Lecture 06 - Di Prisco

Prefabricated tunnel segments
SFRC solution
M. di Prisco
Outline
transient phases during segment production
bending resistance in FRC structures
shear resistance in FRC structures
KRd factor
TBM jack pushing: strut and tie model with and
without fibres, 2D and 3 D conditions
Structural design models for transient stages

DEMOULDING AND FIRST HANDLING
Considering additional loads due to:
Adhesion: 2 kN/m2
Humidity: 0.5 kN/m3
Dynamic increasing factor: 20% Wc
ACCIDENTAL SETTINGS
Scheme 1
Scheme 2
Considering additional load:
Dynamic increasing factor:

60% Wc
STOCKPILING
Considering both:
External
Internal
Disalignment
ACCIDENTAL SETTINGS
Bending of FRC structures
7.7.3 Verification of safety (ULS)

7.7.3.1 Bending and/or axial compression in linear members
(1) The bending failure is considered when one of the following
conditions is obtained (see Fig.XX.7):
attainment of the maximum compressive strain in the FRC, ecu;
attainment of the maximum tensile strain in the steel (if present), esu;
attainment of the maximum tensile strain in the FRC, eFu.
e cu
f cd
f cd
N Sd
f Fts / F
Asl
y
M Rd
e su
e Fu
hardening
softening
f Ftu / F
Structural constraints to remove bars

For FRC structures without the minimum reinforcement
du(wu) 20 dSLS
or
dpeak 5 dSLS
Pu > Pcr
Du
dpeak
dSLS
Load
MAX
SLS
CR
crack
formation
SLS
PEAK
ultimate displacement
Displacement
displacement at the maximum load
displacement at service load computed by performing a
linear elastic analysis with the assumptions of uncracked
condition and initial elastic Youngs modulus.
Experimental programme
30
30
S1
30
30
2x
2x
P1
P2
30
30
3x
3x
30
Post-tensioned beams
30
Not Post-tensioned beams
R0
S0
30
30
Total: 15 beams (6 typologies)

30
3x
30
2x
Mechanical properties
fck [MPa]
Cement CEM I 52.5R
[kg/m3]
Agg. < 12mm
[kg/m3]
M2
60
400
569
Agg. < 8mm [kg/m3]
403
Agg. < 4mm [kg/m3]
676
Filler [kg/m3]
96
Plasticizer/cement
Water /binder
2.2%
0.39
Class 4a
Df [mm]
Lf [mm]
Aspect ratio
Tensile Strength [Mpa]
Type
F4
0.8
60
75
1192
hooked
end
Fibre dispersion
Test modelling: uniaxial constitutive relationships

a = 0.83
2000
[MPa]
1600
1200
steel
800
400
0
0
Model Code 90
0.02
0.04
0.06
Test modelling: FE approach
S2C
Reliability of the model
Reliability of the models
d peak
5.3 / 1.3 4.07 5

d SLS
S1
30
R0
30
Constraint check
30
30
400
P [ kN ]
peak
m =1
300
SLE
200
100
R0B
S1C
S0A
0
0
30
60
d [ mm]
90
120
Example: beam in FRC 300x300x3000 mm

Class 4a: fR1k= 4 MPa; fR3k= 2 MPa
Rigid-plastic method
f Fu ,d ( f R3 ,k ) /( 3 * 1.5 ) 0.44 MPa
M Rd f Ftud bh
h
6kNm
2
Pu MRd * 2 * KRd 12 * 1.3 15.6 kNm
Linear softening method

f Fts ,d ( 0.45 f R1,k ) / 1.5 1.2MPa
f Ftu ,d ( 0.5 f R3 ,k 0.2 f R1,k ) / 1.5 0.13MPa
e Fu 0.02
lcs 300mm
wu min( 2.5mm;0.02 lcs ) 2.5mm

M Rd f Ftud b
hh
hh
( f Ftsd f Ftud )b
6.57 kNm
2
6
Pu 2M Rd K Rd 17 ,08kN
u wu / h 2.5 / 300 0.0083

du 1500 ( u / 2 ) 6.25mm
the key role of the scattering

Nominal Stress s N [MPa]
5
4
3
2
f k f m ks
1
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
CTODm [mm]
Load vs. Central deflection

350
P = P (fm)
300
Load [kN]
250
P = P (fk)
200
Slab P22 50/0,75 Vf=0,38 %
150
Slab P21 50/0,75 Vf=0,38 %
100
Slab P20 50/0,75 Vf=0,38 %
50
0
0
di Prisco, M., Failla, C., Plizzari, G.A., Toniolo, G

(2004).
Central deflection [mm]
the key role of the scattering

tests
PRd = KRd P(fFd)
V
V0
2
5
KRd = KRd
Pmax,k f m
1.4
(V/V0 , Pmax/Pcr) =
Pmax,m f k
CONCRETE RETAINING (cantilever) WALL
MC (2010) classification of SFRC:

Class 2b - Vf = 25kg/m3
Courtesy by Giovanni Plizzari
Load condition
Surcharge
d SLU
d SLS
35
rebar : s 0.15%
SLU
Material design values
SLS
Models for members without shear reinforcement:

MC 90 and EC2 approach
Zsutty, T. C., 1968, Beam shear strength prediction by analysis

of existing data, ACI Journal, November 1968, Vol. 65, No. 11,
pp. 943-951
Shear resistance without shear

reinforcement
MC 90 and EC2 approach
VR,c = Cbdk1/3fck1/3+ Cpbdcp

Prestressing (EC2)
Concrete strength
Reinforcement ratio
Size effect
Area of cross section
w = 1.5
3
0.18
f Ftuk
VRd,F
k 100 1 1 7.5
0
.
15
ck
cp bW d
fctk
[tensioni in MP
Multi level approach to shear
21
Assessment of critical existing

structures, design of special
cases
Typical design
Preliminary design, non
governing failure modes
Muttoni, A., 2003, : Introduction to SIA 262 code,
Documentation SIA, D 0182, Zrich, Switzerland, pp.
59.
Models for members with shear reinforcement (girders):

compression strut strength
Brittleness
effect
Strain
effect
30
fc
f ck
fck in MPa
1/ 3
Girders (crushing of compression struts)
ke
Strain
effect
Brittleness
effect
ke
Sigrist V., 2011, Generalized Stress Field
Approach for Analysis of Beams in Shear, ACI
Structural Journal, V. 108 (4), pp. 479-487.
Vecchio, F. J. and Collins, M. P., 1986, The

modified compression field theory for reinforced
concrete elements subjected to shear, ACI
Journal, 83, March-April, pp. 219-231
The levels-of-approximation approach:

shear in girders with transverse reinforcement
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
(7.7-7))
0.75 k dg
min 45
min 29 7000e x
wu 0.2 1000e x 0.125mm
(7.7-8))
32
1
16 d g
Shear resistance : validation
26
Verification at SLS
Crack width limitations at SLS
esh
31
ENGINEERING FRAMEWORK
Tunnel Boaring Machine TBM Tunnel
Ring
Shield
Hydraulic
jack
Advancing
direction
Cutter head
Structural problems
spalling
hydraulic
jacks
in-plane actions
(placing situation)
hydrauli
c jacks
splitting
hydraulic
jacks
Schntgen 2000
- general assumptions and

strut and tie models
- diffusion effects associated
to local pressures
- validity limits of FRC ties in
Strut and Tie Models
D-REGIONS
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
D-regions for geometrical

discontinuities
Strut and tie model
D-regions for statical and/or

geometrical discontinuities
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and Tie model
Strut and tie model
Basic concepts
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Superposition of two models
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model

Minimum complementar energy with Su 0
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
By J. Schlaich and K. Schfer, 1991: Design and detailing of

structural concrete using strut and tie models
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
check lb
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
90
Courtesy by J. Walraven
The case of a deep beam
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Strut and tie model
Engineering problem
Model Code 90 Approach
b1
0.3 f b h 1 f ct 0.6b2 h1
b2
f yk
Asx
x
h1 0.6 b2 f cc
*
cc 1 1
b
0.3 f cc* b1 1 1 0.6 b2 x f cc
b2
f cc*
b2 b1
2
x
b2 b1 1
f cc
2
SFRC shape bottle strut
Materials
Plain concrete
(PC)
Cement Type: CEM I 42.5 (300
Kg/m3)
Aggregates 8/16: 1035 kg/m3
w/c ratio: 0.6
Dmax aggregates : 16 mm
Super-plasticizer: 1%
Rcm=34.64 MPa
SFRC
Fiber length (l): 60 mm

Fiber diameter (d): 0.8 mm
Aspect ratio (l/d): 75
Fiber content: 25 kg/m3
Mechanical characterization of SFRC
150
0
15
150
96
150
96
600
Uniaxial
compression tests
reduced friction (fc)
Splitting
tests (fct,sp)
Provini sui quali

effettuata la prova
di compressione
Specimen
forviene
compression
tests
Provini sui quali
effettuatatests
la prova di trazione indiretta
Specimen
forviene
splitting
Test number Average value Standard dev.
Uniaxial compression tests (Rc)

Uniaxial compression tests
reduced friction (fc)
Splitting tests (fct,sp)
MPa
MPa
12
40.97
2.368
12
32.23
3.319
12
2.98
0.215
Mechanical characterization of SFRC

P/2
P/2
b = 150 mm
hN = 105 mm
a = 150 mm
hN
CTOD
f If
N=
bhN
f eq0-0.6
f eq0.6-3
CTOD
0.6mm
2.4mm
fIf=4.30 MPa
feq0-0.6=3.45 MPa
feq0.6-3=3.31 MPa
D0= feq0-0.6 / fIf =0.81

D1= feq0.6-3 / feq0-0.6 =0.97
Experimental set-up
a
b = 270 mm
t = 60 mm
=b/a
Z
(mm)
LVDT
60
135/160
LVDT
1b/c=1
b/c=1.5
1.5
2b/c=2
b/c=2.5
2.5
b/c=3
3
0
-200
-150
-100
x (N/mm2)
-50
50
30
LVDT
30
-250
270
60
100
(
270
z (mm)
(b)
LVDT
(a)
200
4.0
4.0
30
300
dd
Experimental tests
PC
=b/a=1-1.5-2-3
SFRC
=b/a=1-1.5-2-2.5-3
3 nominally identical tests

2 standard tests
Front
Rear
1 moir test
Rear
Front
Test results
P
500
400
SFRC P
PC
=1
400
= 1.5
300
P [KN]
P [KN]
300
FRC1.5_media
PC1.5_media
200
FRC1_media
PC1_media
200
100
100
P
0
0
D [mm]
300
=2
0.5
250
D [mm]
150
P [KN]
P [KN]
1.5
=3
200
[kN, mm]
200
FRC2_media
PC2_media
C3_ media
P3 _media
100
100
50
0
0
D [mm]
D [mm]
Crack Patterns
PC
=1
=2
=3
SFRC
Test results - COD

1.6
COD
[mm]
COD
[mm]
PC
=1
PC
=2
1.2
top
middle
bottom
PC
=3
top
middle
bottom
0.8
COD
[mm]
top
middle
bottom
0.4
0
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6 D [mm] 2
0
0
0.4
1.2 D [mm]
0.8
COD
[mm]
COD
[mm]
SFRC
=2
top
middle
bottom
top
middle
bottom
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6 D [mm] 2
1.2 D [mm]
top
middle
bottom
0
0
0.8
SFRC
=3
0.4
COD
[mm]
SFRC
=1
0
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6 D [mm] 2
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6 D [mm] 2
Concentrated pression
p /f
pa/f
cm
a
cm
pa/fcm
SFRC load peak

SFRC first cracking
PC load peak
PC first cracking
1.2
1.2
0.8
0.8
SFRC w=1.5mm
SFRC w=0.3mm
PC w=1.5mm
PC w=0.3mm
0.4
0.4
1
1.5
Pre-peak
2.5
1.5
Post-peak
2.5
Concentrated pression
1.6
pa/pppeak
/peak(=1)
(=1)
a
2
Load peak
First cracking
w=1.5mm
Model Code
pa/peak(=1)
PC
1.6
Load peak
w=0.3mm
w=1.5mm
Model Code =3.42%
SFRC
1.2
1.2
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.4
0
1
1.5
2.5
no valley
1.5
2.5
Design prediction models
fcm
a/2
fcm
T=As fy
b/2
pat/2
b/2
a/2
pa*a*t/2 a/4
x
a/4
x
pa*a*t/2
b/2
b/4
Reinforced
concrete
pat/2
b/4
SFRC
ffTt
Ftu
Design prediction (t=60mm)

2
pa/fcm
1.6
1.2
18
0.8
1+16
0.4
1
1+1
exp SFRC w=1.5mm

SFRC design
0
1
1.5
2.5
HPFRC
Component
Conetnt
Cement Type I 52.5
600 kg/m3
Water
200 l/m3
Sand 0-2mm
983 kg/m3
Slag
500 kg/m3
Superplasticizer
33 l/m3
Fibres
100 kg/m3
Fiber length (l): 13 mm

Fiber diameter (d): 0.16 mm
Aspect ratio (l/d): 80
Fiber content: 1.28% by volume
Mechanical characterization of HPFRC
Italian Standard CNR DT 204

Uniaxial compression strength (fcc)
110 N/mm2
First cracking strength (fIf)
11.05 N/mm2
SLS residual strength (feq1)
14.09 N/mm2
ULS residual strength (feq2)
14.00 N/mm2
Experimental set-up
3 Nominally identical tests
b = 270 mm
t = 60 mm
=b/a = 1 / 1.5 / 2 / 3
t
Z
(mm)
4.0
4.0
30
300
LVDT
(a)
(b)
(a)
1b/c=1
b/c=1.5
1.5
2b/c=2
b/c=2.5
2.5
b/c=3
3
0
-250
-200
-150
-100
x (N/mm2)
-50
x (MPa)
50
LVDT
270
30
LVDT
30
100
60
135/160
LVDT
270
z (mm)
60
LVDT
200
270
135
Test results
P
=1
d
Test results
P
= 1.5
d
Test results
P
=2
d
Test results
P
=3
Test results
P
Comparison with SFRC
Bottle shaped strut
b/a
2.3
4.7
6.9
10.7
NSC
0.89
1.18
1.75
2.48
HSC
0.6
0.59
0.73
1.15
c,max/fc
UHSC UHPC-1-HT UHPC-2-HT
0.41
0.87
0.96
0.38
1.04
1.44
0.56
1.28
1.66
0.81
1.73
2.22
by T. Leutbecher, E. Fehling, 2012
Size effect
Stati tensionali diffusivi
1.2
1.0
sp
P0
bi e0
ae
15a e2.3 0.07

1.5
lbp
1
e0
e0 k
h
1.3a e 0.1
Stati tensionali diffusivi
Basic anchorage length
Development length
Trasmission length
Design anch. length
Development length
Bursting
lbs hbs (direct anchorage)
lbs
h 0.6l l
2
bs
bpt
bpt
(indirect anchorage)
1
n1 n2 t2 n1t1
N bs 2
1 Fsd
zbs
bs 2 N bs / bbs lbs
bs bursting
Fsd = design force for each

tendon
1= 1.1 safety factor
(overstressing by
overpumping)
D-region stresses
131
132
Structural design for damage mechanisms
TBM MAX THRUST ACTION

MEAN COMPRESSION ON THE RING
Concrete check under compression:
c.m = 11.29 MPa < 42 MPa = fcd,sfrc
LOCAL COMPRESSION UNDER THE JACK PLATE

QuickTime e un
decompressore
sono necessari per visualizzare quest'immagine.
c = 33.26 MPa < 94 MPa = fcd,hpfrcc
c = 73.20 MPa < 94 MPa = fcd,hpfrcc
BURSTING STRESS IN RADIAL AND CIRCUMFERENTIAL DIRECTION
cr = 1.77 MPa
ct = 1.16 MPa
<
fctk = 2.87 MPa
133
PANAMA tunnel
200
Type A
Load (kN)
150
Type C
Type B
100
50
Type B
A
0
0
Displacement (mm)
courtesy by Meda, 2012
10
134
Structural design for damage mechanisms
GASKETS
SHEAR-OFF OF THE MOUNTING GROOVE EDGES
il = 0.04 m
Shear action:
V sc 1.35 p 0.0085 m
Shear bearing capacity of unreinforced concrete:

V rdct
1
V sc 12.0 kN m
fctk0.05
c
<
lcg= 0.0085 m
0.04 m
1
V r dct 56 kN m
TENSILE SPLITTING STRESSES
Design max tensile splitting stress:

Zsd = Design transverse tensile force
ct,d
Zsd
0.5 0.8d s
ct,d 0.46 MPa
<
Tensile strength of un-reinforced concrete:
Rd, ct
f ctk ,0.05
Rd,ct 1.39
2.80 MPa
Selection of the Concrete Composition

(by R. Gettu et al. BEFIB 2004)
135
Requirements
28-day characteristic compressive strength of at least 40 MPa.
Early-age (4-6 hours) mean compressive strength of at least 25 MPa.
28-day mean equivalent flexural strength of at least 2.9 MPa.
Practical Considerations
Adequate placeability with 30 kg/m3 of steel fibers.
Maximum cement content of 400 kg/m3.
Cement and aggregates should be those normally used in the
prefabrication plant.
Composition and Properties

Component
kg/m
Cement CEM I 52.5R
400
Sand 0/5 mm
Gravel 5/14 mm
745
558
Grava 12/22 mm
Water
559
132.2
Superplasticizer
4.8
136
Property
Test result
Slump after 20 minutes

from casting
Density of fresh concrete
28-day cylinder strength
Compressive
strength with
accelerated
curing
at 4+0,5
hours
at 5+0,5
hours
at 6+0,5
hours
3 cm
2430 kg/m3
62,8 MPa
(2,4%)
18,7 MPa
(3,7%)
25,0 MPa
(3,1%)
28,2 MPa
(2,4%)
Selection of Fiber Type

137
Toughness Characterization
Belgian standard was
chosen for determining the
equivalent flexural strength
(deflection limit of 1.5 mm).
50
Toughness evaluated with

different fibers.
Carga (kN)
40
30
20
Load (kN)
Fibers had lengths of 50-60

mm and diameters of 0.751.0 mm.
Dramix 80/60
Tests with
Dramix 65/60
45 kg/m3Wirand
of 1.0/50
Novocon 1060
fibres
Duoloc 471.0
10
0
0
Flecha (mm)
Midspan deflection (mm)
Evaluation of Possible Use of Fibers

as the only reinforcement (by R. Gettu et al. 2004)
138
More than 3 km of tunnel lining has been

constructed with rebar + fibre
reinforcement.
Is the total substitution of bar

reinforcement with fibers cost-effective, in
this project?
Yes, if the required performance can be
obtained with a dosage of about 60 kg/m3.
Duration of study 4 months
Performance of the Tunnel Lining

139
Requirements
Adequate flexural strength during demolding and
storage in order to avoid cracking.
Resistance against cracking or crushing due to the
reactions of the actuators of the tunnelling machine
during the boring operation.
Ability to resist the soil pressure during service.
Tunnel Lining of Section 4

140
Numerical Analysis: Level of stresses

High tensile
stresses can
occur when
the supports
are eccentric
during
storage by
piling.
Posibles eccentricidades
respecto
el eje de supports
apoyo
Possible
eccentricities
between

Eccentricities in the
reaction of the
actuators of the
tunelling machine,
especially in the
radial direction, can
generate high
localized tensile
stresses.
141

142

The low tensile stresses obtained in the analyses
motivated further study of the possibility of
using steel fibres as the only reinforcement of
the concrete in the segments.
During service, the soil pressure can generate

compressive stresses of up to 17 MPa. The
maximum values of tensile stress are less than 1
MPa.

40
Dramix 80/60
Dramix 65/60
Load
(kN)
Carga (kN)
Material
Characterization
Comparison of the
performance of
different fibres.
Evaluation of
reference
compressive and
flexural strengths,
and toughness.
Accelerated curing
was simulated in a
environmental
chamber.
143
30
Wirand
Novocon
Duoloc
20
Dramix 80/60 BN
Dramix 65/60 BN
Wirand 50x1 mm
Novocon HE 1060
Duoloc 471.0
10
0
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
Flecha (mm)
Deflection (mm)
1.25
1.5

Load (kN)
60
Carga (kN)
Material
Characterization
Comparison of the
performance of
different fibres.
Evaluation of
reference
compressive and
flexural strengths,
and toughness.
Accelerated curing
was simulated in a
environmental
chamber.
144
40
20
60 kg/m3
45 kg/m3
30 kg/m3
0
0
0.5
1.5
Flecha (mm)
Deflection (mm)
2.5

145
Real-Scale Structural Testing: Stacking
No cracking occurs in the SFRC segments when the eccentricity of

the supports is equal to or less than 50 cm, even when all the
segments of a ring are piled at the age of 4 days.

Real-Scale Structural Testing:

Flexure
146

147
Real-Scale Structural Testing: Flexure
For small crack openings (less than 0.2

mm), the segment with 60 kg/m3 of fibres
has similar load-carrying capacity as the
segment with conventional rebars.

148
For small crack openings (less than 0.2

mm), the segment with 60 kg/m3 of fibres
has similar load-carrying capacity as the
segment with conventional rebars.
Load (kN)
Load (kN)
Real-Scale Structural Testing: Flexure
Tensile displacement or crack opening (mm)
Tensile displacement or crack opening (mm)

149
Real-Scale Structural Testing: In-Plane Compression

Some local cracking appears. The behaviour is similar
Plato de carga (excntrica) 540 x 120 x 10 mm
for the SFRC and reference panels.
LVDT cara
encofrada
LVDT lateral 1
LVDT lateral 2
LVDT cara
regleada
Plato de carga continuo 540 x 180 x 10 mm

150
Real-Scale Structural Testing: Contact at Joints
Splitting cracks occur at high

loads.
Slightly more cracking is seen
in SFRC specimens.

151
Quality Assurance Requirements:
Fibre quality (dimensions, hooks, tensile strength and elastic

modulus, surface quality)
Batching and Mixing (homogeneity, slump/workability)
Fibre content in fresh concrete
Toughness requirement of SFRC
Placing should not affect the homogeneity of the concrete
Vibration should be regulated to avoid preferential orientation and

segregation of fibers

152
Quality Check of Cast Segment

4 cores extracted perpendicular to the
curved surface (radial direction) and
4 cores extracted from the flat edges,
one from the middle of each side
To check preferential
orientation:
Fibre count made on
halved core. Differences
should not be more than
10% of the lower value.
To check segregation:
10 cm
Radial core
20 cm
Core extracted from flat face
Cores are crushed, fibres

are separated and
weighed. The fibre
content should not vary
by more than 5% from
the specified value.
Barcelona Metro: further structural analyses

(by Plizzari et al. Universit di Brescia, 2005)
153
Tunnel Segments: Non Linear Analyses, Fiber FF1-45

25000
Service Load =3000x4=12000 kN

Segment is already cracked
Load [kN]
20000
15000
Splitting cracks in radial and tangential

direction in the loaded zones Max.
Service
Load
Load
10000
5000
0
0
0,5
1,5
Displacement [mm]
2,5
3,5
Barcelona Metro: further structural analyses (by

Plizzari et al. Universit di Brescia, 2005)
154
Sezione longitudinale
5
Aree di carico
Original
dei martinetti
Design
Proposal
3
2
4 Staffe sotto
le zone di carico
Staffe 8/200 mm
4
Sezione trasversale
500
350
450
Vantages:
50 1) smaller
100 encumbrance
100
Pilastrino
2) simpler
construction
10 14
3) simpler casting
155
PANAMA tunnel
Type A
fR1
fR2
fR3
fR4
Type C
Type B
CMOD4
CMOD2
CMOD3
2
CMOD1
Nominal stress [MPa]
0
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
CMOD [mm]
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
156
PANAMA tunnel
Serviceability conditions
250
200
M [kNm]
150
100
50
0
-1000
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
N [kN]
157
PANAMA tunnel
200
Type A
Load (kN)
150
Type C
Type B
100
50
Type B
0
0
Displacement (mm)
10

Lecture 06 - Di Prisco

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Lecture 06 - Di Prisco

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Prefabricated tunnel segments

Structural design models for transient stages

Dynamic increasing factor: 20% Wc

Considering additional load:

Dynamic increasing factor:

Bending of FRC structures

7.7.3 Verification of safety (ULS)

Structural constraints to remove bars

Not Post-tensioned beams

Total: 15 beams (6 typologies)

Agg. < 8mm [kg/m3]

Agg. < 4mm [kg/m3]

Test modelling: uniaxial constitutive relationships

Test modelling: FE approach

Reliability of the model

Reliability of the models

5.3 / 1.3 4.07 5

Example: beam in FRC 300x300x3000 mm

Pu MRd * 2 * KRd 12 * 1.3 15.6 kNm

Linear softening method

f Ftu ,d ( 0.5 f R3 ,k 0.2 f R1,k ) / 1.5 0.13MPa

wu min( 2.5mm;0.02 lcs ) 2.5mm

u wu / h 2.5 / 300 0.0083

the key role of the scattering

Load vs. Central deflection

Slab P22 50/0,75 Vf=0,38 %

Slab P21 50/0,75 Vf=0,38 %

Slab P20 50/0,75 Vf=0,38 %

di Prisco, M., Failla, C., Plizzari, G.A., Toniolo, G

Central deflection [mm]

the key role of the scattering

PRd = KRd P(fFd)

CONCRETE RETAINING (cantilever) WALL

MC (2010) classification of SFRC:

Courtesy by Giovanni Plizzari

Models for members without shear reinforcement:

Zsutty, T. C., 1968, Beam shear strength prediction by analysis

Shear resistance without shear

VR,c = Cbdk1/3fck1/3+ Cpbdcp

Multi level approach to shear

Assessment of critical existing

Models for members with shear reinforcement (girders):

Girders (crushing of compression struts)

Vecchio, F. J. and Collins, M. P., 1986, The

The levels-of-approximation approach:

Shear resistance : validation

Crack width limitations at SLS

- general assumptions and

Strut and tie model

Strut and tie model

Strut and tie model

D-regions for geometrical

Strut and tie model

D-regions for statical and/or

Strut and tie model

Strut and tie model

Strut and tie model

Strut and tie model

Strut and tie model

Strut and Tie model

Strut and tie model

Strut and tie model

Strut and tie model

Strut and tie model