DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO THE

fib Model Code 2010

Prof. Giovanni Plizzari

[email protected]

University of Brescia, Italy

Dept. of Civil Engineering, Architecture, Land, Environment and of Mathematics

G. Plizzari
fib Model Code 2010

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 2/102

1
 G. Plizzari
fib Model Code: new contents

• New types of concrete (FRC)

• New types of reinforcement (fibres)
• New design criteria
• Design for service life
• Upgrading of structures
• Defined performance design
• Quality of execution

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 3/102

G. Plizzari
fib Model Code: Index

1. Scope 5.1. Concrete

2. Terminology 5.2. Reinforcing steel
3. Basic Principles 5.3. Prestressing steel
4. Design Principles 5.4. Prestressing systems
5. Materials 5.5. Non-metallic reinforcement
6. Interface characteristics 5.6. Fibres / fibre reinforced
concrete
7. Design
8. Construction Joint chapters prepared by fib TG 8.3
“Fiber reinforced concrete” and fib TG
9. Conservation
8.6 “Ultra high performance fiber
10. Dismantlement reinforced concrete”

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 4/102

2
 G. Plizzari
Statements of the fib Model Code

Fibre-Reinforced Concrete (FRC) is a composite material

characterized by a cement matrix and discrete fibres
(discontinuous). The matrix is made of either concrete or mortar.
Fibres can be made of steel, polymers, carbon, glass or natural
materials.
Fibre materials with a Young’s-Modulus which is significantly affected
by time and/or thermo-hygrometrical phenomenon are not
covered by this Model Code.
Mixtures of different types and/or sizes of fibres can also be used
(called hybrid fibre reinforced concrete).

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 5/102

G. Plizzari
Statements of the fib Model Code

Structural design of FRC elements is based on the post-cracking

residual strength provided by fibre reinforcement. Other cases, like
early age crack-control or fire resistance, are considered non
structural use of FRC.
For structural use, a minimum mechanical performance of FRC must
be guaranteed.
Fibres can be used to improve the behaviour at SLS since they can
reduce crack spacing and crack width, thereby improving
durability.
Fibres can be used to improve the behaviour at ULS where they can
partially or totally substitute conventional reinforcement.

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 6/102

3
 G. Plizzari
Statements of the fib Model Code

The mechanical properties of a cementitious matrix are modified

when fibres are added. However, elastic properties and
compressive strength are not significantly affected by fibres,
unless a high percentage of fibres is used.

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 7/102

G. Plizzari
Fibers for concrete

• Steel fibers • Aluminum fibers • Glass fibers

• Carbon fibers • Polypropilene fibers

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 8/102

4
 G. Plizzari
Fiber effects in concrete

Fibre content
Vf ≤ 1%

σres(w)
plain

Fibre effects
• durability (cracking control) • minimum reinforcements (N, M,V)
• anchorage lengths • fatigue
• deformability (tension stiffening) • shrinkage
• stress limits in P/C elements •D regions (spalling, bursting, splitting)

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 9/102

G. Plizzari
Main goal of the fib Model Code

To provide guidance to engineers to properly (and safely)

design FRC structural elements both at serviceability and
ultimate limit states, based on the state-of-the-art
knowledge

CLASSIFICATION

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 10/102

5
 Base requirement for structural design G. Plizzari

Engineers can design structures

with new materials only if they are
performance based!

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 11/102

G. Plizzari
Structural design of concrete in tension

Concrete class
C40/50
DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 12/102

6
 G. Plizzari
FRC in compression

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 13/102

G. Plizzari
FRC classification

• A performance approach is chosen: the material has to

be tested as composite, because the mechanical
response cannot be properly identified by knowing the
mix design and the mechanical characteristics of each
component
UNIAXIAL TENSION TEST BENDING TEST

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 14/102

7
 G. Plizzari
Softening vs. hardening materials

P P

crack formation crack formation

P P crack
Pcr Pcr localization

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 15/102

Material vs Structural response G. Plizzari

5.0 12.0
zoom w = 0.20 mm zoom w = 5.00 mm

TRA0 med 0.8% FLE0 med

4.0 TRA4 med FLE4 med

TRA8 med FLE8 med

average tension σt (MPa)

8.0
3.0
load P (KN)

0.4%
2.0
0.8% 4.0

1.0 0.4% plain

0.0 plain 0.0
0.00 2.50 5.00
0.00 0.10 0.20 deflection f (mm)
displacement w (mm)

statically undetermined
statically determined

S.L.S. performance increase stress redistribution

Fibre content { S.L.S. performance increase

S.L.U. mechanical contribution

+

Vf ≤ 1% ?σexp(w) σd(w or ε)
DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 16/102

8
 G. Plizzari
FRC classification (3PBT)

EN 14651
hsp = 125 mm
b = 150 mm

3 Fj l
Linear stress distribution fR , j =
2 b h2sp

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 17/102

G. Plizzari
FRC performance classes (New fib Model Code)

Post-cracking residual strength can be classified by using two parameters,

namely fR1k (representing the strength interval) and a letter a, b, c, d or e
(representing the ratio fR3k/fR1k).
The strength interval is defined by two subsequent numbers in the series:
1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0, 6.0, 7.0, 8.0 [MPa]

while the letters a, b, c, d and e correspond to the ratios:

a if 0.5 ≤ fR3k/fR1k ≤ 0.7
b if 0.7 ≤ fR3k/fR1k ≤ 0.9
c if 0.9 ≤ fR3k/fR1k ≤ 1.1
d if 1.1 ≤ fR3k/fR1k ≤ 1.3
e if 1.3 ≤ fR3k/fR1k
SLS ULS

The designer has to specify the class, the residual strength ratio and the
material of the fibre
DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 18/102

9
 G. Plizzari
Performance classes

5 σN
fR1k =2.2 MPa
[MPa] fR3k /fR1k = 0.82 ----- 2b
fR3k =1.8 MPa
4

3 e
d
fR1k c
2 b fR3k
a
CMOD1

CMOD2

CMOD3

CMOD4
1

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
CMOD [mm]
Minimum requirements for structural applications:
Fibres can substitute conventional reinforcement fR1k/fLk > 0.4
(rebars) only if the following relationship is fR3k/fR1k >0.5
fulfilled:
DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 19/102

Constitutive law in uniaxial tension: σ-w

G. Plizzari

• Experimental result: σN – CMOD σ–w

σ
σ hardening f
fFt=fct Ftu
fFts
fFts
softening fFtu
Simplified
fFtu
constitutive law wu w
σ-w
ε
w

σ
fFtu rigid-plastic
f Fts = 0.45 f R1
fFtu
wu
f Ftu = f Fts − ( f Fts − 0.5 f R 3 + 0.2 f R1 ) ≥ 0 wu w
CMOD3
DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 20/102

10
 G. Plizzari
Stress-strain relationship

ε1 = εSLS = CMOD1/lcs
ε2 = εULS = wu/lcs (=2% or 1%)

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 21/102

G. Plizzari
From material to structural behavior

Naaman, A.E. and Reinhardt, H. (eds), High Performance fiber reinforced cement composites – HPFRCC4
RILEM Proceedings, PRO30, Rilem Publications S.A.R.L., Bagneux, France, 2003.

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 22/102

11
 G. Plizzari
Partial safety factors

ULS:
Ordinary
quality control
FRC in
compression As plain
concrete
FRC in tension
FRC in tension
γF = 1.5
(residual strength)
SLS: γF = 1

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 23/102

G. Plizzari

Durability
Hybrid FRC
of FRC

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 24/102

12
 G. Plizzari
Hybrid Fiber Reinforced Concrete

COMBINATIONS OF DIFFERENT FIBERS IN A CONCRETE TO OPTIMIZE PHYSIC AND

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATION (HPFRC):

Improved processing (HyFR-SCC)

Improved mechanical performance (ductility/toughness)
Improved durability (permeability)
Reduced cost

Different Geometry

L d d
L
L/d >> 1 L/d = 1

Different material
Steel - Plastic - Carbon - Glass Fibers

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 25/102

G. Plizzari
Why Hybrid?

Steel Polymeric Carbon

Hybrid FRC
+ +
Synergistic Performances:

• TOUGHNESS

• FATIGUE RESISTANCE

• IMPACT RESISTANCE

• PERMEABILITY& DURABILITY

• JOINT INTEGRITY

• PLASTIC SHRINKAGE CRACK CONTROL

• GREATER ABRASION RESISTANCE

• THERMAL EXPANSION
& ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 26/102

13
 G. Plizzari
Macro and micro cracks

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 27/102

G. Plizzari
Optimization of mechanical properties of HyFRC

Improve composite strength

by bridging micro-cracks

MICRO-FIBRES

MACRO-FIBRES

Improve post-peak toughness

by bridging macro-cracks

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 28/102

14
 G. Plizzari

Hybrid system
Durability
of of
reinforcement
FRC

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 29/102

G. Plizzari
Reinforcement optimization

What does reinforcement optimization means?

R.C. element Element with optimized reinforcement (o.r.)

SFRC

Local reinforcement
Conventional
reinforcement

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 30/102

15
 G. Plizzari
Optimized reinforcement: definition

Place the best performing reinforcement

(fibers and/or rebars) where required by
tensile stresses in the structural elements

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 31/102

G. Plizzari
Reinforcement use in structural elements

• In structural elements both distributed and localized

stresses are generally present
• Conventional rebars represent the best
reinforcement for localized stresses
• Fibers represent the best reinforcement for diffused
stresses
• Structural optimization generally requires the use of
a combination of rebars and fibers
• Structural ductility is generally enhanced

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 32/102

16
 G. Plizzari
Elevated slabs: reinforcement distribution

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 33/102

G. Plizzari
Elevated slab: model and materials

Materials
2 650
SFRC - class 2a 600
SFRC - class 3b
550
SFRC - class 4c
1.5 500
Tensile strength [MPa]

450
400
Stress [MPa]

350
1
300
250
200
0.5
150
100
50
0 0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.10 0.13 0.15
Crack width (w) [mm] Strain [-]

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 34/102

17
 G. Plizzari
Elevated slab: numerical results

20 As,bd=0
As,bd/As,b=0.2 (traditionl reinfo.)

As,bd/As,b=0.4

As,bd/As,b=0.2 As,bd/As,b=0.6
As,bd/As,b=0.4
15 ∆Qmax=+7%
As,bd=0

Overload (Q) [kN/m2]

As,bd/As,b=0.6 (traditionl reinfo.)

As,bd/As,b=0.4 As,bd/As,b=0.2

As,bd/As,b=0.6 ∆Qmax=+16%
10
As,bd=0
(traditionl reinfo.)

Reinforcement
5 FRC - class 2a
As,bl/As, As,bd/As,
Analysis As,bl As,bd FRC - class 3b
b b

[mm2] [mm2] [-] [-] FRC - class 4c

1 1900 0 1.0 0.0
2 1500 400 0.8 0.2
0
3 1100 700 0.6 0.4
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
4 800 1100 0.4 0.6 Maximum deflection (δ) [mm]

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 35/102

G. Plizzari

Durability
Design rules
of FRC

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 36/102

18
 G. Plizzari
Ultimate Limit States (ULS) Verification

The bending failure is considered to occur when one of the following conditions arises:
• attainment of the maximum compressive strength, εcu, in the FRC;
• attainment of the maximum tensile strength εsu, in the steel (if present);
• attainment of the maximum tensile strength, εFu, in the FRC.

≤ ε cu f cd η · f cd
x λ·x

f Fts / γ F NSd
y
Asl M Rd
≤ ε su

≤ ε Fu hardening softening f Ftu / γ F

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 37/102

G. Plizzari
Shear in beams without stirrups

In FRC elements there is an additional contribution to shear

resistance provided by fiber reinforcement:

V = Vc + Vf

Vc represents the concrete contribution.

Vf represents the fiber contribution (post cracking strength).

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 38/102

19
 G. Plizzari
Example of Application for Shear

p = 35 kN/m 200

500 mm

500
d

2Ø24 Bars
2Ø24 Deformed
Bars
6m

pu = 35 kN / m (ULS ) 1 1
M max = ⋅ p ⋅ l 2 = ⋅ 35 ⋅ 62 = 157.5 kN ⋅ m
8 8
h = 500 mm; d = 460 mm
1 1
f ck = 30 MPa; f yk = 500 MPa Vmax = ⋅ p ⋅ l = ⋅ 35 ⋅ 6 = 105 kN
2 2
γ c = 1.5; γ s = 1.15 As 904 mm 2
ρl = = = 0.98%
f cd =
30
= 20 MPa; f yk =
500
= 435 MPa bw ⋅ d 200 mm ⋅ 460 mm
1.5 1.5 M u = 161 kN ⋅ m
f ctk = 2 MPa ( EC 2)

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 39/102

G. Plizzari
Example of Application for Shear

 0.18 
VRd ,ct =  ⋅ k ⋅ (100 ⋅ ρ1 ⋅ fck ) 3 + 0.15 ⋅σ CP  ⋅ bW ⋅ d = 49 kN
1

 γc 
Minimum Shear Reinforcement

1.6 1.4

3.2 meters requiring design shear reinforcement; 2.8 meters requiring

minimum shear reinforcement.
Minimum Shear Reinforcement: Design Shear Reinforcement:
s ≤ 0.75 ⋅ d = 345 mm Asw
VR ,ds = ⋅ z ⋅ f yd = VRd − VRd ,ct = 56 kN
f ck s
ρ w,min = 0.08 = 0.0009 s ≤ 321 mm
f yk
⇒ 2Φ6 @300 mm ⇒ 2Φ8@ 300 mm

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 40/102

20
 G. Plizzari
Example of Application for Shear

Assume 30 kg/m3 of steel fibers having l/φ =67 and fFtk,u=0.90 MPa (tested at the
University of Brescia)
 0.18 f Ftk,u 
VRd , F =  ⋅ k ⋅ (100 ⋅ ρ1 ⋅ (1 + 7.5 ⋅ ) ⋅ f ck ) 3 + 0.15 ⋅ σ CP  ⋅ bW ⋅ d
1

 cγ f ctk 
 0.18  200  0.90 
VRd ,F =  ⋅ 1 +  ⋅ (100 ⋅ 0.0098 ⋅ (1 + 7.5 ⋅ ) ⋅ 20) 3  ⋅ 200 ⋅ 460 = 81 kN
1

 1.5  460  2 
Minimum shear reinforcement Minimum Shear Reinforcement

f ck 30
f Ftuk ≥ = = 0.27 MPa
20 20 OK
Design Shear Reinforcement
0.7 2.3
Asw 
VR ,ds = ⋅ z ⋅ f yd = VRd − VRd ,ct = 24 kN 
s  ⇒ 2Φ6@300 mm
s ≤ 420 mm 
DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 41/102

G. Plizzari
Example of Application for Shear

2Ø8@300mm 2Ø6@300mm Plain concrete

2Ø6@300mm
FRC

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 42/102

21
 G. Plizzari

Salò, 15-16 October, 2010

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 43/102

Crack control (SLS) G. Plizzari

where

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 44/102

22
 G. Plizzari
Results

Plain Concrete FRC

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 45/102

G. Plizzari
Comparison against code provisions

Average crack spacing: comparison with

standard formulations
400 Plain CEB, FIP Model Code 1978:
SFRC Vf=0,5%  s  φ
350 SFRC Vf=0,5%+0,5% sm = 2 ⋅  c + b  + k1 ⋅ k 2 ⋅
SFRC Vf=1%  10 ρeff
CEB - FIP Model Code, 1978 CEB, FIP Model Code 1993:
Average crack spacing [mm]

300 Eurocodice 2, 1991

2 φ
CEB - FIP Model Code, 1993 sm = ⋅
250
Eurocodice 2, 2003 3 3.6 ⋅ ρeff

200

150

100

50

0
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800
φ/ρ eff [mm]

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 46/102

23
 G. Plizzari
Minimum reinforcement for crack control (SLS)

- Act=area della sezione soggetta a trazione;

- fctm=resistenza a trazione media della matrice; larghezza minima della sezione in zona tesa;
- fFtsm=resistenza residua media dell’FRC;
- σs=massimo sforzo di trazione nell’armatura;
- kc= coefficiente che tiene conto della distribuzione degli sforzi nella sezione prima della fessurazione e
della variazione del braccio della coppia interna; per sezioni rettangolari può essere assunto pari a 1;
- k= coefficiente che tiene conto degli sforzo auto-equilibrati non uniformi che portano ad una riduzione
della forza di fessurazione:
k=1 per le anime con h≤300mm o flange con larghezza ≤300mm
k=0,65 per le anime con h≥800mm o flange con larghezza ≥ 800mm

When As,min<0, fibers can provides the minimum reinforcement

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 47/102

G. Plizzari

Durability
FRC pavements
of FRC

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 48/102

24
 G. Plizzari
Why concrete floors need a specific design

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 49/102

Concrete floors are slabs on grade G. Plizzari

They are subjected to:

• Distributed and point loads
• Static and dynamic loads
• Restrained shrinkage (joints)
• Thermal variations

Concrete floors requires specific design requirements

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 50/102

25
 Design phases G. Plizzari

•Subgrade design (geotechnical designer)

•Mix design for the required material requirements as
compressive and tensile strength, post-cracking tensile
strength, shrinkage (concrete technologist)
•Floor thickness and reinforcement (structural designer)
•Construction and contraction joint geometry (structural
designer)
•Curing (concrete technologist)

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 51/102

Professional people involved G. Plizzari

•Geotechnical designer
•Structural designer
•Concrete technologist
•Builder

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 52/102

26
 G. Plizzari
Design of Fiber Reinforced Concrete Industrial Floors

Floors without reinforcement

Floors with conventional reinforcement

FRC Floors

FRC Floors with conventional FRC Floors without conventional

reinforcement reinforcement

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 53/102

RC vs. FRC structural response G. Plizzari

RC FRC

Limit analysis (YLM)

Nonlinear Fracture Mechanics (NLFM)

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 54/102

27
 G. Plizzari
Maximum Load

600 NLFM FEA

YL Method - Two-way Subgrade
500 YL Method - One-way Subgrade
Collapse Load [kN]

Westergaard Method 30
00 00
30
400 200 0
20
Experimental
300 Result - Slab P2 Winkler soil

200

100

0
0 0.03 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.15 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27
3
Winkler Soil [N/mm ]

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010

10/04/2016 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 55/102

G. Plizzari
NLFM: crack development

400
Pc
350

300

250
Load [kN]
Load [N]

200

150

100 First
cracking
50

0
0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 1,6

Displacement [mm]
Displacement [mm]

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010

10/04/2016 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 56/102

28
 Case Study: Design of a Glass Fiber G. Plizzari

Reinforced Concrete (GFRC) Floor

Concrete Floor placed into a warehouse

Schematic of the pavements field
considered in the present study

Design Load: 4 wheels forklift

four 50x50mm wheels

Service load:

PSLS=16.25kN/wheel

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 57/102

G. Plizzari
Material properties

Compression behavior of GFRCC fck=25 MPa (SLS)

Stress-strain parabola according Eurocode2
fcd=16 MPa (ULS)
Concrete class: C25/30 (EC2)
- fck=25MPa fcd=fck/γ c=25/1.5=16MPa
- fctk=1.8MPa fctd=fctk/γ c=1.8/1.5=1.2MPa
- Ecm=31000MPa
Fracture behavior of GFRCC
3PBTs on notched beams (EN 14651-5)

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 58/102

29
 G. Plizzari
Material properties

Post-Cracking tensile relationship according fib Model Code 2010

Residual stresses from 3PBTs Simplified linear law (MC2010)
FRC – 10kg/m3 AR-glass fibers
fR1 [MPa] fR3 [MPa] f Fts , k = 0.45 ⋅ f R ,1k = 0.477 MPa
Mean Values 2.14 1.00 wu
Characteristic
f FTu ,k = f Fts ,k − ( f FTs ,k − 0.5 f R 3,k + 0.2 f R1,k ) = 0.0 MPa
1.85 0.63 CMOD 3
Values
where wu=2.37mm; CMOD3=2.5mm

Two different tensile stress-strain laws are used to simulate concrete behavior for structure analysis at
the SLS (Serviceability Limit State) and at the ULS (Ultimate Limit State)

Characteristic strength values Design strength values

SLS ULS

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 59/102

G. Plizzari
Finite Element model

Finite element model of the slab on grade

Force-displacement elastic law for no-
tension support springs

Winkler support

Winkler coefficient kw =0.06N/mm3

Simulation of the applied load

An equivalent distributed pressure is applied
on the surface of the four wheel imprints

The load is monotonically increased up to:

- the service load PSLS (SLS analysis)
- the maximum capacity Pmax (ULS analysis)

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 60/102

30
 G. Plizzari
Analysis at the Serviceability Limit State

The Load is increased up to the service load level

Disp. [mm]
1. Check the maximum deflection

Maximum deflection must not be so high to

“adversely affect the proper functioning or
appearance of the structure” (EC2 – par. 7.4)

2. Check the crack pattern (maximum predicted crack width)

Minimum principal stresses acting on the top surface Minimum principal stresses acting on the bottom surface

f1<fctk no cracks expected

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 61/102

G. Plizzari
Analysis at the Ultimate Limit State

The Load is increased up to the maximum capacity of the structure

Check that the maximum capacity is at least 1.5 times the service load PSLS

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 62/102

31
 G. Plizzari
Crack pattern at Ultimate Limit State

Maximum crack opening at the bottom surface = 0.0015 mm

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 63/102

G. Plizzari
Analysis results

Analysis at the Ultimate Limit State

Role of the residual stresses at the ULS
FRC should develop
Crack pattern detected at the 4,5 higher residual
maximum load stresses for low
4
CMOD values GFRC SFRC
3,5
Nominal stress [MPa]

2,5

1,5

0,5

0
Maximum crack 0,00 0,10 0,20 0,30 0,40 0,50 0,60 0,70 0,80 0,90 1,00
width = 0.002mm CMOD

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 64/102

32
 G. Plizzari
Slab on grade: stresses along the borders

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 65/102

G. Plizzari
Slab on grade: cracking at SLS

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 66/102

33
 G. Plizzari

FRC for Durability

precast tunnel
of FRC
segments

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 67/102

G. Plizzari
Segmental lining

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 68/102

34
 G. Plizzari
Precast tunnel segment loading conditions

De-moulding Storage of segments

wood blocks

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 69/102

G. Plizzari
Precast tunnel segment loading conditions

Transportation and
positioning of the
segment
(the segments need to be
transported around the segment
plant, to the project site, down to
the tunnel)

Positioning of the segment

by means of erector system
(pin shear erector or
vacuuming system)

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 70/102

35
 G. Plizzari
Precast tunnel segment loading conditions

• Thrust jack phase

spalling

hydraulic
hydraulic jacks
jacks

Barcelona Metro Line (N. Della Valle)

plane actions splitting
(placing situation)

hydraulic
jacks

Barcelona Metro Line (N. Della Valle)

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 71/102

G. Plizzari
Precast tunnel segment loading conditions

• A number of irregularities can occur in practice during the thrust jack phase
1) thrust jacks may be not exactly on place
2) ring joint may not be plane

1) thrust jacks may be not exactly on place: Inside tunnel

- Eccentricity of the hydraulic jacks

Eccentricity
Outside tunnel

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 72/102

36
 G. Plizzari
Segmental tunnel lining: load conditions

2) ring joint may not be in plane → non-smooth support in the ring joint:
un-even supports

gap

crack

Barcelona Metro Line (N. Della Valle)

Barcelona Metro Line (N.Della Valle)

Brescia Metro Line (N. Della Valle)

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 73/102

G. Plizzari
Main advantages of FRC in precast segments

• Enhanced toughness

• Smaller crack opening (durability)

• Higher resistance to impact loading

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 74/102

37
 G. Plizzari
Main advantages of FRC in precast segments

• No detachment of cracked concrete blocks in tunnels

• Improved industrial process

• No more storage areas for reinforcement

• Reinforcement spread everywhere in the segment (corners)

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 75/102

G. Plizzari
Case studies of FRC tunnel linings

• Almost 60 case studies of FRC tunnel linings made by precast tunnel

segments were analyzed:
Di ≤ 4m Di/S < 18
4m<Di ≤ 9m Di/S = 18÷24
Di ≥9m Di/S = 30

Slender linings

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 76/102

38
 G. Plizzari
Case studies of FRC tunnel linings

• Distribution of the reinforcement solutions adopted in the case studies

analyzed: only fiber (=75%), hybrid (fiber+rebar=25%)
• By consider for two possible solutions the distribution of diameters:

Only fiber Hybrid

Di > 8 m
9%

Di > 8 m
60%

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 77/102

G. Plizzari
Design features in tunnel segments

• Modelling the loading/boundary conditions generally adopted by designers

• Modelling the loading/boundary conditions representing possible

irregularities
• Design of an optimized reinforcement
Outer/Inner eccentricities Irregular supports
Inside tunnel Inside tunnel Inside tunnel

Eccentricity
Outside tunnel Outside tunnel Outside tunnel
Eccentricity inside Eccentricity
outside
RCO+50/0,75-Vf=0,32%→71 kg/m3
50/1,0-Vf=0,57%→45 kg/m3 RC+50/0,75-Vf=0,32%→122 kg/m3
50/0,75-Vf=0,32%→25 kg/m3 RC→97 kg/m3

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 78/102

39
 Thrust jack actions G. Plizzari

Splitting cracks

Spalling cracks

Splitting cracks Spalling cracks

Normal loading condition Normal loading condition
35 3 35 3

30 30
2,5 2,5

25

Load/Service load [-]

25
Total Load [MN]

2 2

Total Load [MN]

20 20

50/1,0 - Vf=0,57% - Point 1 1,5 50/1,0 - Vf=0,57% 1,5

15 15 50/0,75 - Vf=0,32%
50/0,75 - Vf=0,32% - Point 1
RC
1 1
10 RC - Point 1 10 RC + 50/0,75 - Vf=0,32%
RCO + 50/0,75 - Vf=0,32%
RC + 50/0,75 - Vf=0,32% - Point 1
0,5 0,5
5 5
RCO + 50/0,75 - Vf=0,32% - Point 1

0 0 0 0
0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00 1,20 0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50

Relative displacement in radial direction under the thrust jacks [mm] Relative displacement in the region between the thrust jacks [mm]

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 79/102

G. Plizzari
Additional moments due to outer eccentricity

• Outer eccentricity:
Eccentricity outside
30 2,5

Normal l.condition
25
2
Load/Service load [-]
Tunnel Load [MN]

20
1,5

15

50/1,0 - Vf=0,57% 1
10 50/0,75 - Vf=0,32%
RC 12,6MN
RC + 50/0,75 - Vf=0,32% 0,5 Eccentricity outside
5
25 2
RCO + 50/0,75 - Vf=0,32%

0 0
0,00 0,50 1,00 1,50 2,00 2,50 3,00 20
1,5
Average displacement under the load surfaces [mm] 9,3MN
Load/Service load [-]
Total Load [MN]

15
- Safety factor reduction
1

- Crack increase between loading areas; 10

50/1,0 - Vf=0,57%
Inside tunnel Inside tunnel Inside tunnel
50/0,75 - Vf=0,32%
0,5
5 RC
RC + 50/0,75 - Vf=0,32%
RCO + 50/1,0 - Vf=0,32%
Eccentricity 0 0
Outside tunnel Outside tunnel Outside tunnel -1,00 0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00

Eccentricity inside Eccentricity Relative displacement in the region between the thrust jacks [mm]
outside

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 80/102

40
 G. Plizzari
Case-study: Brasil

• Metro line in Brasil (internal diameter, 6m, lining thickness 0.30m,

ratio=D/thick=20):
- Preliminary 2D analyses:

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 81/102

G. Plizzari
Case-study: Brasil

• Metro line in Brasil:

- 3D analyses

• FRC 3c
• FRC 4c
• FRC 3c +RC
Optimized
• RC
DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 82/102

41
 G. Plizzari
Book available

CONSTRUCTION METHODOLOGIES
AND STRUCTURAL PERFORMANCE
OF TUNNEL LININGS
Optimisation of the Structural, Technological and Functional
Performance, of Construction Methodologies and Materials, in Tunnel Linings

Construction methodologies and structural performance of tunnel linings

crack
y y y

gap effective section

fc = fc (20°C)
d
x

500°C

T fc
b T = T(x=0, y, t)

EDITOR: GIOVANNI A. PLIZZARI

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 83/102

G. Plizzari

FRC
Durability
precast elements
of FRC

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 84/102

42
 G. Plizzari
Water tanks

Conventional RC tank Tank with optimized reinforcement

Section B-B

Local rebars

FRC (Vf=30Kg/m3)

Section A-A
Conventional Local rebars
steel wire mesh

Numerical
simulation

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 85/102

G. Plizzari
Water tanks

Properties of the tank

Section Y-Y (dimensions in mm)
Plan view (dimensions in mm)

Typical loading conditions

Ground pressure acting on the outer surface Water pressure acting on the inner surface

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 86/102

43
 G. Plizzari
Water tanks

ULS non-linear analysis for reinforcement optimization

Ground pressure acting on the outer surface Water pressure acting on the inner surface
Inner surface Outer surface

Localized stresses along the vertical corner Localized stresses along the vertical corner

Localized stresses along the long wall Localized stresses along long wall
Inner surface Outer surface Outer surface Inner surface

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 87/102

G. Plizzari
Water tanks

Optimized reinforcement and behavior at SLS

Ground pressure acting on the outer surface Water pressure acting on the inner surface

Optimized reinforcement: Optimized

reinforcement:
- SFRC (V f=30kg/m3) - SFRC (V f=30kg/m3)
- Φ8/30cm steel rebars -Φ 8/30cm steel rebars
-Φ 16 rebars

Crack pattern at service load

Crack pattern at service load

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 88/102

44
 G. Plizzari

FRC forDurability
durabilityofofFRC
RC beams

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 89/102

G. Plizzari
Cracking and durability

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 90/102

45
 G. Plizzari
Exposure in aggressive (marine) environment

10 beams has been exposed for more than 2 years in a coastal zone,
under a load equal to 50% of the ultimate load
Aim of the research: evaluate the influence of fibers on mechanical
behaviour of FRC in short and long term bending test

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 91/102

G. Plizzari
Materials

(UNI
30011039)
7 14 14 7 3
3
25

25

10 25
52 2 Ø14 10
294 18

3Ø14 18

294

Yield strength Ultimate strength

Diameter
(MPa) (MPa)
Longitudinal
14mm 520 614
bars
Stirrups 8mm 567 600

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 92/102

46
 G. Plizzari
Tests for determining material properties

(UNI 11039)

12
06S
10
0.6% steel 09P
TQ065
8
Vf=0,6%
LOAD (kN)

Vf=0,9%
4

2 0.9% polyester

0 500 1000 1500 2000

CTOD (microns)

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 93/102

Crack monitoring G. Plizzari

Crack width, crack length and

crack position have been
measured during the exposure
period. The crack width has been
measured with a digital
microscope (200x magnification)

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 94/102

47
 Cracking monitoring G. Plizzari

In FRC beams the crack widths were in the range of 0.1 to 0.2 mm, without overcome the
threshold of 0.2 mm. In plain beam the 93.3% of cracks had a crack width over 0.1 mm, while
the 60% over 0.2 mm.

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 95/102

Cracking monitoring G. Plizzari

Average of crack widths between the loading points

0.35 PC
0.31
0.30

0.25
Crack width (mm)

0.20
steel polyester
0.16
0.15 0.14 0.14
0.13

0.10

0.05

0.00
TQ1_E ST1_E ST2_E POL1_E POL2_E

Beams Dw /%
Crack width reduction of the FRC beams respect
to the plain beam (Dw /%).
ST1-2_E 54%
POL1-2_E 53%

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 96/102

48
 G. Plizzari
Cracking behavior at SLS

Crack width reduction of the FRC beams respect to the plain beam.
SLE (50kN)
SLE
(50kN)
LONG TERM SHORT TERM
ST1-2_E 43%
BEAMS ST1-2 35% BEAMS
POL1_E 37%
POL1-2 28%
POL2_E 43%

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 97/102

G. Plizzari
Cracking behavior at ULS

Crack width reduction of the FRC beams respect to the plain beam.
SLU SLU
(100kN)
LONG TERM (100kN) SHORT TERM
ST1-2_E 56% BEAMS ST1-2 41% BEAMS
POL1_E 25% POL1-2 39%
POL2_E 54%

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 98/102

49
 Carbonation depth G. Plizzari

CARBONATION DEPTH CHLORIDE CONTENT

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 99/102

Carbonation depth between the cracks G. Plizzari

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 100/10
2

50
 Carbonation depth at cracks G. Plizzari

K t
(mm/anni armature
^0.5) (anni)
TQ_E 19.4 2.4
ST1_E 12.7 5.6
ST2_E 13.4 5.0
POL1_E 12.5 5.8
POL2_E 14.7 4.2

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 101/10
2

G. Plizzari
Thank you for your kind attention

DESIGN OF FRC ELEMENTS ACCORDING TO fib Model Code 2010 Sau Paulo Workshop, April 8th, 2016 102/10
2

51