See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/365999238

EXPERIMENTAL TESTING OF THE ENERGY ABSORPTION CAPACITY OF

SHOTCRETE CIVIL ENGINEERING -SCIENCE AND PRACTICE 2

Conference Paper · December 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 27

2 authors, including:

Slobodan Zivaljevic
University of Montenegro
16 PUBLICATIONS   28 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

shotcrete fire resistance View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Slobodan Zivaljevic on 04 December 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 THE 8th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
"CIVIL ENGINEERING – SCIENCE AND PRACTICE"

GNP 2022 – Kolašin, Montenegro, 8-12 March 2022

Bojan Raspopović 1 , Slobodan Živaljević 2

EXPERIMENTAL TESTING OF THE ENERGY ABSORPTION

CAPACITY OF SHOTCRETE

Abstract

The ability of shotcrete to maintain strength over large deformations has practical significance
for tunnelling. This property of shotcrete (and other materials) is known as toughness and is
expressed by the amount of energy absorbed by concrete over deformation. Based on the
amount of energy determined by one of two standardized energy absorption tests on square and
round sprayed concrete panels, a specimen can be classified into one of three classes of
toughness. This paper presents selected results of experimental research of the energy
absorption capacity of shotcrete with an aim to offer better understanding of the impact of the
amount of reinforcement mesh on the energy absorption. The testss were conducted on square
panels of shotcrete in accordance with the requirements of the European Standards EN 14487
and EN 14888. The tested panels were obtained from the tunnel Vežeščnik on the high-way
Bar-Boljare, where shotcrete was sprayed into pre-cast molds, using a wet-mix shotcrete
process. The testing was performed at the Laboratory of the Faculty of Civil Engineering in
Podgorica on one non-reinforced and two series of specimens with single-sided and double-
sided reinforcement, respectively. The paper describes specimen preparation process, testing
equipment and procedure. Tests results are presented by load-deflection and energy absorption-
deflection comparative diagrams. The test results suggest that the energy absorption capacity,
as well as peak and residual strength increase with the increase in the amount of the
reinforcement steel mesh in the shotcrete. Both types of specimens reached all energy
absorbing classes. All reinforced specimens were observed for failure-by-bending with
elements of punching-shear failure, where panels with smaller amount of reinforcement mesh
showed higher tendency to the punching-shear failure. This suggests that larger amount of
reinforcement in shotcrete affects the occurrence of a more favourable bending failure
mechanism.
Keywords: toughness, energy absorption capacity, shotcrete, energy absorption test

1
Spec. Sci. CE [email protected]
2
PhD CE, [email protected]

1
CIVIL ENGINEERING – SCIENCE AND PRACTICE

1. INTRODUCTION

The ability of shotcrete to maintain strength over large deformations has practical
significance for tunnelling [1]. This property of shotcrete (and other materials) is known as
toughness and is expressed by the amount of energy absorbed by concrete over deformation [2]. In
practical terms, the toughness is a measure of the ability of material to absorb energy in plastic
range and thus increase resistance of material to brittle failure. The toughness is expressed as the
amount of energy absorbed by concrete over deformation [4]. Based on the amount of energy
determined by one of two standardized energy absorption tests on square and/or round sprayed
concrete panels, a specimen can be classified into one of three classes of toughness. This paper
presents selected results of experimental research of the energy absorption capacity of shotcrete
with an aim to offer better understanding of the impact of the amount of reinforcement mesh on
the energy. Tests were conducted on square panels of shotcrete in accordance with the
requirements of the European Standards EN 14487 and 14888 [3]. Following description of the
specimen preparation process, testing equipment and procedure, the paper presents characteristic
test results in a form of load-deflection and energy absorption-deflection comparative diagrams.

2. ENERGY ABSORPTION CAPACITY OF SHOTCRETE

In accordance with the New Austrian tunnelling method (NATM), shotcrete is primarily
used for two reasons. The first reason is lining of the newly exposed rock surface after excavation
to avoid eventual deterioration of the structural properties of the rock mass. This can help
preventing rock fragments in-between the anchors or other supporting elements from falling out.
The second reason is to take over the load induced by the displacement of the rock mass around
the tunnel opening. In both cases the shotcrete serves as a structural element carrying diverse types
of loads which correspond to the in-situ conditions. Figure 1 illustrates schematic representation of
failure modes in the shotcrete support structure. The support system is loaded to bending in case of
locally detached rock block between the anchors, where the block self-weight is the load to the
support structure (Figure 1a) and uniformly distributed load of the loose rock mass (Figure1b).
The failure occurs in the mid-span and near the anchors. In case illustrated in Figure 1c, being
typical to the jointed rock mass, the bottom portion of a large rock block occupies the whole span
between the two anchors, the shear strength of the support structure is opposed to the block weight
and the shear failure occurs at the span ends, near the anchors. In case of a soil or rock the
deformation of which cannot be prevented in a practical way, it is necessary to construct a support
structure capable of sustaining significant deformation while maintaining its own stability at the
same time.
Given that the non-reinforced shotcrete cannot sustain large tensile deformation and
practically has no residual strength, in these cases certain type of reinforcement is used (steel mesh
steel and/or polypropylene fibres). The combination of reinforcement and shotcrete results in a
support structure which has much greater peak and residual strength and thereof the toughness.
Such support structure has the ability to undergo plastic deformations, preserving however part of
its load-bearing capacity and preventing sudden fall of rock mass. Determining measure of this
ability in shotcrete is performed by testing of the energy absorption capacity of shotcrete.
The situation referred to in Figure 1 is simulated by one of two standard energy capacity
tests which include loading of square and round shotcrete panels.

2
 GNP 2022

Figure 1: Failure of shotcrete resulting from different impact of rock mass on the shotcrete
support system [1]
This paper will present the procedure applied in experimental research of the authors of the
paper which was performed accordance with the standards applicable to shotcrete EN 14487 and
EN 14488. The test procedure included the use of a hydraulic cylinder to apply deflection to the
centre of the square panel of 600x600mm and height of 100mm, with a loading rate of 1.5mm/min
[2]. The bottom side of the panel along the edges is continuously supported on metal frame of
25mm in thickness and with dimensions 500 x 500 mm. The continuous support along four edges
simulates the continuity of the concrete lining, although because of the terrain configuration the
shotcrete was rarely applied to allow continuity of lining in all directions. During the test, the
record is taken of the forces and deflections of the specimen up to 25mm at the panel centre. A
load-deflection diagram is formed and then the shotcrete energy capacity is determined based on
the obtained data. Total amount of the absorbed energy of the concrete element is equal to the area
under the load-deflection curve. The test results are expressed in Joules – J, while the achieved
energy absorption of the shotcrete represents criteria for classification into one of the energy
absorbing classes [3] . Value of the absorbed energy of 500 J up to 25mm of the achieved
deflection represents the lowest value the shotcrete must have to be used for construction of tunnel
lining (Table 1.).
Table 1. Energy absorbing class for shotcrete after 25 days of curing
Energy absorbing class Absorbed energy up to 25 mm of deflection = (J)
A 500
B 700
C 1000
These standards for shotcrete do not provide recommendations for the type of application of
shotcrete according to the corresponding energy absorbing class. Cazan et al. (2014) state that in
good rock conditions, the shotcrete which meets class A should be used. In fair rock conditions,

3
 GNP 2022

the concrete corresponding to class B should be used, while shotcrete which meets class C should
be used in poor rock conditions. French National Railways recommend concrete of minimum
energy absorption of 500 J per 25mm to be used for remediation works in tunnels.

3. AUTHORS’ LABORATORY TESTING OF THE ENERGY

ABSORPTION CAPACITY

3.1. SPECIMEN PREPARATION

All tested panels were obtained from the tunnel Vežešnik, located on the section of the
highway Bar – Boljare. It is a two-pipe tunnel of total length of about 5km. Shotcrete was sprayed
into pre-cast molds, using a wet-mix shotcrete process. The used concrete was mixed at the batch
plant ˝Gornje Mrke˝ and is identical to the concrete used for construction of the primary tunnel
lining. When spraying shotcrete into wood mold, the mold was inclined at a 45° angle to the
horizontal surface. At the construction site, the panels underwent a minimum 28 days curing at the
humidity of the external air. After the curing period the specimens were delivered to the
laboratory. At laboratory, the the specimens were stored at the specified site and kept at room
temperature without humidity fluctuations. At the time of the laboratory testing, the age of
specimens was 1 year. Six specimens were tested, five out of which with a steel mesh
reinforcement and one non-reinforced specimen. Key characteristics of the tested panels are shown
in Table 2. All panels were made of the same concrete mix, the components of which are shown in
Table 3.

Table 2. Type and amount of reinforcement in tested specimens

Amount of reinforcement
No. Specimen marking Reinforcement type
(kg/𝑚3 )
1 AB_1_62 Steel mesh Q188 (top and 62
2 AB_2_62 bottom) 62
3 AB_1_31 31
4 AB_2_31 Steel mesh Q188 (bottom) 31
5 AB_3_31 31
6 N_1 / /

Table 3. Concrete mix of the tested panels

Component Mass (kg) Volume (𝑚3 )
Cement 460 0.148
Water 200 0.200
Chemical
Sika Viscocrete 2.760 0.003
additive
Entrained air / 0.030
0/4 1337 0.495
Fraction
4/8 334 0.124

4
 GNP 2022

Total 2334 1.000

Water-cement ratio was 0.44. Grade of the tested concrete was MB30, with the water
permeability and frost resistance grades being V-8 and M100, respectively.

3.2. TESTING EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURE

Equipment used for testing is shown in Figure 2. A hydraulic cylinder with capacity of
250kN was used to apply load. The value of force was controlled by a hand-held hydraulic
cylinder. The large hydraulic cylinder served only as a closed frame. The force was measured by a
measuring cell CLP 1MN with capacity of 1000 kN. A deflection gauge CLP 25 was used to
measure displacement (deflection). Data logger TDS 303 was used for acquisition of the obtained
data. All pieces of measuring equipment are manufactured by TML Japan. The specimens were
continuously supported on the metal frame of 25mm in thickness and with 500 x 500 mm base.

Figure 2. Overview of the equipment used for testing of energy capacity of the shotcrete specimens
It should be noted that the average thickness of the tested specimens was about 120mm, this
being above the 100m thickness as provided in standard EN 14888. The same loading rate of
2mm/min was used for all tested specimens. The value of achieved deflections was recorded by the
deflection gauge which transmitted measurement data to the data acquisition device.

4. TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. EFFECT OF THE AMOUNT OF REINFORCEMENT MESH ON THE

LOADING CAPACITY

5
 GNP 2022

The results obtained from the test are presented in a form of the load-deflection diagram
(Figure 3). Dashed line shows results of the specimens reinforced by using the amount of mesh of
31 kg/m3 (first series) while solid line represents results of the specimens reinforced by using the
amount of mesh of 62 kg/m3 (second series).

Figure 3. Load-deflection diagram for tested specimens

Average values of peak and residual strength for these two series of tested panels are
illustrated in Figure 4. Peak and residual strength of the specimen increase in line with the increase
of the amount of reinforcement mesh in specimen. The load-bearing capacity of specimens in
series with the amount of reinforcement mesh of 62 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 was in average by 25kN higher than
the load-bearing capacity of the panels reinforced with smaller amount of the reinforcement mesh,
meaning the former specimens achieved by 20% higher load-bearing capacity. Residual strength of
specimens in series with the amount of reinforcement mesh of 62 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 was by 50 kN (or 65%)
larger compared to the series of specimens reinforced by smaller amount of mesh.

Figure 4. Average values of peak and residual strength of tested panels

As expected, the non-reinforced specimen displayed brittle behaviour. After achieving peak
strength of 40 kN, at deflection of 1mm, the load-bearing capacity was observed for a sudden drop.
The total loss of the load-bearing capacity in the non-reinforced specimen occurred at the
deflection of 13mm. All tested specimens underwent failure-by-bending with elements of

6
 GNP 2022

punching-shear failure. The panels with smaller amount of reinforcement mesh showed higher
tendency to punching-shear. Figure 5 illustrates failure mechanism in the specimen reinforced by
31 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 of the reinforcement mesh.

Figure 5. Failure mechanism viewed from the front, top and bottom side of the specimen AB_2_31
It should be noted that the specimens in the series with larger amount of reinforcement
mesh achieved smaller deflections at failure compared to the series of specimens reinforced with
smaller amount of mesh. One of the possible explanations for the foregoing is the way of fitting of
the specimens from the first series whose underside edges were not perfectly even, hence did not
fit evenly onto the metal frame in their full length. Small depressions and local surface roughness
on the bottom side of the specimen can significantly affect the mechanism of stress re-distribution.

4.2. EFFECT OF THE AMOUNT OF REINFORCEMENT MESH ON THE

ENERGY CAPACITY
Values of energy capacity for all values of the achieved deflections were obtained by
numerical integration of the area under the formed load-deflection curve. This way, the pairs of
values absorbed energy-deflection were obtained and used for forming of the absorbed energy
curve for the tested specimens as illustrated in Figure 6. Energy capacity of shotcrete increases
with the increase in the amount of reinforcement mesh in the shotcrete. The non-reinforced
specimen achieved energy capacity which can be considered negligible as it failed to meet any of
the toughness classes. In the energy absorption tests, the panels reinforced with the amount of
mesh of 62 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 compared to the series of specimens reinforced by smaller amount of mesh
showed the same or higher values of the absorbed energy for deflections up to 20mm. All
reinforced specimens in this series exceeded all classes of energy absorption for the deflection
values of up to 25mm.
Notwithstanding that specimen AB_2_31 lost its load-bearing capacity at almost two times
lower value of deflection than the specimen AB_1_3, based on the data illustrated in Figure 6 it is
evident that for the same deflection values, three specimens in series with the amount of steel mesh
of 31 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 show similar values of the absorbed energy. All specimens in this series, taking into
consideration the toughness classification shown in Table 1, have reached all classes of energy
absorption, with achievement of values of over 1000 J up to 25 mm of deflection. All reinforced
specimens achieved similar values of the absorbed energy up to 5 mm of deflection, after which
the panels with a larger amount of reinforcement mesh (62 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 ) showed larger energy
capacity. Specimens reinforced with the amount of mesh of 31 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 in average achieved larger
deflections before the failure compared to the specimens reinforced with the amount of steel mesh
of 62 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 . Both specimens reinforced with the amount of mesh of 62 𝑘𝑔/𝑚3 underwent failure
before 25mm of the achieved deflection. However, for the same values of deflection, the panels

7
 GNP 2022

reinforced by larger amount of mesh in average have equal or larger amount of the absorbed
energy. Up to 10 mm of deflection, the average difference in the absorbed energy between these
two series is 209 J and shows a growth tendency, given that for 15mm of deflection such
difference is 233 J. Therefore, from the aspect of energy capacity the larger amount of
reinforcement mesh gains more significance at larger deformations. All reinforced panels achieved
all toughness classes.

Figure 6: Energy capacity diagram for tested specimens

5. CONCLUSIONS
This paper presents selected results of experimental research of the energy absorption
capacity of shotcrete with an aim to offer better understanding of the impact of the amount of
reinforcement mesh on the energy. The test results suggest that the energy absorption capacity, as
well as peak and residual strength increase with the increase in the amount of the reinforcement
mesh in the shotcrete. Both types of specimens reached all energy absorbing classes. All
reinforced specimens were observed for failure-by-bending with elements of punching-shear
failure, where panels with smaller amount of reinforcement showed higher tendency to the
punching-shear failure. This suggests that larger amount of reinforcement mesh in shotcrete affects
the occurrence of a more favourable bending failure mechanism.

LITERATURE

[1] Martin L., Seymour B., Clark C., Stepan M., Pakalnis R., Roworth M. & Caceres C.: "An Analysis of
Fibre-Reinforced Round Panel Strengths and Comparison to Wire Mesh Bag Strength", National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, 2010.
[2] Gopalaratnam V.S. & Gettu R.: "On the Characterization of Flexural Toughness in Fibre Reinforced
Concretes", Cement & Concrete Composites 17, 1995., p.239-254.
[3] European Standards: EN 14487: Sprayed concrete, 2005 and EN 14488: Testing sprayed concrete,
2007.

8
 GNP 2022

[4] Cazan E. O., Constantinescu H., Sosa I. & Gherman M.C., Determination of Energy Absorption
Capacity of Fibre Reinforced Sprayed Concrete, Constructii: Journal of Civil Engineering Research,
Vol. 15, 2014., pp.34-39(6).

View publication stats