ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 107-S27
Crack Width Estimation for Concrete Plates
by H. Marzouk, M. Hossin, and A. Hussein
This research is focused on evaluating the crack widths and crack
properties of thick two-way slabs and plates used for offshore and
nuclear containment structures. The crack width depends on the
quantities, orientation, and distribution of reinforcing steel across
the crack and characteristics of the bond between the concrete and
reinforcement bars in and near the crack. The maximum crack
width that is considered acceptable depends on the type of structure,
location within the structure, environment, and consequences of
excessive cracking.
A comprehensive experimental and analytical investigation is
presented in this work. The numerical investigation will focus on
the available code prediction models for estimating the crack
width of concrete plates. The investigation will focus on the
suitability of available crack width expressions for thick concrete
plates used for offshore concrete structure applications and
nuclear containment structures.
The experimental work included the investigation of the cracking
behavior, such as examining the effect of increasing concrete cover
and bar spacing on crack width properties. The crack widths were
measured electronically for three series of specimens. The test
results were tabulated to compare test results with the available
code expressions for calculating crack widths. The tension chord
method was modified to predict the crack width for two-way plates
under flexural loading.
Keywords: crack width; high-strength concrete; normal-strength concrete;
offshore concrete walls; reinforced concrete; two-way slabs.
INTRODUCTION
Flexural members, such as beams and slabs, represent the
majority of structural elements. In general, concrete can
handle compressive forces very effectively. However,
concrete cracks under tension forces. Cracks play an
important role in concrete’s response to load in both
compression and tension. Moreover, there are extra internal
forces and stresses that will be developed due to temperatures and
shrinkage. If such cracks are too wide, it will destroy the
aesthetics of the structure and cause a significant reduction
in the flexure stiffness of the structural member.
Cracks may expose bars to the environment, causing
corrosion of steel. To protect the structural members from
these effects, cracks should be minimized to acceptable
limits under normal service loads. Adequate design and
satisfactory reinforcement details are required to limit the
crack width in a concrete offshore structure. Many methods
have been suggested to control cracking in a marine structure.
Most of them, however, are merely empirical rules resulting
from observations or testing. Furthermore, there is no
agreement on the crack width that should be permitted for
different types of structures. Hence, the accurate prediction
of crack width is not possible yet.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Concrete offshore structures are exposed to harsh
environmental conditions, including their existence in the
282
TECHNICAL PAPER
splash zone as well as exposure to seawater and sea spray.
The design of offshore and nuclear containment structures is
controlled by mandatory design codes to ensure structural
safety and integrity. The main objective of this study is to
investigate the cracking criteria for concrete two-way plates
and develop a rational numerical model to predict the
crack width of concrete plates under flexural sustained
service loads.
PREVIOUS RESEARCH
AND EXISTING FORMULAS
The width of the crack depends on the quantity, orientation,
and distribution of reinforcing steel crossing the crack. It
also depends on the deformation characteristic of the concrete
and the bond between the concrete and reinforcing bars.
An extensive statistical research analysis was reported by
Geregely and Lutz (1968) of the maximum crack width data
from a number of sources. The recommended equations are
considered to best predict the maximum bottom and side
crack width as follows
–3
w b = 0.091 3 t b A β ( f s – 5 )10 (in.) (1)
0.091 3 t b A –3
- ( f s – 5 )10 (in.)
w s = ------------------------- (2)
ts
1 + -----
h1
where wb and ws are the most probable crack widths at the
bottom of the beam and level of reinforcement, respectively
(in.); fs is the reinforcing steel stress (ksi); A is the effective
embedment concrete area symmetric with reinforcing steel
divided by the number of bars; tb is the bottom cover to the
center of the bars (in.); ts is the side cover to the center of the
bars (in.); β is the ratio of the distance between the neutral
axis and the tension face to the distance between the
neutral axis and the reinforcing steel; and h1 is the distance
from the neutral axis to the reinforcing steel (in.).
ACI 318 Code
A recent study by Frosch (1999) showed that Eq. (1) and
(2) are valid for a relatively narrow range of covers up
to 63 mm (2.4 in.). Hence, Frosch’s expression provides a
new equation based on the physical phenomenon for
determination of the flexural crack widths of reinforcing
concrete members. Section 10.6 in ACI 318-05 (ACI
ACI Structural Journal, V. 107, No. 3, May-June 2010.
MS No. S-2008-182.R3 received May 22, 2009, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright © 2010, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the
making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent
discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the March-April 2011
ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by November 1, 2010.
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010

ACI member H. Marzouk is the Chair of the Civil Engineering Department at
Ryerson University, Toronto, ON, Canada. He received his MSc and PhD from
the University of Saskatchewan, SK, Canada. He is a member of ACI Committees
209, Creep and Shrinkage in Concrete, and 213, Lightweight Aggregate and Concrete.
His research interests include structural and material properties of high-strength
concrete, lightweight high strength, creep, and finite element analysis.
M. Hossin is a Consulting Engineer with MMP Engineering, Calgary, AB, Canada.
He received his MEng in structural engineering from Memorial University of
Newfoundland, St. John’s, NF, Canada, in 2008. He received his BSc from
Garyounis University, Benghazi, Libya, in 1999. His research interests include
cracking analysis and crack width estimation for offshore structures, and behavior of
two-way slabs.
ACI Member A. Hussein is an Associate Professor of civil engineering at Memorial
University of Newfoundland, St. John’s, NF, Canada. He received his BSc from
Ain-Shams University in 1984, and his MEng and PhD from Memorial University in
1990 and 1998, respectively. His research interests include the use of fiber-reinforced
polymer in concrete, mechanical and structural behavior of high-strength concrete,
and nonlinear finite element analysis of concrete structures.
Committee 318 2005) does not make any distinction
between exterior and interior exposure and it requires that
for crack control in beams and one way slabs, the spacing of
reinforcement shall not exceed
S (mm) = [95,000/540fs) – 2.5Cc] (3)
But not to exceed 300(252/fs) mm (4)
where fs is the reinforcing steel stress at service load (MPa);
Cc is the clear cover at tension side (mm); and S is the center-
to-center spacing of flexural tension reinforcement (mm).
The maximum crack width considered that might not
impair the appearance of a structure and will not endanger
steel reinforcement by corrosion is presented in ACI 224R-01
(ACI Committee 224 2001). The guide recommends that
crack widths in reinforced concrete under service loads can
vary between 0.41 mm (16.1 × 10–3 in.) for dry air to 0.10 mm
(3.9 × 10–3 in.) for water-retaining structures. These values
depend on the environment surrounding the structure and
various factors, such as the position, length and the surface
texture of the crack as well as the illumination in the
surrounding area.
Norwegian code
The contribution of concrete in tension between cracks in
European codes was taken as a reduction factor of the total
concrete strain. The Norwegian Standard NS 3473 E
(Norwegian Council for Building Standardization 1992)
provides the following equation for calculating the crack
width. It uses factor r (Eq. (6)) to account for the tension
stiffening effect.
wk = 1.7wm (5)
wm = rε1Srm (6)
where Srm is the average crack spacing (mm); ε1 is the
average concrete tensile strain in the effective embedment
zone; wk is the maximum characteristic crack width (mm);
wm is the average crack width at the concrete surface (mm);
and r is the tension stiffening modification factor, percentage
of 1.0, dimensionless coefficient.
NS 3473 E and other European codes define the characteristic
crack as the width that only 5% of the cracks will exceed and Srm
is defined as the average crack spacing. This characteristic crack
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010
width is taken as 60 to 70% more than the average crack
width. NS 3473 E provides more detailed regulations for
crack width limitations depending on the environmental
conditions. Four environment classes are identified;
namely, aggressive, severely aggressive, moderately
aggressive, and mildly aggressive.
CSA offshore code
The Canadian offshore code (CSA-S474-04 [Canadian
Standards Organization 2004]) recommends that the average
crack width may be calculated as the average crack spacing
(Eq. (7)) times the total average tensile concrete strain after
considering the contribution of the tension stiffening. Both
NS 3473 E and CSA-S474-04 provide similar expressions
for calculating crack spacing. CSA-S474-04 estimates the
crack width at the surface of the member. However, NS 3473 E
calculates the crack width at the level of steel reinforcement. The
maximum permissible crack width for offshore structures in
CSA-S474-04 is in the range of 0.25 mm (9.8 × 10–3 in.) in the
splash zone and up to 0.5 mm (19.6 × 10–3 in.) elsewhere.
Usually, Canadian offshore structures exist in a severely
aggressive environment, which limits crack width to a range
of 0.20 to 0.10 mm (7.8 × 10–3 to 3.9 × 10–3 in.).
CSA-S474-04 provides the following expression for
calculating the crack spacing
Srm = 2.0(C + 0.1S) + k1k2dbehef b/As (7)
where Srm is the average crack spacing (mm); C is the
concrete cover (mm); S is the bar spacing of the outer layer
(mm); k1 is the coefficient that characterizes bond properties
of bars; k2 is the coefficient to account for strain gradient; dbe
is the bar diameter of the outer layer (mm); hef is the effective
embedment thickness as the greater of (c + dbe) + 7.5dbe not
greater than the tension zone or half slab thickness (mm), as shown
in Fig. 1; b is the width of the section (mm); As is the area of
reinforcement within the effective embedment thickness (mm2);
and ε is the concrete tensile strain in the effective embedment
zone hef.
The commentary on CSA-S474-04 recommends the reduction
of the crack width due to the contribution of tension stiffening
should be included. An expression that was originally
suggested by Vecchio and Collins (1986) can be used to estimate
the effect of tension stiffening on the concrete.
f ct = f cr ⁄ ( 1 + 500ε ) MPa (8)
Fig. 1—Effective embedment thickness as defined in Eq. (7)
(CSA 04), where a1 and a2 are distance from centers of bars to
surface of concrete, mm; dbe is equivalent bar diameter of inner
layer of bars, in mm; dbe′ is equivalent bar diameter of outer layer
of bars, in mm; s is center-to-center spacing of outer layer of bars,
in mm; and c is concrete cover, in mm. (Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.)
283
 f cr = 0.33λ f c′ MPa (9)
where fcr is the modulus of rupture of concrete (MPa); fct is
the tensile strength of concrete (MPa); fc′ is the peak
compressive stress obtained from a cylinder test (MPa); and
ε is the concrete tensile strain.
However, that expression ignores the contribution of the
steel reinforcement ratio, depth of the concrete cover, and the
thickness of the concrete member on the tension stiffening. A
tension-stiffening model based on fracture energy and tension
properties of high-strength concrete was developed by
Marzouk and Chen (1993). The model can be used to account
for the concrete mixture design properties and the steel
reinforcement contribution through two sets of constants.
Fig. 2—Typical details of test specimen. (Note: 1 in. = 25.4 mm.)
Fig. 3—Arrangements of steel reinforcement.
Fig. 4—Location of steel strain gauges and LPDTs. (Note:
1 in. = 25.4 mm.)
284
CEB-FIP (1990) code
The CEB-FIP code (CEB-90) (CEB-FIP 1990) gives the
following equation for calculating the characteristic
crack width
w k = l s, max ( ε s2 – βε sr2 – ε cs ) ( mm ) (10)
where wk is the characteristic maximum crack width (mm);
wm is the average crack width (mm); εs2 is the steel strain of
the transformed section in which the concrete in tension is
ignored; εcs is the free shrinkage of concrete, generally a
negative value; εsr2 is the steel strain at a crack, under a force
causing stress equal to fctm within Acef; and β is an empirical
factor to assess average strain within ls,max.
To account for tension stiffening in the CEB-90, an empirical
shape factor β is used to assess the average strain.
Eurocode 2 (BS EN 1992-1-1:2004) (British
Standards Institution 2004)
The characteristic crack width is estimated as
wk = βSrmξεsm (mm) (11)
where wk is the characteristic crack width; Srm is the average
stabilized crack spacing; ξ is a dimensionless coefficient
between 0 and 1, representing the effect of the participation
of concrete in the tension zone to stiffness of the member;
εsm is the mean strain under relevant combination of loads
and allowing for effects, such as tension stiffening or
shrinkage; and β is the coefficient relating the average crack
width to the design value and equal to 1.7 and 1.3, respectively,
for a section where the minimum dimensions exceed 800 mm
(31.5 in.) or smaller than 300 mm (11.8 in.).
For tension stiffening, BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 uses the
factor ξ, which is a dimensionless coefficient. Moreover,
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 limits the maximum crack width to
0.30 mm (11.8 × 10–3 in.) for sustained load under normal
environmental conditions, which will not impair the proper
functioning of the structure. During the past 30 years, many
researchers have proposed other analytical models, using the
fracture energy approach to predict the cracking response
and tension stiffening effect in reinforced concrete members.
The tension stiffening values can be recommended based on
the actual measured tension softening values and appropriate
experimentally fitted constants.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
The experimental investigation includes the testing of eight
reinforced concrete slabs in the structural lab at Memorial
University. Eight full-scale, quarter-panel, two-way slab
specimens were cast, instrumented, and tested in the current
research program. The tested slabs were square with a side
dimension of 1900 mm (75 in.) in both directions and were simply
supported along all four edges with the corners free to lift. The test
slab represents the region of negative bending moment around an
interior column in a flat slab system and the simply supported
edges simulate the lines of contra-flexure. A central load was
applied on the slab through a 250 x 250 mm (10 x 10 in.) column
stub. The dimensions and reinforcement details of a typical test
slab are shown in Fig. 2. The steel reinforcement’s arrangements
and the location of steel strain gauges and linear potential
differential transducers (LPDTs) are shown in Fig. 3 and 4.
The maximum nominal size for coarse aggregates was 19 mm
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010
(0.75 in). The specimens were made with normal- and high- made of three slabs designated as Specimens NSC1, HSC1,
strength concrete of 35 MPa (5000 psi) and 70 MPa and HSC2. All the slabs had the same depth of 200 mm
(10,000 psi), respectively. The specimens were cured under (8 in.), same bar spacing of 150 mm (6 in.), and bar diameter
moisture saturation of plastic sheeting to cover the surface of 25 mm (1 in.) with different concrete covers that were 30 to
for more than 3 weeks until the preparation of instrumentation 60 mm (1.2 to 3.4 in.). Series II—Specimens HSC3 and
and during the fourth week of curing, the specimens were HSC4—was designed to investigate the effect of bar spacing
prepared for testing of panels at an age of 28 days. The
specimens were tested in a specially designed frame in the
vertical position, as shown in Fig. 5. Concrete strain gauges
were glued to the compression concrete face adjacent to the
column stub, as shown in Fig. 6. Transducers and LPDTs
were mounted on the tension concrete face crack, as shown
in Fig. 5. The specimens were loaded initially at 5 to 8% of
the expected ultimate load as soon the crack initiated under
load; the crack gauges were then installed. The specimens
were tested to the failure load, as shown in Fig. 7. A close-
up of the crack displacement transducer to measure the crack
width is shown in Fig. 8.
The punching failure of high-strength concrete slabs can
be classified into two modes, “flexure punching” and
“punching shear” failure. Flexural punching occurred for
slabs with relatively low reinforcement ratio and smaller
thickness. As the steel reinforcement ratio and slab thickness
are increased, slab stiffness increases and deformation
capacity decreases and the slab mode of failure becomes
pure punching shear failure (Marzouk and Hussein 1991).
The test results are divided into three series. The first Fig. 6—Locations of concrete strain gauges. (Note: 1 mm =
series was designed to investigate the effect of concrete 0.0394 in.)
cover on the crack width and crack spacing. The series was

Fig. 7—Typical load deflection for normal- and high-strength

concrete. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 kN = 0.2245 kip.)

Fig. 5—Typical specimen (NSC1) during testing.

Table 1—Group specimens’ details

Bar Bar Concrete Slab Steel
Series Slab fc′, size, spacing, cover, thickness, ratio
no. no. MPa mm mm mm mm ρ, %
NSC1 35 25M 150 30 200 2.17
Series I HSC1 69 25M 150 50 200 2.48
HSC2 70 25M 150 60 200 2.68
HSC3 67 25M 200 30 200 1.67
Series II
HSC4 61 25M 250 30 200 1.13
HSC5 70 15M 100 30 150 1.88
Series III NSC2 33 15M 240 30 200 0.52
NSC3 34 10M 210 40 150 0.40
Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 145 psi. Fig. 8—Electric crack displacement transducer.

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010 285

on the crack width and crack spacing. Specimen NSC1 from
Series I was considered for the comparison as a part of this
series. The slabs of this series had the same concrete depth of
200 mm (8 in.), the same concrete cover of 30 mm (1.2 in.),
the same bar diameter of 25 mm (1 in.), and different bar
spacing. The first and second series were designed to represent
heavily reinforced concrete walls that normally fail under the
punching failure mode as is the case for most offshore
structures. The third series, however, was designed to inves-
tigate the effect of pure flexure failure and ductile shear failure
as recommended by Marzouk and Hussein (1991). The third
series included Specimens HSC5, NSC2, and NSC3. A
summary of the tested specimens is shown in Table 1.
Crack measurements
Each slab was carefully inspected at each load step. The
cracks were marked and the maximum visible crack width
was measured using a crack width measuring gauge. The
crack displacement transducer (CDT) shown in Fig. 8 is
mounted to concrete surface cracks and joints to measure the
opening displacement. It is a waterproof-enabled gauge. The
range of the gauge is between ±2 to ±5 mm (78 × 10–3 to
196 × 10–3 in.). The accuracy of the measurements improved
as the cracks started to widen.
Electrical strain gauge data, measurements of the LPDT,
and the load readings were logged into a computerized data
acquisition system. A digital instrumentation system was
Fig. 9—Crack width versus steel strain for Specimen NSC1.
(Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
Fig. 10—Crack width versus steel strain for Specimen HSC1.
(Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
286
used, although some of the original information may also be
acquired in the form of an analog electrical signal. All
signals were then converted to digital for further processing
and display. A digital electrical signal has the form of a
group of discrete and discontinuous pulses. The digital
signal is either displayed on a digital display device or made
available for transmission to other digital instruments, such
as a computer for further processing and display. All
measurements were stored in a computer file and computer
software (National Instruments Corporation 2006) was used
as a data acquisition system and the data scanning and saving
rate was set to record the readings every 3 seconds.
This research is focused on instantaneous loading, the long-
term deformation effects of creep and shrinkage are not
considered in this research work. The high relative humidity
in the lab and short duration indicated the shrinkage values are
insignificant for the case of instantaneous loading. The rela-
tive humidity of the structural lab at Memorial University in
St. John’s is over 87% year round. The correction factor for
shrinkage for volume to surface area of the tested specimen
was approximately 0.88. The estimated shrinkage according
to the ACI 209R-92 shrinkage formula was calculated to be 42
microstrains. The displacement crack gauge transducer was
20 mm (0.79 in.). Therefore, the calculated shrinkage displace-
ment was 0.00084 mm (0.000033 in.), compared to a crack
width range of 0.269 to 0.473 mm (0.011 to 0.019 in.).
A large amount of test data was recorded and the related
graphs were prepared. The behavior of the slabs were
presented in terms of the load-deflection relationship at
different load stages, including service and ultimate load, as
well as crack width-steel strain relationships. Failure modes,
crack patterns, and crack spacing were also depicted by
means of photographs. Herein, the research focuses only on
the data that relates to crack width and serviceability loading
rather than ultimate loading and failure modes.
Crack width
The crack width was measured at each load stage. It was
important to record the crack width at the serviceability
limit. The crack width measurement at the ultimate load,
however, was not structurally significant. The crack width at
the serviceability limit was reported for all specimens, as
given in Table 2. The opening of the crack width was plotted
versus the steel strain up to the ultimate load, as shown in
Fig. 9 through 13. All measurements reported in Table 2
were taken at the serviceability level at a steel stress level of
250 MPa (equivalent to 0.625fy). All the results of the crack
width prediction equations by different codes presented in
this paper are also reported in Table 2.
In general, the crack width increases as the load and the
deflection is increased. This increase, however, was not very
smooth due the nonlinear behavior of concrete. It was
evident that the crack width versus steel strain was represented
by one straight line up to an average steel strain of 0.001 to
0.0015 for all the specimens. The relation between steel
strain and crack width curve, however, tended to behave
nonlinearly after the steel strain reached a value of 0.0018.
For Specimen NSC2, the crack width continued to increase
after the steel strain reached the yield point, which was an
expected behavior for a slab that failed in pure flexure.
The widths of the primary cracks were examined in the
first two series to determine the effect of reinforcement
spacing and concrete cover. The data showed that as the
concrete cover increased in Series I, the crack widths became
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010
larger. The maximum crack width can be influenced by as under pure-punching shear, as defined by Marzouk and
much as 90% when the concrete cover increased from 30 to Hussein (1991). A comparison of the experimental results of
50 mm (1.2 to 2 in.) cover. Moreover, the data showed that the average crack width measurements of the three tested
increasing the concrete cover by 100% to 60 mm (2.4 in.) resulted series indicated that the mode of failure has no effect on the
in increasing the maximum crack width by 106%. crack width size at the serviceability level.
Three specimens of Series II (Specimens NSC1, HSC3,
and HSC4) were designed and specifically tested to NUMERICAL INVESTIGATION
determine the effect of increasing bar spacing on crack Crack width test results versus codes prediction
width. In general, as the bar spacing was increased, the crack The test results and the predicted values of the ACI 318-05,
width was increased, as shown from code predictions in Table 2. CSA-S474-04, and NS 3473 E average crack widths are
The data of Series II showed that for the range of bar spacing shown in Table 2. For Series I and II, Fig. 14 to 17 indicate
tested, the maximum crack width at the serviceability limit that both BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 and CEB-90 are very similar
can be influenced by the bar spacing. When the bar spacing in results for maximum predicted crack width and the value
of Specimen NSC1 (150 mm [6 in.] spacing) was increased
to 200 mm (9 in.) spacing, the crack width was increased by
19%. The measured crack width of Specimens HSC3 and Table 2—Comparison of test results with
HSC4, however, were similar. It is evident from the test predictions of other international codes
results of Series I and II that the effect of concrete cover on Series Slab Experiment, ACI, CSA, NS, CEB-FIP,
the crack width is more profound than the effect of the bar spacing. no. no. mm mm mm mm mm EC2
Series III was designed to investigate the effect of pure NSC1 0.406 0.261 0.227 0.269 0.107 0.135
flexure failure and ductile shear failure modes on crack Series I HSC1 0.772 0.311 0.351 0.354 0.114 0.142
properties. Specimens NSC2 and NSC3 were designed with HSC2 0.950- 0.341 0.438 0.397 0.115 0.143
very low steel reinforcement ratios to fail under flexure- HSC3 0.486 0.329 0.252 0.314 0.143 0.160
Series II
punching, whereas Specimen HSC5 was designed to fail HSC4 0.483 0.399 0.287 0.361 0.174 0.183
HSC5 0.327 0.258 0.248 0.294 0.133 0.165
Series III NSC2 0.248 0.376 0.324 0.430 0.236 0.249
NSC3 — 0.348 0.425 0.473 0.185 0.268
Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.

Fig. 11—Crack width versus steel strain Specimen HSC3.

(Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
Fig. 13—Crack width expansion versus steel strain for
Specimen NSC2. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)

Fig. 12—Crack width expansion versus steel strain for Fig. 14—Comparison of maximum crack width for Series I.
Specimen HSC4. (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.) (Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)

ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010 287

is less than the experimental results by 75%. The CSA-S474-04
and NS 3473 E give closer results than the BS EN 1992-1-1:2004
and CEB-90, but less than the experiment results. In other
words, the BS EN 1992-1-1:2004 and the CEB-90 under-
estimate the maximum crack width by a large percentage for
specimens with thick concrete covers of 60 mm (2.4 in.). For
Series III, as shown in Table 2, these codes can provide a
good prediction for maximum crack width for normal-
strength concrete specimens with small concrete covers of 30 to
50 mm (1.2 to 2 in.) cover. Therefore, the BS EN 1992-1-1:2004
and the CEB-90 codes are recommended to be used for building
with small concrete cover rather than for infrastructure
facilities like offshore and nuclear containment structures.
The results of ACI 318-05, CSA-S474-04, and NS 3473 E can
provide a reasonable estimate for crack widths of such structures.
Modified tension chord method
The tension chord model (Marti et al. 1998) was used to
calculate the average concrete strain εcm from the simple
analysis of the cross section of a flexural member under
loading, as shown in Fig. 18. Moreover, the tension chord
model gives a better understanding of the cracking mechanism in
reinforced concrete members. The concrete section under
flexural loading was composed of a compression chord
subjected to compressive force (C) and a tension chord
subjected to tensile force (T). The tensile longitudinal zone
between consecutive cracks was subjected to an axial tensile
force (T). The length of the segment represented by Srm, was
equal to crack spacing. Thus, the average concrete strain was

Fig. 15—Comparison of maximum crack width for Series II.
(Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
σ cm τ b s rm ρ ef
ε cm = --------
- = -------------------
- (12)
Ec E c d be
where τb is the bond stress at the steel-concrete interface
(MPa); dbe is the nominal diameter of the tensile reinforcing
bar (mm); Srm is the average crack spacing (mm) from
Eq. (7); ρef = Ast /Act is the effective reinforcement ratio (Ast
is the ratio of tensile reinforcement area to concrete area
[mm2] and Act is the ratio area to the area of the effective
concrete in tension to concrete area [mm2]); εcm is the
average concrete strain; σcm is the average concrete stress
(MPa); εsm is the average steel strain; Act = hef b (mm2); Ec
is the modulus elasticity of concrete (MPa); Es is the modulus
elasticity of steel (MPa); M is the applied service moment
(N.mm); kd is the distance from surface to locate the neutral
axis (mm); and h is the effective embedment thickness (mm).

Estimate of bond shear stress (τb)

Fig. 16—Comparison of crack width for Series I. (Note:
1 mm = 0.0394 in.)
The bond strength between the concrete and reinforcement
is an important factor in calculating the crack width. The
force in the bar is transmitted to the surrounding concrete by
bond shear stress τb. The bond shear stress depends on
several factors, including the concrete tensile strength and
cover, steel stress, bar size and spacing, confining effects,

Table 3—Comparison of test results of crack width

with modified tension chord assumptions and
fracture energy
Bar Concrete
Series Slab fc′, spacing, cover, Experiment MTCA
no. no. MPa mm mm Wk, mm Wk, mm
NSC1 35 150 30 0.406 0.388
Series I HSC1 68.5 150 50 0.772 0.596
HSC2 70 150 60 0.950 0.743
HSC3 66.7 200 30 0.486 0.431
Series II
HSC4 61.2 250 30 0.483 0.490
HSC5 70 100 30 0.327 0.424
Series III NSC2 33 240 30 0.248 0.557
Fig. 17—Comparison of crack width for Series II. (Note: NSC3 34 210 40 — —
1 mm = 0.0394 in.) Note: 1 mm = 0.0394 in.; 1 MPa = 145 psi.

288 ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010

 Fig. 18—Analytical model for flexural cracking in singularly reinforced flexural member.
and load history. Several experimental and theoretical
investigations were conducted on the behavior of bond for
normal- and high-strength concrete. Marti et al. (1998)
estimated that the bond stress τb is approximately twice the
concrete direct tensile strength fct at the service load.
Gilbert (2005) indicated that bond stress τb is reduced as
the stress in the reinforcement is increased and proposed
the following equation
τb = α1α2 fct (MPa) (13)
where α1 depends on the steel stress at crack; α2 is for short-
or long-term calculations; and fct is the direct tensile strength
of concrete (MPa).
The experimental results of a previous investigation on
direct tension test and fracture energy (Marzouk and Chen
1995) and bond test results (Alavi-Fard and Marzouk 2004)
indicated that τb = (1.5 – 2.0)fct at the cracking serviceability
limit. Gilbert (2005) recommended using τb = (2.0fct) for
short-term calculation and τb = (1.0)fct for long-term calculation
in determination of the final maximum crack width due to
creep and shrinkage. The Alavi-Fard and Marzouk (2004)
bond study on high-strength concrete, over 60 MPa (8700 psi),
revealed that the bond stress is more appropriately
proportional to the cubic root and the bond stress at the
serviceability limited can be approximately estimated to be
τb = (1.65)fct for instantiations loading including the effect of
temperature and shrinkage. The study also recommended
that the square root of the compressive strength approach
adopted by CSA-S474-04 and ACI 318-05 does not provide
a good prediction of the bond strength for the high-strength
concrete. The bond strength of high-strength concrete, over
60 MPa (8700 psi), is more appropriately proportional to the
cubic root. All of the European codes recommend that the
tension and bond strength of concrete be proportional to the
power of 1/3, while both CEB-90 and NS-92 recommend the
use to the power of 2/3 of the compressive strength.
Estimate of average steel tensile strain εsm
in tension chord
Due to the low tensile strength of concrete, cracking in
concrete structures starts at an early stage of loading. For crack
width analysis, the serviceability limit state governed the crack
width calculations and the stress in steel reinforcement fs was
selected as the serviceability limit. This value was considered as
the end of the serviceability limit after which the concrete
material behaved nonlinearly.
The strain at the concrete surface on the tension concrete
face where the crack width was measured was calculated using
f h – kd
ε sm = ⎛ ----s- ⋅ ---------------⎞
(14)
⎝ E s d – kd⎠
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010
The average crack width at the extreme concrete surface was
f h – kd τ b S rm ρ ef
w m = S rm ⎛ ----s- ⋅ ---------------⎞ – -------------------
- (15)
⎝ E s d – kd⎠ E c d be
where h is the total member thickness (mm); dbe is the effective
depth (mm); fs is the stress in the steel reinforcement at the
end of the serviceability limit (MPa); kd is the distance from
surface to locate the neutral axis (mm); and h is the effective
embedment thickness (mm).
The maximum crack width recorded during each experiment is
presented in Table 3 along with the numerical predictions of
the modified tension chord assumptions (MTCA). The
results of the modified tension cord method are plotted
graphically in Fig. 16 and 17.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The experimental and numerical results can be summarized
as follows:
1. The experimental results indicated that the relationship
between steel strain and crack width on the tension face is
approximately linear up to values that range from 1000 με to
1800 με of the steel strains. All crack widths were measured
experimentally at the serviceability steel stress level of
0.625fy (250 MPa [36.25 ksi]).
2. The test results of reinforced concrete slabs indicated
that the concrete cover had a major effect on the crack width,
and the bar spacing had less of an effect on the crack width
size at the serviceability limit. In general, the calculated
average crack width was lower than the experimental test results.
3. The comparison between different code predictions, as
shown in Table 2, indicated that ACI 318-05, CSA-S474-04,
and NS 3473 E estimates can provide a reasonably close
prediction for the crack width of concrete structure members
with different bar spacing. The effect of concrete cover on
thick concrete members, however, can be improved.
4. A modified numerical model based on the tension chord
method is recommended for calculating the maximum crack
width. The proposed theoretical model allows designers to
specify concrete covers and reinforcement ratios during the
design process to control the flexural crack width to an
acceptable limit. The proposed model can be suitable for
thick high-strength concrete structures with large concrete
cover, such as offshore and nuclear containment structures.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors are grateful to the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada (NSERC) for providing the funds for the
project. Sincere thanks are due to M. Curtis, S. Organ, D. Pike, and the
technical staff at the Structural Engineering Laboratory at Memorial
University of Newfoundland for their assistance during the preparation and
testing of the specimens. Sincere thanks are extended to Capital Ready Mix
Ltd., Newfoundland, for providing the concrete for this project.
289
 REFERENCES
ACI Committee 209, 1992, “Prediction of Creep, Shrinkage, and
Temperature Effects in Concrete Structures,” (ACI 209R-92),” American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 47 pp.
ACI Committee 224, 2001, “Control of Cracking in Concrete Structures
(ACI 224R-01),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI,
46 pp.
ACI Committee 318, 2005, “Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05),” American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 430 pp.
Alavi-Fard, M., and Marzouk, H., 2004, “Bond Behaviour of High
Strength Concrete,” Magazine of Concrete Research, V. 56, No. 9, pp. 545-557.
CEB-FIP, 1990, “Model Code for Concrete Structures (CEB-90),” Euro
Internationale deBeton/Federation Internationale de la Procontrainte,
Lausanne, Swittzerland, 460 pp.
BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, 2004, “Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures.
General Rules and Rules for Buildings,” British Standards Institutions, London,
UK, 230 pp.
CSA-S474-04, 2004, “Concrete Offshore Structures,” Canadian
Standards Association, Mississauga, ON, Canada, 78 pp.
Frosch, R. J., 1999, “Another Look at Cracking and Crack Control in
Reinforced Concrete,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 96, No. 3, May-June,
pp. 437-442.
Gilbert, R. I., 2005, “Time-Dependent Cracking and Crack Control in
Reinforced Concrete Structure,” Serviceability of Concrete: A Symposium
Honoring Dr. Edward G. Nawy, SP-225, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 223-240
Gergely, P., and Lutz, L. A., 1968, “Maximum Crack Width in
Reinforced Concrete Flexural Members,” Causes, Mechanism, and
Control of Cracking in Concrete, SP-20, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, pp. 87-117.
LabVIEW, 2006, “Acquiring Data and Processing Signals,” National
Instruments Corporation, http://www.ni.com/labview/whatsnew/daq.htm.
Marti, P.; Alvarez, M.; Kaufmann, W.; and Sigrist, V., 1998, “Tension
Chord Model for Structural Concrete,” Structural Engineering International,
pp. 287-298.
Marzouk, H., and Hussein, A., 1991, “Experimental Investigation on the
Behavior of High-Strength Concrete Slabs,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 88,
No. 6, Nov.-Dec., pp. 701-713.
Marzouk, H., and Chen, Z. W., 1993, “Nonlinear Analysis of Normal
and High-strength Concrete Slabs,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering,
V. 20, No. 4, pp. 696-707.
Marzouk, H., and Chen, Z. W., 1995, “Fracture Energy and Tension
Properties of High-Strength Concrete,” Journal of Material in Civil Engineering,
ASCE, V. 7, No. 2, pp. 108-116.
290
NS 3473 E, 1992, “Concrete Structures, Design Rules,” Norwegian
Council for Building Standardization, Oslo, Norway, 79 pp.
Vecchio, F. J., and Collins, M. P., 1986, “The Modified Compression
Field Theory Reinforced Concrete Elements Subjected to Shear,” ACI
JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 83, No. 2, Mar.-Apr., pp. 219-231.
APPENDIX A
Numerical example
Sample calculations using modified tension chord
assumption (MTCA) principles for crack width estimation
are presented for Specimen HSC1.
The following mechanical properties were recorded from
Marzouk and Chen (1995) direct tension and fracture energy
laboratory measurements: Ec = 51,400 (7450 ksi); Es =
200,000 (29,000 ksi); ft′ = 3.30 MPa (480 psi), using
Marzouk and Chen (1995) tension stiffening model; and
εto = 118.6 με.
The averaged bond stress τb of high-strength concrete at
the serviceability limit was obtained from the experimental
results of Alavi-Fard and Marzouk (2004), τb = 5.4 MPa
(783 psi) (equivalent to 1.65fct).
The average crack spacing Srm can be calculated from the
following, (Eq. (4)).
Srm = 2.0(c + 0.1s) + k1k2dbehefb/As
where Srm = 167 mm (6.57 in.)
Crack width calculation
f h – kd τ b S rm ρ ef
w m = S rm ⎛ ----s- ⋅ ---------------⎞ – -------------------
-
⎝ E s d – kd⎠ Ec db
Therefore, the average width crack wm = 0.351 mm (0.138 in.);
and the characteristic crack width wk = 1.7wm = 0.596 mm
(0.023 in.) at a steel stress level of 250 MPa (36 ksi).
ACI Structural Journal/May-June 2010