SEMINARS Sept.

2001

Advanced DesignTM for

Slab Deflections

Dr Paul Berry
Dr Mark Patrick

Centre for Construction Technology and Research

University of Western Sydney

The Centre for Construction Technology and Research at the University of

Western Sydney is progressively developing new design rules for OneSteel
Reinforcing’s Guide to Reinforced Concrete Design.
Top-tier design rules that meet the requirements for design by refined
calculation defined in AS 3600-2001 are being released under the trademark
of Advanced Design™. This presentation concerns rules being developed
for advanced design of reinforced-concrete slabs for vertical deflection. The
design rules are proprietary and should only be used when OneSteel
Reinforcing’s products are specified.

OneSteel Reinforcing OSR492

1
 Advanced Design™ for Slab Deflections

BETTER
CONTROL

The advanced design rules have been incorporated in a new software

package called 500PLUS-SDC, “SDC” standing for “slab deflection control”
which will be demonstrated during the presentation.
The new design rules and software will provide the user with better control
of deflections. It will be shown that more economical reinforced-concrete
slabs will result. The new rules are being developed from the results of new
research and tests being undertaken at the University of Western Sydney.

2
 Advanced Design™ for Slab Deflections

Overview
• AS 3600–2001 Design Tiers (One-Way Slabs)
• Section Analysis
– AS 3600–2001 Simplified Calculation
– Advanced DesignTM Options
– Comparisons
• Member Analysis
– AS 3600–2001 Simplified Calculation
– Advanced DesignTM Options
– Comparisons

This presentation will address the design of one-way slabs. Theories are also
being developed to predict the deflections of two-way slabs which will form
the basis of new design design rules to be released in the future.
The design tiers available in AS 3600-2001 will be briefly described. Slab
deflection design by “simplified calculation” will be briefly discussed and
used in comparisons with designs obtained using the rules for various
Advanced Design options presented.
The presentation consists of two main parts: section analysis when the
section properties of the slab must be determined; and member analysis
when load distribution and support conditions must also be considered and
the maximum deflections calculated.

3
AS 3600–2001 Design Tiers (One-Way Slabs)

Clause 9.3 Deflection of Slabs

• Cl. 9.3.2 Refined calculation
– shrinkage and creep
– loading history
– cracking and tension stiffening
• Cl. 9.3.3 Simplified calculation
– equivalent beam ⇒ Cl. 8.5.3 Beam deflection
• Cl. 9.3.4 Deemed to comply span-to-depth ratio
– very limited in application

Critical issues to consider when undertaking refined calculation of one-way

slabs are shrinkage and creep, loading history (e.g. when propping is
removed), and flexural cracking and tension stiffening. Attention will be
given to the calculation of short-term deflections in this presentation.
Simplified calculation of deflections of one-way slabs subjected to
uniformly distributed loads must be performed in accordance with Clause
9.3.3 of AS 3600-2001. This Clause refers to Clause 8.5.3 and the slab must
be treated as an equivalent beam.
Design of one-way slabs according to Clause 9.3.4 of AS 3600-2001 using
deemed to comply span-to-depth ratio is much more conservative than using
advanced design, and is also very limited in its application. Therefore it is
not discussed here.

4
 Section Analysis

Some significant changes have been made to AS 3600-1994 concerning the

calculation of short-term section properties. These changes are discussed
first.

5
 AS 3600–2001 Simplified Calculation
Cl. 8.5.3 Beam Deflection by Simplified Calculation
Cl. 8.5.3.1 Short-term deflection

• Ief by Branson’s Eqn, which includes Mcr3

• Mcr now reduced by shrinkage-induced
tensile stress, fcs , i.e. Mcr = Z (f’cf - fcs)
Therefore, Ief is reduced:
– Deflections may affect designs more
– Benefits of 500MPa steel are less apparent

The cracking moment Mcr has been redefined in Clause 8.5.3.1. It is now
necessary for designers to take account of shrinkage-induced tensile stresses
that develop in the concrete which is restrained by bonded reinforcement.
Consequently, M cr can reduce significantly, and therefore I ef. Deflections
may increase and deflections affect designs more. The benefits of the new
higher-strength 500 MPa reinforcing steel are less apparent if the design for
deflection influences the area of tensile steel.

6
 AS 3600–2001 Simplified Calculation
Approximation for Singly Reinforced Sections
• f cs 1. 5 p
= E s ε cs
1 + 50 p
Ast d
p=Ast /(bd)
• Basis:
– uncracked rectangular section
– long-term stiffness (n = 16.7)
– ε cs is long-term (free) shrinkage strain (at 30 years)
– 40% of ε cs has occurred at the time of cracking

This new equation for f cs is given in AS 3600-2001, but only applies to

rectangular sections such as a solid slab with a single layer of reinforcement.
It has been derived using elastic theory by making a number of simplifying
assumptions. Designers are not given advice about how to calculate f cs for
other more complex situations.

7
 AS 3600–2001 Simplified Calculation

Unreinforced
⇒ concrete
unrestrained
⇒ fcs =0

Bonded
reinforcement
- single layer
⇒ fcs >0

fcs = tensile stress at extreme fibre

This slide shows that bonded reinforcement placed asymmetrically in a solid

section gives rise to a tensile stress f cs which is a maximum at the extreme
fibre adjacent to the reinforcement. Ignoring the effect of external restraints,
curvature is also induced which causes “shrinkage warping” deflections.
However these are normally ignored in design.

8
 Effect of fcs
plarge
psmall
M*s
Mcr

AS 3600 - 1994

When designers used AS 3600-1994 they ignored the effect of shrinkage-

induced tension. It was clear that at the onset of cracking larger vertical
deflections would be predicted if the reinforcement ratio was reduced.

9
 Effect of fcs

plarge
psmall
M*s1

M*s2
Mcr (psmall)

Mcr (plarge ) AS 3600 - 2001

The situation is now less clear when using AS 3600-2001. Now the effect of
reducing the reinforcement ratio can cause larger or smaller deflections
depending on the value of the serviceability moment.

10
 Advanced DesignTM Options
Option S1
Same assumptions, but include effect of
compressive reinforcement
Option S2
Cross-section analysis
Option S3
Use consistent values of n and ε cs that
both correspond to time of cracking (and
don’t just assume 40% of ε cs occurs)

Three Advanced Design options S1, S2 and S3 for section analysis are
being developed. They are of increasing complexity to formulate (S1 being
the simplest improvement), but this will not concern the designer who will
be able to use 500PLUS-SDC.
Option S1 involves the beneficial effect of compressive reinforcement when
calculating f cs for a solid rectangular section. In fact, in the software the
formulation will be generalised such that the effect of an additional layer of
reinforcement (either in tension or compression prior to cracking) can be
determined. The same simplifying assumptions about the stiffness of the
concrete and the free strain of the concrete at the time of cracking, as were
made to derive the formula for fcs in AS 3600-2001, are used.
Option S2 is similar to Option S1 except that the sections can have a general
shape (e.g. voided slab) and multiple layers of reinforcement.
Option S3 involves a more accurate assessment of the stiffness and free
shrinkage strain of the concrete. The analysis of general sections will be
possible.

11
 Advanced DesignTM - Option S1

Include Effect of Compressive Reinforcement

• Can show that:

1.5 pst − 0.5 psc
f cs = E s ε cs
1 + 50 pst Asc
d
Ast
• Assumptions:
– same as AS 3600–2001 p st=Ast /(bd)

It can be seen that f cs is reduced by taking into account compressive

reinforcement.

12
 Advanced DesignTM - Option S1 .. /…

Single layer

Compression
steel
⇒ fcs reduced

This slide qualitatively shows that shrinkage warping and fcs are reduced by
reducing the asymmetry of the reinforcement layout.

13
 Advanced DesignTM - Option S2
Cross-Section Analysis

 1 1 ( y tr − y c )(D − y tr ) 
• fcs = − +  Ac E ef ε sh
 Ac Atr I tr 
where

Ac = the area of the concrete alone;

y c = the centroid of Ac ;

Atr = the transforme d area based on n ;

y tr = the centroid of Atr ;

Itr = the second moment of area of Atr ;

General geometries can be handled using this formula.

14
 Advanced DesignTM - Option S2 .. /…

…which, in keeping with AS 3600–2001

Simplified Calculation, gives rise to:

 1 1 ( y tr − y c )( D − y tr ) 
fcs = 0. 4  − +  Ac E ef ε cs
 Ac Atr I tr 

• Assumptions :
– same as AS 3600–2001 Simplified Calculation

15
 Advanced DesignTM - Option S3
Use Consistent Values of n and ε cs

• Short-term analysis
– ε sh
= ε sh (t), t = time at cracking
– section properties based on n = n (t)
– concrete modulus Eef = E s / n
– tensile strength of concrete

16
 Comparisons
Simply-supported slab, Q = 3 kPa, p sc = p st

2.50
Deflection / Gross I

2.00

1.50

1.00
AS 3600-2001 (Gross I)
AS 3600-2001 (Transformed I)
Advanced Design - Option S1
0.50
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

p st (%)

In this graph, the deflections have been divided by the corresponding

deflection calculated using I = Gross I =( bD3)/12.
The slab is simply-supported with a solid, rectangular section. There is
equal top and bottom steel such that psc= pst. The live load Q is assumed to
remain constant independent of the amount of reinforcement, which is not
entirely practical, but nevertheless the example serves to illustrate some
important features of the different approaches to calculate I ef. The value of
Ief was calculated using M*s at the mid-span cross-section in accordance
with Clause 8.5.3.1 of AS 3600-2001.
Results are shown for pst down to 0.002 which is enough to satisfy the
minimum bending strength requirement in Clause 8.1.4.1 of AS 3600-2001.
However, it may not be enough for flexural crack control (Clause 9.4.1) or
crack control for shrinkage and temperature effects (Clause 9.4.3).
The top line has been calculated ignoring the presence of the main
(longitudinal) reinforcing steel in the uncracked (gross) section. The effect
of shrinkage-induced tensile stress has been included which explains why
the line slopes upwards rather than downwards for smaller values of pst, i.e.
situation for M*s2 in Slide 10.
The middle line shows the significant benefit that can be gained if designers
take account of the main reinforcement in the uncracked state.
The bottom line shows the further benefit that arises from taking into
account the compressive reinforcement when calculating the second
moment of area of the gross section and f cs. In this case the theory predicts
that I ef is effectively independent of pst.

17
 Comparisons
Simply-supported slab, Q = 3 kPa, p sc = p st
1.00
Deflection / AS 3600-2001 (Gross I)

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50
AS 3600-2001 (Transformed I)
0.40 Advanced Design - Option S1

0.30
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

p st (%)

In this graph, the deflections have been divided by the corresponding

deflection determined by simplified calculation using AS 3600-2001 (Gross
I), which is shown as the top line in the previous slide. It shows that for
pst>0.005, reductions of about 15% and 30% respectively can be expected
by (a) taking into account the presence of the main steel when calculating I,
and (b) further including the effect of the compressive reinforcement when
calculating fcs and therefore M cr .

18
 Comparisons
Continuous slab, Q = 3 kPa, p sc = p st
2.00

1.50
Deflection / Gross I

1.00

0.50 AS 3600-2001 (Gross I)

AS 3600-2001 (Transformed I)
Advanced Design - Option S1
0.00
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

p st (%)

A similar example is given here for a continuous slab. The discontinuity at

0.5% reinforcement ratio is due to the new upper limit placed on the
effective second moment of area, Ie,max , of 0.6I for pst<0.005 in accordance
with Clause 8.5.3.1 of AS 3600-2001.

19
 Comparisons
Continuous slab, Q = 3 kPa, p sc = p st
1.00
Deflection / AS 3600-2001 (Gross I)

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50
AS 3600-2001 (Transformed I)

0.40 Advanced Design - Option S1

0.30
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

p st (%)

In this graph, once again the deflections have been divided by the
corresponding deflection determined by simplified calculation using AS
3600-2001 (Gross I), which is shown as the top line in the previous slide. It
shows that for pst>0.005, reductions of at least 10% and 20% respectively
can be expected by (a) taking into account the presence of the main steel
when calculating I, and (b) further including the effect of the compressive
reinforcement when calculating fcs and therefore Mcr.

20
 Member Analysis

Opportunities for improving member analysis are now considered.

21
 AS 3600–2001 Simplified Calculation
Cl. 8.5.3 Beam Deflection by Simplified Calculation
Cl. 8.5.3.1 Short-term deflection
• Approximate uniform Ief determined from
values at nominated cross-sections:
– Simply supported: equal to mid-span value
– Internal span: half mid-span plus quarter each support
– End span: half mid-span plus half continuous support

The rules for calculating the approximate uniform value of Ief for simply-
supported or continuous beams and one-way slabs, as given in Clause
8.5.3.1 of AS 3600-2001, are stated here.

22
 Advanced DesignTM Options

Option M1
Ief calculated using Branson’s modified
equation for individual cross-sections
with a term (Mcr/M*s)4 instead of (Mcr/M*s)3,
and integrated to obtain deflections
Option M2
Iterative procedure whereby moments
are recalculated using updated
stiffnesses

More general procedures that more accurately account for variations in the
effective second moment of area Ief along a slab span are needed. Two
options M1 and M2 are currently being investigated, option M1 being the
simpler which is therefore of primary interest to this presentation.
When using Option M1, the designer must ensure compatibility of end
slopes between adjacent spans by adjusting the end moments as necessary.

23
 Comparisons
Simply-supported slab, Q = 3 kPa, p sc = p st

2.50
Deflection / Gross I

2.00

1.50

AS 3600-2001 (Gross I)
1.00 AS 3600-2001 (Transformed I)
Advanced Design - Option S1
Advanced Design - Options S1 & M1
0.50
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

p st (%)

This graph is the same as that shown in Slide 17 except that the new bottom
line has been added which shows the benefit in using option M1 when
performing the member analysis.

24
 Comparisons
Simply-supported slab, Q = 3 kPa, p sc = p st
1.00
Deflection / AS 3600-2001 (Gross I)

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50 AS 3600-2001 (Transformed I)

Advanced Design - Option S1
0.40
Advanced Design - Options S1 & M1
0.30
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

p st (%)

In this graph, the deflections have been divided by the corresponding

deflection determined by simplified calculation using AS 3600-2001 (Gross
I), which is shown as the top line in the previous slide. It shows that for
pst>0.005, reductions of at least 35% can be expected using the advanced
design options S1 and M1 compared with the normal way simplified
calculations are performed in accordance with AS 3600-2001.

25
 Comparisons
Continuous slab, Q = 3 kPa, p sc = p st
2.00

1.50
Deflection / Gross I

1.00

AS 3600-2001 (Gross I)
0.50 AS 3600-2001 (Transformed I)
Advanced Design - Option S1
Advanced Design - Options S1 & M1
0.00
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

p st (%)

The discontinuity at 0.5% reinforcement ratio is due to the new upper limit
placed on the effective second moment of area, Ie,max , of 0.6I for pst<0.005
in accordance with Clause 8.5.3.1 of AS 3600-2001.
Since for option M1 the degree of cracking at each cross-section must be
evaluated taking into account shrinkage-induced tensile stress in the
concrete, it is proposed in this graph that it is not necessary to apply the 0.6I
restriction. (This issue is currently under investigation.) In any case, results
are shown for pst down to 0.002 which is enough to satisfy the minimum
bending strength requirement in Clause 8.1.4.1 of AS 3600-2001. However,
it may not be enough for flexural crack control (Clause 9.4.1) or crack
control for shrinkage and temperature effects (Clause 9.4.3), and the need
for the discontinuity becomes even less important.

26
 Comparisons
Continuous slab, Q = 3 kPa, p sc = p st
1.00
Deflection / AS 3600-2001 (Gross I)

0.90

0.80

0.70

0.60

0.50 AS 3600-2001 (Transformed I)

Advanced Design - Option S1
0.40
Advanced Design - Options S1 & M1
0.30
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

p st (%)

In this graph, once again the deflections have been divided by the
corresponding deflection determined by simplified calculation using AS
3600-2001 (Gross I), which is shown as the top line in the previous slide. It
shows that for pst>0.005, reductions of about 20-30% can be expected by
using options S1 and M1.

27
 Comparisons
Slab depth using Advanced Design™ – Options S1 & M1
1.00
Slab Depth / AS 3600-2001 (Gross I)

0.98

0.96

0.94

0.92

0.90

0.88 Simply-supported Slab

0.86 Continuous Slab

0.84
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

p st (%)

This graph has been produced to show the significant reduction in overall
slab depth that might be achieved by using advanced design options S1 and
M1. It can be seen that for pst>0.005, reductions of about 5% can be
expected. It can be shown that alternatively the span of the slabs studied
could be increased by 5%.

28
 Conclusions
• Advanced DesignTM
– Advanced DesignTM options can predict up to 30%
smaller one-way slab deflections than simplified
calculations to AS 3600–2001
• Implications
– 5% thinner or longer-spanning reinforced-concrete
slabs
– Effective utilization of 500 MPa reinforcing steels
– Economic viability of reinforced-concrete slabs
significantly improved
• Future
– Slabs with two-way action will also benefit

29
 Advanced Design™ for Slab Deflections

Software Demonstration
500PLUS-SDCTM

A trial version of the new software is included elsewhere on this CD.

30
Advanced Design™ for Slab Deflections

The

End

31