Concrete Perspectives

Crack widths: Whats tolerable?

able 4.1 in ACI 224R-90, Control of Cracking in Concrete Structures, lists tolerable crack widths for reinforced concrete under various exposure conditions. Section 4.4 of ACI 224R-90 indicates that a portion of the cracks in a structure should be expected to exceed the values in Table 4.1 by a significant amount, even when other report recommendations for limiting crack width are followed. However, the tables values have been used in court cases to imply that the presence of any cracks exceeding the widths listedat any concrete ageindicates inferior design or construction practices. What is the proper use of the values in Table 4.1? We asked Edward Nawy and Randall Poston to share their views. Nawy was the chairman of ACI 224 when Control of Cracking in Concrete Structures, including Table 4.1, was first published in 1972. The current table is based on a crack width table from a technical paper written by Nawy. Poston chaired ACI 224 from 1991 through 1997, when revised wording for the table was proposed to clearly indicate that the tolerable crack widths listed are a guide and not to be taken as absolute or misinterpreted as allowable crack widths. However, the revision wasnt adopted. CC: What do you consider to be the proper use of Table 4.1?

Nawy: Table 4.1 is a general guide for what could be considered reasonable crack widths at the tensile face of reinforced-concrete structures for typical conditions. These reason-

Table 4.1 is a general guide for what could be c o n s i d e red re a s o n a b l e crack widths at the t e nsile face of re i n f o rc e d c o n c rete str u c t u res for typical conditions. E d w a rd Nawy
able crack width values are intended to serve as a guidealong with sound engineering judgmentfor designers who select reinforcement size and spacing to control expected crack widths. The table may also be used as a guide for identifying cracks to be sealed or repaired. It is illogical in court proceedings to claim that any crack width exceeding the tabular values indicates inferior design or construction practices. The flexural design might be correct, but the longterm detrimental effects on the life of the structure if the cracks were wide would be the issue. Poston: Simply stated, the proper use of Table 4.1 is as a guide. Cracks in all types of concrete construction are inevitable, and those that do form vary in length and width. Moreover, the crack widths provided in Table 4.1 are surface crack widths. Crack widths measured optically vary,

An average of crack width measurements that exceeds a value in the table by, say, 100% is, in all likelihood, unacceptable under any circ u mstance. Randall Poston

depending on the person making the measurement, where the width is measured along the crack, and the surface condition of the concrete at the measurement location. And as stated in the commentary to the table, crack widths are expected to varyin most cases, increasing with time. Considering all these factors, its only logical and practical to use the crack widths presented in the table as a guide. As an example, consider a 10-yearold structure with average crack width measurements that exceed a value in Table 4.1 by 50%. If there are few or no signs of attendant deterioration or serviceability problems, the crack widths might still be considered acceptable. On the other hand, an average of crack width measurements that exceeds a value in the table by, say, 100% is, in all likelihood, unacceptable under any circumstance. CC: What is the significance of a flexural member containing several cracks that exceed the limits given in the table, and should crack repair be required when crack widths at the tensile face of reinforced-concrete members exceed the limits? Nawy: Crack widths increase with time and could more than double in width within 2 to 5 years. Several wide cracks could reduce the stiffness of structural members, increasing deflection and leading to continuous deterioration. Wide cracks also can increase corrosion of reinforcement and, in severe cases, cause spalling of the concrete cover. Repairs are needed to prevent these long-term effects. Poston: The $64,000 question is: By how much do these cracks exceed the limits? Ive found in practice that if a few cracks have average widths exceeding the limits in the table by

Concr ete Perspectives

the flexural-crack width limit of less than 50%, structural implications 0.004 inch from Table 4.1 may be are unlikely, depending on the ratio of appropriate for controlling reinforcethe dead to live load, the amount of ment corrosion but too restrictive for actual live load on the structure, and preventing leakage at a through-crack the age of the structure. Thus, the caused by volume changes. For leakcracks do not have to be repaired. I age considerations, a crack width of have found that the structure tells the 0.010 inch can be tolerated for crackstory. If there is a significant structural ing caused by volume changes since issuesuch as a lack of reinforcecracks of this width or narrower are ment, a significant structural overgenerally self-healing and thus dont load, or a loss of bondthe crack represent a serviceability issue. But is widths exceed the limits in the table there really much difference between by several hundred percent. Whether the effects of a 0.004-inch and a the cracks should be repaired can still 0.010-inch crack when considering be debated, since cracks may simply the vagaries of crack formation and re-crack if they are repaired by epoxy measurements? I contend that there injection. Depending on the cause of isnt. Consequently, a limit between the crack, strengthening of the struc- 0.004 inch and 0.010 inch may be ture may be required, with or without considered reasonable in most circumconcomitant crack repair. stances, no matter what action caused CC: Is it reasonable to apply the crack widths in Table 4.1 to cracks caused by volume changes due to The $64,000 drying shrinkage or thermal contracquestion is: By tion? Nawy: No. The tabular values how much do are for flexural cracks in the highmoment zones of structurally supportthese crack ed members. Shrinkage and thermalcontraction cracks are remedied or widths exceed eliminated by appropriate construction the limits? procedures, such as joints, whereas structural members have to develop flexural cracks under load, starting the cracking. with macrocracks at a level as low as CC: Rebar corrosion control is an 20% of the ultimate load. The designer often-cited reason for limiting crack is obliged to prevent these macrocracks width in reinforced concrete memfrom increasing beyond reasonable bers. Do wider surface cracks mean and tolerable widths, as recommend- that the structural member is more ed in ACI 224R-90. susceptible to corrosion damage and Poston: Yes, but with some rea- thus will be less durable? sonably applied judgment. The limits Nawy: Flexural cracks at the tenprescribed in the table were specifical- sile face of the structural member ly developed based on judgments extend vertically within the member about flexural-cracking criteria for toward the top compression face. serviceability (e.g., limiting deflection) Wider surface cracks enable moisture and durability (e.g., minimizing rein- to seep more easily through the conforcement corrosion). Flexural crack- crete cover and initiate corrosion of ing is fundamentally different from the reinforcement. The rate of moisvolume-change cracking. The latter ture propagation is controlled by the generally extends through the entire ingress width of the crack. However, thickness of a member, whereas flex- other factors also limit corrosion initiural cracking generally extends part ation. Thicker cover depths and way through the thickness from the denser concrete inhibit the seepage tensile face to the neutral axis. rate within the concrete cover. In a water-containing structure, Poston: This is a controversial issue, but as a general statement it can be regarded as true. Some researchers suggest that wider flexural cracks perpendicular to reinforcement cause corrosion to start at an earlier age, but in the long-term, concrete cover and quality govern the rate of deterioration due to corrosion. Furthermore, only cracks directly over reinforcement are of importance. Others believe that crack width correlates directly with the time of onset and the severity of corrosion. In practice, Ive found both beliefs can be true; it depends on the type of corrosion and the exposure conditions. For example, corrosion deterioration associated with a conventionally reinforced bridge deck exposed to chemical deicers is governed by macrocell corrosion, with long-term durability being controlled not by crack width but by concrete cover and quality. In contrast, a pretensioned concrete structure with highstrength prestressing steel exposed to a steady supply of water and oxygen at a flexural crack can experience aggressive, localized pitting. This is microcell corrosion and, therefore, more likely to be affected by crack size. s

Publication #C01A067 Copyright 2001 Hanley-Wood, LLC All rights reserve