Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Different codes have different formulas to calculate crack spacing slabs. An accurate estimate of the crack spacing and crack
and crack width developed in flexural members. Most of these width of thick concrete plates used for offshore and nuclear
formulas are based on the analysis of results of tested beams or power plant structures can result in the reduction of
one-way slabs. Crack control equations for beams underestimate steel reinforcement. The saving of steel reinforcement to
the crack width developed in plates and two-way slabs. It seems
satisfy the crack width limitations can be estimated in
that little attention has been paid in determining the crack spacing
and width in reinforced concrete plates. The behavior of reinforced millions of dollars for a single project (for example, Hibernia
concrete plates and two-way slabs is different from beams or one- oil platform). The proposed equation combines the known
way slabs; therefore, the methods developed for beams cannot be bond stress effect with the contribution of splitting bond
directly applied to plates and two-way slabs. In this paper, a new stress in the transverse direction due to the action of two-way
analytical equation is proposed for calculating the crack spacing slabs. The proposed equation gives a good estimate for crack
for plates and two-way slabs. A special focus will be given to thick spacing in plates and two-way slabs with concrete covers (Cc
concrete plates used for offshore and nuclear containment structures. < 2.5db). The proposed method can also be modified and
The proposed equation takes into account the effect of steel rein- used for plates with thick concrete covers (C = 2.5 – 5.0db).
forcement in the transverse direction through the splitting bond
stress. The new equation provides good estimates for crack spacing
in plates and two-way slabs with different concrete covers. Eight PREVIOUS RESEARCH
full-scale two-way slabs were designed and tested to examine the Crack width models clearly illustrate that the crack
effects of concrete cover and bar spacing of normal- and high- spacing and width are functions of the distance between the
strength concrete on crack spacing. The different code expressions reinforcing steel. Therefore, crack control can be achieved
are evaluated with respect to the experimental results. by limiting the spacing of the reinforcing steel. Maximum
bar spacing can be determined by limiting the crack width to
Keywords: bond stress; crack spacing; plate; transverse reinforcement. acceptable limits.
The CEB-FIP4 model code provides the following expression w = kβf s I (6)
for calculating the average crack spacing for stabilized cracking
where the terms under the square root are collectively termed
2 the grid index, and k is a fracture coefficient (k = 2.8 × 10–5)
S rm = --- l s, max (4) for uniformly loaded restrained two-way action square slabs
3
and plates. For concentrated loads or reactions or when the
ratio of short to long span is less than 0.75 but larger than 0.5,
where ls,max is the length over which slip between the steel
a value of k = 2.1 × 10–5 is applicable. For span aspect ratios
reinforcement and concrete occurs (approximating crack
less than 0.5, k =1.6 × 10–5; β = 1.25 (chosen to simplify
spacing in stabilized cracking), mm. Steel and concrete
calculations, although it varies between 1.20 and 1.35); and
strains, which occur within this length, contribute to the
fs is the actual average service-load stress level or 40% of the
width of the crack; σs2 is the steel stress at crack, MPa; σsE
specified yield strength fy, ksi.
is the steel stress at point of zero slip, MPa; ϕs is the bar
diameter, mm; τbk is the lower fractile value of the average Desayi and Kulkarni7 developed an approximate
method to predict the maximum crack width in two-way
reinforced concrete slabs. The researchers calculated the
maximum crack width based on an estimation of the crack
spacing at any given stage of loading, which is between
that stage and the ultimate load. As a result of the two-way
action of the slabs, when the stretching of bars in Direc-
tion X and the concrete surrounding them is considered,
the bars in the perpendicular direction can be assumed to
bear against the concrete surrounding them. The spacing
of cracks formed in Direction X can be calculated using
Fig. 1—Effective embedment thickness (effective tension area). the following formula
ANALYTICAL MODEL
The presented theoretical model for calculating crack
spacing for two-way slabs combines the known effect of
bond stress with the splitting bond stress in the transverse
direction, which is due to the action of two-way slabs.
DISCUSSION
Verification of proposed model
A total of 12 simply-supported beams and one-way slabs
were subjected to constant sustained service loads for a
period of 400 days by Gilbert and Nejadi.14 The parameters
varied in the tests were the shape of the section b/h, the
number of reinforcing bars, the spacing between bars s, the
concrete cover Cc, and the sustained load level. A comparison
between beam Series 1 and 2 (Table 2) demonstrates that
increasing the clear concrete cover increases the average
crack spacing. This is because the crack spacing srm is
inversely proportional to the effective reinforcement ratio
ρeff. Increasing the bottom cover increases the effective
tension area of the concrete and decreases the effective rein-
forcement ratio, which results in a larger crack spacing. Also,
increasing the tensile reinforcement area decreases crack
spacing and reduces crack width (because crack spacing is
inversely proportional to the effective reinforcement ratio).
Frosch et al.15 tested 10 one-way slabs to determine the
effects of bar spacing and epoxy coating thickness on crack
width and spacing. The primary variables evaluated in the
study were the spacing of the reinforcement and the epoxy
coating thickness. The parameters varied in the tests were the
reinforcing bars type, the spacing between bars s, and the
sustained load level. The measured crack width and spacing
Fig. 5—Crack patterns of Series I: (a) NS1 (thickness were also compared to calculated crack width and spacing.
150 mm [6 in.]); and (b) NS2 (thickness 200 mm [8 in.]). Major conclusions derived from this investigation include:
Fig. 6—Crack patterns of Series II: (a) NS3 (thickness 250 mm [10 in.]); (b) HS1 (thickness 250 mm [10 in.]); (c) NS4
(thickness 300 mm [12 in.]); and (d) HS2 (thickness 300 mm [12 in.]).
Table 4—Comparison between calculated crack spacing values using code formulas with measured
experimental values for test specimens by Frosch et al.15
Concrete cover Bar spacing s, New proposed Experimental
Slab no. Cc , mm Height h, mm mm fc′ , MPa NS/CSA, mm CEB, mm model, mm results, mm
B-6 46 203 152 46.6 167 118 136 175
B-9 46 203 229 44.4 213 177 211 229
B-12 46 203 305 44.5 260 236 282 249
B-18 46 203 457 47.4 352 355 411 310
E12-6 46 203 152 46.7 167 118 136 170
E12-9 46 203 229 46.4 213 177 206 226
E12-12 46 203 305 45.7 260 236 278 257
E12-18 46 203 457 46.8 352 355 414 338
E6-9 46 203 229 46.1 213 177 207 203
E18-9 46 203 229 45.9 213 177 207 188
Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.
Table 5—Comparison between calculated crack spacing values using code formulas with measured
experimental values
Concrete Slab thickness, Bar spacing s, New proposed Experimental
Slab no. cover Cc , mm mm mm fc′ , MPa NS/CSA, mm CEB, mm model, mm results, mm
NS1 45 150 210 44.7 211 137 248 201
NS2 40 200 240 50.2 216 176 234 221
NS3 60 250 368 35.0 341 279 320 245
HS1 60 250 368 35.0 341 279 361 263
NS4 70 300 368 70.0 331 225 273 261
HS2 70 300 368 64.7 331 225 304 246
HS3 70 350 289 65.4 276 160 273 264
NS5 70 400 217 40.0 252 145 226 250
Note: 1 MPa = 145 psi; 1 mm = 0.0394 in.
higher than test results, and as both the concrete cover and
bar spacing increased, the crack spacing increased theoretically
and experimentally. For bar spacing less than 250 mm (10 in.),
the CEB-FIB4 model code underestimates the average
crack spacing by approximately 31%, compared to the one
measured during testing.