ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009 617

ACI Structural Journal, V. 106, No. 5, September-October 2009.

MS No. S-2008-104 received March 24, 2008, and reviewed under Institute publication
policies. Copyright 2009, 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 July-August 2010
ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by March 1, 2010.
ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL TECHNICAL PAPER
Span-depth ratio (l/ h) expressions are developed for steel-reinforced
concrete one-way slabs and beams to satisfy deflection control and
flexural strength requirements. The expressions are presented as
functions of reinforcement ratio and specified deflection-to-span limit.
A comparative study is performed to evaluate the effects of effective
moment of inertia, shrinkage restraint, construction loads,
sustained live load, long-time deflection multiplier, support
conditions, and deflection limits on the resulting span-depth ratios.
A comparison is also made with minimum thickness values
prescribed by ACI 318 that are a function of span and support
conditions only. Effects of various input parameters are considered
in examples involving a simply supported rectangular beam and an
interior span of a continuous one-way slab. The results of the study
indicate some of the limitations associated with the ACI 318
minimum thickness requirements.
Keywords: beams; concrete; deflection; slabs; span-depth ratio.
INTRODUCTION
Concrete structures are designed to satisfy strength
requirements and serviceability requirements related to
deflection and crack control. Many codes and standards such
as ACI 318-08 (ACI Committee 318 2008) and CSA A23.3
(2004) include provisions for deflection control by either
requiring a minimum member thickness based on a limiting
span-depth ratio (l/h) or ensuring that computed values of
deflection do not exceed permissible deflection limits under
specified service loads. Satisfying appropriate span-depth
ratios is the simplest approach to ensure the member has
sufficient stiffness to avoid deflection problems and implies
deflection limits are satisfied.
Minimum member thickness requirements using the span-
depth ratios specified in Table 9.5(a) of ACI 318 are
intended for nonprestressed beams and one-way slabs not
supporting or attached to partitions or other construction
likely to be damaged by large deflections. In other words, the
span-depth ratio limits can be used when damage to attached
nonstructural elements is not a concern. Deflection must be
calculated for members with a thickness less than the
minimum required value or when supporting nonstructural
elements that are likely to be damaged by large deflections.
Computed values of deflection, in this instance, are required
to satisfy the deflection limits specified in Table 9.5(b) of
ACI 318. These include limits for immediate deflection
under live load (l/180 for flat roofs and l/360 for floors) and
incremental deflection after installation of nonstructural
elements (l/480 when supporting nonstructural elements
susceptible to damage and l/240 when damage is not a
concern). Other deflection criteria may also need to be
considered depending on the intended use of the structure
(ACI Committee 435 1968) but are not considered in this
paper, although the proposed expressions can be easily
extended to cover other deflection control criteria.
Immediate deflection
i
is computed using a generalized
elastic equation
(1)
for a given span l. Deflection is calculated for the service
load moment M
a
at the critical section which is taken at the
support face for a cantilever and at midspan for simple and
continuous members. The restraint factor K is determined by
equating Eq. (1) with the elastic deflection equation
corresponding to the type of loading and support conditions
being considered. Appropriate values are given in Table 1 for
a member under uniform load w with different support
conditions. Effects of cracking and reinforcement on
member stiffness are taken into consideration with an effective
moment of inertia I
e
. The elastic modulus of normalweight
concrete E
c
= 57,000 psi (4730 MPa), where f
c
is
the specified compressive strength of concrete.
Additional long-term deflection
lt
from creep and
shrinkage is typically computed by taking a multiple of the
immediate deflection
i,sus
caused by the sustained load.
This gives
lt
=
i,sus
with = /(1 + 50) and = A
s
/bd
for a given amount of compression steel A
s
, width b of the

i
K
5
48
----- -
M
a
l
2
E
c
I
e
----------- =
f
c
f
c

Title no. 106-S57

Span-Depth Ratios for One-Way Members Based on
ACI 318 Deflection Limits
by Peter H. Bischoff and Andrew Scanlon
Table 1Restraint factor K and moment M
a
at
critical section for different support conditions
(uniformly distributed load)
Member type K
*
C = M
a
/M
o
Cantilever (fixed end)

2.4 4.0
Simple span 1.0 1.0
One end continuous with discontinuous end
unrestrained (K = 1.20 0.20M
o
/M
m
)

0.925 0.73
One end continuous with discontinuous end integral
with the end support (K = 1.20 0.20M
o
/M
m
)

0.8 to 0.85 0.5 to 0.57

Fixed-hinged (midspan value) 0.80 0.5
Both ends continuous (K = 1.20 0.20M
o
/M
m
)

0.7 to 0.8 0.4 to 0.5

Fixed-fixed 0.60 0.33
*
= K(5/48)M
a
l
2
/E
c
I
e
.

Deflection from rotation at support of cantilever must be included.

M
o
= wl
2
/8 and M
m
is midspan moment for continuous member. M
a
is midspan moment
M
m
except for cantilevers where it is moment at support face.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009 618
member, and effective depth d of the tension steel. Values of
the time-dependent factor prescribed by ACI 318 are 1.0,
1.2, 1.4, and 2.0 for 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 5 years
or more, respectively. The deflection multiplier has a
maximum value of 2.0 for the worst case (assuming no
compression steel) when loads are sustained over a period of
5 years or more.
This paper uses ACI-prescribed deflection limits to evaluate
maximum span-depth ratios for one-way flexural members
and compares these to the ACI 318 minimum thickness
values. Requirements for incremental deflection
incr
,
which occurs after attachment of the nonstructural
elements, typically govern such that

incr
=
lt
+
i,L(add)
l/240 or l/480 (2)
where
lt
is the long-term deflection under sustained loads
that occurs after installation of the nonstructural elements
and
i,L(add)
equals the immediate deflection from the
remaining live load that is not part of the sustained load. In
other words,
i,L(add)
=
i,D+L

i,D+L(sus)
. When used in
conjunction with Eq. (1), Eq. (2) can be rearranged to give
span-depth ratios as a function of the reinforcing ratio for a
given deflection limit (l/240 or l/480). Comparison is made for
rectangular and T-shaped sections as outlined later in the paper.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Design of reinforced concrete structures requires evaluation
of serviceability conditions related to deflection which is
controlled by either choosing a member that meets minimum
thickness requirements or limiting computed values of
deflection to some fraction of the member span. Maximum
span-depth ratios (l/h) are developed using the incremental
deflection limits given in ACI 318 and compared to the ACI
minimum thickness values for one-way members. Results
show that, for the most part, members satisfying the ACI
minimum thickness requirements do not necessarily satisfy
the deflection limits prescribed by the ACI 318 Building Code.
EFFECTIVE MOMENT OF INERTIA
Cracking is taken into consideration using an effective
moment of inertia I
e
that accounts for nonlinear behavior
arising from a gradual reduction in flexural stiffness as the
member cracks and loses tension stiffening under increasing
load. Branson (1965) introduced the concept of an effective
moment of inertia using the following expression to model
the transition from a gross (uncracked) moment of inertia I
g
to the cracked transformed moment of inertia I
cr
.
(3) I
e
M
cr
M
a
---------


3
I
g
1
M
cr
M
a
---------


3

I
cr
I
g
+ =
where I
e
is computed for the service load moment M
a
at the
critical section, and the cracking moment M
cr
(relative to the
applied moment M
a
) controls the amount of tension stiff-
ening in the member response. Equation (3) was adopted by
ACI 318 in 1971 and continues to be used for calculating
deflection with the exception of slender (tilt-up) wall panels
(ACI Committee 318 2008).
Bransons equation works well for moderately to heavily
reinforced members with a steel reinforcing ratio greater
than approximately 1%, but consistently overestimates
member stiffness for lightly reinforced members and fiber-
reinforced polymer (FRP) reinforced concrete members
(Bischoff 2007; Bischoff and Scanlon 2007). Hence, deflection
is underestimated as a consequence. An alternative expression
proposed by Bischoff (2005) for use in ACI 318 is given by
Eq. (4) and used in this paper to evaluate the span-depth
relationship limits, as this expression works equally well for
steel- and FRP-reinforced concrete members over a wide
range of reinforcing ratio.
(4)
SUPPORT CONDITIONS
End restraint conditions at the supports are taken into
account with the restraint factor K used in Eq. (1) to compute
elastic deflection. Values given in Table 1 are based on the
deflection equation corresponding to uniform loading for the
support conditions indicated. For a continuous member with
either one or both ends continuous, the restraint factor
depends on the assumed value of the end support moments
and does not account for redistribution of moments as the
members crack. Table 1 also gives the moment M
a
at the critical
section expressed as a ratio of the total static moment M
o
= wl
2
/8,
and is directly related to the restraint factor K = 1.2 0.2/C
(except for cantilevers) given that C = M
a
/M
o
.
For a member with both ends continuous, the value of K is
assumed to vary from 0.8 using the ACI moment coefficient for
an interior span (based on a positive midspan moment M
m
of
wl
2
/16 or 0.5M
o
) down to 0.7 using Rangans (1982)
assumption that the average moment at the end supports equals
0.6M
o
. For a member with one end continuous, the value of K
varies from 0.85 using the ACI moment coefficient for an end
span with the discontinuous end integral with the support (based
on a positive midspan moment M
m
of wl
2
/14 or 0.57M
o
) down
to 0.8 using Rangans assumption that M
m
equals 0.5M
o
. A
member with the discontinuous end unrestrained (M
m
=
wl
2
/11 = 0.73M
o
) gives a value of 0.925 for K.
Equation (1) implies that deflection of continuous
members depends on the stiffness of member at the critical
midspan section with no consideration given to the stiffness
at the end supports (unless a weighted average is taken of
stiffness at the midspan and end supports). Using the stiffness
at midspan alone gives reasonable results and, in most practical
cases, gives a better approximation than deflection computed
with a weighted average of member stiffness (Bischoff 2007).
SHRINKAGE RESTRAINT CRACKING
AND CONSTRUCTION LOADS
Restraint to shrinkage induces tensile stresses in the
concrete that decrease the cracking moment and reduce the
flexural stiffness of the member. Recent work by Scanlon
and Bischoff (2008) suggests using Eq. (4) for I
e
along with
I
e
I
cr
1 M
cr
M
a
( )
2

---------------------------------------- I
g
with 1 I
cr
I
g
= =
Peter H. Bischoff, FACI, is a Professor in the Civil Engineering Department at the
University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NB, Canada. He is a member of ACI
Committees 224, Cracking; 360, Design of Slabs on Ground; 435, Deflection of
Concrete Building Structures; 544, Fiber Reinforced Concrete; and Joint ACI-ASCE
Committee 408, Development and Splicing of Deformed Bars. His research interests
include serviceability behavior of concrete structures.
Andrew Scanlon, FACI, is a Professor of civil engineering at the Pennsylvania State
University, University Park, PA. He is Chair of ACI Committee 435, Deflection of
Concrete Building Structures, and is a member of ACI Committees 224, Cracking; 342,
Evaluation of Concrete Bridges and Bridge Elements; and 348, Structural Safety; and
His research interests include safety and serviceability of concrete structures.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009 619
a reduced cracking moment equal to two-thirds the value of
M
cr
computed with the rupture modulus f
r
= 7.5 psi
(0.62 MPa) prescribed by ACI 318-08 and this corre-
sponds to a reduced rupture modulus f
r
= 5 psi
(0.42 MPa). Decreasing the cracking moment has a
significant effect on computed values of deflection for
lightly reinforced members such as slabs, while deflection of
moderately to more heavily reinforced members is not
greatly affected at full service load because the effective
moment of inertia I
e
is closely approximated by I
cr
at these
load levels (Scanlon and Bischoff 2008).
Long-term deflections computed with the long-term multiplier
usually depend on calculation of the immediate deflection
under sustained load using an effective moment of inertia
I
e,sus
corresponding to the sustained load moment only.
Preloading from construction loads prior to installation of
the nonstructural elements often causes additional cracking
that reduces the member stiffness and increases deflection
arising from the sustained portion of loading. Scanlon and
Bischoff (2008) recommend computing the immediate
deflection under sustained loads with an effective moment of
inertia (I
e,D+L
) corresponding to the full (dead plus live)
service load moment to account for the reduced stiffness;
this simplifies the calculation procedure considerably.
SPAN-DEPTH RATIO RELATIONSHIP
Relationships for the span-depth ratio developed in this
paper depend on deflection limits for incremental deflection
and allow for a portion of the live load to be sustained. A
general expression for the limiting span-depth ratio (l/h) is
obtained by equating the incremental deflection from Eq. (2) to
a deflection limit
all
.
(5)
Full details of the derivation and explanation of variables are
found in the Appendix. This expression is subsequently
simplified for a rectangular section to give
(6)
where the factor = [1 + ( 1)(I
e,D+L
/I
e,sus
)] accounts for
long-term effects with the deflection multiplier , the ratio
of sustained load to full service load, and the difference
between the member stiffness at a sustained and full service
load when preloading is not taken into account. Setting
I
e,D+L
/I
e,sus
= 1 takes account of preloading from construction
loads such that M
sus
+ M
L,add
= M
D+L
. Using a reduced
cracking moment 0.67M
cr
to account for shrinkage restraint
has the effect of decreasing the effective moment of inertia I
e
.
The strength reduction factor for flexure is taken equal
to 0.9 for tension-controlled sections, and
D+L
is an aver-
aged load factor depending on the ratio of dead to live load.
The flexural resistance factor R
n
= M
n
/bd
2
= f
s
[1 f
s
/
(2
1
f
c
)] for a rectangular section with bar stress f
s
= f
y
when
the section is under-reinforced,
1
is a rectangular stress
block factor equal to 0.85, and I
e
/I
g
= (M
cr
/M
a
)
3
+ [1
(M
cr
/M
a
)
3
](I
cr
/I
g
) using Bransons (1965) Eq. (3) or (I
cr
/I
g
)/
[1 (M
cr
/M
a
)
2
] using Bischoffs (2005) Eq. (4). The
f
c

f
c

f
c

f
c

l
h
---
E
c
d h ( ) I
e D L + ,
I
g
( ) I
g
bd
3
( )
K 5 48 ( )
D L +
( )R
n
------------------------------------------------------------------------

all
l
--------
l
h
---
0.8E
c
I
e D L + ,
I
g
( )
K
D L +
( ) d h ( )
2
Rn
-----------------------------------------------------------

all
l
--------
cracked-to-gross stiffness ratio I
cr
/I
g
= 12(d/h)
3
[k
3
cr
/3 + n(1
k
cr
)
2
] for a rectangular section with k
cr
=
n, = A
s
/bd, and n = E
s
/E
c
.
The incremental deflection limit
all
/l is equal to either 1/480
or 1/240 depending on whether or not the nonstructural
elements are likely to be damaged by large deflections.
Equations (5) and (6) essentially express the span-depth
limit needed for deflection control as a function of the
reinforcing ratio needed to satisfy strength requirements
at the critical section and take implicit account of the loading
magnitude w.
STRENGTH-CONTROLLED LIMIT
Given that the moment at the critical section M
a
= (/
D+L
)M
n
,
M
n
= R
n
bd
2
, M
o
= w l
2
/8, and M
a
= CM
o
(refer to Table 1)
leads to the following expressions relating the l/h needed for
strength control
(7)
for a slab strip with width b subjected to a uniformly distributed
load w, and
(8)
for beams with a d/b aspect ratio and distributed load-to-span
length ratio w/l.
ALLOWABLE SPAN-DEPTH RATIOS
Figure 1 shows a typical plot of the maximum span-depth
ratio (l/h) for deflection control (Eq. (6)) together with plots
of the limiting l/h controlled by strength for slabs (Eq. (7))
and beams (Eq. (8)). Intersection of the deflection and
strength-controlled curves defines the l/h requirement for a
flexural member, with the location of the intersection point
depending on the loading conditions and aspect ratio of the
member cross section. Loading for the slabs ranges between
100 lb/ft
2
(4.8 kPa) for Slab S1 (corresponding to a 4 in.
[100 mm] thick slab with a live load of 50 lb/ft
2
[2.4 kPa]),
200 lb/ft
2
(9.6 kPa) for Slab S2, and 500 lb/ft
2
(24 kPa) for
Slab S3 (representing a much heavier 2 ft [600 mm] thick slab
with a 200 lb/ft
2
[9.6 kPa] live load). Different combinations
( )
2
2 +
l
h
---
8
D L +
( )R
n
d h ( )
2
C w b ( )
----------------------------------------------------- =
l
h
---
8
D L +
( )R
n
d h ( )
3
C d b ( ) w l ( )
----------------------------------------------------- 3 =
Fig. 1Typical span-depth ratios (l/h) for slabs and beams.
620 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009
of slab thickness and live load are possible for each slab
loading case that depends, of course, on the member span.
Beam B1 has an assumed d/b aspect ratio of 1.0 for the
member cross section and w/l equal to 75 lb/ft
2
(3.6 kPa), while
Beam B2 has a higher aspect ratio of 2.0 and a larger w/l
of 300 lb/ft
2
(14.4 kPa).
The maximum l/h limit drops as the reinforcing ratio
increases (particularly for lightly reinforced members typical
of slabs) and is heavily dependent on the proportion of
sustained loading. The l/h limit for slabs is greater than that
for beams as expected. The l/h limit for deflection given by
Eq. (6) may also not govern under certain conditions for
beams with high d/b and w/l ratios and, in this instance, the
member thickness is controlled by strength requirements
only as observed for Beam B2 in Fig. 1.
The solution to the l/h expression given by Eq. (6) is iter-
ative (depending on , which is unknown until the member
thickness h is chosen). While not suitable for design because of
its complexity, the developed expression is useful for
understanding the effect of parameters such as , I
e
, and
M
cr
; preloading from construction loads; dead-to-live load
ratio; f
c
; and f
y
, on the required member thickness needed to
satisfy deflection requirements.
Similar types of formulation have expressed the span-
depth ratio as a function of the distributed load w (Rangan
1982; Gilbert 1985; Scanlon and Choi 1999; Scanlon and
Lee 2006). This approach can be expressed as
(9)
l
h
---
6.4E
c
b I
e D L + ,
I
g
( )
KCw
----------------------------------------------

all
l
-------- 3
with C = M
a
/M
o
(Table 1) and w = w
sus
+ w
L,add
when
I
e,D+L
/I
e,sus
= 1. This version of the expression also depends
on the reinforcing ratio unless simplifying assumptions are
made to express I
e
as a fixed ratio of I
g
(see, for example,
Scanlon and Choi 1999). Equation (9) works well for slabs
as dependence on the width b of the member is accommodated
by using a slab strip of unit width, and the equation is easily
rearranged to give an expression more appropriate for beams
with a specific d/b aspect ratio for the member cross section.
(10)
COMPARATIVE STUDY
A comparative study is performed to demonstrate the
sensitivity of calculated l/h values to various parameters as
discussed in this section. The general trend is shown in Fig. 1
as discussed previously. In the results presented further in the
paper, the l/h limit is plotted against the reinforcing ratio
for a rectangular section using 4000 psi (27.6 MPa) concrete
and Grade 60 (414 MPa) reinforcing steel. All members are
assumed to have an effective depth-to-height ratio (d/h) of
0.85. Unless otherwise noted, comparisons are made for a
simply supported member with dead-to-live load ratio
ranging from 0.5 to 2.0, and are based on the l/240 incre-
mental deflection requirement using a long-term deflection
multiplier of 2.0. Calculations, for the most part, use
Bischoffs expression for I
e
(Eq. (4)), take account of
preload from construction loads, and use two-thirds of M
cr
.
The effect of concrete strength, steel grade, support condi-
tions, and use of T-shaped sections is also considered.
Effective moment of inertia
Figure 2 compares the l/h limit for deflection computed with
both Bransons (Eq. (3)) and Bischoffs (Eq. (4)) expressions
for I
e
. Results are presented for a simply supported member
with a deflection limit of l/240. Calculation of incremental
deflection, in this instance, is based on the full cracking
moment M
cr
with no account taken of preloading. Member
thickness is heavily dependent on the proportion of sustained
loading characterized by the dead-to-live load ratio (D/L),
and differences between the two approaches are evident for
lightly reinforced members with a reinforcing ratio less than
approximately 0.85%, as expected (Bischoff and Scanlon
2007). At higher reinforcing ratios, the effective moment of
inertia I
e
quickly approaches I
cr
using either approach.
Deflection requirements are satisfied for most slabs using
the ACI minimum thickness value (with the exception of
heavily loaded slabs having a dead-to-live load ratio [D/L] of
2.0) but not for beams. Span-depth ratio requirements for
beams need to be as low as 9 depending on the loading
conditions and are even more severe as the incremental
deflection limit decreases from l/240 to l/480.
Shrinkage restraint and construction loads
Figure 3 shows that preloading from construction loads
and use of a lower cracking moment to account for shrinkage
restraint have a significant effect on computed values of
deflection and corresponding l/h limit for reinforcing ratios
less than approximately 1%. Deflection of slabs using the
ACI l/h limit of 20 is only satisfied in this instance for slabs
with a service load less than approximately 200 lb/ft
2
(9.6 kPa)
when the D/L equals 2. The l/h limit for more heavily rein-
l
h
---
6.4E
c
I
e D L + ,
I
g
( ) d h ( )
KC w l ( ) d b ( )
----------------------------------------------------------

all
l
-------- 4
Fig. 2Comparison of l/h limits at full M
cr
and no preload.
Fig. 3Effect of construction loads and reduced cracking
moment.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009 621
forced beams is controlled by I
cr
and remains at 9 (D/L = 2)
and 13 (D/L = 0.5) compared to the present requirement of 16
for beams.
Sustained live load
Figure 4 shows the effect of having part of the live load
sustained. Increasing the sustained load increases incremental
deflection and leads to a decrease in the l/h limit with a
subsequent increase in the minimum member thickness
when deflection governs.
Long-term deflection multiplier
Figure 5 shows the effect of first adding compression steel
and then installing partitions 3 months after removal of the
shoring. Adding 1% compression steel decreases the long-
term deflection multiplier to give = /(1 + 50 ) = 2.0/(1 +
50 0.01) = 1.33 when partitions are installed immediately
upon removal of the shoring, while a 3-month delay in installation
of the partitions gives = (2.0 1.0)/(1 + 50 0.01) = 0.67 to
allow for long-term deflection that occurs during the first
3 months before the partitions are installed. None of the
live load is assumed to be sustained in this example. In both
cases, the addition of compression steel and delay in installation
of the partitions increases the l/h limit needed to satisfy ACI
incremental deflection requirements. Even though changes
to the l/h limit can be significant, beams using the existing
ACI minimum thickness values still do not satisfy deflection
requirements in many cases except when the deflection
multiplier = 0.67.
Concrete strength and f
y
Figures 6 and 7 indicate that flexural members with lower-
strength concrete and higher-strength steel require greater
minimum thickness values as expected (with a larger influence
for lower D/L ratios). While the l/h limit for the lower, 4 ksi
(27.6 MPa) strength concrete, is less than the 10 ksi (69 MPa)
concrete at reinforcing ratios up to approximately 2%, the
limit for the 10 ksi (69 MPa) concrete eventually drops off to
a value lower than the 4 ksi (27.6 MPa) concrete at higher
reinforcing ratios. Recent work by Tang and Lubell (2008)
provides more detailed information on the effect of reinforcing
grade on deflection and minimum thickness requirements
for slabs.
Fig. 4Effect of sustained live load.
Fig. 5 Effect of compression steel ( =1.33) and delay in
partition installation ( = 0.67) for: (a) D/L = 2.0; and (b)
D/L = 0.5.
Fig. 6Effect of concrete strength.
Fig. 7Effect of steel reinforcing grade.
622 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009
T-shaped sections
Figure 8 plots l/h requirements for T-shaped sections with
the reinforcing ratio expressed relative to the web width
(
w
= A
s
/b
w
d). Although the minimum thickness required
to satisfy the incremental deflection limit decreases as the
flange to web width (b
f
/b
w
) increases, incremental deflection
requirements are still not satisfied using ACI 318 minimum
thickness values for beams (with = 2.0).
l/240 versus l/480
Figure 9 shows the effect of decreasing the allowable
value of incremental deflection from l/240 down to l/480
when damage to attached nonstructural elements needs to be
considered. Minimum thickness requirements can double
with a corresponding 50% decrease in the l/h limit. For the
simply supported case shown, heavily reinforced beams
would require an l/h of 4.5 (D/L = 2) and 6 (D/L = 0.5),
whereas the l/h for slabs can be as low as 12.5.
Deflection requirements, however, are not as severe as
they first appear in Fig. 9 because any required increase in
member thickness is accompanied by a decrease in reinforcing
ratio needed to maintain the same member capacity, and this, in
turn, has the effect of increasing the limit for the l/h. Hence,
the increase in member thickness will most often be less than
twice the value required to satisfy the l/240 deflection limit
(particularly for lightly reinforced members such as slabs
where the l/h limit changes rapidly with reinforcing ratio)
and this is demonstrated in deflection examples presented
later in the paper. Changes in member thickness also have a
significant effect on the magnitude of service load for slabs
where the self-weight comprises a significant portion of
the loading.
Support conditions
Minimum thickness requirements in Eq. (6) are directly
proportional to the restraint factor K taken from Table 1 to
reflect support conditions of a uniformly loaded member.
Once again, any changes to the minimum thickness required
for a member are tempered by changes in the reinforcing
ratio required to satisfy strength for a given span and
loading condition.
Requirements for l/h are plotted in Fig. 10 for a member
with one end continuous (K = 0.85), both ends continuous (K =
0.8), and for a cantilever (K = 2.4). Figures 3 and 4 give the case
for a simply supported member (K = 1.0). In all cases, the
ACI minimum thickness requirement for beams does not
satisfy incremental deflection requirements when using a
long-term deflection multiplier of 2.0, whereas incremental
Fig. 8l/ h limits for T-beam sections.
Fig. 9Effect of incremental deflection limit (l/240 versus
l/480).
Fig. 10l/h limit for: (a) one end continuous; (b) both ends
continuous; and (c) cantilever.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009 623
(l/240) deflection requirements for slabs using the ACI
minimum thickness values are mostly satisfied with the
exception of those that are heavily loaded with service loads
greater than approximately 200 to 250 lb/ft
2
(9.6 to 12 kPa).
Satisfying l/h requirements is important for slabs, as design
often begins by choosing a slab thickness based on minimum
thickness requirements. Hence, adequate flexural stiffness of
slabs is ensured by specifying the correct l/h limits. Design
of beams, on the other hand, begins by satisfying strength
requirements where the member cross section is proportioned
for strength. Choosing a relatively low reinforcing ratio in the
range of 0.25
b
to 0.40
b
will often result in a member thickness
greater than the minimum thickness needed to satisfy deflection
requirements (ACI Committee 435 1995), depending on the
w/l ratio, aspect ratio of the member cross section, long-term
deflection multiplier, and dead-to-live load ratio.
DEFLECTION EXAMPLES
Deflection examples are worked out for: 1) a simply
supported rectangular beam; and 2) an interior span of a
continuous one-way slab. Calculations for both examples
use 4000 psi (27.6 MPa) concrete and Grade 60 (414 MPa)
reinforcement to give f
r
= 474 psi (3.26 MPa), E
c
= 3605 ksi
(24.39 GPa), and n = 8.04. The d/h is assumed to remain
constant at 0.85 and = 2.0. Note that dimensions are not
rounded off in these examples for ease of checking.
Example 1Rectangular beam
A simply supported beam with a 20 ft (6096 mm) span is
designed to support a uniformly distributed dead load of 1.4 k/ft
(20.4 kN/m) and a live load of 0.7 k/ft (10.2 kN/m). This gives a
w/l of 105 lb/ft
2
(5 kPa), D/L of 2.0, service load moment at
midspan of M
a
= 105 k-ft (142.4 kN-m), and factored
moment M
u
= 140 k-ft (189.8 kN-m). Results for this
example are summarized in Table 2(a) and plotted in Fig. 11.
Designing the beam for strength based on an assumed
reinforcing ratio = 1% (0.5
max
) and d/b of 1.5 gives a
beam cross section with width b = 11.5 in. (292 mm) and
height h = 20.3 in. (515 mm). The corresponding l/h of 11.8
is less than the ACI 318 limit of 16 for beams, implying that
deflection limits should be easily satisfied. The computed
value of incremental deflection, however, (using either Eq. (3)
or (4)) equals 1.13 in. (28.8 mm), which is greater than the
l/240 limit of 1 in. (25.4 mm). Hence, the member thickness
needs to be increased to satisfy ACI 318 requirements for
incremental deflection.
Using Bischoffs expression at full M
cr
and with no
preload (Fig. 11) requires a beam with an l/h limit of 11.2 at
a reinforcing ratio of 0.84%. The width and height of this
beam equals 12.1 in. (307.9 mm) and 21.4 in. (543.3 mm),
respectively. Accounting for preload and using 0.67M
cr
decreases the l/h limit from 11.2 to 10.6 at a lower reinforcing
ratio of 0.71% to account for the increased member thickness.
The width and height of the beam, in this case, is 12.8 in.
(324.5 mm) and 22.5 in. (572.6 mm), respectively. In both
cases, the member deflection equals the limiting value of l/240
equal to 1 in. (25.4 mm).
Delaying partition installation by 3 months decreases the
long-term deflection multiplier to = 1. The l/h deflection
curve no longer intersects the strength curve in this instance
(Fig. 11) and the l/h limit increases to 14.0 based on strength
requirements at a reinforcing ratio of 1.8%. The corresponding
width and height of the beam equals 9.7 in. (246.7 mm) and
17.1 in. (435.4 mm), respectively, and the midspan deflection
of 0.94 in. (24.0 mm) is less than the maximum value of 1 in.
(25.4 mm) as deflection no longer governs.
Using reinforcing steel with 75 ksi (517 MPa) yield
strength decreases the l/h to 9.7 at a reinforcing ratio of 0.425%
for a beam with width of 14.0 in. (354.9 mm) and height of
24.7 in. (626.2 mm). The increase in member thickness,
compared to a beam with Grade 60 steel, is approximately
10% in this case. A beam with 10,000 psi (69 MPa) concrete
and 60 ksi (414 MPa) steel has a limiting l/h of 11.4 at a
reinforcing ratio of 0.84%, giving a beam with a width of
11.9 in. (303.2 mm) and height of 21.1 in. (535.1 mm) that is
Table 2(a)Simply supported beam example: 4000 psi (27.6 MPa) concrete and 60 ksi (414 MPa) steel
*
l/h , %
M
a
/M
cr Beam height h, in. (mm) Beam width b, in. (mm) Deflection, in. (mm)

ACI 318 minimum thickness 16 15 (381)

Strength at 0.5
max

11.8 1.0 3.4 20.3 (515.0) 11.5 (292.0) 1.13 (28.8)

Bischoff I
e
with no preload, M
cr
and = 2 11.2 0.84 2.9 21.4 (543.3) 12.1 (307.9) 1.0 (25.4)
Bischoff I
e
with preload, 0.67 M
cr
and = 2 10.6 0.71 3.7 22.5 (572.6) 12.8 (324.5) 1.0 (25.4)
= 1
14.0

1.8 8.4 17.1 (435.4) 9.7 (246.7) 0.945 (24.0)

f
y
= 75 ksi and = 2 9.7 0.425 2.8 24.7 (626.2) 14.0 (354.9) 1.0 (25.4)
f
c
= 10,000 psi and = 2 11.4 0.84 2.85 21.1 (535.1) 11.9 (303.2) 1.0 (25.4)
= l/480 and = 2 8.2 0.31 1.7 29.4 (746.9) 16.7 (423.3) 0.5 (12.7)
*
l = 20 ft (6096 mm), d/h = 0.85, K = 1.0, D/L = 2.0, and w = 2.1 k/ft (30.6 kN/m).

l/240 = 1 in. (25.4 mm) for control of deflection.

Maximum reinforcing ratio

max
0.72
b
.

Strength-controlled.
Note: 1 ksi = 1000 psi; 1 psi = 0.00690 MPa.
Fig. 11Minimum thickness requirements for beam
deflection example.
624 ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009
approximately 6% less than the thickness of a beam using
4000 psi (27.6 MPa) concrete.
Decreasing the allowable deflection value to 0.5 in. (12.7 mm)
corresponding to the l/480 incremental deflection limit
decreases the l/h limit to 8.2 at a reinforcing ratio of 0.31%.
The beam has a height of 29.4 in. (746.9 mm) that is 30%
greater than the required thickness for the l/240 deflection limit.
Example 2One-way slab
Deflection requirements are considered for an interior
span of a continuous one-way slab with a 20 ft (6096 mm)
span. The slab supports its own self-weight plus a live load
of 60 lb/ft
2
(2.9 kPa). None of the live load is sustained and
proportioning is carried out for an allowable deflection of l/240.
Moments are based on the ACI design moment coefficient at
midspan giving C = 0.5 and a restraint factor K = 0.8 (Table 1).
Design of the support sections is not considered in this example.
Design begins by assuming l/h = 28 based on existing ACI 318
minimum thickness requirements to give h = 8.6 in. (218 mm)
and corresponding dead load of 108 lb/ft
2
(5.2 kPa). A
reinforcing ratio of 0.2% satisfies strength requirements
with the 8.6 in. (218 mm) thick slab and this gives an
uncracked slab under service loads (at full M
cr
) with a
computed deflection of 0.174 in. (4.4 mm) that is considerably
less than the allowable value of l/240 = 1 in. (25.4 mm). Using
Bischoffs (2005) expression for I
e
at full M
cr
and with no
preload gives an l/h limit of 41.9 and a corresponding slab
thickness of 5.7 in. (145.5 mm) with = 0.37%. Recall that the
reinforcing ratio needs to be increased as the member thickness
decreases to maintain the same strength. The slab is now
cracked (M
a
/M
cr
= 1.27) and has a computed value of deflection
equal to the deflection limit of l/240 = 1 in. (25.4 mm).
Bransons (1965) expression (Eq. (3)) overestimates member
stiffness at this low reinforcement ratio and gives a much
smaller deflection of 0.65 in. (16.4 mm). Results are
summarized in Table 2(b) and plotted in Fig. 12.
Accounting for preload and using 0.67M
cr
with Bischoffs
expression for I
e
decreases the l/h to 32.2 with a corresponding
reinforcing ratio of 0.24%. A slab thickness of 7.45 in.
(189 mm) is needed to maintain the computed value of
deflection at 1 in. (25.4 mm), and is used as the basis for
other comparisons that include a delay in partition installation,
increase in concrete strength, higher grade steel, and allowable
deflection of l/480 when damage to partitions is of concern.
Delaying partition installation by 3 months decreases the
long-term multiplier to = 1 and this gives a thinner 6.5 in.
(165.5 mm) slab based on l/h = 36.8 at a reinforcing ratio of 0.3%.
Increasing the compressive strength of concrete to 10,000 psi
(69 MPa) decreases the slab thickness considerably to 5.75 in.
(145.7 mm) for l/h = 41.8 at a reinforcing ratio of 0.36%,
while using Grade 75 (517 MPa) steel gives a slightly thicker,
7.8 in. (198 mm) thick slab with l/h = 30.8 at a reinforcing ratio
of 0.185%. The higher grade steel results in a 5% increase in
slab thickness, which is less than the 15% increase computed
using the ACI 318 assumption that minimum thickness values
for f
y
other than 60,000 psi (414 MPa) shall be multiplied by
0.4 + f
y
/100,000. Similar observations were made by Tang
and Lubell (2008). Note also the change in dead load and corre-
sponding D/L as the slab thickness changes.
Finally, decreasing the allowable deflection value to l/480 =
0.5 in. (12.7 mm) gives a thicker, 8.3 in. (211.5 mm) slab with
l/h = 28.8 at a reinforcing ratio of 0.205%. In this instance,
the slab is barely cracked with M
a
/M
cr
= 1.12. While Eq. (6)
suggests that the slab thickness doubles when the allowable
deflection drops by one half, increasing the slab thickness
also results in a lower value of and, hence, the corresponding
increase in slab thickness is only approximately 12% in
this case.
Assumptions made regarding tension stiffening have a
considerable effect on computed values of deflection when
service loads are close to the cracking value, as is the case for
the slab in this example, with M
a
/M
cr
ranging between 1 and
1.5. For beams with a reinforcing ratio greater than 1%, the
M
a
/M
cr
ratio is typically greater than 3 and the effective
moment of inertia is then closely approximated with I
cr
.
In closing, it should be noted that deflection requirements
are satisfied in all cases for the slab in this example when
using the ACI 318 minimum thickness value, whereas this is
not the case for the beam in Example 1. The slab was
subjected to a service load of approximately 150 lb/ft
2
(7.2 kPa), and a slab supporting a heavier live load of 125 lb/ft
2
(6 kPa) or more corresponding to a full service load of at least
230 lb/ft
2
(11 kPa) would not have satisfied deflection
Table 2(b)Continuous slab example: 4000 psi (27.6 MPa) concrete and 60 ksi (414 MPa) steel
*
l/h , %
M
a
/M
cr D/L h, in. (mm) Deflection, in. (mm)
ACI 318 minimum thickness 28 0.2 0.72 (uncracked) 1.8 8.6 (218) 0.174 (4.4)
Bischoff I
e
with no preload, M
cr
and = 2 41.9 0.367 1.27 1.19 5.73 (145.5) 1.0 (25.4)
Bischoff I
e
with preload, 0.67 M
cr
and = 2 32.2 0.243 1.31 1.55 7.45 (189) 1.0 (25.4)
= 1 36.8 0.301 1.58 1.35 6.5 (165.5) 1.0 (25.4)
f
y
= 75 ksi and = 2 30.8 0.185 1.23 1.62 7.8 (198) 1.0 (25.4)
f
c
= 10,000 psi and = 2 41.8 0.361 1.20 1.20 5.74 (145.7) 1.0 (25.4)
= l/480 and = 2 28.8 0.205 1.12 1.74 8.32 (211.5) 0.5 (12.7)
*
l = 20 ft (6096 mm), d/h = 0.85, K = 0.8, C = 0.5; and live load = 60 lb/ft
2
(2.9 kPa).
Note: 1 ksi = 1000 psi; 1 psi = 0.00690 MPa.
Fig. 12Minimum thickness requirements for slab
deflection example.
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009 625
requirements with a slab thickness based on the ACI (l/28)
minimum value.
CONCLUSIONS
Span-depth ratio expressions for one-way members have
been developed based on deflection calculation equations in
terms of the reinforcement ratio required to meet flexural
strength requirements and deflection control for specified
deflection limits.
Results of a comparative study show that the span-depth
ratio is highly sensitive to reinforcement ratio (and hence,
loading) for lightly reinforced members typically associated
with one-way slabs (less than approximately 0.5% reinforce-
ment). Slabs designed using the ACI minimum thickness
requirement do not always satisfy the l/240 incremental
deflection requirement for heavier loaded slabs.
Values obtained for moderate to high reinforcement ratios
typical for beams indicate that the ACI 318 minimum thickness
values for these members often do not satisfy the span/240
deflection limit for additional deflection that occurs after
installation of nonstructural elements. Despite the fact that
beams satisfying the ACI minimum thickness requirement
may not satisfy the l/240 requirement for incremental deflec-
tion, strength will often govern in many cases (particularly
for beams with high w/l and d/b) to give a beam with a
deflection less than l/240.
Although the developed expressions are not intended for
hand calculation as a design tool, they can be used to check
design equations for span-depth limits intended for deflection
control because no simplifying assumptions have been made
other than those implicit in ACI 318 calculation procedures.
Results of the study indicate limitations inherent in the
current ACI 318 span-depth ratios for one-way members,
particularly for beams. The results suggest that changes are
required to account for these limitations so that the minimum
thicknesses specified are consistent with the span/240 limitation
for members not supporting or attached to nonstructural
elements likely to be damaged by large deflections.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Financial support was provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada and is gratefully appreciated.
NOTATION
A
s
= tension steel area
A
s
= compression steel area
b = width of member
b
f
= flange width
b
w
= web width
C = M
a
/M
o
d = effective depth of tension steel
E
c
= elastic modulus of concrete
E
s
= elastic modulus of reinforcing steel
F
D/L
= dead-to-live load (D/L) ratio (M
D
/M
L
)
F
S
= sustained live load ratio (M
L,sus
/M
L
)
f
c
= specified compressive strength of concrete
f
r
= rupture modulus of concrete
f
s
= bar stress
f
y
= yield strength of reinforcing steel
h = height or depth of member
I
cr
= cracked transformed moment of inertia
I
e
= effective moment of inertia
I
e,D+L
= effective moment of inertia corresponding to full (dead +
live) service load
I
e,sus
= effective moment of inertia corresponding to sustained load
moment
I
g
= gross (uncracked) moment of inertia
K = end restraint factor
k
cr
= n
l = span length
M
a
= service load moment (at critical section)
M
cr
= cracking moment
M
D
= dead load moment
M
D+L
= full (dead + live) service load moment
M
L
= live load moment
M
L,add
= part of live load moment that is not sustained
M
L,sus
= sustained part of live load moment
M
m
= midspan moment
M
n
= nominal moment capacity
M
o
= static moment capacity (wl
2
/8)
M
sus
= sustained (dead + sustained live) moment
M
u
= factored moment
n = modular ratio (E
s
/E
c
)
R
n
= nominal flexural resistance factor (M
n
/bd
2
)
w = uniformly distributed load
w
L,add
= portion of live load not sustained
w
sus
= sustained load

1
= rectangular stress block factor (0.85)

D+L
= average load factor

all
= permissible (allowable) deflection (l/240 or l/480)

i
= immediate deflection

i,D+L
= immediate deflection from full (dead + live) service load

i,D+L(sus)
= immediate deflection from sustained (dead + sustained
live) load

i,L(add)
= immediate deflection from remaining part of live load not
sustained

incr
= incremental deflection (
i,sus
+
i,L(add)
)

i,sus
= immediate deflection from sustained load

lt
= long term deflection (
i,sus
)
= strength reduction factor
= ratio of sustained to full service load (M
sus
/M
D+L
)
= 1 I
cr
/I
g
= long term (deflection) multiplier /(1 + 50)
= reinforcing ratio (A
s
/bd)
= compression reinforcing ratio (A
s
/bd)

b
= balanced reinforcing ratio (bar strain of f
y
/E
s
at nominal
strength)

max
= maximum reinforcing ratio (bar strain of 0.004 at nominal
strength)

w
= web reinforcing ratio (A
s
/b
w
d)
= time-dependent factor
= 1 + ( 1)(I
e,D+L
/I
e,sus
)
REFERENCES
ACI Committee 318, 2008, Building Code Requirements for Structural
Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary, American Concrete Institute,
Farmington Hills, MI, 465 pp.
ACI Committee 435, 1995, Control of Deflection in Concrete Structures
(ACI 435R-95), American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, 88 pp.
ACI Committee 435 (Subcommittee 1), 1968, Allowable Deflections,
ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 65, No. 8, Aug., pp. 433-444.
Bischoff, P. H., 2005, 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.
Bischoff, P. H., 2007, Rational Model for Calculating Deflection of
Reinforced Concrete Beams and Slabs, Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, V. 34, No. 8, pp. 992-1002.
Bischoff, P. H., and Scanlon, A., 2007, Effective Moment of Inertia for
Calculating Deflections of Concrete Members Containing Steel Reinforcement
and Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforcement, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 104, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 68-75.
Branson, D. E., 1965, Instantaneous and Time-Dependent Deflections
of Simple and Continuous Reinforced Concrete Beams, HPR Report No. 7,
Part 1, Alabama Highway Department, Bureau of Public Roads, Alabama,
78 pp.
CSA A23.3, 2004, Design of Concrete Structures, CSA Standard
A23.3-04, Canadian Standards Association (CSA), Rexdale (Toronto), ON,
Canada, 214 pp.
Gilbert, R. I., 1985, Deflection Control of Slabs Using Allowable Span to
Depth Ratios, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 82, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 67-72.
Rangan, B.V., 1982, Control of Beam Deflections by Allowable
Span-Depth Ratios, ACI JOURNAL, Proceedings V. 79, No. 5, Sept.-
Oct., pp. 372-377.
Scanlon, A., and Bischoff, P. H., 2008, Shrinkage Restraint and
Loading History Effects on Deflection of Flexural Members, ACI Structural
n ( )
2
2n +
ACI Structural Journal/September-October 2009 626
Journal, V. 105, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 498-506.
Scanlon, A., and Choi, B.-S., 1999, Evaluation of ACI 318 Minimum
Thickness Requirements for One-Way Slabs, ACI Structural Journal,
V. 96, No. 4, July-Aug., pp. 616-621.
Scanlon, A., and Lee, Y. H., 2006, Unified Span-to-Depth Ratio Equation
for Nonprestressed Concrete Beams and Slabs, ACI Structural Journal, V. 103,
No. 1, Jan.-Feb., pp. 142-148.
Tang, J., and Lubell, A. S., 2008, Influence of Longitudinal Reinforcement
Strength on One-Way Slab Deflection, Canadian Journal of Civil
Engineering, V. 35, No. 10, pp. 1076-1087.
APPENDIX: DERIVATION OF SPAN-DEPTH LIMIT
Combining Eq. (1) and (2) gives a general expression for
incremental deflection.
(A-1)
(A-2)
(A-3)
with
i,L(add)
=
i,D+L

i,D+L(sus)
and
all
= l/240 or l/480.
Equation (A-3) accounts for the case where there is no
preloading from construction loads (I
e,sus
> I
e,D+L
).
A dead-to-live load (D/L) ratio F
D/L
= M
D
/M
L
and
sustained live load ratio F
S
= M
L,sus
/M
L
are used to define
the sustained moment M
sus
(arising from the dead plus
sustained part of the live load) in terms of the full service
load moment M
D+L
.
M
sus
= M
D
+ M
L,sus
= M
D+L
(A-4)
with = M
sus
/M
D+L
= (F
D/L
+ F
S
)/(1 + F
D/L
).
Substitution of Eq. (A-2) to (A-4) into (A-1) then gives
(A-5)
with = [1 + ( 1)(I
e,D+L
/I
e,sus
)]. M
D+L
= M
sus
+
M
L,add
when I
e,sus
= I
e,D+L
. Equation (A-5) also gives the
immediate deflection from live load for the case where = 0
and the sustained load equals the dead load alone (F
s
= 0
giving = F
D/L
/(1 + F
D/L
)).
Rearranging Eq. (A-5) in terms of I
e,D+L
/I
g
, with
M
D+L
= (/
D+L
)M
n
and M
n
= R
n
bd
2
leads to
(A-6)
in which is the strength reduction factor for flexure and

D+L
is an averaged load factor equal to (1.2F
D/L
+ 1.6)/
(F
D/L
+ 1) for a dead load factor of 1.2 and live load factor
of 1.6. Rearranging Eq. (A-6) in terms of the span-depth
ratio (l/h) gives
(A-7)

incr

i sus ,

i L add ( ) ,

all
+ =

i sus ,
K
5
48
----- -
M
sus
l
2
E
c
I
e sus ,
------------------ =

i L add ( ) ,
K
5
48
------
M
D L +
l
2
E
c
I
e D L + ,
---------------------- K
5
48
------
M
sus
l
2
E
c
I
e sus ,
------------------ =

incr
K
5
48
------
M
D L +
I
e D L + ,
--------------------
l
2
E
c
-----
all
=

incr
K
5
48
------

D L +
( )R
n
l
2
E
c
d I
e D L + ,
I
g
( ) I
g
bd
3
( )
------------------------------------------------------------
all
=
l
h
---
E
c
d h ( ) I
e D L + ,
I
g
( ) I
g
bd
3
( )
K 5 48 ( )
D L +
( )R
n
------------------------------------------------------------------------

all
l
--------