Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Effect of Arrangement of Tensile Reinforcement On Exural Stiffness and Cracking
Effect of Arrangement of Tensile Reinforcement On Exural Stiffness and Cracking
net/publication/304177334
CITATIONS READS
30 935
5 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Special Issue "Advanced Composites: from Materials Characterization to Structural Application" to be published in Materials (ISSN 1996-1944; IF = 2.467) View project
Cracking behaviour of RC elements: difference between tension and flexure View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Viktor Gribniak on 06 July 2016.
Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Due to the highly complex cracking behaviour of reinforced concrete structures, their design for service-
Received 16 April 2015 ability is one of the most challenging tasks of engineering practice. Existing test data support a general
Revised 19 April 2016 inference that the deformation behaviour of concrete elements is affected by the arrangement of rein-
Accepted 20 June 2016
forcement in the tensile zone. Most of the current design approaches are based on the experimental data
of laboratory specimens with simplified arrangement of the reinforcement. Consequently, the corre-
sponding models are often inadequate to predict deformations and cracking of elements with non-
Keywords:
conventional distribution of the bars. In the current study, the number of the reinforcement layers is
Reinforced concrete
Experiments
found to correlate with the flexural stiffness. The paper also compares the crack width and crack spacing
Deformations experimentally determined in the beams with different numbers of reinforcement layers. The results to
Tension stiffening some extent seem to be in conflict with the generally accepted concept relating crack widths to the crack-
Cracking ing distances. Although the observed crack distances of the beams with three layers of bars were larger,
their maximum crack openings were smaller than in the conventionally reinforced specimens with the
same reinforcement ratio.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.06.026
0141-0296/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
V. Gribniak et al. / Engineering Structures 124 (2016) 418–428 419
assess the crack distance, the authors propose a numerical proce- after casting. The specimens were cured at an average relative
dure for analysis of digital images. humidity (RH) of 73% and a temperature of 20 °C.
Steel reinforcement
∅14
∅12
∅8
∅6
Table 1
Main characteristics of the test beam.
a2
Ac,ef=2.18×10-2 m2 Ø8
Ac,ef=2.15×10 m-2 2
Ø 10 Ac,ef=2.24×10-2 m2 Ø6 Ac,ef=2.46×10-2 m2 Ø8
Fig. 2. Cross-sections of the test beams with different distribution of reinforcement bars in the tensile zone.
Here Dk and Dl are the averaged strains along k and l gauge lines
(1st. . .4th lines, Fig. 3), respectively; hkl is the distance between
the lines (k, l = 1. . .4, k – l). Fig. 4 shows the obtained moment-
Table 2 curvature diagrams.
Mix proportions [kg/m3]. The crack pattern was marked during the tests at the side of the
Material Mix A Mix B
beams, opposite to that where surface deformation measurements
were taken (Fig. 3). At the chosen loading levels, the crack width
Sand 0/4 mm 910 ± 2% 905 ± 2%
was measured at the gravity centre of the tensile reinforcement
Crushed aggregate 5/8 mm 940 ± 2% 388 ± 1%
Crushed aggregate 11/16 mm 548 ± 1% using a 50 magnification (50) optical microscope. Additionally,
Cement CEM I 42.5 N 415 ± 1% 400 ± 0.5% development of the visible cracks was located specifying the crack
Water 174 ± 5% 124 ± 5% shape under the particular loading level. Fig. 5 represents the final
Concrete plasticizer Stachement 2067 3.32 ± 2% –
crack pattern of the beams, indicating the load levels for which the
Concrete plasticizer Muraplast FK 63.30 – 2 ± 2%
cracks reach a given web depth, thereby obtaining a representation
of the crack development with load.
Table 3
Relative curvature prediction percentage, Dj, determined at the loading levels highlighted in Fig. 6.
Group I. Whereas, Group II represents the specimens with the rein- purposes of illustration of the dependency of d on the variation of
forcement distributed in one layer (Fig. 6). It is evident that the the effective reinforcement ratio, the effective depth was fitted to
deformation behaviour of the beams from these two groups are achieve best agreement between the theoretical and the experi-
different. The authors’ viewpoint is that a prediction is safe, if mental moment-curvature relationships. For the considered beams
Dj 6 0, since the physical nature of the ratio Dj means that the with three layers of reinforcement, the modified depth can be
code overestimates the deflection in such cases. MC 2010 overesti- obtained from the following equation:
mated deformations (curvatures) of the elements from the first
group at all considered loading levels: at the service load, the over- pef
dmod ¼ d 1:13 0:078 : ð3Þ
estimation of the predictions (the prediction safety) varies from n
14% to 32%. On the contrary, deformations of the beams with con-
ventional distribution of the reinforcement (in one layer with min- Here d is the effective depth; pef is the effective reinforcement per-
imal cover) were underestimated almost at all loading stages: at centage; n is the modular ratio Es/Ec. The modified moment-
the service loading, deficiency of the predictions was found equal curvature diagrams are shown in Fig. 7 with the relative predictions
to 7–15%. The obvious differences of the predictions between the Dj [from Eq. (2)] presented in Table 4. As can be observed from
groups inspire a modification of the deflection prediction for the Tables 3 and 4, this modification improves predictions securing a
specimens with three layers of the reinforcement. rational safety margins for the service loads, Mser.
To analyse the variation of the prediction errors with load, Fig. 8
scatters the predictions Dj along the normalized loading level M0
3.2. Modifying the effective depth
determined as
Table 4
Modified curvature prediction percentage, Dj, determined at the loading levels highlighted in Fig. 6.
Loading level n Loading level n+1 Final loading level Detailed procedure
No.3 No.10 No.2 No.8 No.1 No.5 No.9 No.3
No.2 No.1
No.2 No.1
No.7 No.5 No.9
5 mm Trimed
No.5
No.3 No.8 No.19 points
80 80
M, kNm p=0.6% M, kNm p=1.0%
70 70
60 3 layers 60 3 layers
50 1 layer 50 1 layer
S1-2
40 40
S1-4
30 30
S2-5nm S1-6
S1-5-2nm
20 20
S2-4-2nm S2-1
S2-3 10 S1-1
10
Maximum distance between cracks, m Maximum distance between cracks, m
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Fig. 10. Variation of maximum crack distance with load for the beams with one and three layers of reinforcement.
80 80
M, kNm p=0.6% M, kNm p=1.0%
70 70
60 3 layers 60 3 layers
50 1 layer 50 1 layer
40 40
S1-2
S1-4
30 30
S2-5nm S1-6
20 20
S1-5-2nm
S2-3 S2-4-2nm S2-1 S1-1
10 10
Average distance between cracks, m Average distance between cracks, m
0 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Fig. 11. Variation of mean crack distance with load for the beams with one and three layers of reinforcement.
Table 5
Experimental and calculated maximum distances between cracks, determined at the service load.
Group Beam Bars, (£, mm) Effective ratio, pef (%) Effective heighta, hef (mm) Crack distance, sr,max (mm) Ratio, Ds (%)
2.5 (h-d) (h x)/3 Experimental Calculated
I S1-1 9 £10 3.3 – 76.3 137.5 124.6 9.4
S1-6 12 £8 2.8 – 80.4 194.1 120.3 38.0
S2-1 15 £6 1.9 – 80.5 168.3 128.2 23.9
S2-5nm 9 £8 1.8 – 89.4 151.4 161.0 6.3
II S1-2 5 £14 4.0 68.0 – 141.7 137.7 2.8
S1-4 2 £22 3.6 – 75.2 125.1 209.0 67.1
S1-5-2nm 4 £16 3.8 75.6 – 105.7 155.7 47.3
S2-3 3 £14 2.4 69.0 – 134.1 203.9 52.0
S2-4-2nm 4 £12 2.1 78.5 – 122.3 199.8 63.4
a
The effective height is associated with the corresponding governing criteria.
the ones in the equivalent specimens with three layers of clarification. The respective values of the crack distances deter-
reinforcement. Providing the total area of the tensile rein- mined using the proposed clustering procedure at ‘‘loading levels
forcement is constant, distribution of bars in multiple layers 3” and ‘‘4” (Fig. 6) are given in Table 6. In Table 6, the experimental
resulted in a delayed stabilized cracking stage (Fig. 8 evi- data are ranged in accordance with the ratio presented in the last
dences this effect). Consequently, the MC 2010 prediction column. In the considered cases, this ratio varies from 1.3 to 2.0
adequacy seems to be dependent on the layout of the tensile and is equal to 1.5 in average. This result is in agreement with
reinforcement. the findings of other studies suggesting the ratio of maximum
(3) The predictions for the conventionally reinforced elements and mean crack spacing to be between 1.3 and 1.7 [13]. The
noticeably overestimate the experimental values. The num- authors also found that this ratio differed for the members with
ber of the tested specimens, however, is not sufficient to different reinforcement ratio, on average being 1.7 and 1.4, respec-
reach a reliable conclusion about the adequacy of the predic- tively for the cases of p = 0.6% and 1.0%. However, due to a limited
tions. Further research is needed to investigate the suitabil- test data and interval of the reinforcement ratio, these observa-
ity of the equations proposed by the MC 2010. tions should be understood more as insights for further research
than as general evidence.
A relation between the maximum and average crack distances It should be kept in mind that the above results were obtained
(Figs. 10 and 11) is another important parameter that needs based on the crack distances that were established using the
V. Gribniak et al. / Engineering Structures 124 (2016) 418–428 425
Table 6
The crack distance results for the ‘‘3” and ‘‘4” loading steps highlighted in Fig. 6.
Table 7
Width (lm) of five maximum, w(1)-(5), and average, wm, cracks measured at the load stages shown in Fig. 6.
Loading level Opening rank Three layers of reinforcement One layer of reinforcement
S1-1 S1-6 S2-1 S2-5nm S1-2 S1-4 S1-5-2nm S2-3 S2-4-2nm
1 (0.32–0.33 Mu) w(1) 50 30 24 – 50 60 110 40 180
w(2) 40 20 14 – 40 60 100 40 140
w(3) 40 – 14 – 30 38 100 30 140
w(4) 40 – 14 – 24 34 90 30 100
w(5) 40 – – – 20 24 70 30 100
wm (cracks) 37 (7) 25 (2) 17 (4) – 31 (10) 33 (11) 65 (10) 24 (9) 132 (5)
w(1)/wm 1.35 1.20 1.41 – 1.61 1.82 1.69 1.67 1.36
2 (0.36–0.39 Mu) w(1) 80 30 30 – 62 80 120 60 320
w(2) 70 30 30 – 50 60 110 60 300
w(3) 70 30 24 – 50 54 110 50 260
w(4) 60 20 14 – 40 50 90 40 240
w(5) 60 20 – – 40 34 70 40 220
wm (cracks) 59 (7) 26 (5) 25 (4) – 39 (11) 42 (11) 68 (12) 29 (11) 210 (8)
w(1)/wm 1.36 1.15 1.20 – 1.59 1.91 1.77 2.07 1.52
3 (0.48–0.54 Mu) w(1) 100 60 82 200 102 120 130 100 440
w(2) 94 60 80 200 80 90 120 80 440
w(3) 80 40 80 190 70 70 110 60 440
w(4) 70 40 80 150 62 70 110 60 420
w(5) 70 40 60 100 54 44 110 60 420
wMCa 121 101 101 298 179 208 444 191 973
wm (cracks) 71 (9) 39 (11) 59 (8) 136 (8) 59 (11) 61 (11) 77 (14) 42 (12) 350 (10)
w(1)/wm 1.41 1.54 1.39 1.47 1.73 1.96 1.69 2.41 1.26
4 (0.58–0.63 Mu) w(1) 124 60 102 240 142 140 140 120 480
w(2) 120 60 100 230 100 100 120 80 480
w(3) 120 60 100 200 100 100 120 80 460
w(4) 120 50 80 160 100 70 120 80 460
w(5) 100 50 80 140 90 60 110 80 460
wMCa 154 131 144 419 223 264 558 248 1233
wm (cracks) 93 (10) 43 (12) 74 (9) 142 (14) 88 (11) 71 (12) 81 (15) 52 (13) 376 (11)
w(1)/wm 1.33 1.40 1.38 1.69 1.61 1.97 1.73 2.31 1.28
a
Maximum crack predictions by the Model Code 2010 [17].
clustering technique. For sake of illustration, a simple approach data considered in the previous sections of this paper. Therefore,
was presented in this study that did not take into account the this section presents more a qualitative than a quantitative assess-
height of the cracks. Thus, the secondary cracks were not excluded, ment of the results.
possibly giving reduced values of crack distances. Future research The analysis of the location of the maximum crack openings and
should include filtering technologies that will be able to suppress the corresponding distances between the cracks is the topic of this
minor inputs of the clustered data. In practical terms, it would section. This analysis is performed under the same characteristic
include accounting for the height of the cracks as well as possibly loading levels used for the deformation analysis. Due to their
their width. time-consuming character, crack measurements were performed
for a limited number of loading stages. Thus, the nearest crack
width measurement was attributed to the characteristic stage
4.2. Crack width
under consideration. This analysis deals with measurements of
the cracks located in the pure bending zone. At each loading stage,
The aforementioned stochastic nature and complex topology of
the five cracks with the maximum crack openings are considered.
cracks complicate crack width analysis. Furthermore, flexural
This experimental data is presented in Table 7; the respective crack
cracking is dependent on the level of the measurements (within
patterns are shown in Fig. 12. The crack with the largest opening is
the height of the section) [28]. In this context, reliability of these
assigned the first rank, referred to as ‘‘w(1)”.
measurements is rather low in comparison to the experimental
426 V. Gribniak et al. / Engineering Structures 124 (2016) 418–428
It is important to note that Tables 5 and 7 indicate contrasting quite evident. The relative predictions calculated by Eq. (2) vary
results: although the observed crack distances for the stabilized between 20% and 120% with exception of the beams S1-5-2nm
cracking stage (0.5–0.6 Mu) of the unconventionally reinforced and S2-4-2nm. The latter specimens, reinforced with GFRP bars dis-
beams are larger, their maximum crack openings are smaller than tributed in one layer (Fig. 2), demonstrate crack width overesti-
in the corresponding specimens with one layer of the bars. The mated two to four times. These results can be related to a
maximum crack widths of the paired beams S1-6 and S1-4 differ limited predictive capability of the MC 2010 regarding unconven-
more than twofold at all considered loading stages. Due to the tional reinforcement types, though previous research [31] has
decreased deformation modulus of GFRP reinforcement (Table 1), shown that within the loading stage characteristic to the service-
the paired elements S2-5nm and S2-4-2nm represent more extreme ability analysis bond characteristics of the GFRP bars comparable
differences. Fig. 10 also supports this. Such result is a consequence to ribbed steel reinforcement. Furthermore, the general idea of
of differences in the levels of crack monitoring – the measurements the MC 2010 is to formulate a mathematical model (consistent
were associated with the gravity centres of the tensile reinforce- with experimental evidence) that provides a reasonable reliability
ment. However, it can be also linked with the fact that a bar con- of the predictions of the maximum crack spacing and the maxi-
trols cracking in its vicinity only with internal cracks closing as mum crack width that can potentially occur.
distance from the bar increases and deformation concentrating in The obtained crack patterns shown in Fig. 12 illustrate the
a decreasing number of wider cracks [10,28–30]. approximate nature of the assumption of direct relation between
Along with the experimental data, Table 7 presents crack width the maximum crack width and the maximum crack distance, fun-
predictions obtained by the MC 2010 for the stabilized cracking damental for most of the cracking prediction models. The maxi-
stage. Although the reported crack width measurements could be mum crack opening is not necessarily located near the maximum
analysed only qualitatively, overestimation of the predictions is uncracked blocks noted as (this is true for 11 of 18 cracked
p=0.6% p=1.0%
Loading 1 layer 3 layers 1 layer 3 layers
S2-3 S2-1 S1-2 S1-1
(5) (1) (4) (2) (4) (3) (5) (1) (2) (3) (2) (5) (1) (4)
(3) (4) (3) (1) (2)
max max max max
max max max max
S2-4-2nm S2-5nm S1-5-2nm S1-6
(5) (1) (2) (3) (4) (3) (1) (4) (5)
1 (2) (1) (2)
0.3 Mu max max max
max max max
S1-4
(5) (3) (1) (4) (2)
max
max
S2-3 S2-1 S1-2 S1-1
(3) (1) (5) (4) (2) (2) (1) (5) (2) (4) (1) (3) (2) (4) (3) (5) (1)
(5) (3)(4) max
max max max
max max max max
S2-4-2nm S2-5nm S1-5-2nm S1-6
(5) (1) (4) (3) (2) (3) (1) (4) (5)
2 max
(2) (1)
(4)
(2) (3)
0.4 Mu max max
max
S2-3 S2-1 S1-2 S1-1
(5) (1) (4)(3) (2) (3) (4) (2) (5) (4)(1) (3) (3)
(4) (5)
(2) (1)
(5) (2) (1)
max max max
max
Fig. 12. Crack pattern under the reference loading levels indicated in Fig. 6 – the maximum cracks w(1). . .w(5) are designated as (1). . .(5).
V. Gribniak et al. / Engineering Structures 124 (2016) 418–428 427
Table 8
Parametric analysis of the crack width results.
schemes associated with the loading ranges ‘‘3” and ‘‘4”). However, members with low reinforcement ratio and high deformabil-
in the remaining seven cases, one of the five considered maximum ity of the bars. This issue is discussed in more detail in Ref.
cracks is adjacent to the maximum length block. In this regard, it is [10]. If this point is discarded, it is observed that w(1)/wm
important to note that in most cases of the latter specimens the increases with decreasing bar perimeter and with increasing
differences between the widths of the maximum cracks (Table 7) £/pef ratio.
was small.
From the theoretical point of view, in the stabilized cracking Unusual layout of the reinforcement bars in the beam S1-6
stage, the maximum crack should appear between two uncracked (Fig. 2) raises the issue of adequacy of the effective reinforcement
blocks of maximum total length (highlighted in Fig. 12). However, ratio. In accordance with design regulations [13], only the tensile
in the considered crack patterns, only 11 cases represent such an bars being inside the effective area of the concrete are accounted
‘‘ideal” crack distribution. In reality, the location of the maximum for. Following this rule, only the bottom layer (4 £8 mm bars)
crack is related to the defects in concrete structure and/or local of the reinforcement could be taken into account resulting in the
damages of the bond with reinforcement. The latter is important height of effective area, hef = 58.6 mm (compare to 80.4 mm,
for concrete elements reinforced with a relatively small number Table 5). Then results of the parametric analysis presented in
of bars. The increase of the number of bars smears out the cracking Tables 6 and 8 assuming the reduced effective reinforcement ratio,
behaviour. An elaborate discussion of this issue can be found in Ref. p0 ef = 1.26%, become less consistent as compared to the data of
[10]. Comparison of the results of paired-beams (Fig. 12) reveals other specimens. The same applies to the prediction results of
the fact that the number of visible cracks in the specimens with crack distance (Table 5) and crack width (Table 7).
a conventional distribution of the bars is always greater than that
observed in the elements with three layers of reinforcement. This 5. Summary and conclusions
observation seems to be in a conflict with the generally accepted
concept relating crack widths to the cracking distances. Although The study presented in this paper investigates the effect of the
the maximum crack distances observed at the stabilized cracking arrangement of tensile reinforcement on the flexural stiffness and
stage (0.6 Mu) were larger in the beams with the distributed cracking of concrete beams. The experimental data of nine beams
reinforcement, their maximum crack openings were smaller than tested by the authors have been used for this purpose. The beams
in the corresponding conventionally reinforced specimens. Proba- were reinforced with GFRP or steel bars. Two types of the beams
bly, this effect might be related to the development of internal were considered. The first group of specimens had a conventional
cracks around the multiple layers of the bars that are not visible reinforcement layout – the bars were distributed in a single layer
on the surface. with minimum (20 mm) cover. The second group contains speci-
In the analogy to the crack distances, the ratio between the mens with the same reinforcement ratio (as in the conventional
maximum and average crack widths is of high importance. Thus, beams), but with tensile reinforcement arranged in three layers.
Table 7 includes this ratio as well as the average crack width. For the determination of measured crack distance analysis, a
(The table also includes the respective number of cracks, which numerical procedure has been proposed in order to avoid subjec-
were averaged for.) The loading stages ‘‘3” and ‘‘4” (Fig. 6) are char- tivity. To evaluate differences in the behaviour, the predictions
acteristic for the cracking analysis related with the stabilized by Model Code 2010 were set as the reference assuming that a pre-
cracking stage. In detail, this loading range is analysed in Table 8, diction is safe if the code overestimates the experimental value.
where the experimental data are ranged in accordance to the ratio The study reveals that:
presented in the last column. From the results shown in Tables 7
and 8, the following observations can be made: (1) The number of the reinforcement layers correlates with the
flexural stiffness. At the service load, the deflection (curva-
(1) The ratio between the maximum and mean crack widths, ture) predictions by the Model Code were on the safe side
varying between 1.3 and 2.4, is equal to 1.7 in average. This for the beams with three reinforcement layers (the predic-
ratio is about 20% larger compared to the one defined for the tion safety varied from 14% to 32%), whereas the predictions
crack distances (Section 4.1). for the conventionally reinforced members were deficient by
(2) Unlike the crack distances, the ratio w(1)/wm is dependent on 7–15%.
the variation in the total perimeter RP of the reinforcement (2) Although the crack spacing predictions by the Model Code
bars and the parameter £/pef. An exception serves beam S2- for the beams with high concentration of the bars were quite
4-2nm that was reinforced with a single layer GFRP bars accurate, the results for the conventionally reinforced ele-
(Fig. 2). The observed discrepancy could be due to the ments differed significantly with the experimental values
uncertainties related to the serviceability characteristics of being about 50% larger than the calculated ones.
428 V. Gribniak et al. / Engineering Structures 124 (2016) 418–428
(3) The present experimental results on cracking do not reveal a [8] Gribniak V, Cervenka V, Kaklauskas G. Deflection prediction of reinforced
concrete beams by design codes and computer simulation. Eng Struct
clear correlation between crack widths and the crack spac-
2013;56:2175–86.
ing when the reinforcement layout changes. Although the [9] Ley Urzáiz J, Calavera Ruiz J. Experimental study on the influence of cover a
observed crack distances for the stabilized cracking stage quantity of reinforcement with different diameters in the moment curvature
of the beams with three layers of bars were larger, their relationship. Hormigón y Acero 2004;233(3):55–63 [in Spanish].
[10] Jakubovskis R, Kaklauskas G, Gribniak V, Weber A, Juknys M. Serviceability
maximum crack openings were smaller than in the conven- analysis of concrete beams with different arrangement of GFRP bars in the
tionally reinforced specimens with the same reinforcement tensile zone. ASCE J Compos Constr 2014;18(5). 04014005-1-10.
ratio. [11] Ibars EO, del Arco DC, Marí Bernat AR. Interface behavior in fiber-reinforced
polymer-strengthened beams subjected to transverse loads: maximum
(4) The maximum crack opening is not necessarily adjacent to transferred force. ASCE J Compos Constr 2009;13(1):35–44.
the maximum distance between cracks or located between [12] Si-Larbi A, Ferrier E, Hamelin P. Flexural behaviour of MRBC beams (multi-
two consecutive uncracked blocks of maximum total length. reinforcing bars concrete beams), promoting the use of FRHPC. Compos Struct
2006;74:163–74.
In this study, 11 of the considered 18 cracked schemes char- [13] Balazs GL, Bisch P, Borosnyoi A, et al. Design for SLS according to fib Model
acteristic for the stabilized cracking stage (i.e. 61% of the Code 2010. Struct Concr 2013;14(2):99–123.
cases) are in accordance with the conventional assumption [14] Balazs GL, Borosnyoi A. Cracking in CFRP prestressed members. In: Proc of the
fifth international conference on fibre-reinforced plastics for reinforced
of direct relation between the maximum crack width and concrete structures (FRPRCS-5). London: Thomas Telford; 2001. p. 609.
maximum crack distance. In general, related to the defects [15] Castel A, Vidal T, Francois R. Effective tension active cross-section of reinforced
in concrete structure and/or local damages of the bond with concrete beams after cracking. Mater Struct 2006;39:115–26.
[16] Barris C, Torres L, Comas J, Mias C. Cracking and deflections in GFRP RC beams:
reinforcement, the maximum crack localization problem
an experimental study. Compos Part B: Eng 2013;55:580–90.
requires elaborate stochastic modelling algorithms. [17] International Federation for Structural Concrete, fib. Model Code for Concrete
(5) For the limited number of beams presented in this study, the Structures 2010. Berlin: Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn; 2013.
ratio between the maximum and mean crack distances var- [18] Gribniak V, Kaklauskas G, Bacinskas D, Sung W-P, Sokolov A, Ulbinas D.
Investigation of shrinkage of concrete mixtures used for bridge construction in
ied between 1.3 and 2.0, on average being 1.5, a number that Lithuania. Baltic J Road Bridge Eng 2011;6(2):77–83.
is consistent with results by other researchers. It has been [19] Gribniak V, Kaklauskas G, Bacinskas D. Experimental investigation of
also found that this ratio is related to the reinforcement shrinkage influence on tension stiffening of RC beams. Proc of the eighth
international conference: creep, shrinkage and durability of concrete and
ratio, on average being 1.7 and 1.4, respectively, for the cases concrete structures (ConCreep 8), vol. 1. London: CRC Press/Balkema; 2009. p.
of p = 0.6% and 1.0%. 571–7.
(6) The ratio of maximum and mean crack widths varied [20] Gribniak V, Kaklauskas G, Torres L, Daniunas A, Timinskas E, Gudonis E.
Comparative analysis of deformations and tension-stiffening in concrete
between 1.3 and 2.4 (1.7 on average) with lower values char- beams reinforced with GFRP or steel bars and fibers. Compos Part B: Eng
acteristic of members with larger total perimeter of the bars 2013;50:158–70.
of the tensile reinforcement. [21] Stramandinoli RS, La Rovere HL. An efficient tension-stiffening model for
nonlinear analysis of reinforced concrete members. Eng Struct 2008;30
(7):2069–80.
[22] Pérez Caldentey A, Corres Peiretti H. Medida experimental de las
Acknowledgement deformaciones a largo plazo de dos vigas hiperestáticas postesas. Hormigón
y Acero 1999;211(1):2–29 [in Spanish].
[23] Rizkalla SH, Hwang LS. Crack prediction for members in uniaxial tension. ACI J
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support pro- Proc 1984;81(6):572–9.
vided by the Research Council of Lithuania (Research Project [24] Williams A. Test on large reinforced concrete elements subjected to direct
MIP–050/2014). tension, Technical Report 562. Wexham Springs: Cement and Concrete
Association; 1986.
[25] Calderón E, Fernández J. Investigación experimental sobre los modelos
References normativos de fisuración en piezas de hormigón armado sometidas a flexión
pura. Informes de la Construcción 2010;62(518):43–56 [in Spanish].
[1] Foley C, Buckhouse E. Method to increase capacity and stiffness of reinforced [26] Gribniak V, Mang HA, Kupliauskas R, Kaklauskas G, Juozapaitis A. Stochastic
concrete beams. ASCE Pract Periodical Struct Des Constr 1999;4(1):36–42. tension-stiffening approach for the solution of serviceability problems in
[2] Ghali A, Favre R, Elbadry M. Concrete structures: stresses and deformations: reinforced concrete: exploration of predictive capacity. Comput-Aided Civ
analysis and design for serviceability. New York: CRC Press; 2006. Infrastruct Eng 2016;31(6):416–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/mice.12183.
[3] Rostásy F, Koch R, Leonhardt F. Zur Mindestbewehrung für Zwang von [27] Debernardi PG, Guiglia M, Taliano M. Shear strain in B-regions of beams in
Außenwänden aus Stahlleichtbeton. Deutscher Ausschuß für Stahlbeton service. Eng Struct 2011;33(2):368–79.
1976;267:1–107 [in German]. [28] Borosnyói A, Snóbli I. Crack width variation within the concrete cover of
[4] Purainer R. Last- und Verformungsverhalten von Stahlbetonflächentragwerken reinforced concrete members. Építõanyag 2010;62(3):70–4.
unter zweiaxialer Zugbeanspruchung PhD Thesis. Munich, [29] Debernardi PG, Guiglia M, Taliano M. Effect of secondary cracks for cracking
Germany: University of the Federal Armed Forces; 2005 [in German]. analysis of reinforced concrete tie. ACI Mater J 2013;110(2):207–14.
[5] Broms BB, Lutz LA. Effects of arrangement of reinforcement on crack width and [30] Debernardi PG, Taliano M. An improvement of the Eurocode 2 and fib Model
spacing of reinforced concrete members. ACI J Proc 1965;62(11):1395–410. Code 2010 methods for the calculation of crack width in r.c. structures. Struct
[6] Nejadi S. Time-dependent cracking and crack control in reinforced concrete Concr. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/suco.201500033.
structures PhD Thesis. The University of New South Wales; 2005. [31] Gudonis E, Kacianauskas R, Gribniak V, Weber A, Jakubovskis R, Kaklauskas G.
[7] Mias C, Torres L, Guadagnini M, Turon A. Short and long-term cracking Mechanical properties of the bond between GFRP reinforcing bars and
behavior of GFRP reinforced concrete beams. Compos Part B: Eng concrete. Mech Compos Mater 2014;50(4):457–66.
2015;77:223–31.