Concrete segments design, with steel bars vs steel fibers

reinforcement
-
Fourth International Symposium on Tunnels and Shafts in Soils and in Rocks
-
Colegio de Ingenieros Civiles de Mexico (CICM)
Mexico, CDMX
-
May, 26-27, 2016
-
Bruno Rossi
FRC Specialist - Design & Technical Support
bruno.rossi@bm-underground.com
Summary
 Fibers for concrete – Basic knowledge
 Main application fields for FRC
 Material properties – Standards and guidelines
 Design guidelines for FRC
 Design guidelines for segmental linings
 EN 14651 bending test (material ductility)
 From the mechanical properties to the design values
 4D 80/60BG fibers
 Segment full scale test (structural ductility)
 Segmental Lining Design
 Segmental Lining Case Studies

2
 Fibers for concrete – Basic knowledge
• The Fibre-Reinforced Concrete (FRC) is a composite material made of basic concrete in
which a fibre reinforcement is incorporated and homogeneously distributed
• Fibres can be made of steel, polymers, glass or natural materials
• Fibre’s addition in concrete controls plastic and hydraulic shrinkage cracking, reducing crack
spacing and crack width, thereby improving durability (even in aggressive chlorinated
environment as Abu Hamour Surface & Ground water drainage tunnel – Doha –
Qatar)
• Fibres with an High Young’s Modulus considerably improves the concrete post-cracking
behaviour
• Fibre materials with a Young’s-Modulus which is significantly affected by time and/or
thermo-hygrometrical phenomenon, are not covered by the Model Code 2010 and, in
general, should not be considered as structural materials
• Structural design of FRC elements is based on the post-cracking residual strength
provided by fibre reinforcement
• For structural use, a minimum mechanical performance of FRC must be guaranteed

3
Concrete: strong material but weak

Plastic shrinkage (early age) Explosive spalling (under fire exposure)

Brittle (under flexion and tension) Shear / splitting

4
Main application fields for FRC

Paving Tunneling
 Industrial & commercial floor slabs
 Jointless floors  Temporary lining (Sprayed concrete)
 Container port pavements  Segmental lining
 Concrete roads  Cast-in-place final lining
 Parking areas for aircrafts
 Foundations
Precast elements
 Concrete pipes
Shotcrete  Prestressed (roof) elements
 Linings & galleries  Water collectors
 Pit shafts, ore passes  Septic tanks
 Slope protection  Garage cells

5
 FRC for tunneling

key stone

standard
element

driving joints
direction

hydraulic jacks

Segmental lining

Temporary lining
CARGAS SOBRE EL REVESTIMIENTO DEFENITIVO
(Sprayed Concrete)
Cobert uras Alt as

Cast-in-situ final lining

(Lee tunnel)

6
Material properties - Standards and Guidelines
Fiber’s geometrical and mechanical characteristics are defined by the following
standards (some international codes):
• EN 14889-2006: Fibres for concrete; this standard specifies the requirements of fibres
for structural or non-structural use in concrete, mortar and grout;
• ASTM A820 / A820M-11: Standard Specification for Steel Fibers for Fiber-Reinforced
Concrete;
• ISO 13270-2013: Steel fibres for concrete;
The flexural behaviour of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete has been regulated as follows:
• EN 14651-2005: Test method for metallic fibre concrete. Measuring the flexural tensile
strength (limit of prop. (LOP), residual);
• ASTM C1609 / C1609M-2012: Standard Test Method for Flexural Performance of Fibre-
Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam with Third-Point Loading);
• JSCE-SF4: Method of tests for flexural strength and flexural toughness of steel fibre
reinforced concrete

7
Design guidelines for FRC
Several guidelines are available for the design of FRC elements.
In the 2012, the International Federation for Structural Concrete, has published the fib
CEB-FIP Model Code 2010 (fib Bulletins 65-66).
Two chapters are dedicated to the Fiber-Reinforced Concrete:
• Chap. 5.6 Fibres/Fibre Reinforced Concrete;
• Chap. 7.7 Verification of safety and serviceability of FRC structures
Other available guidelines are:
• RILEM TC 162-TDF: Test and design methods for SFRC. Materials and Structures, Vol.
36, 2003;
• CNR DT-204/2006: Istruzioni per la Progettazione, l’Esecuzione ed il Controllo di
Strutture di Calcestruzzo Fibrorinforzato;
• EHE-2008 ANEJO 14: Recomendaciones para la utilización de hormigón con fibras;
• DAfStb: Technical Rule on Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete, 2012.

8
Design guidelines for segmental linings
For the fiber-reinforced concrete segmental lining design, some guidelines have been
published in France and Germany and, recently, USA and ITA-AITES:
• AFTES Recommendations GT38R1F1 (2013) – La conception, le dimensionnement et
la realisation de voussoirs préfabriqués en béton de fibres métalliques;
• DAUB (German Tunnelling Committee) (2013) – Recommendations for the design,
production and installation of segmental rings;
• ACI 544.7R-16 (2016) – Report on Design and Construction of Fiber-Reinforced Precast
Concrete Tunnel Segments;
• ITAtech (2016) – Design Guidance for Precast Fibre Reinforced Concrete Precast
Segments – Draft Report;
• ITA Working Group 2 (2016) – Twenty years of FRC tunnel segments practice: lessons
learnt and proposed design principles;
• PAS 8810, Design of concrete segmental tunnel linings – Code of practice
The upcoming guideline /code is:
• fib TG 1.4.1 – Tunnels in fiber reinforced concrete

9
EN 14651 bending test (material ductility)

EN 14651-2005: Test method

for metallic fibre concrete.
Measuring the flexural tensile
strength (limit of prop. (LOP),
residual)

10
EN 14651 bending test (material ductility)

Load corresponding to the

limit of proportionality FLOP Post-cracking residual loads FRj

Residual loads FR,i, referring to a defined CMODj

CMOD = Crack Mouth Opening Displacement (crack width)

11
EN 14651 bending test (material ductility)
From these results the limit of proporzionality (LOP) fL and the post-cracking residual flexural tensile strengths fR,j have been
calculated.

The limit of proportionality LOP is the stress at the tip of the notch which is assumed to act in an uncracked mid-span
section, with linear stress distribution, of a prism subjected to the centre-point load FL:

The residual flexural tensile strengths are the fictitious stresses at the tip of the notch which are assumed to act in an
uncracked mid-span section, with linear stress distribution, of a prism subjected to the centre-point load Fj corresponding to
CMODj where CMODj > CMODFL:

 F = is the load measured during the test [kN]

 l = is the span length (distance between support) = 500 mm
 b = is the width of the beam= 150 mm
 hsp = the distance between tip of the notch and top of the beam = 125 mm

12
EN 14651 bending test (material ductility)
Characteristic test results: fRjk = fRim – kx x sp

fRjk = characteristic value of the residual flex strengths (N/mm2)

fRjm = mean value of the residual flex strengths (N/mm2)
kx = factor dependent on the number of the specimens
sp = standard deviation (N/mm2)

fR1k = residual flex strengths (CMOD1 = 0,5 mm) (Serviceability Limit State)
fR3k = residual flex strength (CMOD3 = 2,5 mm) (Ultimate Limit State)
Residual loads FR,i, referring to a defined CMODj

CMOD = Crack Mouth Opening Displacement (crack

width)

13
EN 14651 bending test – 4D 80/60 fibers
• University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, February 2015
• 9 FRC beams (EN 14651), dosage rate 40 kg/m3, steel wire fibres L = 60mm, L/D = 80,
Rm,nom = 1800 N/mm2; improved hooked end (Dramix 4D 80/60BG)
• Average compressive strength at 28 days 61,20 MPa (8 cubic specimens tested),
max. aggregate diameter 25 mm, W/C < 0.40, CEM 42.5 N;
• Flexural tensile strengths: fLk = 4,30 MPa; fR,1k = 5,58 MPa; fR,3k = 7,65 MPa;
• Classification (Model Code 2010): fR,1k is the strength interval (1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0,
5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0, … [MPa]) and a letter a, b, c, d or e is the ratio fR,3k / fR,1k ratio:
a if 0,5 ≤ fR,3k / fR,1k < 0,7
b if 0,7 ≤ fR,3k / fR,1k < 0,9
c if 0,9 ≤ fR,3k / fR,1k < 1,1
d if 1,1 ≤ fR,3k / fR,1k < 1,3
e if 1,3 ≤ fR,3k / fR,1k

The tested material can be classified as 5e (5 < fR,1k = 5,58 Mpa < 6; 1,3 ≤ fR,3k / fR,1k)
This material has shown a bending hardening behaviour, which is typical of SFRC and
suitable for the crack control.

14
EN 14651 bending test – 4D 80/60 fibers

15
From the mechanical properties to the design values
Here below the steps to derivate the design values from a bending test:

• Applied Loads Fj vs Crack openings CMODj (EN 14651 bending test)

• Flexural tensile strengths: limit of proportionality fL, residual fR,j (EN 14651 / Model Code
2010)
• Characteristic values: fRjk = fR,jm - kx sp
• Classification: strength intervals fR,1k and residual strength ratios fR,3k / fR,1k (MC 10)
• Minimum requirements to be fulfilled: fR,1k / fLk > 0,4 & fR,3k / fR,1k > 0,5 (MC 10)
• Constitutive laws (MC 10)
• Material and loading safety factors: At ULS, a reduced safety factor gF ≥ 1.3 may be
adopted for improved control procedures (MC 10)
• Design values for the different loading conditions
• Interaction diagram M-N: (MC 10 / EC 2)

16
Design indications for Segmental Linings – 4D fibers

Fibre type: 4D 80/60BG

Dosage rate: 40 kg/m3
Concrete class (28 days): C40/50 (min)

MC10 classification: 4c (min)

17
Segment full scale test (structural ductility)
Possibility of totally removing the traditional reinforcement according to the MC10, 5.6.1
Introduction, fig. 5.6.1:
In all FRC structures without the minimum
conventional reinforcement, one of the following
conditions shall be satisfied:
dU ≥ 20 dSLS ; dPeak ≥ 5 dSLS
where du is the ultimate displacement, dPeak is
the displacement at the maximum load and dSLS
is the displacement at maximum service load
computed by performing a linear elastic analysis with the assumptions of uncracked concrete and
initial elastic Young’s modulus.
Usually, du is related to the maximum deformation requirement of the structure.
The ultimate load Pu should always be higher than the load at crack initiation Pcr and higher than the
maximum service load PSLS.

18
Segment full scale test (structural ductility)

Full scale tests to simulate:

• Ground pressure: bending tests
• TBM thrust forces: point load tests

19
 Segment full scale test (structural ductility)
BENDING TEST – Load vs Displacement and crack pattern
300

250 W2
W1
W3
200
Load (kN)

150

100

50

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Displacement (mm)

The first crack appears for a load value of about 170 kN, at the intrados surface close to the midspan of the
segment and propagates on the lateral surfaces.
It can be noted that multi-cracking phenomenon takes place.
In particular, a series of cracks forms close to the segment midspan both at the intrados and lateral surfaces.

20
Segment full scale test (structural ductility)
POINT LOAD TEST
During the test, the following
measures were continuously
registered:

 the load F, measured by

means of a 1000kN load cell
with a precision of 0.2%;
 the midspan displacement
measured by means of three
potentiometer wire
transducers placed along the
transverse line (Fig. 3.4);
 the crack opening at
midspan, measured by
means of two LVDTs;
The point load test was performed
by applying two point loads at the
segment, by adopting the same
steel plates used by the TBM
machine .
A uniform support is considered,
as the segment is placed on a stiff
beam suitably designed. Every
jack, having a loading capacity of
2000 kN, is inserted in a close ring
frame made with HEM 360 steel
beams and 50 mm diameter
Dywidag bars

21
 Material properties – cut off beams from segment

Tramway Nice Segmental Lining

In this project the client had requested to cut
some beams from the casted segment and test
them in flexion (EN 14651)

22
Material properties – Fiber’s distribution and segment
finishing – Melbourne and Singapore

23
Segmental lining design – Input Data
For a preliminary segmental lining design, the following information are required:
• Geometry of the Tunnel Segments: thickness, radius, width, segment angle, number
of the segments per ring, RAM shoes dimensions;
• Material properties: compressive and residual flexural strengths, at early and long-term
age;
• Material safety factors: concrete, FRC and steel rebars depending on the loading
conditions (EC2);
• Loading safety factors: for demoulding, the dynamic factor is gD = 3,00; for stacking gF
= 1,35 (static load factor) and gD = 1,50 (dynamic load factor) for TBM thrust loads, gj =
1,05 (for maximum load);
• Demoulding and handling: type of lifting device (mechanical or vacuum), lifting points
spacing or vacuum width;
• Segment’s storage: n°of segments stacked, stacking spacing, misalignment of the
supports;
• TBM thrust loads: max. TBM load, n°of rams, ram shoe dimensions, eccentricity;
• Axial forces N, bending moments M, shear forces V (ground loading)

24
Geometry of the tunnel segments

 Thickness t (mm) t

 Inner radius ri (mm)

 Width w (mm) α
ri
 Angle a (degrees)
w
 Number per ring (n + k)

Segment Information
Thickness t 400 mm
Inner radius ri 4250 mm
Width w 1600 mm
Segment developed length ld 3728,0 mm
Number per ring n 7 7,5
Key 1/2 0,5
Segment slenderness l d/t 9,32

25
Material properties
 Concrete compressive strength Cxx/yy (EN 206)
• Early age (demoulding & stacking) (Mpa)
• Long term (TBM thrust & ground loads) (Mpa)
 SFRC residual flexural strengths fRjk (EN 14651)
• Early age (demoulding & stacking) (Mpa)
• Long term (TBM thrust & ground loads) (Mpa)
 Steel bars
• Yield strength fyk (Mpa)
• Bar diameter (mm), spacing (mm), concrete cover (mm)
Material characteristics
TBM RAM loads
2
Characteristic compressive strength (cylinder) fck 45 N/mm
Characteristic compressive strength (cube) f cu 55 N/mm2
Fiber's type 4D 80/60BG
3
Dosage rate 40 kg/m
Characteristic limit of proportionality (CMOD = 0,05 mm) f LOP 4,41 N/mm2
Characteristic residual flexural strength (CMOD = 0,50 mm) f R1k 4,18 N/mm2
Characteristic residual flexural strength (CMOD = 2,50 mm) f R3k 5,16 N/mm2
Long term effects on the compressive strength coefficient a cc 1,00 #REF!
Characteristic residual tensile strength f Ftuk 1,72 N/mm2
Partial safety factor for concrete and FRC in compression gc 1,50 #REF!
Partial safety factor for FRC in tension gf 1,20
2
Design compressive strength f cd 30 N/mm

26
 Segmental lining design – Loading conditions (please note
that in the new ACI 544.7-16 design code are listed 11 different loading
conditions)

Demoulding & handling

 Lifting points spacing or vacuum width xd (3/5
cord length)
 Dynamic load safety factor gd (= 3,00)
 Failure mechanism: Flexural
 Testing required to confirm the design:
• Flexural strength (TR 63, table 9, pag. 63)
• Residual flexural strength (MC10 & ACI design
approach)
Demoulding
Segment angle a 48,0000 °
Radius at mid thickness R 4450,0 mm
Lifting points spacing (by default X d = 3/5 * C) Xd 1676,0 mm
Segment half angle ab 24,0000 °
Lifting segment half angle aa 10,8544 °
Segment arc length ld 3728,0 mm
Segment cord length C 3620,0 mm
Segment unit linear weight qw 10000 N/m2
Dynamic load factor gD 3,0
Cantilever end design bending moment M1 -15,06 kNm/m

27
 Segmental lining design
Stacking
 Number of stacked segments n
 Supports spacing x (3/5 segment cord length
is suggested)
Δx
 Eccentricity Dx (to limit at 100 mm possibly)
 Static load safety factor gf (= 1,35) x
 Dynamic load safety factor gDyn (= 1,50)
Stacking
 Failure mechanism: Flexural Segment weight per width meter W1 37280,2 N/m
Number of stacked segments N 7 7,5
 Testing required to confirm Misalignment of stacking points y 150 mm
Segment angle a 48,0000 °
the design: Radius at mid thickness R 4450,0 mm
Stacking supports spacing (by default x = 3/5 * C) x 2100,0 mm
• Flexural strength (TR 63, Half segment angle ab 24,0000 °
table 9, pag. 63) Stacking supports half angle aa 13,6479 °
Segment arc length ld 3728,0 mm
• Residual flexural strength
Segment cord length C 3620,0 mm
(MC10 & ACI design approach) Segment unit linear weight qw 10000 N/m2
Permanent loads factor gF 1,35
Dynamic load factor gDyn 1,5
Self weight bottom segment bending moment Mb 2,45 kNm/m
N-1 upper segments weight bending moment MN-1 18,17 kNm/m
Design bending moment at the mid-span of the bottom segment M = (Mb + MN-1) g F g Dyn 41,77 kNm/m

28
Segmental lining design
TBM thrust forces
 Maximum push of TBM Ft
 Number of rams shoes n°
 Width of ram shoe a
 Length of ram shoe b
 Jack force safety factor gf
 Max load eccentricity e Maximum load per each RAM jack
Installation stresses caused by the TBM applied load
F 1850 kN
Number of jacks per RAM shoe n° 2
 Failure mechanism: Tensile Number of RAM shoes n° 15
Width of RAM shoes (by default 75% of the thickness) ws 250 mm
bursting (TBM rams) Length of RAM shoes l RAM 1000 mm

 Testing required to confirm RAM load eccentricity e 40 mm

Spalling forces at ring joints
the design: Jacking force exerted by the TBM Q 3700 kN/m
RAM load safety factor gj 1,05
• Indirect tensile strength (TR Spalling force acting perpendicularly to the plane at 45° to the segment axis Z 68,68 kN/m
63, table 9, pag. 63) Section of the maximum tensile acting stress ls 106066 mm2/m
2
Maximum tensile stress on section l s fte,ls 0,647 N/mm
• Residual flexural strength Bursting force at ring joints
(MC10 & ACI design Jacking force exerted by the TBM Q 3700 kN/m
RAM load safety factor gj 1,05
approach) Bursting force Z1 627,27 kN/m
2
Bursting stress acting along a section of length equal to the segment width fte,s 1,742 N/mm

29
 Segmental lining design
Section forces (M-N)
generated by ground loads
and related safety factors
Failure mechanism: compressive
and tensile bursting (joints)
Testing required to confirm the
design:
 Indirect tensile strength and
compressive strength (TR 63)
 Residual flexural strength and
compressive strength (MC10 &
ACI design approach)

30
Verification of safety and serviceability for transient
and permanent loading conditions
The Model Code 2010 proposes two different constitutive laws for the SFRC in
tension:
 a rigid-plastic behavior (left)
 a linear post crack softening or hardening behavior (right)

Constitutive laws of SFRC concrete proposed in the Model Code 2010

rigid-plastic behavior (left) and linear post crack behavior (right)
31
Verification of safety and serviceability for transient
and permanent loading conditions

For a rigid-plastic behavior,

the tensile strength is:

f R 3k
f Ftuk 
3
Where:
 fFtuk is the ultimate residual
strength
 fR3k is the residual flexural tensile strength at crack opening = 2,5mm

32
Segmental lining design
Which constitutive law?
Is the choice making a difference?

“… Results show that choice of

constitutive laws does not have a
significant effect on the axial force-
bending moment interaction diagram of
FRC segments and subsequently does
not affect the design outcome”

Bakhshi & Nasri, Vancouver TAC 2014

33
Verification of safety and serviceability for transient
and permanent loading conditions

The design values for ULS check of the combined bending and compressive
stress section is obtained by dividing the characteristic value of residual tensile
strength fFtuk for the material safety factor of FRC.
For production under improved control procedures, as it is the case of
segments, a reduced safety factor gF ≥ 1.30 may be adopted (MC 10):

fFtud = fFtuk / gF

34
Verification of safety (ULS) – Bending and/or axial
compression in linear members (7.7.3.1, MC 10)
The bending failure stage is supposed to be reached when one of the following
conditions applies (figure below):
 attainment of the ultimate compressive strain in the FRC, ecu;
 attainment of the ultimate tensile strain in the steel (if present), esu;
 attainment of the ultimate tensile strain in the FRC, eFu;

35
Verification of safety (ULS) – Bending and/or axial
compression in linear members (7.7.3.1, MC 10)

36
Verification of safety (ULS) – Bending and/or axial
compression in linear members (7.7.3.1, MC 10)
Project name: Segmental Lining Design - West Segment Red Line
Project nr:
Location: Tel Aviv - Israel
Contractor:
Author: Bruno Rossi Concrete class: C45/55
Client: Fiber type: 4D 80/60BG
Standard: Model Code 2010 Fiber dosage: 40 kg/mc
600
allowable
compression:
0.8Nmin 400

200
M [kNm]

0
-12000 -10000 -8000 -6000 -4000 -2000 0 2000

-200

M-N domain
-400
0.8Nmin
NSd, MRd
-600

N [kN]
Date: 17 May 2016
Plotted domain: FRC (no reinforcement) Dominus v2.0

37
Verification of safety (ULS) – Shear in beams (7.7.3.2,
Model Code 2010)

7.7.3.2.1 Beams without longitudinal and shear reinforcement

7.7.3.2.2 Beams without shear reinforcement

7.7.3.2.3 Beams with shear and longitudinal reinforcement

7.7.3.2.4 Minimum shear reinforcement

38
Verification of serviceability (SLS) – (Model Code 2010)

7.7.4.1 Stress limitation (note that in structural elements having a

tension softening behavior after cracking, the tensile stress
verification is not necessary if the element is verified at the ULS)

7.7.4.2 Crack width in members with conventional reinforcement

7.7.4.3 Minimum reinforcement for crack control

For controlling the cracking in the elements under bending, if needed, a
minimum reinforcement should be applied, at least equal to:
As,min = kc · k ss (fctm - fFtsm) Act / ss

39
FRC segmental lining reference projects
From the early 90’s, over 80 projects have been realized with steel fibers, by
Bekaert and Maccaferri worldwide:
– 25 hydraulic projects
– 20 metro lines
– 21 utilities
– 9 railways
– 6 roads
– 3 others
• Over 50 of them are steel fiber’s only reinforced
• 33 are reinforced combining steel fibers and rebars
Max Fext for steel fiber’s only solution (Dramix): 12,4 m (North-South Bypass
Tunnel (Clem 7), Brisbane & Airport Link / Northern Busway, Brisbane)

40
Combined reinforcement for segmental lining:
Some (empirical) design indications from the Bekaert-Maccaferri
joint experience

41
Segmental linings: some case studies

 Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL), UK

 Big Walnut sewage tunnel, Columbus Ohio
 Brisbane Airport Link and Northern Busway, Australia
 Sao Paulo Metro Line 5, Brazil

42
Segmental linings
Case study: Channel Tunnel Rail Link, UK
Date: 2003-2004
Project name: Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL)
Tunnel type: Railway
Tunnel length: 20 km
Max int. diam.: 7,15 meters
Thickness: 350 mm
Fiber type: 3D 80/60BG
Dosage rate: 30 kg/m3 Table 1: Overall damage rate to segments CTRL project published in TT magazine

Concrete class: C40/50 Manufacturing process

Construction process

No. of segments Minor damage no Minor damage

Rejected Repaired Major repair
made repair needed controlled repair

(No.) (%) (%) (%) (%) (No.)

260,000 0.8 2.8 2.2 0.3 1

43
Segmental linings
Case study: Big Walnut sewage tunnel, Columbus Ohio
Date: 2005
Project name: Big Walnut sewage tunnel
Tunnel type: Sewage
Country: USA
Tunnel length: 4,8 km
Max int. diam.: 3,65 meters
Thickness: 230 mm
Fiber type: 3D 80/60BG
Dosage rate: 30 kg/m3
Concrete class: C40/50

44
Segmental linings
Case study: Brisbane Airport Link, Australia
Date: 2010
Project name: Brisbane Airport Link and Northern Busway
Tunnel type: Road
Country: Australia
Tunnel length: 6,7 km
Max ext. diam.: 12,4 meters
Thickness: 400 mm
Segmentation: 10 segments
Fiber type: 3D 80/60BG
Dosage rate: 40 kg/m3
Concrete class: C50/60

45
Segmental linings
Case study: Sao Paulo Metro Line 5
Date: 2012
Project name: Sao Paulo, Metro Line 5
lots 3 and 7
Tunnel type: Metro
Country: Brazil
Tunnel length: 11,5 km
Max ext. diam.: 8,43 meters
Thickness: 400 mm
Fiber type: 3D 80/60BG
Dosage rate: 35 kg/m3
Concrete class: C40/50

46
Concluding remarks

 Several guidelines (Model Code 2010 and others) are available

to provide you with a better designed solution for FRC segmental
linings
 More durable structures
 Greater crack width control
 Easier and faster construction
 Less risk adversed

47