See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/362094532

Aspect Ratio and Relative Beam-Slab Stiffness Effects on the Long-term

Deflection of Flat Plates and Beam Supported One-Way Slabs

Article in Civil Engineering and Architecture · June 2022

DOI: 10.13189/cea.2022.100516

CITATIONS READS

0 67

2 authors:

Karwan Khalid Sarakot Hasan

soran Erbil Polytechnic University, Kurdistan Region-Iraq
1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS 10 PUBLICATIONS 44 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sarakot Hasan on 19 July 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Civil Engineering and Architecture 10(5): 1916-1930, 2022 http://www.hrpub.org
DOI: 10.13189/cea.2022.100516

Aspect Ratio and Relative Beam-Slab Stiffness Effects

on the Long-term Deflection of Flat Plates and Beam
Supported One-Way Slabs
Karwan Khalid Ismael*, Sarkawt Asaad Hasan

Department of Civil Engineering, Erbil Engineering Technical College, Erbil Polytechnic University, Iraq

Received April 8, 2022; Revised May 6, 2022; Accepted June 21, 2022

Cite This Paper in the following Citation Styles

(a): [1] Karwan Khalid Ismael, Sarkawt Asaad Hasan , "Aspect Ratio and Relative Beam-Slab Stiffness Effects on the
Long-term Deflection of Flat Plates and Beam Supported One-Way Slabs," Civil Engineering and Architecture, Vol. 10,
No. 5, pp. 1916-1930, 2022. DOI: 10.13189/cea.2022.100516.
(b): Karwan Khalid Ismael, Sarkawt Asaad Hasan (2022). Aspect Ratio and Relative Beam-Slab Stiffness Effects on the
Long-term Deflection of Flat Plates and Beam Supported One-Way Slabs. Civil Engineering and Architecture, 10(5),
1916-1930. DOI: 10.13189/cea.2022.100516.
Copyright©2022 by authors, all rights reserved. Authors agree that this article remains permanently open access under the
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License

Abstract This study investigates the ACI 318-19
two-way slab provisions for the long-term deflection
control in flat plate slabs with an aspect ratio ranging
between 1 to 3 at different panel locations (interior, edge,
and corner) with a large span of 5.0 m, 7.5 m, and 10.0 m.
Further, the study examines the effects of the relative
beam-slab stiffness of the beams provided at the two long
sides of flat plat slabs of aspect ratio greater than two using
ACI318-19 recommended one-way slab thickness. The
paper uses the Finite Element SAFE software to calculate
the long-term deflection (LTD) by using nonlinear analysis
(long-term cracked analysis) that considers concrete creep
and shrinkage of two-way slabs and one-way slabs for
different beam-slab stiffnesses and aspect ratios. The
aspect ratio of a flat plate slab had a considerable effect on
the LTD, where for slab panels of the same long span
length and variable aspect ratio, as the aspect ratio gets
smaller (square slab), the LTD increases, a behavior that
ACI318-19 two-way slab deflection control procedures
overlook. So, the deflection under the beams is within the
ACI318-19 long-term deflection limits for different panel
locations (interior, interior, exterior, and exterior edge). In
addition, this part has been conducted to recommend a
minimum relative beam-slab stiffness for the supporting
beams.
Keywords Flat Plate Slab, One-Way Slab, Aspect
Ratio, Long Term Deflection, Permissible Deflection,
Relative Beam-Slab Stiffness, Minimum Thickness of Slab
1. Introduction
A flat slab is a two-way reinforced concrete slab without
beams, drop panels, or capitals and transfers loads straight
to the supporting concrete columns. In this type of slab
system, it is recognized that deflection is a critical aspect,
where the slab might experience excessive deflection
resulting in cracks in the supported partitions walls.
In two-way flat plat slabs, ACI318-19 provisions do not
consider the aspect ratio (large span (L1)/short spans (L2))
as a parameter in the recommended minimum slab
thickness. The slab thickness depends on the large span
only. For example, for an exterior flat plat slab panel of 10
x 10 m and 10 x 5 m, ACI318-19 recommends the same
slab thickness (ℓn/30, ℓn is the clear span length). This
indicates that if the long span does not vary, the
recommended slab thickness remains constant regardless
of how the small span length changes.
Further, the situation becomes even more uncertain with
the flat plate aspect ratio exceeding 2. Therefore, as an
attempt to apply the minimum thickness recommended by
Table 8.3.1.1 (minimum thickness of two-way slabs
without edge beam) of ACI318-19 to an exterior flat plat
slab (for example) with an aspect ratio greater than 2,
 Civil Engineering and Architecture 10(5): 1916-1930, 2022
below are the provisions that might be related to this task:
(1) Table 8.3.1.1 does not consider the aspect ratio
affecting the thickness of two-way flat plate slabs.
(2) Table 8.3.1.1 provides “Minimum thickness for
non-prestressed slabs without interior beams”.
Further, in Section 8.3.1.1, it is clearly stated that the
Table 8.3.1.1 provisions are applicable “for
non-prestressed slabs without interior beams
spanning between supports on all sides, having a
maximum ratio of long-to-short span of 2”.
For such a case under investigation (an exterior flat plat
slab with an aspect ratio greater than 2), as a try to look for
what ACI318-19 provisions would be applicable, the
following issues will be faced:
(1) Going with Table 8.3.1.1 (two-way flat slab thickness)
will violate a maximum aspect ratio of 2.
(2) If Table 7.3.1.1 is followed (one-way slab thickness),
then the sub-issue would be which span to use:
A- If the short span is used, this choice will not match
the direction of bending action in the long span, as
shown in Figure 1.
B- If the long span is used, then two sub-issues will
come out:
 First, no clear article in ACI318-19 would
allow/recommend using the long span in
one-way slabs.
Figure 1. The deflected shape of a flat plate slab with an aspect ratio greater than 2
1917
 The recommended thickness would be (L2/28),
17.9 % larger than the thickness recommended
for a two-way flat plate of aspect ratio equal to
or less than 2. This would show an inconsistency
in the ACI318-19 provisions, as for aspect ratio
equal to or less than two, there is no
consideration for the aspect ratio, but for a larger
aspect ratio (less critical slabs), a larger slab
thickness would be required.
The current study aims to remove the ambiguity related
to the thickness of flat plate slabs with an aspect ratio
greater than two and find and recommend changes in the
ACI318-19.
Conversely, for flat plate slabs, if beams are provided at
the long sides, traditionally, the slab would be considered
one-way slabs spanning in the short direction and will
apply the provisions of one-way slabs (Table 7.3.1.1 in
ACI318-19) will be applied. However, this is done without
minimum requirements for the relative beam-slab stiffness
of the provided beams recommended by the CI318-19. If
the beam stiffness is low, there will be a deflection in the
long span (beam span) that might exceed the allowable
ℓ/240 or ℓ/480 deflection, which is overlooked by the
ACI318-19 provisions. Therefore, the current study
believes there is a need to have a minimum limit for the
provided relative beam-slab stiffness. Beyond it, the slab
could be considered a one-way slab in the short direction.
1918 Aspect Ratio and Relative Beam-Slab Stiffness Effects
on the Long-term Deflection of Flat Plates and Beam Supported One-Way Slabs
Ambos conceptos
1.1. Aims importantes
The current paper focuses on the slab deflection at the
cracked Stage, aiming to:
 Evaluate the effect of the aspect ratio (3-1) on the
long-term deflection (LTD) of flat plate slabs
 Evaluate the effect of relative beam-slab stiffness on
the LTD of a one-way slab.
1.2. Review of Literature
Hassan & Taha [1] conducted a nonlinear cracked
analysis to obtain the LTD using finite element SAFE
software for 600 flat plate corner panel cases with variable
long span length, aspect ratio, and thickness as
recommended by ACI 318-14, concrete grade, and live
load. The study concluded that: (1) Aspect ratio influences
the LTD of the flat plate without beam, especially at large
long direction spans; (2) ACI provision for ℓ/240 is
adequate for most cases (long spans up to 7.0 m); (3) ACI
provision for ℓ/480 are not adequate in most of the studied
cases (Long spans of 5 m to 10 m); (4) The large span is
considered as the “reference span”, along which, all the
deflection calculations and checks are required to be
performed.
Cohen [2] suggested that the ACI318 Code provisions
are insufficient for designing serviceable two-way slab
systems. He listed issues on more than one level: (1) The
slabs that are designed following the ACI 318-19 [3]
provisions might exceed the defined deflection limits; (2)
The minimum thickness requirements should be changed
to include the parameters of the aspect ratio of a panel and
the applied load.
Thompson & Scanlon [4] conducted a Finite Analysis of
300 slabs; many variables were considered, including the
slab aspect ratio; Scanlon recommended that “for square
slab panels, the required ACI minimum thickness should
be increased by 10 %.”
Gullapalli [5] recommended “increasing the slab
thickness by 10 % (above those recommended by ACI318)
for a flat plate in the following conditions: 1) longer
clear-span not greater than 20 ft; 2) superimposed dead
load not greater than 20 psf; 3) live load not greater than 70
psf, 4) concrete compressive strength not less than 3000
psi”. For flat plate conditions falling outside the above
range, slab thickness was recommended to be determined
based on the equation Scanlon and Lee (2006) proposed.
Lee & Scanlon [6] have compared the minimum
thickness provisions of the one-way and two-way slabs of
the codes of practices ACI 318-08 [7], BS 8110-1:1997 [8],
Eurocode 2 [9], and AS 3600-2001 [10] and the unified
equation proposed by Scanlon & Lee. In addition, the
effects of various design parameters were evaluated, such
as support condition, span length, and applied load. The
results illustrated that ACI 318 provisions require a
revision to cover the range of the design parameters.
Furthermore, although application constraints must be
applied to ACI 318, the ACI flat plate provisions appear to
be enough for the deflection limit of l/240 for normal spans
and loads but may be insufficient in many circumstances to
fulfill the acceptable deflection limit of l/480. Therefore, it
was recommended that “the Scanlon/Lee equation for
minimum thickness of one-way slabs, flat plates, and flat
slabs be adopted by ACI 318-19 but not less than values
given by the current limits”.
ACI 318-19 provides two alternative approaches for
deflection control. The first approach specifies minimum
thickness for controlling the deflection as a ratio of the long
span of the slab (maximum span-to-depth ratio). This
recommendation is attractive as a mean of deflection
control due to its simplicity; however, many researchers
(Hwang & Chang [12], Lee & Scanlon [13], Bondy [14],
Gilbert [15]) have criticized it for not providing the
concrete strength, actual load level, desired deflection limit,
and the steel quantities. The second approach is the
calculated deflection of the slab panel required to be
compared to the allowable permissible deflection to
determine the minimum allowable thickness of flat plate
slabs.
The effect of different aspect ratios on flat plate slabs in
the ACI 318-19 code provisions had not been considered in
previous research, but Hassan & Taha evaluated the effect
of varied aspect ratios ranging between 1 to 2 on the corner
panel for flat plates by calculating the long-term deflection
of slabs. Therefore, in the current study, the effect of the
aspect ratio has been extended to range between 1 to 3 and
for further slab panel locations to include the interior, edge,
and corner panels. Additionally, the ACI 318-19 code
provisions for one-way slabs do not specify a minimum
relative-beam slab stiffness for the supporting beams,
which has an expected notable effect on the deflection;
therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the effect of relative
stiffness on the long-term deflection for one-way slabs.
1.3. ACI318-19 Deflection Control Provisions
ACI318-19 provisions provide recommended minimum
slab thickness as a span ratio without calculating the
deflection for two-way flat plate slabs and one-way slabs.
As an alternative, the code allows for smaller slab
thickness if it is shown that the LTD is within the specific
deflection limits.
The Minimum thickness of solid non-prestressed
one-way slabs can be found in ACI318-19 Code Table
7.3.1.1. The minimum thickness depends mainly on the
clear span in the short direction (ℓ), as illustrated in Table 1.
 Civil Engineering and Architecture 10(5): 1916-1930, 2022 1919

Table 1. ACI318-19, Table 7.3.1.1 minimum thickness of solid deflection limits, as shown in Table 3.
non-prestressed one-way slabs

Support condition Minimum h[1]

Simply supported ℓ/20
One end continuous ℓ/24
Both ends continuous ℓ/28
Cantilever ℓ/10
[1] Expression applicable for normal weight concrete and fy = 420
MPa.
The minimum thickness requirements for two-way flat
plate slabs can be found in ACI318-19 Code Table 8.3.1.1.
The minimum thickness depends mainly on the clear span
in the long direction (ℓ n ), as shown in Table 2.
On the other hand, according to ACI318-19, the slab
thickness is less than those recommended in Tables 1 and 2.
In these cases, the maximum permissible deflection should
not be exceeded. Therefore, the slab thicknesses employed
in this investigation are the same as those specified in
Tables 1 and 2. However, to evaluate these thicknesses, the
calculated LTD has been compared with the ℓ/240 ℓ/480
1.4. Methodology
The current paper uses the finite element SAFE software
to calculate the LTD of two-way slabs and one-way slabs
for different aspect ratios and relative beam-slab stiffness
configurations, as detailed below.
 Different long Span lengths (10, 7.5, and 5 m) for
two-way flat plate slabs
 Different Aspect ratios (1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, and 3) for
two-way flat plate slabs
 Different short Span lengths (3, 3.6, 4.9 m) for
one-way slabs
 Different relative beam-slab stiffness for one-way
slabs
SAFE is a software generated by CSI SAFE [16]; it is
mainly used in analyzing and designing concrete slab
systems. It is an extensive package that blends all the
aspects of the engineering design process, from creating a
layout to analysis, design, and detailed drawing
production.

Table 2. ACI318-19, Table 8.3.1.1- a minimum thickness of non-prestressed two-way slabs without interior beams (mm) [1]

Without drop panels[3] With drop panels[3]

Exterior panels Exterior panels

fy, MPa[2]
Interior panels Without edge With edge Interior panels
Without edge beams With edge beams[4]
beams beams[4]

280 ℓn/33 ℓn/36 ℓn/36 ℓn/36 ℓn/40 ℓn/40

420 ℓn/30 ℓn/33 ℓn/33 ℓn/33 ℓn/36 ℓn/36

550 ℓn/27 ℓn/30 ℓn/30 ℓn/30 ℓn/33 ℓn/33

[1] ℓn is the clear span in the long direction, measured face-to-face of supports (mm).
[2] For fy between the values given in the Table, minimum thickness shall be calculated by linear interpolation.
[3] Drop panels as given in 8.2.4.
[4] Slabs with beams between columns along with their exterior edges. Exterior panels shall be considered without edge beams if αf is less
than 0.8.

Table 3. ACI318-19, Table 24.2.2- maximum permissible calculated deflections

Deflection
Member Condition Deflection to be considered
limitation

Flat roofs Not supporting or attached to nonstructural elements Immediate deflection due to maximum of Lr, S, and R ℓ/180
likely to be damaged by large deflections Immediate
Floors deflection due to L ℓ/360

Likely to be damaged
by That part of the total deflection occurs after the ℓ/480
Supporting or
Roof or large deflections attachment of nonstructural elements, which is the
attached to
sum of the time-dependent deflection due to all
floors nonstructural Not likely to be sustained loads and the immediate deflection due to
elements damaged any additional live load ℓ/240
by large deflections
1920 Aspect Ratio and Relative Beam-Slab Stiffness Effects
on the Long-term Deflection of Flat Plates and Beam Supported One-Way Slabs
1.5. Finite Element Modeling
The slabs are modeled using the thick shell elements
(including the transverse shear deformation); each element
has four nodes; each node has six degrees of freedom (three
translations and three rotations about the local axes); the
material property within each element is constant; the
element includes shear deformation, and the element
moments and shears are calculated at the nodes of the
element.
3D beam elements are used to simulate the beams and
columns. Biaxial bending, torsion, axial deformation, and
biaxial shear are all accounted for that are computed at the
two ends of each element, correlating to each mesh point.
Beam elements are prismatic.
1.6. Finite Element Nonlinear Analyzing
The nonlinear behavior of the slab shell elements is
accounted for in the SAFE FE analysis by reducing
member stiffnesses due to the cracking of the concrete and
performing a nonlinear cracking analysis. To estimate true
deflections, a complex task, the effective stiffness is
calculated to obtain cracked deflections with further
modification factors to account for long-term deflections
(due to creep and shrinkage). The long-term deflection was
calculated according to the procedure shown in [17]. The
following three cases are included in this procedure:
 Case 1: Immediate deflection resulting from
Short-term loads: DL + SDL + LL,
 Case 2: Sustained loads can result in immediate
deflection: DL + SDL + ΨLL,
 Case 3: Long-term deflection resulting from sustained
loads: DL + SDL + ΨLL.
Where:
 SDL is the self-weight of the slab,
 DL is the superimposed dead load,
 LL is the live load,
 Ψ indicates the percentage of sustained live load.
Cases 1 and 2 were analyzed using the nonlinear cracked
in SAFE, while case 3 was analyzed using the nonlinear
long-term cracked (with creep and shrinkage effects)
analysis.
In order to calculate the long-term deflection value, the
linear combination has been used resulted by adding case 3
to case 1 minus case 2, and the difference between these
two cases (case 1 and case 2) is the incremental deflection
(without creep and shrinkage) resulting from the
non-sustained loading on cracked slabs.
2. Parametric Study
This section presents the parametric study details for two
types of slabs (two-way flat plate slabs (part 1) and
one-way slabs (part 2), of different aspect ratios and
relative beam-slab stiffnesses to calculate the LTD, which
have been compared with the deflection limits of ℓ/240 and
ℓ/480. All the reported deflections occurred at the long
span; this is based on Hasan and Omer's observation (2020)
that the deflection at the long span is critical to observe in
flat plat slabs.
The following parameters have been kept constant in all
the studied slab panel configurations:
• Modulus of rupture is based on ACI-specified value of
0.62 √ fc’ (ACI318-19, section 19.2.3.1)
• Column dimension 400*400 mm, 3 m height, fixed at
the bottom
• 3x3 panels slabs Menor valor de Ec
• f c’ =20 Mpa
• DL=2.5 kN/m2
• LL=1.92 kN/m2 Simplifica λ
• Modulus of elasticity = 4700*√ fc’
• Combined creep and shrinkage time-dependent factor
= 2 (ACI 318-19, section 24.2.4.1.3)
• The ratio of slab tension reinforcement for the
cracking analysis= 0.0018
• Slab mesh size: 0.25m
• Yield strength of reinforcement: 420 MPa
• For flat plate slab system; the analysis is performed for
flat plate slab without edge beams
The study is limited
• Two types of slabs (flat plate slabs and one-way slabs)
• One floor building
• For a one-way slab system, the provided beam depth is
equal in both long directions sided
2.1. Flat plate slab panels
In the first parametric study, the tested flat plate slab
panels are divided into fifteen groups as detailed in Table 4
using the slab thicknesses based on the long span length
and following Table 8.3.1.1 (ACI318-19) for a two-way
flat plate. Each group consists of 2 different cases: i) one
case for using the thickness of the interior slab panel (ℓn/33)
for the whole 3x3 slab panels; ii) another case for using the
thickness of the exterior slab panel (ℓn/30) for the whole
3x3 slab panels. The aspect ratios have been obtained by
keeping the long span length constant and varying the short
span length to evaluate the effect of the aspect ratio on the
LTD of flat plate slabs along the long span. The resulting
LTD were compared with the ACI deflection limits of ℓ
/240 and ℓ/480.
 Civil Engineering and Architecture 10(5): 1916-1930, 2022 1921

Table 4. Parametric study part 1 details (flat plate slabs of an aspect ratio of 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, and 3)

Slab Thickness, mm
Group Long span, L1, m Short Span, L2, m Aspect ratio, L1/L2
Interior (Ln/33) Edge and corner (Ln/30)

TA1-10* 290.9 320 10 10 1

TA 1.5-10 290.9 320 10 6.66 1.5

TA 2-10 290.9 320 10 5 2

TA 2.5-10 290.9 320 10 4 2.5

TA 3-10 290.9 320 10 3.33 3

TA 1-7.5 215.15 236.6 7.5 7.5 1

TA 1.5-7.5 215.15 236.6 7.5 5 1.5

TA 2-7.5 215.15 236.6 7.5 3.75 2

TA 2.5-7.5 215.15 236.6 7.5 3 2.5

TA 3-7.5 215.15 236.6 7.5 2.5 3

TA 1-5 139.39 153.3 5 5 1

TA 1.5-5 139.39 153.3 5 3.33 1.5

TA 2-5 139.39 153.3 5 2.5 2

TA 2.5-5 139.39 153.3 5 2 2.5

TA 3-5 139.39 153.3 5 1.66 3

*, TA: “Two way”, thickness as required by ACI318-19, 1: Aspect ratio value, 10: long span length in meter.

Figure 2. Two-way flat plate slab panel labeling according to the location

The studied slab panel labeling according to the interior,
edge, and corner location, as shown in Figure 2.
2.2. One Way Slab Panels
In the second parametric study part, three different span
panel configurations of 10x4.9m, 7.5x3.6 m, and 6x3.1 m
(aspect ratio just above 2) with beams provided at the two
long spans of the slab panel have been analyzed, as detailed
in Table 5. The investigation has been conducted by taking
the relative beam-slab stiffness as a variable to determine
the relative stiffness that would ensure that the LDT
deflection under the supporting beams will be within the
ACI limitation (Case A: ℓ/240, Case B: ℓ/480). In addition,
the studied slab panel labeling has been done according to
the location as interior, exterior, interior edge, and exterior
1922 Aspect Ratio and Relative Beam-Slab Stiffness Effects
on the Long-term Deflection of Flat Plates and Beam Supported One-Way Slabs

edge, as shown in Figure 3. For the calculation of the relative beam-slab stiffness, the
The slab thickness has been calculated as one-way moment of inertia of the beam has been calculated based on
according to ACI318-19 provisions (L2/24 for exterior the modification factor (Ct) as illustrated in Figure 4
spans, L2/28 for interior spans, where L2 is the short span). (Figure (20.21) in PCA Notes of ACI 318-11 [17].

Table 5. Parametric study part 2 details (one-way slab supported on beams)

Slab Thickness, mm as per ACI Range of the tested relative beam-slab Long Short
Group

318-19& stiffness span, span, Aspect

ratio
Interior Edge Corner Interior Edge Corner L1, m L2, m

O4.9# 160.7 187.5 187.5 3 – 15@ 3 -14 3 - 18 10 4.9 2.04

O3.6 114.2 133.3 133.3 3 - 15 3 -14 3 -17 7.5 3.6 2.08

O3.1 92.8 108.3 108.3 3 - 13 3 -12 3 - 15 6.1 3 2.03

#: O: indicates “One-way slab”, the number indicates the short span length

&: The thickness is taken as the ratio of the short span (one-way action in the short span), Table 7.3.1.1 in ACI318-19

@: as an illustration, for this case, the relative stiffness of 3 occurred with a beam dimension of 400x470 mm (width x depth), the relative
stiffness of 15 occurred with a beam dimension of 400x760 mm

Figure 3. One-way slab panel labelling according to the location

 Civil Engineering and Architecture 10(5): 1916-1930, 2022 1923

Figure 4. PCA notes in ACI 318-11, Figure 20-21 coefficient (Ct) for the gross moment of inertia of flanged sections

3. Results and Discussions
3.1. Flat slab panels (parametric study part 1)
This section presents the LTD of part 1 of the parametric
study detailed in Table 4. The resulting LTD for the 15 x 2
cases is listed in Table 6, and Figures 5, 6, and 7 show the
LTD as a ratio of the long spans. The ℓ/240 and ℓ/480
deflection limits are also shown.
3.1.1. Flat slab panels with an aspect ratio range of 1 to 2
This section presents the LTD of part 1 of the parametric
study for the cases of the range of aspect ratios 1 to 2. As
could be seen, for the ℓ/240 deflection limit, apart from the
case of large slab panels (aspect ratio of 1 at the large span
of 10 m), all the cases satisfy this limit. On the other hand,
for the ℓ/480 deflection limit, apart from the case of small
slab panels (aspect ratio of 2 at the large span of 5 m), all
the cases did not satisfy this limit. To a large extent, these
results agree with the results obtained by Hasan S. and
Taha B [1].
In both observations, it could be noted that as the aspect
ratio gets smaller (square slab), the deflection gets larger,
indicating a noticeable effect of aspect ratio on the flat
plate LTD.
3.1.2. Flat slab panels with an aspect ratio of 2 to 3
The LTD of part 1 of the parametric analysis is shown in
this section for situations with an aspect ratio of 2 to 3. For
the cases of aspect ratio larger than 2 of flat plate slabs, the
1924 Aspect Ratio and Relative Beam-Slab Stiffness Effects
on the Long-term Deflection of Flat Plates and Beam Supported One-Way Slabs

thickness was the same as that for two-way flat plate slabs.
Figures 5, 6 and 7 show that this thickness satisfies the
normal ℓ /240 deflection for all three slab panel locations
(interior, edge, and corner panel). For the other deflection
limit of ℓ/480, apart from the case of the large slab panel
(long span of 10 m), all the cases satisfy this limit. Based
on that, as Table 8.3.1.1 of ACI318-19 for the thickness of
two-way flat slabs is provided to satisfy the ordinary
deflection limit of ℓ /240, the current paper believes that
this Table could be recommended to apply to all flat plate
slabs regardless of the aspect ratios. Therefore, the paper
suggests revising the restriction put by ACI318-19 on the
aspect ratio.

Table 6. Results of the parametric study part 1 (flat plate slabs)

Slab Interior Panel Slab Edge panel Corner Panel

Long Short Aspect Case thickness Long Case thickness
span span ratio Number* (ℓn /33) Mid Panel (ℓn /30) Mid Panel Long Span Mid Panel Long Span
Span LTD Number*
(mm) LTD (mm) (mm) LTD (mm LTD (mm) LTD (mm) LTD (mm)
(mm)
10 10 1 1 290.9 35.07 31.34 2 320 56.04 53.33 81.3 53.33
10 6.66 1.5 3 290.9 26.88 27.18 4 320 42.04 41.62 42.14 41.62
10 5 2 5 290.9 26.23 26.51 6 320 35.67 35.43 34.92 35.43
10 4 2.5 7 290.9 26.25 26.36 8 320 30.29 30.29 30.24 30.29
10 3.33 3 6 290.9 26.82 26.67 10 320 27.51 27.49 27.68 27.49
7.5 7.5 1 11 215.15 27.7 22.35 12 236.66 30.4 27.13 38.83 27.13
7.5 5 1.5 13 215.15 17.17 16.84 14 236.66 18.73 18.43 18.8 18.43
7.5 3.75 2 15 215.15 15.61 15.57 16 236.66 16.15 16 16.01 16
7.5 3 2.5 17 215.15 14.54 14.65 18 236.66 14.23 14.24 14.29 14.24
7.5 2.5 3 19 215.15 14.2 14.22 20 236.66 13.14 13.12 13.11 13.12
5 5 1 21 139.39 16.28 12.55 22 153.3 14.08 11.21 15.8 11.21
5 3.33 1.5 23 139.39 8.77 8.5 24 153.3 8.13 7.87 8.09 7.87
5 2.5 2 25 139.39 7.55 7.6 26 153.3 6.52 6.46 6.42 6.46
5 2 2.5 27 139.39 6.89 6.89 28 153.3 5.89 5.87 5.82 5.87
5 1.66 3 29 139.39 6.53 6.55 30 153.3 5.62 5.61 5.6 5.61
*: Each case represents a 3x3 panels slab using the slab thickness given for the case used for all the 9 slab panels.
 Civil Engineering and Architecture 10(5): 1916-1930, 2022 1925

Long span of 10m

560
Long span /LTD of long span

480
Interiorp panel
Edge and corner panel
400 Defelection limit 480
Defelection limit 240
320

240

160

80

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Aspect ratio
Figure 4. Flat slab floor panel aspect ratio versus long span relative LTD for a long span of 10 m

Long span of 7.5m

640
Long span /LTD of long span

560

480
Interiorp panel
400 Edge and corner panel
Defelection limit 480
320 Defelection limit 240
240

160

80

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Aspect ratio
Figure 5. Flat slab floor panel aspect ratio versus long span relative LTD for a long span of 7.5 m
1926 Aspect Ratio and Relative Beam-Slab Stiffness Effects
on the Long-term Deflection of Flat Plates and Beam Supported One-Way Slabs

Long span of 5m
880
Interiorp panel
800
Long span /LTD of long span

Edge and corner panel

720
Defelection limit 480
640 Defelection limit 240
560
480
400
320
240
160
80
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Aspect ratio
Figure 6. Flat slab floor panel aspect ratio versus long span relative LTD for a long span of 5.0 m
 Civil Engineering and Architecture 10(5): 1916-1930, 2022 1927

Table 7-A. LTD results of parametric study part 2 (interior edge panel)

LTD (mm) Deflection

Panel Flat slab LTD of Beam slab
dimension thickness Flat slab thickness Relative beam slab stiffness limit(mm)
(m) (ℓn/33) (mm) (mm) (ℓ/28) (mm)
1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 11 13 15 17 19 20 ℓ/240) ℓ/480)
10x4.9 290.9 26.58 160.7 83.3 61.6 51.15 38.2 44.77 39.42 33.28 30.59 27.48 25.1 23.05 21.56 20.3 19.67 40.00 20
7.5x3.6 215.15 15.52 114.2 98.55 61.3 35.6 29.98 27.08 22.86 19.5 17.15 15.14 14.62 29.58 14.79
6.1x3 172.72 10.32 92.8 82.35 46.9 31.18 22.29 19.15 15.04 11.36 23.75 11.88

Table 7-B. LTD results of parametric study part 2 (exterior edge panel)

LTD of Flat LTD (mm) Deflection limit

Beam slab
Panel Flat slab thickness (mm)
slab (mm) thickness (ℓ/24) Relative beam slab stiffness
dimension(m) (ℓn/30) (mm)
(mm)
1 2 3 4 5 7 9 10 11 13 15 17 (ℓ/240) (ℓ/480)
10x4.9 320 35.10 187.5 70.9 52.89 44.76 38.2 34.54 29.42 26.94 24.53 22.17 20.7 20.14 19.41 40.00 20
7.5x3.6 236.6 16.19 133.3 62.14 35.18 28.11 22.03 18.97 15.61 14.37 14.79 29.58 14.79
6.1x3 190 9.71 108.3 50.28 29.62 21.22 14.53 10.68 23.75 11.88

Table 7-C. LTD results of parametric study part 2 (interior panel)

LTD (mm) Deflection

Panel Flat slab thickness (ℓn/33) LTD of Flat slab Beam slab thickness (ℓ/28) limit(mm)
Relative beam slab stiffness
dimension(m) (mm) (mm) (mm)
1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 7.00 9.00 10.00 ℓ/240) ℓ/480)
10x4.9 290.9 26.58 160.7 72.36 51.11 38.24 30.20 23.44 20.30 18.77 40.00 20
7.5x3.6 215.15 15.52 114.2 88.67 56.75 31.83 26.47 23.91 19.01 16.39 14.95 29.58 14.79
6.1x3 172.72 10.32 92.8 82.35 46.98 31.18 22.29 19.15 15.04 11.36 23.75 11.88

Table 7-D. LTD results of parametric study part 2 (exterior panel)

Beam slab LTD (mm)

thickness Deflection limit(mm)
Panel dimension (m) Flat slab thickness (ℓn/30) (mm) LTD of Flat slab (mm) Relative beam slab stiffness
(ℓ/24)
(mm) 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 ℓ/240) ℓ/480)
10x4.9 320 35.1 187.5 58.87 41.95 31.54 23.42 19.2 20.3 40.00 20
7.5x3.6 236.6 16.19 133.3 60.46 30.91 24.61 26.47 18.57 15.07 13.63 29.58 14.79
6.1x3 190 9.71 108.3 46.54 24.56 19.74 11.73 23.75 11.88
1928 Aspect Ratio and Relative Beam-Slab Stiffness Effects
on the Long-term Deflection of Flat Plates and Beam Supported One-Way Slabs

3.3 One-Way Slab Supporting Beam Stiffness
This section presents the LTD of part 2 of the parametric
study detailed in Table 5. Tables 7-A to 7-Dand Figures 8
to 10 illustrate the resulting LTD along the long span (the
position of the supporting beams). In this presentation of
results, ℓ/240 and ℓ/480 deflection limits are presented for
comparison. The relative beam-slab stuffiness increased
through multiple cases until the LDT reached the
deflection limits.
As could be seen in Table 7-A to 7-D and Figure 8 to 10,
for interior, interior edge, exterior, and exterior edge slab
panels, the required relative beam-slab stiffness (to ensure
that the long beam LTD be within the allowable deflection
of ℓ /240 (Case A) and ℓ /480 (Case B)) increases with the
increase of the supporting long side length. However, at
low levels of relative beam-slab stiffness, the necessary
relative stiffness sharply decreases until the stiffness of 3 to
5. Beyond that, the effects of the relative stiffness became
less effective.
Table 8 summarizes all the minimum relative beam-slab
stiffness required to satisfy the deflection limits of ℓ/240
and ℓ/4800 along the supporting beams. As listed, as a safe
side recommendation, before going with the ACI318-19
provisions for the one-way slab thickness, a minimum of
relative beam-slab stiffness for the supporting beam of 5
and 20 is required to satisfy the deflection limit of ℓ/240
and ℓ/240, respectively.

90
Interior edge panel
80 Exterior edge panel (corner)
Interior panel
Long span deflection (mm)

70
Exterior panel
60 Deflection limit (L/240)
50 Deflection limit (L/480)

40

30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Relative stiffness

Figure 7. LTD of the supporting beam versus the relative beam-slab stiffness of 10x4.9 m slab panel
 Civil Engineering and Architecture 10(5): 1916-1930, 2022 1929

110
Interior edge panel
100
Exterior edge panel (corner)
90 Interior panel
Long span deflection (mm)

80 Exterior panel
70 Deflection limit (L/240)
60 Deflection limit (L/480)

50
40
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Relative stiffness

Figure 9. LTD of the supporting beam versus the relative beam-slab stiffness of 7.5x3.9m slab panel

90
Interior edge panel
80 Exterior edge panel (corner)
Interior panel
Long span deflection (mm)

70
Exterior panel
60 Deflection limit (L/240)
50 Deflection limit (L/480)

40

30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Relative stiffness

Figure 8. LTD of the supporting beam versus the relative beam-slab stiffness of 6.1x3.0m slab panel
 1930 Aspect Ratio and Relative Beam-Slab Stiffness Effects
on the Long-term Deflection of Flat Plates and Beam Supported One-Way Slabs
Table 8. Long term deflections result according to panel location with different long span length and short span length
Minimum relative beam-slab stiffness
Slab Panel Case A (ℓ/240)
6.1 x 3.0 m 7.5 x 3.6m
Interior edge 4 4
Exterior edge 3 3
Interior 4 3
Exterior 2 2
4. Conclusions
Based on a nonlinear cracked analysis accounting for the
concrete cracking, concrete creep, and shrinkage, the
parametric study conducted in the current paper showed
that:
(1) ACI318-19 provisions for flat plates provided
adequate results for the ℓ /240 LTD limit for slabs up
to a long span of 7.5 m and rectangular panels of a
long span of 10.0 m, but they were inadequate in most
of the cases (except rectangular panels of long span of
5 m) to satisfy the ℓ /480 limit.
(2) The aspect ratio of flat plate slab had a noticeable
effect on the LTD, whereas for slab panels of the same
long span length and different aspect ratio, as the
aspect ratio gets smaller (square slab), the LTD
increase, the behavior which is overlooked by
ACI318-19 two-way slab deflection control
provisions.
(3) For the slab thickness of flat plate slabs of aspect ratio
greater than 2, Table 8.3.1.1 of ACI318-19 provisions
for LTD control needs to be applied, taking the long
span as the active span.
(4) The relative beam-slab stiffness of the beams
supporting the one-way slabs affects the deflection of
the supporting beams, which is overlooked by
ACI318-19 one-way slab deflection control
provisions.
(5) The current study suggests specifying a minimum
relative beam-slab stiffness for the supporting beams
in one-way slabs of 5 to satisfy the LTD limit of ℓ /240
and 20 to satisfy the LTD limit of ℓ /480 along the
supporting beams.
REFERENCES
[1] Hasan S. and Taha B, "Aspect Ratio Consideration in Flat
Plate Concrete Slab Deflection," Zanco Journal of Pure and
Applied Sciences, no. 32(5), pp. 62-77, 2020.
[2] Laura Cohen, "Code Deflection Provisions for Two-way
Slab Systems," (Doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State
University), 2012.
[3] ACI 318-19, Building Code Requirments for Reinforced
View publication stats
Case B (ℓ/480)
10 x 4.9m 6.1 x 3.0m 7.5 x 3.6m 10 x 4.9m
5 9 14 20
4 7 11 16
3 7 10 10
2 5 8 7
Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Comentray, Farmington Hills:
American Concrete Institute, 2019.
[4] D. P. Thompson and A. Scanlon, "Minimum thickness
requirements for control of two-way slab deflections,"
Structural Journal, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 12-22, 1988.
[5] Anusha Gullapalli, "ACI 318 Code Provisions for
Deflection Control of Two-way Concrete Slabs.," 2009.
[6] Lee, Young Hak, and Andrew Scanlon, "Comparison of
One- and Two-Way Slab Minimum Thickness Provisions in
Building Codes and Standards," ACI Structural Journal,
vol. 107, no. 02, 2010.
[7] ACI Cmmitte 318, Building code requirements for
structural concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary,
Farmington Hills, Mich.: American Concrete Institute,
2008, p. 473.
[8] BS EN 8110-1:1997, British Standard Code: Design of
Concrete, London, UK: British Standards Institution, 1997.
[9] BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, Design of Concrete Structures.,
London UK: British Standards Institution, 2004.
[10] AS 3600-2001, Australian Standard for Concrete Structures,
Sydney, Australia: Standards Australia, 2001.
[11] Scanlon, A., and Lee, Y. H., "Unified Span-to-Depth Ratio
Equation for Nonprestressed Concrete Beams and Slabs,"
ACI Structural Journal, vol. 103, no. 1, 2006.
[12] Hwang, S.-J., and Chang, K.-Y., "Deflection Control of
Two-Way Reinforced Concrete Slabs," Journal of
Structural Engineering, vol. 122, no. 2, pp. 160-168, 1996.
[13] Scanlon, A. and Lee, Y. H, "Comparison of One- and
Two-Way Slab Minimum Thickness Provisions in Building
Codes and Standards," ACI Structural Journal, vol. 107, no.
2, pp. 157-163, 2010.
[14] Bondy, K. B, "ACI Code Deflection Requirements - Time
for a Change ? Serviceability of 310 Concrete: A
Symposium Honoring Dr. Edward G. Nawy," ACI Special
Publications, pp. 133-145, 2005.
[15] Gilbert, R. I, "Deflection Control of Slabs using Allowable
Span to Depth Ratios," ACI Journal Proceedings, vol. 82,
no. 1, pp. 67-72, 1985.
[16] CSI, SAFE 2016, Key Features and Termnology, USA:
Computers & Structures, 2016.
[17] Mahmoud E Kamara, Notes on ACI 318-11, building code
requirements for structural concrete, Skokie, Ill: Portland
Cement Association, 2013.