Use of new concrete materials for durable structures
J.C. Walraven
Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands
ABSTRACT: The development of concrete during the lat 10 years may, without exaggeration, be qualified
Inthe paper the significance of conventional high strength concrete (up to C115), self com-
‘as revolutionary,
Tern ome en sh rks Cv seats Magid er, ee et Sey
‘important role with regard the chances of app
ication of those materials. it is shown as well that “high
Jrteenans CONN Won Intermed spo “Sind perma SN”
1 FROM NORMAL TO HIGH STRENGTH
‘CONCRETE
‘A decade ago the maximum concrete class in most
design codes was C55/65. Meanwhile it was raised 19
{€90/105 (Euocode 2002) and even C100115 (German
Code). Although initially the price of 1m? concrete
{€90/105 was twice the price of 1m concrete C35/45,
‘it was shown that itis possible to design structures
‘which are competitive. An example was the first pre-
stressed concrete bridge in The Netherlands, Fig. . The
bridge was built in a concrete C9S. Asa result ofthe
high strength, 30% less concrete and steel was neces-
sary. Because ofthe smaller weight ofthe cantilevering
Segments, the sped of construction was much faster, $0
that 3 months construction time could be saved. The
most ‘advantage is, however, the improved
durability. Since the Ministry of Infrastructure has to
‘maintain the bridge itself, the investment in a higher
‘concrete strength pays off aera numberof years.
Figure |
petitive because of material and time-savings, in combina
thom with excellent durability.
Stichtse Bridge in C95, The Netherlands, com-
Since then, all bridges in The Netherlands have
been design in a strength class C55/65, which is
regarded as an economic optimum.
2. FROM HIGH TO ULTRA HIGH STRENGTH
‘CONCRETE,
Ultra high strength concrete in strength classes up to
€200, can be produced according to the following
principles:
~ Reduce the maximum particle size
~ Optimize the packing density
~ Minimize the amount of water
~ Add ste! fibers to increase ductility
Figure 2 shows the difference in material structure
between a concrete C30 and a concrete C200.
‘The dense material structure of UHSFRC implies @
_very large resistance against transport of the
‘causing corrosion. Figure 3 shows the distribution of
‘the pores, measured with mercury intrusion (Schmit,
the pores, measured with mercury intrusion (Schmidt,
Figure 2. Difference in material structure between con-
sretes C30 and C200.University of Kassel). UHSFRC is compared with
‘normal strength (C45/55) and classical high strength
‘concrete (C105). The diagram shows, that the pores in
the range that are normally responsible forthe transport
of oxygen, water, carbon-ioxide and chlorides, are
practically absent, contrary to normal and high strength
conerete, which show peaks for certain pore radii in
the most areas. This is the reason that a
skillfully produced UHSFRC has avery high resistance
against carbonation and chloride ingress and against
frost -thaw cycli in combination with deicing salts.
‘With UHSFRC very light structures ean be made.
‘The higher price of the material is also here compen-
sated by the smaller volume ofthe material needed, in
combination with the excellent durability. Because of
the relatively small weight of bearing structures made
of UHSFRC the fatigue resistance is important as
wel. Tests by Lappa (2008, showed that the behav
iour of UHSFRC does not differ essentially from that
‘of plain concrete and traditional fiber concrete Fig 4
‘The high durability of structural members made of
UHSFRC allows the production of very slender and
light elements, which are in price atleast competitive
with the much heavier elements made in traditional
‘concrete. Two examples are given. The first is a pre-
‘cast sheet pile. The element is only prestressed in
‘combination with scel fibers, Fig. 5. The element has
‘thickness of only 45mm. Because of the use of f”
[prestressing strands the cover is only 15mm. The cost
‘of Lm UHPFRC was about four times the price of
‘concrete C55/65. However, this is earned back by the
following advantages:
~ only 33% of the conerete volume is needed
— much more elements ean be transported per truck
Figure 4, Fatigue resistance of UHSFRC (Lapa, Delf,
2008),
‘Sheet pile in UHSFRC during production.
Figures.Figure 6, Bridge deck in UHSFRC.
~ atthe building site only light equipments necessary
for vibrating
~ the light sheet piles can be placed in a much shorter
Figre 3. Pre adi for normal stem high stengh-and time, which ean lead to large cost savings incase of
ali high srengh concrete’ according to Schmit (2003). Tong earth retaining walls
29
Similar arguments apply for the application of 3 LITERATURE
UHSFRC for repair and retrofitting. of structures.
Figure 6 shows the example of a UHSFRC bridge Schmid, M, 2003, Ura High Performance Concrete ~
‘dock, which replaces an old deck of tropical wood. ‘Basic Maiti, popertics and Potential, Schrfenehe
‘The deck is reinforced with three orthogonal nets Baustafeund Massibou. Hef 2 (in German).
with rebars 8mm ata distance of 40 mm. The cover is LAPP% E2004, Fatigue of UHPFRC, Report TU Delf.
about 10mm. The deck i placed in abridge subjected
to the highest class trafic load and is exposed to salt
spraying in winter. The deck is regularly inspected in
order to follow its behaviour in time.