SP 167-4

Technology and Design of

Structural Members of HSC/HPC
in Germany
by Gert Konig, Rainer Grimm,
Julian Meyer, and Ulrich Schmelter

This paper reports on the latest application of high-strength concrete I high-

performance concrete in Germany. High-strength concrete has been used
especially for the construction of high-rise buildings. The increased application
of high-strength concrete led to the DAfStb guideline for the technology and
dimensional design of high-strength concrete in Germany. Special attention is
focused on the improvement of ductility of high-strength concrete.

Keywords: Ductility; high-performance concretes; high-rise buildings; high-strength

concretes; structural design.

81
82 Konig et al.

Prof. Dr.-log. Dr.-lng. e.h. Gert Konig was professor at the Faculty of Civil
Engineering at the Technical University of Darmstadt. This year, he has moved
to the University of Leipzig. Since 1976, he has owned a partnership in the
consulting office Konig und Heunisch in FrankfurUMain. He has authored
several papers on the construction of high-rise buildings, safety theory for
reinforced concrete and prestressed concrete structures and on durability. He
serves on several national and international committees of the ACI, ASCE,
IABSE, CEB-FIP and CIP.

Dipl.-Ing. Rainer Grimm studied Structural Engineering at the Technical

University of Darmstadt, Germany. He is now working as a research engineer at
the Technical University of Darmstadt in the field of HSC/HPC. Tests and
models for tensile strength, shear behavior and bending behavior of beams are
his main topics. He is a member of the code committees working on the Code of
HSC/HPC in Germany and was also involved in most of the buildings
constructed of HSC in Germany.

Dipl.-Ing. Julian Meyer received his degree from the Technical University of
Darmstadt in 1992. He then worked for two years as a civil engineer at Philipp
Holzmann AG, FrankfurUMain. Since 1994, he has been a research engineer at
the Technical University of Darmstadt. His research interests are ductility of
high-strength concrete and deformation-capacity of structural members under
compression.

Dipl.-Ing. Ulrich Schmelter studied Structural Engineering at the Technical

Unversity of Darmstadt from 1989 to 1994. Since 1995, he has been a research
engineer at the Technical University of Darmstadt. His research interests are in
the area of hydration and durability of high-strength concrete.

1. STATE OF THE PRACTICAL APPLICATION

The impetus for the further development of high-strength concrete in Germany

was the high-rise building Trianon in Frankfurt am Main, built by the Philipp
Holzmann AG and finished in 1990. It was possible to simplify the arrangement
of reinforcement in the highly loaded columns of B85 and at the same time to
keep the relatively small cross-sectional dimensions of the columns constant over
the height of the building (Figure I). The reduction of reinforcement compared to
the similarly loaded columns of normal-strength concrete B55 of the
 High-Strength Concrete 83

Messehochhaus Frankfurt am Main was so impressive that in 1992 the positive

experiences were transferred to precast concrete columns for the construction of
a printing plant in Koln. The situation of the mounting parts and their penetration
with the column reinforcement was simplified greatly by using a B85 instead of a
B55. The columns had cross-sectional dimensions of 1,80 x 0,90m (Figure 2).
They were manufactured by imbau Leverkusen. All preliminary examinations
were done at the TH Darmstadt, as in the case of the Trianon high-rise building.
Besides the suitability tests, tests on model columns and model consoles in the
scale I :7 to the original columns were carried out. A high volume- and
confinement reinforcement at the ends of the columns led to a ductile behavior of
the butt-jointed prefabricated concrete columns. Also, the consoles exhibited a
good behavior with a high web and flange reinforcement.

In 1994 the Degeno office building in Eschbom, Frankfurt am Main, was built. A
large number of slender columns with dimensions down to a diameter of 40cm
were used to carry a flat plate (Figure 3). A high-strength concrete B 105 had to
be used in order to keep the cross-sectional dimensions of the columns constant
over the storeys.

A current example of the utilization of strength is the high-rise building

Zoofenster in Berlin. The concrete mixture was developed in Darmstadt with
aggregates available in Berlin (Sand 0-2mm 32%, coarse aggregates 2-16mm
68% ), Microsilica EM SAC 500S of 10% of the cement weight, a high dosage of
superplasticizer and 520kg/m 3 cement PZ 55 DIN-1164 Dyckerhoff/Geseke.

Also, in 1994 the precast concrete columns of the VTG Center in Hamburg were
fabricated with B85 and a strong confinement reinforcement in the joint areas.
The Japan Center, which is still under construction, exhibits the application of
high-strength concrete B I 05 for the structural members of the tube facade for the
first time (Figure 4). For that purpose the elements for bending, shear, and crack
width calculation were determined in Darmstadt by theory and experiment in
order to perform a safe calculation of these structural members. Simultaneously,
tests on structural members were carried out at the RWTH Aachen for
confirmation. The test specimens behaved ductile as intended.

Also, the construction company Hochtief AG chose high-strength concrete for

the high-rise building Forum (Castor und Pollux) in Frankfurt am Main (Figure
5) in order to reduce the thickness of the walls (their second application; first
application for the columns of the underground construction work under top
cover of the Schadow-Arkaden in DUsseldorf). A B65 with a good workability
was used. One comer column was manufactured in B 115. With the experiences
gained there it was possible to use a B65 also for the Commerzbank, the tallest
building in Europe in the near future, which is being built at the moment. B65 is
applied for the megacolumns, which together with the 8 storeys high Vierendeel-
girders take over the horizontal forces of the nearly 300m high building as a part
84 Konig et al.

of the megaframe. At the same time B65 is applied for the triangular Atrium
composite columns. They are exclusively loaded by longitudinal axial forces, but
they have to be stabilized elastically over several storeys, which is a peculiarity
of the building.

2. DAFSTB-GUIDELINE FOR THE TECHNOLOGY AND

DIMENSIONAL DESIGN OF HIGH-STRENGTH CONCRETE

To date a total of 14 projects have been carried out or are under construction in
Germany making use of HSC. Thus ample experience has been gained about
HSC, enabling the development of a guideline for the use of HSC by the DAfStb
(German Reinforced Concrete Association) (1). The maximum strength for
concrete based on a standard 200 mm cube is 115 MPa. For strengths higher than
95 MPa, special approvals are necessary. It is intended to get further information
about such concretes. This limitation was established in order to be sure that the
concrete mixtures and the mixing sequence cause no impairment of the
durability. Until now, there are no practical experiences about the use of those
HSC's under outside climatic conditions, so the preparation for this application
must be done in a very careful manner.

Figure 6 shows the standard values for the modulus of elasticity, which can be
used for the dimensional design. In fact, the stiffness of the concrete can vary
depending on the aggregates. A modulus of elasticity of about 55.000 MPa can
be reached by using crushed aggregates.

The design compressive strength of concrete ~R is obtained from the nominal

strength ~wN of a 200mm cube by the following formula:

~R = 0.69 * (1-~wN I 600) * ~wN

The reduction includes the ratio of prism strength to cube strength (determined
by the factor 1/1.1 0), the influence of long-term loading (determined by the
factor 0.80) and the difference between on-site and laboratory pouring conditions
(determined by the factor 0.95 * (1-~wN I 600)).

The slenderness of columns was limited to A:.,:; I 00 in view of the fact that no test
has been carried out on specimens with higher slenderness until now.

The stress-strain curve is the basis for the design under bending with and without
axial forces. Figures 7 and 8 show the stress-strain curves for high-strength
concrete given by the German guideline. With increasing strength, the curves
change from a parabolic-rectangular shape to a triangular shape. To describe the
shape of the ascending branch and the area underneath the curve, a parabola of
the n1h order was introduced as follows:
 High-Strength Concrete 85

The exponent n decreases from 2.0 for a concrete B 55 to 1.55 for a B 115.
With increasing concrete strength, the limiting strain Ebu in the compressive zone
has been carefully established because of the very steep descending part of the
stress-strain curve after the peak stress value. The strain Ebs corresponding to the
maximum stress and the limiting strain Ebu coincide for a concrete B 115 at
2.2%o.
Tests performed by Held (2) on model columns with eccentrically placed axial
loads from e=O to e=d/4 showed a good agreement with the calculations.

The shear capacities of 40 em and 80 em deep beams without stirrups were

measured by Remmel and Grimm (3, 4). These tests made it possible to predict
the maximum shear capacity of such building elements. Based on these tests and
more than 150 additional tests with normal and high-strength concrete reported
in literature, the decisive influencing factors for the shear capacity have been
identified as reinforcement ratio, depth of the beams, and toughness of the
concrete expressed by the characteristic length lch (after Hillerborg) as well as the
tensile strength. It was shown that the increase in shear capacity is relatively
insignificant with increasing compressive strengths higher than 85 MPa. The
investigations by Remmel and Grimm showed that the formulation of the CEB-
Model-Code 90 is very suitable to predict the shear capacity. This formulation,
therefore, has been included in the German guideline. In addition, the
formulation is the basis for a German proposal of supplement to Eurocode 2.
Figure 9 shows the formulation of the guideline in comparison to other standards.
One can recognize that Eurocode 2 in its original version and the German
standard DIN 1045 overestimate the shear capacity of higher concrete strength.

Shear reinforcement is not necessary if 't < 'tQ,B •

•
'tQ,B = 't Q,N * (100 p) 1/3 * k + 0.1 * O"bN
with:
k = 1+·./200/ d
't*Q,N nominal value of the permissible shear stress
for B65: 't*Q,N = 0,300 MPa
for B75: 't*Q.N = 0,315 MPa
for B85 and higher: 't • Q,N = 0,330 MPa
p ratio of flexural tensile reinforcement
p = AsL I (bw * d)
AsL cross section area of the longitudinal tensile reinforcement
86 Konig et al.

bw smallest cross section width within the tension zone

d depth in mm
CTbN =N I Ac
N longitudinal force in cross-section as a result of external load (pressure)
Ac overall cross section of the concrete

The total shear capacity of a section is determined by the sum of the concrete
contribution 'tQ,B and the shear reinforcement 'tQ,s (Figure 10).

The load capacity of the diagonal strut in compression is limited by:

'to :5: 'tQo = 0,11· U · PwN

with:
U= 1- PwN
300

The values refer to live loading according to the German Standard DIN 1045.
Instead of the constant factor 0.7 in DIN 1045 a factor v according to EC 2 was
introduced to account for the decrease of the effective compressive strength with
higher strength levels as a result of the increasing transverse tensile stress into
account.

The detailing has to take the brittleness of the material into consideration.
At low levels of the longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratios (Es ~ 3.0 %o) no
additional reinforcement is required. But at high levels of the longitudinal tensile
reinforcement ratio (Es :5: 3.0 %o) the volume of stirrups must be at least 0.5 % by
volume of the compressed zone due to bending. Tests performed by Grimm on
beams with a depth of 80 em showed that a ductile behavior of overreinforced
beams is possible if the volume of the confinement is large enough (about 0.5 %
by volume) and the spacing is small (about 10 em).

Tests performed by Held and Simsch (5) have indicated the influence of lateral
reinforcement on the ductile behavior of columns. The columns failed exhibiting
a shear band. The columns behaved in a ductile manner only if the lateral
reinforcement was strong enough to prevent sliding. Therefore, a lateral
reinforcement of about 6 % by volume is necessary. A similar effect can be
achieved by a steel tube. A first indication of an increase of the ductility is shown
at a ratio of lateral reinforcement of about 1.0 % by volume. This ratio is
prescribed by the guideline (Figure 11 ).
Longitudinal reinforcements improve the ductility, too, but only in a small
amount. It is also important that the maximum longitudinal reinforcement ratio is
limited to 6 % even in the area of splices. Compared with DIN 1045 the spacing
of the stirrups is reduced, to improve the ductility.
 High-Strength Concrete 87

Bergner (6) performed test in Darmstadt to get information about the crack-width
control of high-strength members under axial restraint. Specimens with a length
of 4,0 m and widths of 20, 40 or 80 em were cast in a steel frame and restrained
from shortening (Figure 12). The influence of the chemical shrinkage and the
development of temperature'by hydration were investigated especially. The width
of the cracks developed under restraint could be controlled by the rules given in
DIN 1045, if the tensile strength and the concrete hardening development were
taken into account. After the cracks caused by restraint were developed, Bergner
enlarged the external load until the final crack pattern developed.
Bergner was able to show that it is possible to calculate the crack width of thick
concrete members with an area smaller than the whole cross section if the
reinforcement does not start to yield when the first crack develops. The forces in
the reinforcement decrease after the first crack develops because of geometrical
reasons. It was observed that the forces which are necessary to create secondary
cracks are lower than those when the first crack is developed (Figure 13).

To confirm his models, Bergner performed two tests with large-scale specimens
to simulate the behavior of young high-strength concrete B 65 under restraint.
The first test was performed under normal conditions. The temperature of the
fresh concrete was 18 oc. The binder content was 400 kg/m3 portland-cement
and 100 kg/m 3 fly ash; no silica fume was used. In the second test 62,5 %of the
portland-cement was replaced by "Hochofen"-cement with a slow development
of hydration heat. The temperature of the fresh concrete in the second test was 13
ac and the concrete was cooled during hardening.
In the first case the temperature increased by a maximum of 32 ac. Due to the
technological measurements taken in the second test, the temperature increased
only by 18 oc (Figure 14). The geometry of the test arrangement was chosen in a
way that a 20 em x 180 em plate was cast between two beams. The beams had an
age of about 100 days. The ratio between the cross section of the plate and both
beams was 1:2.1.

In the first specimen cracks were expected. Therefore a minimum reinforcement

of about 1 % was chosen. In the second specimen, only a small amount
reinforcement was placed in order to fix the cooling coils (Figure 15). The
tensile forces in the plate were recalculated from the measured strains in the
beams. Continuously placed Linearly Variable Displacement Transducers
(LVDTs) allowed the measurement of crack development. Figure 16 shows the
development of the tensile stress in the plate and the tensile strength of the
concrete in the first test over the concrete age. Cracks developed in the concrete
at ages of 34 h , 49 h, 55 h and 104 h. The crack widths were as small as they
were expected to be. The reinforcement decreased the effective tensile strength
due to residual stresses. So it was possible to explain the behavior of the
specimen by the models suggested by Bergner. Due to the technological
88 Konig et al.

arrangements in the second specimen no cracks developed of any kind. This

shows that both possibilities are able to prevent members of high-strength
concrete from detrimental cracks at a young age.

3. FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS

A disadvantage of the development up to now is that a lot of expenditure is

necessary to make the behavior of structural members made with high-strength
concrete ductile. It is desirable, to ensure a deformation capacity which shows
that a state near failure is reached and ensures that redistribution of internal
forces can take place in the structure. So the efforts have been made merely to
determine suitable confinement reinforcement for the compressed structural
members or parts of them. At the lnstitut ftir Massivbau at the TH Darmstadt
Grimm and Meyer (7) tried to reach a more ductile behavior of the material by
introducing defective spots into the cement matrix. For example 2 kg/m 3
polypropylene fibers were introduced to a concrete mix of a B I 05. With this little
amount of fibers the test cylinders exhibit a higher inner deformation capacity
due to the fine ramification of the cracks (Figure 17). In comparison, the test
cylinders of high-strength concrete without fibers failed by breaking out of larger
concrete pieces. The compressive strength of the cylinders made of high-strength
concrete with fibers is only slightly reduced compared to that of the cylinders of
high-strength concrete without fibers.

A SEM-photograph with a 100-times magnification of the surface of fracture of

the concrete with polypropylene fibers shows the reason for this good behavior
(Figure 18). The fibers work as notches, which are able to initiate or stop cracks.
The fine distribution of cracks leads to a higher inner deformation capacity of the
material. On the macro-level this results in a larger volume of fracture for the
column, made of this "weakened" material (Figure 19). Failure is announced by
the scale-off of several concrete pieces. There is no exclusive formation of a
single shear failure anymore, as with usual high-strength concrete. A main effort
in the future now has to be to improve the construction with regard to both
artificial weakening of the material and the arrangement of confinement
reinforcement.

New tasks will challenge the designer who has to find suitable structural systems
for which the new material can be used optimally. The limits associated with the
maximum obtainable height of a building shift distinctly from a B35 to a B 105.
Figure 20 shows a tube system with a given construction area of 4% of the gross
area of 40 x 40m for the different concrete strength classes. System
improvements in bridge construction seem to be another interesting possibility
for the application of high-strength concrete and light-weight concrete with high-
strength. The Moselbriicke Cochem (Figure 21) is a clear example. If the longer
span over river had been made out of light-weight high-strength concrete (for
 High-Strength Concrete 89

example LB55), the moment at the support could have been reduced. Thus, the
counter moment of the shorter span over the bank, made of normal-strength
concrete B45, could be counterbalanced, which would result in the elimination of
ballast in the shorter span and an optimal arrangement of reinforcement for the
joining of pillar and superstructure.

New possibilities result from the combination of materials. If a composite

solution were chosen for the new railway of the Deutsche Bahn AG, the
construction height could have been reduced to 3,6m instead of 5m for the 58m
wide-spanned standard girder because of the optimized inner lever arm.

Yet the limits for application of concrete are not reached. Therefore, steady and
careful further development is worthwhile. It is hopeful that public building
owners, developers, and design engineers will take on this task.

The projects reported herein were supported by many sources. First of all we
would like to thank the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the
Arbeitsgemeinschaft fiir Industrielle Forschung together with the Deutscher
Beton Verein, the construction company Philipp Holzmann AG, and the
construction company Hochtief AG. Also we would like to thank our co-workers
and colleagues, who have supported us energetically and inventively during all
research projects: Markus Held, Gerd Remmel, Gerd Simsch, Harald Bergner
and Martin Zink.

4. REFERENCES

[1] Richtlinie fiir hochfesten Beton. Completion to DIN 1045/07.88 for the
concrete classes B65 to B115. 9. draft, Deutscher AusschuB fiir
Stahlbeton, Berlin, Feb. 1995

[2] Held, M.: Bin Beitrag zur Herstellung und Bemessung von
Druckgliedem aus hochfestem Normalbeton (B60-B 125).
PhDthesis, Darmstadt, 1994

[3] Remmel, G.: Zum Zug- und Schubtragverhalten von Bauteilen aus
hochfestem Beton.
Deutscher AusschuB fiir Stahlbeton, Heft 444, Berlin, Beuth Verlag, 1994

[4] Grimm, R.; Konig, G.; Remmel, G.: Shear Behaviour of Longitudinally
Reinforced Concrete Members Made of HSC.
Size Effect in Concrete Structures, Sendai (Japan), E&FN Spon, pp 79-92
90 Konig et al.

[5] Simsch, G.: Tragverhalten von hochbeanspruchten Druckstiitzen aus

hochfestem Normalbeton (B65-B 125). PhDthesis, Darmstadt 1994.
VDI-Heft 127, Reihe 4, VDI-Verlag GmbH Dusseldorf, 1995

[6] Bergner, H.: RiBbreitenbeschrankung zwangsbeanspruchter Bauteile aus

hochfestem Normalbeton.
PhDthesis, Darmstadt, 1995

[7] Grimm, R.; Konig, G.; Meyer, J.; Schmelter, U.: Ziiher
Hochleistungsbeton.
Beton 1196, Betonverlag

""' I
I! "''I •"' M

Fig. 1-Tria non high-rise building, Frankfurt am Main: first application of 885 in
Germany
 High-Strength Concrete 91

Fig. 2-Bauer-Druck Kiiln: precast concrete column of 885

~ ~

•d
'

Fig. 3-DeGeno Leasing Haus, Eschborn: columns of B105

92 Konig et al.

Fig. 4-Japan·Center, Frankfurt am Main: tube facade of B105

 High-Strength Concrete 93

Fig. 5-Forum, Frankfurt am Main: high-rise buildings Castor and Pollux

- Range of Applicability
Reinforced High Strength Concrete
with a compressive strength of
65 MPa to 115 MPa
- E-Moduli
B65 875 B85 B95 BIOS Bll5
Eo [MPa] 40500 42000 43000 44000 44500 45000

Fig. 6-Scope and moduli of elasticity of DAfSTB guideline for high-strength

concrete
94 Konig et al.

stress-strain relation
crb
· . [MPa]

r.[%o]

Fig. 7-Stress-strain curve of high-strength concrete

J3WN B65 B75 B85 B95 BIOS B115

J3R 40 50 55 60 64
[MPaJ 45
Eb.
[%o] -2,03 -2,06 -2,10 -2,14 -2,17 -2,20
Ebu
[%o] -3,1 -2,7 -2,5 -2,4 -2,3 -2,2
n 2,0 1,9 1,8 1,7 1,6 1,55

Fig. 8-Strength for design

 High-Strength Concrete 95

i~1tJJ5',~1fi1 ~[Qlri of codes: Shear cap~;cit)

r~.k,~ ·
[MPaJ .·
:'~~,; 2,

Fig. 9-Comparison of standards: shear capacity of structural members without

shear reinforcement (height, d = 20 em; longitudinal reinforcement ratio, p =
2 percent)

Fig. 10-Total sheer capacity (concrete contribution r 0,8 , shear reinforcement Ta_s
96 Konig et al.

Compression Members:
Longitudinal Reinforcement
~ minimum reinforcement ratio : l ,0 %
. . maximU11l reinforcement ratio : 6,0 %

Minimum Confinement
"'Peon£ = l,Ovol.-%
related to core eross•sectional area Ac,core •
~ pcont: = 0,5 vol.-%
if eccentricity er than core width
Fig. 11-Detailing of reinforcement of columns: longitudinal reinforcement and
stirrups

Fig. 12-Steel frame

 High-Strength Concrete 97

Fig. 13-Comparison of crack pattern of thick (Ab > Abettl and thin (Ab = Abettl
structural members

Fig. 14-Development of temperature in concrete plates of Tests 1 and 2

98 Konig et al.

Fig. 15-Detailing of reinforcement and cooling coils of Test Specimen 2

Fig. 16-Development of tensile stresses and tensile strength of concrete plates

in relation to maturity and concrete aging, respectively
 High-Strength Concrete 99

c 90 c 90
mit Fasern ohne Fasern

Fig. 17-Test cylinders of high-strength Concrete 8105 with and without

polypropylene fibers

Fig. 18-SEM photography of surface of fracture of high-strength concrete with

fibers in X100 magnification
100 Konig et al.

Fig. 19-Finely ramified cracks of column of B105 with fibers

Fig. 20-0btainable height of tube facade of B35 and B105 with different
arrangement in ground plan for given construction area of 4 percent of gross
area
 High-Strength Concrete 101

Fig. 21-Moselbridge Cochem