ACI MATERIALS JOURNAL
Title No. 111-M44
Mechanical Performance of Reinforced Concrete and
Steel Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Precast Tunnel Lining
Segments: A Case Study
by Safeer Abbas, Ahmed M. Soliman, and Moncef L. Nehdi
Tunnels play a key role in facilitating the movement of people,
goods, and services. The functionality of tunnels depends on
the structural and durability performance of its lining system.
Tunnel lining systems act as lines of defense against large over-
burden loads and complex geotechnical surrounding conditions.
In this study, the structural behavior of precast concrete tunnel
lining (PCTL) segments from a subway extension tunnel project
in Canada was investigated. Flexural monotonic and cyclic load
tests were performed on full-scale conventional reinforced concrete
(RC) and steel fiber-reinforced concrete (SFRC) PCTL segments
to evaluate their bending resistance. Moreover, a thrust load test
was conducted to simulate the thrust loading action during tunnel
boring machine operation. As expected, flexural test results indi-
cate that the peak load-carrying capacity of RC segments was
higher than that of the SFRC segments. However, SFRC segments
exhibited higher cracking load and more stable post-peak cracking
behavior compared to that of RC segments. RC and SFRC segments
exhibited similar behavior during thrust load tests. Both types of
segments satisfied the design flexural capacity and thrust loading
criteria for monotonic and cyclic loads. The SFRC crack control
capability supports its potential as an alternative for conventional
RC tunneling segments.
Keywords: cyclic load; flexural test; mechanical performance; precast
concrete tunnel lining; steel fiber-reinforced concrete (SFRC); thrust
load test.
INTRODUCTION
The use of precast concrete tunnel lining (PCTL) systems
in tunneling projects has been increasing as a result of its
efficient and economical application in comparison with the
conventional in-place lining technique.1 PCTL segments are
suitable for both soft and hard ground and can serve both
as preliminary and final support against large overburden
loads.2 Tunnel linings are normally constructed in a circular
shape using tunnel boring machines (TBM). A number of
precast segments are installed at the end of the TBM and
assembled in such a way that it completes the circle of the
tunnel lining.3 PCTL allows speedy construction along with
superior quality due to enhanced control during precast
segment fabrication in precast plants. Moreover, the fabrica-
tion of PCTL includes repetitive steps of batching and casting
of concrete, which ultimately results in wastage reduction
compared to traditional in-place concrete lining.4 Further-
more, PCTL has been successfully employed in earthquake
prone areas. Case studies for different tunnels, such as in
Campania-Basilicata, Italy; Michoacán, Mexico; California;
Hokkaido and Kobe, Japan; and Chi-Chi, Taiwan, have
ACI Materials Journal/September-October 2014
TECHNICAL PAPER
proven that PCTL can perform adequately during seismic
events without compromising its structural integrity.5-7
The corrosion of conventional steel reinforcement due
to chloride ion (Cl–) ingress is the main durability issue in
PCTL segments. The penetration of Cl– either from under-
ground water at the extrados faces or deicing salt at the
intrados faces of PCTL segments will disturb the passive
layer around the reinforcing bar, leading to corrosion initi-
ation and reduction in the load-carrying capacity. However,
Cl– diffusion is mainly affected by cracks in concrete. An
increase in Cl– diffusion was observed for wider cracks.8,9
Cracks provide easy access paths for Cl–, moisture, and
oxygen to attack reinforcing steel and accelerate the corro-
sion process. The permissible crack width for serviceability
conditions of reinforced concrete structures under corrosive
environmental conditions (humid, moist air, and soil expo-
sure) is 0.30 mm (0.012 in.) in accordance with ACI 224.10
On the other hand, steel fiber-reinforced concrete (SFRC)
is a highly promising material for PCTL segments, where
steel fibers can bridge cracks and partially or fully replace
traditional reinforcing steel cages.11 SFRC has been success-
fully employed in PCTL in various tunneling projects around
the world, such as the Line 9 Subway Barcelona and Madrid
Subway, Spain; Bright Water Sewer System, Seattle, WA;
the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, UK and Second Heinenoord
Tunnel, the Netherlands.12-14 Steel fiber reinforcement in
PCTL segments restricts the initial crack propagation during
the assembling, curing, and handling processes; therefore,
the structural integrity of PCTL segments can be better
preserved. Furthermore, fiber reinforcement improves the
PCTL behavior under impact and fatigue loading compared
to that of conventional reinforced concrete (RC) segments.11
A remarkable feature of steel fibers is its corrosion resistance,
which does not allow the onset and propagation of corro-
sion owing to its dispersed nature in concrete mixtures.15,16
Moreover, SFRC achieves better resistance to fire damage
by limiting the chipping and spalling of concrete.17
In this study, the structural performance of precast RC
and SFRC tunnel lining segments fabricated for a subway
extension tunnel in Canada is examined. This extension is an
ACI Materials Journal, V. 111, No. 5, September-October 2014.
MS No. M-2012-283.R1, doi: 10.14359/51687101, received April 23, 2013, and
reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2014, American Concrete
Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is
obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s
closure, if any, will be published ten months from this journal’s date if the discussion
is received within four months of the paper’s print publication.
501
8.6 km (5.34 mile) long tunnel and consists of six segments Table 1—Concrete mixture composition and fresh
forming a 5.7 m (18.70 ft) diameter ring. The estimated properties for RC and SFRC segments
cost for this tunnel project is $2.6 billion, with an expected Parameters RC SFRC
completion in 2015.18
Cement 1.00 1.00

RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE Hydraulic slag 0.49 0.49

Tunnel lining segments are normally constructed using Fly ash 0.43 0.43
conventional RC with an estimated service life of at least Silica fume 0.11 0.11
100 years. However, tunnel structures often suffer prema- Materials (mass/
Coarse aggregate 2.82 2.76
ture degradation primarily due to reinforcement corrosion, cement mass)
which requires costly repair and maintenance. An attempt Fine aggregate 1.76 1.76
can be made to eliminate corrosion of the conventional steel Steel fibers 0.00 0.11
reinforcement by usng steel fiber reinforcement. Besides
Polypropylene fibers 0.003 0.003
improving durability, the substitution of fiber reinforce-
ment for conventional steel reinforcement cages in tunnel Water 0.59 0.59
linings eliminates the laborious and costly manufacturing of Slump, mm (in.) 170 (6.70) 150 (5.90)
curved shape cages, which require complicated welding and Fresh properties Air content, % 6.9 4.5
detailing. The main objective of this study is to investigate
Temperature, °C (°F) 25 (77) 22 (72)
and compare the mechanical behavior of conventional RC
and SFRC lining segments.
tively, while the thickness is 235 mm (9.25 in.). Segments
are skewed at their ends rather than straight edges. Figure 1
EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
shows the geometrical and reinforcement details of the
This paper is part of an ongoing research program on the
RC segments.
mechanical and durability performance of RC and SFRC
The concrete mixture compositions and fresh properties
tunnel lining segments. The flexural capacity and thrust load
for RC and SFRC PCTL segments are listed in Table 1.
resistance of full-scale precast RC and SFRC field segments
Cold-drawn hooked-end steel fibers (60 mm [2.36 in.] long
are investigated to overcome the gaps in prototype testing.
and 0.75 mm [0.030 in.] in diameter) having ultimate tensile
Moreover, since very limited research has studied the cyclic
strength greater than 1050 MPa (152.30 ksi) were added at
behavior of PCTL segments, this study should contribute
a rate of 1.5% by mixture volume. The target compressive
knowledge on the seismic behavior of PCTL segments.
strength for both concretes was 60 MPa (8700 psi).
Initially, four 150 x 150 x 500 mm (5.90 x 5.90 x 19.70 in.)
Segment description and mixture design
beams were tested to determine the flexural performance of
The length and width of RC and SFRC segments are
3180  mm (125.20 in.) and 1500 mm (59.05 in.), respec-

Fig. 1—RC segment dimensions and detailing. (Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.)

502 ACI Materials Journal/September-October 2014

Table 2—Bending properties of SFRC Flexural testing
δ1, δp, f1, fp, f600, f300, f150, T150, R150,
Two 1800 mm (70.86 in.) long stiffened I-beams (W10x49)
mm mm MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa MPa % welded together and fixed with bolts to the ground frame
were used as a reaction frame for the flexural tests. Each
0.067 0.343 7.6 8.1 5.7 3.8 2.7 93.8 52.4
PCTL segment tested was simply supported on the reac-
Notes: δ1 is net deflection at first peak load; δp is net deflection at peak load; f1 is first tion frame with a span of 3000 mm (118.11 in). Figure 2
peak strength; fp is peak strength; f600, f300, and f150 are residual strength at net deflec-
tion of L/600, L/300, and L/150, respectively; T150 is area under load-net deflection
shows the experimental set up for flexural testing. A waffle
curve 0 to L/150; and R150 is equivalent flexural strength ratio; 1 mm = 0.0.39 in.; tree loading frame (Fig. 2(b)) was used to apply a uniformly
1 MPa = 0.145 ksi. distributed load in agreement with previous studies.22-24 A
rubber bearing pad was placed underneath the loading frame
SFRC using ASTM C1609/C1609M.19 The average beam
to ensure smooth contact surface. An incremental load
bending test results of SFRC are shown in Table 2.
(2 kN/min [0.45 kip/min]) was applied on the segments using
a load cell actuator with a maximum applied load capacity
Core sampling
of 1500 kN (337 kip). Three linear variable displacement
To assess the quality of the cast concrete (compressive
transducers (LVDTs) were placed at the segment midspan to
and tensile strengths), cylindrical cores were taken from
measure vertical displacements. All load and displacement
both the RC and SFRC PCTL segments. The coring process
readings were collected simultaneously using a high-speed
was conducted at site per ACI 214.4R.20 All core drilling
data acquisition system. The crack widths were measured
was performed using diamond drill rig equipment firmly
using a crack width ruler.
placed at the segments intrados faces through a vacuum
The cyclic compressive loads were applied in terms of
suction base. The diamond drill bit attached to the core rig
percentage of maximum displacement (∆max) achieved
was continuously lubricated with water for lowering the
during the monotonic tests at the failure point. Two cycles
diamond bit temperature. The locations for drilling cores
of loading and unloading were conducted for 1.25, 2.5, 5,
on the segments were selected randomly to capture any
and 10% of ∆max. Subsequently, three cycles were applied
variation along the segment’s cross-section. However, in
for 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100% of ∆max. The loading cycles
the case of RC segments, the locations of reinforcing bar
were continuously applied until the tested segment failed
were mapped using a reinforcing bar locator to avoid the
into two pieces.
extraction of reinforcing steel from the retrieved cores.
Cores with a diameter of 100 mm (3.94 in.) were cut through
Thrust load testing
the full depth of 235 mm (9.25 in.) of the segments. After
Figure 3 illustrates the laboratory setup for the thrust
drilling and sufficient drying, cores were sealed in plastic
load test. The purpose of thrust load testing is to evaluate
bags and placed in a wooden case. During transportation to
the tensile splitting stresses and thrust induced by tunnel
the laboratory, core specimens were handled with special
boring machines (TBMs) during the construction phase.25
care to avoid microcracking and end chipping. The length
The segment was directly placed on the ground and an
of cores was adjusted to 200 mm (7.87 in.) using a concrete
incremental load (10 kN/min [2.25 kip/min]) was applied to
saw to satisfy the recommendations of ASTM C42/C42M.

Fig. 2—Flexural testing of PCTL segments: (a) instrumentation test setup; (b) waffle tree loading frame; and (c) schematic of
flexural test.

ACI Materials Journal/September-October 2014 503

Fig. 3—Thrust load testing of segments: (a) experimental setup; (b) close view of loading area; and (c) schematic top view.
its edge on the long dimension. Two LVDTs were fastened
to the top concrete surface and one LVDT was placed on
the loading steel plate for measuring the vertical displace-
ment of the segment. Another two LVDTs were attached at
the segment intrados and extrados faces at the midspan to
capture splitting in the horizontal direction (Fig. 3).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The compressive and splitting tensile strengths of concrete
mixtures used in casting the RC and SFRC PCTL segments
were each evaluated based on the average of five core
samples. The cracking load, ultimate capacities, cracking
deflection, ultimate deflection, stiffness change, and crack
widths were the main studied parameters for the tested RC
and SFRC segments. Moreover, the cyclic hysteresis enve-
lopes, energy dissipation, displacement ductility, and stiff-
ness degradation were also evaluated for both the RC and
SFRC PCTL segments.
Compressive and tensile strengths
The average core compressive strengths for concrete
mixtures of RC and SFRC PCTL segments were 60.0 MPa
(8700 psi) and 61.4 MPa (8900 psi), respectively. The
addition of steel fibers did not cause a significant effect on
compressive strength, in agreement with previous research.26
The initial splitting tensile strength for RC and SFRC was
7.5 MPa (1008 psi) and 9.0 MPa (1030 psi), respectively.
This indicates that the addition of 1.5% steel fibers improved
the splitting tensile strength by 20% with respect to that of
the concrete without steel fibers. This can be attributed due
to the crack bridging and arresting property of steel fibers.12
Flexural monotonic behavior
Load displacement curve—Figure 4 shows the typical
monotonic flexural load-midspan displacement response for
Fig. 4—Load-midspan displacement curves for RC and
SFRC PCTL segments.
RC and SFRC PCTL segments. The midspan displacement
was monitored by three LVDTs. All three LVDTs showed
nearly identical displacement readings, indicating the
absence of torsion effects.22 The self-weight of the loading
frame waffle tree was added to the measured load-carrying
capacity of the segments as in previous work.23
The load-midspan displacement response of the RC
segment can be divided into three parts (Fig. 4). The first
part, a linear behavior was observed up to the crack initi-
ation (Point A in Fig. 4) at a load of 45 kN (10.12 kip).
Subsequently, the slope of the curve became less steep due
to the development of cracks and reached yielding (Point B
in Fig. 4) at a load of 210 kN (47.20 kip). Finally, further
increase in load continued up to the peak load (Point C in
Fig. 4) at 244 kN (54.85 kip). Thereafter, a brittle failure
occurred along with an abrupt reduction in the load-carrying

504 ACI Materials Journal/September-October 2014

Fig. 5—Breakdown of lining segments.
capacity, without exhibiting any significant post-ductility or Table 3—Flexural test results for RC and SFRC
descending branch behavior. The failure of the RC segment PCTL segments
was characterized by splitting off a concrete cover followed Parameters RC SFRC
by rupture of steel reinforcing bar (Fig. 5(a)).
First crack load, kN (kip) 45 (10.11) 71 (15.96)
The load-midspan displacement curve of the SFRC
segment can be divided into ascending, yielding, and Displacement at first crack, mm (in.) 1.80 (0.070) 1.60 (0.62)
descending branches (Fig. 4). First, a linear ascending Average crack width at first crack,
0.20 (0.008) <0.10 (0.004)
portion was observed up to crack initiation (Point a in mm (in.)
Fig. 4) at a load of 71 kN (15.96 kip), which is higher than Peak load, kN (kip) 244 (54.85) 119 (26.75)
that of the RC segment. At this point, more cracks formed,
Peak load displacement, mm (in.) 50.26 (1.97) 5.06 (0.20)
leading to higher stresses in the segment cross-section. The
load was then transferred to steel fibers at the crack location Average crack width at peak load,
8.20 (0.32) 0.25 (0.0098)
mm (in.)
until yielding of the fibers (Point b in Fig. 4) at a load of
113 kN (25.40 kip). The stresses were further increased in
in either type of segments. Figure 7 illustrates the moni-
the segment and reached the peak load (Point c in Fig. 4)
tored cracking pattern in RC and SFRC segments. Gener-
at 119 kN (26.75 kip). The descending branch began there-
ally, fewer cracks were observed in the SFRC segment
after and its slope changed as fibers were pulled out or frac-
compared to the RC segment. For the RC segment, at a load
tured until complete failure of the segment. This descending
level of 48 kN (10.79 kip) (Point A in Fig. 7(a)), one straight
branch exhibits a somewhat ductile nature of the post-peak
discontinuous crack at midspan was observed at the segment
behavior of the SFRC segment. Examining the failure
intrados face. Few small cracks of around 100 mm (3.93 in.)
surface indicates that fiber debonding and pullout was the
long were also observed around the first crack. These small
dominant behavior rather than fiber fracture (Fig. 5(b) and
cracks propagated further in addition to new parallel cracks
6). Moreover, yielding of fibers before pullout from concrete
that developed at a load of 125 kN (28.10 kip) (Point B in
had increased the capability to deform under load, which
Fig. 7(a)). The crack spacing was around 180 mm (7.08 in.).
increases energy absorption capacity.27
These cracks were mapping the location of reinforcing bars.
Table 3 summarizes the flexural test results for both RC
At a load of 210 kN (47.20 kip) (Point C in Fig. 7(a)), a
and SFRC PCTL segments. The first crack load is the load
wide spread of continuous and discontinuous straight cracks
where the initial linear elastic slope of the load-displacement
were formed. A significant increase in crack width was also
plot ends, while the peak load represents the maximum load
observed close to the failure point (Point D in Fig. 7(a)).
in the load-displacement curve. The load corresponding to
On the other hand, a single discontinuous small crack
first crack initiation for the SFRC segment was approxi-
occurred on the intrados face of SFRC segment at a load of
mately 58% higher than that of the RC segment. Moreover,
71 kN (15.96 kip) (Point a in Fig. 7(b)). This crack propa-
the SFRC segment exhibited around 11% lower displace-
gated further along with formation of new hairline cracks at
ment than that of the RC at the cracking load as a result
a load of around 107 kN (24.05 kip) (Point b in Fig. 7(b)). At
of anchorage and crack arrestment mechanisms provided
the ultimate capacity (Point c in Fig. 7(b)), cracks parallel to
by the steel fibers.22 In the case of SRFC segments, initial
the previously developed ones increased in number. More-
cracks of less than 0.10 mm (0.004 in.) in average width
over, widespread small discontinuous cracks were observed
were observed when the slope of the initial SFRC load-mid-
before complete failure of the segment (Point d in Fig. 7(b)).
span displacement plot changed. However, for RC segments,
The crack width in the SFRC segment was found to be less
the crack width increased more rapidly and a 0.20 mm
than 0.25 mm (0.0098 in.) at ultimate load, which satisfies
(0.008 in.) average crack width was observed at the end of
the accepted limit of 0.30 mm (0.012 in.) crack width for
the linear slope of the load-midspan displacement plot.
serviceability conditions.10,23 Because cracking occurred at
Cracking pattern—Generally, RC and SFRC segments
a higher load for SFRC compared to RC (71 kN [15.96 kip]
failed in a flexural mode and no shear cracks were observed
versus 45 kN [10.11 kip]), its behavior can be perceived as

ACI Materials Journal/September-October 2014 505

Fig. 6—Failure surfaces of SFRC segments.
Fig. 7—Representation of crack patterns under static load.
Fig. 8—Cracks in RC and SFRC lining segments.
an advantage from a serviceability perspective. For instance,
the penetration of aggressive species to concrete can be
reduced in SFRC, leading to an enhanced SFRC PCTL
segments durability. Figure 8 shows the cracked intrados
faces of both the tested RC and SFRC segments.
Although the peak load for the RC segment and its energy
absorption are higher than that of the SFRC segment, some
concerns need to be considered. First, during the fabrica-
tion of PCTL segments, delivery to the site and installation
process using TBM, accidental thrust, and impact loads may
result in segment cracking, consequently jeopardizing its
structural integrity. Therefore, the initial cracking load of the
PCTL segment is considered as the ultimate design criteria.22
The structural design of PCTL segments also needs to satisfy
the serviceability state of crack control. Based on these two
506
criteria, it can be argued that SFRC has a high potential
for application in tunnel linings. Moreover, with increased
fiber dosage in SFRC segments, the difference in the peak
loads between conventional RC and SFRC segments can
be decreased.28
Flexural cyclic behavior
Hysteresis curve—The elasto-plastic behavior of RC
and SFRC PCTL segments under cyclic load is illustrated
through the load-midspan displacement hysteresis curves
(Fig. 9). Initially, a linear relationship between load and
displacement was found before concrete cracking. At this
stage, there was no evidence of stiffness degradation and
residual deformations were very small, indicating that the
segments were in the elastic range. As cracking initiated (at
ACI Materials Journal/September-October 2014
Fig. 9—Hysteresis curves for segments under cyclic load.
Fig. 10—Skeleton and energy dissipation segments under cyclic load.
48 kN [10.79 kip] and 75 kN [16.86 kip] for RC and SFRC
segments, respectively), the slope of the hysteresis curves
changed as the load and displacement increased. A para-
bolic unloading response was noticed after the linear elastic
portion of unloading. This parabolic unloading pattern was
primarily due to the permanent deformations (percentage
of the maximum deformation evidenced in each cycle)
that occurred in RC and SFRC segments. This agrees with
another study.29 It was observed that the deformations in
both segment types were larger during the initial cycling and
then decreased to a constant growth at intermediate cycling.
These deformations increased again more rapidly nearing
failure point. This is in agreement with a previous study.30
For each loading amplitude and for both the RC and SFRC
segments, little reduction in maximum load was observed
in the subsequent cycles compared to that of the first cycle.
Similar observation was reported by Xue et al.31 in their
cyclic experiments on fiber-reinforced concrete beams.
The slope of the hysteresis of RC segments changed rather
abruptly compared to that of SFRC segments due to more
internal material damage in RC segments. Spalling of the
concrete cover was observed in RC segments subjected to
cyclic loads. On the other hand, SFRC segments did not
exhibit severe spalling compared to the RC segments. This
can be attributed to better holding of the concrete matrix
through the bridging action of steel fibers until pullout or
fracture of fibers. This reduction of concrete spalling in
SFRC segments under cyclic loads could lead to lower
rehabilitation costs after earthquake events.27 Moreover,
the bridging action of steel fibers tends to reduce the crack
width in SFRC segments compared to that of cracks in RC
ACI Materials Journal/September-October 2014
segments. Similar finding was reported by other study.22
The RC segment showed a sudden drop in its load-carrying
capacity after reaching the peak loading cycle and the
segment failed into two pieces.
Prior to cracking of the SFRC segment, its compressive
stresses are in the elastic range, leading to elastic unloading
behavior. After cracking, the loading and unloading cycles
were no longer linear. At that point, stresses were transferred
to the steel fibers and the crack opening initiated. These
cracks further opened along with the formation of new
cracks as the tensile strain increased beyond the previous
loading cycle. After reaching the peak load, a softening
cyclic response is initiated. As damage progressed in the
segment, the load-carrying capacity dropped during each
additional cyclic amplitude. This damage is a function of
the interaction between the matrix and the steel fibers.29
The presence of steel fibers in SFRC segments reduces the
strain magnitude thus restricting the propagation of micro-
and macrocracks and leading to lower internal damage
compared to that of the RC segment.32,33 Therefore, as fiber
pullout and debonding increased, the stresses carried by
steel fibers increased with a higher number of loading cycles
until failure of the segment.34
Skeleton curve and energy dissipation—Envelopes of
hysteresis curves (that is, skeleton curves) for RC and SFRC
segments are shown in Fig. 10. These curves summarize
the maximum average value of load and corresponding
displacement for the number of cycles applied at each
amplitude. Initial elastic, yielding, and ultimate phases of
RC and SFRC segments were clearly captured by the skel-
eton curves (Fig. 10). Initial cracking of segments led to
507
change in the slope of the skeleton curve after the elastic
phase and up to the yielding point. For the RC segment,
at yield point, loads were carried by steel reinforcing bars.
After yielding, the slope of the skeleton curve decreased
due to the internal damage of concrete. At ultimate load, the
slope became constant and thereafter a sudden decrease in
load-carrying capacity was observed with brittle failure of
the RC segment. On the other hand, the yield and ultimate
points for the SFRC segment occurred at a comparable load
level followed by a descending branch of the skeleton curve.
This post-ductility behavior after the ultimate phase can be
ascribed to the contribution of steel fibers in bridging and
restricting crack opening.
The energy dissipation capacity of a structural member is
related to its ability to resist cyclic inelastic stresses.35 The
total area enclosed within the skeleton of hysteresis curves
Fig. 11—Stiffness degradation for RC and SFRC segments
describes the energy dissipation capacity (Fig. 10). Areas
under cyclic load.
within the RC and SFRC skeleton curves were calculated
using the trapezoidal rule.31 It was observed that the RC
segment exhibited a value of energy dissipation three times
higher than the SFRC segment. This is due to its substan-
tially higher steel cage reinforcement effect compared to
that of the dispersed steel fibers. However, if the design
criteria is the initial cracking (as explained previously), the
SFRC segment showed an energy dissipation value 1.5 times
higher than that of the RC segment. This can be ascribed to
the higher cracking load for SFRC, which may be beneficial
for tunnel lining applications from a serviceability perspec-
tive. Initial cracking in PCTL is important as it is most likely
to develop during the handling and installation processes
of PCTL segments. Therefore, high initial cracking energy
dissipation capacity of SFRC segments will be advantageous
for the installation processes of segments through TBM.
Displacement ductility—Displacement ductility is an
important parameter in evaluating the behavior of structures Fig. 12—Thrust load test results for RC and SFRC segments.
under seismic load. The ratio of ultimate displacement ∆u to Furthermore, the stiffness of the SFRC segment decreased
the yield displacement ∆y defines the displacement ductility more as the fibers were pulled out from the concrete matrix.
coefficient.31 The RC segment exhibited approximately The stiffness for both the RC and SFRC segments became
2.95 times higher displacement ductility coefficient than the constant near the failure point (Fig. 11).
SFRC segment. The reason this is that the yielding plateau of
the RC segment was much higher, while the SFRC ultimate Thrust load test
capacity and yield point were at a comparable level. The The thrust load test was conducted on both the RC and
higher displacement ductility coefficient of RC segments SFRC segments to simulate field TBM loading conditions
indicates a more ductile behavior than that of the SFRC and possible concrete splitting in the horizontal direction.
segment due to heavily reinforced conventional steel cage. Figure 12 shows the load displacement curves of the thrust
However, both segments (RC and SFRC) meet the seismic load test for the RC and SFRC segments. It can be observed
design criteria (described later on). that the RC and SFRC segments exhibited comparable
Stiffness degradation—The stiffness degradation for behavior. Moreover, no appreciable cracking pattern was
each load cycle was calculated by dividing the maximum found, indicating the ability of the RC and SFRC segments
vertical load P by the corresponding midspan displacement to carry typical thrust loads induced by TBM. These results
∆. Figure 11 shows the stiffness degradation curve for both are in agreement with previous findings in literature.22,23
the RC and SFRC segments. At smaller displacement incre-
ments, the stiffness of the RC segment degraded more rapidly DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
due to the early crack opening, while the SFRC segment The basic design criteria for PCTL segments are to bear the
exhibited a steadier drop in stiffness. This reduction in stiff- ground forces induced by imposed and construction loads.
ness can be attributed to the internal material disturbances.36 These forces differ from site to site as they are dependent on
The improved stiffness degradation behavior of the SFRC the soil characteristics. Moreover, the thrust loads induced
segment can be ascribed to the contribution of steel fibers to by TBM require special attention, otherwise it can result in
arresting cracks during the loading and unloading cycles.37 severe segmental damage and damaged segments may need

508 ACI Materials Journal/September-October 2014

Table 4—Design results comparison for RC and SFRC PCTL segments
Loading Parameters
Moment, kN-m (kip-in.)
Static
Thrust, kN (kip)
Moment, kN-m (kip-in.)
Cyclic
Thrust, kN (kip)
to be replaced. Other induced loads that segments should
be able to resist include those produced during handling,
storage, lifting and erecting processes. Therefore, Einstein
and Schwartz38 proposed the following equations (Eq. (1)
and (2)) to evaluate the design thrust load Ts and bending
moment Ms for static loads based on relative stiffness
1 1
Ts =
2
(σ v + σ h ) (1 + C1 ) Rl + 2 (σ v − σ h ) (1 + 2C2 ) Rl cos 2θ (1)
1 TBM due to its higher cracking load. Moreover, the SFRC
Ms =
4
(σ v − σ h ) (1 − 2C2 + 3C3 ) Rl2 cos 2θ (2)
where σv and σh are the normal stresses; Rl is the radius
of tunnel; and C1, C2, and C3 are constants depending on
the loading, surrounding soil properties, and tunnel lining
characteristics.
Under earthquake events, tunnel structures generally
behave better than other structures. Unlike normal struc-
tures such as bridges and buildings, the surrounding ground
restrains the lining system and does not allow excitations
independent of the ground movements.2 The main crite-
rion for seismic design of tunnel lining is its ability to resist
the “ovaling” effect of the tunnel cross-section induced by
ground deformations during an earthquake.39 Therefore,
Wang40 proposed the following equations (Eq. (3) and (4)) to
evaluate the maximum design thrust Te and bending moment
Me for circular tunnels under earthquake loading
K 2 Es Rl γ max
Te = ±
2 (1 + υ s )
K1 Es Rl2 γ max
Me = ±
6 (1 + υ s )
where K1 and K2 are the response coefficients; γmax is the free
field shear strain; and υs and Es are the Poisson’s ratio and
modulus of elasticity of the surrounding soil, respectively.
Using information provided for a subway project in
Canada, the design thrust and bending moment values under
static and cyclic loads were calculated. Comparing the
design and experimental values showed that both the RC
and SFRC PCTL segments meet the design loads (Table 4).
Therefore, in addition to its relatively higher cracking load
and low reinforcement corrosion potential, SFRC showed
an adequate structural performance, thus making it a viable
alternative to conventional RC tunnel linings.
ACI Materials Journal/September-October 2014
RC SFRC
Design Experimental Design Experimental
25 (221) 183 (1673) 24 (212) 89 (788)
795 (179) 1425 (320) 792 (178) 1430 (321)
77 (681) 202 (1788) 84 (743) 95 (841)
238 (53) — 240 (54) —
CONCLUSIONS
This study explored the structural performance of RC and
SFRC PCTL segments for a subway extension tunnel in
Canada. The key finding of this research is the high poten-
tial of using SFRC tunnel lining segments in applications
where the primary concern is serviceability cracking limita-
tions. The cracking load for the RC and SFRC segments was
45 and 71 kN (10.11 and 15.96 kip), respectively. Hence,
SFRC segments should behave better during fabrication,
handling, delivery, and installation processes at the site using
segments exhibited lower crack width compared to that of
the RC segments and satisfied serviceability limitations.
The flexural monotonic and cyclic test results showed that
the RC segment failed abruptly after achieving its ultimate
load without exhibiting significant residual strength. On the
other hand, the SFRC segment, though it had significantly
lower peak load, showed an enhanced post-peak behavior,
exhibiting a steady drop in load-carrying capacity due to the
crack bridging action of steel fibers. No appreciable spalling
of concrete was found in the SFRC segments compared to
that of the RC segments.
It was observed that RC segments exhibited higher energy
dissipation capacities and displacement ductility compared
to that of the SFRC. Furthermore, analysis of experimental
results indicates that although the ultimate load-carrying
capacity of the RC segments was much higher than that of
the SFRC segments, the SFRC segments also met the design
criteria for monotonic and cyclic loads and could perform
better under normal serviceability loads.
(3)
It should be mentioned that the SFRC segment overall
behavior was softening as the deformation was localized in
one single large crack, leading to a lower rotation capacity
compared to that of the RC segment. However, relatively
(4)
large normal forces and small bending moments usually act
on tunnel linings. This can improve the rotation capacity of
SFRC segments due to increasing its ductility in compres-
sion, which results in activation of deformations in the
tensile zones. This issue requires further investigation in
future research.
An optimization of the SFRC mixture design needs to be
further performed to attain more desirable mechanical prop-
erties for PCTL segments. An effort has been made herein
to gain increased confidence in the structural performance
of SFRC for PCTL segmental application. Furthermore,
the structural behavior of conventional RC segments with
secondary steel fiber reinforcement needs to be evaluated in
future investigation.
509
 AUTHOR BIOS 19. ASTM C1609/C1609M-12, “Standard Test Method for Flexural
Safeer Abbas is an Assistant Professor in the Civil Engineering Depart- Performance of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam with Third-Point
ment at the University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Lahore, Loading),” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012, 9 pp.
Pakistan. He received his PhD from the University of Western Ontario 20. ACI Committee 214, “Guide for Obtaining Cores and Interpreting
(UWO), London, ON, Canada. His research interests include structural Compressive Strength Results (ACI 214.4R),” American Concrete Institute,
applications of innovative construction materials, concrete durability, and Farmington Hills, MI, 2003, 16 pp.
rehabilitation works. 21. ASTM C42/C42M-04, “Standard Test Method for Obtaining and
Testing Drilled Cores and Sawed Beams of Concrete,” ASTM International,
ACI member Ahmed M. Soliman is a Postdoctoral Fellow in Civil and Envi- West Conshohocken, PA, 2004, 6 pp.
ronmental Engineering at UWO. His research interests include early-age 22. Moccihino, M.; Romualdi, P.; Perruzza, P.; Meda, A.; and Rinaldi, Z.,
properties of concrete, behavior of ultra-high-strength concrete, concrete “Experimental Tests on Tunnel Precast Segmental Lining with Fiber Rein-
sustainability, and environmentally friendly construction materials. forced Concrete,” Proceedings of 36th World Tunnel Congress ITA-AITES,
Vancouver, BC, Canada, 2010, pp. 1-8.
ACI member Moncef L. Nehdi is a Professor of civil and environmental 23. Caratelli, A.; Meda, A.; Rinaldi, Z.; and Romualdi, P., “Structural
engineering at UWO. His current research interests include bio-inspired Behavior of Precast Tunnel Segments in Fiber Reinforced Concrete,”
and nano-modified construction materials, smart materials, sustainability Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, V. 26, No. 2, 2011,
and green construction, and concrete durability and repair. pp. 284-291. doi: 10.1016/j.tust.2010.10.003
24. Nishikawa, K., “Development of a Prestressed and Precast Concrete
Segmental Lining,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, V. 18,
REFERENCES No. 2-3, 2003, pp. 243-251. doi: 10.1016/S0886-7798(03)00033-6
1. Elliott, K., Precast Concrete Structures, first edition, Butterworth-
25. Burgers, R.; Walraven, J.; Plizzari, G.; and Tiberti, G., “Struc-
Heinemann, Boston, MA, 2002, 375 pp.
tural Behavior of SFRC Tunnel Segments during TBM Operations,”
2. Hung, C.; Monsees, J.; Munfah, N.; and Wisniewski, J., “Technical
World Tunnel Congress ITA-AITES, Prague, Czech Republic, 2007,
Manual for Design and Construction of Road Tunnels—Civil Elements,”
pp. 1461-1467.
FHWA-NHI-10-034, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC,
26. Ayan, E.; Saatcioglu, O.; and Turanli, L., “Parameter Optimization on
2009, 702 pp.
Compressive Strength of Steel Fiber Reinforced High Strength Concrete,”
3. de Waal, R., “Steel Fiber Reinforced Tunnel Segments—For the
Construction and Building Materials, V. 25, No. 6, 2011, pp. 2837-2844.
Application in Shield Driven Tunnel Linings,” PhD thesis, Delft University
doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.12.051
of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands, 2000, 240 pp.
27. Hameed, R.; Duprat, F.; Turatsinze, A.; and Sellier, A., “Mechanical
4. Hariyanto, A.; Kwan, H.; and Cheong, Y., “Quality Control in Precast
Properties of Reinforced Fibrous Concrete Beams under Reverse Cyclic
Production: A Case Study on Tunnel Segment Manufacture,” Dimensi
Loading,” Proceedings of 1st International Conference on Sustainable
Teknik Arsitektur, V. 33, No. 1, 2005, pp. 153-164.
Built Environment Infrastructures in Developing Countries, ENSET Oran,
5. Stratta, L.; Escalante, E.; Krinitzsky, L.; and Morelli, U., Earth-
Algeria, Oct. 2009, pp. 271-278.
quake in Campania-Basilicata, Italy: A Reconnaissance Report, National
28. Rivaz, B., “Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete (SFRC): The Use of
Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1981, 100 pp.
SFRC in Precast Segment for Tunnel Lining,” World Tunnel Congress,
6. Dean, A.; Young, D.; and Kramer, G., “The Use and Performance of
Underground Facilities for Better Environment and Safety, Agra, India,
Precast Concrete Tunnel Linings in Seismic Areas,” Proceedings of 10th
2008, pp. 2007-2017.
International Association of Engineering Geologists (IAEG) Congress,
29. Kesner, K.; Billington, S.; and Douglas, K., “Cyclic Response of
Nottingham, UK, 2006, pp. 6-10.
Highly Ductile Fiber-Reinforced Cement-Based Composites,” ACI Mate-
7. EERI, “Preliminary Observations on the Niigata Ken Chuetsu Japan
rials Journal, V. 100, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2003, pp. 381-390.
Earthquake of October 23, 2004,” EERI Special Earthquake Report, 2005,
30. Karsan, D., and Jirsa, O., “Behavior of Concrete under Compressive
12 pp.
Loadings,” Journal of the Structural Division, ASCE, V. 95, No. 12, 1969,
8. Raharinaivo, A.; Brevet, P.; Grimaldi, G.; and Pannier, G., “Relation-
pp. 2543-2563.
ship between Concrete Deterioration and Reinforcing-Steel Corrosion,”
31. Xue, W.; Li, L.; Cheng, B.; and Li, J., “The Reversed Cyclic Load
Durability of Building Materials, V. 4, 1986, pp. 97-112.
Tests of Normal and Pre-Stressed Concrete Beams,” Engineering Structures,
9. Gowripalan, N.; Sirivivatnanon, V.; and Lim, C., “Chloride Diffusivity
V. 30, No. 4, 2008, pp. 1014-1023. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2007.06.001
of Concrete Cracked in Flexure,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 30,
32. Daniel, L., and Loukili, A., “Behavior of High-Strength Fiber-
No. 5, 2000, pp. 725-730. doi: 10.1016/S0008-8846(00)00216-7
Reinforced Concrete Beam under Cyclic Loading,” ACI Structural Journal,
10. ACI Committee 224, “Control of Cracking in Concrete Structures
V. 99, No. 3, May-June 2002, pp. 248-256.
(ACI 224R-01) (Reapproved 2008),” American Concrete Institute, Farm-
33. Holschemacher, K., and Muller, T., “Influence of Fibre Type and
ington Hills, MI, 2001, 46 pp.
Concrete Composition on Properties of Steel Fibre Reinforced Concrete,”
11. Plizzari, G., and Tiberti, G., “Steel Fibers as Reinforcement for
Proceedings of International Conference on Advances in Cement Based
Precast Tunnel Segments,” Tunnelling and Underground Space Tech-
Materials and Applications in Civil Infrastructures, ACBM-ACI, Lahore,
nology, V. 21, No. 3-4, 2006, pp. 438-439. doi: 10.1016/j.tust.2005.12.079
Pakistan, 2007, pp. 633-642.
12. King, M., and Alder, A., “The Practical Specification of Steel Fibre
34. Li, C., and Leung, C., “Steady-State and Multiple Cracking
Reinforced Concrete (SFRC) for Tunnel Linings,” Proceedings of Under-
of Short Random Fiber Composites,” Journal of Engineering
ground Construction 2001 Conference, Britnex, London, UK, 2001, 12 pp.
Mechanics, ASCE, V. 118, No. 11, 1992, pp. 2246-2264. doi: 10.1061/
13. Woods, E.; May, R.; Hurt, J.; and Watson, P., “Design of Bored
(ASCE)0733-9399(1992)118:11(2246)
Tunnels on Channel Tunnel Rail Link, UK,” Rapid Excavation and
35. Sinha, S., and Naraine, K., “Energy Dissipation in Brick Masonry
Tunneling Conference Proceedings, 2003, pp. 230-244.
under Cyclic Biaxial Compressive Loading,” ICE Proceedings, V. 91,
14. Kooiman, A.; Van der Veen, C.; and Djorai, M., “Steel Fibre Rein-
No. 1, 1991, pp. 173-181. doi: 10.1680/iicep.1991.13588
forced Concrete (SFRC) Tunnel Segments Suitable for Application in the
36. Spadea, G., and Bencardino, F., “Behavior of Fibre Rein-
Second Heinenoord Tunnel,” Proceedings of the 8th Congress on Chal-
forced Concrete Beams under Cyclic Loading,” Journal of Structural
lenges for Concrete in the Next Millennium, Amsterdam, the Netherlands,
Engineering, ASCE, V. 123, No. 5, 1997, pp. 660-668. doi: 10.1061/
1998, pp. 719-722.
(ASCE)0733-9445(1997)123:5(660)
15. Granju, J., and Balouch, S., “Corrosion of Steel Fibre Reinforced
37. Guvensoy, G.; Bayramov, F.; Ilki, A.; Sengul, C.; Tasdemir, A.; Koca-
Concrete from the Cracks,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 35, No. 3,
turk, N.; and Yerlikaya, M., “Mechanical Behaviour of High Performance
2005, pp. 572-577. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.06.032
Steel Fiber Reinforced Cementitious Composites under Cyclic Loading
16. Balouch, S.; Forth, J.; and Granju, J., “Surface Corrosion of Steel
Condition,” Proceedings of International Symposium on Ultra High Perfor-
Fibre Reinforced Concrete,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 40, No. 3,
mance Concrete, Kassel, Germany, 2004, pp. 649-660.
2010, pp. 410-414. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2009.10.001
38. Einstein, H., and Schwartz, W., “Simplified Analysis for Tunnel
17. Chen, B., and Liu, J., “Residual Strength of Hybrid-Fiber-Reinforced
Supports,” Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, V. 105,
High-Strength Concrete after Exposure to High Temperatures,” Cement
No. 4, 1979, pp. 499-518.
and Concrete Research, V. 34, No. 6, 2004, p. 1065-1069 doi: 10.1016/j.
39. Park, K.; Tantayopin, K.; and Tontavanich, B., “Analytical Solutions
cemconres.2003.11.010
for Seismic Design of Tunnel Lining in Bangkok MRT Subway,” Interna-
18. Toronto Transit Commission, “Toronto-York Spadina Subway Exten-
tional Symposium on Underground Excavation and Tunneling, Bangkok,
sion,” http://www.ttc.ca/Spadina/About_the_Project/Overview.jsp. (last
Thailand, 2006, pp. 541-550.
accessed July 3, 2014)
40. Wang, N., Seismic Design of Tunnels, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade
and Douglas, Inc., New York, 1993, 159 pp.

510 ACI Materials Journal/September-October 2014