Building Tomorrow’s Society

Bâtir la Société de Demain

Fredericton, Canada
June 13 to 16, 2018 / 13 au 16 juin, 2018

TUNNEL SEGMENT GASKET DESIGN – SOLUTIONS AND INNOVATIONS

Bakhshi, Mehdi1,2 and Nasri, Verya1

Abstract: Watertightness of tunnels must be ensured during design and construction to prevent water
infiltration and minimize maintenance and repair costs, maintain operational safety, and protect inside
equipment. In one-pass segmental lining system, watertightness is guaranteed by segments and gaskets
placed between segments joints. In this paper, a procedure is provided to select gasket materials, solutions
for different working water pressures, appropriate safety factor considering relaxation, and gasket profiles
considering size of tunnel, tolerances and required construction gap/offset. Watertightness tests, gasket
load-deflection tests, and details of gasket groove design are discussed. Gasket short-term behavior was
provided in terms of a load-deflection curve, and discussion is made on design of connection systems for
maximum gasket load in this curve or in a less conservative approach after short-term relaxation. Gasket
groove design is briefly explained with a focus on simulation of impact force in a gasket groove as a
hydrostatic distribution. New developments in gasket systems are introduced including anchored gaskets
and most recently developed fiber anchorage technology for gaskets; soft corner solutions to eliminate point
loading using pin-based cavities; and new repair method for post sealing of segment joint based on direct
drilling and injection through joint sealing gasket.

1 INTRODUCTION

Watertightness of tunnels must be ensured during design and construction in order to prevent water
infiltration, minimize maintenance and repair costs, maintain operational safety, and protect mechanical
and electrical equipment inside tunnels. One-pass segmental lining system nowadays is the most
commonly-used system in TBM bored tunnels. In these tunnels, the watertightness is guaranteed by the
individual components of the support system, namely precast concrete segments and gaskets placed
between segments and ring joints. As shown in Figure 1, gaskets are positioned around individual segments
like a frame and primarily near the lining extrados to provide the joint tightness.

The technical solutions that engineers need to implement to design segment gasket and achieve the
watertightness requirements may vary depending on project specific circumstances. The important factors
for design and application of tunnel sealing gaskets are the water pressure, safety factor, size of tunnel and
consequently size of segments, gap and offset between segments, and tolerances. All these factors are
discussed in this paper. Load-deflection response of gasket profiles tested according to national guidelines
is explained. Gasket groove design is presented by a simplified simulation of impact force in gasket groove
as a hydrostatic pressure distribution. Latest developments in gasket systems are introduced.

GC5-1
 Figure 1: Gaskets positioned near the lining extrados to ensure watertightness at joints

2 GASKET MATERIALS

Recommended materials for segment gaskets are Ethylene Propylene Diene Monomer (EPDM) rubber
compounds which have replaced the formerly used Chloroprene gaskets. EPDM compounds guarantee a
life span of more than 100 years, and economically and technically most suitable material to withstand
climate and groundwater with varying water composition. EPDM rubber compound is stable enough not to
react with the environment or deteriorate in contact with other materials, such as concrete, grease, injection
materials and ground and groundwater anions, cations, heavy metals, volatile and semi-volatile organic
compounds. EPDM elastomer resistance to some of the substances that may found in some specific
grounds such as hydrocarbons, oils and tar are limited. However, in such cases, often due to low
concentrations of these substances and also the embedment of gaskets in the segments joints, EPDM
elastomer gasket contact with such substances does not raise any significant concern. An alternative
elastomer material which offers a better resistance to hydrocarbons, oils and tar is a Chloroprene
Rubber/Styrene Butadiene Rubber (CR/SBR) compound. However, CR/SBR compound offers much lower
or no resistance to most of other substances such as acids, has serious application issues in ground water
with a PH value of 2, much weaker resistance to aging and weathering effects, and weaker behavior with
regard to stress relaxation over service life a tunnel. Gasket relaxation has a significant effect on long-term
waterproofing performance, and resistance against water and gas permeability. Therefore, EPDM
elastomer is recommended as the most suitable material for segment gaskets. In order to provide the
desired characteristics, several material-specific requirements must be met for the gasket to perform as
intended. One of these properties is hardness of the rubber compound. The BSI PAS 8810 requires a
maximum shore hardness of 75 according to ASTM D2240 (2015), whereas the German STUVA (2005)
and French AFTES (2005) recommendations call for a maximum hardness of 85. Other important properties
include tensile strength and elongation according to ASTM D412 (2016) which are recommended to be
higher than 1700 psi and 300%, respectively.

3 WATER PRESSURE AND GASKET DESIGN

The most important parameter for design of gaskets is the maximum water pressure. Depending on the
expected water pressure in the tunnel, different solutions and different gasket profiles are selected. The
first gasket generation could only withstand a maximum water pressure of 3 bar. Today, with the advance
of technology and limited offset between adjacent segments due to more accurate segment erection inside
TBM, water tightness of up to 10 bar is often achievable with a standard mono-extrusion EPDM gasket
profile. As shown in Figure 2, water tightness between segments will be created through the compression
of gaskets developed during the assembly process of the segments.

For higher requirements and higher water pressure, two main solutions are available. First solution includes
a composite seal combining two different sealing technologies of EPDM compression gasket and a
hydrophilic seal. As shown in Figure 3, this solution can be provided by the application of co-extruded

GC5-2
gaskets with hydrophilic layer, composite profiles with hydrophilic cord, or designing a composite solution
with separate hydrophilic seal next to the standard EPDM gasket. Figure 4 shows effect of the hydrophilic
insertion on improving sealing performance of a composite EPDM gasket in terms of resisting higher water
pressure after several days of immersion in water. The hydrophilic cord swells under water pressure and
can act as an extra backup of the EPDM profile. Note that tests with co-extruded gaskets or hydrophilic
swelling cord gaskets do not influence the test results in a short term, as the hydro-swelling takes longer
than 24 hours to react. About 50% of the swelling occur within 7 days, nearly 100% of swelling occurs within
30 days. To measure the positive influence of hydro-swelling layers, long-term watertightness tests have
to be carried out. Second solution includes two sealing gaskets, one near the extrados and one near the
intrados of the segment, providing double the security for the waterproofing performance. When used in
combination with sealing profile connecting bars between the extrados and intrados gaskets, isolation
chambers can be created that help confine any localizing leakages thus permitting precise repairs by grout
injection methods. A look at reference projects with double gaskets shows that in half of these projects no
connecting gasket bar was used. In projects with connecting gasket bar, except for one project that cross
connecting bars were vulcanized at the gasket manufacturing plant, the connecting gasket bars were glued
in place at the segment precast plant. Care needs to be taken to the fact that the watertightness of double
gasket system is defined by the higher capacity of the two gaskets, not by the sum of both gaskets’ capacity
(BSI PAS 8810, 2016).

Figure 2: Water tightness between segments created through gasket compression

Standard Composite Co-extruded Composite Profile Double Gasket

Figure 3: Water tightness between segments created through gasket compression

GC5-3
 Figure 4: Effect of hydrophilic swelling cord on improving sealing performance of a composite EPDM
gasket in terms of resisting higher water pressure after several days of immersion in water

4 GASKET RELAXATION AND FACTOR OF SAFETY

In addition to the expected water pressure in the tunnel, specifications have to define the watertightness
performance of a sealing gasket and thereby include a safety factor that takes rubber relaxation effects into
account. To get a long-term post construction performance, it is crucial that the gasket profile and rubber
compound uphold the designed reaction force to withstand the applied water pressure even years after its
application. The majority of the relaxation occurs in the first months after installation. The relaxation can be
tested with so-called accelerated aging tests using an accelerated procedure with elevated temperatures
to get results within a reasonable timeframe (Figure 5). Most of specifications ask for a minimum residual
compressive stress of 60% after 100 years. This means a safety factor of 1.67 (1/0.60=1.67) is the minimum
factor of safety for gasket profiles. Considering the relaxation effects of rubber and design life of most of
tunnels from 100 to 120 years, a safety factor of two is advisable to ensure that the gasket is able to
withstand the design pressure in the long term. As the geometry of the gasket profile has a significant
impact on the relaxation behavior of a sealing gasket, such aging tests have to be carried out independently
for every gasket profile.

Figure 5: Typical long term relaxation test results according to ISO 11346 (2014)

GC5-4
5 GASKET DESIGN BASED ON SIZE OF TUNNEL AND TOLERANCES

The width of gasket profile depends on the size of tunnel as segment thickness is a function of tunnel
diameter itself. Following gasket profile widths are commonly used with regard to the tunnel diameter as
current industry practice.

• Tunnel Diameter < 4m, Gasket Width = 20mm

Note that in specific cases, a more conservative requirement (i.e. a wider segment profile) may be
requested by the owner. Gasket size is also related to erection tolerances which in turn depend on tunnel
diameter, segment size, and the connection system. Bolt and dowels as the two typical connection systems
allow for different gap and offset tolerances during the segment erection process. Gap openings and offsets
are illustrated in Figure 6. The connection system with bolts usually allows offsets up to 15mm, which can
be reduced to 5mm when precisely applied. Dowels, however, are the connection system with reduced
tolerances. Note that reducing the tolerances has a major impact on the design of gasket system. With the
smaller offset range that gasket needs to cover, a gasket profile with smaller width can be selected. Also,
due to reduction of gasket offset, gasket resistance pressure is often increased. In addition to smaller and
less costly gasket profile, other advantages of sealing system with reduced tolerances include:

• Reduction of TBM erector forces (~50%)

Most of tunnel project specifications allow for 5 mm gap and 10 mm offset for segment gaskets. Dowels
can easily provide this requirement. However, bolts are the predominant connection system in longitudinal
joints, and contractors tend to change the conditions to higher gap and especially higher offset values to
avoid an additional time and labor needed for very precise application of connections to such low
tolerances. A review of 50 international projects show that while the gap opening between segment gaskets
ranges from 2-7 mm, in 30% of these projects the contactors selected to use a gap of more than 5 mm.
Also with offsets between gaskets ranging from 5-20 mm, contractors have chosen an offset of more than
10 mm in 46% of these projects. While engineers design the gaskets for specified gap and offset in the
project specifications, they are also encouraged to consider possible larger gaps and offsets with potential
cost saving during construction due to faster erection and construction time comparing to gasket and
connection materials itself.

Figure 6: Illustration of gap opening and offset before and after compression

Watertightness tests using gaskets can be performed on steel or concrete specimens. However, working
with concrete specimens is time consuming and prone to failure. Practically only tests on steel specimens
are currently carried out. Following STUVA (2005) recommendations, as shown in Figure 7, the tests are
performed on a T-joint setup in the laboratory, simulating a simplified situation at a circumferential joint with

GC5-5
straight pieces of gasket profile pressing against each other at the end of a longitudinal joint. Gaskets must
ensure the watertightness under all possible gaps and offsets. Therefore, it is necessary to run the
watertightness tests with different gaps and offsets. For every offset value (0 – 20 mm), the test has to run
through a range of different gaps. For every gap, the water pressure is built up in steps of 1 bar and is hold
there for 5 minutes until the profile shows leakage. The recording of all leakage pressures under different
gaps and offsets leads to the watertightness-gap diagram shown in Figure 8. Gasket’s resisting pressure
corresponding to designed gap and offset in the watertightness-gap diagram should be higher than
maximum factored working pressure.

Figure 7: T-joint watertightness test setup for segment gaskets recommended by STUVA (2015)

Figure 8: Typical watertightness-gap diagram

6 GASKET LOAD-DEFLECTION

Gaskets, on one hand, should be able to withstand the water pressure on a long-term perspective.
Considering the relaxation effect, gasket’s compressive force should be higher than factored working
pressure. On the other hand, if the reaction force is too high, a strong erection force should be applied to
properly compress the segments. With a high compression force, there is a risk of cracking in the concrete
groove and at edge of segments that may lead to water penetration underneath the gaskets causing
durability and serviceability issues in the lining. In addition, connection systems are designed based on the
initial reaction force of gaskets. Therefore, gasket short-term behavior should be also provided in shape of
a load-deflection curve which depends on the compound, the shape of gasket profile and required gap and
offset. As shown in Figure 9a, in this curve, deflection is represented by the gap. Connection systems can
be designed for maximum load in this curve corresponding to zero gap. In a less conservative approach,
maximum reaction force of gaskets after a short-term relaxation within 5 minutes (as in Figure 9b) can be

GC5-6
used for design. Note that 5 minutes is approximately a minimum time for connectors to start acting against
compressive force of gaskets because of required time for segment erection and removal of TBM thrust
jack forces.

(a) (b)

Figure 9: typical gasket load-deflection (reaction force) test results (a), short-term relaxation diagram (b)

7 GASKET GROOVE DESIGN

The watertightness further depends on the groove geometry. Angle and groove depth have to be designed
with respect to the selected gasket. To avoid spalling of concrete, it is crucial that the net volume of the
rubber can be housed within the groove when the tunnel segments are fully closed (gap=0). To achieve
that, the net volume of gasket profile in cross section should be slightly and some percentage smaller than
groove cross section (approximately 90% of cross section). In that way, even in case of very high TBM jack
forces applied onto the segment joints, there will be enough space for the gasket to fit into the groove.
However, practical experiences from projects with narrow and deep grooves and high TBM jack forces
show that spalling cracks are still generated near segment corners despite of fulfilling above-mentioned
criteria on volume ratio. This is often related to the fact that EPDM rubber is an incompressible material.
When compressed, the applied force, R, will strongly deform the gasket profile and close the hollow body.
When reaching its full compression (no voids), the applied force will be evenly spread (p) onto the groove
flanks and the groove bottom, similar to hydrostatic pressure. Therefore, the spalling force (P1 or P2 on
Figure 10) at the flanks is directly depending on the groove depth and width. Nonetheless, shear area of
concrete resisting the lateral spalling force for both groove types is practically the same (a≈b). This leads
to the conclusion that the danger of spalling increases with a deeper gasket groove and a flat profile design
is more favorable.

Figure 10: Simplified distribution of impact force in gasket groove as p, similar to the hydrostatic pressure.

GC5-7
8 NEW DEVELOPMENT IN GASKET SYSTEMS AND REPAIR METHODS

Conventional gasket systems include design of gasket groove in the segment molds, so that after casting,
gasket can be placed into the groove and glued with contact adhesive and brush or using a spray gun and
a pneumatic pressing frame. In this gasket system, also referred to as glued gasket, gluing of gaskets is
carried out to ensure that they remain in their grooves during segment handling, storage and especially
erection. The main issue with this system is the low bond strength of glued gaskets to the segments to
prevent gasket coming loose especially during key segment installation. Recently, an alternative solution
has been developed using anchored gaskets to meet high waterproofing requirements and provide much
higher bonding strength against gasket pull-off from the segment. As shown in Figure 11, this gasket system
is equipped with footed legs as special anchorage pieces underneath which is directly embedded in
concrete in the process of segment production. Attention must be paid that the anchored profile corners
are precisely positioned, the anchored feet always pointed upward and the sealing lips are positioned tightly
alongside the steel counter surface. In this system, the seepage path of any penetrating water with this
system is prolonged and the gasket is held safely in place during installation (ÖVBB, 2011). In addition to
safer bond to segments, this gasket system has several other advantages over glued gasket systems such
as: better waterproofing performance due to less failure on concrete groove side; no risk of gasket falling
off the segment during outside storage due to insufficient gluing, weathering, and frost during outside
storage; better working conditions and higher safety for segment production staff due to abolition of solvents
used in tunnel gasket adhesives; and saving of costs of adhesives, gluing procedure and equipment.

Note that for all types of gaskets, coating with a lubricant is recommended to avoid damage to the gasket
through shearing at the groove base and in order to reduce the friction between segments during installation
especially the key segment. Such excessive frictional force, if not reduced by lubricating the gasket, is
directly transferred to concrete segments and may cause damage. This is even more crucial with anchored
gaskets as with this system the gasket material has to be mitered and vulcanized at the joint corner in
gasket manufacturing plants. This can form a high point of the harder material and therefore lack of
lubrication of the corners when erecting segment rings may lead to spalling cracks.

Another major development is design of the gaskets at the corners. Most of the manufactures now provide
prefabricated corner solutions with reduced stiffness of the corner element. This technology provides soft
corners and reduces risk of spalling of concrete at the segment corners.

Figure 11: Anchored gaskets fixed into concrete segment during segment production without using glue.

The most recent innovation in the gasket design is the use of fiber anchorage technology. The principal is
the elimination of footed legs in anchored gaskets and application of plastic fibres as anchoring element
(Figure 12). This new technology, similar to regular anchored gasket system, offers an additional pull-out
resistance comparing to conventional glued gasket system. In addition, it provide several advantages over
anchored gasket including: easier handling; improving the fixation in longitudinal direction; reduced risk of

GC5-8
spalling; no possibility of wrong installation (anchored feet up or down), more economic packaging, easier
repair procedure because of perfect groove bottom (no holes from the anchored feet) and no possibility for
air entrapment in the anchorage area.

Figure 12: Latest developments in segment gasket using fiber anchorage system.

New repair concepts for post sealing of segment joint has been recently provided. Leaking joints inside
segmentally lined tunnels is a well-known issue which is often caused by displacement of gasket profile
during installation of concrete segment. Another common reason is lack or loss of compression force on
gaskets due to an unprecedented increased gap between the segments faces. Damaged concrete
segments and cracked concrete edges due to eccentric forces during TBM jacking forces are among major
causes of leakage near joint sealing gaskets. This very recent repair method is based on direct drilling and
injection through joint sealing gasket (Kirschke et al. 2013). Four major steps for this repair method (shown
on Figure 13) include: Step 1—Pre-drilling Ø14 mm to the joint sealing profile; Step 2—drill and push
injection needle through the entire joint gasket; Step 3—Injection using accelerated injection material; Step
4—removal of extension tube. The injection needle remains in the joint gasket. Among main advantages of
this repair system is efficient injection procedure with less time, material and labor cost; less drilling work
with no significant damages on concrete and steel reinforcement; and injection works only at leaking areas.

GC5-9
 Figure 13: Four major steps of recently developed repair method of controlling groundwater inflow using
injection through gaskets in leaking segmentally lined tunnels (Kirschke et al. 2013)

9 CONCLUSION

Major design factor for segment gaskets include gasket materials, gasket profile for designed water
pressure, gasket relaxation and factor of safety, gasket profile width, and expected erection tolerances
including gap and offset. Load-deflection response and short-term relaxation diagram are required for
design of connection systems. Gasket groove can be designed by a simplified simulation of impact force in
gasket groove as a hydrostatic pressure distribution. Latest developments in gasket systems include
anchored gaskets and recently-developed fiber anchorage technology which is based on the elimination of
regular footed legs and use of fiber for anchorage, development of gaskets with soft corners, and new
repair method for post sealing of segment joint based on direct drilling and injection through the gasket.

References

AFTES. 2005. Recommendation for the Design, Sizing and Construction of Precast Concrete Segments
Installed at the rear of a Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM). French Tunneling and Underground Engineering
Association (AFTES), Paris, France.
ASTM D412. 2016. Standard Test Methods for Vulcanized Rubber and Thermoplastic Elastomers—
Tension. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org.
ASTM D2240. 2015. Standard Test Method for Rubber Property—Durometer Hardness. ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, www.astm.org.
BSI PAS 8810. 2016. Tunnel Design, Design of Concrete Segmental Tunnel Linings, Code of Practice.
British Standards Institution (BSI), London, UK.
Kirschke, D. Schälicke, H. and Fraas, D. 2013. Finne Tunnel: Innovative Targeted Resealing of Segment
Bore Joints – Part 2. Tunnel, STUVA, 4(2013): 30-40.
ISO 11346. 2014. Rubber, Vulcanized or Thermoplastic—Estimation of Life-Time and Maximum
Temperature of Use. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland.
ÖVBB. 2011. Guideline for Concrete Segmental Lining Systems. Austrian Society for Concrete and
Construction Technology (ÖVBB), Vienna, Austria.
STUVAtec. 2005. STUVA Recommendations for Testing and Application of Sealing Gaskets in Segmental
Linings. Tunnel, STUVA, 8(2005): 8-21.

GC5-10