Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
In general practice, for the crack control of reinforced concrete (RC) ment, and stiffness are also mutually affected. Thus, espe-
members, reinforcement corresponding to the internal forces that cially in the case of stabilized cracking, where no further
lead to single cracks must be provided. This approach is extended cracks can compensate for increasing imposed loads, the
to the cases of restrained thermal loading and concrete shrinkage, single crack approach may be questionable. In the following,
which can be considered as peculiarities of imposed loading. the theoretical basis given in MC905 and EC26 is first summa-
Therefore, an analytical model for the case of direct tension is
derived as an extension of the CEB-FIP Model Code 90 and Euro-
rized and then enhanced for thermal loading and shrinkage.
code 2 approach, which distinguishes between crack development Early theoretical studies on crack widths due to restrained
caused by thermal loading and shrinkage and the state of crack loading are given by Falkner,7 Eibl,8 and Noakowski.9,10 In
development with single cracks and the state of stabilized cracking. these studies, the considerations of kinematic compatibility
Basic examples are examined to illustrate the respective charac- between imposed strains, concrete cracking, and concrete
teristic properties and mutual influence of imposed deformations, and reinforcement strains are introduced. This approach is
crack development, and stiffness. The model is validated based on advanced in this study for the derivation of crack widths
a comparison with the experimental results. and restraint forces within the framework provided in
MC905 and EC2.6
Keywords: analytical model; cracking; imposed loading; reinforced
concrete; shrinkage; thermal loading.
The experimental results are used to validate the model.
Experiments concerning imposed loading are difficult to
INTRODUCTION perform, which may be why only few experimental data
Concrete cracking due to imposed loading originating are available, and the measured results show typically
relatively large scatter. Nevertheless, respective experiments
from temperature changes or shrinkage is a topic relevant
concerning thermal loading were performed by Falkner,7 Sule
for the design of reinforced concrete (RC) structures. In
and van Breugel,11 Vecchio et al.,12 and Yi and Yang.13 The
ACI 318-08,1 cracking is controlled by a limitation of
experimental results by Falkner7 are used for the validation of
the allowed stress of the steel and a minimum reinforce-
the model concerning restrained thermal loading. Regarding
ment requirement. For the cases of shrinkage and temper-
concrete cracking due to shrinkage, experimental results are
ature reinforcement, ACI 318-08,1 Section 7.12, gives
given by Nejadi and Gilbert,14 which are also used for the
special recommendations. Furthermore, it is pointed out in
validation of the model.
ACI 318-08,1 Section 9.2.3, that the effects of shrinkage
and temperature should be taken into account realistically,
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
but specific guidelines are not provided. This is described
The question of crack widths and crack spacing due to
in more detail in ACI 209R-92.2 Further recommenda-
imposed loading is an enduring problem, especially for large
tions concerning the control of cracking due to shrinkage RC structures where the deformation is restrained. Although
are given in ACI 224R-01,3 Section 3.5, where it is also the particular mechanisms that govern the cracking behavior
pointed out that the minimum reinforcement requirements are relatively well understood in principle, a uniting
of ACI 318-081 may be insufficient to control crack widths representation seems to be missing. In this context, this
within the generally accepted design limits. In ACI 224.2R- study gives a consistent derivation of equations for the load-
92,4 concrete cracking due to direct tension is also treated dependent estimation of crack spacing and crack widths, as
with the special case of cracking due to restrained volume well as restraint forces due to thermal loading and shrinkage.
changes. Additionally, ACI 224.2R-924 provides equations
to determine the maximum crack widths that need to be BASICS OF CRACK WIDTH ESTIMATION
expected, while it is also noted that, in reality, a large vari- General approach
ability in the maximum crack widths may exist. The following considerations are limited to the case of
In addition to the maximum crack width, it is often neces- direct tension to improve comprehensibility, although the
sary to have information about the development of cracking extension to the case of bending is possible in principle.
and the expected crack widths at a certain load level. For Furthermore, the constitutive behavior of reinforcement
this purpose, CEB-FIP Model Code 90 (MC90)5 and and concrete is assumed to be linear-elastic associated
Eurocode 2 (EC2)6 provide a framework of equations, which
is also the basis for the following derivations. Furthermore,
MC905 and EC26 provide minimum reinforcement require- ACI Structural Journal, V. 109, No. 1, January-February 2012.
ments related to the development of single cracks. In the case MS No. S-2009-352.R3 received September 27, 2010, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright 2012, American Concrete Institute. All rights
of crack development under imposed loading, the stiffness reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the
and, as a consequence, the internal forces, decrease. Because copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be
published in the November-December 2012 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion
of these smaller internal forces, deformations, crack develop- is received by July 1, 2012.
s cm = reff bt Ds s (7)
Cs lt (8)
Ds s = t( x )dx
Fig. 1Stresses in stress transfer length. As 0
s sr + s E
Finally, lt can be expressed with Eq. (9)
e sm e cm =
Es
(1 bt ) (20)
(refer to MC90,5 Eq. (7.4-3), with tm = 1.8fct). Assuming has to be fulfilled, as the concretes tensile strain release
two cracks with a distance of 2lt*, a new crack develops in has to be compensated by cracks (refer to Fig. 2). In this
between if Dss = Ds*s. For the new crack, lt = lt* and sr = l *t condition, n is the number of cracks, w is the mean crack
apply. Because with a given tm under normal conditions l *t is width, ec(x) is the variable concrete strain, and Du is an
too short to again reach fct, no further cracks develop in this externally applied deformation (for example, due to some
region. Hence, for the crack spacing sr, the condition support movement). It follows with Eq. (13) that
1 1
w = L e cE +
n Ec
( )
n2lt s cm + ( L n2lt ) s c (lt ) Du (27)
Furthermore, Eq. (4), (15), (17), and (20) lead to Stabilized cracking
In the stabilized cracking state, only force-transfer regions
w=
( )
ds 1 + a er eff (1 bt )
Ds 2s (29)
exist along the x-axis. Hence, the condition n2lt L = 0 holds
and Eq. (27) leads to
2t m Es
1 1 s Du
Thus, there are two equations for the unknown variables w = L e cE + n2lt s cm Du = 2lt e cE + cm (32)
n Ec Ec L
Dss and w. The solution of this problem is
where scm = reffbtDss according to Eq. (7) and 2lt = dsDss/2tm
2
1 tL t Es 1 tL according to Eq. (15). Furthermore, it is assumed that Dss =
Ds s = r a
2 n eff e
n
( L e cE Du)
2 n
reff a e , fct/reff according to Eq. (21), which leads to the requirement
(30) of the kinematic compatibility for stabilized cracking
2t m
t =
ds (1 bt ) fct ds fct Du
w= (33)
2 t m reff e cE + bt E L
c
It should be noted that ecE < 0. If the value of Dss is
known, then w can be determined with Eq. (29), the force- from which w can be directly calculated. With Eq. (4), (12),
transfer length 2lt can be determined with Eq. (15), and the (14), and (15) and considering that Dss = fct/reff, the crack
reinforcement stress at the crack ssr can be determined with width can also be expressed as
Eq. (17). In the case of imposed loading, ssr does not need to
be predefined in contrast to normal loading, but it is a result
1 fct
of the crack calculations. The force due to the imposed load
is given with fct ds
Es
s sr bt
reff
( )
1 + reff a e +
w= (34)
2 t m reff
Du
Fimp = As s sr (31) e sE e cE +
L
Experimental results
Number of cracks 12 14 5 27 10 24 14
wm, mm (103 in.) 0.19 (7.5) 0.17 (6.7) 0.32 (12.6) 0.10 (3.9) 0.23 (9.1) 0.08 (3.2) 0.16 (6.3)
ssr, MN/m2 (ksi) 427 (61.9) 406 (58.9) 373 (54.1) 296 (42.9) 283 (41.1) 257 (37.3) 240 (34.8)
Experimental results
3
Elongation, mm (10 in.) 0.31 (12.2) 0.38 (15.0) 0.31 (12.2) 0.40 (15.8) 0.42 (16.5) 0.25 (9.8) 0.16 (6.3)
Number of cracks 4 4 3 1 2 3 3
wm, mm (103 in.) 0.21 (8.3) 0.18 (7.1) 0.30 (11.8) 0.84 (33.1) 0.50 (19.7) 0.23 (9.1) 0.25 (9.8)
ssr, MN/m2 (ksi) 273 (39.6) 190 (27.6) 250 (36.3) 532 (77.2) 467 (67.7) 270 (39.2) 276 (40.0)
Model results
Number of cracks 4 4 3 2 2 4 4
wm, mm (103 in.) 0.25 (9.8) 0.26 (10.2) 0.33 (13.0) 0.56 (22.1) 0.56 (22.1) 0.23 (9.1) 0.21 (8.3)
ssr, MN/m2 (ksi) 275 (39.9) 289 (41.9) 369 (53.5) 499 (72.4) 503 (72.9) 295 (42.8) 279 (40.5)
200,000 MN/m2 (29,008 ksi) is used for the reinforcement. different concrete batch was used. Due to the shrinkage of
The remaining values of the model are chosen with tm = the massive concrete support blocks, each specimen was
1.8fct and bt = 0.6. The latter value is appropriate for the case elongated externally to some extent, which is considered in
of the first crack formation, as proposed by MC90.5 the model by means of the external deformation Du applied
The results of the model (refer to Table 1) generally confirm to Eq. (25). The measured elongations, average values
the well-known relationship that both crack width and of crack width after 150 days, number of cracks, and the
imposed reinforcement stresses decrease with a decreasing reinforcement stresses at the cracks are given in Table 2.
reinforcement bar diameter and an increasing reinforce- The remaining parameters for the model are chosen with
ment ratio. The model overestimates the experimental crack tm = 2.5fct and bt = 2/3. This deviates from the code values
width by an average of 37%. The imposed reinforcement used previously but is in agreement with the respective values
stresses are slightly overestimated for the low and medium chosen by Nejadi and Gilbert14 for their own analytical
reinforcement stresses and slightly underestimated for the model. The values for the number of cracks, the crack width,
high reinforcement stress. A better agreement of the experi- and the reinforcement stress as computed with the model
mental and theoretical crack width values is reached with are also given in Table 2. An extra crack has been added for
an increased value of tm. A relation of tm = 2.5fct leads to an each specimen due to a notch at the midspan. The agreement
average deviation of less than 10% regarding crack width between the experimental and theoretical values seems to be
values, whereas the reinforcement stresses remain unchanged reasonable, except for Specimens S1b, S2a, and S3a, with
but the numbers of cracks increase. Thus, taking into account
respect to reinforcement stresses. Specimen S3a has only one
that for every parameter combination only one experiment
crack in the experiment arising in the specimen notch, which
was performed and uncertainties in the effectively existing
must lead to a very large crack width and reinforcement
bond parameters typically appear, the validity of the model
stress. The deviating experimental values of Specimens S1b
for thermal loading can be confirmed.
and S2a are somehow contrary to the general tendency that
Shrinkage crack widths and reinforcement stresses should increase
Experimental studies regarding the influence of shrinkage with an increasing prescribed elongation and decreasing
were performed by Nejadi and Gilbert.14 In a series of eight reinforcement ratio. Nevertheless, taking into account the
constrained RC specimens exposed to ambient temperature large uncertainties associated with experiments on concrete
and humidity over a period of 150 days, the shrinkage shrinkage, the validity of the model seems to be proven.
behavior was observed. Furthermore, the creep behavior of
companion specimens with no constraints was determined. EXAMPLE OF APPLICATION
Each specimen had a length of 2 m (78.7 in.) and was Thermal loading
connected to massive concrete blocks at its ends. Except As an example of application, an RC bar with a length L
for one specimen, the same concrete batch was used for of 2 m (78.74 in.) is used. The concrete material parameters
all specimens. The concrete properties of this batch were are assumed with fct = 3 MN/m2 (0.435 ksi) and Ec =
determined with Youngs modulus Ec = 22,810 MN/m2 30,000 MN/m2 (4351 ksi). The ratio between the Youngs
(3308 ksi) and tensile strength fct = 2.0 MN/m2 (0.290 ksi). moduli is ae = 6.67 and the coefficient of thermal expansion
After 122 days, the creep coefficient was determined with is aT = 1 105 K1 for both the concrete and reinforcement.
j = 1 and the shrinkage strain was determined with ecs = The bond parameters are chosen constant with tm = 1.8fct
0.457 103. For the reinforcement, a Youngs modulus and bt = 0.6, assuming that the creep effects on bond are
of Es = 200,000 MN/m2 (29,008 ksi) is again assumed in negligible in a first approach. The cross section of the
the model. concrete is assumed to be quadratic with an edge length of
For each reinforcement combination (refer to Table 2), two d = 0.1 m (3.94 in.). As reinforcement, one steel bar with
nominally identical specimens were produced, except for the diameter ds of 14 mm (0.55 in.) is chosen. This leads to As
specimens specified with S2, where for one specimen a = 1.54 cm2 (0.239 in.2), Ac,eff = 100 cm2 (15.5 in.2), and reff
Limits
The example showed that in the state of crack development, Fig. 7Reinforcement stresses at crack due to concrete
the largest crack width already occurs immediately before shrinkage.
the second crack develops, corresponding to n = 1 and sc(lt)
= reffDss = fct. Thus, it is imposed strain is given as well. Equation (46) can be further
simplified if ae is neglected, which with sE = 0 leads to
fct (44)
Ds s = Ac ,eff
reff s sr = fct (47)
As
and Eq. (29) gives the maximum crack widths in the state of
crack development. This is similar to the minimum reinforcement requirement
according to MC90,5 Eq. (7.4-16), and EC2,6 Eq. (7.1).
1 Using Eq. (47) with Eq. (4), (19), and (20) and sE = 0, the
ds fct2 1 bt ae
wmax = 2 + (45) crack width is calculated with
2 t m Es reff reff
ds fct2 1 bt 1
It is independent of the imposed strains and bar lengths, wmax = (48)
whereas a large influence of fct and reff exists. The 2 t m Es reff 2
(1 + reff a e )
reinforcement stress in a crack can be determined with
Eq. (17) and (44) This will be shown again based on the previous examples.
The material parameters of the concrete are assumed as fct =
3.0 MN/m2 (0.435 ksi) and Ec = 30,000 MN/m2 (4351 ksi).
1 With fixed values for ae, bt, and tm, only ds and reff remain
s sr = fct + ae sE (46) as variable parameters for the determination of the crack
reff width. The respective evaluation of Eq. (45) and (48) is
shown in Fig. 8, which illustrates the strong influence of reff.
with sE according to Eq. (18) where, in the case of thermal Furthermore, it can be seen that the simplified calculation
strains, sE = 0. With Eq. (46), the maximum force due to the according to Eq. (48) underestimates the crack widths by
NOTATION
Ac,eff = effective cross-sectional area of concrete
As = cross-sectional area of reinforcement bar
Cs = circumference of reinforcement bar
ds = diameter of reinforcement bar
E = Youngs modulus
Ec = Youngs modulus of concrete
Fig. 8Crack widths with different reinforcement diameters Es = Youngs modulus of reinforcement
and effective reinforcement ratios. Fimp = force due to restrained imposed loading
fct = tensile strength of concrete
L = length of bar
approximately 10 to 20% compared to Eq. (45). This might lt = force transfer length
be tenable, considering the simplified model and the scatter n = number of cracks
of its parameters in practice. s = slip
It remains to be determined at which value of imposed sr = crack spacing
T = temperature
strain the state of crack development is finished and the state t = time
of stabilized cracking starts. The threshold value is denoted tcc = specific creep time
with eII. Considering Fig. 3, it can be seen that the crack tcs = specific shrinkage time
widths in the stabilized cracking state according to Eq. (33) w = crack width
approximately correspond to wmax for ecE = eII according to x = longitudinal coordinate
ae = ratio between Youngs moduli of reinforcement and concrete
Eq. (45). Thus, a condition for eII is given, where the solu- bt = shape coefficient of reinforcement stress course
tion is DT = temperature change
Du = external deformation
Dss = difference between minimum and maximum reinforcement stress
1 1 bt 1 e = strain
e II = fct + (49) ec = concrete strain
Ec Es reff
e c = strain rate of concrete
ecE = imposed concrete strain
For example, this provides eII = 0.68 103 or DT = 68 K ecm = mean concrete strain
(122.4F), respectively. Such a temperature change seems ecs = concrete shrinkage strain
eE = imposed strain
to be unusual, but a corresponding shrinkage strain might be eII = strain at transition from crack development to stabilized cracking
realistic under certain circumstances. es = reinforcement strain
esE = imposed reinforcement strain
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS esm = mean reinforcement strain
Based on the presented model, essential aspects of the eT = thermal strain
h = viscosity parameter
crack development of RC due to imposed loading (for j = creep coefficient
example, thermal loading or concrete shrinkage) were reff = effective reinforcement ratio
presented. This study provides formulas for the estimation s = stress
of crack widths for immediate use within the framework of sc = concrete stress
MC905 and EC2.6 Furthermore, relations for restraint forces s c = stress rate of concrete
scm = mean concrete stress
are given. In this context, the interrelations between crack
scr = concrete stress at the crack
widths, reinforcement ratio, concrete tensile strength, and sE = eigenstress
reinforcement diameter based on kinematic compatibility ss = reinforcement stress
were shown and the connection to the concept of minimum ssm = mean reinforcement stress
reinforcement is given. Furthermore, this study distin- ssr = reinforcement stress at crack
guishes between thermal loading and concrete shrinkage and t = bond stress
tm = mean bond stress
between single cracks and stabilized cracking. Therefore,
complete deformation restraint is assumed for simplicity. A
REFERENCES
flexible deformation restraint could be taken into account in 1. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
the models by means of springs as supports. Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute,
This contribution is limited to the case of tension bars Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 473 pp.
with constant stresses and strains within the concrete and 2. ACI Committee 209, Prediction of Creep, Shrinkage, and Temperature
reinforcement. Varying stresses and strains (for example, Effects in Concrete Structures (ACI 209R-92) (Reapproved 2008),
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1992, 47 pp.
due to bending or asymmetric reinforcement distribution, 3. ACI Committee 224, Control of Cracking in Concrete Structures
respectively) require the enhancement of the model, at (ACI 224R-01) (Reapproved 2008), American Concrete Institute,
least with plane stress elements for the concrete. Alterna- Farmington Hills, MI, 2001, 46 pp.