See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/37455728

Concrete Cracking in Tension Members and Application to Deck Slabs of Bridges

Article  in  Journal of Bridge Engineering · September 2007

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0702(2007)12:5(646) · Source: OAI

CITATIONS READS
23 1,385

2 authors:

Aurelio Muttoni Miguel Fernández Ruiz

École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
190 PUBLICATIONS   2,172 CITATIONS    106 PUBLICATIONS   1,326 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Projet de recherche AGB 2002/028 Office fédéral des routes (OFROU - Suisse); Bolsa de Doutoramento FCT/BD/13259/2003 - Portugal View project

Seismic behaviour of slab-column connections View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Aurelio Muttoni on 07 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Concrete Cracking in Tension Members and Application
to Deck Slabs of Bridges
A. Muttoni1 and M. Fernández Ruiz2

Abstract: Currently, estimations of the crack width in the deck slab of bridges given by codes of practice are based on either theoretical
or empirical approaches considering mainly the monotonic loading behavior. However, cracking in reinforced tensile members is highly
influenced by the loading history 共including both the loading and unloading processes兲 because of the irreversible nonlinear behavior of
bond and of tensile response of concrete, resulting into residual cracks of non-negligible width. This paper investigates the influence of
this phenomenon and presents a physical model describing it. An analytical model is developed and its results are compared to various
tests with good agreement. Finally, a simple design formula is derived and recommendations for its application to practical cases are
proposed.
DOI: 10.1061/共ASCE兲1084-0702共2007兲12:5共646兲
CE Database subject headings: Bridge decks; Tensile members; Cracking; Bond stress; Time dependence; Slabs.

Introduction
Crack control in the decks of continuous bridges over intermedi-
ate supports is often the governing design criterion for the choice
of the amount of longitudinal prestressing of concrete bridges 共in
the case of partial prestressing兲 as well as for the construction
sequence and for the amount of passive longitudinal reinforce-
ment of composite bridges.
Deck slabs over intermediate supports, as can be seen in Fig.
1, behave almost as pure tension ties in the longitudinal direction,
assuming that the strain is constant over the depth of the slab and
that the effect of local moments due to traffic loads can be ne-
glected. Most models 共Gergely and Lutz 1968; CEB-FIP 1990;
Frosch 1999; CEN 2004兲 estimate the crack width in these ele-
ments under permanent load based on their monotonic loading
response. However, under service conditions, the actual behavior
of a bridge is far from the assumption of monotonic loading
because the structure is subjected during its life to additional
external actions 共traffic loads, temperature, differential settle-
ments, . . .兲 which cause continual unloading and reloading pro-
cesses. Because of the irreversible unloading response of bond
and concrete, these cycles increase the crack width in a tension
member compared to the crack width under monotonic loading
共Laurencet 1999; Gómez Navarro and Lebet 2001兲.
Within this context, this paper presents a new approach to the
phenomenon of cracking, introducing a model that considers the
1
Professor, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, IS-BETON,
bât. GC, Station 18, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland. E-mail:
aurelio.muttoni@epfl.ch
2
Postdoctoral Fellow, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, IS-
BETON, bât. GC, Station 18, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
共corresponding author兲. E-mail: miguel.fernandezruiz@epfl.ch
Note. Discussion open until February 1, 2008. Separate discussions
must be submitted for individual papers. To extend the closing date by
one month, a written request must be filed with the ASCE Managing
Editor. The manuscript for this paper was submitted for review and pos-
sible publication on September 30, 2005; approved on April 24, 2006.
This paper is part of the Journal of Bridge Engineering, Vol. 12, No. 5,
September 1, 2007. ©ASCE, ISSN 1084-0702/2007/5-646–653/$25.00.
effect of unloading on the crack width and that can be applied to
perform a coherent check of the crack width of bridge deck slabs
under permanent loads.
Theoretical Model
Reinforced Tie Behavior
The loading and unloading response of a reinforced tie is shown
in Fig. 2. Under monotonic loading, it presents first an uncracked
stage 共AB兲 until concrete reaches its effective tensile strength. At
that point, the member enters in the crack development stage
共BCE兲 where several cracks are created 共approximated by a hori-
zontal line兲. Once the number of cracks is stabilized, a new phase
controls the response of the tie in which the number of cracks
remains constant but their openings increase with load 共EFI兲.
This phase ends with the yielding of the reinforcement 共I兲.
Three different stages may be considered for the unloading
behavior. Stage a 共CD兲 corresponds to unloading situations in the
crack development stage. Stage b occurs at the beginning of un-
loading processes in the stabilized cracking phase 共FG兲. For large
stress ranges, it may eventually enter into a third unloading stage
named c 共GH兲. All of these stages present a so-called negative
tension-stiffening effect with larger strains for a given stress than
those of the monotonic loading.
The complete unloading of a tie 共points D and H of Fig. 2兲
leads to a residual strain and crack width. This shows that calcu-
lating the response of a tension member using a monotonic load-
ing pattern may underestimate the actual value of the crack width
共Fig. 3兲.
Material and Interface Models
Under service conditions, reinforcing steel remains in the elastic
domain. However, both concrete and bond exhibit a nonlinear
response which needs to be considered to understand the loading
and unloading behavior of a cracked tensile member.

646 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007


Fig. 1. Deck slab over intermediate support: 共a兲 longitudinal scheme
of bridge; 共b兲 cracking pattern for prestressed and composite bridges;
and 共c兲 deck slab as tension member
Concrete
A first crack is developed in concrete when its effective tensile
strength 共f ct,eff兲 is reached. The effective tensile strength corrects
the value of the tensile strength of concrete to account for the
influence of the thickness of the element and its residual stresses.
After cracking, concrete still has the capacity to carry tensile
stresses with a softening behavior 共Hillerborg et al. 1976兲, de-
pending on the crack width 共the greater the opening, the smaller
the tensile stress兲 as shown in curves AB and DE of Fig. 4共a兲. The
maximum crack width at which tensile stresses can be transmitted
共wc兲 depends mainly on the concrete tensile strength and aggre-
gate size, usually ranging between 0.15 and 0.25 mm.
When cracked concrete is unloaded 关curve BC of Fig. 4共a兲兴,
the complex geometry of the crack lips 共that are no longer per-
fectly imbricated兲 leads to a residual opening. The stress required
to reclose the crack can be estimated as a function of the crack
width from the empirical expressions provided by Hordijk 共1991,
1992兲. For cases where the maximum crack width before unload-
ing is larger than wc it results in
冉 冉 冋 册冊
¯␴c = f ct,eff 0.004 log
w
wc
5
− 0.16 冑 冊
1−
w
wc
共1兲
Bond
According to Marti et al. 共1998兲 and Alvarez 共1998兲, a rigid-
plastic bond law 关part ABC in Fig. 4共b兲兴 provides good results in
Fig. 2. Stress–strain response of reinforced concrete tie and different
unloading stages
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007 / 647
Fig. 3. Stress–strain and stress–crack width relationship in reinforced
concrete tie
reproducing the loading response of a tie. Kenel 共2001兲 applied a
similar law to unloading processes 关CDE of Fig. 4共b兲兴.
The value of ␶a can be estimated as 共Alvarez 1998兲
␶a ⬇ 0.6f 2/3
c ⬇ 2f ct 共f c, f ct and ␶a in MPa兲 共2兲
For unloading, the value proposed by Laurencet 共1999兲 can be
adopted
␶a
␶i ⬇ 共3兲
4
Under cyclic loading, the values of ␶a and ␶i decrease. According
to the experimental results of Giuriani 共1981兲 and Plaines et al.
共1982兲 the reduction of ␶i quickly stabilizes around ␶i,⬁ ⬇ 0.50␶i
= ␶a / 8. The reduction of ␶a is smaller and may be approximated as
␶a,⬁ ⬇ 0.70␶a 共Tassios 1979; Balázs 1991兲.
Monotonic Loading of Cracked Reinforced Tie
After concrete cracking, the response of a reinforced member
may be characterized using the following considerations:
1. The cross-sectional equilibrium of forces yields ␴A = ␴sAs
+ ␴cAc 共where ␴⫽average stress in the tie and A is its area兲.
If the tensile softening stress of the concrete in the crack is
neglected, then ␴ = ␴sa␳ 共where ␳ = As / A⫽reinforcement ratio
and ␴sa the steel stress in the crack, see Fig. 5兲.
2. The steel stress distribution along the axis of the bar is ob-
tained from the equilibrium of forces, considering a rigid-
plastic bond law over the transfer length 共lba兲
␲
␴sa d2b = ␲dblba␶a → lba =
4
␴sadb
4␶a
共4兲
The maximum value of lba can be estimated considering that
␴sa = f ct,eff / ␳ at the end of the crack development phase, thus
db f ct,eff
lba,max = 共5兲
4␳␶a
Fig. 4. Material and interface laws: 共a兲 concrete tensile response; 共b兲
rigid-plastic bond law
 Unloading of Cracked Reinforced Tie
When a cracked tie is unloaded, concrete may develop compres-
sive stresses 关see Fig. 4共a兲兴 whose values may be important and
cannot be neglected in the cross-sectional equilibrium of the ele-
ment, then

␴per = ␴si␳ + ¯␴c 共8兲

with the stress range of the tie: ⌬␴ = ⌬␴s␳ − ¯␴c 共see Fig. 6兲.
For the rigid-plastic bond law 关Fig. 4共b兲兴 and neglecting again
concrete strains compared to steel strains, the crack width wper
共see Fig. 3兲 can be calculated for the different unloading regimes
共see Fig. 6兲:
1. Stage a: Unloading in the crack development stage

冋
wper = 共␴per + ⌬␴兲2 − 共⌬␴ + ¯␴c兲2
␶a
册db
␶a + ␶i 4␳2Es␶a
共9兲

2. Stage b: Unloading in the stabilized cracking stage when the

Fig. 5. Loading of reinforced tie: 共a兲 sketch of the system; 共b兲 steel unloaded length lbi 关Fig. 6兴 is smaller than lba
stress distribution at crack development stage; and 共c兲 stabilized
cracking stage
冋
wper = 2共␴per + ⌬␴兲 − f ct,eff −
共⌬␴ + ¯␴c兲2 ␶a
册
db f ct,eff
f ct,eff ␶a + ␶i 4␳2Es␶a
共10兲
3. Stage c: Unloading in the stabilized cracking stage when lbi
3. Concrete strains are neglected in comparison to steel strains.
⬅ lba
Then, the crack width may be obtained as w = 兰sc共␧s − ␧c兲dx
⬇ 兰sc␧s dx 共sc being the distance between cracks兲.
Based on these considerations, the response of a member
under monotonic load can be obtained analytically in a closed
冋
wper = 2共␴per − ¯␴c兲 +
␶a
册
␶i f ct,eff db f ct,eff
4␳2Es␶a
共11兲

form. For the crack development stage 关Fig. 5共a兲兴, the crack width Note that the last equation does not depend on the stress range of
after the loading process 共wl兲 can be calculated as the tie 共⌬␴兲.

␴sa
2
db ␴ 2d b Comparison with Test Results
wl = = 2 共6兲
4Es␶a 4␳ Es␶a
Farra and Jaccoud 共1993兲 performed a series of tests on rein-
For the stabilized cracking phase 关Fig. 5共b兲兴 the maximum crack forced ties studying both their loading behavior and their residual
width in the element can be estimated on the basis of the maxi- crack width after unloading. Fig. 7 compares their results to the
mum value of lba 关Eq. 共5兲兴, similar to the values proposed by analytical model which gives good agreement for the residual
CEB-FIP 共1990兲 and CEN 共2004兲. The resulting crack width is crack width.
then The model is further compared in Fig. 8 to the tests performed
by Laurencet et al. 共1997兲 on several reinforced and prestressed

冉 冊
共unbounded兲 ties with low reinforcement ratios. A good agree-
2␴sa f ct,eff db f ct,eff db f ct,eff ment is again achieved in both the loading and unloading
wl = − = 共2␴ − f ct,eff兲 2 共7兲
Es ␳Es 4␳␶a 4␳ Es␶a branches.

Fig. 6. Steel stress distribution at unloading states of tie: 共a兲 Stage a; 共b兲 Stage b; and 共c兲 Stage c

648 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007


Fig. 7. Comparison of analytical model 共k = 0.95; ␶a = 2f ct and ␶i
= 0.5f ct兲 with test results by Farra and Jaccoud 共1993兲 for series N10
and N42: 共a兲 db = 10 mm; 共b兲 db = 14 mm; and 共c兲 db = 20 mm
Proposal of Design Formula and Comparison
with Other Models
Crack Width Limit
Eqs. 共9兲–共11兲 may be used to obtain the maximum allowable
stress in a tension member for a permanent load combination with
a given crack width limit. The value of the crack width limit is
usually defined in codes of practice depending on the exposure
conditions and the presence or not of prestressing. It should be
noted that in AASHTO and ACI codes this value is defined in an
indirect way, by using the Z factor, whose value depends on the
exposure conditions of the structure.
For a tension tie, the Z factor can be derived by equating the
steel stress from the equation of Gergely-Lutz 共1968兲 to the maxi-
mum allowable steel stress in the Z-factor formula proposed by
AASHTO LRFD, leading to
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007 / 649
Fig. 8. Comparison of analytical model 共k = 0.95; ␶a = 2f ct; and ␶i
= 0.5f ct兲 with tests by Laurencet et al. 共1997兲
wc共in兲
Z= 共12兲
0.000076
According to AASHTO LRFD, for a tie under moderate exposure
conditions, Z = 170, the maximum allowable crack width is wc
= 0.013 in. 共0.32 mm兲 and for a tie under severe exposure condi-
tions, Z = 130, it decreases to wc = 0.0098 in. 共0.25 mm兲. These
values are in good agreement with the crack width requirements
from other international codes 共CEB-FIP 1990; CEN 2004兲.
Design Formula
For a given crack width limit, it can be observed 共Fig. 9兲 that an
important part of the response of the tie is independent of the
stress range 共⌬␴兲 corresponding to unloading situations under
Stage c 关Eq. 共11兲兴.
For practical purposes, the value of the lower plateau can be
used. This is the correct value for bridge decks with usual rein-
forcement ratios and bar diameters where ⌬␴ is greater than 2 or
3 MPa. This value is otherwise conservative. A more precise
value in Stages a and b can be obtained using Eq. 共9兲 for Stage a
and Eq. 共10兲 for Stage b.
However, Eq. 共11兲 has been derived without considering time-
dependent concrete strains, whose effect should be included in the
analysis of cracked members because the crack width increases
with time as rheological strains develop 共Jaccoud and Charif
1987兲. Tensile creep strains of concrete can usually be neglected
in comparison to shrinkage strains and the increase in the crack
width can be estimated as
 Fig. 10. Plots of admissible stresses 共Stage c兲 as function of rein-
forcement ratio for various bar diameters with and without shrinkage
Fig. 9. Plots of admissible stresses as function of stress range for
strains
various reinforcement ratios with and without shrinkage strains

⌬w ⬵ − ␧cssc → wper,⬁ = wper − ␧cssc
where sc = maximum distance between cracks 共equal to 2lba for the
stabilized cracking phase兲 and ␧cs represents shrinkage strain.
This increase in crack width has to be introduced in Eq. 共11兲
using wper = wper,⬁ + ␧cssc 共where wper,⬁ = long-term crack width兲
and considering bond stresses under cyclic loading 共␶i,⬁ and ␶a,⬁兲.
The following expression is obtained for the maximum allowable
stress in the tie 共␴all兲
2␳2␶aEs ␶i,⬁ f ct,eff
␴all = ␳Es␧cs + wper,⬁ − + ¯␴c
db f ct,eff 2␶a
Introducing the values of ␶a = 2f ct and ␶i,⬁ = f ct / 4 and expressing
the bridge deck effective tensile strength as a function of the
concrete tensile strength 共using f ct,eff = kf ct兲, it results in
4␳2Es kf ct
␴all = ␳Es␧cs + wper,⬁ − + ¯␴c
kdb 16
The value of ¯␴c can be obtained from Eq. 共1兲. Considering wc
= 0.2 mm, its value for wres,⬁ = 0.1 mm would be ¯␴c = −0.1f ct,eff
and for wres,⬁ = 0.2 mm would be ¯␴c = 0 MPa. For usual deck
thicknesses, k may be adopted as k = 0.90 共e = 250 mm兲 and k
= 0.85 共e = 350 mm兲.
This formula may also be expressed isolating ␳ as
共13兲 quence of composite bridges. As shown in Fig. 10, the bar diam-
eter 共db兲 has an important influence on the response of the
element.
The second formula 关Eq. 共16兲兴 may, on the other hand, be used
in the final dimensioning of the structure to determine the neces-
sary reinforcement of the deck slab if the crack control criterion is
governing.
Estimation of Crack Width by Other Models
and Comparison with Design Formula
共14兲
The results obtained with the proposed design formula Eq. 共15兲
are compared in this section to various existing models.
The first model that is compared to the design formula is the
one proposed by the MC-90 共CEB-FIP 1990兲, which estimates the
allowable stress in a tie for repeated or long-term loading in the
stabilized cracking stage as
共15兲
3.6␳2Es
␴all = ␳Es␧cs + wk + 0.38kf ct 共17兲
db
Comparing this formula to Eq. 共15兲, it can be seen that shrinkage
strains have the same effect on both expressions and that similar
contributions related to the admissible crack width are also ex-
pected. The main difference between both formulations is found

− Es␧cs + 冑Es2␧cs
2
冉
− 4 ¯␴c −
kf ct
16
− ␴all 冊冉 4wper,⬁Es
kdb
冊 in the tension-stiffening term, positive according to MC-90
共0.38kf ct兲 and negative according to the proposed model
共−kf ct / 16+ ¯␴c兲. EC-2 共CEN 2004兲 proposes an expression similar
␳=
8wper,⬁Es to that of MC-90 but without considering the effect of shrinkage
kdb strains. Also, Eq. 共15兲 is compared to two models which have
been the basis of the crack control formulae for American codes
共16兲
共as cited in DeStefano et al. 2003兲. The first one was proposed by
The first design formula 关Eq. 共15兲兴 is aimed at helping in the Gergely and Lutz 共1968兲 estimating the crack width by means of
predimensioning of structures, obtaining the necessary prestress- a dimension-dependent empirical formula. The second model is
ing of partially prestressed concrete bridges 共once the admissible due to Frosch 共1999兲, which proposes a theoretically derived ex-
stress in the deck has been estimated for a given crack width, pression. None of these models consider the effect of shrinkage
reinforcement ratio, and bar diameter兲 or the construction se- strains.

650 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007


Fig. 11. Comparison of proposed model with different models: 共a兲
properties of specimen analyzed; 共b兲 plots for various shrinkage
strains and crack widths
Fig. 11 compares the results of the previous models to Eq. 共15兲
on a reference tie. Four cases are presented showing the influence
of the crack width and shrinkage strains. When shrinkage strains
are neglected, all models yield similar admissible stresses for the
tie. The proposed formula, however, provides a slightly smaller
allowable stress due to the consideration of the unloading behav-
ior. When shrinkage strains are included, only the formula pro-
posed in this paper and MC-90 modify their response, reducing
the allowable stress in the tie.
Example of Application
This section presents an example in which the model proposed in
this paper is applied to dimension the prestressing of a bridge at
cracking the limit. The cracking control is performed by checking
the response of the deck slab of the bridge in a section over
intermediate supports. The sectional forces are obtained from a
linear elastic analysis and the check is performed with the elasto-
plastic model for ties proposed in this paper. Fig. 12 shows the
main dimensions of the cross section over piers for a typical
European continuous box girder bridge with a span between piers
of approximately 55 m. The section of the deck slab over an
Fig. 12. Box girder cross section and main geometrical properties
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007 / 651
intermediate support can be considered longitudinally as a tie 关see
Fig. 1共a and b兲兴, with a thickness of 250 mm and two reinforce-
ment layers of db 16 mm at 150 mm. Considering the exposure
conditions and the presence of prestressing, the crack width limit
is adopted as wper,⬁ = 0.2 mm 共which corresponds to a Z factor of
approximately 100兲 under the frequent load combination 共SLS
check兲. The maximum allowable stress in the deck slab for this
load combination can be obtained by using Eq. 共15兲, resulting in
␴all = 0.32 MPa 共where ␳ = 0.01, ␧cs = −300· 10−6, Es
= 205,000 MPa, k = 0.90, and f ct = 3.5 MPa兲.
This section is subjected to a bending moment of M q =
−56 MN m 共not including the effect of prestressing兲 for the fre-
quent load combination. The stress at the centroid of the tie due to
this bending moment is
Mq · z
␴q = = 6.0 MPa 共18兲
Isec
The stress at the same point due to the effect of prestressing after
losses 共P⬁兲 is
− P⬁ M p⬁ · z
␴p = + 共19兲
Asec Isec
where M p⬁ = total bending moment due to the prestressing after
losses 共primary—statically determinate—plus secondary—
redundant—prestress moments兲. For the chosen prestress layout
共parabolic with connecting circles兲, this moment
results M p⬁共MN m兲 = 1.68P⬁共MN兲, leading finally to
␴ p共MPa兲 = −0.3P⬁共MN兲.
The minimum necessary prestress to control cracking can fi-
nally be obtained using
␴all = ␴ p + ␴q 共20兲
leading to P⬁ = 19.0 MN. The mean compressive stress in the sec-
tion is thus: ␴⬁ = −P⬁ / Asec = −2.4 MPa 共−0.35 ksi兲.
It should be added that the value of the prestressing force thus
obtained needs to be compared to those required by the ultimate
limit state or other serviceability conditions to select the govern-
ing criterion.
Conclusions
This paper investigates concrete cracking in the deck slab of
bridges due to longitudinal bending, considering their unloading
response and proposing an analytical model to design elements
according to this phenomenon. The main contributions and con-
clusions of this paper are as follows:
1. Estimating the crack width in deck slabs of bridges under
permanent load 共service limit state verification兲 requires con-
sidering their unloading behavior;
2. A cracked tie, after an unloading process, presents a residual
crack width due to the nonlinear unloading response of bond
and concrete, which can be interpreted as a negative tension-
stiffening effect;
3. A simplified rigid-plastic bond law provides satisfactory
agreement with test results and allows one to derive analyti-
cal expressions describing the loading and unloading re-
sponse of a tie;
4. Different unloading stages can be developed by a tension
member. For deck slabs of bridges, however, only one is
governing. Its response depends only on the permanent stress
 in the element and not on its stress range. For this case,
simple design formulae may be derived to estimate the crack
width in tension members;
5. The influence of shrinkage strains should not be neglected in
the estimation of the long-term crack width of cracked mem-
bers and it is included in the proposed model. The influence
of tensile creep strains may, on the other hand, be neglected;
and
6. The checking of the serviceability limit state concerning
cracking or the dimensioning of the prestressing for crack
control can be performed on the basis of a rational approach,
as a function of the maximum allowable crack width 共or Z
factor兲, the reinforcement ratio, and the mean stress in an
element.
Acknowledgments
The work described in this paper was funded by the Road Admin-
istration of the Canton du Jura, Switzerland. This work was per-
formed within the framework of a design competition, with the
aim to develop simple and scientifically based criteria to quantify
the serviceability limit state of prestressed and composite bridges.
The writers are appreciative of the support received.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
A ⫽ tie cross-sectional area;
Apr ⫽ prestressing cross-sectional area;
As ⫽ reinforcement cross-sectional area;
Asec ⫽ bridge cross-sectional area;
db ⫽ bar diameter;
Es ⫽ steel elastic modulus;
f c ⫽ concrete uniaxial compressive strength;
f ct ⫽ concrete tensile strength;
f ct,eff ⫽ concrete effective tensile strength;
Isec ⫽ bridge moment of inertia;
k ⫽ concrete effective tensile strength to tensile
strength ratio;
lba ⫽ transfer length;
lbi ⫽ unloaded transfer length;
P⬁ ⫽ prestress force at time infinite;
s ⫽ bar spacing;
sc ⫽ distance between cracks;
w ⫽ crack width;
wc ⫽ maximum crack width at which concrete tensile
softening stresses are transmitted;
wl ⫽ crack width at end of loading process;
wper ⫽ crack width under permanent loads;
wper,⬁ ⫽ crack width under permanent loads at time
infinite;
Z ⫽ Z-factor for crack control;
␦ ⫽ relative bar–concrete slip;
␧c ⫽ strain in concrete;
␧cs ⫽ concrete shrinkage strain;
␧s ⫽ strain in reinforcement bar;
␳ ⫽ reinforcement ratio;
␴ ⫽ tie average stress 共applied force/total
cross-sectional area兲;
␴all ⫽ allowable stress in tie as function of allowable
crack width;
652 / JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007
␴c ⫽ concrete stress;
¯␴c ⫽ concrete stress after unloading;
␴s ⫽ steel stress;
␴s,all ⫽ allowable stress in reinforcement;
␴sa ⫽ steel stress at crack location after loading;
␴si ⫽ steel stress at crack location after unloading;
␶a ⫽ monotonic loading bond stress;
␶a,⬁ ⫽ loading bond stress after large number of
unloading–reloading cycles;
␶i ⫽ bond stress after first unload; and
␶i,⬁ ⫽ unloading bond stress after large number of
unloading–reloading cycles.
References
Alvarez, M. 共1998兲. “Influence of bond behaviour in the deformation
capacity of reinforced concrete.” Ph.D. thesis, Einfluss des Verbund-
verhaltens auf das Verformungsvermögen von Stahlbeton, IBK, Ei-
dgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland 共in
German兲.
Balázs, G. L. 共1991兲. “Fatigue of bond.” ACI Mater. J., 88共6兲, 620–629.
Comité Euro-International du Béton 共CEB-FIP兲. 共1990兲. Model code for
concrete structures, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Comité Européen de Normalisation 共CEN兲. 共2004兲. Eurocode 2: Design
of concrete structures—Part 1–1: General rules and rules for build-
ings, Brussels, Belgium.
DeStefano, R. J., Evans, J., Tadros, M. K., and Sun, C. 共2003兲. “Flexural
crack control in concrete bridge structures.” 3rd Proc., Int. Sym. on
High Performance Concrete (ISHPC), Orlando, Fla.
Farra, B., and Jaccoud, J.-P. 共1993兲. “Influence of concrete and reinforce-
ment on cracking of concrete structures.” Test Rep. of Short-Term
Imposed Strains on Ties, IBAP, Pub. 140, École Polytechnique
Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland 共in French兲.
Frosch, R. J. 共1999兲. “Another look at cracking and crack control in
reinforced concrete.” ACI Struct. J., 437–442.
Gergely, P., and Lutz, L. A. 共1968兲. “Maximum crack width in reinforced
concrete flexural members.” Causes, mechanism and control of crack-
ing in concrete, SP-20, American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, Mich., 87–117.
Giuriani, E. 共1981兲. “Experimental investigation on the bond-slip law of
deformed bars in concrete.” IABSE Colloquium Delft 1981, Advanced
Mechanics of Reinforced Concrete, Rep. of the Working Commissions,
Vol. 34, International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineer-
ing, Switzerland, 121–142.
Gómez Navarro, M., and Lebet, J.-P. 共2001兲. “Concrete cracking in com-
posite bridges: Tests, models and design proposals.” Struct. Eng. Int.
(IABSE, Zurich, Switzerland), 11共3兲, 184–190.
Hillerborg, A., Modéer, M., and Petersson, P. E. 共1976兲. “Analysis of
crack formation and crack growth in concrete by means of fracture
mechanics and finite elements.” Cem. Concr. Res., 6, 773–782.
Hordijk, D. A. 共1991兲. “Local approach to fatigue of concrete.” Ph.D.
thesis, Technische Universiteit Delft, W. D. Meinema, ed., Delft, The
Netherlands.
Hordijk, D. A. 共1992兲. Tensile and tensile fatigue behaviour of concrete;
Experiments, modelling and analysis, Heron, Lab. Sterin, Technische
Univ. Delft, 37/ 1, Delft, The Netherlands.
Jaccoud, J.-P., and Charif, H. 共1987兲. “Minimal reinforcement for crack
control on concrete structures.” Final Test Rep., Series C, IBAP, Pub.
114, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzer-
land.
Kenel, A. 共2001兲. “Flexural behaviour and minimal reinforcement in re-
inforced concrete structural members.” Ph.D. thesis, IBK, Eidgenös-
sische Technische Hochschule Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland 共in Ger-
man兲.
Laurencet, P. 共1999兲. “Prestressing and minimal reinforcement for the
 control of the residual crack width.” Ph.D. thesis, IBAP, École Poly-
technique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland 共in French兲.
Laurencet, P., Jaccoud, J.-P., and Favre, R. 共1997兲. “Cracking in pre-
stressed concrete structures under cyclic loading.” Test Rep. IBAP,
Pub. 145, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne,
Switzerland 共in French兲.
Marti, P., Alvarez, M., Kaufmann, W., and Sigrist, V. 共1998兲. “Tension
chord model for structural concrete.” Struct. Eng. Int. (IABSE, Zurich,
JOURNAL OF BRIDGE ENGINEERING © ASCE / SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2007 / 653
View publication stats
Switzerland), 8共4兲, 287–298.
Plaines, P., Tassios, T., and Vintzeleou, E. 共1982兲. “Bond relaxation and
bond-slip creep under monotonic and cyclic actions.” Proc. of the
International Conference at Paisley, Paisley, France, 193–205.
Tassios, T. P. 共1979兲. “Properties of bond between concrete and steel
under load cycles idealizing seismic actions.” CEB Bulletin
d’Information No. 131, Vol. 1, 67–121.