See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/260383997

Fibre reinforced geopolymer concrete products for underground infrastructure

Article

CITATIONS READS

5 227

5 authors, including:

Don Wimpenny Peter Duxson

CH2M Hill Coogee Chemicals
11 PUBLICATIONS   48 CITATIONS    52 PUBLICATIONS   5,246 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

John Provis
The University of Sheffield
336 PUBLICATIONS   11,654 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Rational design of low-CO2 alkali-activated concretes for eco-efficiency and durability View project

RILEM TC 267-TRM View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Don Wimpenny on 12 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


FRGC -
an innovative
material for
tunnel segments
THIS PAPER EXAMINES the combined use
of two emerging technologies in the
production of precast tunnel segments:
geopolymer binder and fibre reinforcement.
Precast concrete is the predominant mate-
rial for segmental tunnel linings, with a typical
6m internal diameter (ID) tunnel utilising ap-
proximately 4,500 cubic metres of concrete
per kilometre. The major contribution of con-
crete to underground infrastructure is accom-
panied by significant embodied greenhouse
gas emissions. Concrete in construction re-
portedly generating more than 5% of world-
wide carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, over
three-quarters deriving from the Portland ce-
ment binder. Approximately half the CO2
emissions from Portland cement are associ-
ated with energy used in the heating and
grinding processes. The remaining emissions
derive from the chemical de-carbonation of
the limestone. The cement industry has made
considerable improvements in energy effi-
ciency and use of alternative fuel sources.
However, if worldwide emissions targets are
to be met, some radical changes are required
to further reduce the CO2 emissions derived
from the use of concrete. Geopolymer binder
contains no Portland cement but instead uses
industrial by-products such as fly ash and slag
which are activated by an alkaline agent. The
hardened binder includes alumino silicates
similar to those produced by Portland cement
based binders, but no calcium compounds.
There are currently no international standards
for the use of geopolymer in construction,
but guidance was recently published by the
Concrete Institute of Australia (CIA 2011).
Steel fibres have become the preferred re-
inforcement for segmental linings constructed
in the last 10 years. Halcrow has been at the
forefront of this development (King 2005,
Angerer and Chappell 2008 and Harding and
Chappell 2012). In addition to increased pro-
ductivity by the elimination of steel fixing,
steel fibre reinforced concrete (SFRC) has en-
hanced durability due to the absence of gal-
vanic and stray current corrosion (ACI 1996)
REINFORCEMENT
Fibre reinforced geopolymer
concrete (FRGC) has no
Portland cement or steel re-
inforcement, but instead
used synthetic fibre rein-
forcement and geopolymer
binder. Here, Dom
Wimpenny, Associate Direc-
tor CH2M Hill, and Malcolm
Chappell, Director of Tun-
nelling, Asia Pacific CH2M
Hill, discuss the development
of FRGC during a project
part-funded by the Victorian
Government and a consortium of five organisations. The work
involves laboratory and field trials and the production of
prototype tunnel segments which have been subject to fire
testing. The results indicate that FRGC has the potential to
produce precast concrete products with increased durability
and substantially reduced carbon emissions compared to the
Portland cement based concrete with steel reinforcement.
and reduced impact damage during han- cement based concrete. This paper sum-
dling. There has also been development in marises the findings of a 3 year Australian
the use of non-corrodible synthetic macrofi- project to develop Fibre Reinforced Geopoly-
bres as an alternative to steel fibres, primarily mer Concrete (FRGC) precast products for un-
for sprayed concrete linings in mines, but also derground infrastructure funded by Victoria’s
for potential use in segmental linings. Fibre Science Agenda Investment Fund and a con-
reinforced segments have a lower resistance sortium of five organisations (Halcrow Group,
to bending moments than conventionally re- Elasto Plastic Concrete, Zeobond, University
inforced concrete and the lower elastic mod- of Melbourne and Humes).
ulus of synthetic fibres influences their ability
to control cracking and deflection under load. Methodology
These effects need to be considered in the The introduction of new products in the con-
design and handling of segments. Guidance struction industry is controlled by the under-
on the use of steel and synthetic fibres was standably conservative nature of the
published by the UK, Concrete Society in engineering profession and the need to meet
2007 and a design method based on work by existing industry specifications. Some of the
Rilem is included in New Zealand Standard issues relating to adoption of geopolymer
NZS 3101. and fibre technology are indicated in Table 1.
The combination of geopolymer binder In order to address these issues, the project
and synthetic fibre reinforcement presents the pre-empted the normal approvals process by
opportunity to produce concrete with en- testing the FRGC products against the re-
hanced durability and reduced environmental quirements of a typical performance specifi-
impact. However, it necessitates the design, cation. In addition, the project developed
testing and construction procedures to be guidance on structural and durability design
modified compared to bar reinforced Portland and produced prototype products.
Table 1: Key issues to address in the adoption of FRGC technology.
Geopolymer Synthetic fibres
Absence of structural design parameters Absence of structural design parameters
Practical constraints (e.g. controlling workability, Uncertainty over long-term performance (eg creep)
setting time and strength development)
Uncertainty over long-term performance Urgent need to identify appropriate test methods
(eg permeability and diffusion properties and acid and limits to control properties but avoid
resistance) unacceptably high rates of non-compliance
TUNNELLING JOURNAL 35
 REINFORCEMENT
Typical performance requirements for
fibre reinforced tunnel segments were
adopted as shown in Table 2. The tests in-
clude American and Australian strength
and durability tests, such as residual flexural
strength and apparent volume of perme-
able voids (AVPV), as well as European tests
for water penetration and chloride migra-
tion. Specimens were also subject to expo-
sure tests to acid, chloride and sulfate
solutions for 2 years.
Table 2: Summary of performance specification requirements.
Parameter
STRENGTH
Minimum 28-day cylinder strength (MPa)
Minimum cylinder strength for demoulding (MPa)
Minimum 28-day tensile splitting strength (MPa)
Minimum 28-day flexural strength (MPa)
Minimum 28-day equivalent post-crack residual flexural strength Fe3.0 (MPa)
DURABILITY
Maximum AVPV rodded (%)
Maximum 56-day chloride migration coefficient (m2/s)
Maximum 91-day chloride migration coefficient (m2/s)
Maximum sorptivity (mm)
Maximum 56-day drying shrinkage (microstrain)
Following laboratory testing, field trials
were undertaken at the precast plant to
allow prototype segments to be produced
as well, as large beams for bending tests to
validate the design method. Standard and
accelerated curing were used to determine
the effect on the early strength gain for de-
moulding. Prototype segments were subject
to simulated hydrocarbon fire to assess
spalling resistance. ASTM C1550 round
panels were tested for toughness and
cracked panels were centrally loaded in a
rig to monitor deflection due to creep.
Discussion
Laboratory Trials - The initial laboratory tri-
als assessed the workability characteristics of
FRGC mixes using different fibre types, and
doses of synthetic fibres from 8-12kg/m3. A
Portland cement based concrete containing
8kg/m3 of synthetic fibres and geopolymer
Table 3: Summary of strength results for laboratory trials.
Parameter
synthetic fibres
28-day cylinder strength (MPa)
1-day cylinder strength for demoulding (MPa)*
28-day tensile splitting strength (MPa)*
28-day flexural strength (MPa)*
28-day equivalent post-crack residual flexural
strength Fe3.0 (MPa)*
Note: * denotes accelerated curing
36 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
concrete with 40kg/m3 steel fibres provided gave a 100mm target slump 60 minutes
two control mixes. The Portland cement after mixing (allowing for permissible toler-
control mix was based on an existing pro- ances). The main laboratory mixes were
duction mix, with 20% fly ash in the binder 0.35m3 in size to allow a large number of
and a water/binder ratio of less than 0.4. specimens to be produced. The key findings
The synthetic fibres are manufactured from the laboratory trials are discussed
from polyolefin and are 60mm long and 0.5- below.
1mm in diameter with an embossed profile.
The steel fibres are formed from cold drawn Strength - The strength results are sum-
high tensile carbon steel and are 60mm long marised in Table 3.
and 0.75mm in diameter with hooked ends. It can be observed that the compressive and
tensile splitting strengths of the geopolymer
concrete are lower than those of the Portland
cement based control and the typical specifi-
cation requirements. However, flexural
Requirement strength is of primary importance in the per-
formance of tunnel segments, and the flexural
strength and equivalent post-crack residual
50 flexural strength value at 3mm deflection of
10 the geopolymer with synthetic fibres slightly
4.2 exceeds those of both the Portland cement
4.6
based control with synthetic fibres and the
3.2
geopolymer mix with steel fibres. This is
shown in Figure 1.
Conventional concrete mixes with steel fi-
13 bres have shown a tendency to become brittle
4x10-12 as the concrete strength increases due to fibre
2x10-12
rupture rather than gradual pull-out. The
8
good equivalent post-crack residual flexural
600
strength values of the geopolymer mix with
synthetic fibres is en-
couraging, and this
Fig 1: Flexural strength results (y-axis units in MPa).
value would not be
expected to be re-
Flexural strength duced by long-term
Eq. (Post-crack) Residual Strength, Fe0.75
strength gain of the
Eq. (Post-crack) Residual Strength, Fe3.0
concrete in the same
8
way as steel fibres be-
7
cause of the lower
6 elastic modulus of
5 synthetic fibres.
4
3 Durability - The
2 durability test results
1 are summarised in
0 Table 4.
Conventional concrete Geopolymer concrete Geopolymer concrete The Apparent Vol-
with synthetic fibres with steel fibres with synthetic fibres
ume of Permeable
Voids of the geopoly-
Based on the initial trials a geopolymer mer mixes is higher than that of the Portland
mix with 8kg/m3 of synthetic fibre was se- cement based control, and also exceeds the
lected for further development. This mix specified limit. In contrast, the chloride migra-
tion, sorptivity and dying shrinkage of the
geopolymer mixes are better than those of
the Portland cement based control.
Conventional Geopolymer Geopolymer Exposure of specimens to acid and sulfate
concrete with concrete with concrete with solutions and periodic abrasion resulted in
steel fibres synthetic fibres similar deterioration to FRGC as the control
52.5 46.0 49.5 mix containing Portland cement and 20% fly
ash. In contrast, the chloride ingress into
25.0 24.0 25.0 FRGC is much lower than that of the control
4.8 4.0 3.4 and this is consistent with the chloride migra-
tion test results.
5.5 6.4 7.4
Geopolymer concrete lacks a conventional
capillary pore structure and this may mean
3.7 3.8 3.9 that parameters which are heavily influenced
by capillary porosity and capillary transport of
 REINFORCEMENT

The creep deflection of the FRGC mix is ap-

Table 4: Summary of durability test results for laboratory trials.
proximately a factor of three greater than
Conventional Geopolymer Geopolymer the conventional SFRC control mix and
Parameter concrete with concrete with concrete with creep coefficients are approximately 1.5 for
synthetic fibres steel fibres synthetic fibres the control mix and 4.3 for the FRGC mix.
56-day chloride migration coefficient (m2/s) 3.5x10-12 Not tested 1.1x10-12
This indicates that creep deformation needs
to be taken into consideration in the design
91-day chloride migration coefficient (m2/s) 1.9x10-12 Not tested 0.9x10-12 when there is a potential for cracked FRGC
Sorptivity (mm) 9.0 6.1 6.2 segments to be subject to sustained
bending.
56-day drying shrinkage (microstrain) 530 240 400

Fig 4: Creep data, y-axis = deflection (mm)

moisture, such as sorptivity and diffusion,
could be beneficially influenced. However, be-
cause there is no hydration in geopolymer
concrete it is important that the water content
is carefully controlled to minimise overall
porosity to benefit AVPV and strength.
Field Trials
Field trials of up to 2.5m3 size were under-
taken at a precast plant. Tunnel segment
moulds were already available at this plant
from a recently completed 2.4m ID tunnel
with a 200mm thick lining. The objective of
the field trials was to produce prototype FRGC
segments, as well as larger specimens for fur-
ther testing, including large beams for bend-
ing tests. A conventional concrete control mix
with steel fibres was also included.
The field trials used a FRGC with 8kg/m3 of
synthetic fibres and Portland cement based
concrete with 40kg/m3 of steel fibres (with
and without the addition of 1kg/m3 of syn-
thetic microfibres for improved fire spalling re-
sistance).
Four rectangular bolted segments (each ap-
proximately 0.4m3 and 0.8 tonnes in weight)
and four smaller tapered key segments (each
approximately 0.1m3 and 0.2 tonnes in
weight) were produced from the FRGC mix.
Figure 2 shows the typical condition of the de-
moulded segments and a sawn cross-section.
The surface of the segments displayed accept-
able finish and the cross-section indicated
good uniformity and compaction. However,
care has to be taken to evenly disperse the
fibres during mixing and to appropriately cure
the concrete.
Fig 2: Prototype tunnel segments and sawn cross-section
Strength - The compressive strength devel-
opment of the FRGC mix is shown in Figure 3.
Early strength development of the FRGC was
very good and segments were successfully
stripped to allow a single casting cycle every
24 hours at an ambient temperature at cast-
ing of 22°C without heat curing. Compressive
strength and tensile splitting at 28 days in the
FRGC mix is approximately 20% lower than
conventional SFRC control mix. Flexural
strength and residual flexural strength in the
FRGC mix are 5-10% lower than the SFRC
control, but met the performance require-
ments.
Fig 3: Compressive strength development
(y-axis in MPa).
8.0
Conventional concrete
7.0 with steel fibres
6.0 Geopolymer concrete
with synthetic fibres
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
1 day 7 days 28 days
Creep - ASTM C1550 round panels were
loaded to induce cracking and then a load
representing 20-30% of the static capacity
was applied over 100 days the central deflec-
tion monitored (see Figure 4).
1.4
Conventional concrete
1.2 with steel fibres
Geopolymer concrete
1.0 with synthetic fibres
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Time (days)
Beam Tests - Notched beams of different
dimensions (100x200x700mm,
250x200x1750mm and 400x200x2800mm)
were cast from the FRGC mix and subject
to bending at approximately 3 months age
using a modification of the three -point
method in TC162-TDF (Rilem 2003). Figure
5 shows the testing arrangement for the
largest of the beams. The load and crack
mouth opening deflections were recorded
and the results were analysed to verify the
size factor in the NZS 3101 design method.
This factor takes into consideration bound-
ary effects in thinner sections, including a
predominant fibre orientation. The beam
tests mimic research undertaken in the Brite
EuRam Project “Test and Design Methods
for Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete.”
The tests confirm that there is a size fac-
tor effect for FRGC similar to that for SFRC,
although its magnitude is influenced by the
fibre type and should be established for the
intended fibre in order to modify the NZS
3101 design method.

Fire Tests - Four segments were subject to

a simulated hydrocarbon fire involving ex-
posure to furnace temperatures of up to
1100°C over approximately 1 hour. Table 5
summarises the condition of the intrados
exposed to fire testing.
The steel fibre mix without synthetic
microfibres displayed extensive explosive
spalling, whereas the geopolymer concrete
with macrosynthetic fibres had little or no
spalling indicating acceptable fire perform-
ance. However, the potential impact of a
fire event upon the performance of the syn-
thetic macrofibres should be assessed as
part of the design process.

TUNNELLING JOURNAL 37
 REINFORCEMENT
Fig 5: Bending test on FRGC beams
Table 5: Summary of fire tests on segments.
Segment
Conventional SFRC
Conventional SFRC and synthetic microfibres
FRGC (6 months old)
FRGC (8 months old)
Carbon emissions
Reducing the carbon emissions of concrete
is a key driver for the project. In order to as-
sess the impact of using FRGC compared to
conventional concrete, two scenarios were
considered:
a) Casting segments at Echuca, Victoria
for transport by road 220km to a project
site in Melbourne, Victoria; and
b) Casting segments for transport at
Echuca, Victoria by road 3,310km to a proj-
ect site in Perth, Western Australia.
The first case represents a realistic supply
situation for precast segments, whereas the
second case is intended to represent a max-
imum transport distance in order to assess
the influence of haulage on carbon
emissions.
The carbon emissions were calculated
using published values for converting
energy and fuel to CO2. The calculations
assumed that the strength and durability
performance of the FRGC and conven-
tional concrete mixes are similar. The
FRGC concrete has 8kg/m3 of synthetic
38 TUNNELLING JOURNAL
forcement type predominate over trans-
portation.
Performance
Summary and further work
Explosive spalling to approximately 40% of exposed area
The findings of the project are sum-
No spalling marised in Table 6. An estimate of cost of
FRGC compared to conventional concrete
Non-explosive spalling to approximately 10% of exposed area
has been included based on the experi-
No spalling ence of the consortium partners in
Victoria. The cost will be influenced by
fibres and conventional concrete assumes the availability and cost of suitable indus-
40kg/m3 of steel reinforcing bar or steel trial by-products and alkali activators.
fibres. The next step in the development of
The calculations allow for the embodied FRGC following the successful laboratory
carbon in the constituent materials (includ- and field trials is to undertake project
ing obtaining and processing the raw mate- trials. It is proposed that precast FRGC
rials), transportation to the precast plant,
production of the segments and their trans-
portation to the project site. The calcula- Fig 6: Carbon emissions associated with
tions do not assess the effects of segments delivered to Melbourne and
carbonation, or the carbon emission associ- Perth (y-axis = total emissions: tonne
ated with demolition and reuse of tunnel CO2/tonne segment)
segments.
Figure 6 shows the comparison between 0.5
Conventional concrete
FRGC and conventional concrete. The CO2 0.45
with steel rebar/fibres
emissions of segments using FRGC are 0.4
Geopolymer concrete
34% and 60% of the values for conven- 0.35 with synthetic fibres
0.3
tional concrete segments delivered to sites
0.25
in Melbourne and Perth respectively, repre-
0.2
senting a reduction of up to approximately
0.15
70% in emissions. The CO2 emissions for
0.1
FRGC segments transported to Perth are 0.05
slightly less than those associated with con- 0
ventional concrete segments delivered to Melbourne Perth
Melbourne, indicating that binder and rein-
 REINFORCEMENT

than control mixes using synthetic and

Table 6: Summary of FRGC characteristics steel fibres respectively and met the
Segment Performance specified requirements. Durability and fire
spalling performance are significantly
Characteristic FRGC comparison to conventional SFRC enhanced.
Compressive strength and tensile split-
Compressive strength Equal or better at early ages
ting strength are lower than the control
20% lower at later ages (50MPa possible with care) and care is needed over control of water
Tensile splitting strength 20% lower consistent with compressive strength content and curing. Creep of cracked
FRGC ASTM C1550 round panels is a fac-
Flexural strength Slightly lower tor of three higher than the control and
Residual flexural strength Slightly lower this should be allowed for in the design.
The embodied carbon dioxide emissions
Drying shrinkage Reduced
associated with synthetic fibre reinforced
Creep Factor of three times higher for cracked FRGC panels FRGC segments are approximately 70%
lower than conventional concrete using
Fire resistance Improved resistance to spalling compared to SFRC without
synthetic macrofibres. steel reinforcement for a realistic
transport distance.
Effect of fire event on synthetic macrofibres to be assessed The next stage in the development of
in design. FRGC segments is a field trial maybe as
Durability: part of a major project. In addition the
bolted connections in the segmental
AVPV Slightly higher
lining need to be replaced to maintain a
Sorptivity Reduced
minimum carbon footprint. An internal
Chloride migration Significant reduction in chloride ingress research project is currently underway to
Acid resistance Similar develop alternative connection details.
Sulfate resistance Similar

Carbon emissions 70% reduction allowing for practical transport distances ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Design code NZS 3101 but with modified size factor and allowance for
increased creep The authors acknowledge the substantial
contributions made by Dr Van Bui in
Specification Similar to SFRC but no need for chloride migration testing management of the project and the
if synthetic macrofibres used financial support of the Victorian
Additional care over control of water content and curing Government through the Victoria’s
Science Agenda program.
Cost Cost up to 10% lower than conventional SFRC

products using synthetic or steel fibres

are used in non-critical applications, such
as a back shunt tunnel or precast head-
wall. The products would be designed to
NZS 3101 and subject to load testing as
necessary. The products would be
inspected and tested periodically and/or
include sensors, such as corrosion
ladders, to allow long-term monitoring of
performance.
REFERENCES
ACI 1996. Report on Fiber Reinforced Concrete, Report by ACI Committee 544, Reapproved
2002. Farmington Hills, MI: American Concrete Institute.
Angerer W., and Chappell M. 2008. Design of steel fibre reinforced segmental lining for the
Gold Coast Desalination Tunnels, Presented at 13th Australian Tunnelling Conference,
Melbourne, May 4-7.
ASTM C1550-08.2009. Standard Test Method for Flexural Toughness of Fiber Reinforced
Concrete (Using Centrally Loaded Round Panel). West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International.

Conclusions
A 3 year study has been undertaken to
develop concrete which has no Portland
cement or steel reinforcement, but
instead used synthetic fibre reinforcement
and geopolymer binder.
Laboratory and field trials have been
undertaken to assess the strength and
durability of FRGC against a typical per-
formance specification for fibre rein-
forced concrete segments and control
mixes using Portland cement and 20% fly
ash. Prototype segments have also been
produced.
The work indicates that acceptable
FRGC mixes and segments can be pro-
duced. Flexural and residual flexural
strength are slightly higher and lower
Concrete Institute of Australia. 2011. Geopolymer Recommended Practice Handbook. ISBN
1921093560. Rhodes NSW 2138 Australia: Concrete Institute of Australia.
Concrete Society. 2007. Technical Report 63, Guidance on the design of steel-fibre-reinforced
concrete. ISBN 1-904482-32-5. Camberley, Surrey, UK: The Concrete Society.
Concrete Society. 2007. Technical Report 65, Guidance on the use of macro synthetic-fibre-
reinforced concrete. ISBN 1-904482-34-1. Camberley, Surrey, UK: The Concrete Society.
Harding A., and Chappell M, 2012. The design of steel fibre reinforced segmental linings –
reflections on design challenges, Presented at the World Tunnelling Congress.
King, M.R. 2005. The design and use of steel fiber reinforced concrete segments, Proceedings
of Rapid Excavation and Tunnelling Conference, Seattle, June 27-29.
NZS 3101: 2006. Concrete Structures Standard. Wellington: Standards New Zealand.
Rilem 2003.TC 162-TDF: Test and Design Methods for Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete- Design
Method – Final Recommendations. Materials and Structures/Matériaux et Constructions,
October 2003, 36:560-567.

TUNNELLING JOURNAL 39
View publication stats