ASSOCIATION

INTERNATIONALE DES TRAVAUX

EN SOUTERRAIN

AITES

ITA

INTERNATIONAL
TUNNELLING
ASSOCIATION

In Consultative Status, Category II with the

United Nations Economic and Social Council
http://www.ita-aites.org

Towards an
improved use
of underground
Space

Topic
SHOTCRETE USE
Title
Lining of tunnels under groundwater pressure

Author
T. Franzn, T.B. Celestino

published
in "ITA - AITES Downunder 2002",
Vol. 1, pp. 481 - 487, Year 2002
by EA Books, Crows Nest, Australia, www.bookshop.engaust.com.au
Working Group: WG 12 - "Shotcrete Use"
Open Session, Seminar, Workshop: Others:

Paper

Abstract: Since the 1980s there has been a promising development worldwide towards more efficient lining techniques ,
where heavy cast concrete linings have been substituted by single shell, mesh or fibre reinforced shotcrete
linings. However, under certain circumstances cast concrete linings including sealing membranes are still
needed, for example under high water pressure, strict demands on sealing or a long service life. Some design
aspects that are not very well resolved for such cases are related to durability, water infiltration, design
calculations with respect to membranes, stress relaxation in concrete etc. A short survey of typical solutions is
given for waterproofing for functional reasons and for water sealing to prevent water inflow, usually in order to
maintain an existing groundwater level. Design considerations are briefly illustrated by references to the
Channel tunnel crossover, the Hallandss railroad tunnel in Sweden and tunnels for the So Paulo ring road and
others in soft rock.

Rsum:

Remarks: -

Secretariat : ITA-AITES c/o EPFL - Bt. GC CH-1015 Lausanne - Switzerland

Fax : +41 21 693 41 53 - Tel. : +41 21 693 23 10 - e-mail : secretariat@ita-aites.org - www.ita-aites.org

Lining of tunnels under groundwater pressure

T. Franzn
SvBeFo Swedish Rock Engineering Research
T.B. Celestino
University of So Paulo

ABSTRACT: Since the 1980s there has been a promising development worldwide towards more efficient
lining techniques , where heavy cast concrete linings have been substituted by single shell, mesh or fibre
reinforced shotcrete linings. However, under certain circumstances cast concrete linings including sealing
membranes are still needed, for example under high water pressure, strict demands on sealing or a long
service life. Some design aspects that are not very well resolved for such cases are related to durability, water
infiltration, design calculations with respect to membranes, stress relaxation in concrete etc. A short survey of
typical solutions is given for waterproofing for functional reasons and for water sealing to prevent water
inflow, usually in order to maintain an existing groundwater level. Design considerations are briefly
illustrated by references to the Channel tunnel crossover, the Hallandss railroad tunnel in Sweden and
tunnels for the So Paulo ring road and others in soft rock.

1 INTRODUCTION
Water sealing of tunnels is done for two main
reasons, either functional or for preventing a
lowering of the ground water level above the tunnel.
In cases where leakage cannot be tolerated from the
roof or the walls for functional reasons, a drained
tunnel can be accepted as long as dripping or
disturbing moisture can be avoided, i e an umbrella
solution. What must be evaluated then, is the cost
for drainage, which must be acceptable during
construction as well as the permanent stage, where
pumping costs as well as maintenance of the
drainage system must be thoroughly considered.
If maintaining the ground water level is the critical
issue, during or after the construction stage, a strict
limit on tolerable water ingress to the tunnel is often
set in the specifications. An alternative would be to
specify an acceptable lowering of the ground water
table, but very few contracts are made that way. For
shallow tunnels, cement grouting of the rock mass,
in combination with a high standard sprayed
concrete lining, may be sufficient to meet such
requirements. In urban areas in Sweden infiltration
rates are often set in the order of 2-5 l/min per 100 m
of tunnel. For deeper tunnels with a ground water
pressure of more than a few bars, or a water head of
10-30 m, a full sealing structure is often necessary.
This implies that the sealing and supporting structure
must be designed to stand full water pressure.

An important by-product of the above-mentioned

criteria is related to lining durability. Chemically
aggressive water or inflows of large amounts have
resulted in, or raised concerns about concrete
deterioration. An example is the tunnels for the
Kanmon Strait crossing, where the concrete lining
was damaged by sea water (Miyaguchi, 1986). In
such cases, waterproofing has to be considered.
For tunnels in stiff clay in So Paulo, excavated in
the 80s with single shell lining consisting of mesh
reinforced shotcrete, water ingress has varied
between 0.5 and 5.5 l/min per100 m of single tunnel
length. Those extreme figures occur for two parallel
tunnels under water head in excess of 20 m
(Celestino et al. 2001, Celestino 1997). The low
permeability of the ground mass plays an important
role in such cases.
The statements above demonstrate that it is not
always obvious what waterproofing means. All the
above mentioned situations might be referred to as
waterproof tunnels. The objective of this paper is to
give some references, which illustrate this situation,
and possibly clarify some aspects of waterproofing
and sealing.
We would prefer that waterproofing be used for the
functional aspect, to prevent water from affecting
the function of a tunnel, whereas water sealing be
reserved for preventing water ingress, which may be
set to specified limits.

2 SHOTCRETE AS A SEALING MEASURE

For waterproofing and water sealing, different
solutions can be used. Conventional techniques
include: shotcrete lining as primary support, a
geotextile with a plastic membrane sheet, or a
sprayed on material fo llowed by a cast, heavy
concrete lining, (alternatively, precast concrete
segments). These solutions are very expensive, and
therefore cheaper alternatives have been looked for
and tried.
Two examples will be briefly referred to, which
represent two different traditions as the basis for
their presentations. The first one is discussing
different ways to modify the conventional technique
by using shotcrete to replace the cast concrete and
including a sealing agent in a single shell solution.
The second case is arguing that shotcrete in itself
can be made water tight, provided that modern
technology is used in mix design as well as during
application.
The two papers were presented at the ITA Congress
Tunnels and Water in Madrid 1988, and illustrate the
different views, based on local traditions in
Germany and Norway. From STUVA, experiments
were presented, where single shotcrete shells had
been tested in different combinations with sealing
membranes or agents (Shreyer 1988). The idea was
to find a cheaper solution than the established
practice with heavy concrete linings including
welded plastic membranes. The proposed shotcrete
shell included various reinforcement solutions,
similar to what would have been used in a concrete
lining. Hoses were installed for injection of epoxy or
polyurethane in fractures, from the early stages of
hardening.
After a series of tests of different concepts it was
stated that a single-shell lining made of shotcrete
should initially only be used in zones with minimal
groundwater pressure, up to 1 bar, and the shotcrete
layer must not be regarded as watertight in any case.
As a consequence, special seals must be used. The
author concludes that the next decades investments
in tunnels in Germany estimated at 15 billion DM
would involve a potential of saving 1-2 billion DM
if one half of the tunnels were constructed with
single shell solutions. Thus, it was stated that the
still unresolved issues for creating single-shell
tunnels should be clarified as soon as possible.
One decade later, Pttler & Klapperich (2001) still
call attention to the importance of and the need for
implementation of single shell tunnel projects.
However, that type of lining was apparently adopted
only for trial sections or adit tunnels of the high
speed German Railway. They also showed examples

of economy achieved with the single-shell approach.

Nine transportation tunnels constructed during the
80s according to that principle resulted in savings in
the range of 10-15% with respect to the conventional
double-shell approach. The authors go even further,
saying that savings could be more significant with
more flexible design philosophy, still not
implemented in Germany at the time. This subject
will be further discussed in item 6 of this paper.
In great contrast, the other paper, presented by
NOTEBY, Norway, aimed at demonstrating that
modern shotcrete technology could meet the stricter
demands on water tightness, which are now called
for (Astad et al. 1988). Based on a general tradition
to use shotcrete and bolts in fairly good rock, but
even in weak or fractured zones, they meant that
shotcrete could be used for waterproofing even for
an undrained solution. With reference to scepticism
in the construction community, they argued that
seepage through shotcrete linings was due to the
design, where watertightness had not been a distinct
requirement. The paper presents basic guidelines
for the manufacturing of watertight shotcrete, its
poss ible applications as well as its limitations. To
this end, a concrete mix is described which within
good margins satisfies the specifications for a
watertight concrete given in the Norwegian
standards. A mix designed for a compressive
strength of 35-40 MPa, including microsilica for low
porosity, is recommended, a w/c ratio below 0.5 and
steel fibres for stress distribution and crack-arresting
effects. Curing is a crucial factor, to minimise
shrinkage and improve the bond strength. Welldesigned and applied linings could result in a
permeability of 10-12 m/s, which is considered as
watertight for conventional concrete. The authors
also comment on how to consider this lining as
being one part of the waterproo fing. They again
point at the importance of the bond, as it will prevent
any pressure build up behind the shotcrete layer.
Thus the water pressure is taken by the rock mass in
interaction with the shotcrete, which supports and
seals the rock su rface.
For the sake of comparison, back analysis of the
permeability of different lining systems based on
real water ingress into tunnels led to shotcrete
permeability values lower than 10-10 m/s in three
cases, and in the range of 10-9 m/s in another case
(Celestino et al. 2001). In all the cases, the tunnels
were constructed in the 80s and many of the mix
design characteristics advocated by Astad et al.
(1988) had not been implemented yet. The value for
in-situ permeability mentioned by them seems
therefore feasible when so many technological
advances have been incorporated.

Fourteen years after Tunnels and Water, one can

state that specific demands on water sealing are
more frequent and stricter in many cases. Shotcrete
has been developed as a material, which is
effectively produced with a well-controlled mix
design, including steel fibres and additives to
improve its properties for certain objectives. It is
widely accepted and adopted as a useful structural
element, not only for primary support, but as the
final supporting element (Franzn 1992, Franzn et
al. 2001). At the same time we find that we have not
really seen the anticipated development discussed in
the German and Norwegian papers. We have not
seen a working sandwich structure or another
successfully implemented combination of shotcrete
and sealing agents with the capacity to replace a
traditional water sealing technique for water
pressures of any significant magnitude. Nor can we
argue that shotcrete linings are water tight in the
sense that they could be used for 100 percent water
sealing. Shotcrete, even if well mixed and applied,
will - like cast concrete - never be water tight in a
strict sense but can form a useful barrier to water
leakage if a minor amount of leakage or moisture
can be tolerated and specified. However - a s
mentioned before - under reasonable water
pressures, grouting in combination with shotcrete
can still meet a fairly tough requirement on sealing.

as for avoiding water leakage, Figure 2. The cavern

was mechanically excavated from the service tunnel,
driven by a 5.4 m TBM. The primary support was
shotcrete, according to NATM principles, i. e. a
comprehensive set of deformation measurements
was used as a basis for the dimensioning of the

(a)

(b)

(c)

3 TYPICAL CASES
A simplified structure of cases, which call for
different solutions is illustrated in Figure 1. The
referred cases above could be classified as types (b)
and (c) respectively. Below, cases falling under (c) (d) are discussed.
4 TWO CASES WHICH NEED WATERPROOFING AND SEALING
Two current examples are of interest for
comparison. The Channel tunnel, 50-100 m below
the sea, including a crossover chamber of substantial
dimensions, and the 2x8 km long parallel rail
tunnels, through the Hallandss ridge, with a ground
water head of up to 150 m above the tunnel.
4.1 UK Crossover
The crossover section on the UK side of the Channel
tunnel is a shotcrete supported, membrane and
concrete lined tunnel chamber. It is 165 m long, 22
m wide and 15 m high, with 35 m of rock cover and
above that 35 m of seawater, an unlimited source
of potential leakage. Most of the tunnel, including
the crossover, is situated in chalk marl, a rock mass
which is favourable for machine excavation as well

(d)

(a) Waterproofing for functional reasons

Low groundwater pressure
Umbrella by shotcrete or concrete elements
Simple drainage
(b) Watersealing for limited inflow of groundwater
Low groundwater pressure
Grouting and shotcrete lining
Simple drainage
(c) Watersealing for limited inflow of groundwater
Moderate groundwater pressure
Shotcrete, membrane, shotcrete or con crete lining
Tentative dual drainage system
(d) Water sealing for zero inflow to tunnel and
no drawdown of groundwater table
Membrane and concrete (or shotcrete) lining
Full water head as design basis
No drainage
Figure 1. Waterproofing and sealing for typical situations

shotcrete lining. No certain measures had to be taken

for sealing, as the rock structure was merely
watertight, fractures typically 1-2 m apart and not
water bearing. In this respect, the construction of the
chamber was quite straightforward, whereas the
challenge of the logistics and other aspects of this
impressive engineering task should of course not be
underestimated (Birch et al. 1991).

component of the design and to be relied upon as a

water pressure relief system over a long time.
However, we know that dam engineers have already
learned what to do to rely on permanent drains for
safety purposes. It could also be pointed out, when
comparing with the next case, that for the crossover
cavern, in principle no upper limit had to be set for
an allowable ingress of water. Still, the design task
was obvious. Even if there was minor leakage during
construction, the final design must accept a tentative
full water pressure as a most probable load case.

Figure 3. Load case 2, full water head, for the UK crossover

cavern, from Hawley & Pttler 1991.

4.2 Hallandss railway tunnel

Figure 2. Geology and cross -section of the crossover cavern,
from Fugeman et al. 1991.

The design calculations for the final support had to

take into account different loading cases. Even if the
rock structure was practically watertight in itself, the
final lining of course included a sealing membrane,
and full water pressure had to be one (worst) load
case. This had to be checked even if it was not likely
to develop, because of the non-waterproofed running
tunnels nearby, cf Figure 3.
Figure 2 shows the drainage pipes along the
abutments of the arch. We have not investigated
whether this drainage is meant to be a system, which
can be checked and maintained. In any case, it is
obvious that systems like this can be very difficult to
design and construct if they are to work as a vital

The Hallandss tunnel is different in many respects.

According to the current Water Act, the groundwater
level is to be largely maintained, definitely in the
permanent stage, but even to a certain level during
construction. This requirement was transformed into
a specification of maximum 33 l/s of water ingress
for the whole tunnel, or a mean of 12 l/min per 100
m of each single tunnel. That is 2-3 times more than
what is generally set for urban tunnels in Sweden
tod a y , d e p e n d i n g o n l o c a l h y d rogeological
conditions.
Normally, this sealing requirement would have been
met in most Scandinavian hard rock conditions, even
when passing some heavily fractured or weathered
zones. One would use cement grouting and possibly
some chemical compounds like polyurethane in
difficult parts. As is now well known, this technique
was not successful in Hallandss, even after the

ground water had been considerably lowered (well

below what was anticipated in the Water Act). The
fracture pattern and the hydrogeological conditions
proved to be a challenge for the client and
contractor. After testing several techniques and
grouting materials, they tested acrylic amide, which
gave a very good sealing effect but was neither
satisfactory for workers health and safety, nor with
respect to pollution of the ground water. To make it
short in this presentation: The northern parts of the
currently excavated 1/3 of the tunnels have now
been lined and sealed in the conventional way, i. e.
shotcrete, geotextile, plastic membrane and an
unreinforced, cast concrete lining, which is designed
to withstand the full ground water head of 150 m,
Figure 4.
4.3 Comments
Based on different requirements, these two cases
have been designed to withstand full water load on a
watertight lining. For the final stage however, the
difference is not only the greater load to be taken by
the Hallandss lining, but also another specific
requirement. This tunnel, floating in the
groundwater, is not only to be designed to take full
water pressure, in principle a trivial design task for a
circular tube. The design must also guarantee that
only a limited drainage will occur along the tunnel,
towards the entrance parts of the tunnels or the outer
slopes of the ridge. Any drainage pipes from the
construction stage must be eventually closed. Only
minor leakage can be accepted along the outside
(bottom half) of the concrete tunnel, where a narrow
slit of up to 10-20 mm will occur when the concrete
shrinks during hardening, deforming and creeping as
full pressure is being built up on its contour. Even
this tentative drainage must fall within the stipulated
allowed leakage of totally 33 l/s for the two tunnels.

compression and is therefore unreinforced, except

the invert. This fact facilitated the installation and
welding of the 4-mm thick polythene membrane,
which is sensitive to mechanical damage. To avoid
any longitudinal leakage along the tunnel, as a
consequence of concrete shrinking, transverse stops
have been installed every 100m. Thus, a swelling
material has been applied between the shotcrete and
the blinding, and on the inner side of the blinding a
conventional waterstop is welded to the membrane.
I n t h e p r e p a rations for continued works at
Hallandss, a report has been prepared for the
National Rail Administration, in order to compare
different solutions used in Scandinavia and middle
Europe (Steiner et al. 2000). The report states, as we
do in this paper, that underlying philosophies can be
quite different depending on geological conditions,
environmental considerations and specifications, as
well as local traditions in the tunnelling industry in
different countries. Therefore different solutions are
chosen. The report recommends that more detailed
studies should be initiated, due to the complexity of
the answer.

5 HALLANDSS LINING DESIGN

Late 2001 the decision has been taken by the
Swedish government to finance the remaining
excavation and completion of the Hallandss tunnel.
Still all formalities as regards environmental issues
are not solved and no contracts have yet been
signed. A tentative restart of construction is
estimated for next summer and the finalisation
would take several years. The final design and
construction methods for the remaining parts to be
excavated have not yet been decided in detail, but
most of the tunnels will have to be fully water
sealed. Figure 4 shows a cross section of the
currently lined parts, in total about 1200 m.
The design is based on full water pressure. This
means that the concrete ring will act under

Figure 4. Cross-section of the lined parts of the Hallandss

tunnel (Swedish National Rail Administration 1998). Drainage
pipes are temporary, and have now been closed in order to let
the groundwater head raise to its original level.

6 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
It is important to note that different design
philosophies have been adopted in different parts of
the world, and some times by different agencies in
the same country, leading to different concepts of
safety and prices. Pttler & Klapperich (2001), for
instance, present data about lining thickness, type of

ground mass, maximum overburden and water

pressure above the roof for 11 tunnels constructed in
the 80s in Germany, following the single shell
principles. As mentioned before, savings with
respect to double-shell concept was in the range of
10-15%, and the authors made the comment that
savings could be even more significant with
different design philosophy. Considerations about
the load (other than permanent water pressure) on
the second layer of the lining have varied, ranging
from full load (complete deterioration of the first
layer, therefore double-shell concept) to variable
contribution of the first layer.
In the cases presented by Pttler & Klapperich
(2001), the total shell thickness for single track
tunnels with maximum overburden in the range of 619 m varied from 25 to 55 cm. Water pressure above
the roof was 1.2 bar for the case of maximum
thickness (55 cm). The ground mass was described
as solid marl.

the cross section at two locations of the tunnel for

different situations are shown: at the portal (lower
overburden) and central length (high overburden),
for (1) the end of construction, (2) long term
conditions, and (3) long term plus water pressure. It
is clear from that diagram that the design internal
forces at the end of construction are compatible with
the 0.25 m thick first layer, whereas an addition of
0.15 m is enough for the long term load plus water
pressure. The tunnel was constructed in 1984 with a
0.40 m thick shell, according to this design
procedure.
Interface

Graund
Mass

t= 0

1st Layer (0.25m)

2nd Layer(0.15m)

(a)

For comparison, the previously mentioned single

track tunnels constructed in the same period for the
So Paulo Subway used for the back analysis by
Celestino et al. (2001) have 40 m overburden of stiff
clay and compact sand, water pressure of 2 bars, and
25 cm total shotcrete thickness. The performance of
these tunnels in terms of both hydraulic and
structural aspects has been adequate, despite the
high permeability of a sand layer intercepting the
tunnel sections for more than one half their lengths.
Certainly the difference in shotcrete thickness comes
from differences in design concepts.
Pttler & Klapperich (2001) suggest that the
evaluation of the effectiveness of the second layer
shou ld be made by bringing the safety philosophy of
the Eurocode, introducing a reduction of strength
parameters of the ground mass after installation of
the second layer. That was exactly the procedure
adopted for the design of the Brazilian tunnel, as is
well documented by Domingues & Palermo (1985).
Figure 5 shows an example of this design procedure
presented by those authors for a double track tunnel
with total shotcrete thickness of 40 cm, 25 cm in the
first layer and 15 cm in the second. (Figure 5a).
Ground mass strength envelopes are schematically
indicated in Figure 5b. The short-term envelope,
used for the construction period, is labelled for time
= 0, whereas the long -term envelope, adopted after
the second layer has been installed, is labelled for
time . Bending moments and axial forces are
shown in Figure 5c. Lines of maximum design
internal forces (Md x Nd) are shown for total
thickness h = 0.25 m (first layer only), h = 0.40 and
0.45 m (first layer and two options for the second
layer of the shell). Internal forces for all the points of

h = 0.45
200

(b)

h = 0.40

Md (kN.m/m)

C3

100

E : Portal
C : Central
1 : end of
construction
2 : long term
3 : 2+ water pressure

E3

h = 0.25

C2

C1

E2

Nd (kN/m)

E1
500

1000

1500

(c)
Figure 5. Definition of shotcrete lining thickness for a double
track tunnel. From Domingues & Palermo 1985.

Among other cases of moderate water ingress under

pressure in the range of 2 bars, the Ibirapuera
Tunnels (urban highway) are worth mentioning.
Since they are underneath the Ibirapuera Park in So
Paulo, concerns were raised during design stages
about the possibility of the water table being
lowered to the extent of affecting trees and lawns.
The tunnels were not provided with sealing
membranes and have been operating for 5 years with
no sign of ground water table lowering. Again, the
low permeability of the stiff clay has played an
important role.
Previously mentioned solutions adopted in Sweden
for moderate water pressure have also been adopted
in Brazil. Castro et al. (2001) report the use of
cement grouting the rock mass for the 200 m 2, 4-

lane tunnels for the So Paulo Ring Road currently

under construction. The lining consists of mesh and
steel fibre reinforced shotcrete and the water
pressure is in the range of 1.5-2 bars. No sealing
membrane has been used.

Escavaes Subterrneas, ABGE, Vol. 1, pp

180-194, Rio de Janeiro
-

7 CONCLUSIONS
Reading the papers referred to above, as well as
personal communications with people involved in
this kind of design issues, one can find several
matters which are not fully understood. Therefore,
solutions on the safe side have to be chosen. We
would very much like to see more international
exchange of ideas which govern specifications for
waterproofing, as well as design concepts, which
could lead to cheaper tunnel construction under
complex hydrogeological conditions and in
environmentally sensitive areas.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The assistance from Sweco, C-O Sder and Mats
Burtu, and the permission from the Swedish
National Rail Administration to use design
documents for the Hallandss tunnels are gratefully
acknowledged.

REFERENCES
-

Astad, U., Heimli, P., 1988, Waterproofing

of tunnels by the use of shotcrete, Proc.
Tunnels and Water, Serrano (ed), Balkema
Birch et al. 1991, The Channel Tunnel:
geotechnical aspects of the design and
construction of the U K crossover. Proc.
Tunnelling 91, Institution of Mining and
Metallurgy, London, Elsevier
Castro, G.R., Takahashi, J., DeMarco, L.A.,
Samara, V. & Kochen, R., 2001, So Paulo
ring road tunnels (In Portuguese), Rev.
Engenharia, 58, N. 543, pp. 70-73.
Celestino, T.B. 1997, Long term monitoring
and maintenance of tunnels, (In Portuguese),
Proc. 2nd. Simp. Tneis Urbanos, ABGE, pp.
101-120, So Paulo
Celestino, T.B., Giambastiani, M., &
Bortolucci, A.A., 2001, Water inflows in
tunnels: back-analysis and role of different
linig systems, Proc. 2001 World Tunnel
Congress, V.II, pp.547-554, Milano
Domingues, L.C.D. & Palermo, G., 1985,
Introducing safety for soft ground NATM
tunnel design, Proc. 2nd. Simp. Bras.

Franzn, T. 1992, Shotcrete for underground

support A state of the art report with focus
on steel fibre reinforcement, Proc. Rock
Support in Mining and Underground
Construction, Kaiser & McCreath (eds),
Balkema
Franzn, T., Garshol, K.G., Tomisawa, N.,
2001 in press, Sprayed concrete for final
linings: ITA working group report,
Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology, Elsevier
Fugeman, I. C. D. et al. 1991, The Channel
tunnel: development of design and
construction methods for the UK undersea
cross over, Proc. Tunnelling 91, Institution
of Mining and Metallurgy, London, Elsevier
Hawley, J. Pttler, R. 1991, The Channel
tunnel: numerical models used for design of
the UK undersea crossover, Proc. Tunnelling
91, Institution of Mining and Metallurgy,
London, Elsevier
Pttler, R. & Klapperich, H., 2001, Singleshelled shotcrete linig aspects and
application in Central Europe, Proc.
Shotcrete for Underground Support VIII,
ASCE, pp. 174-192
Schreyer, J. 1988, Sealing tunnels in single
shell shotcrete, Proc. Tunnels and Water,
Serrano (ed), Balkema
Steiner, W., Malmtorp, J., Rosengren, L.
2000, Scandinavian and continental
tunnelling practice. A comparison of
solutions for waterproofing, Techn. Rep. BB
00:01, Swedish National Rail Administration
Swedish National Rail Administration, 1998,
Design criteria for the structural design of
concrete lining in hard rock formations,
Report by VBB anlggning for the National
Rail Administration