Zych Int J Concr Struct Mater (2022) 16:71

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40069-022-00555-3 International Journal of Concrete

Structures and Materials

REVIEW Open Access

History of the Development of Analytical

Models of Cracking of Restrained Walls
on a Given Edge Since 1968
Mariusz Zych*   

Abstract
This research paper presents and comments on analytical models for calculating the widths of cracks formed as a
result of imposed deformations generating tensile stresses in reinforced concrete base-restrained members. This issue
regarding the mechanics of concrete structures has been presented on the basis of calculation models since 1968. In
accordance with the current regulations of the European standard, the mechanics of the cracking of base-restrained
members have been presented in a very simplified way, which was justified by a limited number of research studies
performed on such members as well as in a few subject publications. The main purpose of this work was to present
especially those models that had the greatest practical significance within a specific period of time or formed the
basis for further studies of other authors. In addition, future trends in the development of computational tools are
presented. The chronologically presented development of design ideas, which takes into account varying degrees of
advancement of the mechanics of cracking due to the distinctly different design consequences, is a valuable source
of information and an inspiration for subsequent researchers. In the second part of the paper, a few of the most
important issues connected with the calculation of the crack width in base-restrained walls are presented. It is shown
that currently, on the basis of the up-to-date knowledge, there are possibilities to create more complementary stand-
ard guidelines, which is already taking place in the case of European guidelines.
Keywords: Restrained wall, Imposed deformation, Crack mechanics, Analytical models, Codes

1 Introduction the occurrence of imposed deformations in the wall,

Almost every RC (reinforced concrete) structure is does not enable the free shortening of the wall. This fre-
accompanied by the occurrence of imposed deforma- quently results in excessive cracking (Jędrzejewska et al.,
tions. The main question is whether they are large 2020), which should always be controlled due to the ser-
enough to significantly increase the stress imposed on viceability limit state (SLS). This research paper analy-
the structure or its members. Depending on the type of ses the basic assumptions of the mechanics of cracking
the structure and the type of the load, the mechanism under the influence of imposed deformations. However,
of cracking is different. A special case of such struc- it should be emphasised that the range of influences
tural members are walls or their segments constructed contributing to the cracking of RC structures is diverse.
on a sufficiently stiff foundation which, at the time of With regard to the current guidelines for the standards
and the influences of external loads, this range has been
described in detail by Knauff (2012). By contrast, in
Journal information: ISSN 1976-0485/eISSN 2234-1315 their research paper, Knauff et al. (2018) discuss the cur-
*Correspondence: mzych@pk.edu.pl rent provisions regarding calculation of crack widths,
formed under the thermal–moisture influences, also
Department of Prestressed Structures, IMiKB, Faculty of Civil Engineering,
Cracow University of Technology, Warszawska St, 24, 31‑155 Krakow, Poland taking into account German amendments to DIN EN

© The Author(s) 2022. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which
permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the
original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or
other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line
to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory
regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this
licence, visit http://​creat​iveco​mmons.​org/​licen​ses/​by/4.​0/.
Zych Int J Concr Struct Mater (2022) 16:71 Page 2 of 23

1992–1 (2010), contained in DIN EN 1992-1/NA (2011). problem of the mechanics of cracking under the influ-
In general, however, the issue of the mechanics of crack- ence of imposed deformations takes multiple forms. For
ing from imposed deformations requires a much wider example, Klemczak and Knoppik-Wróbel (2015) and
view, including material aspects and the technology of Knoppik-Wróbel (2015) presented a significant influence
constructing massive elements (Kiernożycki, 2003). In of the support conditions on the degree of restraint. If
addition, in unfavourable computational situations of wall rotation is considered, the degree of restraint in the
imposed loads acting on the structure, thermal influences structural joint increases, but it decreases in the upper
occurring after the erection of the entire structure and part of the wall. This effect is more visible in the case of
the influence of external loads, the risk of cracking and longer walls and it is almost imperceptible in the case of
creating excessive crack widths are intensified. One such shorter walls.
example was analysed by Buczkowski (1993). In the spe- This research paper attempts to comment on some of
cific case of the thermal load of rectangular tanks buried the most common models (since 1968) to calculate crack
in the ground, Buczkowski (1993) demonstrated that the widths in base-restrained members. Their development
effects of ground pressure are significantly increased by followed the progress in the research performed on these
the thermal load. members and the conducted parametric analyses. The
One of the first studies of base-restrained members activities performed in various scientific centres were
was conducted by Stoffers (1978) and analysed the influ- finalised with the issuance of the first European stand-
ence of reinforcement, wall geometry and restraint con- ard EN 1992-3 (2006), which proposes, for example, an
ditions on the morphology of cracks, their spacing and approach to determine crack widths in base-restrained
their widths, which enabled the introduction of such fac- members. Much of the information contained in EN
tors in the mechanism of cracking which would enable 1992-3 (2006) is quoted from the British Standard BS
the calculation of crack width depending on the diameter 8007 (1987) regarding the design of tanks for liquids.
and spacing of the reinforcement. Subsequent studies of Separate provisions in this regard also apply in the United
various authors focused on the formulation of the com- States (ACI 207.2R-95, 1995) and in Japan (JCI, 2008).
putational model, assuming such a relationship of height First, this paper presents the development of the
to length for which exceeding the tensile strength of con- approach to design in the field of the fundamental issue
crete led to the formation of dilatation cracks. As a result of the calculation of the width of the cracks in matur-
of making significant progress in determining the devel- ing concrete and it thus provides the inspiration for the
opment of the heat of hydration and its influence on the improvement of the current design guidelines and also
development of physical properties, as well as the formal for the creation of new computational models.
description of these phenomena, further research studies
enabled attempts to combine and expand the problem of
the mechanics of cracking by taking the development of 2 Chronological List of Selected Analytical Models
thermal stresses increased by restraints along the edges 2.1 Evans & Hughes, 1968 Model
of the member into consideration: Van Breugel (1982, Evans and Hughes (1968) were among the first to per-
1995), Emborg (1989), Rostásy and Onken (1994). As far form studies on imposed strains in a real structure.
as analyses using FEM (fine element method) are con- The results of their research confirmed a larger scale of
cerned, attention should be paid to the research stud- strains caused by a change of concrete hardening than by
ies of the team of Pettersson and Thelandesson (2001a, its shrinkage. They proposed the following equation for
2001b) and Pettersson et al. (2002). These studies present cracks spacing in a wall restrained along the bottom edge:
a wide parametric analysis of the influence of the prop-
fct · φ fct · φ
erties of concrete, the amount of reinforcement and the ≥S≥ (1)
boundary conditions on the maximum crack width. The fb · 2 · ρ fb · 4 · ρ
issue was simplified to 2D, i.e., only average strains were where fct is tensile strength of concrete and fb is mean
considered on the wall thickness. The intensive devel- bond strength.
opment of numerical methods enabled further refine- Evans and Hughes (1968) assumed that the initial crack
ments to the models, as exemplified by research studies spacing halved when further cracking formed. By con-
performed by the team of Flaga and Klemczak (2016), trast, stresses in concrete increase linearly from zero in
Flaga (2011), which contain the proposal of an advanced the cracked cross section to the maximum value at the
numerical model and an engineering model which, from distance of smin from cracked section. It follows that
the point of view of designers who do not have access to with a degree of reinforcement greater than ρcrit (i.e., the
advanced computer programs, allowing both the size of degree of reinforcement at which the reinforcing steel
the deformation and its effects to be determined. The
Zych Int J Concr Struct Mater (2022) 16:71 Page 3 of 23

does not become plastic), the maximum mean tensile The results of the experimental research formed the
strain in the uncracked cross section along the length basis for the development of a model enabling the crack
smin adjacent to the crack is ½εctu. If the next crack is width and the minimum degree of reinforcement to be
formed at a distance of s (usually greater than smin), then determined. Stoffers (1978) first describes the proce-
the mean strain at the length s/2 is equal to ½εctu(s/2smin). dure of cracking based on the diagram of a bar joined
Thus, Evans and Hughes (1968) proposed a formula for at opposite ends. Later, this method was modified to
calculating the crack width in the following form: include the influence of a joint along the bottom edge.
   The following assumptions were adopted:
w = s · εsh + εth − sεctu 4smin (2)
• a member fully restrained at opposite ends,
where εsh is actual shrinkage strain including internal
• linear distribution of strains in the concrete in the
restraints from reinforcement and εth is strain from tem-
vicinity of cracks,
perature changes.
• full bond of concrete to reinforcement beyond
regions of cracking,
• length of the section “z” along which the bond
2.2 Hughes & Miller, 1970 Model stress increases, takes into account: diameter of
Hughes and Miller (1970) performed their studies on reinforcement, ratio of steel, concrete moduli of
three RC walls. Measurements were taken of strains, elasticity, degree of reinforcement, stresses in steel
changes of moisture and temperature in the period of and ultimate value of bond stresses.
concrete hardening. They showed compatibility between
the measurements and calculations done after Eqs. (1) In the model of the base-restrained wall, it was
and (2). Moreover, they stated that cracks develop first assumed that:
in the walls connections joints, next they can develop
in the wall itself. They also stated that cracking in the • the number of cracks in the wall increases with
period of concrete hardening is best restricted by the use decreasing distance y from the base,
of steel formwork and decreasing the temperature of the • there is fixed joint and L/H ratio > 10,
hardening concrete by watering it at the earliest possi- • stresses in the wall cross section remain constant at
ble moment, which is to result in earlier removal of heat the entire height,
from the structure. • cracking near the base has little effect on stresses
on the opposite edge.

2.3 Stoffers, 1978 Model In addition, based on the experiments, it was assumed

The research studies presented by Stoffers (1978) are still that the expected spacing of the dilatation cracks is
some of the most important contributions in the field equal to (1.0–1.5)H and that the average crack spacing
of the assessment of cracking of members joined along is Δl = y (y—distance from the base). This spacing is the
the bottom edge. The studies included eighteen differ- result of restraining at the base, not of reinforcement.
ent research models, three of which were duplicates. Due In view of the above assumptions, the equations
to their small size, micro-concrete was used. Two basic for calculating stresses in reinforcing steel and crack
types of members were executed, the bases of which were widths in the wall restrained along the lower edge take
prestresed steel sections. Having concreted the members, the following form:
the prestressing force was gradually reduced and thus the 
2fb αe ρy 2 4fb Es yεy
 
elongation at the lower edge of the member was intro- σs = −
−2fb αe ρy
+ + (3)
duced, which caused their cracking. φ φ φ
In the performed tests, the influence of reinforcement
was clearly visible for the models of Series I and II, with
φσs2 1−ρ
a degree of reinforcement exceeding 0.5%. For lower wy = · (4)
4fb Es 1 + (αe − 1)ρ
degrees of reinforcement, this effect was less visible or
not noticeable at all. In addition, in all cases, the number where fb is bond stress, αe is ratio of moduli of elasticity
of cracks in the vicinity of the steel beam was the high- of steel and concrete, φ is diameter of reinforcement, y
est. For the members of Series I and II, the average crack is distance of the considered wall level from joint with
width increased with the distance from the steel beam. the foundation, εy is strain in the wall at y height, and ρ is
In the case of Series III, the largest average crack width degree of reinforcement.
occurred 0.20 m above the steel beam.
Zych Int J Concr Struct Mater (2022) 16:71 Page 4 of 23

2.4 Harrison, 1981 Model elasticity of deep beams described by Schleeh (1962).

Equation (17) formulated in 1990, presented later in Stresses in concrete were calculated for different slen-
the paper, is very similar to Harrison’s proposal from derness of the wall L/H and also for two extreme cases
1981(Harrison, 1981): of bending stiffness of the foundation: case a) EF⋅IF = 0,
   case b) EF⋅IF = ∞. In both cases, the tensile stiffness was
wmax = smax · 0.5Rb · (εth + εsh ) − εult 2 (5) assumed to be EF⋅AF = ∞.
The basic parameters defining the influence of the
which was a modification of the expression contained
foundation on the limited imposed strains of the wall are
in BS 5337 (1976):
as follows: SD—ratio of tensile stiffness of the wall and of
the foundation, SB—ratio of bending stiffness of the wall
  
wmax = smax · 0.5εth + εsh − εult 2 (6)
and of the foundation, and p—parameter characterising
In the course of changing expressions used to calculate the height. The criterion of ultimate strains was assumed
the crack width, Harrison (1981) [Eq. (5)] introduced the as the criterion of thermal crack formation during the
main correction. It consisted of introducing the coef- period of member cooling:
ficient of the external degree of restraint, which enabled 
the prediction of the changes in crack widths at a given ε0 ≤ critεr = fctm EW = εct (10)
height of the wall, while in BS 5337 (1976), a constant
The ultimate strain was assumed as: “critεr = 0.005%—
crack width was defined. In addition, in BS 5337 (1976),
for early age concrete and critεr = 0.008% for hardened
as with BS 8007 (1987), concrete creep was included
concrete”. When the wall self-heating temperature reaches
in the 50% reduction in the restrained part of thermal
the limit value, dilatation cracks is formed in the spacing
strains.
of sD = 2H , and after the limit value of the self-heating
temperature is exceeded, the crack spacing is equal to
2.5 BS 8007 (1987) Standard sD = H . This condition is described by the parameter:
In the proposed standard BS 8007 (1987), the method of 
calculating crack width was, to a certain extent, very sim- mDe = αT · max �T · EW fctm (11)
ilar to the current provisions of EN 1992-3 (2006). The
Assuming a mean length of relaxation lEm according to
crack width was calculated from the following formula:
the formula:
wmax = smax · ε, (7) 
lEm = c + 0.3s + 0.1φ ρr (12)
where the spacing of the cracks was defined in the same
manner as in the Evans and Hughes’s model (Evans & Stresses in reinforcing steel and crack widths for
Hughes, 1968): their stabilised spacing are described by the following
    formulas:
smax = fct fb · φ 2ρ (8)
fctm mDe · vo
The imposed strain was determined as σsre = · (13)
ρ 1 + 2lEm
3Hnρ
 
ε = (εcs + εte ) − 100 · 10−6 or ε = R · αT · �T
(9) 2fctm mDe · vo
wse = · lEm (14)
3Es ρ 1 + 2lEm
where εcs is shrinkage strain, εte is thermal strain, R is 3Hnρ
coefficient of degree of external restraint, αT is coefficient
of thermal expansion of concrete, and ΔT is temperature This model takes into account stiffness of the joined
change. members without considering their length. The authors
provide a geometrical criterion for the formation of
cracks, according to which, the dilatation crack may be
2.6 Rostásy & Henning, 1989 Model formed with the ratio of L/H > 2.
Rostásy and Henning (1989) developed a procedure for
designing reinforced concrete walls restrained along the
bottom edge based on the results of Stoffers’s research 2.7 Al‑Rawi, Kheder & Fadhil, 1990 Model
(Stoffers, 1978). The geometry and stiffness of the joined Al-Rawi and Kheder (1990), while modifying Eq. (8) for
members on the values of the normal force N and the the crack spacing contained in BS 8007 (1987), assumed
moment M were taken into account for calculating that in the base-restrained walls, this formula depends
the stresses in the uncracked wall using the theory of on both the strength of reinforcement and the joint along
Zych Int J Concr Struct Mater (2022) 16:71 Page 5 of 23

the lower edge. Therefore, they took into account the In 1994, Kheder et al., (1994a, 1994b) also concluded
height of the wall in the expression for the crack spacing: that in walls with the ratio L/H > 5, the crack width
increases from the base toward the upper edge. How-
k ·φ·H
smin = and smax = 2smin (15) ever, for walls meeting the condition 2 < L/H < 5, the crack
ρ·H +k ·φ develops from the base upward, reaching its maximum
where k = ft/(4fb) = 0.57, 0.68 and 0.85 for ribbed, width at a height of 0.2 to 0.4H. However, above this level,
deformed and smooth rebars, respectively, ρ is degree of the crack width decreases.
reinforcement, φ is diameter of reinforcement, and H is
2.9 Ivanyi (1995) Model
height of the wall.
Kheder and Fadhil (1990), continuing the approach of In the model developed by Ivanyi (1995), it was assumed
Al-Ravi and Kheder (1990), took into account the effect that the wall was of infinite length, only dilatation cracks
of the elastic shortening of the foundation with the coef- were considered, and in the place where the wall was
ficient K according to ACI 207 (1973): joined to the foundation, a fixed joint was assumed. The
consequence of these assumptions was the constant value

1 + Aw · Ew −1
 of stresses along the wall height, as well as the fact that
K = (16) the largest crack widths occurred on the upper edge of
Af · Ef
the wall. With reference to the model of Rostásy and
where Aw is cross-sectional area of wall, Ew is modu- Henning (1989), Ivanyi (1995) makes the assumptions in
lus of elasticity of concrete in wall, Af is cross-sectional his model that it “moves” within the L/H ratio from 10
area of foundation, and Ef is modulus of elasticity of con- to ∞, i.e., these are constant stresses in the cross section,
crete in foundation.They then modified the expression to hence in the model (Rostásy & Henning, 1989) ηb = 0.0,
the maximum crack width contained in BS 8007 (1987). nb = 1.0. The basis for the formulated relationships were
Finally, they came up with an expression dependent the results of calculations made in the NISA program
upon, among other factors, the degree of restraint and using a linear-elastic material. Another assumption (as in
elastic shortening of the foundation: Stoffers (1978)) is that cracks can be formed in the spac-
ing a equal to the wall height H or 1.5H. In the case of
wmax = 0.5smax · (0.5KR · (εth + εsh ) − εctu ) (17) long, unreinforced walls, the width of cracks on their
where R is coefficient of restraint determined on the upper edge results from the free shortening of both seg-
basis of diagrams obtained from numerical calculations ments of the wall:
without taking creep into account, remaining denota- w2 = 2ko Hεo (19)
tions are as in Eq. (2).
Kheder and Fadhil (1990) decided that limiting the where εo is strain which would occur in free member.
width of cracks in the walls restrained along the lower It should be noted that with this assumption, the crack
edge results from both reinforcement and restraint at the width would increase with the height of the wall, and the
base, and therefore, less reinforcement can be used than assumption of ko = (1.0–1.5) provides the possibility of
in members restrained along the opposite edges. In addi- obtaining a large range of results. The influence of rein-
tion, they stated that to use more economical solutions, forcement was modelled with elastic members. To deter-
the degree of reinforcement should depend on the vari- mine the stiffness cs of reinforcement, model assumptions
ability of the degree of wall restraint. presented by Falkner (1969) and Leonhardt (1978) were
used:

2.8 Al‑ Kheder et al., 1994a, 1994b Model 2lE εsm = lo εs (20)

In their next study, Kheder et al. (1994a) defined the for-
where lE is length of reinforcement relaxation zone in
mula for crack width in the following form:
crack zone, εs is strain of reinforcement in cross sec-
tion through crack, and εsm is mean strain of reinforce-
 
wmax = smax · C1 (Rb − C2 Ra ) · εfree − εctu /2 (18)
ment in stress relaxation zone.With the assumptions
where Rb is restraint coefficient before cracking in the 2lE = 50 + 0.2φ/ρr and εsm/εs = 0.4, the value of cs was
middle of wall length, Ra is restraint coefficient after determined:
cracking on wall edge (defined using FEM for segment
with L/H two times smaller and without reinforcement), Es · 2As Es 2ϕ 2 π Es ϕ 2 π
cs = = = (21)
C1 is factor including influence of creep equal to 0.6, and lc 4(0.5lo ) 0.4am
C2 is factor equal to 0.8 (value estimated based on crack
width measurement at the level just above foundation).
Zych Int J Concr Struct Mater (2022) 16:71 Page 6 of 23

The crack width in a reinforced wall is described by the where Ab(x), As(x) are surface areas of concrete and steel,
formula: respectively.
 
Fs Fs 2.11 Flaga, 2004 Model
w2s = = 2 εo ko H − ko H , (22)
cs Eb ds Flaga (2004) presented some issues regarding the influ-
ence of moisture and thermal fields on the additional
in which the value of the force Fs is
stress of concrete structures. The provisions and regu-
εo ko H lations of EN 1992-1-1 (2003) were demonstrated with
Fs = (23) reference to determining shrinkage strains, as well as the
1/cs + ko H /Eb d · s
method of determining shrinkage stresses, taking into
account the ultimate tensile strain of concrete. Guide-
2.10 Paas, 1998 Model lines were provided to determine the calculation width
The Paas’s model (Paas, 1998) is an extension of the of the surface zone and the method of “filling” the field
approach proposed by Ivanyi (1995). The basic assumption of shrinkage tensile stresses. As far as the base-restrained
of this model is the analysis of the dilatation cracks, sup- walls are concerned, the following were presented: the
ported by individual studies of the cracking of the walls method of determining the distribution of thermal and
joined along the bottom edge. The crack width in the shrinkage stresses; the method of determining the mini-
unreinforced wall is described by the product of horizon- mum reinforcement; the criterion for limiting the crack
tal strain εo(x, tR) from volume changes and the theoretical width, which results from the EN 1992-1-1 guidelines
length of the wall strip le(x, tR), where tR represents the time EN 1992-1-1 (2003), and in particular from the simpli-
at the moment of cracking: fied method by determining the permissible diameter of
reinforcement.
we (x, tR ) = εo (x, tR ) · le (x, tR ) (24)
Similar, to the Ivanyi’s model Ivanyi (1995), the length le 2.12 Beeby & Forth, 2005 Model
depends on the factor k and the wall height H: Beeby and Forth (2005) analysed a simplified case of the
wall joined along the lower edge (Fig. 1). They assumed a
le (x, tR ) = ke (x, tR ) · H (25) lack of reinforcement and the fact that with the increase
where the factor ke(x, tR), called here the geometric fac- of distance to the crack, the stresses are increasingly
tor, is determined on the basis of the calculated strains transferred to the wall by shearing at the contact with the
for appropriate cross sections x. For this purpose, dia- base, until at a certain distance Lo from the crack, stress
grams are used to determine the factor ke on particular distribution is constant. Such an assumption is funda-
ordinates from 0.125H to H for the scheme of the wall mentally different if compared to a member restrained
joined along the lower edge. For the ratio Le/H ≥ 2.5, all along the opposite edges, where the effect of cracking
the values of ke = const: reduces stiffness globally. In this case, the formation
of cracks causes the stiffness to change locally. Outside
we (x, tR ) the Lo area, it is assumed that the stress state is undis-
ke (x, tR ) = (26)
εo (x, tR ) · H turbed and that cracks do not affect the widths of other
cracks. Similar assumptions were adopted by Bamforth
The next step is to determine the crack width in the rein- et al. (2015). They found that a greater degree of restraint
forced wall. Its one-sided width is defined as
we (x, tR )
ws,e (x, tR ) = cs,e (x) (27)
1+ cb,e (x,tR )

where cb,e(x, tR) is elastic tensile stiffness of concrete and

cs,e(x, tR) is elastic tensile stiffness of reinforcement are
described by the following equations:
Eb (x, tR ) · Ab (x)
cb,e (x, tR ) = (28)
le (x, tR )


cs,e (x, tR ) = 2Es As (x) lo (x) (29)
Fig. 1 Distribution of stresses after cracking in a member restrained
along lower edge
Zych Int J Concr Struct Mater (2022) 16:71 Page 7 of 23

would result in wider cracks and that the formation of a According to EN 1992-3 (2006), the difference in mean
new crack did not affect the width of the existing cracks. strains between steel and concrete is calculated accord-
ing to the following expression:
2.13 EN 1992‑1‑1 (2004) Standard
According to Appendix M (EN1992-3, 2006), the general
εsm − εcm = Rax · εfree = εr (30)
expression (7.8) contained in EN 1992-1-1 (2004) and where Rax is index determining degree of restraint of
designed to describe crack widths in bending or tensile imposed strains resulting from axial restraint induced by
members should be used to calculate the width of cracks members joined with the analysed member, εfree is strain
in tank walls. that could occur in a completely free element, and εr is
According to EN 1992-1-1 (2004), in walls subjected to restrained part of strains.
changes in strain from the self-heating of early age con- Considering the alternative form of Eq. (9), it is iden-
crete, in which the area of horizontal reinforcement As tical to Eq. (30). According to the assumptions of EN
does not meet the condition of the minimum degree of 1992-3 (2006), it can be stated that in the case of the
reinforcement, and the wall is restrained by a previously wall restrained along the lower edge, the crack width is
executed foundation, the maximum crack spacing can be proportional to the restrained part of the strain, i.e., the
adopted as 1.3H, (H—wall height). However, according to difference between the actual strain of the member and
EN 1992-3 (2006), for the case of base-restrained mem- the strain that would have been formed if the member
bers that meet the condition of the minimum degree of remained unrestrained.
reinforcement, and if the spacing of rebars is not greater
than 5(c + φ/2), the crack spacing is determined from
Eq. (7.11) is in (EN1992-1-1, 2004). In this equation, the 2.14 ACI 207.2R‑07, 2007 Standard
effective area of concrete in tension surrounding the rein- According to ACI 207.2R-07 (2007), the first crack (1)
forcement is taken into account, which results from the is formed roughly at half the length of the member and
introduced concept of primary cracks. Primary cracks in develops upward. If L/H > 2.0 and the crack develops to
a member section refer to the longest cracks, i.e., cracks a height of 0.2H–0.3H, then its further development may
which are located only or usually in the area under ten- become unstable and the crack will quickly develop to the
sion and secondary cracks which result from effective very top of the member. After the first crack is formed,
height of the area in tension hc,eff (Fig. 2). there is a redistribution of restraint at the bottom base.
Thus, an adequate amount of reinforcement should A new pair of cracks (2) are formed at roughly half the
provide an adequate amount of secondary cracks to length of the uncracked area. If L`/H > 1.0, (L` = L/2) the
absorb the imposed deformation. Thus, the influence of cracks then develop upward according to the above-men-
the strain-restraining member on crack spacing is not tioned rule. The subsequent cracks develop in the same
taken into account, assuming that it depends only on way until the sum of the crack widths compensates for
reinforcement, i.e., the model of the bar restrained along the changes in volume.
opposite edges. This assumption is completely different The current standard ACI 207.2R-07 (2007) does not
with reference to some of the above-mentioned mod- provide guidelines for determining crack widths in mem-
els. The foundation, through a rigid joint to the slab in bers subjected to imposed deformations but only refers
which shear stresses occur, contributes to the increase to ACI 224R-01 (2001) dedicated to crack control in con-
of stresses in the wall even without the presence of rein- crete structures. The standard provides a number of for-
forcement (Fig. 4). mulas to determine the crack width for typical RC and
prestressed members. One of these formulas, which was
not designed for cracking from imposed deformations
but according to the authors of the standard is the most
appropriate, is the formula defining tensile cracking:

w = 0.10 · 3 dc · A · fs · 10−3 (31)

Equation (31) is also included as a reference in ACI

207.2R-95 (1995) which, among many approaches
describing crack width, adopted the equation developed
by Gergely and Lutz (1968). The formula defining the
crack width is based on statistical research, and in the
Fig. 2 Crack layout in the tie model case of massive structures, takes the following form:
Zych Int J Concr Struct Mater (2022) 16:71 Page 8 of 23

where h is analysed distance range above base, NH is total


w = 0.076 · 3
dc · A · fs · 10−3 (32)
number of rebars at height h above base, Ab is area of
where w is maximum crack width on surface [in.] (note: reinforcement required on each wall surface, and As`h/
1 in = 254 mm), dc is concrete cover to bar axis [in.], A is NH is Ab.
mean effective tension area of concrete around reinforc-
ing rebars (2dc spacing), [in.2], and fS is calculated stress 2.15 CIRIA C660 (2007)
in steel [ksi] (note: 1 ksi = 6,89 MPa). In CIRIA C660 (2007), the method of calculation of crack
Therefore, stresses in reinforcing steel can be calcu- width in imposed deformations is based on the relation-
lated by converting the Gergely–Lutz equation Gergely ship between standards EN 1992-1-1 (2004) and EN 1992-3
and Lutz (1968) for the crack width, assuming concrete (2006). However, the difference is that in the case, where
cover of the rebars and their spacing as follows: external restraint have their effect, the imposed deforma-
w · 103 tion which determines the crack width is defined as
fs = √ (33)
0.076 · 3 dc · A εcr = εr − 0.5εctu , (38)
The next assumption is to assume stresses at the top of In the equation above, it is assumed that after the
the crack equal to ft`. In addition, the sum of the crack occurrence of cracks, the average residual strain in con-
widths at each level must be approximately equal to the crete amounts to half of the ultimate tensile strain capac-
total change in volume (KRLCTTE) minus the L ft`/Ec con- ity of concrete. This prevents overestimation of the
crete extension. Hognestad (1962) stated that the mean computational width of cracks as stated in EN 1992-3
value of the ratio of the maximum crack width to the (2006). Moreover, the restrained area of the imposed
mean width is 1.5. If N is assumed to be the number of deformation εr is defined as
cracks, and w the maximum crack width, Nw/1.5 is the
εr = K1 [(αc · T1 + εca ) · R1 + αc · T2 · R2 + εcd · R3 ],
sum of the crack widths on a given length, hence:
(39)
where T1 is the difference between peak temperature
 
N · w 1.5 = 12 · L KR · αT · TE − ft‘ /Ec

(34)
and mean ambient temperature, T2 is the long-term fall
where TE is temperature change of concrete. of concrete temperature, αc is the coefficient of thermal
For the mean crack spacing L`: expansion, εca is the autogenous shrinkage, εcd is the
drying shrinkage, k1 is coefficient which takes into con-
sideration stress relaxation caused by concrete creep in
  
L‘ = w 18 · KR · CT · TE − ft‘ /Ec (35)
the long term (k1 = 0.65 see CIRIA C660 (2007)), R1 is
Calculating the mean crack spacing is necessary to restraint coefficient in the period when concrete becomes
determine the moment transferred by reinforcement. mature, and R2, R3 are restraint coefficient for long-term
The crack may or may not develop over the entire height thermal strains and drying shrinkage, respectively.
of the wall. It depends mainly on the L/H ratio. If the Strain εr used in the expression (38), unlike expres-
crack develops along a part of the height, only the rein- sion (30) in EN 1992-3 (2006) takes into consideration
forcement in this part is involved in the moment transfer also strains occurring later, e.g., long-term thermal and
(TCx + A’sfshc/2). Reinforcing bars at height h are needed shrinkage strains apart from imposed strains occurring
to impose crack spacing equal to L’. For this case, the during maturing of concrete (i.e., αcT1 and εca).
value of this moment is defined as In addition, in CIRIA C660 (2007) the cracks inducing
   strain for the case of internal restraint are defined as
MRh = 0.20 · ft‘ · B · h2 1 − L‘ 2h (36) εcr = K1 · �T · αc · R − 0.5εctu , (40)
where x is distance from base to resultant tensile stress where ΔT is the difference in temperature between the
in concrete, TC is resultant tensile stress in concrete, hc centre and the surface of the element and R is the coef-
is crack height, and A’s is total area of reinforcement in ficient of internal restraint (acc. to CIRIA C660 (2007)
cross section through crack. recommended value is 0.42).
Therefore, the required reinforcement in each strip In Eq. (40), only the temperature gradient during
above the base is defined as maturing of concrete was taken into account due to the
  fact that autogenic shrinkage is almost uniform in the
ft‘ · B · h L‘ member cross section. According to CIRIA C660 (2007),
Ab = 0.4 · 1− (37) the general equation used to determine the crack width
fs NH 2h
Zych Int J Concr Struct Mater (2022) 16:71 Page 9 of 23

in base-restrained wall and in the member under the

internal restraint is as follows:
wk = sr,max · εcr , (41)
where sr,max is maximum crack spacing as it is defined in
EN 1992-1-1 (2004), with the difference that the recom-
mended value of coefficient k1 of reinforcement steel is
1.14, which results from taking into account the reduc-
tion of bond strength by a factor of 0.7, when the suf-
ficient bond conditions cannot be guaranteed (e.g.,
0.8/0.7 = 1.14).
Thus, according to Eq. (41), the crack width depends
mainly on the size of the imposed deformation and the
degree of restraint. Fig. 3 Dependence between crack index Icr and crack probability

2.16 JCI, 2008 Standard

permissible crack width is determined by verifying the
A completely different approach to the cracking of hard-
following condition:
ening concrete is presented in JCI (2008) and it concerns
the period from casting a member to the structure reach-

γi wc wa ≤ 1.0, (44)
ing a temperature equal to the ambient temperature.
During this period, the influence of drying shrinkage and where γi is safety factor, in general assumed as 1.0, wa
non-linear temperature distributions on the thickness of is limit crack width, and wc is calculated crack width
the member that may cause surface cracks are neglected. according to equation:
It is assumed that these phenomena can be effectively   
eliminated through technology and water curing. The wc = γa −0.071 ρ · (Icr − 2.04), (45)
crack control model is based on the probability of crack where ρ is degree of reinforcement (method calibrated
formation: for ρϵ < 0.25–0.93% >), Icr is crack index greater than 1.85,
   −4.29  γa is safety factor to determine crack width, which should
P(Icr ) = 1 − exp − Icr 0.92 · 100 (42) fall within the range of 1.0–1.7.
Equation (44) results from the implementation of lin-
where Icr = tensile strength/tensile stress strength of
ear correlations between the measured maximum crack
concrete.
widths in the experiments and the crack index. The tan-
Based on the calculations of the parameter Icr per-
gent of each angle of the regression line is presented as
formed in 3D-FM, and comparisons with the state of
a function of reinforcement y = 0.071/ρ, which provides
cracking of 728 structural members, histograms of the
the basis for writing the equation for wc in the form of
crack frequency or its absence were prepared. These
Eq. (45). Equation (45) clearly demonstrates that the
formed the basis for defining Eq. (42). The probability
higher the degree of reinforcement, the smaller the effi-
of cracking is defined as the ratio of crack frequency to
ciency of its increase. For example, for ρ = 0.75 and
the total number of cases in each crack index interval Icr
increasing up to 1.0%, as well as 1.5 and increasing up to
(Fig. 3).
1.75%, the crack width is narrowed down to 33 and 17%,
To avoid cracking, a probability of 5% should normally
respectively.
be assumed to be the limit value. The limit value of prob-
ability should result from the quality and conditions of
2.17 Bamforth et al., 2009 Model
the structure. According to JCI (2008), cracks will not
Bamforth et al. (2009) proposed a new method to con-
occur when the following condition is met:
trol cracking for elements subject to continuous edge

Pc Pt ≤ 1.0, (43) restraint. The basis of this concept was the fact that
the edge is restrained in a similar way to the reinforce-
where Pt is cracking probability limit value and Pc is cal- ment by attracting some of the load and thus distribut-
culated cracking probability. ing the cracks. Thus, on the basis of the above mentioned
In practice, this condition can be verified, as illus- assumptions, the expression As,min according to EN 1992-
trated in Fig. 3 based on the limit value of Icr = 1.85. The 1-1 (2004) is in Eq. (7.1) was modified as follows:
Zych Int J Concr Struct Mater (2022) 16:71 Page 10 of 23

  k · kc · fct,eff The basic principle adopted by DIN EN 1992-1-1/NA

As,min = 1 − 0.5 · Redge · Act , (46) (2011) (after DBV (2006)) is that the maximum tensile
fyk
force from the imposed strain resulting from the member
The crack width is calculated as the sum of wk1 and wk2, crack propagation is restricted, up to a value of imposed
i.e., the width of the crack immediately after its occur- strains of 0.8%, which is associated with, as shown in the
rence (wk1—concerns the transferred strain from con- research by Knauff et al. (2018), additional stresses in
crete to steel) and the crack width wk2 as a further result the reinforcement from imposed strains at a level of at
of imposed strain. At the first stage, the mean residual least 160 MPa. Above this value, is the stage of stabilised
strain of steel is defined according to Eq. (47), which is a crack spacing and the acting force will increase the cracks
modification of the expression (M.1) in EN 1992-3 (2006) width (Fig. 4).
for the restrained member on opposite edges: It must be pointed out that the approach according to
   DIN EN 1992-1-1/NA (2011) refers to the tie member
0.5 · αe · fct,eff 1 − Redge · B + 1 and it is often adopted to the calculation of the width of
εsmr =   ,
cracks in base-restrained walls, i.e., as a tie model sepa-
 
sr,max 1 
Es 1 − L 1 − 0.5 · B + 1−R
rated from a given section of a wall.

eff edge

(47) In DIN EN 1992-1-1/NA (2011), as with EN 1992-1-1

where B = k · kc αe · ρ + 1, Es, αe and ρ acc. to EN
 (2004), crack spacing is defined in detail only for a tie
1992-1-1 (2004), sr,max is maximum crack spacing accord- model. Such an approach to base-restrained walls may
ing to EN 1992-1-1 (2004) Eq. (7.11) taking into account be the correct approach only when the wall is strongly
the correction of coefficient k1 according to CIRIA C660 reinforced (Zych & Seruga, 2019). However, a significant
(2007), Leff is the effective length over which strain relief change in DIN EN 1992-1-1/NA (2011) in relation to
occurs = kLH/Redge, and kL is the length coefficient = 1.5. EN 1992-1-1 (2004) is abandoning the concept of coeffi-
In the first stage, the crack width is described by the cients k1, k2, k3, k4. In addition, only steel reinforcement is
following equation: taken into account. Additive element k3cnom, which takes
into account the influence of the thickness of insulation
wk1 = sr,max (εsmr − 0.5εctu ), (48) on the bigger spacing of cracks, is neglected. Element
k3cnom, in a paper by Zych and Jaromska (2019), is graphi-
In the second stage, the crack widens when εr > εctu. By
cally interpreted as a section in which there is no bond
defining the residual free contraction εres taking into con-
between steel and concrete. Such an assumption was cor-
sideration the creep before the occurrence of a crack in
rect for smooth rebars which are not applied nowadays.
the form:
Thus, the approach in DIN EN 1992-1-1/NA (2011) in
εctu this matter is also up to date. According to the author
εres = εfree − , (49)
Redge · k1 of DIN EN 1992-1-1/NA (2011) similar to EN 1992–1-1
(2004), the problem of crack spacing in base-restrained
and assuming that the average restraint within the zone members remains unsolved. It is caused by the fact that
of cracking is 0.5Redge and the crack width increase is the current guidelines used to calculate crack spacing
proportional to (1–0.5Redge), the expression for wk2 is as refer only to structures which do not meet the require-
follows: ments of minimum reinforcement. In addition, in DIN
  EN 1992-1-1/NA (2011) there are no definitions of mean
  εctu
wk2 = sr,max 1 − 0.5Redge · k1 · εfree − .
Redge · k1
(50)

2.18 DIN EN 1992‑1‑1/NA (2011) Standard

The necessity of taking into account the total effect of exter-
nal loads and imposed strains on the width of cracks was
first discussed in DIN EN 1992-1-1/NA (2011). Research
performed by Turner et al. (2017) proves that summing up
the effects of imposed strains and external loads is the cor-
rect approach. Moreover, it was demonstrated that loads
occurring later can double the width of the crack in relation
to its width during the maturing of concrete. Fig. 4 Relation between imposed strain and tensile force (Krause &
Horstmann, 2018)
Zych Int J Concr Struct Mater (2022) 16:71 Page 11 of 23

strains between steel and concrete for base-restrained number of secondary cracks n with considerable imposed
walls, which proves the necessity to apply Eq. (30) in EN deformation was described by equation:
1992-11 (2004).  
σrest,max 1
n= · lcr · − 1 · 1.1, (52)
Eeff wk,lim
2.19 Model Code (2013)
Model Code (2013) does not consider the case of a base- where σrest,max is imposed deformations stress, Eeff is
restrained member. However, in the case of the calcula- effective modulus of concrete elasticity, wck,lim is crack
tion of crack width with the use of detailed method, the width limit, 1.1 is factor denoting a decrease in the width
model considers the influence of shrinkage during drying of the subsequent secondary cracks referred to the width
on the higher value which is the difference of the mean of the primary crack, and n is value rounded up to the
strains between the reinforcement and concrete which is next integer.
as follows: The final minimum reinforcement is calculated in rela-
tion to the cracking force of the effective concrete area
σs − β · σsr
εsm − εcm − εcs = + ηr · εsh , (51) as well as from the number of secondary cracks (n > 0)
Es (Bödefeld, 2010):
where σs is the steel stress in a crack, σsr is the maximum 
steel stress in a crack in the crack formation stage, β is an ds · b2 · d1 · fct,eff · (0.69 + 0.34 · n)
As,min = (53)
empirical coefficient to assess the mean strain over ls,max wk,lim · Es
depending on the type of loading, ηr is coefficient taking
into account shrinkage occurrence, and εsh is the shrink- where ds is diameter of reinforcement, b is width in direc-
age strain. tion viewed, fct,eff is effective tensile strength of concrete,
Another important guideline concerns the differen- and Es is reinforcement elastic modulus.
tiation between “crack formation stage” and “stabilised When n ≤ 0, the condition of deformation compatibil-
cracking stage” in which a different relation of fctm/τbms ity is met but a skin reinforcement is required to ensure
is considered for long-term load, which significantly a robust concrete surface (Schlicke, 2014). The fun-
affects crack spacing, and also different values of coef- damental assumption of the analytical model is taken
ficients β and ηr dependent on the type of load and the into account, while determining the stress in the base-
size of the occurring shrinkage, respectively. According restrained wall along the lower edge, the influence of
to Model Code (2013), the impact of imposed deforma- the dead load of the wall in the form of additional bend-
tions should be considered together with the load impact. ing moment MG apart from force NW and moment MW
When the crack width is calculated, the superposition resulting from the analysis of the wall and the foundation
of these impacts should be performed at the stage of the cross section:
determination of stresses in the reinforcement. However,  
Model Code (2013) does not provide any computational MG = 0.5 · γc · Ages · L2eff ,max (54)
procedures in this matter. In general, the equations con-
tained in Model Code (2013) and EN1992-1-1 (2003), are where γc is weight of concrete, Ages is overall area of cross
calibrated only in case of a tie element which is axially section, and Leff,max is distance from the wall edge to
stretched by external force. where the moment from the self-weight results in a con-
stant value of stresses in the cross section of the wall and
foundation (Schlicke & Tue, 2016):
2.20 Schlicke & Tue, 2015 Model 
Schlicke and Tue (2015, 2016) proposed a method for the 2Mw Ii L
determination of the minimum reinforcement to limit the
Leff ,max = · ≤ (55)
γc Ages Iw 2
crack width in base-restrained members while taking into
account the deformation compatibility. This approach is where Ii is total moment of inertia, Iw is moment of iner-
supported by the physical basis of deformation changes tia of wall cross section, and L is length of wall (accuracy
in maturing concrete and their redistribution after crack of Eq. (55) in the context of wall length (L) was discussed
occurrence as opposed to the guidelines contained in by Schlicke (2014).
some other models, e.g., EN 1992-1-1 (2003). The crack height was analysed in detail by Rostásy and
According to Schlicke and Tue (2015), the concept of Henning (1990), however, disregarding the self-weight of
the effective concrete area “does not consider the fact wall. In the discussed model the crack height depends on
that every new secondary crack will increase the steel stresses σR in concrete along the top edge of the crack.
strain in the primary cracks” (see Bödefeld, 2010). The If σR is below the tensile strength, the crack height will
Zych Int J Concr Struct Mater (2022) 16:71 Page 12 of 23

be stopped. The value of stresses (σR(hR)) depends on the 3τ1 · wlim · Es

remaining area of concrete without cracks hR, because the φs ≤ (60)
fyk2
tensile force is transferred by concrete until the moment
when the crack appears along the entire length of the wall Taking into account the different reinforcement
height: diameter, the stress correction is determined according
κR · EW · bw · h3R − h3W + 6 · NW · (hW + hF ) κR · EW · hR
 
σR (hR ) = + , (56)
6 · bW · hR · (2 · hW − hR + hF ) 2

For a cracked cross section, i.e., a smaller cross sec- to the following formula:
tion of concrete, the curve is calculated after the  
formula: σs. lim = fyk φs ϕ (61)
σW ,u − σW ,o
κR = (57) For diagonal reinforcement and restraint stress
EW · h W
occurring in it, it is recommended to apply Eq. (7.1)
where σW,u is stresses along the bottom edge of wall and (EN1992-1-1, 2004). However, the essence of the pro-
σW,o is stresses along the upper edge of wall.Whereas the posed model is the determination of the crack width,
crack spacing lcr depends on crack height hcr: i.e., the area in which the reinforcement should be
placed. The crack width in base-restrained walls
lcr = 1.2 · hcr . (58) depends on the relations of the wall length to its height
To sum up, the approach, which is based on the and the mean values of bond stress τpm. In the general
deformation compatibility, is both safer and a more case, it is defined as follows:
economical estimation of the minimum area of rein- H =0 − f
σwym ctm (t)
forcement in comparison with the guidelines described hcrack = H =0 + σ H =h
·h (62)
in EN 1992-1-1 (2003). The presented model defines σwym wym
the way of determining the reinforcement to reduce the
where σwym
H =0and σ H =h are stress in concrete caused by
width of cracks in maturing concrete. In addition, the wym
imposed deformations at the wall higher and lower edge,
model gives the basis for super positioning of additional
respectively.
deformations during the lifetime of constructions. The
authors are working on the indispensable parameters
necessary to develop the model further.
2.22 Barre et al., 2016 Model
Barre et al. (2016) in Research Project CEOS.fr pre-
sented a multi-layered and detailed description of
2.21 Flaga & Klemczak, 2016 Model
cracks in reinforced members. For walls restrained
Flaga and Klemczak (2016) pointed to the occurrence
along the lower edge, Barre et al. (2016) use the equa-
of concrete decompression after the crack appearance
tions from Model Code (2013) and EN1992-1-1 (2004).
and decrease of tensile stress in reinforcement steel. In
However, they propose a different equation for shrink-
the case of the near-surface reinforcement and the self-
age strain εcs used in Eqs. (7.6 - 3) in Model Code (2013):
stresses occurring in it, authors rely on Eq. (7.1) from EN
1992-1-1 (2004). However, on the basis of Flaga (2011) εcs = 0.5εca (t) + αT [0.6(Tmax − Tini ) + Tini − Tmin (t)],
the authors proposed the crack width correction wlim (63)
which results in reality from Eq. (7.1) while taking into where Tini is the initial temperature of the concrete at the
account the stress decrease σs < σs,lim after crack occur- time of pouring, and Tmin is the minimum temperature of
rence and the tensile stress in concrete between cracks: the concrete up to time t.
  In Eq. (63), coefficient 0.5 takes into account stress
1 2
RC
wk = ÷ wk (59) relaxation which is caused by autogenic shrinkage. While
3 3 coefficient 0.6 also takes into account the increase of tem-
In Eq. (7.1) in (EN1992-1-1, 2004), σs is determined for perature thus causing compressive stresses. In the current
the reinforcement diameter φs according to guidelines in guidelines EN1992-1-1 (2004) and in Model Code (2013),
Rüch and Jungwith (1976) Eq. (60) which reflect the val- the favourable strains during the period of temperature
ues of φs shown in Table 5.1 in EN1992-1-1 (2004): increase are not taken into account in calculations.
Zych Int J Concr Struct Mater (2022) 16:71 Page 13 of 23

2.23 Gilbert, 2017 Model distribution of restraint degree and restrained strain εr.
Gilbert (2017) pays attention to the fact that the influ- He defines extreme values along the lower edge of the
ence of concrete shrinkage on the crack width is often wall.
not taken into consideration. Concrete shrinkage According to Gilbert (2017), the maximum crack width
causes the excessive crack width. Gilbert emphasises wmax is expressed as follows:
that the difference in deformations, which is the stress-
related strain resulting from restraint and consists of
wmax = sr,max · εr.cr = sr,max · (εr − εr1 ) (70)
elastic and creep strains, is as follows: While according to CIRIA C660 (2007), the residual
σr σr strain εr1 is approximated by fctm/Ecm, and according to
εr = εactual − εT +cs = εel + εcreep = + χϕ , Gilbert (2017), it is defined as follows:
Ec Ec
(64) εr1 = εr − εr.cr (71)
where
where εr1 is the sum of the elastic and creep strain caused
εT +cs = αc �T + εcs , (65) by the average tensile concrete stress between the cracks,
and εr.cr is the crack-induced strain.
For engineering purposes, Eq. (64) is expressed in stress
form:
2.24 CIRIA C766 (2018)
σr = εr · Eaaef , (66) In the next edition of CIRIA C766 (2018) widely com-
mented guidelines in the subject of crack control caused
where Eaaef is the age-adjusted effective modulus of the
by restrained deformation in concrete were discussed
concrete:
in detail and modified. In the case of the calculation of
Ec crack width dependent on the imposed deformations in
Eaaef = , (67) base-restrained members in CIRIA C766 (2018), the pro-
(1 + χϕ)
cedure is the same as in CIRIA C660 (2007) and is based
where φ is coefficient of concrete creep dependent on on the method defined in EN 1992-1-1 (2004). How-
hydration time and χ is aging coefficient taking into ever, some descriptions were discussed in greater detail
account the fact that σr increases in concrete gradually. and developed. Equation (39) used to determine the
During crack appearance, some of the mean restrained strain εr was modified as follows:
restrained strains are relieved by the crack formation.
This group of strains is called the crack-induced strain εr = Kc1 [αc · T1 + εca (3)] · R1 + Kc1
εr.cr and it is essential to calculate the crack width. The [(εca (28) − εca (3)) + αc · T2 ] (72)
average tensile stress between the cracks is · R2 + Kc2 · εcd · R3
σr = (εr − εr.cr ) · Eaaef (68) Different values of coefficient Kc1 and Kc2 were assigned
taking into account the effect of stress relaxation as a
Even if cracks do not occur at an early age, the stresses result of concrete creep at early age strain during con-
σr cannot be ignored, because later strains caused by crete maturing (Kc1 = 0.65) and during long-term situa-
drying shrinkage and other strains can increase tensile tion (Kc2 = 0.5).
stresses which further leads to crack occurrence. As with CIRIA C660 (2007), the size of strains which
Gilbert (2017) also writes that it is essential to take determine the crack width is described by the general
into consideration internal stresses as one of the deter- Eq. (38), which is the basis for the calculation of crack
minants of crack occurrence, which are described width according to Eq. (41). For calculation of maximum
with the following equation for the internal part of the crack spacing sr,max, the coefficient k1 correction was
member: kept taking the influence of poor bond into account. In
the case of the coefficient k which takes into account the
σr = −αc · �T · Rw · Eaaef (69)
self-stresses, the value 0.75 for h = 800 mm proposed in
Rw is the coefficient of internal restraint from tempera- CIRIA C660 (2007) was abandoned for the general guide-
ture differentials, according to (Gilbert, 2017) the recom- lines included in EN 1992-1-1 (2004).
mended value is 0.4.
Gilbert (2017) also emphasises the meaning of internal 2.25 Zych, 2019 Model
restraint provided by embedded reinforcement. In the The important assumption of this model is the opinion
case of edge restraint, Gilbert (2017) takes into account that the crack initiation takes place at a certain height
foundation and wall rigidity for determination of the
Zych Int J Concr Struct Mater (2022) 16:71 Page 14 of 23

above the place, where the wall and foundation come change along the wall height from linearly variable to lin-
into contact (Anson & Rowlinson, 1988, 1990; Petters- early even.
son & Thelandersson, 2001a). This height is depend- The model takes into account the widening of the
ent on the profile of the temperature changes in the cracks in consecutive stages of the imposed restraint
wall. The assumption is important, because as it was occurrence and self-stresses. Measurements of strains
presented in, among others, CIRIA C766 (2018) at that were performed on cracked cross sections of semi-
a certain level above the construction connection to massive structures confirm this fact (Zych & Seruga,
the foundation, the degree of restraint is smaller Rax. 2019). The width increase of cracks of Type I depends
Moreover, the height at which the crack occurrence on, among other factors: the size and type of load (tem-
is initiated has a significant influence on the so-called perature, shrinkage, external load), current extent of
relaxation degree after crack occurrence ΔRax, which in wall cracking, changes of mechanical properties of con-
the presented model is one of the elementary param- crete during the whole period of maturing. The crack
eters used to determine the first type of crack width. width which occurs first is calculated with the following
It is assumed in this model that immediately after the expression:
crack occurrence, the degree of restraint Rax is reduced
wk3 = wk1 + wk2 + wk3 ‘ + wk3S “ + wk3Z “.
depending on the degree of reinforcement (Zych, 2018).
(74)
The spacing of cracks of Type I [Eq. (73)] is depend-
ent on both the size and extent of relaxation zone where wk1 is initial width of the first crack, Δwk2 is
resulting from the first crack as well as the extent of increase in crack width during stabilized spacing of
reinforcement degree in the cross section of the zone. first-order cracks, Δwk3` is increase in crack width from
In general, the proposed method of calculation of crack further temperature changes, Δwk3S``is increase in first-
spacing gives the results for unreinforced walls or walls order crack width resulting from shrinkage, and Δw``k3Z
that do not meet the requirements of the minimum is increase in first-order crack width resulting from exter-
degree of reinforcement as is proposed by Iványi (1995) nal load.
and Rostásy and Henning (1989). While the increasing
degree of reinforcement affects the decreasing spacing 2.26 Schlicke et al., 2020 Model and Turner Model 2020
of cracks. Next, the spacing of cracks of Type II is based The change of the degree of restraint due to cracking
on the tie model of the restrained rebar on opposite was intensively investigated by Schlicke et al. (2020) and
ends as in EN 1992-1-1 (2004) (see Fig. 5): Turner (2020) for further improvement of the TU Graz
approach. Their analyses were based on the results of
experimental studies performed with the use of adjust-
 ζ2 =0.5
ζ =0.25 �Rax (αD ; h1 ; ζ ) · dζ
srmI = 2H  ζ =0.5 1 . able restraining frames (ARFs). Assuming passive condi-
2
ζ1 =0.25 �Rax (αD = 0; h1 = 0.4H ; ζ ) · dζ tions of restraint, changes of the partial restraint in the
(73) function of time, expected in structures, were reflected.
where H is wall-section height, ΔRax is relaxation Restraint coeffcient (a) was introduced based on the
degree resulting from crack occurrence, αD is the rela- equations describing the force equilibrium and the com-
tion D11/Ecm, D11 is stiffness of the cracked area cross patibility deformations (Schlicke et al., 2020):
section in the normal direction to the crack plane, and
h1 is height corresponding with the temperature profile 1
a= E·Am 1 (75)
1+ L + kF

where E·Am is mean axial stiffness of the specimen

dependent on the actual modulus of elasticity of concrete
First-order Model of a wall fixed
cracks at its lower edge and state of specimen’s cracking, kF is equivalent spring
stiffness of the frame, and L is length of the specimen.
Second-order As indicated by Eq. (75), the degree of restraint
Sr
cracks depends on the actual stiffness of the specimen and
equivalent stiffness of the frame. In general, the
Sr degree of restraint thus defined gets reduced owing to
the development of the modulus of elasticity to next
Initial level Model of a tie restrained increase due to the progress of cracking. In the experi-
of cracking at opposite ends
ments (Schlicke et al., 2020; Turner, 2020) as the modu-
Fig. 5 Assumption of computational model concerning the type of lus of elasticity developed the degree of restraint was
cracks and the place of their initiation (Zych, 2019)
reduced from the moment of concreting from 1.0 to
Zych Int J Concr Struct Mater (2022) 16:71 Page 15 of 23

0.65. In the specimen of stabilised cracking pattern and


ds · b2 · d12 · fct,eff · (0.5 + 0.34 · n)
1% degree reinforcement the degree of restraint next As,min = (79)
increased to 0.95. The change of the degree of restraint wk,lim · Es
after cracking was defined on the basis of the reduction
and a modification of Eq. (52) defining the number of
of forces due to cracking (Schlicke et al., 2020):
cracks:
FARF t I
 
 II   I
  · a tI ≤ 1

(76) σc k mod
 
a t =
FARF t II n= · lcr · − 1 · 1.1 (80)
Ec wk,lim · a0.6
where tI is time immediately prior to cracking and tII is where kmod is factor for effect of crack formation,
time immediately after cracking. Next, taking account of 0.6…0.85 depending on requirements and stressing, and
cracking, conditions of partial restraint and the effect of a is degree of restraint in the uncracked state.
time the tensile force in the specimen was described after
the formula:
3 Discussion
tn  n  During the period of concrete maturing as well as dur-
i=0 �wi (t)
FARF (tn ) = �ε0,p (t) + ing the period of structure exploitation, there are many
L (77)
to factors that determine the risk of crack occurrence on
· E · Am (t) · a(t)dt the lower edge of restrained walls and also determine the
final width of the cracks. On the basis of the above-men-
where t0 is time at setting of concrete, tn is relevant point tioned computation models, some key aspects can be
in time, n is number of existing cracks, FARF is resultant listed which are usually taken into account during calcu-
force, and ε0,p is imposed deformation during hardening lations in a diversified or modified form. This proves the
of concrete in the so-called passive phase, i.e., consisting fact that there remains an ongoing process of searching
of thermal strain, shrinkage strain, and viscoelastic strain. for the most accurate models of assessing crack width.
As indicated by Eq. (77), the increase of imposed Furthermore, in this paper, aspects concerning the calcu-
strain and change of crack width are superimposed lation of the following parameters are discussed: imposed
with the currently present degree of restraint and with deformations, restraint degree, concrete creep, the total
the stiffness of the specimen. Schlicke et al. (2020) and effect of early impacts and those occurring during the
Turner (2020) also performed modified tests apply- exploitation period, internal deformations, crack spac-
ing ARFs, whose aim was to reflect the behaviour of a ing and the fundamentals of physical models. The pos-
part of a wall restrained along the bottom edge. On the sibility of the application of tried and tested solutions
basis of the tests they stated, inter alia, that in the thick from other analytical models for further standard studies
members a special cracking scheme is observed con- was suggested. Directions are given for further research,
sisting of a primary crack (originated by restraint from which more precisely specify computational models
external restraints) and secondary cracks around the and develop them. Individual aspects can be analysed
primary crack (formed at definitely lower tensile force in greater detail in the subject literature. However, they
which results from the active contribution of reinforce- have not been verified in complex models of the cracking
ment). It was found that concrete near the surfaces is of maturing concrete.
more restrained.
Turner (2020) took a similar approach to defining the
changes of the degree of restraint, according to which it 3.1 Aspect of the Imposed Deformations and Their
depends on the changes in member stiffness: Modifications
Imposed strains which result from concrete temperature
1 changes and concrete shrinkage are elementary variables
a(t) = (78)
1+ (E·Am )(t)
kR ·L
in all analytical models. Standard guidelines in different
countries help to determine only the value of shrink-
where kR is spring stiffness of the frame (frame no 1: 1137 age strains, but the manner in which the thermal strains
kN/mm, frame no 2: 1053 kN/mm). are determined during concrete maturing is not usually
Next, dependence Eq. (78) was employed in modified described. Of the presented standards, the only exception
equations describing the change in the stress in con- is the standard ACI 207.2R-07 (2007), and the guidelines
crete both prior to and after cracking, which next was in CIRIA C660 (2007) and CIRIA C766 (2018).
a basis for a modification of Eq. (53) defining the mini- What is an indisputable advantage of the models devel-
mum area of reinforcement: oped in later years is that the impact of imposed strains
Zych Int J Concr Struct Mater (2022) 16:71 Page 16 of 23

is taken account of more accurately, and primarily, a strains. However, these coefficients are available only for
more precise identification of the value of their changes the simplest construction elements, while more com-
at a time proper for crack monitoring (e.g., CIRIA C766, plex constructions should be modelled in the system of
2018). Considerable simplifications in this field or a com- the appropriate construction joints. In the first models
plete lack of guidelines as to the specification of thermal (Evans and Hughes (1968); Hughes and Miller (1970);
strains (e.g., in EN1992-3 (2006)) may result in misassess- Stoffers (1978)) this coefficient was not applied, which
ment of cracking time, and thus the width of cracks. can be referred to in the case of complete restraint, i.e.,
In the first models, for example, Evans and Hughes Rax = 1. The coefficient of the external restraint degree
(1968) and Hughes and Miller (1970), 0 imposed strains was openly introduced for the first time by Harrison
were only taken into account as mean values (i.e., without (1981). In further studies (among others ACI 207.2R-95,
temperature gradients) resulting from different bound- 1995; CIRIA C766, 2018; EN1992-3, 2006) the coefficient
ary conditions on the higher and lower edge of the wall. was described more precisely depending on the consid-
One of the first models providing such calculation pos- ered case of restrained element. In some guidelines (e.g.,
sibilities was Stoffer’s model Stoffer’s (1978). Different ACI 207.2R-95, 1995) this coefficient refers to the elas-
deformations depending on the wall height are discussed ticity range of strains. In other guidelines (e.g., EN1992-
in standard models: ACI 207.2R-07 (2007), EN1992-3 3, 2006) strains connected with concrete creep are also
(2006), JSCE (2011) based on compensation plane taken into account.
method (CPM) (Al-Gubi et al., 2012). In most of the presented models, an assumption is
In practice, an imposed strain, which after occurring made of the infinite length of the wall, additionally fixed
on the section between cracks remains restraint, does not along the bottom edge. In practice, it corresponds to
contribute to the increase of crack width. This phenom- cases of very long walls joined to a massive foundation
enon was already taken into account in the first compu- slab. Analysing the cases with shorter walls joined to a
tational models as the factor that reduces imposed strain flexible foundation with these models should lead to an
by the value of ½εctu. In the case of BS 8007 (1987), the overestimation of the necessary amount of reinforce-
constant value of 100με was adopted. Other models such ment, especially in the upper part of the wall. In models
as Paas (1998) and Schlicke and Tue (2015, 2016) already based on the assumption that the wall is infinitely long,
take this effect into account in assumptions concerning the coefficient was neglected, thus its value was 1.0, like
deformation compatibility. In the model by Flaga and in the models by Rostásy and Henning (1989) and Ivanyi
Klemczak (2016), it is arbitrarily assumed that the crack (1995). The issue of the influence of the actual geom-
width after taking into account the stress decrease after etry of construction is extensive and it is the subject of
cracking and the tensile stress in concrete is reduced many advanced analyses both in the plastic–elastic scope
by 1/3 to 2/3 of the crack width. This is described more (Klemczak & Knoppik-Wróbel, 2015); Knoppik-Wróbel,
generally by Gilbert (2017), as restrained strain reduced 2015; and after cracking (Schlicke et al., 2020; Zych,
by crack-induced strain [see Eqs. (70) and (71)]. This 2018).
phenomenon was not taken into account in the current The restraint coefficient should be applied first of all
European standard EN1992-3 (2006). However, this is to check the criterion of cracking, because in the over-
taken into account in, among others, the current British whelming majority of models, it is determined for
guidelines CIRIA C766 (2018). uncracked structures. However, due to the lack of more
In general in the majority of models the fact that part detailed models, it is also used in current standard
of imposed strains remains in non-cracked sections is EN1992-3 (2006) to calculate crack width. In addition, in
taken into account. There is a contradiction between EN1992-3 (2006) it is pointed out that this approach is
this approach and that of EN1992-3 (2006) according to poorly researched. In the author’s opinion the use of the
which all the imposed strains accumulate in the cross same factor in the stage prior to cracking and that after
section of cracks, which in this particular context should cracking is contradictory to the fact that immediately
overestimate their width. after cracking the stiffness of the system decreases. This
decrease mainly depends on the reinforcement manner
3.2 Aspect of Restraint Coefficient and the number of cracks, which may negatively affect
The next element which is strongly established in the its precise specification. What is an advantage of the
procedure of crack width calculation is the restraint coef- approaches followed nowadays is that in the context of
ficient of imposed strains which results from restraint engineering calculations cracks widths are determined
joints. The values of this coefficient given in the rel- on the safe side, and in a certain group of models this fac-
evant tables or simple equations are provided to help tor is also used as a basis for rough assessment of cracks
engineers determine the restrained part of the imposed
Zych Int J Concr Struct Mater (2022) 16:71 Page 17 of 23

heights, that is a zone, where more intensive reinforce- the beneficial influence of creep. There is no description
ment is required. given in EN1992-3 (2006), but it may be stated that the
The approach of Kheder et al. (1994a), which took interpretation is comparable or it can be accepted that
into account both the degree to which the member such low values of restraint coefficient also take into
was restrained before and after cracking, resulted in an account the susceptibility of adjacent members and the
important change in the convention of calculating crack beneficial increase of temperature in the heating period,
width in members restrained along the bottom edge. The which is neglected in calculations in engineering mod-
model proposed by Zych (2019) is based on this con- els. If we adopt the interpretation that the restraint coef-
cept, where this difference is called the relaxation degree. ficient Rax takes into consideration creep as in BS 8007
However, this approach is more complex and thus more (1987), it can be stated at the same time that creep is
problematic in its application in engineering models. taken into account in the models of base-restrained walls
Next, Schlicke et al. (2020) presented an analysis of the by a restraint coefficient of 0.5.
changes of the degree of restraint in the function of the Of models presented earlier in this paper, the most
changes in the stiffness of hardening concrete and in the comprehensive approach toward concrete creep in the
function of its cracking. The analysis was supported by analysis of cracking of maturing concrete was presented
extensive laboratory tests, and the defined factor (in the by Gilbert (2017). As in EN1992-3 (2006), Gilbert uses
engineering approach) was used in, inter alia, specifying concrete creep to calculate stresses with the effective
stresses in concrete both prior to and after each cracking modulus of concrete elasticity (Eceff). In addition, Gilbert
episode. According to the author, further research and takes into consideration the ageing coefficient, but most
work on the development of analytical models should importantly he uses creep strains directly in the calcula-
include a focus on the difference between the restraint tion of crack width, Eqs. (70, 71).
before and after cracking. There is a contradiction between the above statements
and the model proposed in ACI 207.2R-95 (1995) in
3.3 Aspect of Concrete Creep which it is assumed that after cracking the time progres-
Concrete creep in the period of concrete maturing has a sive drying shrinkage of concrete eliminates the favour-
significant influence on the reduction of stresses caused able effect of creep. Consequently, the favourable effect of
by imposed strains. Despite the possibility to calculate creep on cracks width decrease should not be taken into
the creep coefficient (e.g., in EN1992-1-1, 2004), the con- account. Moreover, such an assumption is most reason-
stant increase of strains during the changing properties able also in the case of structures subjected to other loads
of concrete as it matures seems to be problematic. Ini- which increase tension.
tially, this phenomena was not taken into account (Evans Moreover, it must be stated that creep acts in two ways.
& Hughes, 1968; Hughes & Miller, 1970; Stoffers, 1978) First of all, it reduces tensile stress in concrete between
and it was then regarded as responsible for a 50% reduc- cracks, which reduces the stress in reinforcement
tion of thermal and shrinkage stresses (BS8007, 1987; through the crack and as a result of this, the crack width
Harrison, 1981). In some later models, creep also was is smaller. Second, creep has a negative influence on
not taken into account (Ivanyi, 1995; Paas, 1998; Rostásy concrete-steel bonding. Creep at the location of bonding
& Henning, 1989), which was the result of the specific contributes to the later dislocation of rebars in concrete
nature of the performed experimental tests upon which and the widening of cracks. For this reason, thorough
the models were calibrated. The originally applied coeffi- research and analyses are required of concrete–steel
cient was 0.5, which took into account the phenomena of bonding in the area of cracks that were formed during
creep and was subject to further modifications to values concrete maturing and widened due to additional exter-
of 0.6 (Kheder et al., 1994a) and 0.65 (CIRIA C766, 2018). nal loads. This phenomenon has not yet been the subject
In is written in EN1992-3 (2006) that if it is well of detailed experimental tests.
founded, creep with the use of Eceff should be consid-
ered in calculations of stresses in the case of uncracked 3.4 Aspect of Additivity of Imposed Strains
cross sections. However, the time in which the creep and Exploitation Loads
coefficient should be determined is not indicated. In Models which consider the total effect of early age and
the procedure describing the calculation of crack width, long-term imposed deformations and exploitation loads
there is no information about this. In EN1992-3 (2006), should be used in future calculations of crack width. The
what raises doubts are the relatively low restraint coef- current standards (ACI 207.2R-07, 2007; EN1992-1-1,
ficients Rax for which the values of comparable restraint 2004; EN1992-3, 2006) do not take such cases into con-
cases are identical to those in BS 8007 (1987). In BS 8007 sideration for either the issue of cracking criterion or the
(1987), lower values of coefficient Rax took into account calculation of crack width. There are two scenarios to
Zych Int J Concr Struct Mater (2022) 16:71 Page 18 of 23

consider. In the first scenario, early age deformations do Standards EN1992-3 (2006), EN1992-1-1 (2004) take
not cause any cracks and thus cracks are often neglected self-stresses into account in calculation of the width
in further analysis. This creates the false assumption that of cracks which are mainly caused by imposed strains.
stresses in early age deformations are not important in However, these standards apply only coefficient k which
the period of building exploitation. This is usually justi- enables less reinforcement in the method of the simpli-
fied by the argument that the values of stresses during fied control of cracking to reduce crack width to the limit
the period of concrete maturing are small in comparison value. In addition, these guidelines enable the considera-
with the values of stresses during the period of building tion of the total effect of self-stresses and imposed strains
exploitation. In the second scenario, cracks occur in the in a conventional manner.
period of concrete maturing. The designer checks the Guidelines in CIRIA C766 (2018) propose models for
width of the cracks in the period of concrete maturing calculating crack widths caused by self-stresses in mas-
and also during the period of building exploitation. Then, sive constructions, in which the role of imposed strains
to prevent further deterioration, s/he decides to apply is significantly smaller. Taking into account the durabil-
reinforcement limiting the width of the cracks. ity of rebars calculating the depth of surface cracks is
As far as the cracking criterion is concerned, the occur- also an important issue, as was proposed by Flaga (2011).
rence of different types of deformations and stresses This approach enables the more economical determina-
was defined in CIRIA C660 (2007), and then modified tion of the effective surface of reinforcement under ten-
in CIRIA C766 (2018). In the case of the calculation of sion, especially in constructions of bigger mass. This
crack width, the necessity to consider the total effect of solution was adapted in model proposed by Zych (2019)
early age stresses and long-term exploitation stresses was which takes into consideration the increase of crack
described in DIN EN 1992–1/NA (2011). Bamforth et al. width caused by imposed deformations as a result of
(2009) presented a two-stage approach toward the calcu- self-stresses.
lation of crack width for a member under imposed defor- In general, in semi-massive construction, to which
mations. The designer performs calculations immediately walls restrained along the lower edge often belong, fac-
after the occurrence of a crack and when the crack wid- tor k applied in the formula for As,min (acc. to EN1992-
ens in the later period. A model which considers the total 1-1, 2004) should take into consideration not only the
effect of early and late imposed deformations and also member geometry but also the relationship between the
exploitation stresses was proposed by Zych (2019). In his probable self-stresses and the stresses caused by exter-
model, the current crack width in maturing concrete is nal joints, because these two components determine the
calculated as the width increase resulting from consecu- time of cracking occurrence. This concerns both self-
tive strains and stresses. stresses generated by temperature fluctuations during the
An obvious drawback of the vast majority of the mod- period of concrete maturing and shrinkage strains caused
els described above is that they are not compatible with by concrete drying in a later period. In the case of these
the models dedicated to strains and loads occurring at uneven strains, there is a lack of detailed research and
a later stage. Theoretically this limits their applicability; analyses assessing their influence on the change of the
however, in engineering practice, when it is necessary to width of cracks that were formed due to early imposed
perform calculations, the use of different models of com- strains.
pletely different bases, i.e., sometimes for the period of
concrete maturing, for mature concrete at other times, 3.6 Aspect of Crack Spacing
may lead to contradictions as, e.g., in cracks spacing or In computational models, the maximum crack spacing is
the extent of strains/loads affecting the given crack width. often taken into account. It results from the assumption
Thus, further detailed research on additivity of early that the strain differences between steel and reinforce-
age and long-term imposed deformations and external ment which occur between cracks determine the width
stresses is required. Such research would enable the cali- of these cracks. However, in a base-restraint wall there
bration of models. are many more factors affecting crack spacing than there
are in the model of a restrained tie on the opposite edges.
3.5 Aspect of Self‑stresses For this reason, the calculation of maximum crack spac-
Following the restraint coefficient of imposed strains by ing tends to be quite problematic.
external restraints, models occasionally provide restraint In the first models considerable simplifications were
coefficients of internal strains. This issue has a bigger applied. They resulted from the fact that the crack spac-
significance in the case of massive constructions than in ing is within a wide range of probable values, which is
semi-massive constructions (CIRIA C766, 2018). quite often dependent on the wall height H (e.g., Evans &
Zych Int J Concr Struct Mater (2022) 16:71 Page 19 of 23

Hughes, 1968; Hughes & Miller, 1970; Ivanyi, 1995; Paas, distinction can be made between models in which cracks
1998; Stoffers, 1978). At a certain stage of calculation, layout is considered stabilised (e.g., CIRIA C766, 2018;
the spacing was also treated as an arbitrary value which EN1992-1-1, 2004; Evans & Hughes, 1968; Rostásy &
equals H (Rostásy & Henning, 1989) independently of, Henning, 1989) and those in which the calculations take
among others, the amount of reinforcement. Currently, in account of stage cracking, which is more correspond-
most models (Model Code, 2013); (Bamforth et al., 2009; ing to reality (e.g., ACI 207.2R-95, 1995; Schlicke & Tue,
Barre et al., 2016; CIRIA C660, 2007; CIRIA C766, 2018; 2015; Schlicke et al., 2020; Turner, 2020). The advantage
DIN EN1992-1-1/NA, 2011; EN1992-3, 2006; Gilbert, of the latter models is the possibility of an evaluation of
2017) spacing results from the relationship between con- the scale of cracking and precise determination of crack
crete-steel bond stresses and concrete tensile strength, width, which is economically justified in reinforcement
i.e., an assumption similar to the model of a restrained tie spacing.
on opposite edges. Two of the above-mentioned trends
regarding crack spacing calculation determine the basic 3.7 Physical Basics of the Models
differences in the obtained results. Spacing at the level of The milestones proposed in particular models and high-
H concerns expansion cracks which reach wall coping, lighted in the present paper indicate a significant pro-
the spacing of which results from joints in the wall base gress in the calculation tools as concerning both their
and is independent of the amount of wall reinforcement. more scientific description and a larger number of
By contrast, the second concept of crack width calcula- aspects taken into account (e.g., cracks height or member
tion focuses on the issue locally, assuming that the next stiffness after cracking). Some of the described models
crack will occur independently of the external restraints are based on: the empirical knowledge (Evans & Hughes,
in a wall at a distance at which the tensile stress increase 1968), matching parts of models which originally were
in concrete will be so big that the concrete tensile dedicated to external loads (EN1991-1, 2004; EN 1992-
strength is exceeded. In this concept, reinforcement is the 3, 2006), matching to experimental evidence (Rostásy
fundamental variable. Certain doubts are raised by the & Henning, 1989) or to FEM results (JCI, 2008), and
fact that the second approach is based on a tie model not still other ones are based on deformation compatibility
on the base-restraint wall model. A different approach (Schlicke & Tue, 2015; Schlicke et al., 2020; Turner, 2020).
concerning the determination of stresses in a wall is pre- The differences between the models result not only from
sented in ACI 207.2R-95 (1995), in which a crack occurs the adopted method or type of adopted assumptions,
in the middle of each uncracked section which in practice but also the amount and type of data in relation to which
corresponds with the cases of poorly reinforced walls, they are calibrated. Consequently, there are fundamen-
i.e., the situation when the reinforcement in a crack cross tal differences not only in the calculation method but
section does not affect the next place of crack occur- foremost in the possibility of taking account in the given
rence. There are also intermediate models in which crack model of for instance: aspects increasing the precision
spacing, especially with regard to the magnitude of ten- of estimated width of a crack, assessment of the scale of
sile strength, is dependent on the current height of crack- cracking or specification of cracks height. The most com-
ing (Flaga, 2011; Schlicke & Tue, 2015, 2016; Turner, mon assumption is the calculation of cracks width as a
2020). Moreover, Turner (2020) and Schlicke et al. (2020) product of their maximum spacing and imposed defor-
proved that in thick members cracking happens along a mations. Compared with simplified models a consider-
special scheme, namely, it consists of the so-called pri- able part of the present models enables more economical
mary crack and symmetrically located shorter second- design of structures. In the case of the former ones calcu-
ary cracks. The last group of models makes crack spacing lations should be on the safe side, but they result in solu-
dependent on both the wall height and reinforcement tions much more uneconomical.
(Al-Rawi & Kheder, 1990; Zych, 2019). Certainly, the cal- Due to the existence of certain research results and var-
culation of crack spacing is impeded by the fact that the ious proposals for modelling the development of cracking
real crack spacing mainly depends on the restraint degree of the base-restrained walls, in the context of EN 1992-
of a member which changes whenever the wall is cracked. 1-1 (2004), this issue is described as being based on “Brit-
This change mainly depends on the stiffness of external ish” beliefs, in which the use of the tie model is also valid
joints and the amount of reinforcement. for members working in other static schemes. Accord-
Therefore, there is a number of contradictions in the ing to EN1992-3 (2006), the model of a base-restrained
calculation of cracks spacing, which to a large extent wall has not been sufficiently analysed. However, in the
result from arbitrary simplifications of the given model. context of cracks spacing there appears an essential con-
Apart from the differences in the assumptions described tradiction in a completely different static scheme of tie
above as to what factors affect cracks spacing, a model and wall restrained along the bottom edge.
Zych Int J Concr Struct Mater (2022) 16:71 Page 20 of 23

Even in cases where the model takes positive founda- this subject is DIN EN 1992-1-1/NA (2011), which
tion flexibility into account (e.g., Rostásy & Henning, points to the need for such a superposition and con-
1989), the calculations usually focus on so-called dilata- stitutes a step forward in computational assump-
tion cracks and disregard cracks which do not reach the tions. However, there is lack of detailed computa-
upper edge of the wall and need to be analysed separately. tional guidelines in this scope.
The assumption is entirely correct but only in the case • The introduction of a variable degree of restraint
when such a crack will in fact occur in the structure. In with regard to the imposed deformations in the
such cases, however, a more practical solution is to use future standard guidelines. The value of this restraint
joints that at least partially compensate for imposed during, for example, the period of concrete maturing
strains at these points. In this respect, a more versatile or during the period of exploitation of the structure
approach is included in ACI 207.2R-07 (2007), provid- depends on the current case of restraint. According
ing the possibility of calculating tensile stresses at a given to CIRIA C766 (2018), this has a significant influence
level of the wall, and applying adequate reinforcement. on the risk of cracking and the crack width.
In some guidelines, there is lack of an analytical basis • Defining the height of the area in which it is neces-
in the equation used for the calculation of crack width or sary to apply reinforcement to prevent early cracking
the analytical basis considers only a part of a model. For as is proposed by Schlicke and Tue (2016) or Flaga
instance in ACI 207.2R-07 (2007) in Eq. (32) there is lack (2011). This will contribute to more economical dis-
of quantity describing the imposed strains. Equation (32) tribution of the reinforcement.
was adjusted to the observation of crack occurrence dur- • Taking into account the total influence of not only
ing the period of concrete maturing. However, in ACI imposed deformations or external loads on the cal-
207.2R-07 (2007) the way of calculating the stresses culated crack width but also self-stresses which are
in reinforcement steel is vital and in the case of base- caused by uneven deformations in the cross section
restrained walls, it is much more complex than in, for of the wall. Currently, in EN1992-1-1 (2004), internal
example, EN1992-3 (2006). The guidelines JCI (2008) do stresses are taken into account with the use of coef-
not consider any physical basis known from other mod- ficient k only when the minimum reinforcement is
els, but they use the theory of probability, a series of cal- determined.
culations performed in 3D-FEM and comparisons with • Considering the alternative models for the analysis
the state of cracking of 728 structural members. of restrained members cracking along the lower edge
It is also arguable whether to take account of the effect with the use of kinematic compatibility (Schlicke &
of relaxation immediately after cracking (Flaga & Klem- Tue, 2016).
czak, 2016), which although periodically reduces cracks • Distinguishing between at least two calculation
width, but in less reinforced members significantly affects stages: stage 1 immediately after the crack occur-
the reduction of stresses causing further cracking. With- rence; stage 2 later when the crack widened (Bam-
out any doubt it is necessary to take account of this fact forth et al., 2009; Zych, 2019).
in the models including the stage cracking of a member. • Giving more precise interpretations of restraint
coefficient in comparison to the current version of
3.8 Guidelines for the Future EN1992-3 (2006) in the scope of the concrete creep
In connection with the periodic update of standard phenomena.
guidelines in different countries and also ongoing work
over the new Eurocode version, potential corrections and The proposals listed above concerning the supplements
follow-ups can be proposed on the basis of the review of or changes in the current version of EN1992-3 (2006) will
computational models presented above. The subject is only be possible when a sufficient amount of data is gath-
connected with both the adoption of the appropriate cri- ered in subject literature.
terion of cracking and a model to determine the width of
cracks in semi-massive structures. In the future, the most 3.9 Further Research Recommendations
important issues will be as follows: The most important recommended directions for further
scientific research are as follows:
• Taking into consideration the combination of stresses
caused by imposed deformations generating stresses • Examination of the phenomena of the earlier loss
in the early age stages of concrete maturing together of bond between concrete and steel resulting from
with the later occurring stresses during exploitation cracks occurring during maturing of concrete. In
in both the cracking criterion and models for crack addition, there is a need to examine the influence of
width calculations. The most advanced standard in this early loss of bond between concrete and steel on
Zych Int J Concr Struct Mater (2022) 16:71 Page 21 of 23

additional strains or stresses occurring later when the deformation or its consequences. It is, therefore, nec-
concrete is mature. This phenomenon is not included essary to obtain information from specialist literature.
in the current approach of standards (EN 1992-1-1 Moreover, in the case of using simplifications, which
2004; EN 1992-3 2006), a constant value of factor are always adopted at the design stage, knowledge of the
k1, i.e., a constant mean concrete tensile strength to physics of the issue is important, which from a practical
mean bonding stresses ratio, is stipulated. point of view allows proper interpretation of the results.
• More detailed examination and modelling of the Large number of computational aspects which are
influence of concrete creep on the changes in decisive in the complex analytical verification of cracks
imposed strains εr both before and after crack occur- in maturing concrete proves that this subject is difficult.
rence. Most current guidelines which take concrete Thus, for engineering purposes, the creation of simplified
creep into consideration rely on only one unchanging methods based on detailed solutions seems to be justified.
coefficient. Attention has been drawn to the current possibilities
• Experimental research and computational analy- for the introduction of supplements to the standard mod-
ses concerning changes to the width of early cracks els of calculation of crack width in walls restrained along
caused by imposed strains and external loads occur- the lower edge. In addition, possible further directions of
ring later. Current scientific research does not pro- studies in the discussed subject have been indicated.
vide a complex study of this problem (Bamforth et al., Currently, one of the most important aspects of the
2009; Zych, 2019). In particular, there is a lack of development of the analytical models of cracks is exam-
appropriate scientific tests. ining the overall influence of early imposed deformations
• An interesting trend in creating analytical models together with the loads occurring later during the period
is the “merging” of results of numerical calculations of exploitation as it takes place in reality in the case of
performed within an adequate range of variables, to most semi-massive constructions. However, this would
generalise the model by a specific parameter (Paas, require the creation of a database of measuring data
1998). which would gather results from a wide range of experi-
mental tests which would then be the basis for the crea-
tion of complex analytical models.
4 Conclusions
This research study presents the development of analyti- Abbreviations
cal models from the year 1968 of the calculation of the CPM: Compensation plane method; FEM: Fine element method; RC: Rein-
forced concrete; SLS: Serviceability limit state.
crack width in reinforced walls restrained along the lower
edge. Some of these models may become an alternative Acknowledgements
solution to the design problem, assuming that they meet Not applicable.
the basic assumptions of the presented models. Author contribution
The presented analytical models were commented on in MZ made the whole work. I hereby declare that my contribution to this
the range of the most important computational aspects, Review Article is 100%. The author read and approved the final manuscript.
i.e., imposed deformations, self-stresses, restraint coeffi- Authors’ information
cient, concrete creep, long-term imposed deformations, MZ (RILEM TC 254-CMS member) is an academic at Cracow University of Tech-
exploitation stresses, crack spacing and the physical nology. In 2011, he was granted the academic degree of Doctor of Technical
Sciences at Cracow University of Technology, and in 2018, he was granted
basics of the model. Detailed conclusions have been pre- a postdoctoral degree. In 2019 Associate Professor. His interests include the
sented earlier in this paper in the discussion about com- following areas: water-tightness and durability of semi-massive RC tank walls,
putational aspects. early age cracking, as well as the design and strengthening of RC and pre-
stressed tanks for the storage of liquids.
Despite partial criticism of the presented computa-
tional models, they are engineering tools that should, in Funding
most cases, guarantee solutions on the safe side. To some No funding, not applicable.
extent, they also form the basis and inspiration for fur- Availability of data and materials
ther work on the development of these models in various Not applicable.
computational aspects.
The current guidelines of the standard and compu- Declarations
tational capabilities of basic commercial engineering
Competing interests
programs are at a level that does not usually allow design- I declare that I have no competing interests.
ers to precisely predict either the size of the imposed
Zych Int J Concr Struct Mater (2022) 16:71 Page 22 of 23

Received: 31 March 2022 Accepted: 22 August 2022 Eurocode 2. (2006). Design of concrete structures—Part 3: liquid retaining and
containment structures, EN 1992–3. CEN.
Evans, E. P., & Hughes, B. P. (1968). Shrinkage and thermal cracking in a
reinforced concrete retaining wall. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, 39(1), 111–125.
References Falkner, H. (1969). Zur Frage der Rißbildung durch Eigen- und Zwängspannungen
ACI 207. (1973) Effect of restraint volume change and reinforcement on crack- infolge Temperatur in Stahlbetonbauteilen, Heft 208. Deutsche Ausschusses
ing of mass concrete. ACI Committee 207, American Concrete Institute. für Stahlbeton.
ACI 207.2R-95 (1995) Effect of restraint, volume change and reinforcement Fib. (2013). Model code for concrete structures 2010. Ernst & Sohn.
on cracking of mass concrete. ACI Committee 207, American Concrete Flaga, K. (2004). Shrinkage stress and reinforcement in concrete structure, [Mono-
Institute. graph 295]. Cracow University of Technology.
ACI 224R-01 (2001) Control of cracking in concrete structures. ACI Committee Flaga, K. (2011). Shrinkage stress and reinforcement in concrete structure, [Mono-
224, American Concrete Institute. graph 391]. Cracow University of Technology.
ACI 207.2R-07 (2007) Report on thermal and volume change effects on crack- Flaga, K., & Klemczak, B. (2016). Structural and technological aspects of thermal-
ing of mass concrete. ACI Committee 207, American Concrete Institute. shrinking stresses in massive and medium-thick concrete structures. Cracow
Al Rhawi, R. S., & Kheder, G. F. (1990). Control of cracking due to volume Univ. of Technology.
change in base-restrained concrete members. ACI Structural Journal, Gergely, P., & Lutz, L. A. (1968) Maximum crack width in reinforced concrete
87(4), 397–405. flexural members. Causes, Mechanism, and Control of cracking in concrete,
Al-Gubi, M., Jonasson, J. E., Nilsson, M., Hedlund, H., & Hösthagen, A. (2012). American Concr Institute SP-20 87–117
Simplified methods for crack risk analyses of early age concrete. Part 1: Gilbert, R. I. (2017). Cracking caused by early-age deformation of concrete—
Development of Equivalent Restraint Method. Nordic Concr Research, 46, Prediction and control. Procedia Engineering, 172, 13–22. https://​doi.​org/​
17–38. 10.​1016/j.​proeng.​2017.​02.​012
Anson, M., & Rowlinson, P. M. (1988). Early-age strain and temperature meas- Harrison, T. A. (1981). Early-age thermal crack control in concrete. CIRIA.
urements in concrete tank walls. Magazine of Concr Research, 40(145), Hognestad, E. (1962). High strength bars as concrete reinforcement, Part 2,
216–226. Control of flexural cracking. Journal of PCA Research and Development
Anson, M., & Rowlinson, P. M. (1990). Field measurements for early-age strains Laboratories, 4(1), 46–63.
in concrete. Magazine of Concr Research, 42(153), 203–212. Hughes, P. B., & Miller, M. M. (1970). Thermal cracking and movement in rein-
Bamforth, P. B., Denton, S., & Shave, J. (2009) A new approach for the design forced concrete walls. Proc of the Institution of Civil Engineers, 45(2), 65–86.
of reinforcement to control cracking resulting from continuous edge Iványi, G. (1995). Bemerkungen zu Mindestbewehrung in Wänden, Minimum
restraint to continuous. In: Concrete: ­21st Century Super. Building a Sus- reinforcement in the walls. Beton- Und Stahlbetonbau, 90(11), 283–289.
tainable Future, Fib Symposium, (pp 22–24). London, Hero. JCI. (2008). Guidlelines for Control of Cracking of Mass Concrete. Japan Concrete
Bamforth, P. B., Shave, J., & Denton, S. (2015) Design for early age thermal Institute.
cracking. In: Bridge Design to Eurocodes (pp 239–249). England: Thomas Jędrzejewska, A., Kanavaris, F., Zych, M., Schlicke, D., & Azenha, M. (2020).
Telford Limited. https://​www.​icevi​rtual​libra​ry.​com/​doi/​abs/​10.​1680/​BDTE.​ Experiences on early age cracking of wall-on-slab concrete structures.
41509.​0019 AND https://​www.​icevi​rtual​libra​ry.​com/​doi/​epdf/​10.​1680/​ Structures, 27, 2520–2549. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​istruc.​2020.​06.​013
BDTE.​41509.​0019 JSCE. (2011). Guidelines for concrete. No .15: Standard specifications for concrete
Bamforth, P. B. (2007). Early-age thermal crack control in concrete. CIRIA C660. structures. Design Japan Society of Civil Engineers.
Bamforth, P. B. (2018). Control of cracking caused by restrained deformation in Kheder, G. F., Al-Rawi, R. S., & Al-Dhahi, J. K. (1994a). A study of the behavior
concrete. CIRIA C766. of volume change cracking in base restrained concrete walls. Mater and
Barre, F., Bisch, P., Chauvel, D., Cortade, J., Coste, J.-F., Dubois, J.-P., Erlicher, S., Structures, 27(7), 383–392.
Gallitre, E., Labbé, P., Mazars, J., Rospar, C., Sellier, A., Torrenti, J.-M., & Tout- Kheder, G. F., Al-Rawi, R. S., & Al-Dhahi, J. K. (1994b). Study of the behavior of
lemonde, F. (2016) Control of Cracking in Reinforced Concrete Structures: volume change cracking in base-restrained concrete walls. ACI Materials
Research Project CEOS.fr. Wiley, New Jersey. Journal, 91(2), 150–157.
Beeby, A. W., & Forth, J. P. (2005) Control of cracking walls restrained along their Kheder, G. F., & Fadhil, S. (1990). Strategic reinforcement for controlling
base against early thermal movements. In: Proceedings 6th International volume-change cracking in base-restrained concrete walls. Mater and
Congress On Global construction, ultimate concrete opportunities (pp Structures, 23(5), 358–363.
123–132). London: Thomas Telford. Kiernożycki, W. (2003). Concrete massive structures. Cracow: Polish Cement.
Bödefeld, J. (2010) Rissmechanik in dicken Stahlbetonbauteilen bei Klemczak, B., & Knoppik-Wróbel, A. (2015). Degree of restraint concept in
abfließender Hydratationswärme. Dissertation, Universität Leipzig. analysis of early-age stresses in concrete walls. Engineering Structures,
BS 5337. (1976). Code of practice for the structural use of concrete for retaining 102(11), 369–386.
aqueous liquids. British Standards Institution. Knauff, M. (2012). Calculation of reinforced concrete structures according to
BS 8007. (1987). Design of concrete structures for retaining aqueous liquids. British eurocode 2. PWN Scientific Publishers.
Standards Institution. Knauff, M., Grzeszykowski, B., & Golubińska, A. (2018). Examples of calculating
Buczkowski, W. (1993). Thermal load of rectangular tanks buried in the ground. reinforced concrete structures. Cracking. PWN Scientific Publishers.
Inżynieria i Budownictwo, 12, 506–508. Knoppik-Wróbel, A. (2015) Analysis of Early-Age Thermal-Shrinkage Stresses in
DBV. (2006). Merkblatt Rissbildung, Begrenzung der Rissbildung im Stahlbeton- Reinforced Concrete Walls. Dissertation, Silesian University of Technology.
und Spannbetonbau. Deutscher Beton und Bautechnik-Verein E.V. Krause, H. J., & Horstmann, M. (2018). Planung und Bemessung von WU-
DIN EN 1992-1/NA. (2011). Nationaler Anhang—National festgelegte Param- Konstruktionen—Entwurfsgrundsätze und deren statisch konstruktive
eter—Eurocode 2 Bemessung und Konstruktion von Stahlbeton- und Spann- Umsetzung. Beton- Und Stahlbetonbau, 113(S1), 20–35.
betontragwerken, Teil 1-1. Allgemeine Bemessungsregeln und Regeln für Leonhardt, F. (1978). Vorlesungen über Massivbau. Springer.
den Hochbau. Paas, U. (1998). Mindestbewehrung für verformungsbehinderte Betonbauteile im
DIN EN 1992–1 (2010) Eurocode 2, Bemessung und Konstruktion von Stahl- jungen Alter. Beuth Verlage GmbH.
beton- und Spannbetontragwerken, Teil 1–1: Allgemeine Bemessung- Pettersson, D., Alemo, J., & Thelandersson, S. (2002). Influence on crack devel-
sregeln und Regeln für den Hochbau. Deutsche Fassung, EN 1992–1– opment in concrete structures from imposed strains and varying bound-
1:2004 + AC:2010, Germany. ary conditions. Construction and Building Mater, 16(4), 207–213.
Emborg, M. (1989) Thermal Stresses in Concrete Structures at Early Ages, Dis- Pettersson, D., & Thelandersson, S. (2001a). Crack development in concrete
sertation, Luleå University of Technology. structures due to imposed strains. Part I: Modeling. Mater and Structures,
Eurocode 2. (2003). Design of concrete structures: General ruls and rules for build- 34(1), 7–13.
ings, Draft prEN EN 1992-1-1:2003. Brussels: CEN. Pettersson, D., & Thelandersson, S. (2001b). Crack development in concrete
Eurocode 2. (2004). Design of concrete structures—Part 1–1: General rules and structures due to imposed strains, Part II: Parametric study of a wall fully
rules for buildings, EN 1992-1-1. Brussels: CEN. restrained at the base. Mater and Structures, 34(1), 14–20.
Zych Int J Concr Struct Mater (2022) 16:71 Page 23 of 23

Rostásy, F. S., & Henning, W. (1989). Zwang in Stahlbetonwänden auf Funda-

menten. Beton- Und Stahlbetonbau. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​best.​19890​
0300
Rostásy, F. S., & Henning, W. (1990). Zwang und Rissbildung in Wänden auf
Fundamenten, Heft 407. Deutscher Ausschuß für Stahlbeton.
Rostásy, F. S., & Onken, P. (1994). A practical planning tool for the simulation of
thermal stresses and for the prediction of early thermal cracks in massive
concrete structures. In R. Springenschmid (Ed.), Proceedings of the Inter-
national Symposium RILEM: Thermal Cracking in Concrete at Early Ages. CRC
Press Taylor & Francis Group.
Rüch, H., & Jungwirth, D. (1976). Stahlbeton-Spannbeton Bd. 2; Berücksichtigung
der Einflüsse von Kriechen und Schwinden auf das Verhalten der Tragewerke.
Werner-Verlage.
Schleeh, W. (1962). Die Zwängspannungen in festgehaltenen Wandscheiben.
Beto- Und Stahlbetonbau, 57(3), 64–72.
Schlicke, D. (2014) Mindestbewehrung zwangbeanspruchter Betonbauteile
unter Berücksichtigung der erhärtungsbedingten Spannungsgeschichte
und der Bauteilgeometrie, Dissertation, TU Graz.
Schlicke, D., Hofer, K., & Nguyen, V. T. (2020). Adjustable restraining frames for
systematic investigation of cracking risk and crack formation in reinforced
concrete under restrained conditions. Advanced Techniques for Testing of
Cement-Based Materials, 2, 211–239.
Schlicke, D., & Tue, N. V. (2015). Minimum reinforcement for crack width control
in restrained concrete members considering the deformation compat-
ibility. Structural Concrete, 2, 221–232.
Schlicke, D., & Tue, N. V. (2016). Mindestbewehrung zur Begrenzung der
Rissbreite unter Berücksichtigung des tatsächlichen Bauteilverhaltens Teil
2: Anwendung für Wände auf Fundamenten und Abgrenzung zum Ris-
skraftnachweis nach EC2. Beton- Und Stahlbetonbau, 111(4), 210–220.
Stoffers, H. (1978). Cracking due to shrinkage and temperature variation in walls.
Delft University of Technology and I.B.B.C.
Turner, K., Schlicke, D., & Tue, N.V. (2017) Systematic investigations with
restraining frames for reinforced concrete. In: 2nd International RILEM/
COST Conference on Early Age Cracking and Serviceability in Cement-based
Materials and Structures (EAC2), (pp 579–584), Brussels, ULB-VUB.
Turner, K. (2020) Ganzheitliche Betrachtung zur Ermittlung der Mindestbe-
wehrung für fugenlose Wasserbauwerke. Doctoral Thesis, TU Graz.
Van Breugel, K. (1982) Development of temperature and properties of
concrete as a function of the degree of hydration. In: Proceedings Rilem
International Conference on Concrete at Early Ages, (pp 179–185), Avril:
Presses de 1`ENPC. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0262-​5075(82)​90045-8
Van Breugel, K. (1995). Numerical simulation of the effect of curing tem-
perature on the maximum strength of cement-based materials. In R.
Springenschmid (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Symposium RILEM:
Thermal Cracking in concrete at Early Age (pp. 127–134). CRC Press Taylor &
Francis Group.
Zych, M. (2018). Degree of external restraint of wall segments in semi-massive
reinforced concrete tanks: Part II Rectangular and cylindrical segments.
Structural Concr, 19(3), 829–838. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​suco.​20170​0037
Zych, M. (2019). A new model for crack control in reinforced concrete tank
walls. Part I: Analytical investigation. ACI Structural Journal, 116(3), 85–94.
Zych, M., & Jaromska, E. (2019). Differences between DIN EN 1992-1-1/NA2011
guidelines and EN-1992-1-1:2004 standard with respect to the design of
the minimum reinforcement and crack width from imposed deformation.
Archives of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 19(3), 627–638.
Zych, M., & Seruga, A. (2019). A new model for crack control in reinforced
concrete tank walls. Part II: Comparison with experimental results. ACI
Structural Journal, 116(3), 95–105.

Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in pub-
lished maps and institutional affiliations.