Alejandro Pérez Caldentey” Hugo Corres Peiretti Joan Peset Irbarren Alejandro Giraldo Soto Articles = DOK: 10.1002/sue0.201200016 Cracking of RC members revisited: influence of cover, ¢/p, of and stirrup spacing — an experimental and theoretical study This article describes an experimental programme aimed at studying the effect of cover, rato between diameter and effective ‘reinforcement rato (lp, andthe invluence of sirup spacing an the cracking behaviour of reinforced concrete elements. The experimental programme was canceived in order to contbute to the debate ~ fueled by the publication in recent years of Euro- code 2 ENT992-1-1 and the revision ofthe Model Cade under way hon tho tosts ware caried out (and now published asa final ized document) regarding the influence ofthese parameters on cracking. Important theoretical aspects are discussed, including where the crack width is estimated by current code formulations and what relevance this may have on the coreation between crack opening and durability of AC structures, especially wth ‘agard to structures wit fargo covers. Th effect of stirup spac ing, a variable absent frm current codes, is also discussed. Keywords: cracking /Pyqq fover,nfuence of irrups 1 Introduction There has been a long-lasting debate regarding models for the calculation of crack width design. Borosmyéi and Balézs [1] compiled a total of 23 different mathematical formulations for the calculation of crack spacing and 33 different formulae for the calculation of crack width. ‘These figures provide an idea of how far consensus goes in the modelling of cracking of concrete structures. Further ‘more, in 2004 Beeby [2] agitated the debate by publishing an article heavily defending the thesis that crack spacing is, independent of parameter $/p,¢; and depends only on the distance from the nearest reinforcing bar. This was a very controversial statement, since the dependence of crack spacing on 6/p.,yis a direct consequence of theory, where as dependence of crack spacing on cover and bar distance is more empirical. Despite a database with more than 300 tests from various researchers [5-10], it was not possible to ‘obtain conclusive evidence that could settle this question. For this reason, with a view to proposing a cracking formulation for Model Code 2010 [1], and working from the joint effort of fib Task Group 4.1, an experimental study was undertaken with the financial support of © Corresponding author: ape@thevores Submited for view: 28 June 2012 Revi: 2 October 2012 ‘Accepted fr publctin: 10 December 2012 COMSAEMTE. The aim of this was to distinguish the ef- fect on cracking of cover, @/pq and stirrup spacing, The results of this experimental programme are presented for the first time in this paper. Another very important issue addressed in this pa- per, and which has been the subject of much confusion, is Where do cracking models provide crack width? At the surface of the reinforcement or at the surface of the con- crete? ‘An experimental programme involving 12 beam speci mens was carried out at the Structures Laboratory of the Civil Engineering School of the Polytechnic University of Madrid from May to October 2009. The tests featured point loading with a constant moment span of 3.42 m. Fig. 1 shows the test setup. All beams had a rectangular cross-section 0.35 m wide and 0.45 m deep. All specimens were concreted at the same time using the same concr of strength class C25/33. Table 1 shows the results of the compression tests carried out at seven and 28 days ‘The parameters studied were cover (20 and 70 mm), $/pseftatio (diameter / amount of reinforcement per effec- tive area of concrete), for which bar diameters of 12 mm and 25 mm (four bars in tension) were considered, and stirrup spacing s_, To do this, three configurations were considered: no stirrups in the constant bending moment span, stirrups spaced at 10 cm and stirrups spaced at 30 cm. Stirrup diameter was 8 mm. The specimens were cod ed XXYY-ZZ, with XX referring to bar diameter (12 or 25), YY referring to cover (20 or 70) and ZZ referring to stirrup spacing (00 forno stirrups, 10 and 30, for 10 em and 30 cm spacing respectively). The cross-sections of the specimens are shown in Fig. 2 Table 2 shows the cover ¢, @/py¢¢ ratio and stirrup spacing sy of each specimen. The effective area is calcu lated according to the definitions of EN 1992-141 (or MC 2010, which are the same), according to which the effec tive depth of the effective concrete tensile zone is the less er of 2.5(h-d), h/2 and (h-x)/3, where his the total depth of the cross section, d the effective depth and x the depth. of the neutral axis for the cracked cross section, In speci: mens 25-70-22, the depth of the effective zone hy is limit ed by the third condition, i. that it be smaller than one: (© 2013 Ernst & Sohn Verlag fr Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co.KG, Belin: Structural Concrete 14/2013),No,1 68‘4. Peal Crs Pore, ost bray, Gals Sto Casing of RE rambo esi rc fone, pq ar sii spacing an expr an rail su T o T T T Tiltmeters am 038 mo on 3 eee Feximeter *EMP:Extensometer Measurement Points 1. Testseup Compressive strength of canrate at seven and2 days specimens conrad on 26 March 208 ‘Specimen Date of Test Age of concrete Density (t/m'] ‘Measured compressive ‘Mean Value [fem] {days} stress fe [MPa] 1 04/oz/2009——7 229 213 2 o4foz/2009 7 228, 23 219 5 o4oz/2009 7 227 20 + 04/25/2008 —28 229 262 5 04/25/2009 28 228 an 269 6 04/25/2009 28 229 214 038 035 03s eH He He 12-20-00 25-20-00 2-10-00 25-70-00 035 035 035, od He ea is s = g sg je g B 8 12-20-10700 25-20-1090 ‘2-70-1090 25-70-1080 Beam cross-sections 70 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No.1‘A Px Caley. Caras Pat Past baren/A Grats Stacking AC rumba vs infec foe, py 2 sry spacg—an empire sy Table 2. Main characterises ofthe tested beams 4 Poet (mam) Beam1D gm) __¢ [mm) Sy fmm] 25200025 20 460 - 252010 25 20 460 100 252030 25 20 460 300 12200012 20 882 12201012 20 882 100 1220302 20 882 300 257000 25 70 4750) - 25701025 0 415 (+) 100 257030 25 0 475.0) 300 12700012 0 ur 1270102 0 um 100 12703012 0 2 300 + het = (oxy/3 third of the depth k of the member minus the depth of the neutral axis x All beams were loaded until failure so that the ser viceability working area could be fully explored. More de- tails can be found in [12], corresponding to the research project report. 22 Measurements The following data were measured for each beam’ = Applied load Support reactions = Deflections at cantilever ends, mid-span and quarter span points ~ Strain along the compression face in correspondence with the location of longitudinal reinforcement in the side of the beam, using a digital extensometer with a base of 20 em the beam, using a digital extensometer with a base of 20 em = Strain along the tension face in correspondence with the location of longitudinal reinforcement in the top of the beam, using a digital extensometer with a base of 20cm 23° Test results A summary of test results in terms of mean sj, and maxi ‘mum S,max rack spacing is given in Table 3. Fig. 3 shows the crack patterns of the 12 beams tested. The observed ef. fects of cover ¢, #/pyq ratio and stirrup spacing on crack spacing are presented inthe following paragraph. 23.1 Measuring crack width ‘The conceptual equation for the calculation of crack width can be written as as 0 where Wm mean crack width Sym mean crack spacing @; theoretical stress in reinforcing steel at crack E, longitudinal elastic modulus of steel TS. effect of tension stiffening ‘The tension stiffening effect takes into account the fact that in between cracks, part of the tensile force carried by the steel at the crack is taken by the concrete, thus reduc- ing the stress in the concrete and increasing the strain in the concrete, This effect reduces the crack width by reduc- ing the mean difference in strain between steel and con- crete. This equation allows an experimental value for the crack spacing to be derived, based on the measured value Of 2 ~ Strain along the tension face in correspondence with, _ @E o the location of longitudinal reinforcement in the side of | “*"* ~“G,18 Table. Measured mean and maximum crack spacing Beam ID mm) € [ene] 4/2 [nen] 5 [om] Sem lemem) Seu [2 2520.00 25 20 460 - 131 234 252010 25 20 460 100 us 230 252030 25 20 460 300 152 258 122000 2 20 882 173 269 12.2040 2 20 882 100 182 320 12.2030 2 20 882 300 274 358 25-7000 25 70 a5 - 227 435 25:70:10 25 0 415 100 189 460 257030 25 0 473, 300 200 442 127000 2 70 1172 236 42 127010 2 70 ura 100 260 381 127030 2 70 172 300 281 383 Structural Conerete 14 (2013),No.1 71A Pra Cat Cones Poet Post rset. Gia Soto. Casing RC rons vise nue of co, pay an sor suig~an expiant ad boa sy Fig. da, foc of stirrup spacing on crack spacing in specimens with 12 mm ge. rebar Fig. b, foc of sirup spacing on crack spacing in specimens with 25 mm di. rebar It has been argued, most notably by Beeby [15], that this is a better estimate of the crack spacing than the actual spac- ing, which can be obtained from counting the number of cracks and dividing the length of the constant bending 72 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No.1 moment span by this number, due to the fact that it can never be stated that cracking is stabilized. However, itis the authors’ experience that these values indeed differ in many tests reported in the literature, but it seems that this,‘A Prez Caley. Caras Pat Pasetrbaren/A Gran Stacking AC discrepancy can also be attributed to errors in measuring the crack width, and not only to non-stabilized cracking. It is well known that direct crack measurement by visual means carries with it a strong subjective component re garding the exact position in which the measurement is taken. Cracks open and close during a test, their width varies along their length, they divide and converge at dif: ferent load steps and in many cases do not form perpen: dicularly to the reinforcement, Further, direct visual mea- surement of the crack width is very difficult due to the strain it puts on the eyes of the person reading the instru ‘ment, For this reason, the crack width was estimated in this study by measuring the mean strain along the tensile chord in correspondence with the reinforcement both in the side of the beam and in the top of the beam. The mean crack width was determined by dividing the mean strain by the number of cracks. This measurement already in- cludes the effect of tension stiffening. Crack spacing was determined by direct observation. It was also observed that the crack pattern became fairly stable after a certain point in the test, so that it can be said that a stabilized ‘crack pattern was reached in all tests. Eq, (3) shows the expressions used to estimate the ‘mean and maximum crack widths. x aon 1-H 6 XL ty eto aan fe, ofp sirup pasen an aernea an teal tut 1 measurement length of extensometer (20 em) Zw sum of crack openings within constant moment span Meyacks lumber of cracks located within L. ‘The above expressions take into account the fact that the stress in the reinforcement is reduced between cracks due to the contribution of the conerete, but ignore the effect of the tensile strain in the concrete and therefore slightly overestimate the crack width. However, this error is small ‘An example can be considered to support this statement. Assuming a relatively large 30 cm crack spacing, a tensile strength of 3.2 MPa, a modulus of elasticity of concrete of 30 000 MPa and a parabolic law for the tensile strain var ation in the concrete, the tensile elongation of the con: crete would result in @ reduction in the crack width of on: ly 2/5 x 0.3 x 3.2/30 000 = 0.02 mm. 232 Influence of cover The influence of cover, irrespective of the value of @/Ps., can be best appreciated by comparing the results from tests 25.20-XX and 25-70-XX. This is because these tests, have almost the same #/p,,j ratio due to the fact that the depth of the effective concrete area is limited, as shown in table 2 (both in EN 19921-1[14] and MC90 (15), by the value of (-x)/3. Fig. 4 shows very clearly how cover increases crack width. This increase is clearly related to an increase in crack spacing (and therefore crack width), as can be seen in Fig. 5. The mean crack spacing increased from 15.1 em {in beam 25-20-00 (28 cracks) to 22.7 em in beam 25-70-00 (6 cracks). These results confirm that cover is an impor- tant factor in the development of the cracking pattern and that models that do not consider this variable, such as Wrpax = Emax *! 3) where ensign Mean strain in tension chord Length of constant moment zone max ‘Maximum measured strain in tension chord Side maximum crack width vs. Stress - Effect of cover -6=25 4 gow ‘Theoretical stress of bare steel [MPa] ig. 4. The effect of cover on crack witha very clear influence is observed in specimens having nearly the same effective concrete area Structural Coneret 14 2013),No.1 73A Pra Cat Cones Poet Post rset. Gia Soto. Casing RC rons vise nue of co, pay an sor suig~an expiant ad boa sy Model Code 90 [15), are incomplete. From a theoretical point of view, the effect of cover on crack spacing can be understood by the need to transmit tension stresses gener- ated at the barconcrete interface to the effective concrete area surrounding the bar in order to generate actual crack- ing. However, this is only part of the explanation of how cover affects crack spacing. Another aspect of the influ- ence of cover on crack spacing has to do with secondary cracks and whether or not these cracks eventually become passing cracks. This topic is addressed in more detail i section 3.2. 233 Influence of /Per The influence of the 6/9. ratio on crack spacing is a di- rect consequence of the definition of the transfer length and can be easily derived from the equilibrium of the bar between a crack and the zero slip section and from the ‘equilibrium of the two sections, The influence of this fac- tor on crack spacing can easily be compared by counting the number of cracks in specimens having the same cover. Fig. 6 shows this comparison. A clear influence can be Fig.5. The effect af cover on crack spacing: beam 26-20-00 has a mean crack spacing of 131 cm, whereas beam 25-70-0 has a crack spacing of 227 cm seen as the crack spacing increases with the value of $/Ps_p These results seem to show a larger influence of this parameter for a smaller cover. This seems logical since crack spacing can be modelled as the sum of the effect of cover and the effect of 6/ps_j,as shown in Eq. (4): Sim theth, set As the cover c increases, so the relative importance of the second term in #/p,.j becomes sinaller. In Eq, (4), ky and kz are constants. 23.4 Influence of stirrup spacing Most cracking tests carried out avoid the presence of stir- rups, because they influence the cracking pattern. A good example of this can be seen in the tie cracking tests car- ried out by Gémez Navarro {16] in Lausanne, shown Fig. 7. It can be very clearly seen in these tests that cracks form every 10 cm on the sides where stirrups are placed at this distance and at 20 cm in the central part of the tie, Effect of #/p,.; on crack spacing - separated by concrete cover i, : i i : Pr : i. : & 6. Influence of 4/pyan mean crack spacing 74 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No.1‘A Px Caley. Caras Pat Past baren/A Grats Stacking AC rumba vs infec foe, py 2 sry spacg—an empire sy 45 130,48 A-A. 2% ig. 7. Crack patern governed by strup spacing in atest carid out by Gémer Navarro which also coincides with stirrup spacing and location. This type of result has made the fact that cracking models, included in codes do not consider the presence of stirrups rather puzzling for some. For this reason, in the test series ‘of the Polytechnic University of Madrid (UPM) it was de- cided to include stirrup spacing as a variable to be studied in cracking. From the results in Table 4, which shows the mean and maximum crack spacing in each of the beams tested, it is difficult to make a clear-cut statement regarding how stirrups influence the formation of cracks. Despite the fact that cracks tend to develop at the stirrup positions, as, shown by the experimental results of Gémez Navarro [16], it cannot be ruled out that cracks develop between stir ups, or sometimes fail to develop at stirrup locations. For a better understanding, in addition to the mean and maxi: ‘mum crack spacing, it is necessary to examine the surface of the beams in order to achieve a better interpretation of the results (Figs. 3a and 3b). le. Summary of results regarding separation betwe Beam ID. Sem [mm] max [mm] 2520.00 131 234 2520210 a4 230 25.20.50 152 258 122000 175 269 122010 12 320 122030 274 358 2570.00 227 25 257010 189 460 257030 200 442, 127000 236 412 127040 260 381 127030 281 383 Figs. 5a and 3b show the cracks in each of the beams tested and the stirrup positions (black lines along the top of each beam). It can be seen that the beams with 20 mm cover are the ones that have a better correlation between the posi- tions of the cracks and the stirrups. Focusing on beam 12. 20.10, it can seen that the cracks have developed, in gen- eral, every two stirrups, approximately every 200 mm, and that they also correlate rather well with the observed mean crack spacing of 182 mm. In beam 1220-30 it can be seen that each crack systematically coincides with a stir- rup position. In this case the measured mean spacing of 274 mmm is very close to the stirrup spacing of 300 mm. Similarly, in beam 25-20-10 the cracks coincide with the stirrup positions (100 mm) and the mean separation, obtained is 114 mm. In beam 25-20-50, cracks develop at the location of each stirrup and other cracks develop mid- way between stirrups, resulting in a mean crack spacing of 152 mm, ‘The beams with 70 mm cover also show, in a general ‘manner, a tendency for cracks to coincide with the posi- tions of stirrups, but in a less homogeneous way than in beams with 20 mm cover. The exception is beam 12:70-30, where ctacks develop systematically at the positions of the stirrups (300 mm), resulting in @ mean experimental sepa- ration of 281 mm. From the above observations with respect to the ef- fect of stirrups on crack spacing it can be stated that: ~ Stirrups induce the formation of cracks. This effect is stronger with smaller covers. = It is not, however, correct to assimilate crack spacing and stirrup spacing, Cracks sometimes develop between stirrups and sometimes they do not develop at stirrup lo- cations. Transfer length clearly still plays a role in crack formation. ~ Although stirrup spacing has @ significant effect on the mean crack spacing, the test results show that their in- fluence on the maximum crack spacing is much less This is very clear in specimens with a 70 mm cover, ‘Structural Concrete 14(2018,No.1 75A Pra Cat Cones Poet Post rset. Gia Soto. Casing RC rons vise nue of co, pay an sor suig~an expiant ad boa sy where crack spacing is very similar in specimens with and without stirrups, and can also be observed in beams with 20 mm cover. ~ Since what matters for erack control is maximum crack spacing and not mean crack spacing, excluding stirrup spacing from the cracking models of current and future standards seems justified. 3 34 ‘Some theoretical observations Basic variables As shown by the results of the experimental programme and some of the existing cracking models, crack spacing can be determined as a linear sum of two terms as ex- pressed in Eq. (4). The second term corresponds to bond theory and, as stated above, can be derived from equilibri- um of the bar and cross-sections located between the crack and the section of zero slip by applying the concept of transfer length, ic. the length needed to transmit a ten- sion force able to crack the concrete from the barto the ef fective conerete area. The first term, dependent upon cov- er, can be explained by the need to transmit these tensile stresses from the bar surface to the centre of the effective area located on either side of the bar as shown in Fig. 8 32 Differences between crack spacing at bar level and on the concrete surface Experimental evidence supports the fact that a large crease in the crack width happens as the crack is mea. sured further away from the bar. The work of Husain and Ferguson [17] (see Fig. 9) or, more recently, the work of Borosnyéi and Sndbli (18) (see Fig. 10) can be cited as ex- amples of such results. One possible explanation for this, large increase would be that itis due to shear lag strain in the cover, since the concrete cover deformation is more re- stricted by reinforcement close to the bar than remote from it. However, a simple house number is enough to rule out shear lag as the reason behind crack width increase. Indeed, the strain in free concrete after cracking can be es- timated as fyn/E;~10-4, so the crack opening due to shear lag would be equal to this value multiplied by crack spac ing (which could be 30 cm as a generous estimate) minus slip occurring at bar level. This means that shear lag could be responsible for a crack width increase of much less than 0.03 mm, since slip will occur at the barconcrete in- 0 © or e=20mm _ 0 as as Boas as as $ os a ot ge “3 a 02 a a oa a al ° ° ° om o x # P Ly DELL CLT A crack Section of no siz Fig.8. Difusin oftesie forces is needed to crack concrete, thus explain ingthe dependence of crack spacing on cover from a theorsticl point of | srencore 1 f 3 ra 7 (crack wiatn (wl {crack wisn (ni 4 Stool stress = 190 HYinm? —b Stee! stveas = 207 N/m? Fig. 8. Tess of Husain and Ferguson, showing how erack width increases aay rom the bar surface rota th vary small rack width atthe bar sur. face) terface. It is therefore clear that shear lag has a negligible elfect. So why does the width of the erack increase? ‘An interesting observation taken from the exper ‘mental results mentioned above is that the crack ope at bar level is truly very small (approx. 0.05 mm). This pro- vides the key to interpreting the phenomenon. It is well known, from the work of Goto [19], that secondary, non passing cracks occur near the bar surface. These sec- ondary cracks help to distribute the slip and reduce the ‘opening of the passing erack at bar level. As these internal cracks close, strain is concentrated in the passing crack, thus explaining the increase. This effect is similar to that observed in beam webs and is the origin for the need to provide web reinforcement, as has been incorporated in codes of practice for many years (see Fig. 11) 07 06 os 04 o Distance fom the steel reinforcement. am, Fig. 10. Toss of Borosny and Snablagsin showing how erack width increases away trom the bar surface (egain note the very small erack with atthe bar surface) 76 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No.1Fig. 11. Cracking in beam wobs: need for web reinforcement to control racking due to merging of smallor crack (analogy with secondary crack: ing or Goto cracks) Sim Fig. 12 Rolaionship beowaen increase in surface crack width and cover bearing onto the closure of secondary cracks The consequence of this interpretation is that crack models provide the crack width at the surface of the con: crete elements. The crack at the reinforcement level is, ‘much smaller. With regard to this topic, if it is agreed that the in crease in crack width as the distance from the bar increas es is mainly due to the closing of secondary cracks, which seems reasonable, a strong case can be made against the current practice of demanding the same crack width limits for elements with large covers as for elements with smaller covers for durability reasons. This argument can be better understood by considering Fig, 12, which shows two ele ments with different covers: one with a large cover (top) and one with a smaller cover (bottom). It can be seen that, in the one with a large cover, secondary cracks close be fore reaching the surface. Therefore, on the surface, crack width and crack spacing in the specimen with large cover are doubled with respect to the one with the smaller cover. In the specimen with smaller cover, the secondary cracks in the beam with large cover actually become primary cracks and cracking would seem to be better controlled. This is certainly the case if crack width is being limited for aesthetic reasons, However, from a durability point of view, the crack opening at the level of the reinforcement would be exactly the same and, if anything, the element with a large cover would be better protected eto aan fe, ofp sirup pasen an aernea an teal tut This argument allows a proposal to be made regard: ing crack width verification when durability is a concern. Assuming crack width limits for durability reasons have been specified for a certain reference cover co (if the ENV 1992.11 [20] model is taken as a reference, then as in the cracking equation where the term 2c is given as 50 mm, ¢9 might be taken as 25 mm), ifthe crack opening is being lim ited for durability reasons, crack openings to be compared with admissible imits should be computed using this refer ence value ¢o. However, the client should be advised that the cracks actually appearing on the surface will be larger. 4 Conclusions From the above considerations, itis possible to draw the following conclusions ~ The tests carried out at the Structures Laboratory of the Civil Engineering school of Madrid, designed to con. firm, or discard, the effect of cover and parameter #/ps.j on crack spacing, in the light of current controversy, have confirmed that both of these are important para: meters affecting crack spacing The tests have also confirmed that stirrup spacing has an influence on crack spacing, However, this influence is mainly relevant for mean crack spacing, Its influence ‘on maximum crack spacing, which is the value relevant for the verification of the serviceability limit state of cracking, is much smaller. This fact would justify exclud. ing this from the relevant parameters in current and fu ture codes of practice The large difference between crack spacing at the rein. forcement surface and crack spacing at the concrete sur: face observed in tests can be attributed to internal cracking (or Goto cracks). At the bar surface, the differ: ential strain between steel and concrete is distributed among the passing crack and the internal non-passing cracks, The increase in the width of the passing crack is only a reflection of the closing of the internal cracks. The effects of shear lag in the effective concrete area are negligible. For this reason it can be said that current crack models are actually providing an estimate of the crack width at the concrete surface. If itis agreed that the increase in the opening of cracks increasing with the distance from the bar is due to the closing of secondary cracks, it does not make sense to penalize cross-sections with large covers when crack width is being limited for durability considerations Large covers will result in larger superficial cracks due to the fact that a fewer internal cracks will make their way to the surface. However, at the bar level, the crack opening for small and large covers would be expected to be the same. tensile strain in conerete between cracks tensile strain in steel Gension Mean measured tensile strain along constant mo- ‘ment span at level of reinforcement 6 bardiameter Poet effective reinforcement ratio stress in reinforcement at crack Structural Conerete 14 (2013),No.1 77A Pra Cat Cones Poet Post rset. Gia Soto. Casing RC rons vise nue of co, pay an sor suig~an expiant ad boa sy ¢ clear cover to longitudinal reinforcement d effective depth of E, modulus of elastici fem mean tensile strength of concrete ft depth of cross-section hg depth of effective concrete area skp model constants 1 ength used for strain measurement ((= 20 em) L span of constant bending moment zone eracks ‘Humber of cracks in constant moment span after stabilization of crack pattern ‘mean crack spacing Sjmax maximum crack spacing Sy, stirrup spacing TS factor (<1) accounting for tension stiffening w crack opening Wn mean crack opening ‘maximum crack opening x” depth of neutral axis assuming fully cracked section Sm ‘Acknowledgements The tests carried out at the Structures Laboratory of the Civil Engineering School of UPM were performed within the framework of the Estudio de fisuracién en muros pan talla research programme led by COMSAEMTE, S.A, with the participation of FHECOR Consulting Engineers. The tests were partly funded by Centro de Desarrollo Tecnolé- ‘ico Industrial (CDT), a body of the Spanish Ministry of Science & Technology, under project No. IDI20080937. The authors also wish to thank the head of the labo- ratory, José Torrico, and visiting students from Politecnico di Milano as well as Francesco dal Pont and Andrea Facchini for their help in carrying out the tests 1. Borosnyéi, A., Baldes, G. I.: Models for flexural cracking in conerete: the state ofthe art fib Journal Structural Concrete, vol. 6, No. 2, 2005, 2. Beeby, Az The influence of the parameter 6/p,.j on crack widths. fib Journal Structural Concrete. vol. 5, No. 2, 2004. ‘3. Hogestad: Journal of PCI Research & Development Labora: tories, 1962. 4. Rehm, G, Rilsch, H.: Versuche mit Betonformstablen, pt. (1963), pt. 1 (1965), pt. IIT (1964). Deutscher Ausschuss fir Stablbeton, No, 140 (1963-64) 5. Krips, M.: Rissbreitenbeschrinkung im Stahlbeton und Spannbeton, Doctoral thesis, 1984 6. Hartl, G. Die Arbeitslinie “Eingebetteter Stile” bet Erst tund Kurzzeitbelastung. Dissertation, 1977. 7. Rhem, G, Eligehausen, R,, Mallée, R: Rissverhalten von Stahlbetonkirpern bei Zugbeanspruchung, report, 1976. 8. Clark, A. P: Cracking in Reinforced Concrete Flexural Mem bers. ACI JOURNAL, Proc. vol. 27, No. 8, Apr. 1956, pp. 851-862 9. Farra, B, Jaccoud, J-P: Influence du Beton et de armature sur a fissuration des structures en Beton. Rapport des essais de tirants sous deformation imposée de courte durée. Dé partement de Genie Civil, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Nov 1995, pub. No, 140, 10, Broms, B. B.: Stress Distribution in Reinforced Concrete Members with Tension Crack. Journal of the American Con: crete Institute, Sept 1965. 78 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No.1 LL. fib: Model Code 2010, final draft. Bulletin Nos. 65 & 66, 12. Péree Caldentey, A., Corres Peretti, HL, Peset J: Estudio de fisuracién en muros pantallas. Final report, research project No. 1120080957, funded by CDTI. Ministry of Science & ‘Technology. Spain, 2010. 13, Beeby, A, Base, G. D,, Read, J. B, Taylor, H. P. An Investi- gation ofthe crack control characteristics of various types of bar in reinforced concrete beams. Cement & Concrete Asso- ciation. Research report No. 18, pt. 1. Dec 1966. 14. CEN: EN-1992-11. Eurocode 2. Design of concrete struc- tures ~ Part 11. General rules and rules for buildings, 2004, 15. CEB: Model Cade 1990. Thomas Telford, 1993. 16. Gémez Navarro, M.: Concrete Cracking in the Deck of Steel Conerete Composite Bridges. PhD Thesis No. 2268, Lau- sanne, 2000, 17. Husain, S. L, Ferguson, PM. Flexural Crack Width at the Bars in Reinforced Conerete Beams. Research report No, 102-1F. Center for Highway Research. Austin, Texas, 1968, 18. Borosmy6i, A., Sndbli, L: Crack width variation within the concrete cover of reinforced concrete members, Epitoanyeg (Building Materials, HU ISSN 00 15-970x) Journal of the Hungarian Scientific Society of the Silicate Industry. Hun- ‘gary, 2010. 19, Goto, ¥; Cracks Formed in Conerete Around Deformed Ten sion Bars. ACI Journal. vol. 68, No. 4. Apr 1971 ‘Alejandro Pérez Caldentay Poljtechnic Universi of Madrid -Mecénice de Mecios Continuosy Teoria de Estructures Cale Pratesor de Arenguren, s/n Escuela Superior de ingoneros de Camino, Canales yPuortos Madrid Maid 2600, Spain Frecor Consulting Engineers, Cala de Barqul, 2,2 28004 Madrid, Spain ape@hecores Hugo Cores Peiret Polytechnic Unversy of Madrid -Mecénica Ge Macias Continuo y Teoria de Estructures, Mar, Spain Frecor Consulting Engineers, Cale de Barqul, 23,2, 28004 Madrid, Spain hep@he-upm.com ‘Alejanéro Grad Soto Polytechnic Unversy of Madrid -Mecénica e Macias Continuo y Teoria de Estructures, Masri, Spain ags@he-upm.com Joan Peset baron Comsaomte~ Gestén del Conocimiento # Invovacién Tecnol6gica, SA, Faifcio Numancia 1. Vira, 47, (08016 Barcviona Spain