Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 618–627

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Crack width analysis of reinforced concrete under direct tension by finite

element method and crack queuing algorithm
A.K.H. Kwan ⇑, F.J. Ma
Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: For serviceability and durability, the maximum crack width of a reinforced concrete structure has to be
Received 18 November 2015 controlled to within certain limits, depending on the environmental conditions. However, crack width
Revised 10 August 2016 analysis is not easy because the crack width is associated with the bond slip of reinforcing bars at indi-
Accepted 12 August 2016
vidual cracks, which has to be allowed for using discrete modelling of the cracks and reinforcing bars.
Available online 24 August 2016
Herein, a new finite element method for discrete crack analysis, which models the reinforcing bars as dis-
crete bar elements and uses interface elements to allow for the bond slip, is developed. It does not use any
Keywords:
discrete crack elements and therefore there is no need to generate discrete crack elements to follow the
Crack width
Crack queuing algorithm
crack propagation. Instead, it employs a crack queuing algorithm to simulate the stress redistribution
Finite element analysis during cracking. The method is applied to analyze tension specimens tested by others to verify its accu-
racy and applicability, and then used to study the effects of various parameters on the crack width.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction bars. There are a number of relatively simple one-dimensional ana-

In the design of reinforced concrete structures, both the ulti-
mate limit state (ULS) and the serviceability limit state (SLS) have
to be considered. Most previous research focused on the structural
behavior at the ULS. However, whilst the ULS is important from the
point of structural safety, the SLS is at least as important because
the performance at the SLS affects not only the serviceability but
also the durability. For instance, the formation of cracks in concrete
could cause aesthetic, water leakage and steel bar corrosion prob-
lems. Somehow, there has been little research on the crack forma-
tion and crack width of reinforced concrete structures. Up to now,
although all design codes impose certain limits on the crack width,
there is no established analytical method for the evaluation of
crack width. What we have are only empirical formulas in the
design codes, such as BS 8110-2: 1985 [1], ACI 224R-01 [2] and
Eurocode 2: 2004 [3], which do not agree with each other.
The relatively little research on crack analysis [4,5] is due
mainly to the fact that the conventional smeared crack analysis
would not give any crack widths directly, although there are some
sophisticated methods of estimating crack widths by global track-
ing [6,7]. Hence, discrete crack analysis is preferred. Moreover, the
crack widths are dependent on the bond slip of steel bars, which
can only be accounted for by modelling the steel bars as discrete
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: khkwan@hku.hk (A.K.H. Kwan).
lytical or numerical simulation methods for crack analysis [8–15],
but these are applicable only in the simplest cases and some are
only for the evaluation of tension stiffening [11,12,14]. For the
analysis of crack formation, crack propagation and crack width
development in the general cases, the more rigorous and powerful
finite element analysis method has to be employed.
Historically, for crack analysis, both the discrete crack model
and smeared crack model have been attempted. The discrete crack
model requires either adaptive re-meshing to allow for crack prop-
agation during the iteration process of nonlinear analysis as pro-
posed by Ngo and Scordelis [16], or pre-determination of crack
locations to simplify the re-meshing process as proposed by Kana-
kubo et al. [17]. However, the computer coding is fairly compli-
cated and the computer time needed is often much too long. In
contrast, the smeared crack model assumes that the whole con-
crete element would crack or, in other words, the crack formed
could be smeared into many minor cracks throughout the concrete
element as proposed by Rashid [18]. No adaptive re-meshing or
pre-determination of crack locations is needed and thus the
smeared crack model generally requires less computer power
and time. That is why most existing finite element analysis pro-
grams are based on the smeared crack model. However, although
the tensile strain across the cracks in the cracked element can be
evaluated, since the tensile strain across a crack is actually depen-
dent on the gauge length [19], the crack width cannot be deter-
mined from the tensile strain.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.08.027
0141-0296/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 A.K.H. Kwan, F.J. Ma / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 618–627
In addition, there is the issue of whether the cracks in concrete
can rotate after formation. In this regard, there are two schools of
thought. Those who adopt the rotating crack model [18,20,21]
assume that the cracks can rotate whereas those who adopt the
non-rotating crack model [22,23] assume that the cracks cannot
rotate after formation. There is also the issue of how the steel rein-
forcing bars should be modelled. Two different approaches,
namely: the discrete bar approach of modelling the steel bars by
discrete bar elements [24–27] and the smeared bar approach of
smearing the steel bars within the concrete element [28,29], have
been adopted. The discrete bar approach is capable of allowing for
the bond slip of steel bars by inserting interface elements between
the discrete bar elements and the concrete elements but the
smeared bar approach is not capable of allowing for the bond slip
of steel bars.
In conventional finite element analysis of concrete cracking,
many closely spaced parallel cracks are often formed. This is not
reasonable because after the formation of one crack, the tensile
stress perpendicular to the crack should be immediately relieved
due to stress redistribution and the adjacent concrete should not
crack. To remedy this situation, the first author had developed a
crack queuing algorithm of allowing at most one concrete element
(the one with the highest tensile stress or strain, depending on the
cracking criteria) to crack at one time [30]. After allowing one con-
crete element to crack, the whole structure is re-analyzed to cater
for the stress relief caused by the formation of the crack before
considering the possible formation of any other crack. This would
avoid the formation of closely spaced parallel cracks, which should
not happen at all.
Recently, the authors have developed a new discrete crack
model for crack width analysis, which does not require any dis-
crete crack elements or adaptive re-meshing of finite elements
near crack tips, and is therefore computationally more efficient
and easier to apply [31]. The non-rotating crack model and discrete
bar approach are adopted. Moreover, the crack queuing algorithm
is employed to cater for the immediate stress relief during crack
formation so as to generate a realistic crack pattern. The validity
of the new discrete crack model has been verified by applying to
analyze beam specimens tested under flexure by others and com-
paring the theoretical results with the experimental results. In this
paper, this discrete crack model is extended to incorporate quadri-
lateral elements and deal with both deformed bars and smooth
bars. The extended discrete crack model is first applied to analyze
concrete specimens tested under direct tension by others to verify
its accuracy and applicability, and then used to conduct parametric
studies on the crack width of tension members with different
material properties. The finite element analysis results are also
compared to the formulas given in the design codes to find out
how these formulas perform.
2. Finite element method
As the details of the finite element method have been given
before in a previous paper [31], only the additional features and
the special numerical techniques are presented herein. For more
general applications, the finite element method is extended by
incorporating a 2-dimensional, 4-noded quadrilateral element for
the concrete and a bond-slip constitutive model applicable to both
deformed and smooth bars for the steel bar-concrete bond. Other-
wise, as before, a 1-dimensional, 2-noded discrete bar element is
used for the steel bars and a 1-dimensional, 4 noded interface ele-
ment is used for the steel bar-concrete interfaces. To capture the
post-crack and post-peak behavior of the reinforced concrete
structure, the same secant stiffness iteration method as before is
also adopted for the nonlinear analysis [32].
619
2.1. Crack queuing algorithm
In conventional finite element methods, at each iteration step,
every concrete element is judged one by one against the cracking
criteria and all concrete elements satisfying the cracking criteria
are allowed to crack at the same time. This would lead to the for-
mation of many closely spaced parallel cracks as if the crack is
smeared throughout the adjacent concrete, but in reality, right
after the formation of the first crack at where the tensile stress/
strain is highest, the concrete stresses would be redistributed
and the tensile stress perpendicular to the crack would be relieved
to prevent the adjacent concrete from cracking. Hence, it is impor-
tant to cater for the immediate stress redistribution caused by the
formation of the first crack before considering the possible forma-
tion of other cracks.
To cater for the immediate stress redistribution due to crack
formation, the crack queuing algorithm [30] is employed. With this
algorithm, the external loading is applied in small increments
starting from zero and at each loading step, an iteration procedure
of allowing at most one concrete element to crack at one iteration
step is executed. At each iteration step, the concrete element hav-
ing the highest tensile stress or strain (depending on the cracking
criteria) is identified. If the cracking criteria have been met, then
this concrete element is allowed to crack. No other concrete ele-
ment is allowed to crack. After cracking, the stiffness matrix of
the cracked concrete element is reformulated with the secant stiff-
ness perpendicular to the crack reduced to a very small value.
Then, the whole structure is reanalyzed so as to cater for the stress
redistribution due to cracking. This iteration procedure is repeated
until no more concrete element satisfies the cracking criteria.
When no more crack is formed, the nonlinear analysis proceeds
to the next loading step by adding another loading increment to
the structure. The crack patterns so generated by such finite ele-
ment method and crack queuing algorithm generally show clearly
defined discrete cracks well separated from each other, which
should be more realistic than the apparently smeared crack pat-
terns generated by the conventional finite element methods.
2.2. Crack width calculation
No special crack element is used to simulate the formation of
cracks in concrete. Instead, the crack is assumed to be formed
inside the cracked concrete element at the centroid, as shown in
vK
vL
uK
uL
Node L Node K
Concrete
y
element
α
x
Normal to crack
vJ
Crack uJ
Node J
vI
Node I
uI
Fig. 1. Crack width calculation.
620 A.K.H. Kwan, F.J. Ma / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 618–627
Fig. 1. Numerically, the tensile strain across the crack can be calcu-
lated from the nodal displacements of the cracked concrete ele-
ment. However, since the tensile strain across a crack is
dependent on the gauge length and therefore is not well defined,
the crack width should not be evaluated from the tensile strain
across the crack. To overcome this problem, the crack width is
evaluated directly from the nodal displacements. Firstly, at each
side of the crack, the node furthest from the crack is identified.
Let the node at the left hand side furthest from the crack be the
node L, and the node at the right hand side furthest from the crack
be the node J, as in Fig. 1. The displacement of node L away from
the crack dL and the displacement of node J away from the crack
dJ are given respectively by:
dL ¼ uL cos a  v L sin a ð1aÞ
dJ ¼ þuJ cos a þ v J sin a ð1bÞ
in which uL and v L are the displacements of node L in the x- and y-
directions; uJ and v J are the displacements of node J in the x- and y-
directions; and a is the crack angle (angle between the normal to
the crack and the x-axis). Then, the crack width w can be calculated
by summing up the displacements of the two nodes away from the
crack, as in the following equation.
w ¼ dL þ dJ ð2Þ
When the crack width w is negative, the crack would be under com-
pression and may be regarded as closed.
3. Crack width analysis of tension specimens
In order to verify the accuracy and applicability of the finite ele-
ment method, three sets of tension specimens tested by others are
analyzed. The first set are those made with deformed or smooth
bars tested by Radnić and Markota [33]. The second set are those
made with deformed bars tested by Farra and Jaccoud [34], and
the third set are those made with deformed bars tested by Wu
and Gilbert [35].
3.1. Tension specimens analyzed
In the first set, there are totally 6 tension specimens. All the
specimens have a length of 700 mm and a cross section of
70 mm  70 mm. In each specimen, only one steel reinforcing bar
is embedded at the centre of the concrete section. Three specimens
(D8-RA, D10-RA and D12-RA) are made with deformed bars
whereas the other three specimens (D8-GA, D10-GA and D12-
GA) are made with smooth bars. The steel ratios (steel area to con-
crete area ratios) are 1.03%, 1.6% and 2.31% for the three specimens
made with either deformed or smooth bars.
In the second set, there is only one tension specimen (S20-14).
It has a length of 1150 mm, a cross section of 100 mm  100 mm
and one steel reinforcing bar embedded at the centre of the con-
crete section. The steel reinforcing bar is a deformed bar and the
steel ratio is 1.54%.
In the third set, there are two tension specimens (STN-12 and
STN-16). Both specimens have a length of 1100 mm, a cross section
of 100 mm  100 mm and one steel reinforcing bar embedded in
each specimen. The steel bars embedded are deformed bars and
the steel ratios are 1.14% and 2.05%.
Tables 1–3 list the dimensions and steel properties, the concrete
properties, and the bond properties, respectively, of the tension
specimens analyzed. The concrete compressive and tensile
strengths are as given in the references [33–35]. Where the elastic
modulus of the concrete is not given, it is calculated from the con-
crete compressive strength as per the formula in ACI 318R-02 [36].
Moreover, the Poisson’s ratio of the concrete is assumed to be 0.2
and the fracture toughness is obtained from the research of the
first author [37] for all the specimens. For the steel bar-concrete
bond-slip properties, the bond-slip properties for deformed bars
and smooth bars given in CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 [38] are
adopted. From Table 3, it can be seen that for deformed bars, the
peak bond stress and residual bond stress range from 9.3 to
12.5 MPa and from 1.4 to 1.9 MPa, respectively, whereas for
smooth bars, the peak bond stress and residual bond stress are
both equal to 1.5 MPa. Besides, the bond slips at peak bond stress
for deformed bars and smooth bars are 0.6 mm and 0.1 mm,
respectively. Since the initial bond stiffness (the gradient of the ini-
tial portion of the bond stress-slip curve) given by CEB-FIP Model
Code 1990 is infinitely large, a finite value equal to the secant stiff-
ness at one-fifth of the peak bond stress is taken as the initial bond
stiffness to avoid numerical difficulties.
The test set-up with a tension force T applied to each end of the
specimen is shown in Fig. 2(a) whilst the mesh used for the finite
element analysis is shown in Fig. 2(b). In the analysis of the first set
of specimens, the concrete member is meshed into 10  350 num-
bers of 2-dimensional concrete elements. On the other hand, the
steel reinforcing bar is meshed into 350 numbers of 1-
dimensional steel bar elements. Besides, there are 350 numbers
of steel bar-concrete interface elements connecting the steel bar
to the concrete. In the analysis of the second set of specimen, the
concrete, steel bar and steel bar-concrete interface are meshed into
10  230 concrete elements, 230 steel bar elements and 230 inter-
face elements. In the analysis of the third set of specimens, the con-
crete, steel bar and steel bar-concrete interface are meshed into
10  220 concrete elements, 220 steel bar elements and 220 inter-
face elements. Finer meshes have been tried but almost identical
numerical results have been obtained indicating that the meshes
used are fine enough to achieve convergent results.
3.2. Stress redistribution during cracking
Before studying the crack results, the stress redistribution dur-
ing cracking are presented by plotting the distributions of concrete
tensile stress, steel stress and bond slip of a typical specimen, D12-
RA, in Figs. 3–5. In each of these figures, the stress distributions at
three stages (before formation of first crack when T = 10.4 kN; after
formation of first crack when T = 11.0 kN; and after formation of
three cracks when T = 13.6 kN) are plotted to see the changes dur-
ing cracking.
From Fig. 3, it can be seen that before cracking, the concrete ten-
sile stress increases from zero at one end to a maximum value at
the middle and then decreases to zero at the other end. After initi-
ation of the first crack, the tensile stress at the crack drops to zero
and the tensile stress elsewhere is redistributed such that the ten-
sile stress variation from one end to one crack is symmetrical with
zero stress at one end or crack and maximum stress at mid-way.
Upon further loading, more cracks are formed and the tensile stress
redistributes again such that at a crack, the tensile stress is zero
and at mid-way between cracks, the tensile stress is maximum.
From Fig. 4, it is evident that before cracking, the steel stress is
maximum at the two ends and minimum at the middle. After a
crack is formed, the steel stress at the crack increases sharply to
a certain peak value whereas the steel stress elsewhere is redis-
tributed such that the steel stress is maximum at one end or crack
and minimum at mid-way between one end and the crack. When
more cracks are formed, the steel stress redistributes again with
a peak occurring at each crack.
From Fig. 5, it is found that before cracking, the maximum bond
slip occurs at the two ends. As the first crack is formed, the bond
slip near the newly formed crack changes abruptly such that the
concrete at the left hand side slips to the left away from the crack
 A.K.H. Kwan, F.J. Ma / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 618–627 621

Table 1
Dimensions and steel properties of tension specimens.

Specimen Steel bar diameter (mm) Steel bar type Cross section Steel ratio (%) Steel yield strength Steel ultimate strength
number (mm  mm) (MPa) (MPa)
D8-RA 8 Deformed 70  70 1.03 400 500
D10-RA 10 bar 70  70 1.60 400 500
D12-RA 12 70  70 2.31 400 500
D8-GA 8 Smooth bar 70  70 1.03 500 560
D10-GA 10 70  70 1.60 500 560
D12-GA 12 70  70 2.31 500 560
S20-14 14 Deformed 100  100 1.54 540 600
STN-12 12 bar 100  100 1.14 540 600
STN-16 16 100  100 2.05 540 600

Notes: (1) In each specimen, there is only one steel bar. (2) The initial elastic modulus, tensile strain at start of strain hardening and ultimate tensile strain are taken as
200 GPa, 1.0% and 10.0%, respectively.

Table 2
2.4
Concrete properties of tension specimens.
T = 10.4 kN, before formation of any crack
Specimen Compressive Tensile Elastic Poisson’s Fracture T = 11.0 kN, after formation of 1 crack
number strength strength modulus ratio toughness 2.0 T = 13.6 kN, after formation of 3 cracks
(MPa) (MPa) (GPa) (MN m2/3)

Concrete stress (MPa)

D8-RA 24.1 1.8 23,244 0.2 1.3
D10-RA 24.1 1.8 23,244 0.2 1.3 1.6
D12-RA 24.1 1.8 23,244 0.2 1.3
D8-GA 24.1 1.8 23,244 0.2 1.3
D10-GA 24.1 1.8 23,244 0.2 1.3 1.2
D12-GA 24.1 1.8 23,244 0.2 1.3
S20-14 38.8 2.8 29,300 0.2 1.3
STN-12 21.6 2.0 22,400 0.2 1.3 0.8
STN-16 21.6 2.0 22,400 0.2 1.3

0.4

Table 3
Bond properties of tension specimens. 0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Specimen Peak s1 s2 s3 Residual Initial bond Distance along specimen (mm)
number bond (mm) (mm) (mm) bond stiffness (N/
stress stress mm3) Fig. 3. Distribution of concrete tensile stress in specimen D12-RA.
(MPa) (MPa)
D8-RA 9.8 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.5 183.0
D10-RA 9.8 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.5 183.0 and the concrete at the right hand side slips to the right away from
D12-RA 9.8 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.5 183.0
the crack. On the other hand, the steel bar always slips relative to
D8-GA 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.5 73.7
D10-GA 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.5 73.7 the concrete towards the crack. As more cracks are formed, the
D12-GA 1.5 0.1 0.1 0.1 1.5 73.7 bond slip redistributes again with the nearby concrete slipping
S20-14 12.5 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.9 232.2 away from the newly formed cracks. Hence, at each crack, the bond
STN-12 9.3 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.4 173.3 slip at one side of the crack and the bond slip at the other side of
STN-16 9.3 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.4 173.3
the crack are always opposite in direction, thus causing discontinu-
Note: s1, s2 and s3 are the slip at start of peak bond stress, slip at end of peak bond ity of the bond slip there.
stress and slip at start of residual bond stress, respectively. The above stress distributions could not be obtained if the crack
queuing algorithm is not adopted in the finite element analysis.

Steel reinforcing bar Concrete

T T

(a) Test set-up

T T

(b) Finite element mesh

Fig. 2. Test set-up and finite element mesh.
622 A.K.H. Kwan, F.J. Ma / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 618–627

240 Among the three sets of specimens, only the specimen S20-14
T = 10.4 kN, before formation of any crack tested by Farra and Jaccoud [34] and the specimens STN-12 and
T = 11.0 kN, after formation of 1 crack STN-16 tested by Wu and Gilbert [35] have been provided with
200 T = 13.6 kN, after formation of 3 cracks measured crack number and spacing results. The crack number
and spacing results at the final loading stage of these specimen
obtained analytically by finite element analysis are compared to
Steel stress (MPa)

160
the measured results in Table 4. From the comparison, it can be
seen that at the final loading stage, the finite element analysis
120 tends to slightly overestimate the crack number and underesti-
mate the crack spacing. Actually, the crack number and spacing
vary with the loading or steel stress. For more detailed comparison,
80 the measured and analytical crack spacing results for STN-12 and
STN-16 are plotted against the steel stress in Fig. 7. From the
40 curves plotted, it is found that the finite element analysis tends
to overestimate the steel stress at first crack (or predict a later for-
mation of the first crack) but later on tends to overestimate the
0 crack number and underestimate the crack spacing (or produce
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
more cracks at closer spacing) at higher steel stresses.
Distance along specimen (mm)

Fig. 4. Distribution of steel stress in specimen D12-RA. 3.4. Crack width results

For the first set of specimens tested by Radnić and Markota [33],
the analytical and measured maximum crack widths are compared
0.06 T = 10.4 kN, before formation of any crack in Figs. 8 and 9, where the crack widths predicted by the design
T = 11.0 kN, after formation of 1 crack formulas in ACI 224R-01 [2] and Eurocode 2: 2004 [3] are also plot-
T = 13.6 kN, after formation of 3 cracks ted to see if they agree with the analytical or measured results.
0.04 Fig. 8 presents the crack width results of D8-RA, D10-RA and
D12-RA, which are made with deformed bars. For the specimen
Bond slip (mm)

0.02
0.00
-0.02
-0.04
0 100 200 300 400 500
Distance along specimen (mm)
Fig. 5. Distribution of bond slip in specimen D12-RA.
3.3. Crack pattern and crack spacing results
The crack patterns at different loading stages of the typical
specimen D12-RA obtained analytically by finite element analysis
are compared to the measured results by Radnić and Markota
[33] in Fig. 6. When T = 11 kN, 4 cracks could be seen in the mea-
sured crack pattern but only 1 crack appears in the analytical crack
pattern. At T = 20 kN, the measured crack number increased to 5
but the analytical crack number is only 3. At T = 30 kN, the mea-
sured crack number was 7 whereas the analytical crack number
is 6. Then, at T = 40 kN, the measured crack number increased to
12 and the analytical crack number becomes 15. Overall, the mea-
sured crack pattern and spacing show some randomness but the
analytical crack pattern and spacing are fairly regular. This is
because in reality, the intrinsic random variations in material prop-
erties could significantly affect the loading and locations at which
the cracks are formed but in the finite element analysis, the mate-
rial properties are assumed to be perfectly uniform. Nevertheless,
the finite element method augmented with a crack queuing algo-
rithm has successfully produced crack patterns showing clearly
defined discrete cracks.
D8-RA, the analytical crack width is somewhat larger than the
measured result when the steel stress is equal to 240 MPa, but
the discrepancy gradually diminishes to almost zero when the
steel stress increases to 400 MPa. For the specimen D10-RA, the
analytical and measured crack widths agree with each other at
all steel stress levels to within 7% error. For the specimen D12-
RA, the analytical crack width is slightly larger than the measured
result when the steel stress is lower than 250 MPa but slightly
smaller than the measured result when the steel stress is higher
than 250 MPa. Overall, the analytical crack widths of the speci-
mens made with deformed bars agree quite well with the mea-
600 700
sured results. Lastly, comparing the design formulas with the
analytical and measured crack widths, it can be seen that the
design formula in ACI 224R-01 fits better with the analytical and
measured results than the design formula in Eurocode 2: 2004,
which tends to overestimate the crack width.
Fig. 9 presents the crack width results of D8-GA, D10-GA and
D12-GA, which are made with smooth bars. For the specimens
D8-GA and D10-GA, the analytical crack width is generally larger
than the measured result at all steel stress levels. However, the dis-
crepancy between the analytical and measured crack widths is not
entirely caused by the finite element analysis. The crack width
should be dependent on the steel bar size but the measured crack
widths of D8-GA (bar size = 8 mm) and D10-GA (bar size = 10 mm)
are very much the same, indicating that there are some random
variations or errors in the experiment. For the specimen D12-GA,
the analytical crack width agrees quite well with the measured
result at all steel stress levels, although it tends to be slightly lar-
ger. On the whole, the analytical crack widths of the specimens
made with smooth bars are significantly larger than the measured
results. One possible reason is the overly conservative peak bond
stress in the bond-slip model adopted in the finite element analy-
sis. The bond-slip model adopted is the one given in CEB-FIP Model
Code 1990 [38]. As can be seen from Table 3, for smooth bars, the
peak bond stress and residual bond stress are both taken as
1.5 MPa. In theory, the bond strength (the peak bond stress) should
be higher than the residual bond stress, but due to its sensitivity to
surface condition and unreliability, the bond strength of smooth
 A.K.H. Kwan, F.J. Ma / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 618–627 623

Measured crack pattern when T = 10 kN

Analytical crack pattern when T = 11 kN

Measured crack pattern when T = 20 kN

Analytical crack pattern when T = 20 kN

Measured crack pattern when T = 30 kN

Analytical crack pattern when T = 30 kN

Measured crack pattern when T = 40 kN

Analytical crack pattern when T = 40 kN

Fig. 6. Crack patterns of D12-RA.

Table 4 of the specimens STN-12 and STN-16, two sets of measured results
Crack number and crack spacing of S20-14, STN-12 and STN-16. are given, namely: measured maximum crack width and measured
Specimen Measured Analytical Measured Analytical average crack width. This was probably because the measured
number crack crack crack spacing crack spacing crack width varied from one crack to another and thus both the
number number (mm) (mm) maximum and average values are given. However, the finite ele-
S20-14 6 7 192 165 ment analysis, which assumes that the material properties are per-
STN-12 5 7 195 138 fectly uniform, yields uniform crack widths and thus more or less
STN-16 5 9 165 104
the same analytical maximum crack width and analytical average
crack width. Comparing, it can be seen that for the specimen
STN-12, the analytical maximum and average crack widths are lar-
bars has been taken very conservatively to be the same as the ger than the measured average crack width but smaller than the
residual bond stress. It is the authors’ belief that the actual bond measured maximum crack width. For the specimen STN-16, the
strength should be higher than the residual bond stress and that analytical maximum and average crack widths agree very well
if the actual measured bond strength is used in the finite element with the measured average crack width but are substantially smal-
analysis, smaller and more accurate crack width results could be ler than the measured maximum crack width. Generally, the agree-
obtained. Lastly, it is found that the design formula in ACI 224R- ment between the analytical crack width and the measured
01 fits quite well with the measured results but the design formula average crack width is reasonably good.
in Eurocode 2: 2004 does not fit well with the measured results. To evaluate the overall accuracy of the crack width analysis, the
For the second and third sets of specimens tested by Farra and analytical crack widths at various steel stress levels of the nine
Jaccoud [34] and Wu and Gilbert [35], the analytical and measured specimens analyzed are plotted against the corresponding mea-
crack widths are compared in Fig. 10. All these specimens are made sured crack widths in Fig. 11. For the specimens STN-12 and
with deformed bars. STN-16, the measured average crack widths, rather than the mea-
For the specimen S20-14, the analytical crack width is generally sured maximum crack widths, are taken as the measured crack
smaller than the measured result at all steel stress levels. For each widths. In the figure, the data points for specimens made with
624 A.K.H. Kwan, F.J. Ma / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 618–627

600 0.5

500 STN-12 Measured Measured

0.4

Crack width (mm)

Analytical
Crack spacing (mm)

Analytical
ACI 224R
400 0.3 Eurocode 2
300
0.2
200 D8-RA
0.1
100
0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 Steel stress (MPa)
Steel stress (MPa)
0.5
600
Measured
0.4

Crack width (mm)

Measured Analytical
500
STN-16 ACI 224R
Crack spacing (mm)

Analytical
0.3 Eurocode 2
400
0.2
300
0.1 D10-RA
200

100 0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

0 Steel stress (MPa)

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
Steel stress (MPa) 0.5

Measured
Fig. 7. Crack spacings of STN-12 and STN-16. 0.4
Crack width (mm)

Analytical
ACI 224R
0.3 Eurocode 2
deformed bars are marked by square symbols whereas the data
points for specimens made with smooth bars are marked by circu- 0.2
lar symbols. Statistical analysis of the square data points yields a D12-RA
mean error of 3.7% and a mean absolute error of 13.5%. Likewise, 0.1
statistical analysis of the circular data points yields a mean error of
0.0
36.6% and a mean absolute error of 37.5%. Hence, the finite element 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
method augmented with the crack queuing algorithm is suffi- Steel stress (MPa)
ciently accurate for predicting the crack width of tension members
made with deformed bars. For more accurate prediction of the Fig. 8. Crack widths of D8-RA, D10-RA and D12-RA.
crack width of tension members made with smooth bars, a better
bond-slip model is needed.
increasing steel stress. However, the crack width decreases with
increasing concrete compressive strength. The effect of concrete
4. Parametric studies compressive strength is not really large, but with the concrete
compressive strength increased from 20 MPa to 60 MPa, the crack
The proposed finite element method, which has been verified width could be decreased by about 10%. This is because as the con-
by comparing with experimental results, is now employed to study crete compressive strength increases, the bond strength also
the effects of various structural parameters on the crack width of increases, thus providing better bond slip restraints against widen-
tension members. Two parametric studies have been carried out, ing of the cracks.
one on the effect of concrete compressive strength and the other
on the effects of steel ratio and bar size.
4.2. Effects of steel ratio and bar size

4.1. Effect of concrete compressive strength
In this parametric study, tension specimens similar to those
tested by Radnić and Markota [33] are analyzed using different val-
ues of concrete compressive strength varying from 20 to 60 MPa in
steps of 10 MPa. The section size and steel bar size are set constant
as 70 mm  70 mm and 12 mm, respectively. Only deformed bars
are used. The elastic modulus of concrete is calculated from the
concrete strength using the formula in ACI 318R-02 [36] and the
bond-slip properties are taken as those given in CEB-FIP Model
Code 1990 [38]. For the finite element analysis, the same finite ele-
ment mesh as before is employed. The analytical crack width so
obtained is plotted against the steel stress in Fig. 12. As expected,
for all the specimens analyzed, the crack width increases with
In recent years, it has become more and more popular to use
high-strength steel with yield strength substantially higher than
before. This can reduce the amount of steel needed but the working
stress of the steel reinforcement (usually around 60% of the yield
strength) would tend to be higher, leading to potentially larger
crack width of the reinforced concrete structure. The potentially
larger crack width may cause both serviceability and durability
problems but it is still unclear how these problems could be dealt
with. Most of the design codes are limiting the use of high-strength
steel. For instance, ACI 318R-02 [36] limits the use of steel with
yield strength exceeding 552 MPa and AASHTO [39] only permits
the use of steel reinforcing bars with yield strength no greater than
517 MPa. Detailed study of how the steel stress and other param-
eters related to the steel reinforcement would affect the crack
 A.K.H. Kwan, F.J. Ma / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 618–627 625

0.6
0.8
Measured D8-GA Measured
0.5
Crack width (mm)

Analytical

Crack width (mm)

Analytical
0.6 ACI 224R
0.4
Eurocode 2
0.4 0.3

0.2
0.2 S20-14
0.1
0.0 0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
Steel stress (MPa) Steel stress (MPa)

0.6
0.8 Measured maximum crack width
Measured D10-GA 0.5 Measured average crack width
Analytical
Crack width (mm)

Crack width (mm)

ACI 224R Analytical maximum crack width
0.6 0.4
Eurocode 2 Analytical average crack width
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2 STN-12
0.1

0.0 0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
Steel stress (MPa) Steel stress (MPa)

0.6
0.8 Measured maximum crack width
Measured
D12-GA 0.5 Measured average crack width
Analytical
Crack width (mm)
Crack width (mm)

ACI 224R Analytical maximum crack width

0.6 0.4
Eurocode 2 Analytical average crack width
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.1 STN-16

0.0 0.0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
Steel stress (MPa) Steel stress (MPa)

Fig. 9. Crack widths of D8-GA, D10-GA and D12-GA. Fig. 10. Crack widths of S20-14, STN-12 and STN-16.

width is needed to improve our understanding of the cracking

behavior of concrete structures reinforced with high-strength 0.6
steel. For this purpose, Soltani et al. [40] have carried out a theoret-
ical study using their own numerical method.
0.5
Analytical crack width (mm)

Herein, a parametric study on the effects of steel stress, steel

ratio and bar size is carried out. The specimens analyzed are the
same as those of Soltani et al. and the material properties are as 0.4
presented in Table 5. Deformed steel bars of four sizes (12.7 mm,
19.0 mm, 25.4 mm and 32.0 mm) are used. They all have yield
0.3
strengths higher than 800 MPa. For each bar size, three different
steel ratios, 0.75%, 1.00% and 1.50%, are considered in the analysis.
The specimens analyzed are numbered in the form of D‘‘A”-‘‘B”, 0.2
where D means diameter of steel bar, A is the imperial bar size
and B is the steel ratio (in %), as depicted in the first column of
Table 5. 0.1 Tension specimen with deformed bar
The calculated crack widths of the specimens with different bar Tension specimen with smooth bar
sizes and steel ratios are plotted against the steel stress in Figs. 13– 0.0
15, where the respective results obtained by Soltani et al. are also 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
plotted for comparison. Both the crack width results by the present Measured crack width (mm)
analysis and by Soltani et al.’s analysis show the similar phenom-
Fig. 11. Analytical crack width versus measured crack width.
ena that (1) the crack width generally increases with the steel
stress; (2) at the same steel ratio, the crack width is larger when
the bar size is larger; and (3) at the same bar size, the crack width
to check carefully that the resulting crack width would not exceed
is smaller when the steel ratio is higher. Hence, when using high-
the permissible limit. One possible way of minimizing the crack
strength steel with higher working stress under SLS, it is advisable
width is to use a larger number of smaller diameter bars and keep
626 A.K.H. Kwan, F.J. Ma / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 618–627

0.18 2.0

Concrete strength = 20 MPa D4-1.00 by present analysis D4-1.00 by Soltani et al.

0.16 1.8
Concrete strength = 30 MPa D6-1.00 by present analysis D6-1.00 by Soltani et al.
Concrete strength = 40 MPa D8-1.00 by present analysis D8-1.00 by Soltani et al.
0.14 1.6
Concrete strength = 50 MPa D10-1.00 by present analysis D10-1.00 by Soltani et al.
Concrete strength = 60 MPa 1.4
0.12
Crack width (mm)

Crack width (mm)

1.2
0.10
1.0
0.08
0.8
0.06
0.6
0.04
0.4
0.02
0.2

0.00 0.0
40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Steel stress (MPa) Steel stress (MPa)
Fig. 12. Crack widths at various concrete strengths. Fig. 14. Crack widths at steel ratio = 1.00%.

Table 5
2.0
Specimens analyzed in parametric study on effects of steel ratio and bar size.
D4-1.50 by present analysis D4-1.50 by Soltani et al.
Specimen Steel bar diameter Steel ratio Cross section 1.8
D6-1.50 by present analysis D6-1.50 by Soltani et al.
number (mm) (%) (mm  mm)
1.6 D8-1.50 by present analysis D8-1.50 by Soltani et al.
D4-0.75 12.7 0.75 130.0  130.0 D10-1.50 by present analysis D10-1.50 by Soltani et al.
D6-0.75 19.0 0.75 194.4  194.4 1.4
D8-0.75 25.4 0.75 259.9  259.9
Crack width (mm)

D10-0.75 32.0 0.75 327.5  327.5 1.2

D4-1.00 12.7 1.00 112.6  112.6
D6-1.00 19.0 1.00 168.4  168.4 1.0
D8-1.00 25.4 1.00 225.1  225.1
D10-1.00 32.0 1.00 283.6  283.6 0.8
D4-1.50 12.7 1.50 91.9  91.9
D6-1.50 19.0 1.50 137.5  137.5 0.6
D8-1.50 25.4 1.50 183.8  183.8
D10-1.50 32.0 1.50 231.6  231.6 0.4
Notes: (1) In each specimen, there is only one steel bar. (2) For the concrete, the
compressive strength, tensile strength and elastic modulus are 34.5 MPa, 3.3 MPa 0.2
and 27.8 GPa, respectively. (3) For the steel-concrete bond, the peak bond stress is
11.7 MPa and residual bond stress is 1.8 MPa. 0.0
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Steel stress (MPa)
the steel ratio sufficiently high. In this regard, more specific design Fig. 15. Crack widths at steel ratio = 1.50%.
guidelines to be developed by further research are needed.

2.0 On the other hand, comparing the crack width results by the
D4-0.75 by present analysis D4-0.75 by Soltani et al.
present analysis with those obtained by Soltani et al. it is seen that
1.8 although both sets of results reveal the same overall trends, due to
D6-0.75 by present analysis D6-0.75 by Soltani et al.
D8-0.75 by present analysis D8-0.75 by Soltani et al. differences in method of analysis, the results by the present anal-
1.6
D10-0.75 by present analysis D10-0.75 by Soltani et al. ysis sometime agree fairly well with the results by Soltani et al.
1.4 and sometimes are quite different from the results by Soltani
et al. Further research to develop a more generally accepted
Crack width (mm)

1.2 method of analysis is needed.

1.0

0.8 5. Conclusions

0.6 A new finite element method for discrete crack analysis without
the use of discrete crack elements or the need of adaptive re-
0.4
meshing of finite elements near crack tips has been developed.
0.2 To cater for the stress redistribution during crack formation, a
crack queuing algorithm of allowing at most one concrete element
0.0 to crack at each iteration step and re-analyzing the concrete struc-
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Steel stress (MPa) ture before considering the formation of other cracks is employed.
This finite element method augmented with the crack queuing
Fig. 13. Crack widths at steel ratio = 0.75%. algorithm has been applied previously to concrete members under
 A.K.H. Kwan, F.J. Ma / Engineering Structures 126 (2016) 618–627
flexure and in this research extended to incorporate quadrilateral
elements and bond-slip models for both deformed and smooth
bars.
The finite element method augmented with the crack queuing
algorithm has been applied to analyze three sets of concrete mem-
bers under direct tension tested by others. The finite element anal-
ysis results reveal that rather drastic redistributions of concrete
stress, steel stress and bond slip would occur during the formation
of cracks. Particularly, at a newly formed crack, the concrete stress
would drop to zero, the steel stress would increase sharply to a cer-
tain peak value and the bond slip at the two sides of the crack
would become opposite. Unlike the apparently smeared crack pat-
terns generated by the conventional finite element methods, the
crack patterns generated by this finite element method all contain
clearly defined discrete cracks well separated from each other.
Comparing the analytical crack number and spacing results with
the measured results, it is evident that the finite element analysis
tends to overestimate the steel stress at first crack, overestimate
the crack number and underestimate the crack spacing. Comparing
the crack width results with the measured results, it is seen that for
members with deformed bars, the finite element analysis underes-
timates the crack width by only 3.7% but for members with smooth
bars, the finite element analysis overestimates the crack width by
36.6%. Hence, for crack width analysis of concrete members with
deformed bars, the finite element method is sufficiently accurate.
For crack width analysis of concrete members with smooth bars,
a better bond-slip model with less conservative peak bond stress
adopted is needed.
After verifying the accuracy and applicability of the finite ele-
ment method, two parametric studies have been carried out to
evaluate the effect of concrete strength and the combined effects
of steel stress, steel ratio and bar size. It is found that the effect
of concrete strength is not large but with the concrete strength
increased from 20 MPa to 60 MPa, the crack width could be
decreased by about 10%. It is also found that since the crack width
would increase with the steel stress, the use of high-strength steel
could lead to an unacceptably large crack width. Nevertheless, the
crack width could be minimized by using a larger number of smal-
ler diameter bars and keeping the steel ratio sufficiently high.
References
[1] British Standards Institution. BS 8110-2: 1985: structural use of concrete –
Part 2: Code of practice for special circumstances. London (UK): British
Standards Institution; 1985.
[2] ACI Committee 224. ACI 224R-01: control of cracking in concrete
structures. Farmington Hills (Michigan, USA): American Concrete Institute;
2001.
[3] Comité Européen de Normalisation. Eurocode 2: design of concrete structures:
Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings. London (UK): British Standards
Institution; 2004.
[4] Kwak H, Song J. Cracking analysis of RC members using polynomial strain
distribution function. Eng Struct 2004;24(4):455–68.
[5] Gribniak V, Perez-Caldentey A, Kaklauskas G, Rimkus A, Sokolov A. Effect of
arrangement of tensile reinforcement on flexural stiffness and cracking. Eng
Struct 2016;124(1):418–28.
[6] Dufour F, Pijaudier-Cabot G, Choinska M, Huerta A. Extraction of a crack
opening from a continuous approach using regularized damage models.
Comput Concr 2008;5(4):375–88.
[7] Dufour F, Legrain G, Pijaudier-Cabot G, Huerta A. Estimation of crack opening
from a two-dimensional continuum-based finite element computation. Int J
Numer Anal Meth Geomech 2012;36(16):1813–30.
[8] Gilbert RI, Warner RF. Tension stiffening in reinforced concrete slabs. J Struct
Eng ASCE 1978;104(12):1885–900.
627
[9] Vecchio FJ. Nonlinear finite element analysis of reinforced concrete
membranes. ACI Struct J 1989;86(1):26–35.
[10] Gupta A, Maestrini SR. Post-cracking behavior of membrane reinforced
concrete elements including tension-stiffening. J Struct Eng ASCE 1989;115
(4):957–76.
[11] Chan HC, Cheung YK, Huang YP. Crack analysis of reinforced concrete tension
members. J Struct Eng ASCE 1992;118(8):2118–32.
[12] Kwak H, Kim S. Bond-slip behavior under monotonic uniaxial load. Eng Struct
2001;23(3):298–309.
[13] Nejadi S, Gilbert RI. Shrinkage cracking and crack control in restrained
reinforced concrete members. ACI Struct J 2004;101(6):840–5.
[14] Yankelevsky DZ, Jabareen M, Abutbul AD. One-dimensional analysis of tension
stiffening in reinforced concrete with discrete cracks. Eng Struct 2008;30
(1):206–17.
[15] Häubler-Combe U, Hartig J. Evaluation of concrete cracking due to restrained
thermal loading and shrinkage. ACI Struct J 2012;109(1):41–5.
[16] Ngo D, Scordelis AC. Finite element analysis of reinforced concrete beams. ACI J
Proc 1967;64(3):152–63.
[17] Kanakubo T, Sato Y, Uchida Y, Watanabe K, Shima H. Japan Concrete Institute
TC activities on bond behavior and constitutive laws in RC (Part 3 Application
of constitutive laws for FEA). Proc Bond Concr 2012;2012:105–12.
[18] Rashid YR. Ultimate strength analysis of prestressed concrete pressure vessels.
Nucl Eng Des 1968;7(4):334–44.
[19] Bažant ZP, Byung HO. Crack band theory for fracture of concrete. Mater Struct
1983;16(3):155–77.
[20] Suidan M, Schnobrich WC. Finite element analysis of reinforced concrete. J
Struct Div ASCE 1973;99(10):2109–22.
[21] Červenka V. Constitutive model for cracked reinforced concrete. ACI J Proc
1985;82(6):877–82.
[22] De Borst R, Nauta P. Non-orthogonal cracks in a smeared finite element model.
Eng Comput 1985;2(1):35–46.
[23] Willam K, Pramono E. Fundamental issues of smeared crack models. In:
Proceedings of SEM/RILEM international conference of fracture of concrete and
rock. Houston (Texas): Springer; 1987. p. 142–57.
[24] Soltani M, An X, Maekawa K. Computational model for post cracking analysis
of RC membrane elements based on local stress-strain characteristics. Eng
Struct 2003;25(1):993–1007.
[25] Jendele L, Cervenka J. Finite element modelling of reinforcement with bond.
Comput Struct 2006;84(28):1780–91.
[26] Kwak H, Kim S. Simplified monotonic moment-curvature relation considering
fixed-end rotation and axial force effect. Eng Struct 2010;32(1):69–73.
[27] Ng PL, Lam JYK, Kwan AKH. Tension stiffening in concrete beams. Part I: FE
analysis. ICE Proc Struct Build 2010;163(1):19–28.
[28] Cope RJ, Rao PV, Clark LA, Norris P. Modelling of reinforced concrete behavior
for finite element analysis of bridge slabs. Numer Methods Non-linear
Prob. Swansea: Pineridge Press; 1980. p. 457–70.
[29] Gupta AK, Akbar H. Cracking in reinforced concrete analysis. J Struct Eng ASCE
1984;110(8):1735–46.
[30] Kwan AKH, Wang ZM, Chan HC. Mesoscopic study of concrete II: nonlinear
finite element analysis. Comput Struct 1999;70(5):545–56.
[31] Ma FJ, Kwan AKH. Crack width analysis of reinforced concrete members under
flexure by finite element method and crack queuing algorithm. Eng Struct
2015;105:209–19.
[32] He XG, Kwan AKH. Modeling dowel action of reinforcement bars for finite
element analysis of concrete structures. Comput Struct 2001;79(6):595–604.
[33] Radnić J, Markota L. Experimental verification of engineering procedures for
calculation of crack width in concrete elements. Eng Model 2003;16(1):63–9.
[34] Farra B, Jaccoud JP. Influence of concrete and reinforcement on cracking of
concrete structures. Test report of short-terms imposed strains on
ties. Lausanne (Switzerland): IBAP; 1994.
[35] Wu HQ, Gilbert RI. Modeling short-term tension stiffening in reinforced
concrete prisms using a continuum-based finite element model. Eng Struct
2009;31(10):2380–91.
[36] ACI Committee 318. ACI 318R-02: building code requirements for structural
concrete. Farmington Hills (Michigan, USA): American Concrete Institute;
2001.
[37] Chen HH, Su RKL, Kwan AKH. Fracture toughness of plain concrete made of
crushed granite aggregate. Hong Kong Inst Eng Trans 2011;118(2):6–12.
[38] Comité Euro-International du Beton. CEB-FIP model code 1990: model code for
concrete structures. London: Thomas Telford; 1993.
[39] AASHTO. AASHTO LRFD bridge design specification. 5th ed. Washington (DC,
USA): American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials;
2010.
[40] Soltani A, Harries KA, Shahrooz BM. Crack opening behavior of concrete
reinforced with high strength reinforcing steel. Int J Concr Struct Mater 2013;7
(4):253–64.