Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/structures

Experiences on early age cracking of wall-on-slab concrete structures T

a,⁎ b c d e
Agnieszka Jędrzejewska , Fragkoulis Kanavaris , Mariusz Zych , Dirk Schlicke , Miguel Azenha
a
Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice, Poland
b
Specialist Technology and Research, ADE, ARUP, London, UK
c
Department of Prestressed Concrete Structures, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Cracow University of Technology, Cracow, Poland
d
Institute of Structural Concrete, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria
e
Department of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, University of Minho, Guimarães, Portugal

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: This paper is an effect of coordinated efforts of Working Group 7 of RILEM TC 254-CMS: Thermal cracking in
Restrained imposed deformations massive concrete structures. The paper deals with a negative effect of restrained hardening-induced strains in
Wall-on-slab structures reinforced concrete wall-on-slab structures which is cracks formed at the stage of construction of the walls. The
Early age cracking aim of the paper was to collect real-life examples of wall-on-slab structures in which hardening-induced cracking
Crack width control
was reported, and make a comparative study of these cases to observe patterns and trends on the cracking
behaviour of such elements. The study covered a set of almost 20 cases with detailed material and technological
data as well as observed cracking patterns. Characteristics of these structures which determine the capacity of
crack development were indicated. In addition, for chosen cases the expected crack width was calculated and
compared with the measured value. The calculations were performed with the use of current standardised
guidance (EN 1992-3 and CIRIA C766) using an approach available at the design stage. This investigation
showed that the method of CIRIA C766, being less conservative, consistently predicts smaller crack widths for a
fixed set of assumptions compared to EN 1992-3, and both methods showed important discrepancies between the
predicted and measured values of crack widths. Changes in calculation methods were proposed to improve the
predictability of crack width calculations in wall-on-slab structures under restrained hardening-induced strains.

1. Introduction platform for an open discussion on the current understanding of early

1.1. Scope and range of the study
Early age cracking of concrete is a well-known phenomenon in
concrete structures, especially for mass concrete, but also for some
particular member types such as thin slabs or wall-on-slab structures. A
profound overview on the state-of-the-art can be found in the Report of
RILEM TC 254-CMS [1]. However, the problem of early age cracking of
concrete appears to remain as relevant as never before, even though the
existing theoretical understanding of this type of cracking has improved
significantly over the last decades.
During the discussions within the RILEM TC 254-CMS many cases of
early age cracking were brought up by the participants from both the
literature and their personal experiences, and have been discussed. The
portfolio ranged from relatively thin wall-on-slab structures (with wall
thickness of as little as 30 cm) to massive dam structures, and from
unexpected albeit acceptable to detrimental cracking. It was also found
that a synthetic comparison of these cases could serve as a reliable
age cracking. The issue of hardening-induced cracking of massive
concrete structures in which cracking was governed predominantly by
internal restraint due to massivity, i.e. geometrical significance of an
element with relevance to likelihood of cracking, is discussed elsewhere
[2]. This paper, in turn, investigates real-life cases of wall-on-slab
structures in which early age cracking due to external restraint of im-
posed strains was observed. The study covered a set of almost 20 cases
including walls in bridges, tunnels, tanks and other containments, and
retaining walls. In each case characterisation of the material, geometry
as well as conditions of casting and curing were specified to the
available level of detail and the cracking pattern was presented and
discussed. It should be emphasised, however, that due to the nature of
the analysed cases (in situ, often a posteriori observations) not all re-
levant data was available. Detailed description of the cases can be found
in the Appendix to this paper.
The paper presents a summary of the investigated cases. An im-
portant part of this summary is an elaborated characterisation of
cracking patterns, including location, amount, spacing and shape of

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: agnieszka.jedrzejewska@polsl.pl (A. Jędrzejewska).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2020.06.013
Received 13 November 2019; Received in revised form 12 May 2020; Accepted 9 June 2020
Available online 04 September 2020
2352-0124/ © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of Institution of Structural Engineers. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
A. Jędrzejewska, et al.
cracks with regard to the specific properties of each case. Wherever
possible/relevant, the expected crack width was estimated using cur-
rent standardised guidance in Europe (EN 1992-3 [3] and CIRIA C766
[4]) and compared with the measured crack width. Since not all the
necessary data was available, some assumptions had to be made to
perform the corresponding calculations. Such an approach is compar-
able with the available knowledge of an engineer at the design stage,
thus it may be assumed as representative. In many cases, the engineer
will have to proceed with even less informed assumptions due to the
absence of information on material properties.
The aim of this study was twofold. On one hand, the goal was to
make a comparative study of real-life examples of wall-on-slab struc-
tures to observe patterns and trends in the cracking behaviour of such
elements and indicate factors having an impact on their cracking ca-
pacity. The other goal was to evaluate the predictive quality of current
methods for crack width calculation. Both these goals are related to the
design of reinforcement, which is currently based on crack width con-
trol.
1.2. Restraint-induced cracking in wall-on-slab-structures at early age
Cracking of reinforced concrete structures results from the action of
various loads. In design, loads commonly taken into account are ex-
ternal loads (e.g. service, environmental) or temperature variations
predicted during the service life of the structure. Loads resulting from
restrained volumetric changes of concrete generating imposed strains,
including temperature changes and autogenous shrinkage during the
cement hydration process as well as their further superposition to
subsequent drying shrinkage, are usually not directly taken into con-
sideration. Following the Eurocode 2 [5], stresses resulting from re-
straint of these imposed strains and their associated cracking may be
controlled by minimum reinforcement for crack width control. But this
solution implies several empirical modifications to the formula to cal-
culate minimum reinforcement in order to reflect practical experience
[6], so that it can only be seen as a pragmatic solution which is gen-
erally over-conservative.
As already mentioned, early age volumetric changes induce strains
in concrete elements which, if restrained, generate stresses. These
stresses can be caused by temperature difference within an element (the
so-called self-induced, self-equilibrating or eigen-stresses [7]) – such
stresses are mainly important in massive concrete elements such as
foundation blocks/rafts and dams. Stresses induced by early age volu-
metric changes appear also in non-massive elements due to their sup-
port conditions, and can be further exacerbated in cases where the mix
proportions promote additional autogenous shrinkage deformations. In
wall-on-slab, semi-massive or even thin structures, stresses are gener-
ated in early ages due to the eccentric restraint exerted to the walls by
their foundations. The decisive stress distribution in such structural
elements varies throughout the structure and depends on the magnitude
of the imposed deformations in the wall, stiffness ratios between the
wall and foundation as well as length-to–height ratio of the wall, i.e. a
ratio relevant to a potential cracking pattern. A comprehensive over-
view of this behaviour is given in [8,9].
When the tensile capacity of concrete of the wall is reached, tensile
stresses lead to formation of cracks. Theoretically, the first crack ap-
pears at half length of the wall, near the joint with the underlying
foundation, and develops toward the top edge of the wall. This crack
can be followed by other cracks, which appear at a certain distance
from one another and reach a certain height. The final cracking pattern
depends on the number of factors described before as well as on the
support conditions (number of restrained edges) [3,4,10]. In more
massive structures (massive walls with the thickness of > 0.8 m)
different modes of cracking can be observed. At first, surface cracks can
appear at the time of the maximum temperature which occurs around
1–3 days after casting (depending on geometrical, material and tech-
nological conditions of a given case) while through cracking would
2521
Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549
develop later with ongoing cooling, sometimes even after 28 days. In
case of structures with lower massivity (e.g. tank walls) non-linear
temperature gradients over the width of the wall are much smaller in
the period of intense temperature decrease and therefore, self-equili-
brated stresses are smaller, too. By this, the risk of surface cracking is
mitigated, whereas the first cracking may already cause through cracks.
Therefore, the term “early age” commonly used in the literature of the
subject to describe hardening-induced cracking might be somewhat
misleading, yet for consistency it will be used in the paper.
In safety-critical and liquid-retaining structures such as liquid sto-
rage tanks and nuclear containments cracking, especially deep and
through cracking, impairs tightness and promotes leakage of aggressive
liquids or radioactive elements. Such cracking is a limit state failure
which can lead to environmental catastrophe [11–14]. Formation of
surface cracking, in turn, promotes ingress of corrosive substances
which may then lead to reinforcement corrosion and ultimately, spilling
of concrete. Such cracking is a durability issue [15]. In any case, aes-
thetics or even functionality of the structure may be impaired [16].
2. Comparative study
This section discusses the early age cracking observed in wall-on-
slab structures based on the evidence collected from several case stu-
dies, which are described in detail in the Appendix to this paper. The
structures were divided into groups with comparable characteristics
resulting from their design functions (mix composition, geometry,
construction technology, restraining conditions), and cover typical ex-
ternally-restrained structures susceptible to early age thermal cracking:
walls in bridges, tanks, tunnels, radiation protection buildings and re-
taining walls. The case studies are based mostly on published data, thus
references are provided where more detailed descriptions as well as – in
some cases – forensic analyses are available.
The presented cases of early age cracking in wall-on-slab structures
were compared in a tabulated summary in which the decisive char-
acteristics of the structures and parameters of the observed cracking
patterns were collected (see Table 1). The following sections discuss the
characteristics chosen for this comparison and their significance on the
cracking tendency and cracking pattern.
2.1. Massivity of the element
Surface modulus of the element, m [m 1], was chosen as a measure
of massivity. It is defined as a ratio between the total area of exposed
surfaces and the volume of the element [17] and is relevant to the risk
of thermal cracking. The proposed measure takes into consideration
geometrical characteristics of the structure and for simple geometries
like the ones discussed in the paper is essentially the path which heat
must pass from the core of the element to the ambience, and is math-
ematically expressed as the inverse of it. Although the authors are
aware that there exist more profound measures of massivity assessment,
e.g. by ULM AND COUSSY [18], from practical point of view surface
modulus seems to be a useful and adequate measure.
According to FLAGA [17], the structure can be classified as massive
when its surface modulus is 2m 1. Structures characterised with
2 m 1 < m < 15 m 1 are classified as medium thick/semi-massive, in
which shrinkage strains due to drying start to become of importance
comparable to thermal strains and in which the influence of external
restraint becomes more visible. The authors point out, however, that
the proposed range for semi-massive structures is very wide and in-
cludes walls with thickness below 0.3 m in which thermal effects be-
come less important or even negligible. The presented cases varied
between m = 1.63 to 6.67 m 1 (m = 3.5m 1). Regarding the type of
cracking (surface cracks vs. through cracks), no significant difference
between m 2 m 1 and m > 2 m 1 was observed.
 Table 1
Detailed characteristics of structures in analysed case studies.
Geometry Cement Technological conditions Reinforcement Early-age cracking charcterisation
characteristics degree [%]
A. Jędrzejewska, et al.

Massivity m L/H AW/AF IW/IF Type Amount Important casting/curing Edges Height Width Average Comments
[m-1] [kg/m3] conditions restrained [hcr/H] [mm] spacing
[m]

Walls in bridges A.1 highway 1.63 3 1.14 27.71 CEM I 365 successive bay base 0.27 0.3 0.2 to 5.0
bridge - segment 42.5N construction; casting of 0.4
1 wall commenced at least 2
A.1 highway 2.8 weeks after foundation base + 1 2.0 cracks in segment 2A are not
bridge - segment side typical (L/H=3 - SHORT
2 WALL)
A.1 highway 2 base + 1 3.0
bridge - segment side
3
A.2 road bridge 1.67 2.3 0.83 25.59 CEM I 350 base 0.33 0.15 0.1 to 2.7
42.5N 0.3
A.2 river bridge 1.67 2.1 1.09 58.35 base 0.2 < 0.2 no data
A.3 bridge walls 2.5 4.9 0.93 25.81 CEM I 380 casting of wall base (+ 0.5 1 0.1 to 1.8 influence of bridge deck on
in frame 52.5N commenced 3-4 months later top) 0.3 cracks height and cracking
structures after foundation pattern
A.4 bridge 5.9 38 ∼0.34 ∼0.003 CEM I 450 barrier wall cast over old base 0.42 1 0.2 to 0.8 barrier wall cast over old deck
barrier walls deck slab generating 0.3 slab generating almost full
almost full base restraint base restraint

Tank walls A.5 cylindrical 4.44 2.55 2.43 8.96 CEM II/ 330 alternate bay base + 2 1.4 (ext) / 0.72 0.5 0.2 to 1.73 / 2.31

2522
sludge chamber B-S construction; concrete sides (int) 0.3
32.5R walls cured for 7 days by
water pouring
A.6 rectangual 2.67 16.8 0.4 0.01 CEM 330 vertical and horizontal base 1.05 1 0.1 to 0.8
rank - phase 2 III/A lifts 0.3
42.5
A.6 rectangual 4 5.1 1.11 5.98 CEM II/ 330 base + 1 1.26 1 up to 1.1 segment restrained by
rank - phase 4 B-S side 0.2 intensively cracked previous
32.5R lift with significantly reduced
stifness
A.7 reactor tank 3.01 2.5 0.24 0.0006 CEM 380 base + 2 1.78 0.4 0.1 to 0.2
III/A sides 0.15
32.5N
A.8 ring of 2.52 no data 1.21 0.045 no data no data casting of walls base 0.24 1 up to 1.0
cylindrical water commenced 2 months 0.5
tank after foundation
A.9 cylindrical 6.67 1.5 0.68 0.0081 no data no data alternate bay construction base / base 1.4 (ext) / 0.65 0.3 no data 0.9 cracks in base-restrained
industrial sewage + 2 sides (int) segments vertical with
tank additional slip cracks at the
ends; in segments restrained
along 3 edges cracks splayed
toward restrained sides

(continued on next page)

Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549
 Table 1 (continued)

Geometry Cement Technological conditions Reinforcement Early-age cracking charcterisation

characteristics degree [%]

Massivity m L/H AW/AF IW/IF Type Amount Important casting/curing Edges Height Width Average Comments
A. Jędrzejewska, et al.

[m-1] [kg/m3] conditions restrained [hcr/H] [mm] spacing

[m]

Tunnel walls A.10 road tunnel 1.67 2.1 2.43 4.91 low- 430 successive bay base no data 1 no data ∼3.9 not stabilised cracking pattern
(1) - segment 1 heat construction
A.10 road tunnel (325 J/ base + 2 1 no data 2.9 cracks splayed toward sides
(1) - segment 2 g) sides
A.11 road tunnel 2 3 0.76 13.15 CEM I 320+128 successive bay base 0.3 (0.44 up to 1/ 0.5 0.1 4.0 cracks vertically aligned
(2) 42.5 + construction 3H)
FA
A.12 metro 4 0.75 n/a n/a no data no data construction with edges + no data 1 no data 2.5 vertical and horizostal cracks
tunnel complementary segments surface
in section

Radiation A.13 1.67 10.5 2.85 64.3 CEM II 266+154 base 0.26 1 0.1 10.0 one central dividing crack
protection containment wall 52.5 +
walls type 1 SCM
A.13 CEM II 350 1 0.1 to 2.2
containment wall 52.5 0.5
type 2
A.14 shielding 4 9 1.66 17.03 CEM I 400 concrete walls cured for 7 base 1.93 0.7 0.1 to 5.0
bunker wall 1 days by water pouring 0.2
A.14 shielding 2.35 7.7 2.04 19.34 base 1.13 0.6 3.8
bunker wall 2

2523
Retaining walls A.15 retaining 4.4 0.5 ∼1.44 ∼298 CEM I no data alternate bay construction base + 2 0.57 n/a n/a n/a cracks in construction joints
wall sides
Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549
A. Jędrzejewska, et al.
2.2. Degree of external restraint
Length-to-height ratio of the walls was chosen to estimate the
expected cracking pattern (extent and spacing). For a base-restrained
wall with an increasing L /H ratio an increase in the range of impact of
base restraint is observed with almost uniform distribution of axial
stresses along the whole height of the centre section of the wall for
L /H 10 [9,10,19–22]. It is related to reduced capacity of cracks de-
velopment in shorter walls where disjoining cracks (through cracks
along the whole height of the wall) cannot be fully developed. This
influences also the final crack spacing [19,23].
Excluding the two atypical cases of the rectangular tank with
L /H = 16.8 and the barrier wall with L /H = 38, the presented cases of
this study varied between L /H = 0.5 to 10.5 (L /H = 3.7 ). A trend be-
tween L /H and crack height hcr could be found, whereby cases with
L /H > 3 tend to form cracks over the whole height, whereas the cracks
tend to stop in shorter walls: in massive elements (m < 2 m 1) with
caloric cements (CEM I), significant relative stiffness (i.e. AW / AF > 0. 8
and IW /IF > 25) and low L /H ratio (L /H < 3), such as walls in bridges,
cracks reaching the height of 1/3H can be expected. Similar observation
can be made for semi-massive elements (2 m 1 < m < 7 m 1), in case of
which for analogical L /H ratio cracks reaching 1/2H can be expected.
As a consequence, the height of the zone requiring intensive horizontal
reinforcement to limit the crack width can be reduced [24].
The observed crack spacings indicate a correlation with the crack
height, as proposed in [19,25], rather than a strict relationship with the
height of the wall, as given in e.g. [3,5]. However, some cases show
much smaller crack spacings, which can be explained by secondary
cracking, see [19]. Also for AW / AF < 1. 0 and IW /IF 1, which means
significantly lower stiffness of the restrained element with respect to the
restraining element, beneficial influence of the restraining element can
be observed on reduction of cracks spacing in the restrained element.
However, limitation of the crack width to the value of 0. 15 mm even in
this case requires application of a very high level of reinforcement
( > 1.2%).
2.3. Relative stiffness
Relative axial/bending stiffness of the restrained element (wall)
allows to estimate the degree of restraint (from 0 to 100% at full re-
straint) against contraction/rotation, respectively to which the re-
strained part was subjected. In this analysis only geometrical char-
acteristics were used (the relative axial/bending stiffness were
expressed as the ratio of the effective cross-section area AW /moment of
inertia IW of the restrained part and corresponding cross-section area
AF /moment of inertia IF of the restraining part, respectively). Of course,
the relative stiffness is also subject to the ratio of moduli of elasticity
between the restrained and restraining member, but these are strongly
influenced by the temperature history and temporal evolution of the
elastic modulus in the restrained (and hardening) member. Both were
not sufficiently known in all cases. A mean ratio between the two
moduli at the moment of crack formation can be expected at the level of
30–50% [22], but this ratio can increase up to 80% in cases with slow
cooling.
The relative axial stiffness in the particular cases of this study varied
between AW / AF = 0.24 to 2.85 and the relative bending stiffness be-
tween IW /IF = 0.0006 to 298. However, no significant correlation be-
tween the relative stiffness and the crack height of the through cracks
appeared.
2.4. Mix composition
Mix composition, especially the type and amount of cement, was
also compared as it is well known that the type and amount of cement
determine the maximum expected adiabatic temperature of concrete
(see e.g. [26]). Nevertheless, the study showed that limitation of early
2524
Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549
age cracking risk in semi-massive wall-on-slab structures cannot be
achieved solely by application of cement with lower hydration heat.
Only 30% of the presented cases were made of pure CEM I. All other
cases were made of CEM I + SCM (supplementary cementitious ma-
terials), CEM II or CEM III with contents as little as 330 kg/m3 and still
showed cracking even up to the whole height of the elements.
2.5. Mechanical boundary conditions
Support conditions (number of restrained edges) characterise the
pattern of cracks: their location, extent, spacing and shape (see [3,4] or
[27] for summary). In general, in an end-restrained element regular
cracks along the whole height of the element should be expected while
for the base-restrained element cracks are vertical and the highest along
the centreline and decrease in height and slant towards free edges. A
combination of these is then observed in the walls with other manner of
support. From the presented comparative study it can be concluded that
the number of restrained edges has no direct effect on the width of
cracks but influences their amount and extent. This determines the need
to apply higher degree of reinforcement in a larger part of the structure
restrained along more edges in comparison to the case of base-re-
strained elements.
Relevance of construction phasing (change of support conditions
in time) in early age cracking occurrence must be also mentioned on the
example of a road tunnel in Sweden. Even though cement with low
hydration heat was used and the L /H ratio was = 2.1, the range of
cracks was predominantly influenced by the roof slab assembled after
the walls; as a result, cracks spanning over the whole height of the wall
were observed. Therefore, it can be concluded that the range of cracks
and method of reinforcement is not determined only by the magnitude
of imposed strains and temporary external restraining conditions at
early ages but also by additional restraints occurring at later ages (re-
sulting from the final shape of the structure) and mutual interactions
between particular structural elements. In standard cases cracks
reaching the whole height of the wall appeared always for L /H 10 .
2.6. Reinforcement
Degree of reinforcement characterises cracks spacing and width
[3,5]. Horizontal reinforcement is of interest for hardening-induced
cracking in walls as opposed to vertical reinforcement designed to
transfer service loads.
On the example of presented structures it can be concluded in
general that higher degree of reinforcement, independently from other
factors but in different range, allows to limit the width of cracks and
their spacing. In case of reinforcement degree in the range of
= < 0.24% 0.72%> the widths of cracks ranged between 0.3 and
0.5 mm while for the degree of reinforcement higher by as much as 1%,
i.e. = < 1.26% 1.78%>, the widths of cracks ranged from 0.1 to
0.2 mm . These observations confirm a general rule that the higher the
degree of reinforcement, the lower is the efficiency of its increase in
limiting the crack widths, which is demonstrated by the formulas to
calculate the width of cracks in various standards (e.g. JCI guidelines
[28] as well as CIRIA C766 [4] and EN 1992-3 [3] guidelines; this ef-
ficiency decrease along with an increase of reinforcement degree on the
example of Eurocode has been shown e.g. in [29]). Given the low ef-
ficiency of high rebar ratios at controlling crack width a discussion
could be raised – which is outside of the scope of this paper – about a
minimum design crack width that designers should adopt. This is re-
levant for structures in which crack width should be limited to provide
a designed level of tightness, especially in cases when attempting to
restrict the crack widths to 0. 1 mm for self-healing to occur (although
this value is considered possible to be even 0.15 mm [30]). The solu-
tions may range from designing of joints for crack control (as advised in
Annex N of EN 1992-3 [3] or [31]) through application of post-ten-
sioning to allowance of excess crack width development followed by
A. Jędrzejewska, et al.
post treatment aiming at sealing of the cracks (e.g. sealing coatings,
liners, water bars, resin injection [31]).
Moreover, in case of lower degrees of reinforcement, much higher
variability and randomness of crack widths was observed as the acti-
vated reinforcement in the vicinity of the crack may reach very high
strains with significant deterioration of bond properties leading to
limited control of cracking. Besides of that, the results in Table 1 in-
dicate that the required reinforcement for limitation of crack width
does not increase proportionally to the thickness of the wall.
3. Crack width estimation
3.1. Calculation of crack width according to current standardised guidance
In order to compare the crack widths observed in real structures
with the crack widths which could be assumed by the designers of these
structures, calculations have been performed according to the current
European guidelines, i.e. EN 1992–3 [3] and CIRIA C766 [4]. According
to EN 1992–3 [3] and CIRIA C776 [4], the crack widths in concrete
elements subjected to imposed deformations result from the product of
the maximum crack spacing sr,max and the difference between the mean
strain in the reinforcement and the mean strain in the concrete
( sm cm ) between cracks:
wk = sr ,max ·( cm ).
sm
The maximum crack spacing according to both methods is calcu-
lated as (see [3,4] for explanation):
k1·k2·
sr ,max = 3.4·cmax + 0.425·
p,eff
Coefficient k1 in this equation takes account of bond properties of
bonded reinforcement. Following EN 1992-3 good bond is assumed and
the value of k1 = 0.8 is provided, while CIRIA C766 recommends to
assume that good bond cannot be guaranteed and advises to take the
value of k1 = 0.8/0.7 = 1.14 at early ages under certain circumstances.
This has the effect of increasing sr,max by up to 40%.
The strain difference ( sm cm ) = cr for the member restrained at
its ends acc. to EN 1992–3 is calculated as (see [3]):
0.5· e· kc ·k ·fct ,eff 1 the following were determined: the restraint coefficient Rax according
cr = 1+
Es e·
while for the base-restrained member as:
cr = Rax · free
where Rax is the degree of external axial restraint induced by elements
attached to the element considered and free is the strain which would
occur if the member was completely unrestrained.
The effective tensile strength of concrete in Eq. (3) acc. to EN 1992-
3 fct ,eff = fctm (t ) while in CIRIA C776 fct,eff is replaced by the char-
acteristic tensile strength of concrete fct , r (t ) = 0.7·fctm (t ) . This has the
effect of reducing ( sm cm ) to 70% of the value calculated in ac-
cordance with EN 1992-3.
In CIRIA C776 it was assumed that after cracking the average re-
sidual strain in the concrete would equal half the tensile strain capacity.
Moreover, the calculation should be carried out considering both early
age and long-term strain. Therefore, the strain difference is calculated
with the following formula:
cr = K c1 [ e T1 + cd (3)] R1 + K c1 [ e T2 +( cd (28)
R3 0.5 ctu
Detailed information about creep (K c1, K c 2 ), restraint (R1, R2 , R3 ),
imposed strains ( ca, cd, c T1, c T2 ) and ultimate tensile strain ( ctu ) is
given in CIRIA C776.
The calculations were limited to the cases listed in Table 2 for which
data necessary to perform the calculations was available. In addition,
Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549
unified assumptions were made; the authors believe the assumed con-
ditions are the most typical to occur during the concreting of the
structure and could be assumed as one of the calculation combinations
by the designers. The following was thus assumed:
• calculations of temperature changes of hardening concrete were
carried out according to CIRIA C766 guidelines (Sections 4.2 and 4.4
of [4]);
• cement composition was determined based on the mean values
available in the subject literature [32] (Table 2.2 of [32]);
• formwork was adopted as the most common, i.e. 18 mm thick ply-
wood;
• the time the formwork was removed was assumed to be 48 h after
concreting the wall;
• the wind speed was assumed as 4 m/s (the value recommended by
CIRIA C766);
• the initial temperature of concrete mix was assumed as 20 °C , which
is characteristic for summer periods;
• the minimum temperature at night and the maximum temperature
during the day were assumed as 10 and 20°C , respectively (which
are not the most extreme, but very likely conditions in which the
structures could have been executed);
• calculations of autogenous shrinkage were carried out according to
EN 1992-1-1 [5];
(1)
•
calculations of drying shrinkage were carried out according to EN
1992-1-1 [5] assuming completion of concrete curing after two days
and shrinkage at 50 years;
• calculations of the restraint coefficient of imposed strains were
performed both according to the guidelines of EN 1992-3 and ac-
(2) cording to CIRIA C766 (see Table 3);
• considering the effect of creep, CIRIA C766 guidelines were used
(see Section 3.2.1 of [4]);
• concrete cover: 40 mm;
• aggregate type: quartz;
• coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete: CTE = 10 µ /°C ;
• age at early cracking: 3 days;
• long-term temperature change: T2 = 20°C .
Based on the above assumptions and the data contained in Table 2,
(3) to EN 1992-3 and CIRIA C766, the autogenous shrinkage for 3, 28 days
and final value, the drying shrinkage for 50 years, as well as: the
temperature drop at early age T1, the time of occurrence of the max-
(4) imum temperature t max , the maximum temperature difference between
the inside of the wall and its surface Tmax and the time of occurrence of
this maximum temperature difference t max (see Table 3).
Then, in Table 4, the selected values calculated according to CIRIA
C766 were summarised, i.e. the restrained strains r , ultimate tensile
strain of concrete ctu , the cracking risk r / ctu , as well as the calculated
crack widths. Also, the cases of early age and long term were both
considered. The effect of self-induced stresses, being definitely more
important for thicker walls, was also taken into account. Table 5
summarises the results of the calculations based on EN 1992-3, i.e.
tensile stresses z , cracking risk determined by comparing stresses with
the ultimate value (tensile strength), as well as the calculated crack
widths for early age and long term situation. Comparison of crack
widths calculated with both methods and the measured ones is pre-
sented in a bar chart in Fig. 1.
cd (3))] R2 + K c2 cd
3.2. Discussion of results and recommendations
(5)
Based on the performed calculations, it can be concluded that the
average change in crack widths between early age and long term for the
analysed cases is almost identical and amounts to 91 and 93% ac-
cording to EN 1992-3 and CIRIA C766, respectively. However, the time
of measuring the crack widths is extremely important, i.e. whether it
2525
 A. Jędrzejewska, et al.

Table 2
Data.
Case Geometry Concrete class Cement characteristics Reinforcement

Wall thickness Bc Edges LW [m] HW [m] BF [m] HF [m] Type Amount [kg/ Clinker [%] GGBS [%] Degree [%] Rebar layout
[m] restrained m3]

A.1 highway bridge - segment 1 1.5 base 22.2 7.4 6.5 1.5 C30/37 CEM I 42.5N 365 100 0 0.27 ø16 at 100 mm
1
A.1 highway bridge - segment 2 base + 1 side 20.7×2
2
A.1 highway bridge - segment 3 14.6×2 7.3
3
A.2 road bridge 4 1.2 base 16.8 7.2 9.0 1.3 CEM I 42.5N 350 0.33
A.2 river bridge 5 20.2 9.6 8.0
A.3 bridge walls in frame 6 0.8 base (+ later 23.3 4.75 4.5 0.9 C35/45 CEM I 52.5N 380 0.5
structures top)

2526
A.4 bridge barrier walls 7 0.38 (mean base 34 0.9 3.75* 0.6* CEM I 450 0.42 ø15 at 300 mm
value)
A.5 cylindrical sludge 8 0.45 base + 2 sides 14.0 5.5 1.7 0.6 C20/25 CEM II/B-S 330 72 28 1.40 (ext) 0.72 ø20 at 100 mm (ext) ø16 at
chamber 32.5R (int) 125 mm (int)
A.6 rectangual tank - phase 2 9 0.75 base 30.2 1.8 5.37 0.75 CEM III/A 50 50 1.05 ø25 at 100 mm (ext) ø25 at
42.5 150 mm (int)
A.6 rectangual tank - phase 4 10 0.5 base + 1 side 15.3×2 3.0 0.75 1.8 CEM II/B-S 72 28 1.26 ø20 at 100 mm (ext) ø20 at
32.5R 150 mm (int)
A.7 reactor tank 11 0.7 base + 2 sides 15.8 6.4 29.3 0.7 C 30/37 CEM III/A 380 50 50 1.78 ø20 at 100 mm + ø20 at
32.5N 150 mm (two layers)
A.13 containment wall type 2 12 1.2 base 2.0 1.9 2.0* 0.4 C25/30* CEM II 52.5 350 72 28 0.26 ø20 at 200 mm
A.14 shielding bunker wall 1 13 0.5 47.9 6.4 1.7 0.6 C35/45 CEM I 400 100 0 1.93 ø16 at 83 mm in two layers
(i.e. 41.5 mm)
A.14 shielding bunker wall 2 14 0.85 40.0 6.3 2.05 1.13 ø16 at 83 mm in two layers
(i.e. 41.5 mm)

* Assumed.
Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549
 A. Jędrzejewska, et al.

Table 3
Calculations of restraint factors and imposed loads.
Case Rax factor Autogenous shrinkage Drying Temperature at early-age
shrinkage
EN CIRIA C766 Early age CIRIA C766 Long therm Early age Long term Long term Temperature drop Max temp. differential
1992-3
at joint Rj at max crack width at joint Rj at max crack width εca(3days) εca(28days) ultimate value εcd(50 years) T1 [°C] tmax [hr] - ΔTmax [°C] tΔmax [hr] -
Rwmax Rwmax [με] [με] [με] [με] (inside) time at max time at ΔTmax
T(t) (t)

A.1 highway bridge - 1 0.5 0.56 0.42 0.47 0.36 15 33 50 167 55.4 37.7 43.3 67
segment 1
A.1 highway bridge - 2 0.43
segment 2
A.1 highway bridge - 3
segment 3
A.2 road bridge 4 0.66 0.5 0.58 0.44 172 50.7 32.1 34.8 66

2527
A.2 river bridge 5 0.56 0.43 0.47 0.36
A.3 bridge walls in frame 6 0.6 0.46 0.52 0.39 18 41 63 169 48.0 26.0 24.2 50.2
structures
A.4 bridge barrier walls 7 0.9 0.85 0.87 0.82 178 40.7 18.0 9.8 18.8
A.5 cylindrical sludge 8 - assumed 1.0 (no - assumed 1.0 (no 7 16 25 287 26.8 21.0 8.2 48.2
chamber guidelines) guidelines)
A.6 rectangual tank - phase 9 0.81 0.7 0.75 0.65 203 29.7 37.7 17.2 65.4
2
A.6 rectangual tank - phase 10 0.56 0.44 0.47 0.37 284 28.3 23.1 9.9 48.2
4
A.7 reactor tank 11 - assumed 1.0 (no - assumed 1.0 (no 15 33 50 181 32.5 36.7 17.9 50
guidelines) guidelines)
A.13 containment wall type 12 0.33 0.26 0.26 0.2 11 24 38 183 44.8 42.5 33.6 66
2
A.14 shielding bunker wall 13 0.31 0.24 0.24 0.19 18 41 63 173 41.5 20.5 12.5 48.4
1
A.14 shielding bunker wall 14 0.25 0.19 0.19 0.14 168 51.5 27.1 27.3 50.4
2
Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549
 A. Jędrzejewska, et al.

Table 4
Calculations of restrained strains and crack widths acc. to C766.
Case Early-age restrained strains Early-age “self-strains” Long-term restrained strains Calculated crack width Measured
crack width
Restrained Tensile Risk of early Early age Risk of early Restrained Tensile Risk of long Early age Early age Long term Ratio [mm]
strains εr(ea) strain age cracking internal age cracking strains εr(lt) strain term cracking external internal external wlt,ext,k
capacity εctu εr(ea)/εctu(ea) restrained εir(ea)/εctu(ea) capacity εctu εr(lt)/εctu(lt) restraint restraint restraint /wea,ext,k
(ea) strain εir(ea) (lt) wea,ext,k [mm] wea,int,k [mm] wlt,ext,k [mm]

A.1 highway bridge - 1 155 66 2.34 118 1.78 236 123 1.91 0.07 0.04 0.10 1.43 0.2 to 0.4
segment 1
A.1 highway bridge - 2 159 2.40 240 1.94 0.08 0.11 1.37
segment 2
A.1 highway bridge - 3
segment 3
A.2 road bridge 4 170 2.56 95 1.43 270 2.18 0.08 0.03 0.12 1.5 0.1 to 0.3
A.2 river bridge 5 146 2.20 228 1.84 0.07 0.10 1.43 < 0.2

2528
A.3 bridge walls in 6 149 71 2.10 66 0.93 238 132 1.81 - 0.1 to 0.3
frame structures
A.4 bridge barrier 7 235 3.32 27 0.38 427 3.23 0.32 0.58 1.81 0.2 to 0.3
walls
A.5 cylindrical sludge 8 179 55 3.23 22 0.4 458 103 4.44 0.08(ext) / - 0.21(ext) / 2.62 / 0.2 to 0.3
chamber 0.11(int) 0.29(int) 2.63
A.6 rectangual tank - 9 138 2.50 47 0.85 293 2.83 0.05(ext) / 0.11(ext) / 2.2 / 2.14 0.1 to 0.3
phase 2 0.07(int) 0.15(int)
A.6 rectangual tank - 10 83 1.5 27 0.49 186 1.80 0.03(ext) / 0.07(ext) / 2.3 / 2.5 up to 0.2
phase 4 0.04 (int) 0.10(int)
A.7 reactor tank 11 221 66 3.33 49 0.74 453 123 3.67 0.07 0.15 2.14 0.1 to 0.15
A.13 containment 12 78 61 1.27 92 1.5 124 114 1.08 0.04 0.04 0.06 1.5 0.1 to 0.5
wall type 2
A.14 shielding bunker 13 68 71 0.95 34 0.48 112 132 0.85 - - 0.01 - 0.1 to 0.2
wall 1
A.14 shielding bunker 14 66 0.93 75 1.05 98 132 0.74 - 0.01 - -
wall 2
Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549
 A. Jędrzejewska, et al.

Table 5
Calculations of tensile stresses and crack widths acc. to EN1992-3.
Case Early-age tensile stresses Long-term tensile stresses Calculated crack width Measured crack
width [mm]
Tensile Mean tensile Risk of early-age Tensile Mean tensile Risk of early-age Early-age external Long-term external Ratio
stresses σz(ea) strength fctm (3 cracking σz(ea)/fctm (3 stresses σz(lt) strength fctm (28 cracking σz(lt)/fctm restraint wea,ext,k restraint wlt,ext,k wlt,ext,k/
days) days) days) (28 days) [mm] [mm] wea,ext,k

A.1 highway bridge - 1 5.07 1.73 2.92 7.77 2.9 2.68 0.13 0.22 1.69 0.2 to 0.4
segment 1
A.1 highway bridge - 2
segment 2
A.1 highway bridge - 3
segment 3
A.2 road bridge 4 4.65 2.68 7.43 2.56 0.12 0.21 1.75 0.1 to 0.3
A.2 river bridge 5 < 0.2

2529
A.3 bridge walls in frame 6 4.86 2.12 2.29 7.75 3.2 2.24 0.11 0.21 1.90 0.1 to 0.3
structures
A.4 bridge barrier walls 7 4.03 1.91 2.10 7.21 2.25 0.25 0.49 1.96 0.2 to 0.3
A.5 cylindrical sludge 8 2.30 1.32 1.75 5.85 2.2 2.66 0.06(ext) / 0.07(int) 0.16(ext) / 0.21(int) 2.67/3.00 0.2 to 0.3
chamber
A.6 rectangual tank - phase 9 2.54 1.93 6.07 2.76 0.06(ext) / 0.07(int) 0.13(ext) / 0.17(int) 2.17/2.43 0.1 to 0.3
2
A.6 rectangual tank - phase 10 2.42 1.84 5.94 2.70 0.06(ext) / 0.08(int) 0.16(ext) / 0.21(int) 2.67/2.62 up to 0.2
4
A.7 reactor tank 11 2.80 1.33 2.11 6.05 2.9 2.09 0.05 0.12 2.40 0.1 to 0.15
A.13 containment wall type 12 4.09 1.72 2.37 6.73 2.6 2.59 0.16 0.29 1.81 0.1 to 0.5
2
A.14 shielding bunker wall 13 4.23 2.12 1.99 7.23 3.2 2.26 0.06 0.12 2.00 0.1 to 0.2
1
A.14 shielding bunker wall 14 5.21 2.45 8.04 2.51 0.07 0.13 1.86
2
Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549
A. Jędrzejewska, et al.
Fig. 1. Comparison of crack widths calculated acc. to EN 1992-3 and CIRIA C766 methods and measured widths (for cases listed in Table 2).
includes only early age or a part of long-term behaviour already.
Therefore, in the absence of detailed data, the comparison of crack
widths should be carried out by their width intervals.
According to CIRIA C766 calculations, the increase in crack widths
between early age and long term cracking is up to 50% for the walls
which are at least 0.8 m thick. Thinner walls exhibit greater increase in
crack widths, reaching as much as 160%, as is the case for the thinnest
wall which was 0.45 m thick (case 8). In general, this relationship re-
sults from the fact that in more massive walls the temperature drop T1 is
definitely greater than the assumed temperature drop T2 resulting from
the changes in the ambient temperature. In case of the calculation re-
sults obtained based on EN 1992–3, this regularity cannot be observed.
The cracking criteria defined according to EN 1992-3 indicated the
cracking of the walls in all cases, while according to CIRIA C766, in
cases 8, 13 and 14, the risk of cracking was lower than 1.0. It should be
emphasised, however, that it exceeded 0.9, and additionally, if the risk
of cracking due to the influence of internal restraints (as defined in
CIRIA C766) was taken into account, then the total risk of cracking
would definitely exceed the value of 1.0. Therefore, it can be concluded
that the cracking criteria defined in both guidelines in the analysed
cases provided the expected result.
When drawing conclusions on the most important issue, i.e. on the
consistency of the calculated and measured crack widths, it can be
observed that according to EN 1992-3 the results were closer to the
measured values in cases 1 to 6, 9, 10 and 12 to 14. The model con-
tained in CIRIA C766 yielded better consistency only in case 8. This
does not mean, however, that the calculated crack widths were sa-
tisfactory in relation to the measured values. Only for a few cases the
consistency of the results of crack width calculations with the measured
values was satisfactory: cases 4, 5, 10 and 11 according to EN1992-3,
case 7 both according to EN 1992-3 and CIRIA C766 and case 8 ac-
cording to CIRIA C766. In the remaining cases, the calculated crack
widths were definitely smaller when compared to the measured values.
Uncertainty in both predicting the crack width and comparing the
calculated values with the measured ones can be considered in two
aspects. The first relates to measurements uncertainty as given by BEEBY
[33], i.e.:
• the load on the real structure is difficult to estimate,
• usually the load is smaller than the one causing a stabilised crack
spacing,
• other loads which have not been anticipated at the stage of the
2530
Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549
design or analysis may occur in real structures.
The second aspect concerns the assumptions of the crack mechanism
and the uncertainty of the data used for calculating the crack width, i.e.:
• variability of concrete tensile strength in the element,
• variability of imposed load (especially temperature changes de-
pendent on weather conditions),
• variability of tension stiffening phenomenon,
• the accuracy of the crack width calculation model,
• crack width variability.
Comparing performance of the two applied approaches it can be
concluded that for the same set of assumptions in the vast majority of
cases CIRIA C766 predicted smaller crack widths than EN 1992-3.
While this at first might be seen as unexpected since the model in CIRIA
C766 is relatively more sophisticated than that in EN 1992-3, it es-
sentially demonstrates consistency between the predictions of the two
methods and transpires the fact that C766 is less conservative than EN
1992-3. Nevertheless, comparing the accuracy of the two approaches
with the actual crack widths recorded on-site for the cases under in-
vestigation can be somewhat deceiving. While having similar assump-
tions for all structures and while all structures have unique exposures
(placement/casting temperature, formwork removal, etc.), obtaining a
comparable to actual crack width value with either approach can be a
matter of coincidence. This may induce to think that the practice of
calculation of minimum reinforcement is insufficient for crack width
control. Nevertheless, it must be emphasised that the presented in-
vestigation put the currently used methods to the test on situations in
which limited information was available, so the conclusions are in-
herently limited. The same situation may happen to a designer who also
works on a limited set of input data, and it is almost impossible to tell
whether the problem lies in the model, results from a mistake of a
designer (who did not consider all phenomena adequately) or poor
workmanship which may lead to undesired effect even if the design had
been performed correctly. Considerations should focus, therefore, not
as much on the predictive quality of the models but whether they can be
regarded as safe/satisfactorily conservative. It is, however, beyond any
discussion that if more project-specific data is used, better actual/pre-
dicted crack width correlation can be achieved. The factors which play
a very important role for calculation of imposed thermal–shrinkage
strain include cement hydration characteristics, ambient temperature,
A. Jędrzejewska, et al.
relative humidity, exact time of formwork removal or surface protec-
tion method applied, most of which were not available for the per-
formed study (and are usually not available at the design stage).
Although these phenomena can be more comprehensively accounted
for using CIRIA C766 compared to EN 1992-3, experience has shown
that crack width estimation in wall-on-slab type of structures can be
quite similar for a given set of project-specific input parameters [34]. As
such, the apparent crack width underestimation from CIRIA C766 in
this study may be attributed to the lack of actual project-specific inputs
and EN 1992-3 being inherently more conservative.
Therefore, in order to improve the predictability of the calculated
crack widths, it seems necessary to:
• correct the formula for the crack spacing, which currently results
from the member restrained at its ends, and not from the member
restrained along one edge. In case of the analysis of cracks from
imposed deformations it seems incorrect to assume in the calcula-
tion models that the crack spacing depends mainly on reinforce-
ment. Actually, in the elements restrained along the bottom edge,
the crack spacing, as proposed by ZYCH [35], is also a function of the
degree of relaxation, which depends on the degree of restraint of the
member.
• take into account in calculations probable and extreme changes in
ambient temperature which can cause correspondingly larger tem-
perature drops in hardening concrete. This recommendation results
from the fact that in calculation models crack width is a linear
function of the imposed deformation.
• take into account higher cement hydration heat and greater
shrinkage of currently produced cements resulting from higher level
of fragmentation of cement grains.
4. Conclusions
The performed comparative study on real-life examples of wall-on-
slab structures with hardening-induced cracking showed that the ple-
thora of concomitant effects which contribute to the stress states and
cracking development in these structures is so large, that the actual
interpretation is best to be made on a case-by-case scenario, as de-
scribed throughout this paper.
Nevertheless, the available data allowed to perform forensic in-
vestigation and observe some trends about cracking tendency in wall-
on-slab structures. The comparative study indicated geometrical char-
acteristics, including massivity, length-to–height ratio, relative stiffness
and support conditions (restrained edges) which determine the extent
of early age cracks development thus indicating the zones requiring
design reinforcement.
Wherever possible, the expected crack width was determined and
compared with the measured value. The calculations were performed
with the use of current standardised guidance – EN 1992-3 and CIRIA
C766 guideline – using an approach available at the design stage, i.e. by
assumption of some input data required to perform calculations. This
investigation showed that the method of CIRIA C766, being less con-
servative, consistently predicts smaller crack widths for a fixed set of
assumptions compared to EN 1992-3, and both methods showed im-
portant discrepancies between the predicted and measured values of
Appendix A. Case studies – detailed description
A.1. Bridge abutment walls
Most of structural elements of a bridge, such as piers or stem walls, are massive concrete elements. They are characterised by the surface modulus
of m 2.0 m 1 or less (which corresponds to the wall thickness of at least 1 m ) which means that there are almost adiabatic curing conditions in the
interior of such elements.
In bridges it is still common to use concrete mixes with pure Portland cement and crushed coarse aggregate in the concrete mix [36,37] as the
most robust method to ensure desired strength, durability and quality of concrete (Table A.1 presents compositions of some exemplary concrete
mixes used in construction of concrete bridges in Poland). High amount of hydration heat generated by Portland cement generates high early age
2531
Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549
crack widths. This was attributed to the uncertainty of the input data
used for calculation of the crack width. It can be therefore concluded
that Eurocode 2-3 provides greater safety margin than CIRIA C766,
which in most typical cases is a safer, but less economical approach.
Changes in calculation methods have been proposed to improve
their ability to predict crack width and provide more economical de-
sign. Most importantly, the formula for calculation of crack spacing
should be based on the assumption of base restraint, not – as currently
is – end restraint. Moreover, in calculations extreme changes in ambient
temperature should be taken into account as well as higher hydration
heat and greater shrinkage of currently produced cements due to their
higher fineness.
The study showed that early age cracking caused by restrained
imposed strains is not only a problem per se, but it has important in-
fluence on long-term crack development and service life design. This
topic is intended to be further investigated by the newly established
RILEM Technical Committee CCS: Early age and long-term crack width
analysis in RC Structures. Experimental works performed in controlled
conditions (i.e. specifically targeted to the study of crack width ana-
lysis/prediction), with “state-of-the-art” monitoring capacity, will de-
finitely bring about a clearer picture of the issue, and contribute to
pinpoint the role of each uncertainty involved in the process.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
This study is an output of the Working Group 7 of the RILEM TC
254-CMS: Thermal cracking in massive concrete structures. The authors
would like to acknowledge members of TC 254-CMS who provided
examples and data used in this paper, as well as remarks and insightful
comments to this work: Anders Hosthagen (LTU, Sewden), Farid
Benboudjema (ENS-Cachan/Paris-Saclay, France), Matthieu Briffaut
(3SR Lab, France), Laurent Charpin and Benoît Masson (EFD R&D,
France), Vít Šmilauer (CTU Prague, Czech Republic), Yunus Ballim
(University of the Witwatersrand, South Africa) and Rui Faria
(University of Porto, Portugal).
The authors would like to acknowledge networking support by the
COST Action TU1404 (www.tu1404.eu).
Funding provided by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and
Technology (FCT) to the Research Project IntegraCrete (PTDC/ECM-
EST/1056/2014 - POCI-01-0145-FEDER-016841) is gratefully ac-
knowledged. This work was partially supported by UID/ECI/04029/
2019 - ISISE funded by national funds through the FCT/MCTES
(PIDDAC). In particular case of the leading author, funding of the re-
search by the Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education within
the grant BK-298/RB6/2020 is acknowledged.
The contents of this paper reflect the views of the authors, who are
responsible for the validity and accuracy of presented data, and do not
necessarily reflect the views of their affiliated organisations.
A. Jędrzejewska, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549

Table A.1
Exemplary concrete mixes used for bridge construction [38].
Highway bridge Road/river bridge Frame structure Barrier [39]

Concrete class C30/37 C30/37 C35/45 C35/45

Water, kg/m3 161 151 153 160
Cement type CEM I 42.5N CEM I 42.5N CEM I 52.5 N CEM I
Cement amount, kg/m3 365 350 380 450
Water-to-binder ratio 0.44 0.43 0.40 0.36
Fine aggregate (sand), kg/m3 641 633 650 702
Coarse aggregate type basalt granite granite gravel
Coarse aggregate amount, kg/m3 1289 1176 1155 1030
Additives & admixtures, kg/m3 6 6 2 2
Density, kg/m3 2462 2316 2340 2344

temperatures: in the interior of a bridge abutment a temperature increase by up to 40 °C can be observed. Moreover, concretes made with crushed
aggregates are characterised with higher values of CTE. It should be, nevertheless, recognised that nowadays many positive examples with adopted
concrete mixes for mitigation of the risk and intensity of thermal cracking.
Studying the causes of cracks in bridges formed prior to their opening it can be concluded that in case of bridge abutments the hardening-induced
strains and ambient temperature are the only loads causing formation of vertical cracks; an exceptional case is that of unequal settlement of supports
[40]. Due to considerable temperature differences in the cross-section, cracks in the abutment walls usually tend to form on the surface, exposing
reinforcement, but because of additional action of the restraint by the foundation they might develop into through cracks reaching a considerable
height (even the whole height of the walls). Such through cracking may promote leakage of ground water from the embankment (unless further
developing process of self-healing reduces the width of so formed crack or even closes it completely). A typical cracking pattern observed in an
abutment of a bridge is shown in Fig. A.1.
The study presented in this paper covered distinct cases of externally-restrained structural elements of bridges, including typical bridge abut-
ments with a stem wall cast against a previously concreted foundation (see A.1.1 and A.1.2), frame bridge (see A.1.3), and also an atypical case of
bridge barrier wall (see A.1.4).

A.1.1. Abutment of a highway bridge

The first case study is a group of bridge structures in the highway interchange. The investigation covered 5 motorway bridges, 6 road bridges and
a retaining wall. In 5 of 12 examined structures intensive cracking was observed. The observed cracks were vertical, started at the wall–foundation
joint and reached 1/2 to 3/4 of the wall height; the highest cracks appeared in the middle of the wall. The cracks width ranged from 0.1 to 0.5mm and
near the joint the cracks were through cracks.
Fig. A.2 shows a cross-section of one of the motorway bridge abutments. The segments of the abutment had length of 14.35 to 22.24 m and a stem
of 1.5 m thickness and height of 7.05 to 7.78 m , without a back wall (L /H = 1.84 to 3.15, m = 1.63 m 1). The wall was reinforced horizontally with
16 bars every 100 mm . Concrete class C30/37 was used (concrete mix composition is shown in Table A.1 column 1). The foundation of the
abutment was cast on 19th Nov 2008. The stem was cast 15 days later, on 4th Dec 2008. 18 mm plywood was used as formwork, removed after
7 days. Cracking was observed in all segments of the abutment before the bridge was put to operation. Cracks of width between 0.2 to 0.4 mm reached
1/3 of the stem height (see Fig. A.3).
A posteriori analyses of the cause of cracking were performed: a simplified visco-elastic analytical study [41] and detailed spatial numerical
analysis with the use of viscoelasto–viscoplastic material model [42]. Input parameters for the material model were assumed based on the current
standards and literature of the subject while environmental conditions were retrieved from historical meteorological data (detailed input parameters
used in the analysis can be found in [41]). The performed analyses of the structure confirmed the cause of the cracks to be restrained hardening-
induced strains and reproduced the process of cracks development.

A.1.2. Abutments of a road and a river bridge

The same problem was observed in the abutments of a road and a river bridge along an express road in Poland. Geometry of the abutments is
shown in Fig. A.4. The abutments of the road bridge were composed of two segments of 16.32 m and 17.33 m length. Stem wall had 1.20 m thickness
and 7.27/7.15 m height (L /H = 2.24 and 2.42, m = 1.67 m 1). The abutments of the river bridge were composed of two segments of 20.24 m each.
Stem wall had 1.20 m thickness and height of 9.40 m–9.73 m and 9.25 m–9.57 m in each axis, respectively (L /H = 2.08 to 2.19, m = 1.67 m 1). The
walls were reinforced horizontally with 16 bars spaced at 100 mm . Concrete class C30/37 was used (concrete mix composition is shown in Table

Fig. A.1. Cracking pattern in a massive, relatively short concrete wall on the example of a typical bridge abutment of a highway bridge (thickness 1.2 m, L / H 3)
restrained along its base by a foundation [38], dimensions in [m].

2532
A. Jędrzejewska, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549

Fig. A.2. Cross-section of a highway bridge abutment, Poland [38], dimensions in [m].

A.1 column 2).

In this case also vertical cracks appeared, starting at the joint. In the road bridge abutment the cracks reached up to ~1 m height and the cracks
width was varying from 0.1 to 0.3 mm with some through cracks in the bottom parts. The geometry and cracking pattern in the road bridge abutment
is shown in Fig. A.5. In the river bridge the cracking was less intensive: cracks reached at most up to 1/5 of the wall height and their width did not
exceed 0.2 mm .
An expert study on the cause of cracking was performed (unpublished, private collection of the authors). Input parameters for the material model
were assumed based on the current standards and literature of the subject in relation to the applied class of concrete and concrete mix composition
while environmental conditions were retrieved from historical meteorological data. Spatial numerical analysis was performed with a material model
based on Eurocode 2 [5]. The results of the analysis showed that the cracks were caused by restrained hardening-induced strains while the width of
cracks was exceeded due to underestimated horizontal reinforcement (which design did not take into account additional loads caused by early age
imposed strains).

A.1.3. Walls in bridge frame structures

Another case study is related to early age cracking observed in 15 bridge structures along a highway. Only one of the examined segments was
uncracked. In the remaining ones the crack widths ranged from 0.1 to 0.5 mm . The cracks were spaced usually at 1.35 to 2.70 m and reached on
average 70% of the wall height; some of the cracks appeared at the whole height of the walls. Near the wall–foundation joint through cracks were
formed.
The structures had a form of single-span frame systems composed of two segments for each carriageway. The frame system consisted of two walls

Fig. A.3. Cracking pattern in highway bridge abutments, Poland [38], dimensions in [m].

2533
 JEKTOWANO PRZY UŻYCIU WERSJI STUDENCKIEJ PROGRAMU AUTODESK
ZAPROJEKTOWANO PRZY UŻYCIU WERSJI STUDENCKIEJ PROGRAMU
A. Jędrzejewska, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549

Fig. A.4. Cross-section of road and river bridge abutments, Poland [38], dimensions in [m].

Fig. A.5. Cracking pattern in road bridge abutments, Poland [38], dimensions in [m].

2534
A. Jędrzejewska, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549

Fig. A.6. Longitudinal section of a frame bridge, Poland [38], dimensions in [m].

with thickness of 0.75–0.80 m and a deck of thickness 0.90–0.95 m . The walls were monolithically connected with slab foundations (cast 3–4 months
before the walls). Concrete class C35/45 was used (concrete mix composition is shown in Table A.1 column 3).
A typical bridge cross-section is presented in Fig. A.6. The walls of the bridge had thickness of 0.80 m , span of 23.39 m and clear height of 4.75 m .
The deck had thickness of 0.95 m and span of 15.3 m . Hence, the elements were characterised by surface moduli of 2.50 m 1 for the walls and 2.25 m 1
for the deck. Horizontal reinforcement of 16 bars every 100 mm was used.
Vertical cracks were observed along the entire span of the walls spaced at 1.35 to 2.70m . The cracks reached on average as much as 0.8 height of
the wall and almost 1/3 of all cracks reached the whole height of the wall. The width of the cracks was between 0.1 and 0. 3 mm but 20% of all cracks
exceeded the allowable cracks width of 0. 2 mm . Fig. A.7 shows the observed cracking pattern in the walls.
An expert study performed to investigate the cause of cracking (unpublished, private collection of the authors) showed that the cracks were also
induced by hardening-induced strains in the wall restrained by foundation and later by the deck. As in previous cases, it was proved that the cause of
such intensive cracking was underestimated horizontal reinforcement.

A.1.4. Bridge barrier walls

Early age cracking in bridge barrier walls was observed in the Vachon Bridge near Montreal, Canada during realising its rehabilitation pro-
gramme [39]. Although this type of structure is not a typical example of a wall structure, it well shows the effect of external restraint on formation of

Fig. A.7. Cracking pattern in walls of a frame bridge, Poland [38], dimensions in [m].

2535
A. Jędrzejewska, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549

Fig. A.8. Cross-section of a barrier wall of a bridge after rehabilitation, Canada [39], dimensions in [m].

hardening-induced thermal cracking.

Concrete barrier walls (0.325–0.5 m thick), which were spanning segmentally every 34 metres across the 714-metre-long bridge, were cast during
mid-October 1996 whilst the concrete mix used was a neat Portland cement mix whose proportions are shown in Table A.1 column 4. Geometry of
the barrier wall, characterised with the surface modulus m 5.9 m 1 and L /H = 38 is shown in Fig. A.8. The steel reinforcement consisted of eight
15 mm longitudinal bars in the cross-section and 15 mm transverse bars spaced at 230 mm along the barrier wall length.
The formwork removal commenced at 24 h after casting and an inspection of the bridge barriers at 12 h after formwork removal revealed closely
spaced through cracks, mostly located at midspan. Crack spacing was approximately 0.8 m which is somewhat comparable to the height of the walls
(0.9 m ). It was also reported that no joints apart from the expansion joints between every 34 m long span were placed to control crack spacing whilst
the majority of the cracks were 0.2 mm wide and few others 0.3 mm wide (see Fig. A.8). In the new barrier wall cast over the old deck slab, significant
external restraint was generated by the slab whose concrete was more mature and volumetrically stable which could result even in near full restraint.
Thermal stresses, due to abrupt temperature gradients through the barrier wall, were established as the factor responsible for cracking occurrence in
combination with the relatively high autogenous shrinkage of the low w/c mix used. The high cement content, use of formwork with different
thermal properties (steel on one face and wood on the other) and the early removal of formwork, i.e. at 1 day after casting (solar radiation was also
found to have a marked effect), all contributed to early age cracking occurrence.

A.2. Tank walls

Geometry of tanks results from technological requirements [14]; they are usually built on a plan of a circle or a rectangle. The walls of tanks are
usually supported on a base slab or a foundation ring. For construction of tanks concrete based on CEM III/(A or B) cement is usually used to limit
hydration temperatures in the elements. Table A.2 presents compositions of some exemplary concrete mixes used in construction of tanks. They
should be water-tight structures which imposes harsher conditions for crack width control.
Tanks are usually realised in stages; if the height of the tank is moderate, the walls are divided into segments of the final tank height [47]. First,
every second segment is constructed and then the remaining segments are cast (alternate bay construction). If the height of the wall is too big to
construct the segment at once, there are also construction joints at the height [46]. Each segment is therefore realised in different ambient conditions
and the age of each segment is different. Moreover, the segments differ also by restraint conditions due to a difference in a number of restrained
edges. Fig. A.9 shows cracking patterns observed in typical tank walls realised in an alternative bay construction where distribution of cracks is
highly affected by different boundary conditions of the subsequent segment.
The study presented in this paper covered several cases of cracked tank walls with both circular and rectangular plan, and cast with different
techniques. Cylindrical tanks are discussed in A.2.1, A.2.4 and A.2.5, while rectangular tanks are discussed in A.2.2 and A.2.3. The discussed cases
clearly show the effect of different restraining conditions, especially visible on the example of a tank wall of a rectangular tank realised in horizontal
and vertical stages (see A.2.2 for details).

A.2.1. Cylindrical sludge chamber in a sewage treatment facility

The first example of tank comes from a group of cylindrical reinforced concrete tanks. 10 identical tanks were built for a sewage treatment

Table A.2
Exemplary concrete mixes used for tanks construction.
[43] [44,45] [46]

Concrete class C35/45 C20/25 C30/37

(tested)
Water, kg/m3 215 145 175
Cement type CEM III/A CEM II/BS 32.5N or CEM III/A
32.5N CEM III/A 42.5 32.5
Cement amount, kg/m3 438 330 380
Fine aggregate (sand), kg/m3 756 580 619
Coarse aggregate type gravel gravel gravel
Coarse aggregate amount, 962 1180 1080
kg/m3
Additives & admixtures, n/a 3.5 5.5
kg/m3
Density, kg/m3 2371 2238 2259

2536
A. Jędrzejewska, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549

Fig. A.9. Cracking pattern in thin, short construction stages of a tank wall with different restraining conditions on the example of a typical cylindrical industrial
sewage tank (thickness 0.3 m, L / H = 1.5) built in alternative bay construction method [48], dimensions in [m].

facility. The tanks had capacity of 8300 m3 and internal radius of 22 m . The walls with thickness of 0.45 m and height of 5.5 m were cast in segments of
around 14 m length (L /H = 2.55, m = 4.44 m 1) on a foundation ring. Geometry of a typical tank is shown in Fig. A.10. The tank was constructed
with an alternate bay technology. For vertical reinforcement 12 bars every 125 mm were applied. Latitudinal (peripheral) reinforcement was
diverse: near internal surface these were 16 bars up to 2.80 m above the foundation ring and then 12 bars every 125 mm; near external surface
these were 20 bars up to 1.20 m, then 16 bars up to 2.50 m, 12 bars up to 4.50 m and again 16 bars, all spaced at 100 mm. Concrete class C20/
25 was used with either cement CEM III/A or CEM II/B-S (content: 330 kg/m3 ). Concrete of the walls was cured for 7 days by water pouring.
In each of the tanks early age cracking occurred, causing water leakage during first hydrostatic pressure test. Detailed results of cracks and strains
measurements for selected segments of the tank No. 2 were presented in [46]. Detailed cracking inventory was also done for tank No. 4 [47]. Only
one segment (No. 5) was uncracked; this segment was cast as a segment restrained along one edge only. The lightest cracking was observed in the
segment restrained along 3 edges (No. 4) but kept in formwork for 10 days (in contrary to 2–3 days as in other segments): only 2 splayed surface
cracks of 0. 1 mm thickness appeared. In other segments mostly through cracks were formed with the width up to 0.2 to 0.3 mm reaching on average
1/2 of the wall height. The greatest width of the crack was always formed at ca. 1.1 m above the foundation ring. Fig. A.11 shows cracking pattern in
the most severely cracked segment (No. 1 – restrained along 3 edges).
The a posteriori analysis based on FEM model of the selected segments of No. 2 tank walls was presented in [49]. The applied model included
temperature development originating from heat of hydration, external conditions, development of shrinkage and mechanical properties in time. A
visco-elastic concrete model with cracking was used. Concrete material tests were carried out to obtain parameters for the model [45,50], i.e.
development of compressive and tensile strength of concrete, development of the modulus of elasticity of concrete, creep of hardening concrete
under compressive and tensile load, as well as the development of hydration heat. The calculated number of cracks, their spacing, width and
development in time were very close to those observed in the real walls [45]. Based on the calculations [49] it was proved that the design solutions of
vertical construction joints in which the degree of reinforcement is increased to ensure their water tightness (despite the use of a sealing tape)
negatively affect the cracking state of the jointed walls. This is reflected in the extended cracking (in the segments) which led to the occurrence of
leakage.

A.2.2. Rectangular tank in a sewage treatment facility

Together with construction of cylindrical tanks, a rectangular tank with the capacity of 30, 000 m3 was built at the sewage treatment facility [44].
The tank had plan dimensions of 98.35 m × 38.00 m and two expansion joints. The walls of the tank had height of 8.1 m and thickness of 0.75 m at the
bottom part and 0.5 m at the top part. One of the external walls was investigated in detail. Geometry of the tank with emphasis on the analysed
segment (SW 1a) in shown in Fig. A.12. The wall of interest was constructed in 6 stages. In the first stage the slab was cast, then the bottom part of

Fig. A.10. Cylindrical industrial sewage tank, Poland [47], dimensions in [m].

2537
A. Jędrzejewska, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549

Fig. A.11. Cracking pattern in segment 1 of a cylindrical sewage tank (external view), Poland [47], dimensions in [m].

the wall with height of 1.8 m and thickness of 0.75 m (L /H = 16.83, m = 2.67 m 1), and finally the upper part of the wall with thickness of 0.5 m was
executed in 4 stages: first two stages covered additional 3 m of height with two segments of 15.0 m and 15.3 m length (L /H 5.00, m = 4.00 m 1) and
the remaining two stages completed the wall. Concrete class was C20/25. First three segments were made of cement CEM III/A 42.5, the fourth
segment was made of cement CEM II/B-S 32.5R (in both cases the cement content was 330 kg/m3 ). 20 and 25 bars were used for reinforcement. In
vertical direction bars were spaced at 150 mm . In horizontal direction in the bottom part of the wall 25 bars were spaced at 100 mm on the external
side and 150 mm on the internal side. In the upper part that spacing was continued at 1.2 m , then equal spacing of 150 mm was applied on both sides.
Intensive cracking was observed in the segments of the first four stages. Geometry of the wall, construction stages, layout of construction joints
and resultant cracking are shown in Fig. A.13. Concrete of stage 2 was severely cracked (0.1 to 0.3 mm ) at the whole height of the segment due to a
very high degree of restraint. In the upper part, some cracking of up to 0.1 mm width appeared on the third segment while the fourth segment was

Fig. A.12. Rectangular tank at a sewage treatment facility, Poland [44], dimensions in [m].

2538
A. Jędrzejewska, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549

Fig. A.13. Cracking pattern in a wall segment (SW 1a) of a sewage tank (external view), Poland [47], dimensions in [m].

also intensively cracked (width of cracks was up to 0.2 mm ) – cracks reached 3/4 of the segments height and some cracks appeared even on the whole
height of the segment. This intensive cracking was attributed to application of CEM II (instead of CEM III) cement exceptionally in this segment.
The a posteriori analysis of the external wall of the tank was presented in [44]. The influence of heat of hydration and ambient temperature of air
on the development of the temperature were included in the proposed model. Viscoelastic material with cracking was used in the calculation. For the
calculation purposes material testing of concrete was performed as in A.2.1 [45,50]. Based on in situ tests and results of numerical calculations it was
proved that cracking of the segment cast against the existing one occurred directly above the cracks developed in the previously cast segment.

A.2.3. Reactor tank in a sewage treatment facility

Detailed measurements of temperature variations and curing concrete strain in another rectangular tank wall were presented in [46]; the paper
presents also crack development and crack width on both surfaces of the complementary segment.
The tank was designed without expansion joints and was constructed using CEM III/A-32.5N cement (380 kg/m3 ) to minimise thermal cracking
risk. The length, height and thickness of this segment were, respectively, 15.8, 6.4, 0.7 m (L /H = 2.47, m = 3.01 m 1). Its geometry is shown in Fig.
A.14. Horizontal reinforcement up to the height of 2.0 m was designed in two layers (reinforcement degree was = 1.78%) as an effective means of
limiting the width of cracks resulting from the restrained deformation.
In the tested wall the average distance between cracks localised at the level of 1.1m equalled 0. 187 mm on the southern surface and 0. 174 mm on
the northern surface of the segment tank wall. 90 and 83 vertical cracks at the level of 1. 1 m were recorded respectively on the northern and the
southern surface of the wall segment (see Fig. A.15). The average crack widths on the southern and northern side were equal to 0. 11 mm and
0. 10 mm , respectively. There was no water leakage during the first hydrostatic pressure loading test.
The a posteriori analysis using FEM model analogical to the one described in A.2.1 and the results of strain measurements by vibrating wire gauges
in concrete and of reinforcement bars were presented in [52]. On the basis of investigation of real-scale objects and numerical analysis it was stated
that during early age concrete hardening the northern side of the wall was more vulnerable to cracking due to stronger solar radiation acting on the
southern side. Moreover, in case of a 0.6 m thick wall and reinforcement degree = 1.78%, the widest crack occurred in the place furthest away from
the horizontal reinforcement (i.e. exactly in the middle of the wall thickness). The width of the crack in this location, depending on current weather
conditions, can be even twice as big as the width of surface cracks.

A.2.4. Cylindrical water tank

Another example is a set of cylindrical water tanks in another sewage treatment facility described in [43]. The set was composed of two biological
blocks with the outer diameter of 23.2 m and a sludge chamber of 11.7 m diameter. The latter one was executed as a monolithic structure with walls
joint with the foundation slab; in biological blocks waterproof membrane was introduced in that joint. Severe cracking was observed in the walls of
the tanks before putting them into operation.
The most severe cracking occurred in a sludge chamber; Fig. A.16 shows its geometry. The walls of the sludge chamber had thickness of 0.35 m

2539
A. Jędrzejewska, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549

Fig. A.14. Reactor tank in a sewage treatment facility, Poland [46], dimensions in [m].

with a trapezoidal ring with thickness up to 1.35 m . Concrete class C25/30 was designed. The walls as well as the ring were reinforced with 16 bars
spaced at 200 mm in both vertical and horizontal direction. The walls were cast two months after the slab. Almost all developed cracks were through
and appeared at the whole height of the joint ring (up to 1.75 m ), their width reached up to (or even exceeded) 0.5 mm and they were spaced on
average at 1 m .
Forensic analysis of the sludge chamber performed in [43] revealed the cause of cracking which was initially thought to be poor quality of
concrete. In fact, the actual strength of concrete was higher then the design strength (laboratory tests of core samples indicated C35/45 class);
additionally, concrete mix composition was checked (detailed concrete mix composition is given in Table A.2). Computational analysis of the cause
of cracking pointed towards early age thermal–shrinkage strains: the base slab was already mature and at the moment of execution of the walls
thermal-shrinkage strains were stabilised in the slab while they were developing significantly in the wall. Due to the high degree of restraint exerted
to the wall by the base slab the generated tensile stresses in the wall reached its tensile strength thus causing initiation of cracking. The study showed
that to avoid cracking, the tank should have been executed in three segment of about 12.25 m length each (it was not known whether vertical joints
were introduced at all) and the walls should have been cast not later than around two weeks after the slab. Moreover, the unacceptably huge width of
these cracks was caused by underestimated horizontal reinforcement: the analysis showed that the degree of reinforcement of 1.5–1.7% would be
required to ensure limitation of crack width to 0.10–0.15 mm (this would require application of 20 bars spaced at 100 mm of horizontal re-
inforcement) – the same amount of reinforcement was placed in the ring and in the walls despite much more significant thickness of the ring.

A.2.5. Cylindrical industrial sewage tank

Similar problem occurred in a reinforced concrete cylindrical industrial sewage tank described in [48]. The walls had 8 m height and 0.3 m
thickness and were supported on a 0.3 m thick slab. Geometry of the tank is shown in Fig. A.17. The connection between the walls and the slab was a
hinged connection ( 12 bars spaced at 200 mm in the axis of the wall). The tank walls were constructed in segments. Each segment had length of

Fig. A.15. Cracking in the wall of a reactor tank, Poland [51], dimensions in [m].

2540
A. Jędrzejewska, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549

Fig. A.16. Sludge chamber in a sewage treatment facility, Poland [43], dimensions in [m].

about 12 m (L /H = 1.50, m = 6.67 m 1). Firstly, every second segment was cast (concreting was realised in September), the formwork was removed
after 3 days and the gaps were filled with the remaining segments (in mid September and October), so half of the segments were restrained along
their base, and the other half along three edges. Segments were water-cured for a week after formwork removal. Concrete class C30/37 was
designed; cement CEM III/A 42.5N was used. Laboratory tests of core samples proved the design concrete class C30/37 indicating the mean 28-day
compressive strength of 37. 7 MPa and tensile strength of 2.9 MPa . Reinforcement near the external surface was made with 16 bars, spaced at
95 mm for vertical reinforcement and from 95 mm at the bottom to 55 mm at the top for horizontal reinforcement. Reinforcement near the internal
surface was made with 10 bars, spaced at 150 mm for vertical reinforcement and 80 mm for horizontal reinforcement.
The pressure test performed in May revealed numerous through cracks. The cracks were vertical in the center of the segment and splayed towards
the edges of the segments; they reached 1/3 of the wall height. Unfortunately, the width of cracks could not have been controlled as the cracks had
already been sealed. The cracks were formed also at the joint between the walls and the slab, mainly due to the slip at the corners. Fig. A.18 shows
the cracking pattern in an exemplary odd and even segment.
Forensic analysis performed in [48] showed that the cracks were not caused during the pressure test but in pre-operational phase due to
restrained hardening-induced strains (temperature drop of 10°C was assumed) and additional thermal strains caused by temperature drop during
winter season. The work [48] provides all detailed data required to perform computational analysis of the cause of cracking of the tank, including
ambient temperatures to which each segment was subjected, differential shrinkage strain between each segment and the slab, and cracking patterns
observed in all segments.

A.3. Tunnel walls

Externally-restrained walls appear also in tunnel structures. On one hand, this refers to typical wall-on-slab structures which are usually found in
tunnels. On the other hand, this refers to tunnel linings cast on a slab with a possible mechanical connection to the soil/rock at the outer surface to
which the lining was cast. In general, tunnel walls are likely to have an additional temperature gradient over the width of the wall due to sig-
nificantly different thermal boundary conditions at the outer and the inner surface. Besides, tunnel linings with mechanical connection to the soil/
rock show significantly different restraining conditions.
The efficient prevention of through cracking in tunnel walls may have several motives, ranging from prevention of leakage in linings without
independent waterproofing to the provision of very solid structures in environments with pronounced settlements. Moreover, inspection and repair
of cracks in tunnel structures are more difficult than in case of tanks or containments because of the limited access.
The study presented in this paper covered 3 cases of early age cracking observed in tunnels. Two cases are of relatively short and massive tunnel
walls realised in a successive bay construction (see A.3.1 and A.3.2), which behaviour was similar to the behaviour of stem walls in bridge abutments
(an example of cracking observed in a tunnel wall is shown in Fig. A.19), while the third (A.3.3) is a distinct example of a relatively thin tunnel lining
which exhibited a typical behaviour of an external restraint by rock [53].

A.3.1. Road tunnel in Sweden

The problem of early age cracking was observed in a tunnel in Sweden described in [54]. The tunnel having a rectangular cross-section was

Fig. A.17. Cylindrical industrial sewage tank, Poland [48], dimensions in [m].

2541
A. Jędrzejewska, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549

Fig. A.18. Cracking pattern in chosen segments of an industrial sewage tank, Poland [48].

constructed in stages with wall and roof slab panels. Various restraint conditions formed in different segments. A typical internal wall segment had
8.50 m height, 17.50 m length and 1.20 m thickness (L /H = 2.06, m = 1.67 m 1) and was supported on a 3.50 m wide and 1.20 m deep strip foun-
dation. Fig. A.20 presents the geometry of the tunnel. The concrete of C35/45 class was used with 430 kg/m3 of cement and w/ b = 0.40 (28-day
compressive strength was 53 MPa and tensile strength 3.68 MPa ). Concreting was realised in the ambient temperature of 0°C while the concrete mix
had temperature of 15°C. Formwork was removed 14 days after concrete casting.
Cracking was observed in a majority of wall and roof segments; some of the cracks were through cracks. Cracking pattern depended on the
restraint conditions. Fig. A.21 shows cracking in exemplary tunnel segments. Forensic analyses of this structure performed in [54,38] have de-
monstrated that restrained thermal strains formed in the cooling phase were responsible for cracking. Moreover, numerical study performed in [38]
showed that the cracking pattern directly resulted from the restraining conditions (number of restrained edges) – in case of base-restrained segment
main cracks were vertical and located near the center of the wall while in case of the segments restrained along side edges additional cracks spaying
towards these edges appeared. The cracks reached almost whole height of the walls as a result of an effect of a top slab of the tunnel.

A.3.2. Road tunnel in Norway

Examples for early age cracking in a typical wall-on-slab structure in tunnels can be found in the ~300 m long submerged part of the Strindheim
tunnel in Norway. The submerged part of the tunnel was constructed by casting of 15 m long segments consisting of a slab, two outer and one inner
wall as well as a top slab, see Fig. A.22. The walls represent a typical bottom-restrained wall-on-slab structure with L /H = 3. Besides, the outer walls
relate to the case with an additional temperature gradient over the width of the wall since they were cast against soil with additional permanent
50 mm-thick expanded polystyrene insulation, whereas the inner surface of the wall was covered with wooden formwork during the first 3 days after
casting which was then subsequently removed. The surface modulus of the segment was therefore m = 2 m 1. The segments were cast stepwise with
construction joints between the bottom slab and the walls as well as between the walls and the top slab.
Early age cracking was mainly observed in the outer walls, which was studied in detail in [25]. Hereby, two different types of cracking patterns
were identified on the inner wall surfaces of the segments (the outer surface was inaccessible). The first type was characterised by numerous small
and short cracks in the area between 1/4 H and 1/2 H but without visible concentration. The second type was characterised by a few longer and
vertically aligned cracks, reaching up to 1/2 H . These cracks had a width of 0.1 mm and showed a clear localisation and recognisable spacing, see Fig.
A.23.
The first type of cracking pattern was identified as a result of disadvantageous interaction of different stresses shortly after stripping the
formwork. In detail, the stripping took place at a time of maximum self-induced tensile stresses at the surface and the occurring temperature gradient
due to formwork removal from the internal surface only caused additional bending stresses over the width with tension at the inner side. Altogether,
the interaction of both effects can be seen as the reason of the observed surface cracking.
The second type of cracking pattern, however, follows the systematics of a geometrically set cracking pattern according to [19]. In these cases,
the restraint stresses due to external restraint of the wall reached the tensile strength of concrete near the bottom of the wall. Due to this, through
cracks were generated near the wall base which propagated then over the height (1/2 H of the wall in the present case). Crack height and spacing was
predicted with the mentioned geometrically set cracking pattern approach according to [19] with a suitable agreement.

Fig. A.19. Typical pattern of through cracking observed in short massive segments of a tunnel (thickness 1.2 m, L / H = 3) [25], dimensions in [m].

2542
A. Jędrzejewska, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549

Fig. A.20. Geometry of a road tunnel, Sweden [54].

Fig. A.21. Cracking pattern in chosen segments of a road tunnel, Sweden [54].

A.3.3. Metro tunnel

Cracking was also observed in the segments of a tunnel in France. The walls of the tunnel were constructed in segments, cast stepwise along the
length of the tunnel; two symmetrical segments formed the cross-section. The thickness of the segment was varying from 0.45 m to 0.50 m , height (in
plan view) was ~10 m and its length was 7.5 m (L /H = 0.75, m = 4.00–4.44 m 1). Exemplary cross-section geometry is shown in Fig. A.24a.
In a number of segments intensive cracking was observed with a lot of through cracks through which water infiltrated from the soil. An
exemplary cracking pattern in an internal plan view of the segment is shown in Fig. A.24b. Apart from vertical cracks, horizontal and splayed cracks
were also formed in the segments.
Forensic study of the tunnel was performed in [53]. Parameters of concrete for the purpose of the study were obtained in laboratory tests
conducted on a concrete mix analogical to the one used in a real structure [55] (blast furnace slag cement in the amount of 385 kg/m3 and water-to-
binder ratio of 0.44 was used in the concrete mix). Ambient temperature was assumed to be constant and equal to 20°C according to the actual
measurements performed in the tunnel, steel formwork was removed after 24 h. Increase of concrete temperature was 25°C (detailed diagram of
concrete temperature measured on site is given in [53]) while shrinkage strain development was measured in the ring test on the reference mix.
Tensile strength was determined to be 3.6 MPa . This data were used to perform 3-dimensional numerical analysis of a tunnel segment; the obtained
cracking pattern complied with the cracking pattern observed on site. It was caused by complicated restraint conditions: such cracking pattern is
typically observed in tunnels and is caused by the surface restraint of early age strains by the surrounding rock [53].

A.4. Walls in radiation protection buildings

Radiation protection buildings are type of buildings which primary aim is to confine radiological elements. They have to meet particular safety-
related requirements, thus their proneness to thermal cracking can be detrimental to the confinement function.
The walls of radiation protection buildings are most commonly massive concrete elements with a thickness of at least 1 m [56–58]. They are

Fig. A.22. Geometry of a Møllenberg tunnel, Norway [25], dimensions in [m].

2543
A. Jędrzejewska, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549

Fig. A.23. Typical pattern of through cracking observed in several segments of a submerged tunnel in Norway [25], dimensions in [m].

usually made of normal weight concrete with Portland cement [56,58]. Attributable to a considerable amount of concrete which has to be cast, the
walls are constructed in stages: concrete lifts are about 3 m high and the duration between lifts is about 2 weeks [59].
The size of aggregate has to be limited to assure tightness of hardened concrete [56]. Although most typically normal weight concretes are used,
especially in modern nuclear power plants, appropriate radiological protection can be also provided by application of aggregates characterised by
high bulk density [58,57,60–62] resulting in 60% higher concrete densities than normal weight concretes. These concretes are though characterised
by higher thermal expansion, greater autogenous shrinkage and lower thermal conductivity than normal concretes [60,63]. High-performance
concretes gain popularity in construction of radiation protection buildings. In their production Portland cement is partially replaced with supple-
mentary materials such as lime filler, silica fume or fly ash, which allow to reduce the hydration heat and creep [59,64]. However, lower density of
such concretes impairs their shielding properties. Moreover, its robustness is questionable – due to very high strength (class C55/67) and lower
ductility the cracks develop through aggregates which affects the integrity of the structure [58]. Normal concrete is also replaced with self-com-
pacting concrete to simplify the casting process. In case of self-compacting concrete, however, more severe early age effects are observed [65].
Exemplary concrete mixes used in construction of radiation protection walls are collectively shown in Table A.3.
The data on cracking observed in nuclear containments for operating nuclear reactors are scarce (or none), but this study refers to an example of
mock-up walls of a nuclear containment which were constructed in the project related to safety analysis of a nuclear power plant near Civaux,
France, which detailed description is presented in A.4.1. It is an interesting example of a massive wall with very high degree of restraint, i.e. the
degree to which the free deformation of the element is restrained ranging from 0 (free) to 100% (totally restrained), along the base (cracking pattern
observed in one of the mock-up walls is shown in Fig. A.25). Another case study is related to an X-ray shielding building (for details see A.4.2).

A.4.1. Nuclear containment in NPP

During construction of the Civaux nuclear power plant two mock-up reinforced concrete walls were built in order to evaluate the risk of cracking
of the real containment at early age, using two different concrete mixes: ordinary concrete (OC) and high performance concrete (HPC). Concrete mix
compositions of the two types of concretes used are shown in Table A.3 (column 1 and 2). The walls were both 1.2 m wide, 2.8 m high (in total) and
20 m long (m = 1.67 m 1 and L /H = 10.5 for the first lift), supported on a 0.4 m -thick raft foundation (see Fig. A.26). The main reinforcement of the
walls consisted of 20 bars spaced vertically and horizontally at 200 mm .
The initial temperature of concrete of the wall was around 20°C while of the slab at the moment of execution of the first lift it was 7°C. The
ambient temperature was 10°C. The wall was permanently kept in formwork. Detailed diagrams of development of temperature in the wall in chosen

Fig. A.24. Tunnel, France (private collection of Farid Benboudjema).

2544
A. Jędrzejewska, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549

Table A.3
Exemplary concrete mixes used for construction of radiation protection buildings.
Concrete type NC [59] HPC [59] HPC [66] HWC [60] SCC [65]

Concrete mix composition, kg/m3

Water 195 161 141 140 175
Cement type CEM II 52.5 CEM II 52.5 CEM I 52.5 CEM III 42.5 CEM I 42.5
Cement amount 350 266 420 350 350
SCM type none limestone filler & silica fume none N/A limestone filler
SCM amount 0 114 + 40 0 N/A 100
Fine aggregate type sand sand sand barite 2876 limestone
Fine aggregate amount 772 759 780 840
Coarse aggregate type N/A N/A N/A limestone
Coarse aggregate amount 1099 1100 1073 886
Plasticisers 1 8 6 0 14
Density 2417 2448 2420 3346 2233

locations measured by the assembled thermocouples can be found in [59].

Early age cracking was observed in both walls. In case of the wall made of HPC, only one crack appeared in the central section of the wall,
reaching the whole height, with the width of 0.1 mm (see Fig. A.27a). In case of the wall made of OPC, more macrocracks appeared (see Fig. A.27b).
There were two through cracks reaching the whole height, which effectively separated the wall into shorter segments, and then 6 other cracks
reaching around 80% of the wall’s height. The thickness of these cracks ranged from less than 0.1 mm to even 0.5 mm .
The observed cracking pattern is consistent with what should be expected from the dimensions of the wall. The walls were massive and large
thermal strains developed. Due to significant lengths of the walls, an expected through crossing macrocrack developed in both cases. Obviously,
cracking tendency of the wall made of OPC was higher than of the wall made of HPC where only one crack in the vicinity of the centreline was
formed. Cracking tendency of the wall due to early age thermal strains was confirmed by numerical study performed in [59] while the cracking
pattern complying with the one observed on site is provided by the analysis presented in [38].

A.4.2. X-ray shielding bunker

Another type of nuclear containments are shielding bunkers. As an example an X-ray radiation shielding building can be referred presented in
[67]. The structure of the building consisted of a steel shade roof supported by two reinforced concrete walls and foundations. The first wall was
0.5 m thick, with total height of 6.4 m and total length of 47.9 m (L /H = 9.04 and m = 4.00 m 1). The second wall was 0.85 m thick, with total height
of 6.3 m and total length of 40.0 m (L /H = 7.69 and m = 2.35 m 1). Both walls were reinforced with 2 layers of 16 steel bars in both directions.
Geometry of one of the walls is presented in Fig. A.28. The walls were made of normal-weight concrete with design cylinder strength of 35 MPa (C35/
45), however, the actual concrete strength ranged from 43 MPa to 55 MPa . 400 kg/m3 of CEM I cement were used with a water-to-cement ratio of
0.44. Both walls were cast in two stages. Wall in stage one was cast from the top of foundation up to the ground level (1.2 m and 1.1 m height for wall
1 and 2, respectively), and in the stage two was cast from ground level up to 5.3 m from the ground. The structure was built in a hot, dry desert
climate. After removing the formworks, the concrete wall was moist-cured for 7 days.
When curing has completed, cracks were observed on each side of the walls (Fig. A.29). The cracks reached up to 3.5 m of the wall’s height. The
cracks width ranged from 0.1 mm to 0.2 mm . Location of the cracks suggests that the cracks might have been through cracks. Forensic analysis
performed in [67] showed that the cause of cracking was the action of thermal strains due to cooling and autogenous shrinkage.

A.5. Retaining walls

This non-exhaustive list of types of wall-on-slab structures affected by hydration-induced thermal cracking is closed with retaining walls.
In general, the retaining walls can be divided into two main groups depending on the method they serve their retaining function: massive
retaining walls and counter-type retaining walls. While the first type of retaining walls provides stability thanks to the sole weight of the structure,
massive retaining walls can be affected by thermal cracking induced mainly by temperature gradients; this problem is discussed elsewhere [2]. The
counter-type retaining walls are much more slender, semi-massive or even thin walls, restrained along their base by a slab monolithically connected
with the wall. A case study of such a type of a retaining wall is presented in this paper.
A case of cracking due to thermal effects in a reinforced concrete retaining wall some 50 years ago is reported in [68]. The retaining wall was a
counter-front type structure with a total height from base reaching approximately 8 metres and was cast in 4.1 m bays. The wall, which was
segmentally cast during winter-spring months in the UK, had a variable thickness of 0.61 m at the bottom edge to 0.34 m at the top edge, and its
supporting base was 0.51 m thick on one side, tapering to 0.3 m the other side (see Fig. A.30). The longitudinal reinforcement considered was 16

Fig. A.25. Cracking pattern in a massive concrete wall with high degree of restraint (thickness 1.2 m, L / H > 10 ) on the example of a mock-up nuclear containment
wall [59], dimensions in [m].

2545
A. Jędrzejewska, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549

Fig. A.26. Geometry of a mock-up containment wall

[59], dimensions in [m].

Fig. A.27. Cracking pattern in lift 1 of a mock-up containment wall, France [59], dimensions in [m].

Fig. A.28. X-ray shielding bunker, Near East [67], dimensions in [m].

2546
A. Jędrzejewska, et al. Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549

Fig. A.29. Cracking in walls of a shielding bunker, Near East [67], dimensions in [m].

steel bars spaced at 380 mm centres at both faces of the wall whilst for transverse reinforcement, same diameter bars we used, spaced at 300 mm
centres. The average degree of horizontal reinforcement was 0.57%. It was mentioned that waterproof concrete was specified for the construction of
the wall using a waterproofing additive, whilst neat Portland cement concrete was selected with a 0.48 and 41 MPa w/c ratio and compressive
strength respectively, which is reasonable given the date of the construction of the retaining structure.
It was reported that cracking appeared in the walls predominantly in construction joints whilst the exact time of cracking occurrence varied from
some weeks after casting to immediately after formwork removal. The delays in construction of each bay seemed to play an important role in
cracking occurrence due to promoted differential volumetric changes between bays, also leading to uncontrolled cracking. It was concluded that the
primary cause of cracking in retaining walls is the thermal movement as this can be considerably greater than the shrinkage and where thermal
cracking risk is to be expected in such applications, successive bay construction may be more preferable than alternate bay construction as the former
allows the free end to contract prior to the casting of the next bay. The variation in spacing and widths of the cracks was explained by the random
local restraints. This randomness is the smaller the higher the degree of reinforcement. Therefore, in order to rigorously limit the crack width from

Fig. A.30. Cross-section of the retaining wall, UK [68], dimensions in [m].

2547
A. Jędrzejewska, et al.
imposed strains, a much higher degree of reinforcement would be necessary.
Three years later [69], one of the first measurements of strains, temperature and moisture of concrete as well as strains of reinforcing steel at
three retaining walls was carried out at the Birmingham University site. These results confirmed the much less significant influence of shrinkage
compared to thermal strains, and the fact that cracks first occur in construction joints. Due to the fact that the maximum temperature increase in the
examined objects was only 20°C , only two segments exhibited cracks between the construction joints. It was found that gentle and continuous
sprinkling with water, started as early as possible, is the most effective method allowing a better release of heat. In addition, for the studied ambient
conditions, it was stated that the most effective way to avoid high temperatures was to use steel formwork, through which heat began to be released
as soon as the concrete mix had been poured.
References
[1] Fairbairn EMR, Azenha MAD, editors. Thermal cracking of massive concrete
structures. State-of-the-art report of the. RILEM Technical Committee 254-CMS;
2019.
[2] Kanavaris F., Jędrzejewska A., Sfikas I., Kuperman S., Šmilauer V., Honório T., et al.
Evidence-based proposal of updated massivity index evaluation towards a pre-de-
sign assessment of early age thermal cracking risk and practical recommendations.
Construction and Building Materials [in review].
[3] EN 1992-3 Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. Part 3: Silos and tanks; 2006.
[4] Bamforth PB. CIRIA C766: Control of cracking caused by restrained deformation in
concrete.
[5] EN 1992-1-1: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures. Part 1-1: General rules and
rules for buildings; 2004.
[6] Bödefeld J, Ehmann R, Schlicke D, Tue NV. Mindestbewehrung zur Begrenzung der
Rissbreite, Teil 1: Risskraftbasierter Nachweis nach DIN EN-1992. Beton- und
Stahlbetonbau 2012;107:32–7.
[7] Ghali A, Favre R, Elbadry M. Concrete structures: stresses and deformations –
analysis and design for sustainability. 4th ed., CRC Press; 2011.
[8] Klemczak B, Knoppik-Wróbel A. Comparison of analytical methods for estimation of
early-age thermal-shrinkage stresses in RC walls. Arch Civ Eng 2013;59(1):97–117.
[9] Schlicke D, Matiašková L. Advanced computational methods versus analytical and
empirical solutions for determining restraint stresses in bottom-restrained walls. J
Adv Concr Technol 2019;17(6):335–49.
[10] ACI Committee 207. ACI 207.2R-07: Report on thermal and volume change effects
on cracking of mass concrete; 2007.
[11] Reinhardt P, Chadha G. Temperature stresses in prestressed concrete walls of
containment structures. PCI J 1974;Jan/Feb:76–85.
[12] Zhai Z, Wang Y, Wang H. Thermal stress analysis of concrete wall of LNG tank
during construction period. Mater Struct 2016;49:2393–406.
[13] Concrete design guide - No. 1: Guidance on the design of liquid retaining structures.
Struct Eng 2015;Jan:44–8.
[14] Halicka A, Franczak D. Projektowanie zbiorników żelbetowych. Tom 2: Zbiorniki na
ciecze. Warsaw, Poland: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN; 2013.
[15] TR44: Relevance of cracking in concrete to reinforcement corrosion, tech. rep.,
Concrete Society, London, UK; 2015.
[16] Kanavaris F. Early age behaviour and cracking risk of concretes containing GGBS.
PhD thesis, University of Belfast; 2017.
[17] Flaga K. Naprężenia własne termiczne typu makro w elementach i konstrukcjach z
betonu. Monograph. 106. Cracow, Poland: Wydawnictwo Politechniki Krakowskiej;
1990.
[18] Ulm FJ, Coussy O. What is a ’massive’ concrete structure at early ages? Some di-
mensional arguments. J Eng Mech 2001;127(5).
[19] Schlicke D, Tue NV. Minimum reinforcement for crack width control in restrained
concrete members considering the deformation compatibility. Struct Concr
2015;16:221–32.
[20] Emborg M. Thermal stresses in concrete structures at early ages. PhD thesis, Luleå
University of Technology, Luleå; 1989.
[21] Nilsson M. Thermal cracking of young concrete. Partial coefficients, restraint effects
and influence of casting joints. PhD thesis, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå,
Sweden; 2007.
[22] Knoppik-Wróbel A, Klemczak B. Degree of restraint concept in analysis of early-age
stresses in concrete walls. Eng Struct 2015;102:369–86.
[23] Knoppik-Wróbel A, Schlicke D. Computational prediction of restraint-induced
macrocrack patterns in concrete walls. In M. Azenha, I. Gabrijel, T. Kanstad, D.
Schlicke, and O. Jensen, eds.International RILEM conference on materials, systems
and structures in civil engineering 2016. (Lyngby). RILEM Publications; 2016. p.
49–58.
[24] DAfStb-Heft 466: Grundlagen und Bemessungshilfen für die
Rißbreitenbeschränkung im Stahlbeton und Spannbeton sowie Kommentare.
Hintergrundinformationen und Anwendungsbeispiele zu den Regelungen nach DIN
1045, EC 2 und Model Code 90, tech. rep., DAfStb; 1996.
[25] Schlicke D, Tue NV, Klausen A, Kanstad T, Bjøntegaard Ø. Structural analysis and
crack assessment of restrained concrete walls. 3D FEM-simulation and crack as-
sessment. In The 1st concrete innovation conference (CIC2014), (Oslo); 2014.
[26] Lacarrière L, Knoppik A, Leal da Silva WR, Honorio T, Smilauer V, Asamoto S, et al.
Hydration and heat development. In Fairbairn EMR, Azenha MAD, editors. Thermal
cracking of massive concrete structures. State-of-the-art report of RILEM Technical
Committee 254-CMS, ch. 2, pp. 13–46, Springer; 2019.
[27] Knoppik A, Torrenti J-M, Asamoto S, Koenders EA, Schlicke D, Ebensperger L.
Cracking risk and regulations. In Fairbairn EMR, Azenha MAD, editors. Thermal
cracking of massive concrete structures. State-of-the-art report of RILEM Technical
2548
Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549
Committee 254-CMS, ch. 8, pp. 257–306, Springer, 2019.
[28] Japanese Concrete Institute, Guidelines for control of cracking of mass concrete;
2008.
[29] Zych M. The influence of ambient temperature on RC tank walls watertightness in
research and theory. Periodica Polytech Civ Eng 2015;59(3):267–78.
[30] Edvardsen C. Water permeability and autogenous healing of cracks in concrete. ACI
Mater J 1999;96(4):448–54.
[31] Lohmeyer G, Ebeling K. Weiße Wannen - einfach und sicher, Konstruktion und
Ausführung wasserundurchlässiger Bauwerke aus Beton. VBT Verlag Bau und
Technik, 11th rev. ed.; 2018.
[32] Kiernożycki W. Betonowe konstrukcje masywne. Cracow, Poland: Polski Cement;
2003.
[33] Beeby AW. Fixing in cracked concrete, The probability of coincident occurrence and
likely crack width, tech. rep., CIRIA; 1990.
[34] Kanavaris F, Gardner A, Ito S, Chen F, Schlicke D, Zych M, et al. A comparison
between crack width control reinforcement estimates from different codified ap-
proaches. In Barros J, Pereira E, Figueiredo F, editors. 3rd RILEM spring convention
and international RILEM conference, Guimaraes, Portugal; 2020.
[35] Zych M. A new model for crack control in reinforced concrete tank walls. Part I:
Analytical investigation. ACI Struct J 2019;116(3):85–94.
[36] Biliszczuk J, Rajski O. Zastosowanie betonów wysokich klas w mostownictwie.
Proceedings of Dni Betonu. Poland: Wisła; 2002.
[37] Riding KA, Poole JL, Schindler AK, Juenger MG, Folliard KJ. Evaluation of tem-
perature prediction methods for mass concrete members. ACI Mater J
2006;103(5):357–65.
[38] Knoppik-Wróbel A. Analysis of early-age thermal-shrinkage stresses in reinforced
concrete walls. PhD thesis, Silesian University of Technology, Gliwice; 2015.
[39] Cusson D, Repette WL. Early-age cracking in reconstructed concrete bridge barrier
walls. ACI Mater J 2000;97(4):438–46.
[40] Owerko P, Winkelmann K, Górski J. Application of probabilistic tools to extend load
test design of bridges prior to opening. Struct Infrastruct Eng 2019.
[41] Flaga K, Klemczak B, Knoppik-Wróbel A. Early-age thermal-shrinkage crack for-
mation in bridge abutments – experiences and modelling. In fib Symposium TEL-
AVIV 2013: engineering a concrete future: technology, modeling and construction,
proceedings; 2013. p. 435–8.
[42] Klemczak B, Knoppik-Wróbel A. Reinforced concrete tank walls and bridge abut-
ments: early-age behaviour, analytic approaches and numerical models. Eng Struct
2015;84:233–51.
[43] Kmita A, Musiał M, Styś D. Problemy zwizane z zarysowaniem zbiorników na wodé
w oczyszczalni ścieków, Przegld Budowlany, vol. 4; 2012. p. 31–4.
[44] Zych M. Numerical analysis of cracking in hardening concrete of RC tank’s wall.
Czasopismo Techniczne 2008;3-Ś:227–49.
[45] Seruga A, Zych M. Thermal cracking of the cylindrical tank under construction. I:
Case study. ASCE J Perform Constr Facilities 2015;29(4):1–9.
[46] Seruga A, Zych M. Research on thermal cracking of a rectangular RC tank wall
under construction. I: Case study. ASCE J Perform Constr Facilities
2016;30(1):1–10.
[47] Seruga A, Szydłowski R, Zych M. The evaluation of sequential process of cracking of
wall segments in monolithic cylindrical reinforced concrete tanks. Czasopismo
Techniczne 2008;vol. 1-B:135–63.
[48] Halicka A, Franczak D, Fronczyk J. Analiza przyczyn zarysowań cylindrycznego
zbiornika żelbetowego ujawnionych podczas próby szczelności. Przegld Budowlany
2012;4:35–41.
[49] Zych M. Thermal cracking of the cylindrical tank under construction. II: Early age
cracking. ASCE J Perform Constr Facilities 2015;29(4):1–10.
[50] Seruga A, Zych M. Research of concrete at early age under compressive and tensile
stresses. Cem Wapno Beton 2016;2:65–77.
[51] Zych M, Seruga A. A new model for crack control in reinforced concrete tank walls.
Part II: Comparison with experimental results. ACI Struct J 2019;116(3):95–105.
[52] Zych M. Research on thermal cracking of a rectangular RC tank wall under con-
struction. II: Comparison with numerical model. ASCE J Perform Constr Facilities
2016;30(1):1–10.
[53] Briffaut M, Benboudjema F, D’Aloia L. Effect of fibres on early age cracking of
concrete tunnel lining. Part II: Numerical simulations. Tunnell Undergr Space
Technol 2016;59:221–9.
[54] Hösthagen A, Jonasson J-E, Emborg M, Hedlund H, Wallin K, Stelmarczyk M.
Thermal crack risk estimations of concrete tunnel segments – equivalent restraint
method correlated to empirical observations. Nordic Concr Res 2014;49:127–43.
[55] Briffaut M, Benboudjema F, Torrenti J-M, Nahas G. Concrete early age basic creep:
experiments and test of rheological modelling approaches. Constr Build Mater
2012;36:373–80.
[56] CEB-FIP, Bulletin 15. State-of-the-art report: Nuclear containments, tech. rep.;
2001.
A. Jędrzejewska, et al.
[57] Brandt AM. Concrete as a shielding material in nuclear energy constructions. Cem
Wapno Beton 2013;2:115–36.
[58] Meiswinkel R, Meyer J, Schnell J. Design and construction of nuclear power plants.
Berlin, Germany: Ernst & Sohn; 2013.
[59] Benboudjema F, Torrenti J-M. Early-age behaviour of concrete nuclear contain-
ments. Nucl Eng Des 2008;238:2495–506.
[60] Topçu IB. Properties of heavyweight concrete produced with barite. Cem Concr Res
2003;33:815–22.
[61] Maslehuddin M, Naqvi AA, Ibrahim M, Kalakada Z. Radiation shielding properties
of concrete with electric arc furnace slag aggregates and steel shots. Ann Nucl
Energy 2013;53:192–6.
[62] Lee SY, Daugherty AM, Broton DJ. Assessing aggregates for radiation-shielding
concrete. Concr Int 2013;35(5):31–8.
[63] Esen Y, Yilmazer B. Investigation of some physical and mechanical properties of
concrete produced with barite aggregate. Sci Res Essays 2010;5(24):3826–33.
2549
Structures 27 (2020) 2520–2549
[64] de Larrard T, Colliat JB, Benboudjema F, Torrenti J-M, Nahas G. Effect of the Young
modulus variability on the mechanical behaviour of a nuclear containment vessel.
Nucl Eng Des 2010;240:4051–60.
[65] Craeye B, de Schutter G, Humbeeck HV, Cotthem AV. Early age behaviour of
concrete supercontainers for radioactive waste disposal. Nucl Eng Des
2009;239:23–35.
[66] Zreiki J, Bouchelaghema F, Chaouchea M. Early-age behaviour of concrete in
massive structures – experimentation and modelling. Nucl Eng Des
2010;240:2643–54.
[67] Knoppik-Wróbel A. Cracking due to restraint stresses in early-age radiation
shielding wall. Arch Civ Eng Environ 2014;7(3):49–61.
[68] Evans EP, Hughes BP. Shrinkage and thermal cracking in a reinforced concrete
retaining wall. Proc Inst Civ Eng 1968;39(1):111–25.
[69] Hughes BP, Miller MM. Thermal cracking and movement in reinforced concrete
walls. Proc Inst Civ Eng 1970.