SECM/15/122

COMPARISON OF DESIGN METHODS OF WATER RETAINING

STRUCTUERES USING THE PROVISONS OF INTERNATIONAL
CODES

Ahamed M.A.A1* and Madushanka P.N.M1

1
University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Srilanka
*E-Mail: aaqibest@yahoo.com, TP: +94773886192

Abstract: Durability and impermeability in a water-retaining structure are of prime importance if the structure is to
fulfill its function over its design life. In addition, serviceability cracking tends to govern the design of water retaining
structures. This research concentrates on load-induced cracking specifically that due to pure bending and to direct
tension in water retaining structures. At present Sri-Lankan designers tend to use British standards in the design of
water retaining structures. But today the countries in the world have adopted different codes with the belief that the
code adopted will best fulfill the requirements in designing water retaining structures for their particular exposure.
Even with the proper design using that selected code, a question arises about the acceptability of the design with
regard to other international codes. Thus, Comparison of these international codes is of paramount importance. ACI
350M, AS 3735, BS 8007 and EN 1992-3 were the codes that were selected to do the comparison. Identifying the
major contributors for cracking as flexure and direct tension load case according to the given procedure for each code
to control cracking spreadsheets were developed. During the project several parameters were varied and by analyzing
the obtained results, an effort was taken to evaluate the design approaches given in each code to control cracking.

Keywords: comparison of design methods, water retaining structures, control cracking, international codes.

1. Introduction numerous international codes to design water

Reinforced concrete construction is commonly used,
for a wide variety of liquid containing and liquid
excluding structures. Failure to achieve an adequate
standard of water tightness may result in leakages
which could violate the main purpose of the
structure. Today different countries use their own
standard with the belief it is the most suitable norm
for their environmental conditions. At present a need
has arisen to compare the different types of design
methods used in these international codes.
Crack controlling is most important to the
serviceability of the structure to perform its
functional aspect. The objective of the current study
is to analyse the design methods used in different
standards to control cracking in water retaining
structures.
2. Literature review
The literature review was focused mainly on
methods of Crack controlling. Though there are
38
retaining structures there may be occasions where the
specified crack width limit from those codes may not
satisfy the leakage requirement according to the
investigation done my L.G Mrazek (2001). Here the
author presents a review of crack width limitations
for structures that are subjected to leakage and
compares these limitations with field measurements
of cracks in environmental engineering concrete
structures as well as concrete parking structures.
Finally advises designers not to use ACI 318-99 for
design of water retaining structures as leakages
noticed from cracks in field measurements were
below the crack width limit specified. However, In
most of the literature that were found related to crack
controlling, research in comparisons between codes
and standards were a common gap that was found. So
in order to compare between codes the discussion was
categorized into eight categories. They were, Design
working life, Approach for the design, Specified
crack with limits, Permitted cement types, maximum
water cement ratios, methods adopted to control
cracking, water tightness classification, partial safety 3.3 Physical Parameters
factors and finally exposure classifications. Though
some aspects (e.g. design working life) were more or Height of the water column (H):
less the same in each code, it was understood that Water depth was varied from one to five meters for
some specifications were defined uniquely for a flexural load case and two to twelve meters for
particular code. (E.g. water tightness classification direct tension case for the crack width calculation.
EN 1991-1-3). Furthermore the method of crack
controlling given in each code is very much different Section thickness (h):
to each other. The ACI 350R-2006, EN 1991-1-3 Section thicknesses 250 mm, 300 mm, 350 mm, 400
2006 codes give more than one method of crack mm, 450 mm, and 500 mm were considered.
controlling whereas BS 8007 1985 and AS 3735 2001
gives only one particular method of crack controlling. Bar diameter ():
After studying these codes it was clear that each code Diameters of 16 mm, 20 mm and 25 mm were
has its own approach and method of crack controlling selected.
in water retaining structures.
Spacing (s):
3. Scope Spacing for bars were varied for 75 mm, 100 mm,
150 mm, 200 mm, and 250 mm.
3.1 Structural Configuration
The conference proceedings will be published in 3.4 International codes selected
standard book (170mm x245 mm) size with two
column layout for text. Diagrams and tables should BS 8007: 1985 with BS 8110-1
be in portrait orientation with either one or two EN 1992-1-3 2006 with part1:2004
column width. AS 3735:2001 with AS 3600:2001
ACI 350R:2006 with ACI 318:2011
Here, basically two types of structures were 4. Methodology
considered
a) Wall of a circular tank diameter of the Under each code a procedure for control of
tank is 20 m cracking was formulated and using spread sheets
b) Base panel of a rectangular tank- varying the parameters within the scope results
dimension of the panel is 8 m by 4 m were derived.

Figure 1: Structural Configuration

3.2 Fixed Design Parameters Figure 2: Methodology

fck,cylinder = 30 MPa 5. Results

fck,cube = 37 MPa
fct,eff = 2.9MPa Results of the deterministic analysis of BS8007,
fy = 500 MPa EN1992-3, AS3735 and ACI350M serviceability
Es = 200 GPa limit state crack controlling for flexural and tensile
w = 1000kg/m3 load-induced cracking in WRS were obtained in
Cover = 50 mm. this section. Microsoft excel was used as the tool

39
during this process to calculate crack widths, crack increases. Also unlike AS, ACI 350 applies
width limits and limiting stresses in reinforcements. different stress limits for different exposure
conditions
Results were obtained by varying the parameters
within the scope for the given structural Acknowledgement
configuration as discussed in section 3. In this field
of study for the EN1991-1-3 and BS 8007 the crack First and foremost our very special thanks goes to
width vs. water height was plotted and compared Mr. H. Abeyruwan who has been supporting us
with the specified crack width limits given in the throughout the project. Next, our heartily deepest
code and for the AS 3735 and ACI 3600 the stress gratitude goes to the project panel members, Dr.
induced in the reinforcement steel vs. spacing H.D. Yapa and Dr. (Mrs) C.K. Pathirana. Finally
between bars were graphically presented and would like to thank the non academic staff
compared with the specified limiting stress values. members and other parties for supporting us during
As results, 345 figures were obtained and more than the research.
500 combinations or situations could be checked. By
that analysis for a given case the acceptability and the References
compatibility of the four codes could be decided.
[1]. Exposure classes for designing durable
5. Conclusions concrete by Vijay R. Kulkarni, The Indian
Concrete Journal, pp. 23-43, 2009 march.
Although EN also covers a method to control [2]. What is the crack width in concrete
cracking based on spacing and limiting structures to prevent leakage? By L.G
stress BS and EN mainly control cracking by Mrazek, ACI special publication
calculating the crack widths and controlling pp.237248, Design and construction
those crack widths within certain limit. practices to mitigate cracking, 2001.
ACI and AS approaches for control cracking [3]. British standards 1997,BS 8110-Part 1-
are by limiting the stresses in tension code of practice for design and
reinforcements and also by controlling constructions BS 8007-Design for concrete
spacing within those reinforcements. structures for retaining aqueous liquids
[4]. Euro standards (2006), EN 1992-1-1-
EN1992-3 specifies a range of crack width
Design for concrete structures, EN 1992-
limits from 0,2 mm to 0,05 mm for through-
3Liquid retaining and containment
cracks, depending on H/h, whereas BS 8007
structures.
specifically limits a value for the crack
[5]. Australian standards AS 3735(2001)
width. (0.2mm or 0.1mm) for very severe
concrete structures for retaining liquids,
condition and when Aesthetic appearance is
AS 3600 (2001) concrete structures.
critical.
[6]. American standards ACI 350R (2006) -
Euro code uniquely introduces water
code requirements for environmental
tightness classification which describes the
engineering concrete structures, ACI 318
amount of leakage allowed for each class.
(2014) - Building code requirements for
Because of the decreasing limiting crack structural concrete
width in EN 1992-3, it results in a substantial
increase in reinforcement and increase in
section geometry for both flexural and
tension cracking.
For flexural load case, when the sectional
thicknesses are greater than 300 mm, crack
width values from EN will be more
conservative than BS results. When the
section thickness is less than 300 mm BS
will give more conservative values.
Only the re-bar diameter is concerned to
control stresses in re-bars about in AS, ACI
give more conservative limiting stress
values, as the bar diameter and spacing

40