Articles
Alejandro Pérez Caldentey*
Hugo Corres Peiretti
Joan Peset Iribarren
Alejandro Giraldo Soto
Cracking of RC members revisited:
influence of cover, φ/ρs,ef and stirrup spacing –
an experimental and theoretical study
This article describes an experimental programme aimed at
studying the effect of cover, ratio between diameter and effective
reinforcement ratio (φ/ρs,ef) and the influence of stirrup spacing
on the cracking behaviour of reinforced concrete elements. The
experimental programme was conceived in order to contribute to
the debate – fuelled by the publication in recent years of Euro-
code 2 EN1992-1-1 and the revision of the Model Code under way
when the tests were carried out (and now published as a final-
ized document) – regarding the influence of these 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 correlation between
crack opening and durability of RC structures, especially with
regard to structures with large covers. The effect of stirrup spac-
ing, a variable absent from current codes, is also discussed.
Keywords: cracking, φ/ρs,ef, cover, influence of stirrups
1 Introduction
There has been a long-lasting debate regarding models for
the calculation of crack width design. Borosnyói and
Balázs [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 φ/ρs,ef and depends only on the
distance from the nearest reinforcing bar. This was a very
controversial statement, since the dependence of crack
spacing on φ/ρs,ef is 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 [3–10], 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 [11], and working from
the joint effort of fib Task Group 4.1, an experimental
study was undertaken with the financial support of
* Corresponding author: apc@fhecor.es
Submitted for review: 26 June 2012
Revised: 2 October 2012
Accepted for publication: 10 December 2012
© 2013 Ernst & Sohn Verlag für Architektur und technische Wissenschaften GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin · Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 1
DOI: 10.1002/suco.201200016
COMSAEMTE. The aim of this was to distinguish the ef-
fect on cracking of cover, φ/ρs,ef 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?
2 Experimental programme
2.1 Description of tests
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 concrete
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),
φ/ρs,ef ratio (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 sw. 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 XX-YY-ZZ, with XX referring to bar diameter (12 or 25),
YY referring to cover (20 or 70) and ZZ referring to stirrup
spacing (00 for no stirrups, 10 and 30, for 10 cm and 30 cm
spacing respectively). The cross-sections of the specimens
are shown in Fig. 2.
Table 2 shows the cover c, φ/ρs,ef ratio and stirrup
spacing sw of each specimen. The effective area is calcu-
lated according to the definitions of EN 1992-1-1 (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 h is 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-ZZ, the depth of the effective zone hef is limit-
ed by the third condition, i.e. that it be smaller than one-
69
A. Pérez Caldentey/H. Corres Peiretti/J. Peset Iribarren/A. Giraldo Soto · Cracking of RC members revisited: influence of cover, φ/ρs,ef and stirrup spacing – an experimental and theoretical study

Fig. 1. Test setup

Table 1. Compressive strength of concrete at seven and 28 days; specimens concreted on 26 March 2009

Specimen Date of Test Age of concrete Density [t/m3] Measured compressive Mean Value [fcm]
[days] stress fc [MPa]

1 04/02/2009 7 2.29 21.3

2 04/02/2009 7 2.28 22.3 21.9
3 04/02/2009 7 2.27 22.0

4 04/23/2009 28 2.29 26.2

5 04/23/2009 28 2.28 27.1 26.9
6 04/23/2009 28 2.29 27.4

0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35

0.070+0.012

0.070+0.012
0.02+0.012

0.02+0.012
0.45

0.45

0.45

0.45

12–20–00 25–20–00 12–70–00 25–70–00

0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35

0.02

0.02

0.07

0.07
0.45

0.45

0.45

0.45

12–20–10/30 25–20–10/30 12–70–10/30 25–70–10/30

Fig. 2. Beam cross-sections

70 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 1

 A. Pérez Caldentey/H. Corres Peiretti/J. Peset Iribarren/A. Giraldo Soto · Cracking of RC members revisited: influence of cover, φ/ρs,ef and stirrup spacing – an experimental and theoretical study

Table 2. Main characteristics of the tested beams the beam, using a digital extensometer with a base of
20 cm
Beam ID φ [mm] c [mm] φ/ρs,ef [mm] sw [mm] – Strain along the tension face in correspondence with
the location of longitudinal reinforcement in the top of
25-20-00 25 20 460 –
the beam, using a digital extensometer with a base of
25-20-10 25 20 460 100 20 cm
25-20-30 25 20 460 300

12-20-00 12 20 882 – 2.3 Test results

12-20-10 12 20 882 100
12-20-30 12 20 882 300 A summary of test results in terms of mean sr,m and maxi-
mum sr,max crack spacing is given in Table 3. Fig. 3 shows
25-70-00 25 70 473 (*) – the crack patterns of the 12 beams tested. The observed ef-
25-70-10 25 70 473 (*) 100 fects of cover c, φ/ρs,ef ratio and stirrup spacing on crack
25-70-30 25 70 473 (*) 300 spacing are presented in the following paragraphs.
12-70-00 12 70 1172 –
12-70-10 12 70 1172 100
2.3.1 Measuring crack width
12-70-30 12 70 1172 300
The conceptual equation for the calculation of crack
* hef = (h-x)/3 width can be written as

σs
wm = s TS (1)
Es r,m
third of the depth h of the member minus the depth of the
neutral axis x. where
All beams were loaded until failure so that the ser- wm mean crack width
viceability working area could be fully explored. More de- sr,m mean crack spacing
tails can be found in [12], corresponding to the research σs theoretical stress in reinforcing steel at crack
project report. Es longitudinal elastic modulus of steel
TS effect of tension stiffening
2.2 Measurements
The tension stiffening effect takes into account the fact
The following data were measured for each beam: that in between cracks, part of the tensile force carried by
– Applied load the steel at the crack is taken by the concrete, thus reduc-
– Support reactions ing the stress in the concrete and increasing the strain in
– Deflections at cantilever ends, mid-span and quarter- the concrete. This effect reduces the crack width by reduc-
span points ing the mean difference in strain between steel and con-
– Strain along the compression face in correspondence crete. This equation allows an experimental value for the
with the location of longitudinal reinforcement in the crack spacing to be derived, based on the measured value
side of the beam, using a digital extensometer with a of wm:
base of 20 cm
– Strain along the tension face in correspondence with wmEs
sr, m = (2)
the location of longitudinal reinforcement in the side of σ sTS

Table 3. Measured mean and maximum crack spacing

Beam ID φ [mm] c [mm] φ/ρs,ef [mm] sw [mm] sr,m [mm] sr,max [mm]

25-20-00 25 20 460 – 131 234

25-20-10 25 20 460 100 114 230
25-20-30 25 20 460 300 152 258

12-20-00 12 20 882 – 173 269

12-20-10 12 20 882 100 182 320
12-20-30 12 20 882 300 274 358

25-70-00 25 70 473 – 227 423

25-70-10 25 70 473 100 189 460
25-70-30 25 70 473 300 200 442

12-70-00 12 70 1172 – 236 412

12-70-10 12 70 1172 100 260 381
12-70-30 12 70 1172 300 281 383

Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 1 71

A. Pérez Caldentey/H. Corres Peiretti/J. Peset Iribarren/A. Giraldo Soto · Cracking of RC members revisited: influence of cover, φ/ρs,ef and stirrup spacing – an experimental and theoretical study

Fig. 3a. Effect of stirrup spacing on crack spacing in specimens with 12 mm dia. rebar

Fig. 3b. Effect of stirrup spacing on crack spacing in specimens with 25 mm dia. rebar

It has been argued, most notably by Beeby [13], that this is moment span by this number, due to the fact that it can
a better estimate of the crack spacing than the actual spac- never be stated that cracking is stabilized. However, it is
ing, which can be obtained from counting the number of the authors’ experience that these values indeed differ in
cracks and dividing the length of the constant bending many tests reported in the literature, but it seems that this

72 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 1

 A. Pérez Caldentey/H. Corres Peiretti/J. Peset Iribarren/A. Giraldo Soto · Cracking of RC members revisited: influence of cover, φ/ρs,ef and stirrup spacing – an experimental and theoretical study
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.
∑ w + ε c × L → wm = n∑
w
ε tension × L = = table 2 (both in EN 1992-1-1[14] and MC90 [15]), by the
cracks
(
= ε tension − ε c )n L ≈ ε tension
L
ncracks
cracks
wmax ≈ ε max × l
where
εtension mean strain in tension chord
L length of constant moment zone
εmax maximum measured strain in tension chord
Fig. 4. The effect of cover on crack width: a very clear influence is observed in specimens having nearly the same effective concrete area
l measurement length of extensometer (20 cm)
Σw sum of crack openings within constant moment
span
ncracks number 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 concrete, 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 vari-
ation in the concrete, the tensile elongation of the con-
crete would result in a reduction in the crack width of on-
ly 2/3 × 0.3 × 3.2/30 000 = 0.02 mm.
2.3.2 Influence of cover
The influence of cover, irrespective of the value of φ/ρs,ef,
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 φ/ρs,ef ratio due to the fact that the
depth of the effective concrete area is limited, as shown in
value of (h-x)/3.
Fig. 4 shows very clearly how cover increases crack
width. This increase is clearly related to an increase in
(3) crack spacing (and therefore crack width), as can be seen
in Fig. 5. The mean crack spacing increased from 13.1 cm
in beam 25-20-00 (28 cracks) to 22.7 cm in beam 25-70-00
(16 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
Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 1 73
A. Pérez Caldentey/H. Corres Peiretti/J. Peset Iribarren/A. Giraldo Soto · Cracking of RC members revisited: influence of cover, φ/ρs,ef and stirrup spacing – an experimental and theoretical study
Fig. 5. The effect of cover on crack spacing: beam 25-20-00 has a mean crack spacing of 13.1 cm, whereas beam 25-70-00 has a crack spacing of 22.7 cm
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 bar-concrete 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 in
section 3.2.
2.3.3 Influence of φ/ρs,ef
The influence of the φ/ρs,ef 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. 6. Influence of φ/ρs,ef on mean crack spacing
74 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 1
seen as the crack spacing increases with the value of
φ/ρs,ef. 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 φ/ρs,ef, as shown in Eq. (4):
φ
sr,m = k1c + k2 (4)
ρs, ef
As the cover c increases, so the relative importance of the
second term in φ/ρs,ef becomes smaller. In Eq. (4), k1 and
k2 are constants.
2.3.4 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 Gómez Navarro [16] in Lausanne, shown in
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,
 A. Pérez Caldentey/H. Corres Peiretti/J. Peset Iribarren/A. Giraldo Soto · Cracking of RC members revisited: influence of cover, φ/ρs,ef and stirrup spacing – an experimental and theoretical study

Ø 22 Ø 10 Ø8 Ø 14 Ø 14 45 130 45 A–A
5 4 3 1 A 2
@ 100 @ 200
50
150
75
75 1
150
150 3
75
75
150
50
A

Fig. 7. Crack pattern governed by stirrup spacing in a test carried out by Gómez Navarro

which also coincides with stirrup spacing and location. Figs. 3a and 3b show the cracks in each of the beams
This type of result has made the fact that cracking models tested and the stirrup positions (black lines along the top
included in codes do not consider the presence of stirrups of each beam).
rather puzzling for some. For this reason, in the test series It can be seen that the beams with 20 mm cover are
of the Polytechnic University of Madrid (UPM) it was de- the ones that have a better correlation between the posi-
cided to include stirrup spacing as a variable to be studied tions of the cracks and the stirrups. Focusing on beam 12-
in cracking. 20-10, it can seen that the cracks have developed, in gen-
From the results in Table 4, which shows the mean eral, every two stirrups, approximately every 200 mm, and
and maximum crack spacing in each of the beams tested, that they also correlate rather well with the observed
it is difficult to make a clear-cut statement regarding how mean crack spacing of 182 mm. In beam 12-20-30 it can be
stirrups influence the formation of cracks. Despite the fact seen that each crack systematically coincides with a stir-
that cracks tend to develop at the stirrup positions, as rup position. In this case the measured mean spacing of
shown by the experimental results of Gómez Navarro [16], 274 mm is very close to the stirrup spacing of 300 mm.
it cannot be ruled out that cracks develop between stir- Similarly, in beam 25-20-10 the cracks coincide with
rups, or sometimes fail to develop at stirrup locations. For the stirrup positions (100 mm) and the mean separation
a better understanding, in addition to the mean and maxi- obtained is 114 mm. In beam 25-20-30, cracks develop at
mum crack spacing, it is necessary to examine the surface the location of each stirrup and other cracks develop mid-
of the beams in order to achieve a better interpretation of way between stirrups, resulting in a mean crack spacing of
the results (Figs. 3a and 3b). 152 mm.
The beams with 70 mm cover also show, in a general
manner, a tendency for cracks to coincide with the posi-
Table 4. Summary of results regarding separation between cracks tions of stirrups, but in a less homogeneous way than in
beams with 20 mm cover. The exception is beam 12-70-30,
Beam ID sr,m [mm] sr,max [mm] where cracks develop systematically at the positions of the
stirrups (300 mm), resulting in a mean experimental sepa-
25-20-00 131 234 ration of 281 mm.
25-20-10 114 230 From the above observations with respect to the ef-
25-20-30 152 258 fect of stirrups on crack spacing it can be stated that:
12-20-00 173 269 – Stirrups induce the formation of cracks. This effect is
12-20-10 182 320 stronger with smaller covers.
12-20-30 274 358 – It is not, however, correct to assimilate crack spacing
and stirrup spacing. Cracks sometimes develop between
25-70-00 227 423 stirrups and sometimes they do not develop at stirrup lo-
25-70-10 189 460 cations. Transfer length clearly still plays a role in crack
25-70-30 200 442 formation.
12-70-00 236 412
– Although stirrup spacing has a significant effect on the
mean crack spacing, the test results show that their in-
12-70-10 260 381
fluence on the maximum crack spacing is much less.
12-70-30 281 383
This is very clear in specimens with a 70 mm cover,

Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 1 75

A. Pérez Caldentey/H. Corres Peiretti/J. Peset Iribarren/A. Giraldo Soto · Cracking of RC members revisited: influence of cover, φ/ρs,ef and stirrup spacing – an experimental and theoretical study

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 crack control is maximum crack
spacing and not mean crack spacing, excluding stirrup
spacing from the cracking models of current and future
standards seems justified. Fig. 8. Diffusion of tensile forces is needed to crack concrete, thus explain-
ing the dependence of crack spacing on cover from a theoretical point of
3 Some theoretical observations view
3.1 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, i.e. the length needed to transmit a ten-
sion force able to crack the concrete from the bar to the ef-
fective concrete 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.

3.2 Differences between crack spacing at bar level
and on the concrete surface
Experimental evidence supports the fact that a large in-
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
Borosnyói and Snóbli [18] (see Fig. 10) can be cited as ex-
amples of such results. One possible explanation for this
large increase would be that it is 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 fctm/Es∼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 bar-concrete in-
Fig. 9. Tests of Husain and Ferguson, showing how crack width increases
away from the bar surface (note the very small crack width at the bar sur-
face)
terface. It is therefore clear that shear lag has a negligible
effect. So why does the width of the crack increase?
An interesting observation taken from the experi-
mental results mentioned above is that the crack opening
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 crack 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).

Fig. 10. Tests of Borosnyói and Snóbli, again showing how crack width increases away from the bar surface (again note the very small crack width at the
bar surface)

76 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 1

 A. Pérez Caldentey/H. Corres Peiretti/J. Peset Iribarren/A. Giraldo Soto · Cracking of RC members revisited: influence of cover, φ/ρs,ef and stirrup spacing – an experimental and theoretical study
Fig. 11. Cracking in beam webs: need for web reinforcement to control
cracking due to merging of smaller cracks (analogy with secondary crack-
ing or Goto cracks)
Fig. 12. Relationship between increase in surface crack width and cover
bearing on to 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.
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 c0 (if the ENV
1992-1-1 [20] model is taken as a reference, then as in the
cracking equation where the term 2c is given as 50 mm, c0
might be taken as 25 mm), if the crack opening is being lim-
ited for durability reasons, crack openings to be compared
with admissible limits should be computed using this refer-
ence value c0. However, the client should be advised that
the cracks actually appearing on the surface will be larger.
4 Conclusions
From the above considerations, it is 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 φ/ρs,ef
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 it is 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.
Notation
εc tensile strain in concrete between cracks
εs tensile strain in steel
εtension mean measured tensile strain along constant mo-
ment span at level of reinforcement
φ bar diameter
ρs,ef effective reinforcement ratio
σs stress in reinforcement at crack
Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 1 77
A. Pérez Caldentey/H. Corres Peiretti/J. Peset Iribarren/A. Giraldo Soto · Cracking of RC members revisited: influence of cover, φ/ρs,ef and stirrup spacing – an experimental and theoretical study

c clear cover to longitudinal reinforcement 11. fib: Model Code 2010, final draft. Bulletin Nos. 65 & 66.
d effective depth of reinforcement 12. Pérez Caldentey, A., Corres Peiretti, H., Peset, J.: Estudio de
Es modulus of elasticity of steel fisuración en muros pantallas. Final report, research project
No. IDI-20080937, funded by CDTI. Ministry of Science &
fctm mean tensile strength of concrete
Technology. Spain, 2010.
h depth of cross-section
13. Beeby, A., Base, G. D., Read, J. B., Taylor, H. P.: An Investi-
hef depth of effective concrete area gation of the crack control characteristics of various types of
k1,k2 model constants bar in reinforced concrete beams. Cement & Concrete Asso-
l length used for strain measurement (l = 20 cm) ciation. Research report No. 18, pt. 1. Dec 1966.
L span of constant bending moment zone 14. CEN: EN-1992-1-1. Eurocode 2. Design of concrete struc-
ncracks number of cracks in constant moment span after tures – Part 1-1. General rules and rules for buildings, 2004.
stabilization of crack pattern 15. CEB: Model Code 1990. Thomas Telford, 1993.
sr,m mean crack spacing 16. Gómez Navarro, M.: Concrete Cracking in the Deck of Steel-
sr,max maximum crack spacing Concrete Composite Bridges. PhD Thesis No. 2268, Lau-
sw stirrup spacing sanne, 2000.
17. Husain, S. I., Ferguson, P. M.: Flexural Crack Width at the
TS factor (< 1) accounting for tension stiffening
Bars in Reinforced Concrete Beams. Research report No.
w crack opening
102-1F. Center for Highway Research. Austin, Texas, 1968.
wm mean crack opening 18. Borosnyói, A., Snóbli, I.: Crack width variation within the
wmax maximum crack opening concrete cover of reinforced concrete members. Epitoanyag
x depth of neutral axis assuming fully cracked section (Building Materials, HU ISSN 00 13-970x) Journal of the
Hungarian Scientific Society of the Silicate Industry. Hun-
Acknowledgements gary, 2010.
19. Goto, Y.: Cracks Formed in Concrete Around Deformed Ten-
The tests carried out at the Structures Laboratory of the sion Bars. ACI Journal. vol. 68, No. 4. Apr 1971.
Civil Engineering School of UPM were performed within
the framework of the Estudio de fisuración 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 Tecnoló-
Alejandro Pérez Caldentey
gico Industrial (CDTI), a body of the Spanish Ministry of
Polytechnic University of Madrid – Mecánica
Science & Technology, under project No. IDI-20080937. de Medios Continuos y Teoría de Estructuras
The authors also wish to thank the head of the labo- Calle Profesor de Arenguren, s/n Escuela
ratory, José Torrico, and visiting students from Politecnico Superior de Ingenieros de Caminos,
di Milano as well as Francesco dal Pont and Andrea Canales y Puertos Madrid
Madrid 28040, Spain
Facchini for their help in carrying out the tests.
Fhecor Consulting Engineers,
Calle de Barquillo, 23, 2, 28004 Madrid, Spain
References apc@fhecor.es

1. Borosnyói, A., Balázs, G. L.: Models for flexural cracking in

concrete: the state of the art. fib Journal Structural Concrete,
vol. 6, No. 2, 2005. Hugo Corres Peiretti
2. Beeby, A.: The influence of the parameter φ/ρs,ef on crack Polytechnic University of Madrid – Mecánica
widths. fib Journal Structural Concrete. vol. 5, No. 2, 2004. de Medios Continuos y Teoría de Estructuras,
Madrid, Spain
3. Hogestad: Journal of PCI Research & Development Labora-
Fhecor Consulting Engineers,
tories, 1962.
Calle de Barquillo, 23, 2, 28004 Madrid, Spain
4. Rehm, G., Rüsch, H.: Versuche mit Betonformstählen, pt. I hcp@he-upm.com
(1963), pt. II (1963), pt. III (1964). Deutscher Ausschuss für
Stahlbeton, No. 140 (1963–64).
5. Krips, M.: Rissbreitenbeschränkung im Stahlbeton und
Spannbeton. Doctoral thesis, 1984.
6. Hartl, G.: Die Arbeitslinie “Eingebetteter Stähle” bei Erst-
und Kurzzeitbelastung. Dissertation, 1977. Alejandro Giraldo Soto
7. Rhem, G., Eligehausen, R., Mallée, R.: Rissverhalten von Polytechnic University of Madrid – Mecánica
de Medios Continuos y Teoría de Estructuras,
Stahlbetonkörpern bei Zugbeanspruchung, report, 1976.
Madrid, Spain
8. Clark, A. P.: Cracking in Reinforced Concrete Flexural Mem-
ags@he-upm.com
bers. ACI JOURNAL, Proc. vol. 27, No. 8, Apr. 1956, pp.
851–862.
9. Farra, B., Jaccoud, J.-P.: Influence du Beton et de l’armature
sur la fissuration des structures en Beton. Rapport des essais
de tirants sous deformation imposée de courte durée. Dé-
partement de Génie Civil, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de
Joan Peset Iribarren
Lausanne, Nov 1993, pub. No. 140. Comsaemte – Gestión del Conocimiento
10. Broms, B. B.: Stress Distribution in Reinforced Concrete e Innovación Tecnológica, S.A.,
Members with Tension Crack. Journal of the American Con- Edificio Numancia 1. Viriato, 47,
crete Institute. Sept 1965. 08014 Barcelona, Spain

78 Structural Concrete 14 (2013), No. 1