PAS 8810:2016

Tunnel design – Design of concrete

segmental tunnel linings – Code of practice
Publishing and copyright information
The BSI copyright notice displayed in this document indicates when the document
was last issued.
© The British Standards Institution 2016. Published by BSI Standards Limited 2016.
ISBN 978 0 580 88170 1
ICS 93.060

No copying without BSI permission except as permitted by copyright law.

Front cover photograph: © Crossrail Ltd.

Publication history
First published April 2016
 PAS 8810:2016

Contents
Foreword ..................................................................................................... iii

Introduction ................................................................................................. v

1 Scope ......................................................................................................... 1

2 Normative references............................................................................... 2

3 Terms, definitions and abbreviations...................................................... 4

4 Functional requirements.......................................................................... 9

5 Conceptual design ................................................................................... 14

6 Characterization of ground ..................................................................... 18

7 Materials design and specification ......................................................... 23

8 Material characterization and testing..................................................... 30

9 Limit state design...................................................................................... 33

10 Precast concrete segmental lining design............................................. 44

11 Concrete segment lining modelling ..................................................... 57

12 Instrumentation and monitoring........................................................... 72

Annexes
Annex A (normative) Design management ............................................... 73
Annex B (informative) Closed-form solutions for static analysis of tunnel
lining in soft ground.................................................................................... 77
Annex C (informative) Convergence-confinement method (CCM) in
segment lining design.................................................................................. 78
Annex D (informative) Six-stage Gate process........................................... 80

Bibliography................................................................................................. 81

List of figures
Figure 1 – Typical fire curves for tunnel design.......................................... 12
Figure 2 – Typical geometry of precast concrete segment lining.............. 45
Figure 3 – Calculation of taper.................................................................... 47
Figure 4 – Schematic diagram of strain and stress block for reinforced
concrete and fibre reinforced section for the development of the M-N
envelope....................................................................................................... 49
Figure 5 – Joint contact width and stress distribution change with joint
rotation for flat joint................................................................................... 52

© The British Standards Institution 2016 i

PAS 8810:2016

Figure 6 – Joint contact width and stress distribution change with joint
rotation for convex-convex joint................................................................. 52
Figure 7 – Simplification of non-uniform load with eccentricity for
bursting check on flat joint ........................................................................ 53
Figure 8 – Edge spalling schematic............................................................. 54
Figure 9 – Example of EPDM Gaskets gap pressure curve......................... 54
Figure 10 – Example of a 3D model of a segmental lining with contact
elements used at the joints......................................................................... 60
Figure 11 – State of tensile stress of radial and circumferential joints
of a segmental lining................................................................................... 61
Figure 12 – Analysis methods for design of tunnels in soft ground ........ 62
Figure 13 – Typical continuum model......................................................... 63
Figure 14 – Bedded beam spring model..................................................... 64
Figure 15 – Coefficient of earth pressure change prior (i.e. at rest) and
following tunnel construction (variation of horizontal stresses in kPa)... 66
Figure 16 – Typical FE model of a segmentally lined tunnel..................... 67
Figure 17 – Example of a bedded shell model for an opening in a
segmental lining with internal temporary support................................... 69
Figure 18 – Example of 3D FE model for junction...................................... 70
Figure C.1 – Convergence-confinement method – Longitudinal
displacement profile (LDP) and ground response curve (GRC) with support
characteristic curve....................................................................................... 78
Figure C.2 – Stress reduction method, conceptual sketch ........................ 79

List of tables
Table 1 – Typical elements differentiated from the type of tunnel and
associated design issues .............................................................................. 9
Table 2 – Tunnel construction methodology and associated typical lining
types in soft ground tunnelling ................................................................. 15
Table 3 – Recommendations for durability against chemical attack for
the external and internal surface of precast segmental linings where
protective lining is not necessary ............................................................... 27
Table 4 – Limiting values of composition and properties for concrete
where a DC-class is specified....................................................................... 28
Table 5 – Additional protective measures (APMs) ..................................... 29
Table 6 – Recommendations for circumstances in which internal lining is
necessary for precast concrete segmental linings for tunnels and shafts
used for water and sewer services, storage and transportation .............. 29
Table 7 – Typical design situations for precast concrete segmental
tunnel lining ................................................................................................ 34
Table 8 – Typical actions for tunnels in transient design situations ......... 36
Table 9 – Typical actions for tunnels in persistent design situations ....... 38
Table 10 – Typical STR/GEO failure modes of tunnel linings .................... 40
Table 11 – ULS Partial factors on actions ................................................... 41
Table 12 – ULS Partial factors for materials ............................................... 42
Table A.1 – Suggested categories for tunnel lining design checking ...... 74
Table B.1 – Closed-form solutions for static analysis of tunnel lining
in soft ground .............................................................................................. 77
Table D.1 – Suggested six-stage Gate process for tunnel lining design ... 80

ii © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

Foreword
This PAS was sponsored by High Speed Two (HS2) Limited and the British Tunnelling
Society (BTS). Its development was facilitated by BSI Standards Limited and it was
published under licence from The British Standards Institution. It came into effect on
30 April 2016.
Acknowledgement is given to Hyuk-Il Jung, Chris The British Standards Institution retains ownership
Peaston, Bryan Marsh, Michael Devriendt, Michele and copyright of this PAS. BSI Standards Limited as the
Mangione, Eden Almog and Rob Harding of Arup as publisher of this PAS reserves the right to withdraw or
the technical authors, and the following organizations amend this PAS on receipt of authoritative advice that
that were involved in the development of this PAS as it is appropriate to do so. This PAS will be reviewed at
members of the steering group: intervals not exceeding two years, and any amendments
• Arup arising from the review will be published as an amended
PAS and publicized in Update Standards.
• Atkins
• Balfour Beatty This PAS is not to be regarded as a British Standard. It
• British Tunnelling Society (BTS) will be withdrawn upon publication of its content in, or
• CH2M Hill as, a British Standard.
• Costain
The PAS process enables a code of practice to be
• Crossrail rapidly developed in order to fulfil an immediate
• Donaldson Associates need in industry. A PAS can be considered for further
• Dragados development as a British Standard, or constitute part
of the UK input into the development of a European or
• Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
International Standard.
• Highways England
• High Speed Two (HS2) Limited
• INECO Relationship with other publications
• London Underground This PAS is expected to be used in conjunction with
• Mott MacDonald BS 6164, which makes recommendations for and gives
• Network Rail guidance on health and safety practices in tunnel
design and construction.
• OTB Concrete
• Skanska
• Thames Tideway Use of this document
• University College London, Department of Civil It has been assumed in the preparation of this PAS
Engineering that the execution of its provisions will be entrusted
• UnPS to appropriately qualified and experienced people, for
• VINCI whose use it has been produced.
• Co-opted members
Copyright is claimed on Figure 12. Copyright holder is
The British Tunnelling Society, 5 Churchill Place, Canary
Acknowledgement is also given to the members of
Wharf, London, E14 5HU.
a wider review panel who were consulted in the
development of this PAS.

Presentational conventions
The provisions of this PAS are presented in roman
(i.e. upright) type. Its recommendations are expressed
in sentences in which the principal auxiliary verb
is “should”. The word “may” is used to express
permissibility and the word “can” is used to express
possibility, e.g. a consequence of an action or an event.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 iii

PAS 8810:2016

Commentary, explanation and general informative Particular attention is drawn to the following specific
material is presented in italic type, and does not regulations:
constitute a normative element. • Construction (Design and Management) Regulations
2015 [1];
Spelling conforms to The Shorter Oxford English
• Construction Products Regulations 2013 [2]; and
Dictionary. If a word has more than one spelling,
the first spelling in the dictionary is used (e.g. • Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 [3].
“organization” rather than “organisation”).

Contractual and legal considerations

This publication does not purport to include all the
necessary provisions of a contract. Users are responsible
for its correct application.

Compliance with a PAS cannot confer immunity from

legal obligations.

iv © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

Introduction
HS2 and BSI engaged with a number of construction As tunnel construction technology is fast changing,
industry stakeholders to identify areas in which it some of the recommendations set out in this PAS
was felt that the industry could benefit from further might not be fully applicable to a newly-introduced
standardization. technology that does not exist at the time of this
PAS publication.
PAS 8810 was developed specifically to cover the design
of segmental tunnel linings, which was identified as an This PAS is not intended to limit the design flexibility
area in which additional standardization was required. or the adoption of new technology, and, as such, is
Segmental tunnel linings are currently designed with not intended to be used as a barrier that prevents the
reference to a large number of published general building adoption of innovative designs.
standards and industry documents, together with several
Eurocodes. However, there is no codified or standardized A number of other areas were identified as benefitting
design document that applies specifically to precast from standardization. A wider programme of work is
concrete segmental tunnel linings, and the volume of underway to develop a further three PASs:
relevant standards, guidance and documentation has • PAS 8811, Temporary works – Client procedures
led to both conflicting guidance and requirements, and – Code of practice (in preparation), which gives
the misinterpretation and misapplication of standards. recommendations for UK infrastructure client
PAS 8810 therefore aims to bring together existing procedures with respect to temporary works
standards and industry documents into a single, usable construction projects, from planning through
standardization document while simultaneously reducing to removal.
unnecessary administration and delay by streamlining,
• PAS 8812, Temporary works – Application of European
clarifying and standardizing the design process for
Standards in design – Guide, which gives guidance on
segmental lining design.
the application of European Standards in the design
of temporary works in the UK for practitioners in
Clauses 4 to 8 cover the more general aspects of tunnel
the fields of structural and geotechnical temporary
design and do not restrict the designer to a single
works design.
construction methodology at the conceptual design
stage, as a designer would not limit their study only to • PAS 8820, Construction materials – Alkali-activated
segmental tunnel lining design. Clauses 9 to 12 provide cementitious material and concrete – Specification,
specific, technical information on precast concrete which specifies requirements for alkali-activated
lining elements for segmental tunnel linings. cementitious binders for suppliers of alkali-activated
binders, ready mixed concrete, engineers and
At the time of publication, the intention is to architects, contractors, asset owners and end users.
standardize further areas of tunnel lining design in the
near future including sprayed concrete linings and cast-
in-situ linings.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 v

PAS 8810:2016

This page is deliberately left blank.

vi © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

1 Scope

This PAS makes recommendations for the design of This PAS covers:
concrete segmental tunnel linings. It covers design 1) functional requirements;
considerations from project inception through to the
2) conceptual design;
end of the service life of the tunnel. At the early stage
of the design (e.g. conceptual design stage), the study 3) characterization of ground;
of the options for the selection of the tunnel lining 4) materials design and specification;
is not limited to concrete segmental tunnel linings. 5) material characterization and testing;
Thus Clauses 4 to 8 in the PAS are applicable to tunnels
6) limit state design;
with all types of linings. Clauses 9 to 12 give specific
recommendations on the design of concrete segmental 7) concrete segmental lining design;
tunnel linings. 8) concrete segment lining modelling;
9) instrumentation and monitoring; and
This PAS is for use by design engineers (usually directly
10) design management.
employed by the client but this could sometimes be the
contractor’s designer, for example, in a design and build This PAS does not cover:
project) and clients (usually the owner of the tunnel
a) sprayed concrete lined tunnels;
who is responsible for the design and construction of
concrete tunnel linings) and contractors. b) cast-in-situ concrete lined tunnels;
c) any tunnel lining using material other than
The PAS sets out detailed design recommendations by concrete, such as spheroidal graphite iron or steel;
referencing existing national standards (BS, BS EN) or d) cut and cover tunnels;
internationally-recognized industry standards. Technical
e) drill and blast excavations;
requirements from existing standards are referenced,
rather than repeated. Specific design recommendations f) hard rock tunnelling;
are included only for the design items that are not g) pipe jacking; and
available from existing standards. h) project planning and management.
NOTE 1 Recommendations for health and safety
practices in tunnel construction are given in BS 6164.
NOTE 2 Requirements for handling ground support
elements are given in BS EN 16191.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 1

PAS 8810:2016

2 Normative references

Standards publications BS EN 12110, Tunnelling machines – Air locks –

Safety requirements
The following documents, in whole or in part, are
normatively referenced in this document and are BS EN 12620, Aggregates for concrete
indispensable for its application. For dated references,
only the edition cited applies. For undated references, BS EN 13055-1, Lightweight aggregates – Part 1:
the latest edition of the referenced document Lightweight aggregates for concrete, mortar and grout
(including any amendments) applies.
BS EN 13263-1, Silica fume for concrete – Part 1:
BS 4449, Steel for the reinforcement of concrete – Definitions, requirements and conformity criteria
Weldable reinforcing steel – Bar, coil and decoiled
product – Specification BS EN 13369, Common rules for precast concrete products

BS 6164, Code of practice for health and safety in BS EN 14651, Test method for metallic fibre concrete
tunnelling in the construction industry – Measuring the flexural tensile strength (limit of
proportionality (LOP), residual)
BS 6744, Stainless steel bars for the reinforcement of
and use in concrete – Requirements and test methods BS EN 14889-1, Fibres for concrete – Part 1: Steel fibres –
Definitions, specifications and conformity
BS 7979, Specification for limestone fines for use with
Portland cement BS EN 14889-2, Fibres for concrete – Part 2: Polymer
fibres – Definitions, specifications and conformity
BS 8500-1, Concrete – Complementary British Standard
to BS EN 206 – Part 1: Method of specifying and BS EN 15167-1, Ground granulated blastfurnace slag for
guidance for the specifier use in concrete, mortar and grout – Part 1: Definitions,
specifications and conformity criteria
BS 8500-2, Concrete – Complementary British Standard
to BS EN 206 – Specification for constituent materials BS EN 16191, Tunnelling machinery – Safety requirements
and concrete
BS EN ISO 14688-1, Geotechnical investigation and
BS EN 206:2013, Concrete – Specification, performance, testing – Part 1: Identification and classification of soil –
production and conformity Identification and description

BS EN 450-1, Fly ash for concrete – Part 1: Definition, BS EN ISO 14688-2, Geotechnical investigation and
specifications and conformity criteria testing – Part 2: Identification and classification of soil –
Principles for a classification
BS EN 934-2, Admixtures for concrete, mortar and
grout – Part 2: Concrete admixtures – Definitions, BS EN ISO 14689-1, Geotechnical investigation and
requirements, conformity, marking and labelling testing – Part 1: Identification and classification of rock
– Identification and description
BS EN 1008, Mixing water for concrete – Specification
for sampling, testing and assessing the suitability of BS ISO 13270, Steel fibres for concrete – Definitions and
water, including water recovered from processes in the specifications
concrete industry, as mixing water for concrete
NA to BS EN 1992-1-1, UK National Annex to Eurocode
BS EN 1990, Eurocode – Basis of structural design 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1: General rules
and rules for buildings
BS EN 1992-1-1, Eurocode 2: Design of concrete
structures – Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings PAS 1192-2, Specification for information management
for the capital/delivery phase of construction projects
BS EN 1997-1, Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design – Part 1: using Building Information Modelling
General rules

2 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

Other publications [NR5] FEDERATION INTERNATIONALE DU BETON. fib

Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010, Berlin: Ernst
[NR1] BRITISH TUNNELLING SOCIETY. Tunnel Lining & Sohn, 2013.
Design Guide, Thomas Telford Books, 2004.
[NR6] INTERNATIONAL TUNNELLING ASSOCIATION.
[NR2] BRITISH TUNNELLING SOCIETY. Specification for Guidelines for the Design of Tunnels, WG on General
Tunnelling, Third edition, Thomas Telford Books, 2010. Approaches to the design of tunnels. In: Tunnelling and
Underground Space Technology, ITA, 1988, Vol. 3, No.3,
[NR3] NICHOLSON, D., TSE, C.M., and PENNY, C.
pp. 237-249.
The Observational Method in Ground Engineering–
Principles and Applications. Report 185. London: [NR7] INTERNATIONAL TUNNELLING ASSOCIATION.
CIRIA, 1999. Seismic design and analysis of underground structures.
In: Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 16,
[NR4] RILEM TC 162-TDF: Test and design methods for
ITA, 2001. pp. 247-293.
steel fibre reinforced concrete, --design method –
Final Recommendation. In: Materials and Structures/ [NR8] DIXON, J.D. Analysis of tunnel support structure
Materiaux et Constructions, 2003, Vol. 36, October, with consideration of support-rock interaction, U.S.
pp. 560-567. Bureau of Mines Rept., Invest. No. 7526, 1971.

[NR9] INTERNATIONAL TUNNELLING ASSOCIATION.

Guidelines for the Design of Shield Tunnel Lining,
WG No.2. In: Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology, ITA, 2000, Vol. 15, No.3, pp. 303-331.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 3

PAS 8810:2016

3 Terms, definitions and abbreviations

3.1 Terms and definitions 3.1.3 category (cat)

level of design check required that takes account of the
For the purposes of this PAS, the following terms and
risk and complexity of design
definitions apply. General tunnel lining design terms
not defined in this document can be found in the BTS,
Tunnel Lining Design Guide [NR1]. 3.1.4 conceptual design
high-level design stage carried out to develop a
3.1.1 action preferred single design option that complies with the
client’s functional requirements
3.1.1.1 accidental action
NOTE For the client’s functional requirements, see 4.1.
action, usually of short duration but of significant
magnitude, that is unlikely to occur on a given structure
3.1.5 concrete
during the design working life
material formed by mixing cement, coarse and
[SOURCE: BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005, 1.5.3.5] fine aggregate and water, with or without the
incorporation of admixtures and additions, which
NOTE An accidental action can be expected in many
develops its properties by hydration of the cement
cases to cause severe consequences unless appropriate
measures are taken.
[SOURCE: BS EN 206:2013, 3.1.1.1]

3.1.1.2 permanent action

3.1.5.1 addition
action that is likely to act throughout a given reference
finely-divided-inorganic constituent used in concrete
period and for which the variation in magnitude with
in order to improve certain properties or to achieve
time is negligible, or for which the variation is always in
special properties
the same direction (monotonic) until the action attains
a certain limit value
[BS EN 206:2013, 3.1.2.1]
[SOURCE: BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005, 1.5.3.3]
3.1.5.2 additional protective measures (APMs)
3.1.1.3 variable action measures taken to protect concrete where it is
considered that the basic provisions of the concrete
action for which the variation in magnitude with time
specification might not provide adequate resistance to
is neither negligible nor monotonic
chemical attack
[SOURCE: BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005, 1.5.3.4]
[SOURCE: BRE Special Digest 1]

3.1.2 approval in principle (AIP)

3.1.5.3 combination
document which records the agreed basis and criteria
restricted range of Portland cements and additions
for the detailed design or assessment of a tunnel
which, having been combined in the concrete mixer,
lining structure
count fully towards the cement content and water/
cement ratio in concrete

4 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

3.1.5.4 designed concrete 3.1.6 construction tolerance

concrete specified by strength class, consistence and permissible deviation from the designed geometry of
any required limitations on composition the lining
NOTE 1 For example, cement or combination type, NOTE For example, location of lining relative to
minimum cement or combination content, maximum designed position, variation in lining thickness,
water/cement ratio. deviation of surface.
NOTE 2 Additional requirements can be specified, e.g.
strength development, resistance to water penetration. 3.1.7 critical national infrastructure
infrastructure elements, the loss or compromise of
3.1.5.5 designated concrete which would have a major detrimental impact on the
concrete specified by a designation from a list of availability or integrity of essential services, leading to
possible concretes severe economic or social consequences or to loss of life
NOTE The designation relates to specific limitations on
the concrete including strength class, water/cement 3.1.8 design gate
ratio, cement or combination content and cement or stage in the design approval and acceptance process
combination type. Further limitations can be specified. that the design has to pass before proceeding to the
next stage
3.1.5.6 prescribed concrete
concrete specified by the exact required composition 3.1.9 design situation
and constituent materials including cement or set of physical conditions representing the real
combination, aggregates and admixtures conditions occurring during a certain time interval
NOTE Performance requirements, e.g. concrete for which the design demonstrates that relevant limit
strength, cannot be specified for prescribed concrete. states are not exceeded

3.1.5.7 proprietary concrete 3.1.9.1 accidental design situation

concrete specified by reference to a product name for design situation involving exceptional conditions of
a particular concrete offered by a particular producer the structure or its exposure, including fire, explosion,
to meet specific claimed performance impact or local failure

NOTE The producer is not required to provide

information on the composition of the concrete. 3.1.9.2 persistent design situation
design situation that is relevant during a period of the
3.1.5.8 standardized prescribed concrete same order as the design working life of the structure

concrete specified by a designation from

BS 8500-2:2015, Table 10 relating to a specific 3.1.9.3 seismic design situation
composition of concrete design situation involving exceptional conditions of the
NOTE 1 For example, ST5. structure when subjected to a seismic event

NOTE 2 Performance requirements, e.g. concrete

3.1.9.4 transient design situation
strength, cannot be specified for standardized
prescribed concrete. design situation that is relevant during a period much
shorter than the design working life of the structure
and which has a high probability of occurrence
NOTE A transient design situation refers to temporary
conditions of the structure, of use, or exposure, e.g.
during construction or repair.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 5

PAS 8810:2016

3.1.10 design verification 3.1.17 ground investigation report (GIR)

process of establishing the validity of the design report that includes factual geotechnical information
NOTE Design verification confirms design results or and evaluation of the information
parameters that meet standard document requirements [SOURCE: BS EN 1997-1:2004+A1:2013, 3.4, modified]
and/or the designer’s intent.
3.1.18 grouting
3.1.11 design working life
3.1.18.1 annulus grouting
period of time during which the item is expected by its
grouting required to fill the planned gap/voids
designers to work within its specified parameters
between the excavated profile of ground and the
extrados of linings
3.1.12 desk study
preliminary investigation and report which collates 3.1.18.2 cavity grouting
currently available, relevant information
grouting required to fill the unexpected/unplanned
gap/voids between the excavated profile of ground and
3.1.13 feasibility options report the extrados of linings
report that provides the details and results of feasibility
study options 3.1.19 hydraulic failure
ground failure mode induced by pore-water pressure or
3.1.14 fire pore-water seepage
3.1.14.1 design fire load
[SOURCE: BS EN 1997-1:2004+A1:2013, 10, modified]
maximum fire load to be considered for the design of
the tunnel lining
3.1.20 joint
NOTE The design fire load is normally given in Watts
and is commonly known as a time-temperature curve. 3.1.20.1 birdsmouthing
opening of radial joint on one side due to deformation
3.1.14.2 fire curve of the tunnel lining
change in temperature experienced at the surface of a
structure over a given time frame due to a fire event 3.1.20.2 bursting (failure)
tensile failure of concrete at a joint of the tunnel lining
3.1.15 geotechnical baseline report (GBR) which is induced by excessive compressive contact stress
contractual document that establishes a definitive at the joint contact face
statement of the contractually defined geotechnical
conditions relevant to the tunnel 3.1.20.3 circumferential joint
joint formed between the two adjoining concrete
NOTE The report is used as a baseline for contractual sections normal to the direction of tunnel alignment
reference.
NOTE A circumferential joint is sometimes referred to
as a circle joint.
3.1.16 geotechnical design report (GDR)
report that includes geotechnical assumptions, data, 3.1.20.4 groove
methods of calculation and results of the verification of
small recess formed around the segment edges to
safety and serviceability
accommodate gaskets or caulking materials
[SOURCE: BS EN 1997-1:2004+A1:2013, 2.8, modified]
3.1.20.5 lip
misalignment between two segments along a radial
joint in direction of tunnel radius

6 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

3.1.20.6 radial joint 3.1.23 parties

joint formed between precast concrete segments in a 3.1.23.1 client
ring along the direction of tunnel
organizations or individuals for whom a construction
NOTE A radial joint is sometimes referred to as a project is carried out
longitudinal joint.
[SOURCE: HSE CDM Regulations 2015]
3.1.20.7 step NOTE The client is generally the same as the organization
misalignment between two segments along a or group who own, operate and maintain the tunnel
circumferential (circle) joint in direction of tunnel radius structure, but it depends on the type of contract.

3.1.21 limit state 3.1.23.2 contractor

state beyond which the structure no longer fulfils the any person (including a non-domestic client) who, in
relevant design criteria the course or furtherance of a business, carries out,
manages or controls construction work
[SOURCE: BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005, 1.5.2.12]
[SOURCE: HSE CDM Regulations 2015]
3.1.21.1 serviceability limit state
state that correspond to conditions beyond which 3.1.23.3 designer
the specified service requirements for a structure or those, who as part of a business, prepare or modify
structural member are no longer met designs for a building, product or system relating to
construction work
[SOURCE: BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005, 1.5.2.14]
[SOURCE: HSE CDM Regulations 2015]
3.1.21.2 ultimate limit state
state associated with the collapse or with other similar 3.1.23.4 employer
forms of structural failure organization or group of people who employs
the designer
[SOURCE: BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005, 1.5.2.13] NOTE This could be the client, the contractor or
another designer depending on the type of contract.
3.1.22 lining
3.1.22.1 primary lining 3.1.23.5 principal contractor
tunnel lining structure that is designed to take any contractor appointed by the client to co-ordinate the
actions immediately following excavation over a construction phase of a project where it involves more
prescribed period of time than one contractor
NOTE A primary lining is sometimes called a temporary
[SOURCE: HSE CDM Regulations 2015]
lining when secondary lining is designed to take all
design actions and loads over the design target life.
3.1.23.6 principal designer
3.1.22.2 secondary lining designer appointed by the client in projects involving
more than one contractor who has the legal duty to
tunnel lining structure that is designed to take full
plan, manage and co-ordinate health and safety in the
or part of design actions and loads over the design
pre-construction phase of the project
working life
NOTE The principal designer can be an organization
NOTE 1 The secondary lining depends on the design
or an individual with sufficient knowledge, experience
principle of the primary lining.
and ability to carry out the role.
NOTE 2 When the primary lining is designed as a
temporary structure, the secondary lining is referred to [SOURCE: HSE CDM Regulations 2015]
as the permanent lining.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 7

PAS 8810:2016

3.1.24 requirements 3.1.30 volume loss

3.1.24.1 functional requirements volume of the surface settlement trough per linear
metre expressed as a percentage of the theoretical
requirements defined and provided by the client to
excavated volume per linear metre
ensure the tunnel meets its functional objectives over
the design working life NOTE This is sometimes referred to as ground loss.
NOTE Functional requirements include operational,
security, durability requirements.
3.2 Abbreviations
3.1.24.2 operational requirements For the purposes of this PAS the following
requirements defined and provided by the client to abbreviations apply.
ensure normal operation of the tunnel over its design ACEC aggressive chemical environment for concrete
working life AIP approval in principle
NOTE For example, the speed of the train, or water APM additional protective measure
flow rate. BEM boundary element method
BIM building information modelling
3.1.25 segment
CCM convergence-confinement method
3.1.25.1 clocking position
CDM construction (design and management)
equally spaced bolt/dowel position on the
CDS concept design statement
circumferential joint to allow for rotation of each ring
relative to the previous ring CSTR Concrete Society technical report
D&C design and construct
3.1.25.2 key draw DC design chemical (class)
clear length needed from the leading edge of the ring DEM discrete element method
to place the key segment EN Euronorm
EPDM ethylene propylene diene monomer
3.1.26 smooth-bore
FD finite difference
segment that has smooth internal surface finish
FE finite element
NOTE It can have small recess close to the perimeter
FRC fibre reinforced concrete
of the segment for bolt assembly.
GBR geotechnical baseline reports
3.1.27 soft ground GDR geotechnical design reports
ground that requires a lining to maintain stability GIR ground investigation reports
during and/or after excavation GIS geographic information system
hENs harmonized European product standards
3.1.28 temporary works IDR interdisciplinary review
part of the works that allows or enables construction MSFRC macro synthetic fibre reinforced concrete
of, protects, supports or provides access to, the
NATM new Austrian tunnelling method
permanent works and which might or might not remain
in place at the completion of the works PFI private finance initiative
NOTE Examples of temporary works are structures, RSES register of security engineers and specialists
supports, back-propping, earthworks and accesses. SCL sprayed concrete lining
SDR single disciplinary review
[SOURCE: BS 5975:2008+A1:2011, 3.40 modified]
SFRC steel fibre reinforced concrete
SGI spheroidal graphite iron
3.1.29 trigger levels
SLS serviceability limit state
measure of a parameter at which a pre-defined
action occurs TBM tunnel boring machine
NOTE That action could be to do nothing, for example, ULS ultimate limit state
at a green trigger level. WG working group

8 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

4 Functional requirements

4.1 General 4.1.3 The designer should assess the typical elements
set out in Table 1 and, where relevant, document their
4.1.1 The designer should design and size the tunnel impact on the tunnel’s sizing and lining design.
lining to meet the functional requirements of the
specific project.

4.1.2 The designer should undertake a project-specific

review to assess all of the parameters that affect the
size and the design of the tunnel lining in order to
meet the functional requirements of the client, as given
in 4.3 and to ensure there is adequate working space to
construct the tunnel safely. The results of the project-
specific review should be documented.

Table 1 – Typical elements differentiated from the type of tunnel and associated design issues

Tunnel types Elements differentiated from the type of tunnel Design issues

Transportation • Rail and track form (for rail tunnel), • Sizing, operational train or vehicle load
tunnels pavement form (for road tunnel) to lining

• Structure gauge • Sizing

• Overhead power line or third rail (for rail • Sizing

tunnel)

• Intervention and evacuation walkways • Sizing, walkway design, cross passage

spacing, derailment containment

• Firefighting equipment • Sizing

• Drainage system • Sizing

• Service cables/electrical and mechanical • Sizing

equipment

• Ventilation/smoke control/overhead jet • Sizing

fans/overhead ventilation ducts/lighting/
signage and other services

• Aerodynamics • Transient pressure criteria for high-speed

rail, sizing

• Cladding and finishes including support • Sizing, durability of support system

system

Water/sewerage • Water head loss – surface roughness • Joint design, secondary lining design (sizing)
tunnels
• Internal pressure maintenance • Joint design, water tightness design –
leakage and external water pressures

Cable tunnel • Number of service cables and pipes, fixing/ • Sizing

hanging method

• Accessibility of people/equipment • Sizing

• Electromagnetic clearance and separation • Sizing

• Temperature control (ventilation and cooling) • Sizing

• Drainage system • Sizing

© The British Standards Institution 2016 9

PAS 8810:2016

4.2 Health and safety requirements 4.3.2.3 As a minimum, the client should include in their
operational requirements document, the project’s:
4.2.1 The client should provide the designer with the
a) operational requirements (see 4.3.2.1 and 4.3.2.2);
health and safety requirements for the project. Such
requirements should satisfy the safety requirements during b) security requirements (see 4.3.3);
construction, operation and maintenance of the tunnels. c) durability requirements (see 4.3.4);
NOTE 1 Attention is drawn to the Construction (Design d) repair and maintenance requirements (see 4.3.5);
and Management) Regulations 2015 (CDM) [1] which e) fire safety requirements (see 4.3.6);
impose statutory duties on designers to consider health
f) water tightness requirements;
and safety.
g) contractual requirements (not covered in this
NOTE 2 The designer of the tunnel lining may be
PAS); and
different from the “Principal Designer” and the “Principal
Contractor” defined in the CDM Regulations 2015. h) legal requirements (not covered in this PAS).
NOTE The client might also provide information
4.2.2 The designer should design and size the tunnels to relating to project-specific tolerances, deformation
fulfil the client’s health and safety requirements. limits, and design-checking specifications.

4.2.3 The designer should apply health and safety 4.3.3 Security requirements
practices relating to tunnel design and construction in
4.3.3.1 The client should identify whether the tunnel
accordance with BS 6164.
structure forms part of the UK’s critical national
NOTE BS 6164:2011, 6.1 highlights the importance infrastructure and inform the designer of their findings.
of the integral nature of design and construction for
NOTE Specific security-related design requirements can
tunnelling projects. Recommendations for the design of
be applied either by the client or by the government,
tunnel lining with consideration of Health and Safety
particularly for major infrastructure assets which might
requirements are given in BS 6164:2011, Clause 8.
form part of the UK’s critical national infrastructure.

4.3.3.2 Where the tunnel structure is identified as

4.3 Client’s project-specific functional forming part of the UK’s critical national infrastructure,
requirements the client should consult a relevant expert on the
specific counter-terrorist design requirements.
4.3.1 General
NOTE 1 A relevant expert could be a member of the
The designer should review the client’s project-specific
Register of Security Engineers and Specialists (RSES).
functional requirements and incorporate these into the
design and sizing of the tunnel lining. NOTE 2 Where a counter-terrorism expert is consulted,
they then consult with government security advisers
NOTE The client’s project-specific functional
from the Centre for the Protection of National
requirements are commonly defined in the client’s
Infrastructure 1) (CPNI).
design standards or the client’s project brief, but might
also be prepared by the designer employed by the client. NOTE 3 Similar notification conditions might also apply
when designing for international clients.
4.3.2 Operational requirements
4.3.3.3 The client should provide any security-related
4.3.2.1 The client should document the project’s design requirements to the designer and these should
operational requirements and provide these to be incorporated into the design of the tunnel lining.
the designer.
4.3.4 Durability requirements
4.3.2.2 If there is no available documentation from
the client that states the operational requirements of 4.3.4.1 The client should specify a target design
the infrastructure, the designer should request this working life for the tunnel lining and provide this to
information from the client as early as possible. the designer.
NOTE Having the client’s operational requirement details NOTE BS EN 1990 does not specifically cite tunnel
during the concept design stage can minimize the risk of structures within its scope although it states that it is
resizing the tunnel lining in subsequent stages. applicable for the design of structures where other
materials or actions outside the scope of EN 1991 to EN
1999 are involved. NA to BS EN 1990:2002 targets 120
years for the design working life.

1)
www.cpni.gov.uk

10 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

4.3.4.2 The designer should design the tunnel lining to structural redesign in the later stages of design. This
meet the target design working life specified by the client. can introduce significant cost and programme impacts
to the design and construction stages. For example, for
4.3.4.3 Tunnels need to be designed, where practicable, a pressurized water tunnel, the client might require
to minimize the requirement for maintenance regular inspection of the tunnel by draining the tunnel,
interventions other than visual inspections. To support which means a critical load case for the tunnel lining
this requirement, the designer should provide a structural design might occur when the tunnel is
statement of potential degradation modes identified drained for its maintenance period, rather than during
during the design of the tunnel lining and a schedule normal operating conditions.
of the expected interventions during the design
working life. 4.3.6 Fire safety requirements
NOTE To prepare the schedule of the expected NOTE 1 The ITA document Guidelines for structural
interventions required under 4.3.4.3, the designer fire resistance for road tunnels [4] is focused on road
needs to consider all components, including structural tunnels which are exposed to severe hydrocarbon fire
elements, gaskets and sealing materials and also the scenarios induced by vehicles’ fuel. Further fire safety
ability of all materials to resist degradation by ground, requirements for road tunnels can be found from World
groundwater and the environment throughout the Road Association (PIARC) Road Tunnels Manual [5].
design working life.
NOTE 2 Railway tunnels (freight, passenger or
other) can also be exposed to severe fire events such
4.3.4.4 The designer should design the durability of
as the Channel Tunnel fires 1996, 2008 and 2015.
tunnel lining in accordance with 7.9; and the BTS,
The fire resistance of railway tunnels captured by
Tunnel Lining Design Guide, Section 4 [NR1].
the interoperability regulations are described in
COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 1303/2014 of
4.3.4.5 The design needs to cover the durability of
18 November 2014 [6], Technical Specification for
all materials used in the tunnel lining as permanent
Interoperability relating to ‘safety in railway tunnels’ of
components. Where temporary components are left in
the rail system of the European Union.
place, the designer should assess and document their
impact on the durability of the permanent components. NOTE 3 The extent of the fire damage and the
repair required has an impact on the finance of the
NOTE Permanent components include concrete,
infrastructure due to the combination of costs for
reinforcement and waterproofing systems and all
repairing the tunnel and loss of revenue resulting from
exposure conditions, both internal and external, and on
extended closure of the tunnel.
both primary and secondary linings.

4.3.6.1 The client should provide a design fire load, fire

4.3.5 Repair and maintenance requirements curve and post-fire criteria in the design requirements, or
4.3.5.1 The client should develop the project-specific provide sufficient information to allow the designer to
repair and maintenance regime of the tunnel select the appropriate load, curve and post-fire criteria.
(including internal operational components such as NOTE 1 Sufficient information may include a reference
rail, pavement, and cable) and provide the repair and to appropriate regulation.
maintenance regime to the designer.
NOTE 2 Different fire loads and curves might be
NOTE Attention is drawn to BS EN 1504-3 for further required for the construction and the operational
details on structural concrete repairs. scenarios.

4.3.5.2 The designer should identify repair and NOTE 3 The fire curve defines the design fire event for
maintenance requirements for the tunnel (including the lining design. Further information can be found
internal operational components such as rail, in EFNARC Specification and guidelines for testing of
pavement, and cable) with reference to the client’s passive fire protection for concrete tunnels linings [7].
project-specific repair and maintenance regime. NOTE 4 The selection of the fire curve is dependent on
the tunnel use and local conditions. Typical examples
4.3.5.3 The designer should provide adequate space are included in Figure 1.
and structural capacity in the tunnel lining design, NOTE 5 The tunnel lining may be exposed to a fire
so as to fulfil the identified repair and maintenance during construction. The designer is expected to verify
requirements. the suitability of the lining for the construction fire case.
NOTE Failing to identify repair and maintenance
requirements can lead to changes in the tunnel size and

© The British Standards Institution 2016 11

PAS 8810:2016

Figure 1 – Typical fire curves for tunnel design

4.3.6.2 The client should set out the criteria that the 4.3.6.4 The designer should design the tunnel lining in
designer should follow for the structural fire design of accordance with the fire and life safety requirements
the tunnel lining under the selected fire load and curve for the project and assess and document the need for
(see 4.3.6.1). additional active fire-protection measures, including a
fire sprinkler system, cross passages, refuges, ventilation
4.3.6.3 The designer should assess and document the and emergency escape.
properties and performance of the concrete using the
appropriate test procedure.
NOTE 1 The required fire resistance can be obtained by 4.4 Requirements relating to external
the addition of monofilament synthetic fibres to the impacts
concrete mix.
NOTE It is important that the tunnel lining is designed
NOTE 2 There have been a significant number of to limit any external impacts on the environment
tests (e.g. CTRL 2003) undertaken on concrete mixes around the tunnel.
containing monofilament polypropylene fibres with a
diameter of <32 microns. These tests have demonstrated 4.4.1 The designer should carry out a detailed review
acceptable control of explosive spalling where a suitable of the external impacts on the environment around the
quantity of monofilament polypropylene fibres has tunnel that can affect the sizing of the tunnel, selection
been added to the concrete mix. of tunnel lining type, tunnel construction methodology,
NOTE 3 The quantity of synthetic fibres per cubic construction sequence and/or dimensions of staged
metre of concrete can be verified by fire tests as it is a excavation details.
function of the concrete mix. NOTE Examples of the external impacts on the
NOTE 4 An appropriate test method needs to account environment around the tunnel include impact to
for the expected in-service loading on the lining as well existing structures/residences and infrastructures,
as the relevant thermal stresses induced by the design changes to groundwater level and groundwater
fire curve. pollution.
NOTE 5 The required fire resistance can also be
obtained by the application of protective layers.

12 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

4.4.2 The client should undertake research into 4.5 Sustainability

whether there are any existing or proposed plans for
developments that might impact the design of the The designer should design the tunnel lining so as to
tunnel lining, and should provide this information to enable the contractor to deliver the most sustainable
the designer. lining to meet the performance requirements of
the project.
4.4.3 Where any existing or proposed plans are found, NOTE 1 Further information on the principles of
the designer should make an allowance in the tunnel sustainability in construction works is given in BS EN
lining design for any potential impact. 15804, BS EN 15978, BS ISO 15392, and PAS 2080 (when
published).
4.4.4 The client should provide information to the NOTE 2 Guidance relating to responsible sourcing is
designer relating to provisions for future loads/unloads, given in BES 6001.
dewatering and proximity to foundations.
NOTE Tunnels are often constructed in urban areas
and, for this reason, it is common to consider a
surcharge load at ground level to provide an allowance
for future developments (see 9.3.2). Projects often
involve dewatering and historical data shows that the
groundwater level has been both higher and lower
than its current level in many cities.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 13

PAS 8810:2016

5 Conceptual design

5.1 General e) identified project-specific technical challenges;

f) tunnel-to-tunnel junctions, such as cross passages;
5.1.1 The designer should apply design management in
accordance with Annex A to manage the deliverables g) connections with other underground structures
of the tunnel lining design from conceptual design to such as portals, station box and shafts; and
detailed design. h) development of tunnel lining design concepts.

5.1.2 The designer should carry out the conceptual 5.1.6 The designer should assess and, where relevant,
design of the tunnel lining upon the request from the document the following factors to determine the
client in accordance with the accepted schedule of optimal alignment for the project requirements
deliverables (see A.5). and constraints:
NOTE It is advisable that this takes place at the Gate 2 a) the geology or geological features;
stage of the project shown in Annex D or an equivalent b) the length of tunnel, necessity of intermediate
stage where a modified process is adopted. shafts and access locations;
c) horizontal and vertical constraints including;
5.1.3 The designer should identify options for the
tunnel construction methodology and document these 1) availability and desirability of sites for portals,
in the conceptual design output. shafts and stations;
2) operational constraints such as gradient and
5.1.4 The designer and the client should discuss and curvature minimum radii;
select a single option from the options identified in 3) potential obstructions such as existing piles,
5.1.3, and the option selected should be agreed in tunnels, sewers, services and utilities and
writing between the designer and the client in order to wells; and
proceed to the next design stage.
4) connections to existing infrastructure
NOTE 1 The client can accept multiple options when
d) existing foundations and buildings including listed
further study is considered necessary. In this case, the
buildings and heritages; and
introduction of an intermediate design stage(s) might
be required for the selection of a single option. e) the legal, environmental, social and political impact.
NOTE 2 It is advisable that the client and designer
5.1.7 The designer should undertake a sufficient level
document the reasons for discarding an option to avoid
of design detail at the conceptual design stage to allow
repeating the same option study in the next stage design.
a robust project cost and programme to be determined.
5.1.5 The designer should carry out conceptual design NOTE 1 The project cost and programme are
with consideration given to the following key elements: determined by either the client or the contractor.
a) space-proofing of the tunnel to meet the client’s NOTE 2 Target tolerances can be set by the client, the
functional requirements; planning process or funding requirements.
b) review of the tunnel construction methodology and NOTE 3 At the conceptual design stage, it is not
type of lining structure with consideration given advisable to carry out a large amount of detailed
to interactions between multiple drifts, adjacent structural designs. There might be a project-specific
excavations, geotechnical and hydrogeological critical design element that requires more design effort
conditions (including hazardous substances such as to demonstrate an option’s feasibility. However, it is
gases), third party and environmental impact; not usually possible to carry out a detailed review due
to the lack of information at the conceptual design
c) estimation of the tunnel lining structural types and
stage, such as ground strength parameters and loading
thickness with consideration given to concrete grade
conditions from buildings. In this scenario, the designer
and reinforcement type (bar, steel or steel fibres);
can make a feasibility conclusion based on a reasonably
d) feasibility study of the tunnel lining’s structural conservative assumption, but assumptions need to be
integrity under the expected critical loading registered in the risk register document.
conditions (e.g. under high internal pressure for
water tunnel);

14 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

Table 2 – Tunnel construction methodology and associated typical lining types in soft ground
tunnelling

Construction method Structural lining types

Temporary support Permanent support

Mined tunnel Sprayed concrete lining (SCL) SCL

(mechanical) Cast-in-situ concrete
Spheroidal graphite iron (SGI) A)
Steel
Precast concrete segment A)

SGI

Precast concrete segment A)

Hand-mined tunnel B) Timber heading Steel frame and cast-in-situ concrete

SGI or steel

Tunnel Boring Machine Precast concrete segment

(TBM)
SGI or steel

NOTE 1 Only precast concrete segment lining design is covered in this PAS.
NOTE 2 This PAS uses the terms “TBM” and “mined” in place of ‘mechanized’ and “conventional” respectively.
While “mechanized” and “conventional” are widely used and internationally-recognized terms in the
tunnelling industry, this PAS elects to use “TBM” and “mined” which are considered to be more appropriate,
given the scope of the PAS.
NOTE 3 TBM tunnelling is one of a number of methods of mechanized tunnelling (for the definition of
mechanized tunnelling, see the ITA’s website (https://www.ita-aites.org/en/) or BS 6164:2011, 7.1). The term
“TBM” is used throughout this PAS to denote that the design of the segment lining is directly linked to the
TBM rather than other mechanized tunnelling methods.
NOTE 4 Mined tunnelling is one of a number of methods of conventional tunnelling (for the definition of
conventional tunnelling, see ITA Working Group 19 publication “General Report on Conventional Tunnelling
Method” or BS 6164:2011, 7.1). As the scope of this PAS is limited to tunnelling in soft ground, the specific term
“mined” is considered to be more appropriate than the use of the term “conventional”.
A)
Not a common type under the specified construction method.
B)
Limited to small diameter tunnels only. Design details not covered in this PAS.

5.2 Selection of tunnel construction 5.2.1 The designer’s selection of the tunnel construction
methodology methodology should conform to BTS, Specification for
Tunnelling, Section 301 [NR2].
NOTE Selection of tunnel construction methodology in
soft ground conditions has a direct link to the selection 5.2.2 The designer should take account of the
of tunnel lining types. Table 2 provides the general functional requirements of any secondary lining,
relationship between the tunnel construction methods where required.
and the types of lining structure.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 15

PAS 8810:2016

5.2.3 The designer should select the junction b) space requirements for safe construction and
construction method to conform to BTS Specification maintenance;
for Tunnelling, Section 311 [NR2] with consideration c) construction tolerance based on the assumed
given to the: tunnel construction methodology;
a) main tunnel construction methodology and d) survey tolerance;
lining type;
e) end throw and centre throw when a curved tunnel
b) branch tunnel construction and lining type; is constructed using rigid straight sections of lining;
c) available access space for construction plant and f) long-term deformation of the tunnel lining
tunnelling operations; (ovalization – see Note to 5.3.2); and
d) escape and refuge during construction; g) any project-specific space requirements.
e) ground and groundwater conditions at the junction; NOTE 1 BTS, Tunnel Lining Design Guide [NR1], Figure
f) lining break-out method from the main tunnel; and 2.1 provides major spatial considerations for tunnel
g) water tightness at the junctions. linings for rail, road and utility tunnels.
NOTE 1 Junctions such as sumps, niches, cross passages NOTE 2 The construction tolerance of a tunnel can be
and intersections require breaking out of the lining affected by various independent elements. For example
which is considered to be a high-risk activity. in TBM tunnelling, the TBM’s driving tolerance links to
the lining ring’s positional tolerance, and the segment’s
NOTE 2 The junction construction method can differ
erection tolerance can be independent from the TBM’s
from the main tunnel’s construction methodology, for
driving tolerance.
example, a main tunnel constructed using a TBM with
precast concrete segment lining, and a cross passage
5.3.2 Where no project-specific tolerance for space
constructed using a mining technique mechanically
proofing is specified by the client, the designer should
performed by means of picks or teeth.
determine the space-proofing tolerances in accordance
with BTS, Specification for Tunnelling, Section 328 [NR2].

5.3 Space proofing NOTE The long-term deformation limit of a tunnel

lining is sometimes defined in the client’s design
5.3.1 The designer should develop the section profile standard. It is often for the designer to provide
of the tunnel at the conceptual design stage with guidance on the long-term deformation limit, based
consideration given to: on historical deformation or structural/geotechnical
a) space required to fulfil the functional requirements limitation, particularly with inexperienced clients. The
(see Clause 4); long-term deformation considers a distortion of the
lining that can be caused by unknown future activity
around the tunnel.

16 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

5.3.3 Where there are no deformation limits specified NOTE 4 The feasibility options report can save time and
by the client, the designer should determine the costs when something changes in the next design stage.
deformation limit in accordance with BTS, Tunnel The designer and/or client can go back to the feasibility
Lining Design Guide, Section 5.8.4 [NR1]. options report and find out why one option had been
dismissed, minimising the risk of repetition.
5.3.4 The designer should discuss and agree in writing NOTE 5 It is advisable that the feasibility options report
with the client the overall size of the tunnel, having is reviewed and signed off by the client during the
considered all factors listed in 5.3.1. conceptual design stage.
NOTE The sizing of the tunnel section is one of the most NOTE 6 Some clients have a combined documentation
critical design input parameters that directly affects the process in which the feasibility options report forms
project’s construction cost and programme, e.g. tunnel part of other documents, such as the approval in
size influences lining thickness, TBM size, excavation principle (AIP).
volume and ground movement/settlement, ventilation
and aerodynamics/hydraulics. Tunnel size determined
using unrealistic assumptions and/or uncertain space 5.5 Approval In Principle (AIP)
requirement information is considered to be a critical
project risk which could cause significant impact to the 5.5.1 The necessity of an AIP document should be
project’s design programme and cost. The consequences agreed in writing between the client and the designer
of changing the tunnel size at a subsequent stage in the at the beginning of conceptual design stage (see A.5.1
project increase as the project progresses. It is important and A.5.3).
to fix the size of the tunnel at the concept stage to
minimize programme delay and cost risk. 5.5.2 Where an AIP is deemed necessary, the designer
should produce an AIP for the selected tunnel options
that provides the design concept, basis, criteria and
5.4 Feasibility options report assumptions to be used for the detailed design of the
tunnel lining. The AIP should include:
5.4.1 The necessity of a feasibility options report should
a) tunnel lining structural design logic and procedure;
be discussed and agreed between the client and the
designer at the beginning of conceptual design stage b) design assumptions;
(see A.5.1 and A.5.3). c) ground model to be used (this might be preliminary
depending on the status of the site investigation
5.4.2 Where a feasibility options report is required, the and testing information available);
designer should compile a feasibility options report d) tunnel lining structural analysis methods to be used;
that includes the options development background and
e) design code/standard to be used for the design;
associated decision-making history in the tunnel lining
design, and reflects the project requirements. f) load combinations to be used;

NOTE 1 The feasibility options report for tunnel lining g) section profile of the tunnel;
design can be produced as part of the overall project h) tunnel alignment; and
options report, which provides information on elements i) lining materials, grade and type, including
such as the alignment options and stations layout reinforcements.
options reports.
NOTE The term concept design statement (CDS) is
NOTE 2 It is advisable to include the following subjects sometimes used instead of AIP. The purpose and
in the feasibility options report: contents of CDS are the same as the AIP.
• expected tunnel excavation methods, e.g. mined
or TBM; 5.5.3 The AIP should be reviewed and approved in
• suggested tunnel lining types, e.g. SCL, cast-in-situ or writing by the client.
precast concrete segment;
5.5.4 The designer should use the AIP as a basis of
• conceptual conclusion about meeting the ultimate design in the detailed design stage of the tunnel lining.
and serviceability limit states under critical load
NOTE The AIP can be used as part of the information to
conditions of the project;
assist the transfer of design information from one stage
• feasibility of construction methods; and to the other (or from one designer to the other at the
• any project-specific challenges that affect the same design stage). Information on managing the risk
conceptual decisions of the tunnel lining design. associated with the transfer of information between
NOTE 3 It is advisable to use a decision tree or flow designers is given in BTS, Joint Code of Practice for Risk
diagram in the feasibility options report for the Management of Tunnel Works in the UK [8].
development of a preferred option.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 17

PAS 8810:2016

6 Characterization of ground

6.1 General 6.2 Desk study

Subclauses 6.2 and 6.3 should be the responsibility 6.2.1 A desk study collating the topography, geology,
of either the designer, the client, or a third-party geomorphology, hydrology, hydrogeology and
contractor employed by either, however this historical uses along the proposed tunnel route should
responsibility should be discussed by the designer and be carried out, and the findings used to develop the
the client and agreed in writing. ground model (see 6.2.3).
NOTE 1 A definition of the responsibility for the NOTE 1 The desk study is used to identify risks and
characterization of the ground is given in BS 6164:2011, gaps in available information, and identify areas where
Clause 5. particular investigation is required over and above the
NOTE 2 Clause 6 provides guidance on appropriate investigations to provide design input values (see 6.3.1).
strategies and approaches to carrying out desk NOTE 2 The desk study is of particular importance for
studies and ground investigations for tunnel lining urban tunnelling, where existing foundations and
design. In particular, focus is given to the ground and buried obstructions constitute key risks.
groundwater characteristics that need to be fully NOTE 3 Perry and West, Sources of Information for Site
understood to design the lining and to appreciate Investigations in Britain [12], and BS 6164, Clause 5 give
risks relating to construction of the tunnel. Guidance detailed advice on sources of existing information.
is offered for deriving ground parameters for tunnel
lining design. This is set in the context of the design 6.2.2 Issues that are a material consideration as
approach given in BS EN 1997-1 and BS EN 1997-2, and part of a conventional planning application, such as
the accompanying National Annexes (NA+A1:2014 to BS archaeology and contamination, should be investigated
EN 1997-1:2004+A1:2013 and NA to BS EN 1997-2:2007). and documented as part of a desk study and
NOTE 3 The BTS, Tunnel Lining Design Guide [NR1] subsequent work.
provides a useful source of reference for many of the
topics covered in Clause 6. 6.2.3 A ground model should be produced from
NOTE 4 Guidance on the design of tunnel linings in the results of the desk study to assist in guiding the
hard rock conditions is given in Hoek and Brown, objectives of any subsequent ground investigation.
Underground Excavations in Rock [9]; Franklin and NOTE 1 The arisings and results from each exploratory
Dusseault, Rock Engineering Applications [10]; and hole can be compared against and used to update the
Hudson and Harrison, Engineering Rock Mechanics – An ground model developed at the desk study stage. Any
introduction to the Principles [11]. differences need to be investigated.
NOTE 5 The use of GIS-based technology can be a NOTE 2 Additional information on the ground model
useful tool to collate this geotechnical information and can be found in Muir Wood, Tunnelling: Management
communicate to other project team members during by Design [13].
the planning, design, construction and operational
usages of the proposed tunnel. 6.2.4 Site reconnaissance of the tunnel alignment
should be carried out to provide an appreciation of the
nature of the alignment, potential shaft and work-site
locations. The findings should be included in a ground
model (see 6.2.3).
NOTE 1 This can be supported by the use of recent
aerial photography or satellite imagery and web-based
applications such as online maps in the public domain.
NOTE 2 Walkover surveys also provide the opportunity
to examine any exposure of the ground and to verify
other sources of information acquired as part of the
desk study.
NOTE 3 The desk study is used to identify the condition
and proximity of existing buildings and infrastructure
to the proposed alignment.

18 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

6.3 In-situ ground investigation 6.3.2 Method of investigation and sampling

6.3.2.1 The method of investigation and sampling
6.3.1 Planning of ground investigations should be selected to suit the ground conditions and
6.3.1.1 In-situ ground investigations should be carried the requirements of the individual project.
out in a phased manner to progressively understand NOTE 1 Clayton et al [14] provide an overview of
and reduce the uncertainties and risks relating to the exploratory techniques commonly used as part of in-
tunnelling scheme. situ ground investigations.
NOTE 1 Guidance for planning an in-situ ground NOTE 2 Appropriate guidance on taking samples can
investigation is given in BS EN 1997-2:2007, Section 2. be found in BS EN 1997-2:2007, Section 3. This offers
NOTE 2 Guidance is given in 6.3.2 to 6.3.6 for carrying guidance on the quality of sampling necessary to
out appropriate investigation to obtain a range of perform the typical range of ground testing used to
parameters that are particularly important for the acquire ground parameters.
tunnel lining design. NOTE 3 An overview of the applicability of in-situ
ground investigation methods for investigating
6.3.1.2 When determining the spacing of in-situ
different ground conditions and acquiring a range of
ground investigations, the following factors should be
ground properties can be found in BS EN 1997-2:2007,
reviewed:
Table 2.1.
a) knowledge of the ground conditions prior to
NOTE 4 An overview of the range of laboratory tests
carrying out the initial phase of investigation;
that are commonly carried out to measure specific
b) prevalence of surface infrastructure, e.g. whether ground properties can be found in BS EN 1997-2:2007,
tunnelling in urban setting; Table 2.3.
c) location of shafts, cross passages, stations and portals;
6.3.2.2 Soil and rock description should be carried out
d) variation of ground and groundwater conditions
in accordance with BS EN ISO 14688-1, BS EN ISO 14688-
over the alignment of the tunnel;
2 and BS EN ISO 14689-1.
e) potential presence of anomalous geological features
NOTE Appropriate classification of soil and rock is of
such as scour hollows, solution features, etc.;
critical importance for appreciating risks relating to the
f) presence of man-made features such as landfills or
construction and design.
mine workings;
g) balance between intrusive and geophysical testing 6.3.3 Ground chemistry considerations with respect to
methods; concrete and other material durability
h) prevalence of particular strata or deposits that 6.3.3.1 As part of the in-situ ground investigation,
present an elevated risk to tunnelling; ground and groundwater testing should be carried
i) location, depth, diameter and spacing of tunnels; out in accordance with BS 8500-1 and BS 8500-2 to
j) faults, discontinuities, sand lenses or other characterize the constituents of the ground in order to
geological features that might have localized high select a concrete mix for the tunnel lining design.
groundwater pressure; and
6.3.3.2 The ground chemistry and potential for
k) type and quality of sampling and in-situ testing
oxidization should also be assessed and documented as
proposed.
part of the design process.
NOTE Guidance on the spacing of in-situ ground
NOTE 1 If there is potential for the exposed ground
investigations and the frequency of testing is given in
to oxidize, this can result in an oxygen-deficient
BS EN 1997-2.
environment and can present a risk to tunnellers
working within confined or unventilated spaces.
6.3.1.3 In-situ ground investigations should be planned
to reflect the requirements of the individual project. NOTE 2 Of particular interest is understanding the
requirement for sulfate resistance in the concrete mix
and whether other naturally-occurring minerals or
historical contaminants in the ground may present a
risk to the performance of the tunnel lining.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 19

PAS 8810:2016

6.3.4 Coefficient of earth pressure at rest, K0 6.4 Reporting

The methods used to determine the in-situ pressure
prior to tunnelling should be compared with regional 6.4.1 General
stress information from available structural geological NOTE 1 Reporting of geotechnical data is described
mapping. in BS EN 1997-1:2004+A1:2013, Sections 2 and 3. This
NOTE An important input parameter to establish describes two types of geotechnical reports, namely
is the coefficient of earth pressure at rest. The ground investigation reports (GIRs) and geotechnical
coefficient of earth pressure prior to tunnelling, K0 , design reports (GDRs). Further to this, the use of
can be established by a number of laboratory and geotechnical baseline reports (GBRs) can be used as
field techniques. The most commonly used tests part of contract documents.
are by pressuremeter testing (of which self-boring NOTE 2 At project inception, it is important that the
pressuremeter testing is usually preferred on the basis definitions and content of these reports are defined by
of minimized disturbance) and carrying out suction the client or client’s advisor. For instance, the term GIR
measurements of the soil. For soft rocks, hydraulic has historically been used to refer to the geotechnical
fracturing is also commonly used. In addition, there are interpretative report. The content of these reports
various analytical-based methods by which K0 can be traditionally covered some of the scope of the GDR
derived. These include using empirical methods such as under Eurocode terminology. Historically the terms
those proposed by Mayne and Kulhawy [15] or from soil geotechnical factual report or geotechnical data report
models such as BRICK proposed by Simpson [16]. The have also been used to describe some of the content
action of constructing the tunnel, however, significantly covered by the GIR under Eurocode terminology.
modifies the in-situ stress in the ground (see 11.7.2.3).
6.4.2 Ground investigation report (GIR)
6.3.5 Groundwater pressure and permeability 6.4.2.1 A GIR should be produced and provided to
The selection of the instrumentation to monitor the client by the designer, or a third-party contractor
groundwater pressure should be based on the employed by either the designer or the client. The GIR
permeability of the ground. Consideration should be should include:
given as to whether the groundwater pressures are a) a presentation of all available geotechnical
beneficial or detrimental to the aspect of the tunnel information, including geological features and
lining design being considered. relevant data; and
NOTE 1 The permeability of the ground influences b) a geotechnical evaluation of the information,
the rate at which excess pore pressures in the ground stating the assumptions made in the interpretation
dissipate during and following construction and of the test results.
whether short- or long-term parameters govern NOTE A GIR can be produced by either a ground
ground behaviour. investigation contractor or geotechnical consultant,
NOTE 2 Some groundwater monitoring installations can who might be part of the designer’s organization.
also be used to establish the permeability of the ground. Consideration needs to be given as to who is
Guidance on the range of installations and carrying out responsible for 6.4.2.1 a) and 6.4.2.1 b). It is
groundwater monitoring and permeability testing are recommended that the tasks outlined in 6.4.2.1 b) are
given in BS EN 1997-2 and BS EN ISO 22475-1. carried out by the tunnel designer.

6.3.6 Ground stiffness 6.4.2.2 The designer should base the design of the
In-situ ground investigations and laboratory testing tunnel lining on the GIR.
should be carried out to measure ground stiffness
either directly or indirectly. 6.4.3 Geotechnical design report (GDR)
NOTE For both direct and indirect methods, the 6.4.3.1 A GDR should be produced and provided to the
measured stiffness can be influenced by the ground client by the designer. The GDR should include:
disturbance that has occurred prior to testing. For indirect a) the assumptions, data, methods of calculation
measures it is important to understand the basis of the and results of the verification of safety and
correlation being used and to check that it is appropriate serviceability;
for the ground strain level, ground stress and direction b) a description of the site and surroundings;
of loading likely to be experienced when forming the
c) a description of the ground conditions and ground-
tunnel. The testing can also be designed to inform
borne risks;
strength and stiffness calibration for constitutive models.

20 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

d) a description of the proposed construction, 6.5 Digital data

including actions;
6.5.1 The designer should produce digital data on the in-
e) design values of soil and rock properties, including
situ ground investigations and provide this to the client.
justification, as appropriate;
NOTE 1 The Association of Geotechnical Specialists
f) statements on the codes and standards applied;
(AGS) guidance documentation defines the format for
g) statements on the suitability of the site with the data transfer protocol. See http://ags.org.uk.
respect to the proposed construction and the level
NOTE 2 The use of digital data can significantly speed
of acceptable risk;
up the transfer of data between project participants
h) design calculations and drawings; and the provision of such data can accelerate the
i) design recommendations; and development of ground models and the interpretation
j) a note of items to be checked during construction of the geotechnical data. This has significant benefits
or requiring maintenance or monitoring. in both supporting the design process and enabling the
quick communication of information at all stages of the
NOTE 1 Where agreed between the client and the
project between the client, designer and contractor.
designer, alternative suitable design documentation
The use of digital data also reduces the risk of transcript
other than a GDR can be provided.
errors propagating into the design process.
NOTE 2 The GDR is typically produced by a ground
NOTE 3 It is recommended that this format is used
investigation contractor or geotechnical consultant
throughout the in-situ ground investigation design and
responsible for the design of the tunnel.
construction process.
6.4.3.2 The designer should make reference to the
6.5.2 The client and designer should each have
content of the GIR when designing the tunnel lining.
procedures and systems in place to manage the volume
and type of data.
6.4.3.3 The GDR should make reference to the GIR and
any other relevant documentation, such as those that NOTE It is advisable that where a third-party contractor
provide the basis for the proposed design parameters. is used, the client or designer checks that the third-
party contractor has procedures and systems in place to
manage the volume and type of data.
6.4.4 Geotechnical baseline report (GBR)
NOTE 1 The GBR’s primary purpose is to establish a
definitive statement of the geotechnical conditions
6.6 Derivation of design parameters
ahead of tunnel construction, as a baseline for
contractual reference, if subsequently required. The 6.6.1 General
contractual framework to be adopted for construction NOTE The parameters required for design depend
needs to reflect the client’s approach to and acceptance on the analysis proposed to carry out the tunnel
of risk, the consequences of which are expected to lining design. Closed-form analyses require relatively
be advised by an experienced tunnelling engineer. few ground parameters, while numerical analyses
Usually, risks associated with conditions consistent with incorporating complex constitutive models require
or less adverse than the baseline are allocated to the many additional ground parameters.
contractor, and the client accepts responsibility for those
risks significantly more adverse than the baseline. Essex 6.6.1.1 The designer should identify and document the
[17] discusses the subject of risk allocation in detail. construction sequence for derivation of design parameters.
NOTE 2 The GBR is not to be used as a basis for design
and consequently is not to be included in either 6.6.1.2 The designer should identify and document
“works information” or “site information” under NEC the ground and drainage conditions along the tunnel
contracts. The GBR provides contract information. alignment.
NOTE These conditions can change over the different
6.4.4.1 A GBR should be produced and provided to the phases of construction and therefore multiple design stages
client by either the designer, the client themselves, or a might require input parameters and regular analysis.
third-party contractor employed by either the designer
or the client.

6.4.4.2 The designer should not base the design of the

tunnel lining on the GBR.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 21

PAS 8810:2016

6.6.2 Characteristic value 6.6.2.5 Where statistical methods are employed in the
NOTE 1 The zone of ground governing the behaviour selection of characteristic values for ground properties,
of a tunnel structure at a limit state is much larger than the designer should select a method that:
a test sample or the zone of ground affected in an a) differentiates between local and regional
in-situ test. Consequently the value of the governing sampling; and
parameter often requires careful consideration of a b) accommodates the use of experience of comparable
range of values covering a large surface or volume of ground properties.
the ground.
NOTE For instance, statistical studies might have
NOTE 2 Geotechnical test results can exhibit already been carried out to consider the variability of a
considerable scatter compared with the manufactured material such as London clay that could be relevant to a
materials. This is caused by a number of factors particular tunnel project.
including the ground macro- and micro-fabric and
disturbance of the ground in sampling or carrying out 6.6.2.6 Where statistical methods are used, the designer
the in-situ ground investigations. should derive the characteristic values such that the
NOTE 3 Examples of selecting characteristic ground calculated probability of a worse value governing the
are provided in Simpson and Driscoll, Eurocode 7 – A occurrence of the limit state under consideration is not
commentary [18]. greater than 5%.

6.6.2.1 The designer should select the ground and 6.6.2.7 When undertaking a back analysis of observed
groundwater parameters in accordance with BS EN behaviour, the designer should initially use best
1997-1:2004+A1:2013, 3.3. estimate, rather than characteristic parameters, to back
NOTE BS EN 1997-1:2004+A1:2013, 2.4.5.2 provides calculate observed behaviour.
the principles for selecting characteristic values of
geotechnical parameters for use in design. 6.6.3 Observational methods
The designer should determine alternative ground and
6.6.2.2 The designer should select characteristic values groundwater parameters from characteristic ones if an
for geotechnical parameters based on results and observational approach to design is adopted. Where an
derived values from laboratory tests and in-situ ground observational approach is adopted, the designer should
investigations (see 6.3) conform to the principles set out in CIRIA 185 [NR3].
NOTE 1 The formation of tunnels using sprayed
6.6.2.3 The designer should select characteristic values
concrete lining methods is sometimes carried out in an
of a geotechnical parameter as a cautious estimate of
observational manner. While the sprayed concrete lined
the value affecting the occurrence of the limit state.
tunnel support system might be fully designed to cater
for a range of ground conditions, the use of a range of
6.6.2.4 With respect to the macro structure of the
toolbox measures can be introduced based on observed
ground, the designer should consider scale effects when
behaviour. Under such circumstances, the design of the
selecting parameters for tunnel lining design.
tunnel lining can accommodate parameters other than
NOTE 1 Examples of the macro structure of the ground characteristic parameters, provided there is a robust
are jointing, lamination and fissuring. system and toolbox measures in place to introduce
NOTE 2 These might not be identified from laboratory mitigations in a rapid manner to avoid displacements of
or in-situ ground investigations and might only be the ground and lining exceeding pre-defined tolerable
properly appraised by acquiring sufficiently high-quality limits. BS EN 1997-1:2004+A1:2013, 2.7 identifies the
samples and carrying out appropriate geotechnical precautions that need to be in place if executing works
logging of these. using the observational method.
NOTE 2 These methods are not commonly used in
combination with precast tunnel lining segments.

22 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

7 Materials design and specification

NOTE Under the Construction Products Regulations 7.3 Additions

(CPR), harmonized technical specifications are either
harmonized European product standards (hENs) 7.3.1 General
established by CEN/CENELEC3 or European Assessment NOTE An addition can be either a type I addition,
Documents produced by the European Organisation defined as nearly inert, or a type II addition, defined
for Technical Assessment (EOTA). The harmonized as pozzolanic or latent hydraulic. Some additions can
technical specification for a product defines EEA-wide be considered as part of the cementitious materials
methods of assessing and declaring all the performance content as described in 7.3.4.
characteristics required by regulations in any Member
State which affect the ability of construction products 7.3.2 Type I additions
to meet seven basic requirements for construction
7.3.2.1 Filler aggregate should conform to BS EN 12620
works. They are:
or BS EN 13055-1.
a) mechanical resistance and stability;
b) safety in case of fire; 7.3.2.2 Limestone fines should conform to BS 7979.
c) hygiene, health and environment;
d) safety and accessibility in use; 7.3.3 Type II additions

e) protection against noise; 7.3.3.1 Fly ash should conform to BS EN 450-1.

f) energy economy and heat retention; and

7.3.3.2 Silica fume should conform to BS EN 13263-1.
g) sustainable use of natural resources.
7.3.3.3 Ground granulated blastfurnace slag should
7.1 Concrete conform to BS EN 15167-1.
NOTE Other type II additions, such as metakaolin,
Precast concrete should conform to BS EN 13369.
might be suitable for use in tunnel linings in particular
NOTE Durability recommendations in BS EN 13369 exposure conditions.
differ from those in BS 8500-1. See also 7.9.
7.3.4 Use of additions

7.2 Cements and combinations 7.3.4.1 The use of silica fume as a type II addition
should conform to BS EN 206:2013, 5.2.5.2.3.
NOTE 1 A list of cement and combination types is given
NOTE Fly ash, ground granulated blastfurnace slag and
in BS 8500-1:2015, Table A.6.
limestone fines can be taken fully into account in the
NOTE 2 Not all the cements or all the combinations concrete composition in respect of cement content and
in BS 8500-1:2015, Table A.6 are suitable for use in water-to-cement ratio. See BS 8500-2: 2015, 4.4.
tunnel linings in all exposure conditions. Cements or
combination types other than those in BS 8500-1:2015,
Table A.6 might be suitable for use in tunnel linings in 7.4 Aggregates
particular exposure conditions.
7.4.1 Aggregates should conform to BS EN 12620 and
When selecting cement or combination type, the BS 8500-2:2015, 4.3.
designer should review durability recommendations NOTE Guidance on the use of BS EN 12620 is given in
and select the most appropriate cement or combination BS PD 6682-1.
type for the project (see 7.9).
7.4.2 Lightweight aggregates should conform to
BS EN 13055-1 and BS 8500-2:2015, 4.3.
NOTE Guidance on the use of BS EN 13055-1 is given in
BS PD 6682-4.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 23

PAS 8810:2016

7.5 Water 7.8.4 The designer should assess the following factors
when determining the exposure conditions:
Mixing water and water used for curing should
a) concrete in tunnel linings might be exposed to
conform to BS EN 1008.
more than one type of exposure condition;
NOTE The exposure conditions to which the
7.6 Admixtures concrete is subjected can be expressed as a
combination of the exposure classes given in
Admixtures should conform to BS EN 934-2. BS 8500-1:2015, Table A.1 and Table A.2.
b) different surfaces of tunnel linings are likely to be
subject to different exposure conditions;
7.7 Reinforcement
c) different parts of a tunnel might be subject to
7.7.1 Bar different exposure conditions or severity
7.7.1.1 Carbon steel reinforcement should conform of exposure;
to BS 4449. NOTE For example, near portals the temperature
variation, moisture conditions and carbon dioxide
7.7.1.2 Stainless steel reinforcement should conform concentration might be different from those
to BS 6744. deeper within the tunnel.
d) tunnel linings where one surface is in contact with
7.7.2 Fibre water containing chloride and another is exposed
7.7.2.1 Steel fibres should conform to BS EN 14889-1, to air are potentially in a more severe exposure
BS ISO 13270 or a European Technical Approval. condition than described by exposure class XD2 or
XS2 in BS 8500-1:2015, Table A.1, see 7.9.2; and
7.7.2.2 Polymer fibres should conform to with e) exposure conditions can change over the design
BS EN 14889-2 or a European Technical Approval. working life of the tunnel linings.
NOTE Guidance on fibre properties is given in BTS,
Specification for Tunnelling 2010, 203.3 [NR2]. 7.8.5 Where relevant, the designer should document
the findings of the assessments undertaken in 7.8.1
to 7.8.4.
7.8 Exposure classes related to
environmental actions
7.9 Durability
7.8.1 The designer should assess the applicability of
general exposure classes given in BS 8500-1:2015, 7.9.1 General
Table A.1 and Table A.2 to specific exposure conditions 7.9.1.1 The designer should design the tunnel lining in
existing in tunnels. accordance with BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005, 2.4, such
NOTE Specific exposure conditions include elevated that deterioration over the design working life does
carbon dioxide and temperature levels in highly- not impair the performance of the structure below that
trafficked road tunnels. required.
NOTE Specialist advice might be required.
7.8.2 Where the general exposure classes given in
BS 8500-1:2015, Table A.1 and Table A.2 as not 7.9.1.2 The designer should assess and document the:
applicable to the specific exposure conditions, the
a) intended or foreseeable use of the structure;
designer should assess the applicability of the durability
guidance in BS 8500-1 (see 7.9.1.4). b) required design criteria;
c) expected exposure conditions;
7.8.3 Where the durability guidance in BS 8500-1 is d) composition, properties and performance of the
assessed as not applicable to the specific exposure materials and products;
conditions, the designer should assess the need for
e) properties of the ground;
alternative measures.
f) choice of the structural system;
g) shape of members and the structural detailing;
h) quality of workmanship, and the level of control;
i) particular protective measures; and
j) intended maintenance during the design
working life.

24 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

7.9.1.3 The designer should assess and document or due to ingress of chloride in a similar way to
the anticipated level of maintenance (see 4.3.4 and normal reinforcement as described in 7.9.2.2 and
4.3.5) and exposure conditions (see 7.8) based on the 7.9.2.3. Predictive models can be used to determine
document produced in 7.9.1.2. the required properties of concrete, or the need for
additional methods of protection, to restrict the extent
7.9.1.4 The designer should assess and document of corrosion of fibres such that it does not adversely
whether the recommendations given in BS 8500-1:2015, affect the performance of the lining over the design
Table A.4 and Table A.5 need to be enhanced for the working life.
particular conditions of the tunnel under design. Corrosion of carbon steel fibres close to the surface can
cause rust stains.
7.9.2 Resisting corrosion of reinforcement in concrete
7.9.2.1 General 7.9.2.2 Carbonation-induced corrosion of reinforcement
The designer should design the tunnel lining so as to The designer should select a combination of cover
prevent unacceptable levels of deterioration due to to reinforcement and limiting values of concrete
corrosion of reinforcement over the design working life. composition and properties, such that damaging
carbonation-induced corrosion of reinforcement does
COMMENTARY ON 7.9.2.1 not occur during the design working life. Additional
protection should be included, if required.
Corrosion of carbon steel reinforcement can result from
carbonation of the concrete cover or from ingress of
COMMENTARY ON 7.9.2.2
chloride from the surroundings.
The reaction of atmospheric carbon dioxide with
Durability recommendations to resist corrosion of
concrete results in a reduction in the alkalinity of the
reinforcement in concrete are given in BS 8500-1:2015,
concrete. If the carbonation reaches the reinforcement
Table A.4 and Table A.5. For a given quality of concrete,
it can break down the passive oxide layer on carbon
increasing concrete cover can result in increased
steel and result in corrosion if moisture is present. The
protection against corrosion. Increased concrete cover
carbonation process is progressive, but normally slow.
can, however, result in increased thickness of the lining
and a larger excavation. Guidance on combinations of concrete quality
and cover to reinforcement to resist carbonation-
Durability recommendations to resist corrosion of
induced corrosion of reinforcement is given in BS EN
reinforcement in concrete in BS 8500-1:2015 do not
13369:2013, Annex A and BS 8500-1:2015, Table A.4 and
make any distinction between in-situ and precast
Table A.5. The recommendations in BS 8500-1:2015 are
concrete elements. BS EN 13369:2013, Annex A gives
generally more rigorous.
recommendations for concrete cover to resist corrosion
of reinforcement for precast concrete elements made in Levels of carbon dioxide in tunnels, especially heavily-
accordance with that standard. The recommendations trafficked road tunnels, can be higher than normal
in BS EN 13369:2013 and BS 8500-1:2015 differ atmospheric concentrations and can result in higher
significantly in some circumstances with BS 8500-1:2015 rates of carbonation of concrete than in normal
recommendations generally being more rigorous. atmospheric exposure, especially at higher than normal
ambient temperatures. Durability recommendations
The recommendations in BS 8500-1:2015, Table A.4
given in BS 8500-1:2015, Table A.4 and Table A.5 for
and Table A.5 can result in cover to reinforcement
carbonation-induced corrosion exposure conditions
that is too large for some tunnel lining applications.
are based on normal UK atmospheric carbon dioxide
Additional methods of protection, such as corrosion-
concentration and temperature.
resistant reinforcement, surface protection, special
admixtures or cathodic protection, might reduce the NOTE Guidance on additional methods of protection
cover required for protection of reinforcement which might allow reduction in the required cover to
against corrosion. provide protection against corrosion of reinforcement
is given in Enhancing reinforced concrete durability,
Recommended crack width limits for reinforced
Concrete Society Technical Report 61 [19].
concrete in different exposure classes are given in
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004+A1:2014, 7.3.1.
7.9.2.3 Chloride-induced corrosion of reinforcement
For steel fibre reinforced concrete (SFRC), minimum
concrete cover recommendations only apply to the The designer should select a combination of cover
embedded bar reinforcement, not to the steel fibres. to reinforcement and limiting values of concrete
Carbon steel fibres can corrode when passivity is composition and properties of concrete, such that
lost due to carbonation of the surrounding concrete damaging chloride-induced corrosion of reinforcement

© The British Standards Institution 2016 25

PAS 8810:2016

does not occur during the design working life. Footnote C to BS 8500-1:2015, Table A.1 identifies
Additional protection should be included, if required. where one surface is immersed in water containing
chloride and another is exposed to air, elements are
COMMENTARY ON 7.9.2.3 potentially in a more severe exposure condition than
Additional protection might be required if the described by exposure class XD2 or XS2 in BS 8500-
combination of concrete and cover are unable to 1:2015, Table A.1, especially where the dry side is at a
provide the required performance high ambient temperature. Evaporation of chloride-
containing water on the dry side can result in high
Water-borne chloride (e.g. saline groundwater or run-
concentration of chloride within the concrete even
off containing de-icing salts) coming into contact with
where the level of chloride in the water is low.
a concrete surface can result in build-up of chloride at
the reinforcement to a level where corrosion of steel Guidance on additional methods of protection which
reinforcement is initiated. might allow reduction in the required cover to provide
protection against corrosion of reinforcement is given
Guidance on combinations of concrete quality and
in Enhancing reinforced concrete durability, Concrete
cover to reinforcement to resist chloride-induced
Society Technical Report 61 [19].
corrosion of reinforcement is given in BS EN
13369:2013, Annex A and BS 8500-1:2015, Table A.4 and
Table A.5. The recommendations in BS 8500-1:2015 are 7.9.3 Resisting chemical attack
generally more rigorous. 7.9.3.1 The designer should assess and document the
risk of potential chemical attack from groundwater,
including seepage, and other possible sources such as
effluent and road drainage, including fluids conveyed
within the tunnel.

7.9.3.2 The designer should use the findings of the

analysis undertaken in 7.9.3.1 when designing the
tunnel lining.

COMMENTARY ON 7.9.3.2
External surfaces of tunnel linings can be subject to
high hydrostatic pressure which can result in increased
rates of penetration of aggressive chemicals.
Recommendations for concrete properties, limiting
values of composition and additional protective
measures (APM) for in-situ concrete elements to resist
chemical attack are given in BS 8500-1:2015, A.4.5.
Guidance on resisting attack from some aggressive
chemicals not included within BS 8500-1:2015, A.4.5
can be found in BRE Special Digest 1 [20], Concrete in
aggressive ground.
Recommendations for durability for external surfaces
of precast segmental linings for water and sewer
services, storage and transportation, and for internal
surfaces where protective lining is not necessary, are
given in Table 3. Table 4 gives details of the limiting
values associated with the specification of the DC-
class. Recommendations for where protective lining is
necessary for durability of internal surfaces of precast
segmental linings for water and sewer services, storage
and transportation, are given in Table 6. Where a
protective lining with adequate chemical resistance
is provided on the internal surface it is not necessary
to consider the recommendations in Table 3 for the
internal surface.

26 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

Recommendations in Table 3 and Table 6 are based

on BRE Special Digest 1 [20], Concrete in aggressive
ground, where further details can be found.

7.9.4 Resisting freeze-thaw attack of concrete

The designer should assess and document the likelihood
of the tunnel lining being subjected to freezing and
thawing cycles whilst wet. Where the designer deems
the likelihood to be high, the tunnel lining should be
designed to resist freeze-thaw attack.

NOTE Recommendations to resist freeze-thaw attack

are given in BS 8500-1:2015, Table A.9. Freeze-thaw
attack can also be resisted by provision of surface
protection that prevents the concrete surface
becoming saturated.

Table 3 – Recommendations for durability against chemical attack for the external and
internal surface of precast segmental linings where protective lining is not necessary A)

ACEC Class B) Design working life

50 years 100 years

AC-1 DC-1 DC-1

AC-2z DC-2z DC-2z

AC-2 DC-2 DC-2

AC-3z DC-3z DC-3z

AC-3 DC-3 C) DC-3 C) + one APM D) of choice

AC-4z DC-4z DC-4z

AC-4 DC-4 C) DC-4 C) + one APM D) of choice

AC-4m DC-4m C) DC-4m C) + one APM D) of choice

AC-5z DC-4z + APM D) 3 DC-4z + APM D) 3

AC-5 DC-4 + APM D) 3 DC-4 + APM D) 3

AC-5m DC-4m + APM D) 3 DC-4m + APM D) 3

A)
Applicable to both natural and brownfield sites, and for internally carried water and effluent not
requiring protective lining in accordance with recommendations in Table 6.
B)
Aggressive Chemical Environment for Concrete exposure class, in accordance with BS 8500-1:2015,
Table A.2.
C)
A DC (Design Chemical) Class one step lower or reduction of one APM can be applied by the designer to this
indicated category if surface carbonation is assured (10 days minimum time to be allowed by the manufacturer
before dispatch). No reduction is permitted for categories where this indication is not present.
D)
APM, see Table 5.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 27

PAS 8810:2016

Table 4 – Limiting values of composition and properties for concrete where a DC-class is specified

Design Max. w/c Minimum cement or combination content Cement or combination types
Chemical ratio (kg/m3) for maximum aggregate size of:
Class
20 mm 14 mm 10 mm

DC-1 All in BS 8500-2: 2015, Table 1

DC-2 0.55 300 340 360 II/B-V+SR A), IIIA+SR B), IV/B-V, III/
B+SR B)

0.50 320 360 380 CEM I, II/A-D, II/A-S, II/B-S, II/A-V,

II/B-V C), IIIA D), IIIB D), CEM I-SR0,
CEM I-SR3

0.45 340 380 380 II/A-L 32.5, II/A-LL 32.5

0.40 360 380 380 II/A-L 42.5, II/A-LL 42.5

DC-2z 0.55 320 340 360 All in BS 8500-2: 2015, Table 1

DC-3 0.50 340 360 380 III/B+SR B)

0.45 360 380 380 IV/B-V

0.40 380 380 380 II/B-V+SR A), IIIA+SR B), CEM I-SR0,
CEM I-SR3

DC-3z 0.50 340 360 380 All in BS 8500-2: 2015, Table 1

DC-4 0.45 360 380 380 III/B+SR B)

0.40 380 380 380 IV/B-V

0.35 380 380 380 II/B-V+SR A), IIIA+SR B), CEM I-SR0,
CEM I-SR3

0.40 400 400 400 II/B-V+SR A), IIIA+SR B)

DC-4z 0.45 360 380 380 All in BS 8500-2: 2015, Table 1

DC-4m 0.45 360 380 380 III/B+SR B)

A)
25-35% fly ash
B)
Where the alumina content of the slag is not greater than 14% and/or the C3A content of the Portland
cement (CEM I) fraction is not greater than 10%
C)
21-24% fly ash
D)
Where the alumina content of the slag is greater than 14% and the C3A content of the Portland cement
(CEM I) fraction is greater than 10%

28 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

Table 5 – Additional protective measures (APMs)

Option code APM A)

APM1 Enhanced concrete quality

APM2 Use of controlled permeability formwork

APM3 Provide surface protection

APM4 Provide sacrificial layer

APM5 Address drainage of site B)

A)
Further details of APMs are given in BRE Special Digest 1 [20], Concrete in aggressive ground.
B)
This APM might not be possible in many tunnel situations.

Table 6 – Recommendations for circumstances in which internal lining is necessary for precast
concrete segmental linings for tunnels and shafts used for water and sewer A) services,
storage and transportation

Type of water or effluent pH Aggressive carbon Protective lining

dioxide level of water or
effluent (mg/l)

Natural water or domestic > 5.0 < 15 Lining not needed

sewage
> 15 Provide lining

< 5.0 < 15 Lining not needed unless sulfate level

of water or effluent is more than 1
400 mg/l SO4

> 15 Provide lining

Industrial, including > 5.0 Lining not needed unless sulfate level
contaminated groundwater of water or effluent is more than 1
and run-off from vehicles 400 mg/l SO4

< 5.0 Provide lining

A)
Under certain conditions, sulfuric acid can be generated by bacterial action on sewage and protective lining
could be needed. In this case, it is advisable that a project-specific durability assessment is undertaken and
specialist advice is sought.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 29

PAS 8810:2016

8 Material characterization and testing

8.1 General principles 8.1.1 The designer should design concrete tunnel
linings to conform with the requirements of BS EN
COMMENTARY ON 8.1 1990, BS EN 1992-1-1 and the NA to BS EN 1992-1-1,
The use of fibre reinforcement has become prevalent and conformance testing should be consistent with
in all types of concrete tunnel lining, although fibre these principles.
reinforced concrete (FRC) is not covered by either BS EN NOTE BS EN 1990 establishes the principles of limit
1990:2002+A1:2005 or BS EN 1992-1-1:2004+A1:2014. state design.
A complementary methodology to BS EN 1992-1-1
is available from RILEM [NR4] and more recently fib 8.1.2 Where FRC is employed for concrete segmental
(Fédération internationale du béton) has published its lining, the designer should base the design on either
fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010 [NR5], the RILEM σ-ε methodology [NR4], or the fib Model
which includes limit state design methodologies for FRC. Code for Concrete Structures 2010 [NR5], or design
The structural design of FRC elements is based on assisted by testing (see BS EN 1990). The chosen
the post-cracking residual strength provided by methodology should be documented, and where none
fibre reinforcement. Bending tests are carried out to of these procedures is adopted, the reasons for this
determine the load-deflection relationship and from choice should also be recorded.
which the necessary tensile stress-crack width relationship
can be derived. Both the RILEM and fib design 8.1.3 The designer should base the determination
methodologies are based on a three-point bending test of the material parameters necessary for the design
on a notched beam conforming to BS EN 14651. on characteristic values. The material parameter
The RILEM and fib design methodologies were characterization should be consistent with the
respectively developed exclusively for SFRC and methodology selected in 8.1.2 and be in a manner
“based most of all on experience with SFRC”. BS EN which is consistent with the adopted limit state design
14651 is based on the complementary test method approach.
developed by RILEM for metallic FRCs, although
the principles of the test method can also be used 8.1.4 Conformance with the relevant plain concrete
to characterize the residual strength performance material parameters should be in accordance with
of macro-synthetic (MS)FRC. Nonetheless, the fib BS 8500-1 and BS 8500-2.
methodology does not cover “fibre materials with NOTE The specification of the relevant plain concrete is
a Young’s modulus which is significantly affected by covered in Clause 7.
time and/or thermo-hygrometrical phenomena”, and
the design methodologies are therefore limited with 8.1.5 Conformance requirements for FRC should be in
respect to (MS)FRC. Concrete Society Technical Report accordance with the principles of limit state design, and
63, Guidance for the design of steel-fibre-reinforced should use test methods that are consistent with those
concrete, [21] provides outline guidance with respect to which underpin the design methodology.
the extension of the RILEM methodology to the design NOTE Conformity testing of FRC is not covered by the
of precast concrete segmental linings and Concrete RILEM or fib methodologies.
Society Technical Report 65 [22], Guidance on the use
of macro-synthetic-fibre-reinforced concrete, further
extends this guidance to MSFRC.

30 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

8.1.6 When determining FRC material parameter 8.2.2 Where “additional requirements” are specified
values for use in conceptual or preliminary design, the by the designer, these should include appropriate
designer should make reference to data available from performance requirements, test methods and
fibre manufacturers in the first instance, and where conformance criteria.
held, to historic data relating to concrete with similar
material parameters to those of the proposed design. 8.2.3 The designer should assess and document the
NOTE 1 The key characteristic values of FRC material likely long-term concrete strength and its effect on the
parameters might have to be assumed during properties of the FRC. Where the long-term concrete
conceptual or preliminary design stages. FRC residual strength is likely to exceed the specified 28-day
strength parameters are dependent on the type and strength, the designer should ensure that the values
dosage of fibre in combination with both the strength of the FRC material parameters used in the design are
grade and other properties of the base concrete. achieved in practice.

NOTE 2 An estimation of flexural tensile parameters NOTE 1 The RILEM design methodology is applicable
of SFRC for different fibre dosages is given in Post- to SFRC with strength grades up to C50/60. The fib
cracking behaviour of steel fibre reinforced concrete methodology does not state a strength grade limit
[23]. This can be useful where no prior data exists. but does state that for ultra-high performance FRC
additional rules can apply. It is likely that the 28-day
8.1.7 When specifying conformance testing, the strength in some applications exceeds that required for
designer should cover both the preconstruction trial adequate structural performance.
conformance and production conformance of those NOTE 2 Segmental linings might require significant
material parameter values assumed in the design. early age strength development to suit the logistics
of the production processes. These requirements can
8.1.8 When compiling the specification (see 8.1.7), the have a significant effect on the long-term strength
designer should identify, in principle, the actions to be of the concrete such that the strength required
taken in the event of non-conformance. to demonstrate 28-day compliance might not be
representative of the long-term strength.
8.1.9 Where the assumed characteristic values for
FRC material parameters cannot be confirmed by 8.2.4 The post-crack performance of FRCs may reduce
preconstruction testing, the designer should review the with aging. The designer should therefore assess and
design, and any changes should be documented and document the likely effect of this on the lining’s long-
the preconstruction testing repeated. term performance.

8.2.5 Where FRC is employed for concrete segmental

8.2 Concrete characterization lining (see 8.1.2), either as the only reinforcement or
in combination with bar reinforcement, it should be
8.2.1 As a minimum, concrete should be characterized
characterized in terms of:
by strength class and durability requirements in terms
of the limiting values of composition, and these a) strength class (see 8.2.1); and
parameters specified in accordance with the “basic b) the limit of proportionality and residual flexural
requirements” of BS 8500-1. tensile strengths as defined in BS EN 14651.
NOTE Strength class specified in accordance with
the “basic requirements” of BS 8500-1 relates to the 8.2.6 The limit of proportionality and residual flexural
requirement at 28 days. The “basic requirements” tensile strengths of FRC designed using alternative limit
in BS 8500-1 might be inadequate depending on state design methodologies should be characterized in
the production method, in which case “additional terms of standardized test methods that are consistent
requirements”, such as those for strength development, with the design method.
can also be included in the specification as provided for
in BS 8500-1.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 31

PAS 8810:2016

8.3 Preconstruction and production 8.3.4 The methodology developed by the contractor
testing of concrete materials in 8.3.3 should be documented in the form of quality
procedures which assure that the conformance
8.3.1 The designer should specify the testing required achieved in the preconstruction trials can also be
to demonstrate that the concrete conforms to the achieved in the works.
requirements of the design
8.3.5 The production of all FRCs should conform to
8.3.2 Where segmental tunnel linings incorporate fibre the quality assurance procedures developed by the
reinforcement of any type, the designer should specify contractor during the preconstruction trials.
preconstruction trials to demonstrate that the FRC
performance parameters used in the design are realized 8.3.6 The contractor should undertake production
in practice when using the concrete, fibre type and testing of FRC beams in a manner that is consistent with
dosage proposed for the works. the standard test methods that underpin the relevant
design methodology.
8.3.3 When undertaking preconstruction trials for
NOTE If the quality assurance procedures developed
all FRCs, the contractor should develop a production
during the preconstruction trials are sufficient to
methodology that can be demonstrated to achieve
ensure that the in-situ fibre content and concrete
conformity with all the requirements of the project-
strength grade are compliant, it might not be necessary
specific specification.
to conduct beam tests.

32 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

9 Limit state design

9.1 Design approach 9.2 Design situations

NOTE BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005, Section 3 defines the The designer should select design situations in
principles of limit state design. The tunnel lining is accordance with BS EN 1990, ensuring that design
normally considered in terms of ultimate limit state and situations are sufficiently severe and varied to
serviceability limit state. encompass all conditions that can be reasonably
foreseen to occur.
9.1.1 The designer should design the tunnel linings so NOTE 1 BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005, 3.2 defines design
as to conform to BS EN 1990. situations as a series of circumstances or conditions that
NOTE 1 BS EN 1990 establishes the principles of limit the tunnel lining might experience during its life. These
state over the design working life of the tunnel. design situations are classified as transient, persistent,
NOTE 2 The two principal types of limit state are the accidental or seismic.
ultimate limit state (ULS) and the serviceability limit • transient – refers to temporary conditions applicable
state (SLS). to the structure, e.g. during construction or repair;
NOTE 3 Further definition of ULS and SLS are provided • persistent – refers to the conditions of normal use;
in 9.4. • accidental – refers to exceptional conditions
applicable to the structure or to its exposure; and
9.1.2 The designer should design the tunnel lining so as
• seismic – refers to conditions applicable to the
not to exceed a limit state.
structure when subjected to seismic events.
9.1.3 To achieve satisfactory performance at ULS the NOTE 2 Table 7 lists typical design situations for
designer should design the tunnel lining to withstand tunnels in transient, persistent, accidental and seismic
collapse, ensuring safety of people and the structure. classifications. This table represent a basic outline
of potential design situations, which can differ on a
9.1.4 To achieve satisfactory performance at SLS, the project-specific basis.
designer should design the tunnel lining to facilitate
the performance of its function and the comfort of
users with an acceptable level of maintenance.
NOTE Given the confined nature of the tunnel
environment, it is important that the designer aims
to provide a tunnel structure that, in the event of
failure, fail in a ductile manner, with an indication of
the onset of failure through deformation and cracking.
It is important that a brittle failure of the system is
not the principal mode of failure in any temporary or
permanent work tunnel design.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 33

PAS 8810:2016

Table 7 – Typical design situations for precast concrete segmental tunnel lining

Typical transient design • Demoulding, storage/stacking and handling of the segmental lining
situation • Transportation of the segmental lining
• Installation of the segmental lining
• Propulsion of the TBM
• Grouting of the segmental lining
• Initial ground and water conditions
• Operation of construction equipment within the tunnel
• Additional temporary works within the tunnel (i.e. temporary fixings, specific
temporary works associated with openings, compressed air)
• Ground treatment, including compensation grouting

Typical persistent • Construction of the tunnel in a variety of ground/geological formations

design situation • Construction of the tunnel in a variety of groundwater conditions
• Out of tolerance (poor build) construction of the tunnel lining
• Construction of the tunnel close to surface (buoyancy/flotation forces)
• Construction of the tunnel in proximity to existing surface and sub-surface
developments (loading and unloading)
• Construction of future surface or sub-surface developments (loading and unloading)
• Construction of an opening in the tunnel (additional loading conditions)
• Situations associated with internal use of the tunnel (road, rail, water, etc.)
• Operation of internal structures (such as heat increases, mechanical and electrical
and ventilation ducts operation, etc.)
• Internal or external environment causing deterioration of the tunnel lining over time

Typical accidental • Fire events

design situation • Bomb blast events
• Flooding
• Internal collisions (internal impact such as a vehicle crash or train derailment)
• Internal changes in pressure (surge pressures)
• External collisions (external impact load such as a ship anchor)
• Unexpected unloading (removal of material above the tunnel such as dredging of rivers)

Typical seismic design • Earthquakes

situation

34 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

9.3 Design actions and loads

NOTE 1 BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005, Section 4 notes that
an action is defined by a model (representing variation
in time, origin, spatial position and nature or structure
response). Actions and loads can be classified in one of
three categories:
• permanent actions (G) – refers to self-weight of
structures, fixed equipment, and indirect actions
caused by shrinkage and uneven settlement. For
tunnels, ground and groundwater loads are normally
included in this category;
• variable actions (Q) – refers to imposed loads on
structures and external surcharges; and
• accidental actions (A) – refers to “reasonable”,
i.e. probabilistic accidental events.
NOTE 2 Further guidance on tunnel loads and their
application can be found in London Underground,
Standard 1055, Civil Engineering – Deep Tube Tunnels
and Shafts [24], BTS, Tunnel Lining Design Guide [NR1],
Highways England, Design Manual for roads and
bridges, BD 78/99 [25], ICE Sprayed concrete linings
(NATM) for tunnels in soft ground [26], ITA, Guidelines
for the Design of Tunnels [NR6].

9.3.1 Loads associated with transient design situations

Loads associated with transient design situations consist
of permanent and variable actions. The designer should
derive loads from, but not limited to, the actions listed
in Table 8.
NOTE 1 Table 8 lists typical loads and actions for tunnels
in the transient design situation. This table represents
a basic outline of potential design situations which can
differ on a project-specific basis.
NOTE 2 In transient design situations, it is reasonable
to allow an increase in loading over what is required
for the geological and hydrogeological conditions.
However, for loads such as the application of grouting
and the hydraulic TBM rams, it might be possible to
apply a grout load significantly in excess of hydrostatic
pressures or the full thrust capacity of the TBM onto
the segmental lining as an accidental design situation.
These cases can be entered into a risk register and
eliminated through project-specific controls or
considered as accidental design situations calculated
in conjunction with project-specific characteristics of
the system.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 35

PAS 8810:2016

Table 8 – Typical actions for tunnels in transient design situations

Loads Permanent (G) Variable (Q)

Self-weight A) ●

Internal water pressures ● ●

Thermal effects ●

Shrinkage ●

Grouting B) ●

Hydraulic rams (TBM) C) ●

Initial water and ground D) ●

Construction equipment E) ●

Temporary fixings F) ● ●

Testing loads G) ●

For the purposes of this PAS, these typical actions for tunnels are defined as follows:
Self weight: The self-weight of a tunnel lining can be defined as a vertical gravity load. The density of typical
A)

materials used in the construction of the tunnel lining is defined in BS EN 1991-1-1:2002, Annex A, Table A.1 to A.5.
B)
Grouting: The grouting operations are required to inject grout material in the annulus between the tunnel
lining and the surrounding ground or voids in the tunnel lining to ensure full contact is established. Grout loads
might be required to be greater than the external hydrostatic pressure in order to displace any water-filled
voids.
C)
TBM hydraulic ram loads: The ram loading due to TBM excavation, where used, is defined as the load re-
quired to propel the tunnel boring machine forward against ground and water pressure and friction of the
component parts of the machine. This load is applied to the tunnel lining as a compression force acting on the
leading joint face of the tunnel lining.
D)
Initial water and ground loads: The loading due to ground and acting vertically and laterally on the tun-
nel. This load is influenced by seepage of water into the tunnel excavation and ground-structural interaction
around the tunnel lining causing redistribution of the ground loads around the excavated void. These loads are
calculated in accordance with the characterization of the ground defined in Clause 6 and the ground structural
interaction model defined in Clause 11.
Construction equipment loads are project specific. Loads include, but are not limited to, normal operation of
E)

gantry cranes, temporary construction railways, excavators and rubber-tyred vehicles within the tunnel.
F)
Loads from temporary fixings are typically indirect loads required to support temporary services. These include,
but are not limited to, spoil conveyors, temporary ventilation ducts, water and mechanical and electrical services.
G)
Testing loads are project specific. Loads include, but are not limited to pressure testing in water and sewage
tunnels, railway loading and road traffic loading depending on the tunnel type. In many cases these loads are
equivalent to those expected during the working life of the tunnel lining.

36 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

9.3.2 Loads associated with persistent design situations 9.3.3 Loads associated with seismic design situations
9.3.2.1 Loads associated with persistent design Seismic design situations are characterized by the
situations consist of permanent and variable actions. probability of seismic events in the specific project
The designer should derive loads from, but not limited location. The designer should assess and document the
to, the actions listed in Table 9. frequency, magnitude and loads associated with seismic
NOTE Table 9 lists typical loads and actions for tunnels design situations with reference to ITA, Seismic design
in the persistent design situation. This table represents and analysis of underground structures [NR7].
a basic outline of potential design situations which can
differ on a project-specific basis. 9.3.4 Loads associated with accidental design situations
The designer should define the loads associated with an
9.3.2.2 The designer should clearly state in the drawings accidental design situation on a project-specific basis.
and the tunnel lining design report any future
NOTE 1 Accidental design situations are characterized
development loading allowance considered in tunnel
as exceptional events during the design working life of
lining design.
the tunnel structure.
NOTE 2 Loads resulting from these exceptional events
include fire, explosions, derailment impact from trains
and vehicle collisions within the tunnel.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 37

PAS 8810:2016

Table 9 – Typical actions for tunnels in persistent design situations

Loads Permanent (G) Variable (Q)

Self-weight ●

Ground A) ●

Water B) ●

Existing imposed loads C) ● ●

Future imposed loads D) ● ●

Unloading/dewatering E) ●

Internal loads F) ● ●

For the purposes of this PAS, these typical actions for tunnels are defined as follows:
A)
Ground loads: The loading due to ground acting vertically and laterally on the tunnel. This load is influenced
by the geological history of the material and ground structural interaction with the tunnel excavation (see
Clause 11). Allowance can be made for long-term effects, such as deterioration or weathering of the ground
mass, swelling, creep and squeezing.
B)
Water loads: This load represents the water pressure acting on the tunnel structure. This load is dependent on
the performance requirement of the tunnel lining and fluctuations with the water table over time. Initial maxi-
mum and minimum water levels are defined by the designer and calculation of the water load needs to take
into account the specific gravity of the groundwater which can vary due to salinity, for instance. If the structure
is considered watertight, then these initial water levels can be applied to the structure as hydrostatic loads.
However, if the structure is considered drained, then the water load is reduced to a resultant seepage load on
the tunnel. The seepage load is calculated based on the efficiency of the drainage system.
C)
Existing imposed loads can be defined with reference to existing infrastructure (imposed loads at surface
include road traffic loads, railway traffic loads, weights of existing buildings acting through ground bearing
foundations or imposed loads at sub-surface include piled building foundations, load transferred around/from
existing tunnels). Imposed loads at surface are likely to become critical when tunnels are situated at shallow
depths and at sub-surface are likely to become critical when tunnels are situated in close proximity to existing
structures.
D)
Future imposed loads are defined with reference to potential infrastructure (future imposed loads at surface:
future roads, railways or ground bearing buildings, or at sub-surface such as future pile foundations). Allow-
ance for future development loading in the design of tunnel linings might be defined by client requirements.
If the proposal of a future developer is already in existence or in planning, dialogue with the developer can
take place. In the absence of any guidance, the designer can apply past industry practice consisting of a surface
surcharge representing a potential future development.
E)
Unloading/dewatering is defined as a variety of loads associated with deformation of the tunnel lining struc-
ture which can act on the lining from future development proposals for surface or sub-surface excavations (at
the surface, examples include the construction of basements or cuttings for road or rail infrastructure and at
sub-surface or below-surface level, examples include the excavation of tunnels). Unloading/dewatering is likely
to become critical when tunnels are situated at shallow depths or the excavation is in close proximity to the
tunnel lining. The designer might consider an appropriate separation or magnitude of the unloading/dewater-
ing which is insignificant to the design of the tunnel lining.
F)
Internal loadings can be defined with reference to the tunnel use (loads include self-weight of internal
structures, concentrated loads from permanent fixings, loads from rail, road or water and temperature
increases in the tunnel). Where permanent fixing loads are beneficial in the persistent design situation they are
not considered, as services might be removed for replacement or maintenance.

38 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

9.4 Ultimate limit state (ULS) and 9.4.1.1.1 Of the ULSs defined in BS EN
serviceability limit state (SLS) 1990:2002+A1:2005, the designer should, as a
minimum, verify STR, GEO, and UPL for the design of
NOTE ULS and SLS are relevant to each of the four the tunnel lining.
design situations (see Note to 9.2). This PAS focuses on
the ULSs and SLSs commonly used for transient and 9.4.1.1.2 The designer should identify and document
persistent design situations. For further information on the ultimate limits states for the determined design
seismic design situations refer to BS EN 1998-1 and for situations and actions. Failure modes of the tunnel
accidental design situations see BS EN 1990. lining members should be identified and documented
for each case.
9.4.1 ULS
9.4.1.1.3 The designer should verify the selected
9.4.1.1 General
ultimate limit state by ensuring that the design effect
NOTE 1 The principles of ULSs can be found in BS EN of actions is not greater than the design resistance
1990:2002+A1:2005, 3.3 and 6.4, and BS EN 1997- obtained with consideration of the partial factors on
1:2004+A1:2013, 2.4.7. the actions, materials and resistances.
NOTE 2 Of relevance to tunnel lining design, the
definitions of ULSs are as follows: 9.4.1.2 Failure or excessive deformation of structural
• EQU – static equilibrium; members or ground (STR and GEO)
• STR – internal failure or excessive deformation of the 9.4.1.2.1 The designer should verify STR/GEO in
structure or structural members; accordance with Design Approach 1 identified in BS EN
• GEO – failure or excessive deformation of the ground, 1997-1.
where the strengths of ground are significant in NOTE BS EN 1997-1 requires ULS verifications for
providing resistance; persistent and transient design situations using two
• UPL – loss of equilibrium of the structure or ground separate “combinations” of partial factors. The
due to uplift by water pressure (buoyancy); and rationale behind this sub-division is to cover uncertainty
relating to applied loading or actions (Combination 1,
• HYD – hydraulic failure, internal erosion and piping
DA 1-1) and uncertainty relating to ground strength
by hydraulic gradient.
(Combination 2, DA 1-2).
NOTE 3 As tunnel linings are normally considered to be
confined by the surrounding medium (i.e. the ground), 9.4.1.2.2 Where numerical analyses are used for
EQU and HYD are not normally considered critical for Design Approach 1, Combination 1 (DA1-1) in tunnel
lining ULS verification and are therefore not covered lining design, the designer should adopt BS EN 1997-
in this PAS. Exceptions to this rule exist, for example 1:2004+A1:2013, 2.4.7.3.2 (2), requiring load factors
during construction, and would be considered based on to be applied to action effects (structural forces and
the defined design situation for the individual project. bending moments) rather than to actions.
HYD needs to be considered if flow of water is allowed
through the ground and into the tunnel.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 39

PAS 8810:2016

9.4.1.2.3 Design Approach 1, Combination 2 (DA1-2) 9.4.1.3 Loss of equilibrium of the structure or ground
can be applied to tunnel lining analysis, however DA1-2 due to uplift (UPL)
requires decreasing of ground strength parameters, 9.4.1.3.1 For shallow tunnels, the designer should assess
which can lead to an unrealistic ground behaviour. The and document the potential for ultimate limit state
designer should undertake a system of robust checking failure due to flotation from the action of differential
where this design approach is selected. water pressure.
NOTE 1 Examples of these ULSs and typical failure
modes of tunnel linings are described in Table 10. 9.4.1.3.2 The designer should carry out UPL verification
NOTE 2 Occasionally, the client’s design standard for both transient and persistent design situations in
requires the tunnel lining not to collapse up to a certain accordance with BS EN 1997-1:2004 +A1:2013.
level of deformation. This is understood to consider a NOTE UPL verification can relate to buoyancy of the
long-term deformation that can be induced by poor tunnel structure or differential heave at junctions with
build and/or unknown future activity (either natural shafts and station boxes.
or human induced) around the tunnel. This is usually
specified as a form of ovalization (ratio between the 9.4.2 SLS
deformation in diameter change and the un-deformed The designer should define SLS on a project-specific
tunnel diameter). This ovalization limit is normally basis.
interpreted into an equivalent bending moment that
NOTE 1 SLS can refer to water tightness, displacement
is required to deform the lining, and the tunnel lining
and crack width limit.
is designed to have enough structural capacity to resist
this bending moment. Thus, the ovalization limit is NOTE 2 SLS is defined during consideration of the
considered as an ultimate limit state requirement functional requirements of the tunnel (see 4.1 to 4.5).
(see 10.2.1.2).

Table 10 – Typical STR/GEO failure modes of tunnel linings

Failure mode Components/location

Flexural tension (structure) Any location on the segmental lining

Direct compression failure (structure) A bearing failure occurring at joints

Indirect tensile failure (structure) A bursting failure occurring at joints

Direct shear (structure) Any location on the segmental lining (for example,
through segment body or assembly systems for
segment tunnel linings)

Punching shear (structure) Any location where there is a concentrated point load

Bearing capacity (ground) Any location, but typically due to a concentrated load
point being transferred to the surrounding ground
(for example, a temporary prop used during the
construction of a tunnel opening)

Heave of the invert of excavation (ground) Inadequate shear strength at side wall

Excessive ovalization and collapse via loss of equilib- Inadequate passive resistance of the ground
rium (ground) supporting the lining

40 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

9.5 Partial factors Groundwater pressure could be a favourable action

for the tunnel lining’s section design against flexural
NOTE The principles of partial factors for ULS and SLS bending, but could be an unfavourable action for the
can be found in BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005, Section 6. joint design of segmental lining.
Partial factors are grouped into sets denoted by “A”
For variable loads that are considered to be controllable
(for actions or effects of actions) and “M” (for ground
in a quantitative manner through the placing of
parameters). Further information on seismic design
specific control measures, such as TBM ram load and tail
situation partial factors is given in BS EN 1998-1 and
grout pressure, a reduction of the load factor can be
further information on accidental design situation
considered. The amount of reduction of load factor can
partial factors is given in BS EN 1990.
be determined with consideration of the workmanship,
and the characteristics of the equipment.
9.5.1 ULS partial factors
9.5.1.2 ULS partial factors for materials
9.5.1.1 ULS partial factors for actions
The designer should design the tunnel lining using the
The designer should design the tunnel lining using the partial factors for materials listed in Table 12.
partial factors for actions listed in Table 11.
NOTE 1 Table 12 is developed from BS EN 1992-1-
COMMENTARY ON 9.5.1.1 1:2004+A1:2014 and NA+A1:2014 to BS EN 1997-
1:2004+A1:2013 for transient and permanent design
Table 11 is developed from NA to BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005,
situations. Partial factors on structural materials can be
Annex A and NA+A1:2014 to BS EN 1997-
reduced if adequate controls are applied during their
1:2004+A1:2013.
manufacture. Further details are given in BS EN 1992-1-
Partial factors for accidental actions are not given 1:2004+A1:2014.
explicitly in BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005, but are
NOTE 2 BS EN 1992-1-1:2004+A1:2014 relaxes material
interpreted in Table 11.
factors for accidental design situations to 1.2 for concrete
The partial factor specified for permanent unfavourable (from 1.5 for persistent load) and 1.0 for reinforcement
actions does not account for uncertainty in the level of steel (from 1.15 for persistent loads). Partial factors
groundwater or free water. Applying a safety margin to for resistances are selected according to the particular
the characteristic water level can be considered (instead circumstances of the accidental design situation.
of applying of the partial load factor) in accordance
with BS EN 1997-1:2004+A1:2013, 2.4.6.1 (8). 9.5.2 SLS partial factors
9.5.2.1 SLS partial factors for actions
The partial factor for actions, Q,G,A, should be taken as 1.0.

9.5.2.2 SLS partial factors for materials

The partial factor for materials, M, should be taken as 1.0.
Table 11 – ULS Partial factors on actions

Duration of Effect of action Symbol Limit state

action
GEO / STR GEO / STR UPL
(DA 1-1) (DA 1-2)

A – Partial factors on actions

Permanent Unfavourable G 1.35 1.0 1.0

action (G)
Favourable 1.0 1.0 0.9

Variable action Unfavourable Q 1.5 1.3 1.5

(Q)
Favourable 0 0 0

Accidental Unfavourable A 1.0 1.0 1.0

action (A)
Favourable 0 0 0

© The British Standards Institution 2016 41

PAS 8810:2016

Table 12 – ULS Partial factors for materials

Parameters Symbols Limit state

GEO / STR GEO / STR UPL

(DA 1-1) (DA 1-2)

M – Partial factors on ground parameters

Angle of shearing  1.0 1.25 1.25

resistance

Effective cohesion c’ 1.0 1.25 1.25

Undrained shear cu 1.0 1.4 1.4

strength

Unconfined qu 1.0 1.4 1.0

strength

Weight density  1.0 1.0 1.0

M – Partial factors on structural materials

Concrete C 1.5 1.5 1.5

Steel bar s 1.15 1.15 1.15

reinforcement

Fibre reinforced FRC 1.5 1.5 1.5

concrete

NOTE 1 Partial safety factors for fibre reinforced concrete can be taken from fib Model Code for Concrete
Structures 2010 [NR5], Section 5.6.6. Table 12 refers to a partial factor for FRC in flexural tension (residual
strength) only.
NOTE 2 Modification to partial factors for concrete and steel bar reinforcement materials can be made and
details are given in BS EN 1992-1-1:2004+A1:2014, Annex A.

9.6 Load combinations 9.6.1 The designer should identify a critical load case
or cases for each design situation based on the project-
NOTE BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005, 6.4.3 defines the specific conditions.
principles of combination of actions (with the exception
of fatigue verifications). For persistent or transient 9.6.2 For ULS the designer should apply
design situations, the general format is based on a load combinations in accordance with BS EN
design value of the leading variable action and design 1990:2002+A1:2005, Section 6.4 and Table A1.2, Table B
combination values of accompanying variable actions. and Table C.
This combination introduces o, factor for combination
value of a variable action that can be used to reduce 9.6.3 For SLS, the designer should apply load
accompanying variable actions. combinations in accordance with
BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005, Section 6.5.

42 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

9.7 Structural fire design spalling can then be specified as an allowable spalling
limit in concrete material specification verified by
NOTE 1 For road tunnels, the structural fire resistance subsequent preconstruction testing of the concrete mix
can be carried out with reference to the research that is used in the works.
developed by the ITA Working Group No. 6, Guidelines
for Structural Fire Resistance for Road Tunnels [4]. 9.7.1 The designer should review the following two
This ITA guideline is focused on road tunnels which design situations as a minimum when undertaking
are exposed to severe fire scenarios induced by structural fire design of a tunnel lining:
vehicles’ fuel.
a) design situation 1 – resistance of the tunnel
NOTE 2 BS EN 1992-1-2:2004 provides guidelines lining to withstand actions during the fire event.
for the structural design of concrete structures at The critical load case is typically induced at the
high temperatures and sets limitations in strength maximum fire temperature considering the loss
parameters for concrete and steel reinforcement as a of section due to spalling and loss of structural
function of the temperature. In addition, it provides resistance due to high temperatures;
simplified methods of analysis for the resistance of
b) design situation 2 – resistance of the tunnel lining
a section, such as the 500°C isotherm method. As
to withstand actions post-fire event, prior to repair.
the range of heating rates assumed in BS EN 1992-1-
2:2004 may not be consistent with those that could be
9.7.2 To account for a fire event in design, the designer
experienced by the tunnel lining, the approach may
should assess and document the following change of
require further justification via testing, in particular
material characteristics:
with fire curves that are more onerous than the
standard curve. a) loss of section induced by explosive spalling;

NOTE 3 Where a fire curve of higher intensity than the b) loss of stiffness of the concrete due to increase in
standard ISO 834 curve is being applied to the design temperature;
and/or where high strength/low permeability concrete c) loss of strength of concrete and reinforcement
is used in the lining (as is typical for segmental precast (including fibres) due to increase of temperature; and
linings) then consideration needs to be given to the d) expansion of the lining and partial restraint
inclusion of a nominal allowance for spalling in the provided by the surrounding ground with resulting
structural calculations. This nominal allowance for fire induced stresses.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 43

PAS 8810:2016

10 Precast concrete segmental lining design

NOTE 1 A number of existing guides discuss the design NOTE 3 The American Concrete Institute’s (ACI)
of segmental tunnel linings in significant detail. Further Committee 544 Fiber-Reinforced Concrete publication
information on segmental lining design is given in BTS, 544.7R-16 ‘Report on Design and Construction of
Tunnel Lining Design Guide [NR1]; and Association Fiber-Reinforced Precast Concrete Tunnel Segments’
Française des Tunnels et de l’espace Souterrain [28] provides detailed design guidance for steel fibre
(AFTES), Recommendations for the design, sizing and reinforced concrete segment linings so the designer
construction of precast concrete segments installed at may find this report useful for the design of segment
the rear of a tunnel boring machine (TBM) [27]. lining, especially when steel fibre is used. However,
NOTE 2 Clause 10 is drafted mainly for the bolted particular attention needs to be given to the fact that
precast concrete segment lining, thus subclauses that ACI 544.7R-16 is written based on the American design
deal with the connections (10.1.3 and 10.2.4), grooves codes rather than the Eurocodes.
(10.2.2.4), gaskets (10.2.3), and annulus grouting
(10.3.3) are not applicable to expanded precast 10.1.1 Segment geometry
concrete segment lining. 10.1.1.1 The designer should determine the thickness
of a precast concrete segmental tunnel lining based on
the relevant transient, persistent, accidental and seismic
10.1 Geometrical properties design situations.
NOTE 1 A precast concrete segmental tunnel lining
10.1.1.2 Where possible, the selection of the ring
consists of a pre-manufactured lining. The circular
configuration should be discussed and agreed in
cross-sectional profile of the tunnel is sub-divided into a
writing between designer and contractor.
number of segments; the cross-sectional joints between
these segments are called radial joints. The tunnel is NOTE 1 This might not be possible where the contractor
also sub-divided in the longitudinal direction, due to has not been appointed at the time of tunnel lining
the practicalities of placing pre-manufactured elements design.
in the tunnel environment; these joints between NOTE 2 A number of different rings types exist that
segments in the longitudinal direction are called impact construction means and methods. Examples
circumferential joints. A ring is defined as a series of of the different ring types of the rings can be found
segments that, when placed together, form a complete in the BTS, Tunnel Lining Design Guide [NR1]; and
circle. An exception to this is a hexagonal segment AFTES, Recommendations for the design, sizing and
that can never form a complete ring due to the half- construction of precast concrete segments installed at
staggered arrangement of segment assembly in the the rear of a tunnel boring machine (TBM) [27]. See
longitudinal direction of the tunnel. Figure 2 for a typical rectangular ring.
NOTE 2 Details on the general geometrical design NOTE 3 The ring is formed with a number of initial
of the precast concrete segment lining are given in segments and a key segment. The initial segments
AFTES, Recommendations for the design, sizing and can be a variety of shapes – rectangular, trapezoidal
construction of precast concrete segments installed at or rhomboidal. The key segment is angled in a wedge
the rear of a tunnel boring machine (TBM) [27]. shape to allow insertion longitudinally into the ring.

44 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

Figure 2 – Typical geometry of precast concrete segment lining

© The British Standards Institution 2016 45

PAS 8810:2016

10.1.1.3 The designer should assess and document the 10.1.1.9 The designer should examine the alignment
key draw based on the anticipated dimensions of the and groundwater conditions and determine whether
TBM when designing the ring. a tapered ring is required. Where a tapered ring is
required, the designer should taper the ring width
10.1.1.4 The designer should select the number of to allow the lining to be built on curves or to correct
segments in a ring based on: misalignments without the need for inserting packing
a) the ring diameter; at the circumferential joint.
b) the size constraints for handling segments with the NOTE 1 A parallel-sided ring has limited capability in
anticipated TBM; the correction of the build alignment.
c) structural performance; and NOTE 2 The taper, especially on a long ring, needs to
be optimized to limit the risk of damage to the tailskin
d) contractor’s preference.
seals and the segments if the segments are not aligned
10.1.1.5 The designer should select the number and size within the tolerances.
of the segments within a ring to accommodate clocking
10.1.1.10 Where a tapered ring is required, the designer
positions.
should add the taper to the leading and/or trailing
10.1.1.6 The designer should set the clocking positions circumferential joint faces.
on each segment so that the TBM thrust ram shoe is not NOTE Historically, the use of a left/right tapered ring
applied over any radial joint. has allowed the key segment to be installed above
the axis level to eliminate perceived difficulties of
10.1.1.7 Where possible, the designer should select the inserting a key segment at the invert, or to avoid high
number and size of the segments within a ring so that concentrated load on a key, for example from floating
each segment, including the key segment, can always track slab pads. However, a modern TBM segment
be supported by at least one TBM thrust ram during erection system is considered capable of placing the key
assembly of the tunnel lining. segment at the invert with little difficulty.
NOTE 1 This provision means that each segment
(including the key segment) needs to have at least two 10.1.1.11 Where a tapered ring is required, the designer
bolt/dowel positions on the circumferential joint. should calculate the ring’s taper using the following
equation (see Figure 3):
NOTE 2 This provision limits the risk of key segment
slippage which has occurred on tunnels with high T = D × B / Rmin
external ground and water pressures.
where: T is the taper
10.1.1.8 The designer should define the longitudinal D is the external diameter of ring
length of the ring based on the: B is the mean width of ring
a) ease of construction; Rmin is the minimum radius of design curve
b) junction/opening size;
c) structural performance;
d) contractor’s preference; and
e) health and safety considerations during
construction.
NOTE Longer rings result in improved water tightness
as the total length and number of circumferential joints
in the tunnel overall is reduced. However, a long ring
increases difficulties in installing the segment both in
terms of its length (when the segment is turned in the
build area) and in terms of the stroke of the hydraulic
rams on the TBM (which need to retract and extend the
length of the segment ring and, typically, the length
of any key draw). The use of longer rings can increase
the risk of damage and cracking during handling and
transportation.

46 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

Figure 3 – Calculation of taper 10.1.2.3 The designer should design a waterproofing

system at the joint to fulfil the client’s functional
requirements.
NOTE 1 Provision of a caulking groove on the intrados
edge can be considered in order to improve control of
leaking water on a project-specific basis (see 10.2.2)
NOTE 2 The waterproofing system would typically be
a single gasket on the extrados side or, if required, a
combined hydrophilic EPDM gasket or a double system
on both sides of the joint.

10.1.2.4 The designer should select a profile for the

circumferential joint.
NOTE This is typically a flat-flat joint arrangement to
allow the most efficient transfer of ram loading from
the TBM.

10.1.2.5 The designer should select a profile for the

radial joint based on the anticipated ovalization and
axial compressive force.
NOTE There is greater flexibility regarding the profile
of the radial joint face, which is predominately
10.1.1.12 Where a tapered ring is required, the designer governed by the structural behaviour of the tunnel
should determine the amount of taper required ring. A number of options are available, e.g. flat-
to cater for the minimum horizontal and vertical flat joint, convex-convex joint, convex-concave joint,
alignment and the amount of correction required to convex-flat joint and tongue-groove joint profile.
cater for construction tolerance.
10.1.3 Connections
10.1.1.13 The designer should provide a mechanical
10.1.3.1 The designer should design the segments with
shear connector for the erection of smooth-bore
connection systems on the radial and circumferential
segments.
joints to be used during construction.
NOTE For example, a pin on the erector and a socket on
the segment. 10.1.3.2 The designer should design and select the
connection systems to:
10.1.2 Joint profile a) meet the required construction tolerances during
NOTE Joint profiles refer to the shape of the joint from ring build;
extrados to intrados of the lining. b) be capable of maintaining the integrity of the
waterproofing system under all load cases; and
10.1.2.1 The designer should assess and document the
c) be capable of being installed from a place of safety.
impact of load transfer between segments at joint
locations. NOTE 1 The different types of connection system
and guidance to their selection is given in AFTES,
10.1.2.2 The designer should provide a stress relief Recommendations for the design, sizing and construction
recess at the intrados and extrados edges of the joint of precast concrete segments installed at the rear of a
to concentrate the load into the centre of the joint, in tunnel boring machine (TBM) [27], Section 3.5.5.
order to avoid spalling at the segment corners. NOTE 2 The relative stiffness of the connecting system
and the segments can provide some reduction of
flexibility in movement and consequent localized
stresses and risk of damage. In such scenarios,
modelling both the segmental lining ring and the
connecting systems might be required to verify this
loading case.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 47

PAS 8810:2016

10.1.3.3 Where applicable, the designer should design 10.2.1.1.1 When developing the M-N envelope, the
the size and number of bolt pockets to provide designer should ignore the flexural tensile strength of
sufficient surface area for the use of a vacuum plain concrete.
segment erector.
NOTE In TBM construction, vacuum erectors are widely 10.2.1.1.2 When FRC is used, the designer should
used and the lifting capacity of the vacuum erector is use the αcc specified for reinforced concrete rather
highly dependent on the available suction area that is than plain concrete to determine the lining design’s
affected by the number and size of bolt pocket. compressive strength, provided the dosage of fibre is
enough to make the lining fail in ductile mode (see
10.1.3.4 The designer should assess the risk of segment Figure 4). Where the dosage of fibre is not enough to
damage against the need to remove the bolts once the make the lining fail in ductile mode, the factor for plain
ring is complete and grouted into place and advise the concrete should be used.
client of any identified risks.
COMMENTARY ON 10.2.1.1.2
10.1.4 Manufacturing tolerances αcc is a coefficient that takes account of long-
term effects on the compressive strength and of
10.1.4.1 The designer should define manufacturing
unfavourable effects resulting from the way the load
tolerances of segments and rings in accordance with
is applied for determining the design compressive/
BTS, Specification for Tunnelling, Section 204 [NR2].
tensile strength value. NA+A2:2014 to BS EN 1992-1-
1+A1:2014 requires reducing of αcc 0.85 to 0.6 for the
10.1.4.2 The designer should determine the appropriate
plain concrete which is considered not applicable for
manufacturing tolerances when designing convex or
fibre reinforced concrete lining structure. αcc directly
concave radial joints.
affects the size of compression block which governs the
10.1.4.3 The designer should document the defined size of M-N envelope.
manufacturing tolerances in a project‘s materials and When determining the shape and size of tensile stress
workmanship specification. block in an FRC lining, it is advisable to use the fib
NOTE A full ring mock-up section to test the Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010 [NR5].
geometrical tolerance of the ring is essential for the Various recommendations on the structural design
precast concrete segment lining. It is advisable to build of FRC are available in the industry and those
at least three test rings to confirm fully-integrated ring- recommendations are being improved/updated as a
to-ring connection geometry. result of continuous academic research and industry
feedback. This PAS does not specify a prescriptive
design process for FRC but sets out external design
10.2 Design recommendations for precast recommendations that are considered suitable for the
concrete segment lining tunnel lining design guide.

10.2.1 Segment section design

10.2.1.1 Flexural tension failure check
NOTE 1 The segment element is considered to be
a beam element that receives both axial load and
bending moment at the same time for the verification
of flexural tension and compression failure.
NOTE 2 Further information on the development of the
moment-hoop thrust envelope (M-N envelope) is given
in BS EN 1992-1-1.
NOTE 3 The flexural tension failure of the tunnel lining
is usually verified with the use of the M-N envelope.

48 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

Figure 4 – Schematic diagram of strain and stress block for reinforced concrete and fibre
reinforced section for the development of the M-N envelope

Key
Ac area of compression in the design l 0.8 for fck≤50MPa
section 0.8 - (fck-50)/400 for 50<fck≤90MPa
As area of tension reinforcement cu3 ultimate limit strain for bi-linear stress-strain relationship (see
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004+A1:2014, Figure 3.4 and Table 3.1)
Fc compressive force s strain of reinforcement steel (varies with neutral axis position)
Fs tension force in reinforcement f strain of fibre reinforced concrete respectively (varies with
neutral axis position). The strain limit is considered with the
maximum allowed crack width in steel fibre concrete section
for ULS (see fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010,
Section 5.6 [NR5])
Ff tension force in the tension section fcd design compressive strength of concrete
of fibre reinforced concrete section
fck characteristic compressive strength αc partial material factor of concrete (equally applies to both
of concrete (see BS EN 1992-1- reinforced and fibre reinforced concrete)
1:2004+A1:2014, Table 3.1)
 1.0 for fck≤50MPa cc 0.85 (both reinforced and fibre reinforced concrete)

1.0 – (fck-50)/200 for 50<fck≤90MPa

© The British Standards Institution 2016 49

PAS 8810:2016

10.2.1.1.3 The designer should determine the hoop COMMENTARY ON 10.2.1.2.2

thrust and bending moment generated in the tunnel For a circular tunnel, the designer can use the following
lining using analytical methods that suit the condition equation (10.1) as a first analysis method to determine
of the design section (see Clause 11). the tunnel lining’s bending moment in relation to the
deformation of the lining:
10.2.1.1.4 The designer should determine the load
combination factors and material factors with reference E Ie
Mmax = 3  umax (10.1)
to the design situations and considered limit state r2
(see Clause 9). where:
Mmax is the maximum moment at umax ;
10.2.1.1.5 The designer should demonstrate that the umax is the maximum deformation on radius;
hoop thrust and bending moment in the lining lies
E is the elastic modulus of lining;
within the M-N envelope for the verification to the
flexural tension failure of the segment. Ie is the tunnel lining’s effective stiffness as a
continuous ring;
NOTE When the hoop thrust and bending moment
points are plotted outside of the M-N envelope, there r is the external radius of lining.
are two ways to resolve the issue. One is to increase the Alternatively, beam spring models or FE models that are
segment lining’s structural resistance, which normally capable of modelling the joint interaction can be used
involves increasing the reinforcement or using a higher to determine equivalent bending moment that matches
grade of concrete. Increasing the thickness of the the deformation.
lining can also help if the load is primarily axial, but by When the tunnel ring has more than four radial joints,
making the lining thicker and stiffer, it can attract more the designer can consider the reduction of the ring
bending moment. The other method is to decrease the stiffness I. The following equation (10.2) can be used as
bending moment by placing more radial joints on a a first method of determination of the reduced
segment ring, i.e. increasing the number of segments ring stiffness:
of a ring. Increasing the number of segments of a

( n ) (I 1, n4) (10.2)

ring can provide the designer with a simple solution 4 2
Ie = Ij  I e
in verifying the flexural tension failure, however this
can significantly affect the ring erection time, segment where:
storage space, segment logistics regime, and length of Ie is the tunnel lining section’s effective stiffness
gasket, etc. as a continuous ring;
Ij is the tunnel lining’s section stiffness at the
10.2.1.2 Deformation limit check
joint with considering of joint’s contact width;
10.2.1.2.1 When checking the deformation limit, the
n is the number of segments in the lining
designer should review the project documentation for
(when the key segment is smaller than a
any deformation limit specified by the client and any
standard segment, it can be accounted for as a
precedent in relation to ovality of existing tunnels in
proportion of a standard segment);
similar ground conditions as a result of construction
tolerances. The designer should design the tunnel lining I is the tunnel lining section’s stiffness with
such that it has sufficient structural resistance in both consideration given to the full section thickness
section and joint up to the specified deformation limit. of lining (not at the joint).
Alternative methods proposed by various authors
10.2.1.2.2 The designer should determine the most for the determining of the reduced ring stiffness
suitable analysis method with reference to the lining are available from various journals and articles in
geometry and the joint details. the industry – for example, Muir Wood, Tunnelling:
Management by Design [13], Japanese Society of
Civil Engineers (JSCE), The design and construction
of underground structures [29], and Blom, Design
philosophy of concrete linings for tunnels in soft soils
[30]. The designer can use other methods, provided
those alternative methods are reviewed and agreed
with the client through the AIP.

50 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

The designer can ignore the reduction of ring stiffness 10.2.2.2 Bursting
and use I for the design of the segment when the radial 10.2.2.2.1 Bursting failure verification is considered to
joint of the lining is designed to transfer full bending be a ULS verification. When verifying bursting failure at
moment through the joint. the joint, the designer should assess and document:
The designer can estimate Ij to suit the geometry of the a) construction tolerance at the joint – so-called lips
joint and the anticipated behaviour of the joint when and steps: this reduces the joint contact width, and
the lining is being deformed. also influences the centre line of the stress line;
For the verification of the long-term deformation limit b) when there is no clear project-specific guidance
check, it is advisable that the designer demonstrates on the construction tolerance, the designer should
that the calculated Mmax combined with the factored act in accordance with the BTS, Specification for
hoop thrust estimated from the most onerous long- Tunnelling, Section 328 [NR2];
term permanent load case is plotted within the M-N
c) the shape of the joint and the actual contact areas
envelope of the segment. Both the highest and lowest
between the two segments;
hoop thrust are usually considered to determine which
case is the most onerous. Mmax is usually not combined d) the contact area between the ram loading and the
with any accidental load case. segment, including all tolerances; and

Although Mmax is obtained from the deformation limit, e) rotation at the joint (birdsmouthing): this affects
a suitable load factor can be considered for the Mmax. the shape of the compressive stress block at the
joint – when the birdsmouthing is significant,
See Morgan, A contribution to the analysis of stresses
the joint contact width decreases, increasing the
in a circular tunnel [31] for the origination of
bursting stress.
equation (10.1).
NOTE The level of joint rotation is linked to the
See Muir Wood, The circular tunnel in elastic ground
sectional distortion of the lining. The angle of
[32] for the origination of equation (10.2).
birdsmouthing can be estimated using geometrical
10.2.1.3 Shear failure check relationship with consideration of the determined
The designer should design the tunnel lining against hoop thrust and bending moment level at the
shear failure in accordance with BS EN 1992-1- radial joint.
1:2004+A1:2014, 6.2.
10.2.2.2.2 The designer should carry out joint bursting
NOTE BS EN 1992-1-1:2004+A1:2014 does not consider
stress checks, taking account of the joint-facing
the contribution of fibres in the increase of shear
geometry.
resistance. fib Model Code for Concrete Structures
2010, Section 7.7.3.2 [NR5] considers the contribution NOTE 1 Joint bursting stress checking is sensitive to
of fibres to the shear resistance when fibres are used the joint contact width. A schematic comparison of the
with bar reinforcement, but no design guidance is stress distribution at the joint between the flat joint
provided for the fibre only reinforced concrete. For and the convex-convex joint is demonstrated in Figure
fibre only reinforced concrete lining, BS EN 1992-1- 5 and Figure 6. Further information on the types of
1:2004+A1:2014, 12.6.3 can be used for the ULS shear joint geometry is given in AFTES, Recommendations for
resistance verification. the design, sizing and construction of precast concrete
segments installed at the rear of a tunnel boring
machine (TBM) [27], Section 3.5.3.
10.2.2 Joint design
NOTE 2 The load on the segment joint is normally
10.2.2.1 General not uniformly distributed and can be applied with an
10.2.2.1.1 The designer should verify the segment eccentricity. The simplification shown in Figure 7 can be
lining’s joint for both bearing and bursting failure. used for the hand calculation of the joint bursting force
unless a finite element (FE) model is used with the use
10.2.2.1.2 When verifying the segment lining’s joint of actual load distribution on the joint.
design, the designer should assess and document the
TBM ram loading (circumferential joint) and hoop
thrust (radial joint).

© The British Standards Institution 2016 51

PAS 8810:2016

Figure 5 – Joint contact width and stress distribution change with joint rotation for flat joint

Figure 6 – Joint contact width and stress distribution change with joint rotation for convex-
convex joint

52 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

Figure 7 – Simplification of non-uniform load with eccentricity for bursting check on flat joint

NOTE Notations in the figure refer to BS EN 1992-1-1:2004+A1:2014, 6.5.3 (3)

10.2.2.2.3 The designer should determine the bursting 10.2.2.4 Groove and edge design
force at the joint of the tunnel lining in accordance 10.2.2.4.1 The designer should document the geometry
with BS EN 1992-1-1:2004+A1:2014, 6.5.3 (3). of the joint with consideration to:
NOTE Alternatively, some designers elect to use a) the dimension of the gasket groove;
Leonhardt’s empirical equation to obtain the
b) the necessity of caulking groove at intrados edge of
distribution of bursting tensile force along the depth
segment; and
of the joint. The FE analysis method can also be used
to determine bursting stress at the lining joint. For c) recesses or chamfers to prevent corner edge damage.
Leonhardt’s equation, see Leonhardt, Prestressed NOTE Further information on the types of
Concrete Design and Construction [33], Chapter 9. waterproofing gaskets, and guidance on their selection,
is given in AFTES, Recommendations for the design,
10.2.2.2.4 The design tensile strength of concrete sizing and construction of precast concrete segments
should be in accordance with BS EN 1992-1- installed at the rear of a tunnel boring machine (TBM)
1:2004+A1:2014, 3.1.6 (2) for plain concrete and FRC. [27], Section 3.5.4.

10.2.2.2.5 The designer should assess and document the 10.2.2.4.2 The designer should document the
necessity of full-scale testing to justify the capacity of a dimensions of the gasket groove to suit the
segment under large loads at the joints in accordance manufacturer’s selected product detail.
with BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005, 5.2 and Annex D.
NOTE Design assisted by testing can provide a more 10.2.2.4.3 The designer should design the gasket
detailed behaviour of an FRC segment prior to and location to have enough distance from the outer edge
after cracking. It can be beneficial for determining the of the segment to avoid edge spalling near the joint,
bursting capacity of the FRC segment. taking account of construction tolerances (see Figure 8).
NOTE The edge spalling is not considered to be an
10.2.2.2.6 If the design tensile strength of the concrete ultimate limit failure of the segment ring, but affects
is less than the bursting stress, the designer should the durability and serviceability (water tightness) design.
design the joint to be reinforced to have sufficient
tensile resistance to prevent bursting. 10.2.3 Gasket design
10.2.3.1 The designer should select the gasket to meet
10.2.2.3 Bearing water tightness requirements under the design water
For the precast concrete segment lining, the designer pressure for the design working life with consideration
should verify bearing failure at the radial joints in of the chemical composition of the groundwater.
accordance with BS EN 1992-1-1 :2004+A1:2014, 10.9.4.3
(6) and 6.7.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 53

PAS 8810:2016

Figure 8 – Edge spalling schematic

Figure 9 – Example of EPDM Gaskets gap pressure curve

Dimensions in mm

10.2.3.2 The designer should verify the gasket design NOTE 1 The gasket’s water tightness capacity varies
for all possible combinations of pressure, offset with the gap and offset (construction tolerance). When
induced by the construction tolerance (lips and steps) the lining deforms, the lining’s radial joints tend to
and maximum gap due to birdsmouthing at the joint rotate and make the joints open. The birdsmouthing
associated with ring diametrical deformations induced increases the gap between the joint face, meaning the
by construction tolerances and loading conditions. gasket’s water tightness capacity is decreased.
NOTE 2 Figure 9 illustrates the typical relationship
between the water tightness capacity defined in water
pressure bar and the gap distance with and without offset.
NOTE 3 The gasket can be either glued to the lining
following manufacture of the segment or can be cast in
the lining during the manufacture of the segment.

54 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

NOTE 4 A double gasket system, i.e. two rows of 10.3 Design recommendations for
gaskets, one at extrados and the other at intrados, can transient design situations
be considered to provide a secondary water tightness
line within the segment joints. Care needs to be given 10.3.1 Transport, storage and handling
to the fact that the water tightness capacity (i.e. bars) 10.3.1.1 The designer should determine a lifting
of the double gasket system is defined by the higher method for the segments for key stages including
capacity of the two gaskets, not by the sum of both demoulding, rotation, stacking, transport and erection
gaskets’ capacity. in the TBM, including segment connections, taking due
account of health and safety considerations.
10.2.4 Bolt and dowel socket/pocket design NOTE 1 Safety factor requirements for segment
10.2.4.1 The designer should design the bolt socket to erection by TBM are given in BS EN 16191:2014, 5.2.5.2.
avoid a block shear failure along the weakest section Further information on health and safety requirements
at the bottom of the bolt pocket against the pre- is given in BS 6164:2011, 7.8.2.5.
tensioning force of the bolt. NOTE 2 Typical lifting methods of a segment include
NOTE Where a block shear failure occurs, this is the use of a vacuum erector, single-point lifting,
considered to be a ULS verification. clamping or the use of a forklift.

10.2.4.2 The designer should design the bolt and dowel 10.3.1.2 The designer should design the segment
socket to provide enough pull-out resistance against the to account for the loads resulting from lifting and
pre-tension force of the bolt and the pull-out force of handling, from the initial casting to the erection inside
the dowels (coming from the gasket’s push-away action). of the TBM. While these transient actions vary from one
NOTE 1 When the use of packers is expected, the project to another, the designer should check operations
packer compression and unload characteristics need to against the following list for the segment design:
be considered together with the gasket parameters. a) segment lifting and turning during curing and
NOTE 2 Particular attention needs to be paid to the mould stripping;
push-fit type dowel’s engagement tolerance because b) handling stages from precast plant to storage areas;
inadequate engagement tolerance can cause the risk of c) segment stacking and insertion of timber spacer
segment slipping back during erection of the next ring. between units;

10.2.4.3 When designing the segment, the designer d) removal from storage and unloading on site;
should assess the interaction between the bolt pockets, e) transportation along the tunnel;
grout holes and dowels to ensure they do not lead to a f) segment erection in the TBM;
plane of weakness and cracking on the segment. g) TBM gantries’ wheels rolling over the last
segmental rings installed.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 55

PAS 8810:2016

10.3.1.3 The designer should carry out design checks 10.3.3 Annulus grouting
to assess the impact of the stresses induced on the 10.3.3.1 The designer should define annulus grouting
segments at each design stage. The design checks for primary and secondary grouting in a TBM-driven
should consider: segment-lined tunnel.
a) the possible dynamic effects of handling (e.g. NOTE Primary grouting is commonly carried out before
placing a segment on a stack during lifting or the ground load is fully transferred to the segment
storage stages); lining, unless the ground is very soft (e.g. very young
b) implementation tolerances (e.g. accuracy of marine clay). The primary grout load is therefore
intersegment block positioning at the storage considered to be hydrostatically applied to the lining.
area); and
c) the true age of the concrete and its characteristic 10.3.3.2 The designer should specify grout injection
strength, when carrying out each relevant operation. pressure in the segment lining design with reference to
the hydrogeological condition of the ground.
NOTE Certain cases can become dimensionally critical
and might require either the short-term improvement NOTE For primary grouting, BTS, Specification for
of concrete properties or the increased reinforcement Tunnelling [NR2] requires sufficient pressure to place
of sectional areas. It is advisable to consider re- the grout properly but not greater than 1 bar above
designing the handling and stacking process with the prevailing hydrostatic pressure at the location
modifications to the equipment rather than re- of grouting.
designing the segment to satisfy handling and stacking
requirements. 10.3.3.3 The designer should estimate and document
the tunnel lining’s hoop thrust due to the maximum
10.3.1.4 The designer should document the size, grout injection pressure using one of the analysis
number and geometry of sockets in accordance with methods described in Clause 11. The designer should
the TBM erector’s details to limit the risk of damage then verify the segment lining’s stability using the
(also see 10.3.1.1 in relation to the provision of a M-N envelope.
shear pin). The designer should ensure the segment is NOTE 1 It is unlikely that primary grout pressure is a
compatible with an erector conforming to BS EN 16191. critical load case for the segment design unless the
NOTE Further information on shear pins is given in BS hydrostatic groundwater pressure is very high.
16191:2014, 5.2.5.2. NOTE 2 Secondary grouting is carried out for a specific
ring or segment only when primary grouting proves
10.3.1.5 Where two sockets are required, the designer insufficient. Secondary grouting is normally performed
should position them to avoid causing a plane of through the grout hole by the drilling of the segment.
weakness within the segment. As the secondary grout area is localized, it is unlikely
NOTE Sockets can be equipped with the cast-in grout/ that the secondary grout is going to deform the
lift plug with non-return valve for grouting. entire ring in a symmetric shape. The potential failure
mode is punching shear failure along the perimeter
of the grout area but this is rare. It is difficult to verify
10.3.2 Hydraulic ram loads
the structural stability of the segment against the
10.3.2.1 The designer should estimate and document secondary grouting without knowing the size of the
the design ram loads based on the specific geotechnical area that secondary grouting is likely to be applied to.
conditions for the project, taking account of any project- It is therefore advised that the designer check punching
specific requirements. The maximum ram loads should be shear failure with a reasonable assumption for the
confirmed by the contractor prior to segment manufacture. grout area. Unless specific guidance is provided by the
NOTE Ram loads are applied to the precast concrete client’s design standard, a 1 m × 1 m section can be
segmental lining to propel the TBM forward against used for the punching shear checking.
friction caused by the dead load of the machine and
the ground and water pressures. The force imparted by 10.3.4 Other loads
the hydraulic ram provides a concentrated variable load
The designer should assess and document the impact of
onto the circumferential joint face of the lining.
other bespoke loads such as construction vehicle loads
on the precast concrete segmental lining (see Table 8).
10.3.2.2 Designers should assume a plane face for
adjacent rings and ensure any cracking induced by NOTE An example of a construction vehicle load is
the ram loads is within a width limit (specified in the the self-weight of the back-up train behind the TBM.
durability report) that does not affect the serviceability Construction vehicles impart a concentrated variable
of the lining. load case onto the precast concrete segmental lining.
NOTE Packers can be used for the correction of plane.

56 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

11 Concrete segment lining modelling

11.1 General NOTE 6 The BTS, Tunnel Lining Design Guide [NR1] and
the ITA, Guidelines for the Design of Tunnels [NR6] are
The designer should model the behaviour of the tunnel among various references available that describe the
in the geological setting where it is to be constructed, methods for the analysis of tunnels with or without
in order to obtain information for: an explicit inclusion of the ground and structure
a) the design of the geotechnical and structural interaction.
components of the tunnel; NOTE 7 The basic theoretical framework for ground-
b) the selection of necessary control measures to structure interaction analysis of tunnel linings is
monitor and safeguard the tunnel construction and -
given in Szechy, The Art of Tunnelling [34]. It includes
adjacent affected assets; and mathematical derivation from the first principles of
c) a better understanding of the possible mechanisms closed-form solutions for various design cases, which
of failure, including an assessment of risks and form the basis of most modern methods of analysis.
potential mitigations.
NOTE 1 The creation of models for the design of the
tunnel lining requires the simplification of a complicated 11.2 Selection of modelling approach
real problem to a simplified theoretical model. The 11.2.1 In order to achieve a robust tunnel lining design
selection of the modelling approach for the ground model, the designer should:
behaviour, the tunnel behaviour and their interaction is
a) select a suitable ground behaviour model
a key aspect in the design of the tunnel lining.
and associated criteria for geotechnical and
NOTE 2 The ultimate output from the modelling of a hydrological parameters;
tunnel structure, whether it is with simplified closed-
b) select a suitable method to model the structural
form solutions or advanced numerical modelling, is
behaviour of the tunnel;
the parameters required for the design of the tunnel
lining. These include the internal forces of the lining’s c) select a suitable method to simulate the interaction
structural members (axial forces, bending moments and between the ground model and the tunnel lining
shear forces) which form the basis for the sizing and model to obtain the effects of such interaction.
structural checks of the tunnel lining and any associated
11.2.2 The designer should use the ground behaviour
detail such as assembly systems and waterproofing.
models in 11.3 to estimate the loading and restraints
NOTE 3 The modelling can also indicate the state of provided by the ground within the geotechnical
stress and behaviour of the ground which can be an environment extrapolated from the ground model
important aspect of the design, especially at junctions as defined in Clause 6. The designer should decide
and other changes of profile. whether analytical methods based on closed-form
NOTE 4 In addition, some modelling approaches solutions or more advanced methods via numerical
can provide resulting deformation of the tunnelled modelling are appropriate for the stage of the design
structure and the ground above or adjacent to it. under consideration.
These outputs are required to meet performance
requirements for the new tunnel and justify that the 11.2.3 The designer should define the tunnel lining
effects of the tunnel construction to adjacent above parameters in accordance with 11.4 to obtain the
and below ground structures are suitably managed. required structural input parameters for modelling the
NOTE 5 Clause 11 focuses on modelling approaches correct behaviour of the tunnel lining.
with particular reference to segmental lining design. NOTE These parameters are selected with reference
While some of the recommendations are applicable to to the geometrical and material characteristics for the
mined tunnel design and permanent cast-in-situ design, structural design based on the recommendations given
it is advisable that reference for the modelling of these in Clauses 6 to 10.
structures is sought in other guidelines such as those
provided by the BTS and ITA.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 57

PAS 8810:2016

11.2.4 The designer should select the ground and 11.3 Selection of the ground
structure interaction model from those set out in 11.5. behaviour model
NOTE 1 These methods include analytical models
(closed-form solutions), bedded spring models and full 11.3.1 Ground pressures
numerical modelling. The designer should select a ground behaviour model
NOTE 2 Due to their relative simplicity and limited to estimate the ground loading acting on the tunnel.
amount of input parameters, analytical models NOTE The selection of a ground behaviour model
and bedded spring methods are a useful tool for depends on the ground conditions as well as on the
preliminary analysis and validation of results from more stage of the design. The most common methods include
complex methods of analysis, as well as back analysis of the following:
monitoring data. • Full overburden – Full ground vertical stress is
NOTE 3 Numerical analyses offer the ability to model assumed to act at the tunnel axis level. This is used to
explicitly complex structures and uneven ground obtain ground loads for tunnels in softer ground or
loading and behaviour, including adjacent above and loose soils where arching effect is unlikely over the
below ground structures, different geological strata, design working life of the structure.
detailed constitutive behaviour and construction • Ground arching – Terzaghi, Theoretical Soil Mechanics
sequences. This provides an unparalleled capability for [35] proposed the arching effect defined as a
simulating ground behaviour, structural behaviour and “transfer of pressure from a yielding mass of soil
ground and structure interaction. However, due to the onto adjoining stationary parts”. The arching effect
complexity of some numerical modelling, more time is facilitated and maintained solely by the shear
and effort is required to produce a robust model. strength of the ground. The arching effect can be
NOTE 4 The selection of the overall approach used to carry out an analytical calculation of the
depends on the complexity of the analysis in terms of ground loads on tunnels of various geometries. The
geotechnical and geometrical conditions and could vary mathematical framework for arching in shallow and
depending on the stage of the design. -
deep tunnels in soft ground is given in Szechy, The
Art of Tunnelling [34].
11.2.5 The designer should verify any selected approach • Convergence-confinement method – Effective ground
with an alternative method and undertake sufficient loading on the tunnel lining can be obtained from
sensitivity studies to assess the variability in results due the principles of the convergence-confinement
to the consideration of a range of values to account for method. An estimate of the ground forces before
the variability in input. installation of the lining can be obtained through
the definition of the ground reaction curve described
in Annex C. When estimating ground loads using
this method, ground parameters and in-situ stress
are assessed in drained or undrained conditions
depending on the hydrological conditions. Water
pressures cannot be relaxed and can be superimposed
to obtain the total pressure on the tunnel lining.
• Numerical analysis – 3D or 2D axisymmetric numerical
models can model, explicitly, the behaviour of the
ground around a tunnel structure and provide the
most realistic estimate of ground loading for tunnels
in soft ground, accounting also for the method of
construction. Further details on numerical analysis are
included in 11.7.

58 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

11.3.2 Groundwater pressures 11.3.4 Ground-lining interface

The designer should assess and document the most 11.3.4.1 When analysing tunnel linings using analytical
unfavourable groundwater pressures and seepage methods, the designer should assess and document the
forces to which the tunnel lining might be subjected behaviour of the ground-lining interface as this can
at different stages of construction and throughout the have a significant effect on the forces in the lining as
tunnel’s operational life, and implement those assessed well as the general deformed shape.
groundwater pressures in the analysis of the tunnel
lining in accordance with Clause 10. 11.3.4.2 The designer should select the ground-lining
interface to simulate the interface condition as assumed
NOTE Coupled models in full numerical analysis can for the design of the tunnel lining.
be used to model the flow of water and variation of NOTE Most closed-form solutions allow representation
groundwater pressure with the excavation stages and of the ground-lining interface as either “full-slip” or
the associated variation of ground stress distribution, “full-bond” (see Annex B).
while uncoupled models provide a simplified staged
groundwater behaviour. As such, coupled models 11.3.4.3 The designer should derive the determination
provide a better understanding of the groundwater of the tangential stiffness in soft ground in accordance
behaviour around a tunnel excavation. with the methodology given in Dixon, Analysis of
tunnel support structure with consideration of support-
11.3.3 Ground parameters rock interaction [NR8].
11.3.3.1 The designer should specify in-situ ground NOTE 1 The designer can simulate the interface shear
investigation and laboratory tests to provide the stiffness in bedded beam springs models by including
specific ground parameters required in the chosen tangential springs. Full-slip is automatically applied if
constitutive ground model (see Clause 6). no tangential springs are added to the model.
NOTE The ground stiffness is a key parameter for NOTE 2 The designer can define more advanced
the behaviour of the tunnel in the modelled ground relationships in numerical modelling where constitutive
model. Closed-form solutions are based on linear-elastic models for interface elements between ground and
stiffness of the ground mass, although this provides lining are used for an explicit definition of this interface.
only a rudimentary model of the highly non-linear
elastic-plastic behaviour of the ground.
11.4 Definition of the lining model
11.3.3.2 Where the ground’s non-linear behaviour is
found to be critical for the design of the tunnel lining, 11.4.1 Lining material parameters
the designer should select more advanced analyses. The designer should determine lining material
NOTE For example, when the extent of the plastic parameters in accordance with Clauses 7 to 10 of this PAS.
zone around the tunnel opening is extensive, the NOTE Most approaches for tunnel lining design are
designer can decide to use numerical models with a carried out assuming constant linear-elastic behaviour
full characterization of the ground in terms of strength of the lining. Closed-form solutions are only applicable
parameters and incorporate stiffness variation with with elastic properties. FE methods can incorporate
strain into their choice of ground stiffness model. non-linear stiffness and elasto-plastic behaviour.

11.3.3.3 To include non-linear behaviour in terms of 11.4.2 Lining section properties

ground stiffness in bedded spring models, the designer
NOTE The segmental lining section is defined as the
should designate non-linear springs by defining an
full thickness of the segments multiplied by the width
equivalent force-displacement curve for the springs.
considered in the modelling, usually 1 m.
NOTE The springs are calibrated by separate numerical
models which account for the most critical geotechnical
conditions.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 59

PAS 8810:2016

The designer should select one of the following NOTE Analysis of segmental linings using 3D solid
methods to account for the segmented nature of the elements allows the modelling of the full behaviour
lining in terms of the rotational stiffness of the full ring. of radial and circumferential joints using contact (or
a) The second moment of area of the full ring is interface) elements. This methodology is therefore
reduced to consider the influence of the radial generally more refined when compared to the
joints; this reduction is a function of the number modelling of the lining using beam or shell elements
of joints and the geometry of the joint contact if the behaviour of the joints is governing the design.
face. This method is the only method applicable An example of a 3D model of a segmental lining with
to closed-form solutions assuming linear-elastic contact elements used at the joints is given in Figure 10.
behaviour of the ring and a single value of the
moment of area is an input of such formulations 11.4.3.3 Where required in 3D numerical models, the
(see 10.2.1.2.2). designer should model the circumferential stiffness to
account for the relative stiffness produced by the joint
NOTE The contact face for a flat joint is nominally
assembly system and any contact resistance through
the full joint contact width as set out in 10.2.2.
friction between segments, when friction can develop
The contact face for a convex-convex joint is
at the joints.
traditionally assumed to be zero for the purpose
of the calculation of the second moment of area of
the ring. 11.4.4 Modelling of local effects on segmental lining

b) In 2D bedded beam spring and numerical models, The designer should carry out explicit modelling of
the lining is represented by beam elements. While the segment to check local effects at the joints coming
the approach set out in 11.4.2 a) is commonly used from ram forces or bursting forces. Where necessary,
in these methods, the designer should consider the designer should include the non-linear material
the benefit of modelling the joints explicitly. The behaviour of the concrete (in particular if FRC segments
joints can be explicitly modelled introducing a are employed). A constitutive model with elasto-plastic
local discontinuity in second moment of area at properties should be defined as a stress-strain non-
all joint locations while maintaining full sectional linear curve.
rotational stiffness properties for the rest of the NOTE 1 RILEM σ-ε methodology [NR4], TR63, or the fib
ring. When flat joints are used, an upper value Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010 [NR5] define
for the rotational stiffness should be chosen in a possible constitutive model to use in the FE analysis.
order to obtain conservative results for the lining NOTE 2 Shell elements or solid elements can be used
design. Lower bounds should be chosen to assess to provide a better understanding of the stress-
the deformation limits of the lining. When convex- strain behaviour of the concrete segments under
convex joints are used, the rotation stiffness should concentrated loads to assess maximum tensile stresses,
be set equal to zero. strains, crack location and expected width. Figure 11
shows the state of tensile stress (highlighted in red) in
11.4.3 3D Modelling of tunnel linings segments loaded with concentrated forces at the radial
11.4.3.1 In 3D numerical models, including 3D spring and the circumferential joint.
models, the designer should model the lining using
plate or shell elements.
NOTE 1 3D solid elements can be used, but these need
11.5 Methods of analysis of ground
to be selected to allow an easy derivation of resolved structure interaction
forces and moments. The designer should select the approach to model the
NOTE 2 The constitutive behaviour of both radial and interaction between the ground and the lining from
circumferential joints is of great importance in 3D FE the list of methods set out in Figure 12.
models to determine the expected joint behaviour as NOTE These methods are divided into several main
the tunnel deforms. categories, which are described in 11.6 and 11.7.

11.4.3.2 When plate or shell elements are used, the

designer should model the radial joints with the same
recommendations proposed for 2D modelling in 11.4.2 b).

60 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

Figure 10 – Example of a 3D model of a segmental lining with contact elements used at the
joints

Figure 11 – State of tensile stress of radial and circumferential joints of a segmental lining

© The British Standards Institution 2016 61

PAS 8810:2016

Figure 12 – Analysis methods for design of tunnels in soft ground

Method Source/ example Material 2D or 3D Time Ground Tunnel Mined/ TBM

models effects water shape
effectsa
‘Closed-form’ analytical methods
Muir Wood, Elastic, 2D Creep in Some Circular Both
1975 Curtis, 1976 plastic, creep ground
Einstein and
Schwartz, 1979
Duddeck and
Erdman, 1985
CCM Panet and Elastic, 2D Creep, No Circular Both
Guenot, 1982 plastic, creep axisym timing
of
support
Bedded ITA, 1998 Elastic 2D None No Any Both
beam
spring
Stability Mair and Taylor, Plastic 2D/3D None No Circular Both
analyses 1993
Numerical methods
FE e.g. ABAQUS All 2D/3D All Yes Any Both
FD e.g. FLAC All 2D/3D All Yes Any Both
FE/BE or e.g. PHASES Hoek All but BE 2D/3D All Yes Any Both
FD/BE et al., 1998 elastic only
Key 2D two-dimensional Elastic elastic material behaviour
analysis
3D three-dimensional Mined drill and blast or driven
analysis heading
axisym axisymmetric analysis Plastic plastic material behaviour
CCM Convergence– Some some of the examples
Confinement Method in the category/to some
extent
TBM tunnel boring machine Creep creep material behaviour
a
This column states whether the method provides any information on the effects of or on groundwater, for
example porewater changes or consolidation settlements.
{SOURCE: BTS, Tunnel Lining Design Guide, 2004, p 101, modified [NR1]}
Copyright is claimed on Figure 12. Reproduction of this figure is with kind permission of the British Tunnelling
Society. Details of the copyright owner can be found in the foreword.

11.6 Analytical methods d) the methods discount the redistribution of

ground stresses between ground and lining by not
11.6.1 General considering that the ground continues to arch and
When using analytical methods, the designer should redistribute load as the lining deforms. The use of
assess and document their applicability with reference analytical methods overestimates the load on the
to the following key limitations: lining and underestimates the load transferred to
a) inability to fully capture the ground-structure the ground.
interaction in weak ground, where non-linear NOTE 1 Segmental linings have traditionally been
behaviour is significant; analysed using analytical methods such as closed-form
b) mostly applicable to circular tunnel profiles; solutions or bedded beam spring models. This PAS
does not repeat the equations of those various closed-
c) a separate calculation of ground loading applied
form solutions. For a suggested list of internationally-
on the lining is needed (see 11.3); and
recognized closed-form solutions, see Annex B.

62 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

Figure 13 – Typical continuum model

Key
H Tunnel depth R Tunnel diameter
 Total unit weight of elastic medium (ground) t Lining thickness
K0 Coefficient of earth pressure at rest v’ Effective vertical stress

NOTE 2 Analytical methods for the design of tunnel NOTE 2 Guidance on analysis of tunnel lining in soft
support requirements are generally defined as 2D ground using continuum analytical solutions is given
or 3D, closed-form theoretical solutions that assume in BTS, Tunnel Lining Design Guide [NR1]. Additional
a circular tunnel in an elastic or elastic-plastic details are given in ITA, Guidelines for the Design of
homogenous continuum under static equilibrium. Tunnels [NR6].

11.6.2 Continuum analytical solutions 11.6.3 Convergence-confinement method

The designer should carry out static analysis of the For segmental lining design in soft ground, the
tunnel lining behaviour in soft ground using one of the designer should assess and document whether
internationally-recognized, closed-form solutions (see confinement pressure from the TBM is present prior to
Annex B). the installation of the lining. Where such confinement
NOTE 1 Continuum analytical solutions are theoretical pressure is present, the designer should use full
models that are based on circular excavation and numerical modelling with the convergence-confinement
simultaneous installation of the lining in a stressed method to model the state of stress induced on a lining
continuum, as shown in Figure 13. Based on the assumed installed in a pressurised environment.
loading condition and the ground-lining interactions, NOTE 1 An introduction to the use of the convergence-
equations are established for calculating maximum confinement method for segmental lining design is set
thrust and moment in the lining. Both the loading and out in Annex C.
equivalent elastic properties of the ground are subject NOTE 2 The closed-form formulation of the method
to a wide range of uncertainties, requiring sound design provides an equation for the stiffness of the support
judgement when selecting these parameters. system. The use of this equation with the ground
reaction curve provides a simplified way to consider the
convergence-confinement in tunnel lining design.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 63

PAS 8810:2016

11.6.4 Bedded beam spring models 11.6.4.3 The designer should assess and document the
11.6.4.1 The designer should carry out the analysis need for more advanced modelling methods when the
of tunnel linings in soft ground using bedded spring use of spring models results in convergence difficulties
models in accordance with ITA, Guidelines for of the numerical solution.
the Design of Shield Tunnel Lining [NR9] and ITA, NOTE Convergence difficulties can occur due to the
Guidelines for the Design of Tunnels [NR6]. assumption of very soft ground stiffness or in the case
NOTE 1 As illustrated in Figure 14, bedded beam of very high stress conditions.
spring models are action-reaction models that enable
a simple analysis of a tunnel lining. Loads (e.g. ground
and water pressures) are applied to the tunnel lining 11.7 Numerical methods
represented by a series of beam or shell elements, so NOTE 1 Numerical analysis methods attempt to satisfy
a non-circular tunnel can be modelled and analysed. all theoretical requirements, include realistic ground
As the tunnel deforms under the applied load, only and lining constitutive models and incorporate
the springs in compression (representing the ground boundary conditions that more accurately simulate
reaction) provide a passive reaction resulting in force field conditions.
equilibrium. No tension is permitted in the radial spring
NOTE 2 Approaches based on finite difference (FD)
by introducing compression-only, non-linear springs.
and FE methods are most widely used for tunnel lining
NOTE 2 Bedded beam spring models are useful in design. These methods involve a computer simulation
all stages of design. However, it is advised that care of the full stress path from green field conditions,
be taken when used in detailed design as the beam through to construction, and in the long term. Other
spring model provides a rudimentary representation methods such as the discrete element method (DEM)
of ground-structure interaction. It is advisable to carry and boundary element method (BEM) are also available
out a comparison analysis via the use of a continuum and can be superior to FE/FD methods in certain
analytical solution (for circular tunnels) or full instances such as analysis of small-scale features or
numerical analysis models (see 11.6.1 d)). extremely complex geometries.
NOTE 3 The applicability of these methods is defined in
11.6.4.2 The designer should perform the analysis of the
the BTS, Tunnel Lining Design Guide [NR1].
tunnel lining in accordance with the recommendations
for limit state design in Clause 9 for the identified
design situations and load combinations, including
distributed or localized internal loads.

Figure 14 – Bedded beam spring model

64 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

11.7.1 General modelling approach 11.7.2 Constitutive ground model

The designer should undertake the following activities 11.7.2.1 General
when conducting numerical analyses:
The designer should determine and document the most
a) carry out a preliminary lining design using empirical suitable constitutive ground models to simulate the
and/or analytical methods, including high-level behaviour of the ground.
assumptions to simplify the problem;
NOTE A comprehensive theoretical background
b) define the objective of the modelling work and regarding constitutive behaviour of ground for
output requirements and plan the process of analysis; numerical analysis is given in Potts and Zdravkovic,
c) select an appropriate form of analysis and software “Finite Element Analysis” in Geotechnical Engineering
requirements; [36], and Zdravkovic and Carter, “Constitutive and
d) define the ground stratigraphy and the most numerical modelling” in Geotechnique [37].
appropriate geotechnical constitutive model as well
as governing groundwater behaviour (e.g. drained/ 11.7.2.2 Total and effective stress forms of analysis
undrained/time-dependent); When undertaking any numerical analysis for tunnel
e) create a conceptual drawing of the analysis layout; lining design in soft ground, the designer should
f) create the geometry and model the mesh including, determine the most appropriate mode of ground stress
where required, complex geometries; analysis with reference to the anticipated pore water
pressure development/dissipation characteristics in
g) apply boundary conditions and initial stress state in
the ground.
the ground prior to construction, giving particular
attention to the in-situ stress ratio (Ko) and pore
water pressure profile; 11.7.2.3 In-situ ground stress

h) apply adjacent underground and above-ground The designer should initialize the effective in-situ
structures (existing and under construction); ground stress around the tunnel location using the
coefficient of earth pressure at rest, K0.
i) model the excavation;
NOTE 1 As a consequence of the tunnel being formed,
j) model the installation of lining and selection of the
the horizontal effective stress falls such that the
most appropriate lining modelling methodology
coefficient of earth pressure changes (often referred to
and structural constitutive model;
as Km, with m denoting ‘mobilized’). The lining needs to
k) apply load variations and combinations in accommodate this initial stress regime, and over time,
accordance with Clause 9, with particular attention a number of factors could influence how the stress
to the effects of high-imposed internal loads from a regime might change. These include:
pressured water tunnel;
• horizontal stresses around the tunnel with time
l) carry out an initial run and model validation using increasing towards at rest K0 conditions; and
independent simplified calculations and case
• change in groundwater pressure, either caused by
history data;
pore pressure equalization following the formation
m) apply where applicable any intrusive mitigation of the tunnel or from the tunnel acting as a drain
works such as ground improvement/compensation
NOTE 2 Figure 15 shows an image taken from a FE
grouting;
model of the K0 or Km conditions prior and following
n) consider impacts from concurrent adjacent excavation of a tunnel in London Clay. Following
excavation and construction activities; formation of the tunnel, the coefficient of earth
o) consider the effect of loads from/on existing pressure can be seen to have dropped significantly at
structures and foundations; the tunnel axis level, while at the crown and invert
p) consider the time-dependent behaviour of the it has significantly increased. This emphasizes the
ground and material parameters; relaxation of horizontal stresses at axis level and effect
of arching of stresses above and below the tunnel.
q) consider the effect of an applied surcharge load if
required, at the appropriate stage; and
r) carry out independent reviews of the model and
final validation using independent simplified
calculations and calibration models.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 65

PAS 8810:2016

Figure 15 – Coefficient of earth pressure change prior (i.e. at rest) and following tunnel
construction (variation of horizontal stresses in kPa)

11.7.2.4 Stress reduction 11.7.3 Finite element (FE) and finite difference (FD)
The designer should determine the stress reduction mesh geometry
parameters when a numerical analysis method is For FE and FD models, the designer should select the
adopted for the design of the tunnel lining. appropriate mesh geometry to achieve:
NOTE 1 The most popular method to simulate the a) an accurate geometrical representation of the
tunnel construction procedures is the “stress reduction structure and the ground;
method”, often referred to as the l-method, that b) the recognition that the mesh sizing at points of
allows simulation of the 3D tunnelling process with 2D isolated loads or stress-concentrations might need
models by reducing the initial stress around the tunnel to be finer to achieve accurate output;
perimeter. The approach to be used in conjunction
c) the recognition that a coarser mesh might be
with the convergence-confinement method is given in
appropriate at zones where construction is unlikely
Annex C.
to change the pre-existing stress conditions;
NOTE 2 The stress reduction calculation is often
d) the required level of numerical accuracy (e.g. the
erroneously linked to volume loss. Volume loss is
fineness of the mesh);
normally used for ground movement and building
damage assessment, with the aim of generating the e) a realistic representation of stress/deformation
maximum expected ground movement. However, for changes during sequential stages;
lining design, the higher the ground convergence f) a correct modelling of boundary condition (e.g.
assumed (i.e. volume loss) the higher the stress the use of infinite elements along the border or
reduction and, therefore, the less the load imposes suitably large mesh such that the influence of the
on the lining. An approach that only assumes a high boundary is negligible).
estimate of volume loss may not be conservative for NOTE 1 Additional guidance of meshing requirements
lining design. is given in the BTS, Tunnel Lining Design Guide [NR1]
and NAFEMS publications available online at www.
nafems.org.
NOTE 2 A typical FE model of a segmentally lined
tunnel is shown in Figure 16.

66 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

Figure 16 – Typical FE model of a segmentally lined tunnel

11.7.4 Special considerations for numerical modelling 11.7.4.3 Ground creep and shrinkage/swelling
11.7.4.1 Model calibration NOTE Ground creep and shrinkage/swelling behaviour
is a complex phenomenon typical, but not exclusive, to
The designer should calibrate any numerical model
ground with a high content of clay minerals. Certain
against independent information or calculations using:
clay minerals swell or shrink significantly (up to 65% in
a) simplified hand calculations using engineering volume) when subject to changes in water content.
first principles;
b) design calculations using analytical or empirical 11.7.4.4 When undertaking analysis of the segmental
methods; lining in swelling or creeping ground the designer
c) simplified numerical model (other than the actual should assess and document long-term creep
model) that can be calibrated against other deformations of the lining, as well as additional
methods; and swelling pressures as measured in laboratory tests.
d) back analysis of case history data from publications
11.7.4.5 When considering ground creep, the designer
and conference proceedings of actual movements/
should use creep laboratory tests to calibrate advanced
measurements in similar ground conditions, with
constitutive models.
similar structures and construction.
NOTE Consideration of the swelling and creep
mechanisms for tunnel structures is covered in the
11.7.4.2 Parameters to calibrate
US Department of Transportation Technical Manual
During the calibration process of the numerical for Design and Construction of Road Tunnels – Civil
model the designer should investigate and document, Elements [38].
as a minimum:
a) constitutive ground model;
b) drainage and groundwater flow;
c) ground stresses and ground reactions;
d) lining average hoop force; and
e) lining deformation profile and maximum
distortions.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 67

PAS 8810:2016

11.8 Junctions and interface with 11.8.1.3 When designing junctions in weak water-bearing
existing assets ground, the designer should specify ground improvement
techniques as possible measures to allow the safe
11.8.1 Analysis principles for junctions construction of the junction and provide additional
NOTE 1 The design of junctions is considered to be one restraint to the segmental lining close to a junction.
of the most challenging tasks in tunnel lining design
in soft ground. This is due to the complex construction 11.8.1.4 When designing the ground improvement
sequence and high proportion of ground-structure techniques, the designer should carry out iterations and
interaction, as well as the interaction between various sensitivity checks. The designer should specify on-site
structures often built using different construction verification of in-situ improved ground parameters. This
methodologies and at different times. should be carried out with sufficient time in advance of
the construction to modify the design, if necessary.
NOTE 2 For segmental lining design, the most common
case is the design of a junction between a segmental 11.8.1.5 When designing the junctions, the designer
lining and a cross passage, which includes analysis should allow flexibility in the design to cater for
of the stability of the segments next to the opening, potential contingency measures to be applied.
temporary works for the cross passage excavation and
the collar structure linking the segmental lining to the 11.8.1.6 When designing the junctions, the designer
secondary lining of the cross passage. should optimize the geometry and size of the excavation
and keep the opening size as small as possible for both
11.8.1.1 Due to the relatively high deformations and operational and construction requirements.
loads experienced by both the ground and lining, the
designer should assess and document the non-linear, 11.8.1.7 The designer should take account of the
elasto-plastic behaviour of the ground and structure, excavations required during construction of the
and model the junction according to the findings. openings in the design of the segments.

11.8.1.2 Where temporary support is provided in

11.8.2 2D plane stress analysis
the form of additional structural members inside
the mainline tunnel, the designer should assess and The designer should assess and document whether
document the benefit of modelling these temporary a simplified 2D plane stress analysis conservatively
supports explicitly. represents the real situation of the junction and use
this approach for the design of the junction. Where the
simplified 2D plane stress analysis does not represent
the real situation of the junction, the designer should
use 3D methods.

68 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

NOTE 2D analytical methods such as the ‘hole-in-plate’ 11.8.3.2 When modelling openings, the designer should
Kirsch [39], Timoshenko [40], Roark [41] solutions or take into account the joints between the concrete
strut-and-tie models as well as 2D numerical solutions, segments or any temporary support that is provided to
provide a means for estimating the flow of stresses support the opening.
around a junction by reducing the geometry to a NOTE 1 An example of a bedded spring shell model
2D plane stress projected solution. The 2D analytical for an opening in a segmental lining with internal
method can be used to check feasibility of the junction temporary support is given in Figure 17.
design when reasonably conservative assumptions are
NOTE 2 For a drained excavation, seepage forces act
set for the analysis. However, the 2D analytical method
on the perimeter of the excavation while the water
can have limited capability in considering complex
pressure is reduced providing less overall confinement.
stress flow and can be unable to provide integrated
Seepage analyses are usually carried out with simplified
behaviour around the junction. The selection of a 2D
analytical methods or full numerical modelling and
or 3D approach is dependent on the complexity of the
provide a key input to address the behaviour around
problem and is to be assessed by the designer on a
the junction excavation.
project-specific basis.
NOTE 3 The interaction of the excavations can result
However, the 2D analytical method can have limited
in an extensive plastic zone. This plastic zone can
capability in considering complex stress flow and might
result in significant non-linear behaviour and stiffness
be unable to provide integrated behaviour around
degradation, which can only be fully captured by 3D
the junction. The selection of a 2D or 3D approach is
numerical modelling using advanced constitutive models.
dependent on the complexity of the problem and is to
be assessed by the designer on a project-specific basis.
Figure 17 – Example of a bedded shell model
for an opening in a segmental lining with
11.8.3 3D bedded spring shell models internal temporary support
11.8.3.1 Where the results of the 2D analyses are not
conclusive, the designer should carry out 3D analyses
for the detailed design of a junction.
NOTE 1 The use of 3D bedded spring shell models
can be advantageous in the event of localized load
discontinuities such as piled foundations close to the
segmental lining.
NOTE 2 The use of 3D bedded spring shell models for
junction design offers a significant benefit over 2D
analytical and numerical solutions. Although limited in
their ability to model ground-structure interaction, they
are able to capture the full 3D load path in the lining,
as well as estimate tunnel deformations and determine
ground reactions. 3D bedded spring shell models can
also be convenient to use in certain situations such
as when full-slip is assumed at the ground-structure
interface. They are much simpler and quicker to
construct than full numerical analyses, and allow
modelling of the structure in detail.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 69

PAS 8810:2016

11.8.4 3D numerical models 11.8.5 Effects of close proximity assets

NOTE 3D numerical models are ideal for modelling When a new tunnel is constructed in the proximity
junctions and connections as they allow full of existing underground assets, the designer should
representation of the complex geometry and the verify whether there is a need to model the effects of
3D stress path in the ground and lining, as well as the presence of the assets with numerical methods to
simulating the significant ground-structure interaction. account for the discontinuity in ground stresses applied
An example of a numerical model for a junction is to the lining of the new tunnel.
given in Figure 18. NOTE The change in ground loads and possibly water
loads due to the presence of existing underground
When conducting 3D numerical analysis, the assets can impose significant asymmetric loading
designer should follow the recommendations conditions on the lining. Closed-form solutions such
presented in 11.7. as the Kirsch equations can provide an estimate of
the maximum distance between the underground
Figure 18 – Example of 3D FE model for assets that can justify that the proximity of the assets
junction is not critical for the lining design and that numerical
modelling is not strictly required.

11.9 Sensitivity analysis

11.9.1 General
11.9.1.1 The designer should carry out sensitivity or
parametric studies for any selected method of analysis.
NOTE 1 These allow for a deeper understanding of the
design problem.
NOTE 2 Sensitivity studies account for the inherent
variability in the input parameters and are aimed at
achieving an optimized and safe design.

11.9.1.2 The designer should carry out sufficient

analyses to represent the full range of ground
conditions encountered along the line of the tunnel.
NOTE Parametric studies are an integral part of the
design process and are more relevant when the
available information is not sufficient for the proposed
lining or the information is statistically too variable. 

11.9.2 Parameters for sensitivity analyses

When carrying out parametric studies, the designer
should investigate and document, as a minimum:
a) ground input parameters and constitutive
behaviour;
b) groundwater behaviour;
c) ground loading;
d) coefficient of earth pressure;
e) other loads;
f) lining properties, geometry and constitutive
behaviour;
g) lining interface behaviour;
h) assumed construction sequence;
i) construction tolerances; and
j) extreme design cases.

70 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

11.9.2.1 Ground input parameters and constitutive 11.9.2.6 Lining properties

behaviour The designer should carry out parametric studies on the
When carrying out ground interaction modelling, lining properties assumed during the construction and
and in particular full numerical analyses, the designer permanent load cases.
should investigate and document the sensitivity of the NOTE It is advisable that the designer considers ring
chosen constitutive model. This should include back- stiffness, variable concrete bearing strength (bursting
analysing laboratory and in-situ testing simulating the check) and long- and short-term material properties in
full stress path expected. the sensitivity studies.
NOTE Parameters to consider when undertaking
numerical analysis include density, stiffness, over- 11.9.2.7 Construction sequence
consolidation ratio, permeability or any other
When carrying out the sensitivity study, the designer
parameter that affect the behaviour of the simulated
should design simple construction sequences that
ground material.
do not jeopardize constructability or undermine the
project’s economic benefits. The contractor should
11.9.2.2 Ground loading verify that the assumed sequence is in line with their
The designer should investigate and document ground proposed method of construction and verify the design
stress relaxation and stress arching values with different to suit their proposed method of construction.
methods for all forms of analysis and for all methods of
construction. Consideration for minimum and maximum NOTE In segmental lining design, the designer needs to
ground loading at different stages of the life of the verify how the staging of the stations and the sequence
tunnel lining should be accounted for in the design to of the TBM drives could affect the state of stress in the
estimate all relevant load combinations. segmental lining.

11.9.2.3 Groundwater behaviour 11.9.2.8 Construction tolerances

The designer should investigate and document The designer should assess the effects of the segmental
maximum and minimum possible water table levels and lining installation tolerances in the analysis of the
corresponding hydrostatic or transient water pressures segmental lining for both full ring and joint behaviour.
as well as drained/undrained behaviour and tunnel
drainage performance while taking into account the 11.9.2.9 Extreme design cases
assumed construction sequence and assumed stress path. NOTE When carrying out analysis in variable ground
conditions, the designer can consider the use of
11.9.2.4 Coefficient of earth pressure extreme as well as unrealistic cases to provide a
Given the uncertainty of earth pressures throughout means for ensuring the robustness of the analysis
the construction period and in the long term, the and identify failure mechanisms. This is particularly
designer should assess and document a lower and important in numerical analysis where issues with the
upper bound range of coefficient of earth pressures as ground constitutive model, groundwater behaviour or
part of the design. features are easily identified when extreme cases are
investigated.
11.9.2.5 Other loads
The designer should assess and document loads
from nearby structures such as surface buildings,
underground structures or foundations. Due to the fact
that information from these structures is often limited,
the designer should refer to available design criteria
and carry out sensitivity interaction analyses.
NOTE Available design criteria include London
Underground and Network Rail standards.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 71

PAS 8810:2016

12 Instrumentation and monitoring

When forming segmentally lined tunnels using TBMs,

an appropriate review of the data generated by
the TBM sensors should be carried out by suitably
experienced staff.
NOTE 1 Guidance for the review of this data to
confirm that the tunnelling process is being progressed
satisfactorily and in accordance with the intended
design is given in BTS, Closed-Face Tunnelling Machines
and Ground Stability [42].
NOTE 2 BTS, Closed-Face Tunnelling Machines
and Ground Stability [42] considers in-tunnel
instrumentation that is commonly used alongside the
process of forming the tunnel lining. Further guidance
on instrumenting the surface or nearby infrastructure
and buildings as part of asset protection purposes can
be found in BTS, Monitoring Underground Construction
– A best practice guide [43].

72 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

Annex A (normative)
Design management

NOTE Guidance on management of the construction A.2.2 Process

design process is given in BS 7000-4. A.2.2.1 If the client has their own design approval/
acceptance process, then tunnel lining design should
be carried out by the designer in accordance with the
A.1 Assessing designer’s competence client’s process.
The client should assess the designer’s specific skill,
knowledge and experience in respect of the tunnel A.2.2.2 If there is no available existing design approval/
lining design works of the project and hire a designer acceptance process, the designer should design the
with the relevant skill, knowledge and experience to process to be as straightforward as possible to achieve a
undertake the project. multidisciplinary design that complies with the project’s
requirements.
NOTE For competent tunnel lining design, the designer
needs knowledge in the areas of: NOTE 1 The design approval process is likely to be
a) ground-structure interaction; project-specific and depends on many factors including:
b) concrete structure; a) who is responsible for the design (for example,
c) constructability (both methodology and design and construct or employer’s design);
materials); and b) how the project requirements are defined;
d) interface with adjacent assets (in terms of c) the number of disciplines involved in the design;
imposed loads and deformations). d) the funding organization (government, PFI or
private body);
e) the contractual arrangements (extent of
A.2 Design approval/acceptance process
partnering);
A.2.1 General f) the extent of third party approvals required; and
NOTE The objective of the approval/acceptance process g) the complexity of the design.
is to achieve a multidisciplinary design that complies NOTE 2 There is no recognized design approval/
with the project’s requirements. acceptance process specifically developed for tunnel
lining design at the time of this PAS publishing. The
The designer should obtain progressive sign-off from Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) Plan of Work
the parties who are responsible for the design approval/ process has recently been adopted by some major
acceptance, together with those who have an interface tunnelling infrastructure projects in the UK for all
with the tunnel design to ensure the requirements design submissions and deliverables. The RIBA Plan of
are met at the various stages of the design approval/ Work is an independent document from this PAS. At
acceptance process so that the design can progress with the time of publication of this PAS, the most up-to-date
certainty. version of the RIBA Plan of Work is that published in
2013. For the detailed RIBA Plan of Work process, see:
a) RIBA Plan of Work 2013 Overview [44]; and
b) Guide to Using the RIBA Plan of Work 2013 [45].
NOTE 3 Another approval/acceptance process example
is the six-stage Gate process shown in Annex D which
can be considered as a model for the development of
the design approval/acceptance process.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 73

PAS 8810:2016

A.3 Design checking A.3.4 The information provided by the designer to

the checker undertaking the design checking should
A.3.1 The design checking should be carried out by an include, where appropriate:
independent organization or a competent in-house
member of the client’s organization (see A.5.2). a) a design statement;
b) drawings;
A.3.2 The level of design checking to be performed c) specifications;
throughout the project should be proportionate to the
d) instrumentation and monitoring proposals;
level of risk and the complexity of the design.
e) risk assessments;
NOTE 1 More complex, higher-risk projects have more
discrete design checks than less complex, lower-risk f) geotechnical factual information; and
projects. g) emergency response plans or emergency
NOTE 2 An approach that has been adopted/adapted preparedness plans.
on many large infrastructure projects is based on NOTE There is no need for the designer to provide
the Highways England Design Manual for roads and their calculations to the checker for a category 2 or a
bridges – Part 1 BD 2/12 Technical Approval of Highway category 3 check.
Structures [46] (which supersedes BD 2/05, which is
withdrawn). A.3.5 The checker should submit the information as
defined in the agreed deliverables list in addition to
A.3.3 The checker should adopt the design check any design check certificates.
categories set out in Table A.1 for the tunnel lining’s NOTE The level of sufficiency of the design submission
design checking, unless different design checking is determined by the approver, which could be the
categories are specified in the client’s project-specific client, the contractor or other individual with the
document. technical knowledge required to sign off the document,
depending on the form or type of contract.

Table A.1 – Suggested categories for tunnel lining design checking

Category Checker Applicable to

Category 1 Designs can be checked in the same • Simple structures, designed using standard
group as that which prepared the design, methods of analysis, or consisting of standard
but by a person other than the designer. elements where the design of the elements has
been previously checked.
• Checking against design calculations and
assumptions, and critically considering whether
the base assumptions are valid.

Category 2 Designs can be checked in the designer’s • All works not included in Category 1, except
office by a separate group which has not those of a complex nature which are included in
been involved in the original design or by Category 3.
an independent organization.

Category 3 Designs can be checked by an indepen- • Complex or unusual designs, and designs
dent organization with the competence involving the following features:
and resources to perform the check and –– high degree of redundancy;
to the acceptance of the project manager.
–– high financial risks;
–– high health and safety risk;
–– high environmental pollution risks;
–– significant risk to third-parties; and
–– where required by a third party.

74 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

A.4 Design responsibilities for A.5.3 At the beginning of a project, the client, the
segmental tunnels designer and/or the contractor should determine and
agree in writing the types and number of deliverables
The client should meet, discuss with the designer and/ required at each stage to suit the project characteristics,
or contractor, and allocate and document design the complexity of the project, the interfaces with
responsibilities for the segmentally-lined tunnel, based external stakeholders and their individual requirements.
on the project’s contractual arrangements.
NOTE 1 The design responsibilities can rest either with A.5.4 At the beginning of a project, the client and the
the design and build contractor or the employer’s designer should develop and agree in writing a hierarchy
designer. of documents such that the general requirements that
NOTE 2 When segmentally-lined tunnel lining design is are common to many design submissions are captured
undertaken by the employer’s designer, the contractor’s in one document and subsequent submissions reference
early engagement to refine the design to suit the the common documents.
individual contractor’s particular requirements can be NOTE This avoids repetition of contents (i.e. cut and
considered. This approach was used for High Speed 1 paste) in deliverables.
(Channel Tunnel Rail Link) and Crossrail1 projects.
A.5.5 The designer should submit the design in the
optimum number of deliverables possible taking
A.5 Design deliverables account of design approval/acceptance delay risk.
NOTE 1 The client might ask for additional submissions
A.5.1 The designer should submit deliverables to the
from the designer before signing off the design.
client in line with the agreed approval/acceptance
process (see A.2.2). NOTE 2 The complexity of managing the acceptance
process tends to increases in proportion to the number
A.5.2 The client should select a competent individual of deliverables.
(see A.1) from within their organization, or secure
the services of professionals to review the design for
conformance to the project requirements. A.6 Health and safety
Design management of tunnel lining design in health
and safety aspects should be in accordance with:
a) BS 6164;
b) BS EN 16191; and
c) BS EN 12110.
NOTE Attention is also drawn to the CDM Regulations
2015 [1].

© The British Standards Institution 2016 75

PAS 8810:2016

A.7 Commenting A.8 Meetings and communications

NOTE A good process for review, commenting, NOTE It is not necessary to conduct face-to-
responding to comments and closure of comments is a face meetings with the client if an alternative
key part of the acceptance process. The complexity of communication method is agreed.
this depends on the number of stakeholders present.
A.8.1 The designer should propose and agree in writing
A.7.1 The client should review and comment on the with the client a meeting schedule and/or means of
deliverables throughout the project prior to acceptance communication for progress updates during the course
or approval. of each project stage.
NOTE This can also be undertaken by an independent NOTE A comprehensive progress update meeting might
checker employed by the client. cover, as a minimum:
a) the viability of tunnel design options;
A.7.2 The designer should review the client’s comments
b) the cost and schedule of each tunnel design option;
on the deliverables and update the deliverables
documentation accordingly. c) any technical challenges and critical assumptions
associated with each tunnel design option; and
NOTE It is important that a revision history is kept, as d) review of risk register.
comments on the deliverables are an important record
that hold the background and context to any change or A.8.2 Where major changes or critical challenges are
agreement. identified during the course of each project stage, the
designer should organize additional meetings and/or
A.7.3 The final design documentation compiled by the arrange additional communications with the client.
designer at the detailed design stage should include a
comment tracker sheet that identifies all the comments
that have been made throughout the project and how A.9 Building Information Modelling (BIM)
they have been addressed by the design. Each comment
A.9.1 In accordance with PAS 1192-2, the client should
should be signed off by the commenter and a record of
provide a clear definition of the employer’s information
the sign off should be kept.
requirements to enable designers and contractors
to produce and deliver consistent permanent works
information.

A.9.2 The client should define standards, methods and

protocols to be used to ensure that the information
received meets requirements, is of sufficient quality,
and can be shared with other parties.

76 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

Annex B (informative)
Closed-form solutions for static analysis of tunnel lining
in soft ground
Table B.1 contains a summary of the closed-form
solutions suggested for the static analysis of a tunnel
lining in soft ground with associated advantages and
disadvantages. See 11.5 and 11.6 for further details.

Table B.1 – Closed-form solutions for static analysis of tunnel lining in soft ground

Method Advantages Disadvantages

Duddeck and Erdmann • Simple • Circular cross-section assumed

(1985) [47] • Derived from a comparison of all • Need to derive distortional loads
preceding equations from effective stresses, then add
water
• Support wished-inplace
• Elastic
• Empirical correction for joints (can
also be considered an advantage)

Einstein and Schwartz • Accounts for lining/joint flexibility • Circular cross-section assumed
(1979) [48] • Considers the relative stiffness • Need to derive distortional loads
between the ground and lining from effective stresses, then add
• Can model either external loading or water
excavation unloading conditions • Elastic
• Well suited to preliminary design • Support wished-inplace
and design adaptation during • Contradiction with the assumption of
construction plane strain

Muir-Wood and Curtis • Simple • Circular cross-section assumed

(1976) [49] • Easy to follow mathematical • Need to derive distortional loads
derivation from effective stresses, then add
water
• Support wished-inplace
• Elastic
• Empirical correction for joints (can
also be considered an advantage)

NOTE The original equations of the closed form solutions set out in Table B.1 are presented for coefficient of
earth pressure at rest K0≤1.0. It is advised that care be taken when K0>1.0, as the original equation needs to be
modified to suit the ground loading condition.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 77

PAS 8810:2016

Annex C (informative)
Convergence-confinement method (CCM) in segment
lining design
C.1 General When equilibrium is reached between the two curves as
shown in Figure C.1, the pressure acting on the tunnel
The convergence-confinement method provides a lining can be calculated as the pressure at equilibrium.
relationship between the state of stress around an This value is lower than the in-situ stress and the so
excavated profile as a function of the radial convergence. called critical support pressure, pcr (which is the state of
stress of the ground when the tunnel is installed and is
This information is collected in the ground reaction
equal to (1-l) multiplied by the in-situ stresses).
or GRC. Longitudinal displacement profile and GRC
as illustrated in Figure C.1 are required to relate Further details on the use of the convergence-
deformations of the excavated tunnel wall at successive confinement method for tunnel lining design are given
stages in the analysis to the actual physical location in AFTES, Recommendations on the convergence-
along the tunnel axis. This provides a percentage of confinement method [50].
the in-situ load that is acting on the lining at any point
from the face and in particular at the distance where Due to the theoretical formulation of the convergence-
the lining is installed (point with radial deformation uso). confinement method, the ground-lining interface is
This percentage at a predefined distance from the face, not explicitly accounted for and full-bond is implicitly
such as the point of installation of the lining for a TBM assumed.
tunnel, is defined as the ground relaxation factor (l).
A significant disadvantage of the convergence-
The ground reaction curve can be used in conjunction confinement method as formulated using analytical
with the support characteristic curve. The latter solutions is the inherent assumption that K0 =1. The
provides the internal support pressure that can be designer needs to consider this limitation during design.
carried by the lining when the lining is installed. The
use of the closed-form solutions provide a simplified
method to obtain an estimate of ground loads with the
convergence-confinement method approach.

Figure C.1 – Convergence-confinement method – Longitudinal displacement profile (LDP)

and ground response curve (GRC) with support characteristic curve

78 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

C.2 Applicability of the convergence- High l-factor occurs with large round lengths and/or
confinement method in numerical late installation of tunnel lining.

modelling High l-factor corresponds to a large component of the

The designer can determine the stress reduction in-situ stresses to be redistributed in the ground mass.
parameters (the ground relaxation factor) by means of Therefore, ground deformation would be relatively
the convergence-confinement method and apply this large whilst structural forces in the lining would be
factor in the numerical analysis method for the design relatively low. Vice-versa a smaller l factor leads to
of tunnel lining as illustrated in Figure C.2. smaller ground deformations and larger structural
forces in the lining. This is the conceptual reason
Partial convergence of the cavity takes place before the why design for an upper bound volume loss is not
primary lining is installed. Throughout the excavation conservative as this provides the maximum allowed
process, the stress or the pressure around the cavern deformation and therefore a lower bound stress regime
perimeter, (r) is given by r = (1 − l) 0 with l varying on the lining.
between 0 (no stress release) and 1 (complete stress
release). Once the tunnel lining is installed, the This stress reduction method is regularly used in the
final stage is run with a l factor of 1 to model the design of mined open-face circular or semi-circular
application of the remaining of the ground stresses. tunnels, where the lining installation occurs in stages
in relatively close proximity to the face (typically 1 m to
One of the main factors affecting the results of the 3 m). The same mechanical behaviour is applicable to
numerical model is the stress-reduction factor (l). The a TBM tunnel, but the lining installation occurs much
l-factor depends on: further from the face (typically 10 m to 12 m). In order
a) the ratio of the unsupported tunnel length to the to limit ground movements, closed-face TBMs can
tunnel diameter; maintain pressure at the face and within the annulus
around the shield. The presence of the TBM face and
b) the ground profile and mechanical behaviour; and
annulus pressure needs to be accounted for when
c) the presence of inner confining pressure calculating the ground relaxation factor and running
(the TBM case). the numerical models.

Figure C.2 – Stress reduction method, conceptual sketch

© The British Standards Institution 2016 79

PAS 8810:2016

Annex D (informative)
Six-stage Gate process

NOTE 1 The six-stage Gate process, which might be

considered as a model for the development of the design
approval/acceptance process, is set out in Table D.1.
NOTE 2 Depending on the type of contract, there
may be interim stages in the six-stage Gate process.
Examples include a Design and Construct (D&C) contract
where a Gate 2 and Gate 4 design submission prepared
by contractor’s designer is reviewed within the D&C
organization and require the contractor’s acceptance
before it is submitted formally into the Gate approval
process.

Table D.1 – Suggested six-stage Gate process for tunnel lining design

Gate Design/construction Purpose

stage

Gate 1 Planning Develop design management plan including approaches,

organization and schedule of deliverables

Gate 2 Conceptual design Demonstrate compliance with design requirements and

obtain acceptance of the input parameters including, design
criteria, design working life, space proofing and interfaces
with other disciplines (this is equivalent to an AIP submission
for some existing infrastructure clients). Prior to the formal
submission a single disciplinary review (SDR) followed by
an interdisciplinary review (IDR) would be appropriate to
demonstrate that an integrated multi-disciplinary design has
been developed

Gate 3 Developed design This is project-specific and depends on whether a more

developed concept is needed to obtain sign off from third
parties before proceeding to Gate 4

Gate 4 Detailed design This includes full sets of calculations, and design and check
certificates. It includes or references all the information
required for construction. Some documents such as
specifications can only be submitted at a Gate 4 stage. An
SDR and an IDR are also appropriate at this stage

Gate 5 Construction stage Address any issues raised on the Gate 4 submission

Gate 6 Post-construction stage This involves as-constructed information, operation and

maintenance manuals

80 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

Bibliography

Standards publications PD 6682-1, Aggregates – Part 1: Aggregates for

concrete – Guidance on the use of BS EN 12620
For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For
undated references, the latest edition of the referenced PD 6682-4, Aggregates – Part 4: Lightweight aggregates
document (including any amendments) applies. BES for concrete, mortar and grout – Guidance on the use
6001, Framework standard for the responsible sourcing of BS EN 13055-1
of construction products

BS 7000-4:2013, Design management systems – Part 4:

Other publications
Guide to managing design in construction
[1] GREAT BRITAIN. Construction (Design and
BS EN 1991-1-1:2002, Eurocode 1 – Actions on structures Management) Regulations 2015. London: The
– Part 1-1: General actions – Densities, self-weight, Stationery Office
imposed loads for buildings
[2] GREAT BRITAIN. Construction Products Regulations
BS EN 1992-1-2:2004, Eurocode 2 – Design of concrete 2013. London: The Stationery Office
structures – Part 1-2: General rules – Structural fire
design [3] GREAT BRITAIN. Health and Safety at Work etc. Act
1974. London: The Stationery Office.
BS EN 1997-2, Eurocode 7: Geotechnical design – Part 2:
Ground investigation and testing [4] INTERNATIONAL TUNNELLING ASSOCIATION (ITA).
Guidelines for structural fire resistance for road
BS EN 1998-1, Eurocode 8: Design of structures for tunnels. Lausanne, Switzerland: Working Group No.6,
earthquake resistance – Part 1: General rules, seismic Maintenance and Repair, 2004
actions and rules for buildings
[5] World Road Association (PIARC). Road Tunnels
BS ISO 15392, Sustainability in building construction – Manual, World Road Association. Paris: PIARC, 2011
General principles
[6] EUROPEAN COMMISSION. EU No 1303/2014
BS EN 15804, Sustainability of construction works – concerning the technical specification for
Environmental product declarations – Core rules for the interoperability relating to ‘safety in railway tunnels’
product category of construction products of the rail system of the European Union. Luxembourg:
Official Journal of the European Union, 2014
BS EN 15978, Sustainability of construction works –
Assessment of environmental performance of buildings [7] EUROPEAN FEDERATION OF NATIONAL
– Calculation method ASSOCIATIONS REPRESENTING FOR CONCRETE.
Specification and guidelines for testing of passive fire
BS EN ISO 22475-1, Geotechnical investigation and protection for concrete tunnels linings. Norfolk, UK:
testing – Part 1: Sampling methods and groundwater EFNARC, 2009
measurements – Technical principles for execution
[8] BRITISH TUNNELLING SOCIETY (BTS) and The
NA to BS EN 1990:2002+A1:2005, UK National Annex to Association of British Insurers. Joint Code of Practice for
Eurocode – Basis of structural design Risk Management of Tunnel Works in the UK. London:
The British Tunnelling Society, 2003
NA to BS EN 1997-2:2007, UK National Annex to
Eurocode 7 – Geotechnical design – Part 2: Ground [9] HOEK, E. and BROWN, E.T. Underground Excavations
investigation and testing in Rock. London: Institution of Mining and Metallurgy,
1980
NA+A1:2014 to BS EN 1997-1:2004+A1:2013, UK
National Annex to Eurocode 7 – Geotechnical design – [10] FRANKLIN, J.A. and DUSSEAULT, M. B. Rock
Part 1: General rules Engineering Applications. New York: McGraw-Hill
Professional, 1989

© The British Standards Institution 2016 81

PAS 8810:2016

[11] HUDSON, J. A. and HARRISON, J. P. Engineering [25] HIGHWAYS ENGLAND. Design Manual for Roads
Rock Mechanics – An introduction to the Principles. and Bridges, Volume 2, Highway Structures Design
Oxford: Elsevier, 1997 (Substructures and Special Structures) Materials, Section
2 Special Structures, Part 9, BD 78-99 Design of Road
[12] PERRY, J. and WEST, G. Sources of Information Tunnels. UK: Highways Agency, Stationery Office, 1999
for Site Investigations in Britain, Report 192 (Revision
of TRL Report LR 403). Crowthorne, UK: Transport [26] INSTITUTION of CIVIL ENGINEERS. Sprayed concrete
Research Laboratory, 1996 linings (NATM) for tunnels in soft ground, ICE design
and practice guides. London: ICE, 1996
[13] MUIR WOOD, A. Tunnelling: Management by
Design. E & F N Spon, London and New York, 2000 [27] ASSOCIATION FRANCAISE DES TUNNELS ET DE
L’ESPACE SOUTERRAIN (AFTES). Recommendations for
[14] CLAYTON, C. R. I., SIMONS, N. E. and MATTHEWS, the design, sizing and construction of precast concrete
M. Site Investigations, Granada Technical Books, segments installed at the rear of a tunnel boring
Manchester, 1982 machine (TBM). Paris, France: AFTES, 1997 (translated to
English in 1999)
[15] MAYNE, P.W. and KULHAWY, F.H. Ko-OCR
Relationships in Soil. In: Journal of the Geotechnical [28] ACI COMMITTEE 544. Report on Design and
Engineering Division. VA, USA: American Society of Civil Construction of Fiber-Reinforced Precast Concrete
Engineers, 1982, Vol. 108, GT6, pp. 851-872 Tunnel Segments, 544.7R-16. Farmington Hills, MI:
ACI, 2016.
[16] SIMPSON, B. Retaining Structures: Displacement
and design. 32nd Rankine Lecture. In: Geotechnique, [29] JAPANESE SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS (JSCE).
1992, pp 541-576 The design and construction of underground structures
(in Japanese), Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Tokyo,
[17] ESSEX, R. J. Geotechnical Baseline Reports for Japan, 1977
Underground Construction, Guidelines and Practices.
Reston, Virginia: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1997 [30] BLOM, C.B.M. Design Philosophy of Concrete
Linings for Tunnels in Soft Soils, Ph.D. thesis, Technical
[18] SIMPSON, B. and DRISCOLL, R. Eurocode 7 – A Univ. of Delft, DUP Science, Delft, Netherlands, 2000
commentary. Watford, UK: Construction Research
Communications Ltd, 1998 [31] MORGAN, H. D. A contribution to the analysis of
stress in a circular tunnel. In: Geotechnique 11, 1961,
[19] BAMFORTH, P.B, Enhancing reinforced concrete No.3, pp. 37-46
durability, Technical Report No.61. Camberley, UK:
Concrete Society, 2004 [32] MUIR WOOD, A. The circular tunnel in elastic
ground. In: Geotechnique 25 (1), 1975, 115-127
[20] BRE Construction Division. Concrete in aggressive
ground. Bracknell, UK: BRE, 2005 [33] LEONHARDT, F. Prestressed concrete design and
construction, Chapter 9, Berlin: Wilhelm Ernst & Shon,
[21] CONCRETE SOCIETY (CS). Technical Report No.63, 1964
Guidance for the design of steel-fibre-reinforced
concrete. Camberley, UK: CS, 2007 [34] SZECHY, K. The Art of Tunnelling. Budapest,
Hungary: Akadémiai Kiado, 1970
[22] CONCRETE SOCIETY (CS). Guidance on the use of
macro-synthetic-fibre-reinforced concrete, Technical [35] TERZAGHI, K. Theoretical Soil Mechanics. London: J
Report No.65. Camberley, UK: CS, 2007 Wiley and Sons, 1943

[23] BARROS, J.A.O., CUNHA, V.M.C.F., RIBEIRO, A.F., [36] POTTS, M., ZDRAVKOVIC, L. Finite Element Analysis
ANTUNES, J.A.B. Post-cracking behaviour of steel fibre in Geotechnical Engineering, Thomas Telford, 1999
reinforced concrete. RILEM, In: Materials and Structures
38, 2005, pp. 47-56 [37] ZDRAVKOVIC, L., CARTER, J, Contributions to
Geotechnique 1948-2008: Constitutive and numerical
[24] LONDON UNDERGROUND. Standard 1055, modelling. In: Geotechnique, Vol: 58, 2008, pp. 405-412
Civil Engineering – Deep Tube Tunnels and Shafts.
London: London Underground, 2011

82 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

[38] US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FEDERAL [50] ASSOCIATION FRANCAISE DES TUNNELS ET DE

HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, FHWA-NHI-10-034, L’ESPACE SOUTERRAIN (AFTES). Recommendations on
Technical Manual for Design and Construction of Road the convergence-confinement method. Paris, France:
Tunnels – Civil Elements. Washington, D.C., U.S.A: US AFTES, 2001
Department of Transportation, 2009

[39] KIRSCH, G. Die theorie der elastizitat und die Further reading
bedurfnisse der festigkeitslehre. In: Verein Deutsche
ANAGNOSTOU, G. and KOVARI, K. Face Stability
Ingenieure, Vol. 42, 1898, pp. 797-807
Conditions with Earth-Pressure-Balanced Shields. In:
[40] TIMOSHENKO, S.P. and WOINOWSKI-KRIEGER, S. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 1996,
Theory of Plates and Shells, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New Volume 11, No. 2.: 165-173.
York, 1959
ASSOCIATION OF GEOTECHNICAL AND
[41] ROARK, R. J. and YOUNG, W. C. Formulas for Stress GEOENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALISTS. Electronic Transfer
and Strain, 5th ed. New York, USA: McGraw-Hill, 1975 of Geotechnical and GeoEnvironmental. Data Version,
Fourth Edition. Kent: AGS, 2011.
[42] BRITISH TUNNELLING SOCIETY. Closed-face
tunnelling machines and ground stability, Thomas BLOCKLEY, D. I. The New Penguin Dictionary of Civil
Telford Books, London, 2005 Engineering. London: Penguin Books, 2005.

[43] BRITISH TUNNELLING SOCIETY. Monitoring BS 6100-3:2007, Building and civil engineering –
Underground Construction – A best practice guide, ICE Vocabulary – Part 3: Civil engineering – General
Publishing, London, 2011
BS EN 12715:2000, Execution of special geotechnical
[44] ROYAL INSTITUE OF BRITISH ARCHITECTS. RIBA work – Grouting
Plan of Work 2013 Overview, RIBA, London, 2013
BS EN 12716:2001, Execution of special geotechnical
[45] ROYAL INSTITUE OF BRITISH ARCHITECTS. Guide work – Jet grouting
to Using the RIBA Plan of Work 2013, RIBA Publishing,
BS EN 14487-1:2005, Sprayed concrete – Part 1:
London, 2013
Definitions, specifications and conformity
[46] HIGHWAYS ENGLAND. Design Manual for roads
BS EN 14487-2:2006, Sprayed concrete – Part 2:
and bridges – Part 1 BD 2/12 Technical Approval of
Execution
Highway Structures UK: Highways Agency, Stationery
Office, 2012
BS EN 14488-3:2006, Testing sprayed concrete – Part 3:
Flexural strengths (first peak, ultimate and residual) of
[47] DUDDECK, H. and ERDMANN, J. On structural
fibre reinforced beam specimens
design models for tunnels in soft soil. In: Underground
Space, Vol.9, 1985, Pergamon Journals Ltd, USA,
BS EN 14488-5:2006, Testing sprayed concrete – Part 5:
pp. 246-259
Determination of energy absorption capacity of fibre
reinforced slab specimens
[48] EINSTEIN, H.H., and SCHWARTZ, C.W. Simplified
analysis for tunnel supports. In: Journal of the
BS EN 1991-1-2:2002, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures
geotechnical engineering division. New York: American
– Part 1-2: General actions – Actions on structures
Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 105, 1979, GT4,
exposed to fire
pp. 499-518
BS EN 1992-3:2006, Eurocode 2: Design of concrete
[49] MUIR-WOOD and CURTIS, D.J. Discussion on the
structures – Part 3: Liquid retaining and containment
circular tunnel in elastic ground. In: Geotechnique,
structures
Vol. 26, 1976, No. 1, pp. 231-237
BS EN 1994-1-1:2004, Eurocode 4: Design of composite
steel and concrete structures – Part 1-1: General rules
and rules for buildings 

© The British Standards Institution 2016 83

PAS 8810:2016

BS EN 934-5:2007, Admixtures for concrete, mortar HOEK, E., CARRANZA-TORRES, C., DIEDERICHS, M.S.,
and grout – Part 5: Admixtures for sprayed concrete and CORKUM, B. Integration of geotechnical and
– Definitions, requirements, conformity, marking and structural design in tunnelling. Proceedings University
labelling of Minnesota 56th Annual Geotechnical Engineering
Conference. Minneapolis, 2008, 1-53.
CHANG, Y. and STILLE, H. Influence of early age
properties of shotcrete on tunnel construction INTERNATIONAL TUNNELLING ASSOCIATION. General
sequences, Shotcrete for Underground Support report on conventional tunnelling, ITA Working Group
VI, Proceedings of the Engineering Foundation on Conventional Tunnelling. ITA Report No.002, 2009.
Conference, Niagara-on-the-Lake, Canada. New York:
American Society of Civil Engineers, 1993. INTERNATIONAL TUNNELLING ASSOCIATION. ITA Report
– Shotcrete for Underground Support: a State-of-the-
CHEUNG, K., WEST, K., YEOW, H.C. and SIMPSON, B. Do art Report with Focus on Steel-fibre Reinforcement. In:
Eurocodes make a difference? In: Geomechanics and Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 1992,
Tunnelling, 2010, Vol. 3, No. 1: 35-47. Volume 7, No. 4: 388-391.

CUR. Recommendation 111 Steel fibre reinforced INTERNATIONAL TUNNELLING ASSOCIATION. ITAtech
concrete industrial floors on pile foundations – Design Design Guidance for Sprayed Applied Waterproofing
and construction. Netherlands, 2010. Membranes. ITAtech Activity Group – Lining and
Waterproofing, ITAtech Report No.2, 2013.
DAUB. Recommendations for the Design, Production
and installation of Segmental Rings. DAUB: Cologne, INTERNATIONAL TUNNELLING ASSOCIATION. ITAtech
2013. Design Guidance for Precast Fibre Reinforced Concrete
Segments. ITAtech Activity Group Support, ITAtech
DAVIS, E.H., GUNN, M.J., MAIR, R.J. and SENEVIRATNE, Report No.7, 2015.
H.N. The stability of shallow tunnels and underground
openings in cohesive material. In: Geotechnique, 30, JOHN, M., and MATTLE, B. Design of tube umbrellas. In:
1980, No. 4: 397-416. Magazine of the Czech Tunnelling Committee and the
Slovak Tunnelling Association, 2002, Volume 11, No. 3.
DEUTSCHER AUSSCHUSS FÜR STAHLBETON. Technical
Rule on Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete Draft. Berlin: KLAPPERS, C., GRÜBL, F. OSTERMEIER, B. Structural
DafStb, 2012. analyses of segmental lining - coupled beam and spring
analyses versus 3D-FEM calculations with shell elements.
EUROPEAN FEDARATION OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS In: Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology,
REPRESENTING FOR CONCRETE. European Specification 2006, Volume 21: 254-255.
for Sprayed Concrete. EFNARC, 1996.
LAWRENCE, C., TAYLOR, J. Design of tunnel cross-
FANG, Y.S., LIN C.T., LIU, C., CHENG, K.H., SU, C.S., passages. RETC, 2011: 119-136.
CHEN, T.J. Construction of a Cross Passage between Two
MRT Tunnels. Proceedings of the 18th International LECA, E., and DORMIEUX, L. Upper and lower bound
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical solutions for the face stability of shallow circular
Engineering. Paris, 2013. tunnels in frictional material. In: Geotechnique, 48,
1990, No 4: 581-606.
GABA, A.R., SIMPSON, B., POWRIE, W., and BEADMAN,
D.R. Embedded retaining walls – guidance for economic LUNARDI, P. The design and construction of tunnel
design. C580. London: CIRIA, 2003. using the approach based on the analysis of controlled
deformation in rocks and soils. Tunnel and Tunnelling
HARDING, A., CHAPPELL, M., BURDICK, M., KRULC, International special supplement, ADECO-RS approach,
M. Opening supports to segmental linings: A novel May 2000.
shotcrete support solution. In: Mining Engineering,
2014, Volume 66, No. 6: 102-102. OWEN, G.N. SCHOLL, R.E. Earthquake engineering of
large underground structures, Report no. FHWA/RD-
80/195. Federal Highway Administration and National
Science Foundation, 1981.

84 © The British Standards Institution 2016

 PAS 8810:2016

PREENE, M., ROBERTS, T.O.L., POWRIE, W., and DYER,

M.R. Groundwater control – design and practice. C515.
London: CIRIA, 2002.

RABCEWICZ, L., V. Patentshrift, Oesterreichisches Patent

Nr. 165573 (Patent Entry, Austrian Patent Nr. 165573,
1948), 1948.

RABCEWICZ, L.,V. GLOSER J. Principles of Dimensioning

the Supporting System for the New Austrian Tunnelling
Method. IPC Electrical Electronic Press Limited: Water
Power, 1973.

RABCEWICZ, L.,V. The New Austrian Tunnelling Method.

IPC Electrical Electronic Press Limited: Water Power,
1964.

RAWLINGS, C.G., HELLAWELL, E.E., and KILKENNY, W.M.

Grouting for ground engineering. C514. London: CIRIA,
2000.

SHIN, J.H., POTTS, D.M. Time-based two dimensional

modelling of NATM tunnelling. In: Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 2002, Volume 39: 710-724.

SIMPSON, B. Approaches to ULS design – The merits

of Design Approach 1 in Eurocode 7. ISGSR2007 First
International Symposium on Geotechnical Safety & Risk:
Shanghai Tongji University, China, 2007.

SIMPSON, B. Retaining Structures: Displacement and

design. 32nd Rankine Lecture. In: Geotechnique, 1992:
541-576.

SOMERVILLE, S.H. Control of groundwater for

temporary works – R113. London: CIRIA, October 1986.

SPYRIDIS, P., NASEKHIAN, A., SKALLA, G. Design of SCL

structures in London. In: Geomechanics and Tunnelling,
6, 2013, No.1.

TERZAGHI, K. Stress distribution in dry and in saturated

sand above a yielding trap-door. Proceedings, First
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and
Foundation Engineering: Cambridge, Massachusetts,
1936: 307-311.

© The British Standards Institution 2016 85

PAS 8810:2016

British Standards Institution (BSI)

BSI is the national body responsible for preparing British Standards and other
standards-related publications, information and services.
BSI is incorporated by Royal Charter. British Standards and other standardization
products are published by BSI Standards Limited.

About us With a Multi-User Network Licence (MUNL) you are able to

host standards publications on your intranet. Licences can
We bring together business, industry, government, cover as few or as many users as you wish. With updates
consumers, innovators and others to shape their combined supplied as soon as they’re available, you can be sure your
experience and expertise into standards -based solutions. documentation is current. For further information, email
The knowledge embodied in our standards has been bsmusales@bsigroup.com.
carefully assembled in a dependable format and refined
through our open consultation process. Organizations of
all sizes and across all sectors choose standards to help Revisions
them achieve their goals. Our British Standards and other publications are updated
by amendment or revision.

Information on standards We continually improve the quality of our products and

services to benefit your business. If you find an inaccuracy or
We can provide you with the knowledge that your ambiguity within a British Standard or other BSI publication
organization needs to succeed. Find out more about please inform the Knowledge Centre.
British Standards by visiting our website at bsigroup.com/
standards or contacting our Customer Services team or
Knowledge Centre. Copyright
All the data, software and documentation set out in
Buying standards all British Standards and other BSI publications are the
property of and copyrighted by BSI, or some person or
You can buy and download PDF versions of BSI entity that owns copyright in the information used (such
publications, including British and adopted European and as the international standardization bodies) and has
international standards, through our website at bsigroup. formally licensed such information to BSI for commercial
com/shop, where hard copies can also be purchased. publication and use. Except as permitted under the
If you need international and foreign standards from other Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 no extract may
Standards Development Organizations, hard copies can be be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted
ordered from our Customer Services team. in any form or by any means – electronic, photocopying,
recording or otherwise – without prior written permission
from BSI. Details and advice can be obtained from the
Subscriptions Copyright & Licensing Department.
Our range of subscription services are designed to make
using standards easier for you. For further information
on our subscription products go to bsigroup.com/
Useful Contacts:
subscriptions. Customer Services
Tel: +44 845 086 9001
With British Standards Online (BSOL) you’ll have instant
Email (orders): orders@bsigroup.com
access to over 55,000 British and adopted European and
Email (enquiries): cservices@bsigroup.com
international standards from your desktop. It’s available
24/7 and is refreshed daily so you’ll always be up to date. Subscriptions
Tel: +44 845 086 9001
You can keep in touch with standards developments and
Email: subscriptions@bsigroup.com
receive substantial discounts on the purchase price of
standards, both in single copy and subscription format, Knowledge Centre
by becoming a BSI Subscribing Member. Tel: +44 20 8996 7004
PLUS is an updating service exclusive to BSI Subscribing Email: knowledgecentre@bsigroup.com
Members. You will automatically receive the latest hard Copyright & Licensing
copy of your standards when they’re revised or replaced. Tel: +44 20 8996 7070
To find out more about becoming a BSI Subscribing Email: copyright@bsigroup.com
Member and the benefits of membership, please visit
bsigroup.com/shop.

86 © The British Standards Institution 2016

BSI, 389 Chiswick High Road
London W4 4AL
United Kingdom
            
www.bsigroup.com