See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/263348492

Experiences in Barcelona with the use of fibres

in segmental linings
ARTICLE in TUNNELLING AND UNDERGROUND SPACE TECHNOLOGY JANUARY 2012
Impact Factor: 1.59 DOI: 10.1016/j.tust.2011.07.001

CITATIONS

DOWNLOADS

VIEWS

20

97

81

4 AUTHORS:
Albert De la Fuente

Pablo Pujadas

Polytechnic University of Catalonia

Polytechnic University of Catalonia

65 PUBLICATIONS 144 CITATIONS

28 PUBLICATIONS 105 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Ana Blanco

Antonio Aguado

Polytechnic University of Catalonia

Polytechnic University of Catalonia

33 PUBLICATIONS 109 CITATIONS

219 PUBLICATIONS 821 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

SEE PROFILE

Available from: Albert De la Fuente

Retrieved on: 10 September 2015

EXPERIENCESINBARCELONAWITHTHEUSEOFFIBERSIN
SEGMENTALLININGS

AlbertdelaFuente(1)*,PabloPujadas(2),AnaBlanco(3)andAntonioAguado(4)

(1)

CivilEngineer.PhDStudentandLecturer.UPC,Barcelona(Spain).
(2) CivilEngineer.PhDStudent.UPC,Barcelona(Spain).
(3) CivilEngineer.PhDStudent.UPC,Barcelona(Spain).
(4) CivilEngineer.DoctorProfessor.UPC,Barcelona(Spain).

aDepartmentofConstructionEngineering,UniversitatPolitcnicadeCatalunya,UPC,JordiGirona13,08034Barcelona,Spain.

*Correspondingauthor.Tel.:+34934010795;fax:+34934011036;email:albert.de.la.fuente@upc.edu

Abstract
This paper presents the most outstanding experiences regarding the use of fibres as the main
reinforcement in precast segmental linings in the metropolitan area of Barcelona. It is known that the
additionofstructuralfibresimproves,ontheonehand,themechanicalbehaviourofthestructureduring
its construction, especially in cases such as the thrust of the jacks, and on the other hand it leads to a
reductionoftheglobalcostsbyreducingtheconventionalpassivereinforcement.Theaimofthispaper
consists in presentingthree real experiences that are representative of the applicationof FRC in urban
tunnels and a design methodology to take into account the structural contribution of the fibres. Two
particular cases of the application of this design method are presented. In the firstcase, the use of 25
kg/m3offibershasledtoareductionof70%oftheconventionalreinforcementinitiallyproposedinthe
project.In the second one, whichwas planned to employ fibers but without considering its structural
contribution,theparametricstudyreflectedthepossibilityofreducinguptoa38%oftherebarsadding
25kg/m3ofsteelfibresintheconcretemixture.Inlightofgoodresults,constructioncompaniesinSpain
have become aware of the advantages of usingfibers in these structures and have carried out
experimentalstretches.ThisattitudehasalsobeeninfluencedbytheapprovalofthenewSpanishCode,
whichincludestheFRCasaconstructionmaterialwithdesignpurposes.

1. INTRODUCTION
Fibrereinforcedconcrete(FRC)isacompositematerialthathasprovedtobeacompetitivematerialin
manytypesstructures(diPriscoandToniolo,2000;diPriscoetal.,2009;Walraven2009,delaFuenteet
al.,2010a).Inparticular,therearemanyadvantageswhenusingFRCinthemanufacturingofsegmental
liningsoftunnelsbuiltbymeansofaTunnelBoringMachine(TBM)(Waal,1999;Blom,2002;Plizzariand
Tiberti,2006;Burguersetal.,2007).Inthisfield,theuseofsteelfibrereinforcedconcrete(SFRC)
improvesthemechanicalbehaviourofconcreteenhancing:(1)thoughness;(2)resistencetofire;(3)
resistancetofatigueand(4)itsresponsefacingimpactsandconcentratedloadsthatcanbeoccurinstages
priortotheplacementofthesegments(curing,transportandhandling),duringitsassembling(thrustof
thejacks)andduringservicestage(contactbetweenjoints).
Likewise,theuseofSFRCmayleadtothetotalorapartialremovalofrebars,improvingtheproduction
efficiencyandensuringeconomiccompetitivenesswithregardstothetraditionalsolution.Thereare
manystudiesbothexperimental(Caratiellietal.,2010)andnumerical(PlizzariandCominoli,2005;
PlizzariandTiberti2006;Burguersetal.,2007;Tibertietal.,2008;TibertiandPlizzari2008;Chiaiaetal.,
2009a;Chiaiaetal.,2009b)inwhichtheadvantagesassociatedtotheuseofSFRCinprecastsegmentsare
provedaswellastheuseofsteelbarreinforcedconcrete(RC)andSFRCinthesameprecastconcrete
segment(RCSFRC,hereinafter).
Inthelast8years,theconstructionofmorethan120kmoftunnelhasstartedinthemetropolitanarea
of Barcelona (Spain), some of which are still under construction. The internal diameter (Di) of these
tunnelsrangesfrom6.00mto10.9m,withaspectratios(=Di/h)ofeven31asintheCanZamstretchof
theLine9SubwayofBarcelona.Basically,theapplicationswereeitherrelatedtorailways,metrolinesor
forhydraulicconduits.
The use of SFRC began at several stretches of Line 9 Subway of Barcelona (started in 2003).
Nevertheless,thestructuralcontributionofthefibreswasnotconsideredinthedesignduetothelackof
regulationsintheSpanishCoderegardingtheuseofFRC.Conversely,theywereconsideredtoimprove

delaFuente,A.,Pujadas,P.,Blanco,A.,Aguado,A.2011,TunnellingandUndergroundSpaceTechnology

thetoughnessandenhancethecrackingcontrolduringhandlingandassemblingoperations,whilerebars
kept the main resistant function. In this sense, the most advanced regulations currently available when
these first applications were carried out in Barcelona did take already into account the structural
contribution of the fibers, but they were too recent (DBV, 1992; RILEM TC 162TDF, 2003; CNR
DT204/2006, 2006). Nowadays, the Spanish regulation CPH (2008) includes SFRC as a material with a
structuralresponsibility.
Subsequently to the beginning of the construction of the Line 9 Subway of Barcelona, several
experimentalapplicationsofSFRCprecastsegmentswereperformedinvariousstretches.Inthesecases,
60kg/m3ofsteelfiberswereusedtoreplacethesteelrebars.However,twogroupsofstirrupssimilarto
the ones used in the analysis of the Line 1 Subway of Valencia (Venezuela) (Plizzari and Tiberti 2006)
weremaintainedinordertoconfinetheconcrete.
Currently, some experiences concerning precast concrete segments reinforced only with fibres have
beendone(seeTable1),butthegreatmajorityofthemarerelatedtovaluesofgenerallysmallerthan
those used in the Line 9 Subway of Barcelona. Examples of these applications are: a tunnel for the
transportation of water in Ecuador (Vandewalle, 2005), Gold Coast and South East Queensland in
Australia (Angerer and Chappell, 2008), Heating Tunnel from the Island Amager to Copenhagen in
Denmark (Kasper et al., 2008), Line 4 Subway of Sao Paulo (Telles and Figueiredo, 2006), CLEM Jones
TunnelinBrisbane(Rivercity,2008),HobsonBaySewerTunnelinNewZealand(Maccaferri,2009)and
BrightWaterSewerSystemSeattleTacomainUSA(Jones,2009).

Table1.Internationalexperiencesontheuseoffibersintunnels

Project

Di(m)

h(m)

Noof
segments

Year

HeathrowBaggageHandling
Tunnel(UK)

4.5

0.15

30.0

7+key

1993

5.7

0.22

25.8

5+key

1994

HeathrowExpressTunnel(UK)
2ndHeinenoordTunnelRotterdam
(ND)
Onzberg(SW)

7.6

0.35

21.7

7+key

1999

11.4

0.40

28.5

7+key

2003

ChannelTunnelRailLink(UK)

7.2

0.35

20.4

9+key

2004

Line9SubwayofBarcelona.Can
Zamstretch(SP)

10.9

0.35

31.1

7+key

2003

HeathrowExpressExtensiontoT5
(UK)

5.7

0.22

25.8

9+key

2005

Line9SubwayofBarcelona.
StretchI(Spain)

8.4

0.32

26.3

6+key

2006

3.6

0.18

20.3

5+key

2006

5.7

0.30

19.1

6+key

2009

8.4

0.35

24.1

7+key+invert

2009

11.4

0.40

28.5

8+key

2010

SanVicenteTunnel(USA)
BeaconHillStationandTunnels
(USA)
Line4oftheUndergroundofSao
Paulo(BR)
ClemJonesTunnel(AUS)

The challenge in the recent experiences carried out in the metropolitan area of Barcelona was to
analyzethefeasibilityofexceedingthediameterspreviouslyreached.Thus,thepurposeofthisarticleis,
on the one hand, to present these experiences. On the other hand, this article also aims at showing the
designmethodologyusedfortheoptimizationoftheamountoffibres(Cf)inSFRCandRCSFRCprecast
segments.

2. PIONEEREXPERIENCEINTHEMETROPOLITANAREAOFBARCELONA
ThefirstpilottestfortheapplicationofSFRCinprecastsegmentswascarriedoutintheyear2004,in
the Can Zam stretch of the Line 9 Subway. It must be highlighted that the execution and the working
conditions in this first experience were highly adverse: descending stretch and water leaks with a
temperatureofupto60C.ThesolutionadoptedinthiscasewasaringwithaDi=10.9m,dividedbyan
2

delaFuente,A.,Pujadas,P.,Blanco,A.,Aguado,A.2011,TunnellingandUndergroundSpaceTechnology

intermediateslabseparatingtwoindependentlevels(oneforeachtrafficdirection).Thethicknessofthe
segmentwas0.35m,andaFRCwith60kg/m3ofsteelfibersdosagewasused.Atotalofthirtyringswere
constructed;threeofthemwereinstrumentedinordertocarryoutaloadingtestforsimulatingthesoil
pressureinthefieldconditionsbymeansofjacks(MolinsandArnau,2011;ArnauandMolins2011).
In Fig. 1a the instrumented specimen is presented. Notice, that the conventional reinforcement was
limitedtothestirrups(asimilarsolutionwasdevelopedbyPlizzariandTiberti(2006)).Likewise,Fig.1b
showstheflatbedpressplacedintheextradosofthesegmenttoperformtheloadingtest.

a)
Flatbedpress
b)

Fig.1.LoadtestoftheRCSFRCprecastsegments:a)instrumentedspecimenandb)flatbedpress
configuration.

As previously mentioned, the working conditions were adverse. As a matter of fact, some splitting
cracksandlocalfailuresappeared.Fig.2ashowsthecrackpatterngeneratedduringtheassemblingofthe
segments. This cracking was due to the high eccentricity of the load transmitted by the jacks in the
descendingpartofthestretch(Burguersetal.,2007;Cavalaro,2009).Fig.2balsoshowstheexistenceof
waterleaks.Nonetheless,therewasnoconcretedetachmentthankstothepresenceoffibresbridgingthe
cracks.

a)

b)

Fig.1.(a)Assemblingoperations:(a)crackpatternduetothethrustofthejacksand(b)presenceofwater
leaks.
Even considering the problems already mentioned, which also took place in the stretches with
traditionalreinforcement,theresultsfromtheloadingtestweresatisfactory(Molinsetal.,2009).Inspite
ofthesuccessachieved,thesolutionwasnotgeneralizedinthewholetunnelforseveralreasons,manyof
thembearingnorelationtothetechnicalreasons.

delaFuente,A.,Pujadas,P.,Blanco,A.,Aguado,A.2011,TunnellingandUndergroundSpaceTechnology

Onthebasisoftheresultsobtainedinthispilotapplicationandtheinternationalexperiencesrelated
withtheuseofSFRCinprecastsegments(seeTable1),newoneswereproposedinthemetropolitanarea
of Barcelona: FontSantaTrinitat Tunnel and Terrassa Tunnel. In the first case, 10 optimized RCSFRC
rings were placed, while in the second case a RCSFRC precast segmental lining was used in the whole
tunnel.

3. NUMERICALMODELFORTHENONLINEARANALYSISOFSECTIONS
3.1. Introduction
Inthisworktheanalysisofthemechanicalbehaviorofthecriticalsectionsofthestudiedsegments,the
model Analysis of Evolutionary Sections (AES) has been used. This model has been developed by the
same authors of this document and has been published in (de la Fuente et al., 2008). The AES model
allowssimulatingthenonlinearresponseofsectionsbuiltwithdifferentmaterials(concreteandsteel).
Forthatpurpose,numerousconstitutiveequationswereimplementedinordertoreproducetheuniaxial
behavior of concrete and steel and, among them, the different constitutive equations in the European
standardstosimulatethepostcrackingresponseofSFRC(seeBlancoetal.,2010).
TheAESmodelhasbeenusedinthisstudytoobtainthebendingmomentcurvaturediagrams(Mk)
and the axial forcebending moment interaction (NuMu) of the critical sections of the studied segments
andforthedifferentreinforcementconfigurations(fibers+rebars)considered.Thus,anefficiencyanalysis
hasbeencarriedoutforeachofthesolutionsinordertosatisfytheServiceabilityLimitState(SLS)andthe
UltimateLimitState(ULS)togetherwithanintegralstudyoftheassociatedcosts,enablingthechoiceof
theoptimumsolutionforthereinforcement.
Inconclusion,theAESmodelisaversatileandpowerfultoolforcalculationthatallowscarryingout
analysis as the aforementioned thoroughly. The main principles of the model as well as the aspects
regardingthesimulationofSFRCarepresentednext.Adetaileddescriptionofthemodelcanbefoundin
(delaFuenteetal.,2008).

3.2. AssumptionsadoptedinthemodelAES
Modellingofthematerials
InthemodelAEStheconcretesectionsarediscretizedinlayerswithconstantthicknesswhichcouldbe
arbitrary assigned depending on the desired precision, whereas steel rebars are simulated as
concentratedareaelements.Subsequently,thesuitableconstitutivemodelisassignedtoeachelementin
order to reproduce its uniaxial behaviour as well as to obtain the stressesstrain profile of the section
resultingfromagivencoupleofforces(N,M)(seeFig.3a).
ItisknownthattheadditionofsteelfibresmodifiesthebehaviourofSFRCdependingonthetypeand
onthevolumeoffibersused(Bencardinoetal.,2008).Inthissense,themodelAESdescribestheresponse
ofSFRCunderuniaxialcompressionwiththeexpressionsuggestedbyBarrosandFigueiras,1999.Onthe
other hand, the simulation of its postcracking behaviour is solved by means of the model type cc
suggestedinRILEMTC162TDF,2003.Thisisaninternationallyacceptedmodel(seeFig.3b)whichhas
alreadybeenusedinseveralnumericalexperimentalcontrastingapplicationsobtainingexcellentresults
(Blancoetal.,2010,delaFuenteetal.,2010b).
Thecrackwidth(w)isevaluateddifferentlydependingonthetypeofreinforcementofthesection:for
RCsectionstheformulationproposedin(EC2,1992)isused,whereasinthecaseofSFRCRCsectionsan
extensionofthepreviousformulation(Vandewalle,2000)isused.
Lastly,thesteelforrebarsissimulatedwiththebilineardiagrampresentedinFig.3c.

Basichypotheses
Thefollowinghypotheseshavebeenconsidered:(1)perfectbondbetweenthematerials;(2)sections
remain plane before the application of the external forces or after imposing fixed strains and (3) shear
strainsarenegligible,therefore,thesewerenottakenintoaccount.

Equilibriumandcompatibility
Oncethediscretizationofthesectionandtheconstitutiveequationshavebeenassignedtoeachofthe
materials,aNewtonRaphsoniterativemethod(Yangetal.,2005)isusedtosolvethenonlinearequation
systemresultingoffixingtheequilibrium(Eqs.(1)and(2))andthecompatibility(Eq.3)conditions.

delaFuente,A.,Pujadas,P.,Blanco,A.,Aguado,A.2011,TunnellingandUndergroundSpaceTechnology

(1)

(2)

dAc
a)

xn

yc
d

s,i

ys,i o
s,i

As,i

c
s

fck
c)

b)
fyk

Es

u
25
y
1

Ecm
y cu

2 1
3

co
cu
c
3
fyk
2

1.6
0.7
/

,
0.45 ,
0.1

0.37 ,
25

Parametersproposedby

12.5
RILEMTC162TDF,2003
1.0 0.6
|12.5
60|

47.5

Fig.3.(a)Sectionaldiscretization;(b)SFRCand(c)steelbarconstitutiveequations.

(3)

N
ycdg

4. EXAMPLEOFAPPLICATION1:FONTSANTATRINITATTUNNEL
4.1. ProjectOverview
ItconsistsofatunnelforthetransportationofdesalinatedwaterfromtheLlobregatRivertowardthe
TerRiver.Forthispurpose,amainstationwasbuiltinFontsanta(SantJustdEsvern,Barcelona),which
pumpsthewatertowardtheDistributingStationofTrinidad(Barcelona)bymeansaconcretepipewith
aninternaldiameterof1800mm.Theflowis2.0m3/sinthefirststage,butitisexpectedtoreachupto
3.6m3/sinthefuture.
The tunnel was excavated under the Collserola Mountain (Barcelona) simultaneously from two
oppositefronts(RieradeSantJustandLaTrinidad)usingtwodoubleshieldedTBMs(Nguyen,2006)with
aninternaldiameterof6.0m.Likewise,threeservicegallerieswerebuilttofacilitateintermediateaccess,
ventilationandemergencyexits.
The layout gets across heterogeneous soil with several different geological formations. The
predominantmaterialsareschistandphyllite(35%ofthelength),slateandquartziteslate(15%),being
thelatteronestheworstconcerningitsgeotechnicalquality.Onthecontrary,therestoftheformations
arerockswithmediumhighquality(granodiorite,hornfels,porphyr,quartziteandmetamorphicrocks).
Takingintoaccountthegeotechnicalcharacteristicsofthegroundandtheexcavationmethodused,a
universalring(seeFig.4)withaninternaldiameterof5.2mconsistingof5+1precastsegmentswitha
thickness of 0.25 m and a width of 1.40 m was designed. Two different concrete strength classes were
5

delaFuente,A.,Pujadas,P.,Blanco,A.,Aguado,A.2011,TunnellingandUndergroundSpaceTechnology

used in order to adequately face the different levels of compression which could be reached during the
servicelifeofthestructure.Inthatsense,aconcreteC30/37(seeRILEMTC162TDF,2003)wasusedin
for the precast segments (PS30) in those stretches where the presence of the phreatic level was not
expected.Onthecontrary,aC50/60concrete(PS50)waschosentoresistthehighcompressivestresses
attributabletothepoorqualityoftherockmassaswellasthepresenceofthephreaticlevelexpectablein
afewstretchesaccordingtothegeotechnicalanalyzes.
Thedesignstagesconsideredintheanalysiswere:(1)curingoperations,(2)storage,(3)transport,(4)
assembling tasks and (5) the soil pressure during service stage. Concerning the analysis of stage 5, the
calculation was performed with the commercial code FLAC3D (ITG Inc., 2006). The tunnel construction
method, the concrete rings as well as the grouting process were simulated taking into account the soil
structureinteractionandthepossiblepresenceofwater.

Fig.4.Mainmeasures(inmm)ofthetransversalsectionoftheFontSantaTrinitattunnel.

Thelengthoftheshield(11.2m)wasconsideredproportionaltothelengthofthering(1.4m)inthe3
Dmodel.Likewise,themodeldimensionsare140.0mintheaxialdirectionofthetunneland64.0min
theothertwodirections(seeFig.5),consideringauniformlydistributedloadtosimulatetherestof
thesoiluptocoversof205mand325m.Themodelhasbeendiscretizedinthedirectionofthetunnel
inelementswithalengthof1.4m,correspondingtothelengthofeachoftherings.

11.2m

1.4m

64.0m

64.0m

140.0m
64.0m

Fig.5.MeshusedtosimulatetheexcavationprocessandtheinservicestatebehaviourofFontSanta
TrinitatTunnel.
Specifically, the two worst scenarios were analyzed: (1) slates formation (specific weight r = 27.5
kN/m3,cohesioncr=556.103N/mm2,frictionangler=33.8,YoungmodulusEr=2277N/mm2,Poisson
6

delaFuente,A.,Pujadas,P.,Blanco,A.,Aguado,A.2011,TunnellingandUndergroundSpaceTechnology

ratior=0.25)with205mofsoilcoverandwithnowaterpresenceforthePS30and(2)porphyrdike
formation(r=26.8kN/m3,cr=1162.103N/mm2,r=43.6,Er=2636N/mm2,r=0.30)withacoverof
325mandconsideringawatercolumnwithaheightof120mforthePS50precastsegment.Inanycase
soil stress relaxation has been considered. Likewise, an earth pressure coefficient (Ko) of 1.5 has been
takenintoaccountinbothsimulations.
The characteristic and design values of the axial and bending forces obtained in the five stages (see
Table2)arelowinrelationwiththedimensionsofthecrosssectionofthesegment.However,aminimum
amountofreinforcementconsistingof1010(seeFig.6a)and1012(seeFig.6b)forSL30andforSL
50,respectively,wasplacedtoavoidthebrittlefailure.Takingthesefactorsintoaccount,itwasdecided
thatthereinforcementcouldbeoptimizedbyusingaRCSFRCconfiguration,withtheaimofreachingthe
benefitspreviouslymentioned.

Table2.Characteristicanddesignvaluesfortheforcesateachofthestages.

Stage

Nk(kN)

Mk(mkN)

Nd(kN)

Md(mkN)

Curing(1)

11

21

Storage(2)

10

20

Transport(3)

11

21

Handling(4)
Service(5)

a)

11

21

SL30

1059

1588

13

SL50

3070

4604

11

b)

Fig.6.Longitudinalandtransversalconventionalreinforcementcagesusedfor:(a)precastsegmentPS30
and(b)precastsegmentPS50.
Sincethiswasapilotexperience,tenringswiththenewRCSFRCproposedbelowweremanufactured.
Theywereplacedinastretchwheretheinstallationconditionsandtheservicestructuralrequirements
wererepresentativeoftheaveragecharacteristicsofthetunnel.

4.2. Designaccountingforthestructuralcontributionoffibers
The results obtained with the model AES showed that that neither bottom nor upper fibers of the
concretesectionanalyzed(seeFigs.6band6c)reachthecharacteristicflexuralstrength(fctk,fl)inanyof
thetransitorystages(stages1to4),whileinservice(stage5)istotallycompressed.Thereforethesection
wasnotexpectedtocrack.
Bearinginmindthisfact,thestrategyproposedinthisdocumenttodesignthenewRCSFRCprecast
segmentconsistsinobtainingtheminimumcontentofreinforcement(steelrebarsplusfibres)thatassure
a ductile failure for the hypothetical situation of reaching the cracking bending force Mcr in any of the
transitory stages. Thus, it was established that Mcr should be strictly equal to Mu (see Eq. 4 and Fig. 7).
ThisapproachwasproposedforRCsectionsin(Levi,1985)andsuccessfullyusedin(Chiaiaetal.,2009a;
Chiaiaetal.,2009bandPlizzariandTiberti,2006)fortheoptimaldesignofRCSFRCsegments.
7

delaFuente,A.,Pujadas,P.,Blanco,A.,Aguado,A.2011,TunnellingandUndergroundSpaceTechnology

Toaccomplishthisgoal,itisnecessarytosolvetheEq.4.ForRCsections,thisequationislinearand
canbesolvedanalytically.Otherwise,anonlinearsystemisobtainedwhenEqs.14arecombinedforSFRC
orRCSFRCsections,andthenthenumericalmodelAESpreviouslyintroducedhastobeusedtosolveit.

(4)
M

Mcr
Mu

cr

Fig.7.MdiagramforanoptimizedRCSFRCsectionwithductilefailure.
Inthesamewayproposedin(PlizzariandTiberti,2006)fortheRCSFRCprecastsegmentsoftheLine
1SubwayofValencia(Venezuela),twogroupsofstirrupswheremaintainedalongthetwolongersidesin
order to confine the concrete in this zone. This reinforcement configuration could reduce the splitting
cracksthatmayoccurduetothecompressivestressesexpectedduringthethrustofthejacksandinthe
radialjointsinserviceconditions.Withtheaimofcomparison,inFig.8athereinforcementcageinitially
projectedforthesegmentPS50isshowed,whileinFig.8bthesteelstirrupsmaintainedfortheRCSFRC
solution are also showed. It can be noted that the optimized solution proposed (Fig. 8b) presents a
considerablereductionoftheconventionalreinforcement(70%)withregardtotheinitialone(Fig.8a).

b)
a)

Fig.8.Reinforcementcagesfortheprecastsegments:(a)PS50and(b)optimizedRCSFRCsegment.
Fig. 9 gathers the RCSFRC cross section of the segment used for the numerical modelling. The
optimumvalueofCfwasdeterminedusingtheAESmodelsoastofulfilEq.4.Inthisrespect,thevalueof
Mcr forthesegmentPS50(74mkN)ishigherthantheoneobtainedforthesegmentPS30(49mkN),due
tothehigherfctk,floftheformer.Thus,itwasdecidedoptimizethevalueofCffortheprecastsegmentSL
50 (concrete strength class C50/60) and use the same reinforcement configuration for the PS30
(concretestrengthclassC30/37)soastosystematizetheconstructionprocedures.

SFRC
8mm@180mm

410mm

0.25m

1.40 m

Fig.9.SteelstirrupsusedfortheRCSFRCprecastsegment.
ThesimulationofpostcrackingbehaviourofSFRCwasdealtwiththeconstitutiveequationsuggested
bytheRILEMTC162TDF(2003)(seeFig.3b).However,atthisstageofthedesignprocessneitherdataof
the fibre content which was going to be used in the concrete nor results from characterization tests of
SFRCtensionbehaviourwereavailable.Alternatively,Eqs.5and6proposedbyBarrosetal.,(2005)were
8

delaFuente,A.,Pujadas,P.,Blanco,A.,Aguado,A.2011,TunnellingandUndergroundSpaceTechnology

usedforthecalculationoftheresidualflexuralstrength(fR,i)ofSFRCasafunctionofCf.Theseexpressions
werecalibratedonthebasisoftheresultsobtainedinbendingtestsofprismaticbeamsofSFRCwithsame
hookedendsteelfibresusedintheoptimizedRCSFRCprecastsegmentsanalyzedinthiswork(lengthlf=
60mm,diameterdf=0.75,YoungmodulusEf=210000N/mm2andafailuretensilestrength ffu =1100
N/mm2).

0.0945
0.702

(5)
,

0.0926 ,

(6)
,

For this study, the values of Cf adopted range between 0 kg/m3 and 40 kg/m3. The latter value is
motivatedbyeconomiccriteria.Table3gathersthenumericalvaluesoftheparametersusedtosimulate
thepostcrackingbehaviourofSFRC.

Table3.ValuesofiandiusedtosimulatethepostcrackedbehaviourofSFRC(C50/60).

Cf
fR,1
fR,4
1*
(Kg/m3) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
0
0.702
0.650
4.844
10
1.647
1.525
4.844
20
2.592
2.400
4.844
30
3.537
3.275
4.844
40
4.482
4.150
4.844

1
(mm/m)
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131
0.131

2
(N/mm2)
0.266
0.624
0.982
1.340
1.698

2
(mm/m)
0.231
0.231
0.231
0.231
0.231

3
3
(N/mm2) (mm/m)
0.203
25.000
0.475
25.000
0.748
25.000
1.021
25.000
1.293
25.000

*1wasevaluatedbymeansdeexpression1=0.52fctm,fl(1.6d)proposedbyBarrosetal.(2005)duetothehigh
valuesobtainedwiththeonesuggestedbytheRILEMTC162TDF(2003).

The mechanical behaviour of the steel rebars has been simulated by considering a bilinear diagram
(seeFig.3c),aswellasavalueof500N/mm2forfykand210000N/mm2forEs.
Fig. 10 shows the M diagrams (Nk = 0) numerically obtained for the RCSFRC precast segment
reinforcedwithdifferentvaluesofCfandthesteelstirrupspresentedinFig.9.
TheresultspresentedinFig.10confirmtherequirementofusingaCfhigherthan20kg/m3tofulfilEq.
4.Particularly,byrepresentingtherelationMuCf(seeFig.11),itcanbededucedtheoptimumvalueforCf
iscloselyto25kg/m3.
Mmax =96mkN

100
40kg/m3

M (mkN)

80

Mcr =74mkN

Mmax =83mkN

10kg/m3
40

Mu =68mkN

Mmax =58mkN

20kg/m3

60

Mu =80mkN

Mmax =71mkN

30kg/m3

Mu =92mkN

Mu =57mkN

Mmax =45mkN

Mu =45mkN

0kg/m3

20

0
0

20

40

60

80

(1/mx103)

100

120

140

Fig.10.MdiagramsfortheC50/60concretestrengthclassRCSFRCprecastsegmentwithdifferent
amountsofsteelfibres.
ItmustberemarkedthatthisistheoptimumvalueforCfobtainedconsideringthebendingforces(M)
andthecompressionforces(N)presentedinTable2.Inthissense,inordertoconfirmthecorrectnessof
this value for the rest of load types, the influence of Cf in the behaviour of the precast segment under
9

delaFuente,A.,Pujadas,P.,Blanco,A.,Aguado,A.2011,TunnellingandUndergroundSpaceTechnology

concentratedloads(thrustofthejacksandserviceabilitystressesinthejoints)mustbeanalyzed.Upto
date,severalnumericalstudies(Waal,1999;Blom2002;PlizzariandTiberti,2006;Burguersetal.,2007
and Kasper et al., 2008; Cavalaro 2009) and some experimental experiences (Caratelli et al., 2010) that
confirm the excellent response of the fibres under these load hypotheses have been presented in the
internationalliterature.Nevertheless,asystematicalmethodologyhasnotbeenproposedyettofindthe
optimumvalueofCfconsideringallthepossibleloadstatesduetothenumerousvariablesthattakepart
in the study. There is, however, a generally accepted design method that consists in a numerical
evaluationoftheoptimumvalueofCfbymeansofastructuralanalysisconsideringtheforces(N,M)and
verifying numerically and/or experimentally that the segmental lining behaves also properly under
concentratedloads.
100

Mmax =96mkN

90

Mmax =1.27Cf +45

R=1.000

Mmax =83mkN

Mu =92mkN

80
M (mkN)

Mu =74mkN

70

Mu =1.17Cf +45
R=0.998

Mu =68mkN

Mmax =58mkN

60

Mu =80mkN

Mmax =71mkN

Mu =57mkN

50

Mmax =Mu =45kNm

40
0

10

15

20
25
Cf (kg/m3)

30

35

40

45

Fig.11.IncreaseofMmaxandMuwiththeamountoffibresCf.
Consideringtheabovementionedandtheresultsobtainedinthenumericalanalysis,itwasdecidedto
manufactureten SFRC (seeTable 4) rings withanamountof 25 kg/m3 ofsteel fibres together with the
reinforcementcageproposedinFig.8bandFig.9.Ithastobementionedthatnoneoftheringspresented
cracks during the assembling operations neither service loads. This fact confirms that the value of 25
kg/m3previouslydeducednumericallycouldbethedesiredoptimumvalueofCfforthegeometricaland
mechanicalboundaryconditionssimulatedfixedinthisanalysiscase.

Table4.Materialsdosage(inkg/m3)usedtoprecasttheconcrete(FontSantaTrinitatTunnel).

Material
Sand(05mm)
Gravel(514mm)
Gravel(1422mm)
Water
PortlandCement I52.5R
Superplasticizer

Dosage
746
558
559
145
420
3.12

5. EXAMPLEOFAPPLICATION2:TERRASSATUNNEL
5.1. ProjectOverview
ThiscaseconsistsintwoparallelrailtunnelsbuiltintheurbanareaofTerrassaastheextensionofthe
Ferrocarriles de la Generalitat de Catalunya (FGC). Both tunnels are drilled successively being the total
lengthofeachoneof4510m.Thetunnelsconsistofrings(seeFig.12)withaninternaldiameterof6.0m
andformedby6+1RCSFRCprecastconcreteC30/37segmentswithawidthof1.5mandathicknessof
0.30m.
10

delaFuente,A.,Pujadas,P.,Blanco,A.,Aguado,A.2011,TunnellingandUndergroundSpaceTechnology

BothtunnelswereexcavatedbymeansofaTBMwithadiametersectionof6.90m.Theexistinggap
betweenthesegmentalliningringandthedrilledsoilwas15cmwideanditwasfilledwithgrout.
Theanalyzedstretchpassesthroughasoilformedbyquaternaryclay,witha24.5mcoverandwith
thepresenceofthephreaticlevel9.5mabovethetunnelcrown.Inthissense,thenumericalsimulationof
thesoilstructureinteractionwasalsocarriedoutwiththecommercialcodeFLAC3D(ITGInc.,2006).For
thatpurpose,ameshof150.0mwide,27.5mhighand40.0mdeepwithrespecttothehorizontalaxisof
thetunnelswasgenerated(seeFig.13).Theelementswidthinthedirectionofthetunnelequalsthewidth
of the precast segment (1.5 m). Concerning the material properties, the following parameters were
considered: r = 21.5 kN/m3, cr = 30.103 N/mm2, r = 25.0, Er = 84 N/mm2, r = 0.30. Likewise, a
coefficient Ko = 1.3 was adopted to take into account the possibility of finding overconsolidated soils
(accordingtothegeotechnicalreports).

Fig.12.Mainmeasures(inm)ofthetransversalsectionoftheTerrassaTunnel.

150.0m
11.2m

1.5m

27.5m

40.0m

28.5m

Fig.13.MeshusedtosimulatetheexcavationprocessandtheinservicestatebehaviourfortheTerrassa
Tunnel.

11

delaFuente,A.,Pujadas,P.,Blanco,A.,Aguado,A.2011,TunnellingandUndergroundSpaceTechnology

Table 5 presents the characteristic and design values of N and M obtained for the transitory stages
(curing, storage, transport and handling) and the service stage (5), being the latter the most adverse in
termsofthedesignofthereinforcement.
InordertoresisttheforcespresentedinTable5,aninitialRCSFRCprecastsegmentwith1512in
each side (see Fig. 14) plus 25 kg/m3 of fibres was proposed in the project, though the structural
contribution of the fibres were not taken into account. The purpose of the fibres in this case was to
improve the behaviour under the high expected concentrated loads (thrust of jacks and compressive
stressesintheradialjoints).

Table5.Characteristicanddesignvaluesfortheforcesateachofthestages.

Stage
Curing(1)
Storage(2)
Transport(3)
Handling(4)
Service(5)

Nk (kN)
0
0
0
15
2806

Mk (mkN)
13
21
21
55
361

19+1 STIRRUP

Nd (kN)
0
0
0
29
4209

Md(mkN)
19
42
42
110
542

1,5m

Fig.14.Steelrebarreinforcementconfigurationofthesegmentinitiallyproposedintheproject.
5.2. Designaccountingforthestructuralcontributionoffibers
Similarlytothefirstcaseanalyzed,asteelrebarreinforcementcageconsistingof1112andstirrups
8 each 25 cm was established (see Fig. 15) to subsequently iterate with different Cf (0, 15, 25 and 30
kg/m3)untilthedesignconditionwasfulfilled.

SFRC

1112mm

8mm@250mm

1.5m

Fig.15.OptimumRCSFRCprecastsegmentproposed.

12

0.30m

delaFuente,A.,Pujadas,P.,Blanco,A.,Aguado,A.2011,TunnellingandUndergroundSpaceTechnology

Inthiscase,theservicestage(5)leadstothemostunfavourablestressstrainconditions.Theprecast
segment is subjected to a high axial load Nd with a concomitant Md which cracks the section. Thus, the
amountofreinforcementresultingfromimposingEq.4wouldbeinsufficientand,therefore,wouldnotbe
onthesideofsafety.Hence,theclassicalcriterionofoptimuminULSdesignwasused,whichconsistsin
fixingNdandimposeEq.7.Likewise,oncetheoptimumvalueofCfwasobtained,itwasverifiedthatwk
waslowerthanthewmax=0.3mmestablishedinthebasisoftheproject.

(7)

Onceagain,sincenopreviousexperimentaldataaboutSFRCforthedifferentvaluesofCfwasavailable,
Eqs.5and6wereusedwiththeaimofdefiningtheparameters(seeTable6)oftheconstitutiveequation
chosen(seeFig.3b)forsimulatingthepostcrackingbehaviourofSFRCclassC30/37.

Table6.ValuesofiandiusedtosimulatethepostcrackedbehaviourofSFRC(C30/37).
Cf
fr,1
fr,4
1*
(Kg/m3) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (N/mm2)
0
0.702
0.650
3.245
15
2.120
1.963
3.245
25
3.065
2.838
3.245
30
3.537
3.275
3.245

1
(mm/m)
0.101
0.101
0.101
0.101

2
(N/mm2)
0.246
0.743
1.074
1.240

2
(mm/m)
0.201
0.201
0.201
0.201

3
3
(N/mm2) (mm/m)
0.187
25.000
0.566
25.000
0.818
25.000
0.944
25.000

*1wasevaluatedbymeansdeexpression1=0.52fctm,fl(1.6d)proposedbyBarrosetal.(2005)duetothehigh
valuesobtainedwiththeonesuggestedbytheRILEMTC162TDF(2003).

TheresponseofthesteelrebarswasdealtwiththediagramofFig.3c,assigningfyk=500N/mm2and
Es=210000N/mm2.
Fig.16showstheNuMuinteractiondiagramforthesectionwiththeRCSFRCprecastsegmentdefined
inFig.15withvaluesofCfrangingbetween0and30kg/m3.
OnthebasisoftheresultsgatheredinFig.16,itisobservedthatwithaCf of15kg/m3,theMdof542
mkN(seeTable5)isalreadyexceeded.Likewise,itshouldbenotedthatthemaximumincreaseofMudoes
notexceed5%(RCSFRCwithCf=30kg/m3)withregardtotheRCprecastsegment(Cf=0kg/m3)ifNd=
4209kN.Inotherwords,inthiscasetherebarsperformthemainresistancefunctioninfailure,whereas
thefibersplayamoreimportantroleinthecrackwidthcontrol.
Fig.17showstheMuCfandM0.3mmCfcurvesnumericallyobtainedbyfixingNd=2806kN,highlighting
that:(1)bothcurvescanbeexcellentlywellapproximatedwithstraighttendencies;(2)ULSisthemost
unfavourablestate,howeverjustaminimumof7kg/m3isrequiredinordertoverifyEq.7;and(3)the
growthrateofM0.3mm (1.22mkN/kg/m3)isa42%higherthanthatofMu(0.86mkN/kg/m3),provingthe
highereffectivenessofthefiberforloadsintheSLSincomparisonwithULS.

700

600

Mu (mkN)

400
300

536mKN

25kg/m3
15kg/m3

515

200

Md =542mkN
30kg/m3

530

557mKN
548mKN

545

Nd =4209kN
0Kg/m3

500
3500

100

500

562mKN

560

3700

3900

4100

4300

0
2500

2500

5000

7500
10000
12500
15000
Nu (kN)
Fig.16.NuMudiagramsforthecrosssectionwith1112anddifferentamountsoffibers.
13

4500

delaFuente,A.,Pujadas,P.,Blanco,A.,Aguado,A.2011,TunnellingandUndergroundSpaceTechnology

Finally, it was suggested the use of the same Cf of 25 kg/m3 (see Table 7) established in the project
togetherwiththesteelrebarcagepresentedinFig.15(whichrepresentsareductionaroundthe38%of
theconventionalreinforcementcomparingwiththeinitialsolutiongatheredinFig.14),inoppositionto
theoptimumvalueof7kg/m3obtainednumerically.Thisdecisionwasmadeforseveralreasons:(1)itis
unusualtoworkwithsuchlowvaluesofCfand(2)thatthepreviousexperiencesindicatethataminimum
amountof20kg/m3 isrequiredforthecontrolofthepossiblecrackingduetotheeffectofconcentrated
loads.

Table7.Materialsdosage(inkg/m3)usedtoprecasttheconcrete(TerrassaTunnel).

Material
Sand(04 mm)
Sand(05 mm)
Gravel(612mm)
Gravel(1220 mm)
Water
PortlandCement I52.5R
Superplasticizer

Dosage
300
565
650
500
133
335
5.40

600

Mu =0.86Cf +536
R=0.998
548

536

550

557

562

Md =542mkN

M (mkN)

500

M0.3mm=1.22Cf +429
R=0.999

466

450

459

448
429
400

7kg/m3
Mk =361mkN

350
0

10

15

20

25

Cf (kg/m3)
Fig.17.EvolutionoftheMw=0.3mmandMuwithCf.
6.

30

35

CONCLUSIONS

AsummarythatincludesthemainworldwideapplicationsofSFRCinprecastsegmentalliningsaswell
as a design methodology for the optimization of the reinforcement taking into account the structural
contributionofthefibreshavebeenpresented.
To highlight both the advantages of using fibres and the suitability of the design methodology
described, two real experiences carried out in Barcelona in which SFRC has been used in the tunnel
segmentshavebeenpresented.Thereachedconclusionsare:

The use of both fibres and a minimum amount of steel rebars is an ideal alternative to enhance the
behaviourofthesegmentstothethrustofthejacksandavoidcrackingduringthisoperation.
When the design forces are relatively low in comparison with the segment crosssection dimension,
the use of fibres can lead to a significant reduction (up to 70%) of the steel rebars, remaining the
concreteconfiningstirrupsastheonlypassivereinforcement.
In cases when design forces are moderate, the required amount of fibres to resist them can be
economicallyunfeasibleasthecaseofTerrassaTunnel.Alternatively,thecombinedsolutionoffibres

14

delaFuente,A.,Pujadas,P.,Blanco,A.,Aguado,A.2011,TunnellingandUndergroundSpaceTechnology

andrebarscanbeused.Withthisthefibresworkfromtheonsetofcracking,controllingitswidthand
spacing,whiletherebarstakeonthemainresistantfunction.

OneexperimentalstretchconsistingoftenRCSFRCprecastpilotringswithanoptimumreinforcement
configuration(twoedgestirrups8mm@180mm+25kg/m3ofsteelfibres)hasbeencarriedoutinthe
FontSanta Trinitat tunnel. Likewise, the RCSFRC precast segment proposed for the Terrassa Tunnel
(1112 in each side + 1 stirrup 8 mm @ 250 mm + 25 kg/m3 of steel fibres) has been presented.
However, the RCSFRC precast segmental lining initially designed in the project (for which the
contributionofthesteelfibreswasnotconsidered)wasfinallyused.Theobtainedresultswereexcellent
at a production level (reducing times and risks during the manufacture) as well as in efficiency rates
(decreasingsignificantlytheproblemsrelatedtoimpactandthethrustofjacks)thankstotheuseoffibres.
Thesesatisfyingresultshavemotivatedtheappearanceofnewtunnellingprojectsinwhichtheuseof
fibresisbeingtakenintoaccountasareinforcementmaterialforconcrete.

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Theauthorsofthispaperwanttoacknowledgetheeconomicalsupportprovidedtodevelopthestudy
of the FontSantaTrinitat Tunnel (FCC Construccin, S.A., OHL, S.A., and COPISA, S.A.) and the Terrassa
Tunnel(FCCConstruccin,S.A.,OHL,S.A.,andCOPISA,S.A.).Likewise,thisworkhasbeenpossiblethanks
to the economical support received of the Spanish Research Project BIA201017478: Procesos
constructivosmediantehormigonesreforzadosconfibras.

8. REFERENCES
Angerer, W., Chappell, M., 2008. Design of steel fibre reinforced segmental lining for the gold coast
desalination tunnels. In: 13th Australian Tunneling Conference, Melbourne (Australia), May 47, pp.
263470.
Arnau, O., Molins, C., 2011. Experimental and analytical study of the structural response of segmental
tunnel linings based on an in situ loading test. Part 2: Numerical simulation. Tunnelling and
UndergroundSpaceTechnology.[Inpress].
Barros, J.A.O., Figueiras, J.A., 1999. Flexural behaviour of SFRC: Testing and modeling. ASCE Journal of
MaterialsinCivilEngineering11(4),331339.
Barros, J.A.O., Cunha, V.M.C.F., Ribeiro, A.F., Antunes, J.A.B., 2005. Postcracking behaviour of steel fibre
reinforcedconcrete.RILEMMaterialsandStructures38(1),4756.
Bencardino, F., Rizzuti, L., Spadea, G., Swamy, R.N., 2008. Stressstrain behavior of steel fiberreinforced
concreteincompression.ASCEJournalofMaterialsinCivilEnineering20(3),255263.
Blanco, A., Pujadas, P., de la Fuente, A., Aguado, A., 2010. Comparative analysis of constitutive models of
fibrereinforcedconcrete.Hormign&Acero61(256),83100.[InSpanish].
Blom, C.B.M., 2002. Design philosophy of concrete linings in soft soils. ISBN 9040723664, Delft (The
Netherlands).
Burguers, R., Walraven, J., Plizzari, G.A., Tiberti, G., 2007. Structural behavior of SFRC tunnel segments
during TBM operations. In: World Tunnel Congress ITAAITES 2007, Prague (Czech Republic), pp.
14611467.
CaratelliA,MedaA,RinaldiZ,RomualdiP.,2010.Structuralbehaviorofprecasttunnelsegmentsinfiber
reinforcedconcrete.TunnellingandUndergroundSpaceTechnology.[InPress].
Cavalaro, S.H.P., 2009. Aspectos tecnolgicos de tneles construidos con tuneladora y dovelas
prefabricadasdehormign.PhDThesis,UPC,Barcelona(Spain).
Chiaia,B.Fantilli,A.P.Vallini,P.2009a.Combiningfiberreinforcedconcretewithtraditionalreinforcement
intunnellinings.EngineeringStructures31(7),16001606.
Chiaia,B.,Fantilli,A.P.,Vallini,P.,2009b.EvaluationofminimumreinforcementratioinFRCmembersand
applicationtotunnellinings.RILEMMaterialsandStructures42(3),339351.
CNR DT 204/2006. 2006. Guidelines for the Design, Construction and Production Control of Fibre
ReinforcedConcreteStructures,ItalianNationalResearchCouncilCNR.
CPH2008.EHE08:InstruccindelHormignEstructural.
Darby,A.W.,MacDonald,M.,2003.TheAirsideRoadTunnel,HeathrowAirport,England.In:Proceedingsof
theRapidExcavation&TunnelingConferenceRETC2003,NewOrleans(USA),1518June,pp.638
647.
DBVRecommendation(GermanConcreteAssociation).1992.Designprinciplesofsteelfibrereinforced
15

delaFuente,A.,Pujadas,P.,Blanco,A.,Aguado,A.2011,TunnellingandUndergroundSpaceTechnology

concretefortunnellingworks,pp.1929.
de la Fuente, A., Aguado, A., Molins, C., 2008. Numerical model for the nonlinear analysis of precast and
sequentiallyconstructedsections.Hormign&Acero57(247),6987.[InSpanish].
de la Fuente, A., Aguado, A., Molins, C., Armengou, J., 2010a. Innovations on components and testing for
precastpanelstobeusedinreinforcedearthretainingwalls.ConstructionandBuildingMaterials25
(5),21982205.
delaFuente,A.,deFigueiredo,A.D.,Aguado,A.,Molins,C.,ChamaNeto,P.J.,2010b.Experimentationand
numerical simulation of steel fibre reinforced concrete pipes.Materiales de Construccin 61(302),
275288.
diPrisco,M.,Toniolo,G.,2000.Structuralapplicationsofsteelfibrereinforcedconcrete.In:Proceedingsof
InternationalWorkshop,Milan(Italy),April4,2000(CTEPubl.,Milan(Italy)).
diPrisco,M.,Plizzari,G.,Vandewalle,L.,2009.Fibrereinforcedconcrete:Newdesignperspectives.
RILEMMaterialsandStructures42(9),11691171.
ENV 199211/2005. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures Part 11: General rules and rules for
buildings.CEN.
FIBMODELCODE2007FibreReinforcedConcrete,Draftversion.JointPaperbyFalkner,H.(Germany),di
Prisco,M.,andPlizzari,G.(Italy).
Itasca Consulting Group Inc. 2006. FLAC3D Manual: Fast Lagrangian Analysis of Continua in 3
Dimensions.Version3.10.ItascaConsultingGroupInc.,Minnesota(USA).
Jones,J.,2009.Steelandsyntheticfiberintunnelsandmine,TechnicalReport.BASF2009.
Kasper,T.,Edvardsen,C.,Wittneben,G.,Neumann,D.,2008.Liningdesignforthedistrictheatingtunnelin
Copenhagen with steel fibre reinforced concrete segments.Tunnelling and Underground Space
Technology23(5),574587.
Levi,F.,1985.Onminimumreinforcementinconcretestructures.ASCEJournalStructuralEngineering111
(12),27912796.
MACCAFERRI2009.HobsonBaySewerTunnel.CaseHistory.TechnicalReport1,October2009.
Molins,C.,Mar,A.R.,Garca,T.,2009.OnsitestresstestsofliningsegmentsforBarcelona'sunderground
tunnel.ScientificjournalHBMmeasurement.Reportin:AppliedMeasurement.ISSN16149912.
Molins, C., Arnau, O., 2011. Experimental and analytical study of the structural response of segmental
tunnel linings based on an in situ loading test. Part 1: Test configuration and execution. Tunnelling
andUndergroundSpaceTechnology.[Inpress].
Nguyen,D.T.,2006.TBMandliningessentialinterfaces.MasterThesis.PolitecnicodiTorino(Italy).
Plizzari,G.A.,Cominoli,L.,2005.NumericalsimulationsofSFRCprecasttunnelsegments.In:WorldTunnel
CongressITAAITES2005,Istambul(Turkey),May712,pp.11051111.
Plizzari,G.A.,Tiberti,G.,2006.Steelfibresasreinforcementforprecasttunnelsegments.Tunnellingand
Underground Space Technology 21 (34) pp. 438439. Special Issue: Safety in Underground Space
(CDROM Proceedings of the ITAAITES 2006 World Tunnel Congress and 32nd ITA General
Assembly).
RILEMTC162TDF,2003.Testanddesignmethodsforsteelfibrereinforcedconcrete.designmethod:
Finalrecommendation.RILEMMaterialsandStructures36(262),560567.
Sandy,A.,2008.ClemJonesTunneljoinsupaheadofschedule.In:QueenslandNewspapers(12082008).
Telles, R.C.A., de Figueiredo, A.D., 2006. The possibility of using new technologies in precast concrete
segmentsforTBMexcavatedtunnels.ConcretoeConstruo33(41),3035.[InPortuguese].
Tiberti, G., Plizzari, G.A., Walraven, J., Blom, CBM. 2008. Concrete tunnel segments with combined
traditionalandfiberreinforcement.TailorMadeConcreteStructures,2008,Chapter37.Walraven&
Stoelhorst(eds.)2008Taylor&FrancisGroup,London,ISBN9780415475358.
Tiberti, G., Plizzari, G.A., 2008. Final concrete linings with optimized reinforcement. In: World Tunnel
CongressITAAITES2008,Agra(India),September2224,pp.922932.
Vandewalle, L., 2000. Cracking behaviour of concrete beams reinforced with a combination of ordinary
reinforcementandsteelfibers.RILEMMaterialsandStructures33(3),164170.
Vandewalle,M.,2005.Tunnellingisanart.Ed.byN.V.BEKAERT,S.A.,Zwevegem(Belgium).400pp.
Waal, R.G.A. de., 1999. Steel fibre reinforced tunnel segments for the application in shield driven tunnel
linings.ISBN9040719659,Delft(TheNetherlands).
Walraven,J.,2009.Highperformancefibrereinforcedconcrete:progressinknowledgeanddesigncodes.
RILEMMaterialsStructures42(9),12471260.
Yang,W.Y.,Wenwu,C.,Chung,T.S.,Morris,J.,2005.AppliednumericalmethodsusingMatlab.JohnWiley&
SonsInc.,Hoboken,NewJersey(USA).

Nomenclature
16

delaFuente,A.,Pujadas,P.,Blanco,A.,Aguado,A.2011,TunnellingandUndergroundSpaceTechnology

Ac:
Totalconcretearea.
As,i:
Areaoftheithsteelbar.
dAc: Differentialofconcretearea.
Cf:
Amountofsteelfibres.
cr:
Cohesionofthesoil.
Di:
Internaldiameterofthetunnel.
d:
Effectivedepthofthetensionedsteelrebars.
df:
Diameterofthefibre.
Ecm: AverageYoungmodulusofconcrete.
Ef:
Youngmodulusofthefibre.
Er:
Youngmodulusofthesoil.
Es:
Youngmodulusofsteel.
fc:
Compressivestrengthoftheconcrete.
fcm:
Averagecompressivestrengthofconcrete.
fck.
Characteristiccompressivestrengthoftheconcrete
fctm,fl: Averageflexuralstrengthoftheconcrete.
fctk,fl: Characteristicflexuralstrengthoftheconcrete.
ffu:
Failuretensilestrengthofthesteelfibre.
fR,i:
IthpostcrackingresidualflexuralstrengthofSFRC.
fyk:
Characteristicyieldingstrengthofsteel.
h:
Heightofthecrosssectionofthesegment.
Ko:
Coefficientoflateralearthpressure.
kh:
Sizefactor.
lf:
Lengthofthefibre.
M:
Appliedexternalbendingmoment.
Mcr: Crackingbendingmoment.
Md:
Designbendingmoment.
Mk:
Characteristicbendingmoment.
Mmax: Maximumbendingmoment.
M0.3mm:Bendingmomentassociatedwithacrackwidthof0.3mm.
Mu:
Ultimatebendingmoment.
N:
Appliedexternalaxialforce.
Nd:
Designaxialforce.
Nk:
Characteristicaxialforce.
Nu:
Ultimateaxialforce.
ns:
Numberofsteelbars.
xn:
Depthoftheneutralaxis.
yc:
Ordinateofthegravitycentreoftheconcreteareaelement.
ycdg: Ordinateofthegravitycentreofthesection.
ys,i:
Ordinateoftheithsteelbar.
w:
Crackwidth.
wmax: Maximumcrackwidth.
wk:
Characteristicvalueofthecrackwidth.
:
Steelbardiameter.
r:
Frictionangleofthesoil.
r:
Specificweightofthesoil.
c:
Concretestrain.
co:
Strainforthemaximumcompressivestressoftheconcrete.
o:
Strainofthebottomfibre.
cu:
Maximumstrainofthecompressedconcrete.
i:
IthpostcrackingtensionstrainoftheSFRC.
s:
Strainofthesteel.
s,i:
Strainoftheithsteelbar.
y:
Yieldingstrainofthesteel.
:
Aspectratiooftunnel(Di/h).
r:
Poissonratioofthesoil.
c:
Concretestress.
i:
IthpostcrackingtensionstrengthoftheSFRC.
u:
Compressivestressofconcreteatmaximumstrain.
s:
Stressofthesteel.
s,i:
Stressoftheithsteelbar.
:
Sectionalcurvature.
cr:
Crackingsectionalcurvature.
u:
Ultimatesectionalcurvature.

17