Concrete Perspectives
depending on the person making the
Crack widths: What’s tolerable?
T able 4.1 in ACI 224R-90, “Con-
trol 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 val-
ues in Table 4.1 by a significant
amount, even when other report rec-
ommendations for limiting crack
width are followed. However, the
table’s values have been used in court
cases to imply that the presence of any
cracks exceeding the widths listed—at
any concrete age—indicates inferior
design or construction practices.
What is the proper use of the val-
ues 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 pub-
lished 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 mis-
interpreted as
“allowable” crack
widths. However,
the revision wasn’t
adopted.
CC: What do
you consider to be
the proper use of
Table 4.1?
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 m-
stance. —Randall Poston
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 n-
sile 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 guide—along with sound
engineering judgment—for 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 val-
ues indicates inferior design or con-
struction practices. The flexural
design might be correct, but the long-
term 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,
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 vary—in
most cases, increasing with time.
Considering all these
factors, it’s only logi-
cal and practical to
use the crack widths
presented in the table
as a guide.
As an example,
consider a 10-year-
old 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, unac-
ceptable 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 dou-
ble in width within 2 to 5 years.
Several wide cracks could reduce the
stiffness of structural members, in-
creasing 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? I’ve 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 Poston: This is a controversial
less than 50%, structural implications 0.004 inch from Table 4.1 may be issue, but as a general statement it can
are unlikely, depending on the ratio of appropriate for controlling reinforce- be regarded as true.
the dead to live load, the amount of ment corrosion but too restrictive for Some researchers suggest that
actual live load on the structure, and preventing leakage at a through-crack wider flexural cracks perpendicular to
the age of the structure. Thus, the caused by volume changes. For leak- reinforcement cause corrosion to start
cracks do not have to be repaired. I age considerations, a crack width of at an earlier age, but in the long-term,
have found that the structure tells the 0.010 inch can be tolerated for crack- concrete cover and quality govern the
story. If there is a significant structural ing caused by volume changes since rate of deterioration due to corrosion.
issue—such as a lack of reinforce- cracks of this width or narrower are Furthermore, only cracks directly over
ment, a significant structural over- generally self-healing and thus don’t reinforcement are of importance.
load, or a loss of bond—the crack represent a serviceability issue. But is Others believe that crack width corre-
widths exceed the limits in the table there really much difference between lates directly with the time of onset
by several hundred percent. Whether the effects of a 0.004-inch and a and the severity of corrosion. In prac-
the cracks should be repaired can still 0.010-inch crack when considering tice, I’ve found both beliefs can be
be debated, since cracks may simply the vagaries of crack formation and true; it depends on the type of corro-
re-crack if they are repaired by epoxy measurements? I contend that there sion and the exposure conditions.
injection. Depending on the cause of isn’t. Consequently, a limit between For example, corrosion deterio-
the crack, strengthening of the struc- 0.004 inch and 0.010 inch may be
ration associated with a convention-
ture may be required, with or without considered reasonable in most circum-
ally reinforced bridge deck exposed
concomitant crack repair. stances, no matter what action caused to chemical deicers is governed by
CC: Is it reasonable to apply the
macrocell corrosion, with long-term
crack widths in Table 4.1 to cracks
durability being controlled not by
caused by volume changes due to The $64,000 crack width but by concrete cover
drying shrinkage or thermal contrac-
question is: By and quality. In contrast, a preten-
tion?
sioned concrete structure with high-
Nawy: No. The tabular values
are for flexural cracks in the high-
how much do strength prestressing steel exposed
moment zones of structurally support- to a steady supply of water and oxy-
these crack gen at a flexural crack can experi-
ed members. Shrinkage and thermal-
contraction cracks are remedied or widths exceed ence aggressive, localized pitting.
eliminated by appropriate construction This is microcell corrosion and,
procedures, such as joints, whereas the limits? therefore, more likely to be affected
structural members have to develop by crack size. ■
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 mem-
from 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 Publication #C01A067
Poston: Yes, but with some rea- thus will be less durable? Copyright © 2001 Hanley-Wood, LLC
sonably applied judgment. The limits Nawy: Flexural cracks at the ten- All rights reserve
prescribed 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 con-
forcement corrosion). Flexural crack- crete cover and initiate corrosion of
ing is fundamentally different from the reinforcement. The rate of mois-
volume-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 initi-
ural 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,