See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/295081071

Modification of the simplified method of crack control included in EN 1992-3

Article  in  Structural Concrete · February 2016

DOI: 10.1002/suco.201500077

CITATIONS READS

2 438

1 author:

Mariusz Zych
Cracow University of Technology
46 PUBLICATIONS   109 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Application of distributed optical fibre technology to measure the width of cracks in concrete structures View project

RILEM TC CCS Book on crack width analysis - chapter on code-based approaches View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mariusz Zych on 02 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Mariusz Zych*
Modification of the simplified method of crack
control included in EN 1992-3
The methods of crack control for liquid-retaining RC tank walls
are analysed taking into account external load (EN 1992-1-1) and
imposed strain occurring at the construction stage (EN 1992-3),
i.e. during the concrete-hardening period. The convergence
ranges of the simplified method of crack control included in EN
1992-3 and the detailed calculation methods included in EN 1992-
1-1 and EN 1992-3 are defined. Apart from the compatibility areas,
overestimation of the acceptable reinforcing bar diameter ϕs*, il-
lustrated in Fig. 7.103N in EN 1992-3, was proved. Coefficients kϕ1
and kϕ2 are defined, which enable the calculation of the accepta-
ble reinforcing bar diameter ϕs* in order to obtain the values
complying with the direct calculations. For practical purposes,
graphs have been plotted to facilitate the definition of coefficients
kϕ1 and kϕ2 without performing direct calculations. On the basis
of the analyses performed and the relations proposed, it can be
concluded that there is a possibility or a necessity to increase or
decrease the acceptable reinforcing bar diameter ϕs* depending
on the concrete mechanical properties and geometrical proper-
ties of an RC tank wall.
Keywords:  crack control, RC tank wall, imposed deformations, codes,
maximum bar diameter, early-age cracking
1 Introduction to crack control
General rules for designing liquid-retaining RC tanks in
the light of EN 1992-3 provisions have been presented,
for example, by Halicka and Franczak [1] and Lewin´ski
[2]. According to EN 1992-3 [3], liquid-retaining RC
tanks are classified according to four watertightness
classes that have different requirements concerning the
degree of protection against leakage or leakage limita-
tion. When it comes to watertightness class 1, the width
of any crack occurring over the total depth of the section
should be limited to the value wk. For hD/h ≤ 5, wk =
0.2 mm, and for hD/h ≥ 35, wk = 0.05 mm; for intermedi-
ate values, wk should be obtained by linear interpolation.
However, for the same watertightness class it was stated
that “the provisions in 7.3.1 of EN 1992-1-1 apply where
* Corresponding author: mzych@pk.edu.pl
Submitted for review: 03 June 2015; revision: 15 December 2015; accepted for
publication: 10 February 2016. Discussion on this paper must be submitted
within two months of the print publication. The discussion will then be
published in print, along with the author’s closure, if any, approximately nine
months after the print publication.
© 2016 Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin · Structural Concrete (2016), No. 4
Technical Paper
DOI: 10.1002/suco.201500077
the full thickness of the section is not cracked and where
the conditions in (112) and (113) below are fulfilled”,
from which it could be concluded that the depth of the
compressive area of the section for the combination of
long-term strain cannot be less than 50 mm or 0.2 h
(where h = depth of member section). The aforemen-
tioned provision can be interpreted as a lack of consent,
in the case of class 1, for the implementation of the de-
tailed calculation method included in EN 1992-1-1 [4] for
cases of axial tension. As for watertightness class 0, ac-
cording to [3], the provisions of [4] can be accepted with-
out any limitations.
Therefore, in order to fulfil the criterion of the ac-
ceptable width of cracks occurring as a result of external
strain, e.g. liquid pressure, code [3] refers to code [4],
where the detailed method of calculation is given. These
are the same conditions that are used during the control
of cracking in beams and slabs, Eqs. (1)–(3). Beeby [5] and
Knauff [6] present the derivation of these formulas to-
gether with a scientific commentary.
wk = sr ,max (ε sm − ε cm ) (1)
where:
sr,max maximum crack spacing
εsm mean strain in reinforcement under relevant combi-
nation of loads, including the effect of imposed de-
formations and taking into account the effects of
tension stiffening
εcm mean strain in concrete between cracks
According to EN 1992-1-1 [4], when the spacing of the re-
inforcement bonded inside the tensile area is ≤ 5(c+f/2),
the maximum final crack spacing can be calculated from
Eq. (2):
sr ,max = 3.4c + 0.425 ⋅ k1 ⋅ k2 φ ρ p, eff (2)
where:
c cover to longitudinal reinforcement
k1 coefficient to take account of the bond properties of
the bonded reinforcement
k2 coefficient to take account of the distribution of
strain
f bar diameter
and rp,eff = As/Ac,eff (with Ac,eff as defined in [4]).
553
M. Zych · Modification of the simplified method of crack control included in EN 1992-3

( )
fcteff
σ s − kt ⋅ 1 + α e ⋅ ρ p, eff
ρ p, eff
(ε sm − ε cm ) =
Es
where:
ss stress in tension reinforcement after cracking
kt factor dependent on duration of load
2 Early-age cracking
According to the definition, the surface moduli mc = uc/vc
(Flaga [7]), where uc is the surface area of element that is
exposed to air and vc is the volume of the element. The
semi-massive elements are defined as those for which
2 m−1 < mc < 15 m−1. Semi-massive structures are very of-
ten subjected to thermal restrained strain and, conse-
quently, to concrete cracking at the stage of its hardening.
Flaga et al. [7], [8] describe this phenomenon together
with suggestions for calculating using engineering and
numerical models. On the other hand, Pettersson et al. [9],
[10] present the analysis of RC tank walls cracking as a
result of a temperature drop by means of a two-dimension-
al model of final elements using the model of discrete
cracks. The analysis shows a significant influence of
scheme strain restraint on the order in which cracks occur
and on their width. Early-age concrete cracking can be
eliminated efficiently by using internal wall cooling [11],
which is rarely used due to the additional technological
operations involved. Another solution is to reduce the de-
gree of restraint by including construction joints, main-
taining the right casting order as shown by Feng et al. [12],
[13] and by controlling temperature changes as shown by
Nannan et al. [14] and Tayade et al. [15].
One of the first research projects concerning crack-
ing of members restrained at the foundation was conduct-
ed by Stoffers [16]. The research showed that the way the
members crack depends first of all on amount of rein-
forcement and member curvature. Other researchers,
Rostásy and Henning [17] and Iványi [18], suggested engi-
neering models for cracking control in members re-
strained at the foundation, partly accepting assumptions
derived from the research conducted by Stoffers [16], i.e.
crack spacing 1–1.5H (where H = wall height). As shown
by Zych [19], in some calculation cases these calculation
models render more accurate results than the model in-
cluded in [3]. Seruga and Zych [20], [21] provide thorough
research results pertaining to semi-massive RC tank walls
cracking due to imposed strain. For example, the papers
present both particular cracking stages and crack spacing,
and strain distribution and development depending to a
large extent on amount of reinforcement, restraint scheme
and solar radiation. The research in question was a basis
for the verification of advanced numerical models pro-
posed by Zych [22], [23]. The models took into account
how conditions that accompany tank wall construction
and concrete hardening influence imposed strain develop-
ment and the cracks occurring. Making use of the calcula-
tions and the research conducted, ref. [19] also presents a
considerable influence of ambient temperature on the de-
gree of imposed strain and crack width in semi-massive
RC tank walls. Generally, due to the long-term character
of the strain, it is also necessary to take into account con-
554 Structural Concrete (2016), No. 4
crete creep by reducing the modulus of elasticity, which
contributes to stress change in reinforcement, as shown by
0, 6σ s
≥ (3) Bednarski et al. [24], [25]. Buffo-Lacarriere et al. [26], Wu
Es
et al. [27] and Liu et al. [28] present parameter analyses
referring to the risk of cracking during concrete harden-
ing, making use of advanced numerical models. The analy-
ses show that weather conditions and conditions accom-
panying the construction have a significant influence on
the development of tensile stresses. Ouzaa and Benman-
sour [29] showed that the cracks that occur first are the
widest during the whole period of imposed strain influ-
ence, not only thermal but shrinkage as well. Schlicke
and  Tue [30] presented an approach for calculating the
minimum reinforcement for crack control within the
hardening period of concrete, taking into account the de-
formation compatibility. Regardless of so many factors in-
fluencing the cracking of RC tank walls, code [3] does not
provide precise instructions pertaining to the design and
construction of semi-massive RC tanks. In general, what
should be brought into focus are both strains occurring
during the early period of concrete hardening, with its low
mechanical concrete properties, and strains occurring
during the period of use, taking into account 28-day con-
crete properties, as a further temperature drop at a later
period and increasing drying shrinkage can cause crack
widening and the occurrence of new cracks.
3 Crack control to EN 1992-3
For semi-massive RC tank walls, where the imposed strain
leads to the occurrence of vertical cracks, code [3] gives a
separate method for calculating crack width. Tank wall
cracking can be caused by the imposed strain, such as a
temperature change and shrinkage provoking stress as a re-
sult of strain restraint due to a foundation or neighbouring
walls constructed beforehand. This information has a very
general character: “Special care should be taken where
members are subject to tensile stresses due to the restraint of
shrinkage or thermal movements” [3]. This provision also
concerns cracking that occurs during the construction stage
when a given tank is subjected to substantial temperature
changes caused by the development of hydration heat, daily
ambient temperature changes and solar radiation.
Code [3] presents the strain restraint issue for two
schemes (Fig. M1 in [3]), i.e. for the case of a member re-
strained at both ends and one restrained along its bottom
edge. Eqs. (4) and (5) were proposed for these two cases,
which together with Eqs. (1) and (2) constitute the de-
tailed calculation method for defining the width of cracks
caused by the imposed strain.
( )
ε sm − ε cm = 0, 5 ⋅ α e ⋅ kc ⋅ k ⋅ fct , eff ⋅ 1 + 1 / α e ⋅ ρ Es (4)
ε sm − ε cm = R ⋅ ε free (5)
where:
R restraint factor (taken from BS 8007 [31])
εfree strain that would occur if the wall was completely
unrestrained
EN 1992-3 [3] states the following: “For cracking caused
dominantly by loading, either the maximum bar sizes
 M. Zych · Modification of the simplified method of crack control included in EN 1992-3

from Fig. 7.103N or the maximum bar spacing from

Fig. 7.104N may be complied with.” Moreover, “for crack-
ing caused dominantly by restraint, the bar sizes given in
Fig. 7.103N should not be exceeded where the steel stress
is the value obtained immediately after cracking”. Thus,
according to [3], both detailed calculation methods that
allow the calculation of crack width can be replaced by
the simplified method consisting of choosing an accepta-
ble reinforcing bar diameter. Moreover, the simplified
method can be implemented if the criterion of the mini-
mum amount of reinforcement according to section 7.3.2
in [4] is fulfilled. Thus, in the case of external load and
imposed strain, regardless of a strain restraint scheme, the
acceptable reinforcing bar diameter ϕs* is defined in
Fig. 7.103N of [3] as a function of the stress in the steel
reinforcement and acceptable crack width.
Assuming in Eq. (2) the case of high bond bars (k1 Fig. 1.  Maximum bar diameter for crack control in members subjected to
= 0.8), placing it in Eq. (1) and transforming for a reinforc- axial tension as a function of steel stresses and maximum crack width for a
ing bar diameter, Eq. (6) is obtained: selected concrete cover thickness.

ρ peff Es ⋅ wk 
 s=
ϕ ⋅ − 3.4 ⋅ cnom (6)
0.34 ⋅ k2  W σ s ( ) 
drawn on the basis of Eqs. (10)–(11). Taking the thick-
in which ness of the concrete cover to be cnom = 30 mm, the
graphs complying with Fig. 7.103N of [3] (solid lines)
 
( )
fct , eff
W ( )
 σ s = max σ s − kt
ρ p, eff
1 + α e ρ peff ; 0.6σ s  (7)
were obtained. Increasing the thickness of the concrete
cover, which is characteristic of RC tank walls, signifi-
 
cantly changes the provision of the acceptable diameter
As was presented by Knauff [32], when it comes to the ele- ϕs*.
ments with axial tension, if 2.5a < 0.5h, i.e. a < 0.2h, then The fundamental advantage of the simplified meth-
rpeff = 0.5As/2.5ab = 0.2rh/a. In the opposite case, rpeff = od is the possibility of choosing a rebar diameter and
r. The aforementioned dependencies and Eq. 7.1 in [4] for bar spacing without performing direct calculations.
Asmin give the following dependency: This method should render credible results in relation
to the precise method pertaining to both external load
k ⋅ fct , eff and imposed strain. Knauff [34] questions, in some cas-
ρ peff = r (8)
σs es, the implementation of tables 7.2N and 7.3N of [4]
used for cracking control without the calculation of
where r = 1 for a ≥ 0.2h and r = 0.2h/a when a < 0.2h. crack width. Moreover, an alternative method, called
the method of two stresses, was proposed. Its results are
On the basis of Eqs. (6)–(8), the maximum diameter very close to those obtained by means of the general
equals method.

 Es ⋅ wk
k ⋅ fct , eff  4 Aim of the research
 s =r
ϕ ⋅ − 3.4 ⋅ cnom (9)
0.34 ⋅ k2 ⋅ σ s  W σ s ( ) 
The aim of this paper is to define the scope of cases char-
Assuming fct,eff = 2.9 MPa (for concrete class C30/37) and acteristic of liquid-retaining RC tank walls for which the
k = 1, taking into account Eq. 7.122 in [3], Eq. (10) is ob- simplified method in the form presented in [3] gives safe
tained: results. In the case of typical liquid-retaining RC tank
walls, it is also essential to show the potential underesti-
ϕ (
 s* = 8.529 ⋅ f wk , σ s ⋅ 2 ) (10) mation resulting from the simplified method and also to
identify the factors that influence this underestimation the
 Ew  most. From the practical point of view, the most impor-
( k s )
f w , σ = 1  s k − 3, 4 ⋅ cnom
σs W σs ( )
(11)
tant aspect is to present suggestions for properly defined

coefficients in the form of equations and in graphic form
where: on the basis of which it should be possible to adjust graph
ϕs* maximum bar diameter 7.103N (Fig. 1) without performing direct calculations.
W(ss) simplify to 0.6ss The adjustment of the simplified method should comply
wk maximum crack width fully with the direct calculation methods and should cover
and Es = 200 GPa. all the variables that are part of the direct calculation
method, including wall thickness, strain type, reinforce-
Caldentey et al. [33] confirmed that concrete cover is an ment method, concrete cover thickness and concrete me-
important parameter affecting crack spacing. Fig. 1 was chanical properties.

Structural Concrete (2016), No. 4 555

M. Zych · Modification of the simplified method of crack control included in EN 1992-3

5 Detailed calculation method to EN 1992-1-1 70

Reinforcement stress, σs [MPa]

5.1. Convergence ranges with the simplified method σs > 2αefcteff
60 t = 28 day,
The simplified method takes expression W(ss) in the form 0.7Ecm
of 0.6ss. In the case of direct calculation, the function de- t = 28 day
50
scribing the differences between average stress in steel
and concrete, Eq.  (7) [4], is defined depending on five
40
variables: ss, kt, fct,eff, rp,eff and ae. Writing rp,eff according t = 3 day
to Eq. (12) [32], then
30
kc ⋅ k ⋅ fcteff ⋅ hcr σs < 2αefcteff
ρ
peff
(σ s ) = 15 kc a⋅ hcr h ⋅σ s
(12) 20

and simplifying it for the case of axial tension (i.e. kc = 1,

hcr = h) on the assumption that a < 0.2 h, we obtain Eq.
(13): a) Concrete class
h k ⋅ fct , eff
( ) 140

Reinforcement stress, σs [MPa]

ρ p, eff σ s = (13)
5a σ s σs > 4,33αefcteff
120 t = 28 day,
Hence, the first part of Eq. (7) for kt = 0.4 and rp,eff accord-
ing to Eq. (13) should take the form 0.7Ecm
100
t = 28 day
2 ⋅ a ⋅σ s
 σs
W ( ) = σs −
h⋅k
− 0.4α e ⋅ fcteff (14) 80 t = 3 day
60
Comparing Eq. (14) with the expression W(ss) = 0.6ss, the σsσ<s <4,33α
4,33αeeffcteff
cteff
condition can be defined as Eq.  (15), determining the 40
range for which the detailed calculation method gives
smaller values for ϕs* and sz *max compared with the sim-
plified method. This is the range in which the simplified
method should not be used as it does not render safe re- Concrete class
b)
sults.
Fig. 2.  Limited stresses in reinforcement for selected concrete classes for
α e ⋅ fcteff
E ⋅ε which the simplified method gives convergence results with the detailed
σ
 s> = s ctu (15) calculation method [4] assuming a/h = 0.1; case a) k = 1.0 and b) k = 0.65.
a a
1− 5 1− 5
h⋅k h⋅k

Assuming a/h = 0.1 and k = 1, condition εs > 2εctu (or ss > strength and 0.86 for modulus of elasticity were calculat-
2aefcteff ) is obtained; further, for the case k  =  0.65, the ed according to section 3.1.2 of [4] (for s = 0.25, Tmean =
condition εs > 4.33εctu (or ss > 4.33aefcteff) is obtained, 20 oC). The maximum value εctu,max (Eq. (17)) was defined
where εctu = fct,eff/Ecm. Figs. 2a and 2b show this condition for 28-day class C50/60 concrete made with sandstone ag-
as a function of concrete class and reinforcement stress gregate, where according to [4], the modulus of elasticity
for 28-day concrete, 3-day concrete and 28-day concrete is reduced by 30 %. Owing to the lack of such information
made with sandstone aggregate, i.e. according to [4] with for concrete tensile strength, the fctm value was not re-
concrete modulus of elasticity decreased by 30 %. duced.
From Fig. 2 it can be concluded that the compatibil-
ity areas concerning the simplified and detailed calcula-
tion methods are larger in the case of thick walls as a re-
ε ctu
min t = 3 days =
( ) 0.6 ⋅ 2.2 MPa
0.86 ⋅ 30 GPa
= 0.005 % (16)
sult of using coefficient k < 1. Moreover, the compatibility
areas are the largest for 28-day concrete of a higher class
made with sandstone aggregate and smallest for 3-day
ε ctu
max t = 28 days =
( ) 4.1 MPa
0.7 ⋅ 37 GPa
= 0.015 % (17)
concrete of a lower class. Thus, the control of cracks oc-
curring during the period of concrete hardening by means The minimum value of the expression a/k·h was defined
of the simplified and direct calculation methods should according to Eq. (18) for an 800 mm thick wall reinforced
render the biggest differences in the results obtained. with ϕ 16 mm bars and 30 mm concrete cover. The maxi-
To continue the graphic interpretation of the com- mum value of a/k·h was defined for a 250 mm thick wall
patibility areas for both methods, the range of potential reinforced with ϕ 20 mm bars and 40 mm concrete cover
tensile strain capacity εctu and ranges a/k·h characteristic (Eq. (19)).
of RC tank walls were defined. The minimal value εctu,min
was defined according to Eq. (16) for 3-day class C20/25 a 30 mm + 16 mm / 2
 = = 0.073 (18)
concrete. To do this, the coefficients bcc(t) = 0.6 for tensile h⋅k 0.65 ⋅ 800 mm
min

556 Structural Concrete (2016), No. 4

 M. Zych · Modification of the simplified method of crack control included in EN 1992-3

der to do that, the coefficient of the acceptable rebar di-

ameter was defined in the following way:

( )
kϕ1 σ s =
( )
ϕs σ s
(22)
( )
ϕ s7.103N σ s
*

2.9MPa  Es ⋅ wlim 
2⋅  − 3.4 ⋅ cnom
=
0.34 ⋅ k2 ⋅ σ s ( )
 W σ s ≥ 0.6σ s 
2.9MPa  Es ⋅ wlim 
2⋅ − 3.4 ⋅ 30 mm
0.34 ⋅ k2 ⋅ σ s  0.6 ⋅ σ s 

After substituting the first part of Eq. (7) into Eq. (22) and
after transformations, Eq. (23) is obtained:

( )
kϕ1 σ s =
( )
1
kϕ1 A σ s + kϕ1B σ s ( ) ( )
− kϕ1C σ s (23)

Fig. 3.  Limited stresses in reinforcement for selected values of ultimate

tensile strain of concrete as a function of a/kh for which the simplified in which
method gives convergence results with the detailed calculation method.
Es wlim − 0.6 ⋅ σ s ⋅ 102 mm
( )
kϕ1 A σ s =
0.6 ⋅ Es wlim
(24)


a
=
40 mm + 20 mm / 2
= 0.20 (19) +
(
ε ctu ⋅ 0.6 ⋅ σ s ⋅ 102 mm − Es wlim )
h⋅k 1.00 ⋅ 250 mm 1.5 ⋅ σ s wlim
max

The scope for the implementation of the simplified meth- a

(
⋅ 0.6 ⋅ σ s ⋅ 102 mm − Es wlim )
od can also be presented in the function of the value a/kh
and strain εctu according to the following equation:
( )
kϕ1B σ s = ⋅h
k
0.3 ⋅ Es wlim
(25)

Es 3.4 ⋅ cnom ⋅ 0.6 ⋅ σ s

a
σs − ⋅f
Ecm(t ) cteff σ s − Es ⋅ ε ctu
 ≥ = (20)
k⋅h 5 ⋅σ s 5 ⋅σ s
Fig. 3 presents the Eq. (20) condition as the function of
the values a/kh and ss for particular values of tensile
strain capacity εctu. The largest compatibility area is ob-
tained for larger values of tensile strain capacity εctu (i.e.
for 28-day higher class concrete) and larger a/kh values
(characteristic of RC tank walls reinforced with two lay-
ers). In the case of walls reinforced with one layer, the
compatibility area of both methods is beyond the range of
practical occurrence of the ss value.
For a ≥ 0.2 h, where r = 1 and rp,eff = kfct,eff/ss, Eq.
(21) is obtained:
σs
W ( )
 σ s = σ s − 0.4
k
− 0.4 ⋅ α e ⋅ fcteff
In the case of Eq. (21), the condition included in the sim-
plified method should always be the governing one, i.e.
W(ss) = 0.6ss. Thus, the compatibility area of the detailed
calculation and simplified methods is not limited for a ≥
0.2h.
5.2 Proposal for coefficient kϕ1
For the ranges where there is a difference between the
simplified and the detailed calculation methods, the differ-
ence should be precisely assessed and the calculation of
the maximum rebar diameter should be performed. In or-
( )
kϕ1C σ s =
Es wlim − 0.6 ⋅ σ s ⋅ 102 mm
(26)
Each partial coefficient kϕ1A,B,C covers the influence of
particular factors on modification ϕ*s in order to obtain
ϕs, i.e. εctu → kϕ1A, a/kh → kϕ1B, cnom → kϕ1C.
The influence of tensile strain capacity εctu on the
correction of the acceptable rebar diameter was taken in-
to account via the partial coefficient kϕ1A. The range of
variability of this coefficient resulting from the range of
εctu accepted is very small and reaches a value of about
10 % in the case of smaller stresses (Fig. 4). Consequently,
it can be concluded that concrete class, age and aggregate
type affect the correction of the acceptable rebar diameter
to a small extent. It does not mean, though, that the
compatibility area of both methods (detailed calculation
(21)
and simplified), depending on the aforementioned fac-
tors, is similar (Figs. 2a and 3). As stresses increase, so
the influence of εctu on the value of the partial coefficient
εctu gradually diminishes. At the same time, as ss stresses
increase, so the value of the coefficient decreases, which
has an impact on the increase in the global coefficient kϕ1
(Eq. (23)).
Fig. 5 presents the value of the partial coefficient
kϕ1B as a function of stresses ss for particular crack widths
wk and the a/kh value. This coefficient can be linearly in-
terpolated for intermediate values of a/kh. This partial
coefficient has a negative value and has an inverse effect
on the value of the global coefficient kϕ1. The greatest re-
duction in the acceptable rebar diameter takes place for
smaller a/kh values (i.e. is for a wall with greater thick-

Structural Concrete (2016), No. 4 557

M. Zych · Modification of the simplified method of crack control included in EN 1992-3
Fig. 4.  Partial coefficient kϕ1A, which takes into account the ultimate tensile
strain in the concrete εctu.
Fig. 5.  Partial coefficient kϕ1B, which takes into account wall thickness h
and effective depth d.
ness h and thinner concrete cover cnom) and for narrower
cracks wk and higher stresses ss.
The last partial coefficient kϕ1C (Fig. 6) includes con-
crete cover thickness cnom. It results in the largest values
558 Structural Concrete (2016), No. 4
Fig. 6.  Partial coefficient kϕ1C, which takes into account thickness of con-
crete cover cnom.
for thicker concrete cover layers, higher stresses ss and
smaller crack widths wk. As its value increases, so the
value of the global coefficient kϕ1 decreases.
On the basis of the partial coefficients defined in
such a way, Eqs. (24)–(26) or Figs. 4–6, it is possible
to  define the coefficient kϕ1 according to Eq. (23) for
any  case without any direct calculations. This coeffi-
cient  multiplied by the value ϕs* taken from graph
7.103N of [3] (Fig. 1) gives the value of the acceptable
reinforcing bar diameter fully compatible with the de-
tailed calculation method. The ϕs* value obtained in this
way is not subjected to further correction as it was de-
fined in the simplified method according to Eq. 7.122 in
[3].
5.3 Case study
Since the a/kh value has a significant effect on coeffi-
cient kϕ1 (Fig. 3), Fig. 7a presents the influence of this
value for selected parameters: εctu = 0.01 %, cnom =
30 mm. As the a/kh value increases, so the kϕ1 value in-
creases as well, reaching – for the case of a/kh = 0.2 – a
value >  1.0. Larger ϕs values are compared with ϕs* in
Fig. 7b. In this case the Eq. (15) condition pertaining to
the convergence of both methods is fulfilled and the sim-
plified method should be used, as given in [3], i.e. Fig. 1
and Eq. 7.122 of [3].
In general, the level of ϕs* reduction depends on
both cnom and a/kh. As for the influence of εctu on the
value of the coefficient kϕ1, it is the smallest influence
when compared with the aforementioned factors.

a)
Fig. 7.  Influence of value a/kh on: a) global coefficient kϕ1 and b) maximum bar diameter ϕs (assumptions: εctu = 0.01 %, cnom = 30 mm)
6 Detailed calculation method according to EN 1992-3
6.1 Convergence ranges with the simplified method
In the detailed calculation method included in EN 1992-3
[3] for the case of a member restrained at both ends,
where cracking occurs due to the imposed strain, expres-
sion W(ss) is defined as follows:
 1 
( )
 σ s = 0.5 ⋅ α e ⋅ kc ⋅ k ⋅ fct , eff ⋅ 1 +
W
 α e ⋅ ρ 
By substituting r = k·fct,eff /ss in Eq. (27), we obtain Eq. (28):
 σs
( )
 σ s = 0.5 ⋅ α e ⋅ kc ⋅ k ⋅ fct , eff ⋅ 1 +
W 
α e ⋅ k ⋅ fct , eff 

In this case axial tension kc = 1.0, hence Eq. (28) can be
simplified:
( ) (
 σ s = 0.5 ⋅ σ s + α e ⋅ k ⋅ fct , eff
W )
Comparing the aforementioned expression with W(ss) =
0.6ss used in the simplified method, it can be seen that the
difference between the simplified method and the detailed
calculation occurs when the following condition is ful-
filled:
σ
 s ≤ 5α e ⋅ k ⋅ fct , eff = 5k ⋅ Es ⋅ ε ctu
It should be added that the difference occurs in the case
of smaller ss values, contrary to the comparison with the
M. Zych · Modification of the simplified method of crack control included in EN 1992-3
b)
detailed calculation method according to EN 1992-1-1
[4].
Fig. 8 presents the Eq. (30) condition as a function of
concrete class and reinforcement stresses for 28-day con-
crete, 3-day concrete and 28-day concrete made with
sandstone aggregate, i.e. with the concrete modulus of
elasticity reduced by 30 %. Fig. 8 shows that the range of
compatibility of the simplified and the detailed calculation
(27)
methods is larger in the case of thicker walls due to the
implementation of coefficient k < 1. Moreover, the range
of compatibility is largest in the case of 3-day concrete of
a lower class and smallest for 28-day concrete of a higher
class (the one made with sandstone aggregate). Conse-

(28)
quently, crack control by means of the detailed and the
simplified methods should reveal the biggest differences in
the results obtained for 28-day concrete of a higher class.
Fig. 9 presents the range of appropriate implementa-
tion of the simplified method in relation to the detailed
calculation method as a function of ss and k for analo-
(29) gous cases shown in Fig. 3. The range of compatibility is
largest for 3-day concrete and smallest for 28-day concrete
made with sandstone aggregate. Moreover, as in the case
of comparing the simplified method with the detailed cal-
culation included in EN 1992-1-1 [4], the range of compat-
ibility of both models increases for thicker walls, i.e. for a
smaller value of coefficient k.
(30) 6.2 Proposal for coefficient kϕ2
The global coefficient kϕ2 for the acceptable rebar diame-
ter was defined as in section 5.2:
Structural Concrete (2016), No. 4 559
M. Zych · Modification of the simplified method of crack control included in EN 1992-3

a)

Fig. 9.  Limited stresses in reinforcement for selected values of ultimate

tensile strain of concrete as a function of k for which the simplified method
gives convergence results with the detailed calculation method.

re­inforcing bar diameter was taken into consideration

via the partial coefficient kϕ2A (Fig. 10). Coefficient kϕ2A
for intermediate values of kεctu can be linearly interpo-
lated. The range of variability of this coefficient, resulting
from the product range of kεctu (0.65·0.005 % = 0.003 % ÷
1.0·0.015 % = 0.015 %) reaches a value of 20 % in the case
b) of lower stresses. Similarly, as in the case of coefficient
kϕ1A, it can be concluded that concrete class, its age and
Fig. 8.  Limited stresses in reinforcement for selected concrete classes for aggregate type slightly influence the correction of the ac-
which the simplified method gives convergence results with the detailed
calculation method [3]; case a) k = 1.0 and b) k = 0.65. ceptable reinforcing bar diameter. It does not mean,
though, that the compatibility area of both methods (de-
tailed calculation and simplified), depending on the
aforementioned factors, is similar (Figs. 8a and 9). As

( )
kϕ 2 σ s =
ϕs σ s ( ) (31)
stresses increase, so the influence of the aforementioned
ϕ7.103N σ s
*
( ) factors on the value of coefficient kϕ2A diminishes. This
coefficient has an inversely proportional effect on the
E ⋅w  value of the global coefficient kϕ2. As a result, as stresses
2.9MPa
2⋅  s lim − 3.4 ⋅ cnom ss increase, so coefficient kϕ2 increases as well. The big-
=
0.34 ⋅ k2 ⋅ σ s ( )
 W σ s 
gest reduction in the acceptable reinforcing bar diameter
2.9MPa  Es ⋅ wlim  takes place in the case of larger kεctu values. It is a case
2⋅  − 3.4 ⋅ 30 mm of walls whose thickness equals h ≤ 300 mm and which
0.34 ⋅ k2 ⋅ σ s  0.6 ⋅ σ s 
are subjected to cracking after 28 days of concrete hard-
Replacing W(ss) with Eq. (29), after transformations, Eq. ening.
(32) is obtained:
6.3 Case study
( )
kϕ 2 σ s =
1
( )
kϕ 2 A σ s
( )
− kϕ 2 B σ s (32)
The influence of the concrete cover cnom on coefficient
kϕ2 for parameters εctu = 0.01 %, k = 1 is presented in
where kϕ2B(ss) = kϕ1C(ss), Eq. (26), and coefficient kϕ2A(ss) Fig. 11a. As cnom reaches values of 40 and 50 mm, the co-
is defined as efficient kϕ2 decreases. As for cnom cases ≤  30 mm, the
value of the coefficient is > 1. The ϕs values obtained for
Es wlim − 0.6 ⋅ σ s ⋅ 102 mm  1 k ⋅ ε ctu 
( )
kϕ 2 A σ s =
1.2 ⋅ wlim E + σ 
 s
(33)
these cases are presented in Fig. 11b. Coefficient kϕ2
should be used only when the difference between both
s 
methods according to Eq. (30) has been proved. In other
The influence of the product of tensile strain capacity cases, the simplified method should be used according to
εctu and coefficient k on the adjustment of the acceptable section 3.

560 Structural Concrete (2016), No. 4


Fig. 10.  Partial coefficient kϕ2A, which takes into account the product of the
ultimate tensile strain of concrete εctu and coefficient k.
a)
Fig. 11.  Influence of concrete cover thickness cnom on: a) global coefficient kϕ2 and b) maximum bar diameter ϕs (assumptions: εctu = 0.01 %, k = 1)
M. Zych · Modification of the simplified method of crack control included in EN 1992-3
7 Conclusions
Compared with the detailed method defined in EN 1992-
1-1 [4], the simplified method of crack control defined in
EN 1992-3 [3] gives safe results for lower stresses ss. The
range of compatibility is smaller for lower εctu values,
characteristic of hardening concrete. Moreover, this range
is greater for larger a/kh values, characteristic of thick
walls reinforced with two layers. In the case of walls rein-
forced with one layer, the compatibility range of both
methods is beyond the practical range of stresses ss.
Apart from the range of compatibility of the simpli-
fied and the detailed calculation methods (for RC tank
walls), the necessity of reducing the acceptable reinforcing
bar diameter ϕs was proved. The biggest reduction occurs
in the case of smaller a/kh values and larger cnom values.
On the other hand, the influence of tensile strain capacity
εctu on the reduction in ϕs, compared with the aforemen-
tioned factors, is the smallest.
A more detailed method of crack control, based on
the global coefficient kϕ1 and the acceptable reinforcing
bar diameter ϕs* (according to Fig. 7.103N in [3]), was pre-
sented for any case of an RC tank wall loaded with axial
tensile force. The calculation covers all the values includ-
ed in the detailed calculation method [3]. The values of
kϕ1 can be defined on the basis of the proposed equations
or without direct calculations using the graphs provided.
Compared with the detailed calculation method de-
fined in EN 1992-3 [3], the simplified method of crack
control defined in EN 1992-3 [3] gives safe results for
higher stresses ss. The range of compatibility is smaller for
larger values of the product kεctu, i.e. for thinner walls that
are subjected to cracking after the period of concrete
b)
Structural Concrete (2016), No. 4 561
M. Zych · Modification of the simplified method of crack control included in EN 1992-3
hardening. Moreover, thicker layers of concrete cover
cnom = 40 and 50 mm, which are commonly used for liq-
uid-retaining RC tank walls, result in the biggest differ-
ences between both methods.
In general, for RC tank walls, the compatibility of the
simplified and detailed calculation methods pertaining to
the imposed strain (included in EN 1992-3 [3]) is much
bigger than the compatibility of the simplified and the de-
tailed calculation methods pertaining to external load (in-
cluded in EN 1992-1-1 [4]).
A modified version of the crack control method de-
fined in EN 1992-3 [3], via the correction of the acceptable
reinforcing bar diameter with the global coefficient kϕ2,
was presented for any case of an RC tank wall subjected
to imposed strain. This coefficient covers all the factors
included in the detailed calculation method [3]. The val-
ues of kϕ2, similarly to coefficient kϕ1, can be defined on
the basis of the proposed equations or without direct cal-
culations using the graphs provided.
Notation
a distance (= h – d)
c cover to longitudinal reinforcement
d effective depth of cross-section
Ecm secant modulus of elasticity of concrete
Es modulus of elasticity of steel reinforcement
fcteff effective tensile strength of concrete
h depth of cross-section
hcr cracked depth of cross-section
k coefficient that allows for the effect of non-uniform
self-equilibrating stresses
k1 coefficient that takes account of the bond proper-
ties of the bonded reinforcement
k2 coefficient that takes account of the strain distribu-
tion
kt coefficient dependent on duration of load
kc coefficient that takes account of the stress distribu-
tion within the section immediately prior to crack-
ing and the change in the lever arm
kϕ1A partial coefficient that takes into account the ulti-
mate tensile strain in concrete εctu
kϕ1B partial coefficient that takes into account wall
thickness h and effective depth d
kϕ1C partial coefficient that takes into account thickness
of concrete cover cnom
kϕ2A partial coefficient that takes into account the prod-
uct of the ultimate tensile strain in concrete εctu
and coefficient k
R restraint factor
srmax maximum crack spacing
W(ss) differences between average stresses in steel and
concrete
wk maximum crack width
wlim limiting calculated crack width
ae Es/Ecm ratio
εcm mean strain in concrete between cracks
εctu tensile strain capacity
εfree strain that would occur if the wall was completely
unrestrained
εsm mean strain in reinforcement under relevant com-
bination of loads, including the effect of imposed
562 Structural Concrete (2016), No. 4
deformations and taking into account the effects of
tension stiffening
rpeff effective amount of reinforcement = As/Aceff (Aceff
as defined in [4])
ss stress in tension reinforcement after cracking
f bar diameter
fs* maximum bar diameter
References
 1. Halicka, A., Franczak, D.: Design of RC tanks: Tanks for
liquids (Projektowanie zbiorników z·elbetowych. Zbiorniki
na ciecze), vol. 2, Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warsaw,
2013.
 2. Lewiński, P.: Principles for the design of RC tanks for liq-
uids, taking into account the requirements of Eurocode 2
(Zasady projektowania zbiorników z·elbetowych na ciecze z
uwzgle˛dnieniem wymagań Eurokodu 2), Institute for Build-
ing Technology, Warsaw, 2011.
 3. European Committee for Standardization (CEN): PN-EN
1992–3: Design of concrete structures – Part 3: Liquid re-
taining and containment structures, Eurocode 2, Brussels,
2006.
  4. European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Design of
concrete structures – Part 1-1: General rules and rules for
buildings, Eurocode 2, Brussels, 2004.
 5. Beeby, A. W., Narayanan, R. S.: Designers’ Guide to EN
1992-1-1 and EN 1992-1-2 Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete
Structures. General rules and rules for buildings and struc-
tural fire design, Thomas Telford, London, 2005, ISBN
0 72773 105 X.
 6. Knauff M.: Scientific commentary to PN-B-03264:2002,
Concrete, RC and Prestressed Construction. vol. 2: Cracks,
minimum reinforcement area. Institute for Building Tech-
nology, Warsaw, 2004, pp. 47–76.
 7. Flaga, K.: Shrinkage stress and reinforcement in concrete
structure, Monograph 295, Cracow Univ. of Technology,
Kraków, 2011.
 8. Flaga, K., Klemczak, B., Knoppik-Wróbel, A.: Wczesne rysy
termiczno-skurczowe w ścianach przyczółków mostowych.
Inz·ynieria i Budownictwo, No. 4, 2013, pp. 197–200.
 9. Pettersson, D., Thelandersson, S.: Crack development in
concrete structures due to imposed strains. Part I: Model-
ling. Materials and Structures, vol. 34, No. 1, 2001, pp. 7–13.
10. Pettersson, D., Alemo, J., Thelandersson, S.: Influence on
crack development in concrete structures from imposed
strains and varying boundary conditions, Construction and
Building Materials, vol. 16, 2002, pp. 207–213.
11. Azenha, M., Lameiras, R., de Sousa, C., Barros, J.: Applica-
tion of air cooled pipes for reduction of early age cracking
risk in a massive RC wall. Engineering Structures, 62–63(14),
2014, pp. 148–163, DOI: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2014.01.018.
12. Feng, L., Xiaobin, S., Xianglin, G., Bin, P., Lianping, Y.:
Cracking analysis of massive concrete walls with cracking
control techniques. Construction and Building Materials,
vol. 31, 2012, pp. 12–21, DOI:10.1016/j.conbuild​
mat.2011.12.086.
13. Code of Practice for Structural Use of Concrete 2013, Pre-
pared by: Buildings Department, 12/F-18/F Pioneer Cen-
tre,750 Nathan Road, Mongkok, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
14. Nannan, S., Jianshu, O., Runxiao, Z., Dahai, H.: Experimen-
tal Study on Early-Age Crack of Mass Concrete under the
Controlled Temperature History, Hindawi Publishing Cor-
poration, Advances in Materials Science and Engineering,
vol. 2014, article ID 671795, http://dx.doi.org/​ 10.1155/​
2014/671795.

15. Tayade, K. C., Deshpande, N. V., Pofale, A. D.: Experimen-
tal study of temperature rise of concrete and assessment of
cracking due to internal restraint. International Journal of
Civil and Structural Engineering, vol. 4, No. 3, 2014, DOI:
10.6088/ijcser.201304010034.
16. Stoffers, H. Cracking due to shrinkage and temperature vari-
ation in walls, 3rd ed., Delft University of Technology &
I.B.B.C., 23(3), p. 68, Delft, 1978.
17. Rostásy, F. S., Henning, W.: Zwang in Stahlbetonwänden
auf Fundamenten (Imposed loads in walls on the founda-
tion). Beton- und Stahlbetonbau, 84(8), pp. 208–214, 1989,
(in German) http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/best.198900300.
18. Iványi, G.: Bemerkungen zu Mindestbewehrung in Wänden
(Minimum reinforcement in the walls). Beton- und Stahlbe-
tonbau, 90(11), pp. 283–289, 1995, (in German) http://dx.
doi.org/10.1002/best.199500460.
19. Zych, M.: The influence of ambient temperature on RC tank
walls watertightness in research and theory. Periodica Poly-
technica Civil Engineering, 59(3), pp. 267–278, 2015, DOI:
10.3311/PPci.7728.
20. Seruga, A., Zych, M.: Thermal Cracking of the Cylindrical
Tank under Construction. I: Case Study. ASCE Journal of
Performance Construction Facilities, 29(4), pp. 04014100-1–​
04014100-9, 2015. 10.1061/(ASCE) CF.1943-5509.​0000581.
21. Seruga, A., Zych, M.: Research on Thermal Cracking of a
Rectangular RC Tank Wall under Construction. I: Case
Study. ASCE Journal of Performance Construction Facili-
ties, 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000704, 04014198, on-
line publication date: 9 Dec 2014.
22. Zych, M.: Thermal Cracking of the Cylindrical Tank under
Construction. II: Early Age Cracking. J. Perform. Constr.
Facil., 29(4), pp. 04014101-1–04014101-10, 2015. 10.1061/
(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000577.
23. Zych, M.: Research on Thermal Cracking of a Rectangular
RC Tank Wall under Construction. II: Comparison with
Numerical Model. J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 10.1061/
(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000703 , 04014199, online publica-
tion date: 9 Dec 2014.
24. Bednarski, Ł., Sieńko, R., Howiacki, T.: Analysis of rheologi-
cal phenomena in reinforced concrete cross-section of
Re˛dziński bridge pylon based on in situ measurements. Proc.
of 7th Scientific-Technical Conf. on Material Problems in
Civil Engineering (MATBUD’2015), Procedia Engineering,
108(6), pp. 536–543, 2015, DOI:10.1016/j.proeng.2015.06.​
175.
25. Bednarski, Ł., Sieńko, R., Howiacki, T.: Estimation of the
value and the variability of elastic modulus for concrete in
existing structure on the basis of continuous in situ measure-
ments. Cement-Wapno-Beton, No. 12, 2014, pp. 396–404.
View publication stats
M. Zych · Modification of the simplified method of crack control included in EN 1992-3
26. Buffo-Lacarriere, L., Sellier, A., Turatsinze, A., Escadeillas,
G.: Finite element modelling of hardening concrete – Appli-
cation to the prediction of early age cracking for massive re-
inforced structures. Materials and Structures, 44(10), pp.
1821–1835, 2011, DOI: 10.1617/s11527-011-9740-y.
27. Wu, S., Huang, D., Lin, F. B., Zhao, H., Wang, P.: Estima-
tion of cracking risk of concrete at early age based on ther-
mal stress analysis. J Therm Anal Calorim, 105(1), 2011, pp.
171–186, DOI 10.1007/s10973-011-1512-y.
28. Liu, X., Yuan, Y., Su, Q.: Sensitivity analysis of the early-age
cracking risk in an immersed tunnel. Structural Concrete,
15(2), pp. 179–190, 2014, DOI: 10.1002/suco.201300064.
29. Ouzaa, K., Benmansour, M. B.: Cracks in base-restrained
plain and reinforced concrete walls. Turkish J. Eng. Env.
Sci., vol. 34, 2010, pp. 215–230, DOI:10.3906/muh-1004-
127.
30. Schlicke, D., Tue, N. V.: Minimum reinforcement for crack
width control in restrained concrete members considering
the deformation compatibility. Structural Concrete, No. 2,
pp. 221–232, 2015, DOI: 10.1002/suco.201400058.
31. British Standards Institution: Design of concrete structures
for retaining aqueous liquids. BSI, London, 1987, BS 8007.
32. Knauff, M.: Design of concrete and prestressed structures
according to EC2 (Podstawy projektowani konstrukcji
z·elbetowych i spre˛z·onych wg EC2). Dolnośla˛ skie
Wydawnictwo Edukacyjne, Wrocław, 2006. pp. 579–648.
33. Caldentey, A. P., Peiretti, H. C., Iribarren, J. P., Soto, A. G.:
Cracking of RC members revisited: influence of cover, ϕ/rs,ef
and stirrup spacing – an experimental and theoretical study.
Structural Concrete, 14(1), pp. 69–78, 2014, DOI: 10.1002/
suco.201200016.
34. Knauff, M., Golubińska, A.: Checking the limit state require-
ments for cracking by two stress method (Sprawdzenie
wymagań dotycza˛ cych stanu granicznego zarysowania me-
toda˛ dwóch napre˛z·eń). Inz·ynieria i Budownictwo, No. 5,
2013, pp. 256–259.
PhD Eng. Mariusz Zych
Department of Prestressed Structures, IMiKB
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Cracow University of Technology
31-155 Krakow, Warszawska St, 24, Poland
Tel./Fax.: 12-628-20-27
mzych@pk.edu.pl
Structural Concrete (2016), No. 4 563