Full-scale load testing for evaluating crack performance in precast prestressed concrete communication towers with annular sections

•Static load test was conducted on 30m-high full-scale concrete communication towers.•Prestressed concrete tower exhibits good cracking resistance and recoverability.•A method was developed to calculate the stress increment in extreme tension bar.•Performance of code-specified methods for calculating crack width was evaluated. Tall prestressed concrete poles with annular cross-sections are increasingly used as communication towers. The annular section subjected to bending moments has a smaller extreme tension area, resulting in higher stress increments in the materials within this region. As slender concrete structures, their bending behavior and crack resistance performance need to be critically examined. However, large-scale tower structures have rarely been experimentally investigated. Moreover, current code-specified crack width calculation methods are designed for square sections, so their applicability to concrete members with annular sections requires further investigation. To address these issues, this study conducted full-scale static loading tests on two 30-meter-high tower structures made of prestressed high-strength concrete and evaluated the accuracy of code methods for estimating the maximum crack width. During the static loading tests, displacement, cracking moments, crack widths, and crack spacings were meticulously recorded, and a theoretical methodology for calculating the stress in the extreme tension bars was developed. Four calculation methods specified in structural codes were compared: the Concrete Design Code of China (GB50010), Eurocode 2, ACI 224R, and the Concrete Design Guideline of Japan (JGC2007). The experimental results showed that diameter significantly affects the stiffness and displacement of the structure, with reloading stiffness of the full-scale tower reducing by up to 11 % after exceeding the serviceability limit state. Regarding crack width prediction, substantial deviations were observed among the results of the four methods. On average, GB50010 underestimated crack widths, while JSCE, Eurocode 2, and ACI 224R overestimated them. Eurocode 2 and ACI 224R provided relatively conservative and accurate predictions. These findings highlight the need for improved and tailored code provisions for annular sections. It is also noted that the comparison was limited to crack widths