Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03093

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cscm

Case study

Numerical and experimental investigation on synthetic

macrofiber-reinforced concrete manhole exposed to railway loads
Péter Károly Juhász a, d, *, Péter Schaul b, d, Boglárka Veres c, d
a
Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Department of Mechanics, Materials and Structures, Műegyetem rakpart 1-3, Budapest 1111,
Hungary
b
Budapest University of Technology and Economics, Department of Construction Materials and Technologies, Műegyetem rakpart 1-3, Budapest
1111, Hungary
c
Kodolányi János University, Business Administration and Management, Rákóczi utca 25, Székesfehérvár 8000, Hungary
d
JKP STATIC Ltd, Budapest, Hungary

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The refurbishment of railway lines and the installation of new tracks necessitate the construction
Synthetic macrofiber of numerous concrete manholes; therefore, the optimization of manholes should be investigated.
fiber-reinforced concrete To this end, the use of innovative materials in addition to advanced design methods with realistic
manhole
modeling is required. In the case of conservatively designed structures, there exists the possibility
numerical analysis
real-scale test
of redesigning the structure utilizing suitable fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) only. The main
carbon footprint analysis advantage of synthetic macrofibers over steel is their complete corrosion resistance, which is
essential in corrosive environments. Other advantages include their low carbon footprint, reduced
construction time, and cost-effectiveness. This paper outlines the optimization process for a
conventional cast-in-situ concrete manhole. The imperative for a monolithic construction system
stems from the diverse geometries and distinct designs of individual pipe culverts, compounded
by the often-challenging accessibility of installation sites. In the optimization phase, synthetic
macrofiber reinforcement replaced conventional reinforcing steel bars, using advanced finite
element analysis (FEA). The design was not conducted on an equivalent basis, resulting in po­
tential variations in the load-carrying capacity between reinforced concrete (RC) and FRC man­
holes. Nevertheless, both are deemed suitable for the specified loads. The conventional design
method used for RC and the advanced finite element design method used for FRC were scruti­
nized, taking into account the existing standard environment. Subsequently, a real-scale test was
conducted to validate the calculations. Carbon footprint analyses were performed for both the
original and proposed solutions, and the results were compared. The solution obtained in this
study is unique and pioneering in terms of both the calculation method and the structural design,
and the CO2 calculations validate its necessity.

Abbreviations: CMOD, crack mouth opening distance; FRC, fiber-reinforced concrete; PC, plain concrete; RC, reinforced concrete; SLS,
serviceability limit state; ULS, ultimate limit state.
* Correspondence to: JKP STATIC Ltd, Reitter Ferenc utca 100 B/2/4, Budapest 1135, Hungary.
E-mail address: office@jkp.hu (P.K. Juhász).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2024.e03093
Received 27 November 2023; Received in revised form 14 March 2024; Accepted 24 March 2024
Available online 28 March 2024
2214-5095/© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
P.K. Juhász et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03093

1. Introduction

Underground telecommunication utilities (manholes) [1] are widely used in Hungary to connect and extend ground cables near
railway stations. Numerous manholes were designed during the Budapest–Belgrad railway project [2,3], in which a modernized design
was required for economic and ecological reasons.
The efficiency of manholes is rather low because of the overly conservative design methods used for them. This was confirmed by
the results of a real-scale test conducted by Sabouni and Naggar [4], in which concrete manholes were tested in a large-scale
geotechnical testing facility at the University of Western Ontario, Canada. The soil surface was loaded with hydraulic jacks to
represent standard Ontario truck loads per the Canadian Highway Bridge Code. The plain concrete manhole did not crack during the
testing, and the actual stresses were well below the tensile strength. After the test, a finite element analysis (FEA) was performed using
the results to validate the finite element model [5]. Several studies have also performed finite element calculations, where exaggerated
safety was found owing to the conventional design method [6,7]. The high number of manhole installations warrant modernization of
load determination and improvements in manhole design methods; however, few studies have been conducted to investigate these
issues [6,8].
The required design life for manholes is typically 100 years, which is best satisfied by plain concrete or corrosion-resistant fiber-
reinforced concrete (FRC) [9]. The manhole type used in this study is an in-situ rectangular manhole, originally designed with
reinforced concrete. The main loads are from the surrounding soil, surface railways, and traffic loads. The cast-in-place walls are
connected to a base plate with dowels and closed at the top of the structure with a removable rectangular reinforced concrete lid. A
typical manhole is shown in Fig. 1. These manholes are mostly closed with lids and need to be opened only during maintenance and
repair processes.
Generally, manholes are designed and made of reinforced concrete (RC), with two layers of steel mesh in the walls and base slab.
During construction, the RC base slab is first made with connecting dowels. Then, the steel inner formwork is placed, and the soil is
used as an external formwork. After the steel reinforcement is placed, concrete is poured into the walls. Finally, a steel frame is placed
on the top where the lid will be laid. The use of a double steel mesh connected with supplementary bars slows the construction process
(such as the production of the steel armature and positioning in the formwork), increases cost, and, in the case of any structure in soil,
increases the possibility of corrosion. The use of corrosion-resistant reinforcing materials has therefore attracted considerable
attention.
Currently, one of the most widely used corrosion-resistant reinforcing materials is synthetic macrofiber reinforcement. Poly­
propylene fibers have been produced since 1954 and used as concrete reinforcement since 1965 [10]. One of the first manufacturers
was Propex in the USA. They manufactured synthetic microfibers in 1982 called Fibermesh, with a length of 12.7 mm (1/2 in.). These
fibers were used only to prevent early-age cracking of concrete, not for structural purposes [11,12]. In the 1980 s and 90 s, owing to the
development of the textile industry, new high-strength synthetic materials were developed, with the first macro synthetic fibers
appearing in 1990 [13]. The first report was made by Ramakrishnan regarding an extensive laboratory investigation at the South
Dakota School of Mines and Technology, where a novel polyolefin macrofiber series manufactured by the 3 M company was inves­
tigated [14]. Synthetic fibers for use in concrete are regulated by the European standard EN 14889–2:2006 [15], which distinguishes
between monofilament and fibrillated microfibers (less than or equal to 0.3 mm in diameter) and macrofibers (greater than 0.3 mm in
diameter). The industrial dosage for microfibers is up to 1 kg/m3, whereas that for macrofibers is usually between 2 and 10 kg/m3.
Only macrofibers can be used to achieve significant residual tensile strength in hardened concrete.
One of the primary advantages of synthetic fibers is their superior total corrosion resistance to that of steel fibers [16,17], which is
advantageous for structures in contact with the soil (XC2 exposure class). Additionally, the use of synthetic fibers facilitates the mixing
of the fibers with fewer fiber balls, mainly owing to the flexibility and geometry of synthetic fibers compared with steel fibers [18].

Fig. 1. Typical telecommunication manhole a) photography on site and b) drawing of main elements.

2
P.K. Juhász et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03093

Their flexibility implies that the formwork has less influence on the orientation of the fibers, resulting in uniform mixing [19]. The
creep behavior of fiber-reinforced concrete has received considerable attention, although no design method has been accepted yet. The
Austrian guideline Richtlinie Faserbeton [20] provides a method for creep testing but does not specify its use in the calculation. Creep
testing is important for cracked, continuously loaded structures such as jointless industrial floors. Another important material property
of fiber-reinforced concrete is embrittlement owing to aging, which is a change in the fiber–matrix relationship. Some studies have
considered this feature to be crucial, especially for steel fibers. Owing to the change in the fiber–matrix relationship, mainly because of
its strength, fiber rupture instead of fiber pullout becomes the typical failure mode, implying a significant decrease in residual strength
[21].
In general, the use of synthetic fibers can reduce the carbon footprint. Several studies have shown that the number of investors open
to green solutions in the construction sector will continue to increase [22], establishing the relevance of this analysis. The building
sector accounts for 39% of the total global CO2 emissions [23], with 28% from operational carbon and 11% from energy used to
produce building and construction materials, such as embodied emissions [24]. For the present structure, the total CO2 emissions are
embodied emissions with a limited amount of operational emissions. To achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, the global building
and construction sector aims for net zero carbon by 2050, and all new buildings must be net zero carbon by 2030 [25,26]. To maintain
the targeted focus, designs should be optimized to reduce the carbon footprint of construction, thereby reducing carbon emissions and
providing a sustainable solution that is financially beneficial. A solution can be scaled up only if it is attractive to investors. To meet
current expectations, a project must also be economically effective and time-efficient, which the current synthetic macrofiber solution
can help to achieve.
This paper first presents the design process and solution details of a conventional and commonly used RC manhole. Subsequently, it
delves into the optimization process. The concrete strength class and geometry of the manhole remained industry-standard and un­
alterable during optimization; thus, only the reinforcement type was changed. The manhole underwent a redesign employing
advanced finite element analysis with synthetic macrofiber reinforcement. Following the optimization results, a real-scale loading test
was conducted to showcase the effectiveness of the macrofibers and validate the numerical results. It is crucial to note that the FRC
manhole does not have the same load-bearing capacity as the RC manhole. Consequently, in terms of structural design, the macrofibers
are not a direct replacement for reinforcing steel. Finally, the paper compares the carbon footprint analyses of the original RC solution
with the optimized FRC solution.

2. Traditional design of manhole

2.1. Design code

For a conventional steel bar reinforced concrete structure, the applicable European design standard is the Eurocode, which consists
of 10 standards [27]. For the limit-state design and definition of partial safety factors for loads and the combination of actions included
in EN 1990:2011 [28], actions are defined in EN 1991–1–1:2005 [29], and resistance, durability, and serviceability of concrete
structures are determined according to EN 1992–1–1:2010 [30]. In special design situations, national annexes or company standards
may impose additional conditions.
When designing a reinforced concrete structure, the concrete should be classified into an exposure class based on the environmental
effects on the structure, defining, among others, the minimum concrete strength class and minimum concrete cover. The conditions
imposed by the environmental classes are intended to protect the reinforcement from corrosion. The concrete cover and minimum
amount of reinforcement can be determined using the minimum concrete cover and detailing rules. The spacing and anchorage be­
tween reinforcing bars are those necessary for the proper bonding of reinforcement and concrete, and the minimum amount of
reinforcement is a condition for the ductile behavior of the structure. Typically, the corrosion protection of steel and the minimal
amount of steel required for ductile behavior can lead to a load capacity significantly higher than necessary.

2.2. Materials

A manhole is an underground structure, the environmental characteristics of which can be classified per EN 206:2013 [31].
Carbonation-induced corrosion has an environmental class of XC2, implying that the structure is wet and rarely dry, which is typical
for many underground structures. The structure has moderate water saturation, and no de-icing agent is used, in terms of the effect of a
freeze/thaw attack XF2 class can be defined. It is exposed to soil moisture and soil vapor only because of the drainage system, which is

Table 1
Concrete strength class and components.
C25/30-XC2-XF2-XV0(H)-24-F3

Component Type Quantity (kg/m3)

Aggregate Round aggregate, 0–24 1880
Cement CEM III/A 32.5 R-MSR 350
Water 159
Superplasticizer MC Powerflow 5695 2.5
w/c 0.45

3
 P.K. Juhász et al.
4

Fig. 2. Railway load determinations a) vertical soil loads at different depths and b) soil loads on the manhole.

Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03093

P.K. Juhász et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03093

a special exposure class per MSZ 4798:2016 [32]: XV0(H). This type of concrete is moisture-proof but does not result in a watertight
structure, and therefore, there are no standard requirements for the watertightness of the structure (e.g., crack depth or thickness).
Based on the environmental classes, the minimum strength class is C25/30, with a maximum water/cement ratio of 0.55 and a
minimum cement content of 300 kg/m3. The cement used is CEM III/A, with a mean of 35–64% of ground granulated blast-furnace
slag (GGBS), 36–65% of Portland cement clinker, and a maximum side content of 5%. Following the EN 206 [31] k-value concept,
the water/cement ratio and minimum cement content must be modified; in this case, k = 0.6. The modified maximum water/cement
ratio is 0.47, and the minimum cement content is 349 kg/m3, considering 35% of GGBS.
The concrete strength class and mix design are presented in Table 1. A mix design for a good-quality concrete that can be produced
easily using mobile mixing plants should be employed. The slump of the concrete should enable it to be used on-site and be suitable for
proper compaction.
Standard steel reinforcement B500 is used following EN1992–1–1 [30]. S235 is used for structural steel elements.

2.3. Loads and effects

RC manholes must withstand various loads and impacts during their design life. A substantial part of the loads is due to earth
pressure: soil self-weight, groundwater pressure, and soil pressure from the surface rail and traffic loads. In addition, loads from snow
and traffic can be applied on manhole covers. However, these loads cause normal stress in the walls and are therefore negligible. The
structure is constructed by first excavating the necessary hole for the manhole and then constructing the bottom plate with connecting
bars. The walls of the manhole are cast between the outer soil and inner steel formwork. Owing to the construction technique, the
manhole is not subject to earth pressure at its early stage. However, continuous surface loading, groundwater, and rain may cause the
soil to become more compact, resulting in considerable ground pressure over time.
Owing to the small size of the structure, no shrinkage or temperature effects are considered in the design. The structure is not in
constant human use, and therefore, no substantial material damage would be reported in the case of failure. Furthermore, it would not
be considerably affected by earthquakes. Because of the underground location of the structure, buoyancy from groundwater may cause
floating induced by uplift forces; therefore, a stability design is required.
Typical but unfavorable parameter values were selected for use in the calculation to describe the soil mechanics because reports on
them were not provided at different locations. The pressure on the manhole wall due to the soil self-weight and groundwater is
calculated as follows:
( )
gsoil,x = K0 δeff + δwater H, (1)

K0 = 1 − sin ϕ, (2)

where gsoil,x is the soil pressure due to own weight of the soil and groundwater; K0 is the coefficient of earth pressure at-rest according
to Jaky [33]; ø (= 20◦ ) is the angle of internal friction of the soil; δeff (= δsoil – δwater = 10 kN/m3) denotes the effective weight of the
soil; δsoil (= 20 kN/m3) is the weight of the soil; δwater (= 10 kN/m3) is the weight of the water; and H denotes the depth of the manhole
(Fig. 2).
The pressure from the groundwater on the manhole base plate is calculated as follows:
qwater = δwater H (3)
2
The weight of the track is considered with a surface load of qtrack = 12.5 kN/m :
gtrack,x = K0 qtrack (4)
2
Traffic loads are considered with surface loads of qtraffic = 10 kN/m :
qtraffic,x = K0 qtraffic (5)

The soil pressure from railway loads is calculated according to e-VASUT 02.10.20 [34] Chapter 5.4. The loads were considered
using an equivalent surface load of qLM71 = 52 kN/m2 on a 3 m width. The standard provides the vertical values of the soil stresses at
depth of 1.5, 2.5, and 4.0 m (Fig. 2a), which can be used to calculate the soil pressure on the vertical wall surface using Eq. (6) (Fig. 2b).
For different depths, the value can either be extracted or interpolated. In the inner pressure zone, the loads due to rail traffic are
considered to be dynamic loads, whereas those in the outer pressure zone are considered to be quasi-static loads. The dynamic nature
of the rail load in the inner pressure zone is considered in e-VASUT 02.10.20 [34] by the use of a dynamic factor.
qLM71,x = K0 qLM71 (6)

The characteristic value of total horizontal load on the wall is px = gsoil,x + gtrack,x + qtraffic,x + qLM71,x. The safety factors were
considered based on EN 1990:2011 [28]: for the dead load γ G = 1.35 and the live load γQ = 1.50. Safety factors γ Q.railway = 1.45 for the
railway load and γQ.water = 1.00 for the groundwater load were used, in accordance with e-VASUT 02.70.02 [35].
Because few loads are involved, the load combinations were simplified as follows. For the ultimate limit state (ULS) following EN
1990:2011 [28] Chapter 6.4.3.2, combinations of actions for persistent or transient design situations (fundamental combinations):

5
 P.K. Juhász et al.
6

Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03093

Fig. 3. Loads acting on the manhole a) characteristic values of the loads b) load combinations.
 P.K. Juhász et al.
7

Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03093

Fig. 4. Construction phase and design solution for a typical RC manhole (all dimensions are in mm).
P.K. Juhász et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03093

⎧∑ ∑
⎪ γ G,j Gk,j ˝ + ˝γP P˝ + ˝γQ,1 ψ 0,1 Qk,1 ˝ + ˝ γQ,i ψ 0,i Qk,i
⎨
(7)
j≥1 i>1
∑ ∑
⎪
⎩ ξj γ G,j Gk,j ˝ + ˝γP P˝ + ˝γQ,1 Qk,1 ˝ + ˝ γ Q,i ψ 0,i Qk,i
j≥1 i>1

was simplified to
∑ ∑
γG,j Gk,j + γ Q,i Qk,i (8)
j≥1 i>1

For the serviceability limit state (SLS) following EN 1990:2011 [28] Section 6.5.3, quasi-permanent combination:
∑ ∑
Gk,j ˝ + ˝P˝ + ˝ ψ 2,i Qk,i (9)
j≥1 i≥1

was simplified to
∑ ∑
Gk,j + Qk,i (10)
j≥1 i≥1

The fatigue load combination was performed following e-VASUT 02.70.04 [36], design of reinforced concrete, prestressed con­
crete, and concrete bridges for railways, Chapter 6.7.1.:
( )
∑ ( ) ∑
Gk,j ˝ + ˝ Pk,inf orPk,sup ˝ + ˝ψ 11 Qk1 ˝ + ˝ ψ 2,i Qk,i + Qfat (11)
j≥1 i>1

Only the loads from vehicles (railway and traffic) were considered to be cyclic:
∑
Gk,j + Qfat (12)
j≥1

The loads acting on the manhole and the load combinations are summarized in Fig. 3.

2.4. Typical design solution

The first phase after excavation was the construction of a baseplate. A steel armature was placed on blind concrete, which was
poured at the finished excavation level. The baseplate of the manhole was reinforced with two layers of steel bars. The concrete covers
on both sides were 40 mm. The dowels connecting the walls were placed on the baseplate. The reinforcement of the walls, which was
arranged in two layers, overlapped with the connecting bars. In both the base plate and walls, the reinforcing bars were fixed to each
other with S stirrups, and the edges of the structure were sealed with U reinforcement. The concrete cover on the walls above the
ground was 40 mm on both sides. A steel element (L60.60.6) was placed on the top of the walls to support the cover lid. Although
various types of manholes exist, this study focuses on the design of the most commonly used standard-size manhole, characterized by
internal dimensions of 900 × 1630 mm and a depth of 1500 mm (see to Fig. 4).
As this is a conventional reinforced concrete structure, it can be designed using simplified methods or finite element software.
Typically, this type of software, which is used in general design practice, considers concrete as a linearly elastic material and can
determine the required amount of steel reinforcement. The amount of concrete in the structure examined is 2.37 m3, and the steel-bar
reinforcement content is 310 kg.

3. Design with synthetic macrofiber reinforcement

3.1. Standards and guidelines

Although no European standards for fiber-reinforced concrete are currently available, several guidelines have been proposed,
including RILEM (RILEM TC 162-TDF) [37], ACI (ACI-544) [38], Italian (CNR-DT 455) [39], and Austrian guidelines (Richtlinie
Faserbeton) [20]. The cited studies and others were used to develop Chapters 5.6 and 7.7 of the fib Model Code 2010 [40], which
pertains to FRC. The fib Model Code 2010 asserts that fibers with Young’s modulus significantly impacted by time and/or
thermo-hygrometric phenomena are deemed unsuitable (Chapter 5.6.1). However, the code does not provide specific criteria for
evaluating these critical aspects [41]. Nonetheless, when the design objective does not encompass considerations for creep or fatigue,
the fib Model Code 2010 is also applicable to synthetic fibers.
In the context of the Hungarian Railway Authorities, adherence to Eurocode standards is mandatory for the design, which
conventionally discourages the incorporation of fibers. This challenge was approached by structuring the design of the PC in the ULS
and SLS, as well as in fatigue (FAT), as outlined in EN 1992–1–1:2010 [30], Chapter 12. Furthermore, the Hungarian Railway Au­
thorities requires that the structure under rail load should be ductile; therefore, PC materials are excluded. To address this limitation, a
special ductility analysis was conducted with fiber-reinforced concrete, using the material model recommended by the fib Model Code
2010 [40].

8
 P.K. Juhász et al.
9

Fig. 5. Three-point bending beam test according to EN 14651 a) Experimental setup b) Typical load–CMOD diagram.

Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03093

P.K. Juhász et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03093

For unreinforced concrete, the failure of the structure is less ductile; therefore, the EN 1992–1–1 [30] Chapter 12 standard con­
siders this aspect with a factor of αcc,pl = 0.8 or αct,pl = 0.8, reducing the compressive strength and tensile strength of the concrete,
respectively. The ductility analysis was performed using an FRC material model, where the effect of the fibers was considered by
modifying the fracture energy [42].

3.2. Materials

The concrete strength class and mix design were left unchanged, as noted in Chapter 2.2. The fibers change the ductility of the
concrete, and the material will have residual strength after fracture. The EN 14651:2005 standard [43] is used to determine these
material parameters, although the standard specifies steel-fiber-reinforced concrete in its name. The test is conducted similarly for steel
and other fiber materials. The test was performed by loading a standard notched beam with a 3-point bending up to a crack mouth
opening distance (CMOD) of 3.5 mm (Fig. 5a). The load FR,j at different CMOD values are measured (Fig. 5b), and the residual strength
values fR,j, are determined as follows.
3FR,j L
fR,j = (13)
2bh2sp

The synthetic macrofiber used is a high-quality polypropylene fiber. Its parameters are presented in Table 2.
Prior to the analysis, FRC beams were fabricated using the actual concrete and fiber dosages of 3, 4, and 5 kg/m3. Twelve beams
were made at each fiber dosage, and residual flexural strength values (fR1– fR4) were determined. The coefficients of variations of the
test results were between 14% and 19%, which are reasonable values. The prescribed dosage was determined to achieve the minimum
residual strength defined by the fib Model Code 2010 [40] (fR,1,min = 1.0 MPa), which in this case was 4 kg/m3 (Table 3).

3.3. Numerical analysis

3.3.1. Constitutive model

For synthetic FRC manholes, both the design and construction of the manhole must deviate from the aforementioned methods.
Concrete is a quasi-brittle material that requires special finite element software for modeling. The finite element software must address
the combined failure surfaces of concrete and post-cracking fracture energy, which changes substantially with the addition of fibers.
Typically, these software packages are specialized for concrete structures.
Numerical analysis was performed using ATENA finite element software [45]. ATENA can simulate concrete behavior realistically
over the entire loading range with ductile and brittle failure modes [46–50]. It employs the finite element method and nonlinear
material models for concrete, reinforcement, and their interactions. The tensile behavior of concrete is described by smeared cracks
using the crack band theory [51], and the compressive behavior of concrete is described using a plasticity model with hardening and
softening. The fracture-plastic constitutive model (CC3DNonLinCem2, CC3DNonLinCem2FRC) is described in detail in the literature
[52,53].
Concrete was modeled using combined failure surfaces to model the different behaviors of concrete under tension and compression.
Many combined failure surfaces are available in the literature, the most commonly used are the von-Mises and Rankine, Druck­
er–Prager and Rankine, and Menétrey–Willam and Rankine surfaces (the Rankine cube is on the tension side), which are used by
ATENA (Fig. 6).
Compressed concrete has a stress–strain diagram following EN 1992–1–1:2010 [30] Chapter 3.1.5, whereas the tension diagram is
based on the Hordijk model [54]. The modified fracture energy method [42] was used to represent the post-cracking behavior of the
FRC. This model is similar to the rigid–plastic model recommended in the fib Model Code 2010 [40]. The material law diagrams are
presented in Fig. 6. The added fracture energy (GFf) is determined as follows:
GFf = ff wf (14)
where GFf is the added fracture energy according to Fig. 6., ff = fR,3/3 according to the fib Model Code 2010 [40], and wf = 3 mm.
To model the post-cracking behavior of concrete properly, a relationship should be established between the stress and strain and
stress–crack width diagrams using the characteristic length based on the crack band theory of Bazant [51]. ATENA uses a unique
characteristic length for each element and each crack direction, which leads to a result that is independent of the mesh size (Fig. 7).

Table 2
Synthetic macrofiber parameters [44].
Parameter Value/description

Fiber type Synthetic macrofiber

Tensile strength 640 MPa
Young’s modulus 10 GPa
Base material Virgin polypropylene
Fiber length 48 mm
Equivalent diameter 0.70 mm
Anchorage Continuously embossed

10
P.K. Juhász et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03093

Table 3
Mean residual strength values.
Dosage [kg/m3] Mean residual strength values [MPa]

fR,1 fR,2 fR,3 fR,4

3 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.9

4 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.2
5 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.6

3.3.2. Material parameters and geometry

The numerical model demonstrated the behavior of the manhole and its load-bearing capacity under the given loads. To ensure
calculation accuracy, the L60.60.6 steel element was also modeled. As the connection between the base plate and walls is different
from that in the conventional design, this connection was modeled with an interface material model at the joint. The parameters for
each material are presented in Table 4–7.
For a given limit state, the material model was calculated using the values listed in Table 8.
The geometry of the manhole is shown in Fig. 8a, and the position of the contact element is shown in Fig. 8 b. The loads presented in
Section 2.3 were applied to the structure, and only the asymmetrical loads were used as symmetrical loads, as a mistake in favor of
safety. Under these symmetrical loads, a symmetry condition was defined, and the subsoil action was considered with a nonlinear
spring acting only in compression, as shown in Fig. 8 c. The initial stiffness of the spring was set to K = 100 MPa.
In the models, standard isoparametric linear brick eight-noded elements were used with full integration using a Gaussian quad­
rature with eight integration points for the elements. The elemental size was 5 cm × 5 cm × 5 cm. A proper energy dissipation that is
independent of the finite element size was modeled using a crack band approach, where the crack band size was calculated as a
projection of the finite element size in a direction normal to the crack. The element sizes were selected such that at least four elements
were found through the height of the section, and their aspect ratios were in the range of 1–3, based on the experience of validation
studies [47–49]. The mesh sensitivity was checked using two other models, one with a 2 cm mesh size and the other with a 10 cm mesh
size. The difference between these results was negligible. The finite element mesh contained 6518 elements, and the running time of
the model was approximately 75 min. The iteration limit was set to 200. A nonlinear solution was obtained incrementally with
equilibrium iterations for each load step. The Newton–Raphson method was used with the default calculation settings of the program.

3.3.3. Numerical analysis of limit states

A PC material model was used in the limit state analysis calculations. For the ULS case, the design material parameters were used
with the ULS load combination (px,i,Ed). The load capacity of the structure was adequate if the structure could support the applied
loads, and no signs of failure were observed. In linear finite element calculations, the stress in the material is determined and compared
with the strength of the material. In the case of nonlinear calculations, the maximum strain and deformations can be investigated. In
the present case, failure is defined as the loss of equilibrium of the structure posed by convergence problems during the solution of
global equations. A structure is considered to be adequate in the ULS case if all steps in the calculation converge within the limits, and
deformations and crack openings are not significant. In the absence of a standard, the limit for displacement was set to Dlim = H/100,
where Dlim is the maximum allowable displacement and H is the height of the structure, such that Dlim = 1500 / 100 = 15 mm. For
cracks, the requirement is that no structural element can have a crack running fully through the entire element, i.e., no element can be
split into multiple parts.
For the SLS and FAT, the crack width of the structure must be limited to wlim = 0.2 mm. Because of the cyclic loads, the FAT
combination is significant in this case. The required loading cycle was 106, which is a good representation of the number of cycles over
the lifetime of the structure. In modeling the fatigue effects, the software considered the Wöhler curve for concrete and the cyclic
opening of cracks. These effects act as additional elongations in the material [55].

3.3.4. Numerical analysis of ductility

For the ductility analysis, PC and FRC mean material parameters were used with n×px,i loading. The load was increased in 5%
increments until the structure lost its equilibrium state, which was taken as the failure point of the structure. During the loading
process, the displacement at a designated point (monitor point) was measured, as shown in Fig. 9. The load intensity at the maximum
load was denoted as px,1,max, and the displacement was denoted δmax. For the ductility test, it was also necessary to determine the
displacement δlin associated with the elastic limit (first crack). The purpose of the ductility test was to demonstrate the effect of
synthetic fibers after concrete cracking. It is important to note that the meaning of the ductility of a structure is not clear, but it can be
defined in terms of the displacement measured at a given point for a given type of load. The ductility, μ of the structure can be
determined as follows:
δmax
μ= (14)
δlin

11
P.K. Juhász et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03093
Fig. 6. Material law diagrams.
12
P.K. Juhász et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03093

Fig. 7. Characteristic length, Lt for tension and Lc for compression.

Table 4
Material parameters of PC (C25/30).
Name Symbol CC3DNonLinCementitious2

design characteristic mean

Elastic modulus Ec [GPa] 31 31 31

Tensile strength ft [MPa] 0.96* 1.8 2.6
Compressive strength fc [MPa] 13.36* 25 33
Fracture energy GF[N/m] 30 45 65
Onset of crushing fc0[MPa] 2.52 3.78 5.46
Plastic strain εcp [-] 0.0015 0.0013 0.0010
Poisson coefficient ν [-] 0.2
Density ρ [kg/m3] 2400
*
material parameter calculated with αcc,pl = 0.8 at compression and αct,pl = 0.8 at tension

Table 5
Material parameters of FRC with 4.0 kg/m3
dosage.
Parameter Value

fR,1 [MPa] 1.0

fR,3 [MPa] 1.3
GFf [N/m] 1015

Table 6
Material parameters of structural steel (S235).
Name Symbol CC3DBiLinearSteelVonMises

design characteristic mean

Elastic modulus ES [GPa] 200 200 200

Yield strength fy [MPa] 235 235 235
Tensile strength fu [MPa] 360 360 360

Table 7
Material parameters of interface material (contact element).
Name Symbol CC3DInterface

Friction µ [-] 0.5

Cohesion c [MPa] 1
Tensile strength t [MPa] 0.03

3.4. Numerical results

3.4.1. Results of limit states

The FEA results showed that the investigated structures satisfied the requirements of the ULS, SLS, and FAT conditions. The
structure only cracked in FAT.
In the ULS, the structure suffered minor displacements, and no cracks appeared (Fig. 10a). The maximum displacement was DULS,

13
P.K. Juhász et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03093

Table 8
Material values used at different limit states.
Limit state Concrete Structural steel Fiber reinforcement

ULS design design –

SLS mean mean –
FAT characteristic characteristic –
Ductility mean mean mean

max= 0.05 mm, which was less than the set limit Dlim = 15 mm. The deformed shape of the structure was as assumed. The maximum
principal stress was fULS,max = 0.48 MPa, which was 50% of the design tensile strength of the material, ft,d = 0.96 MPa.
In the SLS, the structure remained crack-free, with a maximum deformation of DSLS,max = 0.037 mm. The maximum principal
tensile stress in the structure was fSLS,max = 0.354 MPa, which was 13% of the mean tensile strength of the material, ft,m = 2.6 MPa
(Fig. 10b). For cyclic loading under the FAT load combination, the concrete cracked owing to fatigue of the material (Fig. 10c).
However, the maximum crack width, wFAT,max = 1.8×10–3 mm, was significantly smaller than the maximum value, wlim = 0.2 mm.

3.4.2. Results of ductility analysis

The load–displacement diagram developed from the results of the ductility tests is shown in Fig. 11. This shows that the ductility of
the PC structure is extremely low: after the appearance of the first crack, the load-bearing capacity decreased. In contrast, both the
load-bearing capacity and ductility of the FRC structure increased. The load-bearing capacities of the structures were px,1,PC,max =
644.5 kN/m2 at a deformation of δmax,PC = 0.27 mm and px.1.FRC.max = 989.5 kN/m2 at a deformation of δmax,FRC = 10.37 mm for the
PC and FRC, respectively. The elastic limit was δlin = 0.21 mm for both the PC and FRC. According to Eq. (14), the ductility values for
the PC and FRC were μPC = 0.27 / 0.21 = 1.25 and μFRC = 10.37 / 0.21 = 48.0, respectively.

3.5. FRC design solution

In contrast to the construction method presented earlier, for manholes without steel-bar reinforcement, the sidewalls were first
constructed using soil and internal steel formworks, followed by the bottom slab of the manhole. The two structural elements are
connected using a mortise joint connection (Fig. 12). If necessary, the consistency of the concrete should be improved with a
superplasticizer to ensure proper compaction. The protruding fibers on the upper surface do not cause any usability and corrosion
problems and can be cut off, if necessary. In terms of construction time, there was no change in the excavation process, but a lot of time
could be saved by not preparing the blind concrete or positioning the reinforcement. Mixing the fibers into the concrete required
between 5 and 15 minutes of extra time, depending on the efficiency and speed of the mixer. Overall, significant labor and time savings
were achieved with the synthetic fiber reinforcement solution. The amount of concrete was the same as that for the RC, the amount of
steel-bar reinforcement was 0 kg, and the amount of synthetic macrofiber was 2.37 m3 × 4 kg/m3 = 9.48 kg.

4. Real-scale test and model verification

4.1. Test method

The large number of manhole installations, significant investment associated with them, and use of synthetic fiber reinforcement
justify the need to determine the load capacity of such structures by real-scale field testing. For comparison, PC and FRC manholes of
the same geometrical size were constructed, as shown in Fig. 12. The concrete strength class is listed in Table 1. For the FRC manhole,
the fiber parameters are listed in Table 2. Because there is no standard testing procedure for cast-in-place manholes, a special testing
method had to be defined. The following criteria were considered when developing the test method:
-the test must be carried out on site,
-the loading force must be able to be increased and measured continuously during the test,
-the capacity of the device used for loading must not be reached until failure of the manhole,
-the environment of the manhole must be kept as undisturbed as possible during the test,
-the testing should be reproducible,
-the measurement should allow conclusions to be drawn about the real load capacity, and
-the ductility should be determined.
Because the real surface loads on the structure cannot be generated and incrementally increased until failure, a point load, which
causes a failure similar to that which real loads would cause, as shown in Fig. 13, was used. This testing solution is typical for pre­
fabricated chamber and shaft elements for which standardized procedures are available [56,57]. The position of the point load was
determined so that the estimated maximum load did not exceed the capacity of the loading device used for testing, which was 500 kN.
To position the load, only the top of the shaft required a working pit excavation; the rest of the environment of the manhole remained
undisturbed. The manholes were all constructed on the same day, approximately 50 m apart, at the same location. The test load was
applied at 28 d of age. Cubes and prisms were cast from the concrete to confirm the material parameters. Photographs of the site
measurements are shown in Fig. 14.
An electric hydraulic tendon tensioning pump (ENERPAC ZE3) (Figs. 13 and 14a) was used to produce tension in the rod and apply

14
 P.K. Juhász et al.
15

Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03093

Fig. 8. Geometry and materials a) Finite element model of the structure, b) interface element, and c) supports and conditions.
P.K. Juhász et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03093

Fig. 9. Ductility model with monitor point.

a point load. The rod had a diameter of 20 mm and a nominal load capacity of 500 kN. The rod transferred the load to the manhole wall
through a 500 × 500 × 20 mm steel plate. The load was measured using two load cells with a load capacity of 500 kN, positioned
between the loading plate and anchoring nut (Figs. 13 and 14b). The displacement was measured at two locations on top of the
manhole walls using a linear variable differential transformer (Figs. 13 and 14a). The load was applied to the structure in 50 kN
increments with the force and displacement measured continuously.

4.2. Results

The concrete structure was loaded until failure occurred, and the FRC structure was loaded to 450 kN when the load capacity of the
rod approached. The structure was then unloaded, reloaded, and relieved after reaching the maximum allowable force. The measured
force–displacement diagrams are shown in Fig. 15. The maximum measured loads were Pmax,PC = 233.15 kN and Pmax,FRC = 467.54 kN
for the PC and FRC, respectively.
Failure of the PC manhole occurred immediately after the first crack appeared. A crack appeared on the upper plane of the wall in
the middle and corners (Fig. 19a). The central crack ran vertically down the inner face of the wall and cracked through the bottom
plate. A semicircular crack appeared on the outside.
The first crack in the FRC manhole appeared at a similar load level, but the load capacity increased thereafter. The crack split on the
inner side and progressed downward in several directions (Fig. 19b). A crack pattern similar to that observed for the PC manhole
developed on the outer side.

4.3. Numerical analysis of the real-scale test

A numerical model was built using the same material models and mean material parameters as those presented in Section 3.3.2. The
numerical model followed the geometry of a real-scale test, and the steel plates were modeled. The point load was added as a pre­
scribed deformation; thus, the load after the peak point was determined. The displacement was 0.2 mm at each step. Two monitor
points were used, namely, the reaction force at the loading point and the deformation at the top of the wall, that is, where the actual
measurement occurred (Fig. 16).
At the characteristic (service) value of the load (px,1 = 70 kN/m2), mean material parameters were used to determine the maximum
principal stress as described in Section 3.4.1, fSLS,max = 0.354 MPa, and the Px point load that caused the same stress was then
determined using the above numerical model (Fig. 17). This point load was Px = 32.5 kN. Assuming a crack-free condition, the stress
state generated by the service load can be produced by this load during real-scale testing.
The global safety can be estimated from the ratio of the peak point load Px,max to the equivalent point load Px for failure as follows:
Px, max
γR = (15)
Px
The load–displacement diagrams were also determined by FEA and plotted in a diagram together with the experimental results
(Fig. 18). The analytical results are a good approximation of the test results, both in terms of their characteristics and the value of the
maximum load. For the FRC manhole, the load was interrupted to achieve the load capacity of the tension rod; thus, the analytical
result approximated the actual load capacity, which was 567.5 kN. The elastic limit, also determined based on the FEA results, was the
same for both the PC and FRC: δPC,FEA,lin = δFRC,FEA,lin = 0.19 mm. The displacement at the maximum load was δPC,max = 0.72 for the PC
and δFRC,FEA,max = 5.99 mm for the FRC. Based on the experimental and numerical results, the ductility values determined using Eq.
(14) were μPC = 0.72 / 0.19 = 3.78 and μFRC = 5.99 / 0.72 = 8.31 for the PC and FRC, respectively.
The results of the numerical analysis are in good agreement with the experimental results, demonstrating the adequacy of the
material model and finite element method. The FRC manhole ductility was adequate, exceeding the required value of μmin = 2 by the
Hungarian Railway Authorities. In terms of load capacity, the maximum load capacity values are also well above the required values.

16
 P.K. Juhász et al.
17

Fig. 10. FEA results a) deformation x in ULS, maximum principal stress b) maximum principal stress in SLS c) crack width in FAT.

Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03093

P.K. Juhász et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03093

Fig. 11. Ductility of PC and FRC structure.

Based on the maximum and required load capacities, global safety of γ R,PC = 233.15 / 32.5 = 7.2 and γR,FRC = 567.52 / 32.5 = 17.4 for
PC and FRC, respectively, were determined.
For both the PC and FRC manholes, the numerical results approximated the real crack patterns well (Fig. 19).

5. Carbon footprint calculation

The building process comprises four important stages: design, production of raw materials, transportation of materials, and on-site
construction. Studies have shown that these phases account for approximately 1%, 90%, 3%, and 6% of the total CO2 emissions,
respectively [58–61]. The total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were measured as carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), which refers to
the number of metric tons of CO2 emitted with the same global warming potential as one metric ton of another greenhouse gas, usually
in a 100-year interval. In this calculation, the carbon footprint of the project was measured in CO2e following the GHG protocol [62].
One of the most important phases during the design is choosing the right materials, in our case, cement, aggregate, and reinforcing
material (steel or macro synthetic fiber). Without an optimized design method, this impact can be reported as a significantly high value
of CO2 emissions. In the following, the declared unit is 1000 kg of material. Based on the Environmental Product Declaration (EPD),
the emission of CEM III/A cement is 305 kg CO2e which is a lower emission factor compared to ordinary Portland cement which is
1165.50 kg CO2e, because of the high burning temperature required to produce clinkers. Aggregates are the most mined material in the
world, which is approximately 10 times the production of cement and 30 times the production of steel. The EPD of used aggregates
shows the generation of 3.32 kg CO2e, including extraction and processing. Steel and iron production are derived from energy con­
sumption and rely on coal [63]. The carbon footprint of steel rebar is 395 kg CO2e, while synthetic macrofibers account for 1990 kg
CO2e [64].
The calculations followed the GHG protocol, which represents a comprehensive global standardized framework for measuring and
managing GHG emissions. Particularly, synthetic fibers exhibit a greater potential than is currently known. Significant CO2e footprint
reductions can be achieved by selecting additives using an optimized mix design. Calculation of the raw material stage includes the
CO2e emissions of the production of the components. The EPD system distinguishes different life stage modules. During our calcu­
lations, the product stage data was used which includes A1-A3 stages. A1 is the raw material supply, including the processing of
secondary material input, A2 is the transport of the raw material and secondary material input, and A3 is manufacturing.
The CO2e values in Table 9 were calculated using the following equation:
CO2 e = M × GWP (16)
Based on the presented calculations according to Table 9, the original design resulted in 392.45 kg CO2e emissions, whereas the
fiber-reinforced manhole resulted in 288.85 kg CO2e emissions, thereby amounting to a 26% reduction. According to the literature,
using synthetic macrofiber can result in 50–67% of GHG just by replacing steel reinforcement [65]. Further, its use requires less
working time in terms of transportation, cutting, bending, installation, and cost-effective inspection.

6. Conclusion

The presented structure is a cast-in-situ underground manhole that requires minimal maintenance. Owing to the simplicity of the
structure, insufficient attention has been paid to its optimization; thus, its design is typically based on conservative methods, leading to
an overdesign. Because of the high number of manholes used, design optimization is also justified from economic and sustainability
perspectives. In this study, the design and real-scale tests were presented for a manhole to demonstrate the applicability and adequacy
of the use of synthetic macrofiber and advanced calculation methods.

18
 P.K. Juhász et al.
19

Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03093

Fig. 12. Construction phase and design solution of a typical FRC manhole (all dimensions are in mm).
P.K. Juhász et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03093

Fig. 13. Test loading setup.

Fig. 14. Photographs of the real-scale tests.

Fig. 15. Load–displacement diagrams.

20
P.K. Juhász et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03093

Fig. 16. Numerical verification model a) prescribed displacement (e) and b) monitor point.

Fig. 17. Principal stress distribution for a) real load case and b) test setup.

During the optimization, the geometry and the concrete strength class had to remain unchanged, as these must conform to railway
standards. Thus, only the reinforcement material could be varied. The calculation presented is a possible method for designing a
synthetic macrofiber in the absence of a standard environment. During the design process, beam tests were conducted to ascertain the
type and dosage of fiber reinforcement to be used, with the goal of identifying the minimum dosage that would be in accordance with
the relevant standards. The numerical analysis encompassed the ULS, SLS, and FAT using PC, while the ductility analysis employed
FRC. The analysis results demonstrated that the structure fulfilled the requirements at the selected fiber dosage. Compared with the
limited possibilities for optimization, the solution achieved significant reductions in the carbon footprint and construction time.
For a comprehensive understanding of the behavior and ductility of the structure, a real load test was conducted, providing a means
to validate the numerical results. To assess the true ductility of the structure, the real-scale test had to be arranged in such a way that
the structure could be loaded to failure while forces and displacements were measured continuously. Accordingly, the manholes were
subjected to failure under a point load, with simultaneous measurement of force and horizontal displacement. The real-scale testing
affirmed the notable load capacity and ductility of the FRC manhole, validating the numerical analysis method.
Sustainability and economic analyses also showed that the structure had considerable advantages over conventionally reinforced
structures. Based on the presented calculations, the CO2e emissions were reduced by 26%.
The main advantages of synthetic fiber-reinforced structures can be summarized as follows:

- they have sufficient load-bearing capacity and high ductility,

- as in-ground structures, they are significantly more resistant to corrosion than reinforced structures,
- sustainability analyses show that they have a lower CO2e footprint than conventional reinforced structures,
- from an economic perspective, the structure requires less labor for production, and the construction process is faster.

After verifying the numerical method and real-scale test, the design method was accepted by the Hungarian Railway Authority, and
further manholes with different geometries were redesigned and optimized using synthetic macrofiber. Based on the calculation and
real-scale test outcomes, the Hungarian Railway Authority endorsed the proposal to amend the geometric standard, specifically by
reducing the thicknesses of the wall and base slab. This adjustment facilitates further optimization.

21
P.K. Juhász et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03093
Fig. 18. Test and analytical results of PC and FRC.
22
P.K. Juhász et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03093

Fig. 19. Crack propagations a) PC, and b) FRC.

Table 9
CO2e footprint calculations for one manhole.
Material Material quantity, M Emission factor, GWP CO2e (A1-A3) [kg]
[kg] [CO2e kg/t]
RC FRC

Aggregate 4455 3.32 14.79 14.79

Cement 829.50 305 253.00 253.00
Superplasticizer 5.92 369 2.19 2.19
Synthetic macrofiber 9.48 1990 – 18.87
Steel reinforcement 310 395.05 122.47 –
Total: 392.45 288.85

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Péter Károly Juhász: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Visualization, Validation, Supervision, Resources,
Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data curation, Conceptualization. Boglárka Veres: Writing –
review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Project administration, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Data
curation, Conceptualization. Péter Schaul: Writing – review & editing, Writing – original draft, Validation, Software, Project
administration, Methodology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Conceptualization.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Data Availability

Data will be made available on request.

23
P.K. Juhász et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03093

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude to the Hungarian Railway Authority (MÁV), V-Híd Zrt., Strabag Vasútépítő Kft., Kontúr Csoport
Kft., and Föl’d Pörgető Kft. for their assistance and support.

References

[1] S.M. El-Haggar, Industrial solid wastes utilization and disposal, in: N.L. Nemerow, F.J. Agardy, P. Sullivan, J.A. Salvato (Eds.), Environmental Engineering:
Environmental Health and Safety for Municipal Infrastructure, Land Use and Planning, and Industry, Sixth Edition, John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken, 2009,
p. 21. ISBN: 978-0-470-08305-5.
[2] Chinese-Hungarian Railway Non-profit Private Limited Company, https://www.mavcsoport.hu/bbproject/, 2017 (accessed 25 October 2023).
[3] Budapest–Belgrade railway project, https://www.gov.cn/ldhd/2013-11/26/content_2534550.htm (accessed 25 October 2023).
[4] R. Sabouni, M.H. El Naggar, Circular precast concrete manholes: experimental investigation, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 38 (3) (2011) 319–330, https://doi.org/10.1139/
L10-135.
[5] R. Sabouni, M.H. El Naggar, Circular precast concrete manholes: numerical modeling, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 38 (8) (2011) 909–920, https://doi.org/10.1139/l11-
059.
[6] N.K. Yadav, K. Senthil, S. Bawa, A. Thakur, Evaluation of Sensitive Parameters in the Design of Deeper Manhole, in: G.C. Marano, A.V. Rahul, J. Antony, G. Unni
Kartha, P.E. Kavitha, M. Preethi (Eds.), Proceedings of SECON’22. SECON 2022. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 284, Springer, Cham, 2023, https://doi.
org/10.1007/978-3-031-12011-4_89.
[7] A. Abbas, F. Ruddock, R. Alkhaddar, G. Rothwell, R. Andoh, Improving the geometry of manholes designed for separate sewer systems, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 46 (1)
(2019) 13–25, https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2018-0057.
[8] H.I. Al-Saleem, W. Langdon, Precast Concrete Manholes - a Review and Upgrade of Current Practice, in New Zeland’s Stormwater Conference 2016, https://
www.waternz.org.nz/Article?Action=View&Article_id=1138, Nelson, New Zealand, 18-20th May 2016.
[9] D.A. Hofer, J.W. Shelton, R. Fernandez, R. Thomasson, Pipe & Manhole Materials for a 100+ Year Design Life. in: Proceedings of the 83rd Annual Water
Environment Federation Technical Exhibition and Conference, Water Environment Federation, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, 2010, pp. 1476–1485, 10.2175/
193864710798158724, https://www.accesswater.org/?id=-297480.
[10] A. Brandt, Cement-based composites, first ed, Routledge, London, 2009.
[11] V. Ramakrishnan, Materials and properties of fibre reinforced concrete. Proceedings of the International Symposium on Fibre Reinforced Concrete, Madras,
1987.
[12] N. Banthia, C. Yan, Shrinkage cracking in polyolefin fiber reinforced concrete, Am. Concr. Inst. Mater. J. 97 (4) (2000) 432–437.
[13] M.G. Alberti, Polyolefin fibre-reinforced concrete: from material behaviour to numerical and design considerations, Ph.D. thesis, Universidad Politécnica de
Madrid, Madrid, 2015.
[14] V. Ramakrishnan, Performance Characteristics of 3M Polyolefin Fibre Reinforced Concrete. Report submitted to the 3M Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1993.
[15] EN 14889-2:2007. Fibres for concrete. Part 2: Polymer fibres. Definitions, specifications and conformity. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
[16] G. Jen, C.P. Ostertag, Experimental observations of self-consolidated hybrid fiber reinforced concrete on corrosion damage reduction, Constr. Build. Mater. 105
(2016) 262–268.
[17] E. Nordström, Steel fibre corrosion in cracks durability of sprayed concrete. Licentiate thesis, Lulea University of Technology, Lulea, 2000.
[18] K.P. Juhász, The effect of synthetic fibre reinforcement on the fracture energy of the concrete. PhD thesis, Budapest Technical University, Budapest, Hungary,
2018.
[19] K.P. Juhász, Effects on pouring technique on orientation of steel and synthetic macrofibers in fibre-reinforced concrete, Concr. Struct. (2020), https://doi.org/
10.32970/CS.2020.1.1.
[20] Österreichusche Vereinigung für Beton- und Bautechnik, Richtlinie Faserbeton, ÖVBB, Vienna, 2008.
[21] S.E. Bernard, Embrittlement of fiber-reinforced shotcrete, Shotcrete 10 (3) (2008) 16–21.
[22] Dodge Data & Analytics, World Green Building Trends 2021, https://www.corporate.carrier.com/Images/Corporate-World-Green-Building-Trends-2021-1121_
tcm558-149468.pdf (accessed 21 November 2023).
[23] Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction, International Energy Agency and the United Nations Environment Programme (2019): 2019 global status report
for buildings and construction: Towards a zero-emission, efficient and resilient buildings and construction sector.
[24] World Green Building Council, Bringing embodied carbon upfront, 2019, https://worldgbc.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/
22123951/WorldGBC_Bringing_Embodied_Carbon_Upfront.pdf (accessed 21 November 2023).
[25] United Nations Environment Programme, A. Inger, 2020, UNEP in 2019 - Letter from the Executive Director [Annual Report] https://wedocs.unep.org/handle/
20.500.11822/32374 (accessed 21 November 2023).
[26] United Nations Climate Change, Annual Report 2021, https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/UNFCCC_Annual_Report_2021.pdf (accessed 21 November
2023).
[27] Eurocode, https://eurocodes.jrc.ec.europa.eu/, (accessed 25 October 2023).
[28] EN 1990, Eur.: Basis Struct. Des. Eur. Comm. Stand., Bruss. (2011).
[29] EN 1991-1-1, Eurocode 1: Actions on structures. Part 1-1: General actions. Densities, self-weight, imposed loads for buildings. European Committee for
Standardization, Brussels, 2005.
[30] EN 1992-1-1, Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. Part 1-1: General rules and rules for building, Eur. Comm. Stand., Bruss. (2010).
[31] EN 206:2013+A2, Concrete. Specification, performance, production and conformity. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels, 2021.
[32] MSZ 4798:2016/3M, Concrete. Specification, performance, production, conformity, and rules of application of EN 206 in Hungary. MSZT/MB 107, Budapest,
2021.
[33] J. Jaky, Earth pressure in soils, in: Proceeding of the 2nd international conference on soil mechanics and foundation engineering, vol I, Rotterdam, 1948.
[34] e-VASUT 02.10.20 (2014) Vasúti alépítmény tervezése, építése, karbantartása és felújítása, https://portal.maut.hu/.
[35] e-VASUT 02.70.02 (2018) Vasúti hidak és egyéb műtárgyak méretezésének általános előírásai, https://portal.maut.hu/.
[36] e-VASUT 02.70.04, Vasúti vasbeton, feszített vasbeton éS. Beton Tervezése (2018). 〈https://portal.maut.hu/〉.
[37] L. Vandewalle, et al., RILEM TC 162-TDF: Test and Design Methods for Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete – σ-ε 449 Design Method – Final Recommendation,
Mater. Struct. 36 (8) (October 2003) 560–567.
[38] ACI Committee 544, Design Considerations for Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Acids Struct. J. 85 (5) (1998) 563–579, https://doi.org/10.14359/3144.
[39] National Research Council, Guide for the Design and Construction of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Structures, CNR-DT 455 204/2006, National Research Council,
Rome, Italy, 2006.
[40] fib, Model Code 2010 - Final Draft vol. 1 (2012), https://doi.org/10.35789/fib.BULL.0065.
[41] G. Plizzari, P. Serna, Structural effects of FRC creep, Mater. Struct. Vol. 51 (No. 167) (2018), https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-018-1290-0.
[42] K.P. Juhász, Szintetikus szálerősítésű betonok hozzáadott törési energiája az adalékanyag függvényében (The added fracture energy of the synthetic fibre
reinforced concrete as a function of the aggregate, in Hungarian), ÉpítéS. -ÉpítészettudomáNy. Vol. 43 (No. 3-4) (2015) 317–329.
[43] EN 14651:2005+A1:2008. Test method for metallic fibered concrete. Measuring the flexural tensile strength (limit of proportionality (LOP), residual). European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
[44] BarChip Inc. https://barchip.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/EPC_PDS_BarChip48_2017_email.pdf.

24
P.K. Juhász et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 20 (2024) e03093

[45] V. Červenka, L. Jendele, J. Červenka, Advanced Tool for Engineering Nonlinear Analysis (ATENA) 5.9.1c, Prague, 2023, https://www.cervenka.cz/products/
atena/.
[46] M.P. Collins, F.J. Vecchio, G. Mehlhorn, An international competition to predict the response of reinforced concrete panels, Can. J. Civ. Eng. 12 (3) (1985)
624–644, https://doi.org/10.1139/l85-070.
[47] Michael Collins, Evan Bentz, Phillip Quach, Giorgio Proestos, The Challenge of Predicting the Shear Strength of Very Thick Slabs, Concr. Int. 37 (2015) 29–37.
[48] G. Kovács, K.P. Juhász, Precast, pre-stressed grandstand of PFRC in stadium, Hungary. In: Proceedings of Central European Congress on Concrete Engineering:
Concrete Structures in Urban Areas, Polland: Wrocław, 2013.
[49] Juhász Károly Péter, Nagy Lóránt, Ralf Winterberg, Full-round Numerical Modelling of a Macro Synthetic Fibre Reinforced TBM Tunnel in the Shanghai Metro
Extension. 15th Australasian Tunneling Conference 2014: Underground Space - Solutions for the Future, Konferencia helye, ideje: Sydney, Ausztrália, 2014,
pp. 477–483.
[50] K.P. Juhász, P. Schaul, J. Hammond, Numerical modelling of a precast fibre reinforced concrete track slab. Proceedings of Central European Concrete
Conference 2017, Innovative materials and technologies for concrete structures, Hungary: Tokaj, 2017, pp. 640–647.
[51] Z.P. Bazant, B.H. Oh, Crack Band Theory for Fracture of Concrete, Mater. Struct., RILEM Vol. 16 (1983) 155–177.
[52] V. Červenka, L. Jendele, J. Červenka, ATENA Program Doc. Part 1 (2021). 〈https://www.cervenka.cz/assets/files/atena-pdf/ATENA_Theory.pdf〉.
[53] J. Červenka, V.K. Papanikolaou, Three dimensional combined fracture–plastic material model for concrete, Int. J. Plast. Volume 24 (Issue 12) (2008)
2192–2220, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijplas.2008.01.004.
[54] D.A. Hordijk, Local Approach to Fatigue of Concrete, Doctor dissertation, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands, 1991. ISBN 90/9004519-8.
[55] D. Pryl, J. Cervenka, R. Pukl, Material model for finite element modelling of fatigue crack growth in concrete”, Procedia Eng. 2 (2010) 203–212.
[56] EN 1917, Concrete manholes and inspection chambers, unreinforced, steel fibre and reinforced, Annex A. European Committee for Standardization, Brussels,
2002.
[57] ASTM C497-20e1. Standard Test Methods for Concrete Pipe, Concrete Box Sections, Manhole Sections, or Tile. https://doi.org/10.1520/C0497-20E01.
[58] M.-S. Seo, T. Kim, G. Hong, H. Kim, On-Site Measurements of CO2 Emissions during the Construction Phase of a Building Complex, Energies 9 (8) (2016) 599,
https://doi.org/10.3390/en9080599.
[59] Xianwei Wang, Zhengyu Duan, Lingsheng Wu, Dongyuan Yang, Estimation of carbon dioxide emission in highway construction: a case study in southwest region
of China, J. Clean. Prod. Volume 103 (2015) 705–714, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.10.030.
[60] M. Fischedick, J. Roy, A. Abdel-Aziz, A. Acquaye, J.M. Allwood, J.-P. Ceron, Y. Geng, H. Kheshgi, A. Lanza, D. Perczyk, L. Price, E. Santalla, C. Sheinbaum,
K. Tanaka, Industry, in: O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier,
B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel, J.C. Minx (Eds.), Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of
Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA, 2014.
[61] T. Jafary Nasab, S.M. Monavari, S.A. Jozi, H. Majedi, Assessment of carbon footprint in the construction phase of high-rise constructions in Tehran, Int. J.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 17 (2020) 3153–3164, https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-019-02557-3.
[62] Greenhouse Gas Protocol, Technical Guidance for Calculating Scope 3 Emissions (version 1.0) https://ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/2023-03/Scope3_
Calculation_Guidance_0%5B1%5D.pdf (accessed 21 November 2023).
[63] M. Seddik Meddah, Recycled aggregates in concrete production: engineering properties and environmental impact, MATEC Web Conf. Volume 101 (2017),
https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/201710105021.
[64] IEA, Global CO2 emissions in 2019, https://www.iea.org/articles/global-co2-emissions-in-2019, (accessed 21 November 2023).
[65] T. Cutright, M. Mahoney, K. Franey, A. Patnaik, Carbon footprint assessment of polypropylene fiber reinforced concrete floors, Int J. Constr. Environ. 3 (1)
(2013) 73–84.

25