Jump to content
  • Welcome to SEFP!

    Welcome!

    Welcome to our community forums, full of great discussions about Structural Engineering. Please register to become a part of our thriving group or login if you are already registered.

Minimum Reinfocement Criteria For Crack Control


abdulqadeer29
 Share

Recommended Posts

The minimum amount and spacing of reinforcement to be used in structural floors, roof slabs, and walls for control of temperature and shrinkage cracking is given in ACI 318 or in ACI 350R. The minimum-reinforcement percentage, which is between 0.18 and 0.20%, does not normally control cracks to within generally acceptable design limits. To control cracks to a more acceptable level, the percentage requirement needs to exceed about 0.60% (REFRENCE ACI COMMITE REPORT 224R-01)

 

 

 

 

So according to above statement , should we follow 0.60%, to be on more safe side??

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good Question. Depends on what the situation is. You should follow the above quoted criteria where cracking would be a failure criteria in terms of serviceability or strength. For example, a leaking water tank  would not serve its purpose and would be a serviceability limit state. So, in such cases, yes use a 0.6%, but for flexural members (slabs, footings are beams), cracking is expected for balanced and under reinforced sections and hence such a limit is not required.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The statement taken out from ACI document only covers shrinkage cracks in reinforced concrete structures. Hence, it is regarding serviceability limit states. 

In order to fully understand it, one should know what they mean by 'acceptable level', or 'acceptable design limits'. There must be a paper regarding that, which needs to be studied.

You should check latest ACI code; I think.  they have not included this provision in the latest code. They are continuing older provision of 0.18/0.2 %. It look like as if they have not taken the recommendation of this committe seriously.

 

It is a confusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

 

The minimum amount and spacing of reinforcement to be used in structural floors, roof slabs, and walls for control of temperature and shrinkage cracking is given in ACI 318 or in ACI 350R. The minimum-reinforcement percentage, which is between 0.18 and 0.20%, does not normally control cracks to within generally acceptable design limits. To control cracks to a more acceptable level, the percentage requirement needs to exceed about 0.60% (REFRENCE ACI COMMITE REPORT 224R-01)

 
So according to above statement , should we follow 0.60%, to be on more safe side??

 

According to ACI 318-08 in the commentary of section 7.12.1.2 its said

"Where structural walls or columns provide significant

restraint to shrinkage and temperature movements, the
restrain of volume changes causes tension in slabs, as well as
displacements, shear forces, and flexural moments in columns
or walls. In these cases, it may be necessary to increase the
amount of slab reinforcement required by 7.12.2.1 due to the
shrinkage and thermal effects in both principal directions (see
References 7.7 and 7.16)."

So according to these two references we are allowed to increase the minimum steel ratio depending upon the restraint of the structure. Now the question is to which extent are we allowed to increase this ratio to which you quoted ACI COMMITE REPORT 224R-01.

What reference 7.16  ( Gilbert, R. I., “Shrinkage Cracking in Fully Restrained Concrete Members,” ACI Structural Journal, V. 89, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 1992, pp. 141-149.)* quoted by ACI R7.12.1.2 suggests is that minimum steel ratio should be greater than 0.45%. For through understanding please download the paper given below and read it but for brevity let me quote the statement from the discussion of this paper

"For a maximum design crack width of 0.3 mm (as is commonly specified in codes of practice), it appears that for the restrained slabs tested in this study a reinforcement area of greater than about 270 mm2 (ρ = 0.0045) would be satisfactory"
 

48305786-shrinkage-cracking-in-restrained-reinforced-concrete-members.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

In our opinion, the observation made below is correct and thus a designer is allowed to increase the minimum steel ratio depending upon the restraint of the structure. 

"Where structural walls or columns provide significant restraint to shrinkage and temperature movements, the restrain of volume changes causes tension in slabs, as well as displacements, shear forces, and flexural moments in columns or walls. In these cases, it may be necessary to increase the amount of slab reinforcement required by 7.12.2.1 due to the shrinkage and thermal effects in both principal directions (see References 7.7 and 7.16)."

 

Thus for crack control (as serviceability limit) one can use the following
 "For a maximum design crack width of 0.3 mm (as is commonly specified in codes of practice), it appears that for the restrained slabs tested in this study a reinforcement area of greater than about 270 mm2 (ρ = 0.0045) would be satisfactory"
 
Best wishes
Zenith International
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have lot of experience construction of poultry shed ,for slab commonly structural engineer design 4" thick & steel reinforcement 6mm dia bars @ 6" c/c(it will be 0.18 to 0.20 %) i check that minimum cracks occur in the slab but they cannot cause of any mishap a poultry shed normally having 22000 sft covered area ,problem is that if they follow the minimum limits 0.60 % it will be highly effected on cost & client move to TT slab or prefabricated structure.It will be a loss for contractor & construction labor.             what will be solution of this problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Ghulam Abbas Gazer:

It is recognized that you have lot of experience in construction of poultry shed slabs and that commonly structural engineer design 4" thick slabs with steel reinforcement 6 mm dia bars @ 6" c/c that comes to 0.18 to 0.20 % reinforcement.

 

It is not clear why the minimum limits 0.60 %  is followed ?

Your other part of the question is not clear.  Please clarify.

 

Best wishes

Zenith International

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

It seems that ACI is clear in its provision and usage of 0.6% rather than 0.2% reinforcing ratio for temperature & shrinkage crack/stress control could not be justified for general structures and is only applicable in cases where crack width is a design consideration.

 

As ACI -350 table 7.12.2.1 recommends only for "structures subjected to environment or required to be liquid tight" a reinforcing ratio range from .003 to .006 for Grade 40 & .003 to .005 for Grade 60 steel as a function of length between movement joints from 20' to 40'.(see ACI 350 7.12.2.1).

Thus the extreme ratios ".005" & ".006" represents the maximum temp & shrinkage reinf ratio for "structures subjected to environment or required to be liquid tight" where movement joint is not provided.This maximum ratio is mentioned in ACI 224 and is supposed to be followed when crack width is a design consideration for eg in structures as defined above.(note here structures subjected to environment could simply refer to outdoor structures in accordance with CIRIA technical note 107 section

 

2) On the other hand as long as general structures is concerned (say building structures) crack width is not a design consideration in accordance with same code (ACI 318) and here provision of minimum reinf (0.18-0.2%) intends to limit shrinkage & temperature stresses rather than crack widths within tolerable limits (see ACI 318-11 7.12.1) which is claimed to be observed for many years satisfactorily controlled with these ratios.

 

As long as design consideration of shrinkage & temperature effects is concerned in general structures, we include the effects of shrinkage & temp cracks indirectly in serviceability limit states as

 

1, In the form of additional vertical deflection due to creep & shrinkage of structural members (see ACI 435R-95 table 2.1).

 

2, Effective stiffness (see ACI 318-11 10.10.4) to be used in the analysis of lateral deflection accommodates the stiffness reduction due to shrinkage & temp cracking.

 

3, ACI 318 also recommends to analyze for the severity of stresses arising from temp & shrinkage effects (see ACI 318-11 8.2.4 & 9.2.3)

 

Hence, usage of 0.18-0.2% reinf and 0.3-0.6% reinf is justified for general and special structures respectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • 3 months later...

Well it depends on a lot of factors, however limit prescribed by ACI committee is fine. In order to get a good understanding of crack control I would like to refer Advanced reinforced concrete design by P.C. Verghese. Please go through the page 30 topic shrinkage and thermal cracking where Author has derived the minimum percentage of steel to control shrinkage cracks. He also recommends 0.003 percent. So on both faces it comes to 0.006 which is exactly equal to recommendation of ACI 224 R-01

 

http://books.google.com.pk/books?id=uXqXP6pEEsUC&pg=PR3&lpg=PR3&dq=advanced+reinforced+concrete+design+by+p.c.+varghese+pdf&source=bl&ots=hqxOR_udqx&sig=Fpn3F0WMD8UVONN1Sax43r5C5vU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Zc9gVLOeI8yu7AaD0IGgCA&ved=0CB8Q6AEwATgK#v=onepage&q=advanced%20reinforced%20concrete%20design%20by%20p.c.%20varghese%20pdf&f=false

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So looks like today, I came across the same problem that is being discussed here. I had to provide a design criteria for a buried concrete pit. I will summarize my findings below for the benefit of everyone. This applies to structural members that are subjected to environmental exposure conditions or that are required to be liquid tight. 

1) The first step is to calculate flexural demand in the walls of concrete pit/ water tank based on all possible conditions. For the case of buried concrete pit, it included, empty condition (no fluid in the pit) , operating condition (full of liquid), test condition (no backfill  around the pit and it is full of liquid) etc. Buoyancy checks should also be performed.

2) Compare required flexural reinforcement against minimum reinforcement ratio = 0.006 per ACI 350, Table 7.12.2.1 & ACI 224 , Section 3.5 and provide whichever is the maximum. The ratios provided are basically temperature and shrinkage reinforcement ratios based on gross section so provide half of the reinforcement at each face.

3) Satisfy maximum crack width of water-retaining structure = 0.10 mm, ACI 224R-01 Table 4.1 based on the reinforcement already provided. If the reinforcement is inadequate, increase the reinforcement till this requirement is met. To meet this requirement, smaller bars should be used with close spacing.

Now a few comments on the the excellent discussion above.

@Khawaja Talha post above is applicable for all normal cases where there is a restraint to shrinkage and temperature movements only. If you have a condition like that, you need to provide 0.45% reinforcement ratio in your slabs. Example of a situation where this would be applicable will be a structure where movement or expansion joints haven't been provided at industry standard spacing. But if you want to meet liquid tight start with 0.6% as a minimum and work your way as suggested above.

Other posts above explain the same things in a slightly different manner but all good.

Thank you :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...
On 8/13/2019 at 3:27 PM, UmarMakhzumi said:

So looks like today, I came across the same problem that is being discussed here. I had to provide a design criteria for a buried concrete pit. I will summarize my findings below for the benefit of everyone. This applies to structural members that are subjected to environmental exposure conditions or that are required to be liquid tight. 

1) The first step is to calculate flexural demand in the walls of concrete pit/ water tank based on all possible conditions. For the case of buried concrete pit, it included, empty condition (no fluid in the pit) , operating condition (full of liquid), test condition (no backfill  around the pit and it is full of liquid) etc. Buoyancy checks should also be performed.

2) Compare required flexural reinforcement against minimum reinforcement ratio = 0.006 per ACI 350, Table 7.12.2.1 & ACI 224 , Section 3.5 and provide whichever is the maximum. The ratios provided are basically temperature and shrinkage reinforcement ratios based on gross section so provide half of the reinforcement at each face.

3) Satisfy maximum crack width of water-retaining structure = 0.10 mm, ACI 224R-01 Table 4.1 based on the reinforcement already provided. If the reinforcement is inadequate, increase the reinforcement till this requirement is met. To meet this requirement, smaller bars should be used with close spacing.

Now a few comments on the the excellent discussion above.

@Khawaja Talha post above is applicable for all normal cases where there is a restraint to shrinkage and temperature movements only. If you have a condition like that, you need to provide 0.45% reinforcement ratio in your slabs. Example of a situation where this would be applicable will be a structure where movement or expansion joints haven't been provided at industry standard spacing. But if you want to meet liquid tight start with 0.6% as a minimum and work your way as suggested above.

Other posts above explain the same things in a slightly different manner but all good.

Thank you :)

 

excellent discussion above and this is what I usually practice for buried RC water tank. Just to add to Mr syed umair excellent discussion ACI 350-20 is now released and chapter 7 is shifted to chapter 12 where the min reinf criteria is also modified to min, max restraint instead of spacing of movement joints etc. Regarding Er Makhzumi explanation, I would add one imp point that ACI 224, althu mentioned 0.1mm crack width for liquid tight strs, however ACI 224 is not applicable to environ.. engg strs as mentioned in its chapter 04, "image.png.dd072711c6547e741f2aa9f9f073c44d.pnginstead recommendations fo ACI 350 are followed, fs CHECK in steel, reinf spacing and dia etc. Also I found load applied for shrinkage stresses in some advanced models from high level consultts althu i don't have full knowledge how to calculate that load, any feed back for it would be appreciated

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • Hi there,
      I am interested in performing "Performance Based Design" for a 20 story building. 
      I'll be performing "Non-Linear Static Pushover Analysis" for my model. Until now, I have decided to go with "Displacement Co-efficient method". I will be using ETABS 2017 for performing Pushover Analysis. While assigning plastic hinges, I have an option of using ASCE 41-17 (Seismic Evaluation and Retrofit of Existing buildings". I would like to know what would be a better estimate for relative distances for plastic hinges in case of beams, columns. Any input concerning assignment of hinges to beams, columns and shear walls is highly appreciated. Normally it's taken 0.05 and 0.95 or 0.1 and 0.9. What's your opinion on this?
      Secondly, it would be great if someone can recommend me a book or some good source to understand how to characterize building using performance levels. Any sort of help is appreciated.
      I have recently graduated and joined a structural design firm, so kindly guide me, considering me a beginner.

       
      • 2 replies
    • *SEFP Consistent Design*<br style="background-color:#ffffff; color:#272a34; font-size:14px; text-align:start">*Pile Design*<br style="background-color:#ffffff; color:#272a34; font-size:14px; text-align:start">*Doc No: 10-00-CD-0007*<br style="background-color:#ffffff; color:#272a34; font-size:14px; text-align:start">*Date: April 16, 2018*

      1.1. FUNCTION OF JOINT

      Beam-column joint must transfer the forces, such as moment, shear and torsion, transferred by the beam to the column so that the structure can maintain its integrity to carry loads for which it is designed.

      Another function of the beam-column joint is to help the structure to dissipate seismic forces so that it can behave in a ductile manner.

      1.2.WHY DO WE CARE

      During an extreme seismic event, the code-based structure is expected to maintain its load-carrying capacity for gravity loads even after the structure deforms into inelastic range so that it does not pose any life safety hazard. Hence, the joint can go through significant degradation of strength and stiffness, and if it fails in shear, or anchorage, the life-safety objective of code cannot be achieved.

      1.3.CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE


      1.4.THINGS TO CONSIDER FOR BEAM COLUMN JOINT

      Longitudinal bars of beams, or slab, must be able to develop their yield stress, so that the beam/slab can transfer moment to joint. It means that longitudinal bars must have adequate development length for hooked bars. This implies that the size of the column must be such that bars can develop their tensile forces. If bars can transfer moment, they can also transfer shear as far as monolithic construction is concerned.


      The shear strength of the joint must enable the transfer of moment and shear through it.



      The joint should be Constructible: Congestion of reinforcement is the main concern.

      1.5.DESIGN SHEAR FOR BEAM COLUMN JOINT

      The design shear for beam-column joint depends upon the relative strength of beam and column at the joint.

       
      • 4 replies
    • *Comments/Observations regarding modelling in ETABS*

      *Doc No: 10-00-CD-0006*

      *Date: May 06, 2017*

      Some of the observations made during extraction of results from ETABS (v 9.7.4), for design of reinforced concrete members, are being share in this article.,

      1) Minimum Eccentricity

      ETABS always considers the minimum eccentricity for selecting the design moment of columns irrespective of the probable behavior of the column, whether short or long column. See section 10.10.6.5 and its commentary of ACI 318-08 which deals with minimum eccentricity of long columns. You should always check the design moments that ETABS uses for columns if you want to bring down the cost of construction.

      2) Unbraced/ Braced Preference

      ETABS always performs analysis of frame as if it is un-braced. You should investigate if the storey under consideration is braced, or un-braced (10.10.5.2), and decide appropriate design moments of columns.

      3) Time Period

      ETABS has a tendency to select a time period of the building that is considerably less than the value obtained by the approximate method, Method A, of the section 1630.2.2  of UBC 97. To quote the FEMA 451 document: ''Because this formula is based on lower bound regression analysis of measured building response in California, it will generally result in periods that are lower (hence, more conservative for use in predicting base shear) than those computed from a more rigorous mathematical model". So, there is no need to use the value of time period that is lot less than Ta. One should always check the time period used by the software; ETABS can overestimate the seismic force by more than 2 times.

      Visit the forum link to read the complete article.
      Link: http://www.sepakistan.com/topic/2300-commentsobservations-regarding-modelling-in-etabs/
      • 0 replies
    • The minimum amount and spacing of reinforcement to be used in structural floors, roof slabs, and walls for control of temperature and shrinkage cracking is given in ACI 318 or in ACI 350R. The minimum-reinforcement percentage, which is between 0.18 and 0.20%, does not normally control cracks to within generally acceptable design limits. To control cracks to a more acceptable level, the percentage requirement needs to exceed about 0.60% (REFRENCE ACI COMMITE REPORT 224R-01)



       

       



       

       

      So according to above statement , should we follow 0.60%, to be on more safe side??



       
      • 12 replies
    • Dear Sir/Madam,

      This email is an invitation for the participation in the First South Asia Conference on Earthquake Engineering (SACEE-2019) which will be held on 21-22 February 2019 in Karachi, Pakistan. This conference is the inaugural event in this series of conferences which has been constituted under the auspices of South Asia Earthquake Network (SHAKE). The organisers of the conference include NED University, University of Porto, University of Fuzhou, University Roma Tre and Institution of Engineers Pakistan. The conference website can be visited at http://sacee.neduet.edu.pk/.

      Please note that world leading earthquake engineering experts have confirmed their participation in the conference. These include Prof Abdelkrim Aoudia (Italy), Prof Alper Ilki (Turkey), Dr Amod Mani Dixit (Nepal), Prof Bruno Briseghella (Italy), Prof George Mylonakis (UK), Prof Khalid Mosalam (USA), Prof Humberto Varum (Portugal) and many others. The presence of these distinguished experts allows you to exchange your work/issues with them and discuss possibility of any future collaboration. Please note that participation in the conference is strictly based on registration. Early registration in different categories at reduced rates are available till 10 December 2018. Please visit the conference website to see the details and the link for registration.

      If there are any queries, please do not hesitate to contact the Conference Secretary at the following address

      Prof. Muhammad Masood Rafi
      Conference Secretary- SACEE-2019
      Chairman
      Department of Earthquake Engineering
      NED University of Engineering & Technology Karachi, Pakistan.
      Phone: 0092-21-992-261261 Ext:2605
      Email: rafi-m@neduet.edu.pk
    • What is the Minimum reinforcement For Precast Pile  according to different codes (ACI,BS)??  Pile length is 40 times of pile least dimension . 
      • 1 reply
    • Dear members, I am working on a 10 storied rcc factory building with one basement,  where floor loads are in general 125 psf(Live) . but there are 2 warehouse in the building at ground floor & 10th floor where the Live load of stacked materials are 450psf. I have modeled it and analysed in ETABS. After analysis, seeing the floor displacement for seismic load,  i am in big shock to see the pattern. the displacement pattern suddenly increased hugely & then got normal . if the warehouse load created problem, then why it effected only Ground floor level, not the 10th floor! Please tell me how can i solve it. 
      • 1 reply
    • Asalamualaikum all,

      I have columns which are conflicting with the underground water tank as shown in figure.
       

      So I have decided to make underground water tank base slab as a footing for column. So I import etabs model to safe and just take uniform water load on base slab and point load from columns.

      This is the residential house. The BC is 2tsf. But SAFE is showing tension on the base slab and the thickness from punching is 30''. I believe that thickness is too high. What can be the error? Is this approach is correct for design base slab of ugwt to carry load of two edge columns?
      • 11 replies
    • SAFE perform iterative uplift analysis,any one having experience how to check the results of this analysis???what is the purpose and scope of this analysis???
      • 15 replies
    • Shear wall design
      AOA 

      i am facing problems in shear wall design .what are the pier and spandral ?what will be the difference when we assign pier or spandral? without assigning these the shear wall design is incomplete .

      i am taking about etabsv16

      someone have document about shear wall design plz provide it 

      thank you

       
      • 13 replies
  • Tell a friend

    Love Structural Engineering Forum Of Pakistan? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines.