Materials and Structures/Matdriaux et Constructions, 1990, 23,358-363

Strategic reinforcement for controlling volume-change cracking in base-restrained concrete walls

G H A Z I F. K H E D E R , S A R A B A. F A D H I L
University of Mustansiriya, PO Box 14150, Baghdad, Iraq In this work the control of volume-change cracking in concrete walls with continuous base restraint was considered. Investigators and design codes have proposed several different procedures for the calculation of the amount and distribution of steel reinforcement required for the control of this type of cracking. All these methods provide amounts of reinforcement which are in excess to that really required. This is either due to simplifying the design procedure or neglecting the effect of variable restraint in the wall. Since crack formation and its width depends on the amount of total restrained movement in the concrete member, steel reinforcement is necessary only in positions in which wide cracks are expected to form. Using finite-element analysis to obtain the distribution of restraint in the wall, degree-@restraint contour diagrams in walls with different length/heightratios of 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and8 were prepared. These diagrams can be used to determine the amount and distribution of steel reinforcement in positions in which it is really effective in controlling cracking. A t positions oflow restraint in the wall in which no or only narrow cracks willform, only minimum reinforcement will be provided.

NOTATION A Effective tension area of concrete surrounding the reinforcing bars and having the same centroid as that of reinforcement, divided by the number of bars Area of reinforcing bar Cross-sectional area of restraining foundation Cross-sectional area of concrete wall Width of wall cross-section at level h above the base Linear thermal coefficient of expansion of concrete Reinforcing bar diameter Thickness of concrete cover measured from concrete surface at which cracks are being considered to the centre of the nearest reinforcing bar Modulii of elasticity of concrete and steel, respectively Modulii of elasticity of the restraining foundation and the wall, respectively Shrinkage and thermal strains, respectively Elastic tensile strain capacity of concrete Average bond strength between concrete and reinforcing steel adjacent to the crack Calculated steel stress at the crack

Ab Af

AW
Bh C d

a~

Tensile strength of concrete Yield strength of reinforcing steel H Wall height L Wall length Number of reinforcing bars spaced NH along the H face or faces n Ratio of modulus of elasticity of steel to that of concrete Steel ratio (%) P Critical steel ratio (%) Petit Pr Reduced steel ratio (%) R Degree of restraint Save, Smax, Smin Average, maximum and minimum crack spacing, respectively Effective temperature change in memTe ber including an equivalent temperature change for drying shrinkage Maximum crack width Wrllax 1. INTRODUCTION The most troublesome and frustrating quirk of structural concrete is its tendency to develop 'volume-change cracking'. It is troublesome because the consequences of allowing these cracks to remain are often unacceptable, especially in water-retaining structures. Volume change of concrete alone will not result in tensile strains; it is the interaction of volume change and restraint which produces tensile strains and cracking. In structures such as retaining walls, water tanks, basements and other similar structures, the walls are usually concreted after the base (foundation). Because

Ec, Es Ef, Ew
esh, eth eult

f~ fs

0025-5432/90 9 RILEM

Materials and Structures of this procedure, the base and the wall are, as it were, out of phase with regard to shrinkage and thermal movements. Differences in deformations tend to develop between the two, but they are prevented from actually developing by the rigid interconnection of these structural parts. The restraint to movement which is caused by the continuous base of the wall is liable to give rise to the cracking of the concrete wall. Several measures are used to limit the width of volume-change cracking; among these is the provision of movement joints in the walls to reduce the amount of restraint movement and thus decrease tensile strains and crack width or even eliminate cracking. Another measure used is the provision of reinforcement in the walls, although the presence of reinforcement adds to the base restraint. However, since the difference in movements of the concrete and steel is small compared with the absolute value of volume change, hence the main effect of the reinforcement is to restrain the concrete on either side of a crack, after the crack has formed, rather than influence the concrete before any crack formation [1]. In this work an attempt is made to investigate the exact amount and distribution of reinforcement necessary to control volume-change cracking in continuous base-restrained walls; the steel reinforcement will only be provided in the walls in positions where it will be effective in controlling the cracking. A reduction in the amount of reinforcement will be made in positions of low restraint where no or only narrow cracks are expected to form.

359 BS 8007 used the same equation of BS 5337 for determining the minimum and maximum crack spacing (Equation 2); this equation was derived by adopting a bond-slip mechanism in end-restrained members rather than in walls with continuous base restraint [6], i.e. the crack spacing is determined by the effect of the steel reinforcement only, thus neglecting the additional effect of the base in distributing volume-change cracking. In addition, BS 8007 stated that volume-change cracking is not likely to occur within a distance of 2.40 m from the wall free edges, an observation reported by Deacon [7] on structures built in the UK with wall heights exceeding 4.0 m. Several researchers reported that this observation cannot be generalized for walls of smaller heights [3,8,9]. BS 8007 divided the wall into a central portion with a variable restraint having values depending on the wall L/H ratio, and two edge portions with a width of 2.40 m each in which no cracking will form. The value of restraint in the central portion was considered to vary with the wall height only and not with the wall length for a wall with a given L/H ratio (Fig. i and Table 1). Accordingly, the amount of reinforcement in the central portion will be maximum near the wall base and decrease towards the wall top, while the amounts of reinforcement to be provided in the edge portions are uniform and equal to 2/3petit where
Pcrit =

ft/fy

(3)

2. METHODS FOR DETERMINATION OF

AMOUNT AND DISTRIBUTION OF REINFORCEMENT IN WALLS Several design methods have been formulated to determine the amount and distribution of reinforcement required to control volume-change cracking in walls with continuous base restraint [2-4]. Large differences and contradictions exist between these methods concerning the effectiveness of reinforcement, which is apparent, inter alia, from the fact that percentages of reinforcement installed for this purpose in practice range from 0.15% to more than 1.0% of the concrete cross-section. The British Standard BS 8007:1987 [2] adopted the following equations to determine the amount and distribution of reinforcement to control these cracks: Wmax Smax euu 0.5R(eth + esh)- --~-- ] (1)

Another design method was developed by Stoffers [3], who assumed that crack spacings in base-restrained walls are to be determined by the effect of the restraining base, and not by any reinforcement that may be present in the wall. Nevertheless a certain amount of tensile stress will exist in the reinforcement at the crack, and this assumption is completely opposite to that of BS 8007. According to Stoffers the following relationship can be written for the minimum crack spacing at any level (h) of the wall:
Smi n = h (4)

The amount of reinforcement to be provided can be determined according to the following equation:

)1,2

2 . 5 E s Wma x '

(5)

(2)
Although Equation 1 was modified from the previous standard BS 5337:1976 [5] by introducing the effect of the variable restraint factor (R) into Equation 1.

and p > PcritAccording to the equations derived by Stoffers, the crack width in the wall will be the narrowest at the wall bottom and will increase in width towards the wall top. Therefore a reduction in the amount of reinforcement could be employed within a strip (Y) above the restraining base, and the height of this strip could be determined from the following equation:

g=Wmax/[eth+esh-2npr(2"SftWmax)l/2 ldEs
(6)

360

K h e d e r and Fadhil It is important to mention that Equation 8 was developed from a statistical study on the cracking of flexural members [10], which is different in mechanism from volume-change cracking [6,11]. According to the above equations, as the distance h from the base increases, steel requirements will first increase and then decrease. Maximum steel requirements depend on the base length and the amount of volume change. Both Stoffers and the ACI committee neglected the effect of the creep of concrete and only took into account the variation in restraint within the wall centre-line, assuming that these values are applicable all along the wall length. This is not the exact situation in walls, since the restraint to movement reduces toward the wall free edges (top and side).

-7---~-c~---,
It j n
0 ;' ..t-I
--,~J i / S d/' ,';all Jt
,,,,d ~ = I ~'~ I 1 __l

Expansion or fre~ I I controction _i.0 Joints

1o o , ~ ~
L

..,~., = .74
r

VerLical res tro 'aint factors

Horizontal restraint factor

Fig. 1 Restraint factors for walls with continuous base restraint [2]. For horizontal restraint factors see Table 1. Table I Horizontal restraint factors for Fig. 1

3. R O L E OF CONTINUOUS BASE AND R E I N F O R C E M E N T IN C O N T R O L L I N G T H E CRACKING IN T H E WALLS Several researchers [3,8,9] and bodies [4] have observed that unreinforced concrete walls, subjected to continuous base restraint, will ultimately develop cracks through the full wall height, spaced in the neighbourhood of 1.0 to 2.0 times the height of the wall. As each crack forms, the propagation of that crack to the full height of the wall will cause redistribution of the base restraint such that each portion will act as an individual section between the cracks. Since the resulting wall portions will not move freely due to the presence of the base, further cracking of the wall will depend on the resulting wall geometries (L/H ratio) and amount of volume change taking place after the formation of the crack. In an unreinforced concrete end-restrained member, after the formation of the first crack the two m e m b e r portions will contract freely and no further cracking will develop. The provision of reinforcement in the member will restrain the movement of the member portions after the first crack formation and further cracking of the m e m b e r will take place. The single crack with uncontrolled width in the unreinforced concrete member will be replaced by numerous cracks with smaller width, and the minimum crack spacing will therefore be
Smi n =

L/H
ratio*

Design centre-line horizontal restraint factors Base of panel Top of panel

1
2 3 4 -->8

0.5*
0.5* 0.5* 0.5* 0.5*

0
0 0.05* 0.3* 0.5*

*H is the height or width to a free edge; L is the distance between full contraction joints. *These values can be less if L < 4.8 m.

where Pr = reduced quantity of reinforcement in the strip (Y) above the wall base. Stoffers in his derivations neglected the effect of the variation in the L/H ratio of the wall; he built his derivations on results obtained from experimental work on walls with large L/H ratios (6.75 and 8.0), which was reflected in the distribution and amounts of reinforcement to be provided in the wall. The ACI committee 207 [4] proposed another method, and gave the:following equations for the determination of the amount and distribution of reinforcement: Wrnax = 1.5S~ve Wmax Ec (8)

kd/p

(10)

~---

(1.106 lO-5)f~(dcA) v3

Ab=O4(ft~(Bh)( \fs/ -~H

2h ,]

(9)

where k = ft/(4fb). In a base-restrained reinforced concrete wall, after each crack formation the resulting wall portions are restrained from movement by the combined effects of the restraining base and reinforcement. As a result, higher restraint will exist in the wall after each cracking as compared with unreinforced concrete walls or reinforced end-restrained members, so the minimum crack spacing will be less than those in unreinforced concrete base-restrained walls (less than H) and reinforced end-restrained members (Equation 10). Utilizing this fact, A1-Rawi and Kheder [12] derived the following

Materials a n d Structures relationship for the minimum crack spacing in reinforced concrete base-restrained walls:
kdh ph + kd

361 Since the crack formation and width are dependent on the amount of restrained volume change, which is the product of the free volume change and the degree of restraint of the member, therefore cracks will not form or will be of a narrow width within positions of low restrained movement. The free volume change is usually considered to be uniform for a wall with certain dimensions, materials and construction method, while the degree of restraint is variable and depends on the following factors:
1. L/H ratio of the wall. 2. Elastic shortening of the restraining base. 3. Relative amount of slippage between the wall and its base.

Smi n -- -

(11)

where k = 0.57, 0.68 and 0.85 for deformed, indented and plain steel bars, respectively. AI-Rawi and Kheder in their research [12] applied the above equation to 14 reduced-scale walls and 57 full-size walls with different heights, thicknesses, joint spacings, L/H ratios and reinforcement, and found it applicable for both primary and secondary cracks in these walls.

4. STRATEGIC REINFORCEMENT FOR THE C O N T R O L OF VOLUME-CHANGE CRACKING

IN WALLS In volume-change cracking, the reinforcement is in tension only in the vicinity of a crack, and will be in compression elsewhere outside the bond-slip distance (+Smi.) to satisfy the length compatibility [6,11]. Therefore, the role of reinforcement in controlling volume change cracking is within the z o n e ( - l " S m i n ) from the crack; outside this zone the reinforcement will only result in a slight and negligible increase in the amount of restraint [1].

In order to determine the variable restraint within a wall with a given L/ H ratio, a two-dimensional finite-element analysis was carried out to determine the variation of stresses and strains within walls with different practical L/ H ratios of 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8. From this analysis contour diagrams were prepared to give the values and distribution of restraint within these walls (Figs 2a to f). From these figures it can be seen that for walls with low L/H ratios (1.0 and 2.0) a large reduction in restraint is obtained, and even negative restraint (compression) will develop near the wall top and edges. On the other hand for walls with large L/H ratios (6.0 or more) an almost uniform state of high restraint values is developed in the

wc~t!, ~.. ,Y i 1.OH 0.SH

walt

CEfY
0.3 ~ . . ,
0.4 - - ~ ~...~.

0.2

0.1

O,6H

0.5 , - - - - , - - - - ~ ._._.

0.1 0.21""~" ~ " 0.31

0.4~

"--- ~
OI4H

~. ~

~//////J/~/~7/,/."////////A "

0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9

07-- 1

08--5- ~

0.0H

ell Ca)
~vcttfk! y
f.0H 0.1 02 0.3 . ~" ~L, 0.8 H 0.6H

f_
war
O6

(el
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1

\
I 0.7

', I ", "4, ""4. I I \. 3, \ - . Q , , l " t . , I

'~ 08,,

0.7

\ i O.ZN

0.8 0.9

X ~0.OH

0.9

c+-I (b)

eL (d)

Fig. 2 Distribution of restraint factor (R) in walls with different L/H ratios: (a) 1.0, (b) 2.0, (c) 3.0, (d) 4.0.

362

Kheder and Fadhil

Table 2 Comparison between minimum ratios of reinforcement recommended to be used by different design codes Design code Concrete grade (N mm -2) 35.0 Steel grade (N mm -2 ) 250.0 460.0 250.0 460.0 >400.0 Minimum reinforcement (%) 0.64 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20' 0.25* 0.15 0.20 w 0.25 82

BS 8007:87 [2]g BS 8110:85 [13] AC1318-83 [14] ACI 207.2R-73 [4] ACI 350.R-83 [15]

*BS 8007:87 permits using minimum values of 2/3 of that shown in the table for certain joint spacings in the walls. *For deformed bar with diameter not greater than 16 mm. *For other deformed bars. ~For walls with thickness up to 304 mm. 82 walls with thickness greater than 305 mm.

wall. Therefore, if it is possible to reduce the L/H ratio of the wall in the design, a large reduction in the amount of reinforcement can be employed in the wall. The effect of the elastic shortening of the restraining base on the restraint in the wall can be determined by including a multiplier (K) which can be determined from the following equation [4]: K= (1 +AwEw)-IA-----~f ]

5. M I N I M U M R E I N F O R C E M E N T IN T H E WALLS Contradiction is quite obvious regarding the minimum amounts of reinforcement ratio to be provided to control volume-change cracking in concrete walls. This is attributed mainly to the differences of opinion and analysis approach to the problem. Table 2 shows a comparison between minimum values of reinforcement recomm e n d e d to be used by different codes of design. Reviewing the values specified in this table and taking into consideration that walls with continuous base restraint require smaller steel ratios compared to endrestrained m e m b e r s (due to the smaller crack spacing), values of 0.30 and 0.20% can be suggested for steel of grades 250 and 460 N m m -2, respectively.

(12)

Finally, it was assumed that no slippage will take place between the wall and its base. Although this is never the case in practice, as some slippage between the two must exist, this assumption will result in slightly higher restraint values, but will put the designer on the safer side and will not lead to underestimation of restraint. The assumption of complete fixity between the wall and the base was made due to the lack of data or measurements of slippage in previous research. In order to determine the exact and effective amount of reinforcement to be provided, Equation 1 is modified to include the effect of the elastic shortening of the base, thus Equation 1 will become

6. CONCLUSIONS 1. Volume-change cracking in walls with continuous base restraint are controlled by the combined effects of the restraining base and the steel reinforcement provided in the wall, so that smaller quantities of reinforcement can be provided c o m p a r e d with end-restrained members. 2. For a wall with a continuous base restraint and a given L/H ratio, the crack spacing in the wall increases with increase in the wall height, so that cracks widths will increase and the amounts of reinforcement to be provided should be increased accordingly to control these cracks. 3. Since the degree of restraint in a wall with a certain L/H ratio is variable within the wall, and is m a x i m u m at the wall base and centre and decreases towards the wall top and edges, therefore to design the wall with cracks of a given uniform width the a m o u n t of reinforcement could be varied according to the variation in the degree of restraint in the wall. 4. The restraint to m o v e m e n t in a wall with a

0.5KR(eth + e~h)-- euu ]

Wmax : Smax

(13)

The value of Smax can be obtained from Equation 11, where

Smax = 2Smi n

(14)

The value of R at any position within the wall is obtained f r o m Figs 2a to f for the appropriate L/H ratio of the wall. Solving Equations 11, 13 and 14, the variable amounts of reinforcement can be determined at several positions within the wall for different values of R.

Materials and Structures

continuous base restraint is dependent on the wall L/H ratio; as this ratio decreases, the restraint value decreases and narrower cracks will develop in the wall. A large reduction in the amount of reinforcement can therefore be employed if the L/H ratio of the wall is reduced to values of 1.0 to 3.0.
REFERENCES

363
7. Deacon, R. C., 'Watertight Concrete Construction', 2nd edn (Cement and Concrete Association, 1978). 8. Kheder, G. F., 'Control of shrinkage cracking in reinforced concrete walls', MSc thesis, University of Baghdad (1986). 9. A1 Tamimi, A. M., 'Control of cracking due to volume change in reinforced concrete', MSc thesis, University of Baghdad (1987). 10. Gergely, P. and Lutz, L. A., 'Maximum crack width in reinforced concrete flexural members', in 'Causes, mechanism, and control of cracking in concrete', SP-20 (ACI, Detroit, 1968) pp. 87-117. 11. Campbell-Allen, D. and Hughes, G. W., 'Reinforcement to control thermal and shrinkage cracking', lnstn Engnrs, Austral., Civil Engng Trans. CE 23 (3) (1981) 158-165. 12. AI-Rawi, R. S. and Kheder, G. F., 'Control of volume change cracking in base restrained concrete walls', to be published. 13. 'Structural use of concrete, Part 1', BS8110:1985, in 'Code of Practice for Design and Construction' (British Standards Institution, London). 14. ACI committee 318, 'Building code requirements for reinforced concrete', ACI 318-83, in 'ACI Manual of Concrete Practice', Part 3 (1985). 15. ACI committee 350, 'Concrete sanitary engineering structures', ACI 350.1R-83, ACI J. Proc. 80 (6) (1983) 467-486.

1. Hughes, B. P. and Ghunaim, F., 'An experimental study of early thermal cracking in reinforced concrete', Mag. Concr. Res. 34 (118) (1982) 18-24. 2. 'Code of practice for the structural use of concrete for retaining aqueous liquids', BS 8007:1987 (British Standards Institution, London). 3. Stoffers, H., 'Cracking due to shrinkage and temperature variation in walls', Heron 23 (3) (1978) 5--68. 4. ACI committee 207, 'Effect of restraint, volume change and reinforcement on cracking of massive concrete', AC1207.2R-73, in 'ACI Manual of Concrete Practice', Part 1 (1985). 5. 'Code of practice for the structural use of concrete for retaining aqueous liquids', BS 5337:1976 (British Standards Institution, London). 6. Evans,iE. P. and Hughes, B. P., 'Shrinkage and thermal cracking in a reinforced concrete retaining wall', J. Instn Civil Engnrs, London 39 (Jan. 1968) 111-125.

RE,SUME
Positionnement des armatures afin de maitriser la fissuration due aux variations volum~triques dans des murs encastr~s par la base.

On a examind comment contrrler la fissuration due aux variations volum~triques de parois en b~ton encastrdes par la base. Diff~rentes mdthodes ont ~t~ propos~es par les chercheurs et dans les codes pour calculer le pourcentage et la r(partition de l'armature d' acier ndcessaire pour contrrler le type de fssuration. Toutes ces m~thodes indiquent des taux d'armature excessifs par rapport d la rgaliM, soit parce qu'elles simplifient la mdthode de calcul, soit parce qu' elles n~gligent l'effet d' encastrement

variable dans le tour. Etant donnd que la formation de la fissure et sa largeur dgpendent du degr~ auquel l'encastrement emp@che tout mouvement, l'armature d'acier s'impose uniquement dans les cas oft de larges fissures risquent de se produire. En utilisant l'analyse des ~l~ments finis pour obtenir la distribution de Faction d"encastrement dans le tour, on a pr~par~ des diagrammes de profils d' encastrement variable avec diff~rents rapports L / H (1, 2, 3, 4, 6 et 8). On s'est servi de ces diagrammes pour ~valuer la quantit~ et la r~partition d'acier aux endroits oft elles limitent efficacement la fissuration. Dans les cas de faible encastrement, l~ oft aucune fissure ou seulement des fssures ~troites peuvent se produire, on utilisera une armature minimale.