchor System
- 4800-w0 Fabrication and Installation of Set on Concrete Pipeline Weights
- Project Report MURO NE
- SER277 GarayMoran and Lubell.pdf
- Voided Slab Design Tutorial ENG v1f
- 06i-Slab Ribbed Solid-moment Capacity
- WCEE2012_3127.pdf
- Reinforcement Steel Specification
- SECTION 5 - Reinforcement
- ONE WAY SLAB..xlsx
- 5- Bar Bending Schedule
- IS 456-2000 Example 001
- p4059zor 0078 19c302_(Plinth Beam Design)
- Week 5 - Design of Prestressed Force
- Chew 1993

Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

May 22-28, 2015, Lacroma Valamar Congress Center, Dubrovnik, Croatia

Author: Mehdi BAKHSHI, AECOM, USA, mehdi.bakhshi@aecom.com

Co-author: Verya NASRI, AECOM, USA, verya.nasri@aecom.com

1. Abstract

Precast segmental linings are increasingly used in the mechanized tunneling methods using TBM-

bored shield tunnels. Tunnel segments are designed following the approach of limit state design

recommended by national and international codes and guidelines. Ultimate limit state (ULS) and

serviceability limit state (SLS) are specified in these design codes. The former focuses mostly on

the ultimate capacity of a structure prior to failure, while the latter is mainly associated with the

availability of a structure for users, such as the constraints on deflection or deformation and

cracking of a member under loading. The serviceability condition is particularly important for

tunnel linings, because cracking can be very detrimental for its consequences in terms of durability,

especially if the tunnel is exposed to an aggressive environment. In this paper, required

serviceability verifications for the design life of precast concrete segmental linings are discussed.

Necessary design checks for SLS are introduced including stress, deformation and cracking of

precast segments, as well as stress and deformation of joints. Particular attention is taken to crack

width calculation in conventional and fiber reinforced concrete segments using different standard

methods. Maximum allowable crack width for tunnel linings specified in various guidelines and

standards are presented. Finally a case of mid-size tunnel is presented to illustrate the applicability

of the proposed approach.

2. Introduction

Precast concrete segments are installed to support the tunnel bore behind the Tunnel Boring

Machine (TBM) in soft ground and weak rock applications. The TBM advances by thrusting off the

completed rings of precast concrete segments that typically provide both the initial and final

ground support as part of a one-pass lining system. These segments are typically designed to

resist the permanent loads from the ground and groundwater as well as the temporary loads from

production, transportation and construction (ACI 544.AR, 2015). In conformance with ACI 318-

Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary (ACI 318, 2014), the design

engineer may use the LRFD method to design precast concrete tunnel segments. LRFD is a design

philosophy that takes into account the variability in the prediction of loads and the variability in the

properties of structural elements. LRFD employs specified limit states beyond which a structure no

longer satisfies the design performance to achieve its objectives of constructability, safety, and

serviceability. The limit states for shield tunnel design are principally divided into the ultimate limit

state and the serviceability limit state (JSCE, 2007). Ultimate limit state which is a state associated

with the collapse or other forms of structural failure of tunnel linings have been discussed

elsewhere (ACI 544.AR, 2015; Bakker and Blom, 2009; de la Fuente et al. 2011). Serviceability

limit state (SLS) is a state beyond which specified service requirements for a tunnel are no longer

met. Similar to concrete pipes (de la Fuente, 2012; 2013), the SLS in segmental tunnel lining

systems is associated with excessive stresses, deflections and cracking of concrete segments as

well as excessive stresses and deformations of segment joints. These serviceability limit states may

cause reduction of tunnel inner space due to excessive deformations, and durability and

watertightness issues due to rebars corrosion and water leakage from segment cracks or enlarged

gap between segment joints (JSCE, 2007; Mendez Lorenzo, 1998; Çimentepe, 2010). Figure 1 and

Table 1 show a flowchart and required design checks for verifying the serviceability limit states of

tunnel segments. These states and particularly SLS of cracking are further discussed in this paper.

„SEE Tunnel:Promoting Tunneling in SEE Region“

ITA WTC 2015 Congress and 41st General Assembly

May 22-28, 2015, Lacroma Valamar Congress Center, Dubrovnik, Croatia

Start

Structural analysis

NG

Check

OK

End

Table 1 Design checks and limiting values for SLS of tunnel segments

Stress in concrete Allowable compressive stress of concrete

Segment section

Stress in reinforcement Allowable tensile stress of steel bars

Stress Stress in concrete Allowable compressive stress of concrete

Segment joints

Stress in connectors Allowable stress of connecting bolts

Segmental ring Ring deformation Allowable deformation

Deformation Joint opening Allowable gap between segments joints

Segment joints

Joint offset Allowable offset between segments joints

Flexural crack width Allowable concrete crack width

Cracking Segment section

Shear crack capacity Shear crack capacity

The SLS design for the tunnel segments is performed considering all different types and

combination of loads acting on tunnel linings during production, transport, construction, and final

service stages. The types and combination of loads as well as recommended load factors are

discussed in this section. In addition, different SLS conditions are explained and corresponding

calculation methods and limiting values are presented according to international standards and

guidelines.

Critical load cases for segment design are divided into 3 categories: production and transient loads,

construction loads, and service loads. Production and transient load cases include segment

demolding, storage, transportation and handling, while construction loads include TBM thrust jack

forces, tail skin and localized back grouting pressure. Final service loads include earth pressure,

groundwater and surcharge loads, longitudinal joint bursting load, and special loads such as

earthquake, fire, explosion and loads induced due to additional distortion (ACI 544.AR, 2015).

„SEE Tunnel:Promoting Tunneling in SEE Region“

ITA WTC 2015 Congress and 41st General Assembly

May 22-28, 2015, Lacroma Valamar Congress Center, Dubrovnik, Croatia

During production and transport stages of demolding and handling, segments are modeled as

cantilever beams with the self-weight (DC) as the only force acting on segments and no load

combination is defined. For the load cases of storage and transportation, the dead weight of

segments positioned above (F) is also acting on the designed segment in addition to its self-weight

(DC). Therefore, a load combination of DC + F is taken into account. In the load case of TBM

thrust jack force, jack force (J) is the only force acting on segment joints, and no load combination

is considered. The self-weight of the lining (DC) and the grouting pressure (G) are acting on the

tunnel lining at construction load cases of tail skin and localized back grouting pressure, and a load

combination of DC + G needs to be applied. In the final service stages, vertical (EV) and horizontal

ground pressure (EH), groundwater pressure (WAP), lining self-weight (DC) and surcharge load (ES)

act on the lining and considered in the SLS design of lining. Load combinations from AASHTO,

2010 are used to verify the segment design as reproduced in Table 2. Note that a load factor of

1.0 is commonly used in the SLS for all above-mentioned load cases and combinations.

Table 2 Load factor and load combination table for final service stage

ES

Limit State WAP EV

Max Min Max Min Max Min

SLS

1.0 1.0 1.0

The methods to analyze the segments for above-mentioned load cases are presented in ACI

544.AR (2015) and Bakhshi and Nasri (2013a and 2013b). Production and transient load case are

modeled by cantilever or simply supported beams using simple equations in the references. ACI

simplified equations for bursting forces (ACI 318, 2014), DAUB (2013) formulas, Iyengar diagram

(1962), 3D/2D Finite Element simulations (Bakhshi and Nasri, 2013b) and non-linear fracture

mechanics analyses (Plizzari and Tiberti, 2009) are used for construction load case of TBM thrust

jack forces. Method of Groeneweg (2007) and International Tunnel Association guidelines (2000)

are used for load cases of tail skin and localized back grouting, respectively. Finally, the effect of

ground, groundwater and surcharge loads as the major final service stage load case is analyzed

using elastic equations, beam-spring models, Finite Element Methods and Discrete Element

Methods (Bakhshi and Nasri, 2014b). Other acceptable methods of analysis include Muir Wood’s

continuum model (1975) with discussion from Curtis (1976), method of Duddeck and Erdmann

(1982) and an empirical method based on tunnel distortion ratios (Sinha, 1989; Deere et al., 1969)

that was originally developed by Peck (1969). Results of analyses following above-mentioned

methods including bending moments, axial and shear forces and deformations are used for

verifications of SLS states of stress, deformation and cracking in segments.

On the other hand, maximum bending moments, axial forces and shear forces developed at

segment joints are directly obtained as results of the beam-spring modelling. Maximum bending

moments and corresponding axial forces in segment joints are used for stress verification, while

maximum shear force is used for shear cracking verification. Deformations and rotations in the

segment joints are among other results of the beam-spring modelling required for verification of

SLS states of joint gap and joint offset.

Critical stresses in the segments at SLS are calculated for a combination of maximum bending

moments and corresponding axial forces. Compressive stresses are limited in the structural codes

in order to avoid microcracking which may lead to a reduction of durability. Maximum

compressive stresses in both reinforced and fiber-reinforced concrete at SLS are limited to a very

restrict value of 0.4 f’c according to JSCE (2007), and to 0.6 f’c according to EN 1992-1-1 (2004),

AFTES (1997) and fib Model Code (2010). On the other hand, tensile stresses in the rebars are

limited to fy according to JSCE (2007) and to 0.8 fy according to EN 1992-1-1 (2004) and fib Model

Code (2010). AFTES (1997) limits reinforcement tensile stresses to 240 MPa (34.8 ksi) for

detrimental cracking and 200 MPa (29 ksi) for highly detrimental cracking. If segments are

reinforced with fibers without conventional rebars, the verification of the tensile stresses is satisfied

„SEE Tunnel:Promoting Tunneling in SEE Region“

ITA WTC 2015 Congress and 41st General Assembly

May 22-28, 2015, Lacroma Valamar Congress Center, Dubrovnik, Croatia

Flexural stresses in the joints are calculated using maximum bending moments and corresponding

axial forces at joints as results of a beam-spring modelling, considering joints as a reinforced

concrete sections with bolts acting as tension rebars. As for the main section of segments,

developed stresses in the concrete at segment joints are limited to allowable compressive stress of

concrete mentioned earlier. Developed stresses and forces in the bolts are limited to strength or

allowable stress of connecting bolts reported by the manufacturer.

Segment deformations are obtained directly as results of all different models presented in 3.2.

However, joint gap and joint offset are only obtained from deformations and rotations as results of a

beam-spring type of modeling. For SLS verification, these deformations are limited to allowable

values recommended by standards, guidelines and often project specifications. Los Angeles

County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (2013) recommends a percentage of lining radius

change (R/R) shown in Table 3, after Birger Schmidt, as the deformation criteria for sgements.

Austrian Society for Concrete and Construction Technology (ÖVBB, 2011) recommends allowable

deformations, shown in Figure 2, for both segments and joints of tunnels up to 8 m (26 ft) diameter.

Table 3 Load factor and load combination table for final service stage

Stiff to Hard Clays 0.15-0.40%

Soft Clays or Silts 0.25-0.75%

Dense or Cohesive Soils, Most Residual Soils 0.05-0.25%

Loose Sands 0.10-0.35%

3.5 Cracking verification

watertightness and reinforcement corrosion. In particular, cracking has a significant effect on the

durability of the tunnel in an environment with frequent freeze-thaw cycles. Examination using

appropriate methods should be carried out to ensure that cracking in segments does not impair

the serviceability, durability or intended purposes of the shield tunnel. Among possible cracks

induced in segments under service loads are mainly the cracks due to bending moment and axial

force. Cracking should be examined by ensuring that the flexural crack width is not greater than

the allowable crack width. The flexural crack width calculation for reinforced concrete (RC) and

fiber reinforced concrete (FRC) segments is presented in the following sections, compared in

section 4 for a case of tunnel with medium size diameter. Note that maximum shear force

developed at segment joints as a result of a beam-spring type of modeling should be limited to

shear crack capacity to verify SLS state of shear cracking.

Crack width in tunnel segments due to bending moment and axial force is calculated using ACI

224.1R (2007), JSCE (2007) and EN 1992-1-1 (2004) formulas as shown in Eqs. 1, 2 and 3,

respectively.

2

fs s

w 0.011 f s 3 d c A 103 and w 2 dc 2 (Eq. 1)

Es 2

f 15 5(n 2)

w s s csd

; s 0.55 0.7 4 d c 0.7 ( s ) (Eq. 2)

Es f c 20 7n 8

„SEE Tunnel:Promoting Tunneling in SEE Region“

ITA WTC 2015 Congress and 41st General Assembly

May 22-28, 2015, Lacroma Valamar Congress Center, Dubrovnik, Croatia

f E A

f s kt ct ,eff (1 s s )

As Ecm A

A f

w sr ,max sr ,max 0.6 s (Eq. 3)

Es Es

where w is maximum crack width (mm), is ratio of distance between neutral axis and tension

face to distance between neutral axis and centroid of rebars, fs is stress in rebars (MPa), dc is

concrete cover over rebars (mm), A is effective tension area of concrete around rebars divided by

number of rebars (mm2), Es is modulus of elasticity of rebars (MPa), s is maximum rebar spacing

(mm), is rebar diameter (mm), ’csd is compressive strain due to shrinkage and creep equal to

150x10-6, f’c is specified compressive strength of concrete (MPa), n is number of layers of tensile

rebars, sr,max is maximum crack spacing (mm), kt is a factor depending on the duration of loading

(0.6 for short and 0.4 for long term loading), fct,eff is concrete tensile strength (MPa), As is the area

of rebars (mm2), and Ecm is modulus of elasticity of concrete (MPa).

Fib Model Code (2010), Italian standard CNR-DT 204 (2006), RILEM TC 162-TDF (2003)

recommendation, and German DAfStb guideline (2012) are among available references to calculate

crack width in concrete sections reinforced by fibers without conventional reinforcement. Eq. 4

represents the approach of Model Code (2010) and CNR-DT 204 (2006), while Eqs. 5 and 6 show

the approach of RILEM TC 162-TDF (2003) and DAfStb (2012).

w fc,t h (Eq. 4)

w fc,t (h x) (Eq. 5)

w 0.14 fc,t (Eq. 6)

where w is maximum crack width (mm), fc,t is the strain at extreme tensile fiber, h is the section

thickness (mm) and x is the distance from extreme compression fiber to neutral axis (mm). Note

that according to these references, sections can be designed without conventional reinforcement

only if the minimum rebar area required for SLS (As,min) obtained by Eq. 7 is zero or negative.

Act

As ,min (k c k f ctm f Ftsm ) (Eq. 7)

s

where fctm is the average concrete tensile strength, fFtsm is the average residual strength of FRC

(MPa), Act is the area of concrete within tensile zone (mm2), s is the yielding stress of the rebars

(MPa), k is the coefficient taking into account non-uniformity of self-equilibrating stresses

recommended as 0.8, and kc is defined by Eq. 8.

e 0.4h

1 1

kc 0.4h ; if e M / N 0.4 ; kc e ; if e M / N 0.4 (Eq. 8)

6e h

1 2.51

h 6e

Cracking in tunnel segments is controlled by limiting the crack width to specific levels to prevent

durability issues due to increased permeability, excessive water leaks, and reinforcement corrosion.

The allowable crack widths are recommended by standards and guidelines considering the

function, importance, service, life span, purpose, surrounding environment, and surrounding soil

conditions of the tunnel (JSCE, 2007). ACI 224 (2007) limits allowable cracks in structures exposed

to the soil to 0.30 mm (0.012 in). Similar to ACI, European standard (EN 1992-1-1, 2004)

recommends an allowable crack width of 0.30 mm (0.012 in) for RC members. In a more restricted

manner, fib Model Code (2010) limits the allowable crack width to 0.2 mm (0.008 in) if leakage in

the structure to be limited to a small amount and only some surface staining is acceptable. Among

„SEE Tunnel:Promoting Tunneling in SEE Region“

ITA WTC 2015 Congress and 41st General Assembly

May 22-28, 2015, Lacroma Valamar Congress Center, Dubrovnik, Croatia

references specific to tunnel segments are Singapore Land Transport Authority design criteria

(2010), German recommendations (DAUB, 2013) and JSCE standard (2007) that specify the

allowable crack width to 0.30 mm (0.012 in), 0.2 mm (0.008 in), and 0.004dc, respectively, where

dc is the concrete cover over the rebars. As the most comprehensive guideline, Austrian Society for

Concrete and Construction Technology (ÖVBB, 2011) specifies the allowable crack width in

segments based on the tunnel function, and corresponding watertightness requirements, which is

shown in Table 4.

Table 4 Allowable crack width for SLS design of tunnel segments (ÖVBB, 2011)

Class Requirement Crack

Width

- One-pass lining with very tight

0.20 mm

AT1 Largely dry waterproofing requirements Impermeable

(0.008 in)

- Portal areas

- One-pass lining for road and railway

Slightly Moist, no running 0.25 mm

AT2 tunnels with normal waterproofing

moist water in tunnel (0.010 in)

requirements (excluding portals)

- One-pass lining without Water dripping

0.30 mm

AT3 Moist waterproofing requirements from individual

(0.012 in)

- two-pass lining systems spots

- One-pass lining without

Water running 0.30 mm

AT4 Wet waterproofing requirements

in some places (0.012 in)

- two-pass lining as drained system

An example is presented for flexural cracking SLS design of a mid-size TBM tunnel lining with both

precast RC and FRC segments. It is assumed that internal diameter of the segmental ring is Di =

5.74 m (18.83 ft), and the ring composed of 5 large segments and one key segment (one-third of

the size of large segments). Width, thickness and curved length at centerline of the large

segments are 1.5 m (5 ft), 0.3 m (12 in) and 3.56 m (11.7 ft), respectively. ULS design checks for

this example has been presented elsewhere (Bakhshi and Nasri, 2014a). Key design parameters

for RC segments are specified compressive strengths (f’c) at early-age and 28 days of 15 and 45

MPa, respectively, in addition to 20#4 Grade 60 rebars (each with nominal area of 129 mm2 or 0.2

in2) designed in two rows as shown in Figure 3. Note that maximum rebar spacing (s) is 230 mm

(9 in).

Fig. 3 Designed reinforcement for a typical segment of a 5+1 ring with 5.74 m (18.8 ft) internal diameter

„SEE Tunnel:Promoting Tunneling in SEE Region“

ITA WTC 2015 Congress and 41st General Assembly

May 22-28, 2015, Lacroma Valamar Congress Center, Dubrovnik, Croatia

Additional key design parameters for FRC segments are the early-age and 28-day specified

residual flexural strength (f’D150) of 2.5 MPa (360 psi) and 4 MPa (580 psi), respectively. As shown

elsewhere (Bakhshi et al. 2004; Mobasher et al. 2014), a scale factor of 0.34 is used to convert the

residual parameter of ASTM C1609 test (f’D150) to p which is used directly in design as the residual

tensile strength of FRC materials. Modulus of rupture (fr) at early-age and 28 days are taken as 2.3

(340 psi) and 3.8 MPa (540 psi). Maximum bending moment developed under load cases occurring

during segment manufacturing, transportation and installation phases are presented in Table 5.

Results show that cracking bending moment capacity of segments are much higher than the

maximum developed bending moments, and therefore no cracking is expected.

Table 5 SLS design checks for production and transient stages

Strength (MPa) Bending Moment (kNm/m) capacity (kNm/m)

Demolding 2.5 (early-age) 3.6 34.5

Storage 2.5 (early-age) 18.0 34.5

Transportation 4.0 (28d) 14.9 57.0

Handling 4.0 (28d) 7.2 57.0

SLS design checks for the service load conditions are more critical in this example since the tunnel

is excavated in soft ground, and ground and groundwater pressures induce significant bending

moments and axial forces in the lining. As results of two-dimensional FE analyses maximum

bending moment and corresponding axial forces in the final service stage due to SLS load

combination are Mservice = 239 kN.m (177 kips-ft) and Nservice = 2,068 kN (465 kips), respectively.

Cracking bending moment capacity in presence of such significant axial force is calculated by Eq. 9

as 194 kN.m (143 kips-ft) and, therefore, the segment section is expected to be cracked under this

service load combination.

N 2068 1.5 0.32

M cr ( f r ).s (3.75 1000 ) 194kN.m (143kips ft ) (Eq. 9)

Ag 1.5 0.3 6

In Eq. 9, Ag (m2) and s are the section gross area and the uncracked section modulus of segments.

Flexural analysis was performed following the assumptions that plane sections remain plane

(compatibility), ΣFx = Nservice, ΣMz = Mservice (Equilibrium), and σ = Eε (constitutive relations for linear

material). Depth of neutral axis (x) and stress in the extreme compression fiber (ftop) are obtained

as results of the flexural analyses on RC and FRC cross sections. As shown in Figure 4, x, ftop, Fst

and Fsb are calculated as 148 mm (5.8 in), 18.45 MPa (2.676 ksi), 1,956 kN (440 kips) and 2,122

kN (477 kips) in RC segments, respectively, where Fst and Fsb are forces in top and bottom steel

bars. The stress in tensile rebars required for crack width analysis is therefore obtained as 89 MPa

(12.93 ksi). Crack width calculations are made for RC segments using the methods presented in

section 3.1. Results shown in Table 6 indicate that the maximum calculated crack width in RC

segments ranges between 0.0711 mm (0.0028 in) using EN 1992-1-1 (2004) method to 0.142 mm

(0.0056 in) using ACI 224.1R Frosch method (2007), with an average value of 0.1120 mm (0.0044

in). In FRC segments, x and ftop are calculated as 179 mm (7.04 in) and 17.09 MPa (2.479 ksi), as

shown in Figure 5. The strain at tension face required for crack width analysis is therefore obtained

as 0.00033. Results of crack width calculation shown in Table 6 indicate that maximum crack width

in FRC segments ranges between 0.0421 mm (0.0017 in) using RILEM (2003) method to 0.1020

mm (0.0040 in) using fib Model Code (2010) method, with an average value of 0.06365 mm

(0.0025 in). Note that minimum rebar area required for SLS (As,min) using Eq. 7 is negative,

confirming a valid design without conventional reinforcement. Comparing predicted crack width in

RC segments with FRC segments indicates that the use of fiber reinforcement results in the

reduction of the maximum crack width by 43%. Maximum crack width values calculated in Table 6

are 0.142 mm (0.0056 in) for RC and 0.1020 mm (0.0056 in) for FRC segments, both below the

most restrict criteria for allowable crack width of tunnel segments as 0.20 mm (0.008 in), which

verifies the SLS of flexural cracking in this design example.

„SEE Tunnel:Promoting Tunneling in SEE Region“

ITA WTC 2015 Congress and 41st General Assembly

May 22-28, 2015, Lacroma Valamar Congress Center, Dubrovnik, Croatia

38 mm

(1.5 in)

ftop = 18.45 MPa

top (2.676 ksi)

st

x=148 mm 10 #4 bars (Ast = 2 mm2) Fst = 1,956 kN

(5.8 in) 305 mm

(440 kips)

(12 in)

229 mm

(9 in)

sb (477 kips)

(60 in) 38 mm

(1.5 in)

Fig. 4 Flexural cross sectional analysis on RC segments reinforced with 20#4 bars (A#4 = 0.2 mm2)

top ftop = 17.1 MPa (2.48 ksi)

Fiber properties:

x=179 mm

(7.04 in) f’D150 = 4 MPa (0.58 ksi)

p = 0.34 x 4 MPa = 1.36 MPa (0.197 ksi) 305 mm

(12 in)

p = 1.36 MPa

(0.197 ksi)

fc,t

1524 mm

(60 in) strains stresses

Fig. 5 Flexural cross sectional analysis on FRC segments with ASTM residual parameter (f’D150) of 4 MPa (580 psi)

Table 6 Results of crack width analyses for RC and FRC segments under critical service load conditions

ACI 224.1R (2007) - 0.099 mm

fib Model Code (2010) 0.102 mm

Gergely & Lutz (0.0039 in)

CNR-DT 204 (2006) (0.0040 in)

ACI 224.1R (2007) - 0.142 mm

Frosch (0.0056 in) 0.042 mm

RILEMTC 162-TDF (2003)

0.136 mm (0.0017 in)

JSCE (2007)

(0.0053 in)

0.047 mm

0.071 mm DAfStb (2012)

EN 1992-1-1 (2004) (0.0018 in)

(0.0028 in)

5. Conclusions

Serviceability limit states (SLS) cause reduction of tunnel inner space due to excessive deformation,

and durability and watertightness issues due to rebars corrosion and water leakage from segment

cracks or enlarged gap between segment joints. Verification methods for SLS was explained

including presentation of types, combination and factors of SLS loads, methods of analyses for

stress, deformation and cracking, and limiting values for design checks. The SLS of flexural

cracking in both RC and FRC segments, as the major cause of durability issues, was verified for a

case of mid-size tunnel. Results show that both rebars and fibers can effectively control the crack

width in mid-size tunnel segments below the most restrict reference criteria. Comparing crack

width in RC segments with FRC segments indicate a better performance in favor of fibers by as

much as an average value of 43%.

„SEE Tunnel:Promoting Tunneling in SEE Region“

ITA WTC 2015 Congress and 41st General Assembly

May 22-28, 2015, Lacroma Valamar Congress Center, Dubrovnik, Croatia

References

AASHTO, 2010, “Technical Manual for Design and Construction of Road Tunnels – Chapter 10:

Tunnel Lining”, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington,

DC.

ACI 224.1R-07. 2007. Report on Causes, Evaluation, and Repair of Cracks in Concrete Structures.

American Concrete Institute Committee 224. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.

ACI 318-08. 2008. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary. American

Concrete Institute Committee 318. American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI.

ACI Committee 544.AR, 2015, Draft Report on Design and Construction of Fiber-Reinforced

Precast Concrete Tunnel Segments. ACI Report 544.AR, American Concrete Institute, Farmington

Hills, MI.

AFTES, 1997, “Recommendation on The Design, Sizing and Construction of Precast Concrete

Segments Installed at the Rear of a Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM). French Tunneling and

Underground Engineering Association (AFTES).

parameters in fiber reinforced concrete. Materials and Structures, 47, 853–872.

Bakhshi, M.; and Nasri, V., 2014a, “Developments in Design for Fiber Reinforced Concrete

Segmental Tunnel Lining”, 2nd FRC International Workshop (1st ACI–fib Joint Workshop) on Fibre

Reinforced Concrete, Montreal, Canada, pp. 441-452.

Bakhshi, M.; Nasri, V., 2014b, “Guidelines and Methods on Segmental Tunnel Lining Analysis and

Design – Review and Best Practice Recommendation”, Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress

2014. Iguassu Falls, Brazil.

Bakhshi, M.; Nasri, V., 2013a., “Latest Developments in Design of Segmental Tunnel Linings”,

Proceedings of the Canadian Society for Civil Engineering General Conference (CSCE 2013),

Montréal, Québec, Canada.

Bakhshi, M.; and Nasri, V., 2013b, “Practical Aspects of Segmental Tunnel Lining Design”,

Underground—The way to the future: Proceedings of the World Tunnel Congress 2013., G.

Anagnostou, and H. Ehrbar, eds., Geneva, Switzerland.

Bakker, K. J., Blom, C. B. M. (2009). Ultimate limit state design for linings of bored

tunnels. Geomechanics and Tunnelling, 2(4), 345-358.

Çimentepe, A.G. 2010. Evaluation of Structural Analysis methods used for the Design of TBM

Segmental Linings. Master Thesis, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.

CNR DT 204/2006, 2006, “Guidelines for the Design, Construction and Production Control of Fibre

Reinforced Concrete Structures”, Italian National Research Council – CNR.

Curtis, D.J.; Hay, M.; and Croydon, A., 1976, “Discussion on ‘The Circular Tunnel in Elastic Ground’”

Géotechnique, V. 26, No. 1, pp. 231-237.

DAfStb, 2012. Richtlinie Stahlfaserbeton/Technical Guidelines for Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete,

part 1-3,“ Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton (DAfStb) im DIN Deutsches Institut für

Normung/German Assossiation for Reinforced Concrete within DIN, German Institute for

Standardisation, Berlin, 11th draft, 2012.

DAUB Working Group, 2013, “Lining Segment Design: DAUB Recommendations for the Design,

Production, and Installation of Segmental Rings”, DAUB (Deutscher Ausschuss für unterirdisches

Bauen/German Tunnelling Committee). Köln, Germany.

„SEE Tunnel:Promoting Tunneling in SEE Region“

ITA WTC 2015 Congress and 41st General Assembly

May 22-28, 2015, Lacroma Valamar Congress Center, Dubrovnik, Croatia

de la Fuente, A, Pujadas, P, Blanco, A., Aguado, A.,2011. Experiences in Barcelona with the use of

fibres in segmental linings. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology 27 (2012) 60–71.

de la Fuente A, Campos R, Figueiredo A, Molins C, Aguado A. 2012. A new design method for steel

fibre reinforced concrete pipes. Construction and Building Materials 2012;30:547-55.

reinforced concrete pipes. Construction and Building Materials.Vol. 43, pp.: 523-532.June 2013.

Duddeck, H.; and Erdmann, J., 1982, “Structural Design Models for Tunnels”, Tunneling ’82-

Proceedings of the Third International Symposium. Inst. of Mining and Metallurgy S, London, UK,

pp. 83-91.

European Standard EN 1992-1-1 (2004). Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures: Part 1-1:

General Rules and Rules for Buildings. European Committee for Standardization.

Groeneweg, T., 2007, “Shield Driven Tunnels in Ultra High Strength Concrete: Reduction of the

Tunnel Lining Thickness”, MSc Thesis, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.

International Tunneling Association (ITA) Working Group No. 2., 2000, “Guidelines for the Design

of Shield Tunnel Lining”, Tunneling and Underground Space Technology, V. 15, No. 3, pp. 303–331.

Beams”, Journal of the American Concrete Institute (ACI), V. 59, No. 10, pp. 1443–1466.

JSCE. 2007. Standard Specifications for Tunneling: Shield Tunnels. Japan Society of Civil Engineers.

Land Transport Authority, 2010, “Civil Design Criteria for Road and Rail Transit Systems”,

E/GD/09/106/A1, Land Transport Authority, Singapore.

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), 2013. “Metro Rail Design

Criteria – Section 5 Structural/Geotechnical”, LACMTA, Los Angeles, CA, Revision 5 : 05/20/13.

Mendez Lorenzo, M.G., (1998). Reliability analysis of a steel fibre reinforced concrete tunnel lining.

Master Thesis. Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands.

Regular and High Performance Fiber Reinforced. Construction and Building Materials, 243–253.

Muir Wood, A. M., 1975, “The Circular Tunnel in Elastic Ground”, Géotechnique, V. 25, No. 1, pp.

115–127.

ÖVBB Guideline, 2011, “Guideline for Concrete Segmental Lining Systems”, Austrian Society for

Concrete and Construction Technology.

Peck, R. B., 1969, “Deep Excavation and Tunnelling in Soft Ground, State of the Art Report”, 7th

International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Mexico City, Mexico, pp.

225-290.

Plizzari, G.; Tiberti, G., 2009, “Tunnel Linings Made by Precast Concrete Segments”, Construction

Methodologies and Structural Performance of Tunnel Linings, G.A. Plizzari, ed., Brescia, Italy, pp.

136-131.

RILEM TC 162-TDF, 2003, “Test and Design Methods for Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete. –

Design Method: Final Recommendation”, Materials and Structures, V. 36, No. 262, pp. 560–567.

Sinha, R. S., 1989, Underground Structures: Design and Instrumentation, Elsevier Science, New

York, NY, 500p.

- TYPES OF REINFORCEMENTTransféré parMoe AlDirdeery
- REBEND TESTTransféré parGanesh Sawant
- JointsTransféré parsthapit
- 05.08.2009 - Cable Trench SectionsTransféré parandyhr
- Aci White Paper Draft4Transféré parRahul Joag
- ICBO CIA-7000 Anchor SystemTransféré parDon Rockwell
- 4800-w0 Fabrication and Installation of Set on Concrete Pipeline WeightsTransféré parLorena
- Project Report MURO NETransféré parCco Ltda
- SER277 GarayMoran and Lubell.pdfTransféré parakash kumar
- Voided Slab Design Tutorial ENG v1fTransféré parhungryghoul
- 06i-Slab Ribbed Solid-moment CapacityTransféré parprajeeth krishnan
- WCEE2012_3127.pdfTransféré parbakhos
- Reinforcement Steel SpecificationTransféré parCharlie Jc Hetfield
- SECTION 5 - ReinforcementTransféré par14feb2011
- ONE WAY SLAB..xlsxTransféré parSaugat Thapa
- 5- Bar Bending ScheduleTransféré parNaveen Ntr
- IS 456-2000 Example 001Transféré parRMM
- p4059zor 0078 19c302_(Plinth Beam Design)Transféré parJigar
- Week 5 - Design of Prestressed ForceTransféré parAlif Akhmizan
- Chew 1993Transféré pararrajunior
- sdoo1.docxTransféré parEllijha Fetalvero
- Book1Transféré parTaki Tachibana
- 1. Panel Reinforcement DrawingTransféré parsankarrao333
- 10043-24118-1-SMTransféré parAnonymous DGalDd4Ux
- 275434482-hume-pipe-culvert-drawing.pdfTransféré parVikramjit Singh
- Report Kalkulasi Firewater Shelter R0 ReplaceTransféré parEko Dariyadi
- UywTransféré pardaninst04
- SDD-Rural Project 20181221.pdfTransféré parfadil3m2422
- Reporte EstructuralTransféré parjoanvar1
- TechRep9Transféré parDave Vendivil Sambrano

- ALL Purpose Worksheet Conversions)Transféré parshaharyarpasha
- Sheet PilesTransféré parrameshkaa
- RaptHelp.pdfTransféré partotololomomo
- Tunnel GuideTransféré parSanjoy Sanyal
- Grillage Analogy in Bridge AnalysisTransféré parrameshkaa
- Recitation 5ATransféré parShaminda Ambahera
- Fire Design, TunnelTransféré parrameshkaa
- Fire 1 KruppaTransféré parPety Peter
- Shallow Foundation ExamplesTransféré parrameshkaa
- Blockwork Wall Rev FinalTransféré parrameshkaa
- Stress Variation of Underground Building Structure During Top Down ConstructionTransféré parrameshkaa
- The Effect of Deep Excavation-Induced Lateral SoilTransféré parAnonymous NiOFQtyI
- Tunnel Fire DesignTransféré parrameshkaa
- B_RSoekhoe_MScThesis_Appendices.pdfTransféré partuonghai
- Arup Journal 1 2012Transféré parlinda_trujillo2951
- cp1_2011Transféré parrameshkaa
- Method Statement Secant Bored Pile V0Transféré parrameshkaa
- Karki MaheshTransféré parrameshkaa
- VHCPTransféré parrameshkaa
- Hambly Bridge Deck BehaviourTransféré parrameshkaa
- Site InvestigationTransféré parrameshkaa
- Tutorial5 RetainingStructures Part BTransféré parMehmet Akif Arslan
- SETTLEMENT (Problems & Solutions)Transféré parkarlheinze
- ULTIMATE BEARING CAPACITY OF SINGLE PILES.pdfTransféré parRodain Najjar
- WindTransféré parrameshkaa

- 2007 06 Recorder the Wedge ModelTransféré parBjorn Kjell-eric Asia
- hr_om11_ch04.pptTransféré parLaura Vega
- 6528599 Basic Music Theory How to Read Write and Understand Written Music 2nd Edition[1]Transféré parDeReun
- Material Balance in Froth FlotationTransféré parBernard García Durán
- product.keys.2019.txtTransféré parDedy Darmawan
- Loading, And Preliminary Design Considerations for Tall Guyed TowersTransféré parCristian Sandoval
- CMakeLists.txtTransféré parGolub Lasica
- Main Exam 5Transféré parapi-3730216
- DELINEATION OF GROUNDWATER POTENTIAL ZONES IN NAKREKAL BASIN, NALGONDA DISTRICT, TELANGANA STATE, INDIA – A GEOSPATIAL APPROACHTransféré parAnonymous vQrJlEN
- DPT-100.pdfTransféré parJhon Simanca
- catalogo CEPEXTransféré parPablo Figueroa Figuer
- Manual Transmision CF1.pdfTransféré parCpo Mixtoprof
- Unit 6 Dimensions & Scales.docTransféré parkhalimn
- Section1 2 RequirementsTransféré parSalil Bansal
- Active Reports 7 User GuideTransféré parmonic_pitic
- Brief Description of Trrl (Not Later Trl Reports) Reports,Transféré parChristineNyambe
- Mathcounts Mini#31 SolutionsTransféré parwshen1468
- Net Work Survey VehicleTransféré pargurvinderkumar
- Corrigenda for Solar Engineering of Thermal Processes, Fourth Ed.Transféré paraitormr
- Maa Fmw Soa Racanalysis 427647Transféré parbuddy29
- CEO Overconfidence and Corporate InvestmentTransféré parShito Ryu
- 1Transféré parCelyna Felimon Tuyogon
- 0b3f066c-706e-4c1d-b8db-a56b0103cce1_pss_en_aa_001Transféré parthiem
- Containers XLS C04 MS13Transféré parCoffeeChat
- RTX 2000 & RT1000 Brochure 2016Transféré parAdolfo Cisneros
- Archmodels Vol 180Transféré paraparna
- Brenda Gonzalez Guided NotesTransféré parBrenda Gonzalez
- Engineering Characterisation of Aggregates from Some Selected Areas in Kumasi, GhanaTransféré parIjaems Journal
- Smart Garbage Monitoring System unsing Internet.pdfTransféré parJoão Rio Novo Sobral
- Case Study Almost DoneTransféré parLincy Dyan Maturan Balajadia