×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Shear Crack in Concrete Beams

Shear Crack in Concrete Beams

RE: Shear Crack in Concrete Beams

I'm not sure where the good/bad line for crack widths lies. In my opinion, if this is a shear crack, it's not wide enough to be of any concern. As a simply supported member, I would have expected a true shear crack to telegraph through to the underside of the beam. The crack in the photo doesn't appear to do that.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Shear Crack in Concrete Beams

That is a typical diagonal tension (beam shear) crack. It is enough to make me concerned, and I would want to further investigate the design and loading before I decided to leave it alone.

RE: Shear Crack in Concrete Beams

A number of years ago (post northridge earthquake) there were a number of attempts to quantify the widths of acceptable cracks. A paper (perhaps internal to the Office of Emergency Services) by Hasssan Sassi. Essentially trying to quantify a loss of capacity with the crack width.

Maybe for immediate post-disaster assessment and the yellow or red tagging of a building, this could be useful. But, the problem with the methodology is the crack by itself doesn't really say anything. Yes, your beam has a crack. And, yes it appears to be a shear crack. But, concrete is expected to crack.

The crack width is probably not large enough to cause significant increased corrosion of the reinforcement. It might be wise to look at the original design and make sure that the beam can handle the loading properly. It might be good to look at some construction photos or as-builts (if any of that is available) to see if there was something missed in construction. But, as long as the beam was designed properly I don't see that particular crack as alarming.

RE: Shear Crack in Concrete Beams

I would check the capacity of the concrete beam for shear and compare it with the loads. I also think there are some more in-depth shear cracking equations than ACI 318 gives, since ACI 318 is more for design than analysis. A quick google search found this: http://www.ce.memphis.edu/4135/PDF/Notes/Chap_9_1_...

Whatever you do and/or recommend, I would include a note about sealing the crack and monitoring it as a minimum. Whenever I write a report about cracking, I ALWAYS say to continue monitoring the crack. It's a disclaimer but it's also only fair. I mean when I see a crack it's usually a 1 hour snapshot into the 30 year life of a structure. We can make very good educated guesses, but in reality I think that's about the best you can do. I also use words like "Appears" and "limited visual survey" etc. because I want people to know that this isn't an exact science. Some may think it's a cop out, but I think it's just the nature of our profession. We aren't dealing with swiss watches and no matter how detailed and diligent we are, there is still judgment involved.

RE: Shear Crack in Concrete Beams

Quote (njlutzwe)

I would include a note about sealing the crack

This has me contemplating something for the first time. We expect a reinforced beam to crack flexurally. And we calculate expected crack widths so that corrosion isn't a problem. So why is there no accounting for shear crack widths? Surely we must acknowledge the potential for shear cracks if we're going to bother with stirrups?

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Shear Crack in Concrete Beams

KootK - for flexural cracking the crack widths can get quite a bit wider due to the more elastic nature of flexural failure (longer warning, higher phi factor, etc.)
With shear there is a much more abrupt failure, more scatter in the test data (lower phi factor) and thus less give in the beam before failure. So I would susptect that a shear crack is a bit more
worisome thing than a flexural crack.

A number of responses above are what I first thought of after seeing the crack - go back to the plans and do a design check on the shear capacity.

Check out Eng-Tips Forum's Policies here:
FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Shear Crack in Concrete Beams

I agree with JAE. Shear cracks are of much more concern than flexural or direct tension cracks.

Checking the shear capacity by the plans will only tell you so much, as the concrete portion of the shear capacity is now lost, at least by the code equations. After doing the code check, I would approach it as a truss analogy. The top steel is your tension chord, the bottom concrete and steel form the compression chord, the stirrups the tension webs, and concrete diagonals parallel to the crack are compression webs. A critical part of this is the development of the stirrups. Hopefully, they are closed ties.

This would appear to be some sort of precast structure. If so, access to the fabrication drawings will be crucial.

RE: Shear Crack in Concrete Beams

Quote (JAE)

With shear there is a much more abrupt failure, more scatter in the test data (lower phi factor) and thus less give in the beam before failure. So I would susptect that a shear crack is a bit more worisome thing than a flexural crack.

Quote (hokie66)

I agree with JAE. Shear cracks are of much more concern than flexural or direct tension cracks. Checking the shear capacity by the plans will only tell you so much, as the concrete portion of the shear capacity is now lost, at least by the code equations.

I suppose that I should clarify that, I my comments above, I'd been thinking of beams containing meaningful shear reinforcing. For an unreinforced beam, I agree with the statements above. For a reinforced beam, I'm not so sure. Some thoughts regarding shear reinforced beams.

1) My understanding is that shear reinforcement is not fully utilized until after diagonal tension cracking takes place.

2) I contend that a shear crack does not mean the loss of the shear strength attributed to concrete. This philosophy is certainly the case in ACI where Vc + Vs implies that Vc is available as a post-cracking capacity.

3) I agree that there are important structural reliability differences between bending and shear. However, those are addressed via our phi factors and should not affect our expectation that significant shear cracks will occur as full shear capacity is approached.

4) To restate my previous post, I find it surprising that we would expect shear cracking at the development of capacity but not have any related serviceability criteria to limit crack width. Clearly at some size of shear crack, capacity would diminish and corrosion would be an issue.

In a forensic application, particularly one possibly involving prestressing and expensive repairs, I'd turn to the modified compression field theory (Link). As far as I know, it's still the gold standard for the accurate assessment of concrete shear. A coefficient of variation less than 5% is about as good as it gets in natural systems.




I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Shear Crack in Concrete Beams

Definitely a shear crack and definitely needs to be checked to make sure both all of the design, detailing and construction were done properly. If there is properly detailed shear reinforcement present across the crack and the tension reinforcement at the bottom is correctly developed and the design calculations show it is ok, then you are probably ok.

Also, you have not mentioned if the beam is RC or PT and if PT, bonded or unbonded.

I do not know why it was assumed by some that ACI318 was used. I commented on this on another post. There are other design codes in the world and questions come from buildings designed to those codes. In any case, I would check it in accordance with the Canadian rules and possibly Eurocode as they are more modern than some of the older shear design methods in ACI, BS and AS codes, for both shear design and end development of the tension reinforcement.

RE: Shear Crack in Concrete Beams

Quote (rapt)

I do not know why it was assumed by some that ACI318 was used. I commented on this on another post. There are other design codes in the world and questions come from buildings designed to those codes.

We sometimes assume ACI for the same reason that we're corresponding in English here and the same reason that law enforcement agencies are tempted to employ racial profiling: we're rational creatures with an innate understanding of probability. When the OP doesn't specify a code, what are we supposed to assume? Estonian?

Besides, nobody has yet to assume anything in this thread. Those of us that have mentioned ACI have simply done so as a means of attempting to relate what we know of concrete shear theory and practice to the OP's issue. If the OP is only interested in hearing the Latvian/Australian/Martian perspective, then that needs to be established explicitly.

My native tongue is Canadian/CSA. I often switch to Yank/ACI here in deference to the fact that 90% of the concrete traffic is 318 based. When in Rome...

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Shear Crack in Concrete Beams

Quote (KootK)

We sometimes assume ACI for the same reason that we're corresponding in English here and the same reason that law enforcement agencies are tempted to employ racial profiling: we're rational creatures with an innate understanding of probability. When the OP doesn't specify a code, what are we supposed to assume? Estonian?

Eurocode 2 would be a good choice in general, then you'd have Estonians covered as well as everyone who speaks English, and also a document that is available to everyone at no cost: https://law.resource.org/pub/eur/ibr/en.1992.1.1.2...

But for discussions of shear I agree that the Canadian code would be the best choice.

Doug Jenkins
Interactive Design Services
http://newtonexcelbach.wordpress.com/

RE: Shear Crack in Concrete Beams

Why don't we just switch to Esperanto around here while we're at it? Eurocode would be a lousy default for the same reason that Martian would be: the majority of the traffic here is not Eurocode based, it's 318 based.

Frankly, as far as I can tell, things work just fine around here when we just let people speak whatever code they're comfortable speaking.

Canada's shear provisionS are only good because we helped devise the modified compression field theory that I mentioned above. And because we consider it our own, we were quick to roll aspects of it into our shear design provisions.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Shear Crack in Concrete Beams

KootK,
You wrongfooted me on the "modified compression field theory". I thought you might pick shear friction.

RE: Shear Crack in Concrete Beams

Ah Hokie... I've been making a concerted effort to be less of a shear friction maven. But, like a recovering meth-head at a good party, I always get sucked back in by bad influences.

Check out this awesome paper by another Canadian: Link. It presents a very clever model of conventional one way beam shear predicated upon shear friction. It gained very little traction unfortunately. I see elements of it in MCFT actually. Or vice versa I suppose.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Shear Crack in Concrete Beams

@Bryan: as I mentioned at the top, it troubles me that this shear crack doesn't seem to extend to the bottom of the beam. I feel like any self respecting shear crack ought to run out to the tension face. I guess I'm just always wanting Mohr.

Looking closer at the photo, something of the crack does seem to run out to the tension face of the beam. It looks wider than the crack and whitish? Any chance that's a previous crack repair? Or is it just my imagination / debris runoff?

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Shear Crack in Concrete Beams

KootK,
I think the crack, if it exists at the bottom, is very narrow because that is the compression face. See my post above where I suggest the bottom concrete and steel form the compression chord in a truss analogy.

RE: Shear Crack in Concrete Beams

it looks like it goes all the way down, but has salts or autogenous healing or something at the bottom.

Looks like an ordinary shear crack to me. the concrete is failing in diagonal tension, and the steel is being mobilised as the crack opens. this is how reinforced concrte beams work in shear, no?

RE: Shear Crack in Concrete Beams

Quote (Hokie)

I think the crack, if it exists at the bottom, is very narrow because that is the compression face

What makes you say that Hokie? The joint deatailing strongly suggests, to me at least, that the beam is precast and intended to be simply supported. That's part of what's been bothering me about the crack not extending to the bottom, however, as the lack of extension would suggest hogging moment. Maybe the structure above has created accidental restraint?

Quote (Tomfh)

the concrete is failing in diagonal tension, and the steel is being mobilised as the crack opens. this is how reinforced concrte beams work in shear, no?

That's my presumption, yes.

I like to debate structural engineering theory -- a lot. If I challenge you on something, know that I'm doing so because I respect your opinion enough to either change it or adopt it.

RE: Shear Crack in Concrete Beams

I'll echo what rapt said. Check the design, check that the steel was properly detailed and verify that the placement of the reinforcing steel was inspected. Are there any photos of the reinforcing steel before the concrete was poured. Is this a precast beam? (The beam appears to be bearing on a pad indicating that it is precast.) Are there other identical beams? Are any of those cracking? Is there anything about this beam that is different from other identical beams?

RE: Shear Crack in Concrete Beams

Kootk,

While most engineers in the world have at least some capacity to understand English, that makes it a logical language to use. Even in Asian countries, a lot of engineering education is at least partly in English. Most Asians and Europeans have English as a 2nd or 3rd language.

On the other hand, most do not use ACI codes. Maybe we could make the assumption that it is ACI code users who ask most of the questions but that could be taken as being offensive by ACI code users!

I was not having a go at you. It is about time that people asking questions on this site, nominally engineers with an understanding of the information needed to make engineering decisions, started providing sufficient information for people to comment logically. Sometimes it takes several posts to get someone to give the information that is pertinent. If they do not know what information is required in the first place, that is a problem in itself as an engineer working in an area should at least know what information is pertinent to the question.

Re shear cracks in PT members, a principal tensile shear crack would not extend to the tension face, as a flexure-shear crack would. Principal tensile shear cracks happen in low flexural stress zones (normally fully compressive near points of contra-flexure or at free ends) where there will not be a flexural crack at all. That is why knowing if it is PT would be helpful.

However, the crack does appear to extend to the tension face in this case, though it does get thinner there. This would be expected if sufficient flexural reinforcement has been supplied. The flexure crack might initiate the shear crack, but the flexural reinforcement is sufficient to keep that part of the crack contained while there may be insufficient shear reinforcement to contain the shear part of the crack.

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources