ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL
Title no. 108-S43
Span/Thickness Limits for Deflection Control
by Noel J. Gardner
Predicting the deflection serviceability of reinforced concrete
members is fraught with uncertainties, which include imperfect
knowledge of the limiting serviceability criteria, the material
properties, and the load history including construction loads and
the service load. The serviceability criteria can be immediate
deflection/curvature or incremental deflection/curvature. Most
codes offer two methods for control of deflections. The designer
may choose to calculate the deflections and check that these
computed deflections are less than specified allowable limits.
Alternatively, the codes give specified maximum span-depth ratios
for which serviceability can be assumed to be satisfied and deflections
do not need to be calculated. This paper compares the deemed-to-
comply span/thickness limits of ACI 318-08, CSA A23.3-04, BS
8110-97, AS 3600-2009, Eurocode 2 (2004), ACI Committee 435
revisions, and the proposals of numerous other authors.
Keywords: code provisions; deflection; serviceability.
INTRODUCTION
The object of structural design is to achieve acceptable
probabilities that structures will perform satisfactorily
during their intended service life. For safety, the structure
must have adequate strength with a low probability of
collapse. The required probability against collapse is
achieved by increasing the specified loads by appropriate
load factors and reducing the member strengths by strength
or behavior reduction factors. Although safety is the most
important limit state, it is not sufficient without satisfying the
requirements of serviceability. Service load deflections/
curvatures may be excessive, or long-term deflections/
curvatures due to sustained loads may cause damage to
partitions, visual discomfort, and/or perception. With the
increasing use of higher strength concretes and reinforcing
steels, as well as more efficient design procedures, there is a
tendency toward designing shallower section members in
reinforced concrete structures with attendant reductions in
stiffness and, hence, larger deflections. The recent (2005)
reductions in the ACI load factors have decreased member
sizes, increasing the service load/design ultimate load ratio
and the possibility of deflection serviceability problems.
Most codes offer two methods for control of deflections.
The designer may choose to calculate the deflections and
check that these computed deflections are less than specified
allowable limits. Calculating the immediate deflections of
reinforced concrete members is difficult due to the concrete
cracking in the tension zones due to early-age construction
loads or being under service load. Calculating the additional
deflections due to shrinkage, creep, and the consequent
redistribution of stress is extremely difficult. Alternatively,
the codes give specified maximum span-depth ratios for
which serviceability can be assumed to be satisfied and
deflections do not need to be calculated.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2011
www.modiriat-sakht.blogfa.com
TECHNICAL PAPER
Table 1Maximum permissible computed
deflection (ACI 318-08 and CSA A23.3-04)
Deflection Deflection
Type of member to be considered limitation
Flat roofs not supporting or
attached to nonstructural elements Immediate deflection due ln/180
likely to be damaged by large to live load L
deflections
Floors not supporting or attached
Immediate deflection due ln/360
to nonstructural elements likely to
be damaged by large deflections to live load L
Roof or floor construction That part of the total
supporting or attached to deflection occurring after ln/480
nonstructural elements likely to beattachment of nonstructural
damaged by large deflections elements (sum of the long-
Roof or floor construction term deflection due to all
sustained loads and the
supporting or attached to ln/240
nonstructural elements not likely immediate deflection due
to be damaged by large deflections to any additional live load)
Note: ln = clear span.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Codes give specified maximum span/thickness or span/
effective depth ratios for which serviceability can be
assumed to be satisfied and deflections do not need to be
calculated. The use of higher strength reinforcing steel, more
efficient calculation methods, faster construction schedules, and
changes in load factors increase the possibility of deflection
serviceability problems and warrant a review of current
code provisions.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
FOR DEFLECTION CONTROL
ACI 318-08Building Code Requirements for
Reinforced Concrete; CSA A23.3-04Design of
Concrete Structure for Buildings
The American Code, ACI 318-08,1 and the Canadian
Code, CSA A23.3-04,2 are the commonly used design codes
for reinforced concrete structures in North America. For
beams, their provisions are effectively identical to those in
ACI 318-71. The deflection limits are given in Table 1. The
minimum thicknesses of beams and one-way slabs not
supporting, or attached to, partitions likely to be damaged by
large deflections required by both codes are reproduced in
Table 2. No guidance is given for beams and slabs
supporting or attached to partitions likely to be damaged by
deflections. Table 3 is an extended version of Table 2
recommended by ACI Committee 435,3 which distinguishes
between members that support, or are attached to, nonstructural
elements likely to be damaged by large deflections and those
that do not. Grossman4 noted that the minimum member
ACI Structural Journal, V. 108, No. 4, July-August 2011.
MS No. S-2009-389.R1 received May 3, 2010, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright 2011, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved,
including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors.
Pertinent discussion including authors closure, if any, will be published in the May-June
2012 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by January 1, 2012.
453
 ( 0.8 + f y /A )
Noel J. Gardner, FACI, is a member of ACI Committees 209, Creep and Shrinkage of
Concrete; 231, Properties of Concrete at Early Ages; 347, Formwork for Concrete; and
h min l n ---------------------------
- for > 2.0 (2)
36 + 9
435, Deflection of Concrete Building Structures. His research interests are early-age
member behavior, shrinkage, creep, deflection serviceability, and formwork pressures.
where A = 1400 (SI units); A = 200,000 (U.S. customary
units); hmin is the slab thickness; ln is the longer clear span;
depths provided in Table 2 (ACI 318-08 Table 9-5(a)), to fy is the yield strength of tensile flexural reinforcement (MPa
eliminate the need to calculate deflections, do not correlate for SI and psi for U.S. units); is the ratio of flexural stiffness
with the requirements of Table 1 (ACI 318-08 Table 9-5(b)) of beam to flexural stiffness of slab; fm is the average value
of the Code. It can be noted that Table 2 does not take of ; and is the ratio of long side to short side.
account of several parameters that play important roles in the At discontinuous edges, an edge beam with a stiffness f
long-term behavior of reinforced concrete members, that is, > 0.8 must be provided or thickness of the panel with a
the effect of compression steel. Consideration should also be discontinuous edge must be increased by 10%.
taken for the effect of concrete compressive strength and the For flat slabs with drop panels, meeting code-specified
magnitude of the service load relative to the ultimate load (a minimum thickness and dimensions, the slab thickness
proxy to the extent of tension cracking of the concrete).
beyond the drop panel may be reduced by 10%.
For slabs, the provisions of the two codes are slightly
different. ACI 318-08 requirements for slabs without interior CSA A23.3-042 adopted the more conservative provisions
beams or slabs with beams spanning between supports on all proposed by Thompson and Scanlon5 (for flat slabs without
four sides with fm < 0.2, the minimum thickness is given in edge beams, use m = 0).
Table 4. For slabs with beams spanning between the supports
on all sides, the minimum thickness is ( 0.6 + f y /B )
h min l n ---------------------------
- (3)
30 + 4 m
( 0.8 + f y /A )
h min l n ---------------------------------------------
- for 0.2 < < 2.0 (1)
36 + 5 ( fm 0.2 ) At discontinuous edges, an edge beam with a stiffness
ratio f > 0.8 must be provided or thickness of the panel with
a discontinuous edge must be increased by 10%.
Table 2Minimum thickness of non-prestressed For slabs with drop panels, the minimum thickness is
beams and one-way slabs unless deflections are given by Eq. (4), where hs is the slab thickness, hd is the total
computed (ACI 318-08 and CSA A23.3-04) depth of the drop panel, and xd is the distance from the face
Simply One end Both ends of the column to the edge of the drop panel.
supported continuous continuous Cantilever
Members not supporting or attached to partitions
Member or other construction likely to be damaged ( 0.6 + f y /B ) 2x d
by large deflection h min l n ---------------------------
- -------- ( h d h s ) (4)
30 ln
Solid one-way slabs ln /20 ln /24 ln /28 ln/10
Beams or ribbed ln/16 ln/18.5 ln /21 ln/8
one-way slabs where B = 1000 (SI units); B = 145,000 (U.S. customary
Note: For fy other than 60,000 psi (414 MPa), the values shall be multiplied by 0.4 + units); and fy is yield strength of tensile flexural reinforcement
fy /100,000 psi units (0.4 + fy /690 SI units). (MPa for SI and psi for U.S. units).

Table 3Minimum thickness of beams and one-way slabs used in roof and floor construction
(ACI Committee 435 1978)
Members not supporting, or not attached to, nonstructural Members supporting, or attached to, nonstructural elements
Member elements likely to be damaged by large deflections likely to be damaged by large deflections
Simply One end Both ends Simply One end Both ends
supported continuous continuous Cantilever supported continuous continuous Cantilever
Roof slab ln/22 ln/28 ln/35 ln/9 ln/14 ln/18 ln/22 ln/5.5
Floor slab and roof beam or ln/18 ln/23 ln/28 ln/7 ln/12 ln/15 ln/19 ln/5
ribbed roof slab
Floor beam or ribbed floor slab ln/14 ln/18 ln/21 ln/5.5 ln/10 ln/13 ln/16 ln/4

Table 4Minimum thickness of slabs without interior beams unless deflections are computed
(ACI 318-08)
Without drop panels With drop panels
Exterior panels Interior panels Exterior panels Interior panels
fy, MPa fy, psi Without edge beams With edge beams* Without edge beams With edge beams*
280 40,000 ln/33 ln/36 ln/36 ln/36 ln/40 ln/40
420 60,000 ln/30 ln/33 ln/33 ln/33 ln/36 ln/36
520 75,000 ln/28 ln/31 ln/31 ln/31 ln/34 ln/34
*Slabs with beams along exterior edges. The value of f for the edge beam shall not be less than 0.8.

454 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2011

Table 5Basic span/effective depth ratios for Table 6Modification factor for tension
beams (Table 3.9, BS 8110-97) reinforcement (Table 3.10, BS 8110-1997)
Basic span/effective depth ratio Steel service
stress Nondimensional moment Mu /bd2, MPa (psi)
Flanged beams
Support conditions Rectangular sections bw /b < 0.3 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.50 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00
MPa ksi (72) (109) (145) (218) (290) (435) (580) (725) (870)
Cantilever 7 5.6
100 14.5 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.86 1.63 1.36 1.19 1.08 1.01
Simply supported 20 16.0
150 21.8 2.00 2.00 1.98 1.69 1.49 1.26 1.11 1.01 0.94
Continuous 26 20.8
200 29.0 2.00 1.95 1.76 1.51 1.35 1.14 1.02 0.94 0.88
250 36.3 1.90 1.70 1.55 1.34 1.20 1.04 0.94 0.87 0.82
At discontinuous edges, an edge beam with a stiffness 300 41.8 1.60 1.44 1.33 1.16 1.06 0.93 0.85 0.80 0.76
ratio f > 0.8 must be provided or thickness of the panel with 307 44.5 1.56 1.41 1.30 1.14 1.04 0.93 0.85 0.80 0.76
a discontinuous edge must be increased by 10%.
The span/thickness provisions of ACI 318-08 and CSA Table 7Modification factor for compression
A23.3-04 do not address the sensitivity of slab deflections to reinforcement (Table 3.11, BS 8110-1997)
early-age construction loads, rate of construction, or Reinforcement ratio of
concrete strength. compression reinforcement 0.15 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.0 1.5 2.0 3.0 or
100As /bd greater

BS 8110-19976Code of Practice for Design
and Construction of Concrete Structures
The provisions of British Standard BS 8110-97,6 the
current evolution of the British Code of Practice CP 110-72
and BS 8110-85, were based on the work of Beeby.7
Between the 1985 standard and the 1997 standard, the steel
material partial safety factor m changed from 1.15 to 1.05.
The span/effective depth requirements for rectangular or
flanged beams are based on limiting the total deflection to
span/250. These span/effective depth ratios should normally
ensure that the part of the deflection occurring after
construction of finishes and partitions will be limited to
span/350 or 20 mm (0.8 in.), whichever is less, for spans up
to 10 m (34 ft). The basic ratios are given in Table 5.
The basic ratios are modified according to the ratios of
tension and compression reinforcement provided and the
service load steel stress at the center of the span (or at the
support in the case of a cantilever). These factors are listed
in Tables 6 and 7. The span/effective depth ratios take
account of normal shrinkage (< 750 106) and normal
creep (creep coefficient < 3).
Tables 5 and 6 can also be used for slabs using the reinforce-
ment ratio at midspan. The reinforcement ratio for a two-way
slab supported by walls or stiff beams should be based on the
shorter span and the reinforcement ratio in that direction and
the longer span for flat slabs.
Eurocode 2-048
Eurocode 28 requires the calculated deflection of a beam
or slab subjected to quasi-permanent loads should not exceed
span/250. A deflection (incremental) limit after construction
of span/500 is normally considered an appropriate limit to
avoid deflections that could damage adjacent parts of the
structure. The limiting span/depth may be estimated using
Eq. (5a) and (5b) modified by factors for boundary conditions
and type of reinforcement.
3/2
--l- K 11 + 1.5 f ck /A -----0 + 3.2 f ck /A -----0 1
d
l 0 1
--- K 11 + 1.5 f ck /A -------------
- + ------ f ck /A -----
d 12 0
where A = 1 MPa units (145 psi units), fck28 is the 28-day
characteristic concrete strength, l/d is the limiting span/
Factor to be applied 1.05 1.08 1.14 1.20 1.25 1.33 1.40 1.50
Table 8Basic ratios of span/effective depth
for reinforced concrete members
(Table 7.4N, Eurocode 2-04)
Steel ratio = Steel ratio =
Structural system K 1.5% 0.5%
Simply supported beam or two-way
simply supported slab
1.0 14 20
End span of continuous beam or one-way
continuous slab or two-way slab continuous 1.3 18 26
over one long side
Interior span of continuous beam or
1.5 20 30
two-way slab
Flat slab (based on longer span) 1.2 17 24
Cantilever 0.4 6 8
effective depth, K is the structural system factor (Table 8), is
the midspan tensile steel ratio, is the midspan compression
steel ratio, and o is the reference reinforcement ratio =
0.001(fck)1/2 (MPa units) [0.001(fck 145)1/2 (psi units)].
Equations (5a) and (5b) were derived assuming the midspan
steel stress at the serviceability limit state is 310 MPa (44,000 psi).
For flanged sections where the ratio of flange breadth to web
breadth exceeds 3, the values should be multiplied by 0.8. For
beams and slabs, other than flat slabs, with spans exceeding 7 m
(23 ft), which support partitions liable to be damaged by
excessive deflections, the l/d values should be multiplied by 7/l
(l in meters) or 23/l (l in feet). For flat slabs, with spans
exceeding 8.5 m (28 ft), which support partitions liable to be
damaged by excessive deflections, the l/d values should be
multiplied by 8.5/l (l in meters) or 28/l (l in feet).
Table 8 gives the limiting span/effective depth ratios for
beams spanning up to 7 m (23 ft) and flat slabs spanning up
to 8.5 m (28 ft) derived on the assumption that the steel stress
at midspan is 310 N/mm2 (44 ksi) and the concrete
characteristic strength is 30 MPa (4.4 ksi). For two-way
slabs, the calculation should be based on the shorter span and
if < 0 (5a) on the longer span for flat slabs. The limits for flat slabs
correspond to a less severe limitation than a midspan
deflection of span/250 relative to the columns.
if > 0 (5b)
AS 3600-2009 Australian Standard9concrete
structures
The serviceability requirements of the Australian Standard
AS 3600-20099 limit the total deflection to span/250 and the

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2011 455

incremental deflection to span/500 where a provision is made
to minimize the effect of movement; otherwise, span/1000.
Limiting, deemed-to-comply, span-depth ratios for beams
can be calculated from the following equation
l eff k 1 ( /L eff )b ef E c 1/3
------ ------------------------------------
- (6)
d k 2 F d.ef
where /leff is the total or incremental deflection limit, beff
is the effective width, D is the dead load, Ec is the modulus
of elasticity of concrete, and Fd.ef is the effective design
load/unit length.
a) (1.0 + kcs)D + (s + kcsl)L for total deflection
b) kcsD + (s + kcsl)L for incremental deflection
k1 = Ief /bef d3;
k2 = deflection constant 5/384, 2.4/384, and 1.5/384 for
simply supported, one end continuous, and interior
span, respectively;
kcs = [2 1.2As /As] > 0.8;
leff = effective span;
L = live load;
l = 0.25 for offices and domestic occupancy (0.5 to 0.8
for storage); and
s = 0.5 for offices (1.0 for storage).
A similar equation is given for deem-to-comply span-
depth ratios for one-way flat slabs and slabs supported on
four sides by walls or stiff beams.
l eff ( /L eff )1000E c 1/3
------ k 3 k 4 ------------------------------------- (7)
d F d.ef
where D is the dead load, Ec is the modulus of elasticity of
concrete, and Fd.ef is the effective design load/unit area.
a) (1.0 + kcs)D + (s + kcsl)L for total deflection
b) kcsD + (s + kcsl)L for incremental deflection
kcs = [2 1.2As /As] > 0.8;
k3 = 1.0 for a one-way slab;
= 0.95 for a two-way flat slab without drop panels;
= 1.05 for a two-way flat slab with drop panels;
k4 = deflection constant 1.4 for simply supported slabs,
1.75 for an end span, or 2.1 for an interior span;
L = live load; and
leff = effective span.
For two-way slabs supported by walls or stiff beams, k3 =
1.0 and k4 is given in a table as a function of boundary condition
and panel aspect ratio.
Gardner and Zhang10beams
Using a layered, nonlinear finite element program,
Gardner and Zhang10 determined the span thickness
requirements to satisfy a specified deflection limit in
terms of specified, or characteristic, concrete strength;
tension and compression steel ratios; and the ratio of the
sustained moment to the moment capacity of the beam. A
hybrid method was used to calculate the long-term behavior
using a reduced modulus to account for creep; a conventional
time-dependent load vector was used for shrinkage. The
positive reinforcement was reduced at the theoretical 50%
cutoff point. Characteristic concrete strengths of 20, 30,
and 40 MPa (2900, 4400, and 5800 psi) were considered. To
take advantage of the mean concrete strengths being larger
than the characteristic concrete strengths, the mean concrete
456
strengths were determined using fcm = fck + 8 MPa (fcm = fck +
1160 psi), implying shrinkage strains and creep coefficients of
700, 660, and 590 106; and 2.72, 2.51, and 2.37, respectively.
The span/thickness ratio requirements for simply
supported beams, satisfying the span/500 deflection criterion
under a service load/ultimate load ratio of 50%, are given in
Table 9. For the same service moment/design ultimate
moment ratio, the span-depth ratios for deflection limits
other than span/500, the limiting span-depth ratio is simply
multiplied by 500/required span deflection ratio, that is,
span-depth ratios for a span/250 deflection criterion can be
obtained by doubling the values for the span/500 deflection
criterion. The immediate deflection limit of span/375 was
not found to be critical.
Span-depth ratios for continuous beams may be obtained
by multiplying the values for simply supported beams, using
the positive moment steel ratio, by the following factors:
Support condition Factor
Simply supported: 1.0
One end continuous
discontinuous end unrestrained: 1.2
discontinuous end integral with support: 1.3
Both ends continuous: 1.4
Cantilever: 0.35
The modifying factors were determined assuming curvature
is proportional to the moment coefficients given in ACI 318-08,
Section 8.3.3, and CSA A23.3-04, Section 9.3.3.
The required span/thickness ratio for a specified deflection
limit decreases with an increase in tensile steel ratio, an
increase in service moment/ultimate moment, and decreases
with an increase in compression reinforcement and an
increase in concrete strength. Increasing the service moment,
as a fraction of the beam section design ultimate moment,
reduces the limiting span-depth ratio. As a first approximation,
the limiting span-depth ratio is inversely proportional to the
cube root of the ratio of the moment levels. Similarly, it can
be deduced that using a higher yield strength steel, which
will increase the concrete stress for a given service moment/
design ultimate moment ratio, will also result in smaller
permissible span-depth ratios.
Scanlon and Choi11one-way slabs
Scanlon and Choi11 proposed the following equation
based on an incremental deflection limit.
l inc 32E c b 1/3
---n --------
- ------------------------------------------
- (8)
h l n K ( W s + W L ( var ) )
where b is the width of beam; Ec is the modulus of elasticity
for concrete; WL(var) is the variable portion of live load; Ws
is the sustained load; is the ratio of Ieffective to Igross; is
the ACI 318 long-term deflection multiplier; and K is the
deflection coefficient = 5, 2, and 1.4 for simply supported,
one end continuous, and both ends continuous, respectively.
This expression requires an iterative procedure to determine
the minimum thickness.
Bischoff and Scanlon12beams and one-way slabs
Bischoff and Scanlon12 derived expressions to determine
limiting span/thickness ratios including the effects of
reinforcement ratio, shrinkage restraint, construction loads,
sustained live load, support conditions, and deflection limits.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2011
For rectangular section members, the following expression
was given. Bischoff13 has proposed an alternative formulation
to determine Ie that can be used in Eq. (9).
0.8E c ( I e, D + L /I g )
--l- -------------------------------------------------------
h 2
K ( / D + L ) ( d/h ) R n
where Ec is the modulus of elasticity for concrete; Ie,D+L is
the effective moment of inertia under full service load; Ie,sus
is the effective moment of inertia under sustained load; Ig is
the gross (uncracked) second moment of area; K is the end
restraint factor = 1, 0.85, and 0.8 for simply supported, one
end continuous, and both ends continuous, respectively; Mn
is the nominal moment capacity; Rn is the nominal flexural
resistance factor Mn/bd 2; D+L is the average load factor;
all is the permissible (allowable) deflection; is the ratio of
sustained load to full service load; is the ACI 318 long-
term deflection multiplier; = {1 + ( 1)(Ie,D+L/Ie,sus)];
and = 0.9 strength reduction factor.
Results from a comparative study showed that lightly
reinforced slabs or beams satisfying the ACI minimum
thickness requirement may not satisfy the l/240 incremental
deflection requirement.
Thompson and Scanlon5flat slabs
Thompson and Scanlon5 reported the results of a parametric
study of the effects of restraint cracking, concrete strength,
design live load, construction load, and panel aspect ratio on
the deflections of flat slabs. Deflections were calculated
using a plate-bending finite-element program with an effective
second moment of area to account for the reduced stiffness
due to cracking. It was observed that the calculated deflections
were sensitive to the assumed value of the modulus of
rupture. Thompson and Scanlon5 used serviceability criteria
of incremental deflection less than span/480 and total deflection
less than span/240. From their parametric study, Thompson
and Scanlon5 proposed a more conservative minimum
thickness requirement, for both interior and edge panels, for
the control of deflections of two-way slabs. The live load
deflection limit of span/360 was not found to be critical.
ln
h min -----
- k()
30
where k() = (1.20 0.20) > 0.9 and is the ratio of longer
clear span to shorter clear span.
Thompson and Scanlon5 also recommended that the
minimum slab thickness could be reduced by 10% for flat
slabs with drop panels whose thickness is greater than or
equal to 1.25 times the slab thickness, or by 20% if the
drop panel thickness is greater than 1.50 times the slab
thickness. Thompson and Scanlon5 did not investigate the
effect of age at which the construction load was applied
on the calculated deflections.
Ofosu-Asamoah and Gardner14flat slabs
The deflection serviceability of flat slabs is determined by
the loads imposed during the construction process (method
and rate of construction), taking account of the concrete
strength available when the construction loads are imposed,
and the expected sustained service load. The shore-reshore
procedure used to construct many reinforced concrete flat slab
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2011
structures leads to the imposition of large early-age construction
loads,15 typically of the same order of magnitude as the service
loads, on the partially cured supporting slabs. Consequently, it
is necessary that both the construction load and design load be
taken into account during the design phase of reinforced
all
-------- (9) concrete floor slab construction. The appropriate serviceability
l
criterion will depend on the location of the critical location,
midpanel, or column line, and can be immediate or incremental
deflection, slope, or curvature.
Assuming one level of forms and three levels of reshores
(1 + 3), the construction load is 1.25D (D is the self-weight
of the slab). Assuming the formwork weighs 0.1D and no
construction live load, the total unfactored construction load
is 1.35D.15 Slabs were loaded at 3, 4, 7, 14, and 28 days after
casting. At 28 days, the construction load was removed,
reducing the slab load to self-weight. Assuming the slab is
put to service at 28 days, it is subjected to its own self-weight
plus some fraction of the live load. The sustained load was
chosen to be self-weight plus 50% of the live load plus a
superimposed dead load of 0.1D. A layered finite element
program was used to study the effects of age of imposition of
construction loading (age of supporting slab when successive
slab is cast), span, panel aspect ratio, live load to dead load
ratio, and concrete strength on the deflection serviceability
of flat slab systems.15 It was determined that the age of
loading (age superimposed slab cast-construction cycle) and
span have significant effects on the slab thickness required to
satisfy serviceability.
The following equation summarizes the slab thicknesses
required to satisfy an exterior panel, interior column line
incremental (28 to 5000 days of sustained load) deflection of
clear span/240.
1.5 0.6 0.25
k 1 k 2 l n 38 1.4 + 1.7L/D-
h ---------
- ------ ---------- ------------------------------- ( 1.15 0.15 ) (11)
53.4 t 0.2 f cm28 2.25
o
where fck28 is the 28-day characteristic concrete strength,
MPa; fcm28 = fck28 + 8 = 28-day mean concrete strength,
MPa; h is the slab thickness, m; and ln is the longer clear
span, m.
1.5 0.6 0.25
k 1 k 2 l n 5500 1.4 + 1.7L/D
h ---------
- ------ ------------ -------------------------------- ( 1.15 0.15 ) (A11)
96.7 t 0.2 f cm28 2.25
(10) o
where fc28 is the 28-day specified concrete strength, psi;
+ 1160 = 28-day mean concrete strength, psi; h
fcm28 = fc28
is the slab thickness, ft; ln is the longer clear span, ft; is the
ratio of long clear span to short clear span; k1 = 0.9 for an
interior panel and 1.0 for edge and corner panels; k2 = 0.9 for
slabs with drop panels; to is the age at which the construction
load is applied to the slab; L is live load; and D is dead load.
The use of the code-recommended minimum drop panel
thickness of 1.25 times the slab thickness reduces the slab
thickness required to satisfy the serviceability criterion by
approximately 18%; hence, the ACI 318-08 recommendation
of a 10% reduction in slab thickness is conservative. For
interior panels, the thickness given by Eq. (11) can be
reduced by 10% as recommended by ACI 318-08.
DISCUSSION
The methods of determining limiting span-depth ratios fall
into two main categories: modified elastic beam
analysis9,11,12 and parametric studies using finite element
457
Table 9Proposed span/thickness requirements to satisfy span/500 incremental deflection limit*
M = 30% Mu M = 50% Mu M = 70% Mu
fck = 30 MPa 20 MPa 30 MPa 40 MPa 20 MPa 30 MPa 40 MPa
, % , % (4400 psi) (2900 psi) (4400 psi) (5800 psi) (2900 psi) (4400 psi) (5800 psi)
< 0.5 0 12.7 8.2 9.8 10.9 7.9 9.8 10.3
1.0 0 11.1 8.4 9.9 10.8 6.8 8.5 9.9
1.5 0 10.8 7.7 8.8 10.1 6.4 8.1 9.2
2.0 0 9.7 7.1 8.3 9.3 5.9 7.4 8.3
1.5 0.5 13.9 11.0 11.6 12.7 8.8 10.7 11.5
2.0 0.5 12.6 9.9 10.8 11.6 8.0 9.7 10.3
2.5 0.5 11.8 9.2 10.2 10.8 7.7 8.7 9.5
2.0 1.0 15.0 12.6 13.3 14.2 10.2 11.9 12.7
2.5 1.0 14.2 11.5 12.4 12.6 9.9 10.8 11.3
3.0 1.0 13.7 11.0 11.4 12.3 9.2 10.1 10.6
2.5 1.5 16.6 14.0 15.0 14.6 12.3 13.2 13.5
3.0 1.5 14.7 13.3 13.7 14.0 11.2 12.2 13.0
*For deflection limit of span/250, multiply values by 2.

analysis.5,6,10,14 All beam analyses use an effective moment Table 10Comparison of simple span beam span/
of inertia to approximate the extent of cracking. Finite thickness ratios: incremental deflection < span/250
element calculations can be done using an effective moment ACI CSA BS Eurocode Gardner
of inertia or using several layers through the thickness of the , % , % 318-08* A23.3 8110-97 2|| and Zhang#
member. Long-term deflections can be done using a simple, < 0.5 0 16 16 21.2 17 19.6
combined shrinkage and creep multiplier on the calculated 1 0 16 16 16.9 13.2 19.8
immediate deflection(s) or summing separate calculations 1.5 0 16 16 14.8 11.9 17.6
for the deflections caused by load effects with the deflection 2 0 16 16 13.5 11.3 16.6
due to shrinkage. 1.5 0.5 16 16 16.9 13.5 23.2
A single long-term deflection multiplier9,11,12 to take 2.5 0.5 16 16 14.3 11.6 20.4
account of both shrinkage and creep should include load 2.5 1 16 16 15.6 12.4 24.8
magnitude and reinforcement ratio. *Steel
yield stress 60,000 psi (414 MPa).
Steel
All results are consequences of the input data assumptions,
yield stress 400 MPa (58,000 psi).
Calculated assuming steel service load stress 250 MPa (36 ksi).
namely, magnitude of service loads (assumed applied at 28 days), Code provision written as span/effective depth-span/thickness calculated using d =
eff
concrete strength, reinforcement ratio, and, for flat slabs, the age 0.85h.
||
of imposition and magnitude of the construction loads. Calculated assuming steel service load stress 310 MPa (45 ksi).
#For M
sustained = 50% moment capacity and fck = 30 MPa (4350 psi) (from Table 9).
Obviously the deflections calculated for members
designed using thicknesses given by deemed-to-comply
provisions should satisfy the code-specified deflection Table 9 illustrates the dependence of the limiting span/
limitations. While the characteristic live loadlive load not thickness ratio on sustained moment/moment capacity ratio,
exceeded 95% of the timeshould be used for ultimate limit concrete strength, and flexural reinforcement.
state calculations, the experimental work of Choi16 indicated Table 10 compares the deem-to-comply span-thickness
that an average live load of 50% of the extreme (assumed ratios for simply-supported rectangular section beams for a
specified/characteristic) live load would be reasonable for deflection criterion of span/250. It is reassuring that all the
serviceability limit state calculations. The percentage is ratios are circa span/20. It must be noted that ACI, CSA, and
dependent on the load factors and the material/member under- Gardner and Zhang10 use span/thickness but BS 8110, AS
strength factors used in the ultimate limit state calculations. BS 3600, and Eurocode 2 use span to effective depth, which are
8110-976 states that when calculating deflections, the corrected to span/thickness using h = 1.18d in the table. Span
portion of the live load to be considered permanent should be to effective depth is appropriate for section strength calcula-
25 to 30% for office use but at least 75% for storage. AS tions but span to thickness is more appropriate for deflection
3600-20099 suggests that for deflection calculations, the serviceability. The proposals of AS 3600-09, Gardner and
characteristic live load can be multiplied by 0.6 for offices Zhang,10 and Bischoff and Scanlon12 formally accommo-
(1.0 for storage) for immediate deflections and 0.25 for long- date incremental deflection limits other than span/250. The
term deflections (0.5 to 0.8 for storage). The expected value provisions of ACI and CSA do not accommodate the effect
of compression reinforcement. The modifying factors for
of the concrete strength, not the lower-bound characteristic
boundary conditions other than simply supported, given in
concrete strength, can be used in deflection calculations. Table 11, are similar for all proposals.
There appears to be agreement that incremental deflection Table 12 compares the limiting span/thickness ratios for
after construction of partitions and finishes is more critical the interior panels of flat slabs. Only the provisions of Ofuso-
than immediate deflection.5,9,10 There is also general agree- Asamoah and Gardner14 take account of the construction
ment that the limiting incremental deflections are span/500 cycleage of first/construction loading. Ofuso-Asamoah and
for brittle partitions; otherwise, span/250. Gardner14 assumed a form-plus-three reshores construction

458 ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2011

Table 11Span/thickness factors for other than simple beams*
Maximum positive moment ACI-CSA BS 8110 AS 3600 Eurocode Gardner and Zhang
2
One end continuous wl n
-------- 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.2
discontinuous end unrestrained 11
2
One end continuous wl
other end integral with support --------n 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.3
14
2
wl
Both ends continuous --------n 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.4
16
2
wl
Cantilever --------n 0.5 0.35 0.4 0.4 0.35
2
*
Use midspan positive moment steel ratio from Table 9.

Table 12Comparison flat slab interior panel span/thickness ratios without drop panels
Span, m Span, ft ACI 318-08 CSA A23.3-04 BS 8110-97 AS 3600-09 Eurocode* O-A&G 7-day O-A&G 3-day
Live load: 50 lb/ft2 (2.4 kPa)
6.00 20 33 30 34 26.7 37 36.0 31.3

7.00 23 33 30 34 25.6 37 33.9 28.9
8.50 28 33 30 34|| 24.4|| 37|| 31.5 26.8
Live load: 100 lb/ft2 (4.8 kPa)
6.00 20 33 30 33.8 25.3 37 33.8 28.9
7.00 23 33 30 33.5 24.4 37 31.9 27.3
8.50 28 33 30 33.1|| 23.7|| 37|| 29.7 25.4
Edge panel thickness/interior panel thickness
10% +10% +20% +10% +10%
Drop panelsreduce slab thickness by 10%
*
assumed to be 0/2 (minimum positive moment steel).

Ofosu-Asamoah and Gardner14: fc = 4350 psi (fck = 30 MPa).

h assumed to be clear cover 20 mm + 10 mm bar diameter.
h assumed to be clear cover 20 mm + 15 mm bar diameter.
||
h assumed to be clear cover 20 mm + 20 mm bar diameter.

sequence. The provisions of AS 3600-099 and Ofuso-
Asamoah and Gardner14 (3-day construction cycle) are more
conservative than the other proposals.
All the provisions except ACI 318 and CSA A23.3 require
iteration to determine the limiting deem-to-satisfy span-
depth ratio either by calculating/assuming steel ratio or the
member self-weights. Tables 8, 9, 10, and 12, however, can
be used as design aids.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The live loads for which deflections should be calculated
should be clearly specified in the codes, taking note of the
difference between expected live load and extreme or
characteristic live load. For purposes of calculating the
incremental deflections, it is suggested that the service load
be calculated from the equation that follows, which is a
compromise between the provisions of BS 8110-97 and
AS 3600-2009.
service load = D + L
where = 0.4 for offices, apartments, etc.; and 0.8 for storage.
For beams and one-way slabs, the deemed-to-comply
minimum thicknesses given in Table 9 for incremental
deflection limit of span/500 can be adopted. For incremental
deflection limits other than span/500, at the same service
load moment/nominal section design ultimate moment ratio,
the limiting span-depth ratio is simply multiplied by 500/
required span-deflection ratio. As a first approximation, the
limiting span-depth ratio is inversely proportional to the
cube root of the ratio of the moment levels. Similarly it can
be deduced that using a higher-yield-strength steel, which
will increase the concrete stress for a given service moment/
design ultimate moment ratio, will also result in smaller
permissible span-depth ratios. For other than simple spans,
the modification factors suggested by Gardner and Zhang10
(Table 11) should be used. For flanged sections where the
ratio of flange breadth to web breadth exceeds 3, the values
should be multiplied by 0.8.
The deflection serviceability of flat slabs is determined by
the loads imposed during the construction process (method
and rate of construction), taking account of the concrete
strength available when the construction loads are imposed,
and the expected sustained service load. The appropriate
serviceability criterion will depend on the location of the critical

ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2011 459

location, midpanel, or column line, and can be immediate or
incremental deflection, slope, or curvature. The slab thick-
nesses required to satisfy an exterior panel, interior column
line incremental (28 to 5000 days sustained load) deflection
of clear span/240 can be calculated using Eq. (11). The interior
panels slab thicknesses should be calculated as 90% of the
exterior panel thicknesses.
REFERENCES
1. ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 2008, 473 pp.
2. CSA A23.3-04, Design of Concrete Structures for Buildings, Canadian
Standards Association, Rexdale, ON, Canada, 2004, 358 pp.
3. ACI Committee 435, Proposed Revisions by Committee 435 to ACI
Building Code and Commentary Provisions on Deflections, ACI JOURNAL,
Proceedings V. 75, No. 6, June 1978, pp. 229-238.
4. Grossman, J.S. Simplified Computations for Effective Moment of
Inertia Ie and Minimum Thickness to Avoid Deflection Computations,
ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 78, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1981, pp. 423-439.
5. Thompson, D. P., and Scanlon, A., Minimum Thickness Requirements
for Control of Two-Way Slab Deflections, ACI Structural Journal, V. 85,
No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1988, pp. 13-22.
6. BS 8110-1997, Structural Use of Concrete, Part 1: Code of Practice
for Design and Construction, British Standards Institute, London, UK,
1997, 117 pp.
460
7. Beeby, A. W., Modified Proposals for Controlling Deflections by
Means of Ratios of Span to Effective Depth, Technical Report 456
(Publication 42.456), Cement and Concrete Association, UK, 1971, 19 pp.
8. EC 2-1-1 (2004), Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures
Part 1.1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, Management Centre,
rue de Stassart, 36 B-1050, Brussels, EN 1992-1-1, 2004, 225 pp.
9. Australian Standard AS 3600-2009, Concrete Structures, Standards
Association of Australia, North Sydney, Dec. 2009, 208 pp.
10. Gardner, N. J., and Zhang, J., Controlling Deflection Serviceability
by Span/Depth Limits and Long-Term Deflection Multipliers for Reinforced
Concrete Beams, Recent Developments in Deflection Evaluation of
Concrete, SP-161, E. G. Nawy, ed., American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, MI, 1996, pp. 165-195.
11. Scanlon, A., and Choi, B.-S., Evaluation of ACI 318 Minimum
Thickness Requirements for One-Way Slabs, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 96, No. 4, July-Aug. 1999, pp. 616-621.
12. Bischoff, P. H., and Scanlon, A., Span-Depth Ratios for One-Way
Members Based on ACI 318 Deflection Limits, ACI Structural
Journal, V. 106, No. 5, Sept.-Oct. 2009, pp. 617-626.
13. Bischoff P. H., Re-evaluation of Deflection Prediction for Concrete
Beams Reinforced with Steel and Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Bars, Journal
of Structural Engineering, ASCE, V. 131, No. 5, pp. 752-767.
14. Ofosu-Asamoah, K., and Gardner, N. J., Flat Slab Thickness
Required to Satisfy Serviceability Including Early-Age Construction
Loads, ACI Structural Journal, V. 94, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1997, pp. 700-707.
15. Agarwal, R. K., and Gardner, N. J., Form and Shore Requirements
for Multi-Floor Flat Slab Buildings, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 71, No. 11,
Nov. 1974, pp. 559-569.
16. Choi, E. C. C., Live Load in Office BuildingsLifetime Maximum
and Influence of Room Use, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, V. 94, Issue 3, Aug. 1992, pp. 307-314.
ACI Structural Journal/July-August 2011