Models for flexural cracking in concrete:

the state of the art

A. Borosnyoi and G. L. Balazs

Crack formation presents a complex mechanical and geometrical question to be modelled. The available crack
width formulations are often based on simplifications. A rigorous formulation of crack widths should be based on
the integration of strain differences of reinforcement and concrete between cracks, due to the accumulated slips.
In this paper an extensive literature review on crack widths and crack spacing is presented. The basic intention of
the present paper is to summarise the development of flexural crack models and collect the most relevant formulae
for crack spacing and crack width. It reports not only the possible improvement of design or research equations but
also the appearance of new types of reinforcements with different characteristics from those of steel
reinforcements. This state-of-the-art Report is a contribution to the work of fib TG 4.1 Serviceability Models.

Adorjan Borosnyoi
Budapest University of Technology and
Economics, Hungary
Gyorgy L. Balazs
Budapest University of Technology and
Economics, Hungary

D1s
r
ref

ss
ssr
ssrn

tbm

Notation
Ac,ef
acr

b
c
d
Ec
Ef
Es
fct,fl
fctm
h
M
Mr
s
sr,min
srm
sr,max
wk
wm
ae
1sm
1sm,r

effective concrete area in tension

shortest distance from rebar surface
to point considered for crack width
calculation
width of cross section
concrete cover
effective depth of cross section
Youngs modulus (concrete)
Youngs modulus of FRP
Youngs modulus (steel)
flexural tensile strength of concrete
mean tensile strength of concrete
total depth of cross section
actual bending moment
cracking moment
reinforcing bar spacing
minimum crack spacing
average crack spacing
maximum crack spacing
characteristic crack width
average crack width
modular ratio (Es /Ec)
average strain of reinforcement
average strain of reinforcement relative to that in the adjacent concrete

14644177 # 2005 Thomas Telford and fib

fs
Su

tension stiffening
reinforcement ratio (As /bd)
effective reinforcement ratio
(As /Ac,ef)
stress in the reinforcement
stress in the reinforcement under the
cracking load
stress in the reinforcement under
the load corresponding to crack
stabilisation
average bond stress along the
disturbed zone
nominal diameter of reinforcement
(sum of) perimeter(s) of reinforcing
bar(s)

Introduction
Cracks can be usually observed on concrete
structures in service. Cracks have significant
influence on serviceability, durability, aesthetics
and force transfer. Cracking of concrete (related
to its limited tensile deformation capacity) is
usually expected under tensile stresses. Cracking phenomena (such as pattern, orientation,
extension and width) are considerably dependent on the available reinforcement. Surface
pattern (bond characteristics), Youngs modulus
of reinforcement, bar diameter, bar spacing,
concrete cover and cross-sectional reinforcement ratio are the most important parameters.
Recently non-metallic fibre-reinforced plastic
(FRP) reinforcements have also become available
as alternatives to steel reinforcement in order to
avoid corrosion of conventional steel reinforcements. As the novel types of reinforcing materials are rather different from conventional steel
in mechanical properties, chemical composition

and surface characteristics, the analysis of cracking behaviour of reinforced or prestressed concrete members becomes important again.
The present paper gives an extensive literature
review of available formulae for the calculation of
crack spacing and crack width of steel-reinforced
or prestressed concrete flexural members preceded by discussions on causes of cracking,
phases of cracking and contribution of concrete
in tension.

Causes of cracking
There are several reasons for cracking in concrete. Cracks can be formed both in fresh concrete (before setting of cement paste) and in
hardened concrete. As concrete sets, plastic
cracking may occur during the first few hours
after casting. There are two types of plastic
cracking: plastic shrinkage cracking (commonly
in slabs) and plastic settlement cracking (in
deep members). Both types of plastic cracking
are associated with bleeding of concrete. In
hardened concrete cracks can be formed
from loads (flexure, tension, shear, torsion,
bond, etc.) or from imposed deformations
(shrinkage, thermal movements, etc). The
present paper focuses exclusively on the flexural cracking behaviour of reinforced or prestressed concrete members.

Nature of crack formation

Cracks are formed in reinforced concrete
members when the tensile deformations from
loads or restraint forces reach the tensile deformation capacity of concrete. Cracks can be
theoretically avoided only in three-dimensionally
prestressed members. In case of flexural

Borosnyoi and Balazs

Sr

In reinforced concrete beams or slabs, the reinforcing bars are usually located close to the
surface of the member, to achieve the highest
lever arm of inner forces. The contribution of
concrete in tension is different at various
locations within a member. It can be shown
that an effective concrete area in tension
(Ac,ef) can be taken into account around the
tensile reinforcements, which is not identical
with the concrete area under the neutral axis
(considered as concrete in tension). Usually,
Ac,ef is considered to have the same centroid
as the tensile reinforcement. Ac,ef is a nonlinear function of the concrete strength, the
geometry of the member, the reinforcement
ratio, the bond properties of the reinforcement
and the modular ratio.2 Ac,ef can be developed
analytically for rectangular cross-sections as
shown in equation (1).2
Ac,ef
[fct,fl bd(d 2 4ae rd 2
12ae rdh12ae rh2 )]=
[2fctm h(2ae rd
2ae rh d)(3 ae r
p

(ae r2 ) 2ae r)
ae rbh

Ac,ef 2  5(h
d)b

Load

Crack formation Stabilised cracking phase

4 Figure 1 Crack formation and crack

spacings

(1)

As a result of bond (and slip) between concrete

and reinforcement, Ac,ef has zero dispersion at
a section of a crack (at maximum slip) and has
the widest dispersion at the section of zero slip
(Figure 2). The value of Ac,ef is usually obtained
by a simplified approach, such as those in
Eurocode 2, or CEB-FIP Model Code 1990, for
rectangular cross sections,3,4

Sr, max
Srm
Sr, min
Cracking
load

An extended formula for Ac,ef can be developed by taking into consideration the size
effect, as here in equation (3)5

distribution
of tensile
stress

(2)

crack

first crack
last crack

Contribution of concrete
in tension

crack

Crack spacings

members the crack formation phenomenon is

often subdivided into two phases: the crack
formation phase and the stabilised cracking
phase. 1
During the crack formation phase cracks are
formed at random positions according to the
locally weak sections. After a crack is formed,
the tensile forces are carried by the reinforcement at the section of the crack. In the
tension chord the compatibility of strains
between concrete and reinforcement is no
longer maintained, as concrete stress drops to
zero at a crack. With increasing distance from
a crack, the tensile stress in the concrete
increases as force is transferred by bond stresses
(the required length can be referred to as transfer length). At some distance, the compatibility
of strains between concrete and reinforcement
is again recovered. The better the bond capacity
of the reinforcing bar, the shorter is the length
required for re-establishing strain compatibility.
In the crack formation phase the zones in
which no strain compatibility is available are
independent from each other. With increasing
load new cracks can be formed. The average
crack spacing is then decreased (Figure 1).
The so-called stabilised cracking phase is
supposed to be reached when practically no
more new cracks can be formed. Under this
condition, the cracks are so close to each
other that the transfer lengths reach each
other. In the stabilised cracking phase the
average crack spacing remains constant. An
increase of load causes an increase of the
crack widths only. The average crack spacing
is a function of bar diameter, bond characteristics, concrete strength, concrete cover and
effective reinforcement ratio.

Effecive concree area in tension, Ac, ef

54

bar

concrete not
significantly
affected by bar

4 Figure 2 Conceptual illustration of

effective concrete area in tension, Ac,ef 1

Ac,ef m(h
d)b

(3)

where
m h=(h
d)
0  h=(h
d)  5
333 033[h=(h
d)] 5 , h=(h
d)  35
15
h=(h
d) . 35:

Tension stiffening
Tensile loads are considered to be carried only
by the reinforcement at the section of a
crack. Between adjacent cracks (as slips and
bond stresses are utilised) a limited tensile
force is transferred from the reinforcement to
the surrounding concrete. Strains in the
reinforcement as well as strains in the concrete
are not constant along the longitudinal axis
of the reinforcement. Strain of embedded
reinforcement (1s1 at zero slip) is less than
that of the naked reinforcement itself at
the section of a crack (1s2 at maximum slip)
due to bond stresses. Contribution of concrete
between cracks may be considered as an
increase to the stiffness of the tensile reinforcement. Therefore, this effect is known as tension
stiffening. In other words, Youngs modulus of
the reinforcement is apparently increased.
Between two cracks the average strain (1sm)
can be defined along the reinforcement as
1sm 1s2
D1s

(4)

where D1s is the tension stiffening effect of the

concrete.
Figure 3 indicates a reinforced concrete
beam with rectangular cross-sections in
flexure. Whenever influence of curvature is
neglected, a part of the tension chord can be
separated as the Ac,ef. Structural behaviour
can be modelled by a reinforced concrete tie
element having concrete cross-sections equal
to the Ac,ef of the flexural member. In
Figure 3 strain distributions of the reinforcement and that of the concrete, as well as the
bond stress distribution along the element are
schematically presented. Tension stiffening is
indicated by D1s.
Structural Concrete

 2005  6  No 2

Models for flexural cracking in concrete: the state of the art

and reinforcement configuration. In the case

of a tie element with one single (or more) reinforcing bar(s) the minimum crack spacing can
be expressed as


fctm fs
fctm Ac,ef
(6)

sr0
4tbm ref
tbm Su

M
Ac,ef

F
w

Considering Figure 3, if sr  2sr0, a new crack

can be formed between the existing two
cracks. If sr , sr0, a new crack can not be
formed between the existing two cracks. This
means that the crack spacings are expected
to vary between sr,min sr0 and sr,max 2sr0.
According to different authors, the values for
average crack spacing are proposed as

Sr

es1

es

ts

es2

esm = es2 - Des

tbm

srm 13sr0 2

ecm

ec

srm 14sr0 8

4 Figure 3 Strain and bond stress

distributions in the tension chord

srm 15sr0 4,9,10

Maximum crack spacing can be expressed as

From slips to crack widths

sr,max 20sr0 2,4,6,7,11

After cracking, compatibility between strains of
reinforcement and of concrete is maintained in
the vicinity of cracks only if relative displacements (slips) are also taken into account.
Strain differences lead to slips (relative displacements of concrete and reinforcement
cross-sections), and increasing crack widths.
A rigorous formulation of crack widths can
be obtained by the integration of the actual
strains of reinforcement and that of concrete
between cracks, based on the accumulated
slips
sr
1s (x)
1c (x)dx

(5)

However, simplifications are usually carried out

for an easy formulation of crack widths in
design.

Therefore, ratios of minimum, average and

maximum crack spacings can be expressed as
sr,min
067 to 077
srm
sr,max
133 to 154
srm

Crack spacings
A minimum crack spacing (sr0) can be defined,
based on strain compatibility. It gives the
closest point to an existing crack at which
another crack can be formed (i.e. where the
tensile strain in the concrete reaches its
tensile capacity). The minimum crack spacing
is a constant for a given concrete strength

Structural Concrete

 2005  6  No 2

fs
f
A s
ref
ref

srm A1 A2 c A3 s A4 fs A5 

fs
ref
(9a)

(9b)

The ratio of average and maximum crack

spacings can be expressed14
2
3
s
 t
srm
M
r
5
(10)
41
05 1

sr,max
M
where t 1 2.5/r [%].

(7a)
(7b)

However, other authors12 have also found

experimentally the ratio sr,max /srm 1.3 to 2.3.
It is often supposed that the ratio of the
average bond stress over the bond zones
(tbm, average bond strength) and the mean
tensile strength of concrete ( fctm) has a constant value for a given concrete grade and
reinforcement type. The average crack
spacing (srm) can be expressed from the
minimum crack spacing (sr0) in the following
generalised form
srm a sr0 a  k

reinforcement ratio (ref). However, this simplified statement is exclusively valid for tie
elements with one concentric reinforcing bar.
Experiments on reinforced concrete
elements in flexure have demonstrated13 that
concrete cover (c), spacing of reinforcing bars
(s) and size effect have considerable influences
on the average crack spacing (srm). Table 1
summarises formulae proposed by various
authors for the average crack spacing (srm).
Approaches in Table 1 can be generalised in
linear form

or non-linear form


f
srm f c, s, fs , s , ss , etc:
ref

srm 133sr0 6,7

55

(8)

where a is the ratio of average and minimum

crack spacing; k is the ratio of average bond
stress and tensile strength of concrete; and A
is ak.
From this formulation the average crack
spacing (srm) seems to be a function of
only two parameters: the nominal diameter
of reinforcement (fs) and the effective

Average strain in the

reinforcement
Another important parameter in the formulation of crack widths is the average strain in
the reinforcement (1sm). However, only the
average strain in the reinforcement relative to
that in the adjacent concrete (1sm,r) is considered for the formulation of crack widths. In
order to avoid any confusion, 1sm,r is defined
in Figures 4 and 5 according to CEB Manual
(1985)1 and MC90.4
Figures 4 and 5 indicate the two most
typical simplifying proposals for the average
strain in the reinforcement (and tension stiffening, D1s)
(a) a non-linear approach
1sm,r f (1s2) z1s2, and
(b) a constant approach
1sm,r 1s2 2 D1s 1s2 2 0.61sr2.
It should be realised that the MC90 approach
defines the condition of stabilised cracking
phase (where ssrn 1.3ssr) in a simplified form.

Borosnyoi and Balazs

56

Table 1 Formulae proposed by various authors for average crack spacing of reinforced concrete members [extension of Balazs,
G. L. (1993) Literature Review on Crack Width Formulae (unpublished manuscript)]
Formula for average crack spacing (srm)

Generalised form of formula

Proposed by

srm kc


f
srm 2 c s
2
srm 50 k s

srm A1 c

Broms and Lutz16

srm A1 c A2 fs

Broms17

srm A1 A2 s

Janovic and Kupfer8

srm A1 A2 s

Janovic and Kupfer18

srm A1 A2 s

Jaccoud19

srm A1 c A2 s A3 fs

JSCE20

srm
srm
srm

d
50 0637s
25
4
50 15k  s
3
k 4 c 07(s
fs )

srm

2
fs

3 36ref

f fcm
srm 0157 s
4rtbm

fs
ref

CEB-FIP Model Code 19904

srm A1

fs
ref

Saliger21

srm 50 025k1 k2

srm A1 A2

Eurocode 23


1
f
30 s
17
4ref

fs
ref

srm A1 A2

fs
ref

Fehling and Konig22

srm

fs
ref


srm A1

f
srm 15c 012 s
ref
srm k1 c k2

fs
ref

srm k1 c 025k2 k3
srm 35c kw
srm

fs
ref

fs
ref



3fs
1
1
10ref
k


s
f
k1 k2 s
srm 2 c
10
ref

s
f
01 s
srm 2 c
10
ref

s
f
k s
srm 2 c
10
10ref
s
A
srm 165 056 c c,ef
Sfs

f
srm 5(fs
72) 008 s K1 (c; s)
ref
!089
(022fctm =r)088
srm 31  k
fs
066
fctm
srm
srm

1 ss2
f
2 asc1 s
"

r#
ss
2 d Ach
ss
fctm =ref

1





srm
h
d 45
1 Ac,ef 1=3 0236  10
6
257
166

h
x2
n As
f
12s2

srm A1 c A2

fs
ref

Farra and Jaccoud23

srm A1 c A2

fs
ref

Ferry-Borges24

srm A1 c A2

fs
ref

Braam25

srm A1 c A2

fs
ref

Alander26

srm A1 fs A2

fs
ref

Brice27

srm A1 c A2 s A3

fs
ref

CEB-FIP Model Code 197828

srm A1 c A2 s A3

fs
ref

AIJ29

srm A1 c A2 s A3

fs
ref

Menn30
Holmberg31

srm A1 f (c;fs )
srm A1 A2 fs A3

fs
f (c; s)
ref

Leonhardt32

srm f (r; fctm ; fs )

Noakowski10

srm f (ss ; fcm ; fs )

Janko33

srm f (ss ; fctm ; ref )

Bernardi et al. 34

Oh and Kang35

Structural Concrete

 2005  6  No 2

Models for flexural cracking in concrete: the state of the art

ss2

ss2
es1

is influenced also by the size effect.4 The

expression given by equation (12) does not
take into consideration the influence of bond
properties of the reinforcement. As tension stiffening (D1s) and effective concrete area in
tension (Ac,ef) are considerably influenced by
bond characteristics, a rigorous formulation of
ratio d should include bond parameters as well.
Theoretical proposals are not available in the
literature.

esm,r = zes2
es1

es2
ssr

es2

ssr
esm

esm,r

Crack widths

4 Figure 4 Definition of average strain in the reinforcement relative to that in the

adjacent concrete (1sm,r) according to CEB Manual.1 (a) CEB Manual, Fig. 1.1.3.a;
(b) CEB Manual, Fig. 1.1.3.b

ss2

Crack widths are dependent on the position of

reinforcing bars (Figure 7), therefore, the formulations normally provide the value of the crack
widths at the surface of the tensile reinforcement. The crack width at the surface of the
element is often considered to be equal to the
crack width at the surface of the reinforcement,
even if these two values are different.
Many proposals are available in the literature to predict the crack width. Available proposals can be classified into four categories
according to the level of approach.

ss2
esm,r = es2 - 06es2

es1

es1
es2

13ssr

es2

13ssr

ssr

ssr
esm,r

esm

4 Figure 5 Definition of average strain in the reinforcement relative to that in the

adjacent concrete (1sm,r) according to MC90.4 (a) MC90 Clause 3.2.3; (b) MC90 Clause 7.4.3

Crack stabilisation
The first crack is considered to appear when
the tensile strain reaches the tensile capacity
of concrete. In calculations it is taken into
account with the stress condition sct fct,min
at the extreme tensile face. Minimum concrete
tensile strength can be considered as a lower
fractile of the tensile strength, e.g. fct,min
fct,005. The influence of reinforcement ratio
and age of concrete at loading can be also
taken into account.5

 2005  6  No 2

wk bwm bsrm 1sm,r ,

or by

fct,max
d
:
fct,min
In the case of structural elements in flexure, the
flexural tensile strength of concrete ( fct,fl) should
be analysed. Flexural tensile strength of concrete

wk sr,max 1sm,r :

A
section
A-A

(11)

where l(t) is the coefficient for maturity of

concrete and l(r) is the coefficient for reinforcement ratio.
The last crack under static loading is expected
to appear when sct fct,max at the extreme
tensile face. Maximum concrete tensile strength
can be considered as an upper fractile of the
tensile strength, e.g. fct,max fct,095 (Figure 6).
Structural Concrete

(a) Calculation of crack width in an analytical

way by solving the differential equation of
bond slip.
(b) Calculation of crack width by semianalytical equations. The models include
simplifications either on bond stress or
on strains. Characteristic value of crack
width is either expressed by

(12)

where

Number of cracks

fct,min l(t)  l(r)fctm

A ratio can be developed for tie elements, for

the reinforcement stresses at first cracking to
the stress at stabilised cracking

ssrn dssr

first crack

n fct,min

57

fct,max
last crack
Stabilised cracking phase

first crack
Reinforcement stress
ssrn
ssr

4 Figure 6 Number of cracks and crack

stabilisation (static loading)

4 Figure 7 Schematic representation of

the influence of reinforcing bars on the
crack width

58

Borosnyoi and Balazs

Table 2 Formulae proposed by various authors for crack widths of reinforced concrete members [extension of Balazs, G. L. (1993)
Literature Review on Crack Width Formulae (unpublished manuscript)]
General form of proposal

Basics of proposal

wk b wm

b 1.5

Proposed by

wm determined from the solution of the differential equation of bond slip

"

(022fctm =r)088
wk 15(k)31
fs
066
fctm

#089

ss2
k(056)(022fctm =r)


Es

 


s
f
ss2
k1 k2 fctm =ref
01 s
wk 15 2 c
10
ref
Es

Bruggeling9
Noakowski10

AIJ29

b 1.55
wm determined from the sum of crack widths

Rizkalla and Hwang7

b 1.66



1
f
75
wk 166 15c 004 s ss2

Es
r
r

Ferry-Borges24

b 1.7


f
ss2
wk 17 50 025k1 k2 s z
ref
Es

Eurocode 23
Schiessl-Wolfel36

ss2
wk 17(50 075s)08
Es
 

s
f
ss2
k1 k2 s z
wk 17 2 c
10
ref
Es

Janovic and Kupfer8

CEB-FIP MC7828

b 2.0
wk 4te 1sm


f
1sm
wk 4 c
2



f fcm ss2
fcm (005=r 2)
wk 2 0157 s
Es
4r tbm
wk sr,max1sm,r

Empirical relationships

fs
(1sm
1cm )
36ref


04
ss2
45
fs
ref
K2
r
4 Ac,ef d
x
K
ss2
n h
x
p d
x
K  3 (h
d)Ac,ef
ss2
h
x
s

2
s
K  ss2 (h
d) 1
4(h
d)

Broms and Lutz16

Broms17
Saliger21

wk

CEB-FIP MC904

wk

CEB37

wk
wk
wk

For GFRP reinforced members; the same proposal that of Gergely-Lutz39

but with modified parameter K f (Ef ;rf )
p
ss
20(35
100r) f
Es
 05
Act
wk K  ss2 (h
d)
As
wk K 

Kaar and Hognestad38

Gergely and Lutz39
ACI 224.2R-8640
Toutanji and Saafi41

Sygula42
Suri and Dilger43
Rao and Dilger44

(Table continued )

Structural Concrete

 2005  6  No 2

Models for flexural cracking in concrete: the state of the art

Table 2 Continued
General form of proposal

Basics of proposal

Proposed by

Analytical relationships

simplified elastic analysis



1 s2s2 fs
kf
1
ctd
wk
2 ksct,1 Es
3sct,1

Janko33

simplified elastic analysis

Nawy45

wk K

Ac,ef
(Dss )
Su
Scholz46

simplified elastic analysis

wk K

Act,1 sct,1 h
x
d
x
As

simplified elastic analysis

wk

s2s2 fs
FrK
ksct,1 Es


FrK (1
q)(1
05q) 1

ss1
ss2


1
q
d(1
05q)

sct,1
fctd

no-slip theory
wk

Karman47

3acr 1m
1 2((acr
cmin )=h
x)

BS 8110
Reynolds-Steedman48

debonded-length theory
wm r (1s2
1c,r )
r

DL
L1c1
 0:7t
n(1s2
1c1 )

Jaccoud19
Farra and Jaccoud23

debonded-length theory

ss
r Dw
Es


c
r srm 0378
011
fs

r
ss
c
Dw c
10
4
454
99
30
fs
wm

Holmberg49

wk expressed from the solution of the differential

equation of bond slip

Noakowski10
Alvarez11
Fehling and Konig22
Edwards and Picard50
Somayaji and Shah51
Krips52
Yang and Chen53
Balazs54 etc.

Based on bond-slip relationship also for GFRP

reinforced members

Bernardi et al. 34

"

r!#
2sf
sf

1
wk
d A tanh cosh
Ef
sf
(fctm =rf )

Toutanji and Saafi55

(Table continued )

Structural Concrete

 2005  6  No 2

59

Borosnyoi and Balazs

Table 2 Continued
General form of proposal

Basics of proposal

Proposed by

theory of fracture mechanics

"



 #
wk
h
x2
h
d 45
1 Ac,ef 1=3
(1s
00002)
159
283
h
x2
n As
f
d
x2

Oh and Kang35

theory of fracture mechanics

Ec (1
r)=Es rej N 1 1cm
h

w0

f
1
Nd=L
hd=wc

Ouyang and Shah56

Shah et al. 57

where wc is the critical crack separation

(1
r)fct fct

rEs
Ec

(c) Calculation of crack width by empirical

relationships based on fitting of a large
number of experimental data, with or
without explicit expression of crack spacing
and average strain of reinforcement.
(d) Numerical models for direct or indirect
consideration of cracks (fracture mechanics models, FEM models, damage
models, smeared crack models, etc.).

equation (14).14

Table 2 gives a summary of major proposals for

the formulation of crack width (characteristic
crack width corresponds to the 95% fractile
of crack widths).3,4,15 Parametric studies indicated rather considerable differences provided
by the various equations.58 As the frequency
distribution of crack widths was experimentally
found to be log-normal, a characteristic crack
width can be defined by mathematical statistics.1 In this way, the maximum crack width
becomes meaningless: what can be predicted
is a crack width of a specified probability to
be exceeded. If it is accepted that crack
widths have log-normal statistical distribution, a ratio of the mean to the characteristic crack widths (b) can be formulated
(Figure 8)

CEB-FIP Model Code 1990 recommends direct

calculation of characteristic crack widths and
does not determine a b parameter for the
ratio of the characteristic and average crack
widths (see Table 2); however, it is easy to
determine its b value. MC90 recommends the
formulae given in equations (15) to (16) for
the calculation of characteristic (MC90 Clause
7.4.3.1) and average (MC90 Clause 3.2.2)
crack widths, respectively:

w
b k
wm

where

wm

wmax
(
"
 
 #)
srm Mr
srm
srm 2

033 3


sr,max M
sr,max
sr,max


Mr

067
(14)
M

wk sr,max  1sm,r

(15a)

Density

pk

pm

(13)

It is theoretically possible to develop a ratio

of the mean to the characteristic (or maximum) crack widths, if the ratio of average
and maximum crack spacings is available,

wm wk
crack width, w

4 Figure 8 Schematic representation of

mean and characteristics crack width

fs
36ref

(15b)

ss2
fctm (t)

06
(1 ae ref )
Es
ref Es

(15c)

sr,max
1sm,r

wm srm  1sm,r

(16a)

where

1sm,r

2
2 fs
srm sr,max
3
3 36ref

(16b)

ss2 2
fctm (t)

06
(1 ae ref ):
Es 3
ref Es

(16c)

Based on equations (15) to (16), the ratio of

characteristic and average crack widths can
be calculated for various concrete characteristics and reinforcement ratios. Figure 9

Characteristics crack width, wk: mm

Distribution

60

10

wk
= 15
wm

08
06
04
02
00
00

fcm = 30 to 50 N/mm2
r = 0.5% to 2.5%
02
04
06
Average crack width, wm: mm

4 Figure 9 Ratios of maximum versus

average crack widths, calculated according
to MC904

Structural Concrete

 2005  6  No 2

Models for flexural cracking in concrete: the state of the art

represents calculated values for a rectangular

cross-section of concrete mean compressive
strength of 30 to 50 N/mm2 and reinforcement
ratio of 0.5 to 2.5%. It can be concluded that
using formulae recommended by MC90, the
ratio of characteristic and average crack
widths is found to be b 1.5, independently
of the concrete strength and reinforcement
ratio.

Future work
Future work is two-fold.
(a) Harmonisation of cracking models is
needed by selecting the most important
variables.13
(b) Further development of cracking models is
required for the novel types of reinforcements other than steel.

that in the adjacent concrete. Available crack

spacing and crack width formulae are very
numerous.
In the last 100 years, enormous research
activities have been focused on the study of
cracking behaviour of reinforced concrete.
Despite this century of research, there is no
globally accepted formulation for crack width
or crack spacing available, or even definition
of what the critical variables actually are.
Modelling of serviceability behaviour without
any simplification makes calculations overcomplicated, and thus unsuitable for practical use.
How to model cracking in a simple way
should be developed in the future. Refining of
numerical modelling can provide us with
more reliable estimation of crack widths and
crack spacings. In view of the increasing
importance of serviceability in design, there is
much work urgently needed in this field and
this should also be covered in the next fib
Model Code.

Conclusions
Based on an extensive literature review of available formulae for the calculation of crack
spacings and crack widths of reinforced
concrete flexural members, the following conclusions can be drawn.
Cracking of concrete (related to its
limited tensile deformation capacity) is always
expected under tensile stresses.
Crack formation is a complex mechanical
and geometrical question to be modelled.
Available crack width formulations are usually
based on simplifications. A rigorous formulation of crack width has to be based on the
integration of the actual strains of reinforcement and concrete between cracks due to
the accumulated slips. Formulation of crack
width in design is usually based on the crack
spacing (sr) and the average reinforcement
strain (1sm).
Experiments have demonstrated that the
nominal diameter of reinforcement (fs), the
effective reinforcement ratio (ref including
influence of bond by the effective concrete
area in tension), concrete cover (c), reinforcing
bar spacing (s) and size effect have considerable influences on the average crack spacing
(srm). Basic parameters of the crack width (w)
are the average crack spacing and the
average strain in the reinforcement relative to

Structural Concrete

 2005  6  No 2

Acknowledgement
This state-of-the-art report is a contribution to
the work of fib TG 4.1 Serviceability Models.
The authors acknowledge the financial
support of the Hungarian Research Fund
(OTKA) (Grant No. T 032 525).

References
1. Comite Euro-Internationale du Beton. Design
Manual on Cracking and Deformations. CEB Bulletin. Ed. Favre, Ecole Polytechnique Federale de
Lausanne, Suisse, 1985.
2. Bigaj, A. J. Structural Dependence of Rotation
Capacity of Plastic Hinges in RC Beams and
Slabs. PhD Thesis, Delft University, 1999.
3. Comite Europeen de Normalisation. Eurocode 2:
Design of Concrete Structures, General Rules and
Rules for Buildings. European Prestandard ENV
1992-1-1, Dec 1991.
4. Comite Euro-Internationale du Beton. CEB-FIP
Model Code 1990 Design Code. CEB,
Thomas Telford, London, 1993 (CEB Bulletin
dInformation No. 213/214).
5. Bergner, H. (1997) Rissbreitenbeschrankung
zwangbeanspruchter Bauteile aus hochfestem
Normalbeton. Deutscher Ausschuss fur Stahlbeton, Heft 482, 1997.

61

6. Park, R. and Paulay, T. Reinforced Concrete Structures. John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1975.
7. Rizkalla, S. H. and Hwang, L. S. Crack prediction
for members in uniaxial tension. ACI Journal,
1984, 82, No. 6, November December, pp.
572 579.
8. Janovic, K. and Kupfer, H. Zur Rissbildung im
Stahlbeton- und Spannbetonbau. Betonwerk
und Fertigteil-Technik, 1986, 12, 161 169.
9. Bruggeling, A. S. G. Structural Concrete: Theory
and its Applications. Balkema, Rotterdam, 1991.
10. Noakowski, P. Verbundorientierte, kontinuierliche Theorie zur Ermittlung der Rissbreite.
Beton- und Stahlbetonbau, 1985, 7, 185 190;
1985, 8, 215 221.
11. Alvarez, M. Einfluss des Verbundverhaltens auf
das Verformungsvermogen von Stahlbeton. IBK
Bericht, 236, July, 1998.
12. Rusch, H. and Rehm, G. Notes on crack spacing in
members subjected to bending. RILEM Symposium on Bond and Crack Formation in Reinforced Concrete. Stockholm, 1957, pp. 525533.
13. Beeby, A. W. The influence of the parameter
freff on crack widths. Structural Concrete,
2004, 5, No. 2, 71 83.
14. Tue, N. V. Zur Spannungsumlagerung im
Spannbeton bei der Rissbildung unter statischer
und wiederholter Belastung, Dissertation, D17.
Fachbereich Konstruktiver Ingenieurbau der
Technischen Hochschule Darmstadt, 1992.
15. American Concrete Institute. Building Code
Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 31895) and Commentary (ACI 318R-95). ACI
Manual of Concrete Practice, Part 3 Use of
Concrete in Buildings Design, Specifications
and Related Topics. ACI, Detroit, USA, 1997.
16. Broms, B. B. and Lutz, L. A. Effects of arrangement of reinforcement on crack width and
spacing of reinforced concrete members. Journal
of the ACI, 1965, 62, No. 11, 13951409.
17. Broms, B. B. Crack width and crack spacing in
reinforced concrete members. Journal of the
ACI, 1965, 62, No. 10, 1237 1256.
18. Janovic, K. and Kupfer, H. Beschrankung der
Rissbreite bei teilweiser Vorspannung. Bauingenieur, 1982, 57, 109 114.
19. Jaccoud, J-P. Armature minimale pour le controle
de la fissuration des structures en beton. E`cole
Polytechnique Fe`derale de Lausanne These
No. 666, 1987.
20. Japan Society of Civil Engineers. Recommendation for Design and Construction of Concrete
Structures Using Continuous Fiber Reinforcing
Materials, (ed. A. Machida). Concrete Engineering Series Vol. 23, JSCE, Tokyo, 1997.
21. Saliger, R. Die neue Theorie des Stahlbetons.
Franz Deuticke, Wien, 1950.
22. Fehling, E. and Konig, G. Zur Rissbreitenbeschrankung im Stahlbetonbau. Beton- und Stahlbetonbau, 1988, 6, 161167; 1988, 7, 199204.

62

Borosnyoi and Balazs

23. Farra, B. and Jaccoud, J-P. Bond behaviour,

tension stiffening and crack prediction of high
strength concrete. Proceedings of International
Symposium Bond in Concrete, Riga, 1992.
24. Ferry-Borges, J. Cracking and Deformability of
Reinforced Concrete Beams. IABSE Publication,
Zurich, Vol. 26, pp. 75 95.
25. Braam, C. R. The Cracking Behaviour of
Reinforced Concrete Structures. Annual Report
of Delft University, 1990, Vol. 1, pp. 1 17.
26. Alander, C. Relative rib area: is it an open question?, fib TG Bond Models, Towards a
Harmonised European Bond Test, International
Workshop, University of Brescia, May 4, 2001.
27. Brice, L. P. Idees Generales sur la Fissuration du
Beton Arme et du Beton Precontraint. Annales
ITBTP, No. 198, 1964.
28. Comite Euro-Internationale du Beton. CEB-FIP
Model Code 1978 Design Code. Comite
Euro-International du Beton, Thomas Telford,
London, 1978 (CEB Bulletin dInformation No.
124/125.).
29. Architectural Institute of Japan. Standard for
Structural Calculation of RC Structures. AIJ,
Tokyo, 1986.
30. Menn, C. Zwang und Mindestbewehrung,
Beton- und Stahlbetonbau, 1986, 4, 94 99.
31. Holmberg, A. Flexural crack widths. Nordisk
Betong, 1970, 4, 343 345.
32. Leonhardt, F. Crack Control in Concrete Structures. IABSE Surveys, No. S-4/77, IABSE, Zurich,
August 1977.
33. Janko, L. Determination of Crack Widths by
Hungarian and European (DIN, CEB-FIP, EC2)
Approaches. Kozlekedeseptes- es Melyeptestudomanyi Szemle, 1994, XLIV, No. 4, 106 117.
(in Hungarian).
34. Bernardi, S., Mesureur, B. and Rivillon, P. Study of
high-strength concretes reinforced with highstrength reinforcement: study of bonding laws
and cracking in static system. ACI Materials
Journal, 1999, 96, No. 4, 491 499.
35. Oh, B. H. and Kang, Y-J. New formulas for
maximum crack width and crack spacing in

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

reinforced concrete flexural members. ACI

Structural Journal, 1987, 85, No. 2, 103 112.
Schiessl, P. and Wolfel, E. Konstruktionsregeln
zur Beschrankung der Rissbreite. Beton- und
Stahlbetonbau, 1986, 8 15.
Comite Euro-Internationale du Beton. CompteRendu de la 5eme Session de Travail. CEB, Bulletin dInformation No. 24, Paris, 1960.
Kaar, P. H. and Hognestad, E. High strength
bars as concrete reinforcement. Journal of
Portland Cement Association, 1965, January,
42 53.
Gergely, P. and Lutz, L. A. Maximum crack width
in reinforced flexural members. ACI SP-20,
Causes, Mechanism and Control of Cracking in
Concrete, pp. 87 117.
American Concrete Institute Committee 224.
Cracking of concrete members in direct tension
(ACI 224.2R-86), ACI Journal, 1986, 84, No. 1,
3 13.
Toutanji, H. A. and Saafi, M. (2000) Flexural
behaviour of concrete beams reinforced with
glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars.
ACI Structural Journal, 2000, 97, No. 5,
712719.
Sygula, S. Vergleichende Untersuchungen uber
Biegerissformeln fur Stahlbeton. Beton- und
Stahlbetonbau, 1981, 5, 114 117.
Suri, K. M. and Dilger, W. H. Crack width of partially prestressed concrete members. ACI Journal,
1986, 84, No. 5, 784 797.
Rao, S. V. K. M. and Dilger, W. H. Control of flexural crack width in cracked prestressed concrete
members. ACI Structural Journal, 1992, 89, No.
2, 127 138.
Nawy, E. G. Flexural cracking behaviour of
pretensioned and post-tensioned beams: the
state-of-the-art. ACI Journal, 1985, 83, No. 6,
890 900.
Scholz, H. Simple deflection and cracking rules
for partially prestressed members. ACI Structural
Journal, 1991, 88, No. 2, 199 203.
Karman, T. Crack Width in Prestressed Members.
ETI, Budapest 1963 (in Hungarian).

48. Reynolds, C. E. and Steedman, J. C. Reinforced

Concrete Designers Handbook, 10th edition.
E & FN Spon, London, 2000.
49. Holmberg, A. Unbonded Portions Between
Concrete Cracks. Bygningsstatiske Meddelelser,
Danish Society for Structural Science and Engineering, 1984, 55, No. 4, 113 117.
50. Edwards, A. D. and Picard, A. Theory of
cracking in concrete members. ASCE Journal of
the Structural Division, 1972, December,
26872700.
51. Somayaji, S. and Shah, S. P. Bond stress versus
slip relationship and cracking response of
tension members. ACI Journal, 1981, 78, No. 3,
217 225.
52. Krips, M. Rissbreitenbeschrankung im Stahlbeton und Spannbeton. Verlag fur Architektur
und Technische Wissenschaft, Ernst & Sohn,
Heft 33, 1985.
53. Yang, S. and Chen, J. Bond slip and crack
width calculations of tension members. ACI
Structural Journal, 1988, 86, No. 4, 414 422.
54. Balazs, L. Gy. Cracking analysis based on slip and
bond stresses. ACI Materials Journal, 1993, 90,
No. 4, 340 348.
55. Toutanji, H. A. and Saafi, M. Deflection and
crack width predictions of concrete beams
reinforced with fiber reinforced polymer bars.
Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium FRPRCS-4, ACI SP-188, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI, 1999, pp. 10231034.
56. Ouyang, C. and Shah, S. P. Fracture energy
approach for predicting cracking of reinforced
concrete tensile members. ACI Structural
Journal, 1994, 91, No. 1, 69 78.
57. Shah, S. P., Swartz, S. E. and Ouyang, C. Fracture
Mechanics of Concrete Applications of Fracture Mechanics to Concrete, Rock and Other
Quasi-Brittle Materials. John Wiley & Sons,
New York, 1995.
58. Borosnyoi,
A.
Serviceability
of
CFRP
Prestressed Concrete Beams. PhD Thesis,
Budapest University of Technology and Economics, 2002.

Structural Concrete

 2005  6  No 2