Expanding Underground.

Knowledge and Passion to Make a Positive Impact

on the World – Anagnostou, Benardos & Marinos (Eds)
© 2023 The Author(s), ISBN 978-1-003-34803-0
Open Access: www.taylorfrancis.com, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license

Low carbon lining for tunnelling precast segment – How Dramix®

fibre reinforced concrete could facilitate this achievement

Benoit De Rivaz
NV Bekaert SA, Zwevegem, Belgium

ABSTRACT: Concrete is recognized as the second most widely consumed commodity on

the planet after water. It also contributes approximately 8% of global carbon emissions; the
main source of these emissions is the manufacture of Ordinary Portland Cement (CEM I). In
a tunneling project, it is generally considered that 60% to 70% of embodied carbon is con­
tained in the concrete linings of the shafts and tunnels. It is paramount, therefore that the tun­
neling industry does its utmost to significantly reduce or eliminate its use of cement in all
applications segmental linings, in-situ linings, sprayed concrete, and annulus grouts. This is
the reason why a great challenge for the coming years will be developing solutions for low
carbon lining. Recent projects have demonstrated that structural ductility, durability, and sus­
tainability are going hand to hand, this combined approach will be key requirement in all.
The use of Fibre Reinforced Concrete (FRC) allows several advantages summarized in the fib
bulletin 83 as follows: Cracking control during construction phases; higher impact resistance;
durability advantages at final stage; reduction of costs; sustainability advantages (less material
usage through minimizing the amount of steel and concrete cover required). The advantages
related to the adoption of FRC use should be evaluated according to the project characteris­
tics. The introduction of the Model Code 2010 has promoted the use of FRC segments. This
paper underlines the design principle based upon MC2010 and fib bulletin 83. The use of steel
to replace all or a part of conventional reinforcement has been demonstrated to lower the
embodied CO2 of the segmental lining as well. The return of experience of the Doha Metro as
the Grand Paris Linea 16.1 will provide a good recent illustration.

1 INTRODUCTION

Scientists have shown that human generated emissions of greenhouse gases (primarily CO2)
from fossil fueled power supplied to industrial processes and fossil fueled vehicles, are the pri­
mary contributors to the dramatic rise in Earth’s temperature since the 1950’s.
Although the consequences of climate change are difficult to predict, it is clear that the
rapid increase in Earth’s temperature will bring about detrimental impacts to future gener­
ations. It is increasingly evident that we must act to reduce man made levels of CO2 emissions
into our atmosphere. To be considered a sustainable project today, design engineers are
required to make conscious efforts to reduce the carbon footprint as well as provide for
a minimum service life of structures they are designing.
Concrete is recognized as the second most widely consumed commodity on the planet after
water. It also contributes approximately 8% of global carbon emissions; the main source of
these emissions is the manufacture of Ordinary Portland Cement (CEM I)
In a tunnelling project, it is generally considered that 60% to 70% of embodied carbon is con­
tained in the concrete linings of the shafts and tunnels. It is paramount, therefore that the tunnel­
ling industry does its utmost to significantly reduce or eliminate its use of cement in all

DOI: 10.1201/9781003348030-6

40
applications – segmental linings, in-situ linings, sprayed concrete and annulus grouts. This is the
reason why a great challenge for the coming years will be develop solution for low carbon lining.
Recent projects have demonstrated that structural ductility, durability and sustainability are
going hand to hand, this combined approach will be clearly a new booster for FRC tunnel lining.

2 HISTORY

Steel fibre reinforced concrete (SFRC) has been introduced in the European market in
the second half of the 1970’s. No standards, nor recommendations were available at that time
which was a major obstacle for the acceptance of this new technology. In the meantime, SFRC
has been applied ever since in many different construction applications, such as in tunnel linings,
mining, floors on grade, floors on piles, prefabricated elements etc. In the beginning, steel fibres
were used to substitute a secondary reinforcement or for crack control in less critical construc­
tions parts. Nowadays, steel fibres are widely used as the main and unique reinforcement for
industrial floor slabs and prefabricated concrete products. Steel fibres are also considered for
structural purposes helping to guarantee the construction’s ability and durability in:
– foundation piles reinforcement
– reinforcement of a slab on piles
– full replacement of the standard reinforcing cage for tunnel segments
– reinforcement of concrete cellars and slab foundations
– steel fibres as shear reinforcement in pre-stressed construction elements
This evolution into structural applications was mainly the result of the progress in the
SFRC technology, as well as the research done at different universities and technical institutes
in order to understand and quantify the material properties. In the early nineties, recom­
mendations for design rules for steel fibre reinforced concrete started to be developed. Since
October 2003, Rilem TC 162-TDF Recommendations for design rules are available for steel
fibre reinforced concrete (Allen, 2021).
Over the past years, the use of this technology has increased dramatically. One aspect
allows the boosting the use of FRC was the publication of guidelines for FRC design: in 2013,
the International Federation for Structural Concrete (fib) presented Model Code 2010 (FIB
2010) which included a specific section on FRC.
The use of Fibre Reinforced Concrete (FRC) offers several advantages, compared with
traditional steel mesh or steel bar reinforcement:
– Can facilitate remote working from the face, and may remove the need for traditional
reinforcement, to enhance the safety of the workers
– Provides cracking control and a small enhancement of the concrete’s tensile properties
– Less prone to carbonation and chloride attack
– Reduction of cost and time saving
– Less material usage (through minimizing the amount of steel and concrete cover required)

3 SUSTAINABILITY & STRUCTURAL REQUIREMENT

For a sustainable use of structural concrete, environmental and mechanical performances of

concrete structures must have the same importance. By means of sufficiently high mechanical
performances, the structural safety of a construction is ensured. Contemporarily, a low envir­
onmental impact guarantees a sustainable development, which is, in accordance with the
Brundtland Commission of the United the “development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.
FRC acts on the tensile behavior of cracked concrete and imparts ductility to a fragile mater­
ial. FRC’s excellent properties which overcome cracking as well as its improved durability over
reinforced concrete are why we continue to develop that material and also explain its economic

41
success. The life cycle assessment (LCA) is a set of standardized data. It quantifies a material’s
impacts on the environment over its entire existence, from extraction of the raw materials
required for its production up to its end of life. This approach, combined with research into
a low-carbon solution, will give new momentum to FRC. Bekaert’s global sustainable develop­
ment strategy is based on four major pillars: our responsibility in the workplace, in the market,
and towards the environment and society in which we operate. For example, Bekaert is provid­
ing its expertise and support to the innovative Cargo Sous Terrain (CST) underground cargo
logistics system in Switzerland. In reality, CST is just reinforcing and systematizing the aspects
of sustainability which are already inherent in the system. Apart from the fact that the CST
provides a zero-emissions delivery route which is therefore climate-neutral, a work group is also
already making preparations for construction in accordance with recognized sustainability
standards.

4 BASIC FRC BEHAVIOR

A minimum tensile strength > 1800MPA is recommended for final ling application consider­
ing the performance required and concrete class.
The hooked ends ensure the desired fiber pull-out. This is the mechanism that actually gener­
ates the renowned concrete ductility and post-crack strength. Bekaert’s Dramix® 4D steel fibers
utilize the same principle, which translates into improved anchorage and ductile behavior.
The tensile strength of a steel fiber has to increase in parallel with the strength of its anchor­
age. Only in this way can the fiber resist the forces acting upon it. Otherwise, it would snap,
causing the concrete to become brittle. On the other hand, a stronger wire cannot be fully util­
ized with an ordinary anchor design. Therefore, the tensile strength of a fiber has to be per­
fectly aligned with its anchorage system and its diameter. Dramix® 4D is designed to
capitalize on the wire strength to the maximum degree.
Wire ductility and concrete ductility are two different aspects. Dramix® 3D and 4D steel
fibers create concrete ductility by the slow deformation of the hook during the pull-out pro­
cess, and not by the ductility of the wire itself.

5 EPD CERTIFICATE

An EPD is a document that transparently communicates the key environmental performance

indicators of a product over its lifetime
A third-party verification ensures that data relating to environmental aspects of Dramix®
has been validated by an external organization
This declaration is the Type III Environmental Product Declaration (EPD) based on EN
15804:2012+A1 and verified according to ISO 14025 by an external auditor. It contains the
information on the impacts of the declared construction materials on the environment. Their
aspects were verified by the independent body according to ISO 14025. Basically,
a comparison or evaluation of EPD data is possible only if all the compared data were created
according to EN 15804:2012+A1.
The environmental impact of Dramix® product (cradle to gate with options) is largely
dependent on the energy intensive production of steel (half product) on which the manufac­
turer has only a limited influence. The carbon impact of steel production (Wire Rods) in the
product stage A1 is as high as 85%. The impact of the production line largely depends on the
amount of electricity consumed by manufacturing plant (0.34 kWh/kg of product). There are
no significant emissions or environmental impacts in the A3 production processes alone
(partly gas combustion). The production process itself does not have significant environmental
impacts in the life cycle.
Interrogation of the LCA results show that the cradle-to-gate carbon (Global Warming
Potential) impact of 1 kg of fibre production is 0.88 kg CO2eq. For comparison, ton of steel
produced worldwide in 2019 emitted on average 1.85 tons of carbon dioxide.

42
 The LCA results show that the cradle-to gate primary energy demand of fossil fuel is equal
9.4 MJ. This is due to the production of nuclear energy by the Czech Republic. The transport of
raw materials from considerable distances is optimized and not significant (0.007 kg CO2/kg).

6 DESIGN PRINCIPLE

Model Code 2010 is the most comprehensive code on concrete structures. It covers their com­
plete life cycle from conceptual design, dimensioning, construction and conservation through
to dismantlement. It is edited by fib. fib Model Code 2010 was produced through the excep­
tional efforts of participants in 44 countries from five continents
Figure 1 illustrates the design process involved, from beam tests, classification, design
values, and constitutive laws.

Figure 1. Design process.

The tensile behavior of the materials was characterized by performing bending tests on
a notched beam. The tests were performed according to the EN 14651 European code,
which is the reference standard for the CE label of steel and for ISO certification.
The compressive strength of the materials was measured by a testing cube with a side of
150 mm. For every cast made for the production of every single segment, three beams were pro­
duced. In agreement with EN 14651 (2005), nominal strengths corresponding to four different
crack mouth opening displacement (CMOD), namely 0.5, 1.5, 2.5 and 3.5 mm, were evaluated.
Figure 2 shows a typical result of the beam tests with significant strength values. FL is peak
force, fR1 and fR3 are the stresses related to CMODs equal to 0.5 and 2.5 mm respectively.
These values are the reference ones for final lining design performed according to the fib
Model Code 2010 prescriptions.
To dimension a steel fiber-reinforced concrete segment, a reference test methodology needs
to be adopted for the characterization of performance. In addition to the mechanical perform­
ance, various properties of the FRC can be specified.
Since brittleness must be avoided in structural behavior, fiber reinforcement can be used as
substitution (even partially) of conventional reinforcement (at ULS), only if both the follow­
ing relationships are fulfilled: fR1k/fLk > 0.4; fR3k/fR1k > 0.5, where fLk is the characteristic
value of the nominal strength, corresponding to the peak load (or the highest load value in the
interval 0 – 0.05 mm), determined from the EN 14651 beam test.
It is recommended to realize 12 beams per dosage and concrete mix formula.

43
Figure 2. Typical results of beam tests of FRC according to EN 14651 using 40kg/m3 Dramix® 4D80/
60BG.

If fibres are used as the only reinforcement for final lining, hardening post-crack behavior at
section level (beam test) allow immediately: Cracking control at SLS; Structural ductility (ULS).

7 PRECAST SEGMENT

The use of steel to replace all or a part of conventional reinforcement has been demonstrated
to lower the embodied CO2 of the segmental lining. While it is possible to significantly reduce
the embodied CO2 of a concrete mixture for segment production by replacing a portion of its
cement content with alternative cementitious materials, there is little or no difference between
the cementitious blends and contents required for the production of fiber reinforced or con­
ventionally reinforced concrete segments for tunnel linings. Figure 3 shows an example reduc­
tion in CO2 emissions on a project made possible by modification of the concrete and further
reduction by being able to replace the rebar with steel fibers in a dosage that satisfied all of
the design requirements. On a per pound (kg) basis the embodied CO2 of conventional rebar
and steel fibers is assumed the same. This is a generalization assuming the wire rod that the
fiber is produced from and the rebar have similar % recycled material content and similar steel
production methods. In a precast segment the reduction in carbon footprint is due to the steel
fibers being more efficient in reinforcing the element. In this example the elimination the com­
bination of the right binder and steels fibre could conduct to a reduction 70%.
The recent project for the Grand Paris line 16.1 has shown the following:
• From the saving in the ratio of fibers compared with steel reinforcement bars, leading to
a significant reduction in CO2 emissions during transportation. If we compare 85kg/m3 for
steel reinforcement bars with the 40kg/m3 for fibers, we get a saving on materials of more
than 50%.
• By the benefit of better optimized loading for the fibers. 22 big bags of 1,100/kg per truck =
24.2 tons per load for the delivery of the fibers in comparison with 60 equivalent segments
per truck = 17.85 T for the delivery of the concrete reinforcement bars.
• From the small diameter of the fibers which helps to further limit toxic emissions from the
primary steel industry, due to primary coils which do not exceed 1 mm of wire diameter.
The drawing technology is low emission.
• Fewer trucks on the road and optimized waste management in a large city like Paris is an
important element to take into account. From an ecological point of view, the carbon bal­
ance is therefore very positive. In this respect, Bekaert has recently obtained its EPD
(Environmental Product Declaration) Type III ITB certificate number 215/2021.

44
Figure 3. CO2 emission comparison.

Figure 4. Project jobsite Grand Paris - Photo Credit Eiffage Génie Civil.

In terms of concrete, there will be a before and after Grand Paris Express. Until now, to
design the segments, we used reinforced concrete, that is to say concrete poured around cages
of massive metal reinforcements. Since 2020 on line 16, approximately 4 km of tunnel have
been designed in fiber-reinforced concrete and a much larger deployment is now planned
given the latest contracts awarded. This is a rare scale of deployment in the transport infra­
structure sector in France.

45
8 BENEFITS AT ALL LEVELS

Fiber-reinforced concrete, which consumes less steel, saves resources. As its name suggests,
reinforced concrete is reinforced by a steel frame which represents large quantities of steel, around
100 kg of steel for 1 m3 of concrete, deciphers Alex Moubé, head of the low carbon mission at
the Greater Paris Society. The FRC option consumes twice less steel for the same performance. It
takes 40 kg of steel fibre for 1 m3 of concrete for linea 16.1 thanks to Dramix® 3D 80/60BGP.
Steel consumption is half and 5,000 tonnes of steel are saved for 10 km of tunnel. Allowing, at the
same time, to achieve substantial cost savings.
Still in terms of resources, fiber-reinforced concrete can reduce the quantities of concrete by
2 to 3 cm in segment thickness.
In addition to the quantities of steel and concrete saved, fiber-reinforced concrete also
makes it possible to reduce CO2 expenditure, both in cement plants and in steelworks: 10,000
tonnes of CO2 are saved on average for 10 km of tunnels compared to concrete armed.
That’s not all, fiber-reinforced concrete also improves the technical performance of the
structures built. Thanks to the presence of fibres, the segments have better behavior in the
face of cracks. Not only are they less important than for reinforced concrete, but they also
close over time. Similarly, the segments are more resistant to corrosion. Indeed, steel, in con­
tact with air and water, corrodes. As the fibers are interspersed in the cementitious matrices, if
a fiber is corroded, it will not spread its corrosion in the other fibers. In time, we will therefore
be in the presence of a much more durable material.
Edvardsen (2010) provides an example reduction of concrete and further reduction by being
able to replace the rebar with steel fibres in a dosage that satisfied all of the design requirements.

Figure 5. Evolution of precast segment lining.

In a recent paper Allen (2021) refers to the case for the use of Earth Friendly Concrete
(EFC®) geopolymer concrete in segmental tunnel linings: “The incorporation of EFC® geopo­
lymer concrete is considered to be an action that could be undertaken in the manufacture of
reinforced concrete tunnel lining segment. EFC is able to provide significant reductions in the
embodied carbon footprint of tunnel linings, estimated to be of the order 210 kg/m3 of concrete –
approximately 1.8 tonnes of embodied CO2 per linear metre of a typical rail tunnel. Additionally,
when casting EFC in segment moulds on a carousel system, the curing chamber temperature is
able to be reduced to around 30°C, thereby reducing energy consumption and associated carbon
emissions. The final costings and environmental benefits of the use of EFC in tunnel linings could
be quantified by conducting full scale production trials with the segment manufacturer”.

46
Figure 6. EFC Geolpolymer Concrete beam test at 145 days of age (Allen 2021).

9 CONCLUSION

There has been a trend the last years that concrete tunnel linings have increased material con­
sumption, cost and environmental loads. Nowadays develop and/or improve tunnel construc­
tion methodology to choose the optimal tunnel lining, including environmental footprint and
cost-effectiveness. Create required knowledge to produce final lining to meet new large infra­
structure projects with modern demands to functionality incl. 100-year service life and envir­
onmental impact.
The use of steel fibre reinforced concrete will highly participate to meet low carbon lining
by concrete consumption and steel reinforcement saving. If ductility and durability have been
the key words the last 40 years, the sustainability will be the key driver for further FRC lining
development in the coming years
Indeed, new generation of binder combined with FRC allows new achievements:
• Provide excellent long-term durability performance exceeding that of Portland cement-
based concretes
• Excellent long-term durability performance exceeding that of Portland cement-based
concretes.
• Extremely low embodied carbon footprint compared to conventional concretes on Portland
cements.
• Compared to reinforced concrete, fiber-reinforced concrete notably represents savings of
around 5,000 tonnes of steel for 10 kilometers of tunnels (Typical Metro Tunnel).

REFERENCES

Allen, C. Nov 2021. Low Carbon Concrete/rules of the thumb. T&T Journal.
Edvardsen, C. 2010. The consultant’s view on service life design. 2nd Int. Symp. on Service Life Design
for Infrastructure, Delft, 249–264.
EN 14651. 2005. Test Method for metallic fibre concrete. Measuring the flexural tensile strength.
FIB. 2010. Model Code 2010 – First complete Draft. Bulletin 55–56.
ITB. 2015. EPD – Environmental Product Declaration Type III. No. 215.
RILEM. Recommendations for design rules are available for steel fibre reinforced concrete. TC 162-TDF.

47