Professional Documents
Culture Documents
basalt-fiber-reinforced polymer
bars and carbon-fiber-reinforced
polymer grid reinforcement
to replace steel in precast concrete
underground utility vaults
U
nderground concrete utility vaults and service
chambers are often used in communications,
electricity, and gas utility distribution networks
to house vital connections. Precast concrete has been a
prominent choice for these types of structures because
it ensures quality of production, can be rapidly installed
with minimum disruption to the public, and minimizes
construction waste. Further, precast concrete enables im-
mediate backfilling, unlike cast-in-place concrete, which
requires a 28-day waiting period. However, durability
issues for steel reinforcement demand additional concrete
cover, which raises concerns over the sustainability and
economic viability of this form of product due to its heavy
weight and susceptibility to corrosion damage.
■ Replacing steel with corrosion-resistant fiber-reinforced-poly- Fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) products, such as rein-
mer materials in underground utility vaults is beneficial for both forcing rods and composite mesh, offer potentially viable
production and maintenance of utility vaults. alternatives to steel reinforcement because they require
smaller wall thicknesses and thus much lower amounts of
■ Ultimate and service load behaviors of panels reinforced with concrete. This paper discusses tests conducted on pan-
basalt-fiber-reinforced polymer and carbon-fiber-reinforced- els reinforced with basalt-fiber-reinforced polymer and
polymer grid are discussed in this paper. carbon-fiber-reinforced-polymer grid panels and compares
the behavior with panels that are steel reinforced and
■ The test results of corrosion-resistant reinforcing materials are unreinforced. Innovative FRP products can offer con-
compared with test results from conventional steel-reinforced siderable time and cost savings in the preparation of the
panels and unreinforced panels and verified against design reinforcement matrix, leading to further improvements on
code recommendations. the current technologies.
Maximum moments Due to surcharge, kN-m Due to earth and water, kN-m Total, kN-m
Note: The maximum calculated design moment was the vertical support moment, with a value of 3.797 kN-m. This value is taken as the ultimate
design moment for comparison purposes. 1 kN-m = 0.7376 kip-ft.
Existing structures that deteriorate due to steel corrosion The underground utility vaults were designed to with-
and structures that require extensive strength improvement stand earth, water, and surcharge pressures. Design
to sustain natural disasters have been enhanced with high- moments were calculated in accordance with Eurocode 2
strength, easy-to-install FRP materials for strength, safety, EN 1992-1-19 for a typical underground service cham-
and serviceability.2,3 The old repair and rehabilitation meth- ber of 1000 mm (39 in.) depth using characteristic water
ods using steel plates are being replaced by FRP compos- pressure and soil pressure calculated from water and soil
ites, which do not have some of the drawbacks of steel, such densities and a characteristic surcharge pressure of 12 kPa
as difficulty in transportation, handling, and corrosion.4 (1.7 psi). Table 1 gives the design moments. Test pan-
els were verified against an ultimate design moment of
The use of FRP bars for internal reinforcement has be- 3.797 kN-m (2.801 kip-ft) obtained for a 1000 mm deep
come more common recently, notably for structures that service chamber.
are exposed to corrosive conditions, such as bridge decks
and coastal structures. Several studies have investigated Material properties
the application of corrosion-resistant FRP composites in
concrete structures.5–8 Underground utility vaults are an- All of the test panels were constructed using normal con-
other type of structure that is exposed to extreme environ- crete with a target cube strength of 40 MPa (5.8 ksi). The
mental conditions and lighter loading conditions. Despite concrete mixture constituted 369 kg (814 lb) rapid-harden-
the advantages of corrosion-resistant FRP reinforcement, ing cement, 151 kg (333 lb) water, and 1880 kg (2600 lb)
only a limited number of studies have been conducted to total aggregate in 1 m3 (1.3 yd3) concrete. Total aggregate
explore the possibility of using it in underground util- was composed of 1143 kg (2520 lb) of 16 mm (5⁄8 in.)
ity walls. This study shows that FRP reinforcement is an diameter aggregate and 737 kg (1625 lb) of coarse sand.
ideal replacement for steel reinforcement in underground The steel-reinforced panels were designed using conven-
utility vaults that are exposed to corrosive environments. tional steel bars with a yield strength of 460 MPa (67 ksi)
Although the ultimate load capacity is of greater concern and modulus of elasticity of 210,000 MPa (30,500 ksi).
for underground utility vaults because of their limited The BFRP-reinforced panels were constructed using
exposure to human interaction, these structures benefit BFRP bars with a 920 MPa (130 ksi) rupture strength and
from relaxed serviceability criteria without compromising 54,000 MPa (7800 ksi) modulus of elasticity. The CFRP
strength and safety. grid reinforcement had a 4.2 kN (0.94 kip) tensile strength
for each strand and 235,400 MPa (34,140 ksi) modulus
This paper summarizes the experimental and theoreti- of elasticity. The CFRP grid had a square mesh of 75 ×
cal studies conducted on unreinforced, steel-reinforced, 75 mm (3.0 × 3.0 in.).
Concrete
Ultimate failure
Test panel compressive PCrack, kN δs, mm δs/δEC PU /PEd
load PU, kN
strength, MPa
CFRP grid
57.1 14.5 6.59 1.83 26.1 1.03
reinforced
Note: BFRP = basalt-fiber-reinforced polymer; CFRP = carbon-fiber-reinforced polymer; n/a = not applicable; PCrack = load at onset of cracking; PEd =
ultimate design effect; δEC = deflection at service load level recommended by Eurocode 2; δs = deflection at design service load. 1 mm = 0.0394 in.;
1 kN = 0.225 kip; 1 MPa = 0.145 ksi.
maximum crack width that governs the service behavior of concrete panels showed deflection less than the maximum
steel-reinforced structures, the allowable crack-width limit allowable deflection of 3.6 mm (0.14 in.). The deflec-
for FRP-reinforced structures is 0.5 mm (0.02 in.) because tion of the BFRP-reinforced panel was 19% higher than
they are corrosion resistant. The 0.5 mm crack-width limit the acceptable limit, and the CFRP-grid-reinforced panel
is for aesthetic reasons. The corrosion-resistant nature of deflection was 83% higher than the allowable deflection at
FRP provides flexibility with the crack-width limit depend- the service load level.
ing on the type of structure.
The higher deflection of BFRP-reinforced panels was due
The ultimate load state behavior was evaluated based on to a lower modulus of elasticity of 54,000 MPa (7800
the failure load and failure mode of the test panels. ksi) and lower axial rigidity (area A × elastic modulus E)
of BFRP bars. Although CFRP grid has a higher tensile
Deflection modulus of elasticity, the axial rigidity of the CFRP mesh
was lower than the axial rigidity of steel and BFRP. Hence
Figure 3 shows the load versus deflection behavior of the CFRP-grid-reinforced panels showed higher deflection
test panels. Deflections in the steel-reinforced, BFRP- than BFRP-reinforced panels.
reinforced, and CFRP-grid-reinforced panels at the service
load of 17 kN (3.8 kip) were 1.71, 4.27, and 6.59 mm The deflection of the BFRP-reinforced panels was slightly
(0.0673, 0.168, and 0.259 in.), respectively. Unreinforced higher than the maximum allowable deflection limit at the
panels failed before reaching the required service load service load level. However, due to the nature of under-
of 17 kN at the onset crack load. Comparing test panel ground utility vaults, precast concrete manufacturers
deflection with the maximum allowable deflection at consider it acceptable to have slightly higher deflection,
the service load level shows that only steel-reinforced provided it does not cause any damage to the stability of
the structure.
Tensile/concrete
Unreinforced 0.000 0.000
rupture
References Notation
2. Taerwe, L., and S. Matthys. 1999. “FRP for Concrete E = modulus of elasticity
Construction: Activities in Europe.” Concrete Interna-
tional 21 (10): 33–36. L = clear span between supports