Field measured two-way slab deflections1

ERIC JOKINEN P.
Eric P . Jokirlen Associates Ltd., Edtnonton, Alta., Cattadn
AND

ANDREW SCANLON
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta., Canada T6G 2E1

Received December 4, 1986 Revised manuscript accepted July 2, 1987

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on 11/16/12 For personal use only.

Results of a survey of two-way slab deflections both during and after construction of a 28-storey office tower are presented. A comparison is made between measured deflections and deflections computed using a finite element program that includes the effects of cracking. Effects of construction loading and time-dependent deformations are included in the calculations. The measured and calculated deflections illustrate the high variability that can be expected in two-way slab deflections. Key words: concrete construction, deflection, finite elements, loads, multistorey construction, two-way slabs, variability. Les risultats d'une Ctude des fleches de dalles armies dans les deux sens durant et apres la construction d'une tour de bureaux de 28 Ctages sont prCsentCs. Une comparaison est effectuCe entre les flkches mesurCes et celles calculCes a l'aide de la methodedes C l h e n t s finis qui inclut les effets de la fissuration. Les effets de la rnise en charge de la construction et des deformations en fonction du temps sont inclus dans les calculs. Les fleches calculCes et mesurCes illustrent la tres grande variabilitt des fleches de dalles armCes dans les deux sens. Motsclks: construction en bCton, flkche, ClCments finis, charges, construction a Ctages multiples, dalles armCes dans les deux sens, variabilitt. [Traduit par la revue] Can. 1. Civ. Eng. 14,807-819(1987)

Introduction Contract documents for construction of the twin office towers of Scotia Place located in downtown Edmonton, Alberta, included a requirement to monitor deflections of the concrete two-way slab floor system both during and after construction. As a result, a valuable data base was established to provide needed information on the response of floor systems to construction loads and long-time sustained loads. The data obtained from the deflection surveys of the south tower are presented. In addition, results of a finite element analysis of the slab system are presented and compared with the measured data. Building description The complex consists oftwo towers, one 28 storeys and one 20 storeys in height. Each tower has an identical L-shaped floor plan for all floors above the 8th as shown in Fig. 1. The floor system consists of a 200 mm thick two-way flat slab with 3000 X 3000 x 150 mm drop panels and 1520 X 1520 mm column capitals. Columns are spaced at 9000 mm on center. Floor slabs were cambered 15 mm at bay centers and 10 mm on grid lines. For purposes of this study the slab panels are categorized according to the boundary conditions along each side of the panel and the panel reinforcement details. Panel types designated A, B, C, D, and E are identified in Fig. 1. Types D and E differed only in minor reinforcing details and could for all practical purposes be taken as the same type. The triangularshaped panels were not included in the study. Typical reinforcement arrangements for column and middle strips are shown in Fig. 2.
NOTE:Written discussion of this paper is welcomed and will be received by the Editor until March 31, 1988 (address inside front cover). 'This paper was presented at the 1985 Canadian Society for Civil Engineering Conference, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

FIG. 1. Floor plan (levels 8 through 28).

Construction schedule Construction of floors 8 through 28 of the south tower took place between May, 198 1 and October, 198 1. The construction schedule is outlined in Appendix A. The floors were constructed using a system of flying formwork with each table being approximately the size of one (1) full bay. Three levels of heavy timber reshoring were provided below the level on which the formwork rested. The upper two floors of reshoring were to 100% of the capacity of the formwork. The lowest floor of reshoring was provided at 50% of the

808
Edge

of
I

Exterior Span

Slab

Column

12-20 T 15-20B

CAN. 1. CIV. ENG. VOL. 14. 1987 Interior Span

4
Column

,/,4-20T 12-20 B

13-20T

COLUMN S T R I P

/17-IOT
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on 11/16/12 For personal use only.

!
I
I
11

r
14-15 B 1

-15

By

I
MIDDLE STRIP

!I
400 MPa).

FIG. 2. Typical slab reinforcement arrangement (f, =

capacity of the formwork. One set of formwork was provided for the entire project. This necessitated stripping and reshoring of each level at an age of approximately 3 days. A view of the shoring and reshoring arrangement is shown in Fig. 3. Owing to the large size of the formwork panels an entire bay had to be stripped at one time. In many cases, reshoring was not done immediately and thus the 3-day-old slab was left Gnshored for up to 5 or 6 h in some cases.

Cylinder compressive strength tests Specified 28-day cylinder compressive strength was 30 MPa for the floor slabs. For each floor a series of standard 100 x 300 mm cylinder compressive strength tests was made at (a) 2-5 days, (b) 7 days, and (c) 28 days. The results for 7 and 28 days are listed in Appendix A and summarized in Fig. 2 in the form of histograms. The mean strength at 28 days was 34.93 MPa with a coefficient of variation of 12.6% and range of 26.0-45.4 MPa.

Slab deflection measurements Slab deflections were measured both during construction and at approximately 1 year after completion- of construction. Measurements were made on each slab during the period in which it was subjected to loads from slabs above through the shores and reshores. Deflection measurements for floors 8 through 20 were made during the construction phase using standard level surveying techniques. A bench mark was established on each floor in the core area adjacent to a structural wall. Level readings were taken at mid-panel, at mid-span between columns, and adjacent to columns. Mid-panel and mid-column strip deflections were then established relative to the datum established by the first reading prior to stripping of formwork. Measurements were taken at each shored and reshored level immediately after forms were stripped from the top slab. Measurements adjacent to columns were taken at a distance of approximately 300 mm from the face of the column in order to eliminate errors caused bv increased thickness of concrete in these areas resulting from trowelling machines pushing the concrete toward the column. Deflection measurements were made at approximately I year after construction for floors 8 through 28. These measurements were made by stretching a string line along the diagonal between columns and measuring the deflection of the slab relative to the string line at mid-panel. The 1-year measurements therefore are not true deflections since any camber provided should be added to the measured values. Unfortunately camber measurements are not available for all slabs. Based on the limited data available in the job records it appears that the camber provided was generally somewhat less than the specified value, although in some cases larger than specified camber was provided. Mid-panel slab deflections were obtained from the job records and are tabulated in Appendix B. Figures 3 and 4 show the deflection vs. time plots for panel types A and B respectively. Also included in the plot are the average measured deflections at each stage of construction and at 1 year after construction.

FIG. 3 . Floor slabs under construction.

JOKINEN AND SCANLON

809

( a ) Strength at 7 days n = R = s = V = 72 25.61 MPa 2.91 MPa 11.4%

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on 11/16/12 For personal use only.

1 0

1 5 2 0 25 30 35 4 0 45 5 0 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ( MPa)

55

rl

( b ) Strength at 28 days

3 :: 9 .

MPa

10

15 2 0 25 3 0 35 4 0 4 5 5 0 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (M Pa)

55

Fig. 4. Histograms of cylinder compressive strengths at 7 and 28 days.

f

Deflection statistics Slab deflection statistics developed from the tabulated measurements for the slabs of the south tower are given in Appendix B . The " 1-year deflections" actually represent measurements taken within the range of 278-417 days. The plot shown in Fig. 5 for type-A slabs illustrates that although there appears to be a slight tendency towards increase of deflection with time during the measurement period, there is much more variation between individual slabs within the time period considered. Similar plots were obtained for the other slabs in the survey (Scanlon and Ho 1984). It is therefore considered to be reasonable to lump all measurements together as 1-year deflections. Histograms of measured 1-year deflections are plotted in Figs. 6-8 for slabs A-E of the south tower. The statistics for these slabs are summarized in Table 1. It will be noted in Table 1 that for type-A slabs there is only 112 the number of data points available as one type-A slab contained the crane opening and thus survey shots were not available at this location. The mean 1-year deflection ranges from 32.53 to 39.05 mm while the coefficient of variation ranges from 24.8 to 31%. It is interesting to note that there is not a large difference in mean deflection among the various slab types. In fact the deflection for type C with three continuous edges is slightly greater than for type B with two continuous edges. Other finite element studies (Scanlon and Thompson 1987) indicate that, if significant cracking occurs, deflections of corner and interior panels tend to be of similar magnitude. This is thought to be related to the redistribution of moments that occurs after cracking. Field measured deflections of the order of 35 mm would seem to suggest that a specified camber greater than 15 mm would in this case be appropriate. However, it should be noted that it is easier to correct large deflections by applying a self-levelling grout than to correct excessive camber. Given the large variability in the measured deflections and the difficulties associated

LEGEND
Meosured Volue

@<

fr =0.16&

MPa

5 Mean M w w r d Volue

@ Colculoted

Volue

0-

..
'@<
i r =O.Q&MPO

. : .. .
/ /

.... .bO
oo

d3

. *

0 0

3t0 a.
* *

"

@<

t=0.6&MPo

do

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

345678910

30

50

10 0

200300

1000

TIME (days)
FIG.5. Deflection vs. time for type-A slabs.

CAN. J. CIV. ENG. VOL. 14. 1987

Meosured Volue Meon Measured Volue

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on 11/16/12 For personal use only.

TlME (days)
FIG. 6. Deflection vs. time for type-B slabs.
70

LEGEND
60-

0 Grid

FF78

Cracking is accounted for in the analysis using Branson's effective moment of inertia. The modulus of rupture must be specified. In this study, three values were considered.
0 0
0@ 0

50 + .

0 0
@

(a) f,= 7.5@

0 0 0 0

psi (0.6-

MPa)

z
W

(b) f,= 4 e c psi ( 0 . 3 2 e CMPa) (c) f,= 2 e c psi (0.16-, MPa)

+
o

40-

2 30@

0
00 0

20 -

0
0

10 -

'250

300

3M TIME I d o y 4

400

450

FIG.7. Measured deflections at approximately I year(type-A slabs).

Case (a) represents the value specified in the ACI code (ACI Committee 3 18 1983) and CSA A23.30M (Canadian Standards Association 1984). Cases (b) and (c) are reduced effective values to account for additional cracking due to restraint of shrinkage (Tam and Scanlon 1984). The calculations were made using the specified compressive strength of 30 MPa. (2) The maximum deflection, A,,, is scaled to the sustained load level, assumed in this study to be (dead load + 20% live load), to obtain the immediate deflection due to sustained load, sustained load ASL = Amax maximum load during construction (3) Deflection at 1-year is multiplied by a long-time multiplier, as recommended by Graham and Scanlon (1986). The long-time multiplier depends on the value assumed for modulus of rupture. Graham and Scanlon recommended a multiplier of psi ( 0 . 6 a MPa), and a multiplier of 3.00 4.25 forf, = 7.5forf, = 4 e psi (0.32MPa). No value was suggested forf, = 2% psi ( 0 . 1 6 a MPa). For this last case a multiplier of 2.75 was selected. The variation in value of multiplier occurs because both creep and shrinkage warping effects are lumped together. While the total shrinkage warping deflection is assumed to be independent of the degree of cracking, (immediate + creep) deflection is significantly affected by the degree of cracking. Calculated deflections are summarized in Table 2 and the

with providing camber in two directions, it is probably preferable to err on the side of too little rather than too much camber.

Finite element analysis Deflections were computed for a typical comer panel using a version of the general purpose computer program SAPIV (Bathe et al. 1974), modified to incorporate effects of cracking (Graham and Scanlon 1984). Effects of construction loading and time-dependent effects were included using the following procedure suggested by Graham and Scanlon (1984). (1) Calculate the maximum deflection, A,,, due to construction load. The applied load is calculated from
w = (2)(wD)(l. 1) + construction live load = 2(4.709)(1.1) + 2.414 = 10.97 kPa

JOKINEN AND SCANLON

10
U Z
W

>

- SLABS TlPE A n
1

8 -

= 20 = 9.50mm = 27.6 %

I // I

TYPE B SLABS

15

25

35

45 55 65 DEFLECTION l m m l

TYPE C SLABS
n

= 41 = 24.8%

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on 11/16/12 For personal use only.

P = 35.24 mm r = 8.76mm
V

l2

TYPE

D SLABS

15 25 35

45 55 65 DEFLECTION Im m l

> 10

TYPE
n =

E SLABS

P = 39.05(mml r = 10.34(mml
V

= 26.5 %

0 10 20 30 40

60 70 80 DEFLECTION ( m m l

FIG.8. Histograms of measured I-year deflections (not including camber).

TABLE1. Summary of statistics of slab deflections for the south tower Time of deflection measurements 1 week Slab type Parameters No. of data points Mean deflection (mm) Standard deviation (mm) Coefficient of variation (%) Range (mm) No. of data points Mean deflection (mm) Standard deviation (mm) Coefficient of variation (%) Range (rnrn) No. of data points Mean deflection (mm) Standard deviation (mm) Coefficient of variation (%) Range (mm)
A

4 weeks

l year

1-year calculated deflection is shown superimposed on the deflection-time plots for panel types A and B shown in Figs. 3 and 4. It can be seen that the calculated deflections corresponding to 4 G psi ( 0 . 3 2 G MPa) modulus of rupture are close to the mean values, while the calculated values for 7.5@ ( 0 . 6 G ) and 2@ (0.16@) psi (MPa) are closely related to the lower and upper ranges of measured deflection respectively.

TABLE Calculated deflections 2. (MPa) 0.600.32G 0 . 3 2 ~

Amax

(mm)

As, (mm)

A ( 1 year) (mm)
21.1 32.0 48.4

10.2 21.9 36.2

5.0 10.7 17.5

812

CAN. 1. CIV. ENG. VOL. 14, 1987

Summary and conclusions ~~~~l~~of a survey of field measured deflections for a 28. storev office tower have been ~ r e s e n t e d Mean deflections (not incluhing camber) at approxihately 1 year after construction ranged from 32'5 to 39' with coefficients of variation ranging from 24.8 to 3 1.5%.

Grant A 5 153. Assistance provided by E . Ho and C. J . Graham in data reduction and structural calculations is gratefully acknowledged. ACI COMMITTEE 1983. Building code requirements for reinforced 3 18. concrete (ACI 3 18-83), American Concrete Institute, Detroit, MI. BATHE, J., WILSON, L., and PETERSON, E. 1974. SAPIV-a K. E. F. structural analysis program for static and dynamic response of linear systems, University o f ~ a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley, CA. CANADIAN STANDARDS ASSOCIATION. Code for the design of 1984. concrete structures for buildings. CAN3-A23.3-M84, Canadian Standards Association, exd dale,-0nt. GRAHAM, J., and SCANLON, 1984. Deflection of reinforced C. A. concrete slabs under construction loading. Structural Engineering Report No. 117, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. 1986. Long-time multipliers for estimating two-way slab deflections. ACI Journal, Proceedings, 83(6): 899-908. SCANLON, and Ho, E. 1984. Analysis of field measured deflecA,, tions, Scotia Place Office Complex, South Tower. Structural Engineering Report No. 125, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta. A,, D. SCANLON, and THOMPSON, P. 1987. Evolution of minimum thickness requirements for two-way slab systems. Proceedings Vol. I, CSCE Centennial Conference, Montreal, Que., pp. 573-584. TAM,K. S. S., and SCANLON, 1984. The effects of restrained A. shrinkage on concrete slabs. Structural Engineering Report No. 122, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.

based

On

a finite

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on 11/16/12 For personal use only.

provided good estimates of the range of deflections for a typical slab panel, depending on the modulus of rupture assumed in the analysis. The wide variation in measured deflections for nominall; identical panels and the sensitivity of calculated deflections to the effective tensile strength of the concrete emphasize the need for care in interpreting results of deflection calculations.

Acknowledgements
Data on field measured deflections as well as access to structural design drawings and specifications were provided by Quinn, Dressel, Jokinen Associates, consulting structural engineers for the project. Funding for the analysis of the survey data was provided by the Province of Alberta Summer Temporary Employment Program (STEP) and by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) through Operating

Appendix A
TABLE . Construction schedule and compressive strength test results Al Mean compressive strength results Floor number Main 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Date concrete placed March 21, 1981 March 31, 1981 April 15, 1981 May 1, 1981 May 9 , 1981 May 15, 1981 May 22, 1981 May 30, 1981 June 5, 1981 June 12, 1981 June 19, 1981 June 25, 1981 July 2, 1981 July 9, 1981 July 17,1981 July 27, 1981 August 4, 198 I August 1 1, 198 1 August 15, 198 1 August 21, 1981 August 28, 1981 September 4, 198 1 September 12, 198 1 September 19, 198 1 September 25, 198 1 October 1, 1981 October 9, 1981 October 16, 1981 7days 28 days

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on 11/16/12 For personal use only.

Appendix B
TABLE Mid-panel deflections-slab B1. type A

Time since form removal and corresponding measured deflection Forms removed
I1

Load from 1 floor

Load from 2 floors

I3 A3

Load from 3 floors

I4 A4

Load from 4 floors

I5

Shores removed
-

April182
17 A7 18

July182
A8

Floor

Grid

(days)

(mm)

a,

I2

a?

(days)

(mm)

(days)

(mm)

(days)

(mm)

(days)(mm)

a,

16

(days)

(mm)

(days)

(mrn)

(days)

(mm)

No. of data points Mean Standard deviation Range: From To Coefficient of variation (%) NOTE: Deflections at In do not include camber

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on 11/16/12 For personal use only.

TABLE Mid-panel deflections-slab B2.

type B

Time since form removal and corresponding measured deflection Forms removed
tl

Load from l floor

Load from 2 floors

[D A3

Load from 3 floors

[4 A4

Load from 4 floors

15 A5

Shores removed
f6 A6

April182
t7 A7

July182
t~
A8

AI
(mm)

t2

A2

Floor

Grid

(days)

(days)

(mm)

(days)

(mm)

(days)

(mm)

(days)(mm)

(days)

(mm)

(days)

(mm)

(days)

(mm)

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on 11/16/12 For personal use only.

Time since form removal and corresponding measured deflection Forms removed
1I

Load from l floor

12

Load from 2 floors

13 A3

Load from 3 floors

14 A4

Load from 4 floors

1s As (days)(mm)

Shores removed
16

April182
17 A7 I8

July182 (days)

Floor

Grid

(days)

AI (mm)

(days)

Az (mm)

(days)

(mm)

(days)

(mm)

(days)

(mm)

(days)

(mm)

AH (mm)

No. of data points Mean Standard deviation Range: From To Coefficient of variation (%) NOTE: Deflections at t8 do not include camber

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on 11/16/12 For personal use only.

TABLE Mid-panel deflections-slab B3.

type C
-

Time since form removal and corresponding mcasurcd deflection Forms removed
1l

Load from 1 floor

12 A2

Load from 2 floors

I3 A3

Load from 3 floors

13 A4

Load from 4 floors

(5

Shores removed
16 A6

Apr11182
17 A7 18

July182
A8

A1
(mm) 8 -6 4 10 4 5 13 13

AS
28 14 14 28 17 24 33 33 28

Floor 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 9 10 1I 12 13 14

Grid FG89 FG89 FG89 FG89 FG89 FG89 FG89 FG89 FG89 FG89 FG89 FG89 FG89 FG89 FG89 FG89 FG89 FG89 FG89 FG89 FG89 HJ67 HJ67 HJ67 HJ67 HJ67 HJ67 HJ67

(days)

(days) 6 7 7 6 7 7 8 9 8 7 4 6 7

(mm) 17 -2 10 11 2 14 16 18 13 19 15 16 12

(days) 13 14 13 13 14 15 18 18 15 11 10

(mm) 19 5 13 19 8 21 25 22 20 23 19

(days) 20 20 20 20 22 25 26 25 19 17

(mm) 24 10 12 24 13 23 28 31 22 26

(days)(mm) 26 27 27 28 32 33 33 29 25

(days)

(mm) 24 20 17 26 11 25 27 26 24 26 31 22 24

(days)

(mm)

(days) 41 7 41 1 404 397 39 1 384 377 369 359 35 1 344 340 334 327 320 312 305 299 285 278 417 41 1 404 397 391 384 377

(mm) 34 31 43 42 38 31 24 46 35 32 33 32 36 37 23 23 22 19 32 22 33 25 45 42 41 38 35

306

33

279

47

>
Z
c-

246

64

CI <
rn
0

214

32

9 e m a
4

<

18 35 10 14 23 27 23

306

24

179

45

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on 11/16/12 For personal use only.

TABLE (concluded) B3. Time since form removal and corresponding measured deflection Forms removed
fl

Load from 1 floor

Load from 2 floors b (days) 18 15 11

A3

Load from 3 floors

f4 A4

Load from 4 floors

[s A5 (days)(mm)

Shores removed
[6

April182
f7 A7

July182
f8
A8

A1
(mm) 30 11

f2

A2

A6

Floor 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Grid HJ67 HJ67 HJ67 HJ67 HJ67 HJ67 HJ67 HJ67 HJ67 HJ67 HJ67 HJ67 HJ67 HJ67

(days)

(days) 9 8 7 6 7

(mm) 21 9 14 13 12

(mm) 23 16 17

(days) 25 19 17

(mm) 9 18 27

(days)

(mm) 24 20 29 20 22 21 20 34

(days)

(rnm)

(days) 369 359 35 1 344 340 334 327 320 3 12 305 299 29 3 285 278

(mm) 59 44 47 41 45 48 45 25 25 39 30 35 32 36

29 25

30 20

214

24

No. of data points Mean Standard deviation Range: From To Coefficient of variation (%) NOTE: Deflections at r8 do not include camber.

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on 11/16/12 For personal use only.

TABLE Mid-panel deflections-slab B4.

type D

Time since form removal and corresponding measured deflection Forms removed
tI

Load from 1 floor

Load from 2 floors

t3 A3

Load from 3 floors

t4

Load from 4 floors

ts

Shores removed
t6
A6

April182
t7 A7

July182 (days)
tn

Floor

Grid

(days)

A1 (mm)

b
(days)

Az
(mm)

A4

(days)

(mm)

(days)

(mm)

(days)(mm)

As

(days)

(mnl)

(days)

(mm)

Ax (nlnl)

No. of data points Mean Standard deviation Range: From To Coefficient of variation (%) NOTE: Deflections at r8 do not include camber.

Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by MCGILL UNIVERSITY on 11/16/12 For personal use only.

TABLE Mid-panel deflections-slab B5.

type E

Time since form removal and corresponding measured deflection Forms removed
I!

Load from l floor

Load from 2 floors

(3 A3

Load from 3 floors

14 A3

Load from 4 floors

15

Shores removed
I6 A6

April182
17 A7 18

July182
A8

Floor

Grid

(days)

(mm)

A,

12

A2

(days)

(mm)

(days)

(mm)

(days)

(mm)

(days)(mm)

AS

(days)

(mm)

(days)

(mm)

(days)

(rnm)

No. of data points Mean Standard deviation Range: From To Coefficient of variation (%) NOTE: Deflections at t8 do not includc camber.