Received: 31 March 2016 Revised: 29 June 2016 Accepted: 12 July 2016

DOI 10.1002/suco.201600062

TECHNICAL PAPER

Slenderness limits for deflection control: A new formulation

for flexural reinforced concrete elements
Alejandro Pérez Caldentey1,2 | Javier Mendoza Cembranos3 | Hugo Corres Peiretti1

1
Mecánica de los Medios Continuos y Teoría de
Estructuras, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid The first step in the design of a structure is the definition of the geometry. This
Escuela Tecnica Superior de Ingenieros de process includes the definition of the depth of slabs and beams. The depth of a
Caminos Canales y Puertos, Madrid, Spain
flexural member is often determined by control of deflections, which can only be
2
Research and Development, Fhecor Ingenieros
checked in detail at an advanced stage of the project. In order to optimize the
Consultores, Madrid, Spain
3
design process, it is therefore very important to choose well the span-to-depth ratio
Civil Works, FHECOR Consulting Engineers,
Madrid, Spain at the beginning. In order to achieve this task in an easy manner, a lower limit to
the slenderness of the beams in terms of span divided by the effective depth is
Correspondence
proposed in most major codes. However, current proposals are rather coarse and
Alejandro Pérez Caldentey, Mecánica de los
are not necessarily on the safe side. In this paper, a new formulation for the slen-
Medios Continuos y Teoría de Estructuras,
derness limits, based on the physics of the problem, is presented. This formulation
Universidad Politecnica de Madrid Escuela
includes the effect of the composition of the load (live load to total load ratio) as
Tecnica Superior de Ingenieros de Caminos
well as the possibility of using different limits to maximum deflection and consid-
Canales y Puertos, Barquillo 23 2º, Madrid
ering different, more general, support conditions. It is therefore more complete
28004, Spain.
and has a larger application field than current proposals.
Email: apc@fhecor.es

KEYWORDS

deflection control, flexural members, serviceability, slenderness limits

1 | INTRODUCTION However, calculation of deflections in reinforced con-

The first step in the design of a structure is the definition of
the geometry. This process includes the definition of the
depths of slabs and beams. The depth of a flexural member
is often determined by control of deflections, which can
only be checked in detail at an advanced stage of the proj-
ect. In order to optimize the design process, it is therefore
very important to choose the span-to-depth ratio well at the
beginning. This is usually performed on the basis of experi-
ence with similar structures. However, these criteria are
coarse, because the allowable depth actually depends on
many parameters such as steel ratios, live load to total load
ratio, loading history, rheological parameters, and so on. In
order to maximize available space on one hand and promote
sustainability by reducing concrete consumption, design
should be aimed at maximizing the slenderness of flexural
members while ensuring deflections, which do not impair
the function of the structure.
crete beams is not an easy task due to the complex material
behavior (cracking, tension stiffening, time-dependent
effects, etc.) and the dependence of the results on the con-
struction sequence and time of application of loads. Many
complex models have been developed to this end, as for
instance those of Marí et al,1 Ghali et al,2 or more recently
Ulm et al.3 The effect of shear deformations on deflections
has been studied by Debernardi et al,4 leading to the conclu-
sion that this effect is only important for very stocky ele-
ments and therefore negligible for common flexural
members and will not be considered here.
Owing to the complexity of these calculations, there has
been a search for simplified methods. One of the better
known methods was developed by Branson5 and incorpo-
rated into the ACI-318 code6 and also the Spanish Stan-
dards (EH-887 through EHE-0810). Branson’s method has
been questioned by Gilbert8 and also by Bischoff and Scan-
lon9 for low reinforcement ratios. The last have provided an

118 © 2017 fib. International Federation for Structural Concrete wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/suco Structural Concrete. 2017;18:118–127.
CALDENTEY ET AL.
alternative formulation including also FRP reinforcement.
Other simplified methods were developed in Europe and
synthesized in the 1985 CEB Manual on cracking and
deformations.12 These methods form the basis for the for-
mulation adopted by Eurocode 211 and more recently by
Model Code 2010.13 Recently other simplified methods
have been proposed, such as that of Marí et al.14
An alternative to complex calculation methods and the
application of simplified methods is the avoidance of calcula-
tion by providing a lower limit to the slenderness of the
beams in terms of span divided by the effective depth. This
concept of slenderness limit was already introduced, in a very
crude form, in CP 110-1 (1972)15 and incorporated into the
first Model Code (1978)16 and has also been studied by
Rangan.17 This procedure is very popular with designers as it
allows fixing of the depth of flexural members from the
beginning and the omission of deflection verifications. For
this reason, it has been maintained in all major concrete
codes, including, of course, Eurocode 2. However, the deter-
mination of such slenderness limits necessarily involves a
great deal of simplification and assumptions which have not
always been made explicit. In some cases, the values included
in codes may be optimistic, resulting in excessive values of
deflections. This discussion is already apparent in the paper
by Gardner,18 which makes a comparison of values or the
slenderness limits provided by different codes and authors.
With the exception of Eurocode 2, slenderness limits are
given in table form and can only cover a very limited num-
ber of design situations. When the current version of Euro-
code 2 (EN 1992-1-1:2004) was drafted, a new formulation
was included which permitted taking into account the rein-
forcement ratio as a continuous variable and the strength of
concrete. This was already a step forward with respect to
the previous code formulations. However, this formulation,
whose bases are detailed in Reference 19 did not take into
account one very important variable, the live load to total
load ratio, which was fixed at a typical value. Moreover, the
formulations given were only a mathematical fitting of the
curves computed using the general method in section 7.4.3
FIGURE 1 Flow diagram of general procedure for determining slenderness limits.
119
of EN 1992-1-1. The lack of a physical basis for these
expressions results in the impossibility of extrapolating to
other situations (e.g., other live load to dead load ratios) and
makes the adjustment to new or different rheological mod-
els, for example, very difficult.
In this paper, a new formulation for the slenderness lim-
its based on the physics of the problem is presented. This
formulation includes the effect of the composition of the
load (live load to total load ratio) as well as the possibility
of using different limits of maximum deflection and a gen-
eralization of factor K accounting for different support
conditions.
Before introducing the new expression for the slender-
ness limits, more general and physical, a brief summary on
how the slenderness limits are determined by the general
method will first be given.
2 | HOW SLENDERNESS LIMITS
A R E D E T E R M IN E D
The topic of how slenderness limits are determined is fully
covered in Reference 19. However, a small reminder is in
order. Figure 1 shows a flowchart that summarizes the pro-
cedure which can be followed to obtain the slenderness
limit for a given reinforcement ratio. First, a simply sup-
ported beam is considered. Values are assumed for the rein-
forcement ratio, for which the slenderness ratio is to be
determined, ρ, and an effective cross section depth, d, as
well as a value for the tensile strength of the reinforcement,
fyd. The section is assumed to be rectangular of arbitrary
width b. With the cross section data, the ultimate bending
moment MRd, which the section can resist for the given ρ
and d values can be determined. Assuming a trial value of
the span, l, the ultimate factored load, qRd, can be obtained
by equilibrium conditions.
In order to continue the process, some values must be
assumed for the ratio between dead load and total load
(qDL/qTOT), and between superimposed dead load and total
120
load (qSDL/qTOT). The ratio between live load and total load
(qLL/qTOT) follows from qDL + qSDL + qLL = qTOT. If the
values of two of these ratios are fixed, it is possible to deter-
mine the values of each individual load. Once this is done,
the calculation of the deflection can be carried out with any
valid method, which considers both instantaneous and time-
dependent effects. For the derivation of the current EN 1992-
1-1 formulation, this was done for the quasi-permanent load
combination assuming a quasi-permanent combination factor
ψ 2 = 0.3, and assuming the following load ratios:
qDL =qTOT = 0:36
qSDL =qTOT = 0:24
qLL =qTOT = 0:40
Furthermore, as explained in Reference 19 the deflection
was determined assuming a certain load history, in which dead
load was applied at 10 days, the superimposed dead load at
60 days, and the quasi-permanent live load at 365 days. As
pointed out in Reference 20, this procedure does not take into
account the early application of the characteristic load which
can happen during building stages when the scaffolding is
removed from the lower floors to build upper floors. Early char-
acteristic load application increases deflections, especially for
low reinforcement ratios, due to reduction in tension-stiffening
effects. The premises for the drafting of EN 1992-1-1 (values of
load ratios, no consideration of characteristic load application)
were adopted in order to avoid providing more strict slenderness
ratios than were given by ENV 1992-1-1 or Model Code
1990.21 In this paper, however, given that the live load to total
load ratio is treated as an important explicit parameter, this
assumption is not necessary. For this reason, the slenderness
curves have been recalculated assuming that the full characteris-
tic load is applied—for a short time period—when the scaffold-
ing is removed, that is, at the time the dead load is applied, so
that the sections are fully cracked from the beginning.
Regarding the nonlinear analysis that was implemented
for the iterative procedure, full details are given in the Back-
ground Document to paragraph 7.4 of EN1992-1-1,19 which
is available on-line at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/
Alejandro_Caldentey/publication/269464827_Pr_EN_1992-1-
1_CHAPTER_7_-_SERVICEABILITY_LIMIT_STATES_-_
DEFLECTIONS_Background_to_the_EN_1992-1-1_formula
tion/links/548c913e0cf214269f1e95b0.pdf. The procedure
consists of the application of the ζ-method in its full gener-
ality by integrating curvatures and considering the load
history.
Given the fact that the influence of load history (in terms of
the times of application of dead load, superimposed dead load,
and quasi-permanent live load—not in terms of early application
of the characteristic load) was found to be moderate on the
values of the slenderness ratio in Reference 19 it is proposed to
take into account the load distribution by using a single
CALDENTEY ET AL.
parameter, instead of two, considering only the ratio between
the live load and total load: qLL/qTOT.
3 | S IM P L I F I E D F O R M U L A T I O N
The deflection of a simply supported beam can be expressed
as shown in Equation (1). This deflection should be limited
to a maximum value given by the ratio l/a.
5 qqp l4 S e l2 l
f= + εcs αe ≤ ; ð1Þ
384 Ec, eff Ie Ie 8 a
where qqp is the quasi-permanent load, l is the span of the
beam, and Ec,eff is the effective modulus of elasticity which
can be determined from Equation (2) as follows:
Ec
Ec, eff = ; ð2Þ
1 + φmean
where φmean is a mean value of the creep coefficient. If it is
assumed that the dead load (qDL) is applied at age t0, the
superimposed dead load (qSDL) is applied at age t1, and the
quasi-permanent live load (ψ 2 × qLL) is applied at age t2,
φmean can be estimated from Equation (3).
φð ∞ , t0 ÞqDL + φð ∞ ,t1 ÞqSDL + φð ∞ ,t2 Þψ 2 qLL
φmean = ;
qDL + qSDL + ψ 2 qLL
ð3Þ
where Ie is the equivalent moment of inertia to allow for
cracking and tension-stiffening effects. This variable will be
expressed as the product of an adjustment function depend-
ing on the mechanical reinforcement ratio kI and the inertia
of the gross concrete cross section (Ig): Ie = kIIg; kI consid-
ers both the difference between the long-term homogenized
cross section and the gross concrete section and cracking
and tension stiffening effects. kI will be obtained by fitting
the simplified expression to the curves calculated by com-
plete analysis according to section 7.4.3 of EN 1992-1-1
(see paragraph 2); εcs is the shrinkage strain; αe is the long-
term modular ratio of steel with respect to reinforcement
αe = EEc,seff ; and Se is the equivalent first-order moment of the
reinforcement with respect to the center of gravity of the
cross section, which should allow for cracking and tension-
stiffening effects. As with the equivalent moment of inertia,
this variable will be the product of an adjustment function
depending on the geometrical reinforcement ratio kS and the
first-order moment of the reinforcement with respect to the
center of gravity of the gross concrete cross section (Sg):
Se = kSSg. kS considers both the difference between the cen-
ter of gravity of the gross cross section and that of the
cracked cross section as well as tension stiffening effects. kS
will be obtained by fitting the simplified expression to the
curved calculated by complete analysis according to
section 7.4.3 of EN 1992-1-1 (see paragraph 2).
CALDENTEY ET AL. 121

Assuming there is no axial force, the quasi-permanent qDL + qSDL + ψ 2 qLL

qqp = qRd
load can be expressed in terms of the reinforcement ratio. γ G ðqDL + qSDL Þ + γ Q qLL
Given a tensile reinforcement area, As, if the mechanical qLL
reinforcement ratio, ω = Asfyd/(bdfcd) is less than 0.5, the 1 − ð1 −ψ 2 Þ
qTOT
tension steel will yield before the section reaches its ulti- =   qLL qRd = kDL qRd : ð8Þ
γ G + γ Q −γ G
mate bending moment MRd. From equilibrium of axial qTOT
|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl}
forces, the depth of the neutral axis, x, can be determined kDL
from Equation (4) as follows:
By substituting Equations (7) and (8) in Equation (1),
As fyd and substituting Ie by kIIg and Se by kSSg, the slenderness
As fyd = fcd b × 0:8x ! x = : ð4Þ
0:8fcd b limit can be expressed as in Equation (9):
The ultimate bending moment, which can be expressed
5 8bd 2 kDL fcd f ðω, ω0 Þl4 kS Sg l2 l
in terms of the ultimate load acting on the simply supported f= 2
+ εcs αe ≤ !
384 Ec, eff kI Ig l k I Ig 8 a
beam, can also be determined as a function of the mechani-
2 3
cal reinforcement ratio from equilibrium of bending forces,
l 1 Ec, eff kI Ig6 1 7
and expressed in nondimensional terms as in Equation (5): ≤ 4 5
d a bd 3 5 ε k S
kDL fcd f ðω, ω0 Þ + Es
cs S g
MRd qRd l2 As fyd
x 48 8 bd 2
= = 1 −0:4  3
bd 2 fcd bd2 fcd 8 bd fcd d
Ig 1 h Sg
! 3
=
fyd As fyd bd 12 d bd 2
=ρ 1− 0:5 = ωð1 −0:5ωÞ: ð5Þ    
fcd bd fcd As h A0 h
|{z} |ffl{zffl} = 2 d− + s2 − ðh −d Þ
ω ω bd 2 bd 2
   
In case the mechanical reinforcement ratio is greater h h
than 0.5, then compression reinforcement is necessary to = ρ 1− + ρ0 −1
2d 2d
achieve yielding of the tensile reinforcement at failure (other  3
design criteria requiring more ductility can also be adopted). l Ec, eff kI h
≤
In this case, the ultimate bending moment, and the neces- d 12a d
sary, mechanical compression reinforcement (ω0 = A0 sfyd/ 2 3
(bdfcd)) ratio can be expressed as in Equation (6): 6 1 7
6
4    7
5:
A0s fyd As fyd 5 εcs h h
As fyd = 0:5fcd bd + A0s fyd ! = −0:5 ! ω = 0:5 + ω0 kDL fcd f ðω,ω0 Þ + Es kS ρ 1 − + ρ0 −1
bdfcd bdfcd 48 8 2d 2d
ð9Þ
MRd qRd l2 0:5fcd bd
2
= 2 = ðd −0:4 × 0:625dÞ This formulation directly accounts for the deflection limit by
bd fcd bd fcd 8 bd 2 fcd
the total deflection through parameter a. The most common
 
A0s fyd MRd qRd l2 0 h value for parameter a is 250, but other values could be used
+ 2 ðd − ðh −d ÞÞ! 2 = 2 = 0:375 + ω 2 − : depending on the sensitivity of the structure to deflections.
bd fcd bd fcd bd fcd 8 d
At this point, the problem becomes a problem of obtain-
ð6Þ
ing values for kI and kS, which allow the expression of
Equation (5) or (6) can be used to express the ultimate Equation (9) to closely model the values obtained from
load qRd as a function of the mechanical reinforcement application of the general model.
ratios of the section: kS has been fitted to a mean value for concrete strengths
 2 classes C30, C60, and C100 (Figure 2) using an estimation of Se
qRd d
= 8fcd ωð1 −0:5ωÞ
)
determined by interpolating between cracked and uncracked
b |fflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl} l
f ðω, ω0 Þ states, using the parameter ζ defined in section 7.4.3 of EN
or 1992-1-1. The results are not very sensitive to this parameter and
    2 this approach is sufficient. The resulting expression is given in
qRd 0 h d
= 8fcd 0:375 + ω 2− Equation (10). As can be seen, a distinction is made between
b d l
|fflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl{zfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflfflffl} reinforcement ratios, for which the section will crack under the
f ðω, ω0 Þ
 2 characteristic combination of actions, and situations for which it
qRd 0 d will not. The factor 1.05 in the expression for ρcr takes into
! ; = 8fcd f ðω, ω Þ : ð7Þ
b l account the contribution of reinforcement to the cracking moment
Furthermore, the quasi-permanent load, qqp, can be expre- for low reinforcement ratios. ρcr is less than 0.30% for concrete
ssed in terms of the ultimate load, qRd, as shown in Equation (8): strength less than C45, which covers most common cases.
122 CALDENTEY ET AL.

FIGURE 2 Adjustment for factor kS.

FIGURE 3 Comparison between nonlinear analysis and simplified

1; 00 if ρ ≤ ρcr formulation for C30/37 and a = 250. It is assumed that φmean = 1.9 and
kS = ,
455ρ2 − 35ρ + 1:6 if ρ > ρcr εcs = 0.37 mm/m.
2 sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 3
  2ffi
1:05 f   q h
ρcr = 41 − 1 −
ctm
γ G − γ Q −γ G
LL 5 fcd :
3 fcd qTot d fyd

ð10Þ
kI has been fitted to allow a good approximation
between the simplified formula and the curves determined
according to the general method in section 7.4.3 of EN
1992-1-1. The resulting expressions are given in
Equation (11). The expression is broken into four zones
which correspond to physical phenomena: a first zone,
where the section will not crack under the characteristic
combination of action (ω < ωcr), a zone where tension stiff-
ening effects are significant, (ωcr < ω < ω0 = 1.5ωcr), a
zone where tension-stiffening effects are less significant and FIGURE 4 Comparison between nonlinear analysis and simplified
no compression reinforcement is needed (ω0 < ω < 0.5), formulation for C60/75 and a = 250. It is assumed that φmean = 1.4 and
εcs = 0.25 mm/m.
and finally, a zone where compression reinforcement is nec-
essary (ω > 0.5).
fyd
ω ≤ ωcr = ρcr ! kI = 1:00,
fcd
1 −kI, ω0
ωcr ≤ ω ≤ ω0 = 1:5ωcr ! kI = kI, ω0 + ðω0 − ωÞ,
ðω0 −ωcr Þ

1:5ωcr ≤ ω ≤ 0:5 ! kI = kI, ω

= ð0:045fcd + 1:30Þω−5 × 10 − 4 fcd + 0:29,

ω > 0:5 ! kI = kI, ωlim + 0:15ω0 : ð11Þ

A comparison between the simplified and the general
methods is given in Section 4.

FIGURE 5 Comparison between nonlinear analysis and simplified

4 | C O M P A R IS O N OF SI M P L I F I E D
F O R M UL ATI O N AN D T HE G E NE RA L
METHOD
Figures 3–5 show the comparison between the formulation
of Equation (9) and the results of nonlinear analysis for con-
crete classes C30/37, C60/75, and C100/115, respectively,
formulation for C100/115 and a = 250. It is assumed that φmean = 1.1 and
εcs = 0.09 mm/m.
considering in all cases a limit deflection equal to l/250 and
three different load distributions. It can be seen that in all
cases the fit of the curves is quite good. It can also be seen
that the load distribution is a very important parameter
which needs to be taken into account.
CALDENTEY ET AL. 123

5 | GE NE RA LIZING FA C TOR K Taking factor K into account, the expression for slender-
ness limits due to total deflection can be expressed as:
In the EN 1992-1-1 formulation, factor K allows for support  
conditions in a very coarse way, only providing values of l Ec, eff kI h 3
≤K
K for a limited number of cases with no distinction regard- d 12a d
ing, for instance, the ratio between end span length and inte- " #
1
rior span length. The value of K can actually be easily  5 εcs
    : ð16Þ
48 kDL fcd f ðω, ω Þ + Es 8 kS ρ 1 − 2d + ρ 2d −1
0 h 0 h
determined for any particular case by assuming in a simpli-
fied manner that the deflection due to shrinkage is affected A more precise conversion to other support condition is
in the same way as the deflection due to loads and creep. possible by taking into account that the deflection due to a
This is a reasonable assumption because in normal cases the constant curvature (shrinkage) is proportional to the second
deflection from shrinkage is a minor part of the total deflec- power of the span, instead of the fourth power. By introdu-
tion. For this, it is sufficient to determine the deflection for cing this condition in Equation (15), a different value, Kcs,
the real support conditions by means of an elastic calcula- can be obtained to correct deflections due to shrinkage for
tion, f2[L], and then determine the deflection for the same other support conditions:
load and the same span, assuming a simply supported ele-
f2, cs ½l l* αl2 l* l l*
ment, f1[L]. a12, cs = a12, cs *2 = a12, cs * = 1:00 ! = a12, cs
The ratio between these two values is referred to as a12 f2, cs ½l  l
* αl l l l
l*
(Equation 12). ! Kcs = d
= a12, cs :
l
d
f1 ½l
a12 = ! f1 ½l = a12 f2 ½l: ð12Þ ð17Þ
f2 ½l
In Equation (17), a12,cs is the ratio of the deflections due
The value of K can be defined as the coefficient by
to a constant curvature in a simply supported span and in the
which the slenderness limit l/d obtained for a simply sup-
structure with the same span but different support conditions,
ported beam should be multiplied in order to obtain the
f2,cs is the deflection due to a constant curvature in a structure
same deflection for other support conditions. This will occur
having support conditions different from simply supported.
for another span length, which is termed l*. This condition
From this reasoning, Equation (16) can be generalized
is expressed in Equation (13) as follows:
to the expression of Equation (18).
 *    
l l  " #
K= = : ð13Þ l Ec, eff kI h 3 1
d d ≤     :
5 kDL fcd f ðω, ω0 Þ
d 12a d
48 K + Es εcs k ρ 1 − h + ρ0 h −1
Kcs 8 S 2d 2d
The relationship between l* and l should be such that
the same ratio between deflection and span is achieved for ð18Þ
both support conditions (Equation 14).
f1 ½l
f2 ½l l*
l
= 1:00 ! a12 = 1:00: ð14Þ 6 | C O NC L U S IO N S
f2 ½l*  f2 ½l*  l
g

Eq: ð12Þ
l*

Equation (14) can be further developed by introducing From the above considerations, the following conclusions
the condition that the deflection for distributed loading is can be drawn:
proportional to the fourth power of the span
(Equation 15). • A new expression has been proposed for a much more
general formulation of slenderness limits than those cur-
f2 ½l l* αl4 l* l3 l*
a12 = a12 = a12 = 1:00 ! rently available.
f2 ½l*  l αl*4 l l*3 l • The new expression has a clear physical basis and takes
* into account all the significant variables, which affect
pffiffiffiffiffiffi l
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
= 3 a12 ! K = dl = 3 a12 : ð15Þ the deflection calculations, including the live load to
d total load ratio.
Therefore, the value of K can be determined by linear • The new formulation allows the use of any deflection
elastic analysis of any structure as the cubic root of the ratio limit and any rheological model.
between the deflection of the element considering a simply • As illustrated by the example, included in the Appendix,
supported beam and that considering the actual boundary this formulation allows a significant reduction in calcula-
conditions. When carrying out this analysis, care must be tion effort, even when compared to the simplified
taken to position the live load only on the spans where its method of EN 1992-1-1. Furthermore, Equation (16) can
effect is unfavorable. be applied to obtain very general and detailed tables from
124 CALDENTEY ET AL.

which to choose an initial value of the required depth of
flexural members, adapted to particular applications
where limited ranges of the variables are applicable.
• A proposal regarding the generalization of factor K has
been described.
• All the results have been compared with nonlinear cal-
culation, taking into account the load history based on
the general procedure in section 7.4.3 of EN 1992-1-1,
as documented in Reference 18, but allowing for crack-
ing due to characteristic loading, obtaining a very good
fit in all cases. This good fit has been validated in the
worked example in the Appendix.
16. CEB-FIP. Model Code 1978 for Concrete Structures. CEB-FIP, Lausanne; 1976.
17. Rangan BV. Control of beam deflections by allowable span-depth ratios.
ACI Struct J. 1982;79(5):372-377.
18. Gardner NJ. Span/Thickness limitations for deflection control. ACI Struct J.
2001;203(1):95-114.
19. Corres Peiretti H, Pérez Caldentey A, López Agüí JC, Erdtbauer J. PrEN
Chapter 7—Serviceability Limit States. Deflections: Supporting Document.
The European Concrete Platform ASBL; 2003. Eurocode 2 Commentary.
European Concrete Platform, Brussels. doi:10.13140/2.1.4146.0804.
20. Vollum RL. Comparison of deflection calculations and span-to-depth ratios
in BS 8110 and Eurocode 2. Mag Concr Res. 2009;61(6):465-476.
21. CEB-FIP. Model Code 1990: Design Code. Thomas Telford. Thomas Tel-
ford, London; 1993. doi:9780727735430.
AUTHOR’S BIOGRAPHIES

The method presented in this paper is a valuable tool for Alejandro Pérez Caldentey,
structural optimization and should promote maximization of corresponding author
useful spaces as well as more sustainable structures. Head of R&D Department at FHECOR
Consulting Engineers,
REFERENC ES Professor at the Technical University of
1. Marí AR. Nonlinear geometric, material and time dependent analysis of
Madrid;
three dimensional reinforced and prestressed concrete frames. Report UCB- Barquillo, 23, 28004 Madrid, Spain.
SESM-84/12. Berkeley: University of California; 1984 apc@fhecor.es
2. Ghali A, Elbadry M. User’s manual and computer program CPF: cracked
plane frames in prestressed concrete. Res. Report CE85-2. Alberta, Canada:
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calgary; 1985 Javier Mendoza Cembranos,
3. Ulm FJ, Clement JL, Guggenberger J. Recent advances in 3-D nonlinear Project Engineer at FHECOR
FE-analysis of R/C and P/C beam structures. In: Proceedings of the ASCE Consulting Engineers
Structures Congress XII. Atlanta, Georgia; 1994:427-433.
4. Debernardi G, Guglia M, Taliano M. Parametric analysis of the influence of
shear on the deflection of RC beams in service. Mag Concr Res.
2012;64(4):335-350.
5. Branson DE. Deformations of Concrete Structures. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill; 1977.
6. ACI Committee 318. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
(ACI 318-08) and Commentary (318R-08). Farmington Hills, MI: American Hugo Corres Peiretti,
Concrete Institute; 2008:430. Professor at the Technical University of
7. Ministerio de Obras Públicas y Urbanismo. EH-88 Instrucción para el
proyecto y ejecución de obras de Hormigón en Masa y Armado. BOE n
Madrid.
180, July 28, 1988.
8. Gilbert RI. Deflection calculation for reinforced concrete structures—why
we sometimes get it wrong. ACI Struct J. 1999;96(6):1027-1032.
9. Bischoff PH, Scanlon A. Effective moment of inertia for calculating deflec-
tions of concrete members containing steel reinforcement and fiber-
reinforced polymer reinforcement. ACI Struct J. 2007;104(1):68-75.
10. Ministerio de Fomento. EHE-08 Instrucción de Hormigón Estructural. Real
Decreto 1247/2008, July 18, 2008.
11. CEN: EN-1992-1-1. Eurocode 2. Design of Concrete Structures—Part 1-1: How to cite this article: Caldentey AP, Cembranos JM,
General Rules and Rules for Buildings. Comité Europeén de Normalisation,
Peiretti HC. Slenderness limits for deflection control: A new for-
Brussels; 2004.
12. Favre R, Beeby AW, Falkner H, Koprna M, Shiessl P. CEB Manual on Crack- mulation for flexural reinforced concrete elements. Structural Con-
ing and Deformations. Lausanne, Switzerland: CEB, Fed. Inst. Tech.; 1985. crete. 2017;18:118–127. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.201600062
13. fib. fib Model Code for Concrete Structures. Berlin, Ernst & Sohn; 2010.
ISBN: 978-2-88394-105-2; 978-2-88394-106-9.
14. Marí AR, Bairán JM, Duarte N. Long-term deflections in cracked reinforced
concrete flexural members. Eng Struct. 2010;32(3):829-842. doi:10.1016/j.
engstruct.2009.12.009.
15. BSI, CP 110-1: 1972. Code of Practice for the Structural Use of Concrete:
Design, Materials and Workmanship. BSI, London; 1972.
CALDENTEY ET AL. 125

A PPE ND IX : APP LICA TION A ND V ALID AT ION EX AMP LE

In order to illustrate the method and compare the results and work involved in using the proposed formulation for slender-
ness limits against actually calculating the deflection using the method from section 7.4.3 of EN 1992-1-1 , an example will
be fully worked. For this, a simply supported beam having a span of 7.75 m, corresponding to a solid slab, and composed of
C25 concrete and 500 MPa steel, is considered. The superimposed dead load is 1 kN/m2 and the live load is 7 kN/m2. It will
be assumed that 30% of the live load is quasi-permanent. A first rough estimate of the depth can be obtained by using a table
based on Equation (16), or directly from Figure 3, which is close enough to this case, for lightly reinforced simply supported
structures, which would provide a value of l/d of about 20, so that the effective depth would be around 0.40 m.
Independent of how the problem is solved, it is necessary to predimension the reinforcement and to estimate the rheologi-
cal parameters.
With the estimated value of the depth, the section can be predimensioned in order to determine the steel ratio necessary
for Ultimate Limit State (ULS):
qDL ≈0:45 × 25 = 11:25 kN=m2 ,
7:752
MEd = ð1:35 × 12:25 + 1:50 × 7:0Þ = 203:0 kNm=m,
8
203:0 1:15
As ≈
= 13 cm2 =m,
0:9 × 0:40 50
13
ρ= = 0:325%,
40 × 100
500 1:5
ω = 0:325 = 8:46%:
1:15 25
In order to show the versatility of the proposed formulation, the rheological parameters will be calculated according to
the MC 2010 instead of EN 1992-1-1, as it appears to be a more consistent model. Assuming that the dead load is applied at
an age of 7 days, that the superimposed dead load is applied at an age of 60 days, and that the quasi-permanent live load is
applied at 365 days, MC 2010 provides the following values, assuming a notional depth of 450 mm, a cement class of
type N, and a relative humidity of 50%:
φð ∞,7Þ = 3:04,
φð ∞,60Þ = 2:03,
φð ∞,365Þ = 1:43,
3:04 × 11:25 + 2:03 × 1 + 1:43 × 0:3 × 7
φmean = = 2:73,
11:25 + 1 + 0:3 × 7
εcs = 0:40 mm=m:

The effective modulus of elasticity (also taken from MC 2010 for consistency—see section 5.1.7.2 of MC 2010) can then
be determined from the following equation:
 1
21:5 2510+ 8 3
Ec, eff = = 8:57 GPa:
1 + 2:73

S O LU TI O N B Y T HE PR OP OS E D FO RM U LA TI ON

The value of the model adjustment parameters kS and kI can be determined from Equations (10) and (11).
2 vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
u p ffiffiffiffiffiffiffi    2 #
u 1:05 7 45 25 1:15
ρcr = 41 − t1 −
3
0:30 252 1:5 × 1:35− ð1:5 −1:35Þ × = 0:17; %; < ρ;
3 25 11:25 + 1 + 7 40 1:5 500

500 1:5
ωcr = ρcr = 0:17% × 26:09 = 4:52%,
1:15 25
kS = 455 × 0:00332 − 35 × 0:0033 + 1:6 = 1:49,

ω = 8:46% > ω0 = 1:5ωcr

126 CALDENTEY ET AL.

= 1:5 × 4:52% = 6:78%!

 
25 25
kI = 0:045 + 1:30 0:0678 −5 × 10 − 4 + 0:29 = 0:46:
1:5 1:5
Finally, the value of kDL is determined according to Equation (8):

1 − ð1 −ψ 2 Þ qqTOT
LL
1− ð1 −0:3Þ 19:25
7
kDL =   qLL = 7 = 0:53:
γ G + γ Q − γ G qTOT 1:35 + ð1:5 −1:35Þ 1925
With these values, Equation (16) can now be applied:
2 3
 3
l 8570 × 0:46 45 66 1 7
≤  7
d 12 × 250 40 4 5 25 0:0004 45 5
0:53 × × 8:46% × ð1 − 0:5 × 8:46%Þ + 200000 1:49 × 0:325% 1 −
48 1:5 8 2 × 40
1
= 1:87 × = 19:5 ! d ≥ 7:75=19:5 = 0:398 ! o:k:
0:075 + 0:021

S O LU TI O N O F T HE PR O BLE M AC CO R DI NG T O TH E S I M PL IF IE D D EF LEC TI O N
C AL C U L AT IO N AC CO R DI NG T O S E C T I ON 7 . 4 .3 O F E N 1 99 2 - 1 - 1

The problem can also be solved by assuming, in a simplified manner, that parameter α of expression (7.18) of EN 1992-1-1
is the deflection, instead of the more rigorous assumption that it is the curvature.
In order to solve the problem, the long-term mechanical properties of the uncracked (State I) and cracked (State II) cross
sections must be determined.

For the uncracked section:

bh2 1:00 × 0:452 200

+ αe As d + 13 × 10 − 4 × 0:40
xI = 2 = 2 8:57 = 0:236 m,
bh + αe As 200
1:00 × 0:45 + 13 × 10 − 4
8:57

SI = As ðd −xI Þ = 13 × 10 − 4 × ð0:40−0:236Þ = 2:13 × 10 − 4 m3 ,

 
1 3 h 2
II = bh + bh xI − + αe As ðd − xI Þ2
12 2
 
1 0:45 2 200
3
= 1:00 × 0:45 + 1:00 × 0:45 0:236− + 13 × 10 − 4 ð0:40 −0:236Þ2 = 8:46 × 10 − 3 m3 :
12 2 8:57
|ffl{zffl}
23:33

For the cracked cross section:

sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi

αe As αe As 2 2αe As d
xII = − + +
b b b
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
 2
23:33 × 13 × 10 − 4 23:33 × 13 × 10 − 4 2 × 23:33 × 13 × 10 − 4 × 0:4
=− + + = 0:128 m,
1:00 1:00 1:00

SII = As ðd −xII Þ = 13 × 10 − 4 × ð0:40−0:128Þ = 3:52 × 10 − 4 m3 ,

1
III = bxII 3 + αe As ðd −xII Þ2
3
1
= 1:00 × 0:1283 + 23:33 × 13 × 10 − 4 ð0:40−0:128Þ2 = 2:94 × 10 − 3 m3 :
3
CALDENTEY ET AL. 127

Next, factor ζ has to be determined. This factor is to be determined considering the characteristic combination of actions:

7:752
Mk = ð11:25 + 1 + 7Þ = 144:5 kNm,
8
p ffiffiffiffiffi II p3
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 8:46 × 10 − 3
Mcr = 0:30 3 fck2 × 1000 = 0:30 252 × 1000 = 101:44 kNm,
h −xI 0:45− 0:236
 2  
Mcr 101:44 2
ζ = 1 −0:5 = 1 −0:5 = 0:75:
Mk 144:5

The long-term deflection due to external loads can now be determined as follows:

5 qqp l4 5 ð11:25 + 1 + 0:3 × 7Þ × 7:754

δI, loads = = × 1000 = 9:3 mm,
384 Ec, eff II 384 8570 × 8:46
II 8:46
δII, loads = δI = 9:3 = 26:8 mm,
III 2:94
δloads = ð1 −ζ Þ × δI, loads + ζ × δII, loads = 0:25 × 9:3 + 0:75 × 26:8 = 22:4 mm:

Then, the deflections due to shrinkage can be determined as:

SI l2 2:13 × 10 − 4 7:752
δI, cs = αe εcs = 23:33 × 0:4 = 1:8 mm,
II 8 8:46 × 10 − 3 8
SII l2 3:52 × 10 − 4 7:752
δI, cs = αe εcs = 23:33 × 0:4 = 8:4 mm,
III 8 2:94 × 10 − 3 8
δcs = ð1 −ζ Þ × δI, cs + ζ × δII, cs = 0:25 × 1:8 + 0:75 × 8:4 = 6:8 mm:

The total long-term deflection would therefore be 22.4 + 6.8=29.2 mm, which corresponds to a span to deflection ratio,
l/δ, of 7,750/29.2 = 265, very close to the established limit of 250. This example therefore constitutes a validation of the pro-
posed approach.