Technical Paper
Dirk Schlicke*
Nguyen Viet Tue
Minimum reinforcement for crack width control
in restrained concrete members considering
the deformation compatibility
The current design code EC2 [1] regulates the minimum rein-
forcement for crack width control in restrained concrete mem-
bers by taking up the cracking force of the cross section. Al-
though this concept gives straightforward results, its consistent
application can lead to high reinforcement amounts with increas-
ing member thickness. The reason is the simplifying assumption
of an infinite member length neglecting the deformation compati-
bility.
The cracking force approach was therefore empirically modified
to reflect practical experience, see [2]. However, the main modifi-
cation of a limited tensile strength seems particularly dubious, as
the primarily affected thick members have already a strong de-
veloped tensile strength before any risk of cracking occurs at all.
Finally, this circumstance leaves the structural designer with the
dilemma of being either uneconomic or having no mechanical
proof in a possible case of damage.
However, the mechanically consistent estimation of the minimum
reinforcement for crack width control can be achieved by consid-
ering the deformation compatibility of the restrained member, see
[3]. With the introduction of [4], this deformation-based design
concept became state of the art for mass concrete members of
hydraulic structures.
This contribution presents the general application of the defor-
mation-based design concept due the findings of [5]. The reliabili-
ty and the practicability of this approach will then be illustrated
by the deformation-based minimum reinforcement design of a
trough structure.
Keywords: minimum reinforcement, crack width control, hardening concrete,
restraint stresses, deformation-based reinforcement design, deformation
compatibility
1 Introduction
Crack assessment of hardening concrete is an important
task in concrete design. It considers the different deforma-
tion impacts during hydration and temperature equaliza-
tion of the member and the resulting stresses, if those de-
formation impacts are restrained. In general, cracking
caused by concrete hardening cannot be excluded a priori
since time-dependent stiffness development and strong
viscoelastic behaviour of the young concrete always lead
* Corresponding author: dirk.schlicke@tugraz.at
Submitted for review: 21 July 2014
Accepted for publication: 26 August 2014
© 2015 Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin · Structural Concrete (2015), No. 2
DOI: 10.1002/suco.201400058
to tensile stresses. To guarantee serviceability of the struc-
ture, the resulting crack width is to be limited to accept-
able values. The current design code [1] regulates the min-
imum reinforcement for crack width control by taking up
the cracking force of the cross section or relevant parts of
it. But this approach disregards the deformation compati-
bility along the real member length and is therefore unable
to cover the whole context sufficiently. The extraordinary
importance of the deformation compatibility can be seen
in Eq. (1), where the resulting stresses strongly depend on
the degree of restraint, which is an indicator of the com-
patibility.
t
∫
σ rest (t) = a (t) · ε 0 (t) · E (t) dt (1)
0
a degree of restraint
ε0 deformation impact
E elastic modulus
Cracking starts if those stresses exceed the present tensile
strength. The distance between the cracks is usually as-
sumed to be given by the reinforcement. But in the case of
ground slabs or walls on foundations, the main cracks (pri-
mary cracks) result from the interaction with the restrain-
ing condition. They are geometrically set as illustrated in
Fig. 1 and the distance between them clearly exceeds the
transfer length of reinforcement into concrete.
Without reinforcement, the deformation compatibili-
ty would already be achieved by the width of the primary
crack, where its absolute size depends on the restrained
deformation and the distance between the primary cracks.
In this context, the primary cracks can be assumed to be
independent from each other. But if the width of the pri-
mary crack without reinforcement exceeds the crack
width criteria, active crack width control by reinforcement
is needed. This active crack width control is based on the
creation of secondary cracks next to the primary cracks,
as shown in Fig. 2.
The primary crack and the secondary cracks now
form a crack system and the deformation compatibility
will be achieved by the sum of all single crack widths. To
conclude, the suitable active crack width control must on-
ly guarantee that enough secondary cracks can be gener-
ated to absorb the deformation impact.
221
D. Schlicke/N. V. Tue · Minimum reinforcement for crack width control in restrained concrete members considering the deformation compatibility

Fig. 1. Geometric set crack patterns in a ground slab due to bending restraint (left) and in a wall on a foundation due to centric restraint (right)

crack width control, if the deformation impact is known.

The number of secondary cracks n required is:

⎛σ 1 ⎞
n = ⎜ rest,max · lcr · – 1⎟ · 1.1 (2)
⎝ E eff wk ⎠

σrest,max decisive restraint stresses

Eeff associated modulus of elasticity
lcr distance between primary cracks
wk crack width criteria

The decreasing width of subsequent secondary cracks

in comparison to the width of the primary crack is ex-
pressed by the factor 1.1 and covers relevant practical situ-
ations.
Fig. 2. Crack systems consisting of a primary crack and secondary cracks The minimum reinforcement required can be derived
from the number of secondary cracks n. According to [5], n
≤ 0 means that the deformation compatibility is already ful-
filled with the width of the primary crack and reinforce-
The national annexes of [1] in Germany and Austria ment for crack width control is not needed at all. However,
already distinguish between primary and secondary crack- a skin reinforcement is still required to ensure a robust con-
ing by limiting the minimum reinforcement of thick con- crete surface. This skin reinforcement can be designed by
crete members on taking up the cracking force of the con- taking up the cracking force of the surface area at any time:
crete area which is affected by reinforcement (effective
concrete area). However, this regulation is still to be seen fctm
As,min = · 2, 5 · d1 (3)
as a pragmatic solution, which is generally not on the safe fyk
side. Even though the effective concrete area is empirical-
ly increased by the cross section thickness, this does not fctm average tensile strength of concrete
consider the fact that every new secondary crack will in- fyk yield stress of the reinforcement
crease the steel strain in the primary crack, as is clearly d1 edge-distance of the reinforcement
shown with the conceptual model of [6].
Overall, the current design code can give unsafe results In all other cases (n > 0) active crack width control is nec-
in several cases. Therefore, structural damage – especially in essary. The minimum reinforcement in these cases de-
the form of leakage in watertight constructions – often oc- pends on the cracking force of the effective concrete area
curs. However, other cases already fulfil the deformation at the latest cracking time as well as the number of sec-
compatibility with the width of the primary crack, so that re- ondary cracks required (where n is rounded up to the next
inforcement for crack width control is not needed at all. integer).
The empirical modification of the current design Based on the conceptual model of [6], the minimum
code [1] is not able to cover this whole context. The sug- reinforcement can be determined by:
gested reduction of the decisive tensile strength seems par-
ticularly dubious as the primarily affected members are ds · b2 · d1 · fct,eff · (0.69 + 0.34 · n)
thick and therefore have a late cracking time with a strong As,min = (4)
wk · Es
developed tensile strength.

2 Minimum Reinforcement for Crack Width Control ds reinforcement diameter

under Consideration of Deformation Compatibility b width in direction viewed
fct,eff decisive tensile strength of concrete
Research on crack mechanics in thick concrete members n number of secondary cracks required
with near-edge reinforcement by [6] already enables a me- wk crack width criteria
chanically consistent minimum reinforcement design for Es elastic modulus of reinforcement

222 Structural Concrete (2015), No. 2

 D. Schlicke/N. V. Tue · Minimum reinforcement for crack width control in restrained concrete members considering the deformation compatibility
Fig. 3. Minimum reinforcement according to number of secondary cracks
required
Finally, the minimum reinforcement required depends on
the number of secondary cracks needed as illustrated in
Fig. 3.
With the introduction of [4] this deformation-based
design concept became state of the art for mass concrete
members of hydraulic structures, even though it contains
several simplifying assumptions for the conditions of large
mass concrete structures.
For the general application of the deformation-based
design concept, comprehensive investigations on the
quantification of deformation impacts in hardening con-
crete members were carried out by [5]. This paper presents
the findings of [5] with a detailed overview of the two main
parameters responsible for the deformation impact in a
primary crack – the decisive restraint stresses and the dis-
tance between the primary cracks. Both parameters de-
pend strongly on the material behaviour in the hardening
process as well as the geometric conditions of the member.
Mainly due to the significant influence of viscoelas-
ticity, the decisive restraint stresses have to be determined
numerically. For the determination of the distance be-
tween the primary cracks, however, an analytical engi-
neering model considering member type and geometric
conditions will be introduced.
3 Crack Risk and Decisive Restraint Stresses
The risk of cracking arises, if any stresses exceed the ten-
sile strength. To provide a safe evaluation of the crack risk
the decisive stresses should be compared to the lower lim-
it of the present tensile strength, expressed by its 5 %
quantile. Furthermore, an additional safety factor of 0.8 is
introduced to provide a reliable estimate of whether crack
formation can be excluded or not. The decisive tensile
strength to evaluate the crack risk finally amounts to:
fct,risk = 0.8 · 0.7 · fctm (teff )
However, if crack formation cannot be excluded, the rein-
forcement design has to be carried out with the average
tensile strength according to Eq. (6). The reason for this is
that the process of crack formation is more dependent on
the geometric conditions of the member as well as the in-
teraction between reinforcement and concrete than on
the scattering of the concrete tensile strength, see [12].
fct,design = fctm (teff )
The decisive restraint stresses occur in the most restrained
cross section at temperature equalization. This cross sec-
tion is usually located in the plane of symmetry. If crack for-
mation cannot be excluded in this cross section, it is impor-
Fig. 4. Constant, linear and non-linear parts in the stress distribution over
the height of a wall restrained by a foundation and the influence of residual
stresses on the risk of design relevant cracking
tant to identify the real driving forces behind crack forma-
tion by analysing the stress distribution regarding the parts
corresponding to external forces and residual stresses.
Usually, residual stresses have a stress reducing effect
at the most stressed point. However, this effect disappears
as soon as locally restricted micro-cracking takes place in
areas where tensile residual stresses are present. Hence,
only the constant and linear parts in the stress distribution
remain and might cause design relevant macro-cracking.
Fig. 4 illustrates this principle with the final stress distribu-
tion over the height of a hardening wall restrained by a
foundation.
The determination of the decisive stress distribution
is not trivial, since time-dependent material behaviour
takes place in systems where time-dependent deformation
impacts encounter changing restraint degrees. The defor-
mation impacts result from both temperature field
changes due to hydration heat release as well as tempera-
ture equalization, and additional shrinkage impacts. The
determination of resulting stresses requires a time-discrete
consideration because of the material properties develop-
ing in parallel and the viscoelastic behaviour of the con-
(5) crete. Furthermore, a suitable definition of the boundary
condition and the accuracy of the material model are of
major importance. Due to the challenging requirements of
such a solution, here only 3D-FEM simulations are used.
Suggestions for an analytical solution can be found in [5].
After a short illustration of the material model using
the reference concrete mixture of the calculation example,
the quantification of the decisive restraint stresses and
general observations are discussed for the basic forms of
concrete members.
(6)
3.1 Reference Concrete and Material Model
The reference concrete has a strength class of C 35/45 ac-
cording to [1] and is suitable for mass concrete application
due to blast furnace cement.
Structural Concrete (2015), No. 2 223
D. Schlicke/N. V. Tue · Minimum reinforcement for crack width control in restrained concrete members considering the deformation compatibility

Table 1. Binder properties of the reference concrete

Parameter Value Unit

CEM III/A 32.5 N Holcim 300 kg/m3

Water 145 kg/m3

Aggregates 0/16 2000 kg/m3

BV ViscoCrete-1051 PCE 3 kg/m3

The major requirement for the material model is to

secure a temporal and spatial coupling of hydration heat
release, strength development, shrinkage and viscoelastic-
ity according to the hardening progress in every material
point. Suitable synchronisation can be achieved by formu-
lating every single material property on the effective con-
crete age. This approach is common and generally ap-
proved. The effect of maturity (which describes the
influence of the concrete temperature on the speed of the
hydration progress) can be described according to [7]
with:

⎧E –0.45 ⎫
⎪ ⎡ T (t) + 10 ⎤ ⎡ 1 1 ⎤⎪
∫
teff = exp ⎨ A · ⎢
⎪⎩ R ⎣ 30 ⎦
⎥ ·⎢ – ⎥ ⎬dt (7)
⎣ 293 273 + T (t) ⎦⎪⎭

3.1.1 Hydration Heat Release

The hydration heat release was simulated using an expo-

nential function according to [8] which was fitted to calori-
metric test results as shown in Fig. 5.
Fig. 6. Strength development, material model fitted to measurement data
3.1.2 Strength Development

The strength development was simulated using the model
of [9] which was fitted to measurements as shown in Fig. 6.
The advantage of this model is the coupling of the
time development of all strength properties as well as its
reference to the characteristic properties after 28 days.
The time coefficient fβ of the reference concrete was found
to be:
However, a comparison with the estimates of the current
design code [1] shows that the approaches there give val-
ues slightly on the safe side for the reference concrete.
3.1.3 Shrinkage and Viscoelasticity
Drying shrinkage was not taken into account in this study

{ }
with the justification that the moisture loss in the exposed
fβ = exp – 3.0 · ⎡⎣teff
–0.8 · 28 –0.8 ⎤
⎦ (8) mass concrete members considered is negligible. More de-
tails can be found in [5].
However, autogenous shrinkage was taken into ac-
count with a total size of 0.0625 ‰. This value was de-
rived from [1] according to the C35/45 strength class of
the concrete, but the temporal appearance of the autoge-
nous shrinkage was linked to the hydration heat release
with Eq. (9). Modelling based on the hydration heat re-
lease is not approved in general. It was derived during the
preparation of [5] since it turned out that the empirical
function of the time coefficient in [1] offers no suitable
coupling to the maturity.

Q (teff )
ε ca (teff ) = ε ca,⬁ · (9)
Q⬁

It is notable that recent studies indicate considerable in-

Fig. 5. Adiabatic temperature rise, model fitted to measurement data creases of autogenous shrinkage under realistic tempera-

224 Structural Concrete (2015), No. 2

 D. Schlicke/N. V. Tue · Minimum reinforcement for crack width control in restrained concrete members considering the deformation compatibility

ture histories compared to 20 °C isothermal test results. Table 2. Further material properties needed for the simulation
But those effects are not reliably quantified yet and could
therefore not be used. Future work should take this into Parameter Value Unit
account. Further details on this are given in [14].
Heat capacity 2500 kJ/K m3
The influence of the viscoelastic behaviour was con-
sidered using a deformation-based approach, working with Thermal conductivity 3.0–2.4 W/K m3
additional viscoelastic deformation impacts according to
Density 2500 kg/m3
each element’s stress history. The values of those vis-
coelastic deformation impacts were derived from the size Poisson’s ratio 0.2 [–]
of the stress changes within the time and the according
creep response. In a first step, the quantification of the Thermal expansion 1E-5 K–1
creep response was based on the creep curves in [1]. In ad-
dition to this, the global stress state of each individual ele-
ment in each single time step was also considered by dis- Two model conceptions exist for evaluating the influ-
tinction between loading and unloading stress changes. ence of external restraint. The friction model assumes slip-
Further details of this approach are given in [5] and [10]. ping over the rigid bedding area and is therefore mainly
applicable for thin or at least short slabs. With increasing
3.1.4 Further Material Properties length or thickness the slipping becomes less important as
an area with full bond between the slab and the ground
Besides the introduced time-dependent material proper- will exist. At this point, the interaction between both mem-
ties, the simulation requires the definition of some further bers, or rather the elasticity of the ground, is decisive as il-
material properties. With the exception of thermal con- lustrated in Fig. 7.
ductivity, they were all considered as constant, since their The influence of the slab height and the external re-
variation becomes less important already after setting straint on the restraint stresses caused by hardening was in-
time. vestigated with the 3D-FEM calculation model in Fig.  8.
The temporal changing of the thermal conductivity The calculations were conducted with the material model
was also linked to the hydration heat release, since its presented in section 3.1 and assuming summer conditions
main influence is the water binding during hydration. as shown in Tab. 2. Even if the quantity of the resulting
stresses is therefore restricted to a certain scenario, the re-
Q (teff ) sults are suitable for a general understanding of this context.
λ (teff ) = λ0 – (λ0 – λ⬁ ) · (10)
Q⬁ The first calculation run was conducted without any
external restraint in the bedding area. Restraint stresses re-
3.1.5 Implementation of the Material Model

The material model has to be implemented for each ele-

ment independently, especially in the case of thick mem-
bers, where remarkable temperature differences between
core and surface area occur, meaning that the hardening
progress is non-uniform over the cross section due to dif-
ferent maturity. The approach used for the consideration
of viscoelasticity, which depends on the global stress state,
also calls for an independent implementation, since resid-
ual stresses and bending give each element its own stress
history.
Furthermore, an additional shifting in the concrete
ages over the height of the cross section due to layer-wise
placement can have a dominant influence on the resulting
stresses and is to be considered by using a time shift in the Fig. 7. Models to consider external restraint in ground slabs according to
implementation. [11]

3.2 Ground Slabs

The decisive restraint stresses of ground slabs are subject

to a superposition of bending restraint and external re-
straint. The bending restraint follows the curvature due to
the temperature difference over the height and leads to the
activation of gravity loads at the edge region. At large di-
mensions, a middle field also exists where any curvature is
totally restrained, so that only the temperature moment
occurs. However, the external restraint results from the
horizontal interaction with the ground and often causes
controversial discussions. Fig. 8. 3D-FEM idealization of a hardening ground slab

Structural Concrete (2015), No. 2 225

D. Schlicke/N. V. Tue · Minimum reinforcement for crack width control in restrained concrete members considering the deformation compatibility
Fig. 9. Total restraint stresses at top surface and bottom of a hardening
ground slab without any external restraint in the bedding area
Fig. 10. Bending restraint stresses at top surface and bottom of a harden-
ing ground slab without any external restraint in the bedding area
sult only from temperature differences over the cross sec-
tion following different thermal conditions at bottom and
top surface as well as non-linear temperature fields due to
the heat storage in the core. Fig. 9 shows the results for to-
tal stresses at top surface and bottom. It confirms the
practical experience that crack risk increases at the top
surface as thickness increases. However, the risk of crack-
ing at the bottom seems to be low.
The crack type can be derived from the analysis of
the stress distributions. Fig. 10 shows this in the form of
the bending stresses. It indicates bending cracks on the
226 Structural Concrete (2015), No. 2
Table 3. Environmental conditions of the ground slab parameter study
Parameter Value Unit
Fresh Concrete Temperature 25 °C
Average Air Temperature 20 °C
Heat Transfer Top Surface:
Foil/Free Air 12.5/25 W/m2 K
Heat Transfer Side Surface:
Formwork/Free Air 5.2/25 W/m2 K
top surface for slab heights over 2.0  m. However, micro-
cracks always occur if the total stresses in Fig. 9 exceed
the present fct,risk.
The results in Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 are theoretical, as ex-
ternal restraint is not totally avoidable. But when the tem-
perature history due to hydration heat release is consid-
ered it turns out that the external restraint has a beneficial
effect on the early tensile stresses at the top surface. The
concrete is still warming up at this time, meaning that ex-
ternal restraint will cause compression stresses over the
whole cross section, which reduces the risk of micro-
cracks on the top surface.
However, the maximum bending stresses at the top
surface were usually not reached until the cooling down
period had started. This happened because bending stress-
es were also influenced by the temperature maximum at
the bottom and therefore occur increasingly later in time
as the thickness of the slab increases. At this time, the ben-
eficial centric compression stresses of the warming-up pe-
riod might almost or already have been compensated by
the first centric tensile stresses of the starting cooling-
down period. As a result, the stress distribution at this
time is dominated by bending stresses and only bending
cracks are to be expected. The magnitude of external re-
straint is of minor importance in this context.
However, a second moment of crack risk arises at the
time of temperature equalization when centric tensile
stresses are at a maximum and bending stresses show ten-
sile stresses at the bottom. Since the maximum tensile
bending stresses at the bottom are much smaller than on
the top surface, the centric restraint stresses have to con-
tribute dominantly to reach the present tensile strength. In
case the tensile strength is reached, this scenario leads to
separating cracks over the whole slab height, rising from
the bottom.
Altogether, the scenario of separating cracks requires
very high external restraint. The general case is the risk of
bending cracks on the top surface, which is more or less
independent of the ground stiffness. This is illustrated in
Fig. 11.
To quantify the magnitude of critical external re-
straint leading to separating cracks, the axial stiffness of
the 2D elements in the calculation model’s bedding area
was increased until the design relevant stresses first
reached the lower limit of the tensile strength at the bot-
tom. Fig. 12 illustrates this with the results of a 2.0 m thick
slab exposed to its critical external restraint. Those results
accidentally show the special case, where the minimum
critical external restraint leads to the same risk of design
 D. Schlicke/N. V. Tue · Minimum reinforcement for crack width control in restrained concrete members considering the deformation compatibility
Fig. 11. Theoretically possible crack formation in ground slabs depending
on the horizontal stiffness conditions of the ground
Fig. 12. Hardening caused restraint stresses in a 2.0 m thick ground slab
with a horizontal stiffness in the bedding area, which leads to cracking over
the whole height (results depend on the parameter study conditions)
relevant crack formation. Here, the top surface suffers on-
ly from bending cracks and the separating cracks over the
whole height can only arise from the bottom.
Fig. 13 shows the magnitude of the critical external
restraint, leading to separating cracks beginning from the
bottom. It is given in the unit of a spring stiffness, which
describes the stiffness which has to be activated between
all neighbouring nodes in the bedding area. It should be
noted at this point, that this spring stiffness refers to a rel-
ative modelling of the springs, which was realized by the
2D elements in the bedding area in this calculation model.
The magnitude of those results exceeds the external
restraint of usual ground by orders of magnitude. For ex-
ample, there is no risk of separating cracks in a 2.0  m
thick slab on soil with 50 MN/m2 horizontal stiffness be-
fore the soil is activated over a depth of at least 200 m.
However, very stiff ground conditions clearly reduce this
critical depth. For example, the same slab on rock with
10 GN/m2 horizontal stiffness already shows separating
cracks for an activated depth of 1.0 m.
The non-linearity of the results is due to the underly-
ing stress distributions. Thin slabs (h ≤ 0.5 m) have poor
bending stresses, so that separating cracks are mainly
caused by centric restraint. But the constant temperature
Fig. 13. Horizontal stiffness in the slab bedding area, which leads to crack-
ing over the whole height (results depend on the parameter study condi-
tions)
change is small so that cracking only starts at high exter-
nal restraint. As the thickness increases, the critical exter-
nal restraint initially falls until h ≤ 0.7 m, as the constant
temperature field changing increases more than the axial
stiffness of the slab. Afterwards, the critical external re-
straint increases steadily, as the growing axial stiffness of
the slab with increasing height is more effective than the
increase of the temperature change at the same time. The
bending restraint tensile stresses at the bottom also in-
crease with the slab height. Finally, this flattens the devel-
opment of critical external restraint again.
To conclude, the following general statements on the
crack risk and crack type of ground slabs can be derived
from the results:
– The risk of micro-cracks at the top surface increases
with the height of the slab.
– Bending restraint on the top surface is always design rel-
evant for slabs with large horizontal dimensions, since it
is more likely that the crack moment will be reached.
– In general, there is just a low risk of separating cracks
over the height. The critical external restraint exceeds
the standard conditions by several orders of magnitude.
(The exception is thin slabs, where drying shrinkage is
important and the length causes a strong interaction
with the ground, as well as concreting on compact
rock.)
3.3 Walls Restrained by a Foundation
The restraint stresses of walls restrained by a foundation
are subject to the inner deformation compatibility of the
cross sections of wall and foundation as well as the activa-
tion of gravity loads following the curvature of the cross
section compatibility. Fig. 14 illustrates both with a short-
ening wall, which is symmetrically located on a founda-
tion.
The analytical solution of this context can be found
in [5]. Correct consideration of the gravity load activation
is of great importance. It is limited to a certain length,
which depends on geometrical conditions of the cross sec-
tion as well as the height of the deformation impact. In
systems with smaller lengths – which is often the case –
there is only a partial activation of gravity loads. A
schematic illustration is shown in Fig. 15 and further theo-
retical analyses can be found in [5].
Structural Concrete (2015), No. 2 227
D. Schlicke/N. V. Tue · Minimum reinforcement for crack width control in restrained concrete members considering the deformation compatibility
Fig. 14. Analytical determination of hardening caused restraint stresses in
walls restrained by the foundation
Fig. 15. Influence of L/H-ratio on design relevant stress distribution and
maximum possible gravity load activation
In accordance with current research on this topic
and observations of actual structural behaviour, this solu-
tion also identifies the bottom of the wall as the critical
point, where crack formation starts. In addition, this ap-
proach aims for a realistic consideration of gravity load ac-
tivation, which is of major importance to provide general
solutions on the safe side. In contrast, engineering models
with idealistic consideration of gravity load activation as
in [12], or models neglecting this as in [13] are not general-
ly capable of giving those safe-side results. The reason is
that the stresses at the wall bottom are always underesti-
mated if the gravity loads are neglected and the overall
centre of gravity is located below the wall bottom or if the
gravity loads are considered idealistically and the overall
centre of gravity is located above the wall bottom.
The numerical quantification of the decisive restraint
stresses is able to consider this context with the bedding
spring support of the ground slab, which has already been
introduced. The stiffness of the bedding springs can here-
by be assumed to be rigid in gravity direction, which is as-
sumed to be on the safe side. In order to provide a visual
impression, Fig. 16 shows the simulation model of the re-
lated construction stage of the application example.
To conclude, the following general statements can be
made on the crack risk and crack type in walls restrained
by the foundation:
228 Structural Concrete (2015), No. 2
Fig. 16. 3D-FEM idealization of a wall restrained by the foundation for
investigating the hardening caused restraint stresses
– Usual deformation impacts can already cause critical
stresses over the wall height.
– Centric restraint is relevant for the design of walls,
whereby the form of the stress distribution over the
height (linear to constant) varies considerably with the
member dimensions.
– The critical point is the wall bottom. Separating cracks
will theoretically always start from there.
– The realistic consideration of gravity load activation, as
illustrated in Fig. 15, is of major importance for a reli-
able quantification of decisive restraint stresses.
3.4 Evaluation of the Calculation Results
The conclusions for ground slabs as well as walls on foun-
dations reflect the actual structural behaviour. In addi-
tion, the reliability of the calculation models used was also
verified by several recalculations of in-situ measurements,
see [5].
Finally, this approach allows a reliable quantification
of the decisive restraint stresses, even if the practical ap-
plicability leaves room for improvement.
4 Distance between Primary Cracks
The distance between primary cracks will be determined
using a conceptual model, derived from the expected deci-
sive restraint stress distribution and geometrical laws dis-
playing the member dimensions. This conceptual model
only focuses on the growth of primary cracks, which is as-
sumed to always take place on the level of average tensile
strength.
4.1 Ground Slab with Bending Restraint
The theoretical study on the decisive restraint stresses in
ground slabs showed that the crack formation is always re-
lated to bending restraint. If bending restraint is decisive,
the crack formation starts if the crack moment is reached.
Since bending restraint results from a restrained tempera-
ture curvature caused by the activation of gravity loads,
the distance between two primary cracks can be estimated
using the conceptual model shown in Fig. 17.
For both cases (negative and positive curvature), the
length needed to build up the crack moment is:
 D. Schlicke/N. V. Tue · Minimum reinforcement for crack width control in restrained concrete members considering the deformation compatibility
Fig. 17. Conceptual model for the distance between primary bending
cracks of a ground slab
1 fct,design · h
lcr,Slab = · (11)
3 γc
fct,design decisive tensile strength of concrete
h height of the slab
γc weight of concrete
4.2 Walls Restrained by a Foundation
The distance between primary cracks in walls restrained
by a foundation is subject to the length needed to build up
the restraint stresses again. But this length strongly corre-
lates with the height the primary crack reaches. With the
assumption of a plane cross section during the whole
process of crack formation, the stress redistribution while
cracking can be described as illustrated in Fig. 18.
The stress at the top of the crack σR is of major inter-
est. Its size depends on the remaining concrete height hR,
while the forces of the uncracked state are transferred
through the remaining cross section until the crack pro-
ceeds over the whole height of the wall. Beginning with
crack formation at the wall bottom, σR first decreases until
a threshold is reached. From this point onwards, the con-
striction of the concrete area is decisive and σR is steadily
increasing. Its development can be described with:
κ R · EW · bW · (hR3 – hW
3 )+6·N
W · (hW + hF ) (12)
σ R (hR ) =
6 · bW · hR · (2 · hW – hR + hF )
Fig. 18. Conceptual model for determination of the crack height in walls restrained by a foundation, based on the stress distribution in the uncracked state
Fig. 19. Possible results of the graphically determined crack height in the
wall
Fig. 20. Conceptual model to determine the distance between primary
cracks in walls restrained by a foundation depending on the crack height
If σR falls below the tensile strength, the growth of the pri-
mary crack can be assumed to stop. The solution of
whether or not the growth stops has to be found graphi-
cally. Fig. 19 gives an impression of this approach by in-
troducing the three possible types of solutions, indicating
stopping cracks or continuous cracks over the whole
height of the wall.
Finally, the distance between the primary cracks in
the wall can be estimated according to the illustrations in
Fig. 20.
5 Application Example: Massive Trough Structure
The massive trough structure in Fig. 21 shall be construct-
ed using the reference concrete introduced. The decisive
climatic scenario is defined with the environmental sum-
mer conditions shown in Tab. 2.
The available reinforcement has a strength class of
BSt 500 and a concrete cover of 4.5 cm is desired. The
crack width criteria is 0.2 mm and the reinforcement di-
Structural Concrete (2015), No. 2 229
D. Schlicke/N. V. Tue · Minimum reinforcement for crack width control in restrained concrete members considering the deformation compatibility
Fig. 21. Application example: massive trough structure
Fig. 22. Hardening caused restraint stresses of the slab in longitudinal
direction
ameter used for crack width control will be ds = 20 mm.
However, any other reinforcements will be designed with a
reinforcement diameter of ds = 14 mm.
5.1 Construction Stage 1: Ground Slab
The hardening caused restraint stresses of the ground slab
were determined with the calculation model in Fig. 8, tak-
ing the dimensions shown in Fig. 21 into consideration.
The result is shown in Fig. 22 in the form of the stresses in
the longitudinal direction. This result is also representa-
tive for the lateral direction since the width is large
enough to activate the gravity load fully while the centric
restraint is negligible.
The result indicates the risk of crack formation at the
top surface when the total stresses σTop almost touch the
lower limit of the present tensile strength fct,risk after
around 48 h. As already shown, this early crack formation
is in fact mainly driven by residual stresses. However, this
means that later bending cracks that form after around
100 hours can no longer be excluded on the safe side.
The maximum distance between primary bending
cracks can be determined with Eq. (11). And with a deci-
sive tensile strength of fct,design(t  = 100  h) = 2.80  N/mm2
follows:
1 2.8 · 1.5
lcr,Slab = · = 7.48 m
3 0.025
The deformation impact to be absorbed by the primary
crack depends on the maximum stresses at the top surface
without residual stresses (max{σN + σM,Top} = 1.1 N/mm2)
and the Modulus of Elasticity, assumed to be fully devel-
oped at this time with Ec,eff = 34100 N/mm2. With this in-
230 Structural Concrete (2015), No. 2
put, the required number of secondary cracks to guarantee
the crack width criteria in the primary crack amounts ac-
cording to Eq. (2):
⎛ 1.1 1 ⎞
n=⎜ · 7480 · – 1 · 1.1 = 0.23 → 1.0
⎝ 34100 0.2 ⎟⎠
To guarantee the crack width criteria in the primary crack,
it is necessary to create a secondary crack on both sides of
the primary bending crack. The minimum reinforcement
required to achieve those secondary cracks can be deter-
mined with Eq. (4). This equation also depends on the edge-
distance of the reinforcement expressed by d1, which differs
between the longitudinal and lateral directions of the slab.
Further on, d1 will be considered by the average value of
both directions which is d1,m = 6,5 cm. With this, the mini-
mum reinforcement amounts for each direction are:
20 · 1002 · 6.52 · 2.8 · (0.69 + 0.34 · 1)
as,min = = 24.1cm 2/m
0.2 · 210000
This reinforcement can be achieved by an arrangement of
ds = 20 mm with s = 12.5 cm.
However, at the bottom, the crack formation can be
excluded. The minimum reinforcement only has to secure
the robustness of the surface area. With an assumed rein-
forcement diameter of ds = 14 mm, this requires according
to Eq. (3) the following reinforcement amount in the worst
case:
3.15
as,min = · 2.5 · 6.6 · 100 = 10.4 cm 2 /m
500
This reinforcement can be achieved by an arrangement of
ds = 14 mm with s = 15 cm for each direction.
5.2 Construction Stage 2: Wall on Ground Slab
The hardening caused restraint stresses in the wall on the
ground slab were determined with the calculation model
in Fig. 16. The result indicates a high risk of crack forma-
tion and the maximum stresses without residual stresses
exceed the present fct,design as well, as shown in Fig. 23.
The result shows a strongly linear stress distribution
over the wall height with a very small compression zone at
the top of the wall, which meets the expectations for an
L/H-ratio of 5. Due to the eccentric location of the wall on
the slab, there is also a linearity in the stress distribution
over the width. The result indicates a high risk of crack
formation beginning from the wall bottom. The height
over which the crack will proceed can be estimated graph-
ically using Eq. (12). The result is shown in Fig. 24, where-
by the underlying stress distribution neglects the moment
over the width to simplify matters.
According to the conceptual model of Fig. 18, the
stress in the top of the crack falls below the present tensile
strength, so that the crack growth has to be assumed to
stop at a height of 2.35  m. According to the conceptual
model in Fig. 20, the distance between the primary cracks
amounts to 1.2 times the crack height. The deformation
impact to be absorbed by the primary crack depends on
the maximum stresses at the wall bottom without residual
 D. Schlicke/N. V. Tue · Minimum reinforcement for crack width control in restrained concrete members considering the deformation compatibility
Fig. 23. Hardening caused restraint stresses of the wall in longitudinal
direction
Fig. 24. Hardening caused restraint stresses of the wall in longitudinal
direction
stresses (considered with the stress in the middle axis of
4.6 N/mm2) and the Modulus of Elasticity (fully devel-
oped at this time with Ec,eff = 34100 N/mm2). With this in-
put, the required number of secondary cracks to secure
the crack width criteria in the primary crack can be deter-
mined using Eq. (2):
⎛ 4.6 1 ⎞
n=⎜ · 1.2 · 2350 · – 1⎟ · 1.1 = 0.99 → 1.0
⎝ 34100 0.2 ⎠
To secure the crack with criteria in the primary crack, it is
necessary to create a secondary crack on both sides of the
primary separating crack. The required minimum rein-
forcement for this can be determined using Eq. (4):
20 · 1002 · 5.52 · 3.15 · (0.69 + 0.34 · 1)
as,min = = 22 cm 2/m
0.2 · 210000
This reinforcement can be achieved by an arrangement of
ds = 20 mm with s = 12…5 cm.
The finally required minimum reinforcement for the
watertight trough is shown in Fig. 25.
6 Conclusion
The introduced approach offers a mechanically based so-
lution for the design of the minimum reinforcement for
crack width control of restrained concrete members. It al-
lows for a safe but economic estimation of the required re-
inforcement amounts by taking into account the deforma-
tion impact on the member as well as the member
dimensions.
Fig. 25. Required minimum reinforcement for the watertight trough
Besides the benefits of mechanical proof, this con-
cept also provides the chance for direct cooperation be-
tween concrete technology, structural design and con-
struction site, offering an important contribution to the
crack width control of hardening concrete members.
Although the investigations undertaken were all
done for the deformation impacts within the hardening
period of concrete, the models introduced allow a super-
position with additional deformation impacts occurring
during the concrete’s life time. However, in order to safely
expand on this approach, investigation of the crack width
development over time is needed. This not only focuses on
the beneficial influence of stiffness reduction by possible
crack formation due to early restraint, but also allows for
the possibility of quantifying the unfavourable influence of
bond creep on further crack width growth.
References
[1] EN 1992-1-1:2004 + AC:2008: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete
structures – Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings.
[2] Bödefeld, J.; Ehmann, R.; Schlicke, D.; Tue N. V.: Mindest-
bewehrung zur Begrenzung der Rissbreite, Teil 1. Beton- und
Stahlbetonbau (2012) H. 1, pp. 32–37.
[3] Bödefeld, J.; Ehmann, R.; Schlicke, D.; Tue N. V.: Mindest-
bewehrung zur Begrenzung der Rissbreite, Teil 2. Beton- und
Stahlbetonbau (2012) H. 2, pp. 79–85.
[4] BAW-Merkblätter und -Richtlinien: Merkblatt früher Zwang –
Rissbreitenbegrenzung für frühen Zwang in massiven Wasser-
bauwerken. Referat Massivbau der BAW, Karlsruhe (2011).
[5] Schlicke, D.: Mindestbewehrung zwangbeanspruchter Beton-
bauteile unter Berücksichtigung der erhärtungsbedingten
Spannungsgeschichte und der Bauteilgeometrie. Technische
Universität Graz (2014).
[6] Bödefeld, J.: Rissmechanik in dicken Stahlbetonbauteilen bei
abfließender Hydratationswärme. Universität Leipzig (2010).
[7] Freiesleben Hansen, P.; Pedersen, E.J.: Måleinstrument til
kontrol af betons hærdning. Nordisk Betong Nr. 1, Stockholm
(1977).
[8] Jonasson, J.-E.: Slipform construction – calculations for as-
sessing protection against early freezing. Swedish Cement and
Concrete Institute, Stockholm (1984).
Structural Concrete (2015), No. 2 231
D. Schlicke/N. V. Tue · Minimum reinforcement for crack width control in restrained concrete members considering the deformation compatibility

[9] Wesche, K.: Baustoffe für tragende Bauteile. Vieweg + Teub-

ner (1993).
[10] Schlicke, D.; Tue, N. V.: Consideration of Viscoelasticity in
Ass.Prof. Dr.techn. Dirk Schlicke
Time Step FEM-Based Restraint Analyses of Hardening Con- Graz University of Technology/
crete. Journal of Modern Physics (2013). Structural Concrete
[11] König, G.; Tue, N. V.; Schenck, G.: Grundlagen des Stahl- Lessingstraße 25/I
betonbaus. 3. Auflage, Vieweg + Teubner (2008). 8010 Graz
[12] König, G.; Tue, N. V.: Grundlagen und Bemessungshilfen für Austria
die Rissbreitenbeschränkung im Stahlbeton und Spann- dirk.schlicke@tugraz.at
beton, DAfStb Heft 466. Beuth Verlag (1996).
[13] Rostasy, F. S.; Henning, W.: Zwang und Rissbildung in Wän-
den auf Fundamenten, DAfStb Heft 407. Beuth Verlag
Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Nguyen Viet Tue
(1990).
Graz University of Technology/
[14] Sellevold, E.-J.; Bjøntegaard Ø.: Coefficient of Thermal Ex- Structural Concrete
pansion of Cement Paste and Concrete: Mechanisms of Lessingstraße 25/I
Moisture Interaction. Materials and Structures  39 (2006) 8010 Graz
H. 9, pp. 809-815. Austria
tue@tugraz.at

232 Structural Concrete (2015), No. 2

Copyright of Structural Concrete is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.