Design considerations for precast tunnel segments according to international recommendations, guidelines and standards Mehdi Bakhshi & Verya Nasri AECOM, New York, NY, USA Urea tory is pices Pinang na RedBares Boe ABSTRACT Segmental tunnel inings are designed as inal ground support and final lining in TBM-bored tunnols. Procedures to design concrete lining for ground and groundwater loads, cross. sectional changos in jon, and chacks against production and corsiriion loads such as sogment demolding, storage, transportation, handing, TEM jack thrust forcos And grouting pressure are presented, Several recommendations, guidelines and standards are avaiable for analyses and design of precast concrete segmental linings. These guidlines and standards {rom various countries in Europe, Asia and Amorea including Austia (OVBB), Franeo (AFTES), Gorman (DAUB), Japan (JSCE), the Nothorands (NEN), United States (FHWA) and International Tunneling Association (ITA) are evaluated. Standard coda requiramonts are presented and their mes are ciscussed forthe caso of design of segments In this paper, special attention is gven to Fecommendations and guidelines or analyses of segments for determining ground and groundwater loads in one hand, land tonsilostossos in pints duo to jack thrust forces and cross eocton chango inthe other. Standard dosign mothods for precast concrete segments are presented. Best method of practice for analysis and design of these elements is recommended. Latest developments and technologies in segmental tunnel lining systoms aro presented inlucing Anchored gaskels, Bicones as shear recovery systems for tunnel openings and Nber reinforced concrete (FRC) segments. Design of FRG lining for alorementoned load cases are discussed wih presentation of speciied residual tensile strength and spectiad compressive strangth as two key design parameters. 1 INTRODUCTION ‘Segmental tunnel linings are designed as initial ground ‘support and final ning in TBM-bored tunnels. Procedures to design concrate lining for ombedment loads, cross sectional changes in joints, and checks against construction loads such as segment demolding, stacking, handling, TBM jack thrust forcos and grouting pressure have boon presented elsewhere (Bakhshi and Nast, 2013a; 20130; 20130). Several recommendations, guidelines and standards are avallablo for analyses and dosign of precast concrote ‘segmental linings. In this paper, special attention is taken to recommendations and guidelines for analyses of segments for determining embedment loads in one hand, and tensile stresses in joints due to jack thrust forces and tras section change in the other. Standard design ‘methods for precast concrete segments are presented. Bost method of practice for analysis and design of those laments is recommended. Finally, latest developments and technologias in segmental tunnel lining systems are presented. 2 METHODS OF ANALYSIS FOR GROUND AND GROUNDWATER LOADS Solection of a suitable analysis mothod to calculate member forces due to embedmont loads depends on ‘many factors such as functions of the tunnel, ground Conditions, design loads, structures of segments, required accuracy of analyses, and tho required check toms (SCE, 2007). Tho most significant and widely accopted ‘methods in the field are presented in the followings sections. 2.1. Elastic Equations Method Elastic equations method recommended by JSCE (2007) and ITA (2000) is a simple method for calculating member forces of circular tunnels. Load distribution model consist of uniform vertical soil and water pressures, a tiangularty distributed horizontal soil reaction between 45° to 135° from tho crown on both sides in addition to a linearly varying lateral earth pressure, and dead weight of the lining. Distrbution of loads used in this method is shown in Figure 1. Member forces are calculated using elastic equations available in the literature (SCE, 2007 and ITA, 2000). In this method, a uniform bending rigidity is assumed for the lining which cannot represent the staggered geometry of segmental lining. This method is mostly used in profiminary design and cost estimation for new tunnel projects 22 Beam Spring Method In the beam — spring method, recommended by JSCE (2007), OVBB (2011) and FHWA (2009), the ining is ‘modeled in the cross-sectional plane perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of tunnol as a sories of beam elements spanning between longitudinal joints of segments. The interaction between the ground and the lining is modeled by linear translational springs in racial, tangontial and longitudinal droctions.> O =" ee Figure 1. Distribution of loads used in Elastic Equations ‘method (ITA, 2000) Since the lining and ground are represented by a series of beams and springs, this method is refered to as beam — spring method. Méthod of calculation of the springs’ stifness can be found elsewhere (Bakhsh and Nasi 2013b). Various 2D approaches have been developed order to evaluate effect of the segment joints, inducing models that assume the segmental ring as a’ solid ing with full bending rigiity, sold ring with reduced bending Fialy (Muir Wood, 1975), ring with mutipto hingod Joints and fing with rotational springs. Howaver, 2. medals Cannot represent circumferential joints and the staggered arrangement of segments in adjoining rings. As shown in Figure 2, a 3D or a so.callod "2s dimensional” multiplo hinged segmented double ring beam — spring model can bo used 19 ovaluate the reduction of bonding rigidity and effects of staggered geometry by modeling segments as curved beams, longitudinal joints as rotational springs (anBon joins) and circumforontial joints as shoar springs. Equations and estimations regarding rotational spring slitfness. and shear spring constant of the joints have been presented in previous publications (Bakhshi and Nasi, 2013a, 20135, 20130). Two rings are used in this analysis in order to evaluate the coupling of rings: however, only half of the segment wicth is considered in this model to include only influence zone of longitudinal and circumferential joints of one ring. Considering doad weight of the lining, and applying ground and water pressures as distributed member loads projected along tho beam diroction, membor forces are calculatod using 8 structural analysis package. 2.3 Finite Element and Finite Difference Methods Two-dimensional Finite Elamont Method (FEM) or the Finito Difference Method (FDM) is recommonded by VBR (2011) and AFTES (2008) for calculation of tunnel lining forces in soft ground, loose rock and in solid rock dlassiiod as party homogeneous. 22> Longitudinal Joint Lf (Rotational Spring)» Jf Circumferential + JY soit {7 (Ghear Spring) ean 2/ Nel “\\. Ground Reaction *) Radial Spring) > me Figure 2 Mute hngd sopmonid dbl ng beam — Sng ode ‘A two-dimensional approach is suliciont for a continuous linear structure without sudden changes in cross section oF concentratod load intensitios, whila thro dimensional approaches are only recommended. for areas of intorsoction botwoon crosscuts and tho_main tunnol (OVBB, 2011). In FEM, as shown in Figure 3, tho surrounding ground is modeled as 2 continuum modium discretized into. limited number of smaller elements connected at nodal pois. The stress, strain, and deformation to bo analyzed aro caused by changing tho original subsurface conditions due to tunneling process. Results of analysis including deformations and Subsequently member forces are obtained by solving a matrix equallon which rolates tho unknown quantities 10 known quanities using a global stiiness matrix based on stress-strain relationships of the materials. This mothod of analysis has the advantage of taking info. account the doformabiliy of tho ground and in particular, its behavior alter fallur, the radistrbution of Toads reguting from lining deformation, and excavation stages (OVBB, 2011). This numerical mothod of analysis is also valid’ for nonuniform and arisotropic intial sirasses, ie. when a dissymmotrical feature is presant in the surrounding ground du to several different formations or in tho oxtornal loads duo to noarby existing structures (AFTES, 2005). By moans of FEM, complex underground Conditions and tunnol characteristics can bo analyzed, Furthermore, this method enables the simulation of complex constilutve laws, non-homegeneites, and the impact of advance and time depandant charactarsics of the construction methods. 2 METHODS OF ANALYSIS FOR JACK THRUST FORCES AND CROSS SECTION CHANGE TAM jack thrust force are studied as one of the mast significant construction load cases in design of precast ‘segmental tunnel lining. Alter assembly of a completa ring, the TBM moves forward by pushing its jacks on the boating pads placed on the circumforontal joints of the newest assombled ring. This action rasuils in developing high compression stresses under the jack pads, as well asFigure 3. FEM model for tunnol excavation in soft ground bursting tensile stresses deep in the segment and splitting tensile forces between the pads. In a similar action to the effect of jack thrust forces in circumferential joints, bursting tonsila stresses are present at the longitudinal joints due to change of cross section because of the {gasket and the stress reli grooves . Different standards, Audios and recommendations to anayze such otets 3.1 ACI Simpitiod Equations Methods ACI 318 soction 18.13 (ACI, 2008) spocitios simpliiod equations to determine the magnitude of the bursting force, Tara, and its centroidal distance from the face of the sogment, da: a8: Irae Tyr = 0.25 Py I~ £Apygs; O-5(R=2e ye) [1] Whore Py, is the normal fore, fi is the width of load transfer area on the face of segment, fis the width of the load cistribution area deep inside the segment, and enc is ‘the total eccentrity with respect to the centroid of the cross section. ‘As shown in Figure 4, for the case of jack thrust forces applied on the circumferential joints, Ppy is the maximum ‘oxtraordinary jacking force appliod on each jack pad, fan is tho length of contact area betwoen jack pads and reduced depth of cross section on tha sogment faca, fis the depth of cross section, and ean is the maximum possible eccentricity of jack pads with respect to the Controid of the cross section. For the caso of cross soction change at tho longitudinal joints, Pp» is the maximum normal force due to permanent embedment loads, and 2a 8 the maximum total eccentricity consists of normal force eccentricity (WN) and eccentricity of load transfer 3.2 DAUB Simplified Equations Methods Similar to ACI, DAUB (2013) is recommending simpltiad ‘equations for bursting and spitting tensile stresses in the joints based on the assumption of force transfer by means of a tension block Figure 4. Bursting tensile forces and associated parameters recommendad by ACI 318 18.13, Fg W0.28.N yy (1=d\/d,) @ =03 Fase ‘31 Fae =N eG whore Fas Fae and Fase aro bursting, spliting and secondary’ tensile stresses developad ‘close 10 the Segment face and Ney is the maximum normal force due to jack thrust force or embedment loads. ‘As shown In Figure 5, for tho caso of cross section change at the longitudinal joints, e is the total eccentricity consisting of eccentricity of normal force and the hinge neck (2 = 01+ 0, = MIN+ 0.) dks the width of the hinga neck, dis the length of load transfer zona on the faco of segment (d) = d; — 2¢), d, is the distributed width of tension block inside the segment (d; = 2e"= d-2e) and d Is tho total width of tho sogment cross section. Note that DAUB recommends spiiting and secondary tonsilo reinforcement for only highly eccentric normal force conditions (e> a6. Figure 5. Force transfer recommended by DAUB in: (a) longitudinal joints using a tension block concept, (b) circumforential joints under an eccontric jack thrust force load case (e = 50 mm)According to DAUB (see Figure 5), bursting tensile reinjoreement are placed at a distance of 0.4 from the face of segments, while spliting and secondary tensile reinforcement, if necessary, are placed at 0.1de and 2/3 from the faca of segment, respoctivaly. 3.3 Method of Diagram of Iyengar Tho analytical method of Iyengar Diagram (1962) for calculation of bursting tensile stressos has been used in design of tunnels in Netherland (Groaneweg, 2007). Similar to previous methods, the extent of the spreading and therofore the magnitude of the tensile strasses, as shown in Figure 6, dopend on the dimonsions of the introduction surfaces (f) and final spreading surfaces (a) According to this diagram, bursting tonsile stresses (a), Which varies significantly from tho face toward inside the ‘segment, are determined as a fraction of the fully spread compressive stross (din = Fab) Figure 6. Diagram of Iyengar (1962) for determining bursting tensile stresses 8.4. Finite Element Methods Three-dimensional and two-dimensional analyses using finite element methods are performed to simulate effect of ‘TBM jack thrust forces on the circumferential joints and normal force transfor through the longitudinal joints, respectively. As shown in Figure 7, affact of jack thrust force is simulated modeling typical segments of two adjoining rings. Tho jack thrust forces are applied on the not conlact area of the jack pads and segment face on the front circurnforontial joint. Tha recess (due to the gasket and the stress relie! grooves) is modeled on the Connection botwoen two sogmonis to simulate force transfer through a reduced cross section through the ‘middle circumforential joint. Comprossive forces of the gasket in the early houts of installation are simulated by ‘applying maximum reaction force of gasket. Solid elomonts aro used for this analysis. The vanslational ddograas of freedom ara fixed in all directions at the end of ‘the back segment which is assumed to be installed before the front segment. As shown in Figure 8, typical results of analysis consists of transversal and radial bursting and paling tensile stresses developed under the jack pad and in the areas between the pads. Figuro 7. 3D FEM model for case of jack thrust force. Figuro 8. Bursting and spalling tensile strosses dovolopod in segments due to TBM jack thrust forces and gasket pressure: a) transversal stresses, b) radial stresses Bursting strossas at the vicinity of the longitudinal joints are analyzed for the case of maximum normal force and gasket pressure. Two-dimensional FE model to simulato the longitudinal joint consists of small end parts of two adjacent segments in a ring (curvature of elomants fare neglected) modeled with recess of the gasket and the stress relief grooves. The contact zone is modeled as a discontinuity betwoen two adjacont sogmenis. Nor-linoar nnon-tonsion springs allach segments faces in tha longitudinal joint, simulating behavior of tho plywood ‘material. Translational degrees of freedom along the farthost vertical face of ono of segments aro fixed in both diroctions, whilo vertical face of other sogment is loadedwith the uniformly distrbuted pressure of maximum rrormal force. Figure 9 shows typical rasulls of analysis including bursting tensile and compressive stresses in the area around longitudinal joints. Figure 9. Developed stresses around longitudinal joints due to maximum normal force and gaskel pressure: a) bursting tensile stresses, b) compressive stresses 4 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR PRECAST CONCRETE SEGMENTS 4.1 Concrete Cover DAUB (2013) rocommends a minimum concrete cover of 40 mm on the surfaces of the tunnel segments. On the ‘end faces of segments and in aroas close to bolt pockets, the minimum concrete cover recommended by DAUB is 20 mm. However, ACI 318 (2008) species a minimum ‘concrete cover of 1-1/2 in (38 mm) for precast concrete elements exposed to earth. ITA (1988) species a ‘minimum 50 mm cover only forthe cast-in-placo concrote lining at its outer surface in contact with ground and ground water. Nonetheless, it is clearly mentioned that this specification does noi apply to segmental lining especially when a one-pass lining sysiem is adopted. ‘Among other codes, guidelines and recommendations, FHWA (2009) does not_specity a minimum concrete ‘cover. JSCE (2007) specifies a minimum 25 mim concrete cover over reinforcement and a minimum 35 mm. in 2 corrosive environment for a one-pass segmental lining system. OVBB Guideline (2011) refers to Austrian standard ONORM EN 1992-1-1 which specifies 2 ‘minimum conereto cover of 25-45 mm depending on ‘exposure conditions. AFTES (2005) specifies 30 mm as the minimum cover on the inlrados and extrados faces, ‘and 20 mm concrete cover on other zones, and NEN 6720 (1995) specifies 35 mm as the minimum concrete cover for precast elements. 42. Reinforcing Spacing ‘There is no specific recommendation available in ACI 318 (2008) for reinforcement in the precast segmental tunnel linings. However, general spacing limits for reinforcement include minimum and maximum cloar spacing betwoon stool bars of 1 in (25 mm) and 18 in (457 mm), respectively. DAUB (2012), provides a typical rainfor spacing range of 100 mm to 150 mm for segmental tunnel linings. DAUB (2013) spacifies @ minimum clear spacing rango of 90 mm fo 120 mm. In the absence of any reinforcement spacing requirement by ITA (1988), FHWA (2009), and OVBB (2011), JSCE (2007) specifies a ‘minimum bar spacing of 1.25 timos tho width of tho ‘maximum size of aggregates plus the diameter of the reinforoament. AFTES (2005) referring to Section 4.4.5 of BAEL 91 (2007) specifies the maximum spacing for reinforcing bars as the smaller of 20 cm and 1.5 times the ‘segment thicknass. NEN 6720 (1995) on the other hand specifies minimum bar spacing as the greater of 4/3 of the maximum size of aggregates, the largest bar diameter, and 25 mm. 4.3. Compressive Strength of a Partially Loaded Surface: In the standards, guidolinos and recommendations, no specific roquirament is found for comprossive strongth of precast concrete tunnal segments. However, in the joint dosign, dus to cross soction change or jack thrust forco, fend faces of sogmonts are only partially loaded and therefore developed compressive and tonsile strossos ‘must be compared with the factored strength of a partially pressured surface. Maximum allowed compressive stress of a partially pressured surtace (omy) according to the ACI 318 (2008), Dutch code NEN 6720 (1995) and DAUB (2013): (4) ‘where Aw is the load transfer surtace area in the face of sogmont, Az; is the mathematical load distribution aroa inside the segment, and fo is the 28-day compressive strength of concrete. 5 BEST METHODS OF PRACTICE ‘Among diferent methods of analysis for determining ‘ombedment loads, Elastic Equations Mothod givos largost member forces since a uniform banding rigidity. is ‘assumed forthe lining. Multiple hinged segmented double fing beam — spring model gives reasonable forces as a result of analysis especially for the transferred bending ‘moment in tho longitudinal joints. Finito Elemont and Finite Difference Methods are superior methods when a dissymmetrcal feature is present in the structure, in the surrounding ground, or in the external loads.‘Simplified equations methods of analysis for determining jack thrust forces and cross saction changes in the joinis result in a more conservative and uniformly distributed reinforcement plan. Analytical and numerical methods of analysis such as lyangar Diagram and FEM may results in ‘a more cost effective and non-uniform reinforcement design 6 LATEST TECHNOLOGIES TUNNEL LINING. IN SEGMENTAL 6.1. Fiber Reinforced Concrete Segments Conventionally, stee! bars are used in concrete segments to resist tensile stresses developed due to all loading cases from the time of casting through service condition. However, there are some issues associated with the use Of stool bars including large crack widths, high labor costs and long time for placement of curved bars in ‘manufacturing plant. As an alternative, Fiber Reinforced Concrete (FRC) considerably improves the concrete post- cracking behavior, allows for a better crack control and offers plastic shrinkage resistance to the concrete mix and improves the concrote durability. Considering all thase benafs, FAC represents a competitive material for tunnel ‘segments. The fiber presence close to segment surface is vary advantageous with high tensilo stresses dovelopod in this zono induced by TEM thrust jack forces. during installation, FAG has been used since 1982 in numerous projects around the world, 0.9. wateriwaste water, gas pipelin, ower cablo, subway, railway, and road tunnols, as the preferred material for the construction of tunnel precast ‘segmental lining. In most of the projects, small to mid-size tunnels have been reinforced with only steel fibers al a dosage ranging botwoon 25 to 60 kgim’. Intomal diameters of these tunnels range between 2.2-11.4 m and ‘their thicknesses are between 0.15 and 0.4 m. The design has been performed using constitutive laws recommended by international codes and standards such as DBV (2001), RILEM TC 162-TDF (2003), CNR DT 204/206 (2007), EHE (2008) and fib Model Code (2010). This section presents a design example pertaining to ccase of mid-sizo tunnel and key material paramators for design are summarized. Effects of residual strength and different standard constitutive laws on axial force-bending ‘moment interaction diagrams as tho key dasign tools are discussed. 6.1.1 Design example for FRC segments An example for design of a mid-size TBM tunnel fining with precast FRC sogments is presented. It is assumed that internal ameter of the segmental ring is D: = 5.74.m, and the ring composed of 5 large segments and one key sagment (one-third of the size of largo segments). Width, thickness and curved length at centerline of the large segments are 1.5, 0.9 and 8.4 m, respectively. A stress- strain diagram according to ACI 844.FR report (2014) is adopted. Key design parameters for aforementioned load cases are the specified residual tensile or flexural strength (op oF #150) and specified compressive strength (ft). Following the approach_of scaling the residual flexural strongth obiained by ASTM C1608 (2012) tests, a factor of 0.34 Is considered to convert fis 10 o Designod early-age and 28-day i120 strengths aro 25 and 4 MPa, respoctvely. Spoctiad comprossive strangths aro 15 MPa for early-age and 45 MPa for 28-day FRC sagment. AS shown in Figure 10, capacity of FRC segments are calculatod based on oquibrium conditions assuming 2 post-crack plastic behavior in the tension zone. First crack flexural strength (fis assumed as 4 MPa, Design checks for the production and transitional loads are shown in Tablo 1. Tho tunnol is excavatod in soft ground. Two- dimensional FEM packages are used for calculation of ‘tunnel tning forces in three different geological reaches defined along the alignment of this tunnel case. Design chooks for the load case of tho ground and groundwater pressure is shown in Figure 11 In this project, a TBM machine is used with the maximum total thrust of 45,000 KN applied on 16 jack pairs. Maximum thrust forces on each pair i therefore 2.8 MN. Tho length and width of tho contact area betwoon tha jack pads and segments. considering a_ maximum ccontricity of @ = 0.025 m, aro a)= 0.87 m and fre = 0.2 1m, respoctvely. Dimensions of fully spread stressos are ay ‘3.4/3 = 1.13 m and h = 0.3 m in tangontal and radial directions, "respectively. Conforming to simpified equations of ACI 318 (2011), bursting force (Ts) and its ceniroidal distanco from tho faco of soction (dava) in tangontal directions are: 2€)=0.5(1.13 - 20.025) Ao, =0-5(4, In tho radial draction, Tix and duc aro calculated as: Aug =O (h~ 2e,,.)=0.5(O3—2%0.025) =0.125m 8 Ten =025%25 x02 = a.16mvim ost "25 Using this method of analysis, the maximum bursting stress developed in radial and transverse directions are determined. Tangential: ¢, 0.16 Tes 0:7%2x0.125 Od) Racial: 0.9MPa a Thoso sires aro los than 28-day speciigd rescual tonsil srongh of FRC segmon a8 gp 0.98 yas = 1.96 MPa, and the dasign is vad for load aso of TEM thust jack forces.ul ra v1 1 ay gq Fi : ba 1 ts? oa te . Gg Figure 10. Strain and stress distributions through the Secon as arto t undorgoes tension ‘Table 1_ Design checks (production and transport stages) Phase ‘Specified Macmum — Resistance Residual Developed Bending Strength Bonding Moment (wpa) Moment (Nm) Noni) Domoldng 25 (eaiy-age) 504 2625 ‘Storage 25 eathyage) 1801 26.25 Transportation 4.0 (284) 2090 © 42.00 Handing 4.0 28) sos 42.00 7000 6000 sooo x Ground and Groundwater 4000 Loads E F 300 g 2000 1000 ° 100 200 300 1000 (, ARLmfen Figure 11. Design chacks for the load case of ground and groundwater pressure 6.1.2Parametric studios Increasing the fiber content in the mix directly results in inorease of the residual flexural strengths (F150) of FRC. A parametric study on effects of increasing f°r50 from 1 to 5 MPa on the axial force-bonding moment interaction diagrams are shown in Figure 12a. Other parameters and ‘segment geometry for this study are similar to the ones presented in previous example. ‘Comparing such diagrams with the results of analyses for aforementioned loading cases (e.g. results shown in Figure 11) results in determining the required residual parameter and the required fiber content based on fiber ‘manufacturer product datasheets. Effect of choice of standard constitutive laws on a similar tunnel segment with a residual slrongth of 4 MPa is shown in Figure 12b. Rasults show that choice of constitutive laws doas nat hhave a significant effect on the axial force-bending ‘moment interaction diagram of FRC segments and subsequontly doos not affect the design outcome, 7000 @) 7000 ) 6000 000 FRC Constitutive Law AC SAAR some RILEM TC 162-T0F £ —80-te a fb Meza sotening & Fe mczot0 Pasir sooo ain 1000 ° ° 100 200 Mn Nf Figuro 12. Effects of residual strength and constitutive law ‘on axial forca-banding moment interaction diagrams6.2. Anchored Gasket Anchored gasket is a new generation of gaskets for sealing segmental tunnol linings. This type of gaskot is directly installed inside the segment mold before casting, and provides a direct anchoring of the gasket into the Concrete and an improved bond of the sealing on the segment. It offers sovoral advantages including time ‘savings for correction of imperfoctions and cleaning of the {groove area, and mounting the gaskets, saving costs for Glue and gluing equipment, no environmental pollution dduo to solvents of the contact gluo, and finally and more importantly higher adhesion botwoen gasket and concrote Which results in no detachment during assembly of the key segment, Due to the anchors, the seepage path of ‘any walor thal might penetrate is maximized and as @ Fesuit, the sealing atfect in the contact area of profile and groove base is significantly improved. 6.3. Bicone as Shear Recovery System for Openings Uiiizaton of Shear recovery Bicone systems eases the problems with the creation of openings in the segmental fining by ‘minimizing the amount of temporary work Bicones prevent any offset between the rings during ring assembly in the construction stage and absorb energy Wwhon the tunnol lining is partially supprossed for opening or witon instantaneous and temporary sttosses occur in exceptional instances (Bakshi and Nasti, 2013b). Bicones are designed to be used inthe proximity of tunnel notation areas such as entrances, vonilation adits and Glovator adits (Bakhshi and Nasri, 20136). A thre. dimensional, nonlinear modoling approach, using an FEM package is usually adopted to evaluate the impacts of excavation. When developed shear slresses around a notation zone are dotormined, total shoar forco of @ Ting around the penetration area is calculated and compared to the shear strength of the Bicones, to determine minimum number of Bicones required for this action. 7 CONCLUSION Recommendations and guidelines are discussed for analysis of tunnel segments for the ground and groundwater loads, and tonsilo stresses in joints duo to jack thrust forces and cross section changes. The existing recommendations, guidolines and standards from various ‘ountries in Europe, Asia and America are evaluated. Standard codo requirements aro presented and thoir rmarits ara discussed for the case of design of segments. Latest dovolopments in sogmental tunnel lining systems are presented including fiber reinforced concrete (FRC) segments, anchored gaskets and Bicones as shear recovery ‘systems for tunnel openings. Using FRC ‘methodology, results of analyses indicate that for a case (of mi-size tunnel, the use of fibers can lead to elimination of steel bars, which in tum results. in significant Construction cost saving in tunneling industy. a REFERENCES ACI 318-08. 2008. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary. American Concrato Institute Commitien 318. ACI 544.FR, 2014, Indirect method to obtain a stress: strain diagram’ for strain softening fiber-reinforced concretes. American Concrete Institute. FTES. 2005. Recommendation for the design, sizing and construction of procast coneroto segmonis installed at the rear of a tunnel boring machine (TBM) and AITES Guideline. Tunnels et Ouvrages Souterrains. HS1 — 2005. Association Frangaise des Tunnels et de I'Espace Souterrain (AFTES). ‘ASTM C1609-10. 2010. Standard test method for flexural performance of fiber-reinforced concrete (using beam with third-point loading). American Society for Tasting and Materials, West Conshohocken. BAEL 91 révisées 99. 2007. Technical design rules and calculation works for reinforced concrete structures following the limit stato mothad. 1S0thedn. GTCC Works Section 1: reinforced concrete + Amendment At, CSTB, France. Bakhshi, M; Barsby, C. and Mobasher, B 2013. Comparative evaluation of early age’ toughness parameters in fiber reinforced concrote. Matorials and Structures, 47(5): 853-872, Bakhshi, M. and Nasri, V. 2013a, Structural design of ‘segmental tunnel linings. 3rd International Conference ‘on Computational Methods in Tunneling _and Subsurfaco Enginooring: EURO:TUN 2013. Ruhr University Bochum, 17-19 April 2013. Bakhshi, M. and Nase, V. 2013b. Latest Developmants in Dasign of Segmental Tunnel Linings. Canadian Sociaty for Civil Enginooring General Conforence. Montréal, Québec, May 29-June 1, 2013 Bakhshi, M. and Nasri, V. 2013c, Practical aspects of segmental tunnel lining design. Underground — the way to the future: World Tunnel Congress 2013. Gonova. May 31 — Juno 7, 2013. G. Anagnostou & H. Enrbar (eds), CNR DT 204/206. 2006. Guidelines for the design, construction and production control of fibre reinforcod conerote structures. italian National Research Council = CNA, DAUB working group. 2013. Recommendations for the design, production and installation of segmental rings. DBV — Recommendation (German Conorete Association) 1992. Design principles of steel fibre reinforced concrete for tunneling works: 19-23, Dutch Code NEN 6720. 1895. Rogulations for concrete structural requirements” and calculation, methods. Tech. Rep. NEN 6720, Nederlands Normalisatio-insiturt. EHE-08 Code on Structural Concrate. 2008. ANNEX 14 — Recommendations for using concrate with fibres. fib Model code, 2010. Bulletin 56: Model Code 2010-First complete draft, Fédération internationale du bétonitheInternational Federation for Situctural Concrete. Lausanne, Switzeriand. FHWA, 2009, Technical manual for design and construction of read tunnels — civil elomonts. US Doparmont of Transportation Fedoral Highway Adminstration. Groeneweg, T. 2007. Shield driven tunnels in ultra high strength concrete: reduction of the tunnel ining thickness. Thesis (MSc in Civil Engineering) — Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, International Tunneling Association (ITA) Working Group No. 2. 2000. Guidaines for the Design of Shield Tunnel Lining. Tunneling and Underground Space Technology. 15(3): 303-331. Intemational Tunneling Association (ITA) Working Group fon Ganaral Approaches to the Design of Tunnels 1988. Guidelines for the design of tunnels. Tunneling and Underground Seace Technology. 33): 237-249. Iyengar, KT. 1962. Two-dimensional theories of anchorage’ zone stresses in post-lensioned beams. Journal of the American Concrete Institute (ACI), 59(10): 1443-1466. JSCE. 2007. Standard Specifications for Tunneling: Shield Tunnels. Japan Society of Civil Engineers. Muic Wood AM. 1975. Géatachniquo, 25(1): 115-127. OVBB Guideline. 2017. Guideline for concrete segmental fining systems. Austrian Society for Concrete and Construction Technology. February 2011. NEN 6720, 1995, TGB 1990, Concrate Standards — ‘Structural requirements and calculation methods (VBC 1995), 2"* edition with revisions A2:2001 and A3:2004 {in Dutch). Nethertands Normalisation Institute NNI, Delft, the Netherlands ONORM EN 1992-1-1. 2011. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures: Part 1-1: General Rules and Flos for Buildings. Austrian Standards Instituto ACI 318-08, 2008 Builing Code Requirements for Structural Conereta and Commentary. American Concrete instiuto Commitee 318. RILEM TC 162-TDF, 2003, Test and design methods for steel fibre reinforced concrete. oe design method: final recommendation. Materials and» Structures, '36(262): 560-567.