Sie sind auf Seite 1von 157

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

The case of a deep beam

The case of a deep beam

The case of a deep beam

The case of a deep beam

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
Aggregates 0/8: 207 kg/m3
Aggregates 0/5: 828 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


(by R. Gettu et al. BEFIB 2004)

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


(by R. Gettu et al. BEFIB 2004)

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


(by R. Gettu et al. BEFIB 2004)

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


(by R. Gettu et al. BEFIB 2004)

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

Tunnel Lining of Section 4


(by R. Gettu et al. BEFIB 2004)

Numerical Analysis: Level of stresses

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

141

Tunnel Lining of Section 4


(by R. Gettu et al. BEFIB 2004)

142

Numerical Analysis: Level of stresses


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.

Tunnel Lining of Section 4


(by R. Gettu et al. BEFIB 2004)

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

Tunnel Lining of Section 4


(by R. Gettu et al. BEFIB 2004)

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

Tunnel Lining of Section 4


(by R. Gettu et al. BEFIB 2004)

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.

Tunnel Lining of Section 4


(by R. Gettu et al. BEFIB 2004)

Real-Scale Structural Testing:


Flexure

146

Tunnel Lining of Section 4


(by R. Gettu et al. BEFIB 2004)

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.

Tunnel Lining of Section 4


(by R. Gettu et al. BEFIB 2004)

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)

Tunnel Lining of Section 4


(by R. Gettu et al. BEFIB 2004)

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

Tunnel Lining of Section 4


(by R. Gettu et al. BEFIB 2004)

150

Real-Scale Structural Testing: Contact at Joints

Splitting cracks occur at high


loads.
Slightly more cracking is seen
in SFRC specimens.

Tunnel Lining of Section 4


(by R. Gettu et al. BEFIB 2004)

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

Tunnel Lining of Section 4


(by R. Gettu et al. BEFIB 2004)

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

courtesy by Meda, 2012

156

PANAMA tunnel

Serviceability conditions
250

200

M [kNm]

150

100

50

0
-1000

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

N [kN]

courtesy by Meda, 2012

157

PANAMA tunnel

200

Type A

Load (kN)

150

Type C
Type B
100

50

Type B

0
0

Displacement (mm)

courtesy by Meda, 2012

10