technical notes

Floor Slab
Deection:
A Case Study
Floor Slab
Deection:
A Case Study
FLOOR SLAB DEFLECTION
The serviceability requirements of the SAA Concrete Structures Code include
recommendations for maximum span to depth ratios, intended to avoid excessive long-term
deections of oor slabs.
Deection may exceed Code recommendations and not be perceived by some building
occupants.
A study of a 20 year old building with normally reinforced at slab oors designed by others
revealed span to depth ratios which exceeded the Code recommendations, excessive sag
in a typical oor slab, good correlation between measured and calculated deections, and
acceptance of the oor slope by the occupants.
by Peter J. Taylor
Date of Issue: June, 2009
Level 6, 1 James Place, North Sydney NSW 2060
p. 02 9409 3300 f. 02 9929 6667 e. info@tlbengineers.com
Taylor Lauder Bersten Pty Ltd ABN 94 074 717 892
Level 6, 1 James Place, North Sydney NSW 2060 p. 02 9409 3300 f. 02 9929 6667 info@tlbengineers.com www.tlbengineers.com
Taylor Lauder Bersten Pty Ltd ABN 94 074 717 892
Floor Slab Deection:
A Case Study
Although structural engineers are concerned about reinforced concrete oor slab
deections, building occupants may nd the perception of sagging oors difcult
to assess.
In a normal ofce building with carpeted typical oors, a oor surface has
different slopes in different areas, because of surface nish irregularities, initial
and long-term deections, and for high-rise buildings, prop settlement.
The perception of a camber or a sag in the oor depends on the slope of the
oor, and the magnitude of deection must be signicant to produce a slope that
is perceptible to an occupant walking on a carpet covered oor. A oor slope of
1/100 or less would usually not be detected by walking across the oor, and up
to 1/75 may not be detected by some occupants (Ref. 1).
These slopes suggest that signicant deections can occur and not be detected.
It is more likely that occupants perceive oor slopes from the behaviour of
furniture and ttings, such as the appearance of cracks in walls, opening of
joints in partitions, sliding of desk drawers, jamming of cupboard and partition
doors, sliding of compactus units, and the movement of utensils on sloping
surfaces.
The relationship between the above oor slopes and the magnitudes of
deection are shown in Table 1.
For oor spans of from 6m to 8m, oor slopes give the following deections
(mm):
* Code limiting deection value at the mid-span of a column strip (Ref. 5).
Table 1: Calculated mid-panel deections (mm) based on perceptible oor
slopes of 1/125, 1/100 and 1/75 for the interior panel of a continuous at slab or
plate (Ref. 2).
We were recently involved in the refurbishment of a ve storey normally
reinforced concrete building designed by others and built in Sydney in 1986. The
typical oor was a at slab 220mm thick with 400mm overall deep drop panels,
and spans of 8.0m x 9.5m approximately, discontinuous as shown in Fig. 1.
The structural design should have been carried out in accordance with the
SAA Concrete Structures Code AS1480-1982 which recommended a span to
depth ratio of 31 for continuous at slabs not supporting partitions likely to be
damaged by signicant deection (Ref 3). Hence the minimum slab thickness
should have been 9500/31 = say 305mm. The use of a 220mm thick slab gave
Span
(m)
Floor Slope
Code Limit
L/250*
L/125 L/100 L/75
6.0 22 28 37 24
6.5 24 30 40 26
7.0 26 32 43 28
7.5 27 34 46 30
8.0 29 37 49 32
8.4 31 39 52 34
Level 6, 1 James Place, North Sydney NSW 2060 p. 02 9409 3300 f. 02 9929 6667 info@tlbengineers.com www.tlbengineers.com
Taylor Lauder Bersten Pty Ltd ABN 94 074 717 892
a span to depth ratio of 43, which was excessive and not in compliance with
the Code. A 15mm upwards pre-camber at the middle of the 9.5m span was
specied on the structural drawings.
The unusually long end span of from 9.3m to 9.9m and the large span to depth
ratio indicated that excessive long-term deection of the typical oor slab was
likely. So we carried out deection calculations and arranged for a survey of the
top of slab levels.
Our structural calculations were carried out in accordance with RAPT 6 (Ref. 4).
Assuming long-term superimposed permanent loading of 1 kPa and a live load
(Q) of 0 kPa the long-term column strip deection at mid-span of the 9.5m span
was expected to be approximately 63mm ( 20%). Assuming that the specied
pre-camber of +15mm was achieved, the actual deections from a level survey
were 55 and 65mm, as shown in Table 2. The calculated column strip deection
for the load case combination using a live load (Q) of 3 kPa was 79mm.
Table 2: Measured and calculated slab deections for the locations shown on
Fig. 2.
Note: Actual deections = measured deections +15mm (pre-camber)
Q = design live load (kPa)
Only the typical oor level 3 was surveyed. We have no conrmation of
the concrete compressive strength, the slab thickness, or the achieved
pre-camber, and have assumed the values specied on the drawings as
shown on Figure 1. Structural calculations indicated that the exural and
shear capacities of the slab are adequate for the design loads required
for ofce use. From typical long-term deection graphs in Reference 1 we
have inferred the plots of deection shown in Figure 3.
In the above circumstances, the building owner had the options of:
a. Topping the sagging oor to achieve a level surface, or
b. Using partial topping to inll the mid-span areas, or
c. Continuing to use the oors in their sagged state.
The building owner decided not to top the oors because of cost considerations.
Location MK
Measured
Deection
(mm)
Actual
Deection
(mm)
Calculated
Deection
(mm)
Q=0 Q=3
8.0m Col. Strip S1 30 30
9.5mm
Col. Strip
S2
S3
40
50
55
65
63
63
79
79
Mid-Panel M1
M2
M3
M4
78
74
60
57
93
89
75
72
-
-
75
71
-
-
92
88
Level 6, 1 James Place, North Sydney NSW 2060 p. 02 9409 3300 f. 02 9929 6667 info@tlbengineers.com www.tlbengineers.com
Taylor Lauder Bersten Pty Ltd ABN 94 074 717 892
Comments:
1. The original structural design did not comply with the SAA Concrete
Structures Code guidelines for serviceability, resulting in excessive long-term
sag or deection of the typical oor slab.
2. The calculations carried out using RAPT 6 indicated good correlation
between the measured and calculated values of the assumed long-term
deection.
3. The perceptions of oor sag experienced by the occupants were not
sufciently severe to overcome concern about the cost of rectication.
Peter Taylor
References
1. Taylor, P.J., The Initial and Long-Term Deections of Normally Reinforced
Concrete Flat Slabs and Plates, a special projects report for the ACSE, June,
1997.
2. American Concrete Institute, Deections of Reinforced Concrete Flexural
Members, Jour. Proc. Vol. 63, No. 6, June 1966.
3. Standards Association of Australia, SAA Concrete Structures Code, AS1480
1982.
4. www.raptsoftware.com
5. Standards Association of Australia, SAA Concrete Structures Code,
AS3600-2001.
Level 6, 1 James Place, North Sydney NSW 2060 p. 02 9409 3300 f. 02 9929 6667 info@tlbengineers.com www.tlbengineers.com
Taylor Lauder Bersten Pty Ltd ABN 94 074 717 892
Typical Floor Plan
Figure 1
Slab 220mm thick throughout
Drop Panels 400mm overall deep
Concrete Strength 25 MPa
Slab pre-camber: 15mm up on line XY
B: 650mm deep x 250mm wide edge beam
C: Reinforced Concrete Column
W: 150mm thick reinforced concrete wall
Drop Panels
Mark Size (m)
PD1 2.35x1.75
PD2 2.70x1.80
PD3 2.35x3.30
PD4 2.70x2.65
PD5 2.70x3.30
Level 6, 1 James Place, North Sydney NSW 2060 p. 02 9409 3300 f. 02 9929 6667 info@tlbengineers.com www.tlbengineers.com
Taylor Lauder Bersten Pty Ltd ABN 94 074 717 892
Typical Floor -
Locations of Slab Level Measurements
Figure 2
S: Column Strip
M: Mid-Panel
Floor slab level measurements shown in (mm)
Level 6, 1 James Place, North Sydney NSW 2060 p. 02 9409 3300 f. 02 9929 6667 info@tlbengineers.com www.tlbengineers.com
Taylor Lauder Bersten Pty Ltd ABN 94 074 717 892
Assumed long-term deection at M4
Time from Stripping (Years)
P
r
e
c
a
m
b
e
r

(
m
m
)
D
e

e
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
m
)
Figure 3
Allowing for +15mm Precamber
No allowance for Precamber