ACI STRUCTURAL JOURNAL

Title no. 104-S07

TECHNICAL PAPER

Deflection Control of Concrete Members Based on Utility Theory
by Young Hak Lee, Andrew Scanlon, and Heecheul Kim
Design provisions for deflection control of concrete structures are generally empirical in nature and based on previous experience. Due to the increasing use of high strength materials, longer spans, and as a result more flexible members, a more rational approach is desirable. This paper explores the applicability of the utility theory as a basis for developing deflection control criteria. The approach considers uncertainties in member behavior and loading as well as lack of well-defined discrete serviceability limits. Monte Carlo simulation is used to develop histograms of selected deflection parameters. A serviceability loss function is then specified to define the onset of serviceability failure and an upper limit representing complete serviceability failure with associated costs. Optimum structural parameter (member depth) is obtained by minimizing total cost consisting of initial construction cost and probabilistic cost of failure. Results for one-way slabs are developed and compared with current ACI code provisions for minimum thickness.
Keywords: deflection; reinforced concrete; serviceability.

simulation is then used to develop histograms of deflection with assumed statistical distributions for the input parameters. Loss functions are then defined that specify the onset of damage due to deflection and an upper limit at which the structure is assumed to be unusable. The utility theory is then applied to the member by minimizing the total cost considered as the sum of the initial cost and the probabilistically determined cost of failure. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE The approach presented in this paper provides a rational approach to deflection control considering uncertainties in structural behavior and deflection limits. The methodology has the potential to produce improvements in design codes related to serviceability. DEFLECTION CONTROL BASED ON UTILITY THEORY Reid and Turkstra (1980, 1981) presented a formulation in which serviceability can be considered as a specific type of structural utility U that can be expressed as U = B – CI – cF ∑ i (1)

INTRODUCTION In the design of concrete building structures, deflection control for floors and roofs is an important design consideration. While the current code procedures have provided adequate designs in the past, developments in design practice such as the use of higher strength materials and longer spans leading to more flexible structures, as well as increasing expectations by owners for building performance, suggest that a more rational approach to design for deflection control may be required in the future. Such an approach should consider the uncertainties inherent in predicting deflections of concrete members and structures as well as the difficulties associated with defining acceptable limits for deflection of members. Many researchers have used cost related analyses for optimization and serviceability problems (Hossain 2000; Koskisto and Ellingwood 1997; Sarma and Adeli 1998). This paper explores the application of the utility theory to the problem. Because serviceability failure can occur in structures with adequate safety against collapse, the question becomes an economic issue. The utility theory approach balances the initial cost of construction against the potential costs of repair considering uncertainties associated with structural behavior at service load levels, and lack of a well-defined limit for deflection. It is assumed that the structure has adequate strength to satisfy ultimate (strength) limit states. The formulation of the approach is based on the work of Reid and Turkstra (1980, 1981) and Turkstra and Reid (1981) at McGill University. Reid and Turkstra applied the method to two-way slab systems assuming the slabs were uncracked. In this study, effects of cracking, creep, and shrinkage are considered to provide a realistic assessment of member behavior. A deterministic model is used to calculate deflections for a member with defined time-dependent material properties and loading history. Monte Carlo 60

i

where B equals the benefit derived from fully serviceable structure; CI equals the initial construction cost; cFi equals CFi × Hi(x), cost due to failure in mode i; CFi equals the cost of failure due to being completely unserviceable in mode i; x equals the deflection ratio to span length; and Hi(x) equals the serviceability loss function as a function of deflection to span length ratio in mode i. If the benefit associated with a fully serviceable structure is considered to be constant, the utility can be maximized by minimizing the total cost consisting of initial construction cost and cost of failure. Figure 1 shows a schematic plot of costs versus a structural parameter such as member depth for a given span length. As the member depth increases, the initial construction cost can be expected to increase while the expected cost of serviceability failure can be expected to decrease as the stiffness increases. Adding initial construction cost to failure cost results in a plot of total cost. The optimum member thickness occurs where the total cost is a minimum. The cost of failure can be attributed to a number of sources (modes), including direct cost of repairs, costs due to lost production, and loss of rental income during repairs as
ACI Structural Journal, V. 104, No. 1, January-February 2007. MS No. S-2006-103 received March 9, 2006, and reviewed under Institute publication policies. Copyright © 2007, American Concrete Institute. All rights reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be published in the NovemberDecember 2007 ACI Structural Journal if the discussion is received by July 1, 2007.

ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2007

After installation of nonstructural elements. Deflection of Concrete Building Structures. He received his PhD from New Mexico State University. is a Professor of civil engineering at Pennsylvania State University. 4(b) in which the maximum construction load is applied to 61 Fig. need for repair to remedy the problem) at a deflection parameter x1 and a gradual increase reaching a value of 1. The greater the overlap between the deflection pdf and serviceability loss function. (2) into Eq. Heecheul Kim is a Professor in the Department of Architectural Engineering at The Kyunghee University. FACI. His research interests include the serviceability of reinforced and prestressed concrete members and developing analytical models of concrete structures. examples. Structural Concrete Building Code. as the member depth increases and stiffness increases. Serviceability. Figure 4 shows a schematic load-time history for a slab in a multi-story structure (Graham and Scanlon 1986). Total failure cost can be obtained by summing failure costs for each mode. The expected utility is given by ∞ E [ Ui ] = –∞ ∫ ui ( x ) f ( x ) dx (3a) where f(x) equals the probability density function of x. He received his PhD from Pennsylvania State University. Korea. a two-step discontinuous loss function was used for calculating indirect cost of failure such as loss of production and a continuous loss function for direct cost of failure and cost of repair. A simplified version of the load history is shown in Fig. Depending on the shoring and reshoring procedure used. For a deflection parameter in the range x1 to x2. FLOOR MEMBER DEFLECTION AND IMPACT ON SERVICEABILITY The time-dependent development of deflection in a concrete member is affected by structural configuration. Structural Safety. the repair cost is defined as H(x) · CF. Las Cruces. increasing in stepwise fashion. 318-C. the slab may be heavily loaded during construction. The utility function for a given mode can be calculated as ui(x) = B – CI – cFi(x) (2) For a given loss function H(x).0 at deflection parameter x2. The loss function H(x). where ui(x) equals the utility function for failure mode i and cFi(x) equals the failure cost function for failure mode i = CFi × Hi(x). University Park. shown in Fig. a two-step discontinuous loss function. 2. 435. Figure 3 shows conceptual examples of deflection histograms along with a single-step discontinuous loss function. (3a) gives ∞ E [ U i ] = B – C I – C Fi –∞ ∫ Hi ( x ) f ( x ) dx (3b) The continuous pdf can be replaced by a probability mass function (pmf) or histogram obtained for example from Monte Carlo simulation. Fig. Yongin. the pdf f(x) or pmf p(x) shifts to the left and the expected cost of failure decreases. Pa. causing cracking that will affect the stiffness of the structure during its service life. 1—Function of member depth h. the greater the expected cost of failure. Mex. the loss function can be continuous. 2 or may be discontinuous. 318. indicates the onset of serviceability failure (that is. His research interests include the behavior of reinforced concrete and fiber-reinforced structures for earthquake resistance. and load history. Total cost of failure could be calculated by summing these two types of failure costs. 2—Deflection probability density function and serviceability loss function. N. The serviceability loss function recognizes that serviceability failures generally do not have well defined limits. Evaluation of Concrete Bridges and Bridge Elements. at which point the floor is assumed to be completely unserviceable requiring a cost CF to remedy. material properties. ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2007 . Equation (3b) can then be converted into discrete type as follows E [ U i ] = B – C I – C Fi j=1 ∑ Hi ( xj ) p ( xj ) n (3c) where p(xj) is the probability mass function of xj in a given member. 348. and a continuous loss function. As shown later in the paper. as shown in Fig. Substituting Eq. the slab is subjected to sustained load and intermittent short-term live load. In this study. 2. The pdf provides a measure of the probability that a particular deflection value will be exceeded. Andrew Scanlon. Safety. He is a member of ACI Committees 224. and Analysis (Structural Concrete Building Code).ACI member Young Hak Lee is a full-time Lecturer in the Department of Architectural Engineering at The Kyunghee University. Cracking. The expected cost of serviceability failure due to floor deflection can be computed if the probability density function (pdf) for deflection is known and a serviceability loss function is defined as shown in Fig. Faculty Network Coordinating Committee. and E 803. 342.

0054 0. the data presented by Hossain and Stewart were used to establish upper and lower bounds for continuous loss function for direct costs of repair. In addition. the cumulative density function was used to define the loss function H(x) between the two limits because it is assumed in this study that expected repair costs follow the probability of damaging deflection. Two types of failure cost data were considered to demonstrate the application of the method.0135 0.57 Gamma Fig. Statistical data from their survey are presented in 62 Table 1. Most damage related to deflection. 4(c). the minimum value of deflection-to-span ratio for which perception damage was reported is 0. In the present study. In design. Hossain and Stewart (2001) reviewed survey data and presented results for damage due to perception (noticeable visual sagging. An earlier study by Mayer and Rusch (1967) concluded that a deflection-to-span ratio of up to 1/300 is not found to be visually disturbing. 4—Simplified load-time history with probabilistic approach and corresponding deflection-time history. Data for the direct cost of repair were obtained from RS Means repair and ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2007 . the slab followed immediately by application of sustained load. when deflections are to be calculated.02. Table 1—Statistical parameters of damaging deflections (Δ/L) (Hossain and Stewart 2001) Parameter Sample size Minimum value Maximum value Mean COV Distribution Perception damage 60 0.0171 0.003 (≈1/333). particularly visual sagging and damage to nonstructural elements. the floor member is assumed to be completely unusable when deflection to span length ratio exceeds 0.0077 0. cost data are needed for initial construction cost and cost of failure. COST INFORMATION To implement the approach outlined previously. 3—Probability histogram for deflection and serviceability loss functions.0006 0. slanting furniture. Available data on deflection-related damage is obtained from deflection surveys based on total long-time deflection.42 Truncated lognormal Partition wall damage 51 0. According to their study. ACI 318-05 (ACI Committee 318 2005) requires checks to be made for deflection due to live load and incremental deflection after installation of non-structural elements. and damage to floor finishes) and damage to non-structural elements (partition walls).Fig. is due to long-time deflection under sustained load. For convenience. Cost data for initial construction cost were obtained from RS Means building construction cost data (RS Means 2002a). The corresponding deflection-time history is shown in Fig.0030 0.

A more refined analysis would consider the effect of changing slab thickness on the supporting structure (columns and foundations). Unit costs obtained from RS Means are summarized in Table 2. (228. (interpolation function) ⎧ ⎪ 0. thick Curing blankets 7800 lb (34. (152.0 mm) h > 10 in. In the extreme case.15 (179.00 each Integral topping and finish. The loss of production cost is then taken as the wages or salaries of office workers prevented from using the space affected by repairs.00 (100. (2004). $/yd3 ($/m3) Unit price 5.89) 16.0 mm) thick x in.003 < x < -------240 L x > -------240 (4) It is assumed for all practical purposes that the timedependent deflection reaches a maximum at 5 years and this is the time at which the incremental deflection is calculated.10 (12. finishing.58 MPa) h < 6 in.00 (32. Cost of failure for repair—The cost of repair depends on the type of repair required. This approach is based on a deterministic layered beam finite element model. a reasonable upper bound to the disruption cost of serviceability failure is estimated to be $81/ft2 ($872.90 (187. 4. installation of reinforcement. damage may be sufficient to require replacement of the floor member.40) Pumped 1. Department of Labor (2003).25) 25. If the incremental deflection is greater than L/240. deflection histograms are developed using the approach presented by Choi et al.11) $78.44) f′ c = 3000 psi (20. this unit cost should be multiplied by 2.2 mm) thick 3 39. The upper limit on the cost of loss of production is therefore taken as CF equal to $81/ft2 ($872. The two types of repair costs were summed to obtain the total cost of repair. U.40/m2) of failed floor area and the loss function for loss of production is defined as ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2007 Table 2—Initial construction cost data Item Formwork.00) Remarks Plywood to 15 ft (4. Department of Labor (2003). Data on the cost of loss of production during the repair process were obtained from national compensation survey data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. (152. curing.69 MPa) f′ c = 4000 psi (27. To establish the cost of failure at the upper limit of the loss function. Cost of repair In the present study. ⎪ ⎪ H ( x ) = ⎨ 0.remodeling cost data (RS Means 2002b). repairs might consist of cosmetic repairs of cracking in drywall partitions.90) Concrete ready mixed. DEFECTION HISTOGRAMS FROM MONTE CARLO SIMULATION It is assumed that the critical deflection affecting serviceability is the total long-time deflection as illustrated in Fig.484. ⎪ ⎪ 1.94 m2) of office floor area. An upper bound to this cost is assumed to correspond to roughly 4 weeks of lost production for the affected work area. Further refinement of the methodology could be incorporated by considering discounted values. 3/16 in.00 (1444. According to the survey data conducted by Bureau of Labor Statistics. reinforcement.S. three use Grade 60. This amount is converted to $20. Assuming that an office worker occupies roughly 150 ft2 (13.30 (25.20 (168.22) 0.00 (28. incremental deflection of L/240 was used as critical point to apply this assumption because the current ACI 318 code (ACI Committee 318 2005) defines L/240 as deflection limit for members not supporting nonstructural elements. two types of repair cost were considered: direct cost of slab repair and costs related to loss of production for an office building. and shoring and reshoring. $/ft2 ($/m2) Curing. The former uses the continuous loss function and the latter uses the two-step discontinuous loss function. construction costs and repair costs were simply taken as average present values based on published data.50 (107. A614 1300. it is assumed that the level below will also be affected by the repairs. In this study. Assuming that the area disrupted for repair is twice the failed floor area. $/ft3 ($/m3) 3 3 Unit price ≤6 ft (0.76) 35. $/ft2 ($/m2) Reinforcement. (177.42) 15. $/ft2 ($/m2) 9 in. Cost of initial construction Construction costs include costs of formwork.50 (1395.89) 0.003 L 0. (254.17 m ) 7 in. a typical office production rate is roughly $243/year/ft2 ($2617. only the direct costs of one-way slab construction were considered.6 mm) thick 10 in.44) 16. ≤ h ≤ 10 in. using 1:1:2 mixture.22/year/m2) of serviceable floor area. it is assumed that the floor is in an office building and that repairs prevent access to the floor by the office workers during the repair work.55 (6. For the sake of simplicity. Thus.9x + 8. To account for uncertainties in material properties and loads. At the onset of damage due to deflection.8 mm) thick 8 in. Because cost data are highly dependent on local market conditions.90 (198.50 (1254.9 Slab Replacement.10/4 weeks/m2).57 m) high.17 m3) >6 ft (0.40 (60.95) $/yd3 ($/m3) 254. (254.4 mm) 76.0 mm) Finishing.4 mm ≤ h ≤ 22.S. Cost of failure for loss of production—For this case. normalweight Placing concrete. annual average earnings of full-time workers is approximately $36. U.00) 81. 63 . 6 in.78) 17. concrete placing.70 kN) capacity Table 3—Repair cost data Type Item Cutout demolition. $/ton [short] ($/ton [metric]) Concrete.5. costs for demolition and replacement were obtained from RS Means repair and remodeling cost data (2002b) and are summarized in Table 3. (203. ⎪ ⎩ x < 0.25/4 weeks/ft2 ($218. $/ft2 ($/m2) Shoring 19.40/m2) of failed floor area.

Analyses were performed with the following variations.119 — Construc.Table 4—Probability model of random variables Variable Mean Standard COV deviation — Source Mirza et al.0 55 days 2. is a variable that could be looked at more closely in future studies. A = influence area. 2004). A ≥ 400 ft2 (36 m2). 25 [psf]).05Dn. and ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2007 Fig. 6. 1.10 Distribution Normal Source El-Shahhat et al. 2004 Choi et al. 4. Lower bound on serviceability loss function varied by plus or minus 30%. Initial construction cost varied by plus or minus 10%. The total long-time deflection was assumed to occur at age t3 years equal to 5 years. 1. σR) = (4. Wlvar = extraordinary live load. Cost of loss of production varied by plus or minus 10%. In this study. Some of the variability due to age at loading is assumed to be included in the assumed variability in concrete material properties. psi (MPa) As Reinforcement Es.3 = construction load + dead load. 4 was used as the basis for computing long-time deflection. A – 155 ----------------.6 EllingSustained μlsus = 11. 5—Effect of variation of lower bound of continuous serviceability loss function on total unit cost for 180 in. psi 0. (μQ. κ = 2. 2. however.10 Normal Stewart 1996 — — — — — 121. COV = 0. Lower bound on loss of production function varied by plus or minus 30%. The Monte Carlo simulation results of slab deflections were discussed in a previous paper (Choi et al.69 f c′ ) Ec. 2004 Table 5—Probabilistic load models Load Formwork load (additional dead load) Statistical parameters Mean = 0.024 0. Assuming two levels of shoring and one level of reshoring. σQ) = (150. Monte Carlo 64 .84 times the slab self-weight (Rosowsky and Stewart 2001).400 f c′ (5015. Cost of repair varied by plus or minus 10%.58 ≤ 1. a simplified loading history is assumed in which it is assumed that the construction load and dead load is initially applied at 28 days.326.3 f c′ (0.91) bn + 5/32 (bn + 0. 3.56 kPa).33 × 10–2 25 days 0.11 60.60 1994 Mean = 1. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS A simply supported slab spanning 15 ft (4.35 0.66 × 10–6 3. (cm) (εsh)u Shrinkage γ f φu Creep η D Tension stiffening β 29. (7. 1979 Mirza et al. λ = 6.68/hn (0..974 kPa) Gamma Karshenas COV = 0.024 0.27/ hn) — — — — — — 0.33 Note: All variables follow normal distribution.675f ′c + 7.29 kPa).66 days 0.Sustained Ayoub and Mean = 6.57 m) with a design live load of 50 psf (2394 kPa) was analyzed to determine the sensitivity of the results to variations in the assumed loss functions and initial construction costs. Ws = sustained load = dead load + sustained live load.218 [KPa]). simulation was used to generate the required deflection histograms. Five slab thicknesses were considered.218 (MPa) 8. 1979 Mirza and MacGreagor 1979 Julian 1966 Naaman 1982 Naaman 1982 Choi et al. Using the deterministic model and statistical data on input parameters obtained from the literature.0 0. 2004 Choi et al.159) 780 × 10–6 1.11Dn. (cm) Beam dimension dst. dsh.10 live load 1994 Stacking load Dead load Ayoub and Mean = 20 psf (0.99An 0.6 10 days 3. Wco 6.305.57 m) span simply-supported one-way slab. 1979 Mirza et al. tion load construction Gamma Karshenas COV = 1.76. Gamma wood and 2 Culver live load σ lsus = 26. 5. 1993 0. the construction load due to shoring and reshoring was taken as 1. 2 = σE Note: Dn = nominal dead load. 2). The age-adjusted effective modulus of elasticity is used to compute time-dependent deflections under sustained load. psi 0. 2004 Choi et al.15f c ′ f′ c . The schematic load-time history shown in Fig. Contributions of shrinkage warping to the long-time deflection are computed using the simplified approach reported by ACI Committee 209 (1992).176 (Mpa) (0.66 × 10–2 Bažant 1985 6.6 psf (0. The material and load parameters are summarized in the Notation. Tension stiffening is modeled using a bilinear stress-strain diagram for concrete in tension with a linear descending branch beyond the peak stress. Upper bound on loss of production function varied by plus or minus 30%.0 psf (0.21 f c′ ) 0.397) dsn + 1/16 (dsn + 0. COV = 0. ksi (MPa) b. This.2 + (6500/A)κ 1977 Live load Extraordinary live load Ellingwood and Gamma 2 2 2 2 2 Culver λκ ( μ Q μ R + μ R σ Q + μ Q σ Q ) --------------------------------------------------------------1977 2 A μE = (μQμRλ)/A.045 0. 2004 ACI Committee 209 1992 Choi et al. Statistics for material properties and loads are summarized in Table 4 (material properties) and Table 5 (loads). (μR.15f c ′) Concrete (in place) fr . in.675f ′c + 1100 ≤ 1. (4. in.200 (201.

62).09).5 (444.0 (330.2). (4. 13.0).0 (279. 9.4). 420 (10. 17.0 (304. Fig.5).14).57).57 m) span simply-supported one-way slab. 10. [m]) Both ends continuous One end continuous Live load when CDF = 0. 480 (12.5 (215. 100 psf (4.1).0 (457.4) Thickness (in. 15. 180 (4. [m]) for both ends 180 (4.5 (190.0 (381.66) Span length (in.57 m) span simply-supported oneway slab. 300 (7. 11. Fig.87 kPa) Fig. (4.0 (482.0).Fig. Simply supported 15. (4. 19. (4.0 (431.5).0 (381.19) 6. (4.0) 50 psf (2. 17.5 (165. 6—Effect of variation of lower bound of two-step discontinuous loss function (loss of production) on total unit cost for 180 in.57).57 m) span simply-supported one-way slab.57 m) span simply-supported one-way slab.6).87 kPa) was sum of sustained live load and extraordinary live load corresponding to 0. one end continuous 120 (3. Table 6—Summary of one-way slabs Boundary condition Span length (in. 21. [m]) for simply supported Simply supported. 12—Effect of live load and span length on span-depth ratio for simply-supported one-way slabs.2). 7—Effect of variation of upper bound of two-step discontinuous loss function (loss of production) on total unit cost for 180 in.8).6).5). 240 (6. (4. ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2007 Note: Mean of extraordinary live load was magnified so that 100 psf (4.0 (228.9).14).44 kPa). Fig. 12.09). 65 .62). 360 (9.95 6.0 (533.8) 7.95 of CDF. 8. 12.57 m) span simply-supported one-way slab. 8—Effect of variation of cost of initial construction on total unit cost for 180 in.0 (152. 9—Effect of variation of cost of repair on total unit cost for 180 in. Fig. both ends continuous.57 m) span simply-supported one-way slab. continuous and one end continuous 360 (9. 420 (10.66).5 (317.0 (508. 240 (6. 18. 10—Effect of variation of cost of loss of production on total unit cost for 180 in.4). Fig.04).0).0 (254. 11—Effect of variation of cost of failure on total unit cost for 180 in. 20. 300 (7.

The support is gratefully acknowledged. Other costs. Shrinkage. COMPARISON BETWEEN THICKNESSES OBTAINED BY PROPOSED METHOD AND CURRENT ACI 318 CODE MINIMUM THICKNESSES A parametric study was performed to compare the thickness of one-way slabs obtained by the proposed procedure and the minimum thickness values given in ACI 318-05 (ACI Committee 318 2005). In each case. the ACI 318 minimum thickness value is constant with span length. DISCUSSION It is in the interests of the concrete industry and the engineering community to produce concrete structures that not only have an adequate margin of safety against collapse but also provide acceptable performance in service at minimum cost. may provide a basis for more generalized code deflection control criteria in the future. Level II.10 m) span. Analysis for upper bound on serviceability loss function was not performed because quite a few deflections were generated in a given design situation so as to investigate uncertainty of the limit. The preliminary results presented previously suggest that the proposed approach to design for serviceability can provide a rational base for deflection control criteria covering a wide range of design situations. Farmington Hills. Fig. ACI Committee 318. Also. 14—Effect of live load and span length on span-depth ratio for one end continuous one-way slabs. It is not anticipated that analyses of the type outlined previously would be employed in routine building design. In the present study. variations of these magnitudes did not lead to changes in the thickness corresponding to minimum total cost. 7. 66 NOTATION A As b COV Dn dsb dst Ec Es f ′c fr β (εsh)u φu γ. the long-time deflection was selected as the basis for analysis. there is a slight decrease in span-to-depth ratio as live load increases. The methodology can be extended to other structural systems such as two-way slabs and prestressed members. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was supported in part by the Brain Korea 21 (BK21). the proposed procedure results in smaller thicknesses than ACI 318-05 for shorter spans and larger thicknesses than ACI 318-05 for longer spans except simply supported case.” American Concrete Institute.Fig. As shown in Fig.. 13—Effect of live load and span length on span-depth ratio for both ends continuous one-way slabs. 12 to 14 in terms of span-to-depth ratio versus span length. “Building Code Requirements for Structural ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2007 . For example. The results are presented in Fig. In general. Further work is needed to better define costs for both initial construction and repair costs in specific situations. 47 pp. Mich. D κ λ μ σ = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = influence area area of reinforcement width of beam coefficient of variation nominal dead load distance from top fiber to centroid of bottom steel distance from top fiber to centroid of top steel concrete modulus of elasticity steel modulus of elasticity concrete compressive strength modulus of rupture tension stiffening parameter ultimate shrinkage strain ultimate creep coefficient constants of shrinkage equation constants of creep equation constant of sustained live load parameter for extraordinary live load mean standard deviation Subscripts: E = extraordinary live load lsus = sustained live load Q = weight of single concentrated load in cell uniformly divided from influence area R = number of loads per cell REFERENCES ACI Committee 209. The definition of the loss function between the upper and lower limits can also be improved by considering costs of various repair scenarios associated with increasing deflection values. however. Serviceability loss functions can be developed for specialized applications. such as the impact of a serviceability failure on the engineer’s reputation. 2005. the typical span range for both ends continuous and one end continuous one-way slabs. a floor supporting sensitive equipment may have upper and lower limits more stringent than those used in the present study. which showed smaller thicknesses than ACI 318-05 in all the given span lengths. The results suggest that the ACI 318-05 minimum thickness rules are adequate for minimum thickness up to approximately 20 ft (6. Total cost of failure varied by plus or minus 10%. 5 to 11. f η. should be considered. The methodology. The range of parameters considered is summarized in Table 6. whereas the optimum span-to-depth ratio based on minimum total cost decreases as span length increases. The procedure can be extended to consider other deflection criteria including deflections occurring at any time between initial construction and long-time in-service use. 1992. Loss of production costs will vary depending on the application. “Prediction of Creep. and Temperature Effects in Concrete Structures (ACI 209R-92).

C. 101. 1543-1562..” Journal of Structural Engineering.” Journal of Structural Engineering. C.” Beton and Stahlbetonbau. “Probabilistic Design for Serviceability. E. 135-140. V.... V.” Journal of the Structural Division. Norway. No. A. pp. 1982.” U. No..” Technical Translation 1412. 1551-1560.” ACI Structural Journal. A. Rosowsky. No. S. 1993. G. and Environmental Engineering. Mayer..” Report ST 80-1. Naaman. Department of Civil. 123. N. and Rusch. Farmington Hills. pp. ASCE. “Codified Design for Serviceability. 1979. Alabama Highway Department. J. “Reliability-Based Optimization of Plant Precast Concrete Structures. 9. 2004. Branson. 122. 5. No.” ACI Structural Journal.. No.. C. Trondheim. 583-592. S. V.. Bureau of Public Roads. No.. No. Inc. V. Cummings. 899-908. Hossain. and MacGregor. G. pp.” Journal of Structural Engineering. 1966. RS Means. C. B. pp. M. “Probabilistic Models of Damaging Deflections for Floor Elements.. V. ASCE.. Reid. Kingston. G. 1967. University of Newcastle. ACI JOURNAL. Mass. N. pp. 1-78. Surv. Z. pp. 1981. P.. Choi. A. E. 1985.” 4th International Conference of Structural Safety and Reliability.. El-Shahhat.. 1963. “Monte Carlo Simulation of Immediate and Time-Dependent Deflections of Reinforced Concrete Beams and Slabs..” Report ST 81-6. 139 pp. B. C.. 1021-1037. “Survey Results for Construction Live Loads on Newly Poured Slabs.. and Adeli. 90. V. G.” Journal of the Structural Division.. Graham. F.” PhD thesis.. Montreal. 8. 335-341. 120. Nov. V. H.. 1986. Trost. ASCE.. 15. and Ellingwood. 230-238 and 261-269... Serviceability...” 3rd International Conference on Structural Safety and Reliability. ASCE.” Journal of Structural Engineering. and Amnuayporn. S..-Dec.. 15. B. W. No. 66-85. Bažant. pp. G. and Stewart. V. Sept.” American Concrete Institute. Stewart. and Turkstra.. “Statistical Descriptions of the Strength of Concrete.” Journal of the Structural Division. V. Australia. Part 1. Germany. A. pp. pp. 6. A. McGill University. Sarma.” by A.. Reid.Oct. 83. and Culver. No.. “Probabilistic Construction Load Model for Multistory Reinforced-Concrete Buildings. Turkstra. ASCE. 2002a. S. Canada. 184 pp. Ottawa. S.. Inc. No.” Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities. S. and Karshenas.” RS Means Co.S. K. 5. pp. 430 pp.. 5. 1977. ASCE. 5. M. discussion of “Strength Variations in Ready-Mixed Concrete.. pp. Rosowsky. “Reliability of Partially Prestressed Beams at Serviceability Limit States.. A. Julian. H.. V. pp. and MacGregor.” PCI Journal. National Research Council of Canada.. and Johnson. pp. D. Proceedings V.. RS Means... 7. McGill University. Hossain. H.” ACI JOURNAL. 4. “Long-Time Multipliers for Estimating Two-Way Slab Deflections.. 2002b. pp. and Reid. P. 6. Hatzinikolas. 794-803. and Chen. M. 1994. 633-641. Mirza. O. “Serviceability Limit States—Probabilistic Description. ASCE. 1967.C. 1997. 4. M.. B. 700 pp. Mirza. No. 2000. 1981. 115 pp. pp. and Stewart. C. B. Montreal. 124. S. M. 27.” HPR Publication 7. Canada. “Time-Dependent Deflections. Ayoub.Concrete (ACI 318-05) and Commentary (318R-05). V. July-Aug. pp. 105. Kingston.. and Scanlon. and Turkstra. 921-937.” Journal of Performance and Constructed Facilities. Koskisto... Newcastle. ASCE. 2001. 298-304. “Repair and Remodeling Cost Data. Sept. V. Reliability and Expected Costs of Unserviceability for Reinforced Concrete Flexural Beams. J. pp.. Ellingwood.. Canada. 103. “Serviceability Reliability Analysis of Reinforced Concrete Structures. 2001. 244 pp. 51. H. No. “Implications of the Superposition Principle in Creep and Relaxation Problems for Concrete and Prestressed Concrete. V. Department of Labor. 1998. Washington. C.” RS Means Co.. “Building Damage Caused by Deflection of Reinforced Concrete Building Components.. 62. ACI Structural Journal/January-February 2007 67 . 145-152. 4. 3. 105. A. “Analysis of Live Loads in Office Buildings. No. D. 1980. 570-578. 625 pp. “Construction Safety of Multistory Concrete Buildings. D. 1979. 1996.. “Cost Optimization of Concrete Structures. H. J. pp. West Berlin. Mich. “Probabilistic Analysis of Creep Effects in Concrete Structure. J. V. 2003.. Bureau of Labor Statistics. O. Scanlon. “National Compensation Survey: Occupational Wages in the United States..-S. V. B. G. 94 pp. “Building Construction Cost Data. 772-4 to 772-8. Mass.. “Instantaneous and Time-Dependent Deflections of Simple and Continuous Reinforced Concrete Beams. 1331-1344. E. ASCE. Proceedings V. “Variability of the Mechanical Properties of Reinforcing Bars.

Further reproduction prohibited without permission. .Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.