CIVL 513 - Project No. 1 - 13mar30 - Complete Report (Final)

CIVL 513 T ERM P ROJECT #1: E STIMATING D EFLECTIONS OF R EINFORCED C ONCRETE S LABS
UBC COURSE: CIVL 513 CONCRETE STRUCTURES
SUBMITTED TO: Dr. Perry Adebar, P.Eng. Professor of Structural Engineering UBC Department of Civil Engineering
SUBMITTED BY: Brandon Paxton (44770089)
SUBMITTED: April 3, 2013
CIVL 513 Brandon Paxton (44770089)
Project #1 - Estimating Deflections of Reinforced Concrete Slabs
P a g e |2 March 18, 2013
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................................................... 2 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 4 2.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.4 2.4.1 2.4.2 PURPOSE.................................................................................................................................................. 5 SIGNIFICANCE ......................................................................................................................................... 5 SCOPE...................................................................................................................................................... 6 Part 1 Initial Predictions............................................................................................................... 6 Part 2 Improved Estimates ............................................................................................................ 6 DESCRIPTION OF EXPERIMENT ................................................................................................................ 6 Description of Specimens ................................................................................................................. 7 Description of Testing ...................................................................................................................... 9
3.0 DATA & ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................................. 10 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.1.5 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 3.3.3 3.4 3.4.1 3.4.2 3.5 3.5.1 3.5.2 MATERIAL PROPERTIES ......................................................................................................................... 10 Concrete Compressive Strength ..................................................................................................... 10 Concrete Modulus of Rupture ........................................................................................................ 10 Concrete Modulus of Elasticity ...................................................................................................... 11 Creep Parameters .......................................................................................................................... 13 Effects of Shrinkage........................................................................................................................ 14 SECTION PROPERTIES ............................................................................................................................ 14 Basic Properties ............................................................................................................................. 14 Moment-Curvature Models (Detailed Immediate Approach)......................................................... 15 Effective Stiffnesses (Simplified Immediate Approach) .................................................................. 16 INITIAL PREDICTIONS (PART 1) ............................................................................................................. 17 Immediate Deflections .................................................................................................................... 17 Long Term Deflections ................................................................................................................... 18 Comparison of Detailed and Simplified Predictions ...................................................................... 19 EXPERIMENTAL DATA ........................................................................................................................... 20 Measured Deflections ..................................................................................................................... 20 Comparison to Initial Predictions .................................................................................................. 21 IMPROVED ESTIMATES (PART 2)............................................................................................................ 22 Immediate Deflections .................................................................................................................... 22 Long Term Deflections ................................................................................................................... 25
4.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS & DISCUSSION .......................................................................................... 34 4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.2 INITIAL PREDICTIONS ............................................................................................................................ 34 Immediate Deflections .................................................................................................................... 34 Long Term Deflections ................................................................................................................... 34 IMPROVED ESTIMATES .......................................................................................................................... 35
P a g e |3 March 18, 2013
4.2.1 4.2.2
Immediate Deflections .................................................................................................................... 35 Long Term Deflections ................................................................................................................... 36
5.0 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... 38 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 THEORETICAL CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................ 38 PRACTICAL CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................... 38 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RIGOROUS DEFLECTION ESTIMATES ............................................................. 38 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DESIGN PRACTICE......................................................................................... 39
6.0 CLOSING COMMENTS............................................................................................................................ 40 6.1 6.2 POTENTIAL IMPROVEMENTS TO ANALYSES ........................................................................................... 40 CLOSURE ............................................................................................................................................... 40
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D: APPENDIX E: APPENDIX F: APPENDIX G:
PART 1 INITIAL PREDICTIONS (ORIGINAL SUBMISSION) DESCRIPTION OF TESTING (ORIGINAL DOCUMENT) COMMON CONCRETE MATERIAL PROPERTIES IMPROVED DETAILED IMMEDIATE ESTIMATE SUPPORTING DATA IMPROVED SIMPLIFIED IMMEDIATE ESTIMATE SUPPORTING DATA IMPROVED DETAILED LONG TERM ESTIMATE SUPPORTING DATA IMPROVED SIMPLIFIED LONG TERM ESTIMATE SUPPORTING DATA
P a g e |4 March 18, 2013
1.0 E XECUTIVE S UMMARY

The Canadian standard for structural design of concrete, CSA A23.3-04 (A23.3) specifies limits on spanto-depth ratios for reinforced concrete slabs, below which the designer need not calculate deflections; for flat plate slabs with Grade 400 reinforcement (the only grade in common use in Canada), Cl. 13.2.4 gives a maximum span-to-depth of 30. However, common practice in Vancouver is to design such slabs with span-to-depth values of 36 and check deflection requirements, as given in Table 9.3. Thus, the ability to accurately and efficiently estimate deflections is an essential part of design. The effects of construction processes on deflection are a critical factor in accurately estimating deflection [1]. However, structural designers typically have little knowledge or control of these processes. Moreover, recent studies [2, 3] have shown that common code provisions underestimate deflections in lightly reinforced members, particularly in the lightly cracked range, due to an overestimation of the tension stiffening effect; floor slabs are lightly reinforced and often fall into this load range during construction and in service. The early age at loading typical of short formwork cycles in high-rise building construction can also lead to increased creep deflections. This report presents the results of an experimental study conducted at the University of British Columbia by Adebar [4] on the deflections (both immediate and creep) of reinforced concrete slabs accounting for typical construction practices, including early-age construction loading. Also presented, is the development and improvement by the author of detailed and simplified methods of estimating deflections. As will be seen herein, an accurate estimate of the immediate deflections is crucial in determining the short term and long term (creep) deflections. The report shows that use of the CSA A23.3-04 deflection provisions without the 50% reduction in the modulus of rupture (fr) now specified for both one-way and two-way members or consideration of construction loading leads to a severe underestimate of deflections, both short and long term. When the appropriate A23.3 provisions are followed, the estimates are conservative in terms of immediate and differential deflections, and can be reasonable in the long term. Nonetheless, the aforementioned importance of immediate deflections, construction effects, and the resulting long term deflections may require a more accurate assessment in some situations. Using the observed data, both rigorous and simplified deflection prediction methodologies are developed and presented herein, such that they are in substantial agreement with each other and with the measured results. The report also highlights the fact that errors in the moment-curvature relationship can lead to unacceptable results when using a mechanics-based approach to computing deflections. Overall, the report finds that the expression proposed by Bischoff [3] for computing effective moments of inertia is more appropriate for the specimens investigated; that the apparent ultimate creep coefficient (Cu) for use in rigorous creep calculations for these specimens, subject to early age loading, is quite high (3.5 over the A23.3 average value of 2.35); and that in order to accurate calculate differential deflections using simplified methods, a correction term must be added to basic code provisions to account for the additional cracking and creep due to construction. These terms are developed and presented herein.
P a g e |5 March 18, 2013
2.0 I NTRODUCTION
2.1 Purpose
This report presents the results of an experimental study conducted at the University of British Columbia by Adebar [4] on the deflections (both immediate and creep) of reinforced concrete slabs accounting for typical construction practices, including early age construction loading. The intent was to generate both simplified design office and more rigorous, detailed predictions, and to subsequently make use of the experimental data to improve upon both methods
2.2
Significance
The Canadian standard for structural design of concrete, CSA A23.3-04 (A23.3) specifies limits on spanto-depth ratios for reinforced concrete slabs, below which the designer need not calculate deflections; for flat plate slabs with Grade 400 reinforcement (the only grade in common use in Canada), Cl. 13.2.4 gives a maximum span-to-depth of 30. However, common practice in Vancouver is to design such slabs with span-to-depth values of 36 and check deflection requirements, as given in Table 9.3. Thus, the ability to accurately and efficiently estimate deflections is an essential part of design. Often, the governing deflections will be differential deflections, occurring after the attachment of structural elements. The reason for this becomes clear when one considers that the aforementioned long term limits are 75-150% of the immediate limits, while the long term multipliers alone specified by Cl. 9.8.2.5 typically result in a 50-100% increase over short term values (assuming non-structural components are attached between 1 and 3 months after concrete placement) and future live load deflections are on the same order of the dead load deflections. Design Example 6.2 from the CAC Concrete Design Handbook provides a good example. The overall flatness of the floor slabs has also become increasingly important with the growing popularity of rigid flooring finishes and related tightening of construction specifications. As a result, the ability to accurately estimate deflections has become increasingly important. In estimating the deflections, a key issue is the effect of construction loading. This loading, primarily due to short formwork/reshoring cycles in multi-story building construction, can be over two times the slab dead load [1]. This large, early-age loading causes increased cracking and creep, sometimes beyond the design values. Recent studies found that simplified procedures of A23.3 for computing deflections were unconservative for lightly reinforced flexural elements, such as floor slabs [2, 3]. In 2009, CSA A23.3 adopted an emergency update for beams and one-way slabs, calling for the modulus of rupture (fr) value used in computing deflections to be reduced by 50% for beams and one-way slabs (similar to what was already present in the Clause 13 for two-way slabs), effectively increasing code estimates for both immediate and long term deflections. Overall, a study into the deflection behavior of slabs and the accuracy of current code provisions is thought to be valuable from both a research and design practice perspective. The primary benefits are: An improved understanding of the accuracy of predictions for immediate deflections An improved understanding of the actual deflection behavior of the slabs over time Improvements to and validation of simplified methods for predicting deflections
P a g e |6 March 18, 2013
2.3
Scope
In accordance with the project requirements, several estimates of the deflections over time were made. As aforementioned, both simplified design office and more rigorous, detailed predictions were made and these were subsequently revised to reflect the observed data. Ultimately, four distinct estimates are presented, each of which address immediate and long term deflections: Detailed Approach Initial Predictions Simplified (Design Office) Approach Initial Predictions Detailed Approach Improved Estimates Simplified (Design Office) Approach Improved Estimates Throughout the report, the Detailed Approach is presented first, partly because the results of the detailed estimates provide insight into the improvements made to the simplified methods. In developing the improved estimates, combinations of several adjustments were considered until all three results (simplified, detailed, and measured) were in substantial agreement.
2.3.1 Part 1 Initial Predictions

Part one of this project included initial predictions using both the Simplified and Detailed approaches and was completed as an earlier course requirement. It was submitted January 28, 2013 and is included in this report as Appendix A. It should be noted that, as per the course requirements, only the effects of the initial dead load and sustained load were considered. The effects of construction loading (both cracking and additional creep) were not considered in Part 1. In Part 2, both estimates are revised to include the effects of construction loading. Section 3.3 describes the analysis and results of the Initial Predictions.
2.3.2 Part 2 Improved Estimates

In Part 2, the experimental results were used to improve upon both the Simplified and Detailed estimates. The effects of construction loading were considered for both methods and the estimates were refined until all results were in substantial agreement with the experimental data. Part 2 was not submitted earlier and is the focus of this report. Section 3.5 describes the analysis and results of the Improved Estimates.
2.4
Description of Experiment
The testing is aimed at assessing the deflections of typical Canadian two-way building slabs. As such, the idealized prototype structure is a strip of a two-way slab, of length (L) 24ft and height (h) 8in; this yields a span-to-depth ratio of 36, which is common practice in Vancouver [4]. It should be noted that this exceeds the prescriptive CSA A23.3 (A23.3) limit of 30, and thus calculations would be required to demonstrate that the resulting deflections are within acceptable limits, as specified by A23.3. To make efficient use of space and materials, balanced cantilever test specimens representing onequarter of the full-span member described above were used. The original description by Adebar (Appendix C) provides more detailed discussion on the measures taken to effectively replicate a quarterspan of a slab strip and the related advantages and limitations; this document was provided as part of
P a g e |7 March 18, 2013
the project background is included as Appendix B. However, two consequences that should be highlighted are that using a cantilever allowed for accurate determination of the bending moment throughout the specimen (as its a determinate structure), but that the specimens lacked the axial restraint present in a real structure; this would reduce the cracking due to shrinkage. The design aids section of the CAC Concrete Design Handbook (Chapter 6) notes that the use of a 50% reduction in the modulus of rupture (fr) is intended to account for the effect of shrinkage restraint cracking occurring in two-way slabs [1].
2.4.1 Description of Specimens 2.4.1.1 Material Properties

The reinforcement used was grade 400 deformed bars to CSA standard G30.18-09, as is typical for new reinforced concrete buildings in Canada. The specified 28-day cylinder strength for the concrete was 25MPa. Typical specified strengths for building slabs in Vancouver are 30 or 35MPa; the lower value of 25MPa was specified with the intent of achieving an actual 28-day cylinder strength of 30MPa. Compression tests performed on the samples yielded an average 28-day strength of 30.5MPa for the standard (moist-cured) cylinders. Tests were also performed at 3 and 7 days on field-cured samples, for use in calculating early age properties at loading. Table 1 summarizes the results of the cylinder tests. Modulus of rupture tests were also performed; the results are presented and discussed in the original test description (see Appendix B). In all the deflection calculations presented herein, the actual strength (i.e. field-cured at the appropriate age) were used. Calculated material properties are presented in Section 3.1.
Table 1: Cylinder Compression Test Results

Age 3 7 28 28 Curing Field Field Field Moist Measured Strength [MPa] Test #1 Test #2 Test #3 Average 18.0 17.4 19.0 18.1 26.2 24.8 24.9 25.3 27.1 26.6 26.8 26.9 30.3 30.7 30.5 30.5
2.4.1.2 Physical Description

In total, four unique specimens were constructed and tested. Each specimen was 20 (508mm) wide by 8 (203mm) deep and 72 (1830mm) long; the tip deflections were measured 2 from the end of the cantilever. As aforementioned, the specimens were intended to represent a quarterspan of a slab strip. Thus, the specimens were subjected to self-weight, plus additional point loads to simulate the missing portion of the slab (P1), intermittent construction loading (P2, plus increased P1) and, eventually sustained loading (three smaller point loads). Refer to Appendix B for a more detailed description. Figure 1 provides an elevation sketch of the specimen and loading.
P a g e |8 March 18, 2013
Figure 1: Elevation Sketch of Typical Test Specimen

Source: Adebar (not yet published) Estimating Building Slab Deflections Accounting For Typical Construction Practice: An Experimental Study
Each specimen was unique in terms of the reinforcement area and clear cover. Two specimens contained 2-15M bars (=0.39%), while two contained 2-20M bars (=0.58%).Two different clear covers were also used: 1 (25mm) and 1 (40mm). As such, the four unique specimens were: 2-15M, with 25mm cover to longitudinal reinforcement (R15-C25) 2-15M with 40mm cover to longitudinal reinforcement (R15-C40) 2-20M with 25mm cover to longitudinal reinforcement (R20-C25) 2-20M with 40mm cover to longitudinal reinforcement (R20-C40) The test specimens were also provided with reinforcement perpendicular to the principal longitudinal bars, similar to that of a two-way slab; the perpendicular bars were placed either above or below the principal reinforcement, accounting for the aforementioned variation in cover. Figure 2 below provides a cross section illustrating the various test specimens.
Figure 2: Cross Section Sketch of Test Specimens

P a g e |9 March 18, 2013
2.4.2 Description of Testing

As noted above, the specimens were subjected to three different loadings representing: self-weight, construction loading, and sustained loading. The formwork was stripped after approximately three days after casting, subjecting the specimens to self-weight. Three cycles of construction loading between days 5 and 17 were then applied, representing a formwork sequence with formwork at one level, plus two levels of reshoring. The total duration of the construction loading was 7 days. Figure 3 shows the load history.
Figure 3: Loading History For Slab Specimens

As can be seen, loading was greatest during the construction period, about 50% greater than selfweight alone and 10% greater than the sustained load. This is reflective of typical construction practices, although in some cases, the construction loading could be even greater. For lightly reinforced two-way slabs, this construction loading will generally result in a notable increase in cracking and, thus, a decrease in the effective moment of inertia (Ie) of the slab for all future loads. In lieu of a detailed knowledge of the construction loads, the CAC Handbook (Chapter 6) recommends that a construction load of 2.0 to 2.2 times the slab dead load be used in estimating Ie [1]. However, the use of a construction loading of 2.0 (rather than about 1.5) times the self-weight would only serve to suppress the differences in Ie of the various specimens, because tension stiffening (represented by the Ie expressions) is most sensitive to differences in the section when the applied moment is nearest to the cracking moment [2]; this is the primary benefit of using the construction loading presented herein.
P a g e | 10 March 18, 2013
3.0 D ATA & A NALYSIS

The following section presents the experimental data used in the study, the analyses undertaken, and the calculated/assumed material and section properties used in the analyses.
3.1
Material Properties
In order to produce initial predictions of deflections, various material properties had to be assigned. The values presented herein were determined from the initial data and were consistent across all methods, both initial and improved.
3.1.1 Concrete Compressive Strength

As even the initial predictions attempted to use material properties appropriate to the age of loading, values of the standard cylinder strength were required at various times. The data only provided values at 3, 7, and 28 days. As such, additional values from days 2 to 35 were interpolated. It was assumed that the concrete reached a strength of 27MPa at day 35 and that there was no appreciable strength gain thereafter. Figure 4 shows the strength gain over time, with selected labels. Refer to Appendix D for the complete set of values used.
Figure 4: Cylinder Compressive Strength Gain with Time 3.1.2 Concrete Modulus of Rupture
Tests completed by Adebar as part of the experimental study confirmed that the modulus of rupture (fr) of the concrete was directly related to the cylinder compressive strength by the well-known equation: = 0.6
P a g e | 11 March 18, 2013
Where fr and fc are the actual values, as opposed to the 28-day values, which are commonly used in design; Figure 5 below shows the calculated values for fr*, as well as the fc* for reference. It is worth noting that the modulus of rupture converges to its ultimate value more quickly than does * the cylinder strength, due to the square root in the equation. For example, the 3-day value of fr is 82% of the 35-day value, while the 3-day fc* is only 67% of its 35-day value. The most critical values of fr*, were those at 3 days (2.55MPa) and 5 days (2.91MPa). As will be seen in the following sections, these are the values that were used to calculate the governing effective moment of inertia (i.e. if the previously cracked moment of inertia is smaller, it is used in the applicable deflection calculations).
Figure 5: Modulus of Rupture Values (with fc* for comparison) 3.1.3 Concrete Modulus of Elasticity
Various forms of the modulus of elasticity were required throughout the analyses: the secant modulus (Ec) was used in computing the deflections, while the tangent modulus (Ec,t) was used in computing the cracking curvature (cr).
3.1.3.1 Secant Modulus

The secant modulus is the form commonly used in design and various expressions have been specified by design codes. The following expressions were considered in making the initial predictions:
. = 0.043
(2 A23.3-1984) (3 A23.3-04)
= 4500
= 3300 + 6900 ( ).
(4 A23.3-04)
P a g e | 12 March 18, 2013
All three equations represent the secant modulus at a compressive stress 40% of fc (or rather, fc in this case); this assumption was reasonably fulfilled in the experimental study, as the self-weight and construction loading resulted in maximum concrete stresses of about 25%-50% fc*. Equation (2), from the 1984 edition of A23.3, simplified to about 5000*fc for the measured density of the concrete used in this study (c=2396kg/m3). CSA A23.3 notes that Equation (3) is valid only for fc between 20MPa and 40MPa; since the 3-day strength is 18.1MPa, this equation was deemed inappropriate for the study. Equation (3) was essentially derived from Equation (2) by assuming a typical density and applying a reduction of 10%, and therefore was also deemed inappropriate. It should be noted that the 10% reduction was adopted in CSA A23.3-94, for which the commentary to Cl 8.6.2 notes that the 10% reduction reflects experience with Canadian concrete. As such, Equation (4) was deemed to be most appropriate and was used throughout the study. Values of the secant modulus were calculated at the same ages as was fr. Figure 6 shows Ec as a function of time (again with fc* for reference). Note that although it gives a value at 0 days, this is not of significance because deflections do not occur until day 3. Refer to Appendix C for exact values.
Figure 6: Secant Modulus Values (with fc* for comparison) 3.1.3.2 Tangent Modulus
The tangent modulus (Ec,t) is the appropriate modulus to use in tension, up until cracking. Ec,t was taken to be 10% greater than Ec [5]. It was only used to compute curvatures at initial cracking (i.e. at 3 days); the value used was 24,500MPa (rounded from 1.1*22257MPa).
P a g e | 13 March 18, 2013
3.1.4 Creep Parameters 3.1.4.1 Detailed Approach

For the detailed approach to creep, the method outlined in Chapter 1 of the CAC Handbook (henceforth referred to as the Ct Method) was used to reduce the concrete secant modulus to the appropriate, time-dependent effective value (Ec,eff). A number of correction factors are specified by A23.3 in order to match the given conditions with the standardized conditions of A23.3. The following equations were used:
Where: Ec,eff effective (creep-adjusted) secant modulus Ec short term secant modulus (as per section 3.1.3.1) Ct creep coefficient (as per Eqn 6)
, = /(1 + )
(5)
Where: t time after loading [days] Cu ultimate creep coefficient Qcr composite correction factor (see Eqn 7)
(6)
Where: Qa age at loading correction Qh relative humidity correction Qf aggregate correction Qr surface area correction Qs slump correction Qv air content correction
(7)
The value Cu from Equation (6) is the most important factor in computing the creep deflections (aside perhaps from immediate deflection, which is amplified by the creep calculations); it represents the total amount of creep that will occur long term. The CAC handbook notes that this value varies from 1.30 to 4.15 and suggests an average value of 2.35; this average value was used for the initial (detailed) predictions, and was a key adjustment factor in the improved predictions. The CAC handbook notes that Equations (6) and (7) were developed for sustained compressive stress not exceeding 50% of the concrete strength. Both these requirements were met in this study. Finally, only limited values of correction factors are provided by the Handbook (Table 1.2) and no information was provided about some of the necessary parameters. As such, various interpolations and assumptions were made. Calculations and the parameters used are provided in the respective Appendices for each section; however, the common factors can briefly be summarized as follows: Qa was taken as the appropriate value for each loading stage (eg. 1.14 @ 3 days) Qh was taken as 0.87 (assumed RH of 60%) Qf was taken as 1.0 (assumed 50% fine aggregate) Qr was taken as 0.82 (defined for the given volume and surface area of the specimen) Qs was taken as 1.08 (assumed 100mm slump) Qv was taken as 1.0 (assumed air content 6% or less)
3.1.4.2 Simplified Approach

A similar concept is applied to determine creep deflections in the simplified approach: a parameter s (similar to Ct) is specified by Clause 9.8.2.5 for various ages after loading, eliminating the
P a g e | 14 March 18, 2013
consideration of the various correction factors or the variability in the ultimate creep coefficient (Cu). Table 2 (based on Figure N9.8.2.6) shows the specified values:
Table 2: The s-Parameter (Cl. 9.8.2.5)

Duration of Sustained Load Five years or more 12 months 6 months 3 months 1 month s 2.0 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.5
3.1.5 Effects of Shrinkage

In a real structure, the effects of shrinkage would be expected to be a significant factor in the deflections. This is recognized through the 50% reduction if fr used in calculation the cracking moment, as specified by A23.3, Clauses 9 and 13. However, shrinkage effects are not expected to be significant in this study for the following reasons: The axial restraint present in a real slab is not reflected in the cantilever specimens The curing conditions were presumably not such that shrinkage would be exacerbated (ie. no wind, extreme heat, low humidity) The concrete mix is design presumably did not contain silica fume (expensive and not common practice) or unusually high cement content. As such, the effects of shrinkage were neglected throughout the study. As will be seen in comparing the experimental data and the deflection estimates, this appears to have been a reasonable assumption. Accordingly, the 50% reduction in fr was not applied to the initial predictions (discussed later), but various reductions in fr were applied in some of the improved estimates; however the need for this correction was attributed to inaccuracies in the code specified equations for immediate deflections for the members in question (discussed later).
3.2
Section Properties 3.2.1 Basic Properties

Section properties such as the gross and cracked moment of inertia were calculated for each of the specimen; the difference between the gross and net area of concrete was neglected. These basic values were consistent for both the simplified and detailed estimates.
Table 3: Basic Section Properties

Specimen R15-C25 R15-C40 R20-C25 R20-C40 (%) 0.39 0.39 0.58 0.58 Ig [mm4] 354*106 354*106 354*106 354*106 Icr [mm4] 71.4*106 58.4*106 96.0*106 80.5*106
P a g e | 15 March 18, 2013
The 3-day value of Ec was used in calculating the cracked moments of inertia, which were then in turn used to calculated effective moments of inertia at all ages (eg. even for construction loading applied at day 5). Although the time-appropriate Ec should be used, the effective moments of inertia were found to be somewhat insensitive to the possible variation in Ec and CSA A23.3 notes that the expressions for Ec typically yield values between 80% and 120% of the true values. The problem is further complicated by the fact that the specimens have previously been cracked when construction/sustained loading is applied (this is accounted for in the expressions for Ie). As such, the error associated with using the 3-day Ec for calculating all effective moments of inertia was deemed to be acceptable.
3.2.2 Moment-Curvature Models (Detailed Immediate Approach)

Moment curvature models were developed for use in the detailed initial predictions (Section 3.3.1.1). A tri-linear model was used to define the M- curves: 1) uncracked 2) cracked with tension stiffening 3) yielding. The values at yielding were extracted from RESPONSE2000, which accounts for tension stiffening. Although the calculated tension stiffening from RESPONSE is quite conservative at the yield moment [5], the applied moments in the study are much closer to cracking than to yielding, and thus, the conservatism is reduced (although it will be seen later that this still overestimated the tension stiffening). Table 4 provides the parameters used in defining the curves and Figure 7 shows a typical curve. The remaining plots are the same shape, with the yield point shifted.
Table 4: Moment-Curvature Parameters

Specimen R15-C25 R15-C40 R20-C25 R20-C40 Mcr [kN-m] 8.89 8.89 8.89 8.89 cr [rad/km] 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 My [kN-m] 25.1 22.7 36.6 33.0 y [rad/km] 15.4 16.9 16.8 18.6
Figure 7: Typical M- Curve Used in Detailed Prediction
P a g e | 16 March 18, 2013
The values at cracking were determined from simple linear elastic theory using Ig and Ec,t (not the secant modulus). This neglects the small differences in transformed moments of inertia, as well as the effects of the transverse (secondary) bars. Based on the data provided (Appendix B), this appears to have been a reasonable assumption, as three of the four specimens appear to have cracked at about 9kNm. It is postulated that the one specimen that cracked at a higher moment (R20-C25 at over 10kNm) is due to variation in the tensile strength at the location of the crack.
3.2.3 Effective Stiffnesses (Simplified Immediate Approach)

In the Simplified approach to immediate deflection, effective moment of inertia (Ie) expressions are used, in conjunction with the secant modulus and elastic beam equations, to compute deflections. Cl 9.8.2.6 of A23.3 specifies the use of the Branson (1965) [6] equation:
= + ( )
(8)
= /
(9)
Where: Icr fully cracked moment of inertia Ig gross moment of inertia Mcr section cracking moment (see Eqn 9) Ma maximum moment (current or previous)
Where: fr modulus of rupture Ig gross moment of inertia yt distance from centroid to extreme tension fibre
A23.3 also specifies averaging equations for continuous and one-end-continuous beams. In the case of a cantilever, however, no averaging is required. The Branson equation aims to account for the tension stiffening phenomena (accounted for in the M- curves in the Detailed approach). Recent studies have noted that the Branson equation overestimates the tension stiffening effect in lightly reinforced members, as it was developed for beams, with =1-2% [2, 3]. Bischoff (2005) proposed the following:
=(
+ 1
(10)
Where: Icr fully cracked moment of inertia Iuncr uncracked moment of inertia Mcr section cracking moment (see Eqn 9) Ma maximum moment (current or previous)
For the purposes of this study, the gross moment of inertia (Ig) will be used in lieu of the uncracked (transformed) moment of inertia (Iuncr). The two key differences are that this equation averages the flexibilities rather than stiffnesses and that the uncracked contribution (representing tension stiffening) depends only on the ratio Mcr/Ma, not on the difference between Ig and Icr, as per the Branson equation [2]. The Bischoff equation is used in the Improved Estimates. It should be noted that various values of Mcr have been used in these equations, due to different specified values of fr. Until 2009, A23.3 specified the full value of fr for one-way member (Clause 9) and fr/2 for two-way slabs (Clause 13). A23.3 now specifies fr/2 for both cases. Different values of Ma are also investigated in this study; this is because the Initial Predictions (Section 3.3) neglect construction load effects (as per project instructions), while the Improved Estimates (Section 3.5)
P a g e | 17 March 18, 2013
account for construction and, thus, Ma becomes the moment from construction for most of the load history.
3.3
Initial Predictions (Part 1) 3.3.1 Immediate Deflections 3.3.1.1 Initial Detailed Approach
In the detailed approach, immediate deflections were predicted from first principles by applying the moment-area theory and numerically integrating the curvature diagram. The deflection was calculated for each specimen for self-weight and for the sustained load. As per instructions for Part 1, construction loading was neglected. Table 5 summarizes the results and Figure 8 shows typical plots. Refer to the original submission (Appendix A) for detailed plots for each specimen.
Table 5: Immediate Deflection Predictions Detailed Approach

Specimen R15-C25 R15-C40 R20-C25 R20-C40 Tip Deflection, tip [mm] Self-Weight Self-Weight+Sustained Loading 1.15 2.44 1.20 2.81 1.11 1.97 1.13 2.20
Figure 8: Typical Curvature Diagram and Deflected Shape (R15-C25 Shown) 3.3.1.2 Initial Simplified Approach
The initial prediction for the simplified approach makes use of the effective moment of inertia (Ie) expressions in Clause 9.8.2.3, the secant modulus, and elastic deflection equations to compute deflections. The effective moment of inertia expression is from Branson (1965) (Equation 8, Section 3.2.3). In calculating the cracking moment for the initial predictions, no reduction in fr is applied because there is axial restraint (except for the negligible amount due to reinforcement) and because until 2009 (when A23.3 adopted the emergency update to clause 9), this was common practice for one-way members (i.e. a typical design office approach). The values of Ec used were the 3-day and
P a g e | 18 March 18, 2013
35-day values, respectively; again, the construction loading was neglected, as per the project instructions. Table 6 presents the calculated values of Ie (as a percentage of Ig) and the resulting deflections. Refer to the Part 1 submission (Appendix A) for further comments.
Table 6: Immediate Tip Deflections Simplified Prediction

Specimen R15-C25 R15-C40 R20-C25 R20-C40 Self-Weight Ie/Ig [%] tip [mm] 74% 1.56 73% 1.58 76% 1.52 75% 1.55 Self-Weight+Sustained Ie/Ig [%] tip [mm] 43% 3.01 40% 3.18 47% 2.73 44% 2.89
3.3.2 Long Term Deflections 3.3.2.1 Initial Detailed Approach

In the Detailed approach, the initial predictions made use of the aforementioned creep parameters (Section 3.1.4.1) to calculate the creep deflections throughout the entire loading history. This was accomplished by amplifying the incremental immediate deflections due to self-weight and selfweight+sustained loading using the appropriate Ct and Ec,eff values for each load and summing the results. Cu was taken as the A23.3 recommended average value of 2.35. Again, the construction load was neglected, as per instructions. Table 7 presents the predicted tip deflections at days 3, 35, 151, and 180 and Figure 9 provides a typical plot generated in the Detailed approach. It should be noted that the immediate deflections from Simplified approach (Section 3.3.1.2) were used in order to make a fair comparison between the Detailed and Simplified creep results. Refer to the Part submission (Appendix A) for further comments and all relevant plots.
Table 7: Long Term Tip Deflections Detailed Prediction

Specimen R15-C25 R15-C40 R20-C25 R20-C40 Day 3 1.56 1.58 1.52 1.55 Deflections [mm] Day 34 Day 151 2.99 6.53 3.03 6.87 2.91 5.96 2.96 6.30 Day 180 6.67 7.02 6.08 6.43
P a g e | 19 March 18, 2013
Figure 9: Typical Deflection vs. Time Plot from Detailed Approach 3.3.2.2 Initial Simplified Approach
In the Simplified approach, the initial predictions applied the code-specified factors (see Section 3.1.4.2) to the simplified immediate deflections (Section 3.3.1.2) to determine the deflections at days 3, 30, 90, and 180 (the values for day 30 were not included in the original submission). In contrast to the Detailed method, this method provides the deflections at only a few key points, which would be typical of a design office approach. Table 8 presents the results. Refer to the original submission (Appendix A) for further comments.
Table 8: Long Term Tip Deflections Simplified Prediction

Specimen R15-C25 R15-C40 R20-C25 R20-C40 Day 3 1.56 1.58 1.52 1.55 Deflections [mm] Day 30 Day 90 2.34 6.91 2.37 7.31 2.28 6.26 2.33 6.64 Day 180 7.60 8.03 6.88 7.31
3.3.3 Comparison of Detailed and Simplified Predictions 3.3.3.1 Comparison of Immediate Deflections
In comparing the immediate deflections, the detailed approach of integrating curvatures appears to yield values about 30% lower than the Simplified approach. Table 9 provides a comparison of the Detailed and Simplified initial deflections (from Table 5 & Table 6).
P a g e | 20 March 18, 2013
Table 9: Comparison of Immediate Deflections Initial Predictions

Specimen R15-C25 R15-C40 R20-C25 R20-C40 Simplified 1.56 1.58 1.52 1.55 Tip Deflections at Day 3 [mm] Detailed % Dif (=dif/avg*100%) 1.15 30.3% 1.20 27.3% 1.11 31.2% 1.13 31.3%
It should be recalled that no reduction in fr was applied in either approach. This difference is at least partly explained by the fact that the simplified approach used the secant modulus (Ec), while a substantial portion of the M- curve of the detailed procedure is defined by the tangent modulus (Ec,t). The secant modulus is defined at 40% fc, but at this loading (M=10.11kNm), the maximum concrete compressive stress is only about 25% of fc. It could also be explained by inaccuracies in the expression for the effective moment of inertia. Several sources note that the Branson equation is notably less reliable near the cracking moment, as it the response here is significantly sensitive to spatial variations in tensile strength, flaws, etc [7].
3.3.3.2 Comparison of Long Term Deflections

The Detailed and Simplified approaches to creep deflections are much more consistent. The total deflections at day 180 are all within about 13%. The simplified results appear to be conservative; however, it should be borne in mind that is it often the differential (long term minus short term) deflections that govern a problem. As aforementioned, the Simplified immediate deflections (Table 6) were used as the basis for both the Detailed and Simplified creep calculations in order to make a meaningful comparison. Table 10 provides a comparison (from Table 7 and Table 8).
Table 10: Comparison of Long Term Deflections Initial Predictions

Specimen R15-C25 R15-C40 R20-C25 R20-C40 Simplified 7.60 8.03 6.88 7.31 Tip Deflections at Day 180 [mm] Detailed % Dif (=dif/avg*100%) 6.67 13.0% 7.02 13.4% 6.08 12.3% 6.43 12.8%
As will be seen shortly, however, all the predictions thus far (immediate/long term & detailed/simplified) will be greatly exceeded by the experimental results and require improvements.
3.4
Experimental Data 3.4.1 Measured Deflections

The four specimens were subjected to the aforementioned loading, and measurements of the deflection were taken at the tip (70 from the root of the cantilever, as per Figure 1) at several intervals. Table 1 (provided for Part 2) shows the measured deflections at selected intervals (the more detailed values referenced in the original document were not provided).
P a g e | 21 March 18, 2013
Table 11: Summary of Measured Deflections

Measured Deflections [mm] Time Time P1 P2 Mmax Loading [hrs] [days] [kN] [kN] [kNm] R15-C25 R15-C40 R20-C25 R20-C40 68 68 115 115 166 166 234 234 286 286 334 334 407 407 838 838 3622 3 3 5 5 7 7 10 10 12 12 14 14 17 17 35 35 151 None Self Wt. Const. Self Wt. Const. Self Wt. Const. Self Wt. Sust. 0 4.12 4.12 6.52 6.52 4.12 4.12 6.52 6.52 4.12 4.12 6.52 6.52 4.12 4.12 4.12 4.12 0 0.00 0.00 1.23 1.23 0.00 0.00 1.23 1.23 0.00 0.00 1.23 1.23 0.00 0.00 0 10.23 10.23 15.14 15.14 10.23 10.23 15.14 15.14 10.23 10.23 15.14 15.14 10.23 10.23 13.59 13.59 0 3.24 4.46 8.28 9.54 8.29 8.39 9.83 10.54 9.27 9.22 10.52 11.21 9.96 10.54 11.39 15.35 0 4.37 5.82 11.39 12.97 11.29 11.40 13.36 14.20 12.50 12.42 14.22 15.02 13.36 13.94 15.01 19.23 0 2.41 3.49 6.38 7.48 6.46 6.57 7.71 8.36 7.33 7.30 8.33 8.99 7.99 8.61 9.28 13.29 0 3.48 4.71 8.59 9.98 8.69 8.81 10.24 10.99 9.70 9.65 10.96 11.76 10.45 11.10 11.98 16.21
Additional point loads: 1.24 kN at 0.95 m from support, 1.73 kN at 1.17 m, 0.08 kN at 1.55 m.
It can be seen that the values of Mmax used in the predictions were slightly lower; this was due to slight differences in precision of the loads and distances. It should also be noted that the days field was not provided in the original document; the values of days shown were used in the predictions and are an approximation to the time in hours.
3.4.2 Comparison to Initial Predictions 3.4.2.1 Comparison with Detailed Approach

Table 12 (next page) provides a comparison between the Detailed Prediction and the measured values. Clearly, the prediction significantly underestimated the deflections and adjustments to the prediction were required. However, it is interesting to note that the relative errors for the immediate (day 3) and long term (day 151) were somewhat similar; this suggested that a simple correct to the immediate deflections could yield reasonable results.
Table 12: Detailed Prediction vs. Observed Deflections

Specimen R15-C25 R15-C40 R20-C25 R20-C40 Tip Deflections at Day 3 [mm] Detailed Measured % Error 1.15 3.24 -64.5% 1.20 4.37 -72.5% 1.11 2.41 -53.9% 1.13 3.48 -67.5% Tip Deflections at Day 151 [mm] Detailed Measured % Error 6.67 15.35 -56.5% 7.02 19.23 -63.5% 6.08 13.29 -54.3% 6.43 16.21 -60.3%
P a g e | 22 March 18, 2013
3.4.2.2 Comparison with Simplified Approach

Table 13 provides a comparison between the Detailed Prediction and the measured values. Clearly, the simplified prediction also significantly underestimated the deflections and adjustments to the prediction were required. The immediate values are slightly closer to the measured values, but still well beyond a reasonable number for any purposes.
Table 13: Simplified Prediction vs. Observed Deflections

Specimen R15-C25 R15-C40 R20-C25 R20-C40 Tip Deflections at Day 3 [mm] Simplified Measured % Error 1.56 3.24 -51.9% 1.58 4.37 -63.8% 1.52 2.41 -36.9% 1.55 3.48 -55.5% Tip Deflections at Day 151 [mm] Detailed Measured % Error 7.60 15.35 -50.5% 8.03 19.23 -58.5% 6.88 13.29 -48.2% 7.31 16.21 -54.9%
Based on the results and comparisons above significant adjustments were required in the improved estimates. The fact that the simplified immediate deflections were out was not surprising, since it was known that the lack of a reduction in fr (and hence the cracking moment) was recently revised in A23.3 to a 50% reduction (for one-way construction) via an emergency update. The fact that the more detailed method was even further removed from the measured values was interesting. In examining the plots of moment vs. immediate deflection in the original paper (Appendix B), there appears to be discontinuity in the observed behavior, which was not accounted for in the momentcurvature response. Finally, given that the immediate estimated were significantly lower than the measured results, it is not surprising that the long term estimates fall short by a similar margin.
3.5
Improved Estimates (Part 2)
Part 2 of the project consisted of making improvements to both the Detailed and Simplified estimates. In both cases, several combinations of adjustments were investigated until the improved estimates substantially agreed with the measured values and with each other. This section describes the various changes that were considered, the final version of the improved estimates, and the results.
3.5.1 Immediate Deflections 3.5.1.1 Improved Detailed Approach

In the detailed approach, applying the moment area theory greatly underestimated the immediate deflections. Based on the detailed moment vs. deflection plots provided (Appendix B), this appeared to be due to a discontinuity at cracking, which was not accounted for in the initial M- response. Figure 10a (left) provides a comparison between the detailed prediction with the results given by Adebar (from Appendix B) for R15-C25.
P a g e | 23 March 18, 2013
Figure 10: Initial (Left) & Improved (Right) M- Comparison for R15-C25
Four adjustments were made to the M- relationships in order to better match the observed data. Figure 10b (right) and Figure 11 (next page) show the corrected M- plot the final M- curve for R15-C25. Plots for the remaining three specimens are provided in Appendix D. Table 14 provides a summary of the immediate deflections from the Improved estimate. The cracking moment (Mcr) was adjusted to the observed values (~8kNm for R15-C25) The yield curvature (y) was increased by 50% (from 15.4 to 23.1kNm for R15-C25) A discontinuity was added in the moment curvature relationship (the curvature increased by a factor of 4 at cracking) The uncracked stiffness was reduced by 10%
Table 14: Improved Immediate Estimates Detailed Approach

Specimen R15-C25 R15-C40 R20-C25 R20-C40 Tip Deflection, tip [mm] Self-Weight Self-Weight+Sustained Detailed Detailed Measured % Error Measured % Error 3.08 3.24 -4.9% 6.16 5.5 +12% 3.20 4.37 -27% 6.77 7.5 -9.7% 2.07 2.41 -14% 4.48 4.0 +12% 3.19 3.48 -8.3% 6.19 5.5 +13%
The results are indeed substantially improved over the initial estimates (see Table 12). Interestingly, when the adjusted M- curves are compared with RESPONSE2000 (R2K) output, they correspond somewhat more closely with the curves neglecting tension stiffening (see Figure 11) than those with tension stiffening (which were the basis for the initial prediction). In comparing the three curves, it can be seen that the increase in y is mostly an artificial adjustment that was needed to match the deflections in the range of interest (i.e. to achieve equal moments of areas under the resulting curvature diagrams). It is postulated that the actual R2K curve without tension stiffening more closely represents the true response of the member, but the "Improved" curve has the advantage that it is easier to implement in the numerical integration: a simple lookup function in MS Excel gave the curvature corresponding to each bending moment; this same function would not work with the actual R2K output, since it has a descending portion.
P a g e | 24 March 18, 2013
Figure 11: Improved M- Curve Compared with Initial and R2K (R15-C25 shown)
It should be noted that observed data for R15-C25 was unique in the sense that it fit best with the Branson equation. The remaining three fell between the Branson and Bischoff Equations, consistent with the corrected M- plots for the Improved Detailed approach. Overall, Improved estimate gave reasonable results, but several M- curves could have satisfied the data and the aforementioned adjustments make the method more phenomenological than rational.
3.5.1.2 Improved Simplified Approach

The Simplified approach for Immediate deflections was improved by investigating various Ie expressions: the immediate (day 3) deflections were calculated using various adjustments to the a parameter and cracking moment (via the modulus of rupture, fr). Both the Branson equation (8) as well as the Bischoff Equation (10) were used. Table 15 provides a summary of the results. The SRSS values represent the absolute accuracy of the estimates (i.e. it does not distinguish between overestimates and under estimates) while the mean provides a sense of the skew (over or under). It can be seen that the Bischoff equation with fr reduced to 85% of its full value and a=2.0 is, on average, the most accurate (lowest SRSS) and has little skew (mean nearest zero).
Table 15: Various Improved Simplified Immediate Estimates Considered

Case R15-C25 %Dif R15-C40 %Dif R20-C25 %Dif R20-C40 Measured 3.24 -4.37 -2.41 -3.48 1 Initial (fr=100%; a=3) 1.56 -52% 1.58 -64% 1.52 -37% 1.55 2 fr=50%; a=3 4.63 43% 5.25 20% 3.76 56% 4.25 3 fr=75%; a=3 2.78 -14% 2.94 -33% 2.51 4% 2.67 4 fr=50%; a=2.5 4.05 25% 4.50 3% 3.40 41% 3.77 5 fr=50%; a=2.25 3.74 15% 4.10 -6% 3.19 32% 3.51 6 fr=50%; a=2.0 3.41 5% 3.70 -15% 2.97 23% 3.23 7 fr=75%; a=2.5 2.46 -24% 2.57 -41% 2.26 -6% 2.38 8 fr=75%; a=2.0 2.15 -34% 2.23 -49% 2.02 -16% 2.10 9 Bischoff (fr=85%; a=2) 3.47 7% 4.10 -6% 2.74 14% 3.14 %Dif --55% 22% -23% 8% 1% -7% -32% -40% -10% SRSS -105% 77% 43% 49% 36% 29% 58% 73% 19% Mean --52% 35% -17% 19% 11% 1.5% -25% -35% 1.2%
P a g e | 25 March 18, 2013
Although Bischoffs equation is not the most accurate for any single specimen, its error is relatively small and consistent, and appears to have little skew. This makes it a useful best estimate for engineering purposes. Because it appears to have little skew, a factor could also be applied to achieve estimates with a relatively uniform degree of desired conservatism; this is useful from a design perspective. Table 16 presents the Improved Simplified estimates for Immediate deflection. Calculations for each specimen can be found in Appendix E.
Table 16: Improved Immediate Estimates Simplified Approach

Specimen R15-C25 R15-C40 R20-C25 R20-C40 Tip Deflection, tip [mm] Self-Weight Self-Weight+Sustained Detailed % Error Detailed Measured % Error Measured 3.47 3.24 +7.1% 5.61 5.5 +2.0% 4.10 4.37 -6.2% 6.79 7.5 -9.5% 2.74 2.41 +13.7% 4.24 4.0 +6.0% 3.14 3.48 -9.8% 4.99 5.5 -9.3%
It is not surprising that the Bischoff equation yielded the best results; as aforementioned, the Branson equation overestimates the tension stiffening in lightly reinforced members. Based on these results and those of the Detailed approach (Section 3.5.1.1), it is clear that correctly accounting for tension stiffening is crucial in estimating deflections of reinforced concrete slabs. Finally, it should also be noted that Case 2 (i.e. the current code specified estimate as per A23.3) provides conservative estimates of immediate deflection and is acceptable from a design perspective. However, it should be recalled that the differential deflections must also be considered in the long term this is discussed in the following sections.
3.5.2 Long Term Deflections

The estimates of long term deflections (both Detailed and Simplified) were improved such that they substantially agreed with each other and the measured results. Similar to the Initial Predictions (Section 3.3.2), both Improved estimates made use of the Simplified Immediate deflections (from Section 3.5.1.2) in order to make a fair comparison. This is perhaps the most useful section of the project, as it makes use of the immediate deflections previously calculated and accurately predicts the long term deflections: these results could readily be applied to code specified limits, including those for differential deflection.
3.5.2.1 Improved Detailed Approach

In the Improved Detailed Approach, the incremental immediate deflections were calculated (using Case 9 from Table 15 - the Improved Simplified Approach for Immediate) for the three load stages: Stage 1: Self Weight Stage 2: Self Weight + Construction Load Stage 3: Self Weight + Sustained Load Recall that in the Initial Detailed Approach (Section 3.3.2.1), the construction loading (Stage 2). The three incremental immediate deflections were applied over the appropriate periods of time and the
P a g e | 26 March 18, 2013
resulting creep deflection was calculated separately for each load; the deflections were then summed to find the total deflection over the entire load history. Creep calculations were as discussed in Section 3.1.4.1. Figure 12 shows a typical resulting plot of the deflections. Appendix F contains all the plots and sample excerpts from the Excel spreadsheet calculations.
Self-Weight Full Sustained Load Immed. Deflection
Full Constr. Load Immed. Deflection (50% Elastic Recovery Assumed)
Figure 12: Typical Deflection vs. Time for the Improved Detailed Approach (R15-C25 shown)
The construction loading "spikes" are shown in the immediate deflections. An important assumption in the modeling was that 50% of the immediate deflection due to construction was recovered upon unloading; this represents both the additional and creep recovery (which was not explicitly modeled). This assumption will be shown to be consistent with the experimental data. Another important important note is that the effect of (previous) construction loading was accounted for in calculating the immediate deflection due to the sustained load. In developing the Improved Detailed Estimates, several parameters were adjusted until a given combination was found yielded results in substantial agreement with measured values for all four specimens. A few of the combinations considered were as follows and shown in Figure 13 (note only selected points are shown and full deflection plots would be nonlinear similar to Figure 12): Prediction D-1: Cu=3.5 & No Construction Loading (increased over the initial value, 2.35) Prediction D-2: Cu=1.35 with Construction Loading & Increased self-weight from Construction & 25% Elastic Recovery) Prediction D-3: Cu=3.1 with Construction Loading & 50% Elastic Recovery of construction Prediction D-4: Cu=3.5 with Construction Loading & 50% Elastic Recovery of construction
P a g e | 27 March 18, 2013
Figure 13: Various Models Considered For Improved Detailed Approach (R15-C25 shown)
Exact values from these plots can be found in Appendix F. The following observations can be made based on the comparison for R15-C25: Prediction D-1 achieved good values of deflection from Days 35 to 151, but did not address the construction deflections, although it did account for the cracking that would be present as a result of the loading (which led to the acceptable values in this range). Prediction D-2 accounted for the construction deflection (including 25% elastic recovery) and also amplified the deflection attributed to self-weight due to additional cracking under construction loading: this method was found to systematically overestimate the 35-day deflection. It also would likely be unconservative from a design perspective, since the differential deflection from Day 35 to Day 151 is underestimated. Prediction D-3 was a good match. The 50% elastic recovery appeared to well represent the combined phenomena of permanent immediate cracking and creep recovery However, D-3 was found to overestimate deflections in the remaining three specimen Prediction D-4 showed the same merits and was found to be the best fit, on average, for the four specimens. The increased creep rate (Cu=3.5) ensured that the differential deflection between days 35 and 151 was not significantly underestimated for any of the specimens. Ultimately, Prediction D-4 was selected as the final Improved Detailed estimate of deflections. Figure 14 compares the estimated and measured total deflection at selected times; again, only a few points are shown and linear plots are only to give a sense of the accuracy. Full detailed plots for each specimen (broken down into immediate, creep, total similar to Figure 12) are provided in Appendix F.
P a g e | 28 March 18, 2013
Figure 14: Measured vs. Predicted Total Deflection From The Improved Detailed Estimate
Table 17 shows the relative errors at selected times, for comparison to Table 12 and Table 13. The predicted values are generally less than 1mm, and well under 10%.
Table 17: Measured vs. Predicted Total Deflections - Improved Detailed Estimate
Specimen Measured Day 3 Predicted % Error Deflections [mm] Day 35 Measured Predicted % Error Measured Day 151 Predicted % Error
R15-C25 R15-C40 R20-C25 R20-C40
3.24 4.37 2.41 3.48
3.47 4.10 2.74 3.43
+7.1% -6.2% +14% -1.4%
11.39 15.01 9.28 11.98
12.11 14.56 9.25 10.81
+6.3% -3.0% -0.3% -9.8%
15.35 19.23 13.29 16.21
16.69 20.15 12.67 14.87
+8.7% +4.8% -4.7% -8.3%

In the Improved Simplified Approach to for Long Term deflections were calculated similar to those in the Initial Simplified Approach (Section 3.3.2.2): values of immediate deflections at selected key points were amplified using the code specified S-values. However, the differences were, conceptually, that various expressions for immediate deflections (from Table 15) were investigated and the effects of construction loading (additional cracking and creep) were accounted for. Several combinations of adjustments were applied until a combination was found that substantially agreed with the measured 3-day, 35-day, and 151-day values and, by extension, the Improved Detailed Approach (Section 3.5.2.1) for all four specimens. The combinations are summarized as follows and as shown Figure 15. Prediction S-1: Branson Equation, fr=100% (i.e. the Initial Prediction) Prediction S-2: Branson Equation, fr=50%
P a g e | 29 March 18, 2013
Prediction S-3: Branson Equation, fr=50% & Ma from Construction (i.e. current code) Prediction S-4: Bischoff Equation, fr=85%, Ma from Construction (i.e. Improved Simplified) Prediction S-5: Prediction S-4, plus additional multipliers at days 35 and 151 accounting for creep and residual immediate deflection from construction loading
Figure 15: Various Models Considered For Improved Simplified Approach (R15-C25 shown)
Exact values from these plots can be found in Appendix G. The following observations can be made based on the comparison for R15-C25: Prediction S-1 greatly understimates the deflections, although the differential deflection between days 35 and 151 is reasonable. Prediction S-2 gives a nearly exactly correct value at day 151, but underestimates the defelction at day 35 and overstimates the deflection at day 3; this would likely be conservative in design Prediction S-3 gives results similar to S-2, with a slight boost at days 35 and 151 due to cracking from construction. This is the current-code approach and is even more conservative from a design perspective Prediction S-4 gives accurate results at day 3, but underestimates the values at days 35 and 151; this would likely be unconservative in design Prediction S-5 gives results almost identical to the Detailed prediction of Section 3.5.2.1 (it was developed to do this) and is also very similar to the measure values at all days Ultimately, Prediction S-5 provided the best fit, on average, for all specimens; however, the differential deflection between days 34 and 151 was slightly unconservative, but not so much that a simple common multiplier couldn't be used to provide a reliable level of conservatism. Figure 16 shows the measured and (S-5) predicted values for all specimens.
P a g e | 30 March 18, 2013
Figure 16: Measured vs. Predicted Total Deflection From The Improved Simplified Estimate
Table 18 shows the relative errors at selected times, for comparison to Table 12, Table 13, and Table 17. Again, the predicted values are generally within 1mm of the measured values and less than 10%.
Table 18: Measured vs. Predicted Total Deflections - Improved Simplified Estimate
Specimen Measured Day 3 Predicted % Error Deflections [mm] Day 34 Measured Predicted % Error Measured Day 151 Predicted % Error
R15-C25 R15-C40 R20-C25 R20-C40
3.24 4.37 2.41 3.48
3.47 4.10 2.74 3.43
+7.1% -6.2% +14% -1.4%
10.54 13.94 8.61 11.10
11.51 14.01 8.80 10.47
+9.1% +0.5% +2.2% -5.7%
15.35 19.23 13.29 16.21
16.38 19.86 12.54 14.82
+6.7% +3.3% -5.6% -8.6%
3.5.2.2.1 Development of The Construction-Related Multipliers for Prediction S-5

The major improvement of Prediction S-5 was the aforementioned additional emprirical multipliers at days 34 and 151 accounting for the effects of construction. Separate multipliers were used to account for: A. Residual immediate deflection after the construction load was removed; this multiplier applies to the time between the end of construction loading and the start of the sustained load application (the only applicable point in the simplified prediction is day 34) B. Additional creep deflections accumulated during the time the construction load is applied; this applies at any point subsequent to construction and was developed as a function of the total days in which construction loading is applied (the only applicable points in the simplified prediction are days 34 and days 151; in these cases the full 7-day construction load duration was accounted for
P a g e | 31 March 18, 2013
The multipliers were applied to the differential immediate deflection due to construction, which is the difference between the self-weight and self-weight+construction values calculated by the Bischoff equation (10). This gives a construction correction term to be added to the usual simplified long term deflection estimate, i.e. the deflection obtained by amplifying the immediate deflections by the S parameter given in A23.3. The A multiplier was taken as 0.5 for all specimens. This represents the 50% residual immediate deflection that was also used in the Improved Detailed estimates (Section 3.5.2.1); in the detailed estimates, this value was found to be consistent with the observed data. The B parameter was determined based on linear regression of data obtained using the Improved Detailed estimates of Long Term deflection (3.5.2.1), as this method was deemed to be sufficiently accurate to calculate the accumulated creep deflections for various durations of construction loading. Using the spreadsheets developed for this method, the construction loading was reduced from 7 days (as was the case in the experiment) to 6 days, then 5 days, and so forth, by removing construction loading from starting at day 17, then 16, etc; the resulting total deflection at Day 34 was recorded for each day removed. Figure 17 shows one such plot: in this case, the last 3 days of construction loading (Days 14-17) have been removed.
New Defl. @ Day 34 Recorded
Construction Load Removed
Figure 17: Plot Illustrating Removal of Construction Loads to Determine Accumulated Creep
Next the difference between each new deflection at Day 34 (34d,detailed) and the deflection at Day 34 calculated by Prediction S-4 (34d,simplified) was calculated and this difference was plotted. Figure
17 provides an example. Various corrections were then applied as follows:

i. ii. iii. Step 1: Baseline Corrected for the to zero at 0 days Step 2: 50% differential immediate deflection applied (to account for multiplier A) Step 3: Remaining increase normalized by differential immediate deflection (squared for plotting)
P a g e | 32 March 18, 2013
The final results show a strong linear correlation. The linear function represents the additional square of the creep accumulated during construction. Thus, the B multiplier is taken as the square root (rounded for simplicity): = 0.6
(11)
Where: t total duration of construction load [days]
A similar procedure was performed for R20-C25, giving B=(0.8*t); the laer was also used for R20C40, while the former was also used for R15-C40. This was a relatively minor correction, and based on the required accuracy for code equations a single value could likely be specified. Of course, the regression was based on calculated creep values and thus, B multiplier simply represents a correction of the simplified method using first principles (i.e. the detailed Ct, method). However, it represents a convenient correction that is easy to implement with the existing code predictions. Appendix G contains complete calculations from the development of the B parmeter.
Figure 18: Plot Illustrating Removal of Construction Loads to Determine Accumulated Creep 3.5.2.2.2 Example Application of Improved Simplified Method with Multipliers
R15-C25 will be used as an example. First, the immediate deflections due to self-weight and selfweight+construction are computed as 3.47mm and 6.86mm, respectively; thus the differential immediate deflection would be 3.39mm: , = , , = 6.86 3.47 = 3.39 At Day 34, both multipliers A and B would be applied to the value 3.39mm, since the construction load has been removed, but the sustained load has not been applied. The A and B parameters are 0.5 and (0.06*7)=0.65 respecvely, as previously discussed. Thus, the correction term is:
P a g e | 33 March 18, 2013
= , ( + = )3.39 (0.5 + .65) = 3.90 Note that in the case of Day 151, the A parameter would not be applied, since the effects of the residual deflection are mitigated by the application of the sustained load. This value is then added to the long term deflection given by Prediction S-4 (i.e. the typical code-type estimate, which amplifies the immediate deflection using the S parameter from A23.3); this is the long term value neglecting construction effects (i.e. from self-weight). For R15-C25 it was calculated to be 7.61mm. Therefore the resulting predicted deflection is: , = , + = 7.61 3.90 = . The measured value of deflection from the experiment was 10.54mm (+9.1% Error). This was the highest error of all specimens for all points using the correction. The average errors were +1.5% and -1.1% for Days 34 and 151, respectively. Refer to Appendix G for complete calculations for all specimens.
P a g e | 34 March 18, 2013
4.0 S UMMARY OF R ESULTS & D ISCUSSION

The following section provides a brief, qualitative summary of the results, and a discussion of the key shortcomings and improvements of the various predictions.
4.1
Initial Predictions
Initial predictions of both the long term and the immediate deflections were made as Part 1 of this project. The results are summarized and discussed herein.
4.1.1 Immediate Deflections 4.1.1.1 Initial Detailed Approach

In the Initial Detailed approach, the immediate deflections were estimated from first principles, by applying the moment-area theorem and numerically integrating moments of areas under the curvature diagram. The M- relationship used was a trilinear model that accounted for a significant degree of tension stiffening in the range of interest (see Section 3.3.1.1). This approach predicted the smallest immediate deflections of any approach and significantly underestimated the immediate deflections: the predicted deflections were about 33% of the measured results (see Table 12)and about 50% of the initial approach. Based on the results of the Improved Detailed Immediate estimates and comparison to RESPONSE2000 output, it was determined that the tension stiffening was overestimated in the Initial Prediction, leading to very small deflections.
4.1.1.2 Initial Simplified Approach

In the Initial Simplified approach, the immediate deflections were predicted using the applicable equations of CSA A23.3-04 (see Section 3.3.1.2). No reduction to the modulus of rupture (fr) was applied (despite the fact that it is now specified for one-way members) because the cantilevers did not have significant axial restraint. This method also significantly underestimated the measured immediate deflections: the predicted deflections were about 50% of the measured values (see Table 13). Based on on experimentation with various parameters in the Improved approach, it was determined that it was necessary to reduce fr (i.e. the cracking moment) to achieve satisfactor results with this method. The 50% reduction specified by A23.3 gave conservative values, about 30% greater than than measured values (see Table 15), on average, which would likely be acceptable from a design perspective (differential deflection considerations notwithstanding).
4.1.2 Long Term Deflections 4.1.2.1 Initial Detailed Approach

In the Initial Detailed approach to long term deflections, the incremental immediate deflections from the various loadings were separated and the more rigorous creep calculations provided in Chapter 6 of the CAC Handbook were used to calculate the accumulated creep over the entire period. The immediate deflections from the simplified approach were used, so as to provided a fair comparison. The sum of the immediate plus accumulated creep for each separate loading gave the
P a g e | 35 March 18, 2013
total deflection over time (Section 3.3.2.1); however, effects of construction loading were neglected (per the project instructions). The ultimate creep coefficient was taken as the A23.3 recommended average value of 2.35. This method significantly underestimated the long term deflections, compared to the measured results: the predicted 151-day total deflections were about 40% of the measured deflection (see Table 12); however, the differential deflection between days 35 and 151 were about the same. Thus, the error was largely due to the poor estimate of immediate deflection.
4.1.2.2 Initial Simplified Approach

In the Initial Simplified approach to long term deflections, the incremental deflections due to selfweight and to the sustained load were amplified by the A23.3-specified S parameter values to obtain long term deflections at selected points (see Section 3.3.2.2); again the construction load effects were neglected. The immediate deflections from the simplified approach were used, so as to provided a fair comparison. This method also significantly underestimated the long term deflections, compared to the measured results: the predicted 151-day total deflection was about 50% of the measured deflection (see Table 13); however, the differential deflection between days 35 and 151 were again about the same. Thus, the error was largely due to the poor estimate of immediate deflection.
4.2
Improved Estimates
After obtaining the experimental data (see Section 3.4), significant revisions were made to both the Detailed and Simplified methods of estimating deflection. The changes and results are summarized and discussed herein.
4.2.1 Immediate Deflections 4.2.1.1 Improved Detailed Approach

In the Improved Detailed approach, the immediate deflections were again estimated from first principles, by applying the moment-area theorem and numerically integrating moments of areas under the curvature diagram. However, the M- relationship was revised to reduce the tension stiffening effect; the final M- curve was more similar to the RESPONSE200 curve without tension stiffening. However, the curve was still partially calibrated to achieve results in the specific range of interest (see Section 3.5.1.1); more adjustments would be required at higher loads. This approach yield reasonable estimates of the immediate deflections: the predicted immediate deflections were about 90-110% of the measured results (see Table 14) in that specific load range. A key lesson was that the tension stiffening effect is very critical in lightly rienforced members just after cracking; it also serves as a reminder that more rigorous methods require accurate input and that they can produce worse results than more simple methods, if the input is not incorrect.

In the Improved Simplified approach, the immediate deflections were again calculated using effective stiffnesses, but expressions other than the equation from A23.3 were investigated, namely the Bischoff (2005) equation; various reductions to the modulus of rupture (fr) were tried (see
P a g e | 36 March 18, 2013
Section 3.5.1.2). Ultimately the Bischoff equation, with fr reduced to 85% of its full value was found give the most accurate results: the predicted deflections were about 90-110% of the measured values (see Table 16), similar to the detailed method. It should be noted that this 10% error amounts to less than 1mm for the given testing. It was not surprising that the Bischoff equation yielded more accurate results, as the Branson equation specified by A23.3 was developed for beams with =1-2% and has been found to overestimate the tension stiffening effect in lightly reinforced members [2]. The Bischoff equation, on the other hand gives reliable results for all practical reinforcement ratios [2, 3].
4.2.2 Long Term Deflections 4.2.2.1 Improved Detailed Approach

The Improved Detailed approach to long term deflections was similar to the Initial detailed approach, but with a few key revisions (see Section 3.5.2.1): Immediate deflections from the Improved Simplified approach were used (recall that the poor estimate of immediate deflections was a key issue with the initial predictions) The construction loading was accounted for (in terms of both cracking and additional creep); the effect of cracking was accounted for by using Ma values from construction loading for loads that occurred thereafter A residual immediate deflection (i.e. only 50% elastic recovery) was accounted for when construction loads were removed Various values of Cu were investigated and the value of 3.5 was found to give the best fit. This significantly higher than the average value of 2.35 per CSA A23.3; this is perhaps due to the early age of loading (although correction factors per A23.3 were applied). There were also a number of other correction factors that could have been underestimated, leading to the apparent high value of Cu This method produced good results, with errors consistently less than 10% and in many case less than 0.5mm (see Figure 14 and Measured vs. Predicted Total Deflections - Improved Detailed Estimate). This is also the only method that gives an accurate and complete prediction throughout the load history, although the Improved Simplified Approach (next section) can be used to accurate predict deflections at any key points.

The Improved Simplified approach to long term deflections was similar to the initial approach in that the incremental deflections due to self-weight and to the sustained load were amplified by the A23.3-specified S parameter values to obtain long term deflections at selected points. However, some key revisions were made (see Section 3.5.2.2): Immediate deflections from the Improved Simplified approach were used, similar to the Improved Detailed approach (i.e. the Bischoff Equation with fr set to 85%) Construction effects were accounted for in two ways: o Ma values from construction were used for immediate deflections, as appropriate
P a g e | 37 March 18, 2013
o The residual immediate deflection and additional creep were accounted for by developing two new parameters, A and B o The A and B parameters were multiplied by the incremental immediate deflection due to construction loading as appropriate to calculate the missing portion of deflection due to the construction loading. The aforementioned procedure gave good results, with an error of generally less than 10%, often within about 1mm of the measured results (see Table 18). The one slight danger of this method was that it sometimes lead to smaller-than-actual differential deflections between days 34 and 151, which although more accurate than most methods (except for the Improved Detailed method) in absolute terms would be unconservative from a design perspective. The advantage of this method of the Improved Detailed approach is that it could be readily adapted to supplement existing code methods. Finally, it is worth noting that the current code-specified method (Branson equation with Sparameters, with fr=50%) was conservative in this regard.
P a g e | 38 March 18, 2013
5.0 C ONCLUSIONS & R ECOMMENDATIONS

Several conclusions about theory and practice were be drawn from this study, and a few related recommendations are can be made. This section provides a succinct summary of the conclusions and recommendation of the author.
5.1
Theoretical Conclusions
The tension stiffening effect is clearly a critical factor in accurately determining deflections of reinforced concrete slabs. This is because they are lightly reinforced and at service loads, there is great variation in the M- relationship depending on the degree of tension stiffening. The application of the momentarea theorem to calculating deflections of slabs clearly requires an accurate assessment of the M- response. The empirical methods for calculating creep deflections appeared to be reasonably accurate, provided an accurate estimate of the immediate deflections is made. The observed creep rates (represented by the ultimate creep coefficient, Cu) appeared to be well in excess of the average value of 2.35 recommended by A23.3. However, this may have been due to the effects of early age loading. With the given data, it is not possible to determine whether discrepancy is due to the value of Cu, or the age-atloading correction (Qa) given by A23.3 (since all specimen were subjected to self-weight and construction over the same periods).
5.2
Practical Conclusions
Based on the results, it can be seen that an accurate estimate of the immediate deflections is essential to the prediction of long term deflections. All methods of predicting creep deflections presented herein are conceptually based on the idea of amplifying immediate deflections over time by some empirical factor. In determining the immediate deflections it was seen that a more rigorous, mechanics-based approach can actually lead to worse results if the input to the more detailed model is not accurate. It was also noted that the effects of construction are a critical factor in the long term deflections. Neglecting the construction loads lead to results that underestimated the deflections by a factor of more than two. Finally, it was noted that more rigorous estimates of deflections with more accurate results could lead to unconservative design in terms of differential deflections. The simplified, current-code method, including the 50% reduction in fr, gives reasonable results of long term deflections (within about 10-15% or 1-3mm) and is conservative in terms of differential deflections. Based on the specifics of this study, its use appears to be justified, although more accurate methods are available. It should also be recalled that the value of fc used in determining other basic design properties (eg. fr) was the value at that age, not the specified 28-day compressive strength.
5.3
Recommendations for Rigorous Deflection Estimates
In making a rigorous estimate of deflections, it is recommended to use the creep calculation methods given in chapter 6 of the CAC Concrete Design Handbook design aids section, as these methods yield
P a g e | 39 March 18, 2013
excellent results (as shown in Section 3.5.2.1). The Cu value of 3.5 (in conjunction with the appropriate correction factors) is recommended for specimens subject to similar loading and within the range of reinforcement ratios studied herein. As aforementioned, the estimate of immediate deflections is critical. Based on the results obtained herein, the Bischoff equation with fr=85% and appropriate consideration of construction load effects is recommended (refer to Section 3.5.1.2). Other studies have also shown that the Bischoff equation is reliable for other reinforcement ratios [2, 3]. If a mechanics-based approach is used to determine immediate deflections, it must be ensured that the M- response used is accurate. However, the Bischoff equation (as modified herein) gave equally accurate results for the members studied.
5.4
Recommendations for Design Practice
For every-day design, the current A23.3-specified deflection provisions are recommended. The 50% reduction in fr , specified for both one-way and two-way members since an emergency update in 2009, is required. Without it, all deflections may be severely underestimated. If a more accurate assessment of differential deflections is required, the use of the Bischoff equation (as per Section 3.5.1.2) in conjunction with detailed creep calculations (Section 3.5.2.1) or Simplified calculations with appropriate construction correction (Section 3.5.2.2) is recommended.
P a g e | 40 March 18, 2013
6.0 C LOSING C OMMENTS

6.1 Potential Improvements to Analyses
Although the analyses herein have addressed many of the concerns with regards to estimating deflections of reinforced concrete slabs, many questions remain and further refinements are possible. The A and B parameters for the construction correction in the Improved Simplified method were based largely on results calculated using the improved method. If more detailed deflections vs. time data was available, the parameters could be determined through regression of real experimental data. The use of the moment-curvature relationship to determine immediate deflections was calibrated to achieve the same tip deflections, but it is unknown whether the calculated curvature variation of the member was accurate; it is merely known the moment of areas under the curve were approximately accurate. The assumption of 50% elastic recovery while construction loads are removed was entirely bases on fitting the observed data. A more detailed treatment of this aspect is warranted Many assumptions were required in determining the creep corrections given in the CAC Handbook; a more detailed knowledge of these parameters during the testing could help constrain the creep factors and lead to a more meaningful determination of Cu The effects of early age loading were not separately investigated. By subjecting specimens to different load histories, one could start to explicitly characterize this effect The CAC handbook notes that construction loads could be up to 2.0 or 2.2 times the slab dead load; this presumably would reduce the effect of tension-stiffening and lead to better agreement with the Branson equation
6.2
Closure
This report was prepared in accordance with the term project requirements for CIVL 513 Project #1 and with the project scope described herein. Should you have any questions regarding the contents, please contact the undersigned author. Sincerely,
Brandon Paxton (44770089)
P a g e | 41 March 18, 2013
References [1] Cement Association of Canada, "Concrete Design Handbook - 3rd Edition," Ottawa Ontario, 2006, pp. 6-11. [2] I. Kalkan, "Deflection Predictions for Reinforced Concrete Beams through Different Moment of Initia Expressions," Int.J.Eng. Research & Development, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 72-80, 2010. [3] P. Bischoff, "Reevaluation of Deflection Prediction for Concrete Beams Reinforced with Steel and Fiber Reinforced Polymer Bars," ASCE Journal of Structural Engineering, vol. 131, no. 5, pp. 752-767, 2005. [4] P. Adebar, "Estimating Building Slab Deflections Accounting for Typical Construction Practice: An Experimental Study," Not Yet Published, Vancouver, BC Canada, 2013. [5] P. Adebar, CIVL 513 Course Notes, Vancouver, BC Canada, 2013. [6] D. Branson, "Instantaneous and Time Dependent Deflections of Simple and Continuous Reinforced Concrete Beams," Alabama Highway Department, Bureau of Public Roads, Auburn, 1965. [7] M. Collins and D. Mitchell, Prestressed Concrete Structures, Response Publications Canada, 1997.
Appendix A: Part 1 Initial Predictions (Original Submission)
C I V L 5 1 3 P R O J E C T # 1 : D E F L E CT I O N S O F F L OO R S L A BS ( P A R T 1 )
to: from: subject: date:
Professor Perry Adebar, Ph.D., P.Eng. Brandon Paxton (Student #: 44770089) Initial Estimates of Deflections - Design Office Approach January 28, 2013
The following is a summary of my initial estimates of deflections for the slab specimens, as noted in the project description. The intent is to describe the estimates, the methodologies used, and the key assumptions. Background Four 8" deep by ~20" wide reinforced concrete cantilever slab specimens were constructed and tested in the UBC structures lab. The cantilevered slabs were loaded as such that they represented a quarter-span strip of a uniformly loaded fixed-fixed span. The cantilevers were approximately 6ft long, corresponding to a quarter of a 24ft span. Only top (tension) steel was provided; each specimen was unique, varying in the area of steel (215M or 2-20M) and clear cover (25mm or 40mm). For example, specimen R15-C25, indicates 15M reinforcing and 25mm clear cover. Refer to the project description for additional details on the specimens. The specimens were subjected to self-weight at Day 3; simulated construction loading over the next 14 days (representing load transfer from slabs above through reshoring); and additional sustained loading at Day 35 (representing superimposed design dead load). For the purposes of this initial, design office estimate of deflections, the effects of construction loading (cracking and additional creep) were ignored. Refer to the project description for additional details on the loading. Results of Prediction Two methods were used to predict the deflections: Method #1 (herein referred to as the "Ct-Method") and Method #2 (referred to as the "S-Method"). Table #1 shows the predicted deflections at four times for Method #1. Note that a prediction for Day 180 is provided for the purposes of comparison with Method #2. Table 1: Predicted Deflections - Method #1 (Ct Method)
Day Day 3 Day 34 Day 151 Day 180 Load Description "Self Weight" (Formwork Removed) "Self Weight" "Self Weight" + S.Dead "Self Weight" + S.Dead R15-C25 1.56mm 2.99mm 6.53mm 6.67mm Total Deflections R15-C40 R20-C25 1.58mm 1.52mm 3.03mm 2.91mm 6.87mm 5.96mm 7.02mm 6.08mm R20-C40 1.55mm 2.96mm 6.30mm 6.43mm
Table 2 shows the predicted deflections for Method #2 (CSA A23.3-04, Cl. 9.8.2.5): Table 2: Predicted Deflections - Method #2 (S Method)
Day Day 3 Day 90 Day 180 Load Description "Self Weight" (Formwork Removed) "Self Weight" + S.Dead "Self Weight" + S.Dead R15-C25 1.56mm 6.91mm 7.60mm Total Deflections R15-C40 R20-C25 1.58mm 1.52mm 7.31mm 6.26mm 8.03mm 6.88mm R20-C40 1.55mm 6.64mm 7.31mm
It should be noted that, in Method #2, the calculations assumed the whole sustained load was applied from Day 3, while Method #1 applies this load at Day 35, as per the loading data provided. Comparison with more detailed calculations (using the Ct method) showed that this assumption overestimates the final deflection by approximately 10%. Therefore, this is a conservative assumption that would be justified for use in design.
CIVL 513 Concrete Structures Brandon Paxton (44770089)
Project #1 (Part 1)
January 28, 2013
Accounting for the 10% reduction also shows that the two methods are consistent, although the Ct method involves a number of factors not accounted for in the S method, as subsequently discussed. The deflections predicted by both methods would be acceptable in typical design. The approximately " final tip deflection of the 6' cantilever corresponds to a " final mid-span deflection for a 24' (288") span fixedfixed member. Even without subtracting the intermediate (35 or 90-day) deflections, as would be done in practice, the deflection of the full-span member would be 288"/" = L/576, which satisfies even the strictest requirements under Clause 9 of A23.3 (Table 9.3) for long term deflections. Discussion Ct Method The Ct Method estimates creep deflections using an effective secant modulus, accounting for: time since loading, age at loading, relative humidity, aggregate proportions, slump, air content, and volume to surface area of the specimen. Plots of the correction factors are provided in Attachment A and are based on the values provided in the handbook [Part II p.1-50], with additional points interpolated as required for the creep calculations. Attachment B provides deflection vs. time plots for the four specimens. In the calculating the results herein, the following key assumptions were made: fc/fr/Ec variation with time accounted for (fc=18.1MPa at Day 3, 27.0MPa at Day 35) Immediate deflections calculated using code-simplified Ie method [CSA A23.3, Cl. 9.8.2.3] Code-simplified Ie method assumed to accurately represent tension stiffening In computing Mcr, no reduction in fr was used; CAC Handbook notes that 50% reduction primarily accounts for shrinkage restraint cracking very little shrinkage restraint in lightly reinf. cantilever slabs 3-day and 35-day secant moduli (Ec,i) used to compute immediate deflections at those days, respectively In computing 35-day Ie, (Mcr/Ma) from initial cracking at Day 3 was used results in lower Ie Ultimate creep coefficient (Cu) taken as 2.35; CAC Handbook notes that Cu can vary from 1.30 to 4.15 Various creep correction factors (age at loading, aggregate, etc) accounted for see Attachment B Creep deflections were obtained from the incremental immediate deflections and superimposed; i.e. creep deflections from the 3-day immediate deflections were carried through to Day 180; at day 35, creep deflections from the additional load start to accumulate (using a separate Ct and Qa, Ec, etc).
It is thought that the accuracy of immediate deflections (primarily the effects of tension stiffening) and the ultimate creep coefficient, Cu, are the largest potential sources of error. Discussion S Method The S Method estimates creep deflections by increasing immediate deflections by an amplification factor, s, which accounts for only the time since loading (s, given in Cl. 9.8.2.5) and compression reinforcement (). Attachment C contains the calculations for each specimen. In the calculating the results herein, the following key assumptions were made: fc/fr/Ec values from Day 3 were used Immediate deflections were calculated using the code-simplified Ie method [CSA A23.3, Cl.9.8.2.3] Code-simplified Ie method assumed to accurately represent tension stiffening In computing Mcr, no reduction in fr was used; CAC Handbook notes that 50% reduction primarily accounts for shrinkage restraint cracking very little shrinkage restraint in lightly reinf. cantilever slabs s taken as 1.0 and 1.2 for three months (90 days) and six months (180 days), respectively, in accordance with clause 9.8.2.5. As such, total deflections at these times were 2.0 and 2.2 times the immediate deflection. As aforementioned, it was assumed in this method that the full sustained load was applied at Day 3. Since the deflections predicted by this method were similar to the Ct method at 180 days, it is assumed that the largest potential sources of error were the effects of tension stiffening and the appropriateness of the 's' parameter provided in Cl. 9.8.2.5. 2
Attachment A: Creep Correction Factors
1.400 (60 days) 1.300 (60 days) 1.200 (60 days) 1.100 (60 days) Qa
Creep Effects - Age at Loading

Wet Cured Steam Cured
y = 1.2777x-0.124 1.000 (60 days) .900 (60 days) .800 (60 days) .700 (60 days) 0 10 20 30 Age at Loading [days] 40 50 60
Creep Effects - Rel. Humidity
Qh 40%
60%
80% Relative Humidity [%]
100%
Creep Effects - Aggregate

1.06 (30% Fines) 1.04 (30% Fines) 1.02 (30% Fines)
1.00 (30% Fines)

.98 (30% Fines) .96 (30% Fines) .94 (30% Fines) 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% % Fine Aggregate
Qf
Creep Effects - Vol./Surface Area

1.05 (250mm) 1.00 (250mm) .95 (250mm) .90 (250mm) Qr .85 (250mm) .80 (250mm) .75 (250mm) .70 (250mm) .65 (250mm) .60 (250mm)
35
70
105
140
175
210
245
Volume/Surface Area [mm]
Creep Effects - Slump

1.20 (50mm) 1.15 (50mm) 1.10 (50mm) Qs 1.05 (50mm) 1.00 (50mm) .95 (50mm) .90 (50mm) 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Slump [mm]
Creep Effects - Air Content

1.40 (4%) 1.35 (4%) 1.30 (4%) 1.25 (4%) 1.20 (4%) 1.15 (4%) 1.10 (4%) 1.05 (4%) 1.00 (4%) .95 (4%) .90 (4%) 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% Air Content [%]
Qv
Attachment B: Deflection vs. Time Plots (Ct Method)
Deflection vs. Time (R15-C25)

8.00 7.00 6.00 Deflection [mm] 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Time [days] 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 Total Immediate Creep

8.00 7.00 6.00 Deflection [mm] 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Time [days] 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 Total Immediate Creep

7.00 6.00
5.00 Deflection [mm]
4.00 Total 3.00 Immediate Creep 2.00
1.00
0.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Time [days] 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180

7.00 6.00
1.00
0.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Time [days] 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180
Attachment C: Simplified Deflection Calcs (S Method)
Code Simplified Immediate Deflections [Cl. 9.8.2.3]

Loading Self Weight Point Load 1
at distance x1
Specimen: R15-C25
wD= P1=
=
c*h*b
Negative load produces negative moment---> Negative load produces negative moment---> Negative load produces negative moment--->
-2.42 kN/m -4.12 kN

1524 mm
Point Load 2
at distance x2
P2=
=
-1.24 kN
950 mm
Point Load 3
at distance x3
P3=
=
-1.73 kN
1170 mm
Moment at Support Beam Properties Length of Cantilever Thickness Width Use properties from which day? Modulus of Elasticity Modulus of Rupture Multiplier in fr for max Effective Moment of Inertia
Ig @ Support Icr @ Sup. 1 Mcr @ Sup. 1 Largest Previous Moment Dist. to tension face CHECK: "Add back" CHECK: "% of Ig"
M1 =
-13.32 kNm
Lc = h b
<---set to max to avoid deflection calcs
<---eg. 7-day properties
Ec = fr = Ie
Ig1 = Icr1 = Mcr1 = Ma= yt= (Mcr/Ma)3 (Ie/Ig)
<---- 3-day property used <---- 3-day property used should be 50% per A23.3 Update #3 (Aug 2009) Icr + (Ig - Icr)*(Mcr/Ma) < Ig <----Ma=M @ Sup. <---Section Properties (35-day strength) 0.5*fr*Ig/yt <----- (Yt = c) **Not necessarily = M 1 ** (eg. construction loads) h/2
3
1779 203 508 3 22257 100%
mm mm mm -day MPa
2.55 MPa
4 1.51E+08 mm
3.54E+08 6.37E+07 8.91 -13.32 4 30% 43%
mm4 mm4 kNm kNm mm
Immediate Deflection @ Tip
immed =
wD*Lc4/(8*Ec*Ie) + [P1*x12/(6*Ec*Ie)*(3*Lc-x1)] + [P2*x22/(6*Ec*Ie)*(3*Lc-x2)]
3.45 mm
Code Simplified Long Term Deflections [Cl. 9.8.2.5]

Total/Immediate Deflection
Duration Factor % Compression Steel
s=
s=
1+s/(1+50*')
Duration is 6 Months [ref.: Cl. 9.8.2.5]
Total Deflection at 6 Months
'= long term = immed * s
2.2 1.2 0.00% 7.60 mm
Note: in calculating this, I assumed the load at 35 days acted throughout the entire 6 months. However, I used the maximum previous moment and Ec from day 3.
More Detailed Deflections (C t Method)

Initial Modulus of Elasticity Creep Adjusted Modulus of Elasticity
Creep Coefficient Days since load was applied Ultimate Creep Coefficient Composite Correction Factor
s*=
Ec,i= Ec,eff=
Ct= t= Cu= Qcr=
E c,i /E c,eff
<---from 'beam properties' above E c,i /(1+C t )
t 0.6 /(10+t 0.6 )*C u *Q cr <---From 'Material Properties' sheet <---From 'Material Properties' sheet
2.42
22257 MPa 9185 MPa
1.42 180 days 2.35 0.87
long term = immed * s*
8.37 mm

at distance x1
Specimen: R15-C40
wD= P1=
=
c*h*b
-2.42 kN/m -4.12 kN

1524 mm
Point Load 2
at distance x2
P2=
=
-1.24 kN
950 mm
Point Load 3
at distance x3
P3=
=
-1.73 kN
1170 mm
M1 =
-13.32 kNm
Lc = h b
Ec = fr = Ie
3
1779 203 508 3 22257 100%
mm mm mm -day MPa
2.55 MPa
4 1.42E+08 mm
3.54E+08 5.21E+07 8.91 -13.32 4 30% 40%
mm4 mm4 kNm kNm mm
immed =
3.65 mm

s=
s=
1+s/(1+50*')
2.2 1.2 0.00% 8.04 mm

s*=
Ec,i= Ec,eff=
Ct= t= Cu= Qcr=
E c,i /E c,eff
2.42
22257 MPa 9185 MPa
1.42 180 days 2.35 0.87
8.85 mm

at distance x1
Specimen: R20-C25
wD= P1=
=
c*h*b
-2.42 kN/m -4.12 kN

1524 mm
Point Load 2
at distance x2
P2=
=
-1.24 kN
950 mm
Point Load 3
at distance x3
P3=
=
-1.73 kN
1170 mm
M1 =
-13.32 kNm
Lc = h b
Ec = fr = Ie
3
1779 203 508 3 22257 100%
mm mm mm -day MPa
2.55 MPa
4 1.66E+08 mm
3.54E+08 8.61E+07 8.91 -13.32 4 30% 47%
mm4 mm4 kNm kNm mm
immed =
3.13 mm

s=
s=
1+s/(1+50*')
2.2 1.2 0.00% 6.88 mm

s*=
Ec,i= Ec,eff=
Ct= t= Cu= Qcr=
E c,i /E c,eff
2.42
22257 MPa 9185 MPa
1.42 180 days 2.35 0.87
7.58 mm

at distance x1
Specimen: R20-C40
wD= P1=
=
c*h*b
-2.42 kN/m -4.12 kN

1524 mm
Point Load 2
at distance x2
P2=
=
-1.24 kN
950 mm
Point Load 3
at distance x3
P3=
=
-1.73 kN
1170 mm
M1 =
-13.32 kNm
Lc = h b
Ec = fr = Ie
3
1779 203 508 3 22257 100%
mm mm mm -day MPa
2.55 MPa
4 1.57E+08 mm
3.54E+08 7.22E+07 8.91 -13.32 4 30% 44%
mm4 mm4 kNm kNm mm
immed =
3.32 mm

s=
s=
1+s/(1+50*')
2.2 1.2 0.00% 7.31 mm

s*=
Ec,i= Ec,eff=
Ct= t= Cu= Qcr=
E c,i /E c,eff
2.42
22257 MPa 9185 MPa
1.42 180 days 2.35 0.87
8.05 mm
Appendix B: Test Description (Original Document)
Estimating Building Slab Deflections Accounting for Typical Construction Practice: An Experimental Study
Perry Adebar Department of Civil Engineering, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Abstract: An experimental investigation was undertaken to determine factors that cause slab deflections to be larger than estimated by the simplified procedures commonly used by structural engineers. Four one-way slab strips were constructed in a way that simulated typically construction practice the slabs had to support their self weight and additional construction loads three days after casting and were subjected to three cycles of construction loads within two weeks simulating the use of two levels of re-shoring in typical multi-story building construction. One month after casting, the slabs were subjected to sustained dead load that has remained on the specimens for five months to date. 1. Introduction
The incidence of building contractors demanding payment to level floor slabs has increased in recent years. This is at least partly due to the increased use of rigid wood flooring, which accentuates any out-of-flatness of floor slabs. One reason that suspended floor slabs are not perfectly flat is because the top surface of the slab is not cast flat. Slab deflections add to the problem. The typical construction process for floor slabs in multi-story buildings in Canada involves stripping the slabs within two or three days after casting. The minimum concrete compression strength required at stripping of formwork is usually 17.5 MPa and the contractor will often increase the specified 28-day compression strength of concrete in order to speed construction. The flying forms are normally completely removed from below a slab and are placed on top of that slab so that the two or three day old concrete slab has to support its full self weight plus the weight of the formwork. The new slab at level N is then reshored to slab at level N-1, which in turn is already reshored to the slab at level N-2. That is, there are usually two levels of reshores. When the concrete is cast for the slab at level N+1, the total construction load including the weight of fresh concrete is supported by three slabs at levels N, N-1 and N-2 of varying age. The load applied to the slabs during construction may very likely be the largest load that the slab will see during its life time. The floor slabs are expected to crack due to the construction loads and the very early age of the concrete at loading is expected to have an influence on the long-term deflections. CSA technical committee A23.3 is currently considering, for the 2014 edition, changes to the procedures in Clause 9 of CSA A23.3 for how deflections are estimated. One change being considered is to use a more rational expression for effective moment of inertia Ie that gives lower values than the current equation for members with less than about 0.5% reinforcement (Bischoff, 2007). The lower flexural rigidity EIe will result in larger predicted elastic deflections. Discussions with consulting engineers about this potential change has highlighted many difficulties in making an accurate estimate of floor slab deflections accounting for the typical construction practice, and this was the impetus for undertaking the current experimental study.
2. 2.1
Experimental Study Prototype Structure
The prototype structure that was used to design the test specimens is a strip of a two-way slab with continuous supports at both ends, a clear span of 24 ft (11.34 m) and an overall thickness of 8 in. (203 mm). The slab span-to-depth ratio of 36 is commonly used by consultants who confirm the thickness is adequate by undertaking deflection calculations. To reduce the amount of material and space needed to test multiple specimens, the decision was made to build specimens that simulate one quarter of the member described above. That is, to build and test cantilevers with loading that simulates the bending moments in a quarter span of the continuous member subjected to uniform load. This involves applying to the cantilever the same uniform load plus a point load equal to the shear at the point of inflection. For a prismatic linear member with fixed-end supports subjected to uniform loading, the points of inflection occur at 21% of the clear span from the face of the support. For the 24 ft (11.34 m) long slab described above, the points of inflection would occur at 5 ft (1.524 m) from the supports. Thus 5 ft (1.524 m) long cantilever needs to be subjected to a uniform load w plus a concentrated load equal to w x 7 ft (2.12 m) at the free end. For a prismatic linear member with two fixed-end supports, the vertical deflection at the points of inflection will be 56% of the maximum deflection at mid-span. Thus the deformations that occur over the quarter span are very important. Another fact that demonstrates the importance of the negative moment region at the ends of a continuous member is that the mid-span deflection of a member with pin supports subjected to uniform loading is five times larger than the mid-span deflection of the same member with fixed-end supports. That is, preventing the ends of the member from freely rotating reduces the mid-span deflection by a factor of five. Any rotations that occur in the ends of a continuous member are very important to the mid-span deflection. 2.2 Description of Test Specimens
Four cantilever slab strip specimens were constructed. The slab strips were 8 in. (203 mm) thick and 20 in. (508 mm) wide. An elevation view of a typical specimen is shown in Fig. 1. The overall length of the cantilever from the face of the support is 72 in. (1.83 m), and the deflection of the cantilever was measure at 2 in. (51 mm) in from the end of the cantilever). The loading applied to the cantilever is the uniformly distributed load w due to the self weight of the test specimen and two point loads P1 and P2 shown in Fig. 1. The load P1, which was a large load, was applied at 60 in. (1.524 m) from the face of the support. The second smaller load P2 was applied at 40 in. (1.02 m) from the face of the support. Three additional small point loads not shown in Fig. 1 were applied to simulate the sustained load. These are described later. Fig. 2 shows the cross-sections of the two different types of specimens. All four specimens contained two longitudinal reinforcing bars to resist the applied bending moments. In two specimens these were 2 15M bars, while in the other two specimens these were 2 20M bars. Thus the percentage of longitudinal reinforcement As /Ag is 2x200/(203x508) = 0.0039 and 2x300/(203x508) = 0.0058. As the cantilever specimens were meant to simulate one-way strips of two-way slabs, the transverse slab reinforcement running perpendicular to the principle flexural reinforcement was included in the test specimens. Previous testing by the author on one-way slab strips demonstrated that flexural cracks in the slab will usually occur at the location of such perpendicular reinforcing bars. For two of the four specimens, the transverse slab reinforcement
Figure 1: Elevation of typical specimen was placed under the principle slab reinforcement (top drawing in Fig. 2), while in the remaining two specimens the transverse slab reinforcement was placed on top of the principle slab reinforcement (bottom drawing in Fig. 2). All transverse slab reinforcement consisted of 20 in. (508 mm) long 15M reinforcing bars. When the transverse slab reinforcement was placed under the principle reinforcement, the clear cover to the principle reinforcement was 25 mm (top of Fig. 2), while when the 15M transverse slab reinforcement was placed on top, the clear cover to the principle reinforcement increased to 40 mm (bot. of Fig. 2). In summary, the difference between the four test specimens was the size of the two longitudinal reinforcing bars (15M or 20M) and clear cover to these bars (25 mm or 40 mm). The four specimens will be referred to using the following descriptive names: R15-C25, R15-C40, R20-C25 and R20-C40, where the first number indicates the bar diameter and the second number indicates the clear cover. Two-way slabs would normally have some minimum bottom reinforcement; however this reinforcement was not provided in the test specimens. The quantity of this reinforcement would normally be very small and since it is in the flexural compression zone of the slab near the support, it is expected to have very little influence on the deflections under service loads.
Figure 2: Cross section of slab strip specimens. To simplify construction of the specimen supports, two cantilever slabs were constructed on opposite sides of one support. The same two longitudinal reinforcing bars continued from one cantilever slab through the support into the opposite cantilever slab. During testing, the load was increased simultaneously on the two opposing cantilevers so that the unbalanced moment that was induced into the support was small. Nonetheless the supports were made relatively large (24 x 24 in. in plan) and were prestressed to the strong floor to ensure there would be no movement
of the supports. Measurements during the test confirmed that there were no measurable movements of the supports. The supports were made taller than the top of the slab to ensure all flexural cracks occur within the 72 in. (1.83 m) length of the cantilever slab. Fig. 3 shows the four specimens immediately after casting concrete in the testing position.
Figure 3: Test specimens immediately after casting. The specified compression strength of concrete used to construct suspended slabs is often 30 MPa, although 35 MPa is sometimes used to allow earlier stripping of formwork. To achieve a 28day compression strength of about 30 MPa, ready mix concrete with a specified 28-day strength of 25 MPa was ordered. Table 1 summarizes the results of cylinder compression test on the concrete. The compression strength of the field cured cylinders was 18 MPa after 3 days and therefore the formwork was stripped at that time and the loads that simulate the missing portion of the slab span was added. The 28-day cylinder compression strength based on standard moist cured cylinders was measured to be 30.5 MPa. Table 1: Measured cylinder compression strength of concrete. Curing Field Field Field Moist Measured Compression Strength (MPa) 1 2 3 Average 18.0 17.4 19.0 18.1 26.2 24.8 24.9 25.3 27.1 26.6 26.8 26.9 30.3 30.7 30.5 30.5
Age (days) 3 7 28
2.3
Applied Loading and Measured Deflections
Figure 4 shows the loading that was applied to the four slab specimens and Table 2 presents a simplified summary of the loading. About three days (68 hrs) after casting the specimens, the formwork supporting the cantilevers was carefully removed and the cantilevers were then subjected to 2.36 kN/m due to their self weight. This load caused a maximum bending moment of 3.95 kNm at the face of the support. Additional loads P1 and P2 shown in Fig. 1 were applied as summarized in Table 2 to simulate the loading a slab would experience when completely stripping flying forms and using two levels of reshores.
Figure 4: Load history applied to slab specimens to simulate typical construction practice. The last construction load was removed from the slabs 17 days (408 hrs) after casting and the slabs were left under the simulated self weight (w = 2.36 kN/m and P1 = 4.12 kN) until 35 days (838 hrs) after casting. At that time, additional point loads as described in the footnote to Table 2 were added to the slab to simulate a sustained uniform loading. These loads created a total additional maximum bending moment at the face of the support of 3.36 kNm. The current plan is to keep the sustained load on the specimens until at least 6 months after casting. To date the loads have been applied to the slab specimens for 5 months after casting concrete. Table 2: Time (hrs) 68 68 115 115 166 166 234 234 286 286 334 334 407 407 838 838 3622 Loading None Self Wt. Self Wt. Const. Const. Self Wt. Self Wt. Const. Const. Self Wt. Self Wt. Const. Const. Self Wt. Self Wt. Sust. Sust. Simplified summary of loading and measured deflections. P1 (kN) 0 4.12 4.12 6.52 6.52 4.12 4.12 6.52 6.52 4.12 4.12 6.52 6.52 4.12 4.12 4.12 4.12 P2 (kN) 0 0.00 0.00 1.23 1.23 0.00 0.00 1.23 1.23 0.00 0.00 1.23 1.23 0.00 0.00 Mmax (kNm) 0 10.23 10.23 15.14 15.14 10.23 10.23 15.14 15.14 10.23 10.23 15.14 15.14 10.23 10.23 13.59 13.59 Measured Deflections (mm) R15-C25 R15-C40 R20-C25 R20-C40
Additional point loads: 1.24 kN at 0.95 m from support, 1.73 kN at 1.17 m, 0.08 kN at 1.55 m. Table 2 (removed for CIVL 513) also summarizes the measured deflections at the ends of the
cantilever specimens, specifically at 70 in. (1.778 m) from the face of the support. While the deflections were recorded much more frequently, they are reported in Table 2 only at the beginning and end of each loading segment, i.e., before and after the load on the specimen is increased or decreased. The recently recorded deflections after the specimens have been subjected to a constant sustained load for about four months (2784 hrs) are given in the last row of Table 2. 2.4 Observed Flexural Cracking
Table 3 summarizes the observed flexural cracking that occurred in the four reinforced concrete slab specimens (rows 1 and 2), as well as in 11 plain concrete modulus of rupture specimens (rows 3 and 4). A total of 13 flexural cracks were observed in the four slab specimens. One crack occurred in each cantilever slab when they were first loaded at 3 days after casting, and then two or three additional cracks occurred in each slab when they were subjected to higher loads at 5 days after casting. One advantage of testing idealized cantilever slab specimens is that the exact applied bending moment is known at the location of a new flexural crack. These bending moments were used to calculate the effective modulus of rupture fr of the concrete from the applied loads. The ratio of the modulus of rupture (flexural tension strength) to the square root (sqrt) of the concrete compression strength at a particular concrete age denoted by fc is reported in the table. Also shown in the table are the similar results from 6 tests on 4 x 4 in. standard modulus of rupture specimens, and 5 tests on 8 x 8 in. modulus of rupture specimens. The average ratio of the measured modulus of rupture fr to the square root of the concrete compression strength at a particular concrete age fc* was 0.6, which is exactly the value assumed in Clause 8.6.4 of the Canadian Standard CSA 23.3. It is interesting to note that while the flexural cracks usually occurred along a transverse reinforcing bar in the cantilever slabs, this did not seem to have a noticeable reduction on the cracking strength of the test slabs. Note that additional 8 x 8 in. modulus of rupture test specimens (not reported in the table) that contained transverse reinforcing bars; but no longitudinal bars did show a significant reduction in flexural cracking strength due to the presence of the transverse bars. When the measured modulus of rupture is compared with the predicted modulus of rupture using the 28-day compression strength of concrete in the well-known expression in Clause 8.6.4 of CSA A23.3, a reduction factor is needed as shown in the last two columns of Table 3. This reduction factor accounts for the reduced concrete compression strength at early age cracking.
Table 3:
Summary of flexural cracking in slab specimens and modulus of rupture tests (MRT). fr /sqrt(fc*) fr /0.6 sqrt(fc) min. average min. average slabs 8 x 20 3 18.1 4 0.56 0.60 0.73 0.78 slabs 8 x 20 5 21.7 9 0.49 0.61 0.69 0.86 MRT 4x4 6 23.5 6 0.55 0.62 0.81 0.91 MRT 8x8 6 23.5 5 0.53 0.60 0.79 0.88 No. = number of flexural cracks in slabs or number of MRT tests, fc* = concrete compression strength at a particular age (see Table 1), fc = 28-day concrete compression strength = 30.5 MPa. Type Size: h x b (in.) Age (days) fc* (MPa) No.
3. 3.1
Discussion of Experimental Results Elastic Deflections
The deflections were always measured before and after changing the loads applied to the slab specimens and at regular time intervals while the specimens were subjected to constant load. As a result, it is possible to separate the measured total deflections into the short-term (elastic) components and long-term (creep) components. Fig. 5 compares the measured short-term deflections with the predicted deflections using two methods. Both use the well-known approach of assuming a constant (effective) flexural rigidity EcIe along the span that is reduced from the uncracked section flexural rigidity EcIg to account for cracking. In one prediction, Eq. 9-1 of CSA A23.3 2004 proposed by Branson (1965), was used to calculate Ie, while in the other prediction the expression for Ie proposed by Bischoff (2007) was used. In both predictions, the actual measured cracking moment for each specimen is used to make the prediction for that specimen. The modulus of elasticity of concrete Ec was assumed to be 20,000 MPa at the time that the slabs were loaded. The two different predictions bound the measured deflections for all four specimens. The Branson equation predictions (shown as solid lines) are generally less than the measured deflections, while the Bischoff equation generally predicts more than the measured deflections and thus gives a safe estimate. The prediction from the Branson equation for specimen R15-C25 (top left figure) is very similar to the experimental results. This specimen had a longitudinal reinforcement ratio of only 0.0039. The Branson equation prediction is not as good; but still acceptable for specimen R20-C25, which had a reinforcement ratio of 0.0058. The reason the Branson equation gives a better prediction for the more lightly reinforced specimen is because the more heavily reinforced specimen had a significantly higher observed cracking moment. The Branson equation clearly under-predicts the deflections in specimens R15-C40 and R20C40. The reason for this is the sudden increase in deflection that occurs at first cracking because of the large 40 mm clear cover on the longitudinal reinforcement. It is interesting to note that the slopes of the Branson equation predictions are very similar to the experimental results. The predictions using the Branson equation can be improved for these two specimens by using a cracking moment less than the observed cracking moment. According to the August 2009 addendum of CSA A23.3, the cracking moment to be used in the Branson equation has been reduced by a factor of 2 for one-way beams and slabs as a temporary emergency fix because of concern that the Branson equation may be unsafe for lightly reinforced members. The experimental results shown in Fig. 5 indicate such a large reduction in cracking moment is overly conservative. All four specimens were loaded to a maximum construction load and then unloaded to the slab self weight level three times. Both methods underestimate the slope of the unloading and reloading curves; however the Branson equation generally gives a better estimate of the unloading and reloading stiffness of the slabs.
Figure 5: Comparison of predicted elastic deflections with the short-term (elastic) component of the measured deflections. 3.2 Creep Deflections
The calculated time variations of the elastic components of total deflections for all four specimens are shown in Fig. 6 (top). Each time the maximum construction loads were reapplied to the slabs, the elastic deflections increased slightly due to the incremental softening of the slabs during the previous load cycle. When the elastic components of deflections are subtracted from the total deflections, the additional long-term component of deflection due to concrete creep is found. The time variations of the concrete creep deflections are shown in Fig. 6 (middle). The elastic and creep components of deflection are plotted to the same scale in Fig. 6 to clearly illustrate how different the relative magnitudes of deflection are. Under the sustain loading, the most flexible specimen (R15-C40) has an elastic deflection that is 1.9 times the elastic deflection of the least flexible specimen (R20C25). During that same time period, i.e., at about 150 days, specimen R15-C40 has a creep deflection that is 1.15 times the creep deflection of specimen R20-C25. Clause 9.8.2.5 of CSA A23.3 provides a simple method to estimate the long-term deflection due to creep of concrete. The additional long-term deflection is assumed to be equal to a factor S times the immediate (elastic) deflection. When the load is sustained for 3 months, the factor S is assumed to be equal to 1.0. That is, the additional long-term deflection due to creep is assumed
Figure 6: Variation of measured deflections over time: (top plot) elastic deflections determined from total deflections minus creep deflections; (middle) creep deflections; (bottom) ratio of creep deflections to elastic deflections. to be equal to the immediate deflection. Fig. 6 (bottom) shows the calculated ratios of additional
creep deflection to instantaneous elastic deflection. As the creep deflections are very similar in all four specimens; but the elastic deflections are very different, the calculated ratio of creep deflection to immediate deflection varies considerably for the four specimens. Specimen R20-C25 with the smallest elastic deflections had a creep deflection equal to elastic deflection 47 days after casting the concrete or 12 days under the sustain load. On the other hand, specimen R15C40 has such a large elastic displacement that the creep displacement does not yet equal the elastic displacement even though it is 5 months since the specimen was cast and about 4 months that the specimen has been subjected to the sustained load. Another important observation is how large the creep deflections are at the end of the construction process. When the third and final cycle of construction loads was removed at 17 days after casting (14 days after stripping), the creep displacements were equal to about half the total creep displacements that exist 133 days later. That is, the creep displacements 17 days after casting are between 44 and 50% of the total creep displacements 150 days after casting. 4. Conclusions
Based on the results of the four cantilever slab strip tests presented here: The modulus of rupture that should be used to estimate the average cracking moment is equal to 0.6 where is the compression strength of concrete at the time of cracking, e.g., 2 or 3 days after casting. If the 28-day compression strength of concrete is used, about a 20% reduction is needed. It is important to note that the cantilever specimens in this study did not have significant axial restraint of shrinkage. While both the two equations for Ie gave reasonable predictions of the measured immediate deflections, the Branson equation generally predicted smaller than measured deflections, while the Bischoff equation generally predicted larger than measured deflections. The most significant conclusion from the current study is that the traditional approach of estimating creep deflection as the immediate deflection times a factor S that depends only on the time under sustained load, does not provide a good estimate. The immediate deflections were found to vary by a factor of almost 2, while the creep deflections of the same specimens varied only by a factor less than 1.2.
References Bischoff, P.H. 2007. Rational model for calculating deflection of reinforced concrete beams and slabs. Can. J. Civ. Eng., 34(8), 9921002. 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, Montgomery, AL, 78. CSA. 2004. Design of concrete structures. Standard CSA-A23.3-04, Canadian Standards Association, Toronto, Ont.
Appendix C: Common Concrete Material Properties
Concrete Material Properties

Density c= c = 23.5 kN/m3 2395.5 kg/m3
Strengths as a Function of Time f'c* Ec* Time [days] [MPa] [Mpa]

Ec= (3300*f'c + 6900)*(c/2300)1.5
fr* [Mpa]
fr=0.6*f'c
f'c* vs. time

30 25 f'c* [MPa] 20 15 10 5 0 0 10 20 Time [days] 30 40
0 2 3 5 7 10 12 14 17 35 151
0 13.0 18.1 23.5 25.3 26.0 26.3 26.5 26.7 27.0 27.0
7334 19981 22257 24338 24978 25220 25323 25391 25459 25561 25561
0.00 2.16 2.55 2.91 3.02 3.06 3.08 3.09 3.10 3.12 3.12
Creep Factor Calculations (Ct Method)

Ultimate Creep Coefficient Correction Factor
Age at Loading Factor Relative Humidity Factor Fine Aggregate Factor Volume to Surface Factor Slump Factor Air Content Factor
Cu= Qcr=
Qa = Qh = Qf= Qr= Qs= Qv=
1.30 to 4.15, dependent primarily on agg; typical: 2.35 Q a *Q h *Q f *Q r *Q s *Q v [ref: CAC Handbook Part II p.1-50]
VARIES FOR EACH LOAD----> Relative Humidity is 60%. Aggregate is 50% fines. Vol/S.A. Ratio is 75. *Note: use h/2 for slabs* Slump is 100mm. Air Content is 6%.
2.35 0.87
1.14 0.87 1.00 0.82 1.08 1.00
Appendix D: Improved Detailed Immediate Estimate (Supporting Data)
Moment-Curvature (Section) Response & Moment-Deflection (Member) Response (R15-C25)
M vs. (R15-C25)
Moment at Support [kNm]
Detailed Prediction
Tip Deflection [mm]
M- Response - R15-C25
30
25
20 Moment [kNm]
15
10 Improved R2K [No Tension Stiffening] Initial 0 0 5 10 15 20 Curvature [rad/km] 25 30 35 40
M vs. (R15-C40)
Detailed Prediction
Tip Deflection [mm]
25
20
15 Moment [kNm]
10
0 0 5 10 15 Curvature [rad/km] 20 25 30
M vs. (R20-C25)
Detailed Prediction
Tip Deflection [mm]
40 35 30 25 Moment [kNm] 20 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 Curvature [rad/km] 20 25 30
M vs. (R20-C40)
Detailed Prediction
Tip Deflection [mm]
35 30 25 20 Moment [kNm] 15 10 5 0 0 5 10 15 Curvature [rad/km] 20 25 30
Appendix E: Improved Simplified Immediate Estimate (Supporting Data)
IMPROVED SIMPLIFIED IMMEDIATE ESTIMATES (CASE 9 - Bischoff w/ fr=85%)

at distance x1
R15-C25
Self Weight -2.42 kN/m -4.12 kN
1524 mm
wD= P1=
=
<---From 'Approach #1' Sheet Negative load produces negative moment---> Negative load produces negative moment---> Negative load produces negative moment--->
Self Weight + Constr -2.42 kN/m -6.52 kN

1524 mm
Self Weight + Sustained -2.42 kN/m -4.12 kN

1524 mm
Point Load 2
at distance x2
P2=
=
kN
950 mm
-1.23 kN
950 mm
-1.24 kN
950 mm
Point Load 3
at distance x3
P3=
=
kN
1170 mm
kN
1170 mm
-1.73 kN
1170 mm
M1 =
-10.11 kNm
-14.94 kNm
-13.32 kNm
Lc = h b
Ec = fr =
should be 50% per A23.3 Update #3 (Aug 2009)
1779 203 508 3 22257 2.55 85%
mm mm mm -day MPa MPa
1779 203 508 5 24338 2.91 85%
1779 203 508 35 25561 3.12 85%
Ie
Ig1 = Icr1 = Mcr1 = Ma= yt= (Mcr/Ma)3 (Ie/Ig) %red*fr*Ig/yt <----- (Yt = c) **Not necessarily = M 1 ** (eg. construction loads) h/2
4 1.18E+08 mm
4 3.54E+08 mm 4 6.37E+07 mm 7.57 kNm 10.11 kNm 4 mm
4 8.07E+07 mm
4 3.54E+08 mm 4 6.37E+07 mm 7.57 kNm 14.94 kNm 4 mm
4 8.07E+07 mm
4 3.54E+08 mm 4 6.37E+07 mm 7.57 kNm 14.94 kNm 4 mm
56% 33%
13% 23%
13% 23%
immed =
3.47 mm
6.86 mm
5.61 mm

at distance x1
R15-C40
1524 mm
wD= P1=
=
<---From 'Approach #1' Sheet Negative load produces negative moment---> Negative load produces negative moment---> Negative load produces negative moment--->

1524 mm

1524 mm
Point Load 2
at distance x2
P2=
=
kN
950 mm
-1.23 kN
950 mm
-1.24 kN
950 mm
Point Load 3
at distance x3
P3=
=
kN
1170 mm
kN
1170 mm
-1.73 kN
1170 mm
M1 =
-10.11 kNm
-14.94 kNm
-13.32 kNm
Lc = h b Ec = fr = Ie
1779 203 508 3 22257 2.55
1779 203 508 5 24338 2.91
1779 203 508 35 25561 3.12
85% 4 9.99E+07 mm
3.54E+08 5.21E+07 7.57 10.11 4 56% 28% mm4 mm4 kNm kNm mm
85% 4 6.68E+07 mm
3.54E+08 5.21E+07 7.57 14.94 4 13% 19% mm4 mm4 kNm kNm mm
85% 4 6.68E+07 mm
3.54E+08 5.21E+07 7.57 14.94 4 13% 19% mm4 mm4 kNm kNm mm
%red*fr*Ig/yt <----- (Yt = c) **Not necessarily = M 1 ** (eg. construction loads) h/2
immed =
wD*Lc4/(8*Ec*Ie) + [P1*x12/(6*Ec*Ie)*(3*Lc-x1)] + [P2*x2 /(6*Ec*Ie)*(3*Lc-x2)]

2
4.10 mm
8.29 mm
6.79 mm

at distance x1
R20-C25
1524 mm
wD= P1=
=
<---From 'Approach #1' Sheet Negative load produces negative moment--->

1524 mm

1524 mm
Point Load 2
at distance x2
P2=
=
Negative load produces negative moment---> Negative load produces negative moment--->
kN
950 mm
-1.23 kN
950 mm
-1.24 kN
950 mm
Point Load 3
at distance x3
P3=
=
kN
1170 mm
kN
1170 mm
-1.73 kN
1170 mm
M1 =
-10.11 kNm
-14.94 kNm
-13.32 kNm
Ig1 = Icr1 = Mcr1 = M a= yt= (Mcr/Ma)3 (Ie/Ig)
1779 203 508 3 22257 2.55
1779 203 508 5 24338 2.91
1779 203 508 35 25561 3.12
85% 4 1.50E+08 mm
3.54E+08 8.61E+07 7.57 10.11 4 56% 42% mm4 mm4 kNm kNm mm
85% 4 1.07E+08 mm
3.54E+08 8.61E+07 7.57 14.94 4 13% 30% mm4 mm4 kNm kNm mm
85% 4 1.07E+08 mm
3.54E+08 8.61E+07 7.57 14.94 4 13% 30% mm4 mm4 kNm kNm mm
immed =
2.74 mm
5.18 mm
4.24 mm

at distance x1
R20-C40
1524 mm
wD= P1=
=
<---From 'Approach #1' Sheet Negative load produces negative moment--->

1524 mm

1524 mm
Point Load 2
at distance x2
P2=
=
Negative load produces negative moment---> Negative load produces negative moment--->
kN
950 mm
-1.23 kN
950 mm
-1.24 kN
950 mm
Point Load 3
at distance x3
P3=
=
kN
1170 mm
kN
1170 mm
-1.73 kN
1170 mm
M1 =
-10.11 kNm
-14.94 kNm
-13.32 kNm
Ig1 = Icr1 = Mcr1 = M a= yt= (Mcr/Ma)3 (Ie/Ig)
1779 203 508 3 22257 2.55
1779 203 508 5 24338 2.91
1779 203 508 35 25561 3.12
85% 4 1.30E+08 mm
3.54E+08 7.22E+07 7.57 10.11 4 56% 37% mm4 mm4 kNm kNm mm
85% 4 9.08E+07 mm
3.54E+08 7.22E+07 7.57 14.94 4 13% 26% mm4 mm4 kNm kNm mm
85% 4 9.08E+07 mm
3.54E+08 7.22E+07 7.57 14.94 4 13% 26% mm4 mm4 kNm kNm mm
immed =
3.14 mm
6.10 mm
4.99 mm
Various Models Considered For the Improved Simplified Immediate Deflections

Days 3 3 5 5 7 7 10 10 12 12 14 14 17 17 35 35 151 MEASURED DATA (ONLY DAY 3 REPRESENTS IMMEDIATE) Hours Loading P1 P2 Mmax R15-C25 R15-C40 R20-C25 68 None 0.00 0.00 0 0 0 0 68 Self Wt 4.12 0.00 10.23 3.24 4.37 2.41 115 Self Wt 4.12 0.00 10.23 4.46 5.82 3.49 115 Constr. 6.52 1.23 15.14 8.28 11.39 6.38 166 Constr. 6.52 1.23 15.14 9.54 12.97 7.48 166 Self Wt 4.12 0.00 10.23 8.29 11.29 6.46 234 Self Wt 4.12 0.00 10.23 8.39 11.40 6.57 234 Constr. 6.52 1.23 15.14 9.83 13.36 7.71 286 Constr. 6.52 1.23 15.14 10.54 14.20 8.36 286 Self Wt 4.12 0.00 10.23 9.27 12.50 7.33 334 Self Wt 4.12 0.00 10.23 9.22 12.42 7.30 334 Constr. 6.52 1.23 15.14 10.52 14.22 8.33 407 Constr. 6.52 1.23 15.14 11.21 15.02 8.99 407 Self Wt 4.12 0.00 10.23 9.96 13.36 7.99 838 Self Wt 4.12 0.00 10.23 10.54 13.94 8.61 838 Sust. 4.12 -13.59 11.39 15.01 9.28 3622 Sust. 4.12 -13.59 15.35 19.23 13.29 R20-C40 0 3.48 4.71 8.59 9.98 8.69 8.81 10.24 10.99 9.70 9.65 10.96 11.76 10.45 11.10 11.98 16.21
Addional point loads: 1.24 kN at 0.95 m from support, 1.73 kN at 1.17 m, 0.08 kN at 1.55 m.
Comparison of Immediate Deflections

Case Name Measured Base Case (fr=100%; a=3.0) fr reduced to 50% fr reduced to 75% fr=50%; a=2.5 fr=50%; a=2.25 fr=50%; a=2.0 fr=75%; a=2.5 fr=75%; a=2.0 Bischoff's Eqn; fr=85%; a=2.0 R15-C25 3.24 1.56 4.63 2.78 4.05 3.74 3.41 2.46 2.15 3.47 %dif -0.52 -0.43 0.14 -0.25 -0.15 -0.05 0.24 0.34 -0.07 R15-C40 4.37 1.58 5.25 2.94 4.50 4.10 3.70 2.57 2.23 4.10 %dif -0.64 -0.20 0.33 -0.03 0.06 0.15 0.41 0.49 0.06 R20-C25 2.41 1.52 3.76 2.51 3.40 3.19 2.97 2.26 2.02 2.74 %dif -0.37 -0.56 -0.04 -0.41 -0.32 -0.23 0.06 0.16 -0.14 R20-C40 3.48 1.55 4.25 2.67 3.77 3.51 3.23 2.38 2.10 3.14 %dif -0.55 -0.22 0.23 -0.08 -0.01 0.07 0.32 0.40 0.10 SRSS(%dif) -1.059 0.766 0.428 0.489 0.364 0.292 0.576 0.732 0.193 Mean (%dif) 0.520 -0.353 0.165 -0.193 -0.106 -0.015 0.258 0.346 -0.012
Appendix F: Improved Detailed Long Term Estimate (Supporting Data)
IMPROVED DETAILED LONG TERM ESTIMATE (PREDICTION D-4)

Creep Factors Initial Elastic Modulus Ec,i=
<---as per 'Approach #1 - Simplified; sheet
R15-C25
3-day 7-day 35-day
22257 MPa 24338 MPa 25561 MPa 3.5

0.87 1.00 0.82 1.08 1.00
Ultimate Creep Coeff.

Rel. Humidity Factor Fine Aggregate Factor Vol. to Surf. Area Factor Slump Factor Air Content Factor Age at Loading Factors
Cu=
Qh= Qf= Qr=
Qs= Qv= Qa=
1.30 to 4.15, dependent primarily on agg; typical: 2.35

Relative Humidity is 60%. Aggregate is 50% fines. Vol/S.A. Ratio is 75. *Note: use h/2 for slabs* Slump is 100mm. Air Content is 6%. Load #1: Age at loading is 3 days. *Note: values for wet cured* Load #2: Age at loading is 7 days. *Note: values for wet cured* Load #3: Age at loading is 35 days. *Note: values for wet cured*
1.14 1 0.83
Correction Factor
Qcr=
Load #1: Q a *Q h *Q f *Q r *Q s *Q v [CAC Handbook Part II p.1-50] Load #2: Q a *Q h *Q f *Q r *Q s *Q v [CAC Handbook Part II p.1-50] Load #3: Q a *Q h *Q f *Q r *Q s *Q v [CAC Handbook Part II p.1-50]
0.874 0.767 0.637

18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 Deflection [mm] 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 Total 2.00 0.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Time [days] Load Condition #2 *s,1 1.00 1.28 1.40 1.28 1.40 1.50 1.57 1.64 1.69 1.74 1.79 1.83 1.87 1.91 1.94 1.97 2.00 2.03 2.06 2.08 2.11 2.13 2.15 2.17 2.19 2.21 2.23 2.25 2.27 2.28 2.30 2.32 2.33 2.35 2.36 2.37 2.39 2.40 2.41 2.43 2.44 2.45 2.46 2.47 2.48 creep [mm] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 1.40 1.72 1.98 2.21 2.41 2.58 2.74 2.89 3.02 3.15 3.27 3.38 3.48 3.58 3.67 3.76 3.84 3.92 4.00 4.07 4.14 4.21 4.27 4.34 4.40 4.46 4.51 4.57 4.62 4.67 4.72 4.77 4.82 4.86 4.91 4.95 4.99 5.03 5.07 5.11 5.15 Applied? e,incr. t2 [Yes/No] [mm] [days] No No No No No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.38 3.38 1.69 1.69 1.69 3.38 3.38 1.69 1.69 3.38 3.38 3.38 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 1.69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Ct 0.00 0.28 0.40 0.50 0.57 0.28 0.40 0.50 0.57 0.64 0.69 0.74 0.79 0.83 0.87 0.91 0.94 0.97 1.00 1.03 1.06 1.08 1.11 1.13 1.15 1.17 1.19 1.21 1.23 1.25 1.27 1.28 1.30 1.32 1.33 1.35 1.36 1.37 1.39 1.40 1.41 1.43 1.44 1.45 1.46 Ec,eff [Mpa] 24338 19041 17350 16272 15486 19041 17350 16272 15486 14872 14372 13953 13594 13282 13006 12760 12539 12338 12155 11987 11831 11688 11554 11429 11312 11202 11099 11001 10909 10821 10738 10659 10583 10511 10442 10376 10313 10252 10194 10138 10084 10032 9982 9933 9887 *s,2 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.17 1.28 1.37 1.44 1.50 1.55 1.60 1.64 1.68 1.71 1.74 1.78 1.80 1.83 1.86 1.88 1.90 1.93 1.95 1.97 1.99 2.01 2.02 2.04 2.06 2.07 2.09 2.10 2.12 2.13 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24 2.25 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 Immediate Creep
Load Condition #1 Applied? e,incr. t1 Day [Yes/No] [mm] [days] 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Ct 0.00 0.28 0.40 0.28 0.40 0.50 0.57 0.64 0.69 0.74 0.79 0.83 0.87 0.91 0.94 0.97 1.00 1.03 1.06 1.08 1.11 1.13 1.15 1.17 1.19 1.21 1.23 1.25 1.27 1.28 1.30 1.32 1.33 1.35 1.36 1.37 1.39 1.40 1.41 1.43 1.44 1.45 1.46 1.47 1.48 Ec,eff [Mpa] 22257 17413 15867 17413 15867 14881 14162 13600 13143 12760 12432 12146 11894 11669 11467 11283 11115 10962 10820 10688 10566 10452 10345 10244 10150 10060 9976 9896 9820 9747 9678 9612 9549 9489 9431 9376 9322 9271 9222 9174 9128 9084 9041 9000 8960
Load Condition #3 creep Applied? e,incr. t3 [mm] [Yes/No] [mm] [days] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 1.13 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.41 1.52 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ct 0.00 0.20 0.29 0.36 0.42 0.46 0.50 0.54 0.58 0.61 0.63 0.66 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.77 0.79 0.81 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.87 0.88 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.01 0.20 0.29 0.36 0.42 0.46 0.50 0.54 0.58 0.61 0.63 Ec,eff [Mpa] 25561 21256 19765 18782 18049 17466 16985 16578 16225 15915 15639 15392 15168 14964 14777 14604 14444 14295 14156 14026 13904 13788 13680 13577 13479 13386 13298 13213 13133 13056 12982 12911 12844 12778 12715 21256 19765 18782 18049 17466 16985 16578 16225 15915 15639 *s,3 0.87 1.05 1.13 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.42 1.45 1.47 1.49 1.51 1.52 1.54 1.56 1.57 1.59 1.60 1.61 1.63 1.64 1.65 1.66 1.67 1.68 1.69 1.70 1.71 1.72 1.73 1.74 1.75 1.05 1.13 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.42 creep [mm] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.27 0.40 0.50 0.59 0.66 0.73 0.80 0.85 0.91 TOTAL [mm] 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.44 4.87 9.15 9.80 8.33 8.53 8.70 10.73 11.04 9.48 9.60 11.53 11.75 11.96 10.37 10.46 10.55 10.63 10.71 10.79 10.86 10.93 11.00 11.06 11.13 11.19 11.25 11.30 11.36 11.41 11.46 11.51 12.11 12.32 12.50 12.64 12.77 12.89 13.00 13.11 13.20 13.29 e,TOT [mm] 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.47 3.47 6.86 6.86 5.16 5.16 5.16 6.86 6.86 5.16 5.16 6.86 6.86 6.86 5.16 5.16 5.16 5.16 5.16 5.16 5.16 5.16 5.16 5.16 5.16 5.16 5.16 5.16 5.16 5.16 5.16 5.16 5.61 5.61 5.61 5.61 5.61 5.61 5.61 5.61 5.61 5.61 creep,TOT [mm] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 1.40 2.29 2.94 3.17 3.36 3.54 3.88 4.18 4.32 4.44 4.68 4.90 5.11 5.20 5.30 5.38 5.47 5.55 5.62 5.70 5.77 5.84 5.90 5.96 6.02 6.08 6.14 6.19 6.25 6.30 6.35 6.50 6.71 6.88 7.03 7.16 7.28 7.39 7.50 7.59 7.68
DAYS 45 TO 144 NOT SHOWN

145 146 147 148 149 150 151 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 3.47 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 2.03 2.03 2.03 2.04 2.04 2.04 2.04 7351 7344 7338 7331 7324 7317 7311 3.03 3.03 3.03 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 7.04 7.05 7.06 7.07 7.08 7.09 7.10 No No No No No No No 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 2.02 2.02 2.03 2.03 2.03 2.04 2.04 8054 8046 8039 8031 8024 8016 8009 2.76 2.77 2.77 2.77 2.77 2.78 2.78 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 1.63 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.41 1.41 1.41 1.42 10655 10643 10631 10619 10607 10595 10583 2.09 2.09 2.09 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.33 2.33 2.34 2.35 2.35 2.36 2.36 16.61 16.62 16.64 16.65 16.67 16.68 16.69 5.61 5.61 5.61 5.61 5.61 5.61 5.61 11.00 11.01 11.03 11.04 11.05 11.07 11.08

R15-C40
3-day 7-day 35-day
22257 MPa 24338 MPa 25561 MPa 3.5

0.87 1.00 0.82 1.08 1.00

Cu=
Qh= Qf= Qr=
Q s= Qv= Q a=

1.14 1 0.83
Correction Factor
Qcr=
0.874 0.767 0.637

25.00
20.00
Deflection [mm]
15.00 Total Immediate 10.00 Creep
5.00
0.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Time [days] Load Condition #2

* s,1
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
Load Condition #1 Applied? e,incr. t1 Day [Yes/No] [mm] [days] 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 4.10 0 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Ct 0.00 0.28 0.40 0.28 0.40 0.50 0.57 0.64 0.69 0.74 0.79 0.83 0.87 0.91 0.94 0.97 1.00 1.03 1.06 1.08 1.11 1.13 1.15 1.17 1.19 1.21 1.23 1.25 1.27 1.28 1.30 1.32 1.33 1.35 1.36 1.37 1.39 1.40 1.41 1.43 1.44 1.45 1.46 1.47 1.48 Ec,eff [Mpa] 22257 17413 15867 17413 15867 14881 14162 13600 13143 12760 12432 12146 11894 11669 11467 11283 11115 10962 10820 10688 10566 10452 10345 10244 10150 10060 9976 9896 9820 9747 9678 9612 9549 9489 9431 9376 9322 9271 9222 9174 9128 9084 9041 9000 8960 creep [mm] 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.14 1.65 2.03 2.34 2.61 2.84 3.05 3.24 3.41 3.57 3.72 3.86 3.99 4.11 4.22 4.33 4.44 4.54 4.63 4.72 4.81 4.89 4.97 5.05 5.12 5.19 5.26 5.33 5.39 5.46 5.52 5.57 5.63 5.69 5.74 5.79 5.85 5.90 5.94 5.99 6.04 6.08
Load Condition #3
* s,2
Applied? e,incr. t2 [Yes/No] [mm] [days] No No No No No Yes Yes No No No Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.19 4.19 2.10 2.10 2.10 4.19 4.19 2.10 2.10 4.19 4.19 4.19 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
Ct 0.00 0.28 0.40 0.50 0.57 0.28 0.40 0.50 0.57 0.64 0.69 0.74 0.79 0.83 0.87 0.91 0.94 0.97 1.00 1.03 1.06 1.08 1.11 1.13 1.15 1.17 1.19 1.21 1.23 1.25 1.27 1.28 1.30 1.32 1.33 1.35 1.36 1.37 1.39 1.40 1.41 1.43 1.44 1.45 1.46
Ec,eff [Mpa] 24338 19041 17350 16272 15486 19041 17350 16272 15486 14872 14372 13953 13594 13282 13006 12760 12539 12338 12155 11987 11831 11688 11554 11429 11312 11202 11099 11001 10909 10821 10738 10659 10583 10511 10442 10376 10313 10252 10194 10138 10084 10032 9982 9933 9887
creep Applied? e,incr. t3 [mm] [Yes/No] [mm] [days] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.19 1.40 1.60 1.60 1.60 1.75 1.89 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 2.01 No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.69 2.69 2.69 2.69 2.69 2.69 2.69 2.69 2.69 2.69 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Ct 0.00 0.20 0.29 0.36 0.42 0.46 0.50 0.54 0.58 0.61 0.63 0.66 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.77 0.79 0.81 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.87 0.88 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.01 0.20 0.29 0.36 0.42 0.46 0.50 0.54 0.58 0.61 0.63
Ec,eff [Mpa] 25561 21256 19765 18782 18049 17466 16985 16578 16225 15915 15639 15392 15168 14964 14777 14604 14444 14295 14156 14026 13904 13788 13680 13577 13479 13386 13298 13213 13133 13056 12982 12911 12844 12778 12715 21256 19765 18782 18049 17466 16985 16578 16225 15915 15639
*s,3 0.87 1.05 1.13 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.42 1.45 1.47 1.49 1.51 1.52 1.54 1.56 1.57 1.59 1.60 1.61 1.63 1.64 1.65 1.66 1.67 1.68 1.69 1.70 1.71 1.72 1.73 1.74 1.75 1.05 1.13 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.42
creep [mm] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.34 0.50 0.63 0.74 0.83 0.92 1.00 1.07 1.14
TOTAL [mm] 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.24 5.75 11.03 11.82 9.99 10.22 10.43 12.93 13.30 11.37 11.51 13.90 14.16 14.41 12.43 12.54 12.65 12.75 12.84 12.93 13.02 13.10 13.18 13.26 13.33 13.40 13.47 13.54 13.60 13.67 13.73 13.78 14.56 14.83 15.04 15.22 15.38 15.53 15.67 15.79 15.91 16.02
e,TOT [mm] 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.10 4.10 8.29 8.29 6.20 6.20 6.20 8.29 8.29 6.20 6.20 8.29 8.29 8.29 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.20 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79 6.79
creep,TOT [mm] 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.14 1.65 2.74 3.53 3.79 4.03 4.24 4.64 5.01 5.17 5.32 5.61 5.87 6.12 6.24 6.35 6.45 6.55 6.65 6.74 6.82 6.90 6.98 7.06 7.14 7.21 7.28 7.34 7.41 7.47 7.53 7.59 7.77 8.04 8.25 8.44 8.60 8.74 8.88 9.01 9.12 9.24
1.00 1.28 1.40 1.28 1.40 1.50 1.57 1.64 1.69 1.74 1.79 1.83 1.87 1.91 1.94 1.97 2.00 2.03 2.06 2.08 2.11 2.13 2.15 2.17 2.19 2.21 2.23 2.25 2.27 2.28 2.30 2.32 2.33 2.35 2.36 2.37 2.39 2.40 2.41 2.43 2.44 2.45 2.46 2.47 2.48
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.17 1.28 1.37 1.44 1.50 1.55 1.60 1.64 1.68 1.71 1.74 1.78 1.80 1.83 1.86 1.88 1.90 1.93 1.95 1.97 1.99 2.01 2.02 2.04 2.06 2.07 2.09 2.10 2.12 2.13 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24 2.25


R20-C25
3-day 7-day 35-day
22257 MPa 24338 MPa 25561 MPa 3.5

0.87 1.00 0.82 1.08 1.00

Cu=
Qh= Qf= Qr=
Q s= Qv= Q a=

1.14 1 0.83
Correction Factor
Qcr=
0.874 0.767 0.637

14.00 12.00
2.00
0.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Time [days] Load Condition #2

* s,1
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
Load Condition #3
* s,2
Ct 0.00 0.28 0.40 0.50 0.57 0.28 0.40 0.50 0.57 0.64 0.69 0.74 0.79 0.83 0.87 0.91 0.94 0.97 1.00 1.03 1.06 1.08 1.11 1.13 1.15 1.17 1.19 1.21 1.23 1.25 1.27 1.28 1.30 1.32 1.33 1.35 1.36 1.37 1.39 1.40 1.41 1.43 1.44 1.45 1.46
Ec,eff [Mpa] 24338 19041 17350 16272 15486 19041 17350 16272 15486 14872 14372 13953 13594 13282 13006 12760 12539 12338 12155 11987 11831 11688 11554 11429 11312 11202 11099 11001 10909 10821 10738 10659 10583 10511 10442 10376 10313 10252 10194 10138 10084 10032 9982 9933 9887
Ct 0.00 0.20 0.29 0.36 0.42 0.46 0.50 0.54 0.58 0.61 0.63 0.66 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.77 0.79 0.81 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.87 0.88 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.01 0.20 0.29 0.36 0.42 0.46 0.50 0.54 0.58 0.61 0.63
Ec,eff [Mpa] 25561 21256 19765 18782 18049 17466 16985 16578 16225 15915 15639 15392 15168 14964 14777 14604 14444 14295 14156 14026 13904 13788 13680 13577 13479 13386 13298 13213 13133 13056 12982 12911 12844 12778 12715 21256 19765 18782 18049 17466 16985 16578 16225 15915 15639
*s,3 0.87 1.05 1.13 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.42 1.45 1.47 1.49 1.51 1.52 1.54 1.56 1.57 1.59 1.60 1.61 1.63 1.64 1.65 1.66 1.67 1.68 1.69 1.70 1.71 1.72 1.73 1.74 1.75 1.05 1.13 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.42
creep [mm] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.19 0.28 0.35 0.41 0.47 0.51 0.56 0.60 0.64
TOTAL [mm] 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50 3.84 6.95 7.43 6.39 6.55 6.69 8.16 8.39 7.28 7.37 8.77 8.94 9.10 7.95 8.03 8.10 8.16 8.23 8.29 8.34 8.40 8.45 8.50 8.55 8.60 8.65 8.69 8.73 8.78 8.82 8.86 9.25 9.40 9.53 9.63 9.73 9.82 9.90 9.97 10.04 10.11
e,TOT [mm] 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.74 2.74 5.18 5.18 3.96 3.96 3.96 5.18 5.18 3.96 3.96 5.18 5.18 5.18 3.96 3.96 3.96 3.96 3.96 3.96 3.96 3.96 3.96 3.96 3.96 3.96 3.96 3.96 3.96 3.96 3.96 3.96 4.24 4.24 4.24 4.24 4.24 4.24 4.24 4.24 4.24 4.24
creep,TOT [mm] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.76 1.10 1.77 2.26 2.43 2.59 2.73 2.98 3.21 3.32 3.42 3.59 3.76 3.92 4.00 4.07 4.14 4.20 4.27 4.33 4.38 4.44 4.49 4.54 4.59 4.64 4.69 4.73 4.78 4.82 4.86 4.90 5.01 5.16 5.29 5.39 5.49 5.58 5.66 5.73 5.81 5.87
1.00 1.28 1.40 1.28 1.40 1.50 1.57 1.64 1.69 1.74 1.79 1.83 1.87 1.91 1.94 1.97 2.00 2.03 2.06 2.08 2.11 2.13 2.15 2.17 2.19 2.21 2.23 2.25 2.27 2.28 2.30 2.32 2.33 2.35 2.36 2.37 2.39 2.40 2.41 2.43 2.44 2.45 2.46 2.47 2.48
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.17 1.28 1.37 1.44 1.50 1.55 1.60 1.64 1.68 1.71 1.74 1.78 1.80 1.83 1.86 1.88 1.90 1.93 1.95 1.97 1.99 2.01 2.02 2.04 2.06 2.07 2.09 2.10 2.12 2.13 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24 2.25


R20-C40
3-day 7-day 35-day
22257 MPa 24338 MPa 25561 MPa 3.5

0.87 1.00 0.82 1.08 1.00

Cu=
Qh= Qf= Qr=
Q s= Qv= Q a=

password23
1.14 1 0.83
Correction Factor
Qcr=
0.874 0.767 0.637

16.00 14.00 12.00 Deflection [mm] 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Time [days] Load Condition #2
* s,1
Total Immediate Creep
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
180
Load Condition #3
* s,2
Ct 0.00 0.28 0.40 0.50 0.57 0.28 0.40 0.50 0.57 0.64 0.69 0.74 0.79 0.83 0.87 0.91 0.94 0.97 1.00 1.03 1.06 1.08 1.11 1.13 1.15 1.17 1.19 1.21 1.23 1.25 1.27 1.28 1.30 1.32 1.33 1.35 1.36 1.37 1.39 1.40 1.41 1.43 1.44 1.45 1.46
Ec,eff [Mpa] 24338 19041 17350 16272 15486 19041 17350 16272 15486 14872 14372 13953 13594 13282 13006 12760 12539 12338 12155 11987 11831 11688 11554 11429 11312 11202 11099 11001 10909 10821 10738 10659 10583 10511 10442 10376 10313 10252 10194 10138 10084 10032 9982 9933 9887
Ct 0.00 0.20 0.29 0.36 0.42 0.46 0.50 0.54 0.58 0.61 0.63 0.66 0.69 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.77 0.79 0.81 0.82 0.84 0.85 0.87 0.88 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.95 0.96 0.97 0.98 0.99 1.00 1.01 0.20 0.29 0.36 0.42 0.46 0.50 0.54 0.58 0.61 0.63
Ec,eff [Mpa] 25561 21256 19765 18782 18049 17466 16985 16578 16225 15915 15639 15392 15168 14964 14777 14604 14444 14295 14156 14026 13904 13788 13680 13577 13479 13386 13298 13213 13133 13056 12982 12911 12844 12778 12715 21256 19765 18782 18049 17466 16985 16578 16225 15915 15639
* s,3
creep [mm] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.23 0.34 0.43 0.51 0.57 0.63 0.69 0.74 0.78
TOTAL [mm] 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.01 4.40 8.15 8.73 7.45 7.63 7.79 9.57 9.84 8.48 8.59 10.28 10.48 10.66 9.27 9.36 9.44 9.51 9.58 9.65 9.72 9.78 9.84 9.90 9.96 10.01 10.07 10.12 10.17 10.22 10.26 10.31 10.81 11.00 11.15 11.28 11.39 11.50 11.60 11.69 11.77 11.85
e,TOT [mm] 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.14 3.14 6.10 6.10 4.62 4.62 4.62 6.10 6.10 4.62 4.62 6.10 6.10 6.10 4.62 4.62 4.62 4.62 4.62 4.62 4.62 4.62 4.62 4.62 4.62 4.62 4.62 4.62 4.62 4.62 4.62 4.62 4.99 4.99 4.99 4.99 4.99 4.99 4.99 4.99 4.99 4.99
creep,TOT [mm] 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.87 1.26 2.06 2.63 2.83 3.01 3.17 3.47 3.74 3.86 3.98 4.19 4.38 4.57 4.66 4.74 4.82 4.89 4.97 5.04 5.10 5.17 5.23 5.29 5.34 5.40 5.45 5.50 5.55 5.60 5.64 5.69 5.82 6.01 6.16 6.29 6.41 6.51 6.61 6.70 6.78 6.86
1.00 1.28 1.40 1.28 1.40 1.50 1.57 1.64 1.69 1.74 1.79 1.83 1.87 1.91 1.94 1.97 2.00 2.03 2.06 2.08 2.11 2.13 2.15 2.17 2.19 2.21 2.23 2.25 2.27 2.28 2.30 2.32 2.33 2.35 2.36 2.37 2.39 2.40 2.41 2.43 2.44 2.45 2.46 2.47 2.48
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.17 1.28 1.37 1.44 1.50 1.55 1.60 1.64 1.68 1.71 1.74 1.78 1.80 1.83 1.86 1.88 1.90 1.93 1.95 1.97 1.99 2.01 2.02 2.04 2.06 2.07 2.09 2.10 2.12 2.13 2.15 2.16 2.17 2.18 2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23 2.24 2.25
0.87 1.05 1.13 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.42 1.45 1.47 1.49 1.51 1.52 1.54 1.56 1.57 1.59 1.60 1.61 1.63 1.64 1.65 1.66 1.67 1.68 1.69 1.70 1.71 1.72 1.73 1.74 1.75 1.05 1.13 1.19 1.23 1.27 1.31 1.34 1.37 1.40 1.42

Part B) Detailed Creep - Comparison of Total Deflections over Time

Time Since Casting Days Deflections [mm] R15-C40 Prediction D-3a Prediction D-3b
C u =3.1 Constr. Load [50% Elastic Recovery] C u =3.5 Constr. Load [50% Elastic Recovery]
Measured Prediction D-1

C u =3.5 No Constr. Load
R15-C25 Prediction D-2 Prediction D-3a

C u =1.3 Constr. Load [25% Elastic C u =3.1 Constr. Load [50% Elastic Recovery]
Prediction D-4
C u =3.5 Constr. Load [50% Elastic Recovery]
Measured
Measured
R20-C25 Prediction D-3a

Prediction D-3b
Measured
R20-C40 Prediction D-3a

Prediction D-3b
0 3 5 7 10 12 14 17 35 151
0.00 3.24 8.28 8.29 9.83 9.27 10.52 9.96 11.39 15.35
0.00 3.47 5.19 5.68 6.21 6.50 6.74 7.05 10.81 15.74
0.00 3.47 10.45 9.89 11.19 10.34 11.47 10.77 13.72 15.95
0.00 3.47 8.85 7.94 10.26 8.95 10.97 9.74 11.30 15.36
0.00 3.47 9.15 8.33 10.73 9.48 11.53 10.37 12.11 16.69
0.00 4.37 11.39 11.29 13.36 12.50 14.22 13.36 15.01 19.23
0.00 4.10 10.68 9.52 12.36 10.73 13.21 11.68 12.88 18.54
0.00 4.10 11.03 9.99 12.93 11.37 13.90 12.43 14.56 20.15
0.00 2.41 6.38 6.46 7.71 7.33 8.33 7.99 9.28 13.29
0.00 2.74 6.72 6.09 7.80 6.87 8.34 7.47 8.63 11.66
0.00 2.74 6.95 6.39 8.16 7.28 8.77 7.95 9.25 12.67
0.00 3.48 8.59 8.69 10.24 9.70 10.96 10.45 11.98 16.21
0.00 3.43 7.89 7.10 9.14 8.01 9.77 8.71 10.09 13.68
0.00 3.43 8.15 7.45 9.57 8.48 10.28 9.27 10.81 14.87
R15-C25 - Total Deflections vs. Time

18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 Deflection [mm] Deflection [mm] 10.00 8.00 6.00 Measured 4.00 2.00 0.00 0 20 40 Prediction D-1 (Cu=3.5 & No Constr) Prediction D-2 (Cu=1.35 & Constr & add'l cracking/defl on delta 1 due to constr) 60 80 Time Since Casting [Days] 100 120 140 160 20.00 18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 0
Total Deflections - Measured vs. Prediction D-4
R20-C25 (Measured) R20-C40 (Measured) R15-C25 (Measured) R15-C40 (Measured)
R20-C25 (Predicted) R20-C40 (Predicted) R15-C25 (Predicted) R15-C40 (Predicted)
20
40
60 80 Time Since Casting [Days]
100
120
140
160
Appendix G: Improved Simplified Long Term Estimate (Supporting Data)
Various Predictions Considered For The Improved Simplified Deflection Predictions

SPECIMEN: R15-C25 Time Since Casting [Days] Loading Measured Prediction S-1
f r =100% I e = Branson (1965) E c = 3-day value M a = Initial/Sustained
Deflection [mm] Prediction S-2 Prediction S-3

f r =50% I e = Branson (1965) E c = 3-day value M a = Initial/Sustained f r =50% I e = Branson (1965) E c = 3-day value M a = Constr Loading
Prediction S-4
f r =85% I e = Bischoff (2005) E c = 3-day value M a = Constr Loading
Prediction S-5
S-4 + (0.5+ [.06*t])*( i,constr-i,DL)
Prediction D-3b
3 3 34 151
Initial Load Before Sustained Initial+Sustained
0 3.24 10.54 15.35
0 1.56 2.43 7.60
0 4.63 6.94 15.34
0 4.63 8.60 16.02
0 3.47 7.61 14.18
0 3.47 11.50 16.38
0 3.47 11.51 16.69
R15-C25 - Simplified Deflection Predictions

18 16 14 Total Deflection [mm] 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 20 40 60 80 Time Since Casting [days] 100 120 140 160
Measured Prediction D-3b (for reference) Prediction S-1 (fr=100%, Branson Eqn) Prediction S-2 (fr=50%, Branson Eqn) Prediction S-3 (fr=50%, Branson Eqn, Ma from Constr) Prediction S-4 (fr=85%, Bischoff Eqn, Ma from Constr) Prediction S-5 (S-4+Constr Correction)
SPECIMEN: R15-C40 Time Since Casting [Days] Loading Condition Measured Prediction S-1

Prediction S-4
Prediction S-5
S-4 + (0.5+ [.06*t])*( i,constr-i,DL)
Prediction D-3b
3 3 34 151
0 4.37 13.94 19.23
0 1.59 2.38 8.03
0 5.26 7.88 18.04
0 5.26 10.22 19.03
0 4.10 9.20 17.14
0 4.10 14.01 19.86
0 4.1 14.56 20.15

20
Total Deflection [mm]
15
10
Measured Prediction D-3b (for reference)
Prediction S-1 (fr=100%, Branson Eqn) Prediction S-2 (fr=50%, Branson Eqn) Prediction S-3 (fr=50%, Branson Eqn, Ma from Constr) Prediction S-4 (fr=85%, Bischoff Eqn, Ma from Constr) Prediction S-5 (S-4+Constr Correction)
0 0 20 40 60 80 Time Since Casting [days] 100
120
140
160

Prediction S-4
Prediction S-5
S-4 + (0.5+ [.06*t])*( i,constr-i,DL)
Prediction D-3b
3 3 34 151
0 2.41 8.61 13.29
0 1.52 2.28 6.88
0 3.76 5.64 11.91
0 3.76 6.59 12.28
0 2.74 5.75 10.71
0 2.74 8.80 12.54
0 2.74 8.86 12.67

14 12 10 8 6
Measured
Total Deflection [mm]
4 2 0 0 20 40 60 80 Time Since Casting [days] 100
Prediction D-3b (for reference) Prediction S-1 (fr=100%, Branson Eqn) Prediction S-2 (fr=50%, Branson Eqn) Prediction S-3 (fr=50%, Branson Eqn, Ma from Constr) Prediction S-4 (fr=85%, Bischoff Eqn, Ma from Constr) Prediction S-5 (S-4+Constr Correction)
120
140
160

Prediction S-4
Prediction S-5
S-4 + (0.5+ [.06*t])*( i,constr-i,DL)
Prediction D-3b
3 3 34 151
0 3.48 11.10 16.21
0 1.55 2.32 7.31
0 4.25 6.38 13.83
0 4.25 7.71 14.36
0 3.14 6.77 12.60
0 3.14 10.47 14.82
0 3.14 10.31 14.87

18 16 14 Total Deflection [mm] 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 20 40 60 80 Time Since Casting [days] 100
Measured Prediction D-3b (for reference) Prediction S-1 (fr=100%, Branson Eqn) Prediction S-2 (fr=50%, Branson Eqn) Prediction S-3 (fr=50%, Branson Eqn, Ma from Constr) Prediction S-4 (fr=85%, Bischoff Eqn, Ma from Constr) Prediction S-5 (S-4+Constr Correction)
120
140
160
Measured vs. Prediction S-5 - All Specimens

20 18 16 14 Deflection [mm] 12 10 8 6 4 2 R15-C40 (Measured) 0 0 20 40 60 80 Time Since Casting [Days] 100 120 140 160 R15-C40 (Predicted) R20-C25 (Measured) R20-C40 (Predicted) R20-C25 (Predicted) R15-C25 (Measured) R20-C40 (Measured) R15-C25 (Predicted)
DEVELOPMENT OF THE 'B' PARAMETER

R15-C25
i,DL i,constr i,constr/i,DL 3.47 6.86 1.98 0 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 2.85 2.35 0.66 0.19 0.04 2 3.23 2.82 1.12 0.33 0.11
Total Days Construction Load Applied

3 3.41 3.08 1.38 0.41 0.17 4 3.56 3.31 1.62 0.48 0.23 5 3.69 3.52 1.83 0.54 0.29 6 3.8 3.72 2.02 0.60 0.36 7 3.90 3.90 2.21 0.65 0.42 Calculated 34d - Simplified 34d Baseline corrected Subtract 50% immediate Normalize by constr/DL Squared for Plotting
4.0 3.5
Development of 'B' Multiplied For Accumulated Creep (R15-C25)
1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70
(Calculated 34d - Simplified34d) - i,DL/2
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 1 2 3 4
0.60 0.50 0.40 y = 0.0587x R = 0.9948 Detailed 34d-Simplified 34d Step 1: Baseline Corrected Step 2: Subtract 50% Dif. Immediate Step 3: Normalized and Squared 5 6 7 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00
Total Duration of Construction Loading [days] R20-C25

i,DL i,constr i,constr/i,DL 2.74 5.18 1.89 5.75 0 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 2.35 1.74 0.52 0.21 0.05 2 2.62 2.11 0.89 0.37 0.13
Total Days Construction Load Applied

3 2.75 2.34 1.12 0.46 0.21 4 2.86 2.56 1.34 0.55 0.30 5 2.95 2.75 1.53 0.63 0.39 6 3.03 2.93 1.71 0.70 0.49 7 3.11 3.11 1.89 0.77 0.60 Calculated 34d - Simplified 34d Baseline corrected Subtract 50% immediate Normalize by constr/DL Squared for Plotting
Development of 'B' Multiplied For Accumulated Creep (R20-C25)

2.00 1.80 (Calculated 35d - Simplified35d) - i,DL/2 1.60 1.40 1.20 1.00 4.1 0.80 2.74 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Total Duration of Construction Loading [days] Add'l Creep Deflections Normalized and Squared y = 0.0804x R = 0.9849 1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 (Additional Creep/(i,constr-i,DL))2
3.14
8.29 5.18 6.1
4.74 2.86 4.33
(Additional Creep/(i,constr-i,DL))2
3.0
IMPROVED SIMPLIFIED LONG TERM ESTIMATES (PREDICTION S-4) **Does not include construction correction**
at distance x1
R15-C25 Day 34
(1 month)
wD= P1=
=
c*h*b
-2.42 kN/m -4.12 kN

1524 mm
Point Load 2
at distance x2
P2=
=
kN
950 mm
Point Load 3
at distance x3
P3=
=
kN
1170 mm
Moment at Support Beam Properties Length of Cantilever Thickness Width Use properties from which day? Modulus of Elasticity Modulus of Rupture Multiplier in fr for max Which Ie Equation? Effective Moment of Inertia
Ig @ Support Icr @ Sup. 1 Mcr @ Sup. 1 Largest Previous Moment Dist. to tension face CHECK: "% of Ig"
M1 =
-10.11 kNm
Lc = h b Ec = fr =
<---- 3-day property used <---- 3-day property used
1779 203 508 3 22257 85%
mm mm mm -day MPa
2.55 MPa Bischoff (2005) 4 1.18E+08 mm
Ie
Ig1 = Icr1 = Mcr1 = Ma= yt= (Ie/Ig) <---Section Properties (35-day strength) 0.5*fr*Ig/yt <----- (Yt = c) **Not necessarily = M 1 ** (eg. construction loads) h/2
4 3.54E+08 mm 4 6.37E+07 mm 7.57 kNm -10.11 kNm 4 mm 33%
immed =
3.47 mm

s=
s=
1+s/(1+50*')
Duration is 1 Month [ref.: Cl. 9.8.2.5]
Total Deflection at 1 Month
1.5 0.5 0.00% 5.21 mm
at distance x1
R15-C25 Day 151

(6 months)
wD= P1=
=
c*h*b
-2.42 kN/m -4.12 kN

1524 mm
Point Load 2
at distance x2
P2=
=
-1.24 kN
950 mm
Point Load 3
at distance x3
P3=
=
-1.73 kN
1170 mm
Ig @ Support Icr @ Sup. 1 Mcr @ Sup. 1 Largest Previous Moment Dist. to tension face CHECK: "% of Ig"
M1 =
-13.32 kNm
Lc = h b Ec = fr =
1779 203 508 3 22257 85%
mm mm mm -day MPa
2.55 MPa Bischoff (2005) 4 8.07E+07 mm
Ie
Ig1 = Icr1 = Mcr1 = Ma= yt= (Ie/Ig) <---Section Properties (35-day strength) 0.5*fr*Ig/yt <----- (Yt = c) **Not necessarily = M 1 ** (eg. construction loads) h/2
4 3.54E+08 mm 4 6.37E+07 mm 7.57 kNm -14.94 kNm 4 mm 23%
immed =
6.44 mm

s=
s=
1+s/(1+50*')
2.2 1.2 0.00% 14.18 mm
at distance x1
R15-C40 Day 34
(1 months) -2.42 kN/m -4.12 kN
1524 mm
wD= P1=
=
c*h*b
Point Load 2
at distance x2
P2=
=
kN
950 mm
Point Load 3
at distance x3
P3=
=
kN
1170 mm
M1 =
-10.11 kNm
Lc = h b Ec = fr =
1779 203 508 3 22257 85%
mm mm mm -day MPa
2.55 MPa Bischoff (2005) 4 6.68E+07 mm
Ie
Ig1 = Icr1 = Mcr1 = Ma= yt= (Mcr/Ma)3 (Ie/Ig) <---Section Properties (35-day strength) **Not necessarily = M 1 ** (eg. construction loads) h/2
4 3.54E+08 mm 4 5.21E+07 mm 7.57 kNm -14.94 kNm 4 mm
13% 19%
immed =
wD*Lc /(8*Ec*Ie) +
[P1*x12/(6*Ec*Ie)*(3*Lc-x1)]
[P2*x22/(6*Ec*Ie)*(3*Lc-x2)]
6.14 mm

s=
s=
1+s/(1+50*')
1.5 0.5 0.00% 9.20 mm
at distance x1
R15-C40 Day 151

(6 months) -2.42 kN/m -4.12 kN
1524 mm
wD= P1=
=
c*h*b
Point Load 2
at distance x2
P2=
=
-1.24 kN
950 mm
Point Load 3
at distance x3
P3=
=
-1.73 kN
1170 mm
M1 =
-13.32 kNm
Lc = h b Ec = fr =
1779 203 508 3 22257 85%
mm mm mm -day MPa
2.55 MPa Bischoff (2005) 4 6.68E+07 mm
Ie
4 3.54E+08 mm 4 5.21E+07 mm 7.57 kNm -14.94 kNm 4 mm
13% 19%
immed =
wD*Lc /(8*Ec*Ie) +
[P1*x12/(6*Ec*Ie)*(3*Lc-x1)]
[P2*x22/(6*Ec*Ie)*(3*Lc-x2)]
7.79 mm

s=
s=
1+s/(1+50*')
2.2 1.2 0.00% 17.14 mm
at distance x1
R20-C25 Day 34
(1 months) -2.42 kN/m -4.12 kN
1524 mm
wD= P1=
=
c*h*b
Point Load 2
at distance x2
P2=
=
0 kN
950 mm
Point Load 3
at distance x3
P3=
=
0 kN
1170 mm
M1 =
-10.11 kNm
Lc = h b Ec = fr =
1779 203 508 3 22257 85%
mm mm mm -day MPa
2.55 MPa Bischoff (2005) 4 1.07E+08 mm
Ie
4 3.54E+08 mm 4 8.61E+07 mm 7.57 kNm -14.94 kNm 4 mm
13% 30%
immed =
3.83 mm

s=
s=
1+s/(1+50*')
1.5 0.5 0.00% 5.75 mm
at distance x1
R20-C25 Day 151

(6 months) -2.42 kN/m -4.12 kN
1524 mm
wD= P1=
=
c*h*b
Point Load 2
at distance x2
P2=
=
-1.24 kN
950 mm
Point Load 3
at distance x3
P3=
=
-1.73 kN
1170 mm
M1 =
-13.32 kNm
Lc = h b Ec = fr =
1779 203 508 3 22257 85%
mm mm mm -day MPa
2.55 MPa Bischoff (2005) 4 1.07E+08 mm
Ie
4 3.54E+08 mm 4 8.61E+07 mm 7.57 kNm -14.94 kNm 4 mm
13% 30%
immed =
4.87 mm

s=
s=
1+s/(1+50*')
2.2 1.2 0.00% 10.71 mm
at distance x1
R20-C40 Day 34
(1 months) -2.42 kN/m -4.12 kN
1524 mm
wD= P1=
=
c*h*b
Point Load 2
at distance x2
P2=
=
0 kN
950 mm
Point Load 3
at distance x3
P3=
=
0 kN
1170 mm
M1 =
-10.11 kNm
Lc = h b Ec = fr =
1779 203 508 3 22257 85%
mm mm mm -day MPa
2.55 MPa Bischoff (2005) 4 9.08E+07 mm
Ie
Ig1 = Icr1 = Mcr1 = Ma= yt= (Mcr/Ma)3 (Ie/Ig) <---Section Properties (35-day strength) 0.5*fr*Ig/yt <----- (Yt = c) **Not necessarily = M 1 ** (eg. construction loads) h/2
4 3.54E+08 mm 4 7.22E+07 mm 7.57 kNm -14.94 kNm 4 mm
13% 26%
immed =
4.51 mm

s=
s=
1+s/(1+50*')
1.5 0.5 0.00% 6.77 mm
at distance x1
R20-C40 Day 151

(6months) -2.42 kN/m -4.12 kN
1524 mm
wD= P1=
=
c*h*b
Point Load 2
at distance x2
P2=
=
-1.24 kN
950 mm
Point Load 3
at distance x3
P3=
=
-1.73 kN
1170 mm
M1 =
-13.32 kNm
Lc = h b
Ec = fr =
<---- 3-day property used <---- 3-day property used should be 50% per A23.3 Update #3 (Aug 2009)
3
1779 203 508 3 22257 85%
mm mm mm -day MPa
2.55 MPa Bischoff (2005) 4 9.08E+07 mm

4 3.54E+08 mm 4 7.22E+07 mm 7.57 kNm -14.94 kNm 4 mm
Ie
Icr + (Ig - Icr)*(Mcr/Ma) < Ig <----Ma=M @ Sup. <---Section Properties (35-day strength) 0.5*fr*Ig/yt <----- (Yt = c) **Not necessarily = M 1 ** (eg. construction loads) h/2
13% 26%
immed =
5.73 mm

s=
s=
1+s/(1+50*')
2.2 1.2 0.00% 12.60 mm

CIVL 513 - Project No. 1 - 13mar30 - Complete Report (Final)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIVL 513 - Project No. 1 - 13mar30 - Complete Report (Final)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIVL 513 T ERM P ROJECT #1: E STIMATING D EFLECTIONS OF R EINFORCED C ONCRETE S LABS

UBC COURSE: CIVL 513 CONCRETE STRUCTURES

SUBMITTED BY: Brandon Paxton (44770089)

SUBMITTED: April 3, 2013

CIVL 513 Brandon Paxton (44770089)

Project #1 - Estimating Deflections of Reinforced Concrete Slabs

P a g e |2 March 18, 2013

CIVL 513 Brandon Paxton (44770089)

Project #1 - Estimating Deflections of Reinforced Concrete Slabs

P a g e |3 March 18, 2013

Immediate Deflections .................................................................................................................... 35 Long Term Deflections ................................................................................................................... 36

APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: APPENDIX C: APPENDIX D: APPENDIX E: APPENDIX F: APPENDIX G:

CIVL 513 Brandon Paxton (44770089)

Project #1 - Estimating Deflections of Reinforced Concrete Slabs

P a g e |4 March 18, 2013

1.0 E XECUTIVE S UMMARY

CIVL 513 Brandon Paxton (44770089)

Project #1 - Estimating Deflections of Reinforced Concrete Slabs

P a g e |5 March 18, 2013

CIVL 513 Brandon Paxton (44770089)

Project #1 - Estimating Deflections of Reinforced Concrete Slabs

P a g e |6 March 18, 2013

2.3.1 Part 1 Initial Predictions

2.3.2 Part 2 Improved Estimates

CIVL 513 Brandon Paxton (44770089)

Project #1 - Estimating Deflections of Reinforced Concrete Slabs

P a g e |7 March 18, 2013

2.4.1 Description of Specimens 2.4.1.1 Material Properties

Table 1: Cylinder Compression Test Results

2.4.1.2 Physical Description

CIVL 513 Brandon Paxton (44770089)

Project #1 - Estimating Deflections of Reinforced Concrete Slabs

P a g e |8 March 18, 2013

Figure 1: Elevation Sketch of Typical Test Specimen

Figure 2: Cross Section Sketch of Test Specimens

CIVL 513 Brandon Paxton (44770089)

Project #1 - Estimating Deflections of Reinforced Concrete Slabs

P a g e |9 March 18, 2013

2.4.2 Description of Testing

Figure 3: Loading History For Slab Specimens

CIVL 513 Brandon Paxton (44770089)

Project #1 - Estimating Deflections of Reinforced Concrete Slabs

P a g e | 10 March 18, 2013

3.0 D ATA & A NALYSIS

3.1.1 Concrete Compressive Strength

CIVL 513 Brandon Paxton (44770089)

Project #1 - Estimating Deflections of Reinforced Concrete Slabs

P a g e | 11 March 18, 2013

3.1.3.1 Secant Modulus

CIVL 513 Brandon Paxton (44770089)

Project #1 - Estimating Deflections of Reinforced Concrete Slabs

P a g e | 12 March 18, 2013

CIVL 513 Brandon Paxton (44770089)

Project #1 - Estimating Deflections of Reinforced Concrete Slabs

P a g e | 13 March 18, 2013

3.1.4 Creep Parameters 3.1.4.1 Detailed Approach

3.1.4.2 Simplified Approach

CIVL 513 Brandon Paxton (44770089)

Project #1 - Estimating Deflections of Reinforced Concrete Slabs

P a g e | 14 March 18, 2013

Table 2: The s-Parameter (Cl. 9.8.2.5)

3.1.5 Effects of Shrinkage

Section Properties 3.2.1 Basic Properties