See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/364307322

Comparison Study for The Thermal Response of Concrete Slabs in UAE and
ETABS According to CEB-FIP 90 and ACI 224.3R

Article in Design Engineering · October 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 100

3 authors:

Ikhlass ibrahim Sydnaoui Roslli Noor Mohamed

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
7 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS 45 PUBLICATIONS 324 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Mariyana Aida Ab Kadir

Institution Noise and Vibration, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi …
85 PUBLICATIONS 325 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ikhlass ibrahim Sydnaoui on 11 October 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ISSN: 0011-9342
Design Engineering Issue: 5 | Pages: 901-910

Comparison Study for the Thermal Response

of Concrete Slabs in UAE and ETABS
According to CEB-FIP90 and ACI 224.3R
Ikhlass Sydnaoui, Dr. Roslli Bin Noor Mohamed, Dr. Mariyana Aida Binti Ab.Kadir

Abstract:
This paper analyses the field test results for three concrete slabs poured in UAE to define the thermal response
within the test period including the hourly environment temperature fluctuations and correlated lateral thermal
deformations. Time-dependent properties (TDP) and non-time dependent properties (NTDP) ETABS finite
element models are generated for all tested slabs according to CEB-FIP90 and ACI 224.3R codes respectively.
The results of these ETABS models are compared with the actual thermal response of the tested slabs to determine
the ideal method of both codes for predicting the thermal responses of concrete buildings in the UAE. The results
of these field tests confirm that the displacements of TDP ETABS models are close to the test results with a 0.05
mm difference for the large slab.

Keywords: sensors, long-term; time-dependent; life span.

I. INTRODUCTION
The variations in volume related to temperature fluctuation and ambient humidity should be considered in the
structural design of concrete buildings [1]. A significant amount of stresses is generated under environmental
thermal changes that may exceed the dead and live loads stresses [2]. The imposed deformations and stresses
under volume fluctuation are directly related to the length of buildings [3]. Contraction and expansion are
algebraic summations of the changes in concrete volume induced by temperature fluctuation and hydration heat of
cement [4; 5].

II. METHODOLOGY
The structural response of reinforced concrete structures to changes in concrete volume versus time is very
complex. CEB-FIP 90 proposed a model in 1990 for defining concrete creep and shrinkage that was later
upgraded in 1999 to take into account both high-strength and normal concrete [6]. CEB-FIP method is inserted in
the ETABS program to define time-dependent deformations in concrete buildings considering daily temperature
fluctuation, creep and shrinkage. While ACI Committee 224.3R [7] proposed another method as defined by the
National Academy of Science which considers the annual environmental temperature fluctuation to define the
maximum allowed slab length between expansion joints and correlated thermal deformations. Thermal
deformations imposed by both methods have different values which confuse the structural engineer about the most
appropriate method. Consequently, an experimental field test is conducted at three concrete slabs. The test period
is set to 216 days starting from June 25, 2019, to January 26, 2020. TDP and NTDP ETABS models will be
generated for the tested slabs in Abu Dhabi. The results of these models will be compared with the actual thermal
response of the tested slabs to determine the ideal method for predicting the thermal responses of concrete
buildings in the Arabic region.

[901]
 ISSN: 0011-9342
Design Engineering Issue: 5 | Pages: 901-910

A. Experimental work
The experimental work consists of three solid slabs, with 1000 mm width, 150 mm thickness and 1500, 2000 and
3000 mm lengths. Six thermal gauges are used in the tests. These thermal gauges are fixed at both edges of the slab
centreline parallel to slab length. The distance between the gauge center points and the slab edges is almost 200
mm as shown in Figure (1) for both gauges at the right (R) and left (L) sides of all slabs.

Figure 1. Location of the thermal gauges at the edges of slab centerline.

The used rebars mesh is 5T12/m with a yield strength of 460 N/mm2. The concrete cylinder compression strength
is 40 N/mm², the water-cement ratio is 0.4, the class of cement is normal without additives, the mass of used
concrete is 2400 kg/mᵌ, the Poisson’s ratio is 0.2 and the modulus of elasticity for concrete is 30000 N/mm². The
deformations and temperature fluctuations are registered hourly during the test period. Although one sensor at
each slab can sufficiently monitor the critical displacement at the slab edge, two sensors are installed at each slab
given that either of these sensors may be damaged during the pouring of concrete. Encardio rite EDS-21V-E
embedment type strain gauges with a 1 m cable and a range of 5000 macro strains are used as illustrated in Figure
(2). Each sensor comes with a 1 m standard cable and 4 wires in different colours (red, black, green and white) The
red and black wires are used to measure the frequency of deformations, whereas the green and white wires are
used to measure temperature. The gauge length is 150 mm.

Figure 2 Fixation of EDS-21V-E thermal gauge.

III. THE FIELD RESULTS FOR TESTED SLABS

Figures (3) and (4) show the fluctuation in environment temperature throughout the the test period. from June
20, 2019, to October 18, 2019 and from October 22, 2019 to January 30, 2020 respectively. The test was
conducted throughout 216 days which covered the summer and winter seasons to monitor the maximum
fluctuation in temperature

[902]
 ISSN: 0011-9342
Design Engineering Issue: 5 | Pages: 901-910

Figure 3 Temperature fluctuation during the test period from June 6, to October 18, 2019.

Figure 4 Temperature fluctuation in during the test period from October 22, 2019 to January 30, 2020.

These figures show that the changes of maximum and minimum daily temperatures are clear throughout the entire
test period. The daily temperature is high from 25 th to 27th June with the maximum value of 46.56C°, then it
reduces gradually reaching the minimum daily temperature of 28.1C° on first of July, the average temperatures
seem constant to 17th July for maximum (38C°) and minimum (33C°) daily values. A slight increment is observed
throughout the next three weeks for both values reaching 39C° and 35C° on 7th August. The maximum daily
temperature increases slightly to 40.68C° on August 20, 2019 while the average minimum daily temperature is
still 35C°. Both values decrease gradually reaching 29.8C° and 26.09C° on 9/11/2019. A sudden drop in minimum
daily temperature of 7 degrees is obvious on the 10 th of November 2019 to reach 21C°. The daily temperature
increases gradually within the next 10 days reaching 27.48C° and 23.09C° for both values respectively.
Temperature reduces clearly for the next four days to reach 20.6C° on 23/11/2019. Then maximum/minimum
daily temperatures increase throughout the next twenty days to reach 25.7 C° and 23.76 C°. A clear drop of those
values is shown in the next four days to reach 22.1 C° and 18.88 C° respectively, then the average daily
temperatures for those values seem almost constant to 7/1/2020 at 22 C° and 19 C°. They reduce in the next 10
days to16.97 C° and 14.02 C° which is the lowest monitored value on 16/1/2020. Then both daily max/min
temperatures increase gradually to reach 21.67C° and 20.79C° on 24/1/2020.

Thermal strains are measured in micro strains as per Equation (1).

Strain = (1)

The VWSG has a length of 150 mm. Thermal strains are measured in micro strains, with each strain having
1000000 micro strains. In this case, if the VWSG captures a maximum microstrain of 5000, then the maximum
displacement can be computed as
5000 = × 10⁶ (2)

From the above formula, the maximum displacement captured by the VWSGs 5000 x10⁻⁶x150is 0.75 mm

The first slabs results show that the maximum daily fluctuation (14.2°C) is recorded on January 16, 2020.
Following the approach of Martin and Acosta for daily temperature change [7], the maximum temperature
variance in the TDP models is computed by equation (3) considering daily temperature fluctuation and shrinkage
effects
T=0.67(T max-T min) +Ts (3)
=0.67(14.2) + Ts=9.5+Ts
Ts is for the shrinkage effects will be defined by ETABS as per the CEB-FIP code.

[903]
 ISSN: 0011-9342
Design Engineering Issue: 5 | Pages: 901-910

Meanwhile, following the approach of the National Academy of Sciences according to ACI Committee 224.3R
for NTDP ETABS models, the maximum temperature variance in these models will be computed using Equation
(4). The maximum temperature (44.5 °C) is registered on October 2nd, 2019, whereas the minimum temperature
(14.6 °C) is registered on December 22, 2019. Therefore,
ΔT=(44.5-14.6)=29.9 C° (4)

The second and third slabs measurements show that the maximum daily is observed on November 10th, 2019
with the variance of (7 C°). The maximum temperature variance in TDP models will be computed using Equation
(3)
= 0.67(7)+Ts= 4.6+Ts
Meanwhile, for NTDP models and following the approach of the National Academy of Sciences, the maximum
temperature variance will be the variance between both maximum and minimum temperature during the test
period. The maximum temperature considered in this study is (41.44 C°) observed on July 30, 2019 whereas the
minimum temperature (13.1 °C) is registered on January 16, 2020. Therefore,
ΔT=(41.44-13.1)=28.34 C° (5)

Overall, both temperature fluctuation for NTDP is close for all slabs, so 29 C° value will be inserted in ETABS.
Figures 5 and 6 show the registered thermal deformations of the third lonfest slab which are more than other slabs.

Figure 5 Registered deformations (in mm) of the third slab in Abu Dhabi from June 20, 2019 to October 18,2019

Figure 6 Registered deformations (in mm) of the third slab in Abu Dhabi from October 22, 2019 to January 30,2020.

The pouring took place in June under hot weather, the temperature at the commencement of the test is 41.87C°,
then the temperature reduces gradually reaching 29.92C° on July 30, 2019 at 10 am along with thermal
deformation (-180 x10⁻⁴), then the temperature increase to 38.36C° on July 4, 2019 at 6 pm, the corresponding
negative thermal deformation increases gradually to (-604.64 x10⁻⁴ mm) due to slab elongation. Then the values
of negative lateral deformations continue to increase to (-604.64 x10⁻⁴ mm) throughout August and September
along with the slight fluctuating of temperature nearby 36C°. A clear drop in temperature is observed on
September 21, 2019 at 8 am which decreases the thermal deformation to (-551.57 x10⁻⁴ mm) due to slab
contraction. A slight gradual increment is observed in negative thermal deformations from September to
November, due to the relatively low-temperature changes during these months in winter in addition to the
development of shrinkage.

[904]
 ISSN: 0011-9342
Design Engineering Issue: 5 | Pages: 901-910

Table (1) shows the statistical functions for the temperature and deformation measurements for each slab. Each
sensor has registered 5170 readings for hourly temperature and related deformations in addition to the maximum
and minimum temperatures. The temperature ranges for each slab represent the difference between the maximum
and minimum temperatures. The range of deformations also represents the variance between the largest and
lowest registered deformations. Given its length, the range of deformations at the third slab is greater than those at
the first and second slabs. The mean deformations are also calculated by dividing the total registered deformations
by the number of readings (5170). The standard deviations are calculated whilst considering the registered
deformations for all slabs. Standard deviation is an important statistical parameter that calculates the dispersion
between the test results and the mean value. The standard deviation for all slabs is approximately 0.106.

Table -1 Lateral deformations (in mm) and temperature fluctuation registered by the sensors
The Slab number First slab Second slab Third slab

Number of readings of temperature 5170 5170 5170

(each sensor) for the duration of 216 days
Number of readings for deformations (each sensor) 5170 5170 5170

Number of readings for macro strains (each sensor) 5170 5170 5170

Maximum temperature C⁰ 46.5 42.2 46.6

Minimum temperature C⁰ 14.7 13.1 14.02
Range of temperature 31.8 29.1 32.6
Mean temperature C⁰ 28.8 29.9 29.9
Temperature standard deviation C⁰ 6.5 7.28 6.89
Maximum deformation(mm) -0.00344 -0.00344 -0.00029
Minimum deformation(mm) -0.0539 -0.0539 -0.062
Range of deformations(mm) 0.0505 0.0505 0.0621
Mean of deformations(mm) -0.0360 -0.0416 -0.050
Deformation standard deviation 0.0107 0.0106 0.0106

IV. ETABS RESULTS FOR TESTED CONCRETE SLABS

Six Etabs models are generated to get the thermal response of the tested concrete slabs by finite element method,
two models for each slab according to NTDP and TDP of concrete throughout the test period (216 days). The
temperature fluctuation is 29 C° for NTDP models. The maximum daily temperature fluctuation is 7 C° for TDP
models °, while shrinkage effects are according to CEB-FIP code. Figures 5 to 7 show the thermal deformations at
the test location for all slabs as per the NTDP models

Figure 7 Thermal deformation UY(0.155mm) at the test location of the first slab per the NTDP ETABS model

[905]
 ISSN: 0011-9342
Design Engineering Issue: 5 | Pages: 901-910

Figure 8 Thermal deformation UY(0.230mm) at the test location of the second slab per the NTDP ETABS model

Figure 9 Thermal deformations UY(0.351mm) at the test location of the third slab per the NTDP ETABS
models.

The first, second and third slabs have thermal deformations of 0.155 mm, 0.23 mm and 0.351 mm, respectively,
thereby showing that NTDP thermal deformation increases along with slab length.

[906]
 ISSN: 0011-9342
Design Engineering Issue: 5 | Pages: 901-910

Figures 10 to 12 show the thermal deformations at the test location for all slabs per the TDP models including the
impact of shrinkage throughout the entire test period.

Figure IV10 Thermal deformation at the test location UY(0.034mm) of the first slab per the TDP ETABS models.

Figure IV11 Thermal deformation at the test location UY(0.042mm) of the second slab per the TDP ETABS
models

[907]
 ISSN: 0011-9342
Design Engineering Issue: 5 | Pages: 901-910

Figure IV12 Thermal deformation UY(0.069mm) at the test location of the third slab per the TDP ETABS models.

V. DISCUSSION
Table (2) presents the lateral thermal deformations at the center of each instrument. All thermal deformations are
computed by using TDP, NTDP finite element models and the registered field test results at right and left sensors.

Table 1Lateral deformations (in mm) from the test and Finite Element Models
Slab number and sensor side Lateral deformation (mm)
NTDP models TDP models Test sensors result

Slab 1 -right side 0.155 0.034 0.034

Slab 1 -left side 0.155 0.034 0.0242
Slab 2 -right side 0.230 0.042 0.036
Slab 2 -left side 0.230 0.042 0.0412
Slab 3 -right side 0.351 0.069 0.07
Slab 3 -left side 0.351 0.069 0.0036(sensor is damaged)

The third slab sensor at the right side is ignored in the analysis because its recorded temperatures are very different
from those recorded by the other sensors. Such difference may be explained by the possibility that this sensor was
damaged during the pouring of concrete. However, this risk was considered during the pouring of slabs, that is,
having only one sensor is assumed to be sufficient to monitor all slab deformations. Therefore, symmetrical
deformations are expected at each slab edge. The deformations reported by the NTDP ETABS models are five to
six times greater than those reported by the TDP models. The maximum temperature fluctuation of 29 C °for
NTDP imposed high thermal deformations than induced by the TDP method which considered the daily
temperature variation of 7 C° in addition to shrinkage effects. Consequently, the temperature imposed at TDP

[908]
 ISSN: 0011-9342
Design Engineering Issue: 5 | Pages: 901-910

method is lesser than proposed by the NTDP scenario, the effects of the combination between shrinkage and daily
temperature fluctuation of the TDP method is lesser than induced by maximum thermal fluctuation throughout the
test period according to the NTDP method which leads to this variance in thermal deformations within the test
period. The measurements of the TDP models are very close to those of the field test. Specifically, the
deformations of the first to third slabs as measured by sensors are 0.034, 0.0412 and 0.07 mm, respectively,
whereas the deformations measured by the TDP FEM model are 0.034, 0.042 and 0.069 mm. The ratio of the field
to TDP results varies from 85 to 100. The minor differences between these two sets of measurements can be
ignored in analysing complex phenomena and calculating thermal deformations

VI. CONCLUSIONS
For the three tested slabs, the TDP ETABS model has registered deformations that are very close to the sensor
readings (with the largest variance of 0.006 mm for the second slab). Meanwhile, the NTDP ETABS model has
obtained deformation measurements that are approximately five times larger than those of the sensors. In this
case, the NTDP method does not accurately represent the deformations recorded during the test period. Shrinkage
effects impose contraction of the slab dimensions with time, the reduction of environmental temperature increases
the contraction of slab size, whist the increment of environmental temperature accompanied with shrinkage
reduces the final displacement hence the temperature rise causes slab expansion. These effects are not considered
in the NTDP method which concentrates on the maximum fluctuation of temperature within the test period whilst
TDP considers the maximum daily fluctuation in addition to daily shrinkage progress. Overall, the displacements
reported by the TDP ETABS models are very close to the test results with minor differences. However, the
opposite is observed for the NTDP models. Therefore, the results obtained by using the method proposed by the
CEB-FIP code are consistent with those of the field tests. These findings all point towards TDP as the optimum
analysis method.

Acknowledgment
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of this research by UTM, Faculty Of Civil Engineering UTM.

References
1. Sujatha, B. and Kumar, A. (2016). ‘Effect of expansion joints on dynamic analysis of structure’, International
Journal of Science Engineering and Advance Technology, 4, pp 116-124.
2. Rabbani, S. Gupta, A. and Ahmed, I. (2020). ‘Requirements of expansion joint for temperature load for RCC
structures’, Earth and Environmental Science, 476, pp 1-8.
3. Aeng, Q.and Han, D. (2014). ‘A simplified concrete creep and shrinkage CEB-FIP99 Model in Long-span
Bridge Design’, Applied Mechanics and Materials, 638 (640), pp 1059- 1062.
4. Pan, Z. Li, B. and Lu, Z. (2013). ‘Re-evaluation of CEB-FIP 90 prediction models for creep and shrinkage with
experimental database’, Construction and Building Materials, 38, pp 1022-1030.
5. Varona, F., Baeza, F., Bru, D. and Ivorra, S. (2018). ‘Influence of high temperature on the mechanical
properties of hybrid fibre reinforced normal and high strength concrete’, Construction and Building Materials,
159, pp 73-82.
6. . CEB (Comite Euro-International du Beton) and FIP (Federation International de la Precontrainte). (1990).
“1990 CEB-FIP model code.
7. American Concrete Institution. (2001). ‘Committee 224.3R-95. Joints in concrete construction’, pp 1-43.

AUTHORS PROFILE

Ikhlass Sydnaoui: Preparing for PHD degree at UTM university in structural –civil
engineering
Master’s Degree in structural – building Engineering, (Structure Section), Alhosn University2015, GPA 3.97/4.
Bachelor’s Degree in structural/ civil Engineering, (structure Section), Damascus University, (1999)

[909]
 ISSN: 0011-9342
Design Engineering Issue: 5 | Pages: 901-910

A competent result-driven senior structural engineering professional with 20 years of experience, including 15
years international experience in the UAE in the Middle East, mainly in areas of managing, reviewing &
structural designing engineering for many projects constructed as per recognized American codes, British
standards and local authority’s requirements.

Dr. Roslli Bin Noor Mohamed | Right alert (DS52)

Second Vice-Chair of the School Chair Faculty of Engineering
School of Civil Engineering.
Department of Structure & Materials Faculty of Civil Engineering University of Technology Malaysia Skudai,
email [email protected]
Academic coordinator at post graduate (course work) with continuous following up with post graduate students.
Senior Lecturer, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia With different onferences and publications such as:
Shear strength of short recess precast dapped end beams made of steel fibre self-compacting concrete
RN Mohamed, KS Elliott
33rd Conference on Our World in Concrete & Structures, Singapore Concrete
The effects of inclined shear reinforcement in reinforced concrete beam, NF Zamri, RN Mohamed, NHA Khalid,
KY Chiat Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering 30 (1)

Dr. Mariyana Aida Ab Kadir is a Senior Lecturer at the Structure and Materials Department, Faculty
of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM). She is the Research Fellow at the
Institute of Noise and Vibration (INV) and Engineering
Earthquake Engineering Research (eSEER). After completing her secondary education at Mara Junior Science
Collage, she pursue her B.Eng in Civil Engineering at UTM with First Class Honours and Chancellor’s Award
in 2005. She was awarded with Erasmus Mundus Scholarship for M.Sc in Earthquake Engineering and
Seismology Engineering at two universities; University of Pavia, Italy and Université Joseph Fourier, Grenoble
France before completing a PhD at University of Edinburgh, Scotland United Kingdom in Structural Seismic
and Fire Engineering.

[910]

View publication stats