slab panel dimension is 10mx7m, with300mm slab thickness and 500mm drop thickness(including

slab thickness).
what is the maximum allowable deflection for flat slabs?

can somebody pls cross check the deflection for above mentioned panel with a service load of
16kN/m2.

The total deflection shall not exceed span/250.

Depth of flat slab 300mm is insufficient from basic calculations:

The thickness of the flat slab up to spans of 10 m shall be

generally controlled by considerations of span
( L ) to effective depth ( d ) ratios given as below:

Cantilever 7; simply supported 20; Continuous 26

Considering the flat slab as a continuous slab over a span not exceeding 10 m
L/d = 26, d = L/26

Assuming Modification factor of 1.3

Depth considering along:

Longer span Shorter span

L = 106 m , L = 7.0 m
d = 10000/(26x1.3) d = 7000/(26x1.3)
= 296 mm = 207

Here Longer span governs the depth

Taking effective cover of 30mm

Overall depth D = 295 +30 = 325 mm

Deflections are always to be calculated under service loads.

For slabs, max. permissible deflection under all loads is Lx/350; for all loads excluding LL, it is
Lx/250. Note that max. permissible deflections include long term effects.

Calculations

1) Effective Depth of Beam, d =

2) Distance from centroidal axis of gross section,
to extreme fibre in Tension, yt =
3) Igross of Beam, Igr = b*D3/12
4) Cracking Moment, Mr = fcr*Igr/yt

5) Calculate Location of depth of neutral axis,

Bx2/2 + (m-1)*Asc*(x-d"c) = m*Ast(d-x)

6) Calculate of cracked moment of inertia

 Ir = Bx3/3 + (m-1)*Asc*(x-d"c)2 + m*Ast*(d-x)2

7) Lever arm, z = Ir/(m*Ast*(d-x))

Ieff = Ir/C as per C-2, ANNEX c, IS 456:2000

Calculation of C

C = 1.2 - (Mr/M)* (z/d)*(1-x/d)*(bw/b)

9) Short-Term Deflection,

If Ieff > Ir , δ(Short-Term) = Igr * δnet / Ieff

If Ir > Ieff , δ(Short-Term) = Igr * δnet / Ir

The span-to-effective-depth (L/d) method

In simple terms, the current EN1992 L/d method means verifying that:
Allowable L/d = N x K x F1 x F2 x F3 ≥ actual L/d
where
N= basic span-to-effective-depth ratio derived for K = 1.0 and p'. from the formulae :

if ρ0 ≤ ρ
N = L/d = K[11 + 1.5fck0.5 ρ 0/ ρ + 3.2 fck0.5(ρ 0/ ρ – 1)1.5]
or if ρ0 > ρ
N = L/d = K[11 + 1.5 fck 0.5 ρ0/( ρ – ρ') + fck0.5(ρ'/ ρ0)0.5/12]

For ρ’ =0, N may be determined from Figure 1

where

L= span

d= effective depth

ρ0 = fck0.5/1000

ρ = As,req/bd

ρ’ = As2/bd
 K= factor to account for structural system. See Table 1

F1 = factor to account for flanged sections.

When beff/bw = 1.0, factor F1 = 1.0. When beff/bw is greater than 3.0, factor F1 = 0.80. For values
of beff/bw between 1.0 and 3.0, interpolation may be used. .

F2 = factor to account for brittle partitions in association with long spans. Generally
F2 = 1.0 but if brittle partitions are liable to be damaged by excessive deflection, F2 should be
determined as follows:
a) in flat slabs in which the longer span is greater than 8.5 m, F2 = 8.5/leff
b) in beams and other slabs with spans in excess of 7.0 m, F2 = 7.0/leff

F3 = factor to account for service stress in tensile reinforcement = 310/ss1,3a.

It is considered conservative to assume that 310/ss = 500 As,prov/(fykAs,req)
where
ss = tensile stress in reinforcement at mid-span (at support for cantilevers) under design load
at SLS.

Notes 1. In MC2010 this expression is given in Expression (7.6-23) as 250/ss = 500 As,prov/(fykAs,req)
2. Factors F1, F2 and F3 have been used here for convenience, they are not symbols used in
EN1992-1-1.
3. According to the Notes to Table NA.5 of the UK NA,
a. the ratio, F3, is restricted to ≤ 1.5 where ss is calculated using the characteristic value
of serviceability load.
b. Warnings are given that the values of K may not be appropriate when formwork is
struck at an early age.
c. L/d may not exceed 40K.

Figure 7 Basic span-to-effective-depth ratios, N, for K = 1, ρ' = 0

Extract from How to Design Concrete Structures using Eurocode 2 (page 27, Figure 5)

Table 1
K factors to be applied to basic ratios of span to effective depth for structural system

Element K

Simply supported beams or slabs 1.0

End span of continuous beams or slabs 1.3

Interior spans of continuous beams or slabs 1.5

Flat slabs (based on longer span) 1.2

Cantilevers 0.4

The use of L/d method ‘will be adequate for avoiding deflection problems in normal
circumstances’

The rigorous method of assessing deflection

A section will crack if it experiences a serviceability moment exceeding its moment

capacity at the time, Mcr(t). If a section is cracked, then its inertia is much less than that of
the uncracked section and so curvature is much greater in cracked sections. Cracked
sections and greater degrees of cracking lead to larger curvatures and deflections. See
Figure 3.

Figure 3 Typical moment - curvature response

Economically designed horizontal elements act somewhere between wholly uncracked

and wholly cracked. Slabs tend to be less highly stressed and are cracked along only
part of their spans. Beams tend to be highly stressed and cracked along much of their
spans. Actions are applied at different times and these actions may or not cause
cracking depending upon the flexural tensile strength of the concrete at the time. Once
cracked, a section is assumed to stay cracked but some tensile stiffening occurs in the
concrete between cracks. So the mean inertia of the segment is somewhere between
those for wholly un-cracked or fully cracked sections. When considering curvatures,
these different actions incur different creep coefficients, which affect the applicable
effective modulus of the concrete used in assessing curvatures.

EN 1992-1-1 (and MC2010) states that an adequate prediction of behaviour and the
mean curvature in a discreet element is given by

1/rm = ζ(ψ2+ψ2cs) + (1- ζ)(ψ1+ψ1cs)

where
rm = mean radius
z = 1- b(Mcr/M)2
where
b = 1.0 for short –term and 0.5 for long-term loading. For construction loads,
conservatively b = 0.70[14]
Mcr = cracking moment
M = Moment
y1 = M/EceffI1 = curvature of uncracked section
y2 = M/EceffI2 = curvature of cracked section
where
Eceff = Ecm/(1+ f)
where
Ecm = modulus at 28 days
f = creep coefficient
I1, I2 = inertias
y1cs, y2cs = shrinkage curvatures

Curvature in a simply supported slab

This ‘rigorous’ method is described in greater detail elsewhere e.g. Concrete
Society. Deflections in concrete slabs and beams, (2005) TR 58, or How to design
concrete structures using Eurocode 2: Deflection Calculations. It is backed by site
based research.

Greater accuracy may be achieved by considering small increments of span and

computing relevant curvatures and thus overall deflections. The method involves
numerical integration, which is tedious by hand but can, of course, be undertaken by
computer, notably by spreadsheet software.

Stiffener Modifiers:

Dear friends,

Q:If I take the stiffness modifier as follows in my analysis model as prescribed by IS:1893:2016 (Indian Code)
Column: 0.7 Ig
Shearwall: 0.7Ig ( not specified in Code)
Beam: 0.35 Ig
Slab( thin shell in ETAB model) : 0.35Ig ( not specified in Code)

I will design all the structural members for the forces, I get using above analysis model.

Then if I have to check the deflections of slabs and beams to verify that whether they are within the limit
specified by IS 456: 2000, Can I use the same model ( as above) or I need to have a different model with
other stiffness modifier values?

Also when we define the slabs as a thin shell, the forces in beams and columns are quite different than
defining slab as a membrane, what should be the correct approach for slab modeling?
Ans: Those appear to be almost exactly the ULTIMATE stiffness factors given in ACI 318 (US concrete code)
that should be used for forces/stability. The main differences are shearwalls should be 0.35Ig if they are
'cracked' (axial-flexural tensile stress exceeds concrete modulus of rupture) and that the slabs are given as
0.25Ig instead of 0.35Ig.

Using these same stiffness factors for deflection determination will be conservative, but generally not
appropriate. While ACI 318 does not address SERVICE stiffness factors to be used for deflection determination,
ACI 318 commentary indicates that the provided ULTIMATE factors can be converted to SERVICE if divided by
0.7.

Based on this, your SERVICE stiffness factors would be:

Column: 1.0 Ig
Shear wall: 1.0 Ig (0.5 Ig for cracked walls)
Beam: 0.5 Ig
Slab: 0.5 Ig (0.35 Ig per ACI 318)

Would note again that these numbers are based on commentary to the US code. Various firms will use various
values and I don't know what the IS may stipulate.

As far as slab modeling goes, it depends. If I'm in a high seismic zone where my forces have been reduced by
a reduction factor (R in US codes) to account for inherent ductility of whatever system I've chose, I tend to
model either as membrane or as thin-shell with an artificially low stiffness factor (say 0.1 Ig or lower). This is
to keep the forces in the primary force resisting elements rather than getting some benefit from the slabs
acting as frame members when slabs typically are not provided with the same level of detailing that merits the
reduction in seismic force we're using. For wind applications where your force level is not dependent on your
level of detailing, I don't have as much problem keeping the slab stiffness in the model as long as the
moments and forces the slab attracts are actually designed for.

Q:-we have received G+13 strorey building having structural system of Flat slab + shear wall. we
have used ETABS for modelling of building. In etabs we need to consider stiffness modifiers to cater
effect of cracked concrete. I think this modifiers are used in second order Analysis (p-delta) protion
only (Gravity + Seismic).

As per indian code, such parameters are not mentioned.

I have concern wheteher we need to consider modifiers for designing of different elements
(columns/beams/shear walls).

Please guide us for above mentioned query.

Ans:If the structure is too complex and second order effects play a major role then P-delta analysis
has to be performed.For instance if the structure has too many floating columns, then p delta is
necessary.

However, for regular configuration my opinion is p delta analysis is not required.

It is true that IS code is silent regarding the modifiers. However, till now i have referred to ACI
modifiers for P delta analysis.
Ans: Just a clarification on ACI 318-11 Code: We use reduced properties (Cracked Section) for
Concrete Frame analysis for Service Loads and at Factored (Limit State) Loads . Even if we are
not doing P-Delta (Second Order) analysis, we have to use Modified Properties (Cracked Section) for
analysis. I had an interesting discussion on this with some engineers who insisted that we use Cracked
Section properties only when we do P-DELTA analysis. I got that checked from ACI. Concrete
Section cracks when there is even a small Flexure Tension at Service Load level. For what values of
Cracked Section properties based on ACI 318-11 to be used see my SEFI Post dated 11th June 2014:

Ans:If you are designing a Concrete High-Rise Building based on ACI 318-11 Code you have to use
Cracked Section properties for Beams and Columns. This cracked section properties are clearly
defined in ACI 318-11 for both at Service Loads and at Limit State (Strength Design). I myself
run in to this problem while reviewing a fellow Engineers Concrete Frame Analysis and Design. Being
an ACI member, to make sure I send this query ACI technical help and they said my understanding of
this section of ACI 318-11 and its interpretation is correct.

Ans:As Er Pandayi has rightly said we need to consider cracked member section for beams and
columns in the analysis also, as we consider cracked member only in limit state design.

But, in most of analysis we do not consider T section properties and take only rectangular section
properties. Hence some people argue that this will cater to the cracked section properties for beams.
However we need to consider cracked section properties for columns also.

Ans: Please note that IS 456, though it was revised in 2000, most of the revisions pertain to durability
clauses, may be because the team responsible for revision is from Cement and concrete research.
Hence it contained most of the provisions from the earlier version of the code.

Also note that any code provides only the minimum requirement and the designer should not say that
he has not considered any condition just
because the code does not contain the provision. Taking cracked section properties is a must,
especially for high rise buildings that too in EQ zones!

In the recent July Aug issue of ACI journal I read a paper written by Rajesh P. Dhakal, et al from New
Zealand which says that the eqn for effective width of T Beam that is given in ACI code significantly
underestimates it. In Reality, the significant increase in strength of beam could easily render the
column to be weaker than beams thereby leading to catastrophic consequences ( because plastic
hinges will now form in columns). Hence giving the correct value of MI is important in the analysis. As
the cracking pattern of beams is different in different sections, ACI has given approximate values
based on tests. The 2011 version also gives a more accurate equation based in research, to predict
the cracked MI of RC beams.

Ans: Hope that the next edition of IS 456 will contain provisions for cracked MI of beams and
columns.

Another provision that is missing is with regards to reinforcement in slab ends, so that they will
effectively function as diaphragms.

Ans: Though IS code does not provide section modifiers, it definitely calls for it in 22.3.1 (c).

The impression of using stiffness modifiers during P-Delta only is due to both being categorized into
secondary effects.

This further calls for performance based patch up, hence the use of this.

Hence less evolved codes calls for considering these effects at complex situations only (P-delta/ Crack
width calculations. .etc.) where the secondary effects are more pronounced.
The degree of complexity can be decided by the designer on the basis of various complexities of
geometry, scale of load paths (high rise), material, functional performance (liquid retention) and
alike.

But, be sure that the you can use the modification only on the "affected parts of the elements" and
not even the complete element. Basic aim it to incorporate the effects of redistribution due to
weakening of section due to crack.

Ans: The governing code would typically state the value for the modification factor. For
example, ACI 318 says to use 0.25Ig for slabs. This means that for cracking analysis you
are using 25% of the gross moment of inertia for your slab. That is, reducing the
stiffness.

Addition info:

1. Expect your drifts to increase significantly after modifying member stiffness.

2. However, the stiffness modification is intended for strength analysis not
deflection analysis. The code is essentially trying to capture (for strength
design analysis), the stiffness EI that represents the stiffness’s of members
immediately prior to failure. Deflection checks are done at service levels, not
strength levels, so the ACI code suggests to use 1/0.7 = 1.43 times the specified
reduced moments of inertia for service load analyses. The 0.7 comes about
because for columns the recommended stiffness is 0.70Ig. This being said
means you can adjust our member stiffness’s for strength design, but for drift
checks you can multiply the drift value (obtained with the modified stiffness)
by 1.43.
3. You can consult ACI 318 section 10.10.4.1 and the corresponding commentary
in R10.10.4.1 for more information. Use this of course in actual practice, only if
your governing local building code accepts ACI 318. If it does not, then you
need to use whatever you local building code mandates. The concept I expect
would be similar though.

Q:-
What is the value of torsional constant of property modification factors in ETABS for
beams and columns with ACI & UBC & ASCE or some other reference?
Ans: The torsional modification factor modifies the Torsional Constant (J) of a member.
J is equal to the Polar Moment of Inertia for a circular section, however, it varies for
other sections. E.g. for a rectangular section (with height (h)/width (b) = 2) its value is J
= 0.229(h)(b)^3. The significance of Torsional Constant (J) is that when J is multiplied
with Shear Modulus (G) it gives Torsional Rigidity. You will have to see books on
Advanced Mechanics of Materials to get a more in depth knowledge on this.

Coming to its value modification in ETABS, if J is kept as 1, the member will take all the
torsion it is subjected to by the loading. Then you will have to design the member for
this torsion. However, if you want to redistribute the torsional stresses to some other
member e.g. a beam is connected to a slab or a wall and you want the torsional stresses
in the beam to be redistributed to the slab or wall then you can set a very low Torsional
Modification Factor value e.g. 0.01 for the beam. This will set the beam torsional
stiffness to almost zero which means it will not be able to take any torsional stresses,
which will be distributed to the connected members i.e. wall or slab whichever is the
case. In this case you will have to design the member to which the stresses have been
distributed considering the increased stresses induced in it.

The important point here is that you must be sure before changing this factor what you
are doing is correct in the physical world. For example if you set T=0.01 for a beam then
although you will not have to design it for torsion and your mathematical model is all
nice and cozy, but in the real world it might mean that an ugly crack appears in the
beam in the process of stress re-distribution. So be careful.

If I understand you correctly, you are looking for the modification factor for torsion from codes.
There are none. You as an engineer will decide. If your beam for example can transfer the
torsion to another beam then you may put a factor of 0.01 and completely neglect torsion. If you
know that this beam has to be designed for torsion then don't factor it down.

it is code dependent, I assume you are talking about p-delta analysis, so you should find
that values in the corresponding codes.

As for the ETABS program you can manually choose the values and assign them any
design code, be careful with the values chosen it is very sensitive data for the design.