FIBRES
Design methods for fibre
Alun Thomas of Ramboll, Copenhagen, Denmark
delves deep into the topic of the moment - fibres
FIBRE REINFORCEMENT OF CONCRETE
has matured as a technology and it is now
often used for tunnel linings in some
countries, both in precast concrete
segments and sprayed concrete (SFRS). For
example, the Crossrail project in London
features steel fibres for the segments in
the running tunnels and also the
permanent sprayed concrete linings for
the station tunnels. While various design
guides test methods and specifications
exist, there remains some confusion about
how best to use fibres. Fortunately ITAtech
and ACI are planning to publish guidance
on the use of fibres for precast concrete
segments soon. This article will review the
basics of fibre technology, design methods
for soft ground and hard rock and
specifications for fibre reinforced concrete
(FRC) and sprayed concrete (FRS).
BEHAVIOUR
Fibre types
Since their introduction into concrete, a
huge range of types of fibres have been
trialled, ranging from basalt to plastic,
with a variety of shapes ranging from
straight to deformed. These days steel and
macrosynthetic fibres are the most
commonly used for structural purposes. At
present carbon fibre remains too expensive
for commercial applications but this may
change with time. Another material which
may be worth watching is hemp, since this
is carbon negative – i.e. it absorbed more
carbon in its production than it uses.
Behaviour
While some aspects of their behaviour
remain poorly understood, in essence the
fibres are designed to be pulled out of the
concrete as a crack opens, thereby giving
the concrete a ductile behaviour in tension
(Figure 1). At high dosages (above 1% by
volume for steel fibres), strain hardening
behaviour can be achieved as the crack
opens. However, usually for FRC and FRS,
the behaviour is strain softening (Figure 2).
Different shapes and forms of anchorage
have been experimented with. The most
popular shapes are hook-ended (steel
fibres) and continuously crimped.
It is important to limit the anchorage of
the ends of the fibres, otherwise the stress
builds up within the fibres as the crack
opens and they snap themselves rather
than being pulled out. This results in a
44 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
brittle failure.
Before cracking, fibre reinforced
concrete is basically the same as plain
concrete. For example, the strength at first
crack in a standard bending test or the
peak tensile strength is similar.
DESIGN METHODS
Essentially two main design methods have
emerged in the tunnelling industry. In soft
ground tunnelling, the concept of stress
blocks for the tensile zone of fibre
reinforced concrete has been developed so
that conventional concrete design codes
can be applied to this material. This has
been driven by the designer’s desire to
Figure 1: Mode of deformation of a
hook-ended fibre (Bernard 2009)
Initial crack formation Pull-out - high ductivity
Figure 2: A schematic of a load-deflection curve from a
beam test (after fib 2010)
fLk fR1k
1
FL
F1
F2
F3
F4
0 CMOD1 = 0.5 CMOD2 = 1.5 CMOD3 = 2.5 CMOD4 = 3.5
0.5%
compare the concrete’s capacity with the
loads when it acts as an element in
compression with bending and shear loads
acting on it. In rock tunnelling, the
existing empirical approaches (such as the
Q-system) have been extended to include
fibre reinforced concrete via the concept
of energy absorption.
Soft ground
Over the years a variety of design methods
have been proposed based on stress blocks
in the tensile region, such as DBV (1992)
and RILEM (2003) – see Figure 3. This can
easily be incorporated into the normal
interaction diagram of axial force and
bending moment where the loads on the
lining can be compared to its capacity. The
most recent and arguably the best is the
Model Code 2010 (fib 2010). However, in
the opening paragraphs of the section on
fibres, the Model Code states that it does
not cover fibres “with a Young’s-Modulus
which is significantly affected by time
and/or thermo-hygro-metrical
phenomenon”. The author does not see
any reason why the method proposed in
the code cannot be used for
macrosynthetic fibres, so long as they can
satisfy the performance criteria.
A fundamental problem for the designer
with Model Code and other methods, is
that some of the values required to define
the design strengths have to be
determined from tests. This means that
designers don’t know which values can be
assumed when no test data is available. In
the case of Model Code, the residual
flexural strength, f R1, and the ratio of f R3/
f R1 must be set by the designer. Figure 2
shows the definitions of residual flexural
tensile strengths, f R1 and f R3 at Crack
mouth Opening
Displacements
(CMOD) of 0.5 and
2.5mm respectively.
fR3k The peak flexural
tensile strength,
f fck,fl, is basically
independent of
whether or not fibres
are added and it can
be calculated from
established equations
(e.g. Eurocode 2 Table
3.3). Some guidance
is provided for both in
CMOD (mm)
terms of the
minimum acceptable
2.0% 2.5%
values for structural
fibre reinforced
concrete. Figures 4 and 5 show some
published data from various projects and
types of fibres – both steel and
macrosynthetic. The dashed lines are the
minimum requirements of the Model Code
for structural fibres. Considering normal
strength concrete (i.e. C50/60 or less), this
 FIBRES

reinforced concrete
Figure 3: The stress strain curve for fibre reinforced Figure 5: Ratio of f R3/f R1 vs compressive strength
concrete, based on the Model Code (fib 2010)
1.60
stress (N/mm2)
ffcd 1.40

1.20

Ratio of R3 to f R1
Rigid plastic model 1.00
compression
fFtuk = (A*b*0.7*0.5 ( ffck ) 0.67 ) /3
fFtud = fFtuk / 1.5 A = 0.5 0.80
Recommended value: class “b”
0.60
25‰ 0.1‰ strain Model Code min. requirement
fFtud -2.0‰ -3.5‰ 0.40
tension
0.20

Model Code Approach 0.00

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
~ first crack Compressive cylinder strength in MPa

Figure 4: Ratio of f R1/f 1 (parameter A in Figure 3) vs Figure 6: Interaction diagram for 250mm of C30/37 1.7b
compressive strength concrete with 8/8mm 150/150mm c/c mesh

1.6 Fibres Fibres but No fibres but Plain

and rebar no rebar with rebar concrete
1.4
5.500
Ratio of residual strength,
f R1, to peak strength

1.2

.0 4.500

0.8
Axial Forces (kN)

3.500
0.6

0.4 2.500
Model Code
min. requirement
0.2
1.500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
500
Compressive cylinder strength in MPa

-500
data suggests that a reasonable small, both in 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Moment (kNm)
assumption would be that f R1k = 0.5 f absolute terms and
fck,fl. f fck,fl can be calculated from in comparison to
Eurocode 2 Table 3.3 (as shown in Figure bar reinforcement. One could almost say energy absorption. This is because the
3). The partial material safety factor is 1.5. that they offer little meaningful increase in (empirical) Q-system chart recommends
Setting the grade of concrete as “b” – i.e. bending capacity and one could simply use thicknesses of FRS with certain energy
f R3/ f R1 values between 0.7 and 0.9 seems the interaction diagram for concrete with absorptions, ranging from 500 to 1000 J.
reasonable as a first assumption, if no test no reinforcement but safe in the However, the author is not aware of any
data is available. knowledge that the fibres would make the analytical design method which uses
While the Model Code seems to offer concrete ductile. This would be a energy absorption, although one could
the best current guidance, there are somewhat disappointing conclusion but it conceivably develop one based on the
significant gaps in some areas in that there could avoid arguments over design virtual work done by a falling wedge.
are no recommendations for FRC alone. philosophies and test methods. Barratt and McCreath (1995) describe an
For example, the guidance on shear or analytical design method for sprayed
crack widths seems to apply only to FRC Hard rock concrete which can be used to design FRS
with bar reinforcement. Steel fibre reinforced sprayed concrete linings. This method considers the capacity
Also it is worth noting that some of the (SFRS) is very popular in hard rock of a layer of sprayed concrete, spanning
older design methods (such as DBV) tunnelling but more and more between bolts, in terms of resistance to
offered higher design capacities for FRC / macrosynthetic fibres are being used to failure in adhesion, shear and flexure. This
FRS than the Model Code. As Figure 6 (e.g. in Norway). Often the performance can be extended to cover all ages of
shows, the benefit of the fibres is very requirement for the FRS is given in terms of sprayed concrete.

TUNNELLING JOURNAL 45
 FIBRES
SPECIFICATIONS & TESTING
Specifications
Specification of FRC and FRS has
developed from the simplistic approach of
requiring a set dosage of fibres to the
setting of performance requirements in
terms of flexural strengths (e.g. by setting
a target strength grade C30/37 1.7 b).
These performance requirements usually
come in the form of either energy
absorption or residual flexural strengths.
In the case of sprayed concrete, the
European standards, EN 14487 and 14889
offer a good basis for any specification.
One strength of the these standards is that
the extent of testing varies depending on
the complexity of the project. It would be
good if the frequency of testing could also
be reduced as the project progresses, if it
can be demonstrated that the contractor’s
QA/QC procedures are producing a
consistently satisfactory mix. This would
seem to be a reasonable way to reduce the
burden of testing and permit the site team
to focus on other areas where more
pressing problems may exist. The cost of
testing is a disadvantage of FRC.
Test methods
A range of tests exist for the flexural
capacity of fibre reinforced concrete.
Generally speaking, the original test
methods were statically determinant which
has the obvious advantage of enabling
design parameters to be easily extracted
from the results. However, it is worth
noting that this material is being used in
the highly indeterminant statical system of
a tunnel lining (be it segmental or sprayed)
and the ground. There are very few load
cases in which the material is subjected to
a “following” load – stacking loads for
segments being one example – in which
the system is not redundant and therefore
cannot redistribute the loads to alternative
load paths, if the concrete is strained
beyond its peak strength. This is why it is
possible to use successfully fibre reinforced
concrete where the residual flexural
strength is less than the peak strength. In
fact this is true for most of the fibre
reinforced concrete in use today. The
downside of this is that it complicates the
question of defining how ductile the
concrete should be. One could demand
“elastic perfectly plastic” concrete but this
would not be the most economic solution.
Problems have been encountered with
beam tests and a high scatter of data
(Bernard 2004a). One way to reduce this is
to use notched beams (e.g. EN 14651
which is recommended by the Model Code
2010). However, this is still the risk for FRS
that the beams are disturbed when they
are sawn from sprayed panels. EFNARC has
proposed a notched panel to remove this
factor. Bernard (2004a) recommends the
46 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
Round Determinate Panel and has provided
a correlation between its results and the
flexural strength parameters that are
commonly used in soft ground design
methods.
DURABILITY
Some brief words on durability should also
be added. Before going any further, one
must note that, if the application is in the
realms of normal civil engineering, crack
widths are generally limited to less than
0.3mm (for concrete structures containing
reinforcement that may corrode). This
limitation along with the normal factors of
safety mean that the cracks tend to be
narrow and the stresses in fibre reinforced
concrete tend to be low (i.e. less than 50%
of the capacity).
Corrosion
Exposed steel fibres will corrode – either on
the surface or in wide cracks. This may
cause surface staining which can be
unsightly but it is generally accepted that,
in most applications, this corrosion does
not weaken the structure. Problems have
been encountered in very thin linings in
aggressive environments (such as subsea
tunnels) and hence the current Norwegian
standard sets a minimum thickness for
SFRS of 70mm and only macrosynthetic
fibres should be used in subsea tunnels.
Creep
Firstly, one must distinguish between
primary and tertiary creep. Primary creep
creates additional deformation over time at
an ever decreasing rate. Tertiary creep is
the continued deformation of a material
leading to creep rupture and failure of the
material.
All concrete creeps. Some experimental
evidence has shown that reinforcement
(both bars and fibres) reduces creep (Ding
1998). Presumably this is due to its
restraining effect. Typically, 20kg/m3 of
steel fibres (0.21% steel by volume) and
0.39% bar reinforcement reduce the
magnitude of creep by the same amount,
roughly 25% after 180 hours compared to
plain concrete (Ding 1998). Due to their
distributed nature, the fibres may have
more effect than bar reinforcement.
Notwithstanding this steel fibre reinforced
sprayed concrete can exhibit considerable
creep potential, with creep coefficients of 3
to 6 after 1 year (depending on the degree
of loading) – MacKay & Trottier (2004).
Structural synthetic fibres have a higher
creep capacity and the creep coefficient for
sprayed concrete reinforced with them can
be twice as high as that for steel fibre
reinforced sprayed concrete (Bernard
2004b, MacKay & Trottier 2004). Creep is
affected by temperature and this may
accentuate creep in some plastic fibres.
Since tunnel linings form a highly
redundant structure with the ground,
creep per se may be a beneficial
characteristic since this permits the
redistribution of peak stresses. In the early
days of the NATM, creep in sprayed
concrete was hailed as a panacea.
Therefore, so long as the combined system
of the ground and lining can cope with the
additional movements, creep may be a
benefit.
Considering tertiary creep, at high loads
(above about 60% of the capacity), FRC
and FRS could experience rupture and this
applies to both macrosynthetic and steel
fibres (Bernard 2014). However, as noted
earlier, if the normal safety factors are
applied, the stresses should be less than
50%.
Embrittlement
Concrete continues to hydrate so long as
there is unhydrated cement paste and
water available. Hence, while engineers
may be conditioned into considering just
the first 28 days of its life, in actual fact
concrete continues to get stronger over
time. This can produce a negative effect in
SFRC. The bond at the ends of the fibre
increases to the point that the fibres no-
longer pull out but snap instead (Bernard
2009 & 2014). Figure 4 illustrates this
effect. At higher compressive strengths,
the flexural strengths for steel fibres can be
lower than at lower strengths. This can be
mitigated by using higher strength steel
fibres but this increases the cost of the mix
substantially.
In SFRS, with high quality modern wet
mixes for permanent applications, it is
common to see strengths at 90 days which
are higher than 50MPa. The RILEM guide is
limited to strengths less than C50/60. Such
high long-term strengths are not needed in
the lining design. The sprayed concrete
industry should examine ways to avoid
these excessive strengths because of the
risk of embrittlement of SFRS.
Fire
Non-structural polypropylene fibres are
often added to enhance fire resistance. The
exact mechanism is still the subject of
research. However, loosely speaking, they
do this by providing a path for trapped
steam to escape, either along the weak
interface between the fibre and the
concrete or by melting. This avoids
explosive spalling. However, plastic fibres
may also be destroyed by the heat of a fire
which would remove their reinforcing
effect. That said, in the case of segments,
the fibres may not be needed to carry the
long term loads. In contrast steel fibres
remain intact, although during the fire of
course both the steel and concrete are
weakened by the high temperatures.