Scribd
Upload
205 views

Crack Width

1) The design of liquid retaining structures is often governed by limiting crack width rather than strength. Working stress method (WSM) can be used to avoid iterations in limiting crack width. 2) WSM avoids calculating crack width directly, unlike limit state method (LSM) which requires checking crack width. 3) There is no reliable method for calculating crack width. Methods given in codes are approximate and do not consider effects of loads and reinforcement in all directions.

Uploaded by

D SRINIVAS
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
205 views

Crack Width

1) The design of liquid retaining structures is often governed by limiting crack width rather than strength. Working stress method (WSM) can be used to avoid iterations in limiting crack width. 2) WSM avoids calculating crack width directly, unlike limit state method (LSM) which requires checking crack width. 3) There is no reliable method for calculating crack width. Methods given in codes are approximate and do not consider effects of loads and reinforcement in all directions.

Uploaded by

D SRINIVAS
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Dear Er Desai,

Unlike normal reinforced concrete structures, design of liquid retaining structures is often governed by
the serviceability limit state consideration of limiting the crack width. Hence WSM may be used for the
design to avoid iterations.
As you have rightly said, when using LSM we need to check for crack width, whereas use of WSM
avoids that calculation.
Note that there is still no reliable method of crack width calculation and the methods given in 2009 IS
3370 code is an approximate method suggested by Prof. Beeby 30 years ago and have been adopted
from the British code BS 8007-1987! (see
Beeby, A.W., The prediction of crack widths in hardened
concrete, The Structural Engineer (UK),Vol. 57A,No.1, Jan 1979, pp.9-17 and Discussions, Vol. 58A,
Oct. 1980, pp. 326-332.) These equations only take into consideration the effect of applying the load
in the uniaxial direction and ignore the effect of loads and reinforcement in transverse direction.
Let me illustrate by taking an example. Let us consider the design of singly reinforced water tank wall
subjected to a water load of 3.5 m height. Assume M 35 concrete and Fe 415 steel
M =Gama H^3/6 = 10 x 3.5^3/6 = 71.46 kNm/m
Mu = 1.5 x 71.46 = 107.19 kNm/m
d= sq.rt (7.2Mu/fck b) = sq.rt.[7.2 x 107.19 x 10^6 /(35 x 1000)] =149 mm
Let us adopt a total depth of 200 mm, cover of 40 mm, and assuming 16 dia bars, d = 200-40-8 =
152 mm
xu = 1.2- sq.rt.[1.44- 6.68 Mu/(fckbd^2)]
=1.2- sq.rt.[1.44- 6.68 x 107.19/(35 x 1000 x152^2)]
= 0.471
Hence xu = 70.65 mm
z = d[1-0.416(xu/d)] = 150[1-0.416x 0.471]= 120.6 mm
Ast = 107.19 x 10^6/(0.87 x 415 x 120.6) = 2462 mm2
Let us provide 16 mm at 80 mm c/c with area = 2513 mm2
Now let us check the stresses in steel as per WSM (crack width calculations are also to be done in
WSM)
x at working stess
o.5 bx^2=m As (d-x)
m = 8.1, As = 2513, d = 152, b = 1000
Substituting the above values and solving, we get x = 60.9 mm
z = d-x/3 = 131.7 mm
Stress in concrete = 2M/bxz = 2 x 71.46 x 10^6/(1000 x 60.9 x 131.7) = 17.8 MPa > 11.5 MPa
stress at steel= M/(As x z) = 71.46 x 10^6/(2513 x 131.7) = 215. 9 MPa <230> 11.5 MPa
(Note that the allowable stresses as per IS 3370 are much less.)
Hence we need to revise the depth to continue.
Hope it clears your doubt of the importance of WSM in water tanks.

You might also like