170

CHAPTER 6

Serviceability

ACI Committee 435 has shown that better results for the deections in continuous members can be obtained if an Ie is used that gives greater weight to the midspan values.7 The
committee suggests the use of the following expressions in which Iem , Ie1 , and Ie2 are the computed effective moments of inertia at the midspan and the two ends of the span, respectively.
Beams with two ends continuous
Avg Ie = 0.70Iem + 0.15(Ie1 + Ie2 )
Beams with one end continuous
Avg Ie = 0.85Iem + 0.15(Icont. end )
For the beam of Example 6.2 with its two continuous ends, the effective moment of
inertia would be
Avg Ie = (0.70) (34,412 in.4 ) + (0.15) (24,257 in.4 + 24,257 in.4 )
= 31,365 in.4

6.9

Types of Cracks

This section presents a few introductory comments concerning some of the several types of
cracks that occur in reinforced concrete beams. The remainder of this chapter is concerned
with the estimated widths of exural cracks and recommended maximum spacings of exural
bars to control cracks.
Flexural cracks are vertical cracks that extend from the tension sides of beams up to
the region of their neutral axes. They are illustrated in Figure 6.12(a). Should beams have
very deep webs (more than 3 ft or 4 ft), the cracks will be very closely spaced, with some of
them coming together above the reinforcing and some disappearing there. These cracks may
be wider up in the middle of the beam than at the bottom.

F I G U R E 6.12 Some types of cracks in concrete members.

7 ACI

Committee 435, 1978, Proposed Revisions by Committee 435 to ACI Building Code and Commentary Provisions on
Deections, Journal ACI, 75(6), pp. 229238.

6.10 Control of Flexural Cracks

Inclined cracks due to shear can develop in the webs of reinforced concrete beams
either as independent cracks or as extensions of exural cracks. Occasionally, inclined cracks
will develop independently in a beam, even though no exural cracks are in that locality.
These cracks, which are called web-shear cracks and which are illustrated in Figure 6.12(b),
sometimes occur in the webs of prestressed sections, particularly those with large anges and
thin webs.
The usual type of inclined shear cracks are the exure-shear cracks, which are illustrated
in Figure 6.12(c). They commonly develop in both prestressed and nonprestressed beams.
Torsion cracks, which are illustrated in Figure 6.12(d), are quite similar to shear cracks
except that they spiral around the beam. Should a plain concrete member be subjected to pure
torsion, it will crack and fail along 45 spiral lines due to the diagonal tension corresponding
to the torsional stresses. For a very effective demonstration of this type of failure, you can take
a piece of chalk in your hands and twist it until it breaks. Although torsion stresses are very
similar to shear stresses, they will occur on all faces of a member. As a result, they add to the
shear stresses on one side and subtract from them on the other.
Sometimes bond stresses between the concrete and the reinforcing lead to a splitting
along the bars, as shown in Figure 6.12(e).
Of course, there are other types of cracks not illustrated here. Members that are loaded
in axial tension will have transverse cracks through their entire cross sections. Cracks can
also occur in concrete members due to shrinkage, temperature change, settlements, and so on.
Considerable information concerning the development of cracks is available.8

6.10

Control of Flexural Cracks

Cracks are going to occur in reinforced concrete structures because of concretes low tensile
strength. For members with low steel stresses at service loads, the cracks may be very small and
in fact may not be visible except upon careful examination. Such cracks, called microcracks,
are generally initiated by bending stresses.
When steel stresses are high at service load, particularly where high-strength steels are
used, visible cracks will occur. These cracks should be limited to certain maximum sizes so
that the appearance of the structure is not spoiled and so that corrosion of the reinforcing does
not result. The use of high-strength bars and the strength method of design have made crack
control a very important item indeed. Because the yield stresses of reinforcing bars in general
use have increased from 40 ksi to 60 ksi and above, it has been rather natural for designers to
specify approximately the same size bars as they are accustomed to using, but fewer of them.
The result has been more severe cracking of members.
Although cracks cannot be eliminated, they can be limited to acceptable sizes by spreading out or distributing the reinforcement. In other words, smaller cracks will result if several
small bars are used with moderate spacings rather than a few large ones with large spacings.
Such a practice will usually result in satisfactory crack control even for Grades 60 and 75 bars.
An excellent rule of thumb to use as regards cracking is dont use a bar spacing larger than
about 9 in.
The maximum crack widths that are considered to be acceptable vary from approximately
0.004 in. to 0.016 in., depending on the location of the member in question, the type of
structure, the surface texture of the concrete, illumination, and other factors. Somewhat smaller
values may be required for members exposed to very aggressive environments, such as deicing
chemicals and saltwater spray.

Wight, J. K. and MacGregor, J. G., 2011, Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and Design, 6th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall), pp. 434442.

171

172

CHAPTER 6

Serviceability

TABLE 6.3 Permissible Crack Widths

Permissible Crack Widths
Members Subjected to

(in.)

(mm)

Dry air

0.016

0.41

Moist air, soil

0.012

0.30

Deicing chemicals

0.007

0.18

Seawater and seawater spray

0.006

0.15

Use in water-retaining structures

0.004

0.10

ACI Committee 224, in a report on cracking,9 presented a set of approximately permissible maximum crack widths for reinforced concrete members subject to different exposure
situations. These values are summarized in Table 6.3.
Denite data are not available as to the sizes of cracks above which bar corrosion
becomes particularly serious. As a matter of fact, tests seem to indicate that concrete quality,
cover thickness, amount of concrete vibration, and other variables may be more important than
crack sizes in their effect on corrosion.
Results of laboratory tests of reinforced concrete beams to determine crack sizes vary.
The sizes are greatly affected by shrinkage and other time-dependent factors. The purpose of
crack-control calculations is not really to limit cracks to certain rigid maximum values but
rather to use reasonable bar details, as determined by eld and laboratory experience, that will
in effect keep cracks within a reasonable range.
The following equation was developed for the purpose of estimating the maximum widths
of cracks that will occur in the tension faces of exural members.10 It is merely a simplication
of the many variables affecting crack sizes.

w = 0.076h fs 3 dc A
where
w = the estimated cracking width in thousandths of inches
h = ratio of the distance to the neutral axis from the extreme tension concrete ber
to the distance from the neutral axis to the centroid of the tensile steel (values
to be determined by the working-stress method)
fs = steel stress, in kips per square inch at service loads (designer is permitted to use
0.6 fy for normal structures)
dc = the cover of the outermost bar measured from the extreme tension ber to the
center of the closest bar or wire (for bundled bars, dc is measured to the
centroid of the bundles)
A = the effective tension area of concrete around the main reinforcing (having the
same centroid as the reinforcing) divided by the number of bars
This expression is referred to as the GergelyLutz equation after its developers. In applying it to beams, reasonable results are usually obtained if h is set equal to 1.20. For thin
one-way slabs, however, more realistic values are obtained if h is set equal to 1.35.
The number of reinforcing bars present in a particular member decidedly affects the value
of A to be used in the equation and thus the calculated crack width. If more and smaller bars

9 ACI

Committee 224, 1972, Control of Cracking in Concrete Structures, Journal ACI, 69(12), pp. 717753.
Gergely, P., and Lutz, L. A., 1968, Maximum Crack Width in Reinforced Flexural Members, Causes, Mechanisms and
Control of Cracking in Concrete, SP-20 (Detroit: American Concrete Institute), pp. 87117.

10

Courtesy of Portland Cement Association.

6.10 Control of Flexural Cracks

Lake Point Tower, Chicago, Illinois.

are used to provide the necessary area, the value of A will be smaller, as will the estimated
crack widths.
Should all the bars in a particular group not be the same size, their number (for use in
the equation) should be considered to equal the total reinforcing steel area actually provided
in the group divided by the area of the largest bar size used.
Example 6.3 illustrates the determination of the estimated crack widths occurring in a
tensilely reinforced rectangular beam.
Example 6.3
Assuming h = 1.20 and fy = 60 ksi, calculate the estimated width of exural cracks that
will occur in the beam of Figure 6.13. If the beam is to be exposed to moist air, is this width
satisfactory as compared to the values given in Table 6.3 of this chapter? Should the cracks be
too wide, revise the design of the reinforcing and recompute the crack width.
SOLUTION
Substituting into the GergelyLutz Equation
dc = 3 in.
A=

(6 in.) (16 in.)

= 32 in.2
3


3
w = (0.076) (1.20) (0.6 60 ksi) (3 in.) (32 in.2 )
=

15.03 in.
= 0.015 in. > 0.012 in.
1000

No good

173

174

CHAPTER 6

Serviceability

L = 1.5 k/ft
D = 1 k/ft (including beam weight)

30 ft

24 in.

Shaded area is
concrete that has the
same centroid as the
reinforcing steel.

27 in.

3 #11
3 in. = dc
16 in.

F I G U R E 6.13 Beam properties for Example 6.3.

Replace the three #11 bars (4.68 in.2 ) with ve #9 bars (5.00 in.2 ).
(6 in.) (16 in.)
= 19.2 in.2
5

3
w = (0.076) (1.20) (0.6 60 ksi) (3 in.) (19.2 in.2 )
A=

12.68 in.
= 0.0127 in. > 0.012 in.
1000

No good

Try six #8 bars (4.71 in.2 ).

A=

(6 in.) (16 in.)

= 16 in.2
6


3
w = (0.076) (1.20) (0.6 60 ksi) (3 in.) (16 in.2 )
=

11.93 in.
= 0.0119 in. < 0.012 in.
1000

OK
Use 6 #8 bars.

If reinforced concrete members are tested under carefully controlled laboratory conditions
and cracks measured for certain loadings, considerable variations in crack sizes will occur.
Consequently, the calculations of crack widths described in this chapter should only be used
to help the designer select good details for reinforcing bars. The calculations are clearly not
sufciently accurate for comparison with eld crack sizes.
The bond stress between the concrete and the reinforcing steel decidedly affects the
sizes and spacings of the cracks in concrete. When bundled bars are used, there is appreciably
less contact between the concrete and the steel, as compared to the cases where the bars are
placed separately from each other. To estimate crack widths successfully with the GergelyLutz
equation when bundled bars are used, it is necessary to take into account this reduced contact
surface.11
11

Nawy, E. G., 2009, Reinforced Concrete: A Fundamental Approach, 6th ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall),
pp. 307309.

6.11 ACI Code Provisions Concerning Cracks

When bundled bars are present, some designers use a very conservative procedure in
computing the value of A. For this calculation they assume each bundle is one bar, that bar
having an area equal to the total area of the bars in that bundle. Certainly, the bond properties
of a group of bundled bars are better than those of a single large equivalent bar.
Particular attention needs to be given to crack control for doubly reinforced beams, where
it is common to use small numbers of large-diameter tensile bars. Calculation of crack widths
for such beams may result in rather large values, thus in effect requiring the use of a larger
number of rather closely spaced smaller bars.
Special rules are given in ACI Section 10.6.6 for the spacings of reinforcing to help
control the amount of cracking in T beams whose anges are in tension.

6.11

ACI Code Provisions Concerning Cracks

In the ACI Code, Sections 10.6.3 and 10.6.4 require that exural tensile reinforcement be
well distributed within the zones of maximum tension so that the center-to-center spacing of
the reinforcing closest to a tension surface is not greater than the value computed with the
following expression:




40,000
40,000
2.5cc (12)
(ACI Equation 10-4)
s = (15)
fs
fs
In this expression, fs is the computed tensile stress at working load. It may be calculated
by dividing the unfactored bending moment by the beams internal moment arm (see Example
2.3), or it may simply be taken equal to 23 fy . The term cc represents the clear cover from the
nearest surface in tension to the surface of the tensile reinforcement in inches.
For beams with Grade 60 reinforcing and with 2-in. clear cover, the maximum codepermitted bar spacing is


40,000
(2.5) (2 in.)
s = (15)
0.667 60,000 psi


40,000
= 10.0 in. < (12)
= 12.0 in.
0.667 60,000 psi
A bar spacing not more than 10.0 in. would thus be required. This limit can control the
spacing of bars in one-way slabs but is not likely to control beam bar spacings.
The authors feel that these ACI maximum bar-spacing provisions are quite reasonable
for one-way slabs and for beams with wide webs. For beams with normal web widths used in
ordinary buildings, we also feel that estimating crack widths with the GergelyLutz equation
and comparing the results to the values given in Table 6.3 of this chapter may be a more
reasonable procedure.12
The ACI equation for maximum spacing does not apply to beams with extreme exposure
or to structures that are supposed to be watertight. Special consideration must be given to such
situations. It is probably well to use the GergelyLutz equation and a set of maximum crack
widths, such as those of Table 6.3, for such situations.
The effect of cracks and their widths on the corrosion of reinforcing is not clearly
understood. There does not seem to be a direct relationship between crack widths and corrosion,
at least at the reinforcing stresses occurring when members are subjected to service loads. Thus
the ACI Code no longer distinguishes between interior and exterior exposure, as it once did.
Research seems to indicate that the total corrosion occurring in reinforcing is not clearly
correlated to crack widths. It is true, however, that the time required for corrosion to begin in
reinforcing is inversely related to the widths of cracks.

12

Ibid., p. 303.

175

176

CHAPTER 6

Serviceability

When using theGergelyLutz crack width expression with SI units, the equation is
w = 0.0113h fs 3 dc A, with the resulting crack widths in mm.
The SI version of the ACI Code for the maximum spacing of tensile bars from the
standpoint of crack widths is given here. To use this expression correctly, s and cc must
be used in mm, while fs must be in MPa.




280
280
2.5cc (300)
s = (380)
fs
fs

6.12

Miscellaneous Cracks

The beginning designer will learn that it is wise to include a few reinforcing bars in certain
places in some structures, even though there seems to be no theoretical need for them. Certain
spots in some structures (such as in abutments, retaining walls, building walls near openings,
etc.) will develop cracks. The young designer should try to learn about such situations from
more experienced people. Better structures will be the result.

6.13

SI Example

Example 6.4
Is the spacing of the bars shown in Figure 6.14 within the requirements of the ACI Code
from the standpoint of cracking, if fy = 420 MPa?
SOLUTION
28.7 mm
= 60.65 mm
2


280
(2.5) (60.65 mm)
s = (380)
0.667 420 MPa


280
= 228 mm < (300)
0.667 420 MPa
= 300 mm

For fy = 420 MPa and cc = 75 mm

Since the actual bar spacing of 75 mm is less than 228 mm, this spacing is acceptable.

350 mm
500 mm

5 #29

75 mm

y to c.g. of
bars = 105 mm

75 mm
75
mm 150 mm

75
mm
F I G U R E 6.14 Beam cross section for

300 mm

Example 6.4.

6.14 Computer Example

6.14

Computer Example

Example 6.5
Repeat Example 6.1 using the Excel spreadsheet in Chapter 6.
Deection Calculator for Simply Supported, Uniformly Loaded, Rectangular Beam
b =

12

in.

d =

17

in.

h =

20

in.

As =

3.00

in.2

As =

0.00

in.2

fc =

ksi

fy =

60

ksi

c =

145

pcf

=
= (from Table 6.2 or Figure 6.4)

1
2.0

wD =

1,000

plf

wL =

700

plf

l=
Deection limit (denominator from Table 6.1)
% live load that is sustained

20

ft

180
30

Ec =

3,156

ksi

n = Es /Ec

9.189

0.015

n =

0.132

k =

0.399

x =

6.78

in.

Icr =

4,067

in.4

Ig =

8,000

in.4

fr =

410.8

psi

27.4

ft-k

Mcr =

177

178

CHAPTER 6

Serviceability

Dead + full live load

Ma,D+L =

85 ft-k

(Mcr /Ma,D+L)3 =

Ie =

Mcr
Ma

0.0334


3

Ig + 1

Mcr
Ma

3 
Icr =

D+L =

4,198.3 in.4
0.462 in.

Dead load only

Ma,D =

50 ft-k

(Mcr /Ma,D)3

0.1643

Ie =

4,713.1 in.4

D =

0.242 in.

L = D+L D =

0.220 in.

Live load only

Initial from D + %L
Ma,D+% L =
(Mcr /Ma,D+%L )3 =
Ie =

60.5
0.0928
4,431.6

in.4

D+% L =

0.311 in.

% L = (D + % L ) D =

0.069 in.

Initial from %L only

Long-term for D +
long-term sustained L
 =

 = /(1 +  )

LT = dL +   +  % L =
limit =
Deection complies with Table 6.1

0.843 in.
1.3333333 in.