You are on page 1of 3
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.

You might also like