Sie sind auf Seite 1von 9

# Disclaimer: The following models are published for study and discussion purposes only and

not thought and neither corrected to be finally used to solve design tasks, yet. There is no
guarantee given for any results obtained by using that formulae. Potential users need to verify
the deduction process on their own to form their conclusion. Despite the fact that the models
shown are derived from a normative starting point, the kind of fitting them together to form a
simplified design approach is not normative in the current stage and is not more or less than
an author’s current opinion. Limitation: The following deductions assume the application of
high-bond-bars.

## Achtung: (Deutsch) Die folgenden Modellformulierungen sind nur zu Studien- und

Diskussionszwecken veröffentlicht worden. Sie sind letztendlich weder fertig korrigiert noch
dazu gedacht, reale Designaufgaben z. Zt. zu lösen. Es wird keine Garantie für jegliche mit
diesen Formeln erzeugten Ergebnisse gegeben. Mögliche Nutzer müssen versuchen den
Herleitungsprozess nachzuvollziehen und zu verstehen, um ihre eigenen Schlüsse daraus zu
ziehen. Trotz des Fakts, dass am Anfang der Herleitung normative Modelle stehen, ist die Art,
diese für die Bemessungsaufgabe zu einer einfacher zu nutzenden Formulierung umzuformen
definitiv nicht als normativ zu bezeichnen und nicht mehr und nicht weniger als eine
Autorenmeinung. Abgrenzung: In den Ableitungen wird von der Verwendung üblicher,
gerippter Betonstähle ausgegangen, (keine glatten Rundstähle, keine Litzen, keine tief
gerippten Stähle).

## Deduction of a formulation for the minimum reinforcement for crack

control during primary cracking

Eckfeldt, L.1
1 Research assistant at the Institute of Concrete Structures, TU Dresden, Dresden, Germany

## 1. Scope of minimum reinforcement to control crack widths in primary cracking - definitions

In principle, the tension force that is set free during primary cracking should be overtaken by the
minimum reinforcement. The need for a limiting value develops from following:

A s,min A s,min Es
ρct,min = (1), ρeff = (2), αe = (3)
k ⋅ k c ⋅ A ct A c,eff E c (t)
where: A ct = h ct ⋅ b; is the part of the section under tension and verification,
in case two faces of a
structural member are in tension, both can be treated separately with h ct = h / 2
Precisely is A ct = A ct,c = brutto − concrete − area + (α e − 1) ⋅ A s1 , but the 2nd part can be switched off
because of the uncertainty of f ct (x) in later calculations.
A c,eff = h c,eff ⋅ b; being h c,eff = m ⋅ d1 d1 − distance bargroup centroid to tension face
m − usually 2,5, but should be chosen depending on h
(see [König/ Tue, Bergner] for m)
acc. to [Bergner], it gives:
for : 0 ≤ h / d1 ≤ 5, m = h /(2d1 ) ≤ 2,5
for : 5 ≤ h / d1 ≤ 35, m = (3,33 + h / d1 ⋅ 0,33) / 2 (4)
for : h / d1 > 35, m = 15 / 2 = 7,5
(the "/2" in m results, because m is thought for A c,eff on one tension face)

## Eckfeldt, Deduction of minimum reinforcement 1

Cracking Force to be set free during primary cracking:
Fcr,I ≈ k ⋅ k c ⋅ A ct ⋅ f ct (t) (5)
The stress induced into the reinforcement in the primary crack is:
k ⋅ k c ⋅ A ct ⋅ f ct (t) ⎡ A s,min ⎤
σs,cr,I = ⋅ ⎢1 + ( α e − 1) ⋅ ⎥ (6)
A s,min ⎣ k ⋅ k c ⋅ A ct ⎦
The extension [1+...] ensures the strain compatibility in full force transfer between steel and concrete
surrounding.
Because
A s,min
ρct,min = gives very small values , σs,cr-1 can be taken as:
k ⋅ k c ⋅ A ct
k ⋅ k c ⋅ A ct ⋅ f ct (t)
σs,cr,I ≈ (7)
A s,min
The necessary cracking force for the activated tension chord in order to produce secondary
cracking is:
Fcr,II ≈ A c,eff ⋅ f ct (t) (8)

## stress induced into the reinforcement by secondary cracking is:

A c,eff ⋅ f ct (t) ⎡ A ⎤
σs,cr,II = ⋅ ⎢1 + ( α e − 1) ⋅ s,min ⎥ (9), to be simplified as:
A s,min ⎢⎣ A c,eff ⎥⎦
A c,eff ⋅ f ct (t)
σs,cr,II ≈ (10)
A s,min
As a rule, the stresses compare to each other as follows, depending on the specific geometrical
conditions:
σs,cr,I > σs,cr,II
In case σs,cr,I > 1, 2...1,5 ⋅ σs,cr,II can be proved, primary cracking automatically induces secondary cracks in the
neighbouring zones . This shortens transfer lengths and eases restraints.
In conseqence and over a long time period, in most situations secondary cracking can be expected.

The minimum reinforcement can be derived from the equation to calculate the characteristic crack
width in a structural situation.

2. Deduction of close solutions for the minimum reinforcement in DIN 1045-1, Kap. 11.2.

a) In cases where σs,cr,I > 1, 2...1,5 ⋅ σs,cr,II , the crack width may be obtained from the following:
w k = s rk ⋅ ε m (11)
where is:
ε m = εs m − ε c m (12)
DIN, MC90:
σs,cr,II ⋅ φ σs − k t ⋅ σs,cr,II
wk = ⋅ ; (k t ) == 0,4 →long time loading
2 ⋅ τ bk Es
using σs = σs,cr,I τbk = 1,8 ⋅ f ctm (t) (14)
σs,cr,II ⋅ φ σs,cr ,I − k t ⋅ σs,cr,II
wk = ⋅ (15)
3, 6 ⋅ f ct (t) Es
For primary cracking the crack distance srk is mainly influenced by the possibility of occurrence of
secondary cracks and the steel stress that should be expected is very much related to Fcr,I.
If wk is substituted by wlim and the simplified terms for the steel stresses are taken over into
calculation, the above equation changes to:

## Eckfeldt, Deduction of minimum reinforcement 2

f ct (t) ⋅ A c,eff ⋅ φ f ct (t) ⋅ k ⋅ k c ⋅ A ct − k t ⋅ f ct (t) ⋅ A c,eff
w lim = ⋅
A s,min ⋅3, 6 ⋅ f ct ( t ) A s,min ⋅ E s

## f ct (t) ⋅ A c,eff ⋅ φ ⋅ (k ⋅ k c ⋅ A ct − k t ⋅ A c,eff )

A s,min = (16)
3, 6 ⋅ E s ⋅ w lim

## f ct (t) ⋅ A c,eff ⋅ φ ⋅ (k ⋅ k c ⋅ A ct − k t ⋅ A c,eff )

ρct,min = (17)
3, 6 ⋅ E s ⋅ w lim ⋅ (k ⋅ k c ⋅ A ct )²

b) If it remains uncertain whether those fortunate secondary cracks develop or not, (mostly in cases
where the steel stress is found to fit the following inequality:
σs,cr,I < 1,3 ⋅ σs,cr,II ,
The approach to wk should change slightly to:
w k = 2l tk ⋅ Δε m (18)
In ltk it is thought that a full transfer of the steel force within the primary cracking is enabled. A position
x within sr can be reached for which strain compatibility can be stated: εs(x) = εc(x).
σ ⋅ φ (1 − k t ) ⋅ σs,cr,I
w lim = s,cr,I ⋅ (19)
3, 6 ⋅ f ct (t) Es
f ct (t) ⋅ k ⋅ k c ⋅ A ct ⋅ φ (1 − k t ) ⋅ f ct (t) ⋅ k ⋅ k c ⋅ A ct
w lim = ⋅
3, 6 ⋅ f ct (t) ⋅ A s,min E s ⋅ A s,min
k ⋅ k c ⋅ A ct ⋅ φ (1 − k t ) ⋅ f ct (t) ⋅ k ⋅ k c ⋅ A ct
w lim = ⋅
3, 6 ⋅ A s,min E s ⋅ A s,min
(1 − k t ) ⋅ φ ⋅ f ct (t)
A s,min = k ⋅ k c ⋅ A ct ⋅ (20)
w lim ⋅ 3, 6 ⋅ E s
(1 − k t ) ⋅ φ ⋅ f ct (t) late restraints,(1-k t ) = 0,6 φ ⋅ f ct (t)
ρct,min = ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ →= (21)
w lim ⋅ 3, 6 ⋅ E s w lim ⋅ 6 ⋅ E s
The steel stress is limited to 0,8 fy, allowing 25% more than the calculated load for any uncovered
restraints. In that way, it is an additional measure for more reliability.
The simplicity of the formulae does not require any further adjustments. Verification tools can be
produced in the style of diagrams related to φ and ρct,min .

## Eckfeldt, Deduction of minimum reinforcement 3

Figure 2: Illustration of the influence of secondary cracking to the problem of controlled cracking

MC 90 and DIN 1045-1 are similarly structured for serviceability. In some circumstances it is easier to
refer to MC 90 because it is covered by far more background information.

## Explanations of some differences in MC 90

DIN 1045-1 and the explanation of [Tue] et.al relies very much on the assumption that, however,
stabilised cracking or at least secondary cracks in the surrounding of a primary crack are always likely
to occur. It also applies in restraint situations, over a longer period of time.

On the other hand, pure single cracking in MC 90, meaning σs,cr,I < 1, 2...1,5 ⋅ σs,cr,II ,is defined as follows:
σs,cr,I ⋅ φ σs,cr,I − k t ⋅ σs,cr,I
wk = ⋅ (22)
2 ⋅ τbk Es
where : τbk = 1,35 ⋅ f ctm (t) ←= τbm = 2,25fctm /1, 7
Another possible explanation τbk = 2, 25fct,0.05 /1, 25 would have lead to 1,26 ⋅ fctm (t)
kt = 0, 6

σs,cr,I ⋅ φ 0, 4 ⋅ σs,cr,I φ 0, 4 ⋅ σs,cr,I φ 0, 6 ⋅ σs,cr,I
wk = ⋅ = ⋅ < ⋅ (23)
2 ⋅1,35 ⋅ f ctm (t) Es 2, 7 ⋅ρct,min Es 3, 6 ⋅ ρct,min Es
8 8 as above suggested for DIN 1045-1
φ 0, 6 ⋅ σs,cr,I φ 0, 6 ⋅ σs,cr,I
⋅ < ⋅ (24)
4, 05 ⋅ρct,min Es 3, 6 ⋅ ρct,min Es
This means that, compared to the original approach of MC 90 for single cracking, the suggested
approach for DIN 1045-1 stays on the safe side.
In any case, the definition of τbm is not free of contradictions. Eligehausen expected a mean bond
strength to be dependent on c/φ.

## Eckfeldt, Deduction of minimum reinforcement 4

This expression may be transformed in a quadratic equation:

## w lim ⋅ E s 2 ⋅ min[c u ;cs ] ⋅β φ ⋅ A c,eff ⋅β

= + ⋅A s,min
2

1, 7 A s,min ks ⋅ A s,min 2
w lim ⋅ E s ⋅ A s,min 2 φ ⋅ A c,eff ⋅β
= 2 ⋅ min[c u ;cs ] ⋅β ⋅ A s,min +
1, 7 ks
p p
→0 = x 2 + px + q; x1,2 = − ± ( ) 2 − q (31)
2 2
1, 7 ⋅ 2 ⋅ min[cu ;cs ] ⋅β φ ⋅ A c,eff ⋅β ⋅1, 7
→0 = A s,min ² − −
E s ⋅ w lim E s ⋅ w lim ⋅ ks
2
A s,min,1 1, 7 ⋅ 2 ⋅ min[c u ;cs ] ⋅β ⎛ 1, 7 ⋅ 2 ⋅ min[c u ;cs ] ⋅β ⎞ φ ⋅ A c,eff ⋅β ⋅1, 7
=+ ± ⎜⎜ − ⎟⎟ +
A s,min,2 2 ⋅ Es ⋅ w lim ⎝ 2 ⋅ E s ⋅ w lim ⎠ E s ⋅ w lim ⋅ ks
2
1, 7 ⋅ min[c u ;cs ] ⋅β ⎛ 1, 7 ⋅ min[cu ;cs ] ⋅β ⎞ φ ⋅ A c,eff ⋅β ⋅1, 7
A s,min =+ + ⎜ ⎟ + =5(pure tension)
(32)
E s ⋅ w lim ⎝ E s ⋅ w lim ⎠ E s ⋅ w lim ⋅ ks =10(bending)
2
1, 7 ⋅ min[cu ;cs ] ⋅β ⎛ 1, 7 ⋅ min[cu ;cs ] ⋅β ⎞ φ ⋅ A c,eff ⋅β ⋅1, 7
+ + ⎜ ⎟ + =5(pure tension)
E s ⋅ w lim ⎝ E s ⋅ w lim ⎠ Es ⋅ w lim ⋅ ks =10(bending)
ρct,min = (33)
k ⋅ k c ⋅ A ct

b) In case primary cracking occurs but the steel stress is too small to activate secondary cracking (that
will be most likely if σs,cr,I < 1,3 ⋅ σs,cr,II ,) it is:
⎛ φ ⎞ (1 − k t ) ⋅ σs,cr,I
wk = 1, 7 ⋅ ⎜ 2 ⋅ min[c u ;cs ] + = 5(pure tension) ⎟⎟ ⋅ (34)
⎜ ks ⋅ ρct,min Es
⎝ =10(bending) ⎠
⎛ φ ⋅ k ⋅ k c ⋅ A ct ⎞ (1 − k t ) ⋅ f ct (t) ⋅ k ⋅ k c ⋅ A ct
w lim = 1, 7 ⋅ ⎜ 2 ⋅ min[c u ;cs ] + ⎟⎟ ⋅
⎜ ks ⋅ A s,min E s ⋅ A s,min
⎝ ⎠
2
w lim ⋅ E s k ⋅ k c ⋅ A ct φ ⋅ (1 − k t ) ⋅ f ct (t) ⎛ k ⋅ k c ⋅ A ct ⎞
= 2 ⋅ min[c u ;cs ] ⋅ (1 − k t ) ⋅ f ct (t) ⋅ + ⋅⎜ ⎟⎟ (35)
1, 7 A s,min ks ⎜ A
⎝ s,min ⎠
2
w lim ⋅ E s 1 φ ⋅ (1 − k t ) ⋅ f ct (t) ⎛ 1 ⎞
= 2 ⋅ min[c u ;cs ] ⋅ (1 − k t ) ⋅ f ct (t) ⋅ + ⋅⎜ ⎟⎟ ⋅ρct,min 2
1, 7 ρct,min ks ⎜ρ
⎝ ct,min ⎠
w lim ⋅ E s ⋅ρct,min 2 φ ⋅ (1 − k t ) ⋅ f ct (t)
= 2 ⋅ min[c u ;cs ] ⋅ (1 − k t ) ⋅ f ct (t) ⋅ρct,min +
1, 7 ks
w lim ⋅ E s ⋅ρct,min 2 φ ⋅ (1 − k t ) ⋅ f ct (t)
→0 =− + 2 ⋅ min[c u ;cs ] ⋅ (1 − k t ) ⋅ f ct (t) ⋅ρct,min + (36)
1, 7 ks
1, 7 ⋅ 2 ⋅ min[cu ;cs ] ⋅ (1 − k t ) ⋅ f ct (t) 1, 7 ⋅ φ ⋅ (1 − k t ) ⋅ f ct (t)
→0 = ρct,min 2 − ⋅ρct,min −
w lim ⋅ Es w lim ⋅ E s ⋅ ks

ρct,min,1
2
1, 7 ⋅ 2 ⋅ min[cu ;cs ] ⋅ (1 − k t ) ⋅ f ct (t) ⎛ 1, 7 ⋅ 2 ⋅ min[c u ;cs ] ⋅ (1 − k t ) ⋅ f ct (t) ⎞ 1, 7 ⋅ φ ⋅ (1 − k t ) ⋅ f ct (t)
= ± ⎜ ⎟ + (37)
ρct,min,2 2 ⋅ w lim ⋅ E s ⎝ 2 ⋅ w lim ⋅ E s ⎠ w lim ⋅ E s ⋅ ks
2
1, 7 ⋅ min[c u ;cs ] ⋅ (1 − k t ) ⋅ f ct (t) ⎛ 1, 7 ⋅ min[c u ;cs ] ⋅ (1 − k t ) ⋅ f ct (t) ⎞ 1, 7 ⋅ φ ⋅ (1 − k t ) ⋅ f ct (t)
ρct,min = + ⎜ ⎟ + (38)
w lim ⋅ E s ⎝ w lim ⋅ E s ⎠ w lim ⋅ E s ⋅ ks
(1− kt ) = 0,6
⎯⎯⎯⎯ →

2
min[c u ;cs ] ⋅ f ct (t) ⎛ min[cu ;cs ] ⋅ f ct (t) ⎞ φ ⋅ f ct (t)
ρct,min = + ⎜ ⎟ + (39)
w lim ⋅ E s ⎝ w lim ⋅ E s ⎠ w lim ⋅ E s ⋅ ks

## Eckfeldt, Deduction of minimum reinforcement 6

2
⎛ min[cu ;cs ] ⋅ f ct (t) ⎞ φ ⋅ f ct (t)
because of: ⎜ ⎟  (40)
⎝ w lim ⋅ E s ⎠ w lim ⋅ Es ⋅ ks
φ ⋅ f ct (t)
Bending: → <1, 4
min[c u ;cs ] ⋅ f ct (t) φ ⋅ f ct (t) w lim ⋅ E s ⋅ ks
ρct,min ≈ + ~ (41)
w lim ⋅ E s w lim ⋅ E s ⋅ ks φ ⋅ f ct (t)
Pure tension: → < 1,1...1, 2
w lim ⋅ E s ⋅ ks
φ ⋅ f ct (t)
Bending: → <0, 44
w lim ⋅ E s
ρct ,min ≈ (42)
φ ⋅ f ct (t)
Pure tension: → < 0, 49...0,53
w lim ⋅ Es
φ ⋅ f ct (t)
⎯⎯⎯⎯
simplified
→ρct,min,EN1992 −1−1 ~ 0,5 (43)
w lim ⋅ E s

φ ⋅ f ct (t)
A s,min ≈ 0,5 ⋅ k ⋅ k c ⋅ A ct (44)
w lim ⋅ E s

## That can be easily compared to the outcome of DIN 1045-1 or MC 90:

φ ⋅ f ct (t) 1 φ ⋅ f ct (t) φ ⋅ f ct (t)
ρct,min,MC90 ~ = ⋅ = 0, 4 (45)
w lim ⋅ 6 ⋅ Es 6 w lim ⋅ E s w lim ⋅ E s

4. The influence of factor k on the difference between minimum reinforcement acc. to EN 1992-
1-1 and DIN 1045-1

Because k is smaller in the DIN 1045-1 definition, one should really study its influence before applying
this important reduction, especially if EN 1992-1-1 defines stronger values:

Figure 4: Differences in the definition of k-factors between EN 1992-1-1 and DIN 1045-1

## Eckfeldt, Deduction of minimum reinforcement 7

φ ⋅ f ct (t)
0,5 ⋅ k c ⋅ A ct
A s,min,EN w lim ⋅ E s k
= ⋅ EN1992 −1−1 = 1, 25 ⋅1, 25...1,3 = 1,56...1, 62 (46)
A s,min,DIN φ ⋅ f ct (t) k DIN1045−1
0, 4 ⋅ k c ⋅ A ct
w lim ⋅ E s
probably upper limit
The own recommendation is to choose As,min acc. to the DIN/MC 90 model with k-factors as described
in EN 1992-1-1.

Figure 5: The simplified and pure DIN (MC 90) Figure 6: The simplified DIN (MC 90) model with
model k from EN 1992-1-1

## Scientific reading to k offers [Bergner]:

There is k = kE = σbz/fctm. [Bergner] warns about using the offered reduction by the height depending
factor kE with a view on Figure 7, delivering scary test results. This also means that the more
conservative approach is the better.

Figure 7: Differences between the DIN-definition of k and test results acc. to [Bergner]

Bergner’s own replacement (kz,t · λBew) uses a different and more time dependent approach focussing
on a time-dependent cement reduction for early cracking and the influence of the reinforcement ratio.
[Röhling] gives a very detailed view on temperature and restraint related problems that helps to cover
specialised and known influences on the inner stress distribution.

## Eckfeldt, Deduction of minimum reinforcement 8

5. Notes to the factor kc:
Factor kc is similar defined in both codes. In that paper we use for rectangular sections or
webs

## ⎡ σc(( +−,, wenn

wenn NEd <0)
NEd >0)

k c = 0, 4 ⋅ ⎢1 − ⎥ (47)
⎢⎣ k1* ⋅ ( h / h ) ⋅ f ct (t) ⎥⎦
*

where: h > 1, 0 m → h * = 1, 0 m
h ≤ 1, 0 m → h* = h
N Ed < 0(comp) → k1* = 1,5
2h *
N Ed < 0(tens) → k1* =
3h
kc =1, in case of pure tension
Factor kc for flanges, subjected to tension
Fcr
k c = 0,9 ⋅ ≥ 0,5 (48)
A ct ⋅ f ct (t)
kc is a kind of distribution factor for tensile stresses with the boundary values, multiplied by the change
within the inner liver arm between state I and II (zI/zII)
kc = 0,4 (Bending) theoretically: 0,5 for a triangular distribution
kc = 1 (Tension theoretically: 1,0 for a rectangular distribution

If real situations need calculation, mind that the distribution of tensile stresses of very high sections
due to bending might differ and be less than triangular. It can be explained with fracture mechanics
and size effect in background. For example, a concave parable leads to a distribution of kc = 0,33.

6. Literature

EN 1992-1-1, Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures – Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for
Buildings. CEN, Mai 2004

CEB-FIP Model Code 1990. CEB Bulletin d’information No. 213, Lausanne, 1993.

DIN 1045-1: Tragwerke aus Beton, Stahlbeton und Spannbeton. Teil 1: Bemessung und Konstruktion.
DIN, Juli 2001

König, G.; Tue, N. V.: Grundlagen und Bemessungshilfen für die Rissbreitenbeschränkung im Stahl-
und Spannbetonbau. DAfStb, Heft 466. Beuth-Verlag, Berlin 1996

Curbach, M.; Tue, N.; Eckfeldt, L.; Speck, K.: Beitrag: Zum Nachweis der Rissbreitenbeschränkung
gemäß DIN 1045-1. In: Erläuterungen zu DIN 1045-1. Teil 2. Heft 525 des DAfStb, Beuth
Verlag, Berlin 2003, S. 190 ff.

## Bergner, H.: Rissbreitenbeschränkung zwangbeanspruchter Bauteile aus hochfestem Normalbeton.

Heft 482 des DAfStb, Beuth-Verlag 1997

Helmus, M.: Mindestbewehrung zwangbeanspruchter dicker Stahlbetonbauteile. Heft 412 des DAfStb,
Beuth-Verlag 1990

Röhling, S.: Zwangspannungen infolge Hydratationswärme. Verlag Bau + Technik, Düsseldorf, 2005

Eligehausen, R., Popow, E. P. und Bertero, V. V.: Local Bond Stress-Slip Relation-ships of Deformed
Bars under Generalized Excitations, Report No. UCB/EERC-83/23 Earthquake Engineering
Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Oktober 1983