ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 109-S05
Evaluation of Concrete Cracking due to Restrained
Thermal Loading and Shrinkage
by Ulrich Huler-Combe and Jens Hartig
In general practice, for the crack control of reinforced concrete (RC)
members, reinforcement corresponding to the internal forces that
lead to single cracks must be provided. This approach is extended
to the cases of restrained thermal loading and concrete shrinkage,
which can be considered as peculiarities of imposed loading.
Therefore, an analytical model for the case of direct tension is
derived as an extension of the CEB-FIP Model Code 90 and Euro-
code 2 approach, which distinguishes between crack development
caused by thermal loading and shrinkage and the state of crack
development with single cracks and the state of stabilized cracking.
Basic examples are examined to illustrate the respective charac-
teristic properties and mutual influence of imposed deformations,
crack development, and stiffness. The model is validated based on
a comparison with the experimental results.
Keywords: analytical model; cracking; imposed loading; reinforced
concrete; shrinkage; thermal loading.
INTRODUCTION
Concrete cracking due to imposed loading originating
from temperature changes or shrinkage is a topic relevant
for the design of reinforced concrete (RC) structures. In
ACI 318-08,1 cracking is controlled by a limitation of
the allowed stress of the steel and a minimum reinforce-
ment requirement. For the cases of shrinkage and temper-
ature reinforcement, ACI 318-08,1 Section 7.12, gives
special recommendations. Furthermore, it is pointed out in
ACI 318-08,1 Section 9.2.3, that the effects of shrinkage
and temperature should be taken into account realistically,
but specific guidelines are not provided. This is described
in more detail in ACI 209R-92.2 Further recommenda-
tions concerning the control of cracking due to shrinkage
are given in ACI 224R-01,3 Section 3.5, where it is also
pointed out that the minimum reinforcement requirements
of ACI 318-081 may be insufficient to control crack widths
within the generally accepted design limits. In ACI 224.2R-
92,4 concrete cracking due to direct tension is also treated
with the special case of cracking due to restrained volume
changes. Additionally, ACI 224.2R-924 provides equations
to determine the maximum crack widths that need to be
expected, while it is also noted that, in reality, a large vari-
ability in the maximum crack widths may exist.
In addition to the maximum crack width, it is often neces-
sary to have information about the development of cracking
and the expected crack widths at a certain load level. For
this purpose, CEB-FIP Model Code 90 (MC90)5 and
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-
ments related to the development of single cracks. In the case
of crack development under imposed loading, the stiffness
and, as a consequence, the internal forces, decrease. Because
of these smaller internal forces, deformations, crack develop-
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2012
TECHNICAL PAPER
ment, and stiffness are also mutually affected. Thus, espe-
cially in the case of stabilized cracking, where no further
cracks can compensate for increasing imposed loads, the
single crack approach may be questionable. In the following,
the theoretical basis given in MC905 and EC26 is first summa-
rized and then enhanced for thermal loading and shrinkage.
Early theoretical studies on crack widths due to restrained
loading are given by Falkner,7 Eibl,8 and Noakowski.9,10 In
these studies, the considerations of kinematic compatibility
between imposed strains, concrete cracking, and concrete
and reinforcement strains are introduced. This approach is
advanced in this study for the derivation of crack widths
and restraint forces within the framework provided in
MC905 and EC2.6
The experimental results are used to validate the model.
Experiments concerning imposed loading are difficult to
perform, which may be why only few experimental data
are available, and the measured results show typically
relatively large scatter. Nevertheless, respective experiments
concerning thermal loading were performed by Falkner,7 Sule
and van Breugel,11 Vecchio et al.,12 and Yi and Yang.13 The
experimental results by Falkner7 are used for the validation of
the model concerning restrained thermal loading. Regarding
concrete cracking due to shrinkage, experimental results are
given by Nejadi and Gilbert,14 which are also used for the
validation of the model.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
The question of crack widths and crack spacing due to
imposed loading is an enduring problem, especially for large
RC structures where the deformation is restrained. Although
the particular mechanisms that govern the cracking behavior
are relatively well understood in principle, a uniting
representation seems to be missing. In this context, this
study gives a consistent derivation of equations for the load-
dependent estimation of crack spacing and crack widths, as
well as restraint forces due to thermal loading and shrinkage.
BASICS OF CRACK WIDTH ESTIMATION
General approach
The following considerations are limited to the case of
direct tension to improve comprehensibility, although the
extension to the case of bending is possible in principle.
Furthermore, the constitutive behavior of reinforcement
and concrete is assumed to be linear-elastic associated
ACI Structural Journal, V. 109, No. 1, January-February 2012.
MS No. S-2009-352.R3 received September 27, 2010, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright 2012, American Concrete Institute. All rights
reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the
copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be
published in the November-December 2012 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion
is received by July 1, 2012.
41
Ulrich Huler-Combe is a Full Professor at the Institute of Concrete Structures in the
Department of Civil Engineering at Technische Universitt Dresden, Dresden, Germany.
He received his diploma from Universitt Dortmund, Dortmund, Germany, and his
doctoral degree from Universitt Karlsruhe (TH), Karlsruhe, Germany. His research
interests include the numerical modeling of plain and reinforced concrete structures.
Jens Hartig is a Graduate Research Assistant at the Institute of Concrete Structures
in the Department of Civil Engineering at Technische Universitt Dresden, where he
also received his diploma. His research interests include the numerical modeling of the
tensile behavior of reinforced concrete structures.
with the limited tensile strength of the concrete. The
strains due to temperature changes eT and shrinkage ecs
are both treated as occurrences of the imposed strain
eE. In this regard, it is insignificant whether temperature
changes result from external heating (for example, due
to insolation) or internal heating (for example, due to the
hydration processes in concrete). Nevertheless, the applied
concrete material parameters have to be appropriate to the
concrete age at loading. The measurable strain is given in the
one-dimensional case as
s (1)
e= + eE
E reinforcement stress ss(x) decreases and has its minimum
where s is the stress; and E is the Youngs modulus of
the respective material. Equation (1) is the essential basis
for the following derivations. The extension compared to
MC905 and EC26 is the explicit consideration of imposed
strains eE in the following derivations.
An RC bar in direct tension is considered where the
longitudinal direction, which is equal to the loading
direction, is denoted with x. Furthermore, the bar possesses a
crack at a certain cross section. Regarding this cross section,
tension is only applied to the steel, whereas the concrete is
free of stresses. This gives a potential rise to bond failure
between the concrete and reinforcement, which is not taken
into account. Thus, corresponding to the recommendations
in MC905 and EC2,6 a sufficient bond quality has to be
ensured to prevent bond failure.
The width w of a symmetrical crack can be calculated by
w = 2 0t e s ( x ) e c ( x ) dx
l
(2)
where lt is the force transfer length; es is the strain of the
reinforcement; and ec is the strain of the concrete. In the
Fig. 1Stresses in stress transfer length.
42
x-direction, es and ec are variables possessing different
courses. Hence, at a given coordinate x, a relative
displacement exists between the reinforcement and matrix,
which is called slip s. The distance between the crack and the
position where s = 0 is equal to lt. Furthermore, it is assumed
that the load transfer from the reinforcement to concrete
occurs symmetrically to the crack.
Instead of the variable strains, mean strains esm and ecm for the
reinforcement and concrete are used, which are derived with
1 lt 1 lt
e sm = e s ( x )dx, e cm = e c ( x )dx (3)
lt 0 lt 0
Thus, the crack width can be calculated with
w = 2lt ( e sm e cm ) (4)
The concrete and reinforcement possess stresses sc(x)
and ss(x) corresponding to the strains es(x) and ec(x). In a
crack, the concrete stress is scr = 0 and the reinforcement
stress has its maximum value ssr. Starting at the crack, the
value at x = lt. Therefore, the difference value Dss = ssr
ss(lt) can be established and the mean reinforcement stress
along lt is given with
s sm = s sr bt Ds s (5)
where bt is an empirical factor describing the shape of the
stress distribution in the steel along x. MC905 and EC26
provide different values for bt. Whereas EC26 only distin-
guishes between short- and long-term loading, MC905
differentiates between single crack formation and stabi-
lized cracking in these cases. For simplicity, the EC26
approach is used in the following. From the assumption
that imposed loading is a long-term loading, a constant
value bt = 0.4 follows. A respective stress distribution
between the concrete and reinforcement is shown in Fig. 1.
Nevertheless, the MC905 values can also be used without
modifications of the model if necessary.
For reasons of equilibrium, the concrete stress can be
determined with
s c ( x ) = reff s sr s s ( x ) (6)
where reff = As/Ac,eff is the effective reinforcement ratio with
the cross-sectional area of the steel As and the effective
cross-sectional area of the concrete Ac,eff. The concrete stress
has its maximum value at x = lt. Using Eq. (5) and (6), the
mean concrete stress along lt results in
s cm = reff bt Ds s (7)
The load transfer between the concrete and reinforcement
is governed by bond stresses t(x). Due to equilibrium, it can
be stated that
Cs lt (8)
Ds s = t( x )dx
As 0
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2012
where Cs is the reinforcement circumference. Instead of esE, and ecE. Whereas esE, ecE, and ssr are prescribed according
the integral formulation, the mean bond stress tm is used, to the loading regime, Dss remains to be determined.
leading to
Single cracks
At load initiation, the RC tension bar is in the uncracked
Cs 4l (9) state. Because the tensile strength is subject to scatter, a
Ds s = lt t m = t t m
As ds cross section with the smallest tensile strength exists, while
its position is governed by chance. With increasing loading,
with the reinforcement diameter ds and Cs/As = 4/ds. The the first single crack develops at this cross section. Experi-
mean bond stress tm is assumed to be proportional to the mental studies by Gopalaratnam and Shah15 showed, for
example, that for a crack width larger than approximately
concrete tensile strength fct according to MC905 and EC2.6
0.05 mm (1.97 103 in.), the stress transfer in the concrete
over the crack becomes insignificant. This corresponds to the
t m = g fct (10) order of magnitude of crack width immediately after crack
development, as shown in a subsequently presented example
The proportionality constant g is defined as equal to on RC. As the consideration of concrete postcracking resis-
1.8 in MC905 for most loading situations. Thus, with tance would considerably complicate the model, whereas
Eq. (5) through (10), the relations between the stresses the influence on the cracking behavior of the bar would be
are sufficiently described. This is used to determine the insignificant, cracking of the concrete in a brittle manner is
mean strains from the mean stresses incorporating imposed assumed in the following.
With the condition that the strains es and ec are equal at x =
strains. Analogous to Eq. (1), the reinforcement strain is
lt, Dss can be determined. On the one hand, it is ss(lt) = ssr
determined with Dss and, furthermore, according to Eq. (6), sc(lt) = reffDss.
With Eq. (11) and (13), the condition es(lt) = ec(lt) leads to
s s ( x)
es ( x) = + e sE (11)
reff Ds s
Es s sr Ds s
+ e sE = + e cE (16)
Es Ec
where Es is the Youngs modulus of the reinforcement; and
esE is the imposed strains, which are assumed to be constant and Dss can be determined with
along the x-axis for simplicity. Applying Eq. (5), the mean
reinforcement strain is s sr + s E
Ds s = (17)
1 + reff a e
s sm 1
e sm =
Es
+ e sE =
Es
(s sr bt Ds s ) + e sE (12)
which contains the ratio ae = Es/Ec and a new variable E,
herein called the eigenstress
Respectively, the mean concrete strain is
s E = Es ( e cE e sE ) (18)
sc ( x)
ec ( x) = + e cE (13)
Ec
With Eq. (17), the force transfer length can be calculated
for a single crack from Eq. (15)
where Ec is the Youngs modulus of the concrete; and ecE is
the imposed strains, which are also assumed to be constant ds s sr + s E
along the x-axis. With Eq. (7), the mean concrete strain is 2lt = (19)
2 t m 1 + reff a e
given with
Furthermore, with Eq. (12) and (14), the mean strain
s 1
e cm = cm + e cE =
Ec Ec
(
reff bt Ds s + e cE ) (14) difference is

s sr + s E
Finally, lt can be expressed with Eq. (9)
e sm e cm =
Es
(1 bt ) (20)

ds (15) Finally, w can be determined with Eq. (4) after prescribing

2lt = Ds s
2t m
where tm is a constant according to Eq. (10). Using Eq. (4),
(12), (14), and (15) for the determination of the crack widths w,
the variables Es, Ec, bt, reff, ds, and fct are known system values
and the only variables that need to be specified are ssr, Dss,
esE, ecE, and ssr.
With increasing loading, further cracks develop in
the cross sections with the smallest tensile strength. For
the crack spacing sr, however, the condition sr lt holds
true because within lt, further cracking is impossible
due to the decreasing concrete stresses toward the crack.
Apart from that, the position of the next single cracks is

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2012 43

governed by chance. Furthermore, the condition es(lt) =
ec(lt) still holds true. The load increase during cracking
depends on the scatter of the concrete tensile strength. It is
typically relatively small compared to the ultimate load of a
sufficiently reinforced RC bar.
Stabilized cracking
Further cracking between existing cracks requires suffi-
ciently large stresses transferred from the reinforcement to
the concrete. The stress transfer depends on tm and lt. In
general, the concrete stress increases with the increasing
values of tm and lt, but this is restricted by the condition sc(lt)
fct. Furthermore, it can be stated with Eq. (6) that sc(lt) =
reffDss. Thus, an upper limit for the stress difference in the
steel at higher load levels is given with
fct (21)
Ds s Ds*s =
reff
Correspondingly, with Eq. (15), an upper limit for lt is
given with
fct ds (22)
2lt 2lt* =
2 t m reff
(refer to MC90,5 Eq. (7.4-3), with tm = 1.8fct). Assuming
two cracks with a distance of 2lt*, a new crack develops in
between if Dss = Ds*s. For the new crack, lt = lt* and sr = l *t
apply. Because with a given tm under normal conditions l *t is
too short to again reach fct, no further cracks develop in this
region. Hence, for the crack spacing sr, the condition
lt* sr 2lt* (23)
holds, which also limits the number of cracks at a given bar
length. The state of stabilized cracking is characterized by
the following properties:
Further load increase is completely carried by the
reinforcement until its load-bearing capacity is reached;
Between two cracks, a position exists where the slip s
between the concrete and reinforcement is equal to zero.
This position distinguishes the load-transfer lengths of
the cracks to the left and right;
At the position s = 0, the reinforcement stress has a
minimum, whereas the concrete stress has a maximum
that does not reach the concrete tensile strength. The
respective strains behave in a similar manner; and
The reinforcement strain increases compared to the
concrete strain, which retains its course. This distin-
guishes the state of stabilized cracking from the state of
single cracks.
Fig. 2Qualitative strain distribution in state of single
crack formation.
44
The crack widths w of the stabilized cracking state remain
to be determined. With Dss according to Eq. (12), (14), and
(21), the mean strain difference is given with
1 fct
e sm e cm =
Es
s sr bt
reff
(
1 + reff a e ) + ( e sE e cE ) (24)
Compare to MC90,5 Eq. (7.4-4), and EC2,6 Eq. (7.9).
Using Eq. (4) and lt according to Eq. (22) and (24), an upper
limit for w for stabilized cracking is given because fct cannot
be reached anymore.
CRACK WIDTH ESTIMATION
AT IMPOSED LOADING
Basic approach
For the following derivations, an RC bar of length L, which
is fixed at both ends, is used. The concrete is loaded with an
imposed strain ecE < 0 constant over L (for example, due to
a temperature reduction). This leads to tensile stresses in the
concrete and it is assumed that cracks in the concrete develop.
Regarding the compatibility of deformations, the condition
n w + L e c ( x ) dx = Du (25)
has to be fulfilled, as the concretes tensile strain release
has to be compensated by cracks (refer to Fig. 2). In this
condition, n is the number of cracks, w is the mean crack
width, ec(x) is the variable concrete strain, and Du is an
externally applied deformation (for example, due to some
support movement). It follows with Eq. (13) that
1 1
L s c ( x ) dx Du
w = L e cE + (26)
n Ec
Thus, w is primarily determined by the total concrete
contraction LecE and the number of cracks. The concrete
stress sc(x) results from the restraint of the free deformation
due to the bond with the reinforcement. Typically, sc(x) is a
tensile stress, which leads to a reduction of the term within
the bracket of Eq. (26).
Single cracks
Along the x-axis, it has to be distinguished between force-
transfer regions, where the concrete and reinforcement
possess different strain distributions, and regions with
uniform strains in the concrete and reinforcement. In the
latter region, a constant concrete stress sc(lt) exists, whereas
in the force-transfer regions with a length of 2lt, the concrete
stresses decrease to zero toward the crack and the mean
concrete stress is denoted with scm. Therefore, the crack
width can be derived with Eq. (26) as
1 1
w = L e cE +
n Ec
( )
n2lt s cm + ( L n2lt ) s c (lt ) Du (27)
with sc(lt) = reffDss according to Eq. (6); scm = reffbtDss
according to Eq. (7); and 2lt = dsDss/2tm according to
Eq. (15). As a consequence, the condition for the kinematic
compatibility is given with Eq. (27) as
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2012
 L Du reff ds L The state of crack development is associated with the
w=
n
e cE +
n
+
Ec 2
2tt m
(1 bt ) Ds 2s Ds s (28)
n
condition that n2lt < L. If, otherwise, n2lt L, the state of
stabilized cracking is reached.

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

The previous derivations take into account a decreasing

force because of the reduced stiffness due to cracking.
Finally, the value of concrete stress apart from the force-
transfer length is needed, which is given with sc(lt) = reffDss.
Crack development
The previous derivations show that for imposed loading,
the number of cracks n or the ratio L/n, respectively,
essentially influence the crack widths. Therefore, the crack
development is discussed in more detail in the following. It
is assumed that the imposed concrete strains continuously
increase starting from zero.
At first, the condition |ecE| < fct/Ec holds.
If |ecE| = fct/Ec, the first crack occurs and n = 1. Apart
from the force-transfer length, the concrete stress is
sc(lt), which is sc(lt) < fct due to the reduced stiffness
of the bar.
With Eq. (30), Dss can be calculated, which can also be
used to determine w and sc(lt), depending on ecE.
With increasing |ecE|, sc(lt) also increases. If again
sc(lt) = fct, the second crack develops and n = 2.
Afterward, the concrete stress decreases again and
sc(lt) < fct applies. The following procedure is similar
to the case of n = 1.
All following cracks are treated as previously discussed,
but with an increasing n. It is assumed that the crack
spacing is sufficiently large to prevent an interaction
of the cracks. If this condition is valid, the developed
cracks are single cracks.
Equating the last two expressions leads to the reinforce-
ment stress at the crack at stabilized cracking
fct
s sr = bt Es e sE (35)
reff
which can also be used with Eq. (31) to determine the force
due to imposed loading. Equations (33) and (35) show that
in the case of stabilized cracking, the crack widths and
imposed stresses with given system parameters only depend
on the imposed strains esE and ecE. Contrary to the state of
developing cracking, the number of cracks has no influence.
Concrete creep
Shrinkage is a long-lasting process leading to the question
of the influence of concrete creep.16 Visco-elastic constitutive
laws are available for the description of creep processes.
For simplicity, a Kelvin-Voigt model with three parameters
is used (refer to the inset in Fig. 3). In the uniaxial case,
the stress-strain relationship for the concrete considering
imposed strains is given as
1+ j 1
s c ( t ) + s c ( t ) = Ec ( e c e cE ) + ( e c e cE ) ,
t tcc
(36)
1 E
= c
tcc jh

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2012 45

where t is time; s c is the stress rate; e c is the strain rate; Ec
is the initial Youngs modulus; j is the final creep coefficient;
and h is the viscosity parameter. With a constant stress
sc0 and without imposed strainsthat is, ecE = 0Eq. (36)
has the time-dependent solution
sc0 t shrinkage. For comparison, the related stress curve without
e c (t ) = 1 + j 1 exp
Ec tcc
where tcc is the time at which 63% of the final creep strain is
reached. Large values of tcc retard creep, whereas low values
accelerate it. For t = 0, the creep strain is ec = sc0/Ec, but for
large values of t, it is given by ec = (1 + j)sc0/Ec. With a
predefined creep regime over time, the parameters j and h
can be determined.
Shrinkage strains are assumed as
t
e cE ( t ) = e cs 1 exp
tcs
where ecs is the final shrinkage strain; and tcs is the specific
shrinkage time. Together with a complete restraint of
Fig. 3Influence of creep on imposed stresses due to shrinkage.
deformationthat is, ec = 0Eq. (36) is an ordinary first-
order differential equation for sc(t), which can be solved
in closed form with the initial condition sc(t) = 0. Related
solutions sc(t)/Ececs are shown in Fig. 3 for a case where Ec =
30,000 MN/m2 (4351 ksi), j = 2, and h = 2 106 MN/m2 per
day (2.9 105 ksi per day). Therefore, the parameter a = tcs/tcc
is used, which relates the velocity of creep to the velocity of
(37) the influence of creep is shown. An affinity of all relations
can be seen. Taking creep into account, the restraint stresses
are limited to sc0 = Ececs/(1 + j).
As a result, in a first approach, it is sufficient to regard
the influence of creep on shrinkage by a reduction of the
Youngs modulus of the concrete Ec, which can be taken into
account with a factor of 1/(1 + j). This also corresponds
to common practice as recommended by MC905 and
EC2,6 where limitations of the applicability of this approach
are also specified, which are also valid for the present model.
The ratio ae is also indirectly influenced.
(38) VALIDATION
Thermal loading
Thorough studies on the cracking of RC tension members
caused by thermal loading were performed by Falkner.7 Seven
specimens with lengths of 6 m (236.2 in.) and constant
concrete cross sections but variable reinforcement ratios
and diameters of the reinforcing bars (refer to Table 1) were
heated in a water bath up to a temperature of 80C (176F).
Immediately after taking them out of the water bath, the
specimens were fixed in a rigid frame and cooled down to an
ambient air temperature of 20C (68F) within a period of
approximately 24 hours. Temperature differences between
the outside cross-sectional areas and core cross-sectional
areas were measured and proved to be relatively small. The
average crack width values and reinforcement stress at the
cracks in the final state are also summarized in Table 1.
A mean concrete Youngs modulus of Ec = 32,000 MN/m2
(4641 ksi) was determined. The concrete tensile strengths
were determined as the uniaxial tensile strength for each
specimen (refer to Table 1). A Youngs modulus of Es =

Table 1Results of experiments by Falkner7 and comparison to results of model

Specimen properties
Specimen No. 1a 1b 1c 2a 2c 3a 3c
ds, mm (in.) 4 (0.16) 6 (0.24) 10 (0.39) 6 (0.24) 12 (0.47) 8 (0.32) 14 (0.55)
reff, % 0.51 0.48 0.53 0.76 0.76 1.01 1.03
2
fct, MN/m (psi) 2.43 (352.4) 2.13 (308.9) 2.05 (297.3) 2.33 (337.9) 1.95 (282.8) 2.12 (307.5) 2.00 (290.1)

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)

Model results (tm = 1.8fct)

Number of cracks 14 10 8 23 14 27 16
wm, mm (103 in.) 0.22 (8.7) 0.32 (12.6) 0.42 (16.5) 0.14 (5.5) 0.24 (9.5) 0.12 (4.7) 0.21 (8.3)
ssr, MN/m2 (ksi) 494 (71.7) 461 (66.8) 401 (58.2) 321 (46.6) 268 (38.9) 245 (35.5) 236 (34.2)

Model results (tm = 2.5fct and ssr equal to case of tm = 1.8fct)

Number of cracks 20 13 10 32 19 38 22
wm, mm (103 in.) 0.16 (6.3) 0.23 (9.1) 0.30 (11.8) 0.10 (3.4) 0.17 (6.7) 0.12 (4.7) 0.21 (8.3)

46 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2012

Table 2Results of experiments by Nejadi and Gilbert14 and comparison to results of model
Specimen properties
Specimen No. S1a S1b S2a S3a S3b S4a S4b
ds, mm (in.) 12 (0.47) 12 (0.47) 10 (0.39) 10 (0.39) 10 (0.39) 10 (0.39) 10 (0.39)
reff, % 0.57 0.57 0.39 0.26 0.26 0.52 0.52

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.
The remaining values of the model are chosen with tm =
1.8fct and bt = 0.6. The latter value is appropriate for the case
of the first crack formation, as proposed by MC90.5
The results of the model (refer to Table 1) generally confirm
the well-known relationship that both crack width and
imposed reinforcement stresses decrease with a decreasing
reinforcement bar diameter and an increasing reinforce-
ment ratio. The model overestimates the experimental crack
width by an average of 37%. The imposed reinforcement
stresses are slightly overestimated for the low and medium
reinforcement stresses and slightly underestimated for the
high reinforcement stress. A better agreement of the experi-
mental and theoretical crack width values is reached with
an increased value of tm. A relation of tm = 2.5fct leads to an
average deviation of less than 10% regarding crack width
values, whereas the reinforcement stresses remain unchanged
but the numbers of cracks increase. Thus, taking into account
that for every parameter combination only one experiment
was performed and uncertainties in the effectively existing
bond parameters typically appear, the validity of the model
for thermal loading can be confirmed.
Shrinkage
Experimental studies regarding the influence of shrinkage
were performed by Nejadi and Gilbert.14 In a series of eight
constrained RC specimens exposed to ambient temperature
and humidity over a period of 150 days, the shrinkage
behavior was observed. Furthermore, the creep behavior of
companion specimens with no constraints was determined.
Each specimen had a length of 2 m (78.7 in.) and was
connected to massive concrete blocks at its ends. Except
for one specimen, the same concrete batch was used for
all specimens. The concrete properties of this batch were
determined with Youngs modulus Ec = 22,810 MN/m2
(3308 ksi) and tensile strength fct = 2.0 MN/m2 (0.290 ksi).
After 122 days, the creep coefficient was determined with
j = 1 and the shrinkage strain was determined with ecs =
0.457 103. For the reinforcement, a Youngs modulus
of Es = 200,000 MN/m2 (29,008 ksi) is again assumed in
the model.
For each reinforcement combination (refer to Table 2), two
nominally identical specimens were produced, except for the
specimens specified with S2, where for one specimen a
different concrete batch was used. Due to the shrinkage of
the massive concrete support blocks, each specimen was
elongated externally to some extent, which is considered in
the model by means of the external deformation Du applied
to Eq. (25). The measured elongations, average values
of crack width after 150 days, number of cracks, and the
reinforcement stresses at the cracks are given in Table 2.
The remaining parameters for the model are chosen with
tm = 2.5fct and bt = 2/3. This deviates from the code values
used previously but is in agreement with the respective values
chosen by Nejadi and Gilbert14 for their own analytical
model. The values for the number of cracks, the crack width,
and the reinforcement stress as computed with the model
are also given in Table 2. An extra crack has been added for
each specimen due to a notch at the midspan. The agreement
between the experimental and theoretical values seems to be
reasonable, except for Specimens S1b, S2a, and S3a, with
respect to reinforcement stresses. Specimen S3a has only one
crack in the experiment arising in the specimen notch, which
must lead to a very large crack width and reinforcement
stress. The deviating experimental values of Specimens S1b
and S2a are somehow contrary to the general tendency that
crack widths and reinforcement stresses should increase
with an increasing prescribed elongation and decreasing
reinforcement ratio. Nevertheless, taking into account the
large uncertainties associated with experiments on concrete
shrinkage, the validity of the model seems to be proven.
EXAMPLE OF APPLICATION
Thermal loading
As an example of application, an RC bar with a length L
of 2 m (78.74 in.) is used. The concrete material parameters
are assumed with fct = 3 MN/m2 (0.435 ksi) and Ec =
30,000 MN/m2 (4351 ksi). The ratio between the Youngs
moduli is ae = 6.67 and the coefficient of thermal expansion
is aT = 1 105 K1 for both the concrete and reinforcement.
The bond parameters are chosen constant with tm = 1.8fct
and bt = 0.6, assuming that the creep effects on bond are
negligible in a first approach. The cross section of the
concrete is assumed to be quadratic with an edge length of
d = 0.1 m (3.94 in.). As reinforcement, one steel bar with
diameter ds of 14 mm (0.55 in.) is chosen. This leads to As
= 1.54 cm2 (0.239 in.2), Ac,eff = 100 cm2 (15.5 in.2), and reff

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2012 47


Fig. 4Crack widths due to temperature reduction. (Note:
F = (K 273.15) 9/5 + 32.)
Fig. 5Reinforcement stresses at crack due to tempera-
ture reduction. (Note: F = (K 273.15) 9/5 + 32.)
= 0.0154. Furthermore, according to Eq. (22), lt* = 0.13 m
(5.12 in.) is given.
The RC bar is loaded with a temperature reduction
DT < 0, which acts simultaneously on the concrete and
the reinforcement, leading to imposed strains esE = ecE
= eT = aTDT. The ends of the bar are fixedthat is, the
displacements of the concrete and the reinforcement are
prescribed to zero at these positions and Du = 0. This is a
considerable difference from conventional uniaxial tensile
loading, where displacements or forces would be applied to
the bar at its ends. The thermal strain leading to the first crack
is eT = fct/Ec = 1 104, corresponding to a temperature
change of DT = 10 K (18F). With Eq. (29) and (30) and
sc(lt) = reffDss, for n = 1, it is
5 2
Ds s = 71.42 3.412 1.008 10 eT 131.9 (MN/m )
( )
(39)
= 10,359 3.412 1.008 10 5 eT 19,130 (psi)
and
( )
w = 4.287 10 9 Ds s (m) = 1.164 10 9 Ds s (in.) ,
s c (lt ) = 0.0154 Ds s
48
Using the condition sc(lt) = fct, the second crack develops
at a thermal strain of eT = 1.738 104, which corresponds
to a temperature change of DT = 17.38 K (31.28F).
Now, it is n = 2 and the values of Dss, w, and sc(lt) can be
determined again, depending on eT. The same calculations
have to be performed for increasing n. The values for 2lt can
be calculated with Eq. (15). In this example, for n = 8, it is
n2lt > L, indicating stabilized cracking. With Eq. (33), the
crack width for n = 8 can be calculated as follows
w = 0.2526 eT 1.011 10 5 (m)
(41)
(= 9.94e T 3.98 10 4 (in.) )
The calculated crack widths are shown in Fig. 4, where
the typical sawtooth course during the crack development
is observable. After each crack event, an abrupt decrease of
the crack widths occurs because more cracks are available
to ensure kinematic compatibility. All crack widths remain
below an upper limit because further temperature changes
are compensated with further cracks. The crack widths only
exceed this limit at a temperature change of |DT| > 60
(108F) at stabilized cracking. Similar results are obtained
for ssr and are shown in Fig. 5.
Thermal strains versus shrinkage strains
In the case of thermal strains, the imposed strains are esE =
ecE = eT = aTDT with DT < 0. In contrast, in the case of concrete
shrinkage, only the concrete has imposed strains, which are
ecE = ecs < 0, whereas esE = 0. The shrinkage strains can be
quantified according to MC905 and EC2.6 Under unfavorable
conditions, the shrinkage strains may approach values up to
ecs = 1 103, which corresponds with aT = 1 105 K1 to
a temperature change of DT = 100 K (180F). Again, the
displacements of the concrete and the reinforcement at the
ends of the bar are prescribed equal to zero.
At first, the case of single cracks and the crack development
is considered. With Eq. (30), the stress changes in the
reinforcement can be determined. It can be seen that Dss is
independent of the type of imposed loadingthat is, if there
is thermal loading or concrete shrinkage. The same is valid
for the crack widths w according to Eq. (29). In contrast, the
reinforcement stress at the crack is given with Eq. (17) and
(18), which are for thermal strains
( )
s sr = 1 + reff a e Ds s (42)
and for concrete shrinkage
( )
s sr = 1 + reff a e Ds s + Es e cs (43)
It can be seen that in the case of concrete shrinkage, the
reinforcement stress is considerably lower due to ecs < 0.
Moreover, Dss and w are identical for thermal loading
and shrinkage in the stabilized cracking state because it
is insignificant whether an imposed reinforcement strain
exists simultaneously to an imposed concrete strain (refer to
Eq. (33)). In contrast, the reinforcement stress at the crack
is larger for thermal loading by a value of Esecs, compared to
the case of concrete shrinkage according to Eq. (35).
The consequences of concrete creep, as described by
(40) Eq. (38), are presented by means of the example of shrinkage,
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2012
where esE = 0 and ecE = ecs. The creep coefficient and
viscosity parameter are assumed with j = 2 and h = 2
106 MN/m2 per day (2.9 105 ksi per day), which leads to
a Youngs modulus of the concrete of Ec = 10,000 MN/m2
(1450 ksi) and ae = 20. Apart from that, the calculations are
similar to those previously presented.
The calculated crack widths are shown in Fig. 6. For
comparison, the relationship without the influence of creep
is shown with the case of j = 0. It can be seen that in the
case considering creep, crack development starts at higher
shrinkage strains, leading to larger crack widths for single
cracks. Due to a later beginning of stabilized cracking for
j = 2 associated with the reduced stiffness of the concrete,
crack widths for stabilized cracking are lower compared to
j = 0.
The development of reinforcement stresses at the cracks Fig. 6Crack widths due to concrete shrinkage.
with increasing ecs is shown in Fig. 7. The differences
regarding the stress levels between both cases are
insignificant. Nevertheless, compared to reinforcement
stresses in the case of thermal loading (Fig. 5), considerably
lower values can be seen. This is due to the fact that in
the case of concrete shrinkage, imposed stresses result
solely from concrete contraction between cracks. Between
cracks, concrete contraction is not fully transferred to the
reinforcement due to flexible bond. The stress transfer zones
increase with increasing numbers of cracks, leading to
decreasing reinforcement stress. In the case of temperature
reduction, the steel also contracts, imposing tensile stress in
the reinforcement under constraint conditions in addition to
the tensile stress imposed by the concrete. Reinforcement
contraction leads to reinforcement stresses increasing
proportionally to the temperature decrease. This can also be
seen in Eq. (42) and (43).

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

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2012 49

 tively, the concept of the effective concrete area in tension
exists.5,6 This leads to a relatively simple and applicable
model, although it exhibits relatively large model uncer-
tainties. Additionally, relatively large scatter exists
concerning the concrete tensile strength and bond behavior
between the concrete and reinforcement. Correspondingly,
MC905 and EC26 state that the values of the crack widths
determined with the conventional approaches are only
estimations and not exact predictions.

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.

50 ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2012

 4. ACI Committee 224, Cracking of Concrete Members in Direct
Tension (ACI 224.2R-92) (Reapproved 2004), American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 1992, 12 pp.
5. Comit Euro-International du Bton, CEB-FIP Model Code 1990,
Thomas Telford, London, UK, 1998, 437 pp.
6. EN1992-1-1, Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures, European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels, Belgium, 2005, 248 pp.
7. Falkner, H., Zur Frage der Ribildung duch Eigen- und
Zwngspannungen infolge Temperatur in Stahlbetonbauteilen, DAfStb
Heft 208, Verlag Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn, Berlin, Germany, 1969, 99 pp.
8. Eibl, J., Zwngung und Ribildung von Stahlbetonstben bei
Behinderung der Lngsverformung, Bautechnik, V. 46, No. 11, Nov. 1969,
pp. 373-379.
9. Noakowski, P., Bemessung auf Biegezwang im Hinblick auf
zulssige Stahlspannung und zulssige Ribreite, Bauingenieur, V. 52,
1977, pp. 137-144.
10. Noakowski, P.: Praxisgerechtes Verfahren fr die Bemessung von
Stahlbetonbauteilen bei Zwangbeanspruchung, Beton und Stahlbetonbau,
V. 75, No. 4, Apr. 1980, pp. 77-82 and 120-125.
ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2012
11. Sule, M., and van Breugel, K., The Effect of Reinforcement on
Early-Age Cracking due to Autogenous Shrinkage and Thermal Effects,
Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 26, No. 5, July 2004, pp. 581-587.
12. Vecchio, F. J.; Agostino, N.; and Angelakos, B., Reinforced
Concrete Slabs Subjected to Thermal Loads, Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, V. 20, No. 5, Oct. 1993, pp. 741-753.
13. Yi, S. T., and Yang, E. I., Effect of Axial Restraint on Mechanical
Behavior and Average Crack Spacing of Reinforced Concrete Flexural
Members, Nuclear Engineering and Design, V. 228, No. 1-3, Mar. 2004,
pp. 107-118.
14. Nejadi, S., and Gilbert, R. I., Shrinkage Cracking and Crack Control
in Restrained Reinforced Concrete Members, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 101, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2004, pp. 840-845.
15. Gopalaratnam, V. S., and Shah, S. P., Softening Response of Plain
Concrete in Direct Tension, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 28, No. 3,
May-June 1985, pp. 310-323.
16. Bissonnette, B.; Pigeon, M.; and Vaysburd, A. M., Tensile Creep
of Concrete: Study of Its Sensitivity to Basic Parameters, ACI Materials
Journal, V. 104, No. 4, July-Aug. 2007, pp. 360-368.
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.