Open Journal of Civil Engineering, 2024, 14, 116-126

https://www.scirp.org/journal/ojce
ISSN Online: 2164-3172
ISSN Print: 2164-3164

Crack Width Comparison between ACI 318,

Eurocode 2 and GB 50010 for Flexural RC
Members

Guoqiang Liu1, Zhiyong Lu2

China Water Resources Beifang Investigation, Design & Research Co., Ltd., Tianjin, China
1

China International Water & Electric Corp., Beijing, China

2

How to cite this paper: Liu, G.Q. and Lu, Abstract

Z.Y. (2024) Crack Width Comparison be-
tween ACI 318, Eurocode 2 and GB 50010 Comparative research on different countries’ structural design codes holds great
for Flexural RC Members. Open Journal of importance and can gain valuable insights: Awareness of Design Levels, Iden-
Civil Engineering, 14, 116-126. tifying Code Deficiencies and Optimizing Designs. The crack width of con-
https://doi.org/10.4236/ojce.2024.141006
crete structure is an important design aspect of the civil design. The four highly
Received: February 22, 2024 recognized and widely used crack width theories are systematically summa-
Accepted: March 24, 2024 rized. Based on the mentioned theories and project practices, American code
Published: March 27, 2024
ACI system, Eurocode 2 1992-1 and Chinese code GB 50010 have different
Copyright © 2024 by author(s) and crack width control requirement and calculation methods. The crack width
Scientific Research Publishing Inc. control method based on ACI system code has evolved from the Z-factor
This work is licensed under the Creative method to the steel bar spacing control method which is simple and easy to
Commons Attribution International
be adopted for engineering. Meanwhile, the ACI 224.1R also gives a direct
License (CC BY 4.0).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
crack width calculation method consistent with the steel bar spacing control
Open Access method. The Eurocode 2 and GB 50010 based on the bond-slip & no-slip
theory consider much more affecting factors than ACI for predicting crack
width. Taking the crack width calculation of Tunnel 5 intake as an example,
the crack widths of the structure are calculated according to ACI system code,
Eurocode 2 and GB 50010 respectively, the results show that the crack width
results in various codes are not much different. The EN 1992-1 and GB 50010
results are almost the same which are less than the ACI 224.1Rresults.

Keywords
Crack Width, Structure Serviceability, Comparative Analysis

1. Introduction
Crack width elevation is one of the serviceability requirements in the structural

DOI: 10.4236/ojce.2024.141006 Mar. 27, 2024 116 Open Journal of Civil Engineering
G. Q. Liu, Z. Y. Lu

concrete design. Control of cracking in concrete structure is important for ob-

taining aesthetics appearance and for long-term durability. Since there are many
factors that affect the width of cracks in concrete structures, the crack control
methods and crack width calculations are quite different in various countries de-
sign codes. This paper focuses on the crack control method based on American
concrete design code ACI 318 and its evolution process [1] [2]. As a supplement,
the direct calculation method of the crack width is also described referring to
ACI 224.1R [3] and ACI 350 [4]. Furthermore, this paper also points out the crack
width calculation methods based on Eurocode 2 [5] and Chinese code GB 50010
[6] as a comparison to the ACI code. At last, various code equations are adopted
for prediction and evaluation of AWTIP tunnel 5 intake structure. The adopted
crack width calculation method and width limit can provide guidelines for simi-
lar project practice.

2. Crack Width Calculation Theory

Since the 1930s, Scholars from various countries have conducted extensive re-
search on the mechanism of crack generation and factors affecting crack width,
and have proposed a variety of calculation theories and different calculation
methods based on these theories. The highly recognized and widely used crack
width theories are as follows: bond-slip theory, no-slip theory, bond-slip &
no-slip theory, and experimental-based mathematical statistics method.

2.1. Bond-Slip Theory

The bond-slip theory was proposed by R.Saligar in 1936. The bond-slip theory
holds that crack mainly depends on the bonding force between steel bar and
concrete. At the cracked section, the bond failure occurs between the steel bar
and the concrete. When the steel bar elongates, the concrete rebounds and pro-
duces relative slippage. The relative slippage is the width of the crack develop-
ment [Refer to Figure 1(a)].

2.2. No-Slip Theory

The no-slip theory was established in the 1960s. The theory believes that within
the allowable crack width range, the relative slip between the deformed steel bar
and the concrete can be ignored; assuming that the crack width on the steel bar
surface is zero, the strain gradient from the cracked section steel bar to the
structure surface is used as the mechanism to calculate the crack. The main fac-
tor affecting the crack width is the distance from the calculated point to the
nearest steel bar, that is, the thickness of the concrete cover; the surface crack
width is only formed by the uneven stress and deformation of the concrete
around the steel bar. Therefore, the elastic theory method can be used to calcu-
late the strain difference between the steel bar and a certain position to deter-
mine the crack width at that position [Refer to Figure 1(b)].

DOI: 10.4236/ojce.2024.141006 117 Open Journal of Civil Engineering

G. Q. Liu, Z. Y. Lu

Figure 1. Theoretical model of cracks in reinforced concrete members.

2.3. Bond-Slip & No-Slip Theory

The bond-slip theory and the no-slip theory respectively describe two extreme
situations of the crack mechanism of component concrete, and the real situation
of the crack is between the two states. Therefore, the British scholar Bee by pro-
posed the bond-slip & no-slip theory. This calculation theory not only considers
the effect of strain gradient, but also considers the possible bond slip of steel
bars, and puts forward the concept of effective embedding area of steel bars. Ac-
cording to the theory, the crack width on the surface of the component depends
on the distance from the crack measurement point to the nearest steel bar (re-
lated to the concrete cover and the steel bar spacing). Cracks are caused by the
retraction of the concrete around the steel bar, and each steel bar has a certain
range of restraint on the rebound of the concrete, that is, the area where the ten-
sile force is diffused to the concrete through the bonding force, and the area that
can effectively restrain the rebound of the concrete is called the effective embed-
ding area. In the embedding area, the reinforcement does not control the cracks

DOI: 10.4236/ojce.2024.141006 118 Open Journal of Civil Engineering

G. Q. Liu, Z. Y. Lu

outside this area [Refer to Figure 1(c)].

2.4. Mathematical Statistics Method

The mathematical statistical method was first proposed by the American scholar
Gergely-Lutz in 1968. They conducted statistical analysis on the crack test data
of six groups of flexural members to determine the importance of each influen-
cing factor. The main factors that determine the crack width include: the thick-
ness of the concrete cover of the side or bottom edge, the effective cross-sectional
area of the tensile concrete, the number of steel bars, the strain gradient from the
steel bar to the tensile edge of the section, and the stress of the steel bar, among
which the stress of the steel bar is the most important factor.

3. Crack Width Prediction Based on Various Building Codes

Provisions
The American code ACI adopts mathematical statistical method and the no-slip
theory at different periods while the Eurocode 2 and Chinese code GB 50010
adopt the bond-slip & no-slip theory.

3.1. American Code ACI

In the American code ACI system, the method of crack control in the design of
concrete structures mainly comes from Building Code Requirements for Con-
crete and Commentary (ACI 318-19), Control of Cracking in Concrete Struc-
tures (ACI 224R-01), Causes, Evaluation, and Repair of Cracks in Concrete
Structures (ACI 224.1R-07) and Code Requirements for Environmental Engi-
neering Concrete Structures and Commentary (ACI 350M-06).

3.1.1. ACI 318

In the American ACI 318 code system, the concrete structure crack control me-
thod has generally gone through two stages. The z-factor method was used in the
editions from 1971 to 1995; ACI 318-99 has been using the steel bar spacing
control method since then.
1) Z-factor method
The z-factor method is developed by Gergely and Lutzbased on the mathe-
matical statistical method, which is applicable to situations where the thickness
of the concrete cover is not greater than 50mm. the equation proposed by the
version of ACI 318-95 [1] is as follows:
=Wmax 0.011β f s 3 d c A × 10−3 (1)

where Wmax is the maximum crack width, mm; β is the ratio of distance be-
tween neutral axis and extreme tension face to distance between neutral axis and
centroid of steel bar, β = 1.20 may be adopted in the beams to compare the
crack widths obtained in flexure and axial tension; d c is the thickness of con-
crete cover measure from extreme tension fiber to centroid of tension rein-
forcement, mm; A is the effective tension area if concrete surrounding the

DOI: 10.4236/ojce.2024.141006 119 Open Journal of Civil Engineering

G. Q. Liu, Z. Y. Lu

flexural tension reinforcement and having the same centroid as that reinforce-
ment, divided by the number of bars or wires, when the flexural reinforcement
consists of different bar or wire sizes the number of bars or wires shall be com-
puted as the total area of the largest bar or wire used, mm2; f s is calculated
stress in reinforcement at service loads, MPa.
From Equation (1), the resulting parameter z expression is as follows:
Wmax
=z f s 3 d=
cA × 10−5 (2)
1.1β

A maximum value of z = 31 kN/mm is permitted for interior exposure, cor-

responding to a limiting crack width of 0.41 mm, while a maximum value of z =
25 kN/mm is permitted for exterior exposure, corresponding to a limiting crack
width of 0.33 mm.
2) Steel Bar Spacing Control Method
Research experiments show that when the thickness of the concrete cover is
greater than 50mm, the accuracy of the crack width result by the z-factor me-
thod cannot meet the requirements. Makhlouffound that when the thickness of
the concrete cover doubled, the measured crack width increased by 16%, while
the value calculated by the Gergely-Lutz equation increased by 86%, which
overestimated the influence of the cover thickness on the crack width [7]. In ad-
dition, crack widths in structures are highly variable which is difficult to be cal-
culated accurately. Therefore, the ACI 318-19 provisions for spacing are in-
tended to limit surface cracks to a width that is generally acceptable in practice
but may vary widely in a given structure. The role of cracks in the corrosion of
reinforcement is controversial. Research shows that corrosion is not clearly cor-
related with surface crack widths in the range normally found with reinforce-
ment stresses at service load levels. For this reason, the Code does not differen-
tiate between interior and exterior exposures.
ACI 318-19 proposed the following equation of maximum spacing of bonded
reinforcement in non-prestressed and Class C prestressed one-way slabs and
beams for crack control within 0.40 mm:

 280 
=[ s ] 380   − 2.5cc (3)
 fs 

 280 
[ s ] = 300   (4)
 fs 
where [s] is the maximum spacing of reinforcement closest to tension face,
mm; cc is clear cover of reinforcement, mm.
Compare the steel bar spacing s with the calculated [s], if s ≤ [s], it indicates
that the actual crack width has been limited within the allowable crack width; if
s > [s], the crack width is not to meet the code requirements, the diameter of
steel bars can be reduced or the number of steel bars can be increased so that s ≤
[s] to keep the actual crack width of flexural members can be controlled within

DOI: 10.4236/ojce.2024.141006 120 Open Journal of Civil Engineering

G. Q. Liu, Z. Y. Lu

the allowable range.

3.1.2. ACI 224.1R-07 and ACI 350M-06

In the code ACI 224.1R-07, A re-evaluation of cracking data provided a new
crack width equation based on a physical model (Frosch 1999). For the calcula-
tion of maximum crack widths, the crack width can be calculated as:
2
fs s
=
Wmax 2 β d c2 +   (5)
Es 2
From this equation, the crack width can be calculated directly. Actually, crack
control is achieved in ACI 318 through the use of a spacing criterion for rein-
forcing steel that is based on the stress under service conditions and clear cover
on the bars. This design Equation (3) was based on Equation (5) for some as-
sumptions and simplifications, considering crack widths on the order of 0.40
mm.
The code ACI 350M-06 adopts the same equation as ACI 224.1R-07but the
thickness of clear cover in excess of 50 mm is neglected.
ACI 224R-01 suggests the reasonable crack widths of reinforcement concrete
under service loads (as shown in Table 1).

3.2. Eurocode 2 1992-1

3.2.1. Crack Width Calculation
The Eurocode 2 provides the following expression for calculate the crack width:
=Wk Sr ,max ( ε sm − ε cm ) (6)

where Wk is the design crack width, mm; Sr ,max is the maximum crack spac-
ing, mm; ε sm is the mean strain in the reinforcement under the relevant com-
bination of loads, including the effect of imposed deformations and taking into
account the effects of tension stiffening. Only the additional tensile strain
beyond the state of zero strain of the concrete at the same level is considered;
ε cm is the mean strain in the concrete between cracks, mm.
The mean tensile strain ε sm − ε cm is given by the following equation:

(1 + α ρ )
f ct ,eff
σ s − kt
ρ p ,eff e p ,eff
σs
(ε sm − ε cm )
= ≥ 0.6 (7)
Es Es

Table 1. Guide to reasonable crack widths.

Exposure condition Crack width (mm)

Dry air or protective membrane 0.41
Humidity, moist air, soil 0.30
Deicing chemicals 0.18
Seawater and seawater spray, wetting and drying 0.15
Water-retaining structures 0.10

DOI: 10.4236/ojce.2024.141006 121 Open Journal of Civil Engineering

G. Q. Liu, Z. Y. Lu

where σ s is the stress in the tension reinforcement assuming a cracked section,

MPa; α e is the modular ratio Es Ecm ; kt is a factor dependent on the dura-
tion of the load, 0.6 for short-term loading while 0.4 for long-term loading;
f ct ,eff is the mean value of tensile strength of the concrete effective at the time
when the cracks may first be expected to occur.
As + ξ12 A′p
ρ p ,eff = (8)
Ac ,eff

where Ac ,eff is the effective area of concrete in tension surrounding the rein-
forcement, mm2; A′p is the area of pre- or post-tensioned tendons within Ac ,eff ,
mm2; ξ1 is the adjusted ratio of bond strength taking into account the different
diameters of prestressing and reinforcing steel.
3.4c + 0.425k1k2∅ ρ p ,eff
Sr ,max = (9)

where c is the cover to the longitudinal reinforcement, mm; k1 is a coefficient

which takes account of the bond properties of the bonded reinforcement: 0.8 for
high bond bars while 1.6 for bars with an effectively plain surface; k2 is a coef-
ficient which takes account of the distribution of strain: 0.5 for bending while 1.0
for pure tension; ∅ is the bar diameter, mm.

3.2.2. Crack Width Criterion

A limiting calculated crack width, Wmax , taking into account the proposed func-
tion and nature of the structure and the costs of limiting cracking is recom-
mended for relevant exposure classes are given in Table 2.

3.3. Chinese Code GB 50010-2010

3.3.1. Crack Width Calculation
In the reinforcement concrete tension, flexural and eccentric compression mem-
bers and the prestressed concrete axial tension and flexural members with rec-
tangle, T-shaped, inverted T-shaped and I-shaped section, the maximum width
of crack (mm), according to the characteristic combination for effects of loads
and in consideration of the influence of long-term actions, may be calculated
according to the following equations:

Table 2. Recommended values of Wmax (mm).

Reinforced members and

Prestressed members
prestressed members with
with bonded tendons
Exposure Class unbonded tendons

Quasi-permanent load Frequent load

combination combination

X0, XC1 0.40 0.20

XC2, XC3, XC4 0.20

0.30
XD1, XD2, XS1, XS2, XS3 Decompression

DOI: 10.4236/ojce.2024.141006 122 Open Journal of Civil Engineering

G. Q. Liu, Z. Y. Lu

σs  d eq 
=wmax α crψ 1.9cs + 0.08  (10)
Es  ρte 
ftk
ψ= 1.1 − 0.65 (11)
ρteσ s

d eq =
∑ni di2 (12)
∑ni vi di2
As + Ap
ρte = (13)
Ate

where α cr is stressed characteristics coefficient of member; ψ is non-uniform

coefficient for stain of tensile steel reinforcement between cracks; σ s is the
stress of longitudinal steel reinforcement in reinforced concrete member, MPa;
Es is the elastic modulus of steel reinforcement, MPa; cs is distance from the
outer edge of tensile steel reinforcement in the outmost layer to the bottom edge
of tension zone; ρte is the ratio of steel reinforcement for tensile steel rein-
forcement calculated according to effective tension sectional area of concrete;
Ate is effective tension sectional area of concrete, mm2; As is sectional area of
non-prestressed longitudinal steel reinforcement in tension zone,mm2; Ap is
sectional area of longitudinal prestressed steel reinforcement in tension zone,
mm2; d eq is equivalent diameter of longitudinal steel reinforcement in tension
zone, mm2; di is nominal diameter of type ilongitudinal steel reinforcement in
tension zone, mm; ni is number of type ilongitudinal steel reinforcement in
tension zone; vi is relative cohesion coefficient of type ilongitudinal steel rein-
forcement in tension zone.

3.3.2. Crack Width Criterion

The different crack control levels and the limit values of maximum crack width
wlim of structural members shall be adopted from Table 3.

4. Application and Comparison of Various Design Code

Equations to Real Project Practice
The Angat Water Transmission Improvement Project (AWTIP) aims to improve
the reliability and security of the raw water transmission system through partial

Table 3. Crack control levels and limit of maximum crack width.

Reinforced concrete structures Prestressed concrete structures

Environmental
categories Crack control Crack control
wlim (mm) wlim (mm)
levels levels
I III 0.30(0.40) III 0.20
IIa III 0.20 III 0.10
IIb III 0.20 II -
IIIa, IIIb III 0.20 I -

DOI: 10.4236/ojce.2024.141006 123 Open Journal of Civil Engineering

G. Q. Liu, Z. Y. Lu

rehabilitation of the transmission system from Ipo to La Mesa and the introduc-
tion of water safety, risk and asset management plans. 96% of water supplied to
Metro Manila, home to approximately 15 million residents, comes from this
system, north of Manila. Tunnel 5 project is part of this system is designed to
deliver 19 m3/s unimpeded flow from Ipo Dam to Bigte Basin area.
In this paper, the crack widths of Tunnel 5 intake are calculated based on the
various design codes. Themaximum calculated unfactored moment in ortho-
gonal direction is gotten from the Sap2000 finite element structure calculation
results showing in Figure 2. The basic parameters of intake members refer to
Table 4 and the maximum crack widths of the members based on the different
codes refer to Table 5.
From Table 5, the Z value is less than 25 kN/mm based on ACI 318-95; the
steel bar space configuration is 200 mm less than the calculated maximum space
based on ACI 318-19. The calculated crack widths based on ACI 224.1R, EN
1992-1 and GB 50010 are all less than 0.20 mm. The intake members can meet

Figure 2. Maximum calculated unfactored moment (COMB-Service).

Table 4. Basic parameters of intake members.

Diameter of Spacing of Thickness of Height of Calculated

Member rebar steel bar cover member moment
mm mm Mm mm kN∙m
Base slab 25 200 75 1000 183
Top slab 25 200 75 500 63
Pier 25 200 75 1200 25
Side wall 25 200 75 700 170
Breast Wall 16 200 75 400 2
Outlet Wall 16 200 75 400 1

DOI: 10.4236/ojce.2024.141006 124 Open Journal of Civil Engineering

G. Q. Liu, Z. Y. Lu

Table 5. Maximum crack width calculation result of intake members.

Member ACI 318-95 ACI 318-19 ACI 224.1R EN 1992-1 GB 50010

Item Z value Max. space Max. Width Max. Width Max. Width
Unit kN/mm mm mm mm mm
Base slab 19.36 610.57 0.20 0.14 0.13
Top slab 16.88 722.60 0.19 0.09 0.08
Pier 1.41 8676.00 0.01 0.02 0.01
Side wall 17.68 686.59 0.19 0.09 0.09
Breast Wall 0.94 12528.09 0.01 0.01 0.01
Outlet Wall 0.47 25056.18 0.01 0.005 0.002

the requirement of crack width control. Generally speaking, the calculation results
of the crack widths in various codes are not much different. The EN 1992-1 and
GB 50010 results are almost the same which are less than the ACI 224.1Rresults.

5. Conclusions
From the above description and comparison of various building codes, the fol-
lowing conclusion may be drawn:
1) There are many complex factors affecting the width of cracks in reinforced
concrete members which mainly include the following aspects: the reinforce-
ment steel stress is the most important variable; the thickness of the concrete
cover is an important variable but not the only geometric consideration; the area
of concrete surrounding each reinforcing bar is also an important geometric va-
riable; the bar diameter is not a major variable and the ratio of crack width at the
surface to that at the reinforcement level is proportional to the ratio of the no-
minal stain at the surface and reinforcement stain.
2) The ACI series codes believe that there is a certain randomness in the crack
widths of concrete members, and it is difficult to grasp the actual crack width
through calculation. The ACI crack width control method is based on no-slip
theory and considers the affecting factors of the tensile steel bar stress, steel bar
spacing and concrete cover thickness. The latest steel bar spacing control me-
thod is simple and easy to be adopted for engineering.
3) The Eurocode 2 and GB 50010 are all based on the bond-slip & no-slip
theory. GB 50010 considers the affecting factors of the steel bar stress, steel bar
diameter, steel bar bonding performance, effective steel bar ratio, cover thick-
ness, tensile stiffening effect, component stress characteristics and load duration
while Eurocode 2 considers the steel bar stress, steel bar diameter, steel bar
spacing, steel bar bonding performance, effective steel bar ratio, cover thickness,
tensile stiffening effect, component stress characteristics and load duration.
4) Form the crack width calculation results of Tunnel 5 intake, the following
conclusion is reached: there are certain differences between the crack widths

DOI: 10.4236/ojce.2024.141006 125 Open Journal of Civil Engineering

G. Q. Liu, Z. Y. Lu

calculation methods of ACI system code, European 2 and Chinese GB 50010 in

terms of the basis theory, crack width calculation method, crack width limit, af-
fecting factors and load combination. The comparison of the engineering exam-
ples of the Tunnel 5 intake given in this paper shows that the results of the crack
widths in various codes are not much different, The EN 1992-1 and GB 50010
results are almost the same which are less than the ACI 224.1Rresults.
5) Cracks in concrete structures are not only caused by load, but also by some
non-load causes, for example, temperature change, concrete shrinkage, uneven
foundation settlement, early frost heave, Alkali aggregate reaction and steel bar
corrosion. For the above reasons that may cause concrete cracks, it is necessary
to take corresponding engineering measures and ensure the quality of design
and construction quality to avoid cracks caused by the above-mentioned rea-
sons.

Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this pa-
per.

References
[1] ACI Committee 318 (1995) ACI 318-95: Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-95) and Commentary (ACI 318R-95). American Concrete In-
stitute, Farmington Hills, MI.
[2] ACI Committee 318 (2019) ACI 318-19: Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary (ACI 318R-19). American Concrete In-
stitute, Farmington Hills, MI.
[3] ACI Committee 224 (2007) ACI 224.1R-07: Causes, Evaluation, and Repair of
Cracks in Concrete Structures (ACI 224.1R-07). American Concrete Institute, Far-
mington Hills, MI.
[4] ACI Committee 350 (2020) ACI CODE-350: Code Requirements for Environmental
Engineering Concrete Structures (ACI 350-20) and Commentary (ACI 350R-20).
American Concrete Institute. Farmington Hills, MI.
[5] (2001) Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures-Part 1: General Rules and Rules
for Buildings (EN1992-1-1:2001). European Committee for Standardization, Bel-
gium.
[6] (2015) GB 50010 (2015 Version): Code for Design of Concrete Structures (GB
50010-2010). Ministry of Construction of the People’s Republic of China.
[7] Makhlouf, H.M. and Malhas, F.A. (1996) The Effect of Thick Concrete Cover on the
Maximum Flexural Crack Width under Service Load. ACI Structural Journal, 93,
257-265. https://doi.org/10.14359/9685

DOI: 10.4236/ojce.2024.141006 126 Open Journal of Civil Engineering