-199-

Cracking of Concrete:

AC1 and CEB Approaches

by Edward G. Nawy

Synopsis: This paper covers a review of the state of the art on

most a s p e c t s o f c r a c k i n g a n d a n o v e r a l l e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e flexural
crack width development and crack control in concrete structures.
It is based on extensive research over the past five decades in
the United States and overseas in the area of cracking in
reinforced and prestressed concrete beams and two-way action slabs
and plates including the mechanics of micro-cracking. It also
presents a concensus interpretation of the major causes of plastic
and drying shrinkage cracking and crack development in mass
concrete.

Control of cracking has become essential in order to maintain

the integrity and aesthetics of concrete structures. The trend is
stronger than ever in better utilization of concrete strength, use
of higher strength concretes including super-strength concretes of
20,000 p s i (138 MPa) c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h a n d h i g h e r , m o r e
prestressed concretes and increased uses of limit failure
theories. Hence. a closer control is needed of serviceability
requirements in cracking and deflection behavior.

Commonly accepted procedures and expressions are presented

for the control of cracking in reinforced concrete beams and thick
one-way slabs, prestressed pretensioned and post-tensioned flanged
beams and reinforced concrete two-way action structural floor
slabs and plates. They are mainly based on the Codes and Standard
Reports of the AC1 and the CEB in their latest versions.
Modifying reduction factors for crack width evaluation are also
g i v e n f o r b e a m s h a v i n g c o n c r e t e s t r e n g t h i n e x c e s s o f 6.ooO p s i
( 4 1 . 4 MPa). In addition. recommendations are given for the
maximum t o l e r a b l e flexural crack widths in concrete elements,
l i m i t a t i o n o f s h r i n k a g e c r a c k i n g a n d c o n t r o l o f c r a c k i n g i n mass
concrete.

Keywords : Beams, concrete, c o m p r e s s i v e s t r e n g t h , c o v e r , c r a c k s .

crack control, crack width, deflection, equations. f lexural
stress, fracture coefficients, fracture mechanics. macro-cracking,
mass concrete, micro-cracking. plastic, plates, post-tensioned.
prestressed. pretensioned, reinforcement, shrinkage, stabilized
spacing, tanks, temperature. two-way action, volumetric change.
 -2oo-

Edward G. Nawy. FACI. is Professor of Civil Engineering, Rutgers,

The State University of New Jersey, holding the distinguished
p r o f e s s o r r a n k ( P r o f e s s o r I I ) . A c t i v e i n t h e AC1 s i n c e 1 9 4 9 ,
P r o f . N a w y i s a f o r m e r c h a i r m a n a n d c u r r e n t m e m b e r o f AC1
C o m m i t t e e 2 2 4 . C r a c k i n g , a n d i s c u r r e n t l y a m e m b e r o f AC1
Committee 340, S t r e n g t h D e s i g n A i d s f o r AC1 B u i l d i n g C o d e s ,
C h a i r m a n o f AC1 C o m m i t t e e 4 3 5 , D e f l e c t i o n o f C o n c r e t e B u i l d i n g
Structures; member of J o i n t ACI-ASCE C o m m i t t e e 4 2 1 , D e s i g n o f
Reinforced Concrete Slabs; the Concrete Materials Research
Council; Technical Activities committee of PCI. and the Tall
Buildings Council. His research interests are in reinforced and
prestressed concrete, particularly in the areas of crack control
and serviceability behavior. Dr. Nawy has published more than 115
papers and is the author of three major textbooks: Reinforced
C o n c r e t e - A Fundamental Approach, (translated into Spanish and
Chinese), Simplified Reinforced Concrete, and Prestressed Concrete
- A Fundamental Approach as well as numerous handbook chapters.
He holds many honors and awards, including t h e AC1 C h a p t e r
Activities Committee and Henry L Kennedy Awards, was twice
P r e s i d e n t o f t h e N . J . AC1 c h a p t e r , served two terms on the Rutgers
U n i v e r s i t y B o a r d o f G o v e r n o r s , was Honorary Vice President of the
RILEM 30th Anniversary Congress, and is Honorary Professor of NIT,
the Nanjing Insitute of Technology. He is consultant to major
engineering organizations in the New York-New Jersey metropolitan
a r e a , and is a registered Professional Engineer in New Jersey, New
York, Pennsylvania and California, and chartered engineer in
England and the Commonwealth.

INTRODUCTION

Presently, the trend is stronger than ever in better

utilization of concrete strength, use of super higher strength
concretes of 20,000 psi (138 MPa) compressive strength and higher,
use of high strength reinforcement, more prestressed concretes and
increased use of limit failure theories - all these trends require
closer control of serviceability requirements in cracking and
deflection behavior. Hence, knowledge of the cracking behavior of
concrete elements becomes essential.

Concrete cracks early in its loading history. Most cracks

are a result of the following actions to which concrete can be
subjected:

1. Volumetric change caused by plastic shrinkage drying

shrinkage, creep under sustained load, thermal stresses
including elevated temperatures, and chemical
incompatibility of concrete components including the
presence of alkali reactive aggregates.
 -201-

2. Direct stress due to applied loads or reactions or

internal stress due to continuity, reversible fatigue
load, long-term deflection, camber in prestressed
systems, or environmental effects including differential
movement in structural systems.

3. Flexural stress due to bending moments caused by

transverse loads.

While the net result of these three actions is the formation

of cracks, the mechanisms of their development cannot be
considered identical. Volumetric change generates internal
microcracking which may develop into full cracking, while direct
internal or external stress or applied loads and reactions could
either generate internal microcracking, such as in the case of
f a t i g u e d u e t o r e v e r s i b l e l o a d , or flexural m a c r o c r a c k i n g leading
to fully developed cracking.

This paper is intended to be a world review of the

state-of-the-art on cracking in c o n c r e t e . While the coverage
c a n n o t b e a l l - i n c l u s i v e , y e t , an attempt is made to include within
the 1 imi ted s p a c e a v a i l a b l e m o s t o f t h e c u r r e n t i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t
is widely accepted on this subject.

MIGRO-CRACKING

Micro-cracking can be mainly classified into two categories:

a) bond cracks at the aggregate-mortar interface, b) paste cracks
within the mortar matrix. Interfacial bond cracks are caused by
interfacial shear and tensile stresses due to early volumetric
change without the presence of external load. Volume change
caused by hydration and shrinkage could create tensile and bond
stresses of sufficient magnitude as to cause failure at the
aggregate-mortar interface (1.2). As the external load is
applied, mortar cracks develop due to increase in compressive
stress, propagating continuously through the cement matrix up to
failure. A typical schematic stress-strain diagram (Fig. 1) shows
the nonlinear relationship developed early in the stress history
and starting with bond micro-cracking. While extensive work
exists in the area of volumetric change cracking, the need is
apparent for additional work on creep effects on micro-cracking
and also for the development of a universally acceptable f rat ture
theory to interrelate the nonlinear behavioral factors resulting
in crack propagation.

It appears that the damage to cement paste seems to p l a y a

signif icant role in controlling the stress-strain relationship in
concrete. The coarse aggregate particles act as stress-raisers
that decrease the strength of the cement paste. As a result
micro-cracks develop that can only be detected by large
magnification. The importance of additional work lies not only in
the evaluation of the micro-cracks, but also in their significance
on the development of macro-cracks which generate from those
micro-cracked centers of plasticity.
 -202-

Application of the fracture mechanics principles to the

micro-cracking in concrete has thus b e c o m e n e c e s s a r y . Several
theories h a v e b e e n d e v e l o p e d (3.4.5). In general, investigators
have proposed the use of the effective crack length to account for
the fracture process zone and deduced from the reduction in
stiffness at the peak load in a 3-point bend test. In these
investigations, the specimen size effect and the material
properties were considered to be the dominant factors on the
fracture in concrete

Cracking Due to Shrinkage

Basically, there are two types of shrinkage : plastic

shrinkage a n d d r y i n g s h r i n k a g e . PLastic s h r i n k a g e o c c u r s d u r i n g
the first few hours after placing fresh concrete in the forms.
Exposed surfaces such as floor slabs are more easily affected by
exposure to dry air because of their large contact surface. In
such cases, moisture evaporates faster from the concrete surface
than it is replaced by the bleed water from the lower layers of
the concrete elements (2). Drying shrinkage, on the other hand,
occurs after the concrete has already attained its final set and a
good portion of the chemical hydration process in the cement gel
has been accomplished.

Drying shrinkage is the decrease in the volume of a concrete

element when it loses moisture by evaporation. The opposite
phenomenon, that is, volume increase through water absorption, is
termed smelling. In other words, shrinkage and swelling represent
water movement out of or into the gel s t r u c t u r e o f a concrete
specimen due to the difference in humidity or saturation levels
between the specimen and the surroundings irrespective of the
external load.

Shrinkage is not a completely reversible process. If a

concrete unit is saturated with water after having fully shrunk,
it will not expand to its original volume. Figure 2 relates the
increase in shrinkage strain E with time. The rate decreases
sh
with time since older concretes are more resistant to stress and
consequently undergo less shrinkage, such that the shrinkage
strain becomes almost asymptotic with time.

Several factors affect the magnitude of drying shrinkage:

1. Aggregate. The aggregate act:; t o r e s t r a i n t h e s h r i n k a g e

of the cement paste: hence concretes with high aggregate
c o n t e n t a r e l e s s .:ulnerable to shrinkage. In addition,
the d e g r e e o f r e s t r a i n t o f a g i v e n c o n c r e t e is.--
determined by the properties of aggregates: those with
high modulus of elasticity or with rough surfaces are
more resistant to the shrinkage process.
 -203-

2. Water/cement ratio. The higher the water/cement ratio,

the higher the shrinkage effects. Figure 3 is a typical
plot relating aggregate content to water/cement ratio.

3. S i z e o f the concrete element. Roth the rate and total

magnitude of shrinkage decrease with an increase in the
volume of the concrete element. However, the duration
, of shrinkage is longer for larger members since more
time is needed for drying to reach the internal regions.
It is possible that 1 year may be needed for the drying
process to begin at a depth of 10 in. from the exposed
surface, and 10 years to begin at 24 in. below the
external surface.

4. Medium ambient conditions. The relative humidity of the

medium affects greatly the magnitude of shrinkage; the
rate of shrinkage is lower at high states of relative
humidity. The environment temperature is another
factor, in that shrinkage becomes stabilized at low
temperatures.

5. Amount of reinforcement. Reinforced concrete shrinks

less than plain concrete: the relative difference is a
function of the reinforcement percentage.

6. Admixtures. This effect varies depending on the type of

admixture. An accelerator such as calcium chloride,
used to accelerate the hardening and setting of the
concrete , increases the shrinkage. Pozzolans can also
increase the drying shrinkage, whereas air-entraining
agents have little effect.

7. Type of cement. Rapid-hardening cement shrinks somewhat

more than other types * while shrinkage-compensating
cements minimize or eliminate shrinkage cracking if used
with restraining reinforcement.

8. Carbonation. Carbonation shrinkage is caused by the

reaction between carbon dioxide (Co,) p r e s e n t i n t h e
atmosphere and that rpresent in the cement paste. The
amount of the combined shrinkage varies according to the
sequence of occurrence of carbonation and drying
processes. If both phenomena take place simultaneously,
less shrinkage develops. The process of carbonation,
however, is dramatically reduced at relative humidities
below 50%.

I n order to control shrinkage cracking by minimizing its

extent, reduction of cracking tendency can be achieved by
addressing all remedial measures that take into account the eight
major factors presented.
 -204-

FLEXURAL CRACKING

External load results in direct and bending stresses causing

flexural. bond and diagonal tension cracks. Immediately after the
tensile stress in the concrete exceeds its tensile strength at a
particular location, internal micro-cracks form. These cracks
generate into macro-cracks propagating to the external fiber zones
of the element.

Immediately after the full development of the first crack in

a reinforced concrete element, the stress in the concrete at the
cracking zone i s reduced to z e r o a n d i s assumed by the
reinforcement (2). The distribution of ultimate bond stress,
longitudinal tensile stress in the concrete and longitudinal
tensile stress in the steel can be schematically represented in
Fig. 4.

Crack width is a primary function of the deformation of

reinforcement between the two adjacent cracks 1 and 2 in Fig. 4,
if the small concrete strain along the crack interval a is
C
neglected. The crack width would hence be a function of the crack
spacing to the load level at which no more cracks develop, leading
t o t h e s t a b i l i z a t i o n o f t h e c r a c k s p a c i n g ( F i g . 5)..

The major parameters affecting the development and

characteristics of the cracks are: percentage of reinforcement,
bond characteristics and size of bar, concrete cover, and the
concrete stretched area, namely, the concrete area in tension. On
t h i s b a s i s , one can propose the following mathematical model:

w = a B
a e-f (1)
c s

where w= maximum crack width, and

a.P and 7 a r e n o n l i n e a r i t y c o n s t a n t s . Crack spacing
a is a function of the factors enumerated previously, being
C
inversely proportional to bond strength and active steel ratio
(steel percentage in terms of the concrete area in tension). E
S
is the strain in the reinforcement induced by external load.

The basic mathematical modal in equation (1) with the

a p p r o p r i a t e e x p e r i m e n t a l v a l u e s o f t h e c o n s t a n t s a . /3 and 7 can
be derived for the particular type of structural member. Such a
member can be a one-dimensional element such as a beam, a
two-dimensional s true ture such as a two-way slab, or a
three-dimensional member such as a shell or circular tank wall.
Hence. it is expected that different forms or expressions apply
for the evaluation of the macro-cracking behavior of different
structural elements consistent with their fundamental structural
behavior (Ref. 2-10).
 - 205-

FLEXJRAL CRACKING AND CRACK CONTROL IN REINFORCED CDNCRETE BEAKS

AND THICK ONE-WAY SLABS

Requirements for crack control in beams and thick one-way

slabs (10 i n . o r t h i c k e r ) i n t h e AC1 B u i l d i n g C o d e (AC1 3 1 8 ) a r e
based on the statistical analysis of maximum crack width data from
a number of sources. Based on the analysis, the following general
conclusions were reached (6-9):

1. The steel stress is the most important variable.

2. The thickness of the concrete cover is an important

variable, but not the only geometric consideration..

3. The area of concrete surrounding each reinforcing bar is

also an important geometric variable.

4. The bar diameter is not a major variable.

5. The size of the bottom crack width is influenced by the

amount of strain gradient from the level of the steel to
the tension face of the beam.

The simplified expression relating crack width to steel

s t r e s s i s g i v e n i n Eq. 2 a s f o l l o w s ( R e f . 6 ) .

w = 0 . 0 7 6 /3 f,qA x 10 -3

where f = reinforcing steel stress, ksi

; = area of
concrete symmetric with reinforcing steel
2
divided by number of bars, in.
dc = t h i c k n e s s o f c o n c r e t e c o v e r m e a s u r e d f r o m e x t r e m e

tension fiber to center of bar or wire closest thereto, in.

P = ha/h1 w h e r e h l = d i s t a n c e f r o m n e u t r a l a x i s t o t h e

reinforcing steel, in.

and h2 = d i s t a n c e f r o m n e u t r a l a x i s t o e x t r e m e c o n c r e t e t e n s i l e

surface.

A plot relating the reinforcement strength to the ratio of

the concrete area in tension to the reinforcement area is shown in
Fig. 6 for all bar sizes.

In the AC1 Code, when the design yield strength fy for

tension reinforcement e x c e e d s 4 0 k s i . cross sections of maximum

positive and negative moment have to be so proportioned that the
quantity z given by Eq. 3.

z = fsQ (3)
 -206-

does not exceed 175 kips per in. for interior exposure and 145
kips per in. for exterior exposure. Calculated stress in the
reinforcement at s e r v i c e l o a d fs(ksi) s h a l l b e c o m p u t e d a s t h e

moment divided by the product of steel area and internal moment

are. In lieu of such computations, it is permitted to take f
S

as 60 percent of specified strength fy.

When the strain. in the steel reinforcement is used

eS-

instead of stress, f Eq. (3) becomes

S

w = 2.2 p es q (4)

Eq. (4) is valid in any system of measurement.

The cracking behavior in thick one-way slabs is similar to

that in shallow beams. For one-way slabs having a clear concrete
cover in the range of 1 in. (25.4 mm), (Eq. 4) can be adequately
a p p l i e d i f /3 = 1 . 2 5 t o 1 . 3 5 i s u s e d .

CEB Recomendations

Crack control recommendations proposed the European Model

Code for Concrete Structures are supposed to apply to both
prestressed and reinforced concrete and can be summarized as
follows (11):

The mean crack width, wm, in beams is expressed in terms of

the mean crack spacing, srm, such that

w =e (5)
m smSrm

f
where E = I [l - y (+j2, 5 0 . 4 $
sm E (6)
S S S

and represents the average strain in the steel.

f = steel stress at the crack

S

f = steel stress at the crack due to forces causing

ST

cracking at the tensile strength of concrete

x = bond coefficient, 1.0 for ribbed bars, reflecting

influence of load repetitions and load duration

The mean crack spacing is

 -207-

db
S = 2(c - b, + (2(3 F (7)
rm
R

where
C = clear concrete cover

S = bar spacing, limited to 15db

= 0.4 for ribbed bars

y2

= depends on the shape of the stress diagram, 0.125 for

(3
bending

= As/At
QR

At = effective area in tension, depending on arrangement of

bars and type of external forces; it is limited by a

line c + 7db from the tension face for beams; in the

case of thick slabs, not more than halfway to the

neutral axis

A simplified formula can be derived for the mean crack width

in beams with ribbed bars.

f
db
W = 0 . 7 9 ( 3 c + 0 . 0 5 p) (8)
m
S R

A characteristic value of the crack width, presumably

equivalent to the probable maximum value, is given as 0.7~~.

The 1991 CEB model code changes on crack width evaluations

h a v e m o d i f i e d E q s . 5.6. a n d 7 t o E q s . 5 a a n d 7 a a s f o l l o w s

(%I
k = s.nmx (esm- ecm-ecs)

where

E = average steel strain over length es rrrax

sm

E = A v e r a g e c o n c r e t e s t r a i n o v e r l e n g t h ex -
cm

E = strain of concrete due to shrinkage

cs

cr

e = 2(s + s2 (7a)
s,- 0 4TbkUSE (4)
 -208-

s = length at crack vicinity along which bond stresses have

0
negligiable values

0 = steel stress in crack

s2

0 = steel stress at point of zero slip

SE

T = 2ft f o r d e f o r m e d b a r s

bk = 1 f t f o r p l a i n b a r s

Qs = steel bar diameter

The British Code of Practice has essentially a similar approach to

the CEB recommendations presented in this section. It
differentiates, however, i n t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e e x p r e s s i o n s t o
reinforced as compared to prestressed concrete beams.

It should be emphasized that all these expressions were

developed on the basis of beam tests where the concrete
compressive strength was in the range of 4,cOo-5,ocO psi
( 2 7 . 6 - 3 4 . 5 MPa). For beams whose concrete strength exceeds 6,000
p s i ( 4 1 . 4 MPa), the predicted crack width should be proportionally
reduced but not necessarily linearly. More research is needed to
establish the reduction factors applicable.

The Australian Code on Flexural Crack Control

The Australian Code does not recommend any formula for the
calculation of crack widths. Crack control for flexure in
reinforced concrete beams is achieved if the center-to-center
spacing of bars near the tension face of the beam does not exceed
8 in. (200 mm) a n d t h e d i s t a n c e f r o m t h e s i d e o r s o f f i t t o t h e
center of the nearest longitudinal bar is not greater than 4 in.
(loo m m ) . In the case of fully prestressed concrete beams, the
maximum tensile stress in the concrete due to short- term service
loads should not exceed 3c. To control flexural cracking in
partially prestressed concrete beams, the increment in steel
stress near the t e n s i o n f a c e i s l i m i t e d t o 2 9 K s i (200 MPa), as
the load increases from its value when the extreme concrete
tensile fiber is at zero stress to the short-term service load
value; and the center-to-center spacing of reinforcement.
including bonded tendons, is limited to 8 in. (200 mm)

Flexural cracking in reinforced concrete slabs is controlled

by limiting the center-to-center spacing of bars in each direction
to the lesser of 2.5 times the thickness of slab or 20 in. (500
mm). In fully prestressed slabs, similar to beams, the maximum
tensile stress in the concrete due to short-term service loads is
 -209-

l i m i t e d t o 3%. For partially prestressed slabs, the incremental

steel stress should not exceed 22 Ksi (150 MPa) and the
center-to-center spacing of reinforcement including bonded
tendons, is not to exceed 20 in. (500 mm).

It should be noted that the extensive Nawy work (Ref. 7.8)

demonstrated that the maximum crack spacing in two-way reinforced
concrete slabs should not exceed 12 in. (300 mm), otherwise yield
line wide cracks would be prematurely generated. Hence, t h e AC1
318 Code limits the maximum spacing to twice the slab thickness.

FLEXURAL CRACKING AND CRACK CONTROL IN P -ED PRETENS IONED

AND POST-TENSIONED BEAKS

The increased use of partial prestressing. allowing limited

tensile stresses in t h e c o n c r e t e under service and over load
conditions while al lowing nonprestressed steel to carry the
tensile s t r e s s e s , is becoming prevalen: due to practicality and
economy. Consequently , an evaluation of the flexural crack widths
and spacing and control of their development become essential.
Work in t h i s a r e a i s relatively limited because of the
complications induced by the various factors affecting crack width
development in prestressed concrete and the high cost of testing
for these parameters. However, experimental investigations
support the hypothesis that the major controlling parameter is the
reinforcement stress change beyond the decompression stage. Nawy ,
et al, have undertaken extensive research since the 1960s on the
cracking behavior of prestressed pretensioned a n d p o s t - t e n s i o n e d
beams and slabs because of the great vulnerability of the highly
s t r e s s e d p r e s t r e s s i n g s t e e l t o c o r r o s i o n a n d other environmental
effects and the resulting premature loss of prestress (Refs. 13.
14). Other investigators (Ref. 15.16) have extended this work
u n d e r v a r y i n g l o a d combinationns. From all the available studies,
it is e v i d e n t that serviceability behavior under service and
overload conditions can be controlled by the design engineer
through the application of the criteria presented in this section.

Mathematical Model Formulation for Serviceabilitv Evaluation

Crack spacing -- Primary cracks form in the region of WimUm

bending moment when the external load reaches the cracking load.
As loading is increased, additional cracks will form and the
number of cracks will be stabilized when the stress in the
concrete no longer exceeds its tensile strength at further
locations regardless of load increase. This condition is
important as it essentially produces the a b s o l u t e minimum crack
spacing which can occur at high steel stresses, to be termed the
stabilized minimum crack spacing. The maximum possible crack
spacing under this stabilized condition is twice the minimum, to
be termed the stabilized maximum crack spacing. Hence, the
s t a b i l i z e d m e a n c r a c k s p a c i n g acs is deduced as the mean value

of the two extremes.

 -210-

The total tensile force T transferred from the steel to the

concrete over the stabilized mean crack spacing can be defined as

T = 7 acs u Ho (%I

where

7 = a factor reflecting the distribution of bond

stress

P = maximum bond stress which is a function of <

HO = sum of reinforcing elements circumferences

Fig. 7 illustrates the forces that cause the formulation

of the stabilized crack.

The resistance R of the concrete area in tension A, can

be defined as

R = At f ; (9b)

where f; = tensile splitting strength of the concrete. By

e q u a t i n g E q s . 9 a a n d 9b, t h e f o l l o w i n g e x p r e s s i o n f o r acs is

obtained, where c is a constant to be developed from the tests:

a =c-
At fl (loa)
cs
x0 <

The concrete s t r e t c h e d a r e a , namely the concrete area At in

tension for both the evenly distributed and non-evenly distributed

reinforcing elements, is illustrated in Fig. 8. With a mean value

of ft/ < = 7 . 9 5 in this investigation (13). a regresson

analysis of the test data resulted in the following expression for

the mean stabilized crack spacing

a = 1 . 2 0 At/I0 (lob)
cs

Crack width -- If Afs is the net stress in the prestressed

tendon or the magnitude of the tensile stress in the normal steel

at any crack width load level in which the decompression load
(decompression here means fc = 0 at the level of the reinforcing

steel) is taken as the reference point (Ref. 11-14). then for the
p r e s t r e s s e d t e n d o n ( R e f s . 11-14).

Afs = fnt - fd (11)

 211-

where

f = stress in the prestressing steel at any load beyong the

nt
decompression load

= stress in the prestressing steel corresponding to the

fd
decompression load

The unit strain E = Afs/E . It is logical to disregard as

S S
insignificant the unit strains in the concrete due to the effects
of temperature, shrinkage and elastic shortening. The maximum
crack width as defined in Eq. 1 can be taken as

W - k a ea (1%)
lmx- cs s

where k and a are constants to be established by tests, or

W = k acs(Afs) (12b)

where k is a constant in terms of constant k.

Expressions for Pretensioned Beams

Eq. 12s is rewritten in terms of Af so that analysis of

S
the test data of all the simply supported test beams in this work
leads to the following expression at the reinforcement level:

= 1.4 x 10e5 a c s (Afs)1.31

W (13)

L i n e a r i z i n g E2q. 1 3 f o r e a s i e r u s e b y t h e d e s i g n e n g i n e e r
leads to the following simplified expression of the maximum crack
width at the reinforcing steel level:

W = 5.85 x 1O-5 2 (Afs) (l&l

and a maximum crack width (in.) at the tensile face of the

concrete:

W' = 5 . 8 5 x 1 0 -5 Ri 2 (Afs) (14b)

where isRthe distance ratio = h2/hl w i t h h2 b e i n g t h e

i
distance from the neutral axis to the extreme tension fibers and
the distance from the neutral axis to the reinforcement
hl
centroid.
 -212-

A plot of the pretensioned beams tests data and the best fit
e x p r e s s i o n f o r Eq. 14a is given in Fig. 9 with a 40 percent
spread. which is reasonable in view of t h e r a n d o m n e s s o f crack
development and the linearization of the original expression of
Eq. 1 3 .

Expressions for Post-Tensioned Beams

The expression developed for the crack width in

post-tensioned bonded beams which contain mild steel reinforcement
is

W = 6.51 x 1O-5 2 (Afs) (1%)

for the width at the reinforcement level closest to the tensile
face, and

W 6 . 5 1 x 10% 1 2 Ws)
IIbsx=

at the tensile face of the concrete lower fibers.

F o r n o n b o n d e d b e a m s , t h e f a c t o r 6 . 5 1 i n Eqs. 15a and 15b

becomes 6.83. A plot of the data and the best fit expression for
EZq. 15a i s g i v e n i n F i g . 1 0 .

A typical plot of the effect of the various steel percentages

o n t h e c r a c k s p a c i n g a t t h e v a r i o u s s t r e s s l e v e l s Afs is given

in Fig. 11. It is seen from this plot that crack spacing

stabilizes at a net stress level range of 30 to 36 ksi.

Cracking of High Strength Prestressed Beams

Recent work was completed at Rutgers University (1991) on the

cracking behavior of pretensioned and nonbonded post-tensioned
beams having cylinder compressive strengths in the range of 10.200
psi t o 1 2 , 3 0 0 p s i ( 7 0 . 3 t o 8 4 . 8 MPa). A n a l y s i s o f t h e t e s t d a t a
has led to introducing modifying reduction multipliers in order to
include the effect of the high concrete compressive and tensile
strength on the stabilized crack width in prestressed beams.

A m u l t i p l i e r hr should be used in Eqs. 14a and 14b for

pretensioned beams and ho s h o u l d b e u s e d i n Eqs. 15a a n d 1 5 b f o r

nonbonded post-tensioned beams.

2
x = (163)
r (0.75+0.06 q)q
and
 -213-

1
ho = (16b)
0.75+0.06q

where f is in ksi units.

C

Other Work on Cracking in Prestressed Concrete

Based on the analysis of results of various investigators,

N- (17) produced the following modified expression for
partially prestressed pretensioned members

*t
W- = [a + 5.58 K (Af,)] x If5

This regression expression is very close to Eq. 14 by the

author _ If plotted against the experimental results of the
various researchers it gives a best fit as shown in Fig. 12.

A comparison is made between the authors equations and the

basic CEB-FIP approach using similar notations.

*t
Nawy : W- = E (=g) Aup

C E B - F I P : wlrrax = [K* + a01 2 Cl - P(

Pt S P

where

l/Ho = h(k) using h a s a m u l t i p l i e r i n l i e u o f K & /3

Pt
which are test parameters, and @ is the
AU
pr 2
reinforcement diameter, while the C-1
=O AU
P
terms in the CEB-FIP expression are not of
major significance and accounted for in the
f = 6.51 for the post-tensioned beams in the
authors expression.

The study reported in Ref. 18 concentrating on the area of

concrete in tension and the nominal strain in the concrete at the
tensile face would not give a reliable prediction of the crack
width. In particular it does not account for the actual stress in
the steel reinforcement and depends on measurements of strain at
the concrete surface which are difficult to reliably evaluate.
 -214-

Cracking in Prestressed Concrete Circular Tanks

Circular prestressed tanks are cylindrical shell elements of

very large diameter in relation to their height. Hence, it is
p o s s i b l e t o t r e a t t h e w a l l w i t h r e s p e c t t o flexural cracking in a
manner similar to the behavior of two-way action plates. Vessay
and Preston (19) modified the Nawy expressions developed for
two-way action slabs and plates (7) so that the maximum crack
width can be defined as

W = 4 . 1 x 10% (18)
ct Eps %

where e = tensile surface strain in the concrtee = (htfp)/(Eps)

ct

fp = actual stress in the steel

f initial prestress before losses

pi =

At = f /f
P pi

S2sldc
GI = grid index = f ( -1

dbl

sl= spacing
. of reinforcement in direction 1

= diameter of steel in direction 1

dbl

S2 = s p a c i n g o f r e i n f o r c e m e n t i n d i r e c t i o n 2

dc = c o n c r e t e c o v e r t o c e n t e r o f s t e e l , i n .

Note that w = 0.004 in. (0.1 mm) should be the allowable crack

width for liquid-retaining tanks.

CRACKING AND CRACK CONTROL IN TWO-WAY ACTION SLABS AND PLATES

Flexural c r a c k c o n t r o l i s essential in structural floors,

most of which are under two-way action. Cracks at service load
and overload conditions can be serious in such floors as in office
buildings, schools, parking garages, industrial buildings and
other floors where the design service load and overload levels
exceed those in normal size apartment building panels. Such
c r a c k s c a n o n l y l e a d t o d e t r i m e n t a l e f f e c t s o n the integrity of
the total structure, particularly in adverse environmental
conditions.
 -215-

Flexural Crackinv Mechanism and Fracture Hvoothesis

Flexural cracking behavior in concrete structural floors

under two-way action is significantly different from that in
one-way members. Crack-control equations for beams underestimate
the crack widths developed in two-way slabs and plates, and do not
tell the designer how to space the reinforcement. Cracking in
two-way slabs and plates is controlled primarily by the steel
stress level and the spacing of the reinforcement in the two
perpendicular directions. In addition, the clear concrete cover
3 .
in two-way slabs and plates is nearly constant [z in. (19 mm) for
interior exposure], whereas it is a major variable in the
crack-control equations for beams. The results from extensive
tests on slabs and plates by Nawy et al, (Ref. 3, 7, 8)
demonstrate this difference in behavior in a fracture hypothesis
on crack development and propagation in two-way plate action. As
seen in Fig. 13. stress concentration develops initially at the
points of intersection of the reinforcement in the reinforcing
bars and at the welded joints of the wire mesh, that is, at the
grid nodal points, thereby dynamically generating fracture lines
along the paths of least resistance, namely. a l o n g AlBl. A1A2.
a n d B2B1. The resulting fracture pattern is a total
A2B2p
repetitive cracking grid, provided that the spacing of the nodal
p o i n t s A l , Bl, A2, and B2 is close enough to generate this
preferred initial fracture grid of orthogonal cracks narrow in
width, as a preferred fracture mechanism.

If the spacing of the reinforcing grid intersections is too

large, the ntagni tude of stress concentration and the energy
absorbed per unit grid is too low to generate cracks along the
reinforcing wires or bars. A s a r e s u l t , the principal cracks
follow diagnonal yield-line cracking in the plain concrete field
away from the reinforcing bars early in the loading history.
These cracks are wide and few.

This hypothesis also leads to the conclusion that surface

deformations of the individual reinforcing elements have little
effect in arresting the generation of the cracks or controlling
their type or width in a two-way-action slab or plate. In a
similar manner, one may cone lude that the scale effect on
two-way-action cracking behavior is insignificant, since the
cracking grid would be a reflection of the reinforcement grid if
the preferred orthogonal narrow cracking widths develop.
Therefore, to control cracking in two-way-action floors, the major
parameter to be considered is the reinforcement spacing in the two
perpendicular directions. Concrete cover has only a minor effect,
since it is usually small, constant in value of 0.75 in. (20 mm).

For a constant area of reinforcement determined for bending

in one direction, that is, for energy absorption per unit slab
area, the smaller the spacing of the transverse bars or wires, the
 -216-

smaller should be the diameter of the longitudinal bars. The

reason is that less energy has to be absorbed by the individual
longitudinal bars. If one considers that the magnitude of
fracture is determined by the energy imposed per specific volume
of reinforcement acting on a finite element of the slab, a proper
choice of the reinforcement grid size and bar size can control
cracking into preferred orthogonal grids.

It must be emphasized that this hypothesis is important for

serviceability and reasonable overload conditions. In relating
orthogonal cracks to yield-line cracks, the failure of a slab
ultimately follows the generally accepted rigid-plastic yield-line
criteria.

Crack Control Equation

The basic EZq. 1 for relating crack width to strain in the

reinforcement is

w=aa P -f
c es

The effect of the tensile strain in the concrete between the

cracks is neglected as insignificant, ac is the crack spacing,
E the unit strain in the reinforcement, and a, fl. and 7 are
s
constants to be evaluated by tests. As a result of the f rat ture
hypothesis presented, the mathematical model in FLq. 19 and the
statistical analysis of the data of 90 slabs tested to failure.
the following crack-control equation emerged (Ref. 3, 7):

w = Kj3fsJGf

where is termed the grid index defining the

GI = dbls20t1.
reinforcement distribution in two-way action slabs and plates. It
can be transformed in Eq. 20 to

G = -S1S2dc 8-
I (21)
dbl rr

where K = fracture coefficient, having a value of K = 2.8 x

1o-5 for uniformly loaded restrained two-way
action square slabs and plates. For concentrated
loads or reactions, or when the ratio of short to
long span is less than 0.75 but larger than 0.5,
-5
a value of K = 2.1 x 1 0 is applicable. For a
span aspect ratio of 0.5, K = 1.6 x 10 -5 . Units
of coefficient K are in square inch per lb.
 -217-

P = ratio of the distance from the neutral axis to

the tensile face of the slab to the distance from
the neutral axis to the centroid of the rein-
forcement grid (to simplify the calculations use
p = 1.25. although it varies between 1.20 and
1.35)

f = actual average service load reinforcement stress

S

level, or 40% of the design yield strength,

f ksi
S

= diameter of the reinforcement in direction 1

dbl
closest to the concrete outer fibers, in.

= spacing of the reinforcement in direction 1. in.

s1

= spacing of the reinforcement in perpendicular

s2
direction 2, in.

1 = direction of the reinforcement closest to the

outer concrete fibers; this is the direction for
which crack control check is to be made

= active steel ratio in direction 1

ot1
a r e a o f s t e e l As p e r f o o t w i d t h
=
12tdbl + 2Cl)
where is clear
concrete cover measured from
c1
the tensile face of the concrete to the nearest
edge of the reinforcing bar in direction 1

W = crack width at face of concrete caused by

flexural l o a d , i n .

S u b s c r i p t s 1 a n d 2 p e r t a i n t o t h e d i r e c t i o n s o f rein-
f orcement. Detailed values of the fracture coefficients for
various boundary conditions are given in Table 1.

A graphical solution of Eq. 20 is given in Fig. 14 for

fy = 6 0 k s i ( 4 1 4 MPa) and

fs = 4 0 % f y = 4 0 k s i ( 1 6 5 . 5 MPa)

for rapid determination of the reinforcement size and spacing

needed for crack control.

Since cracking in two-way slabs and plates is primarily

control led by the grid intersections of the reinforcement,
 -218-

concrete strength would not be of major consequence. Hence, the

value of crack width in two-way action predicted by Eq. 20 should
not be significantly affected if higher strength concretes are
used in excess of 6,000 psi (41.4 MPa). It has to be pointed out
that in two-way normal slab floors, the use of much higher
strengths is not justified in economical terms.

Tolerable Crack Widths in Concrete Structures

The maximum crack width that a structural element should be

permitted to develop depends on the particular function of the
element and the environmental conditions to which the structure is
liable to be subjected. Table 2 from the AC1 Committee 224 report
on cracking serves as a reasonable guide on the tolerable crack
widths in concrete structures under the various environmental
conditions that are normally encountered. Its values are in close
agreement with the C.E.B. recommendations for most conditions of
exposure.

The crack control equation and guidelines presented are

important not only for the control of corrosion in the
reinforcement but also for deflection control. The reduction of
the stiffness EI of the two-way slab or plate due to orthogonal
cracking when the limits of permissible crack widths in Table 2
are exceeded, can lead to excessive deflection both short-term and
long-term. Deflection values several times those anticipated in
the design, including deflection due to construction loading, can
be reasonably controlled through camber and control of the
flexural crack width in the slab or plate. Proper selection of
the reinforcement spacing s1 and s2 in the perpendicular
directions as discussed in this section, and not exceeding 12 in.
center to center, can maintain good serviceability performance of
a slab system under normal and reasonable overload conditions.

Long-Term Effects on Cracking

In most cases, the magnitude of crack widths increases in

long-term exposure and long-term loading. The increase in crack
width can vary considerably in cases of cyclic loading, such as in
bridges but the width increases at a decreasing rate with time.
In most cases, a doubling of crack width after several years under
sustained loading is not unusual.

Cracking in Bass Concrete

Mass concrete denotes concrete volumes with dimensions large

enough to require that measures be taken to cope with generation
of heat from hydration of cement and attendant volume change to
minimize cracking (AC1 Report 116R). Cracking in structures
normally results from material and/or structural causes (3).
Material cracking can be caused by shrinkage, heat of hydration,
or alkali-aggregate reaction. Structural cracking is caused by
 -219-

external load combinations such as liquid pressure, subsidance,

excessive vibrations and ambient temperatures.

In order to control such cracks, the following measures have

to be taken (3):

1. Concrete with large tensile strain capacity.

2. Small daily and seasonal temperature variations.

3. Low cement content (permitted by low design stresses).

4. Cement of low heat generation.

5. Short blocks.

6. Slow rate of construction when no artificial cooling is

used.

7. Low degree of restraint, as with yielding foundation, or

in portions of the structure w e l l removed from
restraining foundation.

8. High yearly average temperature.

9. Absence of stress raisers, such as galleries.

10 Low placing temperature.

It is evident from this list that heat generaton during

construction is one of the major factors in cracking of mass
concrete systems. The most effective measures would thus entail
precool ing the concrete during its production and postcooling it
with embedded pipe systems after it is placed.

CONCLUSIONS

The discussions presented are an overview of the rational

treatment of cracking in concrete both as a material and as a
structural system. Practices differ in various parts of the world
due to the variability of environmental conditions as well as
practices developed over the years. For cracking due to
constituent material behavior, qualitative judgement procedures
based on situ-experience and aggregate choice can in most cases
control the crack development.

Cracking due to structural loading of concrete elements can

be evaluated and predicted, more concisely by computational
procedures. While there is no universal agreement on the
analytical expressions developed by various researchers, this
paper at tempts to summarize accepted approaches backed by
extensive experimental research. With the aid of the expressions
presented in this paper sutmnarized in the following, the design
engineer and the constructor can limit the flexural macro crack
 -220-

width that develops in concrete systems. By limiting the width to

within the tolerable levels given in Table 2 in accordance with
the prevailing environmental conditions, it would be possible to
prevent or considerably minimize long-term corrosion deterioration
and also maintain the aesthetic integrity of the various elements
of the system.

Reinforced Concrete Beams and Thick One-Wav Slabs

w = 0 . 0 7 6 /3 fs Jdc x 10 -3

or Zfs$T
where f s is in ksi and z not to exceed a value of 145 kip per
inch for exterior exposure and 175 kip per inch for interior
exposure.

Prestressed Pretensioned Beams

a) Steel reinforcement level

W = 5.85 x 1O-5 2 (Afs)

0

b) Tensile face of concrete

A
W' = 5.85 x 1O-5 Rig Ws)
0

Prestressed Post-Tensioned Beams

a) Steel reinforcement level

W = 6 . 5 1 x 1O-5 > (Afs)

0

b) Tensile face of concrete

A
W = 6.51 x 10-5Ri Z$ Ws)
0

For nonbonded beams, the factor 6.51 becomes 6.83.

For large diameter circular prestressed concrete

resevoirs W = 4.1x10+ c
c t Eps 5

For prestressed beams with higher strength concretes,

 -221-

r e d u c t i o n m u l t i p l i e r s hr a n d ho h a v e t o b e a p p l i e d t o these
expressions as follows:

hr =
2
for pretensioned beams and
(0.75+o.o6q) c

2
ho = for post-tensioned unbonded beams.
0.75+o.o6 q

Two-way Action Structural Slabs and Plates

where

The values of coefficient K are as follows

K Fully restrained slabs and plates

2.8 x 1o-5 Uniformly loaded, square

-5
2.1 x 10 At concentrated loads and columns

2.1 x 10
-5
0.5 > es/e, < 0.75
-5
0.6 x 10 < 0.5
esee

*For simply supported slabs multiply above values by 1.6.

interpolate K values for intermediate span ratios
or for partial restraints at the boundaries such
esee
as cases of end and corner panels of multipanel floor
systems.
es and e, are respectively the short and long spans of

the two-way slab or plate.

REFERENCES

1. A m e r i c a n C o n c r e t e I n s t i t u t e , Building Code Requirements for

R e i n f o r c e d C o n c r e t e (AC1 31849) and Ckmunen t a r y (AC1
318R-89), ACI. Lktroi t , 1 9 8 9 . 389 p .

2. Nawy , Edward G. , Reinforced Concrete - A Fundamental

Approach, T e x t b o o k , S e c o n d E d i t i o n , P u b . Prentice-Ball.
Englewood C l i f f s , N J 1 9 9 0 . 738 p. Translated into Spanish
and Chinese.
 - 2 2 2 -

3 . AC1 Commi t tee 224, Control of Cracking in Concrete

S t r u c t u r e s , AC1 Journal P r o c e e d i n g s , V o l . 2 0 , N o . 1 0 .
October 1980. pp. 35-76. Updated version (1991). to be
published.

4. Attiogte. E.K. and Darwin, D., Submicrocracking in Cement

Paste and Mortar, AC1 M a t e r i a l s J o u r n a l , V . 8 4 . N o . 6 .
Nov.-Dec. 1987, pp 491-500.

5 . shah, S.P.. a n d McGarry. F . J . , Griffith Fracture Criteria

a n d C o n c r e t e , Journal of the Engineering Mechanics Division,
ASCE.. Vol. 47. No. EM6, Dec. 1971, pp. 1663-1676.

6 . Gergely . Peter, a n d L u t z , L e r o y A . , Maximum Crack Width in

Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members, Causes. Mechanism, and
Control of Cracking in Concrete, SP-20, American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, 1968, pp. 87-117.

7 . Nawy . Edward G.. and Blair. Kenneth W., Further Studies on

Flexural C r a c k C o n t r o l i n S t r u c t u r a l S l a b S y s t e m s , C r a c k i n g ,
DefLection. and ULtimate Load o f C o n c r e t e Slob S y s t e m s ,
SP-30. American Concrete Institute, Detroit, 1971, pp. 1-41.

8 . Nawy . Edward G. , Crack Control Through Reinforcement

Distribution in Two-Way Acting Slabs and Plates, AC1 Journal
Proceedings.Vol. 69, No. 4. April 1972, pp. 217-219.

9 . Nawy, Edward G.. Crack Control in Beams Reinforced with

B u n d l e d B a r s , A C I Journal Proceedings, October 1972, pp.
637-639.

1 0 . CEB-FIP. M o d e l C o d e f o r C o n c r e t e S t r u c t u r e s , P a r i s , 1978,
pp. l-347. Also CEB modifications, 1991.

11. Nawy , Edward G. , Flexural Cracking Behavior of Partially

Prestressed Pretentioned and Post-Tensioned Beams -
State-of-the-Art, Cracking in Prestressed Concrete
Structures, American Concrete Institute. Detroit, 1990, pp.
l-42.

12. Nawy , Edward G. , Prestressed Concrete - A Fundamental

Approach, Textbook, Pub. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,
NJ, 1989. 739 p.

13. Nawy . Edward G. , Flexural Cracking of Pre- and

P o s t - T e n s i o n e d F l a n g e d B e a m s , A d v a n c e d NATO-AS1 Series -
Partial Prestressing From Theory to Practice. Editor M.Z.
C o h n -, P u b l . Martinus N i j h o f f . D o r d r e c h t , N e t h e r l a n d s , 1 9 8 6 .
pp. 137-156.

14. Nawy, E.G., Flexural Cracking Behavior of Partially

Prestressed Pretension and Post-Tensioned Beams - State of
t h e A r t , American Concrete Institute, Detroit, SP-113. 1989.
pp. l-28.
 -223-

15. Harajli. M.H. and Naaman. A.E.. Cracking in Partially

Prestressed Beams Under Static and Fatigue Loading, American
Concrete Institute, Detroit, SP-117. 1989. pp. 29-56.

16. Hassoun, M . N . a n d S a h e b j a m , K., Cracking of Partially

Prestressed Beams, American Concrete Institute, Detroit,
SP-113. 1989, pp. 57-78.

17. Naaman. A . E . a n d S i r i a k s o r n . A . , S e r v i c e a b i l i t y B a s e d D e s i g n
of Partially Prestressed Beams, Part I - A n a l y s i s , pcI
Journal Vol. 24.
No. 2, March-April 1979, pp. 64-89.

18. Meier, S.W. a n d Cergely, P., F l e x u r a l C r a c k W i d t h i n

Prestressed Concrete Beams, Technical Note, ASCE Journal,
ST2, Feb. 1981, pp. 429-433.

19. Vessey, J.V. a n d P r e s t o n , R . L . , A Critical Review of Code

Requirements for Circular Prestressed Concrete Reservoirs,
Paris. F I P . 1 9 7 8 .

METRIC (SI) UNIT EQUIVALENTS

1 inch = 2 5 . 4 nnn
1 foot = 0.305 m
2
1 in. = 6 4 5 . 1 6 imn2
1 in. 3 = 16.387.06 mm3
1 in. 4
= 416.231 nnn4
1 psi = 6.895 Pa
1 ksi = 6.895 MPa
1 lb = 4.448 N
1 kip = 4448 N
1 lb/ft = 14.594 N/m
1 kip/ft = 14.594 kN/m
1 kip-in = 113 N-m

1 <psi = 0.083036 c MPa

NOTATION

A = gross area of concrete, in2

!z

2
A = area of tension reinforcement, in.
S
 -224-

= the effective concrete area in uniform tension, in2

*t
In the case of two-way slabs and plates,
it is = 12 (db + 2~1) f o r a 1 2 i n . s t r i p , d e f i n i n g
1

the concrete area stretched in tension. in?

a = stabilized mean crack spacing in.

cs

CEB = Comite Euro-International du Beton

C = clear concrete cover. in.

= diameter of reinforcing bar or wire, in.

db

d = effective depth to center of the first layer of re-

C
inforcement, in.

E = modulus of elasticity of concrete, psi, ksi

C

E = modulus of elasticity of steel, psi, ksi

S

f = cylinder compressive strength of concrete, psi

C

f = yield strength of the reinforcement by the 0.2%

Y
offset, ksi

f = service load level steel stress = 0 . 6 f in beams and

S Y
0 . 4 fy i n t w o - w a y a c t i o n s l a b s a n d p l a t e s , k s i

= tensile splitting strength of concrete (ASTM C

f;
496-62T). psi

F = prestressing force, lb., kip

= stress in the prestressing steel corresponding to the

fd
decompression load, ksi

f = stress in the prestressing steel at any load level

nt
beyond the decompression load, ksi

f = modulus of rupture of concretes, psi

r

= grid index in direction 1 (= dbls2/ptl) c l o s e s t t o

GI1
outer
 -225-

= grid index in direction 2 (db2 s1/pt2) in direction

G12

perpendicular to 1. in2

= distance from the neutral axis to the centroid of the

hl
reinforcement, in.

= distance from the neutral axis to the tension face,

h2
in.

h = total slab of plate thickness, in.

K = fracture coefficient dependent on load or reaction

type and on the support condition

k = kip, 1000 lb.

ksi = kips per so. i n c h

Af = net stress in the prestressing steel or the magnitude

S
of tensile stress in the mild steel after decompres-
sion, ksi

h,.h = modifying reduction multipliers for crack width in

0
higher strength prestressed beams

P steel percentage AsLbd in beams

active steel ratio

Pt1
a r e a o f s t e e l As p e r f o o t w i d t h

12&l+ 27)

Ri. P D i s t a n c e r a t i o h2/hl = r a t i o o f d i s t a n c e f r o m n e u t r a l

axis. to tensile face of concrete to distance from

neutral axis to the center of gravity of reinforcement

S spacing of reinforcement, in.

W maximum crack width in inches at concrete face, in.

1. **
1 direction of reinforcing elements closest to outer
concrete tensile fiber, for which crack control check
is to be made

a.P .7 coefficients of regression function in slabs

CO sum of perimeters of all effective bars and tendons

crossing the section on the tension side, in.
 -226-

T = total tensile force transferred by bond from steel,

lb., kip

I-1 = bond strength in concrete, psi

W = maximum crack width at steel level, in

= distance from the centroidal axis of gross section to

Yt
the extreme fiber in tension, in.

2 = q u a n t i t y l i m i t i n g d i s t r i b u t i o n o f flexural
reinforcement in beams and thick one-way slabs =

f sq. kip/inch

TABLE 1 FRACTURE COEFFICIENTS FOR SLABS AND PLATES

Fracture

Load i ng Slab Boundary Span ratio,c coefficient

b
typea shape condition S/L lO+ K

Square 4 edges r 1.0 2.1

Square 4 edges s 1.0 2.1
Ret tangular 4 edges r 0.5 1.6
Rectangular 4 edges r 0.7 2.2
Ret tangular 3 e d g e s r, 0.7 2.3
1 edge h
B Rectangular 2 e d g e s r, 0.7 2.7
2 edges r
B Square 4 edges r 1.0 2.8
B Square 3 e d g e s r. 1.0 2.9
1 edge h
B Square 2 e d g e s r, 1.0 4.2
2 edges h

aLoading type : A, concentrated; B. uniformly distributed.

b
Boundary condition: r, r e s t r a i n e d ; s, simply supported; h,
hinged.

cSpan r a t i o S / L : S, clear short span; L, clear long span

 -227-

TABLE 2. MAXIMUM TOLERABLE FLEXURAL CRACK WIDTHS

Crack width
Exposure condition in. mm.

Dry air or protective membrane 0.016 0.40

Humidity, moist air, soil 0.012 0.30
De-icing chemicals 0.007 0.18
Seawater and seawater spray; 0.006 0.15
wetting and drying
Water-retaining structures 0.004 0.10
(excluding nonpressure pipes)

-----m------

Increase in

UNIT STRAIN - PERCENT

Fig. 1. Schermtic Stress Strain Diagram of Concrete in Hlcrocracklng

 -228-

Fig. 2. Shrinkage atrain vs. Time

0 I 1 I I
0.3 Q.4 0.6 0.6 a? 0.6
Waarlcment rotio

Fig. 3. Shrinkage Coefficient vs. W/C Ratio

 -229-

Id)

Fig. 4. Schematic Stress Distribution Between Two Flexural Cracks

 -230-

Crack width, w,,,

Fig. 5. Schemtic Variation of Crack Width with Crack Spacing

 -231-

Clear COW bban=lin. - -

60
60 f
2
40

4
3
-INTERIOR
-.
EXPOSURE
-\

I. 0016
IO

6
8

2 ------EXTERIOR EXPOSURE
I I / I I
50 60 70 80
Steel Ytrld Stnu,W

Fig. 6. Steel Reinforcement Strength fy vs. Ratio of Concrete Area

in Tension to Reinforcement Area for Stress Level
fs = 0.6 fy (ksi)
 -232-

-
r + dT

M + dM
(

l C * USC* spacing
I, - devrlopmsnt lsngth
i, - rrinforcament stren
at crack 2 > f,,

Fig. 7. Force and Stress Distribution in a Stabilized

Crack in a Prestressed Beam
 -233-

FOR EVEN DISTRIBUTION OF R EI N F O R C E M E N T

IN CONCRETE
b
t

lb1 FOR NON-EVEN DISTRIBUTION OF REINFORCEMENT

IN CONCRETE

Fig. 8. Effective Concrete Area in Tension. (a) Even

Reinforcement Distribution (b) Noneven Reinforcement
Distribution
 -236

-4
0ii
n
9n
0 I
:
0 2
0 0
0
\
\
\
\
\
2 \
\
.E ,,
L
Y
\ O 80 Ooo
\ .\
00 Oo\
f\ \ \
Y o\O
\ O A
! 7 \O o \
\o \
\ \
O\i;\ 1
:
 -235-

\
\
\
\
\ *
\ 0
t
. \ I

- -
E
X
(N 1) Nialfi n3vu9 wnwlxvw
 -236-

STEEL STRESS I UP* I

; 12-
l - 30
2
5 E

* I-
5 -20 -

z p = 0 . 6 0 %
*

: I- P= 1.24% - IO

01 I I I I I I I
5 25 45 65 AfS
S T E E L S T R E S S IKSII

Fig. 11. Effect of Steel Percentage on Mean Crack Spacing

in Prestressed Beams

I KM/mm I
IO 30
i I r 1
0 IA0 L l AKU L E A S T SOUARE LINE
. n*YAswAYv. AL.
(~~*s.Iox)llP
0 SENNETT & CWAWDIASEKAR OJL,), =
0 NAWv & NUANO 0.1

I = $Af, IKIP/IKl

Fig. 12. Reinforcement Stress vs. Crack Width

(Best Fit hta of Several Investigators)
 -237-

LONGITUDINAL STEEL

CONTROLLING NON-ORTHOGONAL
CRACKING AWAY FROM BARS A, 8,
WHEN GRID SPACING S,
/? 2 EXCEEDS 7 TO 12 INCHES

Fig. 13. Grid Unit in Two-slay-Action Reinforcement

 -238-

1300 2 6 0 0 3 9 0 0 5 2 0 0 cm2
I I I I I
mm

.02e I - 0.7

A=

.a
.024 0.6

.020 -
0.5
I
I-
O

r .Ol6 0.4
::
2
0 .o I 2 3.3

.008I - 3.2

/ f , ~24 KSI (=0.40fy)

.004 3.1
-P , I I I
0 200 400 600 &IO in2
GRID INDEX GI = d,, s2 p,,
/

Fig. 14. Crack Control Reinforcement Distribution in Two-Way-Action

slabs and plates for all exposure conditions:
fY = 60 ksi*
fs = 2 4 k s i (= 0.40fy)