012 Final Report 0706

ICE/0706/012
Phil Bamforth 1 08 February 2010

The development of a revised unified approach for the design
of reinforcement to control cracking in concrete resulting
from restrained contraction

FINAL REPORT

Dr Phil Bamforth, Independent Consultant
Dr Steve Denton, Parsons Brinckerhoff
Dr Jonathan Shave, Parsons Brinkerhoff

ICE Research Project 0706
February 2010

ICE/0706/012

Forward

A study has been undertaken to develop a unified method for estimating crack widths
in reinforced concrete elements subject to restrained contraction. The project has
been supported by the Institution of Civil Engineers through their Research &
Innovation Enabling Fund, The Concrete Centre and the Highways Agency.

The investigation has identified deficiencies in the current methods (BS8007 and
EN1992-3) of calculation of crack widths in members subject to continuous edge
restraint resulting from assumptions which may not accurately reflect the way in
which cracking develops in practice. In particular the role of edge restraint in
controlling cracks may not have been represented correctly.

The unified approach assumes a two stage cracking process. Initial (STAGE 1)
cracking is estimated using a calculation based on the current method of EN1992-3
for end restraint only, with a modification to take account of the effect of edge
restraint in both attracting part of the load from the concrete when a crack occurs and
in controlling the subsequent development of the crack. Subsequent crack growth
(STAGE 2) is based on the continued contraction of the concrete relative to the
reinforcement, with the assumption that higher restraint reduces the extent to which
the crack may open.

A comparison of estimated crack widths with values observes in the field indicates
that the proposed unified approach provides a basis for the development of a new
approach to design for reinforcement for controlling crack widths caused by restraint
to contraction.

ICE/0706/012

Contents

List of Figures ............................................................................................................ 5
List of Tables ............................................................................................................. 9
1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 10
2 The current method for estimating crack width ................................................. 11
3 The concept behind the revised approach ........................................................ 13
4 Proof of the concept ......................................................................................... 15
4.1 Observed development of cracking ........................................................... 15
4.2 Studies by Kheder ..................................................................................... 17
4.3 Results of FE analysis ............................................................................... 18
5 Limitations of the current approach to design ................................................... 22
5.1 Independence of cracks ............................................................................ 22
5.2 Crack spacing ........................................................................................... 22
5.3 Stress in the reinforcement ....................................................................... 23
5.4 The minimum area of reinforcement .......................................................... 24
5.5 Strength class ........................................................................................... 24
5.6 Difficulty in achieving efficient conforming designs using BS8007 and
EN1992 ............................................................................................................... 25
6 Development of the revised unified method of design ...................................... 26
6.1 Objectives ................................................................................................. 26
6.2 The initial simplified approach ................................................................... 26
6.3 The two stage process .............................................................................. 28
6.4 Development of expressions for Stage 1 cracking ..................................... 28
6.4.1 Cracking under end restraint according to EN1992-3 ......................... 28
6.4.2 Effect of element length...................................................................... 29
6.4.3 Application to continuous edge restraint ............................................. 32
6.5 Development of expressions for Stage 2 cracking ..................................... 33
7 Critical parameters for predicting crack width ................................................... 35
7.1 Tensile strength......................................................................................... 35
7.2 Modulus of elasticity and creep ................................................................. 38
7.2.1 Estimating the risk of cracking ............................................................ 38
7.2.2 Estimating (
sm
-
cm
) .......................................................................... 38
7.3 Estimating continuous edge restraint ......................................................... 38
7.3.1 The nature and magnitude of edge restraint ....................................... 38
7.3.2 Estimating the magnitude of continuous edge restraint ...................... 39
7.3.3 Variation in restraint with distance from the joint ................................ 41
ICE/0706/012

7.3.4 Restraint at the point of maximum restrained strain and crack width .. 42
8 Validation ......................................................................................................... 45
9. The effect of edge restraint on crack widths calculated using the current and the
revised method ........................................................................................................ 47
10 Combining crack widths due to early-age thermal restraint and other actions .. 48
10.1 Requirements for combining crack widths ................................................. 48
10.2 Stress in the reinforcement due to early-age cracking ............................... 48
10.3 Examples of combined loading .................................................................. 48
10.3.1 Cylindrical tank ................................................................................... 49
10.3.2 Elements subject to bending .............................................................. 50
10.3.3 The proposed method for combining loads......................................... 51
10.4 Summary................................................................................................... 53
11. Conclusions ..................................................................................................... 54
12. Limitations and Recommendations ................................................................... 55
13. References ....................................................................................................... 56
APPENDIX 1 - Derivation of the expression for the strain
sm
-
cm
used in EN1992-3
for estimating crack width in a member subject to end restraint ............................... 58
APPENDIX 2 - Derivation of the steel stress in a member restrained at its ends after
a single crack has relieved the stress in the uncracked section ............................... 61
APPENDIX 3 - Derivation of the steel stress in a member restrained along its edge
after a single crack has relieved the stress in the uncracked section ....................... 64

ICE/0706/012

Notation
A
c
Concrete cross sectional area
A
ct
Area of concrete in the tensile zone used in the calculation of minimum area
of reinforcement
A
c,eff
Effective area of concrete in tension surrounding the reinforcement used in
the calculation of crack spacing
A
o
Cross sectional area of old (restraining) concrete section
A
n
Cross sectional area of new (restrained) concrete section cast against A
o
A
s
Area of reinforcement
A
s,min
Minimum area of tensile reinforcement
B A term describing the relative load bearing capacity of the concrete and the
reinforcement in a member
| || |
| || |

| || |

\ \\ \
| || |
+ ++ + = == = 1

k k
B
e
c

c Cover to reinforcement
E
cm
Mean elastic modulus of concrete at 28 days
E
cm
(t) Mean elastic modulus of concrete at t days
E
c,eff
Mean elastic modulus of concrete effective at the time of cracking
E
s
Elastic modulus of reinforcement
E
o
Elastic modulus of old (restraining) concrete section
E
n
Elastic modulus of new (restrained) concrete section
f
b
Steel-concrete bond strength
f
ct
,
eff
Mean value of tensile strength effective at the time when cracks may first
occur
f
ctm
Mean concrete strength in tension at 28 days
f
ctm
(t) Mean value of tensile strength at time, t, if cracking is expected earlier than 28
days
f
ky
Characteristic strength of reinforcement
h Section thickness
H Height of an element
K
1
Coefficient for the effect of creep on stress relaxation
k Coefficient which allows for the effect of non-uniform self-equilibrating stress
which lead to a reduction in restraint forces
k
c
Coefficient which takes account of stress distribution within a section
immediately prior to cracking
k
1
Coefficient which takes account of the bond properties of reinforcement
k
a
Coefficient which takes account of the uncertainty of the age at ewhich
cracking occurs
k
is
Coefficient to account for the difference between the strength of a test
specimen and the strength in situ
k
L
The ratio of the natural crack spacing of unreinforced concrete to the height of
the member
k
w
A coefficient applied to the maximum potential crack width achieved under
end restraint to take account of the effect of continuous edge restraint in
preventing the crack from fully opening
ICE/0706/012

L Length of an element
n Number of cracks
L
eff
The effective length of a member over which strain relief can occur between
cracks
R Restraint factor
R
ax
EN1992-1-1 notation for factor defining the external restraint
R
edge
Restraint factor from continuous edge restraint
R
end
Restraint factor from end restraint
R
j
Continuous edge restraint at the joint between new and old concrete
R
wmax
Edge restraint at the point within a member at which the maximum crack width
occurs
S Length of debonding of reinforcement at the location of a crack
S
n
The natural crack spacing occurring in an edge restrained member with no
reinforcement
S
rm
Mean crack spacing
S
r
,
max
Maximum crack spacing, defined as the characteristic crack spacing with a
5% probability of being exceeded
S
0
Minimum crack spacing
T Tension force in a member
T
1
Difference between the centreline peak temperature in a member and the
mean ambient temperature
w
k
Crack width defined in EN1992-1-1 with a 5% probability of being exceeded
w
p
The maximum potential crack width occurring under end restraint according to
EN1992-3
w
k1
Stage 1 crack width based on the load transferred from the concrete to the
reinforcement
w
k2
Stage 2 crack width based on the residual contraction of the concrete relative
to the steel after Stage 1 cracking has occurred.
c
Free coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete
ct
Coefficient taking account of the effect of sustained loading and other
unfavourable n situ effects
e
The modular ratio
ca
Autogenous shrinkage strain
cm
Mean strain in concrete within the length of debonding
ctr
Residual tensile strain in uncracked concrete, i.e. in areas where full bond
exists between concrete and reinforcement
cr
Crack-inducing strain in concrete defined as the restrained strain less the
residual strain in the concrete within the debonded zone.
free
The strain which would occur if a member was completely unrestrained
r
Restrained strain in concrete
r
Residual contraction in concrete within the debonded zone after Stage 1
cracking has occurred
s
Strain in reinforcement
sm
Mean strain in steel reinforcement
smax
Maximum strain in reinforcement at the crack location
smaxr
Maximum residual strain in reinforcement at the crack location
ICE/0706/012

ctu
Ultimate strain capacity of concrete in tension (tensile strain capacity)
Microstrain = 1 x 10
-6
mm/mm
Percentage of steel based on the area of concrete in tension A
ct

p,eff
Effective steel percentage based on the area A
c,eff
s
Stress in the reinforcement
Bar diameter

Glossary
Crack-inducing strain The component of restrained strain that is relieved when a
crack occurs and is exhibited as crack width. This is the
restrained strain less the residual strain in the concrete within
the zone of debonding of reinforcement after a crack has
occurred.
Crack width The crack width at the surface of the concrete. Maximum
crack widths designed to EN1992-1-1 are design target
characteristic values with only a 5% chance of being
exceeded.
Early-age Typically up to 7 days
Free strain The strain that would occur in the concrete if it was completely
unrestrained
Microstrain 1 x 10
-6
strain
Restrained strain The component of free strain which is restrained and which
generates stresses in the concrete

ICE/0706/012

List of Figures
Figure 1 Types of restraint dealt with by EN1992-3 ................................................. 11
Figure 2 The strain distribution in the steel and the concrete after cracking in a
member subject to direct tension ............................................................................. 11
Figure 3 The effect of edge restraint on crack distribution and crack size ............... 13
Figure 4 Early-age thermal cracking in a 500mm thick wall .................................... 15
Figure 5 The relationship between date of casting and number of cracks ................ 16
Figure 6 The relationship between date of casting and mean crack width .............. 16
Figure 7 The relationship between the length of a wall and the height of the maximum
crack width [5, 6]

and restrained strain [7]. ............................................................... 17
Figure 8 The relationship between crack spacing and restraint [from interpretation
data in refs 5 and 6] ................................................................................................. 18
Figure 9 Estimated restraint using the model described in CIRIA C660 .................. 19
Figure 10 Modelling the imposition of edge restraint ................................................ 19
Figure 11 Strain contours from the FE model corresponding to half the crack spacing
................................................................................................................................ 20
Figure 12 Reduction in crack width for a fixed crack spacing corresponding to the
imposition of edge restraint ..................................................................................... 21
Figure 13 A typical crack pattern in a 19m long wall ............................................... 22
Figure 14 Observed crack pattern in a base-restrained wall [5] .............................. 23
Figure 15 The relationship between the bar diameter, the bar spacing, the area of
reinforcement and the estimated crack width to BS8007 (300mm wall using C30/37)
................................................................................................................................ 25
Figure 16 Comparison of estimated and reported crack widths .............................. 27
Figure 17 Comparison of estimated and reported crack widths using currently
available methods ................................................................................................... 27
Figure 18 An element subject to end restraint only ................................................. 29
Figure 19 The effect of length on the crack width immediately after cracking (i.e.
before additional contraction) .................................................................................. 30
Figure 20 Crack development for R = 0.4 [NB The max estimate includes the factor
ct
= 0.80 in the derivation while the EN1992 estimate does not] ............................. 31
ct
= 0.80 in the derivation while the EN1992 estimate does not] ............................. 31
Figure 22 An element subject to continuous edge restraint .................................... 32
Figure 23 Development of stage 2 cracking............................................................ 33
Figure 24 The mean tensile strength development, f
ctm
(t) for CEM I concrete
according to EN1992-1-1......................................................................................... 36
Figure 25 Distribution of early-age in situ tensile strength for C30/37 concrete [4] .. 37
Figure 26 Early thermal cracking in the walls of a box-section tunnel wall ............... 39
ICE/0706/012

Figure 27 The variation in elastic modulus at early age and the influence on the ratio
of En/Eo and the restraint derived using equation 11 [It is assumed in this example
that the ratio A
n
/A
o
equals 1] ................................................................................... 40
Figure 28 A comparison of restraint values from ACI 207 [15] and Emborg [18] ..... 41
Figure 29 Comparison of estimated and measured restraints using the ACI
approach and the revised Emborg model [E
n
/E
o
= 0.7]. ........................................... 42
Figure 30 The CIRIA C660 calculator for continuous edge restraint modified to show
the restraint at the point of maximum crack width .................................................... 43
Figure 31 Estimated restraint using the CIRIA C660 calculator for a 3m high wall of
varying length (A
n
/A
o
= 1) ........................................................................................ 44
varying length (A
n
/A
o
= 1) ........................................................................................ 44
Figure 33 Comparison of estimated and measured crack widths assuming a length
coefficient k
L
= 1.5 ................................................................................................... 45
Figure 34 Estimated stage 1 and stage 2 crack widths and the total compared with
measured values ..................................................................................................... 46
Figure 35 The effect of restraint on the estimated crack width ................................ 47
Figure 36 Distribution and combination of strains in a water tank ........................... 49
Figure 37 The effect of imposed actions on early age cracking in cantilever slabs on
a bridge beam ......................................................................................................... 51
Figure 38 Concrete and steel strains adjacent to a crack, indicating influence of
imposed loading on crack width............................................................................... 52
List of Tables
Table 1 Expressions for (
sm
-
cm
) given in EN1992-3 for continuous edge restraint
(equ.2) and end restraint (equ.3) ............................................................................. 12
Table 2 Input data for the probabilistic analysis for strength class C30/37 .............. 37
Table 3 Estimated in-situ tensile strength at early age compared with values
calculated in accordance with EN1992-1-1 .............................................................. 37

ICE/0706/012

1. Introduction
EN1992-3:2006, [1] for the design of liquid retaining and containment structures, is
replacing BS8007 [2] , to provide the method for the design of reinforcement to
control cracking resulting from restrained contraction. Two particular conditions of
restraint are considered, end restraint and continuous edge restraint. While these
two conditions are dealt with in the same way in relation to the initiation of cracking
(which occurs when the restrained contraction exceeds the tensile strain capacity of
the concrete), the post cracking behaviour is dealt with very differently.

When cracking occurs due to end restraint, the load from the concrete is assumed to
be transferred entirely to the reinforcement and the resulting crack width is estimated
from the average strain in the reinforcement over the length over which de-bonding
occurs. In this case, increasing contraction leads to an increase in the number of
cracks but is assumed to have no effect on the maximum crack width other than that
associated with the increase in tensile strength of the concrete as it gets older. This
condition is not dealt with in BS8007.

When cracking occurs due to continuous edge restraint the crack width is currently
assumed to be strain limited and in direct proportion to the magnitude of the
restrained contraction. In this case it is assumed that increasing restrained
contraction leads to an increase in the crack width but has no effect on the number of
cracks, which are assumed to be independent of one another. In this case EN1992-3
has adopted broadly the same approach as BS8007.

The idea for a revised approach grew initially from questioning the need to have two
very different design approaches to deal with variations of essentially the same
phenomenon (i.e. restrained contraction) the only difference being the boundary
conditions. However, as the study proceeded it became apparent that many of the
assumptions underlying the current design method for continuous edge restraint may
not be sufficiently robust, providing further support for the need for a unified design
method which reflects more reliably the way in which cracking develops in practice.

ICE/0706/012

2 The current methods for estimating crack width
EN1992-3 provides methods for the design of reinforcement for crack control. It
deals with two specific conditions of restraint as shown in Figure 1.

(a) restraint of a member at its ends (b) continuous restraint along one edge

Figure 1 Types of restraint dealt with by EN1992-3

EN1992-3 refers to EN1992-1-1 [3] (expression 7.8) for the calculation of crack width.
The characteristic crack width (95 percentile) w
k
may be estimated using the general
expression;

w
k
= S
r,max
(
sm
-
cm
) (1)

where S
r,max
is the maximum crack spacing
sm
is the mean strain in the steel over the length S
r,max

cm
is the mean strain in the concrete over the length S
r,max

The assumed strain distributions in the steel and in the concrete after cracking are
based on a member in direct tension, as illustrated in Figure 2.

sm
c
s
cm 0.5 ctu
= 0
ctu
smax
(sm cm)
Sr,max

Figure 2 The strain distribution in the steel and the concrete after cracking in a member
subject to direct tension

ICE/0706/012

The maximum stress in the steel
smax
occurs at the location of the crack and reduces
as bond with the concrete is re-established over a distance 0.5 S
r,max
on either side of
the crack.

The strain in the concrete is zero at the crack and is assumed to increase up to a
maximum potential value equal to the tensile strain capacity of the concrete when full
bond with the reinforcement has been established. When the strain in the concrete
exceeds this value another crack is formed.

The crack width is therefore calculated as the mean extension of the reinforcement
over the length of debonding less the residual tensile strain in the concrete over the
same length.

Equation 1 is applied to both end restraint and continuous edge restraint conditions
but the way in which (
sm
-
cm
) is estimated differs significantly for the two conditions.
Expressions provided in EN1992-3 for (
sm
-
cm
) are given in Table 1.

Table 1 Expressions for (
sm
-
cm
) given in EN1992-3 for continuous edge restraint
(equ.2) and end restraint (equ.3)

Symbol
Continuous edge restraint End restraint
(
sm
-
cm
) = R
ax

free

(equ.2)
| || |
| || |

| || |

\ \\ \
| || |
+ ++ + = == = 1

1
E
f k k 0.5
- (
e s
e eff ct, c
cm sm )
(equ.3)
Expression M.3 of EN1002-3 Expression M.1 of EN1992-3
R
ax
Restraint
free
Free contraction
f
ct,eff

Effective tensile strength of concrete at the
time of cracking
Reinforcement ratio
e
Modular ratio
E
s
Modulus of elasticity of reinforcement
k, k
c

Coefficients for stress distribution and the
effect of self-equilibrating stresses (see
EN1992-1-1, 7.3.2 Minimum reinforcement
areas)

Comparing the two expressions for (
sm
-
cm
) indicates immediately the difference
between the two approaches. No two parameters are common to both expressions.
What is most surprising is that for continuous edge restraint, no account is taken of
the load transferred from the concrete to the steel when cracking occurs (i.e. as
influenced by the tensile strength of the concrete or the steel ratio) despite the fact
that this is the only consideration when estimating the minimum area of
reinforcement for both restraint conditions.

ICE/0706/012

3 The concept behind the revised approach
The proposed unified approach is based on the assumption that the maximum
potential crack width w
p
is that which may occur under conditions of end restraint,
and that when continuous edge restraint is applied, w
p
is reduced to take account of
the following;

a. Part of the load from the concrete is transferred into the restraining member,
thus reducing the stress transferred to the reinforcement
b. The edge restraint will inhibit the extent to which a crack may open. The higher
the edge restraint, the less strain relief that may occur and hence the smaller
the crack width that may develop.
c. A new crack may be influenced by the presence or lack of existing cracks
which may determine the degree of stress relaxation between the cracks

The concept may be explained by considering the following simplified example
shown in Figure 3 for an element in direct tension. If the length of the specimen is
marginally greater than the crack spacing then, with sufficient load, a single crack
may be expected as shown in Figure 3a. Now consider the element subject to
continuous edge restraint and how the cracking will develop (Figure 3b).

a) Element subject to direct tension

EDGE RESTRAINT
EDGE RESTRAINT

b) Element subject to uniaxial tension and edge restraint

Figure 3 The effect of edge restraint on crack distribution and crack size

In this very simple case it is clear that the when subject to edge restraint, the single
crack may be prevented from opening to its full potential and a number of smaller
cracks may develop. The edge restraint is therefore acting in a similar way to
reinforcement by attracting some of the load and distributing the cracks. This
concept provides the basis for the revised unified approach.

In the revised approach the restraint is assumed to influence not only the magnitude
of restrained strain, and hence the risk of cracking, but also the way in which cracks
are distributed. Unlike the current approach of EN1992-3 (and BS8007) which
assumes that wider individual cracks may be formed with higher restraint, the revised
ICE/0706/012

approach considers that the restraint may act to prevent cracks opening to their full
potential and hence, while higher restraint will increase the risk of cracking and lead
to a greater integrated crack width, higher restraint may also act to distribute the
integrated crack width over a larger number of smaller individual cracks.

So, while the current basis for design for control of cracks due to continuous edge
restraint asks the question What causes cracks to be as wide as they are? the
revised approach poses the question What prevents cracks achieving their potential
width? This places an entirely different emphasis on the effect of edge restraint
compared with BS8007 and EN1992-3.

ICE/0706/012

4 Proof of the concept
The hypothesis that restraint inhibits crack opening has been examined by
comparing predicted performance with observed crack development; by investigating
theories on crack development proposed by other researchers; and by undertaking
FE analysis.
4.1 Observed development of cracking
The basis for design according to EN1992-3 (and BS8007) predicts the following;

For end restraint, increasing restrained contraction will increase the number of
cracks but have no effect on individual crack widths, which are determined by
the load transferred from the concrete to the steel when a crack occurs

For continuous edge restraint, increasing the restrained contraction will cause
the individual crack widths to increase but have no effect on the number of
cracks, which are assumed to be independent.

Cracking behaviour was observed on a structure comprising a number of similar
walls, subject to continuous edge restraint as shown in Figure 4, cast over a period of
about 4 months.

5
5
0
m
m
500mm
Horizontal bars
20@125 both faces
Cover = 65mm
2
6
5
0
m
m
500mm
350 x 350mm splay
Full slab width = 26100mm

Figure 4 Early-age thermal cracking in a 500mm thick wall

The construction started in late summer when both ambient and concrete mix
temperatures were high and the T
1
value (i.e. the drop from the peak temperature to
mean ambient temperature) was reported to be about 35
o
C. Construction continued
to late in the year when the ambient temperature had dropped significantly, leading to
much lower mix temperature and a T
1
value of about 20
o
C with reduced thermal
contraction. Results are presented in Figure 5 and 6 showing the number of cracks in
each wall and the mean crack width respectively plotted against the date of casting.
ICE/0706/012

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
1
9
/
0
8
2
6
/
0
8
0
2
/
0
9
0
9
/
0
9
1
6
/
0
9
2
3
/
0
9
3
0
/
0
9
0
7
/
1
0
1
4
/
1
0
2
1
/
1
0
2
8
/
1
0
0
4
/
1
1
1
1
/
1
1
1
8
/
1
1
Date (dd/mm)
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

c
r
a
c
k
s

Figure 5 The relationship between date of casting and number of cracks

Figure 5 illustrates very clearly that the number of cracks reduced as the thermal
contraction reduced in the cooler months. For continuous edge restraint the
assumption within the current method of design that cracks are independent
suggests that the number of cracks would be unaffected by the magnitude of
restrained contraction, although the crack width would be expected to reduce. As
shown in Figure 6, while the mean crack width reduced marginally the reduction was
less than predicted using the methods of EN1992-3 (modified in accordance with
CIRIA C660 [4]) and BS8007.
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
M
e
a
n

c
r
a
c
k

w
i
d
t
h

(
m
m
)
Date (dd/mm)
Results
EN1992-3/C660
BS8007
Linear (Results)
35
o
C 20
o
C 30
o
C 25
o
C
Assumed T1 values
Linear best f it
of results

Figure 6 The relationship between date of casting and mean crack width

The observed behaviour of cracking in these walls subject to continuous edge
restraint indicates therefore that the crack development (in relation to the number of
cracks) is most consistent with the performance currently expected of members
subject to end restraint. The relationship between crack width and the magnitude of
restrained strain is also less strong than expected based on the assumption in
EN1992-3 (and BS8007) that the crack width is directly proportional to the magnitude
of restrained contraction, although the latter does appear to have some influence on
crack width.
ICE/0706/012

4.2 Studies by Kheder
Kheder [5, 6] has published extensive data for crack widths and has proposed an
analytical method for design. While it is felt that the analysis proposed by Kheder
does not capture fully the mechanics of cracking, the presentation of the
experimental results is useful in supporting the concept behind the revised approach.

For walls, Kheder has suggested that the primary crack spacing is a function not only
of the reinforcement but also of the wall geometry and in particular the height (H). In
addition, reported crack width data suggest that the maximum width may be likely to
occur at height which is about 0.1L above the joint (L = length of wall). This is
consistent with values of restrained strain in uncracked walls reported by Anson et al
[7] which achieved a maximum value at about the same relative height (Figure 7).
y = 0.1033x
R
2
= 0.8395
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
0 5 10 15 20 25
Length (m)
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)
Anson et al - max restrained strain
Kheder - max crack width

Figure 7 The relationship between the length of a wall and the height of the maximum
crack width [5, 6]

and restrained strain [7].

It is recognised in current methods for estimating restraint in walls that restraint is a
function of the wall height in relation to both its cross sectional area and the
length/height ratio

[4]. The crack spacing (and hence crack width) and restraint are
linked, therefore, through their relationship with the wall geometry. Using data
presented by Kheder [5, 6]

the relationship shown in Figure 8 has been obtained.
Increased restraint reduces the crack spacing leading to an increase in the number of
cracks and hence a reduction in the width of individual cracks.

This is consistent with the hypothesis that higher edge restraint will reduce crack
width.
ICE/0706/012

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60
Restraint
M
a
x
i
m
u
m

c
r
a
c
k

s
p
a
c
i
n
g

(
m
m
)

Figure 8 Example of the relationship between crack spacing and restraint [from
interpretation data in refs 5 and 6]

4.3 Results of FE analysis
A series of finite element models were developed with the aim of investigating the
effect of edge restraint on crack width and crack spacing [8]. The modelling sought to
investigate the validity of the hypothesis that increased edge restraint reduces crack
widths by distributing the restrained strain over a larger number of smaller cracks,
and to provide evidence to develop the unified approach further. This was done by
comparing the crack widths obtained with edge restraint in place with the crack
widths corresponding to an end-restrained condition.

The modelling work considered the case of cracking in long walls, which have the
worst restraint conditions leading to full height cracks.

Consider a long wall that cracks somewhere in the central region, with the crack
extending to full height. Ignoring for now the effect of reinforcement, the crack
effectively creates two walls of shorter length. If further cracking occurs until the wall
is fully cracked we may end up with a series of short walls, each with a length
corresponding to the crack spacing. If the crack spacing is less than two times the
height of the wall, then restraint factors given in EN1992-3 and those estimated
using the method described in CIRIA C660 (Figure 9), suggests that the strains at the
top of the wall (and therefore the crack width for a given crack spacing) are not
influenced by the edge restraint.

This premise has been investigated further with a series of FE models. The modelling
sought to investigate the effect of imposing an edge restraint on a wall that has had
the edge restraint temporarily removed, using the principle of superposition. The
process is illustrated in Figure 10 and is described as follows:

1) A long wall subject to edge restraint has cracked at a certain crack spacing.
The edge restraint is now temporarily removed by releasing the axial force in
the base at the crack positions. The cracks will then open up to the crack
width w
p
corresponding to end-restrained conditions.

ICE/0706/012

0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Restraint
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
a
l

H
e
i
g
h
t
8 4 2
1
L/H 3

Figure 9 Estimated restraint using the model described in CIRIA C660

Figure 10 Modelling the imposition of edge restraint

w
p
s
w =w
p
-w 0.5w
Imposed deformation
0.5 w
p
0.5 w
p
Equivalent to end -restrained member of length s
w
s
w =w -w 0.5w
Imposed deformation
0.5 w 0.5
Equivalent to end -restrained member of length s
ICE/0706/012

2) The edge restraint may then be reintroduced to a model corresponding to a
portion of wall between cracks. Due to symmetry, the mid point between
cracks has zero deflection and may be considered to be fixed in the model, so
that the width of the model is half the crack spacing. The effect of edge
restraint is included by adding a stiff beam to model the presence of the base
and then pulling the base of the wall back to its original position. This is done
by imposing a deflection of 0.5w
p
at the base of the wall portion adjacent to
the crack.

3) The deflection at the top of the wall 0.5w arising from the deformation in 2)
indicates half the reduction in crack width at the top of the wall due to the
edge restraint.

4) The factor by which the maximum crack width has been reduced by the edge
restraint is calculated as

k = (w
p
- w)/ w
p
(4)

An example of the output from the FE analysis is shown in Figure 11

Figure 11 Strain contours from the FE model corresponding to half the crack spacing

It was expected that the primary variable affecting the factor k would be the ratio s
r
/H,
where s
r
is the crack spacing and H is the wall height. The potential effects of the
wall thickness h/H and the Poissons ratio were also investigated using sensitivity
analyses. As expected, the wall thickness and Poissons ratio both had very little
effect on the results and the primary effect was due to the crack spacing. This is
illustrated in Figure 12.

ICE/0706/012

0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.2
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Crack spacing/Wall height
w
/
w
p

Figure 12 Reduction in crack width for a fixed crack spacing corresponding to the
imposition of edge restraint

As shown in Figure 12, for crack spacing less than two times the wall height, the
maximum crack width (at the top of the wall) was not affected by the imposition of
edge restraint. This finding is consistent with the predicted result implied by Figure 9,
i.e. that the edge restraint does not affect the crack width at the top of the wall for a
given crack spacing, when that crack spacing is less than twice the height.

These findings indicate that there does seem to be a relationship between the
restraint factor, which remains higher towards the top of longer walls (compared with
shorter walls), and the reduction in crack width. The reduction in the crack width w
could theoretically by derived from an integration of the restraint factors along the top
of the wall (or at any other height of interest) between crack positions. Since these
restraint factors will vary between 0 and R
ax
(where R
ax
is the restraint factor midway
between cracks) this would suggest that:

r free ax
s R w (5)

As the reduction in crack width w will increase with the magnitude of restraint, this
supports the hypothesis that higher restraint will lead to smaller cracks.

In practice, cracks do not always extend to the full height of the wall and an attempt
was also made to model the behaviour of partial height cracks. However, any finite
element model that contains an explicit crack will exhibit a singularity at the tip of the
crack, where the theoretical tensile stress becomes very large locally. In theory this
tensile stress will always exceed the tensile strength, leading to extension of the
crack to the full height of the wall. Fracture energy models were attempted to predict
the pattern and gradual growth of cracks by defining material parameters for fracture
energy and initiation stress. At a local level there will always be cracks at the bottom
of the wall at the interface with the base, since at this position there is a discontinuity
in strain. However, only some of these will develop and grow into observable cracks.
Therefore, instead of seeking to predict where cracking occurs, the analysis aimed to
model whether the existing cracks would grow, and how far they grow. This analysis
was only partially successful in modelling the cracking behaviour. Problems with
convergence of the model had to be addressed, which then required unrealistic input
parameters to be used. However, the general behaviour of certain cracks growing
and others not growing was observed but in view of the limited scale of this
programme modelling of partial height cracking was not pursued further.
ICE/0706/012

5 Limitations of the current approach to design
As part of the study a thorough investigation was undertaken of both the assumptions
underlying the current approach to design for edge restraint and its application [9,
10].
5.1 Independence of cracks
Both BS8007 and EN1992 assume cracks to be independent, with the crack width
being determined by the relief of restrained strain within the zone over which
debonding occurs (Figure 2). Hence it is assumed that in the area beyond S
r,max
,
there is no strain relief as a result of the crack occurring which could lead to the crack
width changing. Is this a reasonable assumption? With full restraint this may be
acceptable but in most practical cases only partial restraint exists and strain relief
may occur over some distance beyond S
r,max
, thus influencing both the extent to
which the existing crack may open and the location of subsequent cracks. This
hypothesis is supported by observations of crack patterns, a typical example of which
is shown in Figure 13. Within the 19.5m long wall, while there were areas in which
the crack spacing was consistent with the design, there were also large uncracked
areas spanning over 3-4m. This suggests that cracking may have resulted in stress
relief over a much larger area than assumed by the theory behind BS8007 and
EN1992.
0.2 0.1
0.15
0.15
0.15 0.15
0.1 0.2 0.2
0.2
0.15
0.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.15
0.2
0.2 0.2 0.1
0.15
0.15
0.15 0.15
0.1 0.2 0.2
0.2
0.15
0.1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.15
0.2
0.2
Strain relief? Strain relief?

Figure 13 A typical crack pattern in a 19m long wall
5.2 Crack spacing
BS8007 and EN1992-3 both make the assumption that the crack spacing is
determined by the reinforcement alone and that (accepting the normal variability) the
cracks will be equally spaced and of equal size). Results published by Kheder [5]
indicate that neither assumption may be correct and that there are two levels of crack
spacing and crack width that should be considered. Observed cracking behaviour of
concrete walls has indicated that primary and secondary cracks differ in both the
spacing and the width as shown in Figure 14.

Analysis of the observations reported by Kheder indicate that the primary crack
spacing is influenced most significantly by the element geometry (for a wall, the
height is a critical factor) with the amount of reinforcement playing a secondary role.
The spacing of the secondary cracks is, however, more consistent with that which is
currently attributable to the reinforcement.

ICE/0706/012

Primary cracks

Figure 14 Observed crack pattern in a base-restrained wall [5]

5.3 Stress in the reinforcement
For continuous edge restraint, the stress in the steel after cracking is not taken into
account in estimating crack width in the methods of either BS8007 of EN1992-3.
This may be demonstrated in two ways as follows.

a) Within the method of EN1992-3 for continuous edge restraint, consider the
effect of an increase in the area of reinforcement A
s
by increasing the number of
bars. According to EN1992-1-1, this affects only the crack spacing S
r,max
. The
crack-inducing strain
cr
= (
sm
-
cm
) is determined solely by the restrained strain
in the concrete prior to cracking R
ax

free
hence no account is taken of an increase
in A
s
in reducing the steel strain after cracking. The mean strain in the steel after
cracking is therefore assumed to be entirely independent of the area of
reinforcement. This seems to be in contradiction to the mechanism of cracking
and despite the fact that an essential part of the design process is to achieve a
minimum area of steel to maintain the steel stress below its yield value when
cracking occurs.

b) Consider the magnitude of the crack inducing strain estimated for edge
restraint (
sm
-
cm
) using EN1992-3 in a severe case scenario assuming the
following;

Restraint R
ax
= 0.5 (including creep effects)
T
1
= 60
o
C, for strength class C40/50 requiring a high cement content

c
= 13/
o
C using aggregate with a high coefficient of thermal
expansion
Autogenous shrinkage
ca
= 22 at 3 days for C40/50

In this case the crack-inducing strain using expression M3 in Annex M of
EN1992-3 will be;

(
sm
-
cm
) = R
ax
(
c
T
1
+
ca
) (6)

Hence, (
sm
-
cm
) = 0.5 (13 x 60 + 22) = 401

If the strain and stress in the steel is assumed to vary linearly from its maximum
value at the point of the crack to the point at which full bond to the concrete is re-
ICE/0706/012

established, then the maximum strain in the steel may be estimated using the
expression;

smax
= 2 (
sm
-
cm
) = 802 (7)

Hence the maximum stress in the steel,

s
= E
s

smax
= 200,000 x 801 x 10
-6
= 160MPa (8)

The characteristic yield strength of the reinforcement f
yk
= 500 MPa, hence even
in this severe case the steel stress is only about 32% of f
yk.
This being the case,
the method seems inconsistent with the current requirements to provide A
s,min
,
which appears over-conservative for an edge restrained member at early age.
5.4 The minimum area of reinforcement
Both BS8007 and EN1992 require a minimum area of reinforcement calculated on
the basis of a requirement to achieve steel stresses below the yield strength of the
steel. Based on expression 7.1 of EN1992-1-1, A
s,min
may be calculated using the
expression,

A
s,min
= k
c
k A
ct
(f
ct,eff
/ f
yk
) (9)

Where k
c
k A
ct
is the effective area of concrete in tension (the coefficients k
and k
c
respectively allow for the effect of non-uniform self-equilibrating
stresses and of the stress distribution with in the section See
Section 6.4.1 equ.12)
f
ct,eff
is the effective tensile strength of the concrete at the time of
cracking
f
yk
is the characteristic yield strength of the reinforcement

However, as shown in Section 5.3, even under the most extreme conditions, the
magnitude of restrained strain is unlikely to be sufficient to achieve more than about
0.32 f
yk
. Furthermore, it is expected that the restraining element will attract some of
the load from the concrete in the restrained element when the crack occurs. It may
be possible therefore to allow A
s,min
to be less than k
c
k A
ct
(f
ct,eff
/f
yk
) (EN1992-1-1,
expression 7.1) if it can be demonstrated that the load transfer to the restraining
element causes a reduction in the stress in the steel. The form of the reduction
factor needs to be evaluated. However, if the edge restraint is R
edge
, then an initial
suggestion is that A
s,min
need only be required to exceed (1-R
edge
) k
c
k A
ct
(f
ct,eff
/f
yk
); i.e.
when the restraint is higher and the restraining member is carrying more load, a
lower value of A
s,min
would be acceptable.
5.5 Strength class
Within the approach of BS8007 and EN1992 for edge restraint, the strength class is
only taken into account in relation to the difference in temperature change associated
with the different cement contents. No account is taken of the strength of the
concrete in relation to the stress transferred to the steel when cracking occurs.

As the revised unified method is based on the potential crack width for an element
subject to end restraint, the strength class is taken into account directly for the edge
restraint condition.
ICE/0706/012

5.6 Difficulty in achieving efficient conforming designs using BS8007
and EN1992
In carrying out the calculations using BS8007 it was observed that for some
conditions, crack widths of 0.2mm and 0.3mm could not be achieved effectively
without exceeding either the reinforcement spacing of 5 (c + /2) or by using A
s
<
A
s,min
. An example is shown in Figure 15 [9].
300mm C30/37
w
k
= 0.10mm
0.15mm
0.20mm
0.25mm
0.30mm
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Bar spacing (mm)
A
r
e
a

o
f

s
t
e
e
l

(
m
m
)
12mm
16mm
20mm
= 25mm Comf orming
Zone
Non-conf orming zone
Bar spacing > 5(c + /2)
Non-conforming zone
As < As,min

Figure 15 The relationship between the bar diameter, the bar spacing, the area of
reinforcement and the estimated crack width to BS8007 (300mm wall using C30/37)

To achieve a crack width of 0.2mm or greater requires either that the minimum steel
ratio is not met (in which case the method is assumed not to apply) or that large bars
at excessive spacing are used. To conform in relation to both the minimum area of
reinforcement and bar spacing leads to much smaller cracks than permitted.

Hence, no practical advantage may be achieved in this example if the allowable
crack width is greater than about 0.15mm. A 0.15mm design crack width may be
achieved with 12@190, A
s
= 595mm
2
. This is only marginally above A
s,min
(=520mm
2
)
and provides little scope for reducing A
s
by permitting wider cracks. Indeed, to
achieve wider cracks requires the use of larger bars at impractically wider spacing
while maintaining A
s
at about 600mm
2
. Under such conditions it would make more
sense to simply design to achieve the smaller crack width than necessary. This
suggests a flaw in the current approach and applies to both BS8007 and EN1992,
particularly for thinner sections.

In practice, where the structural reinforcement is checked to determine its adequacy
for early thermal crack control, it is likely that the expected crack widths would
therefore have been significantly less than 0.2mm. Thus, situations are likely to have
arisen for which a 0.2mm crack would be considered to be acceptable, while at the
same time being greater than would have been predicted by the method of BS8007.
ICE/0706/012

6 Development of the revised unified method of design
6.1 Objectives
The revised unified method of design was developed with the following aims.

To achieve a single method of design for dealing with both continuous
edge restraint and end restraint
To represent as closely as possible the mechanism of cracking and post-
cracking behaviour
6.2 The initial simplified approach
The revised method of design principally involves a change in the way in which the
crack width is calculated. An initial approach was developed using the method of
calculation for the end restraint condition (equ.3) to estimate the maximum potential
crack width w
p
and then to apply a crack reduction factor k
w
to take account of the
effect of edge restraint in preventing crack opening. Hence,

w
k
= k
w
w
p
. (10)

The original concept considered that the crack reduction factor k
w
could be
represented by 1-R
edge
where R
edge
represents continuous edge restraint hence

w
k
= w
p
(1 - R
edge
). (11)

The FE studies that were carried out (see Section 4.3) indicated that there does
seem to be a relationship between increasing edge restraint and reduction in crack
width, supporting the basis for the revised approach for estimating crack widths.
However, the FE study also indicated that prediction of crack widths based on w
k
=
w
p
(1 R
edge
) was over simplistic and that factors other than restraint should be
considered.

In parallel with the FE analysis, case studies were investigated [9] in which the crack
width was initially estimated using equ.11. Recognising that the revised approach
may lead to a reduction in minimum steel requirements by acknowledging that under
continuous edge restraint at least some of the load from the concrete is transferred to
the restraining element immediately after cracking, elements with reinforcement
ratios lower than normally acceptable (0.2%) were included [5]. The results
demonstrated that while the simple expression w
k
= w
p
(1 - R
edge
) reliably predicted
crack widths in many normal circumstances, it became progressively less reliable at
low steel ratios as shown in Figure 16.

It was observed, however, that current methods for estimating crack widths, while
being limited to elements with steel in excess of the minimum requirement, seem to
be able to predict cracks widths in the order of those reported in elements with low
steel ratios as shown in Figure 17. Despite the methods of BS8007, CIRIA 91,
EN1992 and CIRIA C660 each requiring a minimum area of reinforcement
appreciably greater than 0.2% each of these methods led to calculated crack widths
at least of the same order as those reported in base-restrained walls with this low
steel ratio.

ICE/0706/012

low steel
ratio (0.2%)
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Measured crack width (mm)
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

c
r
a
c
k

w
i
d
t
h

(
m
m
)

Figure 16 Comparison of estimated and reported crack widths

0.4845
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
c
r
a
c
k

w
i
d
t
h

(
m
m
)
Kheder method
R = 0.7223
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

c
r
a
c
k

w
i
d
t
h

(
m
m
)
BS8007
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

c
r
a
c
k

w
i
d
t
h
(
m
m
)
CIRIA C660
R = 0.622
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
c
r
a
c
k

w
i
d
t
h

(
m
m
)
EN1992-3
R = 0.7279
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

c
r
a
c
k

w
i
d
t
h

(
m
m
)
CIRIA 91

Figure 17 Comparison of estimated and reported crack widths using currently
available methods
ICE/0706/012

Recognising that the simple version of the revised approach was markedly less
reliable than existing techniques over the wide range of conditions investigated, a
further development of the revised approach was proposed. Having observed in
practice that the magnitude of contraction did have some effect on the crack width
(although less than expected assuming proportionality Section 4.1) a two stage
cracking process was investigated.
6.3 The two stage process
Within the proposed two stage process, the first stage is assumed to cause the crack
to open instantaneously to a value w
k1
when part of the load is transferred from the
concrete to the steel. During the second stage the crack opens by a further w
k2
as
the concrete is assumed to continue to contract relative to the reinforcement.

Hence the full crack width w
k
= w
k1
+ w
k2

Stage 1 crack width w
k1
is estimated using an expression based on the current
method for end restraint with a modification to take account of the effect of edge
restraint in both attracting load and preventing crack opening. The revision also takes
account of the relative lengths of the cracked zone S (over which it is assumed that
debonding occurs) and the uncracked zone (which exhibits strain relief immediately
after cracking).

Stage 2 cracking w
k2
considers how the residual contraction of the concrete within
the cracked zone relative to the reinforcement contributes to the continued opening
of the crack. Again, restraint is assumed to prohibit contraction and hence the extent
to which a crack may open during stage 2.
6.4 Development of expressions for Stage 1 cracking
6.4.1 Cracking under end restraint according to EN1992-3
Stage 1 cracking is estimated using a revision to the expression for end restraint
given in EN1992-3. The end restraint expression provided in EN1992-3 (M1) is as
follows;
| || |
| || |

| || |

\ \\ \
| || |
+ ++ + = == = 1

1
E
f k k 0.5
-
e s
e eff ct, c
cm sm (12)

where k k
c
are coefficients, defined in EN1992-1-1 which take account of the
stress distribution in the concrete and self-equilibrating effects

f
ct.eff
is the mean design tensile strength of the concrete at the time of
cracking, =
ct
f
ctm
(t). The [authors] recommended value of
ct
is 0.8
E
s
is the modulus of elasticity of the reinforcement.
e
is the modular ratio E
s
/E
c,eff
and E
c,eff
is the modulus of elasticity of the
concrete at the time of cracking. E
c,eff
(t)=E
cm
(t)
is the ratio A
s
/A
ct
based on the full section thickness [Note that differs
from
p,eff
which is used to calculate the crack width for the edge-
restrained condition. This is to take account of the full area in tension
prior to cracking]
A
s
is the (total) area of reinforcement
A
ct
is the gross section in tension
ICE/0706/012

The expression in EN1992-3 is based on an element loaded in direct tension and
assumes that the load from the concrete that is transferred to the steel is maintained
fully after cracking. Derivation of this equation from first principles indicates that an
error has been introduced in equation 12 (See Appendix 1) which should be as
follows:

1

k k
E
, f 0.5
) (
e
c
s
eff ct e
cm sm
|
|
|
|
\
|
+ = (13)

With regard to estimated values of (
sm
-
cm
)

the error in the equation makes very
little difference (in the order of 1%), with the revised expression giving the marginally
higher values. The difference is greatest with lower concrete strength classes and
with higher reinforcement ratios but even in very extreme cases the difference is
unlikely to exceed 2%. For practical purposes expression M1 of EN1992-3 is
therefore acceptable, but for correctness the revised equation 13 is used in the
development of the revised method.
6.4.2 Effect of element length
In practice, when the load is generated by restrained contraction, as shown in Figure
18, the stress transferred to the steel immediately after cracking cannot be sustained
as stress relief occurs in the uncracked zone.
L
S
L ctu
Crack

Figure 18 An element subject to end restraint only

Theoretically, the load transferred to the steel immediately after cracking can only be
maintained if the element is infinitely long. For the condition shown in Figure 18 the
mean residual strain in the steel after cracking and strain relief may be calculated
using the expression;

1) (B /L) (S 0.5 1
1) (B 0.5
max r,
ctu
smr
+ ++ +
+ ++ +
= == = (14)
where
| || |
| || |

| || |

\ \\ \
| || |
+ ++ + = == = 1

k k
B
e
c
(15)

The development of equation 14 is given in Appendix 2.

In equation 14, as L , then (S
r,max
/ L) 0 and
smr
0.5
ctu
(B +1)

The crack inducing strain
smr

cm
=
sm
0.5
ctu
= 0.5
ctu
(B +1) - 0.5
ctu
= 0.5
ctu
B

As
ctu
= f
ct,eff
/E
c,eff
and the modular ratio
e
= E
s
/E
c,eff
, then
ctu
=
e
f
ct,eff
/ E
s,
and

ICE/0706/012

smr

cm
= 0.5
ctu
B = 1

k k
E
, f 0.5
e
c
s
eff ct e
| || |
| || |
| || |
| || |

| || |

\ \\ \
| || |
+ ++ + =
sm

cm
(16)

Thus for conditions of end restraint, expression 13 represents only the extreme case
of the general equation 14 when L . For most practical conditions the length of
the element will be a limiting factor in determining
sm

cm
and the crack width
immediately after cracking will be proportional to
smr
0.5
ctr
, where
ctr
is the
residual tensile strain in the uncracked concrete, i.e. outside the debonded zone,
immediately after cracking (see Figure A3.2)

This is estimated using the expression;

1) (B S 0.5 L
B L 0.5
0.5
ctu
ctr
smr
+
= (17)

According to EN1992-3,
sm
-
cm
= 0.5
ctu
B and

( ) ( )
|
|
\
|
+
=
+
=

k k
L
S
0.5 1

1) (B
L
S
0.5 1

0.5
e
c
3 EN1992 cm sm 3 EN1992 cm sm
ctr
smr (18)
Hence the effect of element length may be accounted for by estimating the maximum
crack width for end restraint using expression M1 of EN1992-3 and dividing the result
by the factor [1 + (S/L)(k k
c
/
e
)]

Consider the example of a 300mm thick element with 20mm bars at 150mm centres
and 40mm cover. The concrete is C30/37. Using expression 13, the crack inducing
strain is estimated to be 412 m. This would apply for an infinitely long element. The
effect of element length has been estimated and is shown in Figure 19. For a typical
length of about 10m, the estimated crack inducing strain immediately after cracking is
only about 55% of the limiting value. The crack width would be similarly reduced
compared with the value estimated using EN1992-1-1.
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
C
r
a
c
k

w
i
d
t
h

(
m
m
)
Length between end restraints (m)
Limit as L
Revised method,
ct
= 0.8
EN1992-3,
ct
= 1.0

Figure 19 The effect of length on the crack width immediately after cracking (i.e. before
additional contraction)

ICE/0706/012

As contraction continues after the first crack, the stress in the steel increases and the
first crack widens until a second crack develops, and so on until contraction is
complete. An example of how the crack responds to continuing contraction is shown
in Figure 20 for a 15m long wall with an assumed free contraction of 300 microstrain
and R = 0.4. In this case only three cracks are formed. When cracking first develops
the crack width opens instantaneously to 0.34mm, but then reduces immediately to
0.26mm as strain relief occurs in the uncracked concrete (i.e. outside the debonded
zone). As contraction continues the first crack opens progressively up to 0.34mm
until the second crack occurs, when it reduces to 0.27mm. The reduction in crack
width after the second crack has developed is less than after development of the first
crack as there is less uncracked concrete over which strain relief can occur. The
crack width again increases up to 0.34mm but reduces to 0.28mm after the third
crack. As the restraint of 0.4 was not sufficient to cause the fourth crack, further
contraction leads to a final crack width of about 0.32mm
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 1 2 3 4
C
r
a
c
k

w
i
d
t
h

(
m
m
)
Crack no.
ct
= 1.0 EN1992-3
ct
= 0.8 revised method

ct

= 0.80 in the derivation while the EN1992 estimate does not]

Had the restraint be marginally lower (0.36) the third crack would not have developed
and the estimated mean crack width for the two cracks already developed would be
0.34mm as shown in Figure 21.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0 1 2 3 4
C
r
a
c
k

w
i
d
t
h

(
m
m
)
Crack no.
ct
= 1.0 EN1992-3
ct
= 0.8 revised method

ct

= 0.80 in the derivation while the EN1992 estimate does not]

ICE/0706/012

It is apparent from this example that the crack width depends not only on the stress
transfer at the time of cracking but also on the magnitude of residual contraction after
the last crack has formed. Hence the crack width could vary between the value
following strain relief after the final crack has occurred the maximum crack width
immediately prior to successive cracks forming.

The development of cracking under end restraint is dealt with in more detail in
reference 11 which also describes a spreadsheet calculator which may be used to
estimate the number and width of the cracks forming.
6.4.3 Application to continuous edge restraint
When edge restraint is introduced there are two essential differences as shown in
Figure 22.

The residual force in the steel at the crack must be balanced by the
residual force in the uncracked section taking account of the fact that the
load will be carried partially by the restraining element

The sum of the elongation in the steel in the cracked section S and the elongation of
the concrete in the uncracked sections (L
eff
-S) relative to the free (unrestrained)
contraction must equal the potential contraction of the element L
eff
(1-R
edge
)
ctu

S
Crack
Restraining element
L
eff
(1-R
edge
)
ctu
L
eff

Figure 22 An element subject to continuous edge restraint

Development of the equation for edge restraint is described in Appendix 3. When a
crack occurs, the strain relief in the uncracked zone will be limited by the restraint
imposed upon it. Equation 14 is therefore modified as follows;

( (( (
( (( (

( (( (

| || |
| || |

| || |

\ \\ \
| || |

+ ++ +
+ ++ +
= == =
) R (1
1
B 0.5 1
L
S
- 1
1) )B R - [(1 0.5
edge eff
edge
ctu
smr (19)

When the edge restraint R
edge
= 0, i.e. for end restraint only, equation 16 is the same
as equation 14.

The effective length L
eff
to be used in equ.19 will be influenced by the natural crack
spacing S
n
(i.e. the crack spacing that occurs in unreinforced, or under reinforced
members) and the magnitude of the edge restraint. S
n
is variously reported to be
between one and two times the wall height H [5, 6] and EN1992-1-1 recommends a
value of 1.3 for under reinforced sections. So H < S
n
< 2H.
ICE/0706/012

If edge restraint is high, the length over which strain relaxation occurs (i.e. the zone
of influence of the crack) will be less than if the restraint is very low.

Hence it is assumed that L
,eff
= S
n
/ R
edge
= k
L
H / R
edge
where the length coefficient
1 < k
L
< 2 and equ.19 may be modified as follows:

( (( (
( (( (

( (( (

| || |
| || |

| || |

\ \\ \
| || |

+ ++ +
+ ++ +
= == =
) R (1
1
B 0.5 1
H k
R S
- 1
1) )B R - [(1 0.5
edge L
edge
edge
ctu
smr (20)

The stage 1 crack width is then estimated using the expression

(
(
|
|
\
|
+
=
) R (1
1
B 0.5 1
H k
R S
- 1
)B R - (1 0.5

edge L
edge
edge ctu
cm sm
(21)

This assumes that, after the crack has occurred, there is a residual tensile strain in
the concrete equal to half the strain capacity of the concrete.
6.5 Development of expressions for Stage 2 cracking
Stage 2 cracking occurs as the concrete continues to contract after the development
of the crack. The steel in the cracked zone is maintained under stress by contraction
of the concrete outside the cracked zone and despite cooling with the concrete will
be restrained from contracting between points of zero displacement between the
cracks. Hence the concrete within the cracked zone is assumed to contract relative
to the steel, causing the crack to grow as shown in Figure 23.

The first stage of cracking will have occurred when the tensile strain capacity of the
concrete
ctu
was exceeded. For restraint R
edge
prior to cracking and taking into
account creep (factor K
1
), the contraction required to cause cracking will have been
ctu
/R
edge
K
1
. Hence stage 2 cracking will be proportional to the residual contraction.

Hence
res
=
free
-
ctu
/ R
edge
K
1
. (22)

w
k1
S
r,max
0.5 w
k2
0.5 w
k2
Cracked zone

Figure 23 Development of stage 2 cracking

ICE/0706/012

The contraction in the cracked zone will be inhibited by the restraint local to the
crack. This may be estimated by assuming that the restraint to contraction of the
concrete is zero at the crack (the concrete having debonded locally) and that it builds
up linearly to its pre-cracked value beyond the zone of cracking. The average
restraint within the zone of cracking is therefore 0.5 R
edge
. The additional movement
at the crack w
k2
will therefore be proportional to 1 0.5 R
edge

Hence w
k2
may be calculated using the equation,

)
K R
( K ) 0.5R (1 S w
1 edge
ctu
free 1 edge max r, k2
= == = (23)
ICE/0706/012

7 Critical parameters for predicting crack width
As demonstrated in Table 1, the parameters which are currently assumed to control
the restrained strain (
sm
-
cm
) and hence the crack width are entirely different for
edge restraint and end restraint. According to EN1992-3 and BS8007 only the free
contraction and the restraint influence (
sm
-
cm
) while for end restraint, the tensile
strength of the concrete and its modulus of elasticity (combining to give the tensile
strain capacity) are also dominant together with the area of reinforcement. Provided
that restraint is of sufficient magnitude to cause cracking, it is assumed by EN1992-3
to have no subsequent effect on the width of cracks caused by end restraint. As the
unified approach is based largely on the EN1992-3 approach for end restraint
consideration must be given therefore to appropriate values for these parameters.
7.1 Tensile strength
The tensile strength f
ct,eff
is assumed to be the effective tensile stress at the time of
cracking and (
sm

cm
) is directly proportional to this value. It is important therefore
that an appropriate value of f
ct,eff
is adopted in the design process

As the first crack is most likely to occur at the weakest location it may be most
appropriate to use the lower 5 percentile value f
ct0.05
in the calculation of the crack-
inducing strain
sm
-
cm
. However, later cracks will occur when the strength has
increased (in time) and in areas where there is higher strength than at the (weakest)
location of the first crack. Furthermore, to balance forces, the stress in the steel must
be equal at each crack location, assuming that the steel ratio is constant along the
length of the member. Hence, assuming that the length of debonding S
0
is constant,
all cracks would be expected to be equal width and to be determined by the in situ
tensile strength at the location of and immediately prior to the most recent crack.
Any variation in crack width would be expected to be largely due to variations in S
0
as
variations in the cross sectional area and the elastic modulus of the steel would be
expected to be small.

According to EN1992-1-1 [2], f
ct,eff
is the mean value of tensile strength of the
concrete effective at the time of cracking and f
ct,eff
= f
ctm
or lower f
ctm
(t)

if cracking is
expected earlier than 28 days. Expressions for estimating f
ctm
and f
ctm
(t)

are given in
EN1992-1-1 and values derived using these relationships for a range of concrete
strength classes using CEM I (42.5 N) are shown in Figure 24.

EN1992-1-1 also notes that The development of tensile strength with time is strongly
influenced by curing and drying conditions as well as the dimensions of the structural
members and that where the development of tensile strength is important testing
should be carried out. The expressions provided by EN1992-1-1 must therefore be
applied with caution.

ICE/0706/012

C20/25
C25/30
C35/45
C40/50
C45/55
C50/60
C55/65
C60/75
C30/37
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 10 100 1000
Time (days)
M
e
a
n

t
e
n
s
i
l
e

s
t
r
e
n
g
t
h
,

f
c
t
m

(
M
P
a
)

Figure 24 The mean tensile strength development, f
ctm
(t) for CEM I concrete according
to EN1992-1-1
The value of tensile strength used in estimating crack width should represent a safe
value of tensile strength at the time at which cracking is expected, i.e. the in situ
tensile strength with a suitable margin. A study was carried out as part of the revision
to CIRIA 91 [12], published as CIRIA C660 [4], to determine the probability of the
design value of f
c,eff
being exceeded in situ. The following factors were considered:
The coefficient of variation of 18% that may occur in tensile test
specimens of the same strength class (defined in EN1992-1-1 by the 5%
and 95% fractiles of 30% f
ctm
)
In situ compaction and curing (including thermal effects) This was
based on a Concrete Society study [13] which measured variations in
core compressive strength.
Sustained loading which reduces the stress at which cracking occurs
compared with the stress achieved when the load is applied quickly.
Age at cracking which may differ from the assumed age at cracking.
To establish a safe value for design a probabilistic analysis was undertaken. Input
data for the probabilistic analysis (described in Appendix 10 of CIRIA C660 [4]) are
given in Table 2 for class C30/37 concrete. The results, in the form of a histogram,
are shown in Figure 25, for the early age tensile strength. It is clear that there is a
potentially wide range of values of in situ tensile strength. Estimated values of in situ
tensile strength (5% fractile, mean and 95% fractile) are given in Table 3 compared
with the design values derived from the expressions in EN1992-1-1. It can be seen
that the estimated in situ values are lower than the EN1992-1-1 design values by
varying degrees. The EN1992-1-1 values are, on average, 2.67, 1.64 and 1.13 times
the 5% fractile, mean and 95% fractile values.

ICE/0706/012

Table 2 Input data for the probabilistic analysis for strength class C30/37

Input parameters Distribution Min Mean Max SD
f
ctm
(EN1992-1-1) 28-day MPa NORMAL 2.90 0.53
f
ctm
(EN1992-1-1) 3-day MPa NORMAL 1.73 0.32
In situ compaction and curing k
is
NORMAL 0.90 0.082
Sustained loading
ct
PERT 0.6 0.7 0.8
[Early] Age factor (relative to 3
days)
k
a
PERT 0.54 1.00 1.28
[Long term] Age factor relative
to 28 days
k
a
PERT 0.90 1.00 1.10

Distribution for Early-age tensile
strength/K10

0.000
0.200
0.400
0.600
0.800
1.000
1.200
1.400
1.600

Mean=1.059666
0.4 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4
1.4 1.4
0.4 0.9 1.4 1.9 2.4
5% 82.87% 12.13%
.6512 1.38
Mean=1.059666

Figure 25 Distribution of early-age in situ tensile strength for C30/37 concrete [4]

Table 3 Estimated in-situ tensile strength at early age compared with values
calculated in accordance with EN1992-1-1

Strength
class
Estimated in-situ values EN1992-1-1
f
cm
(3) MPa
0.8 f
cm
(3)
MPa
5% Mean 95%
C20/25 0.49 0.81 1.17 1.32 1.06
C25/30 0.57 0.94 1.36 1.53 1.22
C30/37 0.65 1.06 1.54 1.73 1.38
C35/45 0.72 1.17 1.71 1.92 1.54
C40/50 0.79 1.28 1.85 2.10 1.68
C45/55 0.86 1.39 2.02 2.27 1.82
C50/60 0.91 1.49 2.16 2.44 1.95
C55/67 0.95 1.54 2.23 2.51 2.01
C60/75 0.97 1.58 2.31 2.62 2.10

ICE/0706/012

But what is an appropriate value to be used in design for control of cracking? Using
too high a value will lead to an unnecessarily high volume of reinforcement while
assuming too low a value leads to the risk exceeding the allowable cracks width.
Design should err on the side of caution but not excessively so for a serviceability
limit state.

Based on the probabilistic analysis for the C30/37 concrete with the distribution of
estimated in situ tensile shown in Figure 23, a value of 0.8 f
ctm
(t) represents a value
close to the upper 90 percentile (with only a 12% chance of the estimated value
being exceeded). As cracks are most likely to form at the weaker, rather than the
stronger parts of the element, this value is therefore considered to represent a safe
value for design.
7.2 Modulus of elasticity and creep
The modulus of elasticity of the concrete at the time of cracking E
c,eff
is used to
estimate both the modular ratio and, in association with the tensile strength f
ct.eff
, the
tensile strain capacity of the concrete. The latter is used in both the estimation of the
risk of cracking and the subsequent crack width.

It must be recognised that different values of modulus of elasticity apply in relation to
the estimation of the risk of cracking and the calculation of the crack inducing strain
(
sm
-
cm
).
7.2.1 Estimating the risk of cracking
Cracking will occur when the restrained strain
r
= R
ax

free
>
ctu.
It has been shown
that
ctu
may be estimated from form the tensile strength f
ctm
and the modulus of
elasticity in compression E
cm
[14] and
ctu
=. f
ctm
/ E
cm
. In this case the tensile strain
that occurs is affected by creep under the sustained loading and in the expression
ctu

=. f
ct,eff
/ E
c,eff
, where f
ct,eff
and E
c,eff
, are effective in situ values. Under sustained
loading the creep effective effective modulus applies and E
c,eff
= E
cm
(t)/K
1
where
E
cm
(t) is the mean value of modulus of elasticity at age of cracking t and K
1
is the
creep coefficient with a recommended value of 0.65 [4].
7.2.2 Estimating (
sm
-
cm
)
When a crack occurs the load transfer from the concrete to the steel is
instantaneous. When using equ.18 to estimate (
sm
-
cm
) the value of E
c,eff
= E
cm
(t),
i.e. there is no effect of creep. Hence the modular ratio
e
= E
s
/ E
cm
(t).
7.3 Estimating continuous edge restraint
7.3.1 The nature and magnitude of edge restraint
Within the revised approach the influence of restraint on crack width differs
significantly from that assumed by the current methods of EN1992-3 and BS8007.
Using the current methods, a safe (worst case) is achieved by assuming the highest
possible restraint. However, within the revised approach continuous edge restraint is
assumed to act in a similar way to the reinforcement, with higher restraint limiting the
extent to which cracks may open and leading to a greater number of finer cracks. It
is important therefore that the restraint is estimated with a reasonable degree of
accuracy.

The most recognisable form of edge restraint occurs when a wall is cast on a rigid
foundation. A typical example is shown in Figure 26 for the walls of a box-section
tunnel. The classic crack pattern can be observed.
ICE/0706/012

C
o
n
tra
ctio
n
C
o
n
tra
ctio
n
R
e
s
tra
in
t
R
e
s
tra
in
t
C
o
n
tra
ctio
n
C
o
n
tra
ctio
n
R
e
s
tra
in
t
R
e
s
tra
in
t
C
o
n
tra
ctio
n
C
o
n
tra
ctio
n
R
e
s
tra
in
t
R
e
s
tra
in
t

Figure 26 Early thermal cracking in the walls of a box-section tunnel wall
Under these conditions, values of restraint are typically in the range from 0.3 to 0.7
and it is tempting to assume an average value of 0.5 as previously proposed by
CIRIA 91 and BS8007 and now by EN 1992-3. However, a difference in restraint of
0.1 from this mean value will affect the level of restrained strain by 20% and where
the crack width is critical and/or when permitted by the element geometry it is
recommended that a more rigorous assessment of the restraint is undertaken. EN
1992-3 provides the option to calculate restraint factors from knowledge of the
stiffness of the element considered and the elements attached to it.
As cracking resulting from edge restraint is a common occurrence considerable
research has been undertaken to enable restraints to be predicted and therefore to
provide a more reliable estimate of the risk and extent of cracking.
7.3.2 Estimating the magnitude of continuous edge restraint
It is apparent that the restraint offered by old concrete against which a new element
is cast must be influenced the relative size and stiffness of the new element and the
old. The stiffness of an element is defined by its elastic modulus and its geometry.
For new elements cast against existing concrete with continuous restraint along one
edge, ACI 207.2R-73 [15] provides a method for estimating restraint based on the
relative cross-sectional areas, the relative modulus of elasticity of the new and old
elements and the distance from the joint. This has been described in CIRIA 135 [16].
Restraint at the joint is calculated using the equation,

o
n
o
n
j
E
E
A
A
1
1
R
+ ++ +
= == = (24)
where A
n
= cross sectional area (c.s.a) of the new (restrained) pour
A
o
= c.s.a. of the old (restraining) concrete
E
n
= modulus of elasticity of the new pour concrete
E
o
= modulus of elasticity of the old concrete

ICE/0706/012

While the geometry remains constant for both new and old concrete, the same does
not apply to the elastic modulus. For the old concrete it is unlikely that the modulus
E
o
will change significantly during the period of an early age heat cycle of concrete
cast against it and it is reasonable, therefore, to assume that E
o
remains constant in
any calculations. However, the elastic modulus of the new section will be changing
rapidly over the first few days and this will therefore influence the degree to which
deformation is restrained by the older and stiffer concrete.

Figure 25 illustrates the change in elastic modulus during an early age heat cycle [17]
and its influence on the ratio E
o
/E
n
and the restraint (assuming A
o
/A
n
=1).

Immediately after casting, when the new concrete is relatively soft, the ratio of E
o
/E
n

is low and hence the restraint is high. As the elastic modulus increases, the ratio of
E
o
/E
n
increases and the restraint reduces. CIRIA 135 recommends that when using
the ACI approach to estimate restraint the ratio E
o
/E
n
is assumed to be in the range
0.7 to 0.8. As shown in the example in Figure 27, this represents the value at about
48 hours, after which time the restraint reduces to a value of about 0.55. The higher
end of this range applies for thinner elements which cool and crack soonest. Thicker
elements which cool more slowly develop greater stiffness in relation to the
restraining element and E
o
/E
n
is at the lower end of the range.

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168
Hours
E
l
a
s
t
i
c

m
o
d
u
l
u
s

(
G
P
a
)

Restraint
En/Eo
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 24 48 72 96 120 144 168
Hours
R
e
s
t
r
a
i
n
t

-

E
n
/
E
o

Figure 27 The variation in elastic modulus at early age and the influence on the ratio
of En/Eo and the restraint derived using equation 11 [It is assumed in this example
that the ratio A
n
/A
o
equals 1]
ICE/0706/012

7.3.3 Variation in restraint with distance from the joint
The value of restraint calculated using equ.24 is the value at the joint between the
new and the old concrete but, depending on the pour geometry, and in particular the
length/height ratio of the element, the restraint will reduce with distance from the joint
to varying degrees as shown in Figure 28. Since the development of the ACI data,
further investigations have been carried out into restraint and Emborg [18] has
proposed revised estimates of restraint for elements of different L/H ratio. These
revised values are also shown in Figure 28. In Figure 29, restraint estimated using
Emborgs curves are compared with the original ACI curves and recorded restraint in
walls. For elements with low L/H ratios, the values are every similar, but there are
significant differences for pours with high L/H ratios.
ACI values
1
2
3 4
5 6
8 10 20
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Restraint
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
a
l

h
e
i
g
h
t

Revised values (Emborg 2003)
1
1.4
2
3
4
5
6 7
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Restraint
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
a
l

H
e
i
g
h
t

Figure 28 A comparison of restraint values from ACI 207 [15] and Emborg [18]

ICE/0706/012

0
1
2
3
4
5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Restraint
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)
Emborg (2003)
ACI
Anson et al, 1988
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Restraint
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)
Emborg (2003)
ACI
6.2 x 6.4m CIRIA 135

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Restraint
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)
Emborg (2003)
ACI
6.2 x 9.9m CIRIA 135

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Restraint
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)
Emborg (2003)
ACI
Larsen et al 2003

Figure 29 Comparison of estimated and measured restraints using the ACI approach
and the revised Emborg model [E
n
/E
o
= 0.7].
7.3.4 Restraint at the point of maximum restrained strain and crack width
At the joint between the new and the old concrete a crack can only open if there is
debonding at the joint, in the same way that debonding of reinforcement must occur
to enable a crack to open. As a crack cannot open at the joint it may not be
appropriate therefore to use the restraint at the joint to estimate the crack width.

Kheder [5, 6] has reported crack width profiles in walls on stiff foundations, indicating
the height at which the maximum crack width occurs. Similarly, Anson et al [7] have
reported the variation in restrained-strain in several uncracked walls and published
restrained-strain contours from which the point of maximum restrained-strain may be
estimated. A very clear trend is apparent, as shown in Figure 7 (Section 4.2) with the
maximum value of restrained strain and crack width occurring at a height equal to
about 10% of the length.

The fact that the maximum crack width does not occur at the joint is consistent with
the basis for the revised approach for predicting crack width. Unless debonding
occurs at the joint, while the restrained strain may be high, cracks cannot open. As
the restraint reduces away from the joint, cracking may develop.

As it is the maximum crack width that must be accommodated within the design
process, the restraint at the point of maximum crack width should therefore be used
for calculating the design crack width. The restraint calculator provided with CIRIA
C660 [4] has been modified therefore to show the restraint at the point of maximum
crack width (Figure 30).
ICE/0706/012

Estimation of restraint
Wall on a rigid base
Cells for input data
5
Dimensions Wall Base
Length 12 m
Height 3 m Width 3 m
L/H 4
Thickness 0.5 m Thickness 0.5 m
c.s.a. A
n
1.5 m
2
c.s.a A
o
1.50 m
2
L/H 4
Ratio of areas A
n
/A
o 1.00
Ratio of moduli E
n
/E
o
0.70
Restraint factor at joint R
j
0.59
Height of maximum restraint 1.20 m
Restraint at maximum crack width R
wmax
0.45
Max crack width
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Restraint
H
e
i
g
h
t

(
m
)

Figure 30 The CIRIA C660 calculator for continuous edge restraint modified to show
the restraint at the point of maximum crack width
Estimates of the restraint profile and the height at which the maximum crack width is
estimated to occur are shown in Figure 31 for a 3m high wall of varying length and
assuming that the ratio A
n
/A
o
= 1. The results indicate that while the length of the
wall influences the height at which the maximum crack width occurs, it has very little
effect on the magnitude of restraint at that height. In each case the value of R
wmax

0.45.
The influence of varying the ratio of areas A
n
/A
o
is shown in Figure 32. At the height
of maximum crack width the restraint varies within the range from about 0.3 to 0.6.
However, the ratio R
wmax
/ R
j
remains approximately constant at about 0.78.

ICE/0706/012

0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Restraint
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
a
l

H
e
i
g
h
t
8 4 2
1
L/H
Height of
maximum
crack width

varying length (A
n
/A
o
= 1)
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Ratio of areas (An/Ao)
R
e
s
t
r
a
i
n
t
Restraint at joint R
j
Restraint at height of
maximum crack width, R
wmax

varying length (A
n
/A
o
= 1)
ICE/0706/012

8 Validation
To establish the validity of the revised approach, predicted crack widths are
compared with observed cracking. Details of the structures investigated and the
assumptions used in the calculated are provide in details in reference 19.

The total crack width has been estimated from the sum of w
k1
and w
k2
and the results
are shown in Figure 33 compared with reported crack widths for the case studies
investigated. The best fit curve, passing through the origin, is achieved by assuming
that the coefficient for effective length k
L
used in equ.18 has a value of 1.5. This is
consistent with observed values of primary crack spacing in under reinforced
sections and close to the value of 1.3 recommended by EN1992-1-1 for under-
reinforced sections. While there is considerable scatter of the results the best fit
relationship is close to the line of equality. The scatter may be in part due to
limitations in the method of estimating the crack width and in part due to limitations in
the quality of data provided for the case studies.

y = 1.016x - 0.0258
R = 0.7506
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

c
r
a
c
k

w
i
d
t
h

w
k
(
e
s
t
)

(
m
m
)
Reported crack width w
k(rep)
(mm)

Figure 33 Comparison of estimated and measured crack widths assuming a length
coefficient k
L
= 1.5

A comparison of the components of crack width occurring in the two stages is shown
in Figure 34. On average, estimated stage 1 cracking is marginally less than stage 2
with a ratio of 38:62: however, the ratio varies significantly from about 25:75 to 66:34.
It is interesting to note that the stage 1 cracking tends to be less variable than the
stage 2 cracking with the coefficient of variation for w
k1
being 41% compared with
76% for w
k2
.

ICE/0706/012

0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d

c
r
a
c
k

w
i
d
t
h

(
m
m
)
Stage 2
Stage 1
Reported

Figure 34 Estimated stage 1 and stage 2 crack widths and the total compared with
measured values
ICE/0706/012

9. The effect of edge restraint on crack widths calculated
using the current and the revised method
An example is used to illustrate the influence of edge restraint when using current
design methods and the revised approach.

Consider a 10m long, 3m high, 400mm thick wall, cast using C30/37 concrete.
Reinforcement comprises 20mm bars at 250 centres giving an area of reinforcement
of 1257mm
2
/m per face. The free contraction (thermal and autogenous shrinkage) is
360 microstrain.

Estimated crack widths are shown in Figure 35 for varying degrees of restraint.
Below R
edge
= 0.33 cracking does not occur.
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Restraint
C
r
a
c
k

w
i
d
t
h

(
m
m
)
C660
BS8007
Revised
method
No cracking
R too low
BS8007
worst case

Figure 35 The effect of restraint on the estimated crack width

While both BS8007 and the method of CIRIA C660 (based on EN1992-3) predict
proportionality between crack width and restraint, the revised method predicts
reducing crack width with increasing restraint. This is consistent with the original
concept for the revised method which assumes that that edge restraint exercises
some degree of control of cracking.

The BS8007/EN1992 worst case assumes R = 0.5. This includes a reduction for
creep. Assuming a creep coefficient of 0.65 (recommended by CIRIA C660), the true
worst case restraint is therefore 0.5/0.65 = 0.77 as shown in Figure 35. At this level
of restraint the predicted crack widths is about 0.2mm using wither BS8007 or
EN1992-3 modified using CIRIA C660. Using the revised method the crack width
(0.22mm) is greatest at a restraint of about 0.4. At higher levels of restraint the crack
width reduces.

Based on the case studies, the true edge restraint will generally fall within the range
from about 50-60%. Current design methods may have therefore provided
satisfactory designs in many situations by over-estimating the magnitude of restraint.
In situations in which R
ax
< 0.5 (R
edge
< 0.77) this may also explain why, hitherto,
crack widths have often been greater than estimated with no obvious explanation.
ICE/0706/012

10 Combining crack widths due to early-age thermal
restraint and other actions
10.1 Requirements for combining crack widths
The approach that has been developed to model early age cracking due to thermal
restraint does not take account of subsequent development of cracks caused by the
effects of imposed actions. Some care needs to be taken to assess whether a further
increment of crack width needs to be added to take account of these potential
effects.

EN1992-1-1 [3] requires crack widths to be checked in reinforced concrete under the
quasi-permanent combination of actions. This combination of actions is defined in
EN1990 [20] and includes permanent loads and an allowance for some variable
actions such as thermal actions, but does not include traffic loads on bridges, which
have a
2
value of zero as defined in the National Annex to EN1990 [21]. In principle
it may be necessary to check crack widths for the worst combination of effects
including both early-age thermal cracking and subsequent cracking associated with
the quasi-permanent combination of actions.

This combination of cracking effects has not historically been explicitly required in UK
standards. With the introduction of Eurocodes there is a shift of emphasis that
requires the design engineer to consider structural principles when deciding an
appropriate design methodology, rather than simply following a set of step by step
instructions. Hence although there are no explicit requirements in the Eurocodes to
combine the early age and load induced crack effects there may still be a need to
consider the potential for such an effect in principle. Further clarification of UK
recommendations could be provided in revisions to relevant BSI Published
Documents or UK National Annexes.
10.2 Stress in the reinforcement due to early-age cracking
In order to determine the consequences of imposed actions on early-age cracks it is
first necessary to determine the stress in the reinforcement prior to addition of the
imposed actions. However, using the current methods of BS8007 [2] and EN1992-3
[1], the stress in the steel after cracking is not taken into account in estimating the
crack width under conditions of continuous edge restraint.

The revised unified approach is, however, based on estimating the residual strain
(and hence stress) in the steel after cracking, taking account of the fact that some of
the load from the cracked concrete is transferred into the restraining element. By
estimating the strain (and stress) in the steel after cracking, the revised approach
therefore enables the combination of early-age cracking and cracking due to imposed
actions to be considered by addition of the stresses developed in the reinforcement
at each stage.
10.3 Examples of combined loading
For many situations where early age cracking can dominate the design, the imposed
loading might not significantly stress the reinforcement perpendicular to the cracks.
However, there are other situations where actions within the quasi-permanent
combination of actions are applied after early age cracks have developed and which
induce strain in the reinforcement perpendicular to the cracks. Situations that merit
particular consideration include:
ICE/0706/012

1) A cylindrical water tank cast onto a base and subsequently filled with water,
causing hoop tensions;
2) The tensile flange of a concrete box cast in stages, subject to global
longitudinal bending causing tensile stress;
3) Bridge cantilevers cast onto the sides of the deck, subject to tensile bending
stresses.

There is an important difference between example 1) and the other two examples
listed. The water in the tank induces hoop tension in the walls, but these tensile
strains are partially restrained by a stiff base; in this case the loading may not put
significant strain into the restraining member. In the other examples the restraining
member will be subject to induced strains that are similar to those in the member
itself.
10.3.1 Cylindrical tank
In the case of a water tank, the restrained thermal strain at early age will vary from
zero remote from the base up to a maximum strain adjacent to the base. This
distribution of strain is associated with the restraint of contraction of the tank walls.

When the tank is filled with water the tension in the walls causes an extension of the
tank walls. This behaviour is restrained at the base, so that the imposed strains
reduce to a negligible level adjacent to the base. This distribution of strain may be
represented as two components:

i) A triangular distribution of tensile strain due to water load (neglecting effect of
base);
ii) A distribution of local compressive and shear strains associated with the
restraint at the base.

The second component is analogous to the distribution of restrained thermal tensile
strains, but with a different magnitude and sign.

Hence it is possible that when the restrained strains and the imposed strains are
combined, the strain at the base of the wall might be no greater than the maximum
effects of thermal restraint and subsequent loading when considered separately, as
illustrated in Figure 36.

Restrained
thermal strain
Imposed
hydrostatic
load
Resistance
From base to
hydrostatic load
Strain resulting
from combined
loads
Location of
Maximum
Crack width

Figure 36 Distribution and combination of strains in a water tank
ICE/0706/012

However, it has been observed that the maximum crack width resulting from early-
age thermal contraction does not occur at the base of the wall but at some height
above it (see Figure 7). This is because the restraint from the base prevents the
cracks from opening local to the joint. For plane walls the height of the maximum
crack width appears to be at a distance of about 0.1L from the joint (where L is the
length of the wall.

In practice tank walls may be cast in sections, in which case the length of each
section will determine the height of the maximum (early-age) crack width. Some tank
walls are cast as full rings (e.g. when slip-forming). Hence the height of the
maximum crack width due to early thermal contraction would be expected to be
influenced by the construction sequence. This may not be known at the design stage
and hence some assumptions may be necessary.

Furthermore, when the tank is filled and hydrostatic load is imposed, the height at
which the maximum crack width associated with this additional loading will occur may
differ from that in the individual elements during construction.

Reference 12 considers the example of a 20m diameter x 6 m high tank with 300 mm
thick walls and a 500mm thick base. The walls are cast using strength class C30/37
and reinforced with 20mm@250mm (with 40mm cover). The estimated early-age
crack width is 0.16mm at 1.5m from the base assuming the walls were cast in
quadrants. Under hydrostatic loading the additional strain in the steel at the same
location was about 300 microstrain increasing the estimated crack width to about
0.4mm. Hence, in this example, the additional strain in the steel due to the imposed
hydrostatic loading may lead to a significant increase in crack width.
10.3.2 Elements subject to bending
Examples 2) and 3) are different from example 1) because the member that provides
the early age restraint has similar stiffness to the member under consideration, and
due to compatibility of strains at the interface there will be similar (non-zero) strains in
the two members. Hence the application of actions to the structure will result in an
increase in maximum strain and an increase in crack width.

In general it will be necessary to determine the reinforcement strains due to imposed
actions and to take account of them in the calculation of crack widths.

The reinforcement strains associated with imposed actions may be determined using
a suitable method of analysis. This method of analysis may take account of the
relative stiffnesses of cracked and uncracked parts of the structure. The usual
assumption that plane sections remain plane can lead to inaccuracy in these
situations and care should be taken. The reinforcement strains perpendicular to the
existing cracks due to actions that are imposed after early age cracking has
developed should be calculated.

An example of this is shown in Figure 37 in which a cantilever slab was cast onto the
edge of a box section bridge beam. In this case the cantilever was cast using
C70/85 concrete which had a cement content of 480 kg/m
3
and w/c = 0.3. Hence the
slab, although only 350mm thick, was subject to both early thermal contraction and
autogenous shrinkage. Early-age cracking occurred as shown in Figure 37 with crack
widths in the range from 0.15 to 0.25mm.

ICE/0706/012

a) Section through the box section bridge
Cracks resulting from restrained
early thermal contraction and
autogenous shrinkage
Cracks resulting from restrained
early thermal contraction and
autogenous shrinkage

b) Plan on the bridge showing cracking in the cantilever slab
Hogging and
crack opening
Sagging and
crack closing

c) Elevation on the bridge showing moments and their effect on early age cracks

Figure 37 The effect of imposed actions on early age cracking in cantilever slabs on a
bridge beam
10.3.3 The proposed method for combining loads
It is often assumed in the analysis of concrete cracking that the distribution of strain
in the concrete is limited by the maximum rate at which strain can accumulate with
increasing distance from the crack position. The maximum rate of increase of strain
is related to the maximum bond that may develop between the reinforcement and the
concrete. The concrete strain at crack locations must be zero, and if the rate of
increase in concrete strain is assumed to be limited, then the additional strain
associated with imposed load would not result in any increase in the strain in the
concrete between cracks, and there would be no tension stiffening effect associated
with the imposed action. The strains associated with this behaviour are illustrated in
Figure 38.

ICE/0706/012

sm
s
cm
= 0
Crack width w
k
= S
r,max
(
sm
cm
)
Max crack
spacing Sr,max
Reinforcement
Effective area
of concrete

(i) Early age cracking only
sm
c
s
cm
= 0
Increase in crack width w
k
= S
r,max
s
Sr,max
s

(ii) With additional strain due to imposed loading

Figure 38 Concrete and steel strains adjacent to a crack, indicating influence of
imposed loading on crack width

This analysis suggests that the additional crack width may be calculated as

s max r, k
S w = == = (25)

where w
k
is the increase in crack width, S
r,max
is the maximum crack spacing and
s
is the increase in reinforcement strain caused by the imposed actions,
determined from an appropriate structural analysis.

Such an approach is likely to conservative, since crack spacings are likely to be
smaller than S
r,max
and for edge restrained members it may be possible for some
strain to be transferred to the concrete through shear at the interface with the edge
restraint, thus increasing the tension stiffening effect.
ICE/0706/012

10.4 Summary
In principle it may be necessary to check crack widths for the worst combination of
effects including both early-age thermal cracking and subsequent cracking
associated with the quasi-permanent combination of actions, although in some cases
the resulting reinforcement design may be insensitive to this process.

In addition to crack widths calculated due to early age thermal restraint, an
incremental crack width component w
k
associated with imposed actions may need
to be added. This component may be estimated as.w
k
= S
r,max
s
The increase in
reinforcement strain
s
associated the imposed action should be determined with a
suitable structural analysis method, which may take account of the relative
stiffnesses of cracked and uncracked parts of the structure.

The revised method for design for early thermal cracking under continuous edge
restraint enables this approach to combinations of loads as it is based on estimating
the residual stress and strain in the steel after cracking. This is more difficult using
either BS8007 or EN1992-3 which both base early age crack widths on the restrained
contraction of the concrete only, without considering the stress or strain in the
reinforcement.

ICE/0706/012

11. Conclusions
1. A method has been developed for estimating crack width which could provide the
basis for a unified method of design of crack control reinforcement which is
applicable to members subject to either edge restraint or end restraint to contraction.
Currently EN1992-3 adopts two very different approaches and a review of the basis
for each method has identified that the assumptions supporting the method for
continuous edge restraint may not be robust, particularly in relation to the role of
restraint in determining crack width.

2. Based on observations of crack development in structures, the unified method for
estimating crack widths assumes that cracking occurs as a two stage process.

Stage 1: Initial crack opening is estimated from the load transferred from the
concrete to the steel and the resulting mean strain in the steel over the length
of debonding. Stage 1 crack width is based on the approach of EN1992-3 for
end restraint, which estimates the strain in the steel as a result of the load
transferred from the concrete when a crack develops. The method has been
modified to take account of the fact that under conditions of edge restraint,
part of the load from the concrete will be transferred to the restraining element

Stage 2: Subsequent crack opening is determined by the continuing
contraction of the concrete relative to the steel.

3. Comparison with observed cracking indicates that the revised unified approach
reflects the way in which cracking develops under edge restraint more reliably than
the method of EN1992-3. Furthermore, estimated crack widths correlate reasonably
well with reported crack widths over a wide range of conditions.

4. The expression in EN1992-3 for estimating cracking due to end restraint
represents an extreme case in which the load in the steel is maintained after cracking
has occurred. This can only occur if contraction continues after the last crack to the
extent that the restrained-strain in the concrete almost achieves the strain capacity.

5. Using the tensile strength of the concrete estimated according to EN1992-1-1 is
likely to be grossly over-conservative, leading to excessive reinforcement to control
crack width. The expressions in EN1992-1-1 give the values achieved in test
specimens. In situ, various factors contribute to a reduction in tensile strength
including

Normal variability EN1992-1-1 assumes that the lower 5% percentile
strength is only 70% of the mean value and under conditions of end restraint
cracking is most likely to occur at the weakest point.
Under sustained loading the tensile strength at failure may be only 80% of
that achieved in test under rapid loading.
Differences in compaction and curing lead to the in situ strength being, on
average, about 90% of that achieved in test specimens.

Based on these factors a reduction factor of 0.8 is recommended. This still yields a
conservatively high value for design purposes.

ICE/0706/012

12. Limitations and Recommendations
While the investigation to date has demonstrated the potential for a revised unified
design approach to deal with both continuous edge restraint and end restraint, further
work is needed both to validate both the theory and to derive reliable input data for
the calculations. In particular the following is recommended;

1) Controlled laboratory experiments to determine the influence of continuous
edge restraint on the way in which the stress from the restrained member is
distributed between the reinforcement (in the restrained member) and the
member offering edge restraint.

2) Controlled experiments to determine the progression of cracking as an edge
restrained element continues to contract.

3) Field measurements to determine the level of restraint and how it varies
through a restrained member. Restraint can be determined by measuring the
strain and temperature change in the structure and comparing it with the free
strain in an unrestrained member using the same concrete.

4) Field observations to determine the way in which cracking progresses through
the early-age heat cycle and beyond.

5) Measurements to determine the tensile strength and strain capacity of concrete
and how it varies in situ. This can also be achieved through in situ strain
measurements and noting the magnitude of restrained-strain and strain relief
when cracking occurs.

6) Finite element analysis to model the change in restraint and strain relief after
cracking

In additional there are aspects of crack control that have not been covered by this
study but which may significantly affect the estimated crack width and hence the
design of reinforcement.

7) Further research is required to determine more reliably the effect of cover on
surface crack width for members subject to restrained contraction. Based on
the current method of EN1992-1-1 cover is assumed to have a dominant effect.

8) Further research is needed to determine more reliably the effective cover zone
used to establish the percentage area of reinforcement used in the calculation
of crack spacing. This is currently related to the cover.

ICE/0706/012

13. References

1) Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures Part 3: Liquid retaining and
containment structures EN1992-3:2006
2) BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION, Design of concrete structures for
retaining aqueous liquids. BS 8007:1987
3) Eurocode 2. Design of concrete structures. General rules and rules for
buildings, EN1992-1-1:2004
4) BAMFORTH, P B, Early-age thermal crack control in concrete, CIRIA Report
C660, Feb 2007.
5) KHEDER, G F, A new look at the control of volume change cracking of base
restrained concrete walls, ACI Structural Journal, May-June 1997, 262-271
6) KHEDER, G F, AL RHAWI, R S and AL DHALI, J K, Study of the behaviour of
volume change cracking of base-restrained concrete walls, ACI Materials
Journal, March-April 1994, 150-15
7) ANSON, M and ROWLINSON, P M, Field measurements for early-age strains
in concrete walls, Magazine of Concrete Research, 1990, 42, No. 153, Dec.,
203-212
8) SHAVE, J, A revised approach for the design of reinforcement to control
cracking in concrete resulting from restrained contraction Finite element
modelling, Report No. ICE/0706/008, Rev 0 October 2008
9) BAMFORTH, P B, A revised approach for the design of reinforcement to
control cracking in concrete resulting from restrained contraction Proof of
concept, Report No. ICE/0706/005, October 2008
control cracking in concrete resulting from restrained contraction Back
analysis of EN1992-3 and BS8007, Report No. ICE/0706/006, October 2008
11) HARRISON, T A, Early age thermal crack control in concrete, CIRIA Report
91, Revised Edition, 1992.
12) CONCRETE SOCIETY, In situ strength of concrete An investigation into the
relationship between core strength and the standard cube strength, Report of
a Working Party of The Concrete Society, Project Report No. 3, 2004
13) TASDEMIR, M A, LYDON, F D and BARR. B I G, The tensile strain capacity of
concrete, Magazine of Concrete Research, 1996, 48, No. 176, Sept., 211-218
14) AMERICAN CONCRETE INSTITUTE, Effect of restraint, volume change and
reinforcement on cracking of mass concrete, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice,
207.2R-73, 1984
15) BAMFORTH, P B and PRICE W F, Concreting deep lifts and large volume
pours, CIRIA Report 135, London, 1995
16) BROWNE, R D AND BLUNDELL, R, Early age behaviour of mass concrete
pours, Symposium on Large Pours for R C Structures, University of
Birmingham, Paper 6, September 1973, pp42-65
17) EMBORG, M, Thermal stresses in concrete structures at early ages, Doctoral
Thesis 1989:73D, Division of Structural Engineering, University of Technology,
Lulea, Sweden
ICE/0706/012

control cracking in concrete resulting from restrained contraction Case
studies and validation, Report No. ICE/0706/007, October 2008
19) Eurocode 0, Basis of structural design, BS EN1990:2002
20) BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION, UK National Annex to EN1990,
Published 2004

ICE/0706/012

APPENDIX 1 - Derivation of the expression for the strain
sm
-
cm
used
in EN1992-3 for estimating crack width in a member subject to end
restraint

The expression in EN1992-3 for estimating the crack-inducing strain
sm
-
cm
under
conditions of end restraint only is derived assuming an axially loaded member in
direct tension. The forces in the section must be the same before and after cracking.

Before cracking
The tension force in the section T is distributed between the steel and the concrete

T =
cb
E
c
k k
c
A
ct
+
sb
E
s
A
s
(A1.1)
Where

cb
is the restrained strain in the concrete before cracking

sb
is the restrained strain in the steel before cracking

E
c
is the elastic modulus of the concrete

E
s
is the elastic modulus of the steel
A
ct
is the area of concrete in tension
k k
c
are coefficients, defined in EN1992-1-1 which take account of the stress
distribution in the concrete and self-equilibrating effects

A
s
is the area of steel

It is assumed that there is full bond between the concrete and the steel before
cracking occurs, hence
cb
=
sb

Substituting for
sb
in equ.1 gives,

T =
cb
(E
c
k k
c
A
c
+ E
s
A
s
) (A1.2)

A crack occurs when the restrained strain in the concrete reaches the tensile strain
capacity
ctu,
hence
cb
=
ctu,

Substituting for
cb
in equ.A1.2 gives

T =
ctu
(E
c
k k
c
A
c
+ E
s
A
s
) (A1.3)
After cracking

When the crack occurs, the force T is transferred to the steel alone

Hence T =
smaxa
E
s
A
s
(A1.4)

Where
smax
is the maximum strain in the steel after cracking

Hence
ctu
(E
c
k k
c
A
c
+ E
s
A
s
) =
smax
E
s
A
s
(A1.5)

Dividing both sides by E
s
A
s
gives

smax
s s
c c c
ctu 1
A E
A k k E
= |
\
|
+ (A1.6)
ICE/0706/012

E
s
/E
c
= the modular ratio
e
and A
s
/A
c
= the steel ratio .
Substituting for these values in equ.A1.6 gives

smax
e
c
ctu 1

k k
=
|
|
\
|
+ (A1.7)

It has been shown that
ctu
= f
ct,eff
/ E
c
= f
ct,eff
e
/ E
s

Substituting for
ctu
in equ.A1.7 gives

|
|
\
|
+ = 1

k k
E
f
e
c
s
e eff ct,
smax (A1.8)

The crack-inducing strain in accordance with EN1992-3 is the mean strain in the
steel less the mean strain in the concrete =
sm
-
cm
as shown in Figure A1.1.

sm
cm
0.5
ctu
= 0
ctu
smaxa

Figure A1.1 Strains in the steel and the concrete immediately after cracking

Assuming a linear variation of strain in both the steel and the concrete, the mean
strain in the steel after cracking
sma
may be expressed as follows,

ctu
ctu smaxa
sm
2

+ ++ + | || |

| || |

\ \\ \
| || |
= == = (A1.9)

and the mean strain n the concrete
cm

2
ctu
cm = == = (A1.10)

Hence
2
2

smaxa ctu
ctu
ctu smaxa
cm sm = == = + ++ + | || |

| || |

\ \\ \
| || |
= == = (A1.11)

Combining equ.A1.8 and equ.A1.11

ICE/0706/012

| || |
| || |

| || |

\ \\ \
| || |
+ ++ + = == = 1

k k
E
f 0.5
-
e
c
s
e eff ct,
cm sm (A1.12)

The expression provided in EN1992-3 (M1) is as follows;

| || |
| || |

| || |

\ \\ \
| || |
+ ++ + = == = 1

1
E
f k k 0.5
-
e s
e eff ct, c
cm sm (A1.13)

Equations A1.12 and A1.13 are the same with the exception of the location of the
coefficients k and k
c.

With regard to estimated values of
sm
-
cm
the change in the equation makes very
little difference (in the order of 1%) with the revised expression giving the marginally
higher values. The difference is greatest with lower concrete strength classes and
with higher reinforcement ratios but even in very extreme cases the difference is
unlikely to exceed 2%. For practical purposes expression M1 of EN1992-3 is
therefore acceptable, although for correctness the difference should be noted.

ICE/0706/012

APPENDIX 2 - Derivation of the steel stress in a member restrained at
its ends after a single crack has relieved the stress in the uncracked
section

The expression in EN1992-3 assumes that the stress in the steel is maintained after
cracking has occurred. In practice, after a crack has occurred, there will be a
relaxation of the stress in the concrete and an immediate reduction in the crack
width. The estimated crack width is therefore at worst a transient state. In estimating
the minimum amount of steel required, the stress in the steel under these transient
conditions must be taken into account. However, with regards to the crack width it
will represent a worst case condition. This is demonstrated by the following
calculations to estimate the residual strain in the steel at a cracked section and the
residual strain in the concrete/steel in uncracked sections.

When the first crack occurs in a member restrained at its end two conditions must
apply after cracking

The force in the steel at the crack must be balanced by the residual force
in the uncracked section

The sum of the elongation in the cracked and the uncracked sections
must equal the free contraction of the uncracked section

The first crack will occur when the tensile strain exceeds the tensile strain capacity of
the concrete
ctu
. Hence if the member was free to contract, the shortening
immediately prior to cracking would be L
ctu

L
S
L ctu
Crack

Figure A2.1 An element subject to end restraint only

After cracking there will be a length S over which debonding occurs and within this
zone the mean residual strain in the steel =
smr
. In the uncracked concrete there will
be relief of strain when the crack occurs and the residual tensile strain after cracking
=
ctr
. It is assumed that in the uncracked section (outside the debonded zone), the
steel is fully bonded to the concrete and hence the strain in the steel is equal to the
strain in the concrete.

For compatibility of deformation,

smr ctr ctu S S) (L L + = (A2.1)

For the forces in the cracked and uncracked sections to balance,
ICE/0706/012

ctr
(E
c
k k
c
A
c
+ E
s
A
s
) =
smaxr
E
s
A
s
(A2.2)

Note that for compatibility of deformation the mean residual strain in the steel
smr
is
used while for balancing forces, the maximum residual strain in the steel
smaxr
at the
point of maximum stress is used.

s
A
s
gives

smaxr
s s
c c c
ctr 1
A E
A k k E
= |
\
|
+ (A2.3)

E
s
/E
c
= the modular ratio
e
and A
s
/A
c
= the steel ratio . Substituting for these values
in equ.A2.3 gives
smaxr
e
c
ctr 1

k k
=
|
|
\
|
+ (A2.4)

Let B 1

k k
e
c
= == =
| || |
| || |

| || |

\ \\ \
| || |
+ ++ + (A2.5)

Hence
ctr
B =
smaxr
(A2.6)

Assuming that the stress in the steel reduces linearly over the zone of debonding, the
mean stress in the steel may be calculated using the expression

2

ctr smaxr
smr
+
=
(A2.7)

Substituting for
smaxr
in equ.A2.7 gives;

1) (B 0.5
2
B
cmr
ctr ctr
smr + =
+
= (A2.8)

Substituting for
smr
in equ.A2.1 gives

1) (B 0.5 S S) (L L ctr ctr ctu + + = (A2.9)

Re-arranging
1) (B S 0.5 L
L
1) (B S 0.5 S L
L
ctu ctu
ctr
+
=
+ +
= (A2.10)

Substituting for
ctr
in equ.A2.8

1) (B S 0.5 L
1) (B L 0.5 ctu
smr
+ ++ +
+ ++ +
= == = (A2.11)

This expression provides the mean residual strain in the steel within the debonded
zone after strain relief has occurred in the member outside the debonded zone.

Immediately after cracking the crack width will be proportional to
smr
- 0.5
ctr

ICE/0706/012

Substituting for
smr
and

ctr
using equ.A2.11 and A2.10 respectively gives,

1) 0.5S(B L
L
0.5
1) (B S 0.5 L
1) (B L 0.5
0.5
ctu
ctu
ctr
smr
+
+
+
= (A2.12)

Hence
1) (B S 0.5 L
B L 0.5
0.5
ctu
ctr
smr
+
= (A2.13)

According to EN1992-3,
sm
-
cm
= 0.5
ctu
B and,

|
|
\
|
+
=
+
=

k k
L
S
0.5 1

1) (B
L
S
0.5 1

0.5
e
c
cm sm cm sm
ctr
smr (A2.14)
Hence the effect of element length may be accounted for by estimating the maximum
crack width for end restraint using expression M1 of EN1992-3 and dividing the result
by the factor [1 + 0.5(S/L)(k k
c
/
e
)]

ICE/0706/012

APPENDIX 3 - Derivation of the steel stress in a member restrained
along its edge after a single crack has relieved the stress in the
uncracked section

When the first crack occurs in a member under continuous edge restraint two
conditions must apply after cracking

The force in the steel at the crack must be balanced by the residual force
in the uncracked section taking account of the fact that the load will be
carried partially by the restraining element

The sum of the elongation of the steel in the cracked section S and the
elongation of the concrete in the uncracked sections (L-S) relative to the
free (unrestrained) contraction must equal the potential contraction of the
element L
eff
(1-R
edge
)
ctu

The first crack will occur when the tensile strain exceeds the tensile strain capacity of
the concrete
ctu
. And with no restraintthe shortening immediately after to cracking
would be L
eff

ctu
L
eff
is the effective length over which strain relief occurs. However,
with edge restraint the contraction is limited. The restrained contraction will be L
eff
R
edge
ctu
and the potential contraction is L
eff
(1-R
edge
)
ctu

S
Crack
Restraining element
L
eff
(1-R
edge
)
ctu
L
eff

Figure A3.1 An element subject to continuous edge restraint

After cracking there will be a length S over which debonding occurs and within this
zone the mean residual strain in the steel =
smr
. In the uncracked concrete there will
be relief of strain when the crack occurs and the residual tensile strain after cracking
=
ctr
. It is assumed that in the uncracked section (outside the debonded zone), the
steel is fully bonded to the concrete and hence the strain in the steel is equal to the
strain in the concrete.

For compatibility of deformation,

smr ctr
edge eff
ctu
edge eff
S ) R - S)(1 (L ) R - (1 L + = (A3.1)

The forces in the cracked and uncracked sections must also balance. In the edge
restrained condition the load from the pre-cracked section is partially transferred to
the restraining element when the crack occurs. It is assumed that the load
transferred to the restraining element is proportional to 1 R
edge
. Hence for full
ICE/0706/012

restraint the restraining element will attract all of the load from the cracked element.
When R
edge
= 0 (although theoretically no crack would develop) the edge restraining
element attracts none of the load and the element behaves as if end restrained.
Balancing the forces before and after cracking;

(1-R
edge
)
cmr
(E
c
k k
c
A
c
+ E
s
A
s
) =
smaxr
E
s
A
s
(A3.2)

Note that for compatibility of deformation the mean residual strain in the steel
smr
is
used while for balancing forces, the maximum residual strain in the steel
smaxr
at the
point of maximum stress is used.

s
A
s
gives

smaxr
s s
c c c
ctr
edge
1
A E
A k k E
) R - (1 = |
\
|
+ (A3.3)

E
s
/E
c
= the modular ratio
e
and A
s
/A
c
= the steel ratio . Substituting for these values
in equ.A3.3 gives
smaxr
e
c
ctr
edge
1

k k
) R - (1 =
|
|
\
|
+ (A3.4)

Let B 1

k k
e
c
= == =
| || |
| || |

| || |

\ \\ \
| || |
+ ++ + (A3.5)

Hence (1-R
edge
)
ctr
B =
smaxr
(A3.6)

Assuming that the stress in the steel reduces linearly over the zone of debonding, the
mean stress in the steel may be calculated using the expression

2

ctr smaxr
smr
+
=
(A3.7)

Substituting for
smaxr
(equ.A3.6) in equ.A3.7 gives;

1] )B R - [(1 0.5
2
B ) R - (1
edge
ctr
ctr ctr
edge
smr + =
+
= (A3.8)

Substituting for
smr
in equ.A3.1 gives

1] )B R - (1 [ 0.5 S ) R - S)(1 (L )L R - (1
edge
ctr
edge eff
cmr ctu
eff edge
+ + = (A3.9)

Re-arranging
1] )B R - [(1 S 0.5 ) R - S)(1 - (L
)L R - (1
edge edge eff

ctu
eff edge
ctr
+ +
= (A3.10)

Dividing numerator and denominator by (1-R
edge
) gives;

ICE/0706/012

]
R 1
1
[B S 0.5
L
edge
ctu
eff
ctr
+ +
=
S L
eff
(A3.11)

Re-arranging the denominator

(
(
|
|
\
|
+
=
) R (1
1
B 0.5 1 S L
L
edge
eff
ctu
eff
ctr (A3.12)

But
1] )B R - 0.5{(1
edge
smr
ctr
+
= (equ.A3.8)

Hence
( (( (
( (( (

( (( (

| || |
| || |

| || |

\ \\ \
| || |

+ ++ +
= == =
+ ++ +
) R (1
1
B 0.5 1 S - L
L
1] )B R 0.5[(1
edge
eff
ctu
eff
edge
smr
(A3.13)

and
( (( (
( (( (

( (( (

| || |
| || |

| || |

\ \\ \
| || |

+ ++ +
+ ++ +
= == =
) R (1
1
B 0.5 1 S - L
1) )B R - [(1 L 0.5
edge
eff
edge
ctu
eff
smr (A3.14)

This expression provides the mean residual strain in the steel within the debonded
zone after strain relief has occurred in the member outside the debonded zone.
When R
edge
= 0, i.e with no edge restraint, equation A3.14 is the same as equation
A2.11 (Appendix 2) for end restraint only.

The effective length L
eff
used in equ.A3.14 will be influenced by the natural crack
spacing S
n
and the magnitude of the edge restraint. S
n
is variously reported to be
between one and two times the wall height H and EN1992-1-1 recommends a value
of 1.3H for under-reinforced sections. So H < S
n
< 2H.

If edge restraint is high the length over which strain relaxation occurs (i.e. the zone of
influence of the crack) will be less than if the restraint is very low and it is assumed
that L
eff
= S
n
/R = k H/R where 1 < k < 2

Dividing numerator and denominator by L and substituting L
eff
= k H/R, equ.A3.14
may be modified as follows:

( (( (
( (( (

( (( (

| || |
| || |

| || |

\ \\ \
| || |

+ ++ +
+ ++ +
= == =
) R (1
1
B 0.5 1
H k
R S
- 1
1) )B R - [(1 0.5
edge
edge
edge
ctu
smr (A3.15)

After cracking, the strain in the uncracked concrete falls to a level
cmr
below the
tensile strain capacity of the concrete and, as shown in Figure A3.2

ICE/0706/012

(
sm
-
cm
) =
smr
0.5
ctr
(A3.16)

smr
cm
= 0.5
ctr
= 0
ctr
smaxr
(
sm
cm
)
S
Figure A3.2 Strain in the steel and concrete after cracking

Substituting for
cmr
(equ.A3.8) gives,

( )
1] )B R - 0.5{(1
0.5 -
edge
smr
smr cm sm
+
=
(A3.17)

Re-arranging equ.A3.17 gives

( )
|
|
\
|
+
=
+
=
1) )B R (1
)B R (1
1 )B R - (1
-
edge
edge
smr
edge
smr
smr cm sm
(A3.18)

Substituting for
smr
using equ.A3.15 gives,

( )
|
|
\
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
|
\
|
(
(
|
|
\
|
+
+
=
1) )B R (1
)B R (1
R 1
1
B 0.5 1
H k
R S
1
1] )B R [(1 0.5
-
edege
edge
edge L
edge
edge ctu
cm sm
(A3.19)

Dividing the numerator and denominator by [(1-R) B+1] gives,

( )
(
(
|
|
\
|
+
=
) R (1
1
B 0.5 1
H k
R S
- 1
)B R - (1 0.5

edge L
edge
edge ctu
cm sm
(A3.20)

012 Final Report 0706

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

012 Final Report 0706

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ICE/0706/012

Phil Bamforth 1 08 February 2010

edge edge eff

You might also like