2019retc2019 09 03

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/333907009
Design Diagrams for Fiber Reinforced Concrete Tunnel

Linings
Conference Paper · June 2019
CITATION READS
1 288
1 author:
Axel Nitschke
WSP USA
18 PUBLICATIONS 31 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Axel Nitschke on 20 June 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Design Diagrams for Fiber Reinforced Concrete Tunnel Linings
Axel G. Nitschke  WSP USA
ABSTRACT
The flexural design of Fiber-Reinforced-Concrete (FRC) tunnel linings typically uses
a material-specific stress strain relationship (SSR) based on beam tests. The evalua-
tion of beam tests to gain the SSR as well as the calculation of the bearing capacity of
tunnel linings using a SSR is work intensive. The latter typically requires specialized
software. Getting quick results for changed input parameters is therefore a challenge.
The paper introduces design diagrams that allow, in a simple and quick manner, to
either evaluate beam test results to gain the corresponding SSR or evaluate the bear-
ing capacity of a tunnel lining for a given SSR in the Ultimate Limit State (ULS) or for
the Serviceability Limit State (SLS). For given loading conditions, the diagrams can
also be used to evaluate the required material properties, which can subsequently be
used to assess the required fiber dosage. Therefore, the diagrams provide a powerful
tool for a rough estimation and are considered very beneficial if quick results with very
little effort are needed, i.e., during preliminary design stages, the bidding phase, or if
the effect of changes of material properties, quality deficiencies or loading conditions
need to be assessed.
The paper discusses briefly the basics of FRC design and how the diagrams were
developed. In addition, the paper provides design examples to explain the use of the
introduced diagrams.
INTRODUCTION
The typical governing load case of tunnel linings is a combination of bending moment
(M) and thrust or normal-force (N). Just as for rebar reinforced concrete (RC) tunnel
linings, the design procedure follows the classical approach for short columns [1,2],
since buckling is typically not an issue for tunnel linings due to their curved shapes
and continuous bedding by the ground. The stress strain relationship (SSR) for fiber-
reinforced concrete (FRC) versus RC is hereby expanded on the tension side (see
Figure 1). Internationally, there are multiple, but similar, beam tests that are used to
develop design values for the SSR [3,4,5,6,7,8,9]. These are not discussed herein.
The biggest difference between the sectional strength of unreinforced or rebar rein-
forced concrete and FRC is that the concrete in unreinforced or rebar reinforced con-
crete has theoretically no bearing capacity in tension. In the modeling of conventionally
reinforced concrete sections, all tension is supported by the rebar. Since the location
of the rebar is known, the location of the resulting tensile force is also known, and this
simplifies the calculation of the equilibrium compared to FRC sections. The computa-
tion of the equilibrium for FRC members is much more challenging because the loca-
tion of the resulting tension force is an unknown during the computation and moves if
the external load and the distribution of the strain over the cross-section changes. The
design assumptions for the calculation of the sectional strength for FRC based on a
SSR are presented and further discussed in detail for example in [5,6,10,11,12,13,14]
and are therefore not discussed herein.
623
Copyright © 2019 Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration. All rights reserved.
624 Ground Support and Final Lining
It is, however, crucial to realize, that with this approach FRC is assumed to be a mac-
roscopically homogeneous and isotropic material [10]. The material properties of a
single fiber in the model becomes irrelevant. Therefore, the fibers and the concrete
are modelled using a single SSR relationship and not two, (i.e., as for steel rebar and
concrete.)
After the cracking of the material under tension, the material properties in the model
are based on strains rather than a discrete crack. In the model the cracked material
is also viewed as homogeneous and isotropic. Since this is in the area around the
crack, it is obviously not the case. This circumstance is very important to realize and
understand when evaluating the sectional strength of FRC using a SSR. During the
evaluation of material testing data based on beam tests (and subsequently the design
of the structure), it is assumed that the crack is “smeared” over a certain length into an
“equivalent strain,” which is also referred to as “integral approach” [10].
Fibers influence the bearing behavior in multiple ways. However, three properties are
most relevant for application in tunnels [10]: (1) they slightly increase the flexural ten-
sile strength, which is mostly needed if improved properties under un-cracked condi-
tions are desired, (i.e., to design for serviceability). However, for the case of ultimate
bearing capacity of tunnel linings, the residual flexural tensile strength under cracked
conditions (2) and the increase of the toughness (3), are the major benefits. Hence,
the focus of this paper is on the performance improvements attributable to (2) and (3).
The provision of a reliable and usable post cracking tensile strength transforms the
brittle failure mechanism of plain concrete into a ductile failure mode. This is a mate-
rial property that provides major engineering and economic advantages, especially if
utilized to facilitate system failure of a tunnel lining rather than a cross section failure
at one, presumably most critical location [13].
A generic SSR and nomenclature of the variables used throughout this paper is shown
in Figure 1 below. The tension side is represented by three sections, which model and
control the bearing behavior in the three different phases (elastic, micro-cracking,
macro-cracking). A detailed discussion about the three different phases is provided in
[10]. The compression side uses a classical parabolic-constant shape.
The load bearing capacity of a cross section based on the SSR is calculated by finding
the equilibrium between internal and external forces as shown in Figure 2. In addi-
tion, the reader is referred to past papers of the author and other literature regarding
the basics of how the equilibrium between internal and external forces is calculated
[5,6,10,11,12,13,14].
For the parametric study in this paper a generic SSR as shown in Figure 1 is used,
which is identical with SSRs provided for example by RILEM in [6] and ACI in [4]. In this
paper, the strains on the compression side (ec1, ec2) and tension side (et1, et2, et3) as
well as the compressive strength (fc) and flexural strength (f t1) are kept constant with
typical values shown in Table 1. Only the residual flexural strengths (f t2 and f t3), which
primarily characterize the effect of the FRC, are varied. Non-dimensional values for
the compressive strength, flexural strength, and residual flexural strength in percent
[%], standardized with the compressive strength, are used. Following the authors own
research experience [10,11] and similar values provided by RILEM in [6], the flexural
strength f t1 is assumed to be 10% of fc. The residual flexural strengths f t2 and f t2 are
varied within the parametric study as 0%, 1.25%, 2.5%, 5.0%, and 7.5% of the com-
pressive strength (fc), while the residual flexural strength f t2 is always greater than or
Design Diagrams for Fiber Reinforced Concrete Tunnel Linings 625
Table 1. Stress-strain-relationship (SSR) used in the parametric study

Tension Compression
Stress f t3* f t2* f t1 fc fc
[% of fc] 0.0 | 1.25 | 2.5| 5.0 | 7.5 0.0 | 1.25 | 2.5| 5.0 | 7.5 10 100 100
Strain et3 et2 et1 ec1 ec2
[‰] 25.0 0.2 0.1 –2.0 –3.5
* f t3 ≤ f t2
Figure 1. Generic stress-strain-relationship (SSR) for fiber reinforced concrete (FRC)
equal to the residual flexural strength ft3. All assumptions of the parametric study are
summarized in Table 1.
For any given combination of strain on the compression side (ec) and strain on the
tension side (et) a distinct bearable combination of moment (M) and axial force (N) can
be calculated (see Figure 2). Within his research work [10], the author has developed
software that would allow the user to compute distinct equilibriums, moment-normal-
force-interaction diagrams, but also moment-curvature or moment-strain graphs for
different axial forces. The moment-strain-graphs were used for the parametric study
introduced in this paper. Since the input is based on a generic SSR shown in Figure 1,
the results are independent of any specific fiber type or dosage.
The goal of the study was to develop simplified design tools to make the use of spe-
cialized software obsolete. To provide the widest use possible, all results are provided
with non-dimensional values. As shown in both Equation 1 and Equation 2 for the non-
dimensional normal-force (n) and the non-dimensional moment (m), the compressive
strength (fc), the cross-section width (b) and height (d) can be summarized in a con-
stant factor (c). Consequently, the dimensionless results shown herein, can be easily
transferred into dimensional values by multiplying the result of the non-dimensional
value with the corresponding constant cn or cm.
Equation 1: Non-dimensional normal-force n
n 6−@ = f # b # d = f # b # d * N = c n * N with c n = f # b # d
N 1 1
c c c
Figure 2. Calculation of equilibrium between internal and external forces
Equation 2: Non-dimensional moment m
m 6−@ =
M 1 1
= * M = c m * M with c m =
fc # b # d 2 fc # b # d 2 fc # b # d 2
As discussed in [10,11,12,13], the SSR on the tension side represents the three differ-
ent stages a FRC lining passes through until reaching its ultimate state: (1) elastic, (2)
micro-cracking, and (3) macro-cracking. For the Serviceability Limit State (SLS) the
elastic and micro-cracking behavior governs the design, while for the Ultimate Limit
State (ULS) the macro-cracking governs the design. Imagining different equilibriums
by using Figure 2, it becomes obvious that, for the SLS, the accurate modeling of εt3
and f t3 is irrelevant, because the actual strain (εt) in the SLS is far from maximum
strain (εt << εt3). For the ULS, on the other hand, the detailed modeling of εt1, εt2, and
flexural strengths (ft1) is not required, because these areas provide very little bear-
ing capacity if the tensile strain (εt) reaches the maximum strain (εt ≈ εt3 and εt >> εt2,
εt1). Both cases can therefore, without significant loss of accuracy, be evaluated com-
pletely separately, as is shown below.
The paper starts with the discussion of the ULS in the following section, followed by
the SLS. In both cases, the concept is initially developed for load cases under pure
bending, without the influence of the axial compression force. In a subsequent step
the concept is then expanded for different levels of axial forces.
BEARING CAPACITY FOR FRC UNDER BENDING IN THE ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE
Using the SSR introduced above, moment-strain-curves can be created by varying
the compression (εc) and tensile strains (εt). Each graph shown in Figure 3 shows the
result for a moment-tensile strain curve under pure bending using different levels of
residual flexural strengths (ft2, f t3) as a percentage of the compressive strength (fc).
“Tensile strain” refers, within this context, to the strain at the side of the cross section
under tension. The following figure shows moment-tensile strain graphs with a SSR
with a constant residual flexural strength in the last section (f t2 = f t3), varying from
0%, 1.25%, 2.5%, 5.0%, and 7.5% of the compressive strength (fc). As can be seen in
Figure 3, it is typical that the moment bearing capacity is nearly constant after reach-
ing a certain tensile strain of approximately εt > 5‰. Since the stress is constant (f t2
= f t3 = constant) and the resulting moment (m) is constant if the strain is greater than
approximately 5‰, the moment bearing capacity for a strain greater than 5‰ can
also be displayed as a single point for a certain residual flexural strength (f t2 = f t3) in
a moment-stress diagram. Figure 5 displays this effect in a moment-stress diagram
for different residual flexural strengths. The arrows display the investigated residual
strengths: ft2 = ft3 = 7.5%, 5.0%, 2.5%, 1.25%, and 0%. Furthermore, the effect is lin-
ear for different residual flexural strengths, so that the bearing capacity can be simply
displayed as a line (see solid line in Figure 5). As a result, the ultimate bearing moment
for any constant residual flexural strength of a SSR (ft2 = f t3) can be directly evaluated
using the solid line in Figure 5.
Figure 4 shows the known moment-strain curves from Figure 3 for the constant cases
f t2 = f t3 = 2.5%–2.5% and 5.0%–5.0%. In addition, the effect of a trapezoidal SSR
between residual flexural strenghts f t2 and f t3 is shown for f t2 = 5.0% with f t3 varying
between 2.5%, 1.0% and 0% (labelled in the figure as “5.0%–2.5%,” “5.0%–1.25%,”
and “5.0%–0.0%”). If the SSR between f t2 and f t3 is trapezoidal, the moment strain
curve is typically dropping linearly after a strain of approximately 5‰ (see Figure 4).
Figure 3. Moment over tensile strain for constant residual flexural strengths ft2 and ft3 [0%, 1.25%,
2.5%, 5.0%, 7.5%] for pure bending (n = 0)
Figure 4. Moment over tensile strain for constant and trapezoidal residual flexural strengths ft2 [2.5%,
5.0%] and ft3 [0%, 1.25%, 2.5%, 5%] for pure bending (n = 0)
Figure 5. Moment over stress for ft2 and ft3 for pure bending (n = 0)
If the moment strain curves of Figure 4 are displayed again as a moment-stress graph
by using the SSR to calculate the stress σt (ε) as a function of the strain on the tension
side (εt) (see Figure 2), the curves are again linear for a strain greater of approximately
5‰. All curves with different residual flexural strengths ft3, but the same residual flex-
ural strength f t2, have the same slope and are covering each other. (see grey lines in
Figure 5). Therefore, the trapezoidal SSRs can also be shown as lines in the moment
stress diagram (see dashed lines in Figure 5).
The resulting diagram provides therefore a simple design tool for the ULS. If for exam-
ple, a SSR with ft2 = 5.0% and ft3 = 3.75% is given, the bearable moment can be evalu-
ated with the diagram to m = 0.02 (follow the ft2 = 5.0% arrow to the solid line and from
there follow the dashed line to ft3 = 3.75% and read the moment m from the y-axis).
The diagram can also be used in the reversed fashion: if a moment of m = 0.015 is
given, it can be either born by a FRC with f t2 = 0.75% and f t3 = 7.5%, or f t2 = 2.25% and
ft3 = 5.0%, or f t2 = f t3 = 3.13% (see Figure 5). It should be noted that the diagram can
also be used to interpolate between distinct lines, as necessary.
BEARING CAPACITY FOR FRC UNDER BENDING AND THRUST IN THE

ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE
In the previous section the development of a design diagram for the ULS was intro-
duced. However, the diagram is limited to pure bending. In this section an identi-
cal approach is chosen, but it now includes the effect of different axial compression
forces. Figure 6 shows moment strain graphs for different levels of axial forces (n) for
different residual flexural strengths. To maintain clarity only cases with constant resid-
ual flexural strengths (f t2 = f t3), labelled as 1 to 5, are shown in the figure. The lower
group shows the curves for pure bending (n=0) as previously introduced in Figure 3,
followed by an increasing (non-dimensional) axial force (n) chosen to 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and
0.4. The dimensionless axial force (n) can herby also be interpreted as the bearing
capacity under direct compression. For n = 1 the cross section would fail under pure
compression and is not capable of bearing any moment. In tunnel designs n typically
ranges below 30 to 40% of the bearing capacity under pure compression respectively
in the lower third of a moment-normal-force-interaction diagram [10,13]. Compared
to pure bending, the increasing influence of the axial force also leads to a change in
failure mechanism. For pure bending or small axial force the maximum tensile strain
Figure 6. Moment over tensile strain for constant residual flexural stengths ft2 and ft3 [1: 0% | 2: 1.25%
| 3: 2.5% | 4: 5.0% | 5: 7.5%] for different axial force
is reached before the maximum compressive strain. However, the failure mechanism
switches to a compression failure with increasing thrust, reaching the maximum com-
pression strain before the maximum tensile strain. This effect can be clearly seen in
Figure 6, where the moment is shown over the tensile strain. While for pure bending
the graphs reach the maximum tensile strain (εt3 = 25‰), the graphs reach failure at
lesser tensile strain with increased axial force. To maintain clarity in the figure, the
numbers 1 to 5 refer to different residual flexural strength levels with No. 1: 0%, No. 2:
1.25%, No. 3: 2.5%, No. 4: 5.0%, and No. 5: 7.5%.
Following the same approach for the development of a design diagram introduced
in the previous section for pure bending, the design diagram can then be expanded
to include the axial force component. Each solid line in Figure 7 is developed for a
constant SSR for the residual flexural strengths (ft2 = f t3) and the dashed lines refer to
trapezoidal curves between f t2 and f t3. As can be seen in Figure 6, the influence of f t3
reached at 25‰ diminishes with increasing axial force n and is therefore not shown
for larger axial forces (n ≥ 0.2) to maintain clarity in the figure. As emphasized in the
previous section, this diagram is applicable for the ULS and tensile strains larger than
approximately 5‰.
The use of the design diagram is now shown in examples for different scenarios.
Example 1: A continuous tunnel lining (b = 1 m) has a thickness of 0.2 m and a com-

pressive strength of fc = 35 MN/m2. The lining is loaded with an axial force N = 1.4
MN and a moment of M = 0.14 MNm. What is the residual flexural strength needed
in the ULS?
Solution: n = 1.4/(35*1*0.2) = 0.2

m = 0.14/(35*1*0.22) = 0.1
Using Figure 7: m = 0.1, follow curve for n = 0.2,
result: ft2 = f t3 = 6.75%
Answer: The residual flexural strength is ft2 = f t3 = 35*(6.75/100) = 2.36 MN/m2
Example 2: A segmental tunnel lining (b = 1.5 m) has a thickness of 0.4 m. The com-
pressive strength fc is 45 MN/m2 and the residual flexural strength is ft2 = 2.25 MN/m2
Figure 7. Moment over stress for residual flexural strengths ft2 and ft3 for different axial forces
and f t3 = 1.13 MN/m2. What is the maximum bearable moment at ULS, if the axial force
is N = 2.7 MN?
Solution: n = 2.7/(45*1.5*0.4) = 0.1

f t2 = 2.25/45 = 5.0%
f t3 = 1.13/45 = 2.5%
Using Figure 7: go to ft2 = 5.0% and up to intersect solid curve for n = 0.1;
follow dashed line to f t3 = 2.5%
read: m = 0.06
Answer: Maximum bearable moment is M = 0.06*45*1.5*0.42 = 0.65 MNm
Example 3: A flexural beam test was conducted and a moment–strain curve was
obtained. Based on the cross section geometry (b = d= 0.15 m) and the compressive
strength fc is 32.5 MN/m2 the test result is transformed into the non-dimensional moment
strain curve using the factor cm = 1/(32.5*0.15*0.152) = 9.12 [1/MNm] from Equation 2
(for the purpose of this example assume the test result is shown in Figure 4 for
“5%–1.25%”).
Solution: The maximum bearable moment at et3 is obtained from the curve as
mt3 = 0.012.
The bearable moment at et2 is obtained from the curve as mt2 = 0.021.
Using Figure 7 the solution is read as f t2 = 5.0% and f t2 = 1.25%
Answer: The residual flexural strength corresponding to the test results is
f t2 = 32.5 * 5.0/100 = 1.63 MN/m2 and ft3 = 32.5 * 1.25/100 = 0.41 MN/m2
As the examples above show, the design diagram for the ULS introduced in Figure 7
provides a powerful tool to provide quick results easily. The design diagram can be
used for different scenarios to evaluate the bearing capacity for a given SSR or evalu-
ate residual flexural strength for given loading conditions. In addition, it can be used to
quickly develop a SSR from beam test results.
In the following section a similar approach is chosen to develop a design diagram for
the SLS.
Figure 8. Moment over tensile strain for constant residual flexural strengths ft2 and ft3 [0% | 1.25% |
2.5% | 5.0% | 7.5%] for pure bending (n = 0)
BEARING CAPACITY FOR FRC UNDER PURE BENDING

IN THE SERVICE LIMIT STATE
The graphs shown in Figure 8 are identical with the graphs of Figure 3, but zooms into
the area between εt = 0 to 5‰ that is relevant for the Serviceability Limit State (SLS).
As can be seen in the relevant strain area in Figure 4, showing the different trapezoidal
SSRs, the results for different trapezoidal curves do not vary greatly from the constant
curves in the area for εt << 5‰. Therefore, and for simplification, the parametric study
for the SLS uses constant SSRs only, without losing significant accuracy in the results.
The SLS design is typically governed by an allowable crack width. The allowable crack
width (w) for serviceability of FRC, i.e., w = 0.2 mm, is typically reached at much lower
equivalent strains compared to the equivalent strain and crack width in the ULS, which
can be a couple of millimeters. In this context, it is emphasized again that in the SSR an
equivalent strain on the tension side (εt) is used and not a crack width (w). Therefore, a
relationship between crack width and equivalent strain needs to be defined. RILEM [6]
provides an equation relating the crack width (w) with the equivalent tensional strain
(εt) based on the cross section under tension (y) (refer also to Figure 2):
Equation 3: Crack-width/equivalent strain relationship

w = εt * y
Figure 9 shows the cross section under tension over the equivalent strain (εt) for the
graphs shown in Figure 8, with a residual flexural strength (ft2 = f t3) between 0% and
7.5%. The cross-section height under tension (y) is divided by the total cross-section
height (d) and is shown as a dimensionless value. After the reaching the elastic limit at
εt1 = 0.1‰ the cross section under tension (y) grows quickly between 80 to 95% over
the entire cross section height (d). It can also be observed that the increasing residual
flexural strength of the FRC (shown from 0% to 7.5%) increases the cross-section
area under compression (x). This respectively reduces the cross-section height under
tension (y), especially if compared to f t2 = f t3 = 0%, which represents “unreinforced”
concrete. This effect also reduces the tensile strain (respectively crack width), which
is a known benefit of FRC.
Figure 9. Cross section height under tension over equivalent tensional strain
Figure 10. Crack width over equivalent strain for pure bending (n = 0)
Figure 9 can then be transformed into a crack width diagram by multiplying the height
of the tension zone (y) with the related tensile strain (εt) using Equation 3. In Figure 10
the result of the crack width is shown. The crack width (w) is divided by the cross-
section height (d) to provide a non-dimensional result over the equivalent strain (εt).
The graph can be used in combination with Figure 9 as a SLS design diagram as
shown in the following example.
Example 4: The maximum specified crack width w for the SLS is 0.4 mm. The cross-
section height is d = 0.2 m, the compressive strength is fc = 35 MN/m2, and the resid-
ual flexural strength ft2 is 5% What is the maximum bearable moment at the SLS?
Solution: The equivalent strain εt for w = 0.4 mm based on Figure 10 is approxi-

mately 2.5% (with w/d = 0.4 mm/0.2 m = 2.0 [1/1,000]). Using this strain
as an input parameter for Figure 8 the bearable SLS moment results as
m = 0.022.
Answer: With a cross section width of b = 1 m and a compressive strength of
fc = 35 MN/m2, the bearable moment results is M = 0.022*35*1*0.22 =
0.031 MNm or 31 kNm.
BEARING CAPACITY FOR FRC UNDER AXIAL FORCE

IN THE SERVICE LIMIT STATE
The same approach developed for pure bending (n = 0) is now repeated for design
diagrams including different axial forces (n = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4). Figure 11 shows
the moment over the tensile strain over the different axial forces for n = 0 to 0.4 and
different residual flexural strengths f t2 = f t3 = 0% (curve No. 1), 1.25% (curve No. 2),
2.5% (curve No. 3), 5.0% (curve No. 4), and 7.5% (curve No. 5). With an increasing
axial force the entire cross section is under compression in the elastic phase, which
can be seen by the negative values of the tensile strain at the beginning of curves. As
discussed for the ULS, the increasing axial force also increases the bearing capacity
for specific strain values.
Figure 12 shows the height of the cross section under tension for different normal
forces n. For visual clarity, only the curves for f t2 = f t3 = 0% (upper boundary) and
7.5% (lower boundary) are shown. Values between the upper and lower boundary
can be interpolated. The influence of the increasing axial compression is shown by a
reduced cross section height under tension respectively by an increasing part of the
Figure 11. Moment over tensile strain for constant residual flexural strengths ft2 and ft3 [1: 0% | 2: 1.25%
| 3: 2.5% | 4: 5.0% | 5: 7.5%] different axial force
Figure 12. Cross section under tension over equivalent tensional strain for different axial forces
Figure 13. Crack width over equivalent strain for different axial forces
cross section under compression. For n = 0.4 and n = 0.3 the graphs are ending even
before reaching the range of the diagram at εt = 5‰, because the cross sections fails
on compression before reaching the maximum tensile strain shown.
Following the same approach introduced for pure bending the graphs in Figure 13 are
displaying the relationship between the crack width w over the tensile strength for dif-
ferent axial forces. As above, only the upper boundary for ft2 = f t3 = 0% and the lower
boundary for f t2 = f t3 = 7.5% are shown. Values between the upper and lower boundary
can be interpolated. As expected, the increasing axial force has a positive effect on
the crack width. A specific crack width is reached at a higher tensile strain.
CONCLUSION
The calculation of the bearing capacity of tunnel linings using an SSR for the ULS
and the SLS is work intensive and typically requires specialized software. Parametric
studies using different levels of axial compressive forces were conducted to evaluate
typical load bearing behavior. Based on the typical behavior, simplified design dia-
grams for the SLS and ULS have been developed, which can easily be used for differ-
ent types of design applications. Typical design examples using the design diagrams
were discussed. The introduced design diagrams provide a powerful tool for a rough
estimation and are considered very beneficial if quick results with very little effort are
needed, i.e., during preliminary design stages, the bidding phase of a project, or if the
effect of changes of material properties, quality issues, or loading conditions need to
be assessed.
REFERENCES
[1] A
merican Concrete Institute Committee 318: Building Code Requirements for
Structural Concrete (ACI 318-14). 2015.
[2] A
merican Concrete Institute: The Reinforced Concrete Design Handbook. Volume
1: Member Design SP-17(14). Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(ACI 318-14). 2015.
[3] A
merican Concrete Institute: Report on Indirect Methods to Obtain Stress-Strain
Response of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (FRC) (ACI 544.8R-16). 2016.
[4] A
merican Concrete Institute: Guide to Design with Fiber Reinforced Concrete (ACI
544.4R-18). 2018.
[5] A
merican Concrete Institute: Report on Design and Construction of Fiber
Reinforced Precast Concrete Tunnel Segments (ACI 544.7R-16). 2016.
[6] R
ILEM TC 162-TDF: Test and Design Methods of Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete.
σ-ε-design method—final recommendation. Materials and Structures, Vol. 36,
October 2003, pp. 560–567.
[7] R
ILEM TC 162-TDF: Test and Design Methods of Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete.
Bending Test, Recommendations. Materials and Structures, Vol. 33, January-
February 2000, pp. 3–5.
[8] G
erman Society for Concrete and Construction Technology (DBV): Guide to Good
Practice—Steel Fibre Concrete. 2001.
[9] D
eutscher Ausschuss fuer Stahlbeton (German Committee for Reinforced
Concrete) (DAfStb): DAfStb Richtlinie fuer Stahfaserbeton (DAfStb Guideline for
Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete). 2010.
[10] N
itschke, A., Tragverhalten von Stahlfaserbeton für den Tunnelbau. Dissertation.
(in German. Load Bearing Behavior of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete for
Tunneling. Doctor Thesis.) Technisch-wissenschaftliche Mitteilungen des Instituts
für konstruktiven Ingenieurbau der Ruhr-Universität Bochum, TWM 98-5, 1998.
[11] R
uhr-Universität Bochum, Lehrstuhl Prof. Maidl, Nitschke, A., Ortu, M.: Bemessung
von Stahlfaserbeton im Tunnelbau. Abschlußbericht. (in German: Design of Steel
Fiber Reinforced Concrete for Tunneling. Final Report) Research Project funded
by the Deutscher Beton-Verein E.V. (DBV-Nr. 211) and the Arbeitsgemeinschaft
industrieller Forschungsvereinigungen (AiF-Nr. 11427 N). Fraunhofer IRB Verlag,
1999. ISBN 3-8167-5455-4.
[12] N
itschke, A., Bernard, E., Load-Bearing Capacity of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete
Tunnel Linings. Rapid Excavation & Tunneling Conference (RETC 2017).
[13] N
itschke, A., Elasto-Plastic Design of Fiber Reinforced Concrete Tunnel Linings.
North American Tunneling Conference (NAT 2018).
[14] N
itschke, A., Modelling of Load Bearing Behavior of Fiber Reinforced Concrete
Tunnel Linings. Shotcrete Magazine, Volume 19, Number 2. 2017.
[15] N
itschke, A., Winterberg, R.: Performance of Macro Synthetic Fiber Reinforced
Tunnel Linings, World Tunnel Congress (WTC) 2016 Proceedings, 22nd–28th
April 2016 in San Francisco, CA.
View publication stats

2019retc2019 09 03

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2019retc2019 09 03

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Design Diagrams for Fiber Reinforced Concrete Tunnel

Conference Paper · June 2019

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Axel G. Nitschke  WSP USA

Table 1. Stress-strain-relationship (SSR) used in the parametric study

Figure 1. Generic stress-strain-relationship (SSR) for fiber reinforced concrete (FRC)

Equation 1: Non-dimensional normal-force n

Figure 2. Calculation of equilibrium between internal and external forces

Equation 2: Non-dimensional moment m

BEARING CAPACITY FOR FRC UNDER BENDING AND THRUST IN THE

Example 1: A continuous tunnel lining (b = 1 m) has a thickness of 0.2 m and a com-

Solution: n = 1.4/(3510.2) = 0.2

Solution: n = 2.7/(451.50.4) = 0.1

BEARING CAPACITY FOR FRC UNDER PURE BENDING

Equation 3: Crack-width/equivalent strain relationship

Solution: The equivalent strain εt for w = 0.4 mm based on Figure 10 is approxi-

BEARING CAPACITY FOR FRC UNDER AXIAL FORCE

You might also like