Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Crack - Width of Flexural RC members-ICJ-Nov05
Crack - Width of Flexural RC members-ICJ-Nov05
flexural RC members
N. Subramanian
Reinforced concrete (RC) structures built using high strength 2000) does not require the designer to perform any explicit
deformed bars and designed using limit state design method check on deflection or crack width for all normal cases,
were found to have larger crack widths. To control these crack provided the codal recommendations for limiting l/d ratios
widths and to enhance durability, different codes prescribe (for deflection control) and spacing of flexural reinforcement
(for crack control) are complied with1.
limiting crack widths based on the environment in which the
structure exists. The latest revision of the Indian code stresses It has been recognised that many of the modern concrete
the importance of durability and has introduced formulae to structures are safe with respect to ultimate limit states.
calculate the crack widths. Unfortunately, the formulae given However, many times structural failures are often reported
in the Indian code are complex and are seldom used in practice. in terms of serviceability. In particular, it is the serviceability
A similar approach was used in the American code till 1999. limit state of durability that is often ignored all over the world.
However, recent research has found that there is no correlation Inadequate durability is due to several factors such as
improper production, placing, vibration and curing of
between corrosion and crack widths. Also, there was a large
concrete, chemical attack from the environment and resulting
scatter in the measured crack widths even in controlled corrosion, inadequate sizes of structural members which
laboratory experiments. Hence, a simple formula, involving result in excessive deflections and crack widths (and
the clear cover and calculated stress in reinforcement at service subsequent loss of durability). Hence it was given importance
load has been included in the latest revision of the ACI code. A in the recent revision of the Indian code. An Appendix F was
similar formula which also takes into account the effect of also added to calculate the crack width of flexural members.
epoxy coating on reinforcement is suggested for the Indian However, the equations gives in Appendix F of the code result
code. Discussions on controlling the flexural cracking in the in complex calculations. Moreover the calculated crack widths
flanges of T-beams and side face reinforcement of large according to the formulae do not correlate with the crack
width in members tested even under controlled laboratory
reinforced concrete beams are also included in the paper. The
experiments2, 3. Hence the American code has dispensed with
author highlights the need of introducing a simple formula the crack width calculations and has given a much simpler
for controlling crack widths in Indian codes on similar lines of equation to calculate the spacing of reinforcement which
the ACI code. will result in controlled cracking. Hence in this paper the
drawbacks of the Indian code provisions are discussed and
Keywords: Crack width, flexural member, ACI code, durability, the need for introducing a formula similar to the ACI code is
reinforcement spacing, side face reinforcement stressed. Other methods to control flexural cracking in the
flanges of T-beams and deep flexural members are discussed.
According to the design philosophy of the limit states method,
two distinct classes of limit states should be satisfied, namely, Cracking in RC flexural members
ultimate limit states and serviceability limit states. While the Cracking in reinforced concrete members may be due to the
former deals with safety in terms of strength, overturning, 4
following causes .
sliding, fatigue fracture, buckling, etc, the latter is concerned
with serviceability in terms of deflection, cracking, durability, • Flexural tensile stress due to bending under applied
vibration, etc. The Indian code (clauses 42 and 43 of IS 456 : loads
Table 1: Tolerable crack widths according to ACI 224R-80, CEB- (i) average tensile strain at surface, which in turn,
FIP model code and IS code increases with increase in the mean tensile strain, εsm,
Sl.No. Exposure condition Tolerable crack widths, mm in the neighbouring reinforcement;
ACI 224 R-80 CEB – FIP IS 456 : 2000
(ii) distance between the point on the surface and the
1 Low humidity, dry air or 0.40 0.4 – 0.6 0.30
nearest longitudinal bar which runs perpendicular
protective environment
to the crack;
2 High humidity, moist, 0.30 0.2– 0.3 0.20
air, soil (iii) distance between the point on the surface and the
3 Deicing chemicals 0.2 0.10 – 0.15 0.10 neutral axis.
4 Sea water and sea water 0.15 0.10 – 0.15 0.10
Due to the several inter-related variables, the estimate of
spray
the probable maximum width of surface cracks in a flexural
5 Water-retaining structures 0.10 – –
member is a fairly complex problem. A number of widely
* Lower crack width limit is for cases with minimum cover; upper limit = 1.5 × minimum
cover. different equations have been proposed (with semi-empirical
−6 Ae
wcr = [(11 × 10 )3 dc ( )β] f
st ... (3)
n
where,
Note that the spacing limitation is independent of the fst = calculated stress in reinforcement at service level
exposure condition and bar size used. Thus, for a required which may be taken as 0.60 fy .
amount of flexural reinforcement, this approach would
encourage use of smaller bar sizes to satisfy the spacing criteria
Table 3: Spacing and bar size for skin reinforcement
of equation (5).
Depth, d, mm Maximum spacing, Minimum bar area, Ab , at maximum
Table 2: Comparison of spacing of reinforcement, mm Ssk, mm spacing, mm2
900 150 22.5
Stress, As per Clear cover, mm
MPa equation no 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 75 1050 175 52.5
fst = 250 5 300 300 300 292 280 267 255 192 1200 200 90.0
6 300 300 300 287 275 262 250 187 1500 250 187.50
f st = 275 5 273 275 270 258 245 233 220 158 1800 300 315.0
6 273 273 265 253 241 228 216 153 2100 300 405.0
6. BEEBY, A.W. The prediction of crack width in hardened concrete, The Structural
Engineer (London), January 1979, Vol. 57A, No.1, pp. 9-17.