ITA-AITES World Tunnel Congress, WTC2020 and 46th General Assembly Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre, Malaysia 15-21

May 2020

Design of Precast Concrete Segmental Lining for the Montreal Express Link (REM)
Airport Tunnel
M. Bakhshi1 and V. Nasri1
1
AECOM, New York, USA
E-mail: mehdi.bakhshi@aecom.com

ABSTRACT: The Réseau Express Métropolitain (REM) will be the fourth largest electric and fully-automated light-rail transit network in
the world designed to facilitate mobility across the Greater Montreal region in Canada. REM will connect downtown Montreal to the airport,
requiring the development of an entirely new 3.6 km long bored tunnel that runs below the international airport runways. This 7m-diameter
tunnel will be excavated by a hybrid TBM that progresses through saturated soft ground and competent rock. Simultaneous installation of
precast fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) segments provides initial support and final lining for 125-year intended service life of tunnel. This
paper discusses the implementation of the structural and geotechnical analyses on the design of FRC segments for governing load cases
occurring from the time of segment production to the final service stage. Three-dimensional (3D) nonlinear finite element analyses (NFEA)
on TBM thrust jack forces and 3D NFEA TBM excavation simulations are presented. Structural demand is compared with nominal capacity
of FRC segments which is validated by statistical analyses performed on 100s of specimens tested in the segment precast plant.

KEYWORDS: Design, Durability, Finite Elements, Fiber, FRC, Grout, Internal Forces, Jack Force, Lining, Segment, Simulation, TBM

1. INTRODUCTION a tunnel underneath an international airstrip, the main portion of the

The Réseau Express Métropolitain (REM) will be the fourth largest
electric and fully-automated light-rail transit network in the world
designed to facilitate mobility across the Greater Montreal region in
Canada. REM will connect downtown Montreal to the airport,
requiring the development of an entirely new 3.6 km long bored
tunnel that runs below the international airport runways. This 7m-
diameter tunnel will be excavated by a tunnel boring machine
(TBM) that progresses through saturated soft ground and competent
rock. As shown in Figure 1, along the tunnel alignment, bedrock
elevation varies significantly and a constant grade is observed at
surface, resulting in an overburden thickness varying between 12
and 20 m. The overburden consists of layers of backfill, granular
material and glacial till, going from grade to bedrock. The bedrock
consists of interbedded limestone/shaly limestone, belonging to two
different formations: the Tétrauville formation and the Montreal
formation (Nasri et al. 2019).
Within the Tétrauville formation, two different members are
expected to be intersected by the underground works. The upper
horizon would consist of a good quality micritic shale with UCS
values varying between 75 and 185 MPa, Young’s modulus varying
between 25 and 65 GPa and Cherchar abrasivity index (CAI)
varying between 0.8 and 1.8. The lower horizon would consist of
softer shaly limestone with UCS values varying between 60 and 80
MPa, Young’s modulus varying between 35 and 40 GPa and CAI
varying between 0.3 and 0.6. Within the Montreal formation, only
the Rosemont member is expected to be intersected. This member is
expected to be of good quality with UCS values varying between 55
and 145 MPa, Young’s modulus varying between 45 and 65 GPa
and CAI varying between 0.8 and 1.8.
To align the REM system with the Airport station, the REM
double-track will descend from surface to approximately 40 m
below grade. Given the significant constraints related to developing
underground works will be performed using a hybrid TBM. From
the surface, the REM will start its descent and enter a cut and cover
underground station (Technoparc Station).
Heading out of the station, the cut and cover portion will
continue and widen over a 13 m length at about 125 m away from
the station to serve as the TBM launch pit. At this point, the tunnel
invert is at approximately 14 m below surface, in the overburden
soil. The hybrid TBM will be launched in the overburden material
and will continue its descent and progress in this material for about
300 m. The ground will be improved at the break-out over the first
10 m of the drive to allow watertightness and TBM control at the
launch. Once the TBM reaches the bedrock, it will continue its
descent over a course of about 300 m, down to 40 m below grade.
From there, it will progress at this constant elevation, totalizing
approximately 2.7 km of excavation within the rock. The hybrid
TBM will be able to progress within the overburden loose material
in Earth Pressure Balance (EPB) mode and in open mode during its
progression through competent rock.
As the TBM advances, precast segmental lining is installed,
ensuring the stability of the opening and the safe development of the
tunnel. Routine probing ahead of the face will be also performed to
assess ground mechanical and hydraulic conditions prior to
advancement. Depending on ground conditions, pre-excavation
grouting performed ahead of the face may be required to improve
mechanical and hydraulic properties of the ground before the TBM
excavation.
This paper presents the methodology, assumptions, and
procedures used in the design of the segmental lining for the REM
airport tunnel. Segmental ring geometry and systems, nominal
strength parameters of selected fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC)
mixture, design for production and transient stages, design for
construction stages, and design for final service stages are discussed
in this paper.

Figure 1 REM airport tunnel geotechnical profile

 ITA-AITES World Tunnel Congress, WTC2020 and 46th General Assembly Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre, Malaysia 15-21 May 2020
2. SEGMENTAL RING GEOMETRY AND SYSTEMS
Based on the geotechnical challenges and evaluation of cost
estimate and risk mitigation, it was concluded that shielded TBM
with one-pass lining system is the preferred alternative for the REM
airport tunnel. With 6.478 m as the internal diameter of the tunnel,
300 mm was selected as the thickness of segments which is the
common value used in practice for this size of tunnel. Lining
thickness was verified during the detailed design. Optimized length
of the ring (segment width) was selected as 1700 mm. As shown in
Figure 2, a 6+1 rhomboidal system assembled ring by ring was
selected. It consists of a trapezoidal reverse key segment slightly
larger than other five full-size rhomboidal segments and one small
trapezoidal key segment, slightly smaller than 1/3rd of length of
ordinary segments. Ring segmentation into these seven segments
results in segment slenderness/aspect ratio (segment curved length-
to-thickness) of 10.7-11.4 which is near the maximum ratio used in
the world for FRC segments (Bakhshi and Nasri 2018). This will
result in a smaller number of segment and joints, stiffer segmental
ring, reduced production cost as well as less hardware for segment
connection, less gasket length and a smaller number of bolt pockets
where leakage can occur. More importantly, the construction speed
can increase significantly. In addition, advantages of using a
rhomboidal system include staggered longitudinal joints, continuous
ring building and compatibility with a dowel type connection in
circumferential joints, which results in a faster ring assembly
process comparing to bolt type of connection in rectangular systems.
Universal rings were selected for this project assembled from
rings with circumferential joints inclined to the tunnel axis on both
sides. Main advantages of this ring system over other systems (e.g.
left/right rings) is using only one type of formwork set for segment
production.
(a)
(b)
Figure 2 Segmental ring: a) section; b) developed plan on intrados
Longitudinal and circumferential joints were designed as
completely flat joints which are advantageous for load transfer
between the segment joints and the rings compared to other types of
joints. Also, flat joints have been proven to have a superior sealing
performance. Bolt connection was designed for longitudinal joints
and dowels were chosen for connecting rings in circumferential
joints as they require less work for the construction of the segment
form and less manpower in the tunnel with the insertion is
automatically performed by the erector when the segment is
positioned.
For the first time in North America, a new dowel system shown
in Figure 3, SOF FAST 60, was designed as the connection device
system in circumferential joints. This dowel is made with new
plastic materials that have a higher resistance than current dowel
systems, is not sensitive to the humidity and consequently reduces
the displacement as much as possible. Integration of a screwable
socket on one side of the joint reduces the installation tolerance and
provides the workers with a smoother assembly process.
The gasket type for sealing joints between segments, as shown
in Figure 4, was designed as fiber anchored gasket. This new
technology offers additional pull-out resistance comparing to
conventional glued gasket system and has several advantages over
anchored gaskets such as reduced risk of incorrect installation and
reduced risk of air entrapment in the anchorage area. Gasket Profile
is DATWYLER M 802 07 “type South Hartford” providing
watertightness under the maximum expected groundwater pressure
of 965 KN/m2 (9.6 bar). This gasket profile guarantees
watertightness for 2.0 times the maximum working water pressure
considering a combination of gasket differential gap of 5 mm and
bearing surface offset of 10 mm.
Figure 3 New screwable socket dowel system used in REM segments
Figure 4 Fiber-anchored gaskets proposed for sealing REM segments
 ITA-AITES World Tunnel Congress, WTC2020 and 46th General Assembly Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre, Malaysia 15-21 May 2020

3. CONCRETE MIXTURE FOR SEGMENTS compressive strengths at stripping age and 28 days are 49 MPa and
13 MPa, respectively.
An optimum concrete mix design was selected for REM tunnel
segments to achieve a high early-age strength as well as a high
performance and a durable concrete lining for 125 years intended
service life of the project. Maximum water cement ratio is set as
0.35 with the addition of silica fume and ground granulated blast-
furnace slag in the level of 5 and 22 percent of cementitious
materials, respectively. Minimum cementitious material content is
selected as 485 kg/m3 and maximum aggregate size as 14 mm while
chloride ion penetrability should be less than 700 coulombs
following ASTM C1202 (2019). Precast segments for REM airport
tunnel are made of FRC which are superior to Reinforced Concrete
in the crack control and are more cost effective.
(a)
4. DETAILED DESIGN PROCEDURE
At the final design stage, segment dimensions are known (Section
2), and the focus is on verification of specified tensile/flexural and
compressive strength of FRC segments. Following ACI 544.7R
(2016) guidelines, the design was carried out using the load and
resistance factor design (LRFD) method. The nominal design
strength of FRC segments (capacity) is compared with required
strengths (demand) for major governing load cases during segment
production, transportation, construction and final service stage. FRC
strength parameters should be specified sufficiently to satisfy
Ultimate Limit State (ULS) design, as well as cracking, and
Serviceability Limit State (SLS) design.

5. FRC DESIGN PARAMETERS

FRC segments are reinforced with 42 kg/m3 of double hooked-end
high-strength (1800 MPa) steel fiber (Dramix® 4D 80/60BG). This
new type of steel fiber satisfies the serviceability requirements by
(b)
limiting time-dependent effects of creep on crack opening and more
significantly guarantees ductility requirements in conventional fiber
dosage by providing an ultimate bending moment higher than the
cracking bending moment (Bakhshi and Nasri 2017). This specific Figure 5 Nominal response of selected FRC mixture when tested
FRC mixture has been thoroughly studied in the segment precast following ASTM C1609 (2019) at: a) 28 days, b) stripping age
plant of the project prior to the final design stage. More than 500
flexural tests have been performed in the precast plant following Table 1 Nominal strength parameters of selected FRC mixture when
ASTM C1609 (2019). These tests have been performed at 28 days subjected to standard beam tests at 28 days and stripping age
and at the stripping age, a time period within 6-8 hours of casting. Age f1 or fD1200 fD600 , fD265 fD150, FRC
Test results have been statistically analyzed and as a result nominal MOR, or MPa or MPa Class
flexural response of this FRC mixture at stripping age and 28 days MPa fR,1 , fR,3, (fib
has been obtained (Figure 5). Nominal strengths are strength levels MPa MPa 2013)
below which with 90 percent confidence, there is 95 percent Stripping 1.8 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.4 1.5e
probability of the actual strength exceeding the nominal strength. 28 days 4.3 3.8 4.4 4.9 4.6 3e
Nominal peak strength f1 or modulus of rupture (MOR), and
nominal residual flexural strengths, fD600, f D150 are presented in In some of the governing load cases for the design of segment
Table 1. fD150 and f D600 correspond to equivalent post-crack flexural such as TBM thrust jack forces, complete tensile and compressive
strengths at standard beam deflection levels of L/600 (0.75mm) and stress-strain responses are needed for analysis. An inverse analysis
L/150 (3mm) when L is the span length of 450mm. When designing approach recommended by ACI 544.8R (2016) has been adopted to
according to ACI 544.7R, fD150 or s are the main design parameters back-calculate tensile stress-strain response of designed FRC
for ULS and fD600 is the main design parameter for SLS condition. materials from the experimental load-deflection test results in
In addition to these parameters, Table 1 presents equivalent flexural bending. As shown in Figure 6, a tri-linear tensile and a bi-linear
strengths of fD1200 and fD265. Following recommendations of Conforti compressive stress-strain model can predict nominal load-deflection
et al. (2018) f D1200 corresponds to residual strength at deflection response of selected FRC materials with a good accuracy (Figure 6
level of 0.37mm and crack mouth opening dimension (CMOD) of (a)). The tensile cracking strength of FRC at 28 days is obtained as
0.5mm. Therefore, it can be taken equivalent to fR,1, the design 2.8 MPa, the ultimate tensile strain capacity is 0.03 (3%) and the
parameter for SLS per fib Model Code 2010 (2013). Similarly, fD265 simplified constant residual tensile strength is determined as 1.6
corresponds to deflection level of 1.7mm and CMOD of 2.5mm, and MPa. This residual strength parameter is further validated by
therefore, it can be taken equivalent to fR,3, the design parameter for dividing over the residual flexural strength (fD150 and fR,3) and
ULS according to fib Model Code 2010 (2013). According to Model comparing to the well-known range of 0.33-0.37 (ACI 544.7R). For
Code 2010 (2013), the FRC classifications at 28 days and stripping the selected FRC mixture, calculated s/fD150 and s/fR,3 ratios are
age are ‘1.5e’ and ‘3e’, respectively. In addition, the average 0.33 and 0.35, values well within this range. Similar inverse
compressive strengths for this FRC mixture at 28 days and stripping analysis procedure was followed for stripping age beam samples. As
age are 58 and 15 MPa, respectively, with a standard deviation of a result, back-calculated tensile cracking strength of FRC is obtained
5.2 MPa for the 28-day and 1.4 MPa for the stripping strengths. as 1.4 MPa and the simplified constant residual tensile strength is
Considering ‘five percent fractile’ coefficient of 1.645, nominal determined as 0.8 MPa.
 ITA-AITES World Tunnel Congress, WTC2020 and 46th General Assembly Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre, Malaysia 15-21 May 2020

cantilever beams that are loaded under their self-weight. Trapezoidal

reverse key segment with a curved length of 3.58 m and projected
length of 3.42 m has the longest cantilever arm and is used for
analysis and design. The self-weight (w = 12 kN/m) is the only force
acting on the segment. Applied load factors for ULS and SLS are
1.4 and 1.0, respectively, according to ACI 544.7R (2016). For
ULS, maximum factored bending moment is calculated as 13.1 kN-
m while unfactored bending moment for SLS (Ma) is 9.4 kN-m. The
desired strength is generally attained between 5.5 and 6 hours after
casting which is considered as stripping age. Because the stripping
process induces bending actions in the segments, the early-age
residual tensile or flexural strength of FRC segment is of significant
(a) importance. For ULS, key design parameters are σp and f’ ULS and for
SLS, key design parameters are ftensile,crack and f’SLS. According to
ACI 544.7R (2016), a strength reduction factor of 0.7 is applied on
the nominal bending moment which is calculated as the smaller of
the following equations to obtain ULS resistance bending moment.

Mn = σp bh2/2; Mn = f'ULSbh2/6 (1)

where b and h are the width and thickness of tunnel segments.

As shown in Table 2, f’ULS is 2.3 MPa at the stripping age resulting
in a resistance bending moment of 41.8 kN-m which is greater than
the ULS maximum factored bending moment of 13.1 kN-m.
(b) Cracking moment can be simply determined as an elastic bending
moment considering ftensile,crack of 1.4 MPa at the stripping age.
Therefore, SLS cracking moment (Mcr) is obtained as 35.2 kN-m
which is larger than unfactored bending moment of 9.4 kN-m. A
summary of these values are presented in Table 3.

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 7 (a) Stripping in the segment precast plant; and (b) forces
Figure 6 Nominal results of specified FRC mixture: (a) experiments vs. acting on segments for Load Case 1
simulation for standard beam test response, (b) back-calculated tensile
and compressive responses
Load case 2 in this stage is the segment storage. Segments are
stacked in the precast plant following the stripping process prior to
In summary, Table 2 presents 28-day and stripping strength gaining their specified 28-day strength. Surfaces of precast segments
parameters that are initially specified for the REM Airport Tunnel are covered with curing compound and kept under controlled
segments. Residual flexural strength (fD150 or fR,3k) or residual ambient condition for several days until they reach their specified
tensile strength (s) are the main parameters for Ultimate Limit State strength. All segments of a ring are typically stacked together as a
(ULS) conditions. For Serviceability Limit State (SLS) design, single stack. As shown in Figure 8, wood blocks supporting the
cracking moment is determined based on the parameter ftensile,crack stacks are placed at the ground level and in between each of the
and in case exceeded when the service bending moment (Ma) is too segments. Some eccentricities can occur between the stack supports.
high, the fD600 or fR,1k parameter can be used as post-crack residual An eccentricity of e = 100 mm is usually recommended for design
strength for the service design. In order to make the design (ACI 544.7R, 2016). In addition to the bending moment caused by
procedure independent of the type of selected code, i.e. ACI 544.7R the self-weight (w = 12 kN/m) of the segment being analyzed, the
(2016) or fib Model Code 2010 (2013), the smaller of f’ D150 and fR,3k weight of the segments above (F1 = 86.26 kN) and the eccentricity
and the smaller of f’D600 and fR,1k are taken into account for the ULS of the upper stack supports (e) must be taken into account. The
and the SLS designs, respectively. worst-case scenario is when the wood blocks supporting the second
Table 2 Specified FRC strength parameters for REM airport segment from bottom is subjected to an inside eccentricity while the
tunnel segments (MPa) weight of segments positioned above (F1 = 86.3 kN) are applied
Age f'tensile f'SLS f'ULS σp f'c with an outside eccentricity with respect to the originally designed
crack wood block location. This results in combining two eccentricities
Stripping Age 1.4 1.7 2.3 0.8 13 and therefore considering a value of e = 2×100 mm or 200mm. This
28 days 2.8 3.8 4.6 1.6 49 stage can be reasonably modeled using a simply supported beam
that is loaded under the forces shown in Figure 8 (b). Similar to
6. DESIGN - PRODUCTION AND TRANSIENT STAGES previous load case, applied load factors for ULS and SLS are 1.4
and 1.0, respectively, according to ACI 544.7R (2016). For ULS,
Load case 1-stripping represents the effect of lifting and stripping of maximum factored bending moment for this load case is calculated
the precast concrete segments from the formwork at the precast as 35.2 kN-m while unfactored bending moment for SLS (Ma) is
plant once specified strength of concrete has been reached. The 25.1 kN-m. As presented in Table 3, these values can be compared
operation method that is used is the mechanical lifting with with the same early-age ULS resistance and SLS cracking moments
clamping (Figure 7). The segments can be modeled as two (Mcr) of 41.8 kN-m and 35.2 kN-m as in load case 1, respectively.
 ITA-AITES World Tunnel Congress, WTC2020 and 46th General Assembly Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre, Malaysia 15-21 May 2020

(a)

(a)

(b)

(b)
Figure 9 Load case 3: (a) schematics of segment handling with
the forklift; and (b) forces acting on bottom segment

Figure 8 Load case 2: (a) segments piled up within one stack for factors of 1.4 and 1.0, maximum ULS factored bending moment and
storage; (b) forces acting on 2nd segment from the bottom SLS unfactored bending moment (Ma) are obtained as 27.5 kN-m
and 19.6 kN-m, respectively. As shown in Table 3, these values are
Load case 3 is the segment handling which is carried out in the smaller than the ULS resistance bending moment (82.5 kN-m) and
precast plant and from the stack yard onto trucks and rail cars by SLS cracking moment (70.7 kN-m) at 28 days.
specially designed lifting devices such as forklifts and vacuum
lifters as soon as specified 28-day strength has been achieved. Inside
TBM, segment handling is also typically performed by vacuum
lifters. In this project, the most critical handling load scheme is
handling by forklifts at lift points spanning usually wider than the
stack supports at 1.9 m. As shown in Figure 9 (a), half of the ring’s
segments are picked up together by the forklift within one stack. The
worst-case scenario is for the bottom segment to be subjected to the
weight of segments positioned above (F2 = 45.90 kN) spanned over
1.4 m of projected length of the segment. An unfavorable
eccentricity of 100 mm (ACI 544.7R) is considered for both wood Figure 10 Load case 4: half-ring stack scheme in transportation
blocks and lifting points. A simply supported beam loaded with all
aforementioned forces including the self-weigh (w = 12 kN/m), as 7. DESIGN FOR CONSTRUCTION STAGES
shown in Figure 9 (b), is used to represents this load case. In
addition to the dead load factor of 1.4 and 1.0 for ULS and SLS 7.1 TBM thrust jack forces
respectively, a dynamic shock factor of 2.0 recommended by ACI
After assembly of a complete ring, TBM advances by thrusting
544.7R-16 is considered for the jarring forces acting on segments
against the jacking pads placed along the exposed circumferential
during the handling. The maximum factored bending moment in joints of most recent assembled ring (load case 5). Selected TBM
ULS and unfactored bending moment in SLS (Ma) are calculated as
has a total nominal machine thrust, Fn, of 50,192 kN and total
71.5 kN-m and 51.1 kN-m, respectively. Since segments are only
exceptional machine thrust, Fmax, of 58,796 kN. Total number of
reinforced with fibers, ULS key design parameters of σp (1.6 MPa)
thrust cylinders is 19, and the width and surface area of jack pads
and f’ ULS (4.6 MPa), and SLS key design parameters of ftensile,crack
(Apad) are 150 mm and 119,819 mm2, respectively. Maximum
(2.8 MPa) and f’SLS (3.8 MPa) at 28 days are considered for design.
nominal eccentricity, en, and maximum exceptional eccentricity,
Following Equation (1) and using a strength reduction factor of 0.7,
emax, of jack pads in the radial direction are considered 30 mm and
ULS resistance bending moment and SLS cracking moment (Mcr) at 40 mm, respectively. This load case is simulated by three-
28 days are obtained as 82.5 kN-m, and 70.7 kN-m, respectively.
dimensional non-linear finite element method (3D NLFEM) using
Therefore, as shown in Table 3, the capacity of FRC segment is
DIANA FEA considering exact parallelogram shape of segments
greater than the structural demand.
with longitudinal joint tapering angle of 8.5o, and exact locations of
Load Case 4 is segment transportation. Segments are transported
thrust pads in actual non-symmetric pattern with respect to the
to the jobsite after specified strength have been achieved in the
segment centerline and segment edges. As shown in Figure 11 (a),
precast yard. During transportation, the segments generally undergo
recesses in the segment joints due to the gasket and stress relief
various types of dynamic shock loading. In this project, half of the
grooves were also accurately modeled. Considering recesses,
segments comprising one ring are transported in one stack to the
available width of segments for contact with thrust pads at the
construction site and then to the TBM trailing gear (Figure 10).
circumrenal joints is only 200 mm. Therefore, extreme eccentricities
Wood blocks are used between the segments as stack support. The
may result in a reduced contact area with segments and
worst-case scenario is when the bottom segment, in addition to self-
consequently an increased pressure on the contact zone that has been
weight (w = 12 kN/m), is subjected to the eccentric (e = 10 mm)
considered in this design. All possible combinations of maximum
dead weight of segments positioned above (45.9 kN). This stage can
nominal and maximum exceptional values of eccentricities and
be reasonably modeled using a simply supported beam similar to
thrust jack forces result in overall 10 jack force scenarios, each
schemes of loads shown in Figure 8(b). Considering a dynamic
defined by appropriate load factors of 1.0, 1.05, 1.2, which basically
shock factor of 2.0 (ACI 544.7R-16), and ULS and SLS dead load
present the likelihood of each scenario. Nominal stress-strain
 ITA-AITES World Tunnel Congress, WTC2020 and 46th General Assembly Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre, Malaysia 15-21 May 2020

Table 3 FRC segments design checks for various load cases during the production and transient stages
Dynamic ULS SLS
Load
Case
Phase Shock MU, f'ULS, fMn, Ma, ftensile, crack Mn,
Factor kN.m MPa kN.m kN.m MPa kN.m
1 Stripping (5-6 h) - 13.1 2.3 41.8 9.4 1.4 35.2
2 Storage (5-6 h) - 35.2 2.3 41.8 25.1 1.4 35.2
3 Handling (28 d) 2 71.5 4.6 82.5 51.1 2.8 70.7
4 Transportation (28 d) 2 27.5 4.6 82.5 19.6 2.8 70.7

responses of FRC segments in compression and tension, as
presented in Figure 6, are introduced to the FEM software as the
material model. As shown in Figure 11(b), the circumferential
bursting and spalling stresses under exceptional thrust jack forces
and eccentricities reach the tensile strength of FRC segments.
Therefore, cracking under such extraordinary conditions are
inevitable. However, as shown in Figure 11(c), due to high residual
(post-cracking) strengths of FRC, maximum crack width is below
0.2 mm criteria set by Project’s technical requirement.
joints, and with joints modeled by the Janssen model (Figure 12(a)).
Because the lining is surrounded completely by a semi-liquid fresh
grout with negligible interaction with the ground, an interface
element with a very low (practically zero) spring stiffness was used
for simulation of this interaction. As results of analysis, significant
axial forces and limited bending moments (Figure 12(b)) are
developed in the lining. The self-weight of the lining and the
grouting pressure are the only loads applied to the tunnel lining at
this stage, and therefore a load factor of 1.25 (ACI 544.7R 2016) is
applied on the axial forces and bending moments. As shown in
Figure 12 (c), for the design checks, these results are compared with
the axial force-bending moment (M-N) interaction diagram that was
constructed using σp and f’c at 28 days (Table 2).

(a)

(a) (b)

(b)

(c)

Figure 11 3D NLFEM for TBM thrust jack forces: a) model, b)

circumferential bursting/spalling stresses, c) crack width dimensions (c)

7.2 Tail skin and secondary back-grouting pressure

This load case is generated by back-grouting or filling of the annular
space created between the ground profile and the tunnel lining using
semi-liquid grouts under high pressure. To enter the annulus space
created around the tunnel lining, the grout pressure needs to be
greater than the groundwater pressure surrounding the lining. Using
ACI 544.7R (2016) grout pressure model, the calculated pressure
difference at the crown is 30 kPa considering the combined effects
of grouting pipes, plasticity of grout, TBM advance rate, filling rate
of the tail void and the diameter of tunnel. The most critical case is
where the anticipated groundwater pressure is 267 kPa, and
maximum grout pressure on the tunnel crown is predicted as 297
kPa. Following the determination of equivalent specific weight of
the grout for this tunnel as 28 kPa (Groeneweg 2007), it can be
assumed that the tail-skin grouting pressure, which is applied in the
radial direction on the segmental ring, varies linearly from 297 to
325 kPa along the tunnel section. A 3D FEM model of the
segmental ring was created with the exact geometry of segments and
Figure 12 Load case of tail skin grouting: a) geometry of segmental
ring and imposed grouting pressure, b) bending moments in the ring
as a result of FEM analysis, c) comparison with M-N diagram
Modeling of secondary grouting pressure (load case 7) consists
of the forces applied to segments to fill the void that has been
already identified behind the segments due to incomplete primary
grouting. The applied pressure is conservatively taken identical to
the tail skin back-grouting pressure and it is assumed that only one
of the grouting pipes is utilized. Following the ACI 544.7R (2016)
guidelines this load case, as shown in Figure 13(a), can be simulated
using a triangular distributed pressure on one-tenth of lining
perimeter on the crown. Because the secondary grouting occurs long
after the primary grouting materials have cured, it is assumed that
the lining is in full contact with surrounding ground except in the
local area where the secondary grouting will be performed. To
simulate the boundary condition, the interaction between lining and
 ITA-AITES World Tunnel Congress, WTC2020 and 46th General Assembly Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre, Malaysia 15-21 May 2020
the primary hardened grout is modeled using radial springs with the
segments supported radially. Considering a primary grout with f’c of
3 MPa and modulus of elasticity of 300 MPa, radial spring stiffness
of 100,000 kN/m3 seems to be reasonable while tangential spring
stiffness has taken practically zero. This load case as shown in
Figure 13(b) results in very small axial forces with large bending
moments. Applying a load factor of 1.25 to these results, all points
fall inside the designed M-N interaction diagram which validates the
design for this load case.
(a) (b)
(c)
Figure 13 Load case of secondary grouting: a) 3D model, geometry
and imposed localized grout pressure, b) bending moments as result
of FEM simulation, c) comparison with M-N diagram
8 DESIGN FOR FINAL SERVICE STAGE
8.1 Earth pressure, groundwater, and surcharge loads
In the final service stage, segments are are subjected to various loads
from vertical and horizontal earth pressure, groundwater, self-
weight, surcharge, and ground reaction loads. Three dimensional-
nonlinear finite element analyses (3D NFEA) is performed using
DIANA program to model shield-driven tunnel excavation.
Segmental ring configurations with rhomboidal segments and
staggered joint (as shown in Figure 2) are directly imported to the
model. Segments are modeled as shell elements and a multi-linear
tension softening and compression functions (Figure 6 (b-c)) is used
for material modeling. The Janssen nonlinear line interfaces
simulate the segment joints, and surface interfaces are used between
the lining and the surrounding ground. Excavation advances are
modeled in 1.7m intervals which is the length of segmental rings. A
variable balancing face pressure is applied along the tunnel cross
section equal to the horizontal in-situ stress. Compression-only gap
elements are used to model the conical shield and the variable gap
between the ground and the shield. The length of shield is assumed
to be 6.8m equal to four drifts and the grout pressure is only applied
on the most recently activated segmental ring and one ring
immediately behind, considering anticipated advance rate and
hardening time of two-component grout. A step-by-step-simulation
is adopted to simulate the tunneling procedure. Governing tunnel
sections along the entire alignment were selected and subjected to
this simulation. Figure 14(a) presents a typical result of this 3D
NFEA simulations in the format of internal bending moments in the
segmental rings. Since applying different load factors (ACI 544.7R
2016) for groundwater, to FE analysis is not viable, maximum load
factor of 1.35 has been applied on internal forces as results of
simulations. As shown in Figure 14(b), internal forces are compared
with structural capacity of FRC segments in the format of M-N
interaction diagrams which validate design of the segments.
(a)
(b)
Figure 14 Load case of earth pressure: a) bending moments as result
of NFEA, b) comparison with M-N diagram
8.2 Longitudinal joint bursting stresses
Bursting tensile stresses can develop along the longitudinal joints
similar to the tunnel-boring machine (TBM) thrust jacking loads on
the circumferential joints. For this load case, two-dimensional FEM
models are developed to represent the recess of the gasket and the
stress relief grooves (curvature of elements is neglected). Bursting
stresses at the vicinity of the longitudinal joints are analyzed for
cases of maximum hoop force and maximum positive and negative
load eccentricities (el = M/N) transferred between longitudinal
joints. Figure 15(a) shows the most governing cases considering
partially open, and closed joints due to extreme eccentricities, and
also the maximum uniform load transfer. Also two sets of analyses
have been done for each case, one considering ULS load factor of
1.35, and one SLS load factor of 1.0. Results of ULS analyses
including bursting tensile stresses are shown in Figure 15(b).
Maximum factored bursting stress is 1.04 MPa and maximum
unfactored bursting stress is 0.77 MPa. These values are compared
with reduced specified residual strength (fsp = 1.1 MPa) for
verification of ULS design and with nominal tensile cracking
strength (f'tensile crack = 2.8 MPa) for SLS design verification. Both are
below the design strength values which validate the design.
 ITA-AITES World Tunnel Congress, WTC2020 and 46th General Assembly Kuala Lumpur Convention Centre, Malaysia 15-21 May 2020

9. CONCLUSIONS
The structural analyses summarized in this report cover all main
load cases during the service life of precast segments from the
stripping from the formwork at early age production to the final
service stage. Reported results indicate that concrete segments
reinforced with 42 kg/m3 of double hooked-end high-strength steel
fiber provide sufficient strength and satisfy serviceability
requirements for the one-pass TBM-bored tunnel lining of REM
Airport Tunnel.

10. REFERENCES
ACI 544.7R. (2016) Report on Design and Construction of Fiber-
Reinforced Precast Concrete Tunnel Segments. American
Concrete Institute (ACI).
ACI 544.8R. (2016) Report on Indirect Method to Obtain Stress-
Strain Response of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (FRC).
American Concrete Institute (ACI).
ASTM C1609 (2019). Standard Test Method for Flexural
Performance of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam with
Third-Point Loading). American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM).
Bakhshi, M., and Nasri, V. (2018) “Guide for Optimized Design of
Tunnel Segmental Ring Geometry”. North American
(a) Tunneling 2018 Proceedings, Washington DC, pp 541-549.
Bakhshi, M., and Nasri, V. (2017) “Design of Steel Fiber-
Reinforced Concrete Segmental Lining for the South Hartford
CSO Tunnel”. Rapid Excavation Tunneling Conference 2017
Proceedings, San Diego, CA, June 4–7, 2017, pp 706–717.
Conforti, A., Minelli, F., Plizzari, G.A. and Tiberti, G. (2018)
“Comparing test methods for the mechanical characterization
of fiber reinforced concrete”. Structural Concrete, 19, Issue 3,
pp 656–669.
Diana FEA. 2019. User's Manual – Release 10.3.
https://dianafea.com/
fib Model Code 2010 (2013). Model Code for Concrete Structures.
International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib).
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.
Nasri, V., De Nettancourt, X., Patret, P. and Mitsch, T. (2019)
“Design and construction of Montreal express link tunnels
and underground stations”. Rapid Excavation and Tunneling
Conference 2019 Proceedings, Chicago, pp 166-177.

(b)
Figure 15 Load case of longitudinal joint bursting: a) FEM model
representing governing cases, b) ULS bursting stresses