STRUCTURAL TESTING OF STEEL FIBRE REINFORCED CONCRETE

(SFRC) TUNNEL LINING SEGMENTS IN SINGAPORE

1
John Poh , Kiang Hwee Tan2, Graeme Laurence Peterson1, Dazhi Wen1

1
Land Transport Authority, 1, Hampshire Road, Singapore 219428
2
Department of Civil Engineering, National University of Singapore
10 Kent Ridge Crescent, Singapore 119260

Keywords: Land Transport Authority; steel fibre reinforced concrete; tests; tunnel segments.

ABSTRACT
The application of steel fibre reinforced concrete (SFRC) in precast tunnel lining design is a
growing trend due to its vast advantages. However, the performance characteristics of the material
and the design procedures are still not well served by both codes and standards.
The Land Transport Authority (LTA) of Singapore sees great potential and prospects in using
SFRC in its Mass Rapid Transit tunnels. It has taken the proactive approach to introduce SFRC
into the tunnel industry in Singapore. LTA has conducted a series of laboratory tests on small scale
samples (cubes, prisms and cylinders) and full size segments with the assistance of National
University of Singapore (NUS) to determine the material and structural properties of SFRC in order
to establish the required performance characteristics and specifications for tunnel lining
applications.
Tests were carried out on SFRC samples and segments with steel fibre content of 30 and 40 kg/m3.
The 28-day characteristic compressive strength was about 60 MPa and the tensile splitting strength
about 4.4 MPa. SFRC samples showed higher flexural tensile strength at first cracking and at small
crack mouth opening displacements. Prototype SFRC segments subjected to a transverse line load
exhibited a more gradual drop in load-carrying capacity after first cracking. The residual strength
was about 90% of the first crack load. SFRC segments subjected to a longitudinal point load also
exhibited more gradual decrease in load carrying capacity after first cracking.

1. INTRODUCTION
For many years, steel fibre-reinforced concrete (SFRC) has been used as shotcrete in the mining
and civil industries, primarily for temporary works. More recently, it has also been used for
permanent segmental lining in prestigious tunnel projects like the Channel Tunnel Rail Link
(CTRL) (King et al. 2001 and Woods et al. 2003) in UK and the Second Heinenoord Tunnel in
Netherlands (Kooiman et al. 1998).
Steel fibres have also been used in conjunction with conventional steel bars as reinforcement for
lining segments. One such example is Barcelona Metro Line 9 in Spain, in which the quantity of
conventional steel bars was reduced by the addition of steel fibres. However, the use of SFRC in
the reinforcement of tunnel segments is still in a relatively early stage, with the design approaches
varying with designers and projects. Lack of a generally accepted design code has in some extent
hindered the full exploitation of this material.

1
This paper presents the findings from an effort by the Land Transport Authority (LTA), Singapore,
in collaboration with the National University of Singapore (NUS), to investigate the material and
structural performance of SFRC and SFRC tunnel segments in anticipation of its use in future
underground projects.

2. OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
Traditionally, tunnel segments used by LTA were designed using reinforcing steel bars. In terms of
durability, the LTA Design Criteria requires a service life, with appropriate maintenance, of 120
years for all permanent structures. To achieve this, the steel bars must be protected against
corrosion. The risk of corrosion in regular steel bar reinforced segments could be reduced by
following a stringent specification for gaskets and by using low permeability concrete. However,
eliminating the presence of steel bars would be a more direct and efficient way of reducing the risk.
Also, with the increasing price of steel bars and socio-economical demand for a sustainable
construction industry, LTA has been constantly in earnest search for alternative construction
materials. It has recognized the potential of SFRC and the associated benefits of using SFRC in
tunnel lining segments (see Table 1), and is taking a proactive approach to introduce SFRC
segments into the tunnel industry in Singapore.
Due to the limited prototype tests done in the world, LTA has therefore conducted a series of
laboratory tests on small scale specimens (cubes, prisms and cylinders) and full size segments with
NUS to determine the material and structural properties of SFRC and SFRC segments so as to
establish the required performance characteristics and specifications for the use of SFRC segments
(Schnutgen et al. 2005).

3. MATERIAL PROPERTIES
A test programme was carried out to ensure that all required properties were examined. Tests were
conducted on cubes, cylinders and prisms (beams) to determine the material properties, that is,
compressive strength, tensile splitting strength and flexural toughness. The tests were conducted
according to BS EN 12390-3-2002, BS EN 12390-6:2002 and BS EN 14651:2005 respectively.

2
 Table 1 - Comparison of SFRC and Steel Bar Reinforced Concrete Segments in Singapore

Steel Bar Reinforced Concrete Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete

Segments
Design Building code, Singapore Standard
CP65, is used for design
Large concrete cover (40mm) is
required for durability reason
Manufacturing Care manufacture and placing of the
steel cages are required
Requires large land storage area
Inefficient production rate
Multiple handling of steel cages
Handling and Care must be exercised in
Erection demoulding, transportation and
erection as any cracks will
compromise the durability
Segments repairs required to comply
with durability specifications
Segments
No national design code for steel fibre
reinforced concrete yet. Only design
guides are available
Steel fibre is multi-directional and
evenly distributed throughout the section
No fabrication of steel cage is necessary.
Steel fibres are added in the mix at the
batch plant
No obstruction in the mould
Increased speed of production
Less labour needed
Less land required for storage
Vacuum pads should be used in handling
and lifting to minimise damage
Minor damage will not compromise the
durability
Steel fibres provide better protection to
edges of the segments

3.1 Mix Design

The concrete mix design shown in Table 2 was adopted from an on going tunnel project which used
steel reinforcing bars in the tunnel segments.

Table 2 Mix Design

Characteristic Strength 60 MPa
Cement Content 380 kg/m3
Fine Aggregate Content 576 kg/m3
Coarse Aggregate Content 1292 kg/m3
Admixture Content 1200 1400 ml per 100 kg of cement
Silica Fume 20 kg/m3
Water / Cement Ratio 0.35

The steel fibres (Dramix RC-80/60-BN) were of the hooked-end type, with a length of 60 mm and
diameter of 0.75 mm. In addition to the steel fibres, 1 kg of micro polypropylene fibres (PPF)
(Duomix Fire M6) was added for every cubic metre of concrete (Shuttleworth, 2001).

3.2 Specimens and Tests

Three sample types with target steel fibre content of 30 kg/m3 (Sample A), 35 kg/m3 (Sample B)
and 40 kg/m3 (Sample C) were prepared. For each sample type,
a. 12 cubes were tested for 28-day compressive strength, and another 12 cubes for 56-day
compressive strength;
b. 3 cylinders were tested at 28 days after casting to determine the stress-strain relations under
axial compression;
c. 15 cylinders were tested at 28 days to determine the tensile splitting tests; and

3
 d. 18 prisms were tested at 28 days to determine the flexural strength at first crack (limit of
proportionality) and residual flexural tensile strength.

All specimens were made using a single plant batch for each sample type in a precast factory in
Johor, West Malaysia, and delivered to NUS for testing. The specimens were cured with curing
compound at the factory until the day of delivery, and kept in a fog room in Workshop 1, NUS,
until about 5 days before the day of testing.
The tests included: (a) compression tests on seventy-two 150mm x 150mm x 150mm cubes; (b)
compression tests on nine 150mm x 300mm cylinders; (c) tensile splitting tests on forty-five
150mm x 300mm cylinders; and (d) flexural toughness tests on fifty-four 150mm x 150mm x
550mm prisms.

3.3 Test Results and Discussion

3.3.1 Compressive strength
The compression tests were conducted in accordance with BS EN 12390-3:2002. A loading rate of
450 kN/min or 0.33 MPa/s was applied. The tests were carried out on the 28th and 56th day after
casting.
At 28th day (see Figure 1a), most of specimens of Sample Types A and C achieved strengths greater
than the specified strength of 60 MPa. Specimens of Sample Type B however had strengths lower
than 60 MPa, which was unexpected as they had steel content between those of Samples A and C.
At 56th day (see Figure 1b), the compressive strengths of Sample A and C were similar at about 70
MPa. Again, the strength of Sample B was lower. The inferiority of Sample B is consistently seen
in other properties as reported herein. One of the reasons for this could be due to improper mixing
of SFRC for Sample B specimens.
Defining the characteristic strength as the average strength minus 1.64 times the standard deviation,
that is the strength such that only 5% of test specimens would have lower strengths, the
characteristic 28-day compressive strengths of Samples A, B and C are 57.4, 43.4 and 60.6 MPa
respectively.
The characteristic 56-day compressive strength of Samples A, B and C is 64.6, 48.7 and 68.2 MPa
respectively. Sample C shows a slightly higher strength than Sample A due to a higher steel fibre
content. The results for Sample B are likely to be in error due to the large standard deviation.

.3.2 Tensile Splitting Strength

The tensile splitting tests were carried out in accordance to BS EN 12390-6: 2002. For each sample
type, 15 specimens were tested at the age of 28 days (see Figure 2). The loading rate was between
135 to 180 kN/min (0.032 to 0.042 MPa/s).
The tensile splitting strength was slightly higher for Sample A than for Sample C. It was much
lower for Sample B due to a corresponding lower compressive strength as reported in the earlier
section. The standard deviation was about the same for all sample types. The characteristic tensile
splitting strength is about 4.5 MPa, 3.8 MPa and 4.3 MPa respectively for Sample A, B and C,
respectively.

4
Figure 1 Cube Compressive Strength

5
 Figure 2 Tensile Splitting Strength

3.3.3 Flexural Toughness

Tests were carried out in accordance to BS EN 14651:2005 to determine the flexural tensile
strength of SFRC. For each sample type (A, B and C), 18 specimens were tested at the age of 27 or
28 days. The crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD) was measured at a rate of 0.5 mm/min
before cracking and 0.2 mm/min after cracking.
The limit of proportionality (LOP) [which corresponds to the flexural tensile strength at first crack]
and the residual flexural tensile strengths fR1, fR,2, fR,3 and fR,4 [corresponding to CMODj (j = 1, 2, 3,
4)], were determined. The values of CMOD1, CMOD2, CMO3 and CMOD4, were taken as 0.5, 1.5,
2.5 and 3.5 mm.
The average values of LOP, fR1, fR,2, fR,3 and fR,4 are shown in Table 3. Sample A exhibited the
highest average values for LOP, fR,1 and fR,2. The values of fR,3 and fR,4 were however highest for
Sample B. Based on these values, specimens A1-12, B1-3 and C1-3 were identified as the average
curves for Samples A, B and C respectively. The load-CMOD curves of these representative
specimens are compared in Figure 3. The difference in steel fibre content among the three sample
types was too small to result in any significance difference in the load-CMOD curves.

6
 Figure 3 Comparison Of Load-CMOD Curves
Table 3 Average Flexural Tensile Strength

4. STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE OF SFRC SEGMENTS

It was envisaged that a typical SFRC rail tunnel in Singapore would have an internal diameter of
5.8 m and an external diameter of 6.50 m. There would be 7 nos. of 48o ordinary segments and 1
no. of 24o bolt key in each tunnel lining. Each segment would have a uniform thickness of 350 mm
and a width of 1400 mm. The clear distance between the inner straight edges was approximately
2359 mm, and the height of the segment about 600 mm. Each segment weighed about 3.3 tons.
In addition to laboratory sample testing, a study was also undertaken on the ordinary SFRC
segments to assess the load carrying capacity. Two tests, namely flexural and cantilever load tests
were carried out.

4.1 Test Programme

The flexural test was specified to investigate the load carrying capacity. The test programme
comprised of three specimens each of conventional plain concrete, and steel fibre reinforced
concrete (SFRC) with steel fibre content of 30 kg/m3 and 40 kg/m3. They were designated FP1 to
FP3, FA1 to FA3, and FB1 to FB3, respectively.

7
Each segment was supported on two straight edges as shown in Figure 4. One of the roller supports
was restrained horizontally and the other was not restrained. Loads were applied at midspan of the
segment. An incremental load of 10KN was applied each time. The deflections at midspan were
measured by dial gauges. The segments were checked for cracks or distress.

Figure 4 - Flexural test set-up and instrumentation

Cantilever load test was set up to investigate the load carrying capacity at the circumferential edge.
The test programme comprised of three specimens each of conventional plain concrete, and steel
fibre reinforced concrete (SFRC) with steel fibre content of 30 kg/m3 and 40 kg/m3. They were
designated CP1 to CP3, CA1 to CA3, and CB1 to CB3, respectively.
Figure 5 shows the setup of the test. An incremental load of 10 kN was applied each time.
Movement of the segment was monitored by gauges (at least 3 locations). The segments were
checked and noted for crack or structural distress at each increment.

8
 Figure 5 - Cantilever load test set-up and instrumentation

4.2 Test Results and Discussion

4.2.1 Flexural tests
For the plain concrete (Type FP) segments, an elastic behaviour was initially observed. The
displacements increased linearly with the applied loads. Near the peak loads, the stiffness of the
segment started to decrease. A vertical crack quickly formed at the midspan of the segment as the
peak load was reached, and this led almost immediately to the segment being broken into two at the
midspan. Figure 6 shows a close up view of the cracked section.
For the SFRC (Types FA and FB) segments, the displacements increased linearly with the applied
load until a crack formed at the midspan section. For Type FA segments with a steel fibre content
of 30 kg/m3, the applied load dropped immediately upon the occurrence of the crack until it
stabilized at about 80% of the peak load. Thereafter, the load decreased more gradually with
increasing displacements.

9
 Figure 6 - Close-up views of cracked sections

For Type FB segments with a steel fibre content of 40 kg/m3, the behaviour of FB-3 was similar to
Type FA segments while for FB-1 and FB-2, a slight drop in applied load was observed upon the
occurrence of the crack at midspan before the load started to pick up again. A second peak in the
load-deflection curves was observed before the load started to decrease gradually again.
The residual strength of each SFRC segment was determined as the average of the applied load at
first cracking and the load at a deflection equal to 10.5 times the first-crack deflection. Type FA
segments with a steel fibre content of 30 kg/m3 had a residual strength of about 140.0 kN, or 85%
of the first-crack load. Type FB segments with a higher steel fibre content of 40 kg/m3 had a

10
correspondingly higher residual strength of about 164.5 kN, or 92% of the first-crack load. Figure
7 shows the plots and Table 4 shows the values.

Figure 7 - Load-midspan deflection curves

11
 Table 4 - Flexural Test Results

The toughness indices and residual strength factors were determined from the adjusted load-
midspan deflection curves following the procedure in ASTM C1018-97. The toughness indices are
I5, I10, and I20, which are defined as the areas under the load-deflection curve up to a deflection of
3.0, 5.5, and 10.5 times, respectively, the first-crack deflection, divided by the area up to first crack.
Table 5 shows the results from the tests.

12
 Table 5 - Toughness Index and Residual Strength Factor Results

4.2.2 Cantilever load tests

For CP (plain concrete) segments, the segments suddenly broke into two with a loud bang when the
displacement reached about 13 to 14 mm (see Figures 8 and 9). For Type CA segments with a steel
fibre content of 30 kg/m3, the maximum load occurred when the vertical displacement at point C
reached about 9 to 11 mm, upon which a crack suddenly appeared next to the support edge,
extending from the top to almost the bottom of the segment. The load dropped dramatically to
about 120 and 160 kN in CA-1 and CA-2 respectively and to about 40 kN in CA-3 where it
stabilized.

13
 Figure 8 Appearance of segments after tests

Figure 9 - Close-up views of cracked sections

The behaviour of Type CB segments with a steel fibre content of 40 kg/m3 was similar to CP and
CA segments up to the maximum load-carrying capacity (see Figure 10), which occurred at a
vertical displacement at point C of between 9 and 11 mm. A crack was seen to appear from the top
of the segment near the support edge. However, in contrast to CP and CA segments, the applied
load did not drop drastically. Instead it decreased at a decreasing rate with increasing
displacements.

14
The crack widened as loading was continued. No other cracks were observed. The vertical
displacement at point C reached about 25 mm while the crack widened to more than 25 mm when
the load has dropped to 100 kN. The steel fibres could be seen to bridge the crack. Figure 8 and 9
show the segment after the tests and a close up of the cracked section indicating the bridging action
of the fibres respectively.

Figure 10 - Comparison of Load Deflection Curves

The ultimate strength (load-carrying capacity) and the corresponding displacement at point C of all
segments are tabulated in Table 6. The load-carrying capacities of the three types of segments are
comparable to each other considering the variations in concrete strength and experimental errors.
However, as mentioned earlier, both Types CP and CA segments failed suddenly with a drastic
drop in the load-carrying capacity whereas the load carried by Type CB segments decreased
gradually after the occurrence of a single crack at the support edge. It is deduced that the steel fibre
content in Type CA segments was insufficient as to prevent the sudden drop in load-carrying
capacity.

15
 Table 6 - Cantilever Load Test Results

5. CONCLUSIONS
From the specimen tests, the results obtained were very satisfactory albeit Sample B (35 kg/m3 of
fibres) showed very dubious results. Generally, the samples were able to attain the compressive
strength of 60 MPa required at 28 days. As a result, it was possible to achieve an average tensile
splitting strength of 4.5 MPa. In terms of flexural toughness, based on average values, Samples A
and C showed higher and comparable flexural tensile strength at first cracking and at small crack
mouth opening displacements. Sample B showed higher residual flexural tensile strengths at high
crack mouth opening displacement. The difference in load-CMOD curves is not significant among
the three sample types due to the small difference in steel fibre content.
Based on the flexural tests on segments, plain concrete segment do not have the residual strength
characteristics and failed suddenly at peak. It can be concluded that for SFRC segments, the steel
fibres were effective in bridging the crack, thereby resulting in a more gradual drop in load-carrying
capacity and hence more ductile behaviour after the occurrence of first cracking. The first-crack
load was higher for segments with a higher steel fibre content due to the bridging effect of steel
fibres across microcracks in the concrete that finally led in the formation of the critical major crack
at midspan. The residual strength, calculated as the average load-carrying capacity at first crack
and at a deflection equal to 10.5 times the first-crack deflection, was 85% and 92% of the first-
crack load, respectively for Type FA (30 kg/m3) and Type FB (40 kg/m3) segments. It is also seen
that the toughness indices and residual strength factors increased with steel fibre content.
The cantilever load tests showed that the displacement increased with the applied load at a
gradually increasing rate for all segments, up to the maximum load-carrying capacity. For plain
concrete segments, the segments suddenly broke into two with a loud bang at maximum load-
carrying capacity. For SFRC segments, a crack suddenly appeared next to the support edge at
maximum load, extending from the top to near the bottom of the segment. The load-carrying
capacity dropped dramatically thereafter in CA segments which had a steel fibre content of 30
kg/m3. For Type CB segments with a steel fibre content of 40 kg/m3, however, the applied load did

16
not drop drastically but instead it decreased at a decreasing rate with increasing displacements. The
load-carrying capacities of all three types of segments are comparable to each other considering the
variations in concrete strength and experimental errors. A steel fibre content of 40 kg/m3 is
required as in Type CB segments to prevent the sudden drop in the load-carrying capacity after
cracking.
These results have given the LTA sufficient confidence that the there is enough structural capacity
in SFRC for use in tunnel linings. These results will form the basis in specifying the minimum
requirements in using SFRC tunnel linings for future rail lines.

ACKNOWLEDEGMENT
The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude to the Land Transport Authority for the
permission to publish this paper and the assistance rendered by personnel from SPC Industries Sdn.
Bhd and Bekaert Singapore Pte Ltd, without which, the tests would not have been such a success.

REFERENCES
ASTM C1018-97 (1997), Standard test method for flexural toughness and first-crack strength of fiber-reinforced
concrete (using beam with third-point loading), American Society for Testing of Materials.
BS EN 12390-3 (2002), Testing hardened concrete Part 3: Compressive strength of test specimens, European
Committee for Standardization.
BS EN 12390-6 (2002), Testing hardened concrete Part 6: Tensile splitting strength of test specimens, European
Committee for Standardization.
BS EN 12390 (2000), Testing Hardened Concrete Part 5: Flexural Strength Of Test Specimens, European
Committee for Standardization.
BS EN 14651 (2005), Test Method For Metallic Fibered Concrete Measuring The Flexural Tensile Strength (Limit
of Proportionality (LOP), Residual), European Committee for Standardization.
Kooiman, A.G., Van der Veen, C. & Djorai, M.H. (1998), Steel fibre reinforced concrete (SFRC) tunnel segments
suitable for application in the Second Heinenoord Tunnel, Proceedings of the XIII Congress on challenges for
concrete in the next millennium, Amsterdam, the Netherlands, pp. 719-722.
King M. R., Alder A. J. (2001), The Practical Specification of Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete (SFRC) For Tunnel
Linings, Proceedings of Underground Construction 2001 Conference, London, published by Brintex Ltd.
Schnutgen, B., Vandewalle, L. (2003), Test and design methods for steel fibre reinforced concrete Background and
Experiences, Proceedings of RILEM TC 162-TDF Workshop, Bochum Germany, 20-21 March 2003.
Shuttleworth, P. (2001), Fire Protection of Concrete Tunnel Linings, Tunnel Fires and Escape from Tunnels
Conference, pp. 157-165
Woods, E., May, R., Hurt, J., Watson, P. (2003), Design of Bored Tunnels on Channel Tunnel Rail Link, UK,
Proceedings Rapid Excavation and Tunnelling Conference, pp. 230-244

17