STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DIGEST

A review of the minimum reinforcement and

crack-width criteria for liquid retaining structures
M. N. Shariff M. N. Shariff received his M.S. and Ph.D. from
Assistant Professor
Indian Institute of Technology Madras. He is a
Indian Institute of Technology
Bombay member of ACI Committee 209, Creep and
Mumbai, India Shrinkage in Concrete and T.G. 4.5. His research
shariff@iitb.ac.in
interests include ageing infrastructure and long-
term performance, serviceability of critical
infrastructure and structural evaluation of 3D
reinforced concrete members.

Abstract advantage of being relatively impermeable and

durable. Apart from the structural integrity, safety
This paper discusses the changes in the recent
and durability, the serviceability criteria (crack
revision of IS 3370 (2) : 2021, design of liquid
width) often controls the design of such structures.
storage structures, with respect to the serviceability
The Indian code of practice for the design of liquid
requirements. The code revision mandates the use
retaining structures (IS 3370) [1] was recently
of limit state method for the design of liquid
revised in 2021. One of the major changes in the
retaining structures. The minimum reinforcement
code is the removal of the traditional working
provisions and crack width criteria required for
stress method of design. All liquid retaining
serviceability limit state for liquid retaining
structures are now required to be designed based
structures provided in international codes are
on the limit state method, in line with other
compared. An anomaly is found in the crack width
international codes of practice.
formulae and this is demonstrated with the help of
an example. The crack width calculated using Cracks in concrete structures can be classied as (i)
codal expressions are compared with pertinent controllable cracks and (ii) non-controllable cracks.
experiments reported in the literature. It is found The controllable cracks are due to the applied loads
that the current design provisions do not lead to a and the indirect effects (such as volume changes in
conservative design and hence there is a need for hardened concrete due to shrinkage and
improvement in the design guidelines. temperature), which can be determined using the
equilibrium conditions. The non-controllable
Keywords: Reinforcement; crack width; leakage;
cracks are those which are not included in the
durability; cover.
current design codes, such as freeze-thaw cracks,
corrosion, alkali-silica reaction etc [2]. The limiting
1. Introduction
crack-widths are based on the criteria of aesthetics,
Liquid retaining structures are often constructed control of corrosion and water tightness [3]. The IS
using reinforced concrete (RC) owing to the key code [1] prescribes three tightness classes.

April - June, 2023 • 00

 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DIGEST

Tightness Class 1 and 2 corresponds to 0.2 mm and crack-width (wk) is often dened as a product of
0.1 mm crack-width limit respectively, allowing for maximum crack-width (wm) and a scatter factor (b).
the cracks to pass through the full thickness of the Thus the characteristic crack-width (wk) is given as
section. Tightness Class 3 corresponds to a crack-
wk = bwm = bsm esm (1)
width limit of 0.1 mm, and the crack shall not pass
through the entire thickness of the section. where b is taken as a value between 1.5 and 2.0, sm is
However, although several researchers across the the average value of crack spacing, and esm is the
world have worked on the subject, there is no average difference between the strains in concrete
consensus on the formula used for crack-width and steel between two consecutive cracks.
calculation or the spacing of crack-width [4]. The
crack-width calculation models can be classied 2.1 Crack-width expression as reported by
into the following categories (i) analytical models, various researchers
wherein the differential equation of bond-slip is
The crack-width expressions proposed in the code
used to solve the crack-width, (ii) semi-analytical
are based on the studies and proposals based on
models, wherein the bond stress or strain is
various researchers works. Some of the salient
included to solve the differential equation of bond-
research works reported in the literature and
slip with suitable simplications, (iii) empirical
adopted by various codes to predict the crack-
models, wherein the crack-width formulae are
width are discussed in this section.
based on tting of experimental data, and (iv)
numerical models, wherein fracture mechanics In 1956, Clark[8] carried out an exhaustive
models or FEM are employed to determine the experimental campaign with over 300 data points
crack-width [5]. of crack-widths and developed an empirical
expression for the crack-width calculation. The
In this paper, a review of the crack-width formulae
characteristic crack-width (wk) is given as
available in the literature are presented and the
basis for the IS 3370 crack-width formula (2)
established. Further, the crack-width formulae in
other international codes such as the Eurocode [6] where h is the overall height of the section, d is the
and ACI 224 [7] are discussed. An example of effective depth, f is the diameter of the
crack-width calculation (as per IS 3370) using two reinforcement bar, r is the steel ratio, ss2 is the stress
different methods is presented and the anomalies in steel at the location of the crack and m is the
in the crack-width calculation are discussed with a modular ratio.
parametric study. Similar parametric studies on In 1963, Kaar and Mattock [9] carried out more tests
the Eurocode and ACI are also presented and the on reinforced concrete members and introduced
need for improving the current crack-width codal the following variables on which the crack-width
provisions in IS 3370 is established. depended on, viz. area of concrete surrounding the
reinforcement (Ac,eff), stress in the steel at the
2. Codal Formulae for Crack-Width location of the crack (ss2) and a factor R which
Assessment estimates the strain at the tension face of the
concrete. The empirical equation proposed by Kaar
The crack-width formulae usually predict the
and Mattock is
maximum crack-width with a specied probability
of exceedance (genrally 95%). The characteristic (3)

April - June, 2023 • 00

 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DIGEST

where R is given as (h-x)/(d-x), where h is the overall In 1968, Gergely and Lutz [14] developed an
depth of the section, d is the effective depth from empirical equation to predict the crack-width
the compression bre and x is the depth of the based on an extensive statistical analysis of
neutral axis from the compression bre. experimental data. The key parameters affecting
the crack-width were identied as the stress in steel
Broms [10] proposed the stress circle concept. The
and the area of the concrete surrounding the
cracks would form when the tensile stress within
concrete. The proposed equation was adopted by
the stress circle exceeded and further secondary
the ACI code till 1995. The crack-width is given as
cracks would form with the stress circles when
concrete is subjected to higher stresses. A
(8)
simplied semi-analytical expression was
developed based on the assumption that crack- Leonhardt [15] improved on the formula proposed
width can be calculated by multiplying the strain in by Borges [12] and developed an analytical
steel with the crack spacing. However, this formulation to calculate the crack-width. It is
applicable with a certain interval of the stress in assumed that in the proximity of the crack, the
steel (138 MPa to 207 MPa) and cover (c) within (32 bond between the concrete and steel is completely
mm to 76 mm). The crack-width formula proposed lost. Based on this concept, the crack-width is given
by Broms is given as as
wk = [4 (c + f/2)] ss2/Es (4) (9)
where f is the diameter of the reinforcing bar and Es
is the modulus of elasticity of the steel. where a is 1.4 for pure tension and 1.6 for bending,
the transfer length ltr is given as ltr = k1 + 0.7k2 f/r,
Broms and Lutz [11] improved the formula
where k1 is factor depending on the depth of the
proposed by Broms using the concept of an
cover and k2 is a factor depending on the shape of
effective cover thickness (te). This semi-empirical the tensile stress diagram.
formula is applicable when the bar spacing is more
than 4 to 5 times that of the concrete cover. The In 1979, Beeby [16] proposed an alternative
crack-width is given as analytical approach to predict the crack-width. He
introduced the concept that plane sections do not
wk = 4te ss2/Es (5) remain plane and substituted the bond-slip theory
where the effective cover thickness is given as with a no-slip theory. In this formulation, it is
assumed that the length of stress changes at the
2 2
te = Ö((a/4) + (h-d) ) (6) location of the crack and that at the undisturbed
concrete is equal to the cover thickness. Unlike
Borges [12] developed a semi-analytical
other formulations which adopt the 95 percentile
formulation to relate crack spacing as a function of
condence limit for the characteristic crack-width,
the concrete cover c, bar diameter f and the
this formula has 20 percent chance of being
effective reinforcement ratio (f/r). The concept
exceeded. Hence, the conservatism involved in this
proposed by Borges is still used in the Eurocode [6]
formulation is lower than the other formulations.
and the MC 10 code [13], with a slight modication The crack-width expression proposed by Beeby
to the transfer length, according to the bond-slip was incorporated in the British Code for concrete
theory. The crack-width is given as CP 110 [17] and later in the IS 456 code [18] and IS
(7) 3370 [1], which is still in use. The crack-width
expression is given as

April - June, 2023 • 00

 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DIGEST

2.2 Crack-width expression in International

(10) Codes

where In this section the crack-width formulae prescribed

in a few main international codes of practise are
(11) presented. Although most of the formulae are
based on the research studies discussed above,
they are once again presented for clarity.
Indian Code for Liquid Retaining Structures (IS
(12)
3370 (2): 2021)
In 1999, Frosch [18] improved on the formulation of According to Annex B-1 of IS 3370 (Part 2): 2021,
Broms and Lutz [11] and proposed an empirical provided the strain in the tension steel does not
equation for the crack-width calculation which has exceed 0.6fy/Es and the extreme compressive stress
been included in the current edition of ACI 318 [19]. fc in concrete does not exceed 0.40fck, the probable
The crack-width expression is given as crack width wk in exure at any point on the surface
of a wall or slab, with thickness t, can be estimated
wk = (2ss2)/Es [1+0.0031(h-d)] te (13)
as:
where
(18)
(14)
where acr is the distance from the point under
In 2016, Debernardi and Taliano [20], developed an consideration to the surface of the main reinforcing
analytical model by solving the differential bar and em is the average strain at the level where
equation of bond-slip and rearranging the MC 10 cracking is being considered, which accounts for
[13] formula of constant bond capacity. The crack- the effect of 'tension stiffening'. The code
width can be predicted as recommends a simplied formulation for em as:

em = e1 - e2 (19)
(15)
where e1 is the 'apparent' strain at the point under
where consideration at the surface, based on the
conventional 'cracked' section analysis using the
(16) modular ratio concept given by:
(20)
and the average bond stress is given as
The strain 2 in Eq. 19 corresponds to the reduction
due to tension stiffening effect. The Code (Annex B-
(17) 3) recommends the following empirical
expressions for 2, for concrete in exure,
depending on whether the target crack width is 0.2
mm or 0.1 mm (considering a' = D = t):
The denition of individual terms can be found in
the original publications cited in this paper. for wk = 0.1 mm (21)

April - June, 2023 • 00

 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DIGEST

American Concrete Institute (ACI 224)

for wk = 0.2 mm (22)
The ACI 224 code discusses the cracking of
where b is the width of the section at the centroid of concrete under direct tension. This formulation has
the tension steel, x is the depth of neutral axis, d is been adopted based on the works on Broms and
the effective depth of the section (all dimensions in Lutz [11]. The expression for crack-width is given
mm units), Es (in MPa) is the modulus of elasticity as
2
of reinforcing steel and As = rbt (in mm ) is the area 3 -3
wk = 0.0145fs Ö(dcA) × 10 (26)
of the reinforcing steel.
Assessment of crack widths in direct tension where fs is the stress in steel, dc is the distance from
the centre of the bar to extreme tension bre, A is
According to Annex B-4 of IS 3370 (Part 2): 2021, the area of concrete symmetric with reinforcing
provided the strain in the tension steel does not steel divided by number of bars.
exceed 0.5fy/Es, the probable crack width wk at
any point on the surface (of a wall or slab) in direct Eurocode 2 (EC 2 2004)
tension can be estimated as: In the Eurocode the crack-width wk is calculated as
a product of the maximum crack spacing Smax and
wk = 3acr em (23)
the different of the mean strain in concrete ecm and
where acr and em are as dened earlier, and the steel esm.
apparent strain in the steel, e1 = fst/Es, does not
exceed 0.5 fy/Es. The Code (Annex B-6) wk = s(esm - ecm )max (27)
recommends the following empirical expressions where
for e2, for concrete in direct tension, depending on
whether the target crack width is 0.2 mm or 0.1 mm:
(28)
e2 = bt/EsAs for wk = 0.1 mm (24)
Model Code MC 10
e2 = 2bt/3EsAs for wk = 0.2 mm (25)
In the Model Code MC 10, the crack-width and
By substituting wk = 0.1mm or 0.2mm (as desired)
crack spacing are calculated using the differential
in Eq. 23 for a given section with given
equation for bond-slip, by assuming a constant
reinforcement, the corresponding value of em can be
value of bond stress. A correction factor to
determined, which along with the appropriate
accommodate the effect of cover thickness on the
value of e2 from Eq. 25, can be substituted in Eq. 20,
crack-width and crack spacing is also included. The
to generate the value of e1; if this value of e1 exceeds
crack-width can be calculated as
0.5fy/Es, the reinforcement has to be suitably
increased (typically, by reducing the bar spacing)
to ensure compliance with this limit. Then, the
limiting tensile stress, (fst)lim, can be determined as
Ese1. This is the limiting tensile stress in the steel to where the mean strain in steel can be calculated as
achieve the desired crack width, and if the
calculated stress, fst = N/Ast, under the applied
direct tension, N, exceeds this value, the section has b is a factor which depends on average strain
to be re-designed suitably. between two cracks and hr is a factor to include the
effect of shrinkage in the crack-width assessment.

April - June, 2023 • 00

 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DIGEST

3. Design Example to temperature and moisture effects, it is 0.26%.

For T1 = 25°C and a limiting crack-width of 0.1mm
In order to demonstrate the calculation of crack-
(using 12 mm dia bars), it is 0.6%. Hence, minimum
width in a cylindrical water tank subjected to hoop
reinforcement calculations are carried out for 0.6%
tension, with two different approaches (consistent
steel.
with the IS 3370 code), the following design
example is chosen. In the rst approach (Method 1), Amin = 0.60/100 × 170 × 1000 = 1020 mm2/m.
the crack-width is chosen either to be 0.1 mm or 0.2 Design of horizontal reinforcement in wall for
mm. Since the code equations are based on these hoop tension
two limiting crack-widths, it is easy to directly
apply the formula for the limiting crack-width and Hoop tension in the wall Nmax = gHD/2
verify if the stress in steel is within the permissible Nmax = 10×4.0×10.1/2 = 202.0 kN/m
limits. If the stress in steel exceeds the permissible
value, the area of reinforcement needs to be The factored hoop tension Nu,max = 1.5 202.0 = 303.0
increased the design is re-checked. In the second kN/m.
approach (Method 2), a more direct method of • Area of circumferential steel required using
calculation is used. Depending on the limiting Fe 500 grade steel
crack-width that is expected to be satised from a 3
Ah = Nmax/0.87×fy = 303×10 /0.87×500 = 697
design basis, the formula of e2 is appropriately 2
mm /m (pt,reqd = 0.41%)
chosen. The two approaches are demonstrated
below using a design example provided by Pillai Þ Minimum steel requirement governs the
and Menon [21]. design.
Design a cylindrical water tank of capacity 300 m3 • Providing 12f bars in one layer, required
with a height of 4.0 m, resting on ground, assuming 2
spacing is (p/4 12 × 1000)/1020 = 110.9 mm.
an ideal exible joint at the base of the wall, and Hence, provide 12 f @ 110 mm c/c (Ah = 1028
assuming the tank to be open at top. Apply the limit 2
mm /m).
states method of design, considering a limiting
crack-width of 0.1 mm. Assume M 30 concrete and Crack-width control check under direct tension
Fe 500 steel. (Method 1)

Tank Dimensions • Tensile stress under service loads = 202

3
10 /1028 = 196.46 MPa
Assuming a free-board of 200 mm
Considering a crack-width limit of 0.1 mm,
Total water depth h = 4.0 - 0.2 = 3.8 m
Plan area required = 300/3.8 = 78.95 m2 w = 3 acr (e1 - e2) = 0.1 mm

Internal diameter (D) required = D = Ö4×78.95/p = where

10.03 m » 10.1 m [Radius R = 5.05 m] acr = Ö(s/2)2 + dc2 - db/2 = Ö(110/2)2 + (85)2 - 6 =
Assume thickness of wall t = 0.03H + 50 = 0.03×4000 95.24 mm
+ 50 = 170 mm
e2 = (bt D)/(EsAh) = (1000×170)/((2×105) (1028)) =
Minimum reinforcement 0.000827
Minimum steel required, as per Cl. 8.1.1 [IS 3370 e1 = wcr/3acr + e2 = 0.1/3(95.24) + 0.000827 =
Part 2] is 0.24%. To minimize the crack-width due 0.001177 < 0.5×500/2×105 = 0.00125

April - June, 2023 • 00

 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DIGEST

5
Þ fst = Es e1 = (2×10 )(0.001177) = 235.4 MPa this needs to be veried for all cases and hence a
allowable > 196.4 MPa; hence safe for 0.1 mm crack- parametric study using the two methods is
width. reported in the next section.
Crack-width control check under direct tension
(Method 2) 4. Parametric analysis and
The second method is a direct method. The values
comparison with different code
of acr, e2 and fst are 95.24, 0.000827 and 196.4 MPa and experiments
respectively. To study the reinforcement required to satisfy the
The strain in steel e1 = fst/Es = 196.46/(2 × 10 ) =
5
crack-width criteria of 0.1 mm and 0.2 mm, a design
0.000982. example is chosen where the force in the concrete is
monotonically increased. Based on the design
The crack-width w can be estimated as
requirement the percentage of reinforcement is
w = 3 acr (e1 - e2) = 3 × 95.24 × (0.000982 - 0.000827) = calculated and reported. For the sake of the
0.044 mm (< 0.1 mm - Hence safe) parametric demonstration, a circular water tank
If the same design is repeated for 0.2 mm crack- (with diameter less than 14 m is considered, this is
width using the two methods, done in order to keep the results consistent with
respect to the minimum steel requirements, which
Method 1 is a function of the tank diameter). The thickness of
Considering a crack-width limit of 0.1 mm, the tank is considered to be 250 mm (to ensure two
layers of reinforcement are provided). The height
w = 3 acr (e1 - e2) = 0.2 mm
of the tank is considered as 5.25 m, compressive
where acr = Ö(s/2)2 + dc2) - db/2 = Ö(110/2)2 + (85)2 - 6 strength of concrete is 30 MPa, yield strength of
= 95.24 mm steel is 500 MPa, coefcient of thermal expansion is
e2 = (2bt D)/(3Es Ah) = 2(1000×170))/(3(2×10 )
5 1.2 × 10-5 /°C. The fall in temperature between the
(1028)) = 0.000551 hydration and peak is chosen as 30°C. To ensure
the study simulates in practical scenarios, the
Þ e1 = wcr/(3acr) + e2 = 0.2/(3(95.24)) + 0.000551 minimum spacing in the reinforcement is limited to
5
> (0.5×500)/(2×10 ) = 0.00125 = (Hence 80 mm, if the reinforcement spacing is less than 80
higher steel is needed in order to satisfy the mm as per the design calculations then the bar
crack-width limit of 0.2 mm). This implies diameter is increased in a pre-dened manner and
that higher steel is needed to satisfy a crack- the analysis is re-run to check the crack-width.
width of 0.2 mm in comparison of 0.1 mm.
The analysis begins with the minimum steel
This clearly is not consistent with the
requirement based on IS 3370 for temperature and
expected behaviour.
moisture criteria. As the force increases the crack-
Method 2 width starts governing the design and a percentage
The crack-width w can be estimated as of steel higher than the minimum is required. In
Fig. 1, the results using IS 3370 (with Method 1)
w = 3 acr (e1 - e2) = 3 × 95.24 × (0.000982 - 0.000551) =
applied are demonstrated. From Fig 1(a), it can be
0.123 mm (< 0.2 mm - Hence safe)
seen that for an allowable crack-width (wall) of 0.1
The second method, however, tends to an expected mm, the minimum reinforcement governs till a
solution wherein the 0.2 mm limiting crack-width force value of 320 kN, while for 0.2 mm crack-
criteria is satised with no extra steel. However, width, up to a force of 280 kN, minimum

April - June, 2023 • 00

 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DIGEST

reinforcement is required. However, on further crack-width. Clearly, this is counter-intuitive to the

increase of force, it can be seen that the steel expected behaviour. It is well known that stricter
required in the case of 0.1 mm and 0.2 mm crack- crack-width control should warrant higher steel
width is the same. Sometimes the steel required for requirement.
0.2 mm crack-width is slightly greater than 0.1 mm

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Fig.1 : Parametric studies using the IS 3370 formulation (Method 1). (a) Percentage of steel required for a crack-width of
0.1 mm and 0.2 mm at different force levels (b) Variation of percentage of steel and stress in steel
(c) Variation of stress in steel and force on concrete (d) Diameter used at various force levels.

April - June, 2023 • 00

 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DIGEST

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e)
Fig. 2 : Parametric studies using the IS 3370 formulation (Method 2). (a) Percentage of steel required for a crack-width of
0.1 mm and 0.2 mm at different force levels (b) Variation of percentage of steel and stress in steel (c) Variation of stress in
steel and force on concrete (d) Diameter used at various force levels (e) Comparison of crack-width at different force levels.

April - June, 2023 • 00

 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DIGEST

In Fig. 2, the results using IS 3370 (with Method 2) This parametric study shows that the crack-width
applied are demonstrated. From Fig 1(a), it can be calculations done using IS 3370 may need a relook.
seen that for an allowable crack-width (wall) of 0.1 An additional study is carried out by Lapi et al. [12]
mm, the minimum reinforcement governs till a wherein a total of 380 tests reported in literature are
force value of 380 kN, while for 0.2 mm crack- studied and the theoretically calculated crack-
width, up to a force of 180 kN, minimum widths wtheo are compared with those observed in
reinforcement is required. However, on further the tests wtest. It is found that the mean, covariance
increase of force, it can be seen that the steel and 5 percentile values for various codes are as
required in the case of 0.1 mm and 0.2 mm crack- shown in Table 1.
width is the same at a few locations (up to a force of
Table 1 : Statistical comparison of wtheo/ wtest
520 kN). On further increase of the load, the 0.1 mm
crack-width shows higher steel demands in Code Mean CoV 5%-q
comparison with 0.2 mm crack-width, this is IS 3370 0.73 0.56 0.25
attributable to the change in the diameter of the bar
as seen in Fig 2(d). The stress in steel also uctuates ACI 0.97 0.43 0.54
as seen in Fig 2(b) and (c) due to the change in the EC2 0.96 0.31 0.5
diameter of the bar.
MC10 0.94 0.32 0.5
Parametric studies are also carried out on the same
design example using the Eurocode and ACI code. Debernardi 1.21 0.32 0.7
The results of this study are plotted in Fig 3(a) and It can be seen that the IS 3370 code gives the lowest
3(b). It is clear from the two plots that using both mean, indicating that the conservatism involved in
Eurocode and ACI code, the percentage steel is the crack-width calculation is lowest with respect
consistently higher when 0.1 mm crack-width to the codes compared. ACI, Eurocode and MC 10
criteria is applied in place of 0.2 mm crack-width seem to have a similar mean value ranging from
criteria. 0.94 to 0.97 with a lower covariance. The best

(a) (b)
Fig. 3 : Parametric studies showing percentage of steel required for a crack-width of 0.1 mm and 0.2 mm at
different force levels using the (a) Eurocode and (b) ACI code

April - June, 2023 • 00

 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DIGEST

performing model was the crack-width model and then the equations are accordingly
proposed by Debernardi and Taliano [20]. chosen to verify whether the crack-width is
within the limiting range, a more straight-
5. Conclusions and Acknowledge- forward method, as demonstrated in Method
ments 1 in this paper, seems to be a better alternative
wherein the stresses in the steel are checked if
Based on the thorough review of the crack-width
they are within acceptable limit.
formulations presented in literature and the
analysis of crack-width using the international (iii) On comparison with experiments it is clear
codes of practise, the following conclusions can be that the conservatism offered using the IS
drawn. 3370 method, which uses the no-slip theory,
is rather limited. From a design perspective,
(i) The crack-width formulation prescribed in IS
it appears that the Eurocode or MC 10
3370 needs a re-look as there are anomalies in
formulation seem to be much suitable,
the steel required to satisfy the crack-width. It
offering enough conservatism in the design.
is demonstrated through a design example
and also through parametric study that the (iv) Since the IS 3370 method is based on Beeby's
steel required for both limiting values of formulation, where it is assumed that the
crack-width (0.1 mm and 0.2 mm) are either plane sections do not remain plane, the linear
same or at times greater in the case of 0.2 mm strain prole assumption used in the crack-
crack-width. width calculation also needs to re-looked.
(ii) The approach used in the crack-width The author wishes to acknowledge the support
calculation (discussed in this paper as offered by Mr. Samagra Vijaywargiya, M.Tech
Method 2), which is popularly used in design student of IIT Bombay while working as an intern
also needs a re-look. In this approach, the with the author.
crack-width is rst xed as 0.1 mm or 0.2 mm

6. References
1. IS 3370 (2): 2021. Concrete Structures for Retaining Aqueous Liquids - Code of Practice. Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi.
2. Basteskår, M., Engen, M., Kanstad, T. and Fosså, K.T., 2019. A review of literature and code
requirements for the crack width limitations for design of concrete structures in serviceability limit
states. Structural Concrete, 20(2), pp.678-688.
3. Beeby, A.W., 1978. Concrete in the oceans: cracking and corrosion (No. 1). Cement and Concrete
Association.
4. Lapi, M., Orlando, M. and Spinelli, P., 2018. A review of literature and code formulations for cracking
in R/C members. Structural Concrete, 19(5), pp.1481-1503.
5. Borosnyói, A. and Balázs, G.L., 2005. Models for exural cracking in concrete: the state of the art.
Structural Concrete, 6(2), pp.53-62.
6. CEN. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures-Part 1-1: General rules and rules for buildings.
Brussels: European Committee for Standardization, 2004.

April - June, 2023 • 00

 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING DIGEST

7. ACI Committee 224. Cracking of Concrete Members in Direct Tension (ACI 224-92). Farmington
Hills, ACI.
8. Clark, A.P., 1956, April. Cracking in reinforced concrete exural members. In ACI Journal
Proceedings (Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 851-862).
9. Kaar, P., 1963. High-strength bars as concrete reinforcement, Part 4: Control of cracking. Journal of
the PCA Research and Development Laboratories, pp.15-38.
10. Broms, B.B., 1965, October. Crack width and crack spacing in reinforced concrete members. In ACI
Journal Proceedings (Vol. 62, No. 10, pp. 1237-1256).
11. Broms, B.B. and Lutz, L.A., 1965, November. Effects of arrangement of reinforcement on crack width
and spacing of reinforced concrete members. In ACI Journal Proceedings (Vol. 62, No. 11, pp. 1395-
1410).
12. Borges, J.F., 1965. Cracking and deformability of reinforced concrete beams. Laboratório Nacional de
Engenharia Civil.
13. CEB-FIP. Model code 2010-Volume 1, bulletin 6. International Federation for Structural Concrete
(b). Lausanne, 2012
14. Gergely P, Lutz LA. Maximum crack width in reinforced concrete exural members. ACI Special
Publ. 1980;20:88-117
15. Leonhardt, F., 1977. Crack control in concrete structures. International Association for Bridge and
Structural Engineering.
16. Beeby, A.W., 1979. The prediction of crack widths in hardened concrete. Structural Engineer, 1979;
57A(1): 9-17.
17. BSI British Standard. Structural use of concrete - Part 1. Code of practice for design and construction.
London: BSI British Standard, 1997.
18. Frosch, R.J., 1999. Another look at cracking and crack control in reinforced concrete. Structural
Journal, 96(3), pp.437-442.
19. ACI Committee 318. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI 318-19) and
commentary. Farmington Hills, ACI.
20. Debernardi, P.G., Guiglia, M. and Taliano, M., 2013. Effect of secondary cracks for cracking analysis
of reinforced concrete tie. ACI Materials Journal, 110(2), p.207.
21. Pillai and Menon, 2021. Reinforced Concrete Design, Tata McGraw Hill.

April - June, 2023 • 00