10 1002@suco 201200060

Technical Paper
György L. Balázs et al. DOI: 10.1002/suco.201200060
Design for SLS according to fib Model Code 2010

This paper provides an overview of serviceability specifications ten ensure adequate behaviour; they can be called indirect
given by the fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010 (fib crack control or indirect deflection control. In these cases
MC2010 [1]). First, the reasons behind crack control and deflec- calculations are not carried out, merely comparisons of
tion control are discussed, then specific design rules are provid- actual and limit values. This is typically helpful during
ed. Simple rules as well as detailed models are also presented. conceptual or preliminary design [2].
Numerical examples are provided in order to assist in the appli- However, detailed serviceability analyses may be also
cation of the design recommendations for crack control and de- required in order to be able to follow the actual behaviour.
flection control (reinforced and prestressed concrete elements). Whenever a detailed serviceability analysis is carried out,
Simple rules mean indirect control of cracking or deflections its complexity can be realized [3], especially if long-term
without calculations. Indirect crack control may include limitation effects have to be considered too. Long-term influences
of stresses and selection of maximum bar diameter or maximum
may increase deformations and crack widths considerably.
bar spacing. Indirect deflection control normally means limiting
Serviceability must be guaranteed for the long term, and
the span-to-depth ratio.
delayed deformations must be properly accounted for. (fib
Detailed models are based on physical and mathematical ap-
Task Group 4.1 “Serviceability Models” provided a de-
proaches to cracking and deflections. The design crack width is
tailed overview of long-term and cyclic influences on
expressed as the maximum bond transfer length multiplied by the
mean strain between cracks. Deflection analysis can be provided cracking and deflections in CEB Bulletin 235 [4]).
by integrating curvatures or by using a simplified or refined The “Serviceability Models” Task Group of fib (Inter-
method. Vibrations and numerical modelling of cracking are also national Federation for Structural Concrete), TG 4.1, has
briefly discussed. provided an excellent basis for technical discussions be-
tween experts from 10 different countries during the last
Keywords: MC2010, SLS, serviceability, cracking, crack control, crack width
decade, the aim being to develop the serviceability specifi-
limits, appearance, tightness, durability, bond, concrete cover, tension
stiffening, deflection, span-depth ratio, long-term deformations, fib Model cations for fib Model Code 2010. Therefore, all the fib
Code 2010 Task Group members have contributed to this paper. An
overview of fib Model Code 2010 is given in [5]. Further re-
search needs are indicated in [6].
1 Introduction to serviceability design Verification of serviceability in fib Model Code 2010
provides improvements over MC1990 (see section 7.6 in
Serviceability design and analysis is a very important part MC2010 and section 7 in MC1990):
of the design process for concrete structures, especially be- (i) The intention of the cracking model in fib Model
cause the intention is to reflect the behaviour of a struc- Code 2010 was to provide a simple but consistent ap-
ture in use. It is generally known that crack widths and de- proach that incorporates recent results too. It again
formations should be kept within reasonable limits. Both includes a cover term in the crack spacing formula in
excessive cracking and excessive deformations may lead order to emphasize possible deformations in the con-
to drawbacks in service. During the preparation of these crete cover. The cracking model retained the philoso-
specifications it was kept in mind that the serviceability phy that the maximum crack width (called “design
specifications should be as simple as possible and also crack width” here) is the multiple of 2ls,max (slip
transparent. Therefore, both simple rules as well as de- lengths) and the average strain differences between
tailed models were developed (Table 1). two cracks. Details for the calibration of the model
Everyday design work requires simple rules that can are demonstrated in the background document.
be easily applied. Simple rules for serviceability design of- (ii) Considering deformations and deflections, the me-
chanical basis is of course the same as before, but
more deatails are given, especially for the long-term
Corresponding author: balazs@vbt.bme.hu analysis of and background to span-depth ratios.
Submitted for review: 12 December 2012
(iii) Finally, a new section has been added for verification
Revised: 15 March 2013 of serviceability by numerical simulation, which is a
Accepted for publication: 16 March 2013 useful extension for computer simulations.
© 2013 Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin · Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2 99
György L. Balázs et al. · Design for SLS according to fib Model Code 2010
Table 1. Serviceability design with or without calculations
SLS Type of control Method Section in Section in

fib MC2010 this paper
Indirect crack control Limitation of stresses 7.6.3 3.1

Cracking
Selection of max. rebar ∅ 7.6.4.6 3.1

Selection of max. rebar spacing 7.6.4.6 3.1
Detailed crack control Calculation of design crack width (wd) 7.6.4.3 3.2
Indirect deflection control Limitation of L/d 7.6.5.2.4 6.1

Deflection
Detailed deflection control Simplified method 7.6.5.2.2 6.2, 6.3

Integration of curvatures
General method 7.6.5.2.1 6.4
2 Introduction to cracking preciable dissatisfaction.” Leonhardt [10] suggested:

2.1 The cracking phenomenon “To avoid undue concern by casual observers, crack
widths should be limited to 0.2 mm at the surface …
Cracks appear in concrete whenever the tensile strain seen from a short distance.” Cracks may be empha-
capacity of the concrete has been reached. The reasons sized by leaching or micro-organisms on the surface;
for cracking can be: therefore, the limits for appearance purposes can be
even stricter than for other reasons.
Technological reasons (in early-age concrete): (2) Both liquid-tightness and gas-tightness are governing
– plastic shrinkage parameters in the design of containers and reservoirs.
– plastic settlement Therefore, to avoid leakage, limit values are impor-
– non-uniform temperature changes due to heat of hydra- tant. This may apply to bridge decks [11] and slabs in
tion multi-storey car parks too.
(3) Steel reinforcement needs protection against corro-
Loads, imposed deformations and imposed settlements (in sion. Alkalinity of concrete itself is sufficient if the pH
hardened concrete) value remains above 9 (also locally). Porosity and
cracks in the concrete cover may lead to ingress of
Volumetric changes in (hardened) concrete due to: various agents (such as oxygen, water and chlorides)
– temperature differences which may in turn lead to the onset and propagation
– drying shrinkage of corrosion of steel reinforcement [12, 13]. There is
– corrosion of reinforcement no consensus in the literature as to whether crack
– freeze-thaw cycles width or porosity is more important for durability.
– alkali-carbonate reaction (ACR) The answer may differ for various compositions and
– alkali-silicate reaction (ASR) strengths of concrete with different pore structures.
– delayed ettringite formation Based on an extensive study, Schiessl concluded [14,
– creep effects. 15] that crack width has a minor influence on durabil-
ity up to a value of 0.4–0.5 mm (cracks transverse to
Current regulations specifically deal with cracks that are in- the reinforcement) provided no chloride ions are pre-
duced by loads or imposed deformations. Cracks due to sent. Cover thickness and porosity of concrete cover
technological reasons should be avoided as far as possible are important.
through adequate placing and curing of the fresh concrete. Recent research by Otsuki et al. [16] was directed at
Volumetric changes in concrete require chemical and phys- the measurement of corrosion rates in the vicinity or
ical analyses of long-term internal processes. Detailed remote from cracks. They concluded that: “(a) the in-
analyses of durability aspects are presented in fib Textbook fluence of bending cracks and w/c on the corrosion
Vol. 3 [7]. Rules for service life design are summarized in [8]. rates of reinforcing bars was very large; (b) in the
vicinity of a bending crack a macro cell was formed
2.2 Need for crack control, crack width limits and the corrosion rate increased remarkably; (c) since
alkali content increases with the decrease in w/c, the
Appearance (1), tightness (2) and durability (3) are normal- corrosion rate slows down with a low w/c ratio.”
ly considered as reasons for crack control.
(1) For appearance purposes it is generally considered For durability considerations, the crack width in the vicin-
that cracks that may give cause for concern should be ity of reinforcement is more influential than the crack
avoided. Engineers (or non-engineers) might interpret width on the surface of the element.
cracks differently; however, 0.4 mm seems to be the Durability of non-metallic reinforcement [17] can be
limit for all of them. Beeby [9] reported that: “A crack approached from a completely different point of view.
width of more than 0.25 mm is likely to give rise to ap- Cover requirements for durability can be reduced, al-
100 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2

Table 2. Crack width limits (wlim) (in mm) for reinforced concrete members dicular (or skew) to the reinforcement. Splitting cracks
and for prestressed concrete members with bonded prestressing steel (fib parallel with the reinforcement are not discussed here.
MC2010, Table 7.6-1); exposure classes are given according to fib MC2010, Cracks are called micro-cracks as long as they do not
Table 4.7-2 and ISO 22965-1.
appear on the surface. Goto and Otsuka [19] first revealed
the existence of internal micro-cracks by injecting ink
RC PL1 PL2 PL3 along the embedded reinforcing bars subjected to tensile
X0 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3
loading. Recent experiments [20] have again confirmed
their existence (Fig. 1).
XC 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3
XD 0.2 σ < 0* 0.2 0.2
Bond and cracking, tension stiffening
XS 0.2 σ < 0* 0.2 0.2
Whenever cracks are formed, the tensile force in the sur-
XF 0.2 σ < 0* 0.2 0.2
rounding concrete is released. Bond stresses enable some
* Stress in concrete at level of prestressed reinforcement of the tensile forces to be transferred from the reinforcing
RC: For non-prestressed reinforcement.
PL1: For all prestressing reinforcement used in environments that
bars to the concrete [21, 22]. The result is that a part of the
have relatively low aggressiveness and are well protected by tensile force is balanced by tensile forces in the concrete
the structure. between the cracks. The force transfer from reinforcement
PL2: For all other prestressing reinforcement in all other combina-
tions of environments and/or exposures and protection not
to concrete results in decreased reinforcement deforma-
included in protection levels PL1 and PL3 provided by the tions. The concrete’s contribution to reducing the rein-
structure. forcement deformations is often referred to as tension stif-
PL3: For all prestressing reinforcement used in aggressive environ-
fening. Tension stiffening diminishes over the long term
ments and/or severe exposure and with low protection provid-
ed by the structure. and under repeated loads (see parameter β in the cracking
model discussed below).
though they must be considered for other reasons, e.g. fire Effective tension area of concrete
resistance, transfer of stresses, etc. Cracking analysis of The effective tension area of concrete (Ac,ef, see Fig. 2) has
reinforced concrete elements externally bonded with FRP been developed as a computational parameter to enable
is discussed in [18]. the transfer of the mechanics of reinforced concrete ten-
Crack width limits in fib Model Code 2010 are given in sion ties with uniformly distributed reinforcement in the
Table 2 as a function of the exposure classes (as in EN 206- cross-section to more general cases, such as members in
1) and as a function of the protection level for prestressing flexure and thick members. In those cases a non-uniform
reinforcement (see fib MC2010, Fig. 5.4-1). With regard to stress distribution in the cross-section at the end of the
crack width limitation for fluid-tightness, different require- transmission length has to be considered since the condi-
ments may apply. The requirements generally depend on tions for the application of the Bernoulli-Navier hypothe-
the consequences of leakage and the pressure of the fluid. sis are not fulfilled.
Considering the shape of the effective tension area of
2.3 Cracking and its parameters the concrete, analytical studies by Eckfeldt and colleagues
[23–25] indicated that an oval or ellipsoidal effective con-
Cracks crete area could fit the results better (Fig. 3). For reasons
Whenever the word crack is mentioned (without any ad- of simplicity, the quadratic area continues to be used as
jective), it normally refers to a visible crack that is perpen- shown in Fig. 2.
Fig. 1. Internal cracks
Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2 101

Fig. 2. Effective tension area of concrete: (a) beam, (b) slab, (c) member
in tension (fib MC2010, Fig. 7.6-4). In an element subjected to tension, the
effective tension area must be taken on both sides.
Fig. 3. Non-quadratic proposals for effective area of concrete in tension

Crack width at rebar level vs. crack width on concrete [21]
surface
Crack widths can normally be observed and measured on
the surfaces of concrete elements. Several models, howev- Considering the influence of cover thickness, fib
er, provide the crack width value at the level of the rein- Task Group 4.1 “Serviceability Models” related its decision
forcement. The difference between the two values repre- mainly to research by Perez et al. [34]. In this research, two
sents the cover concrete deformation. The difference can considerably different concrete covers (20 and 70 mm)
be considerable [26–29]. Internal micro-cracks contribute were selected with amounts of reinforcement that gave
to cover deformations too. Factor ∅/ρs,ef indirectly in- similar ∅/ρs,ef values. Reinforcement details are given in
cludes this effect, but not necessarily sufficiently. Fig. 4. Measured maximum crack widths versus steel
stresses are presented in Fig. 5. A very clear influence is
Consideration of cover thickness observed on specimens with an almost identical effective
The influence of cover thickness in cracking was strongly concrete area. The measurements indicate two groups of
emphasized in a recent paper by Beeby [30, 31], which ba- results separately for 20 mm cover and 70 mm cover. All
sically returned to a similar approach that had been pre- these analyses resulted the ‘k c’ term as an additive term in
sented by Broms [32] as well as Broms and Lutz [33]. Bee- the formulation of ls,max (see below).
by’s arguments assumed a considerable influence for the
cover thickness and less influence for the bond-related fac- Crack formation stage and stabilized cracking stage
tor (∅/ρs,ef). Beeby [30, 31] stimulated intense discussion The initial cracking is referred to as the crack formation
and also new research. stage whenever the steel stress is low and the cracks are
Fig. 4. Beam tests on how cover influences cracking – cross-sections of beams tested [34]

Fig. 5. Beam tests on how cover influences cracking – maximum crack widths on sides of beams (reinforcing bar dia. = 25 mm) [34]
widely spaced. The number of cracks will increase as steel – compressive stresses in concrete in order to avoid or lim-
stresses increase. Based on practical considerations, most it irreversible strains (longitudinal cracks that may lead
of the cracking models (also those presented here) assume to a reduction in durability, creep),
a finite number of cracks and call this the stabilized cra- – tensile stresses in steel in order to warrant an appropri-
cking stage. It should be mentioned, however, that the ap- ate safety margin below the yield strength and thus pre-
pearance of new cracks is not excluded, especially under vent uncontrolled, large, permanently open cracks due
cyclic or long-term loads [35–37]. to inelastic deformations of steel bars.
2.4 Approaches to cracking analysis In general, stresses are calculated using section properties
corresponding to either the uncracked or the fully cracked
There have been many attempts to develop models of for- condition depending on the loading conditions. Both con-
mulas for cracking analysis [38–55]. An overview is given crete and steel are assumed to be elastic, both in tension
in [56]. and compression.
When cracking has to be avoided, a limit state of
3 Crack control according to fib MC2010 decompression can be assumed for analyses and corre-
3.1 Crack control without calculations (indirect crack sponds to having a zero stress at the extreme fibres of the
control) concrete section.
3.1.1 Limitation of stresses Concerning the limitations to be applied to the com-
pressive stresses in the concrete, it has to be considered
Limiting tensile stresses in concrete is an adequate mea- that whenever the limit 0.6fck(t) is exceeded, the following
sure for reducing the probability of cracking (fib MC2010, happens:
section 7.6.3, see also [57]). The aim of limiting compres- – under the characteristic combination of actions: longitu-
sive stresses in the concrete is to avoid excessive compres- dinal cracking can occur;
sion, which produces irreversible strains and longitudinal – under the quasi-permanent combination of actions:
cracks (parallel with the compressive strains). In calculat- creep effects and the corresponding prestress losses can-
ing the stress, account should be taken of whether the sec- not be predicted with adequate accuracy.
tion is expected to crack under service loads. Moreover,
the effects of creep, shrinkage, relaxation of prestressing Moreover, if the compressive stress under the quasi-perma-
steel and differential temperatures should be considered. nent actions exceeds the limit 0.4fck(t), creep phenomena
Under service load conditions, limitation of stresses can significantly influence the behaviour of the member,
is usually considered to limit: i.e. creep effects in a cracked cross-section cannot be tak-
– tensile stresses in concrete in order to reduce cracking, en into account by simply assuming a modular ratio of 15.

Finally, concerning limiting the tensile stress in the tween four stages: uncracked stage, crack formation stage,
steel reinforcement, under the characteristic combination stabilized cracking stage and steel yielding stage.
of actions, the limit 0.8fyk should not be exceeded. If the
stress is entirely due to imposed deformations, a stress of 3.2.1 Crack formation and stabilized cracking stages
1.0fyk is acceptable.
The transmission of forces adjacent to a crack is shown in
3.1.2 Maximum bar diameter and spacing a simplified way in Fig. 6.
Fig. 7 shows the basic behaviour of a reinforced
Crack control can be achieved without calculation by re- prism subjected to increasing axial deformation. In the
specting values for maximum reinforcing bar diameters or cracks the steel has to carry the full tensile load. To both
maximum spacing of reinforcing bars (fib MC2010, Tables sides of the crack the load is partially transmitted to the
7.6-4 and 7.6-5) for elements subjected to bending without concrete. At a distance ls,max on both sides of the crack,
significant axial tension. The tabulated values are given as the undisturbed situation is reached again. Under increas-
a function of steel stress. By using these values the crack ing deformation more cracks are gradually formed and the
widths do not generally exceed 0.3 mm for reinforced and axial load increases since the concrete stress ranges from
0.2 mm for prestressed slabs provided the overall depth the first crack for fctk,0.05 to an upper value of fctk,0.95. Spec-
does not exceed 200 mm and minimum reinforcement is ification of concrete characteristics is summarized in sec-
provided. The stresses are calculated under the quasi-per- tion 5 of fib MC2010 as well as in [58].
manent loads (reinforced concrete). A simplified representation of the load–deformation
behaviour of a centrally reinforced member subjected to
3.2 Crack control with calculations tension or imposed deformation is shown in Fig. 8. Ac-
cording to the simplification, in the crack formation stage
The crack width calculations to fib Model Code 2010 are (2) the axial tensile force does not increase. When enough
based on the basic case of a prismatic reinforced concrete cracks have formed to ensure that no undisturbed areas
bar subjected to axial tension. With regard to the behav- are left, the tensile strength of the concrete cannot be
iour under increasing tensile strain, we distinguish be- reached any more between the cracks, so no new cracks
Fig. 6. Steel, concrete and bond stresses during crack formation stage, simplified representation (fib MC2010, Fig. 7.6-3): a) centrically reinforced tensile
member with crack, b) discontinuity area, c) steel stress development in discontinuity area, d) concrete stress development in discontinuity area,
e) development of bond stress in discontinuity area

Fig. 7. Behaviour of a reinforced prismatic bar subjected to imposed deformation (fib MC2010, Fig. 7.6-1)
mation, the stabilized cracking stage is usually not

reached.
Specification of concrete properties is summarized
in [58].
3.2.2 Design value of crack width
Crack width has to satisfy the following condition in order

to meet the demands with regard to functionality, durabil-
ity and appearance:
wd ≤ wlim (1)
where:
wd design crack width calculated under the appropriate
combination of actions, considered at the concrete
surface
wlim nominal limit value of crack width considered at the
Fig. 8. Simplified load–strain relationship for a centrically reinforced mem-
concrete surface, specified for cases of expected
ber subjected to tension (fib MC2010, Fig. 7.6-2) functional, appearance-related or in some particular
cases durability-related consequences of cracking
can appear. This is the start of the stabilized cracking Both for the crack formation stage and for the stabilized
stage (3). In this stage no new cracks are formed, but ex- cracking stage, the design crack width, wd may be calcu-
isting cracks widen. Finally, the steel will start yielding in lated using
stage (5). The approach with the horizontal line (2) is re-
garded as accurate enough, considering the influence of a wd = 2ls,max(εsm – εcm – εcs) (2)
number of uncertainties, such as the accuracy of the place-
ment of the reinforcement, the real effective tensile where:
strength and the influence of construction quality. ls,max length over which slip between concrete and steel oc-
For the model, as a simplification, line (2) has been curs (The steel and concrete strains occurring within
assumed to be horizontal, which corresponds to a con- this length contribute to the width of the crack.)
stant tensile cracking force: εsm average steel strain over length ls,max
εcm average concrete strain over length ls,max
Nr = Ac,ef · fctm(1 + αe ρs,ef). εcs strain in concrete due to (free) shrinkage.
In reality, this line will not be horizontal but inclined, as For length ls,max, the following expression applies:
already shown in Fig. 7.
According to this simplified approach (Fig. 8), the 1 fctm φ
ls,max = k ⋅ c + ⋅ ⋅ s (3)
stabilized cracking stage applies when the load is larger 4 τ bms ρs, ef
than the cracking load (N > Nr). For imposed deforma-
tions, the crack formation stage applies when the mean where:
strain satisfies the following condition: k an empirical parameter to account for the influence
of the concrete cover (according to present knowl-
∆ᐉ. σ sr(1 − β ) edge, k = 1.0 can be assumed)
ε= ≤
ᐉ Es c concrete cover (c ≤ 75 mm)
τbm mean bond strength between steel and concrete
where σsr, β and ρs,ef are defined by Eq. (5). (Table 3), considered to be evenly distributed be-
If the mean strain is larger than this value, the tween two cracks
stabilized cracking stage applies. Under imposed defor- φs nominal diameter of reinforcing bars

Table 3. Values for τbms and coefficients β and ηr (fib MC2010, Table 7.6-2)
Crack formation Stabilized cracking

stage stage
Short-term, τbms = 1.8 · fctm(t) τbms = 1.8 · fctm(t)

instantaneous β = 0.6 β = 0.6
loading ηr = 0 ηr = 0
Long-term, τbms = 1.35 · fctm(t) τbms = 1.8 · fctm(t)

repeated β = 0.6 β = 0.4
loading ηr = 0 ηr = 1
The relative mean strain in Eq. (2) follows from

Fig. 9. Stabilized cracking stage: development of steel and concrete stress-
σ − β ⋅ σ sr es beyond decompression for a combination of reinforcing steel and pre-
ε sm − ε cm − ε cs = s − ηr ⋅ ε sh (4) stressing steel (fib MC2010, Fig. 7.6-8)
Es
where:
σs steel stress in a crack
σsr maximum steel stress in a crack at the crack forma- 4 Examples of crack control
tion stage, which for pure tension is 4.1 Crack control for a simply supported reinforced
concrete beam under short-term loading
fctm
σ sr = (1 + α e ρs, ef ) (5)
ρs, ef Cracking analysis is carried out for a simply supported
reinforced concrete beam with a rectangular section
with (Fig. 10) and the following properties:
As width b = 300 mm
ρs, ef =
Ac, ef total depth h = 600 mm
superior and inferior cover c = 30 mm
where: effective depth d = 570 mm
Ac,ef effective area of concrete in tension steel bars in tension 4 ∅14 (As = 615 mm2)
steel bars in compression 2 ∅14 (As′ = 308 mm2)
Es
αe modular ratio = span L=6m
Ec
β an empirical coefficient to assess the mean strain The beam is situated in a non-aggressive atmosphere.
over ls,max depending on type of loading (Table 3) Analysis of cracking in the stabilized cracking stage under
ηr a coefficient for considering the shrinkage contribu- short-term loading conditions is presented here. The me-
tion (Table 3) chanical properties of the concrete (C20) are:
εsh free shrinkage strain
fck = 20 N/mm2
3.2.3 Calculation of crack width in pretensioned fcm = fck + 8 = 28 N/mm2
2/3
concrete members fctm = 0.3 · fck = 0.3 · 202/3 = 2.2 N/mm2
Ec = 21500 · (fcm/10)1/3 = 21500 · (28/10)1/3 = 30304 N/mm2
In general, the calculation of crack widths for prestressed
pretensioned concrete structural members follows the The steel reinforcement is grade B450C, has a characteris-
procedure and the formulae given for reinforced concrete tic yield stress fyk = 450 N/mm2 and a Young’s modulus
members. For combined reinforcement consisting of rein- Es = 200000 N/mm2.
forcing steel and prestressing steel, the prestressing steel is For short-term loading, the coefficient αe can be cal-
replaced by an equivalent cross-sectional area of reinforc- culated as
ing steel, which takes the lower bond quality of the pre-
stressing steel into account. The maximum transmission Es 200000
αe = = = 6.6
length is given by Eq. (3), replacing ρs,ef by ρs+p,ef. The rel- Ec 29936
ative mean strain in the cracked section beyond decom-
pression is given by Eq. (4), replacing ρs,ef by ρs+p,ef (Fig. 9). The characteristic load values are:
The different bond properties of reinforcing steel and pre-
stressing steel should be taken into account (see fib Gk = 16 kN/m for dead loads
MC2010, Table 7.6-3). Qk = 4 kN/m for imposed loads

c The effective steel ratio ρs,ef is

A’s
As As
ρs, ef = = =
(
Ac, ef b ⋅ min 2.5 ⋅ c;[h − x]/3 )
615
= = 0.0273
d h 300 ⋅ min(75;164)
For short-term loads in the stabilized cracking stage, the

following assumptions are considered:
As k=1
τbms = 1.8 fctm = 1.8 · 2.2 = 3.96
c β = 0.6 fctm
b ηr = 0
Fig. 10. Beam cross-section The transfer length is
1 fctm φ
The characteristic load combination gives the following ls,max = k ⋅ c + ⋅ ⋅ = 1 ⋅ 30 + 0.25
load: 4 τ bms ρs, ef
2.2 14
⋅ ⋅ = 101 mm
Fk = Gk + Qk = 16 + 4 = 20 kN/m 3.96 0.0273
The maximum bending moment at the mid-span section of The term related to the mean strain is
the beam is
σ s − β ⋅ σ sr σ s  σ sr  σ s  Mcr 
ε sm − ε cm = = ⋅ 1 − β ⋅ = ⋅ 1 − β ⋅
Fk ⋅ l2 Es Es  σ s  Es  Mmax 
Mmax = = 90 kNm
8
where the following can be assumed for reinforced con-
The cracking moment can be evaluated as crete elements:
Mcr = fctm ⋅
b ⋅ h2
6
= 2.2 ⋅
300 ⋅ 6002
6
= 39.6 kNm σ s,cr = α e ⋅
Mcr
Icr
(
⋅ d−x ) σ s = αe ⋅
Mmax
Icr
⋅ d−x ( )
hence
Mcr 39.6
and thus = = 0.44
Mmax 90
ε sm − ε cm =
274
200000
(
⋅ 1 − 0.6 ⋅ 0.44 = 0.001 )
The tensile stress in the steel reinforcement at a mid-span
cracked section is Design value of crack width by neglecting the shrinkage
term (i.e. for short-term loading with ηr = 0):
M 90 ⋅ 106
σ s = αe ⋅ ⋅ (d − x) = 6.6 ⋅
In 1016 ⋅ 106 wd = 2 · ls,max(εsm – εcm) = 2 · 101 · 0.001 = 0.202 mm
⋅ (570 − 107) = 274 MPa
This value is lower than the limit value (wlim = 0.3 mm)
where the neutral axis x and the inertia of the homoge- for reinforced concrete elements in non-aggressive at-
nized cracked section Icr have been calculated as follows mospheres (conditions X0 and XC, see Table 2) and
from the first moment of the homogenized cracked sec- is just equal to the limit value (wlim = 0.2 mm) corre-
tion related to the neutral axis: sponding to the other conditions (XD, XS, XF, see
Table 2).
b ⋅ x2
S =0→ + α e ⋅ A′ s ⋅ (x − c) − α e ⋅ As ⋅ (d − x) = 0
2 4.2 Crack control in a reinforced concrete water treatment
secondary clarifier forming part of the Montes del Plata
300 ⋅ x2 Cellulose Plant
+ 6.6 ⋅ 308 ⋅ (x − 30) − 6.6 ⋅ 615 ⋅ (570 − x) = 0
2
→ x = 107 mm The Cellulose Plant of the Consortium Montes del Plata is
located on Punta Pereira, near the Port of Conchillas in
b ⋅ x3 the Department of Colonia in Uruguay, about 200 km
Icr = + α e ⋅ A′ s ⋅ (x − c)2 + α e ⋅ As ⋅ (d − x)2
3 west of Montevideo (Fig. 11).
Among the many structures of this complex there are
300 ⋅ 1073 three secondary clarifiers, which help to clean the water
Icr = + 6.6 ⋅ 308 ⋅ (107 − 30)2 + 6.6 ⋅ 615
3 used in the manufacturing process. These clarifiers are cir-
⋅ (570 − 107)2 = 1005 · 106 mm 4 cular on plan and are supported on the ground by a con-

2
α e As α e As 2α e Asd 5.51 × 2010
x=− + + =−
b b b 1000
2
 5.51 × 2010  2 × 5.51 × 2010 × 142
+  + = 46.1 mm
 1000  1000
1 3
( )
2 1
Icr = bx + α e As d − x = 1000 × 46.13 + 5.51
3 3
× 2010 (142 − 46.1) = 1.345 × 108 mm4
2
The effective area and effective reinforcement ratio will be
h h − x
Ac, ef = b × min  ;
( ) 
; 2.5 h − d  ( )
 2 3 

= 1000 × min 100;
200 − 46.1 ( )
; 2.5 × 200 − 142  ( )
 3 
= 1000 × 51.3 = 51300 mm 2
Fig. 11. Aerial view of site (http://www.google.com/permissions/

geoguidelines.html) As 2010
ρs,ef = = = 0.039
Ac, ef 51300
crete slab with an external diameter of 69.80 m. They hold
water that is contained by a wall with a total height of The maximum transfer length will result from
5.43 m and a mean diameter of 68.5 m (Fig. 12).
Cracking of the outer wall will be considered in this 1 fctm φeq 1
ls,max = kc + = 1.0 × 50 +
example. The outer wall is 200 mm thick and the clear 4 τ bms ρs + p, ef 4
cover to the horizontal reinforcement is 50 mm. The char- 1 16
× × = 107 mm
acteristic 28-day concrete strength is 40 N/mm2. 1.8 0.039
As shown in Fig. 13, the vertical wall reinforcement
is ∅ 16/100 in the outer wall and ∅ 16/200 in the inner Finally, the stress in the steel at the crack, the mean strain
wall. The crack width limit is 0.1 mm for surfaces in con- in the steel with respect to the concrete and the design
tact with water and 0.20 mm in surfaces not in contact crack width will result from
with the water. Maximum bending moments are
38 kNm/m for bending with tension at the outer surface of
the wall and only 10 kNm/m for bending with tension at
σ s =αe
M
Icr
( )
d − x = 5.51
38
1.345 × 10−4
(
0.142 − 0.0461 )
the inner surface of the wall. A shrinkage strain of × 10−3 = 149.3 N /mm2
0.35 mm/m will be considered. Since there are no concep-
tual differences, only the cracking of the outer surface will
be explored in the following.
σs −β
fctm
ρs.ef(1 + α e ρs + p.ef )
Given that the axial force due to the self-weight of ε sm − ε cm − ηrε sh = − ηrε sh
Es
the wall will be very small, it can be ignored. In these cir-
cumstances the neutral axis depth x and the moment of in- 149.3 − 0.4
3.51
0.039
(
1 + 5.51 × 0.039 )
ertia of the cracked cross section may be determined using = + 0.00035 = 0.88 mm/m
200000
the following equations:
fctm = 0.303 fck
2 = 0.303 40 2 = 3.51 N /mm2
E 200000 200000
αe = s = = = 5.51
( )
Ec 1 1
(
21500 × fck + 8 ) 3  40 + 8  3
21500 × 
wd = 2 × ls,max × ε sm − ε cm − ηrε sh = 2 × 107 × 0.88
 10  × 10−3 = 0.19 mm ≤ 0.20 mm → O.K.
Fig. 12. Section through a secondary clarifier

Flexural forces FORCE COMBINATIONS

20
10
Bending Moment [kNm/m]
0
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
Wall height - z [m]
CombIIa: SW+0.9PRT,inf+W+SH Comb IIc: SW+1.1*PRT,t0+W+T Comb Ia: SW+0.9PRT,inf+SH
Comb Ib: SW+1.1*PRT,0 Comb IIb: SW+0.9*PRT,inf+W+T+SH
Fig. 13. Wall reinforcement and bending moments over the height of the wall for different serviceability load combinations
Fig. 14. Geometry and reinforcement of prestressed beam
As can be seen, the section complies with the design re- (Fig. 14). The beam was post-tensioned with a prestressing
quirements. layout formed by tangent parabolas. The cross-section was
400 mm wide × 300 mm deep and used C35/45 grade con-
4.3 Crack control in a two-span continuous prestressed crete. The prestressing was in the form of 3 ∅13 mm
concrete beam strands of grade Y1860 prestressing steel, having a section
of 300 mm2 and located 63 mm from the top of the section
A two-span (8 + 8 m) partially prestressed beam tested at at the central support. The modulus of elasticity of the
the Structures Laboratory of the Civil Engineering School concrete was taken as 34 077 N/mm2 and that of steel as
of the Polytechnic University of Madrid is considered here 200 000 N/mm2.

εtop = 0.452 mm/m

σs = 68.1 N/mm²
σp =1110.5 N/mm²
1/r = –3.168 km–1
x =157.4 mm
εbottom = – 0.499 mm/m
Fig. 15. Sectional analysis of prestressed section
The section at the central support to the beam is Ap 300

φ p, ef = 4 =4 = 13.8 mm
reinforced at the upper face by 2 ∅8 + 3 ∅20 mm rebars up 87
(clear cover is 35 mm) with a yield stress of 500 N/mm2
and is subjected to an SLS bending moment of
τ bmp φeq 17.47
–108.6 kNm due to self-weight (3.0 kN/m), a dead load ξ1 = = 0.4 = 0.711
of 7.2 kN/m and an imposed point load of 18 kN situated τ bms φ p, ef 13.8
3.0 m from the outer supports. The long-term prestressing
component determined was considered through a pre- ρs + p, ef =
strain of 5.6 ‰, providing an axial force of 5.6/1000 × As + ξ12 Ap 2 × 0.503 + 3 × 3.14 + 0.7112 × 3
2 × 108 × 3 × 10–4 = 336 kN and an additional positive = = 0.062
Ac, ef 192
bending moment of 336 × (0.15 – 0.063) = 29.2 kNm.
The indeterminate prestressing moment is about
9.0 kNm. With these values, the maximum transfer length for long-
From these values the stress in the reinforcement term, stabilized cracking may be estimated as
can be obtained from a sectional analysis of the cross-
section subjected to a bending moment of –108.6 + 9 1 fctm φeq
ls,max = kc +
= –99.6 kNm applied on a prestressed cross-section having 4 τ bms ρs + p, ef
a pre-strain in the prestressing reinforcement of 5.6 ‰. 1 1 17.47
= 1.0 × 35 + × × = 74.1 mm
This analysis is given in Fig. 15. The stress in the 4 1.8 0.062
reinforcement (considering concrete with zero tensile
strength) for this load level and the depth of the neu- Assuming a free shrinkage strain of 0.35 mm/m, the mean
tral axis are σs = 68 N/mm2 and x = 157.4 mm respec- relative strain between concrete and steel can be deter-
tively. mined from
( )
The equivalent diameter for the reinforcement is f
given by σ s − β ctm 1 + α e ρs + p.ef
ρs + p.ef
ε sm − ε cm − ηrε sh = − ηrε sh
n1φ12 + n2φ22 2 × 82 + 3 × 202 Es
φeq = = = 17.47 mm 3.21  200 
n1φ1 + n2φ2 2 × 8 + 3 × 20 68 − 0.4 1+ 0.062
0.062  34.077 
= + 0.00035 = 0.55 mm/m
The effective area of the concrete is determined as fol- 200000
lows:
2 = 0.303 352 = 3.21 N /mm2
fctm = 0.303 fck
Ac, ef
h h − x
= b × min  ;
( )
; 2.5 h − d  ( )
 2 3  Finally, the resulting maximum crack width would be

= 400 × min 150;
300 − 157 ( 
; 2.5 × 45 
) ( ) (
wd = 2 × ls,max × ε sm − ε cm − ηrε sh )
 3 
= 2 × 74.1 × 0.55 × 10−3 = 0.08 mm < wlim O.K.
= 400 × 4.8 = 19200 mm 2
d ≈ 255 mm 5 Introduction to deformations
The prestressing bond stress is taken as 0.4 times the bond Deformations (deflections and rotations) should be limit-
stress of passive reinforcement according to Table 7.6-3 of ed for aesthetic reasons and to ensure integrity of non-
fib Model Code 2010, considering a post-tensioned strand, structural parts and proper functioning of the structure. In
and the equivalent perimeter of a bundle is taken as some cases limitations may be required to ensure proper
up = 1.6 × π × 3000.5 = 87 mm. Therefore, the effective re- functioning of machinery supported by the structure or to
inforcement ratio can be determined as avoid ponding on flat roofs. Acceptable limit values

should be established in agreement with the client. If no Table 4. Basic ratios of span to effective depth for reinforced members
limits are given, the total deflection should not exceed without axial compression (fib MC2010, Table 7.6-6)
span/250 and the increment of deflection after assembly
of additional non-loadbearing structures should not ex- Structural system Concrete highly Concrete lightly
ceed span/500. According to experience, these criteria, stressed stressed
which are used in buildings, are rather moderate, and even ρ = 1.5 % ρ = 0.5 %
if satisfied, the damage to partitions, for example, can still Simply supported beams, 14 20
occur. For large and creep-sensitive structures the criteria one- or two-way spanning
can be stricter (e.g. the AASHTO proposal for bridges: simply supported slab
span/800 [59]). (The fib “Serviceability Models” Task
Group envisaged preparing a new fib Bulletin on long- End span of continuous 18 26
beam or one-way
term serviceability observations of concrete structures
continuous slab
[60].)
continuous over one
For prestressed concrete members it may be neces- long side
sary to control deflections assuming unfavourable devia-
tions of the prestressing force and the dead load. Pre- Interior span of beam 20 30
stressed concrete members can have additional deflection or one- or two-way
limits for upward or lateral deflections. spanning slab
In members composed of parts made of different Slab supported on 17 24
concretes the different moduli of elasticity of the con- columns without beams
cretes must be taken into account. (flat slabs) (based on
In structures where the construction process re- longer span)
quires deflections to be estimated accurately, a step-by-
Cantilever 6 8
step analysis should be performed, including the sequence
of loading and possible changes to geometry, structural
scheme, support conditions and the evolution of material
properties with time. Guidelines as to what concerns the In order to influence these limits, considerably high-
evaluation in cases of the effects of creep and shrinkage er amounts of reinforcement can be provided. A back-
are given in section 7.2.4 of fib Model Code 2010 and in ground document in preparation (in the form of an fib
[61–65]. Bulletin) will include a study of the assumed load distribu-
tion. Further details for development of span-to-depth ra-
6 Deflection control in fib MC2010 tios can be found in [66–68].
6.1 Deflection control without calculation
(indirect deflection control) 6.2 Simplified method for calculating deflection
Span-to-depth limits (often referred to as slenderness lim- Deformations of flexural reinforced concrete members
its) are established for general cases as well as to give an can be predicted by the following equation based on an in-
estimate of structural proportions during the conceptual terpolation between the deformations of uncracked and
or preliminary design phases. Simple formulas are given in cracked conditions:
fib Model Code 2010, Eqs. (7.6-22a and b), for the calcula-
tion of span-to-depth limits as a function of the structural a = ζ aII + (1 – ζ )aI (6)
system, reinforcement ratios (both tensile and compres-
sive) and concrete strength. These limits can be roughly where
estimated by the values given in Table 4. a deformation parameter considered, which may be,
The values given in Table 3 have been derived from for example, a strain, a curvature or a rotation (As a
the results of a parametric study carried out for a series of simplification, a may also be taken as deflection.)
beams and slabs, simply supported with rectangular cross- aI, aII deformation values calculated for uncracked and
section, using the general approach given by the simplified fully cracked conditions respectively
method (see Eq. (6)). Take parameter a as the curvature ζ an interpolation coefficient (allowing for the effect
and obtain the deflection by performing the double inte- of tension stiffening at a section) given by the ex-
gral of curvatures. Different values of concrete strength pression:
class and 500 N/mm2 characteristic yield strength of steel
2
reinforcement were considered. For a given area of ten- σ 
sion reinforcement, the ultimate moment was calculated ζ = 1 − β  sr  (7)
 σs 
and the quasi-permanent load was assumed to be 59 % of
the corresponding total design load (as a generalization it
is assumed that 45 % of total load is dead load, 30 % of to- β a coefficient to account for the influence of the du-
tal load is superimposed dead load and 25 % is imposed ration of loading or repeated loading on the average
load). The span-to-depth limits obtained satisfy the limit strain:
deflection span/250 for quasi-permanent loads (by using β = 1.0 for a single or short-term loading
the given span-to-depth limits the first condition will be β = 0.5 for sustained loading or multiple cycles of
always fulfilled). repeated loading

σs stress in the tension reinforcement calculated on the S and I should be calculated for the uncracked and the ful-
basis of a cracked elastic section under the load con- ly cracked conditions. The final curvature is assessed by
sidered Eq. (6).
σsr stress in the tension reinforcement calculated on the
basis of a cracked elastic section under the loading 6.3 Simplified method for prestressed concrete structures
conditions that cause initial cracking
Under the quasi-permanent load combination, the struc-
The stresses σs and σsr for the interpolation coefficient ζ ture is considered to be uncracked. The curvature at time
are calculated for the most unfavourable section, which is t is defined as
usually the section subjected to the maximum bending
moment. 1 ε c,bottom(t) − ε c,top(t)
(t) =
The ratio σsr/σs in Eq. (7) may be replaced by Mcr/M r h
for flexure and Ncr/N for pure tension, where Mcr is the
cracking moment and Ncr is the cracking force (see also where ec,bottom(t) and ec,top(t) are the strains at time t in the
example 4.6.1); M and N represent the maximum moment bottom and top fibres of the cross-section and h is the
and normal force respectively for the load combination overall depth of the section.
considered. The strains at time t are calculated in a way that
Alternatively, instead of interpolation, an equivalent takes the effect of self-weight, initial prestress, other quasi-
stiffness deduced from Eq. (6) can be used for a direct sim- permanent actions and stress variation due to creep,
plified calculation of deflection: shrinkage and relaxation into account according to the
following expression:
(EI )I · (EI )II
(EI )eff =
ζ · (EI )I + (1 − ζ ) · (EI )II 1 + ϕ(t,t0 ) σ c(t) − σ c(t0 )
ε c(t) = ε cs(t,t0 ) + σ c(t0 ) ⋅ + ⋅ 1 + χ ⋅ϕ(t,t0 )
Ecm Ecm
For calculating long-term deflections due to creep and
shrinkage, the following simplified procedure can be used: where
σc(t0) concrete stress at initial time t0 due to prestress and
( )
at = 1 + ϕ ag + ash for MEd < Mcr load effects
at = ag + aϕ + ash for MEd ≥ Mcr σc(t) concrete stress at time t
χ ageing coefficient
where:
ϕ creep coefficient For long-term loading, the ageing coefficient χ can be as-
ag instantaneous deflection due to quasi-permanent sumed to be 0.8.
loads (including effect of cracking)
aϕ creep deflection 6.4 General method for calculating deflections
ash shrinkage deflection
The most general method for assessing deformations is to
Instantaneous plus creep deflections can be obtained in a perform a non-linear analysis capable of calculating the in-
simplified way by using an effective modulus of elasticity stantaneous and time-dependent deformations, taking in-
for the concrete according to: to account the effects of applied loads and prestressing,
the non-linear behaviour of concrete and steel and the
Ecm time-dependent deformations due to creep and shrinkage
Ec, ef = (8)
1+ϕ of concrete and relaxation of prestressing steel. These
methods generally require iterative and incremental pro-
Shrinkage curvatures take place when the shrinkage-in- cedures, which are necessary to fulfil the equilibrium and
duced strains on the section are not uniformly distributed compatibility conditions and the material constitutive
over its depth. This may be either due to cracking of con- properties for any load level and point in time.
crete or to strains produced by non-symmetric reinforce- Deflections and axial displacements are obtained by
ment arrangements or to very different hygrometric condi- integrating curvatures and axial strains along the member
tions at the top and on the bottom of the section (e.g. due length.
to formwork). Shrinkage curvatures may be assessed by
(a) Instantaneous deflections
1 S Members that are not expected to be loaded above the lev-
= ε cs ⋅ α e ⋅ (9)
rcs I el that would cause the tensile strength of the concrete to
be exceeded should be considered to be uncracked, and to
where: exhibit a linear elastic response.
1/rcs curvature due to shrinkage Members loaded above the cracking load level are
εcs free shrinkage strain expected to exhibit a behaviour between that of the un-
S first moment of area of reinforcement about the cen- cracked stage and that of the fully cracked stage. Thus, the
troid of the section instantaneous mean axial strains and mean curvatures
I second moment of area of the section due to bending moments and axial loads can be obtained
αe effective modular ratio = Es/Ec,ef with a non-linear sectional analysis, which includes crack-

Fig. 16. Stresses and strains at times t0 and t due to the creep effect in the presence of a constant bending moment (fib MC2010, Fig. 7.6-9)
ing of concrete and tension stiffening, and assumes plane surements of specimens produced from the concrete to be
sections and a perfect bond between concrete and rein- used in the structure.
forcement.
7 Examples of deflection control
(b) Long-term deflections 7.1 Deflection control for a reinforced concrete slab
In order to obtain the delayed deflections, the increment
of curvatures and axial strains with time must be obtained Consider a simply supported one-way slab of 6 m span,
and integrated along the member length. Thus, a time-de- 300 mm total depth and effective depth d = 250 mm. The
pendent sectional analysis is required which incorporates slab is subjected to a dead load g = 12 kN/m2 and an im-
the effects of creep and shrinkage of concrete and relax- posed load q = 8 kN/m2, both applied at 28 days after cast-
ation of prestressing steel as well as their interaction with ing. A factor ψ2 = 0.2 is used for the quasi-permanent load
cracking of concrete and tension stiffening, among other combination.
non-linearities. For the usual level of concrete stresses in The characteristic strength of concrete at 28 days is
service, the principles of linear viscoelasticity are accept- fck = 30 N/mm2. The tension reinforcement consists of
ed. ∅ 20 mm bars of 200 mm spacing (As艎 = 1570 mm2/m,
For uncracked members it can be assumed that the ρ = 0.00628). Characteristic yield strength of reinforce-
creep deflections are proportional to the instantaneous ment is fyk = 500 N/mm2. No compression reinforcement
deflections due to permanent loads, unless a large amount is considered.
of reinforcement exists. In elements with a usual amount The instantaneous modulus of elasticity of concrete
of reinforcement, the reduction in deflection increment at 28 days is Ec = 32 836 N/mm2, and the modulus of elas-
over time due to reinforcing steel is negligible. ticity of steel is Es = 200 000 N/mm2, so the modular ratio
In a cracked section under constant bending mo- is αs = Es/Ec = 6.09. The mean tensile strength of concrete
ment, changes in the stresses, strains and position of the is fctm = 2.89 N/mm2. The value of the creep coefficient
neutral axis occur due to creep and shrinkage as shown in considered is ϕ(t, t0) = 2, and the shrinkage strain value is
Fig. 16. General methods are described in [4, 61, 69–72]. εsh = 0.0003.
The deflections of composite structures should con- The actual slenderness ratio of the slab is
sider the curvatures resulting from the differential shrink- 艎/d = 6/0.25 = 24. According to Table 3, in order to avoid
age of precast and in situ components. calculating deflections when checking the limit state of
The time-dependent deflections are influenced by deformations, the slenderness ratio should be < 艎/d = 20,
environmental and curing conditions, the age at time of approximately, for a lightly stressed concrete element
loading, the amount of compression reinforcement, the (ρ ≅ 0.5 %). Therefore, in this case deflections should be
magnitude of the stresses due to sustained load and pre- checked by calculations.
stressing as well as the strength gain of concrete after re- The bending moments due to dead and imposed
lease of prestress. In particular, camber is especially sensi- loads are Mg = 54 kNm and Mq = 36 kNm, respectively.
tive to the concrete properties at the age of release of The bending moment under the characteristic load combi-
prestress, level of stresses, storage method, time of erec- nation is MEd = 90 kNm. The bending moment under the
tion, placement of superimposed loads and environmental quasi-permanent load combination is Mquasi = 61.2 kNm.
conditions.
An advanced concrete with admixtures and a large Instantaneous deflection under characteristic load
quantity of fine particles may have a modulus of elasticity combination
different from that given by fib Model Code 2010. In struc- The instantaneous deflections in the uncracked and fully
tures where a deformation analysis is essential, it is recom- cracked states are calculated using the moments of inertia
mended to use the values of the moduli obtained by mea- II = 2.343 · 10–3 m4 (moment of inertia of uncracked sec-

tion) and III = 4.17 · 10–4 m4 (moment of inertia of cracked Ecm 32836
Ec, ef = = = 10945 N /mm2
section) respectively according to the following expres- 1+ϕ 1+ 2
sion:
The modular ratio for long-term loads is αs,ef = Es/
5(g + q)ᐉ4 Ec,ef = 18.27, which can be used for the calculation of the
ainst =
384EcI inertia in both the uncracked and cracked elastic states.
The new uncracked moment of inertia is II,ef = 2.512 ·
for uncracked elastic state (state I): aIg,inst = 2.63 mm, 10–3 m4, and the instantaneous plus creep deflections due
aIq,inst = 1.75 mm and aIinst = 4.38 mm to quasi-permanent loads in state I can be obtained as
for cracked elastic state (state II): aIIg,inst = 14.78 mm, follows:
aIIq,inst = 9.85 mm and aIIinst = 24.63 mm
5( g + 0.2q)ᐉ4
+ϕ = = 8.35 mm.
I
ainst
The curvature (and deflection) interpolation factor ζ is giv- 384 Ec, ef II, ef
en by the following expression, with β factor equal to 0.5
(considering the load is applied repeatedly many times): So the creep deflection in the uncracked state for the
2 2 quasi-permanent combination will be
M   46 
ζ = 1 – β  cr  = 1 – 0.5 ·   = 0.87
 Ma   90  aIϕ = 8.35 – 2.98 = 5.37 mm.
where Mcr = 46 kN·m is the cracking moment and MEd is The cracked moment of inertia calculated with αs,ef =
the design bending moment acting at the critical cross-sec- 18.27 results in III = 9.75 · 10–4 m4. The instantaneous plus
tion under the characteristic load combination. The in- the creep deflection for the cracked elastic state (state II)
stantaneous deflection is the calculated using will then be
ainst = ζ · aII I 5( g + 0.2q)ᐉ4

inst + (1 – ζ) · a inst =
+ϕ =
II
ainst
0.87 · 24.63 + (1 – 0.87) · 4.38 = 21.99 mm 384 Ec, ef III, ef
5 · (12 + 0.2 · 0.8) · 6 4
=
Alternatively, the instantaneous deflection of a member 384 · 10945000 · 9.75 · 10–4
can be calculated using an effective moment of inertia for = 0.0215 m = 21.50 mm
the element Ieff obtained as follows:
The creep deflection in the cracked state for the quasi-per-
II · III manent combination will then be
Ieff =
ζ · II + (1 – ζ ) · III
2.343 · 10–3 · 4.17 · 10–4 aIIϕ = 21.50 – 16.75 = 4.75 mm
=
0.87 · 2.343 · 10–3 + (1 – 0.87) · 4.17 · 10–4
= 4.66 · 10–4 m4. Therefore, the instantaneous plus creep deflections due
to the quasi-permanent load (using interpolation factor
The instantaneous deflection ainst in a simply supported ζ = 0.87) will be
beam due to the characteristic load is
ainst+ϕ = ζ · aII I
inst+ϕ + (1 – ζ) · a inst+ϕ =
5( g + q)ᐉ4 0.87 · 21.50 + (1 – 0.87) · 8.35 = 19.79 mm
ainst =
384Ec Ieff
5 · (12 + 8) · 6 4 Thus, the deflection caused by the creep in the simple sup-
= = 22.00 mm.
384 · 32836000 · 4.667 · 10–4 ported beam is
As can be seen, both methods of determining the instanta- aϕ = 19.79 – 14.97 = 4.82 mm
neous deflections are equivalent.
Similarly, the instantaneous deflections due to the Deflection due to shrinkage
quasi-permanent load combination, taking into account Shrinkage curvatures may be assessed by
the uncracked and cracked inertia, are 2.98 and 16.75 mm
respectively. The instantaneous deflection due to quasi- 1 S
= ε cs ⋅ α s, ef ⋅
permanent loads is 14.97 mm. rcs I
Long-term deflections where:

Long-term deflection due to creep 1/rcs curvature due to shrinkage
Sustained load produces creep of concrete, thus increas- εcs free shrinkage strain
ing the slab deflection with time. The long-term deflection S first moment of area of reinforcement about the cen-
is obtained for the quasi-permanent load combination ac- troid of the section
cording to section 7.6.5.1.2 of fib Model Code 2010: I second moment of area of the section
The instantaneous plus the creep deflections can be αs,ef effective modular ratio = Es/Ec,ef
calculated approximately using an effective modulus of
elasticity for the concrete:

S and I are calculated for the uncracked and the fully and the total long-term deflection due to sustained loads
cracked condition, using an effective modulus of elasticity is
for the concrete.
Their values are: atotal = 14.97 + 10.38 = 25.35 mm
in the uncracked elastic state (state I)
SI = 0.000144 m3, II = 0.002512m4 which represents ᐍ/237.
in the cracked elastic state (state II) These deflections are compared with those obtained
SI = 0.0002442 m3, III = 0.0009746 m4 using the general method, (section 2.2 of [72, 74]). The
characteristic load is applied at 28 days, the imposed load
The curvatures in the uncracked and cracked states are is removed and the quasi-permanent load is applied until
I II
10 000 days. The results provided by the general method
 1  1 are shown in Fig. 17.
 r  = 0.0003142;  r  = 0.001373
sh sh The instantaneous deflections due to the dead, im-
posed, quasi-permanent and total loads are 12.30, 7.80,
The deflections are calculated from the shrinkage curva- 13.81 and 20.10 mm respectively. The delayed deflection
tures, which for a simply supported beam are due to creep plus shrinkage is 10.26 mm and the long-term
I II
deflection due to the sustained load is 24.07 mm. Creep
I =  1 ᐉ2  1 ᐉ2 and shrinkage deflections are not obtained separately in
 r  · 8 = 1.41 mm; ash =  r  · 8 = 6.18 mm.
ash II
sh sh the general method because they interact. Table 5 summa-

rizes the results obtained using the bilinear and general
And using the interpolation equation with ζ = 0.87: methods.
The differences obtained are mainly due to the fact
II I
ash = ζ · ash + (1 – ζ) · ash = 0.87 · 6.18 + (1 – 0.87) · 1.41 = that the general method integrates the curvatures along
5.56 mm the whole span length, so it considers adequately the stiff-
ness and the delayed behaviour of the parts of the beam
The long-term deflection due to creep and shrinkage will be that are uncracked (M < Mcr), whereas the simplified
method refers to the calculation of deflections in the mid-
aϕ +sh = 4.82 + 5.56 = 10.38 mm span section only, which is cracked.
-25
Instantaneous deflection
under characteristic load Long- term deflection
under sustained load
-20
Midspan deflection (mm)
-15
Instantaneous deflection
under sustrained load
-10
-5
-0
10 100 1000 10000
Time (days)
Fig. 17. Calculation results for deflections using the General Method
Table 5. Summary of deflections in the example of reinforced concrete slab calculated according to fib MC2010
Instantaneous Time-dependent
Method Dead load Imposed load Quasi-permanent Dead + imposed Creep* Shrinkage* Total* Long-term*
load load
Bilinear 13.20 8.80 14.97 22.00 4.82 5.56 10.38 25.35

General 12.30 7.80 13.81 20.10 10.26 24.07
* Values obtained for quasi-permanent load combination

7. 2 Calculating the deflection of a partially prestressed Step 1: Prestressing and self-weight act simultaneously
beam under quasi-permanent load on the beam; the active section is constituted by
the concrete and the conventional reinforcement.
Let us consider a simply supported post-tensioned beam The calculation is performed assuming that the
of 25 m span, with a self-weight of 13.38 kN/m, a total per- duct is not yet grouted. The stress distribution on
manent load (including self-weight) of 26.13 kN/m and an the mid-span section is shown in Fig. 19b.
imposed load of 11.25 kN/m. Step 2: After grouting the duct, the remaining quasi-per-
The materials have the following characteristics: manent load is applied to the beam; the prestress-
– concrete: fck = 35 MPa, fct,m = 3.2 MPa, Ec = ing steel is bonded to the concrete. Therefore, the
33.3 GPa, creep coefficient ϕ = 2.0, centroid, the area and the second moment of in-
shrinkage strain εsh = –0.20 mm/m ertia of the section change. The stress distribu-
– conventional steel: fyk = 450 N/mm2, consisting of tion in the mid-span section is shown in Fig. 19c.
4 bars ∅ 16 mm Step 3: At the final time t2, the prestressing losses due to
– prestressing steel: fpk = 1860 N/mm2, tensioned at the creep, shrinkage and relaxation are evaluated by
jack at 1150 N/mm2; the cable the following formula:
consists of 19 stabilized strands of
15 mm (total area 2850 mm2)
ε shEp + σ c(t1)
( ) + ∆σ (t ,t )
Ep ⋅ ϕ t1,t2
Ec rel 1 2
The prestressing is applied on the left side of the beam.
∆σ p,c + s + r =
Ep Ap  A 2 
Fig. 18 shows the beam cross-section and the stresses 1+ ⋅ 
Ec Ac 
1 + c zcp
Jc 
( ) 
 ⋅ 1 + χ ⋅ ϕ t1,t2 
in the cable along the beam after the instantaneous losses.
At the time of injection of the cables, the tension of
prestressing at the mid-span section is equal to The relaxation loss ∆σrel(t1,t2) is evaluated here as
σp0 = 1074.4 N/mm2 due to losses for friction and re-entry 80 % of the final relaxation loss, which is as-
of the anchors. For the sake of simplicity in this example, sumed to be equal to three times the relaxation
only five beam cross-sections are considered. after 1000 h obtained for the stress at t1 (step 2).
Table 6 contains the prestressing stress and the dis- Step 4: The effects of the time-dependent losses on con-
tance between the cable and the bottom side of the sec- crete and reinforcing steel are evaluated consider-
tion for the five sections considered in the calculation. Un- ing the equilibrium. This consists of applying a
der the quasi-permanent load combination the structure is tensile force ∆σp,c+s+r Ap at the level of the pre-
uncracked. The deflection is determined by the integra- stressing steel. In this case the active section is
tion of the curvature along the beam. constituted by concrete and reinforcing steel
The curvature of each section is evaluated through without prestressing steel.
the concrete stresses at the top and bottom of the section The final stress distribution is obtained by super-
at times t1 and t2, where t1 is the initial time after the ap- posing the stresses calculated in steps 2 and 4.
plication of the prestressing and the quasi-permanent For the mid-span section this is shown in
load, and t2 is the final time taking into account the effect Fig. 19d.
of creep, shrinkage and relaxation (see section 6.3 above
and [71]). For each section, the stresses are determined The top and bottom stresses in the concrete at times
considering the following steps: t1 and t2 for the five sections considered are shown in
Fig. 18. Partially prestressed beam: a) cross-section, (b) structural scheme and sections considered in example, (c) stress in cable along the beam after
instantaneous losses

Table 6. Geometrical and prestress values for the example of a partially The integration is carried out with the Simpson formula
prestressed beam and results in
σp,0 (N/mm2) 12, 5  ᐉ ᐉ 

Section z (m) d′p (mm) f(t2 ) = 4 ⋅ ⋅ 4.93 ⋅ 10−4 + ⋅ 5.29 ⋅ 10−4
6  8 4 
1 0.00 750 1027.5
12, 5  ᐉ − ᐉ − 
+ ⋅ 5, 29 ⋅ 10 + 4 ⋅ ⋅ 4.58 ⋅ 10  = 39 mm
4 4
2 6.25 295 1050.9
6  4 8 
3 12.50 140 1074.4
4 18.75 295 1079.6 The deflection at time t2 due to the quasi-permanent load
5 25.00 750 1056.1 combination is 39 mm, i.e. ᐍ/641.
8 Vibrations
Table 7. On the basis of these stresses, the strains at time t2
are calculated according to the following expression: Serviceability design includes controlling vibrations too.
Vibrations of structures may affect the serviceability of a
1 + ϕ(t2,t1) structure as functional effects (discomfort to occupants,
ε c(t2 ) = ε cs(t2,t1) + σ c(t1) ⋅
Ecm affecting operation of machines, etc.) or as structural ef-
σ c(t2 ) − σ c(t1) fects (mostly on non-structural elements, such as cracks in
+ ⋅ 1 + χ ⋅ ϕ(t2,t1)
Ecm partitions, loss of cladding, etc.). Vibrations can be caused
by rhythmic movements made by people (e.g. walking,
where χ is the ageing coefficient. running, jumping, dancing), machines, waves due to wind
For long-term loading, the ageing coefficient χ can be and water, rail and road traffic, construction work (e.g. vi-
assumed to be 0.8. bratory driving of sheet piles, soil compaction by vibra-
The calculation of the mid-span displacement is car- tion, blasting work).
ried out by applying the method of virtual work, consider- To ensure satisfactory behaviour of a structure sub-
ing a moment M1 due to a unit force applied at mid-span: jected to vibrations, the natural frequency of vibration of
the relevant structure should be kept sufficiently clear of
1
∫s M1 ⋅ r (t2) ⋅ dz
f(t2 ) = critical values, which depend on the function of the corre-
sponding building. The natural frequency must be far
enough away from the critical frequency.
1000 -0.4 -7.9 -8.4

250
b) c) d)
a)
1200
950
1074.4 1132.1 1055.9

-86.5 -20.1 -57.9
140
50
300 -15.0 MPa -3.1 -1.0
Fig. 19. Stress distribution in the mid-span section for the example of a partially prestressed beam: a) cross section, b) stresses at the time of injecting the
cables (step 1), c) stresses for quasi-permanent loads (t1, step 2, after grouting the duct), d) final stress distribution (t2, step 4)
Table 7. Calculation details for the example of a partially prestressed beam
Section σc,top(t1) σc,bottom(t1) σc,top(t2) σc,bottom(t2) εc,top(t2) εc,bottom(t2) 1/r (t2)

(N/mm2) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (N/mm2) (mm/m) (mm/m) (m–1)
1 –5.52 –5.50 –4.97 –4.93 –0.65 –0.65 2.61 · 10–6

2 –7.67 –2.80 –7.92 –1.09 –0.91 –0.32 4.93 · 10–4
3 –7.92 –3.15 –8.42 –1.02 –0.95 –0.32 5,29 · 10–4
4 –7.59 –3.35 –7.86 –1.46 –0.90 –0.35 4.58 · 10–4
5 –5.67 –5.66 –5.08 –5.04 –0.66 –0.66 2.74 · 10–6

Fig. 20. Calculation of the mid-span deflection using the virtual work theorem: distribution of real curvatures and fictitious moment M1 for the example
of a partially prestressed beam
The vibrational behaviour of structures can be influ- integration point. The damage is described by a fracture
enced by the following measures: energy density needed for opening a discrete crack. The
– changing the dynamic actions, crack opening constitutive law is fully defined by three pa-
– changing the natural frequencies by changing the rigidi- rameters: tensile strength ft, fracture energy density Gf and
ty of the structure or the vibrating mass, shape of stress softening function (crack opening law). In
– increasing the damping features, etc. the finite element implementation the discrete crack is
represented by a smeared crack associated with one finite
9 Verification of serviceability limit state by numerical element. The fracture energy is dissipated in the finite ele-
simulation ment volume with smeared cracks as illustrated in Fig. 21.
In [76] the Cervenka dimension of a damage zone is the
Cracking and tension stiffening effects are complex phe- crack band size Lt, which – in the case of cracks aligned
nomena that are important for understanding and verify- with the finite element sides – is equal to the length of the
ing serviceability limit states. Concrete cracking can be element side. In the general case crack orientation within
well described by fracture mechanics. It is the state-of-the- the element should be taken into account. Due to the soft-
art approach in numerical simulation covered by the pro- ening nature of the stress crack opening law, strain local-
ceedings of IAFRAMCOS [75]. (EURO-C conferences are izes within a crack band. Objectivity of the solution (low
also important events for the modelling of concrete crack- mesh sensitivity) is ensured by considering the crack band
ing.) The interaction of concrete and reinforcement fea- size as a regularization parameter of the strain localiza-
tures a tension stiffening effect that has a significant role tion. The crack band size can be determined from the
in modelling the stiffness of cracked reinforced concrete strain transformation relation shown in Fig. 21. This
structures. These models are used for the verification of assures equal energy dissipation in small and large ele-
serviceability limit states based on non-linear finite elements.
ment analysis. The smeared crack model is suitable for practical ap-
plications, where many cracks occur in plain as well as re-
9.1 Fracture mechanics-based models inforced concrete. However, the range of application is
limited to sufficiently fine finite element meshes. It was
There are two basic types of crack model. found [77, 78] that models of RC beams having 6–8 finite
elements per depth exhibit sufficient accuracy.
9.1.1 Discrete crack model The upper limit for the acceptable element size is
also controlled by the fracture energy of the concrete.
In the discrete crack model a crack is formed at the inter- In large elements the energy released after exceeding
face between two elements. After opening, the boundary the tensile strength can be larger than the resisting frac-
conditions change. The fracture properties are described ture energy (described as snap-back). Consequently, a sta-
by the interface constitutive law. In the process of crack ble strain localization process cannot be obtained. To
propagation a mesh refinement near the crack tip and re- avoid the snap-back effect, as a rough estimate, the ele-
peated re-meshing are typically required. Due to this, the ment size for concrete grade C40/50 should not exceed
method is not well suited to reinforced structures with 0.5 m.
many cracks. However, the discrete crack model is partic-
ularly suitable for analysing massive concrete structures 9.2 Tension stiffening-based models
such as dams.
This is a simple approach, extensively used in numerical
9.1.2 Smeared crack model analyses. In this approach no discrete cracks are consid-
ered and the properties of cracked concrete are modelled
In this model a crack is represented by orthotropic dam- in an average (smeared) way by using an average stress-av-
age to concrete within the area assigned to an element, or erage strain tension stiffening relationship. Such a tech-

Fig. 21. Constitutive crack opening laws for discrete and smeared crack models
Fig. 22. Uniaxial test of tension stiffening effect: specimen (left) and load–displacement response curves for tests and numerical simulation (right)
nique provides adequate results for predicting the defor- Both cracking models discussed above are illustrated
mations as well as the strains required for analysing crack with the example of a uniaxial tension test on a bar em-
widths. bedded in concrete shown in Fig. 22 [81]. The predicted
In a simple model, tension stiffening is defined as the deformations using the fracture mechanics approach (fi-
average stress sts of cracked tensile concrete. Tension stiff- nite element size 8 mm) are shown by the red line. For
ening stress can be estimated by utilizing the empirical comparison, the response of one large element using a ten-
factor β: sion stiffening model is shown by the dashed line. It can
be seen that the simple tension stiffening model performs
σts = (1 – β) · fct equally as well as the detailed finite element simulation
and is capable of predicting the average response of the re-
In the stabilized crack stage, β = 0.6 (fib MC2010, Table inforced concrete member.
7.6-2).
Tension stiffening stress contributes to the resistance 9.3 Shrinkage influence on short-term deformations
and stiffness response of the structure. More refined
constitutive laws are employed in finite element analysis Along with cracking and tension stiffening, shrinkage is
[79, 80]. another important, although very frequently neglected, ef-

fect related to short-term deformations of reinforced con- 11 Conclusions

crete structures. In general practice, shrinkage is taken in-
to account in prestress loss and/or long-term deformation This paper has attempted to summarize the fib Model
analyses. However, even at first loading, free shrinkage Code 2010 specifications for serviceability design and
strain of concrete may be of a magnitude well exceeding demonstrate their use by examples.
the cracking strain. Because of the restraining action of re- For both cracking and deflections, first the general
inforcement, shrinkage induces tension stresses, which phenomena were briefly discussed, then the codified rules
might reduce the crack resistance significantly and in- presented and finally their use was shown. Examples in-
crease deformations. Most modern software products de- cluded cracking and deflection analyses for both rein-
veloped for designing reinforced concrete structures allow forced and prestressed concrete members.
the inclusion of shrinkage in the numerical model as a Cracks and deformations in concrete are unavoid-
prescribed deformation of concrete. Alternatively, the able. Cracks may already appear at an early age for tech-
shrinkage might be included in the model in a less sophis- nological reasons. In later phases cracks can be caused by
ticated way by using the fictitious action concept [82]. loads and imposed deformations. The article provides de-
Shrinkage influence on tension stiffening modelling re- tails of
sults in flexural members is discussed in [83], which re- (i) design value of crack widths, bond development
ports on an innovative technique for eliminating the length, average steel strain, tension stiffening, effective
shrinkage effect from moment curvature and tension stiff- concrete area in tension as well as limit values of
ening relations. cracks,
(ii) deflection control by the simplified or general
10 Future work method, span-to-depth limits, instantaneous and long-
term deflections, influence of creep and shrinkage on
In order to be able to develop realistic but not overtly deflections,
complicated rules, simplifications are necessary. This does (iii) vibrations, and
not exclude possible future refinement of the models. Fu- (iv) serviceability limit states analysis is also demonstrat-
ture work may include: review of crack width limits, possi- ed by non-linear finite element analysis, with both
ble influence of relative rib area on cracking, cracking due fracture mechanics-based models (discrete crack mod-
to shrinkage and thermal effects, cracking due to imposed el and smeared crack model) as well as tension stiffen-
deformations, cover deformations of concrete, review of ing-based models being briefly discussed.
the cover term in calculating crack spacing, further analy-
sis of long-term and cyclic loads on cracking and deflec- We realize that the fib Model Code 2010 rules are trans-
tions, shear deformations, etc. Preparation of an fib Bul- parent enough for understanding and use.
letin as a background document for serviceability analyses
and the development of an international project on crack- References
ing and avoidance of cracking are also planned.
1. fib: Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010, Ernst and
Crack control has been recently studied in a huge
Son, 2013 (in press).
French project that was strongly supported by industry, 2. Corres, H. P.: Sound engineering through conceptual design.
called CEOS.fr. The aim of this project was to provide de- according to the fib Model Code 2010. Structural Concrete
signers with reliable crack design codes for special works Journal, 2013/2, pp. 89–98.
(specific use, specific shape and size, specific requirements 3 Balázs, G. L.: Crack Control. In: fib Bulletin 52 (Structural
for loading or durability, etc.). This implies providing code Concrete – Textbook on behaviour, design and performance,
drafters with experimental data that may help to tune the vol. 2, section 4.3.2), Lausanne, 2010, pp. 97–132.
code formulas better or allow the proposal of new ones. 4. CEB: Behaviour and modelling in serviceability limit states
In these experimental studies, structurally simple but including repeated and sustained loads. CEB Bulletin d’In-
formation No. 235, Lausanne, Apr 1997.
thoroughly instrumented massive reinforced concrete ele-
5. Walraven, J., Bigaj, A.: The 2010 fib Model Code for Con-
ments were specifically designed, cast and tested. External
crete Structures: a new approach to structural engineering.
and boundary conditions of specimens were continuously Structural Concrete Journal, 2011, vol. 12, No. 3, pp.
recorded during the experiments. The material character- 139–147.
istics were measured. Shrinkage strains and crack devel- 6. Walraven, J.: fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010:
opment were registered by various sensors. Altogether, 25 mastering challenges and encountering new ones. Structural
specimens (some of them weighing up to 20 t) were sub- Concrete Journal, 2013/1, pp. 3–9.
jected to monotonically increasing, thermo-hygro-me- 7. fib: Design of durable concrete structures. fib Bulletin 53,
chanical or cyclic loads [84]. section 5 of fib Textbook on behaviour, design and perfor-
Calculations were carried out for each specimen ac- mance (vol. 3), Lausanne 2009, 338 pp.
cording to code regulations as well as other scientific ap- 8. Helland, S.: Design for service life: implementation of fib
Model Code 2010 rules in the operational code ISO 16204.
proaches before and after testing [85, 86]. The scientific
Structural Concrete Journal, 2013/1, pp. 10–18.
approaches were used to perform virtual experiments in
9. Beeby, A.W.: Cracking: what are crack width limits for? Con-
order to extend and adjust the models for complex and crete, Jul 1978, pp. 31–33.
massive structural elements. Further analyses and publica- 10. Leonhardt, F.: Cracks and Crack Control in Concrete Struc-
tions are planned. tures. PCI Journal, Jul–Aug 1988, pp. 124–145.
In the future, sustainability aspects should also be 11. Toutlemonde, F., Pascu, I. R., Ranc, G., Kretz, T.: Analysis of
considered in design for serviceability [87]. structural effects of through cracks in a reinforced concrete

slab (Analyse des effets structurels de la fissuration traver- 28. Tammo, K., Thelandersson, S.: Crack opening near rein-
sante dans une dalle de béton armé), 2005, Bull LPC, forcement bars in concrete structures. Structural Concrete,
256–257, pp. 193–213. (in French). 2006/4, pp. 137–143.
12. Castel, A.: Coupled mechanical/corrosion problem in rein- 29. Borosnyói, A., Snóbli, I.: Crack width variation within the
forced concrete members (Couplage mécanique et corrosion concrete cover of reinforced concrete members. Journal of
dans les éléments de béton armé), PhD thesis, Paul Sabatier SZTE, Építőanyag, vol. 62, No.3, 2010/3, pp. 70–74.
University (Toulouse, France), Jan 2000 (in French). 30. Beeby, A. W.: The influence of the parameter ϕ/ρeff on crack
13. Vidal, T., Castel, A., François, R.: Analyzing crack width to widths. Stuctural Concrete, 2004, No 2, pp. 71–83.
predict corrosion in reinforced concrete. Cement and Con- 31. Beeby, A. W.: The influence of the parameter ϕ/ρeff on crack
crete Research, 2004, vol. 34/1, pp. 165–174. widths. Discussion, Stuctural Concrete, 2005, No. 4, pp.
14. Schiessl, P.: Zur Frage der zulässigen Rissbreite und der er- 155–165.
forderlichen Betondeckung im Stahlbetonbau unter beson- 32. Broms, B. B.: Technique for Investigation of Internal Cracks
derer Berücksichtigung der Karbonatisierungstiefe des Be- in Reinforced Concrete Members. ACI Journal, vol. 62, No.
tons. Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton, 1976, No. 255. 1, Jan 1965, pp. 35–43.
15. Schiessl, P.: Grundlagen der Neuregelung zur Beschränkung 33. Broms, B. B., Lutz, L. A.: Effects of Arrangement of Rein-
der Rissbreite. Deutscher Ausschuβ für Stahlbeton, 1989, No. forcement on Crack Width and Spacing of Reinforced Con-
400, pp. 158–175. crete Members. ACI Journal, Proc., vol. 62, No. 11, Nov 1965,
16. Otsuki, N., Miyazoto, S., Diola, N. D., Suzuki, H.: Influences pp. 1395–1410.
of Bending Crack and Water-Cement Ratio on Chloride-In- 34. Pérez Caldentey A., Corres Peiretti, H., Peset Iribarren, J., Gi-
duced Corrosion of Main Reinforcing Bars and Stirrups. ACI raldo Soto, A.: Cracking of RC members revisited: influence
Materials Journal, vol. 97, No. 4, Jul/Aug 2000, pp. 454–464. of cover, ∅/ρs,ef and stirrup spacing – an experimental and
theoretical study. Structural Concrete Journal, 2013/1, pp.
17. fib: FRP reinforcement in RC structures. fib Bulletin 40, Lau-
69–78.
sanne, 2007.
35. Rossi, P., Ulm, F.-J., Chauvel, D., Schaller, I., De Larrard, F.,
18. Ceroni, M., Pecce, M.: Design provisions for crack spacing
Guerrier, F.: Minimum reinforcement and durability in nu-
and width in RC elements externally bonded with FRP. Com-
clear power plant cooling towers (Ferraillage minimum et du-
posites Part B, 40, 2009, pp. 17–28.
rabilité dans les aéroréfrigérants de centrale nucléaire).
19. Goto, Y., Otsuka, K.: Studies on Internal Cracks Formed in LCPC, Études et Recherches des Laboratoires des Ponts
Concrete Around Deformed Tension Bars. ACI Journal, vol. et Chaussées, série Ouvrages d’art, No. OA 38/2001 (in
68, No. 4, Apr 1971, pp. 244–251. French).
20. Eckfeldt, L.: In-depth Analysis on Bond of Reinforcement in 36. Ulm, F.-J., Rossi, P., Schaller, I., Chauvel, D.: Durability scal-
Cracked RC Structures. Proc. of 4th International Sympo- ing of cracking in HPC-structures subject to hygromechani-
sium on Bond in Concrete 2012: Bond, Anchorage, Detail- cal gradients. Journal of Structural Engineering, ASCE, vol.
ing, Brescia, Italy, 17–20 Jun 2012, eds.: John W. Cairns, Gio- 125(6), Jun 1999, pp. 693–702.
vanni Metelli, Giovanni A. Plizzari: 1, General Aspects of 37. Balázs G. L.: Fatigue of Bond. ACI Materials Journal,
Bond. ISBN/ISSN 978-88-907078-1-0, pp. 113–120. Nov–Dec 1991, pp. 620–629.
21. Windisch, A.: Probabilistic Aspects of Bond-Governed Prob- 38. Ferry-Borges, J.: Cracking and deformability of Reinforced
lems Based on Local Bond Force-Slip Diagrams Determined Cocrete Beams. IABSE pub., Zurich, 1966, vol. 26, pp.
by a New Method. Proc. of Int. Symp. on Bond in Concrete, 75–79.
Applied Science Publishers, London, 1982, pp. 458–466. 39. Lutz, L. A., Gergely, P.: Mechanics of Bond and Slip of De-
22. Windisch, A.: Characteristic crack widths in tensile and flex- formed Bars in Concrete. ACI Journal, 1967, 64(11), pp.
ural elements. Materials and Structures II. (Zur Berechnung 711–721.
von kritischen Rissbreiten in Zugstäben und Biegebalken. 40. Gergely, P., Lutz, L. A.: Maximum Crack Width in Rein-
Werkstoff und Konstruktion II.) Prof. Rehm 65th Birthday, forced Flexural Members, Causes, Mechanism and Control
1989. ibidem-Publisher, Stuttgart, pp. 241–261 (in German). of Cracking in Concrete. ACI SP-20, 1968, pp. 87–117.
23. Eckfeldt, L.: Opportunities and Limits of Crack Control in 41. Edwards, A. D., Picard, A.: Theory of Cracking in Concrete
Respect to Varying Bond Situations (Möglichkeiten und Beams. Proc. ASCE Journal of Structural Division, V:98;
Grenzen der Berechnung von Rissbreiten in veranderlichen ST12, Dec 1972, pp. 2687–2700.
Verbundsituationen), PhD thesis, TU Dresden, 2006 (in Ger- 42. Beeby, A. W.: The prediction of crack width in hardened con-
man). crete. The Structural Engineer, vol. 57A, 1979/1, pp. 9–17.
24. Eckfeldt, L.: Crack Control – The Performance of current 43. Martin, H, Schieβl, P., Schwarzkopf, M.: Ableitung eines all-
calculation models compared to theoretical studies on long gemeingültiges Berechnungsverfahren für Riβbreiten aus
bond length. Proceedings of fib Symp. 2005, Budapest (eds.: Lastbeanspruchung auf der Grundlage von theoretischen
Balázs, G. L., Borosnyói, A.), pp. 705–710. Erkenntnissen und Versuchsergebnissen. Forschung Stra-
25. Eckfeldt, L.; Schröder, S.; Lemnitzer, L.; Hamdan, A.; Cur- βenbau und Straβenverkehstechnik, 1980, No. 309, pp. 33–
bach, M.: Verbesserung der Vorhersagequalität von sehr 66 (in German).
kleinen Rissbreiten (Improvement of the prediction quality 44. Giuriani, E.: On the effective stiffness of a bar in cracked
of very small crack widths). Final report on research project Concrete. Bond in Concrete, Proc., Applied Science Publish-
for Deutsche Institut für Bautechnik (DIBt), Institute of Con- ers, London 1982, pp. 107–126.
crete Structures, TU Dresden, 2009, 317pp. 45. Noakowski, P.: Verbundorientierte, kontinuierliche Theorie
26. Husain, S. I., Ferguson, P. M.: Flexural Crack Widths at the zur Ermittlung der Rissbreite. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau,
Bars in Reinforced Concrete Beams. Center for Highway 1985/7, pp. 185–190 & 1985/8, pp. 215–221 (in German).
Research, The University of Texas at Austin 1968, resarch 46. ACI: Cracking of Concrete Members in Direct Tension. ACI
report No. 102-1F. Committee 224, ACI Journal, Jan–Feb 1986, pp. 3–13.
27. Yannopoulos, P. J.: Variation of concrete crack width 47. Janovic, K.: Zur Riβbildung im Stahlbeton- und Spannbeton-
through the concrete cover to reinforcement. Magazine of bau. Beton+Fertigteil-Technik, 1986/12, pp. 161–169 (in Ger-
Concrete Research, Jun 1989, pp. 63–68. man).

48. Balázs G. L.: Bond Model with Non-linear Bond Slip Law, flections. Supporting Documents, ETSICCP – UPM. Madrid,
Studi e Ricerche (periodical of post-graduate school on de- 2003. http://hormigon.mecanica.upm.es/files/ PDF/SD-De-
sign of reinforced and prestressed concrete structures – flections.pdf (also published as part of EC2 Commentary, ed.
Fratelli Pesenti, Politecnico di Milano, Italia), vol. 9, 1987, by European Concrete Platform).
pp.157–180. 67. Debernardi, P. G., Taliano, M.: Span-to-height ratio limits for
49. Oh, B. H., Kang, Y. H.: New Formulas for Maximum Crack prestressed concrete members. Structural Concrete Journal,
Width and Crack Spacing in Reinforced Concrete Flexural 2010, vol. 11, pp. 35–43, ISSN 1464-417.
Member. ACI Structural Journal, 1987, Mar–Apr, pp. 68. Vollum, R. L.: Comparison of deflection calculations and
103–112. span-to-depth ratios in BS 8110 and Eurocode 2. Magazine
50. König, G., Fehling, E.:. Zur Riβbreitenbeschränkung im of Concrete Research, 2009, vol. 61, pp. 465–476, ISSN
Stahlbetonbau. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau, 1988, No. 6, pp. 0024-9831.
161–167 & No. 7, pp. 199–204 (in German). 69. CEB: CEB Design Manual Cracking and Deformations.
51. Balázs, G. L.: Cracking Analysis Based on Slips and Bond CEB Bulletin d’Information No. 158, Lausanne, 1985.
Stresses. ACI Materials Journal, vol. 90, No. 4, Jul–Aug 1993,
70. Ghali, A., Favre, R., Elbadry, M.: Concrete Structures: Stress-
pp. 340–348.
es and Deformations – Analysis and Design for Sustainabili-
52. König, G., Tue, N. V.: Grundlagen und Bemessungshilfen für
ty, 4th ed., Spon Press, London/New York, 2011, 663pp,
die Riβbreitenbeschränkung im Stahlbeton und Spannbeton
www.sponpress.com/concretestructures.
sowie Kommentare, Hintergrundinformationen und Anwen-
dungsbeispiele zu den Regelungen nach DIN 1045, EC2 und 71. Debernardi P. G.: Behaviour of concrete structures in ser-
Model Code 90. Deutscher Ausschuss für Stahlbeton, No. vice. Journal of Structural Engineering, 1989, vol. 116, pp.
466, 1996, 55pp. (in German). 32–50.
53. Martin, P., Alvarez, M., Kaufmann, W., Sigrist, V.: Tension 72. Marí, A. R., Bairán, J. M., Duarte, N: Long-term deflections
Chord Model for Structural Concrete. Stuctural Engeneering in cracked reinforced concrete flexural members. Engineer-
International, 1998/4, pp. 287–298. ing Structures, vol. 32, Elsevier, 2010, pp. 829–842.
54. Debernardi, P. G., Guiglia, M., Taliano, M.: Effect of Sec- 73. Debernardi, P. G.: Strutture di calcestruzzo armato precom-
ondary Cracks for the Cracking Analysis of an R.C. Tie. ACI presso. Celid, 408pp., 2012, ISBN 978-88-7661-936-6.
Materials Journal, ISSN 0889-325X (in press). 74. Marí, A.: Numerical simulation of the segmental construc-
55. Debernardi, P. G., Guiglia, M., Taliano, M.: Modelling of the tion of three dimensional concrete frames. Engineering
cracking behaviour of prestressed concrete structures. Proc. Structures 22 (2000), pp. 585–596.
vol. 1, Czech Concrete Society (CS), Concrete engineering 75. Cervenka, J., Cervenka, V., Janda, Z.: Safety assessment in
for excellence and efficiency, fib Symposium Prague 8–10 fracture analysis of concrete structures. Proc., Fracture Me-
Jun 2011, pp. 211–214, ISBN 9788087158296. chanics of Concrete Structures, ISBN 978-0-415-44616-7, pp.
56. Borosnyói, A., Balázs, G. L.: Models for flexural cracking in 1043–1049.
concrete: the state of the art. Stuctural Concrete Journal, 76. Cervenka, V.: Reliability-based non-linear analisis according
2005, No. 2, pp. 53–62. to fib Model Code 2010. Structural Concrete Journal,
57. Taliano, M.: The improved n-method for the calculation of 2013/1, pp. 19–28.
stresses in service. Structural Concrete, 2009, vol. 10, pp. 77. Gribniak, V., Kaklauskas, G., Kwan, A. K. H., Bacinskas, D.,
3–13, ISSN 1464-4177. Ulbinas, D.: Deriving stress-strain relationships for steel fibre
58. Müller, H. S., Anders, I., Breiner, R., Vogel, M.: Concrete: treat- concrete in tension from tests of beams with ordinary rein-
ment of types and properties in MC 2010. Structural Concrete forcement. Engineering Structures, 2012/42, pp. 387–395.
Journal, 2013, DOI 10.1002/suco.201200048 (in press).
78. Gribniak, V., Cervenka, V., Kaklauskas, G.: Deflection pre-
59. AASHTO. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specification.
diction of reinforced concrete beams by design codes and
Amer. Assoc. of State Highway & Transportation Officials
computer simulation. Engineering Structures, 2012 (under
(AASHTO), Washington, DC, 2004.
revision).
60. fib. Long term serviceability observations of concrete struc-
79. Kaklauskas, G.: Flexural layered deformational model of re-
tures. fib Bulletin (in preparation).
inforced concrete members. Magazine of Concrete Re-
61. Chiorino, M. A., Sassone, M.: Further considerations and up-
search, 2004/56(10), pp. 575–584.
dates on time-dependent analysis of concrete structures. fib
Bulletin 52, Textbook, vol. 2, section 4.1.6, Lausanne, 2010 80. Kaklauskas, G., Gribniak, V., Girdzius, R.: Average stress-
average strain tension-stiffening relationships based on pro-
62. Chiorino, M. A., Carreira, D.: Factors affecting creep and
visions of design codes. Journal of Zhejiang University
shrinkage of hardened concrete and guide for modelling – A
SCIENCE A 2011/12(10), pp. 731–736.
state-of-the-art report on international recommendations
and scientific debate. The Indian Concrete Journal, Dec 81. Cervenka, V.: Computer simulation of failure of concrete
2012, pp. 11–24. structures for practice. 1st fib Congress 2002, Concrete
63. Chiorino, M. A., Casalegno, C., Evaluation of the structural Structures in 21st Century, Osaka, Japan, keynote lecture in
response to the time-dependent behaviour of concrete. Part session 13, pp. 289–304.
1 – An internationally harmonized format. The Indian Con- 82. Kaklauskas, G., Gribniak, V., Bacinskas, D., Vainiunas, P.:
crete Journal, Dec 2012, pp. 25–38. Shrinkage influence on tension stiffening in concrete mem-
64. Sassone, M., Casalegno, C.: Evaluation of the structural re- bers. Engineering Structures, vol. 31, No. 6, 2009, pp.
sponse to the time-dependent behaviour of concrete. Part 2 – 1305–1312.
A general computational approach. The Indian Concrete 83. Kaklauskas, G., Gribniak, V.: Eliminating shrinkage effect
Journal, Dec 2012, pp. 39–54. from moment-curvature and tension-stiffening relationships
65. ACI 209.3R-XX, Analysis of Creep and Shrinkage Effects on of reinforced concrete members, ASCE Journal of Structural
Concrete Structures, Chiorino M. A. (chair of ed. team), ACI Engineering, vol. 137, No. 12, 2011, pp. 1460–1469.
Committee 209, final draft, Mar 2011, 228 pp. 84. Demilecamps, L.: Reliable Shrinkage and Crack Design:
66. Corres Peiretti, H., Pérez Caldentey, A., López Agüí, J. C., Edt- CEOS.FR French national Research Program, Experimental
bauer, J.: PrEN Chapter 7 – Serviceability Limit States. De- Aspects, electronic proc., fib Congress, Washington, 2010.

85. Toutlemonde, F., Torrenti, J.-M.: Crack Control of Mass Con- Prof. Stephen J. Foster, The University of new South Wales, Centre for
crete and Related Issues concerning Early-Age of Concrete Infrustructure Engineering and Safety, School of Civil and Environmental
Structures. RILEM Proceedings PRO85, Paris, 2012, 223pp. Engineering, 2052 UNSW Sydney, New South Wales, Australia,
86. Rospars, C., Chauvel, D.: Control of cracking in RC Struc- s.foster@unsw.edu.au
tures: a major step toward serviceability. Collection of Prof. Emeritus Amin Ghali, University of Calgary, Civil Engineering,
Etudes et Recherches des Laboratoires des Ponts at T2N 1N4 Calgary, Alberta, Canada, aghali@ucalgary.ca
Chaussées, 2012 Dr. Viktor Gribniak, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Civil
87. Sakai. K.: Sustainability in fib Model Code 2010 and its Engineering Research Centre, Sauletekio av. 12, 10223 Vilnius, Lithuania,
future perspective, Structural Concrete, DOI 10.1002/ Viktor.Gribniak@vgtu.lt
suco.201300012 (in press).
Dr. Matteo Guiglia, Politecnico di Torino, Department of Structural,
Geotechnical and Building Engineering, Corso Duca degli Abruzzi, 24, I –
10129 Turin, Italy, matteo.guiglia@polito.it
Prof. Gintaris Kaklauskas, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University,
Bridges and Special Structures, Sauletekio av. 11, 10223 Vilnius, Lithuania,
Gintaris.Kaklauskas@vgtu.lt
Prof. Robert J. Lark, Cardiff University, Cardiff School of Engineering,
Queen’s Buildings, The Parade, CF24 3AA Cardiff, Wales, UK,
György L. Balázs lark@cardiff.ac.uk
Professor, Faculty of Civil Engineering Peter Lenkei, Pecs University, Structures, Nanasi út 2/C II 45,
Budapest University of Technology & Economics 1031 Budapest, Hungary, len980@t-online.hu
Muegyetem rkp. 3
H-1111 Budapest Prof. Michel Lorrain, INSA, Civil Engineering Department, Cedex 4,
balazs@vbt.bme.hu 31077 Toulouse, France, lorrain@insa-toulouse.fr
Prof. Antonio Marí, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Jordi Girona 1–3,
Bldg C1, Barcelona 08034, Spain
Prof. György L. Balázs (corresponding author) Budapest University of Professor Josko Ozbolt, University of Stuttgart, Institute of Construction
Technology and Economics, Muegyetem rkp. 3., 1111 Budapest, Hungary, Materials, Pfaffenwaldring 4, 70560 Stuttgart, Germany,
balazs@vbt.bme.hu ozbolt@iwb.uni-stuttgart.de
Philippe Bisch, EGIS Industries, 4, rue Dolorès Ibarruri, 93100 Montreuil, Prof. Marisa Pecce, University of Sannio, Engineering department,
France, philippe.bisch@egis.fr piazza Roma, 22, 82101 Benevento, Italy, pecce@unisannio.it
Assoc.Prof. Adorján Borosnyói, Budapest University of Technology Prof. Alejandro Pérez Caldentey, Polytechnic University of Madrid/
and Economics, Muegyetem rkp. 3., 1111 Budapest, Hungary, FHECOR, ETSI Caminos, Canales y Puertos, Prof. Aranguren S/N, 28040
adorjan.borosnyoi@gmail.com Madrid, Spain, apc@fhecor.es
Dr Olivier Burdet, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, IBETON, Assist.Professor Maurizio Taliano, Politecnico di Torino, Department of
Station 18, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland, olivier.burdet@epfl.ch Structural, Geotechnical and Building Engineering, Corso Duca degli
Abruzzi, 24, I – 10129 Turin, Italy, maurizio.taliano@polito.it
Dr. Clare Burns, Walt+Galmarini AG, Drahtzugstrasse 18, 8008 Zurich,
Switzerland, clare.burns@waltgalmarini.ch Damir Tkalcic, Tempus projekt, Vile Velebita 22, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia,
damir.tkalcic@tempus-projekt.hr
Assistant professor Francesca Ceroni, University of Sannio, Engineering
department, piazza Roma, 21, 82100 Benevento, Italy, ceroni@unisannio.it Prof. Jean Michel Torrenti, IFSTTAR, Materials and structures,
14–20 Boulevard Newton, Cité Descartes, Champs sur Marne,
Dr. Vladimir Cervenka, Cervenka Consulting Ltd, Na Hrebenkach 55, 77447 Marne la Vallée Cedex 2, France,
15000 Praha 5, Czech Republic, vladimir.cervenka@cervenka.cz jean-michel.torrenti@ifsttar.fr
Prof. Emeritus Mario A. Chiorino, Politecnico di Torino, DAD, Prof. Lluis Torres, University of Girona, Dept. of Mechanical &
Viale Mattioli 39, I – 10125 Turin, Italy, mario.chiorino@polito.it Construction Engineering, Campus de Montilivi, 17071 Girona, Spain,
Prof. Emeritus Piergiorgio Debernardi, Politecnico di Torino, Department lluis.torres@udg.edu
of Structural, Geotechnical and Building Engineering, Corso Duca degli François Toutlemonde, IFSTTAR, Materials and structures,
Abruzzi, 24, I – 10129 Turin, Italy, piergiorgio.debernardi@polito.it 14–20 Boulevard Newton, Cité Descartes, Champs sur Marne, 77447 Marne
Dr. Lars Eckfeldt, TU Braunschweig, iBMB, FG Massivbau, Beethovenstr. la Vallée Cedex 2, France, francois.toutlemonde@ifsttar.fr
52, 38106 Braunschweig, Germany, l.eckfeldt@ibmb.tu-bs.de Prof. Tamon Ueda, Hokkaido University, Faculty of Engineering, Kita 13,
Prof. Mamdouh El-Badry, University of Calgary, Civil Engineering, Nish 8, Kita-ku, 060-8628 Sapporo, Japan, ueda@eng.hokudai.ac.jp
2500 University Drive, N.W., T2N 1N4 Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Prof. Jan L. Vitek, Czech Technical University, Faculty of Civil Engineering,
melbadry@ucalgary.ca Dept. of concrete and masonry struct., Thakurova 7, 166 29 Prague 6,
Prof. Ekkehard Fehling, University Kassel, Institute of Structural Czech Republic, vitek@metrostav.cz
Engineering, Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Assoc.Prof. Lukáš Vráblík, CTU in Prague, Faculty of Civil Engineering,
Kurt-Wolters-Str. 3, 34109 Kassel, Germany Thakurova 7, 16629 Prague 6, Czech Republic, lukas.vrablik@fsv.cvut.cz

10 1002@suco 201200060

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

10 1002@suco 201200060

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technical Paper

György L. Balázs et al. DOI: 10.1002/suco.201200060

Design for SLS according to fib Model Code 2010

Table 1. Serviceability design with or without calculations

SLS Type of control Method Section in Section in

Indirect crack control Limitation of stresses 7.6.3 3.1

Selection of max. rebar ∅ 7.6.4.6 3.1

Indirect deflection control Limitation of L/d 7.6.5.2.4 6.1

Detailed deflection control Simplified method 7.6.5.2.2 6.2, 6.3

2 Introduction to cracking preciable dissatisfaction.” Leonhardt [10] suggested:

100 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2

Fig. 1. Internal cracks

Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2 101

Fig. 3. Non-quadratic proposals for effective area of concrete in tension

102 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2

Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2 103

104 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2

mation, the stabilized cracking stage is usually not

3.2.2 Design value of crack width

Crack width has to satisfy the following condition in order

Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2 105

Crack formation Stabilized cracking

Short-term, τbms = 1.8 · fctm(t) τbms = 1.8 · fctm(t)

Long-term, τbms = 1.35 · fctm(t) τbms = 1.8 · fctm(t)

The relative mean strain in Eq. (2) follows from

106 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2

c The effective steel ratio ρs,ef is

For short-term loads in the stabilized cracking stage, the

Fig. 10. Beam cross-section The transfer length is

Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2 107

The effective area and effective reinforcement ratio will be

Fig. 11. Aerial view of site (http://www.google.com/permissions/

Fig. 12. Section through a secondary clarifier

108 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2

Flexural forces FORCE COMBINATIONS

Fig. 14. Geometry and reinforcement of prestressed beam

Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2 109

εtop = 0.452 mm/m

1/r = –3.168 km–1

εbottom = – 0.499 mm/m

Fig. 15. Sectional analysis of prestressed section

The section at the central support to the beam is Ap 300

d ≈ 255 mm 5 Introduction to deformations

110 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2

Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2 111

112 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2

Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2 113

ainst = ζ · aII I 5( g + 0.2q)ᐉ4

Long-term deflections where:

114 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2

sh sh the general method because they interact. Table 5 summa-

Bilinear 13.20 8.80 14.97 22.00 4.82 5.56 10.38 25.35

Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2 115

116 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2

σp,0 (N/mm2) 12, 5  ᐉ ᐉ 

1000 -0.4 -7.9 -8.4

1074.4 1132.1 1055.9

300 -15.0 MPa -3.1 -1.0

Table 7. Calculation details for the example of a partially prestressed beam

Section σc,top(t1) σc,bottom(t1) σc,top(t2) σc,bottom(t2) εc,top(t2) εc,bottom(t2) 1/r (t2)

1 –5.52 –5.50 –4.97 –4.93 –0.65 –0.65 2.61 · 10–6

Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2 117

118 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 2