Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
Land Transport Authority, 1, Hampshire Road, Singapore 219428
2
Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Singapore
10 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 119260
Keywords: Land Transport Authority; steel fibre reinforced concrete; tests; tunnel segments.
ABSTRACT
The application of steel fibre reinforced concrete (SFRC) in precast tunnel lining design is a
growing trend due to its vast advantages. However, the performance characteristics of the material
and the design procedures are still not well served by both codes and standards.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) of Singapore sees great potential and prospects in using
SFRC in its Mass Rapid Transit tunnels. It has taken the proactive approach to introduce SFRC
into the tunnel industry in Singapore. LTA has conducted a series of laboratory tests on small scale
samples (cubes, prisms and cylinders) and full size segments with the assistance of National
University of Singapore (NUS) to determine the material and structural properties of SFRC in order
to establish the required performance characteristics and specifications for tunnel lining
applications.
Tests were carried out on SFRC samples and segments with steel fibre content of 30 and 40 kg/m3.
The 28-day characteristic compressive strength was about 60 MPa and the tensile splitting strength
about 4.4 MPa. SFRC samples showed higher flexural tensile strength at first cracking and at small
crack mouth opening displacements. Prototype SFRC segments subjected to a transverse line load
exhibited a more gradual drop in load-carrying capacity after first cracking. The residual strength
was about 90% of the first crack load. SFRC segments subjected to a longitudinal point load also
exhibited more gradual decrease in load carrying capacity after first cracking.
1. INTRODUCTION
For many years, steel fibre-reinforced concrete (SFRC) has been used as shotcrete in the mining
and civil industries, primarily for temporary works. More recently, it has also been used for
permanent segmental lining in prestigious tunnel projects like the Channel Tunnel Rail Link
(CTRL) (King et al. 2001 and Woods et al. 2003) in UK and the Second Heinenoord Tunnel in
Netherlands (Kooiman et al. 1998).
Steel fibres have also been used in conjunction with conventional steel bars as reinforcement for
lining segments. One such example is Barcelona Metro Line 9 in Spain, in which the quantity of
conventional steel bars was reduced by the addition of steel fibres. However, the use of SFRC in
the reinforcement of tunnel segments is still in a relatively early stage, with the design approaches
varying with designers and projects. Lack of a generally accepted design code has in some extent
hindered the full exploitation of this material.
1
This paper presents the findings from an effort by the Land Transport Authority (LTA), Singapore,
in collaboration with the National University of Singapore (NUS), to investigate the material and
structural performance of SFRC and SFRC tunnel segments in anticipation of its use in future
underground projects.
2. OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
Traditionally, tunnel segments used by LTA were designed using reinforcing steel bars. In terms of
durability, the LTA Design Criteria requires a service life, with appropriate maintenance, of 120
years for all permanent structures. To achieve this, the steel bars must be protected against
corrosion. The risk of corrosion in regular steel bar reinforced segments could be reduced by
following a stringent specification for gaskets and by using low permeability concrete. However,
eliminating the presence of steel bars would be a more direct and efficient way of reducing the risk.
Also, with the increasing price of steel bars and socio-economical demand for a sustainable
construction industry, LTA has been constantly in earnest search for alternative construction
materials. It has recognized the potential of SFRC and the associated benefits of using SFRC in
tunnel lining segments (see Table 1), and is taking a proactive approach to introduce SFRC
segments into the tunnel industry in Singapore.
Due to the limited prototype tests done in the world, LTA has therefore conducted a series of
laboratory tests on small scale specimens (cubes, prisms and cylinders) and full size segments with
NUS to determine the material and structural properties of SFRC and SFRC segments so as to
establish the required performance characteristics and specifications for the use of SFRC segments
(Schnutgen et al. 2005).
3. MATERIAL PROPERTIES
A test programme was carried out to ensure that all required properties were examined. Tests were
conducted on cubes, cylinders and prisms (beams) to determine the material properties, that is,
compressive strength, tensile splitting strength and flexural toughness. The tests were conducted
according to BS EN 12390-3-2002, BS EN 12390-6:2002 and BS EN 14651:2005 respectively.
2
Table 1 - Comparison of SFRC and Steel Bar Reinforced Concrete Segments in Singapore
The steel fibres (Dramix RC-80/60-BN) were of the hooked-end type, with a length of 60 mm and
diameter of 0.75 mm. In addition to the steel fibres, 1 kg of micro polypropylene fibres (PPF)
(Duomix Fire M6) was added for every cubic metre of concrete (Shuttleworth, 2001).
3
d. 18 prisms were tested at 28 days to determine the flexural strength at first crack (limit of
proportionality) and residual flexural tensile strength.
All specimens were made using a single plant batch for each sample type in a precast factory in
Johor, West Malaysia, and delivered to NUS for testing. The specimens were cured with curing
compound at the factory until the day of delivery, and kept in a fog room in Workshop 1, NUS,
until about 5 days before the day of testing.
The tests included: (a) compression tests on seventy-two 150mm x 150mm x 150mm cubes; (b)
compression tests on nine 150mm x 300mm cylinders; (c) tensile splitting tests on forty-five
150mm x 300mm cylinders; and (d) flexural toughness tests on fifty-four 150mm x 150mm x
550mm prisms.
4
Figure 1 Cube Compressive Strength
5
Figure 2 Tensile Splitting Strength
6
Figure 3 Comparison Of Load-CMOD Curves
Table 3 Average Flexural Tensile Strength
7
Each segment was supported on two straight edges as shown in Figure 4. One of the roller supports
was restrained horizontally and the other was not restrained. Loads were applied at midspan of the
segment. An incremental load of 10KN was applied each time. The deflections at midspan were
measured by dial gauges. The segments were checked for cracks or distress.
Cantilever load test was set up to investigate the load carrying capacity at the circumferential edge.
The test programme comprised of three specimens each of conventional plain concrete, and steel
fibre reinforced concrete (SFRC) with steel fibre content of 30 kg/m3 and 40 kg/m3. They were
designated CP1 to CP3, CA1 to CA3, and CB1 to CB3, respectively.
Figure 5 shows the setup of the test. An incremental load of 10 kN was applied each time.
Movement of the segment was monitored by gauges (at least 3 locations). The segments were
checked and noted for crack or structural distress at each increment.
8
Figure 5 - Cantilever load test set-up and instrumentation
9
Figure 6 - Close-up views of cracked sections
For Type FB segments with a steel fibre content of 40 kg/m3, the behaviour of FB-3 was similar to
Type FA segments while for FB-1 and FB-2, a slight drop in applied load was observed upon the
occurrence of the crack at midspan before the load started to pick up again. A second peak in the
load-deflection curves was observed before the load started to decrease gradually again.
The residual strength of each SFRC segment was determined as the average of the applied load at
first cracking and the load at a deflection equal to 10.5 times the first-crack deflection. Type FA
segments with a steel fibre content of 30 kg/m3 had a residual strength of about 140.0 kN, or 85%
of the first-crack load. Type FB segments with a higher steel fibre content of 40 kg/m3 had a
10
correspondingly higher residual strength of about 164.5 kN, or 92% of the first-crack load. Figure
7 shows the plots and Table 4 shows the values.
11
Table 4 - Flexural Test Results
The toughness indices and residual strength factors were determined from the adjusted load-
midspan deflection curves following the procedure in ASTM C1018-97. The toughness indices are
I5, I10, and I20, which are defined as the areas under the load-deflection curve up to a deflection of
3.0, 5.5, and 10.5 times, respectively, the first-crack deflection, divided by the area up to first crack.
Table 5 shows the results from the tests.
12
Table 5 - Toughness Index and Residual Strength Factor Results
13
Figure 8 Appearance of segments after tests
The behaviour of Type CB segments with a steel fibre content of 40 kg/m3 was similar to CP and
CA segments up to the maximum load-carrying capacity (see Figure 10), which occurred at a
vertical displacement at point C of between 9 and 11 mm. A crack was seen to appear from the top
of the segment near the support edge. However, in contrast to CP and CA segments, the applied
load did not drop drastically. Instead it decreased at a decreasing rate with increasing
displacements.
14
The crack widened as loading was continued. No other cracks were observed. The vertical
displacement at point C reached about 25 mm while the crack widened to more than 25 mm when
the load has dropped to 100 kN. The steel fibres could be seen to bridge the crack. Figure 8 and 9
show the segment after the tests and a close up of the cracked section indicating the bridging action
of the fibres respectively.
The ultimate strength (load-carrying capacity) and the corresponding displacement at point C of all
segments are tabulated in Table 6. The load-carrying capacities of the three types of segments are
comparable to each other considering the variations in concrete strength and experimental errors.
However, as mentioned earlier, both Types CP and CA segments failed suddenly with a drastic
drop in the load-carrying capacity whereas the load carried by Type CB segments decreased
gradually after the occurrence of a single crack at the support edge. It is deduced that the steel fibre
content in Type CA segments was insufficient as to prevent the sudden drop in load-carrying
capacity.
15
Table 6 - Cantilever Load Test Results
5. CONCLUSIONS
From the specimen tests, the results obtained were very satisfactory albeit Sample B (35 kg/m3 of
fibres) showed very dubious results. Generally, the samples were able to attain the compressive
strength of 60 MPa required at 28 days. As a result, it was possible to achieve an average tensile
splitting strength of 4.5 MPa. In terms of flexural toughness, based on average values, Samples A
and C showed higher and comparable flexural tensile strength at first cracking and at small crack
mouth opening displacements. Sample B showed higher residual flexural tensile strengths at high
crack mouth opening displacement. The difference in load-CMOD curves is not significant among
the three sample types due to the small difference in steel fibre content.
Based on the flexural tests on segments, plain concrete segment do not have the residual strength
characteristics and failed suddenly at peak. It can be concluded that for SFRC segments, the steel
fibres were effective in bridging the crack, thereby resulting in a more gradual drop in load-carrying
capacity and hence more ductile behaviour after the occurrence of first cracking. The first-crack
load was higher for segments with a higher steel fibre content due to the bridging effect of steel
fibres across microcracks in the concrete that finally led in the formation of the critical major crack
at midspan. The residual strength, calculated as the average load-carrying capacity at first crack
and at a deflection equal to 10.5 times the first-crack deflection, was 85% and 92% of the first-
crack load, respectively for Type FA (30 kg/m3) and Type FB (40 kg/m3) segments. It is also seen
that the toughness indices and residual strength factors increased with steel fibre content.
The cantilever load tests showed that the displacement increased with the applied load at a
gradually increasing rate for all segments, up to the maximum load-carrying capacity. For plain
concrete segments, the segments suddenly broke into two with a loud bang at maximum load-
carrying capacity. For SFRC segments, a crack suddenly appeared next to the support edge at
maximum load, extending from the top to near the bottom of the segment. The load-carrying
capacity dropped dramatically thereafter in CA segments which had a steel fibre content of 30
kg/m3. For Type CB segments with a steel fibre content of 40 kg/m3, however, the applied load did
16
not drop drastically but instead it decreased at a decreasing rate with increasing displacements. The
load-carrying capacities of all three types of segments are comparable to each other considering the
variations in concrete strength and experimental errors. A steel fibre content of 40 kg/m3 is
required as in Type CB segments to prevent the sudden drop in the load-carrying capacity after
cracking.
These results have given the LTA sufficient confidence that the there is enough structural capacity
in SFRC for use in tunnel linings. These results will form the basis in specifying the minimum
requirements in using SFRC tunnel linings for future rail lines.
ACKNOWLEDEGMENT
The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the Land Transport Authority for the
permission to publish this paper and the assistance rendered by personnel from SPC Industries Sdn.
Bhd and Bekaert Singapore Pte Ltd, without which, the tests would not have been such a success.
REFERENCES
ASTM C1018-97 (1997), Standard test method for flexural toughness and first-crack strength of fiber-reinforced
concrete (using beam with third-point loading), American Society for Testing of Materials.
BS EN 12390-3 (2002), Testing hardened concrete Part 3: Compressive strength of test specimens, European
Committee for Standardization.
BS EN 12390-6 (2002), Testing hardened concrete Part 6: Tensile splitting strength of test specimens, European
Committee for Standardization.
BS EN 12390 (2000), Testing Hardened Concrete Part 5: Flexural Strength Of Test Specimens, European
Committee for Standardization.
BS EN 14651 (2005), Test Method For Metallic Fibered Concrete Measuring The Flexural Tensile Strength (Limit
of Proportionality (LOP), Residual), European Committee for Standardization.
Kooiman, A.G., Van der Veen, C. & Djorai, M.H. (1998), Steel fibre reinforced concrete (SFRC) tunnel segments
suitable for application in the Second Heinenoord Tunnel, Proceedings of the XIII Congress on challenges for
concrete in the next millennium, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, pp. 719-722.
King M. R., Alder A. J. (2001), The Practical Specification of Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete (SFRC) For Tunnel
Linings, Proceedings of Underground Construction 2001 Conference, London, published by Brintex Ltd.
Schnutgen, B., Vandewalle, L. (2003), Test and design methods for steel fibre reinforced concrete Background and
Experiences, Proceedings of RILEM TC 162-TDF Workshop, Bochum Germany, 20-21 March 2003.
Shuttleworth, P. (2001), Fire Protection of Concrete Tunnel Linings, Tunnel Fires and Escape from Tunnels
Conference, pp. 157-165
Woods, E., May, R., Hurt, J., Watson, P. (2003), Design of Bored Tunnels on Channel Tunnel Rail Link, UK,
Proceedings Rapid Excavation and Tunnelling Conference, pp. 230-244
17