COMPARISON OF DEFLECTION CALCULATIONS AND SPAN TO DEPTH

RATIOS IN BS 8110 AND EC2

by

Dr R L Vollum

November 2008

Senior Lecturer, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial

College

Contact details:

Dr R. L. Vollum

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

Imperial College Road

Imperial College

London SW7 2AZ

phone 0207 594 5992, fax 0207 594 5989, email r.vollum@imperial.ac.uk

1
Abstract

The current article proposes a procedure for calculating deflections in

buildings with EC2 and evaluates the span-to-effective-depth rules in EC2 and

BS8110. Guidance is given on the calculation of deflection with EC2 and

updated recommendations are made for including the effect of construction

loading in long-term deflection calculations. It is shown that deflections in

slabs are very sensitive to the assumed loading, boundary conditions and

concrete tensile strength if the maximum span moment is close to the

cracking moment. The theoretical background to span to depth rules is

discussed along with the assumptions made in the derivation of the EC2 span

to depth rules. It is shown that the EC2 span-to-depth rules can lead to

significant reductions in slab thickness compared with BS8110 since the rules

account for the beneficial influence of the concrete tensile strength on

deflection. It is also shown that the span to depth rules in EC2 overestimate

the reduction in slab thickness which can be obtained by providing surplus

reinforcement to equate the actual and permissible span to depth ratios. An

amendment is proposed to improve the accuracy of the EC2 span to depth

rules.

2
Calculation of deflection in EC2

EC21 calculates the mean curvature in cracked reinforced concrete members

by interpolating between the curvatures in idealised uncracked and fully

cracked sections as follows:

Ψm =  Ψ2 +(1-) Ψ1 (1)

where

=1-(Mr/M)2 (2)

Ψ1 and Ψ2 are the curvatures in idealised uncracked and fully sections

respectively including shrinkage and Mr is the cracking moment. The

coefficient  in equation (2) accounts for the loss of tension stiffening with time

due to additional internal- and macro-cracking under sustained load. EC21

states that  should be taken as 1 for short term loading and 0.5 for long-term

loading but does not define the variation in  with time.

Back analysis of deflection data from laboratory tests and field

measurements2-6 show that equation (1) gives good estimates of curvature

and hence deflection if the material properties and loading are known.

Difficulties arise in practice, since neither the concrete material properties nor

the actual loading are known prior to construction or indeed subsequently.

Deflections in slabs are particularly difficult to estimate reliably since they vary

significantly dependent on whether or not the slab is cracked. Research2-6

3
suggests that deflections in slabs are largely governed by the most severe

cracking which can arise during construction or subsequently in service.

Cracking can arise during construction either at striking, or subsequently

under loading from casting slabs above or stock piling construction materials.

Construction loading from casting slabs above: In multi-storey buildings,

the self-weight of the most recently cast slab is transferred into the slabs

below through props and backprops until the slab carries its self-weight. The

magnitude of the load induced in slabs from casting slabs above depends on

the type of formwork system, the number of levels of backprops and their

spatial arrangement. If the most recently cast slab carries its self-weight after

striking, the peak construction load is given by:

wpeak = wself + c(wself +wcon) (10)

where c is a carry through factor of at least 1/(number of supporting floors)

and wcon is a construction load comprising formwork etc which is typically

around 0.75kN/m2. Peak construction loads from casting slabs above depend

on whether slabs carry their self weight before the slab above is cast.

Beeby7showed through analysis and measurements of prop forces at

Cardington that the peak construction load occurs in the top slab of the

supporting assembly when slabs carry their self-weight before the slab above

is cast. The lower slab in the supporting assembly is most heavily loaded if

slabs are not struck (i.e. carry their own weight) before the slab above is cast.

Beeby’s7 work showed that when backprops are installed finger tight, it is

4
reasonable in the absence of detailed calculation to take c as 0.7 in equation

(10) if there is one level of backprops and 0.65 with two levels of backprops.

In practice, backprops are usually preloaded during installation rather than

being installed finger tight as at Cardington. The author measured significant

preloads in the backprops at St George Wharf 5 which corresponded to a

uniformly distributed load of ~1kN/m2. The effect of the preload was to induce

a more even distribution of the construction load between the supporting slabs

than measured at Cardington. Parametric studies indicate that it is reasonable

to take the peak construction load wpeak as 0.004h kN/m2 (where h is the slab

thickness in mm) in deflection calculations for slabs up to 500mm thick where

two levels of backprops are used and the backprops are preloaded during

installation as at St George Wharf5.

Construction loads from casting slabs above can only be neglected if i) the

formwork is supported by the columns or ii) sufficient backprops are provided

to transfer the self-weight of the most recently cast slab into the ground.

Caution should be exercised in neglecting construction loads since

measurements of prop forces at Cardington3 at St George Wharf5 suggest

that slabs can experience significant construction loads from casting slabs

above even if the backprops continue to the ground due to the combined

effects of prop shortening and ground settlement.

Pallet8 gives detailed guidance on designing slabs for peak construction loads

at the ultimate limit state. He suggests that the load factor can be taken as 1.2

for dead and imposed loads during construction and that reduced material

5
factors of safety can be used at the ultimate limit state if the worst credible

rather than characteristic material strengths are used. Shear failure is likely to

be most critical during construction since the flexural strength in lightly

reinforced members is almost independent of the concrete compressive

strength.

Influence of peak loads on long-term deflection

The author6 recently tested a series of 6 simply supported one-way spanning

slabs in the Concrete Structures Laboratory at Imperial College to determine

the influence of short-term construction and in-service loads on long-term slab

deflections. The slabs measured 500mm wide by 3600mm long by 150mm

thick and were reinforced with 3T10 bars with 20mm cover. The slabs were

simply supported over a span of 3300mm and loaded at their third points. Full

details of the tests are given elsewhere6. The mid-span moment and

curvature are plotted against time in Figs. 1 and 2 respectively for slabs S4 to

S6. Slab S6 was a control specimen, which was not loaded with a peak

construction load. Fig. 2 shows that curvatures in reinforced concrete slabs

can be significantly influenced by the previous loading history which is usually

unknowable in practice.

Rigorous method for deflection prediction

EC21 recommends that deflections should be calculated under the quasi

permanent load which is given by:

wperm = wd +wi (3)

6
where  is taken as 0.3 for offices but depends on usage.

EC21 gives no guidance on how to account for the increase in deflection due

to previous loading illustrated in Fig. 2. The author recently proposed6 a

simple method for taking account of previous loading in deflection calculations

which is a refinement of his earlier work which formed the basis of the

rigorous method in Concrete Society Technical Report TR589. The method

was validated6 with deflection data from slabs S1 to S6 described above. It is

proposed that mean curvatures are calculated with equation (1) in conjunction

with equation (2) using equivalent values for the concrete effective elastic

modulus and the interpolation coefficient  to account for the effects of

previous loading. The equivalent elastic modulus of the concrete can be

calculated for the concrete using the following equation from TR58 9:

ELT=wi/(w1/Eceff1+ w2/Eceff2 + w3/Eceff3 +..) (4)

where wi is the load increment at time ti and

Eceff=Ect/(1+(ti,t)) where ti is the age at application of wi and t is the age at

which deflections are required.

The interpolation coefficient  used in equation (1) needs to be modified to

take into account the loss of tension stiffening induced by short-term peak

loads greater than wperm. Tension stiffening is reduced following the removal

of short term peak loads since i) additional internal and macro cracks form

under wpeak and ii) the slope of the unloading line is steeper than the

7
instantaneous loading line. The author6 has previously shown that the

influence of peak construction loads can be included in deflection calculations

by replacing  in equation (1) with a modified interpolation coefficient  given

by:

* = 0.5peak(1+Mpeak/M) (5)

where M is calculated with the load w under which deflections are required

and

peak = 1- (Mrpeak/Mpeak)2 (6)

where Mrpeak is the cracking moment when the peak construction load is

applied and Mpeak is calculated under the peak construction load. The ratio

Mpeak/M can be taken as wpeak/w for uniformly loaded slabs. Back analysis of

deflection data from the author’s slab tests6, Cardington2-4 and St George

Wharf5 suggests it will usually be conservative to take  as 0.7 in equation (6)

at the removal of the peak construction load if curvatures are calculated with

*. The term 0.5(1+Mpeak/M) in equation (5) for * accounts for the increment

in deflection due to inelastic unloading from Mpeak.

The maximum in service load, which is uncertain, may give rise to more

severe cracking than the peak construction load if i) the slab is heavily loaded

or ii) the backprops are continued down to the ground as is typical in low rise

buildings. In the absence of better information, PD 668710 recommends that

8
the peak load in deflection calculations should be taken as the frequent load

combination which is defined in EC0 as:

wfreq = wd +ψwi (7)

where ψ is 0.5 for offices.

In practice, designers are normally interested in calculating a) maximum

deflections and b) incremental deflections following fitting out. EC21 differs

from BS811011 in that it requires deflections to be calculated under the quasi

permanent rather than peak load. The change in loading proposed in EC21

seems questionable since damage to finishes and partitions is likely to be

governed by peak deflections. Furthermore, it is difficult if not impossible to

realistically predict deflections in building structures under quasi permanent

loads since the deflections depend on the previous peak loading, its duration

and the ratio of wperm to wpeak all of which are usually unknown. Therefore, it is

proposed that deflections should be calculated under the frequent rather than

quasi permanent load to minimise the influence of prior loading on deflection.

Recommended procedure for calculating deflections with EC2

Difficulties arise in practice, since the loading and concrete material properties

can only be estimated at the design stage. It is suggested that in the absence

of better information, the following assumptions are made in deflection

calculations:

9
 1. The slab is struck at 7 days, the superimposed dead load is applied at

60 days and the permanent component of the imposed load at one

year.

2. Creep and shrinkage strains are calculated with a relative humidity of

50%.

3. Two levels of backprops are used

4. The floor above is cast after 10 days.

5. When slabs are supported by slabs below during construction, the

peak construction load wpeak should be taken as 0.04h kN/m2 where h

is the slab thickness in mm.

6. The permanent load should be taken as the quasi permanent load and

be applied at 1 year.

7. Peak deflections are calculated under the frequent load case. The

increment in load wfreq-wperm should be treated as an instantaneous

load in equation (4) for ELT.

Choice of concrete tensile strength: It is difficult to assess the effective

tensile strength of concrete in slabs due to its inherent variability and

uncertainties in the tensile stress induced by internal and external restraint of

shrinkage. Back analysis of deflection data shows that the effective flexural

strength of concrete in reinforced concrete slabs typically lies somewhere

between the indirect and flexural strengths. Analysis of test data shows that

the EC2 formula for the mean concrete tensile strength is rather conservative

since it calculates the tensile strength in terms of the characteristic rather than

mean concrete compressive strength. Back analysis of deflection data from

10
Cardington2-4 and St George Wharf5 suggests that it is reasonable to take the

concrete tensile strength in deflection calculations as the mean tensile

strength calculated in terms of the mean rather than characteristic concrete

compressive strength. The corresponding concrete tensile strength is given

by:

fctm28eff=0.3fcm2/3 (8)

An alternative approach7 is to take the concrete tensile strength as the mean

of the tensile and flexural strengths calculated as follows in terms of the

characteristic cylinder strength:

fctm28eff=0.3fck2/3(1.3-h/2000) (9)

Parametric studies show that equations (8) and (9) give similar strengths for

slabs up to 400mm thick. Equation (8) is arguably preferable since the

proportional reduction in effective tensile strength due to axial restraint from

columns and shear walls is likely to be greatest in thin slabs.

Calculation of incremental deflection following fitout

The incremental deflection experienced by the partitions and other finishes

depends significantly on whether slabs crack before or subsequent to fitting

out. Cracking during construction tends to increase the overall deflection but

frequently reduces the subsequent increase in deflection as illustrated in Fig.

2. The increment in deflection a seen by partitions and other finishes can be

conservatively calculated as follows:

11
a = a - a1 (11)

where a is the long term deflection calculated under the frequent load and a1

is the deflection under the slab self-weight immediately before the installation

of the finishes. If it is uncertain whether the slab will crack during construction,

it is suggested that the incremental deflection is taken as the greatest of the

values given by M1) and M2) below.

M1) Neglect the effect of construction loading and calculate a with the

greatest of perm and freq and a1 with 1. Use the 28 day concrete

tensile strength in the calculation of 1, perm and freq. Take  as 0.5

in the calculation of 1 and perm and 0.7 in freq.

M2) Include the effect of construction loading and calculate a1 with peak

and a with  equal to the greatest of peak, perm or freq. Assume

=0.7 in the calculation of peak and freq.

Parametric studies show that Method 1) tends to give the greatest incremental

deflection but the least total deflection.

Rational of span to depth ratios

It is helpful to review the underlying rational of controlling deflections with

span to depth rules before making a detailed evaluation of the EC2 1 span to

depth rules. The maximum permissible span to effective depth ratio

corresponding to a deflection limit /L can be expressed as:

12
L/d/(XdΨm) (12)

where Ψm = mean curvature which can be calculated with equations (1) and

(2), d is the effective depth, L is the maximum permissible span and X is a

coefficient which relates the deflection to the loading arrangement and

boundary conditions.

The product dΨm is readily shown to be independent of the section depth for

specified values of the reinforcement index =As/bd, d/h, reinforcement stress

s and concrete material properties since the curvatures in the uncracked and

fully cracked sections are inversely proportional to the effective depth.

BS8110: Part 212 gives values for X derived on the assumption that the

flexural rigidity is uniform along the length of the member. The assumption of

uniform rigidity is reasonable for uncracked members and cracked members

in which cracking is distributed over a significant proportion of the span.

However, analysis shows that X reduces significantly below the values given

in BS8110: Part 212 if the cracking is localised near mid-span as is the case

when the peak moment is only slightly greater than the cracking moment. This

effect is illustrated in Fig. 3 in which X is plotted against the loading ratio w/wu

for a simply supported beam with various reinforcement indices. X varies with

the length of the span which is cracked which depends on the shape of the

bending moment diagram and the loading ratio Mu/Mr where Mu is the

maximum span moment. Mu/Mr is proportional to (d/h)2/(1.3-h/2000) for

given values of  and fck if the effective concrete tensile strength is calculated

with equation (9) which implies that X and, hence, the permissible span to

13
depth ratio depends on , d/h, h,  and fck. The influence of h is undesirable

and can be excluded by calculating the effective concrete tensile strength with

equation (8). It follows that the effect of variations in , d/h,  and fck should be

included in the calculation of permissible span to depth ratios.

EC2 span to depth rules

EC21 states that it is generally unnecessary to calculate deflections explicitly

since deflection problems can be avoided by dimensioning members to

comply with the span-to-depth ratios in the code. The span to depth rules

given in EC21 were derived13 by curve fitting the results of a parametric study

of a series of simply supported uniformly loaded members measuring

1000mm wide by 300mm deep. The effective depth was assumed to be 0.9h

where h is the total section depth. EC2 states that slabs dimensioned with the

EC2 span to depth rules will satisfy both the commonly used overall deflection

limit of L/250 and the active deflection limit of L/500. The code is inconsistent

with the background document which states that the slenderness limits were

calculated by limiting the total deflection to L/250 even though it was found

that limiting the deflection after the construction of partitions to L/500 was

more restrictive. The following additional assumptions were made in the

parametric studies used in the derivation of the EC2 span to depth rules13:

1. The mean 28 day direct concrete tensile strength was used in

deflection calculations

2. The relative humidity was taken as 70%

14
 3. The total characteristic load (qtot=g+q) was assumed to equal 0.71quls

where quls is the design ultimate load calculated with load factors of

1.35 for dead loads and 1.5 for imposed loads. The total dead load g

was made up of the self-weight g1 and the finishes g2 where g1 =

0.36qtot and g2 = 0.24qtot. The self weight g1 was applied at 10 days,

the load of the finishes g2 was applied at 60 days and the permanent

component of the imposed load 0.3q was applied at 365 days.

4. A short-term construction load equal to the permanent load of g+0.3q

was applied at striking.

5. The characteristic yield strength of the reinforcement was taken as

500MPa.

6. The ratio between the permanent (g+0.3q) and design ultimate loads

was assumed to be 0.5.

The span-to-depth ratios in EC2 are defined by equation 13 below (equation

7.16 in EC2):

L/dbasic = K[11+1.5√fck0/+3.2√fck(0/-1)1.5] if  ≤ 0 (13a)

L/dbasic = K[11+1.5√fck0/('+1/12√fck√(’/0)] if  > 0 (13b)

where

K accounts for structural form and is taken as 1 for simply supported spans,

1.3 for end spans of continuous spans, 1.5 for internal spans of continuous

spans and 1.2 for flat slabs, 0 is the reference reinforcement index √fck×10-3,

 is the required tension steel ratio at mid-span As/bd and ' is the required

compression steel ratio at mid-span. EC2 states that (L/d)basic should be

15
reduced by 7/L for spans greater than 7m which support partitions likely to be

damaged.

EC2 states that when other steel stress levels are used the basic span to

effective depth ratios given by equation 13 should be multiplied by 310/s

where s is defined in the code as the tensile stress in the reinforcement at

mid-span “under the design load at SLS”. The code does not define what is

meant by the design load at the SLS but goes on to state that it is normally

conservative to assume:

310/s = 500/(fykAsreq/Asprov) (14)

where Asreq is the area of flexural steel required for strength at mid-span and

Asprov is the area provided. The stress of 310MPa in equation (14) appears to

have been calculated under the full service load (i.e. g+q=0.71wu) since

0.71×500/1.15 ~ 310MPa.

Alternatively the stress s can be calculated as follows:

s = M(d-x2)/I2 (15)

where M is the maximum span moment under the design service load (gk+qk),

x2 is the depth to the neutral axis of a fully cracked section and I 2 is the

corresponding second moment of area. The author considers that x2 and I2

should be calculated with Ec to be consistent with equation (14). EC2 does not

define the SLS loading case which should be used to calculate M. The author

16
considers that M is intended to be calculated under the total characteristic

load qtot = g+q since this is consistent with the stress of 310MPa in equation

(14).

Discussion of assumptions made in the derivation of the EC2 span to

depth rules

The most contentious aspects of the derivation of the EC2 span to depth rules

relate to the choices of the concrete tensile strength, loading ratio and the

modification factor 310/s. The effect of these choices is to prevent the EC2

span to depth rules from accounting for variations in the loading ratio or d/h.

The consequences of the omissions and assumptions made in the derivation

of the EC2 span to depth rules are explored in the remainder of the current

article.

Control of deflection by increasing Asprov/Asreq

In the UK, it is common practice to minimise slab thicknesses by increasing

the area of area of flexural reinforcement provided in the span A sprov to as

much as twice that required for strength Asreq. This practice frequently leads to

significant economies in whole building costs since it reduces the building

height and hence the area of external cladding. Increasing Asprov/Asreq reduces

the service stress in the reinforcement and, hence, the deflection.

Consideration of equation (12) shows that increasing the area of

reinforcement provided over that required for strength increases the

permissible span of a given member under a specified loading ratio wperm/wdu

(where wdu is the design ultimate load) by a factor  equal to:

17
 = XrefΨmref/(XΨm ) (16)

where the subscript ref denotes the member with Asprov = Asreq. In this case,

X~Xref since Mr/M is not changed significantly by the addition of surplus

reinforcement to control deflection. Numerical analysis shows that creep and

shrinkage significantly reduce the factor by which curvature is reduced when

Asprov/Asreq is increased. Parametric studies show that in the long term  can

be approximated by:

 = (Asprov/Asreq)0.5 (17)

Equation (17) is inconsistent with EC2 which states that “where other stress

levels are used the permissible span to depth ratios given by equation (13)

should be multiplied by 310/s“. The code goes on to say that 310/s can be

approximated with equation (14) which implies that permissible span-to-depth

ratios can be increased by a factor equal to Asprov/Asreq for grade 500

reinforcement The inaccuracies in equation (14) were recognised in the

drafting of the UK National Annex to EC2 which limits 310/s to 1.5. Equation

(17) is reasonably accurate unless the area of compression reinforcement is

greater than Asreq in which case it can be conservative.

Modification of EC2 span to depth rules to account for loading history

and loading ratio

The EC2 span to depth ratios were derived for a loading ratio wperm/wuls = 0.5

with Asprov = Asreq and need to be adjusted to account for variations in the

18
reinforcement stress s due to changes in the loading ratio wperm/wuls. The

loading ratio wperm/wuls = 0.5 assumed in the derivation of the EC2 span to

depth rules is particularly unrealistic for lightly loaded slabs where the self-

weight can exceed 50% of the design ultimate load. Analysis shows that the

loss of tension stiffening due to loading ratios w/wu greater than 0.5 can be

included in equation (13a) if fck is replaced by an equivalent concrete strength

fckequiv given by:

fckequiv = (fcteff/0.3)1.5 ≤ fck+8 (18)

where fcteff is calculated as follows:

fcteff = (0.9h/d)2(0.5wu/w)fctmod (19)

where wu is the design ultimate load and

fctmod= 2wkmin (20)

where kmin is the least of 0.5fctstrike/wstrike, 0.7fctpeak/wpeak, 0.5fct28/wperm and

0.7fct28/wfreq. The term (0.9h/d)2 in equation (19) accounts for the influence on

the cracking moment of variations in h/d between the section under

consideration and the reference section used in the derivation of the EC2

span to depth rules. Equation (19) modifies the concrete tensile strength to

give the same interpolation coefficient  under the actual load w and 0.5wu

used in the calibration of the EC2 span to depth rules. Equation (19) is only

19
applicable to cracked slabs. Analysis shows that deflections under wfreq are

relatively insensitive to the concrete tensile strength when the reinforcement

index is greater than o since the curvature tends towards that in a fully

cracked section. Therefore, it is proposed that the actual concrete strength is

used in equation (13b) and that the permissible span to depth ratio is taken as

the greatest of the values given by equations (13a) with f ckequiv and (13b) with

fck if <o calculated with fckequiv. The coefficient o should be calculated with

fcequiv in equation (13a) and with fck in equation (13b). The proposed procedure

is illustrated in Fig. 5. The critical span to depth ratio from equation (13a) (with

fckequiv from equation (20)) or (13b) (with fck) as appropriate should be

multiplied by 0.5wu/wfreq to account for the difference between the actual

loading ratio and that assumed in the derivation of the EC2 span to depth

rules.

Influence of span

EC2 requires the permissible span to depth ratio to be reduced by 7/L for

spans greater than 7m. The need for this reduction factor did not emerge in

the calibration exercise described in the background document to the EC2

span to depth rules since i) the concrete tensile strength was taken as the

splitting strength which is independent of the section depth, ii) the effective

depth was assumed to be a constant proportion of the section depth and iii)

the loading ratio M/Mu was assumed to be 0.5. The terms in equation (12) for

L/dpermissible are independent of the slab thickness and hence span, for given

fck and reinforcement index , when assumptions i) to iii) above apply. The

term 7/L is needed in practice since assumptions i) to iii) do not apply to

20
practical slabs where i) the cover is independent of span and ii) the loading

ratio w/wu increases with span for constant superimposed loads. The

reduction factor 7/L is required to compensate for a) the reduction in

Mr/(0.5Mu) with increasing span in members with constant cover and

reinforcement index  (due to the increase in d/h and fct/ffl) and b) the increase

in loading ratio w/wu with span (due to the increase in h) for slabs loaded with

the same superimposed loads. The effect of a) and b) above is to reduce

Mr/M which in turn increases the mid-span curvature above that implicit in the

EC2 span to depth rules due to the increase in the interpolation coefficient  in

equation (1). Reducing Mr/M also increases the length of the span which is

cracked which affects X in equation (12) as shown in Fig. 3. The increase in

d/h with span is particularly significant in lightly reinforced members since it

causes a reduction in the reinforcement ratio  (due to the increase in lever

arm) which in turn results in a significant increase in the permissible span to

depth ratio given by equation (13).

Proposed modification to EC2 span to depth rules

It is recommended that permissible span to depth ratios are calculated as

follows:

1. If <oequiv take L/dpermissible as the greatest value given by either

equation (13a) (with fckequiv where fckequiv is given by equation (18) and

oequiv = 10-3√fckequiv) or equation (13b) evaluated with fck and

o=10-3√fck)

2. If ≥oequiv calculate L/dpermissible with equation (13b) in conjunction with

fck and o = 10-3√fck

21
The multiplier 310/s in EC2 should be replaced by:

M = (0.5wu/w)(Asprov/Asreq)0.5 (21)

where w is the load under which deflections are being calculated and wu is the

design ultimate load.

Parametric studies show that the load w should not be taken as less than

0.5wu or greater than 0.65wu in equation (19). The actual loading ratio w/wu

should be used in equation (21). When loads are not uniformly distributed, the

ratio 0.5wu/w in equations (19) and (21) should be replaced by 0.5Mu/M where

M is the maximum span moment. It is unnecessary to reduce the resulting

span to depth ratios by 7/L for spans greater than 7m as stated in EC2 since

the influence of span is effectively eliminated by using fck equiv (from equation

(18)) in equation (13) in conjunction with the multiplier M given by equation

(21). It is recommended that Asreq should be taken as the area of

reinforcement required to resist the maximum design elastic bending moment

in the span under all load combinations. Equation (21) is based on the

assumption that the design ultimate load equals 1.35gk+1.5qk as assumed in

the derivation of the EC2 span to depth rules. If the load factor for dead load

is reduced to 1.25 in accordance with Equation 6.10 in EC0, the loading ratio

0.5wu/w should be taken as (1.35gk+1.5qk)/(1.25gk+1.5qk) 0.5wu/w.

22
Evaluation of proposed modification to EC2 span to depth rules.

The author has carried out a comprehensive series of parametric studies to

compare total and incremental deflections in continuous slabs with depths

equal to the minimum allowed by:

1. BS811011

2. EC2 with M = (7/L)(Asprov/Asreq) where 7/L≤ 1

3. EC2 as interpreted by the Concrete Centre14 with M=(310/ σs ≤ 1.5)7/L

where σs ≤ (fyk/γs )[w/( γGGK+γQQk)][As,req/As,prov]/δ where 7/L≤ 1

4. EC2 as modified by the author

Deflections were calculated, with and without construction loading, in a 3 span

slab that was continuous over simple supports. The span was varied between

6m and 10m in increments of 1.0m, the superimposed dead load was taken

as 1.0kN/m2 and the imposed load was taken as 1.5, 2.5 or 5 kN/m 2. The

concrete strength was varied between 30 and 50MPa. When present, the

peak construction load was taken as 0.004h (where h is the slab thickness in

mm). Maximum and incremental deflections were calculated using the

rigorous approach described in this paper in conjunction with the

recommendations given in paragraphs M1 and M2 below equation (11). Peak

deflections were calculated under the frequent load combination.

In practice, a restraining moment is typically provided at external supports by

the supporting walls or columns. Therefore, deflections were calculated with

and without restraining moments of 0.04wuL2 at the external supports. The

design moments Mu were calculated with the bending moment coefficients

23
given in Table 3.12 of BS811011 unless noted otherwise (i.e. the design

moment in the external span Mu was taken as 0.086wuL2 in slabs with M=0 at

the external supports and 0.075wuL2 in slabs with M=0.04wuL2 at the external

supports). The accuracy of Method 4) was improved when the moment at the

external supports was 0.04wuL2 if k was increased from 1.3 to 1.5 in equation

(13) and Asreq was calculated with the maximum design elastic moment in the

external span under pattern loading which was typically around 0.07wuL2.

Fig. 6 shows the slab thicknesses given by methods 1) to 4) for various

scenarios. The stress s was calculated under the frequent load in method 3).

The slab thickness is independent of the construction load for methods 1) to

3) above but not method 4). Fig. 7 shows that deflections can exceed code

limits in slabs sized using the BS811011 span to depth rules if the concrete

strength is low (i.e. below 30MPa). Fig. 7 also shows deflections calculated

under the total service load using the partially cracked section of BS811012 in

conjunction with creep and shrinkage coefficients calculated in accordance

with EC2. The deflections given by BS811012 are significantly greater than

those given by EC2. This is significant since it shows that predicted

deflections can exceed span/250 when calculated with BS8110 12 in slabs

dimensioned with the BS811011 span to depth rules. This was known14 at the

time the BS8110 span to depth rules were derived and was justified by the

observation that slabs are seldom truly simply supported in practice. Figs. 8

and 9 show deflections can significantly exceed code limits in slabs

dimensioned with the EC2 span to depth rules particularly when the slab

thickness is reduced by increasing Asprov/Asreq. In practice the deflections are

24
likely to be significantly less than shown in Figs. 8 and 9 since some moment

restraint is usually present at both internal and external supports. The main

reason for the relatively large deflections in Figs. 8 and 9 is that an

unrealistically low loading ratio of w/wu=0.5 was assumed in the derivation of

the EC2 span to depth rules. Deflections can increase disproportionately in

slabs dimensioned with the EC2 span to depth rules as a result of additional

cracking induced by increases in the loading ratio w/wu. Figs. 7 to 13 show

that deflections in slabs designed with the proposed method are closest to the

code limits of span/250 for total deflections and span/500 for incremental

deflections. Figs. 8 to 11 show that construction loading can be beneficial

since it reduces the incremental deflection seen by partitions and finishes. Fig.

13 shows that the proposed method gives good results when all the loads on

the member in Fig. 10 including self weight are increased by a factor of 4.

Figs. 10, 12 and 13 show the proposed method tends to slightly overestimate

the reduction in permissible slab thickness that can be achieved by increasing

Asprov/Asreq. This arises because the proposed method does a) not fully

account for the increase in the coefficient X in equation (16) that occurs due

increased cracking as the slab thickness is reduced and b) equation (21)

slightly overestimates the benefit of adding extra reinforcement as illustrated

in Fig. 4. Fig. 13 shows that the accuracy of the proposed method for dealing

with increases in Asprov/Asreq improves with increasing reinforcement index 

since X becomes less sensitive to changes in slab thickness as the

interpolation coefficient  increases.

25
Fig. 6 shows that method 3) which is used by the Concrete Centre14 tends to

give the thinnest slabs of all the methods considered. Figs. 9 to 15 suggest

that deflections are likely to exceed the EC2 limits in slabs designed with

method 3) unless moment restraint is present at the supports. Deflections

were calculated in slabs designed with method 3) assuming that there was no

moment at the external support. The stress s in equation (14) was calculated

under wperm. The deflections were calculated with construction loading

assuming that in reality there was a restraining moment of 0.04FL at the

external support. Fig. 14 shows that the resulting deflections were close to

code limits and suggests that the slab thicknesses given by method 3) are

justifiable and economic when moment restraint is present in reality but is

neglected in the design of the flexural reinforcement in the span. The area of

top reinforcement provided at the external support should be at least 50% of

that in the span if this approach is adopted.

Conclusions

EC2 permits significant reductions in slab thickness compared with BS 8110 11

since it takes into account the actual tensile strength of the concrete in

deflection calculations. The downside of the EC2 deflection calculation

method is that predicted deflections depend significantly on assumptions

made about loading and concrete material properties. This article proposes a

standard method for calculating deflections with EC2 that can be used in the

absence of better information. It is shown that the EC2 span to depth rules do

account for the effects of construction loading and variations in d/h and

loading ratio on long-term deflection. A modification is proposed to the EC2

26
span to depth rules which is shown to rationally account for these factors. Fig.

7 shows that calculated deflections can exceed BS8110 and EC2 limits in

slabs designed in accordance with BS8110 and raises the question of

whether the deflection limits in EC2 are too onerous. Comparison with

BS595016 shows that the deflection limits in EC2 are very onerous compared

with the limits used for steel construction in the UK. It is suggested that the

incremental deflection limit should be increased to span/360 for brittle

partitions, to bring it in line with current UK practice for structural steelwork16,

but not more than 20mm. It is also suggested that the overall deflection

should be limited to span/200 where the slab is hidden by raised floors and

ceilings. The deflections calculated in the slabs sized with the author’s

modification to EC2 are generally within these limits.

References

1. British Standards Institution. Eurocode 2, Design of Concrete

Structures- Part 1: General rules for buildings, 2004

2. Vollum R.L., Moss R.M., AND Hossain T.R., “Slab deflections in the
Cardington in-situ concrete frame building”, Magazine of Concrete
Research, 54, (2002) 23-34.

3. Hossain T.R and Vollum R.L., “Prediction of slab deflections and

validation against Cardington data”, Proc. of the Inst. of Civil Eng.,
Structures and Building, 152, (2002), 235-248

4. Vollum R.L, “Influences of shrinkage and construction loading on loss

of tension stiffening in slabs”, Magazine of Concrete Research, 54,
August 2002, 273-282

27
5. Vollum R.L Investigation into backprop forces and deflections at St
George Wharf, Magazine of Concrete Research, 55, (2003), No. 5,
449-460.

6. Vollum R.L., Afshar N. Influence of construction loading on deflections

in reinforced concrete slabs, Magazine of Concrete Research,
accepted for publication

7. Beeby A.W Criteria for slab loading, Proceedings of the Institution of

Civil Engineers, Structures & Buildings 146, May 2001 Issue 2, 195-

202during

8. Pallet P.F. Guide to flat slab formwork and falsework, CONSTRUCT,

2003

9. Concrete Society. Deflections in Concrete Beams and Slabs, Technical

Report 58, Concrete Society 2005.

10. British Standards Institution. PD 6687-2005. Background paper to the

UK National Annex to BS EN 1992-1-1 and BS EN. 1992-1-2. 2006.

11. British Standards Institution, Structural Use of Concrete, BS8110-1:

1997, 2005

12. British Standards Institution. Code of Practice for special

circumstances, BS8110-2: 1985

13. Peiretti HC, Serviceability limit states, Supporting document for section

7 of EN 1992-1

14. Moss R.M Brooker O How to design concrete structures using

Eurocode 2: Part 3 Slabs, CONCRETE CENTRE, 2006

28
15. Beeby, AW Modified proposals for controlling deflections by means of

ratios of span to effective depth, Technical Report 456, Cement and

Concrete Association, Wexham Springs 1971

16. British Standards Institution BS5950-1:2000, Structural use of

steelwork in building – Part 1: Code of practice for design – Rolled and

welded sections

29
List of Figures

Figure 1: Load history for slabs S4 to S6

Figure 2: Comparison of deflections in slabs S4 to S6

Figure 3: Influence of load ratio on X

Figure 4: Influence of Asprov/Asreq on curvature

Figure 5: Influence of fckequiv on L/dpermissible

Figure 6: Comparison of slab thicknesses

Figure 7: BS8110 with construction load: Continuous slab (M=0 at external

support)

Figure 8: EC2 without construction load: Continuous slab (M=0 at external

support)

Figure 9: EC2 with construction load: Continuous slab (M=0 at external

support)

Figure 10: Proposed method without construction load: Continuous slab (M=0

at external support)

Figure 11: Proposed method with construction load: Continuous slab (M=0 at

external support)

Figure 12: Proposed method with construction load: Continuous slab

(M=0.04FL at external support)

Figure 13: Proposed method with all loads including self weight increased by

a factor of 4: Continuous slab (M=0.04FL at external support)

Figure 14: Concrete Centre method with construction load: Continuous slab

(Deflections calculated with M=0.04FL at external support)

30
 Mpeak
Mperm
Moment (kNm)

t0 t1 t2 t3 Time from casting (days)

Figure 1: Moment v time

2.0E-05

1.8E-05

1.6E-05

1.4E-05
Curvature (mm -1)

1.2E-05

1.0E-05

8.0E-06 S4
S5
6.0E-06
S6
4.0E-06

2.0E-06

0.0E+00
1 10 100 1000
Time (days)

Figure 2: Curvature v time

31
 0.10

0.09

0.08

0.07

0.06
X

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02
fck=30MPa, L=8000mm
wi=5kN/m^2
0.01 Asprov=Asreq
wi=1.5kN/m^2
0.00
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Load ratio w/w u

Figure 3: Influence of load ratio on X

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0
Multiplier

0.8

0.6
As/bd=0.35
0.4 As/bd=0.60
As/bd=1.0
0.2 w=0.6w u with Asprov=Asreq As/bd=1.5
M=sqrt(Asprov/Asreq)
0.0
1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0
Asprov/Asreq

Figure 4: Influence of Asprov/Asreq on curvature

32
 100

Equation (13a) fck

Equation (13a) fckequiv
80
Equation (13b) fck
Permissible L/d

60

40

20

0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Reinforcement index 

Figure 5: Influence of fckequiv on permissible span to depth ratio

33
 With construction load: Asprov=Asreq fck=30MPa w i =2.5kN/m 2

450
400

350
Slab thickness (mm)

300
250
200 Modified
Modified Mext=0.04FL
150
Modified no construction load
100 Concrete Centre
EC2
50 BS8110
0
6 7 8 9 10
Span (m)

With construction load; Asprov=Asreq w i = 2.5KN/m 2 L=8m

350

300
Slab thickness (mm)

250

200
Modified
150 Modified Mext=0.04FL
Modified no construction load
100 EC2
50 Concrete Centre
BS8110
0
25 30 35 40 45 50
Concrete strength (MPa)

With construction load; fck=30MPa, L=8m, w i =2.5kN/m 2

350

300
Slab thickness (mm)

250

200
Modified
150 Modified Mext=0.04FL
Modified no construction load
100
Concrete Centre
50 EC2
BS8110
0
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Asprov/Asreq

Figure 6: Comparison of slab thicknesses

34
 750
with con load wi=1,5 kN/m2
fck =30MPa wi=2,5 kN/m2 a) Total
Asprov /Asreq=1.0 wi=5 kN/m2 deflection
wi=1.5kN/m2 BS8110
Span/Deflection

500
wi=2.5kN/m2 BS8110
wi=5kN/m2 BS8110

250

0
6 7 8 9 10
Span (m)

400
with con load wi=1,5 kN/m2
350 fck=30Mpa b) Total
wi=2,5 kN/m2
L=8m
wi=5 kN/m2
deflection
Span/Deflection

300

250

200

150

100
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Asprov/Asreq

750
with con load wi=1,5 kN/m2
fck=30Mpa
wi=2,5 kN/m2 c) Incremental
L=8m
wi=5 kN/m2
deflection
Span/Deflection

500

250
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Asprov/Asreq

Figure 7: BS8110 with construction load: Continuous slab (M=0 at external

support)

35
 500
wi=1,5 kN/m2 with con load
wi=2,5 kN/m2 fck=30MPa
400 wi=5 kN/m2 Asprov/Asreq=1.0
Span/Deflection

300

200

100

0
6 7 8 9 10
Span (m)

a) Total deflection

600
w ith con load
fck=30MPa
Asprov/Asreq=1.0
500
Span/Deflection

400

300 wi=1,5 kN/m2

wi=2,5 kN/m2
wi=5 kN/m2
200
6 7 8 9 10
Span (m)

b) Incremental deflection

Figure 8: EC2 without construction load: Continuous slab (M=0 at external

support)

36
 500
wi=1,5 kN/m2 with con load
wi=2,5 kN/m2 fck=30MPa a) Total
400 Asprov/Asreq=1.0
wi=5 kN/m2 deflection
Span/Deflection

300

200

100

0
6 7 8 9 10
Span (m)

600
b) Incremental
deflection
500
Span/Deflection

400

300 w ith con load

wi=1,5 kN/m2
fck=30MPa
Asprov/Asreq=1.0 wi=2,5 kN/m2
wi=5 kN/m2
200
6 7 8 9 10
Span (m)

300
wi=1,5 kN/m2
c) Total
wi=2,5 kN/m2
250
deflection
wi=5 kN/m2
Span/Deflection

200

150
with con load
fck=30Mpa
L=8m
100
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Asprov/Asreq

Figure 9: EC2 with construction load: Continuous slab (M=0 at external

support)

37
 350
No con load
fck=30MPa
300 Asprov/Asreq=1.0
a) Total
Span/Deflection

deflection
250

200

wi=1,5 kN/m2
150 wi=2,5 kN/m2
wi=5 kN/m2
100
6 7 8 9 10
Span (m)

800
wi=1,5 kN/m2 No con load
fck=30MPa
700 wi=2,5 kN/m2
Asprov/Asreq=1.0
wi=5 kN/m2
b) Incremental
Span/Deflection

600
deflection
500

400

300

200
6 7 8 9 10
Span(m)

350
No con load
fck=30Mpa
a) Total
300 deflection
L=8m
Span/Deflection

250

200
wi=1,5 kN/m2
wi=2,5 kN/m2
150 wi=5 kN/m2

100
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Asprov/Asreq

Figure 10: Proposed method without construction load: Continuous slab (M=0

at external support)

38
 300

250
Span/Deflection

200

150

100
with con load
wi=1,5 kN/m2
fck =30MPa
50 wi=2,5 kN/m2
As prov /Asreq=1.0
wi=5 kN/m2
0
6 7 8 9 10
Span (m)

a) Total deflection

800
wi=1,5 kN/m2
700 wi=2,5 kN/m2
wi=5 kN/m2
Span/Deflection

600

500

400

with con load

300 fck=30MPa
Asprov/Asreq =1.0
200
6 7 8 9 10
Span (m)

b) Incremental deflection

Figure 11: Proposed method with construction load: Continuous slab (M=0 at

external support)

39
 500
a) Total
deflection
400
Span/Deflection

300

200

with con load

wi=1,5 kN/m2
100 fck =30MPa
wi=2,5 kN/m2
As prov /Asreq=1.0
wi=5 kN/m2
0
6 7 8 9 10
Span (m)

350
wi=1,5 kN/m2 with con load
wi=2,5 kN/m2 L=8m b) Total
300 Asprov /Asreq=1.0
wi=5 kN/m2 deflection
Span/Deflection

250

200

150

100
25 30 35 40 45 50
fck (MPa)

350
with con load
fck =30Mpa
300
L=8m c) Total
Span/Deflection

deflection
250

200

wi=1,5 kN/m2
150 wi=2,5 kN/m2
wi=5 kN/m2

100
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Asprov/Asreq

Figure 12: Proposed method with construction load: Continuous slab

(M=0.04FL at external support)

40
 400

a) Total
300 deflection
Span/Deflection

200

with con load

100 wi=1,5 kN/m2
fck =30MPa
wi=2,5 kN/m2
As prov /Asreq=1.0
wi=5 kN/m2
0
6 7 8 9 10
Span (m)

700
wi=1,5 kN/m2
wi=2,5 kN/m2
600
wi=5 kN/m2
Span/Deflection

500
b) Incremental
deflection
400

with con load

300
fck=30MPa
Asprov/Asreq =1.0
200
6 7 8 9 10
Span (m)

300

250
c) Total
Span/Deflection

deflection
200

150 with con load wi=6 kN/m2

fck =30Mpa wi=10 kN/m2
L=8m wi=20 kN/m2
100
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
Asprov/Asreq

Figure 13: Proposed method with construction load: Continuous slab

(M=0.04FL at external support)

41
 600
w ith con load
fck=30MPa
500
Asprov/Asreq=1.0
Span/Deflection

400 a) Total
deflection
300

200
wi=1,5 kN/m2
100 wi=2,5 kN/m2
wi=5 kN/m2
0
6 7 8 9 10
Span (m)

800

b) Incremental
deflection
Span/Deflection

600

400
w ith con load wi=1,5 kN/m2
fck=30MPa wi=2,5 kN/m2
Asprov/Asreq=1.0
wi=5 kN/m2
200
6 7 8 9 10
Span (m)

400
with con load wi=1,5 kN/m2 c) Total
fck=30Mpa wi=2,5 kN/m2
L=8m deflection
wi=5 kN/m2
Span/Deflection

300

200

100
1 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5
Asprov/Asreq

Figure 14: Concrete Centre method with construction load: Continuous slab

(Deflections calculated with M=0.04FL at external support)

42