Causes of and Responsibilities for an Excessive Amount

of Leaking Cracks in a Massive Concrete Mat Foundation

Juraj Bilcik, Ph.D. 1; Robert Sonnenschein, Ph.D. 2; and Ivan Holly, Ph.D. 3

Abstract: Integral watertight concrete structures can be an effective and durable solution for underground facilities. The paper presents an
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Sunshine Coast on 02/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

evaluation of the major causes of and responsibilities for wide through cracks in a large mat foundation. A large number of leaking cracks with
a width of up to 0.8 mm were observed in the mat foundation. Considering the importance of water leaking through the cracks in terms of the
serviceability and durability of watertight concrete structures, emphasis is placed on the effect of early-age temperature rise in mat foundation.
Mitigation strategies to prevent the formation and propagation of early-age through cracks are discussed. The concrete technology methods
are aimed at reducing the concrete temperature by using low-heat generating concrete. In general, when assessing the risk of early-age
cracking, drying and autogenous shrinkage may be ignored. The role of cement type, concrete cover and reinforcement to limit the width
of cracks was analyzed. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0001130. © 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Watertight concrete; Mat foundation; Thermal contraction; Leaking cracks; Reinforcement.

Introduction whereas wider cracks may represent a permanent problem

Concrete is the most widely used building material in the world
because of its beauty, strength and durability, among its other ben-
efits. The volume instability of concrete is, however, an unfavorable
property and is particularly active during the hardening phase. This
may cause contraction of the concrete structure and cracks in the
cement matrix. In the case of through cracks in underground facili-
ties, the crack widths are limited by the serviceability requirements
determined by the design engineer. Volume instability and cracking
tendencies are magnified in massive structures due to temperature
and moisture variations. This type of cracking is often denoted as
early-age cracking (typically up to 7 days). Shrinkage is normally
not considered in this context because, in this relatively short term,
the drying shrinkage will be small (Pane and Hansen 2008), and
normal concrete has negligible autogenous shrinkage (Holt 2001).
The main focus here is on the behavior of materials that result in
stresses in hardening concrete structures due to thermal effects and
external restraints from adjoining structural parts. When cracking
occurs, the result of any external restraint is often through cracks
of variable widths, which permeate the entire thickness of the struc-
ture. The formation of cracks can lead to leaking and unsightly
conditions when water can penetrate the cracks (ACI 2004). Fine
cracks may be clogged over time due to self-healing mechanisms,
1 crack width control in restrained concrete members.
Professor, Dept. of Concrete Structures and Bridges, Faculty of Civil
Engineering, Slovak Univ. of Technology, Radlinskeho 11, 810 05
Bratislava, Slovakia (corresponding author). ORCID: https://orcid.org
/0000-0003-3052-9784. E-mail: juraj.bilcik@stuba.sk
2 for early-age thermal cracking in a massive concrete mat
Graduate Research Assistant, Dept. of Concrete Structures and
Bridges, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Slovak Univ. of Technology,
Radlinskeho 11, 810 05 Bratislava, Slovakia. E-mail: robert.sonnenschein@
stuba.sk
3
Graduate Assistant, Dept. of Concrete Structures and Bridges, Faculty
of Civil Engineering, Slovak Univ. of Technology, Radlinskeho 11, 810 05
Bratislava, Slovakia. E-mail: ivan.holly@stuba.sk
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 6, 2017; approved on
August 22, 2017; published online on December 16, 2017. Discussion
period open until May 16, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted
for individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Performance
of Constructed Facilities, © ASCE, ISSN 0887-3828.
(Bjøntegaard 2011).
There are many applications of concrete in which watertightness
plays an important role in the performance of a structure. The term
watertightness refers to the ability of concrete to withstand hydro-
static pressure. Concrete must be impermeable for nearly every in-
dustrial and residential below-ground application. Such structures
have to be waterproof or watertight to prevent damage due to the
ingress and egress of water. A completely waterproof structure can
be obtained by applying an external waterproofing system either as
a coating, liner, or other surface-applied system. An integral water-
tight concrete structure (WCS) that renders the concrete watertight
can be an effective alternative. The latter method is controlled
by the presence of cracks resulting from either direct loading or
restrained imposed deformations (indirect loading).
In most cases it is neither necessary nor economical to avoid
cracks. In these cases, crack widths are primarily limited for water
tightness, durability, or aesthetic reasons (Sule 2003). Although
such cracks do not typically impact structural integrity, they accel-
erate deterioration, reduce the serviceability of structures, and
may be significant in environmental impact assessments by acting
as paths of ingress for ions and/or moisture. This paper analyzes the
effect of the amount of reinforcement on crack width. König and
Tue (1996), Schlicke and Tue (2015), Beeby and Scott (2005), and
others have dealt with the problem of minimum reinforcement for
The occurrence of thermal cracking is one of the clear limit
states to be assessed in performance-based design (Maekawa
et al. 1999). This paper identifies the causes of and responsibilities
foundation.
Watertight Concrete Structures
Watertight concrete structures have been established, for many
decades, especially in Central Europe. In addition to watertight
concrete, the WCS includes the planning, design, and all operations
to be undertaken on-site during construction. A WCS has the fol-
lowing advantages:

© ASCE 04017134-1 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2018, 32(2): 04017134

 • A reduction in the number of procedures (no need for insulation
and its protection);
• Any leaks are easy to locate and repair; and
• The lifespan of the concrete is much longer than that expected of
bitumen or plastic liners.
Fig. 1 shows the scheme of the design and construction of the
structural elements of a WCS—the mat foundation and the walls—
for two exposure and performance classes according to the German
guideline (GCSC 2003).
In terms of the formation and propagation of through cracks,
there are three design models of a WCS (GCSC 2003):
• Without through cracks;
• With through cracks of limited widths (enabling self-healing
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Sunshine Coast on 02/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
increase in the penetrability of concrete by orders of magnitude.
For the serviceability limit state of WCS, the maximum crack width
is between 0.05 and 0.2 mm, depending on the hydraulic gradient
(CEN 2006). These narrow cracks may close due to autogenous
healing (Edvardsen 1999; Forth and Martin 2014; Kovler and
Bentur 2009).
Case Study of Watertight Mat Foundation
It is quite unusual to find a WCS in which there is a design
deficiency in the structural capacity to carry direct actions. Only
approximately 20% of cracks in mass concrete are induced by di-

of cracks), achieved through the design and detailing of the
reinforcement; and
• With through cracks without crack width control, which are sub-
sequently sealed.
Cracking is an inherent part of reinforced concrete and, if prop-
erly controlled, will not be detrimental to the performance of a
structure (CEN 2004; Kozikowski and Suprenant 2015). The basis
of the design of reinforced concrete is the fact that concrete has
no significant tensile strength and that sufficient reinforcement is
provided to control crack widths. With a crack width below
0.1 mm, the penetrability is not much greater than that of a matrix.
An increase in the crack width from 0.1 to 0.3 mm results in an
rect loading (Shi et al. 2014). The others may develop in restrained
concrete elements by volume changes related to thermal or mois-
ture contractions. Subsequent unacceptable leakage through the
mat foundation can occur (Fig. 2).
In the design of structures with serviceability and durability is-
sues, designers often use the provisions of ACI 318-11 (ACI 2011)
rather than the more applicable ACI 350-06 (ACI 2006). Using the
ACI 318 provisions alone will not produce a liquid-tight structure
(Hanskat 2008).
Current design procedures use reinforced steel not only to carry
the tensile forces but also to obtain both an adequate distribution of
cracks and a reasonable limit on crack widths (ACI 2007a).

Geotechnical 1. Class Temporary accumulation of leakage water

Exposure class
survey - water Ground, inundation and stratum water
pressure under pressure

Analysis of Design level of 2. Class Soil moisture

groundwater groundwater - humidity Non accumulating leakage water

Groundwater No chemical XA1 XA2 XA3 Concrete with high resistance

classification attack to water penetration

Requirements for Wet areas on walls Performance Environmental exposure classes

serviceability admissible/inadmissible class
XC XD XS XF XA XM

Member thickness Without separation cracks

Sealing Control
Structure Separation cracks, limited width joints and according to
Base 250 mm
Cracks + measures for sealing cracks EN 13670
Wall 240 mm

Fig. 1. Schema of the design and construction of a watertight concrete structure (adapted from Ebeling 2004)

Fig. 2. (a) Groundwater leakage through a crack in a mat foundation; (b) overview of a flooded underground garage (images by Juraj Bilcik)

© ASCE 04017134-2 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2018, 32(2): 04017134


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Sunshine Coast on 02/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Construction of the mat foundation with a horizontal spacer
frame (image courtesy of Anton Vyskoc)
Description of Structure Investigated
This study investigated an apartment and shopping complex
consisting of a five-story building over a three-level underground
parking structure, which is supported on a watertight reinforced
substructure established on a mat foundation. The watertightness
of the underground floors is provided by a reinforced concrete
diaphragm wall and a mat foundation, often referred to as a white
concrete box (Fig. 3). The monolithic mat foundation has a plan
dimension of approximately 390 × 105 m, and the thickness varies
from 1.0 to 1.5 m. The bottom of the mat extends to depths ranging
from approximately 14.3 to 14.8 m below grade and from 9.0 to
9.5 m below the groundwater level at the site. The ratio of the
groundwater level to the mat foundation’s thickness (hydraulic gra-
dient) is less than 10; therefore the limiting value, wmax , for the
calculated crack width, wk , was 0.2 mm (GCSC 2003; CEN 2006).
The whole complex is divided into five sections; the largest sec-
tion, Section 2 (Fig. 4), measures roughly 102 × 98 m. The bottom
surface of the mat foundation is relatively indented by elevator pits
and underground walls under the basement columns. To reduce the
effects of early-age volume changes, the mat foundation was di-
vided into 40 concrete casting sequences with an average plan area
of 1,000 m2 . The project required at least 7 days between the
Fig. 4. Distribution of leaking cracks in the mat foundation sections and sequences (image courtesy of SkyBau)
© ASCE 04017134-3
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2018, 32(2): 04017134
castings of the adjacent sequences. In the relatively short term, dry-
ing shrinkage is small. Therefore, when assessing the risk of early-
age cracking, the drying shrinkage can be ignored (Bamforth 2007).
This is why expansion and contraction joints were not installed.
Leaking Cracks in Mat Foundation
Large cracks are usually objectionable in many structures. In gen-
eral, such cracking may be a cause for concern in a WCS, mainly
from the viewpoint of its serviceability. Fig. 4 shows the position
and orientation of leaking cracks in the final cracking stage of the
mat foundation.
From Fig. 4 it is clear that, among other reasons, the atmos-
pheric temperature during the casting had a significant impact
on the frequency of cracks: disproportionately fewer cracks oc-
curred in sections cast in the colder months (Sections 1 and 2) than
in the summer (Sections 4 and 5). The crack widths measured on
the concrete surface ranged between 0.2 and 0.8 mm. Table 1 shows
the temperatures during the concreting and the length of the leaking
cracks. The total length of the leaking cracks in the mat foundation
was 26,818.6 m. The large number of cracks in Sequence 2/7,
which was constructed under favorable conditions, was related
to the increased water content of 187 kg=m3 detected, which is
17 kg (10%) more than specified in ASCT (2002).
Analysis of Causes of Cracking
The subcontractor ordered an analysis of the causes of and respon-
sibilities for the large number of leaking cracks based on the
data acquired from the technical documentation and the results
of laboratory tests on concrete samples taken during construction
monitoring.
The causes of the recorded cracks were identified as the effects
of restrained imposed deformations. They were divided into two
basic types.
Type 1 cracks emerge from the adjacent edges of concrete se-
quences of the mat foundation in a mostly perpendicular direction
to the construction joints. In the end spans of the mat foundation,
the cracks are perpendicular to the contact with the diaphragm
walls (e.g., cracks in Sequences 2/2, 2/5, and 2/9), and in the inner
spans they are perpendicular to the contact with the previously con-
structed sequences (e.g., cracks in Sequences 1/7, 2/7, and 3/6).
Fig. 5 shows the crack pattern in Sequence 1/7 constrained by
the previously constructed diaphragm walls and Sequences 1/3
and 1/4.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 Table 1. Concrete Sequences of the Mat Foundation Section 1
Section/ Date of concrete Length of 3 4 5
sequence placement Temperature (°C) cracks (m)
1/1 January 28 5 340.7
1/3 February 4 5 97.3
1/2 February 11 12 181.6
1/4 February 18 3 278.3 A
1/5 February 22 10 492.4 Top= -13.300
1/7 February 25 2 201.5 Bottom= -14.300 1/7
2/1 March 1 7 437.7
1/6 March 4 7 465.3
B
2/2 March 7 10 266.3
2/5 March 11 11 358.3
1/4
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Sunshine Coast on 02/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

2/3 March 15 12 418.9

2/4 March 21 5 808.2
2/6 March 24 5 397.3 C
2/9 March 28 13 310.4
2/8 April 1 16 553.4
2/7 April 13 18 2,177.9
3/1 April 16 20 1,021.0 D
3/2 April 19 15 648.5
3/3 April 23 20 1,123.5
1/3
3/5 April 27 23 1,738.8
3/6 May 1 17 3,808.4
3/9 May 7 17 567.7 Fig. 5. Cracks in Sequence 1/7 are mostly perpendicular to the contact
3/8 May 12 18 427.9 with diaphragm walls and Sequences 1/3 and 1/4 (image courtesy of
3/7 May 14 13–24 1,414.6 SkyBau)
5/1 May 28 17–24 391.1
5/3 May 31 10–16 233.0
5/2 June 4 17–25 427.3
5/4 June 6 18–25 165.6
3/4 June 10 25 728.8
5/5 June 11 18–30 1,150.5
5/7 June 14 18–31 214.6
5/6 June 15 19–31 293.1
5/8 June 17 14–28 337.9
4/1 June 19 18–31 594.3
5/9 June 26 14–24 385.1
4/5 June 29 15–25 559.4
4/3 July 8 17–29 862.8
4/6 July 11 12–28 562.9
4/4 July 13 17–28 597.2
4/2 July 15 18–30 779.1
Note: Data were generated from Fig. 4.

Type 2 cracks are mostly parallel to the edge of a cranked bed

joint, e.g., an elevator pit (Fig. 6), and to the sudden changes in the
thickness of the mat foundation.
Sequence 2/4 was only constrained by the diaphragm wall and
elevator pit. The adjoining sequences of the mat were not yet made.
The underground water was seeping through the cracks several
months after the shutdown of the pumping wells. This means that
these cracks had a greater width than the permissible crack width
for self-healing.
Construction, technological, and execution measures should be
implemented to reduce the temperature deformations and restraints
in order to prevent the formation of through cracks in structural
elements. In order to quantify the effect of different parameters
on the excessive number of leaking cracks, the required reinforce-
ment area As acts as a common denominator. The following text
explains the causes of and responsibilities for errors and significant
errors in more detail.
Construction Measures
It is important to avoid sudden changes on a mat foundation’s bot-
tom surface because they can cause a concentration of any stresses
Fig. 6. Cracks in Sequence 2/4 are parallel to the elevator pit edges
(image courtesy of SkyBau)
and hence increase the possibility of cracking. If this criterion
cannot be met, then any change in the thickness of a mat foundation
on its bottom surface should have an inclination of approximately
30° (ASCT 2002), and more reinforcement should be placed in
these parts to limit the width of the local cracks.
The mat foundation had some individual elevator pits (Fig. 6).
In order to avoid excessive constraints in a mat, a construction with
a sliding layer below the pit and a soft elastic intermediate layer
should be arranged laterally to reduce the horizontal deformation
restraints (Fig. 7).

© ASCE 04017134-4 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2018, 32(2): 04017134

 400

350

Heat of hydration [J/g]

300
270
250

200

150

100

50

0
24 48 72 96 120 144 168
Time [h]

CEM I 42.5 R CEM I 42.5 R C3A free CEM I 42.5 N C3A free
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Sunshine Coast on 02/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 7. Panels in vertical or inclined positions on each side of the CEM I 42.5 N C3A free + pfa CEM III/B 32.5 N
elevator pit reduce constraints in a mat foundation (adapted from
Lohmeyer and Ebeling 2009) Fig. 8. Heat of hydration of selected portland cements and a GGBS
cement

These construction measures were not mentioned in the project

documents; therefore they were not included in the construction of
the mat foundation.
No project of this sort is entirely free of certain limitations.
Some of the limitations which were unavoidable included changes
to the mat foundation’s bottom surface. If the position of the
changes is known, then more reinforcement should be placed at
those locations. The amount of this reinforcement was estimated
on the basis of the empirical data to be 5% of all the reinforcement.
Technological Measures
Various technological measures are available to reduce the risk of
early-age thermal cracking of concrete. The main problem associ-
ated with mass concrete pours is the heat of hydration. The hydra-
tion of cement is an exothermic reaction of individual cement
components with water (primarily C3 A and C3 S) (Seruga and
Zych 2015). The resulting generation of heat can cause an exces-
sive increase in temperature (Table 2). Early-age cracking occurs
when a tensile strain, arising from either restrained thermal contrac-
tions or a temperature differential within a concrete section, ex-
ceeds the actual tensile strain capacity of the concrete (Bamforth
2007; Carino and Clifton 1995; Mihashi and Leite 2004).
The cement content should be minimized below the specified
requirements in order to attain a low peak temperature. The heat
production is often controlled by portland cement with a low heat
generation (e.g., C3 A free) or by replacing 65–85% of portland
cement with ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) and/
or 15–25% Class F fly ash (Mindess et al. 2003). The heat of hy-
dration of cement is usually determined in accordance with U.S.
Standard ASTM C 1702-17 (ASTM 2017) or European Standard
EN 196-8 (CEN 2010). These test methods specify the apparatus
as well as the potential temperature rise/fall in concrete elements.
Fig. 8 presents measurement of the heat of hydration of selected
portland cements and a GGBS cement according to EN 196-8
(CEN 2010). The samples tested were cement pastes with a
water:cement ratio of 0.4 by mass. Temperature is controlled in
concrete by selecting cementitious materials that generate the least
heat of hydration. The best results have been achieved with the
GGBS cement CEM III/B 32.5 N–LH according to EN 197-1
(CEN 2012).
In mass concrete, the control of the concrete temperature and the
heat generated by the hydration of cement is extremely important.
The on-site temperature of the concrete is determined by the envi-
ronmental conditions on site and by the heat of hydration of the
cementitious material. When on-site conditions are kept constant,
the heat generation governs the cracking process.
During setting and hardening, the concrete is heated by the hy-
dration of the cement. The heating of concrete depends on the
amount of cement C, heat of hydration of the cement H w , and
the specific thermal capacity of concrete cc (≅ 2.5 J=mm3 · K).
The theoretical increase in the concrete’s temperature can be cal-
culated from (Lohmeyer and Ebeling 2009)
ΔT theor ¼ C · Hw =cc
Table 2 lists the theoretical increase in the temperature of con-
crete for different types of cement.
Required area of reinforcement As

180
and procedure for determining the total heat of hydration of hy- 160 162.2
[cm2] on both surfaces

draulic cementitious materials at test ages of up to 7 days by iso- 140

thermal conduction calorimetry. Heat of hydration measurements 124.8 121.6
120
are important for the assessment of the cement hydration rates, 100
80 95.2
67.6 350
60
52.1 270
40
Table 2. Theoretical Increases in the Temperature of Concrete ΔT theor (K)
20
Amount of cement 0
Heat of hydration
(kg=m3 ) CEM I 42.5 R CEM I 42.5 R CEM III 42.5 N
at 5 days C3A free
Type of cement (J=g) 270 320 350 Type of cement
CEM I 42.5 R 360 38.8 46.0 50.4
CEM I 42.5 R C3 A-free 270 29.6 34.5 37.8 Fig. 9. Required reinforcement area for different amounts and types of
CEM III 42.5 N 150 16.2 19.2 21.0 cement

© ASCE 04017134-5 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2018, 32(2): 04017134

 Fig. 9 shows the effect of the type of cement (CEM I 42.5 R and Reinforcement to Control Cracks
CEM I 42.5 R C3 A-free) and the cement content (270 and The use of reinforcement will not prevent cracking, but it can con-
350 kg=m3 ) on the required area of reinforcement As on both trol the width and spacing of the cracks.
surfaces of the mat foundation. The minimum reinforcement to control cracks due to restrained
The recommended technological measures are summarized as imposed deformations is calculated such that the reinforcement is
follows: able to transfer the tension without yielding. It follows, therefore,
• Maximum concrete strength class C25/30 (after 56 or 90 days); that the stronger the concrete, the greater the amount of reinforce-
• Cement content ≤ 320 kg=m3 ; ment that will be required to achieve controlled cracking (MPA
• Low-heat cement ≤ 270 J=g after 7 days according to EN 197-1 2015).
(CEN 2012); If a minimum area of steel consistent with As;min is used, the
• Temperature of fresh concrete approximately 15°C; and stress in the steel after cracking would be expected to be close
• Water:cement ratio ≤ 0.6 and water ≤ 170 L=m3 (ASCT 2002). to the yield stress, f yk ¼ 500 MPa. It is not normal practice to de-
The compressive strength of concrete is denoted by concrete sign reinforcement to operate at this high level of stress, because
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Sunshine Coast on 02/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

strength classes which relate to the characteristic (5%) cylinder
strength fck or the cube strength f ck;cube in accordance with EN
206 (CEN 2015). Ready-mixed concrete marked as spring and
summer is designed with a 28-day class C30/37 strength. Labora-
tory tests showed that some concrete mixes had strength class C40/
50 (i.e., two classes higher than the designed class and three classes
higher than the recommended class). No measures were taken to
stop the delivery of an inappropriate concrete.
Execution Measures
Execution measures for the reduction of restraints are one of the
most economical methods to mitigate the risk of early-age thermal
cracking. Options include planning the pour sizes and construction
sequence, the inclusion of construction joints, heat insulating mea-
sures, and measures for cooling the concrete before and after its
placement (Bamforth 2007).
Minimizing the temperature of the concrete during placement is
one of the most efficient ways to reduce thermal stresses and crack-
ing. Generally, the lower the temperature of the concrete when it
passes from a plastic condition to an elastic state upon hardening,
the lower the tendency toward cracking. In massive structures,
each 6 K reduction of the placement temperature will lower the
maximum temperature of the hardened concrete by approximately
this would lead to wide cracks. Such cracking may indicate that the
reinforcement normal to the crack has yielded (ACI 2007b).
In watertight structures, it is expected that the provided area of
steel As should be significantly higher than As;min . Serviceability
requirements for watertight concrete structures may require nar-
rower crack widths, such as 0.2 mm (Edvardsen 1999; ACI 2004).
For the project discussed, the required and installed reinforce-
ment of ∅16-mm bars at 140-mm centers (As ¼ 28.7 cm2 on both
surfaces) was determined according to the Austrian guideline
(ASCT 2002). As stated previously, several construction, techno-
logical, and execution measures did not meet the requirements of
the guideline (concrete strength class, C3 A-free cement, and so
on). Fig. 10 compares the required area of steel As for controlled
cracking for different concrete strength classes according to EN
1992-1-1 (CEN 2004), Model Code 2010 (fib 2012), and ACI
224.2R-92 (ACI 2004). The calculations for early-age cracking
(5 days after casting) yielded the following results: maximum
crack width of 0.2 mm, bars with diameter of 25 mm, cement class
N-normal hardening, concrete cover of 35 mm, and thickness of
mat foundation of 1.0 m.
140
Required area of reinforcement As

3 K (Mehta and Monteiro 2006). Because the ready-mixed concrete

was not cooled, the temperature differential within the concrete 130
[cm2] on both surfaces

122.7
sequence induced extensive cracking, mainly in the summer. The
120 115.5
occurrence of cracks is also influenced by curing. The Austrian 111.5
guideline (ASCT 2002) recommends a minimum curing period 110 107.2
of 7 days. The subcontractor was able to prove a 3-day curing time. 97.7 C30/37
100
In the project, a conventional 7-day summer curing by colored pol- 92.4
90
ythene sheets was prescribed to reduce the evaporation of water
from the concrete. Shortening the curing time to 3 days may result 80
35 40 50 55 60 70
in surface or bend cracks from shrinkage or temperature gradients. Concrete cover [mm]
The formation of through cracks is unlikely.
Fig. 11. Effect of concrete cover on the required area of reinforcement
As for C30/37
120 118.2
Required area of reinforcement As

115 116.9
110.9
[cm2] on both surfaces

110
104.5 109.9
105 3% Constructional measures
103.8
100 100.9 Model Code 2010
97.3 8 % Higher concrete strength
95 98.4 ACI 224.2R
90 91.0 92.4 EN 1992-1-1 20 % Larger concrete cover
85 86.0
27 % Type of cement
80
C25/30 C30/37 C35/45 C40/50
Concrete strength class [MPa] 42 % Design of reinforcement

Fig. 10. Required reinforcement area in a mat foundation for different Fig. 12. Quantification of the causes of the excessive amount of leak-
concrete strength classes ing cracks

© ASCE 04017134-6 J. Perform. Constr. Facil.

J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2018, 32(2): 04017134

 Structural designer Concrete plant
Constructional measures Higher concrete
strength
Concrete specification Type and amount
of cement
Design of reinforcement
Insignificant error Error
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Sunshine Coast on 02/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 13. Errors responsible for the large number of leaking cracks
Although fewer cracks were observed on the sections concreted
in cold weather (January–March), the crack widths in all sections
were greater than 0.2 mm. Thus the winter conditions had a positive
impact on the number of cracks, but the reinforcement amount
was not able to limit the crack widths to 0.2 mm. When taking into
account the designed area of the reinforcement, the calculated
early-age thermal crack width wk ¼ 0.84 mm. This corresponds
closely to the maximum measured value of 0.8 mm. In order to
limit the crack width to wmax ¼ 0.2 mm, the required area of
reinforcement should be at least 92.4 cm2 (C30/37 in Fig. 10),
e.g., ∅25=100 mm (98.1 cm2 ).
Any reinforcement should be placed as close to the surface as is
consistent with the cover requirements. It was determined that in-
stead of the designed concrete cover of 35 mm, the cover was sig-
nificantly higher (from 55 to 70 mm). An excessively large concrete
cover leads to wider cracks. According to EN 1992-1-1 (Section
7.3.4), the value of the concrete cover is predominant for the
maximum spacing of cracks, sr;max , and is therefore an important
parameter for calculating the width of cracks. Fig. 11 shows the
effect of the increased concrete cover from 35 to 70 mm on the
required area of reinforcement As on both surfaces of the mat
foundation.
Fig. 12 summarizes the underlying causes of the leaking cracks.
The quantification process was based on the difference between
the provided and required reinforcement area in order to limit
the crack width to 0.2 mm.
Fig. 13 shows the determination of the project stakeholders’
responsibility for a large number of leaking cracks.
The aforementioned errors indicate that most of the crack-
control procedures should be considered during the design
phase. It is the responsibility of the designer to develop effective
designs and clear, specific provisions in the project specifications
(ACI 2001).
A single-component polyurethane injection resin was used to
seal leaking cracks. Injection packers were inserted into holes
drilled at 45° through the cracks in the concrete mat foundation.
The injected polyurethane fills the crack through the entire thick-
ness of the mat. The resin cures to form a flexible and impermeable
seal in which further limited changes in crack widths are expected.
Conclusions
Restrained imposed deformation are significant in many concrete
structures. However, thermal stresses are particularly important in
massive structures, because early-age thermal cracking often causes
leaks which can seriously reduce the serviceability, durability, and
acceptability of watertight concrete structures.
© ASCE 04017134-7
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2018, 32(2): 04017134
Subcontractor General contractor
Larger concrete Approval of the
cover concrete composition
Concrete curing Low control and
coordination level
Significant error
Many studies have investigated early-age tensile properties to
predict cracking, yet many WCS are still leaking. Although many
papers have addressed the prevention of early-age cracking, rela-
tively few have been concerned with experiences from failures.
Based on the numerous cracks and the results of investigation of
the technical documentation and tests, the following conclusions
can be made:
1. Temperature changes are the main cause of the formation of
early-age cracks in massive mat foundations. In general, when
assessing the risk of early-age cracking, drying and autogenous
shrinkage may be ignored.
2. Instead of using a large amount of reinforcement, it is recom-
mended to reduce the strength and the heat of hydration by re-
considering the mixture proportions of the massive concrete.
The application of portland cement with ground granulated
blast-furnace slag can significantly reduce the heat generation
in concrete, and simultaneously reduce the tensile strength of
concrete by the formation of early-age cracks.
3. Minimizing the temperature of fresh concrete during placement
is also an efficient way to minimize thermal stresses and
cracking.
4. When higher-strength concrete is used, the amount of reinforce-
ment that will be required to achieve the specified crack widths
needs to be increased. The calculations in ACI 224.2R-92 (ACI
2004) are more sensitive to an increase in the concrete’s strength
than are the corresponding CEN and fib standards.
5. The quantification of errors showed that the type and amount of
cement, design of reinforcement, and concrete cover are signif-
icant parameters for the formation of early-age cracks in the in-
vestigated mat foundation.
6. The leaking cracks in the project discussed were successfully
sealed by injecting a polyurethane resin.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the research project VEGA No. 1/
0583/15 “Analysis of the Reliability Risks in the Design and
Execution of Concrete Structures” and the University Science Park
of the Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava (ITMS:
26240220084).
References
ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2001). “Control of cracking in con-
crete structures.” ACI 224.R-01, Farmington Hills, MI.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2004). “Cracking of concrete members
in direct tension.” ACI 224.2R-92, Farmington Hills, MI.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.
 ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2006). “Code requirements for envi-
ronmental engineering concrete structures.” ACI 350-06, Farmington
Hills, MI.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2007a). “Causes, evaluation, and re-
pair of cracks in concrete structures.” ACI 224.1R-07, Farmington Hills,
MI.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2007b). “Report on thermal and vol-
ume change effects on cracking of mass concrete.” ACI 207.2R-07,
Farmington Hills, MI.
ACI (American Concrete Institute). (2011). “Building code requirements
for structural concrete and commentary.” ACI 318-11, Farmington Hills,
MI.
ASCT (Austrian Society for Construction Technology). (2002). Richtlinie:
Wasserundurchlässige Betonbauwerke—Weiße Wannen [Guideline on
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Sunshine Coast on 02/17/18. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
watertight concrete structures—White tanks], Vienna, Austria (in
German).
ASTM. (2017). “Standard test method for measurement of heat of hydra-
tion of hydraulic cementitious materials using isothermal conduction
calorimetry.” ASTM C1702-17, West Conshohocken, PA.
Bamforth, P. B. (2007). Early-age thermal crack control in concrete,
Construction Industry Research and Information Association, London.
Beeby, A. W., and Scott, R. H. (2005). “Cracking and deformation of ax-
ially reinforced members subjected to pure tension.” Mag. Concr. Res.,
57(10), 611–621.
Bjøntegaard, Q. (2011). “Basis for and practical approaches to stress cal-
culations and crack risk estimation in hardening concrete structures:
State of the art.” COIN Project Rep. No. 31, Consortium Concrete
Innovation Centre, Oslo, Norway.
Carino, N. J., and Clifton, J. R. (1995). “Prediction of cracking in rein-
forced concrete structures.” NISTIR Rep. No. 5634, National Institute
of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). (2004). “Design of
concrete structures. I-I: General rules and rules for buildings.” EN
1992-1-1, Brussels, Belgium.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). (2006). “Design of con-
crete structures. III: Liquid retaining and containment structures.” EN
1992-3, Brussels, Belgium.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). (2010). “Methods of
testing cement. VIII: Heat of hydration. Solution method.” EN 196-8,
Brussels, Belgium.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). (2012). “Cement, part 1.”
EN 197-1, Brussels, Belgium.
CEN (European Committee for Standardization). (2015). “Concrete. Speci-
fication, performance, production and conformity.” EN 206, Brussels,
Belgium.
Ebeling, K. (2004). “Die neue WU-Richtlinie [The new WT-guideline].”
Beton, 7–8, 356–359 (in German).
Edvardsen, C. (1999). “Water permeability and autogenous healing of
cracks in concrete.” ACI Mater. J., 96(4), 448–454.
fib (International Federation for Structural Concrete). (2012). Model code
2010, Vol. 1, Lausanne, Switzerland.
© ASCE 04017134-8
J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 2018, 32(2): 04017134
Forth, J. P., and Martin, A. J. (2014). Design of liquid retaining concrete
structures, Whittles Publishing, Dunbeath, Scotland.
GCSC (German Committee for Structural Concrete). (2003). Richtlinie
Wasserunduchlässige Bauwerke aus Beton (WU-Richtlinie) [Guideline
on watertight concrete structures (WCS-guideline)], Berlin (in German).
Hanskat, C. (2008). “Why does my new concrete tank leak?” Proc., ASCE
Structures Congress, ASCE, Reston, VA.
Holt, E. E. (2001). Early age autogenous shrinkage of concrete, Vol. 446,
Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland.
König, G., and Tue, N. V. (1996). Grundlagen und Bemessungshilfen
für die Rissbreitenbeschränkung im Stahlbeton und Spannbeton [Back-
grounds and design rules for crack control of reinforced and pre-
stressed concrete structures], German Committee for Structural
Concrete, Berlin (in German).
Kovler, K., and Bentur, A. (2009). “Cracking sensitivity of normal- and
high-strength concretes.” ACI Mater. J., 106(6), 537–542.
Kozikowski, R. L., and Suprenant, B. A. (2015). “Controlling early-age
cracking in mass concrete.” Concr. Int., 37(3), 59–62.
Lohmeyer, G., and Ebeling, K. (2009). Weisse Wannen einfach und sicher
[White tanks easy and safe], Bau+Technik GmbH, Düsseldorf, Ger-
many (in German).
Maekawa, K., Chaube, R., and Kishi, T. (1999). Modelling of concrete per-
formance: Hydration microstructure formation and mass transport,
Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, U.K.
Mehta, P. K., and Monteiro, P. J. (2006). Concrete: Microstructure, proper-
ties, and materials, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Mihashi, H., and Leite, J. P. D. B. (2004). “State-of-the-art report on control
of cracking in early age concrete.” J. Adv. Concr. Technol., 2(2),
141–154.
Mindess, S., Young, J. F., and Darwin, D. (2003). Concrete, Prentice Hall,
New York.
MPA (Mineral Products Association). (2015). “Concrete design guide.”
The structural engineer, Institution of Structural Engineers, London,
44–48.
Pane, I., and Hansen, W. (2008). “Predictions and verifications of early-age
stress development in hydrating blended cement concrete.” Cem. Concr.
Res., 38(11), 1315–1324.
Schlicke, D., and Tue, N. V. (2015). “Minimum reinforcement for crack
width control in restrained concrete members considering the deforma-
tion compatibility.” Struct. Concr., 16(2), 221–232.
Seruga, A., and Zych, M. (2015). “Thermal cracking of the cylindrical tank
under construction. I: Case study.” J. Perform. Constr. Facil., 10.1061
/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000581, 04014100.
Shi, N., Ouyang, J., Zhang, R., and Huang, D. (2014). “Experimental study
on early-age crack of mass concrete under the controlled temperature
history.” Advances in materials science and engineering, Hindawi Pub-
lishing Corporation, Cairo, Egypt, 1–10.
Sule, M. S. (2003). “Effect of reinforcement on early-age cracking in high
strength concrete.” Master’s thesis, TU Delft, Delft, Netherlands.
J. Perform. Constr. Facil.