Engineering Structures 284 (2023) 115926

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Verification of deflections and cracking of RC flat slabs with numerical and

analytical approaches
Simone Ravasini a, *, Francesca Vecchi a, Beatrice Belletti a, Aurelio Muttoni b
a
Department of Engineering and Architecture, University of Parma, Parco Area delle Scienze, 181/A, Parma 43124, Italy
b
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, ENAC, CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The Serviceability Limit States (SLS) of reinforced concrete structures, where cracking and deflection limits are
Creep verified in the design process, are directly related to time-dependent properties of concrete. In this study, the
Shrinkage effects of creep and shrinkage of concrete, implemented in a Finite Element Model for Non-Linear Analysis, are
Finite element
in-deeply investigated for reinforced concrete flat slabs at SLS and used as basis for the development of an
Reinforced concrete
Flat slabs
analytical framework. In particular, the paper focuses on: (i) the description of the FE model, (ii) the comparison
Structural analysis between the numerical and experimental results of some reinforced concrete (RC) flat slab tests from literature
Serviceability limit state characterized by different mechanical properties, span-to-depth ratios, boundary conditions and loading histories
Analytical framework and (iii) the development of an analytical framework for the evaluation of long term-term deflections and crack
Time-dependent analysis openings in hogging regions of flat slabs near columns. Based on the findings, useful insights for the evaluation of
the long term-term deflections and crack opening in the context of Serviceability Limit States are provided for
practical purposes.

1. Introduction
The design process of reinforced concrete flat slabs, and particularly
the dimensioning of the required slab depth, is typically governed by
punching at Ultimate Limit State (ULS) and by deflections at Service­
ability Limit State (SLS). If several works have been devoted to the study
of punching failure, few studies have been conducted on SLS of flat slabs
[1].
Generally, in a first step, the serviceability requirements for two-way
slabs are reached by adopting minimum thickness or span-depth ratios
without calculating explicitly the expected deflections under service
condition. However, in some cases, it is necessary to calculate explicitly
the expected deflections and to compare them with the allowed de­
flections which are typically defined in the current Standards or agreed
with users and architects. ACI 318-19 [2] requires to compute the long-
term deflection of concrete structures by multiplying the short-term
(instantaneous) deflection due to sustained load by a factor which de­
pends on the compressive reinforcement ratio [3]. However, such
simplified procedure does not account for all situations and un­
certainties related to the material properties, the geometry of the
member, the tensile reinforcement in the sagging and in the hogging
region, the ambient conditions [4,5] and phenomena that affect de­
flections as cracking, creep, shrinkage, the loading history and the
environmental conditions [6]. In this regard, Gilbert [7] noted that the
use of a single coefficient approach often leads to fail the prediction of
the long-term deflection. The author also underlined that this approach
is fundamentally wrong especially in slabs, since shrinkage does not
depend on the applied load which affects the elastic uncracked deflec­
tion [8].
In general, to properly determine the structural performances at SLS,
the time delayed effects of shrinkage and creep as well as the related
reduction of tension stiffening need to be accurately considered since
they can have a considerable effect on the performance of RC structures.
Kilpatrick and Gilbert [9] proposed an analytical method for deter­
mining the long-term deflections which is included also in the new
Australian Standard [10] by adding the short-term deflection, the
deflection related to shrinkage and the additional long-term creep
deflection that can be determined by multiplying the short-term defor­
mation due to sustained loads and prestress by an appropriate coeffi­
cient. They found out that the long-term deflection can be up to 10 times
greater than the elastic deflection calculated with an uncracked stiffness.
The draft of the second generation of Eurocode 2 [11] and the SIA
262:2013 [12] contain similar formulations to estimate the creep and

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: simone.ravasini@unipr.it (S. Ravasini).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.115926
Received 8 November 2022; Received in revised form 29 January 2023; Accepted 28 February 2023
Available online 15 March 2023
0141-0296/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
S. Ravasini et al. Engineering Structures 284 (2023) 115926

Nomenclature r1, rcr Radius of the zone in which cracking is stabilized and
radius of cracked zone
εci Instantaneous elastic strain rc Nominal radius of column for bending
εcc, φ Creep strain and coefficient V, q Vertical reaction of the column and applied sustained load
εcs Shrinkage strain mr, mcr Radial and cracking moment per unit length
EI0, EI1 Uncracked and cracked stiffness mR Moment capacity per unit length
h, d Slab thickness and effective depth of tensile reinforcement χ TS Tension stiffening curvature contribution
fc, fct Concrete compressive and tensile strengths χ t, χ r Tangential and radial curvature
Ec,eff Age-adjusted effective modulus of concrete x Neutral axis depth
Ec, Es Elastic modulus of concrete at 28 days and elastic modulus β Efficiency factor
of steel ρ, ρ’, ϕ Tensile, compressive reinforcement ratios, bar diameter
αe Ratio between Ec,eff and Es wcr,t, wcr,r Tangential and radial crack openings
ψ, l Slab rotation, span length nr, srm Number of radial cracks and cracks spacing
r0 Radius of the critical shear crack δST, δLT Short-term and long-term deflections
rs Distance between the point of contraflexure and the kδ, δmax Multiplier factor for creep and shrinkage and maximum
column axis deflection at mid-panel
ry Radius of the yielded zone K Coefficient of proportionality of maximum deflection

shrinkage effects on the deflections which will be discussed in the
following.
On the other hand, it is worth mentioning that the widening of earlier
cracks, the development of new cracks, and the effects of the repeated
load cycles can contribute to increase the long-term deflections [13]. In
addition, the tensile stresses resulting from restrained shrinkage, com­
bined with tensile stresses induced by loading, can affect the service­
ability of the structure [14]. In RC flat slabs, large cracks in the hogging
region over the column can develop at SLS. Since the top slab surface is
often not visible and is not directly exposed, the crack opening verifi­
cation in the hogging region is not always required. Nevertheless, in case
of exposed top surfaces, such a verification can become governing and a
detailed procedure for this purpose accounting for the complex behav­
iour of a flat slab in the column region is still missing.
In view of these considerations, to calculate in a sufficiently accurate
manner the service load deflections and the crack opening is a challenge
for actual RC structures. The use of finite element programs for the
design and the prediction of the behaviour of flat slabs can be a valid tool
for the purpose. The adoption of the numerical analysis requires the use
of time-dependent functions in the material modelling to predict the
stresses and deformations. Relatively simple time functions can be
adopted for the modelling of shrinkage effects, while the modelling of
creep is more complex as the loading history should be considered. In
demonstrate the fundamental role played by cracking, creep and
shrinkage. By comparing the long-term deflections with the elastic un­
cracked deflections, it was observed that the current codes provisions
are not always able to provide reliable predictions.
Finally, on the basis of the load-rotation relationship developed in
the framework of the mechanical model for calculating the punching
shear resistance of slab-column connections according to the Critical
Shear Crack Theory (CSCT) [28,29], an analytical approach is proposed
for the evaluation of (i) the slab deflection, (ii) the crack width in the
hogging region around internal columns and (iii) a simplified coefficient
to account for long term effects in RC flat slabs.
2. Current Code provisions for the prediction of long-term
deflections
Kilpatrick and Gilbert [9], in the context of the older and newer
versions of the Australian code AS-3600 [10], proposed a simplified
method for the evaluation of the long-term deflection of a slab, δLT, by
multiplying the short-term deflection, δST, by a coefficient kδ, Eq.(1):
δLT = kδ ⋅δST (1)
where kδ, is calculated by using the Eq. (2):
(2)
′

the current literature, numerical models calibrated based on experi­ kδ = 2 − 1.2⋅(ρ /ρ)⩾0.8
mental results have been proposed. Generally, these models consider which depends on the compressive and tensile reinforcement ratios
creep and shrinkage as separated phenomena, even if they are coupled. at the mid-span (sagging region), ρ’ and ρ, respectively.
Chong et al. [15] implemented the model proposed by Bazant et al. As proposed in the current ACI 318-19 code [2], the short-term
[16–18] in a cracked membrane model. Motter et al. [19] proposed a elastic uncracked deflections shall be multiplied by the coefficient re­
single function that combines creep and shrinkage effects. Maekawa ported in the Eq. (3):
et al. [20] implemented long-term effects in a multi-directional fixed
crack model. Hasan et al. [21] and Sirico et al. [22] applied a nonlinear ξ
kδ = (3)
shrinkage profile along both the depth and width of RC members. 1 + 50⋅ρ′
Using the test results in combination with an innovative crack model, where ξ is a time-dependent factor and ρ’ is the compressive rein­
the Authors propose a numerical and an analytical procedure for the forcement ratio at mid-span (sagging region) for simple and continuous
evaluation of the structural behaviour of RC flat slabs at SLS. The new spans. It is worth to mention that the factor ξ attains its maximum value
version of the PARC_CL crack model [23,24] (Physical Approach for of 2 after 60 months, refer to [2].
Reinforced Concrete for Cyclic Loading) is adopted in the present study. The Swiss code SIA 262:2013 [12] proposes to multiply the short-
It is implemented as user subroutine (UMAT) for Abaqus Code [25] term elastic uncracked displacement with the following coefficient to
suitable for Non-linear Finite Element Analysis (NLFEA) of complex account for cracking and creep [30], Eq. (4):
structures subjected to multi-axial states of stress, such as RC continuous ( )3
flat slabs. To validate the proposed finite element model, the experi­
′
1 − 20⋅ρ
kδ = (0.75 + 0.1⋅φ) h/d (4)
mental study conducted by Gilbert and Guo [26,27] on RC flat slabs 10⋅ρ 0.7

under sustained loading with different geometrical and mechanical

In the new draft of the Eurocode 2 [11], the coefficient to account for
features is analysed. The comparisons between the experimental and
cracking and creep is defined as follows, Eq. (5):
NLFEA results in terms of long-term deflection and crack widths

2
S. Ravasini et al.
Fig. 1. PARC_CL 2.1 crack model: (a) cracked RC membrane element under a general biaxial state of stress, (b) biaxial condition of concrete in the 1,2-coordi­
nate system.
Fig. 2. Time-dependent strain development in a concrete specimen subjected to
a sustained load.
( )3
ζ⋅ h/d
kδ = 1 − ζ +
2.7⋅(αe ρ)0.6
where the term ζ accounts for the cracking of the section (ζ = 0.5 for
the maximum moment m equal to the cracking moment mcr and ζ = 1 for
m≫mcr) and ρ is the sagging reinforcement ratio at mid-span. It has to be
noted, that the new draft of the Eurocode 2 [11] contains also equations
to estimate the increase of the deflection due to shrinkage.
3. Implementation of shrinkage and creep in a non-linear finite
element model
The PARC_CL 2.1 is a fixed crack model in which the reinforcement is
assumed to be smeared in the hosting concrete element. Nonlinear cyclic
stress–strain relationships for concrete and steel, multiaxial state of
stress for concrete and aggregate interlock are considered [23]. In this
paper, the details for shrinkage and creep modelling are presented.
A simplified implementation of the shrinkage effects in the PARC_CL
2.1 crack model presented in Belletti et al. [31] is refined accounting for
the time-dependent strains due to shrinkage and creep and according to
recent studies by some of the Authors [24,32,33]. In the PARC_CL 2.1
crack model, two reference systems are defined at each integration
Engineering Structures 284 (2023) 115926
point: the local x,y-coordinate system and the 1,2-coordinate system
along the principal stress directions (crack local reference system),
Fig. 1. Parameter Ψ is the angle between the 1-direction and the x-di­
rection, and θi is the angle between the direction of the ith order of bars
and the x-direction. When the value of the principal tensile strain in
concrete exceeds the concrete tensile limit strain, the first crack de­
velops, and the fixed 1,2-coordinate system is defined.
Considering a concrete specimen subjected to a uniaxial stress at
time t0, σ(t0), and at a constant ambient temperature, the total strain at
time t, εc(t), can be decomposed into three strain components, as
expressed in Eq. (6):
εc (t) = εci (t0 ) + εcc (t, t0 ) + εcs (t, ts ) (6)
where εci(t0) is the instantaneous elastic deformation, εcc(t,t0) is the
strain due to creep and εcs(t,ts) is the strain due to shrinkage, which
depends on the concrete age at the time at beginning of drying, ts. The
strain tensor of concrete, εc(t), is referred to the element local x,y-co­
ordinate system. The strain field is associated with a plane state of stress,
thus allowing for the application of the PARC_CL 2.1 for the modelling of
RC members, using membrane or multi-layered shell elements.
Fig. 2 shows the strain of a specimen uniaxially loaded in compres­
sion at age t0 with a constant stress level. Shrinkage strain develops
when drying takes place, while creep strain begins to develop after the
specimen is stressed. For loading within the elastic range of the
(5)
stress–strain relationship, the instantaneous strain is equal to the elastic
strain.
The load-independent shrinkage strain, due to the volume reduction
of concrete at constant temperature, is assumed to be direction-
independent. The related strain tensor is applied along the x,y-coordi­
nate system of the element, Fig. 1(a), according to Eq.(7).
{ x,y }
εcs (t, ts ) = { εcs (t, ts ) εcs (t, ts ) 0 }t (7)
Creep is a time-dependent deformation that develops at a decreasing
rate under a sustained loading. In the PARC_CL 2.1 crack model, the
creep strain tensor is formulated in the local 1,2-coordinate system of
the element - Fig. 1(b) -, assuming the shear strain component equal to
zero, Eq.(8).
{ 1,2 }
εcc (t, t0 ) = { εcc,1 (t, t0 ) εcc,2 (t, t0 ) 0 } t (8)
The creep strain in the 1-direction (perpendicular to the crack di­
rection), εcc,1 (t,t0), is evaluated in function of the stress, σ 1 , while the
stress, σ2 , determinates the creep strain in the 2-direction (parallel to the
crack direction), εcc,2 (t,t0). During the service life, a RC structure ex­
periences a continuous variation of the concrete stresses even though the
3
S. Ravasini et al.
Fig. 3. The principle of superposition for determining creep strain.
external loads are kept constant with time. This is due to the develop­
ment with time of creep and shrinkage strains that cause a redistribution
of stresses between the concrete and the reinforcement. Generally, the
principle of superposition is adopted to compute the creep strain in a
structure when subjected to varying stress histories (typical approach for
uncracked elements). The principle of superposition assumes that the
total strain at a given time t is the sum of the strain increments caused by
each stress increment applied during their respective durations and each
strain increment is not affected by the stresses applied earlier or later. It
is on that basis that the creep strain at a given time for each integration
point is determined in function of the loading history in the PARC_CL 2.1
crack model, Fig. 3. More specifically, if a concrete sample undergoes, in
the process, a constant compressive stress σ1 starting form time t0,1, and
then a constant stress reduction σ 2 after time t0,2, the resulting creep
strain is obtained from superposition of creep curve 1 and creep curve 2,
Fig. 3.
Experimentally, the measurement of the creep in tension is compli­
cated by the inevitable difficulties to isolate the small tensile creep strain
from the shrinkage strain, which can be significantly larger. Some
experimental observations indicate similar behaviour for tensile and
compressive creep [34], while other authors suggest that tensile creep is
Fig. 4. Geometry of the slabs: (a) location of transducers, (b) top slab reinforcement for layouts I and II (dimensions in mm, the red rectangle indicates the slab
quarter investigated by using non-linear analysis). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)
4
Engineering Structures 284 (2023) 115926
higher than compressive creep at similar stress levels [35]. More
recently, Rossi et al. [36] found that creep is more important in
compression than in tension. Without a commonly accepted theory, the
magnitude of tensile creep is assumed to be three times that the creep in
compression for the same stress magnitude, in accordance with the
studies conducted by Li et al. [37] and Kristiawan [38].
4. Case study of RC flat slabs
The numerical model has been validated on the basis of the experi­
mental results by Gilbert and Guo [26,27] who tested seven continuous
RC flat slabs, designated from S1 to S7. The slabs were 90 and 100 mm
thick, had overall dimensions of 6200 × 7200 mm with four identical
square panels (3000x3000 mm) with overhangs along two opposite
edges. The flat slabs were supported by nine 200-mm square columns
with a height of 1250 mm, Fig. 4(a). The slabs had compression rein­
forcement in the hogging regions (support regions), but not in the sag­
ging moment regions. Two different reinforcement layouts, designated
as I or II, were used. The top reinforcement layouts are shown in Fig. 4
(b), while the bottom reinforcement was characterized by a uniformly
distributed reinforcement ϕ10@220 mm in both directions in case of
layout I and ϕ10@300 in both directions in case of layout II. The
nominal clear concrete cover was equal to 8 mm for all specimens.
In this paper, for the sake of conciseness, only the results of slabs S1
and S7 are reported in detail, whereas some results are shown also for
slabs S2, S4 and S6.
The slabs differ in concrete strength (fc and fct), slab thickness (h),
column support conditions, reinforcement layout, and loading protocol
[26,27]. Table 1 shows the details of the six tests investigated in present
paper. The average yield strength (fy) of the reinforcement was 650 MPa
and the elastic modulus, Es, was equal to 200000 MPa. The slabs were
initially propped against deflections, while additional concrete blocks
were positioned on the slabs to impose an approximatively uniformly
distributed gravity load. Fourteen days after casting, the propping was
removed, and the slabs were free to deflect under the combination of
self-weight and superimposed loads. Slabs S2, S4, S6 and S7 were sub­
jected to a constant sustained loading during the test duration, Fig. 5(b)-
(e), whereas slab S1 was subjected to a loading and unloading sequence,
Fig. 5(a). Furthermore, the top surface of slab S1 was wetted at an age of
279 days, but this effect was not considered in the present modelling.
Indeed, in its current state, the user subroutine does not account for the
S. Ravasini et al. Engineering Structures 284 (2023) 115926

Table 1
Details of slab specimens [26,27].
S1 S2 S4 S6 S7

Superimposed uniformly distributed load [kPa] 2.40–8.66 5.72 8.39 5.26 5.57
fc 1) [MPa] -/39.2 -/33.6 -/23.4 -/19.2 -/19.2
fct 1) [MPa] 4.29/- 2.72/4.64 2.76/- 2.37/2.68 2.37/2.68
Ec 1) [MPa] 30020/- 29100/29600 22010/23150 19030/21670 19030/21670
Slab depth h [mm] 100 100 90 90 90
Reinforcement layout I I I II II
Sagging reinforcement ratio 0.44% 0.44% 0.50% 0.36% 0.36%
Hogging reinforcement ratio 2) 0.68% 0.68% 0.78% 0.55% 0.55%
Age at first loading [days] 14 14 15 14 14
Test period [days] 512 470 776 508 508
Column base support pined fixed fixed pined pined

Note: “-” means not measured.

1)
measured at 14/28 days.
2)
internal column and reinforcement parallel to edges in edge columns.

variation with time of exposure conditions such as relative humidity or
temperature. Such aspects should be of interest in future works.
The shrinkage strain and the creep coefficient were experimentally
measured using specimens cast together with each slab and exposed to
the same curing and drying conditions of the corresponding slab. Since
the shrinkage strain and the creep coefficient at each age were available
for the slabs, these values are directly used as input data for the analysis.
5. Nonlinear finite element analysis
5.1. Finite element modelling
Due to the symmetry of the slabs with respect to geometry and
loading conditions, only a quarter was modelled, highlighted in red in
Fig. 4(a). Boundary conditions at symmetry axes were imposed by
properly restraining translations and rotations, Fig. 6(a). Four node
multi-layered shell elements with reduced integration schemes (S4R)
were adopted for the slab modelling, which requires less computational
effort compared with solid brick elements [39]. The edge of the shell
finite element was set equal to 100 mm (the average element size cor­
responded approximatively to the slab thickness), chosen from pre­
liminary analyses as a reasonable compromise between accuracy and
computational cost. The thickness of the slab was subdivided into seven
layers (two layers of concrete cover, four layers corresponding to the
reinforcement layout and an intermediate layer between top and bottom
reinforcement). Three Simpson integration points were used for each
layer, resulting in a total of twenty-one integration points along the
slab’s thickness. The columns (200x200mm) were modelled using brick
elements, assuming concrete as a linear elastic material, Fig. 4(b). All
columns of slabs S2 and S7 were fixed and clamped at their base whereas
the edge and corner columns of slabs S1 and S6 were pinned at their
base. The loading histories (self-weight plus sustained loads) presented
in Fig. 5 were applied as follows: (i) the self-weight was applied by
means of the slab density and (ii) the superimposed sustained loads were
simulated by imposing a uniformly distributed pressure on the slabs. The
regular Newton-Raphson method was used to achieve the solution at
each load increment. Since the slabs were relatively thin and shrinkage
has been calibrated based on measurements on specimens with the same
thickness, the profile of drying shrinkage strain was assumed to be
uniformly distributed over the depth.
During the laboratory tests, the deflections were measured at mid­
span of each of the four slab panels (#4,6,11,13) and at midspan be­
tween all adjacent columns (positions #1,2,15,16, #3,7,10,14, #8,9 and
#5,12) as shown in Fig. 4(a).
For calculating the creep and shrinkage strains, the formulations of
Model Code 2010 [29] were adopted with calibrated coefficients
determined from the available experimental batch specimens [26,27] as
described in the Appendix of this work.

Fig. 5. Loading history for slab (a) S1, (b) S2, (c) S4, (d) S6 and (e) S7 (time axis starts at casting).

5
S. Ravasini et al.
Fig. 6. FE shell element model of a quarter of slab: (a) in plane, (b) solid view.
5.2. Comparisons between experimental and NLFEA results
The comparison between experimental and numerical results for slab
S7 in terms of deflection vs time is shown in Fig. 7. In a first step, the
NLFEA has been conducted without considering the effects of shrinkage
and creep, providing no variation of the deflection vs time (see blue lines
in Fig. 7). The results show no variation in the mid-span deflection since
no long-term effects have been considered. The numerical curves, ob­
tained by considering the creep and shrinkage strains (see red curves in
Fig. 7), tended to slightly overestimate the deflections during the first
months at all measured positions but generally, good agreement is found
thereafter. The predicted crack pattern can be compared with the
experimental one recorded by Gilbert and Guo [26,27], Fig. 8. In both
the predicted and observed crack patterns, cracking is observed in the
hogging area above the columns. Gilbert and Guo [26,27] recorded no
significant cracking on the bottom surface of the slab, and the same
result is found in NLFEA. Fig. 8 also shows the evolution of the crack
pattern with time on the top surface of the slab S7 obtained by NLFEA.
Similar to the observed cracks, the calculated crack pattern shows that
the first cracks appeared on the top surface over each column immedi­
ately after loading at age 14 days, Fig. 8(a). Moreover, most cracks
developed during the first month of loading, Fig. 8(b). Finally, the
calculated crack pattern at the end of the analysis is compared with the
experimental one in Fig. 8(c). The NLFEA predicts the crack pattern
developing both in tangential and in radial directions with respect to the
columns. However, the adopted NLFEA is not able to predict the
observed longitudinal cracks that range between columns. The results
confirmed that time-dependent cracking greatly affects the service­
ability of flat slabs since new cracking occurred with time and existing
cracks extended and widened on the top surface near columns.
The capability of the adopted crack model to predict the behaviour of
a RC structure under complex stress histories was tested by modelling
the slab S1 (see loading history in Fig. 5(a)). This specimen was designed
with larger reinforcement ratios with respect to slab S7, resulting in
smaller deflections and cracks. The comparison between experimental
and numerical results for slab S1 in terms of deflection vs time is shown
in Fig. 9, showing good agreement at all loading and unloading stages.
The first cracks appeared on the top surface during the first week.
After 279 days, the slab was wetted and consequently, probably due
to swelling of the top surface, additional cracks occurred in the sagging
moment regions, which, in turn, caused a sudden loss of stiffness and an
6
Engineering Structures 284 (2023) 115926
increase in slab’s deflection.
Since the effect of wetting is not considered in the modelling, the
contour of crack opening width values resulting from NLFEA is
compared with the experimental crack pattern at the end of the first
loading stage (at 169 days), Fig. 10. Analogously to the experimental
outcome, the curve obtained using coefficients calibrated on material
specimens predicts cracks in proximity to columns at the top surface of
the slab S1.
Finally, Fig. 11 shows the normalised deflection – calculated as the
ratio between the vertical deflection, δ, and the span length, l – vs time
for all the slabs investigated. It can be observed that the numerical
simulations well captured the evolution of the deflection with time, with
a slight overestimation observed at early months for slabs S6 and S7
characterized by the reinforcement layout II (refer to Fig. 4). Compared
to the NLFE simulations without considering creep and shrinkage effects,
the following observations can be pointed out:
- The ratio between the final calculated displacements with and
without considering creep and shrinkage effects ranged between 5
and 10 for slabs from S1 to S7.
- The calculated deflections accounting for long-term effects are be­
tween 1/300 and 1/100 of the span for slabs with lower concrete
strengths and/or reinforcement ratios (i.e. slabs S4, S6 and S7).
These deflections are larger than the usual limits defined in Codes
and Guidelines [2,29,40], namely between 1/500 and 1/250.
- Larger deflections are recorded for slabs with lower amount of
flexural reinforcement (reinforcement layout II).
5.3. Influence of shrinkage and creep on long-term deflections
The long-term deflection of a slab is composed of a short-term
component caused by the initial application of the load (including the
effect of instantaneous cracking) and a time-dependent component due
to creep and shrinkage. To better understand the contribution of each
effect to the total deflection, NLFE analyses carried out considering
separated effects of creep and shrinkage were compared with elastic
uncracked analyses. The NLFEA results in terms of deflection versus time
curve is reported in Fig. 12(a) for slab S7. The following observations
can be pointed out:
S. Ravasini et al.
Fig. 7. Comparison between experimental and NLFEA deflections vs time curves measured in various positions of slab S7 (maximum, minimum and average values refer
to the measured values in the indicated points).
- The linear elastic analysis and non-linear analysis without creep and
shrinkage effects are similar in terms of maximum deflection at po­
sition #4 (3.12 and 3.70 mm, respectively).
- In the case of non-linear analysis without creep and shrinkage effects,
a time-independent crack width of about 0.15 mm above the sup­
porting central column C5 was detected, occurring at first loading.
- In the case of non-linear analysis with creep and shrinkage effects,
the main contribution to the total long-term deflection is given by
creep, which represents about 68% of the total deflection, while the
shrinkage effect is about 14% and the instantaneous deflection is
about 18 %. This is in accordance with the result obtain by Kilpatrick
7
Engineering Structures 284 (2023) 115926
and Gilbert [9] for simply supported slabs, where the authors pro­
posed an analytical method for the evaluation of the long-term
deflection components separating the contributions caused by
shrinkage and creep.
The same consideration applies for all the slabs tested for constant
sustained loading by Gilbert and Guo [26,27] - refer to Fig. 12(b) - where
the experimental deflections are compared with numerical results at
positions #4, 5, 8. Good agreement of final deflections and a consider­
able contribution of creep can be observed. In addition, the elastic un­
cracked and nonlinear FE analyses without long-term effects show
S. Ravasini et al.
Fig. 8. Experimental vs numerical crack pattern at the top of the slab S7 using coefficients calibrated on material specimens at: (a) 14 days (b) 44 days and (c)
508 days.
similar deflections, although the latter exhibit cracks above the support.
Fig. 13 shows the normalised deflections – compared with the linear
elastic uncracked case - for all the tested slabs at positions #4, 5, 8.
It can be observed again that the major effect can be attributed to
creep - from 4 to 6 times the elastic deflection -, and a limited amount of
shrinkage contribution is observed, from 1 to 3.5 times the elastic
deflection. The different behaviour of slab S2 is related to higher con­
crete properties (see Table 1) and to the slab thickness.
6. Analytical approach
6.1. Crack width
For the investigated cases, the extent of time dependent creep-
induced cracking and its effect on the performance of concrete slabs
was significant and tended to be the dominant factor influencing long-
term behaviour. In RC flat slabs, since the top surface is often not
visible or is protected, the SLS verification for cracking of the top surface
over columns is not always required. This matter of fact can explain the
lack of knowledge and research on this issue even though significant
crack openings have been observed in experiments already for limited
loading. In fact, if the top surface is exposed or if the appearance of the
surface can be a concern (for instance in industrial floors with mortar
casted directly on the concrete surface), particular attention should be
paid to cracking in the hogging region. In this section, an analytical
method for the evaluation of the crack width based on the Critical Shear
Crack Theory [28] is proposed.
8
Engineering Structures 284 (2023) 115926
In RC flat slabs with significant loading, the strains localize in a
critical shear crack that governs the ability of a slab to transfer shear
forces (as a function of the crack lips displacement and their roughness),
Fig. 14(a). In the following, it is assumed that a similar curvature dis­
tribution occurs already at serviceability limit state for critical cases.
Inside the critical shear crack, which is located at a radius r0 from the
column axis, tangential cracks and radial curvatures can also develop. In
this zone, it can be assumed that the tangential χ t and the radial cur­
vatures χ r are constant and equal, Eq.(9):
ψ
χr = χt = − for r⩽r0 (9)
r0
where ψ is the slab rotation at critical shear crack. In the hogging
region outside the critical shear crack, the radial curvature can usually
be neglected so that this portion of the slab can be assumed to deform
with a conical shape [28] and the curvatures are thus:
ψ
χr = 0 ; χt = − for r > r0 (10)
r
Considering a quadrilinear moment–curvature relationship for the
reinforced concrete section, Fig. 14(b), following relationship in Eq. (11)
between the rotation ψ and the applied column reaction V - equal to q
times the tributary area - has been proposed by Muttoni [28]:
( 〈 〉 〈 〉 )
2π − m〈r r0 + m〉R ry − r0 + EI1 ψ ln(r1 ) − ln(ry ) +
V=
rs − rc EI1 χ TS r1 − ry + mcr 〈rcr − r1 〉 + EI0 ψ 〈ln(rs ) − ln(rcr )〉
(11)
S. Ravasini et al. Engineering Structures 284 (2023) 115926

Fig. 9. Comparison between experimental and NLFEA deflections vs time curves measured in various positions of slab S1.

where mr is the radial moment per unit length acting in the slab
Ec,eff ⋅h3
portion in correspondence of the critical shear crack, the operator 〈x〉 is EI0 = (12)
equal to × for x ≥ 0 and 0 for x < 0, ry is the radius of the yielded zone, r1 12
is the radius of the zone in which cracking is stabilized, rcr is the radius of ( x) ( x)
the cracked zone, rs is the distance between the point of contraflexure of EI1 = ρ⋅β⋅Es ⋅d3 ⋅ 1 − ⋅ 1− (13)
d 3d
the radial moments and the column axis (typically assumed as 0.22
where h is the slab thickness, x is the depth of the compression zone,
times the span l for slabs with similar spans), mcr is the cracking moment,
d is the effective depth (distance from extreme compression fibre to the
mR is the moment capacity and χ TS is the tension stiffening effect on the
centroid of the longitudinal tensile reinforcement), ρ is the tensile
curvature (see Fig. 14(b)).
reinforcement ratio and β is an efficiency factor that accounts for the
The terms EI0 and EI1 are the stiffnesses before and after cracking,
orthogonal layout of the reinforcement and the reduction in the ratio
respectively (see Fig. 14(b) and Eq. (12) and (13)):
between the torsion and bending stiffness of the slab after cracking,
assumed equal to 0.6. The ratio x/d can be calculated as follows by using

9
S. Ravasini et al. Engineering Structures 284 (2023) 115926

Fig. 10. Experimental vs numerical crack pattern at the top of the slab S1 at the
end of loading stage 1 obtained using coefficients calibrated on mate­
rial specimens.
srm
wcr,r = χ t ⋅(h − x)⋅srm = ψ ⋅(h − x)⋅ (20)
r0
where srm can be evaluated by using an adequate formulation (as for
instance according to Eurocode 2 [40] or Model Code 2010 [29]) or
calculated on the basis of the number of radial cracks nr at the consid­
ered distance r from the column axis (srm = 2π⋅r/nr).
In the latter case, the crack opening of the radial cracks can be
calculated by using the Eq. (21):
2π
wcr,r = ψ ⋅(h − x)⋅ (21)
nr
Experimentally, all the slabs developed tangential cracks parallel to
the internal column edges and radial cracks on the top surface which
further developed with time due to the combined effects of external
loading and drying shrinkage. The maximum cracks were located
tangentially to column C5 at position TC1 and TC2 in all slabs - refer to
Fig. 4(b) -, while the radial cracks are smaller and no information on
their width was provided.

the Eq. (14) considering for simplicity only tensile reinforcement and 6.2. Maximum vertical deflection
neglecting tension stiffening, following the Model Code 2010 [29]:
The rotation vs deflection curves obtained from NLFEA (considering
(√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ )
x 2 creep and shrinkage effects) are reported Fig. 16 in for the analysed
= β⋅αe ⋅ρ + 1+ − 1 (14) slabs, where the maximum rotation has been detected along the diago­
d β⋅αe ⋅ρ
nal between column C5 and C1 approximately at mid-span. The load-
where αe is the ratio between Ec,eff and Es. The term Ec,eff is the age- rotation relationship is approximately linear, so that the following Eq.
adjusted effective modulus of concrete calculated by using the creep (22) can be derived:
effect through the Eq.(15): √̅̅̅
ψ ⋅ 2l
Ec δmax = (22)
Ec,eff = (15) K
1+φ
where δmax is the maximum deflection at mid-panel, l is the span
where Ec is the concrete elastic modulus at 28 days and φ is the creep length. The K is a coefficient approximately equal to 3.4 for S4, S6 and
coefficient at the time considered. For the case of well-developed radial S7 and 3.1 for S2, with average value equal to 3.25, to account for the
cracks up to the point of contraflexure in radial direction (rcr > rs, r1 > rs) proportionality between the slab rotation and maximum deflection.
and without yielding of the hogging reinforcement at serviceability limit Through this relationship, it is possible to analytically derive the
state (ry < r0), Eq. (11) becomes a simple linear relationship: maximum deflection at mid-span as a function of the slab rotation near
2π⋅EI1 to the support by using the analytical method previously described.
V= (ψ (1 + ln(rs ) − ln(r0 )) + χ TS ⋅rs ) (16)
rs − rc
6.3. Comparisons between numerical results, analytical formulations, and
The rotation ψ can be easily calculated as a function of the column current simplified code provisions
reaction V and of the curvature χ TS related to tension stiffening by:
1
(
V rs − rc
) By adopting NLFEA simulations previously described, both short-
ψ= − χ TS ⋅rs (17) and long-term deflections can be obtained as well as their ratio. The
1 + ln(rs /r0 ) EI1 2π
short-term deflection is often confused with the initial elastic deflection
The shrinkage effect can be accounted for in the definition of the after the first loading (self-weight and dead load). However, the initial
curvature related to tension stiffening χ TS, according to: deflection is not definitely elastic in all sections and there are some in­
fct 1 ε elastic deflections due to flexural cracking (particularly in the hogging
(18)
cs
χ TS = ⋅
ρ⋅β⋅Es 6⋅h
+ (
d 1 − 3dx
) region). Despite that, for the analysed slabs, elastic uncracked de­
flections are similar to deflections evaluated using non-linear analysis
where εcs is the shrinkage strain - taken as negative - at the time when shrinkage and creep are neglected, as previously discussed. For
considered and fct is the tensile strength of concrete. Finally, it is possible simplicity, in the following, the short-term deflections are assumed
to obtain the load-rotation relationship for the analysed slabs consid­ equal to the elastic uncracked deflections.
ering or neglecting the effect of creep and shrinkage, refer to Fig. 15. In the context of the analytical proposal, according to Eq. (22), a load
Once the load-rotation relationship is obtained, the rotation ψ corre­ multiplier kδ (ratio between the long- and short-term deflections) can be
sponding to the load applied on the analysed column can be derived, as calculated as the ratio of the long- and short-term rotations at hogging
shown for example in Fig. 15 for slabs S4. It is worth to mention that the zone described in the previous paragraph with the following
load–rotation relationship can be influenced by the compressive mem­ assumptions:
brane action [31,41–43], this latter potentially reduced when the RC
slab is subjected to long-term deformations [31]. Finally, if it is assumed 1. The short-term rotation, ψ ST, is calculated without considering the
that only one tangential crack develops (typically occurring for thin tension stiffening effect and by assuming: (i) elastic uncracked
slabs), the crack opening wcr,t can be calculated as with Eq. (19): stiffness EI0, (ii) shrinkage strain, εcs, equal to zero and (iii) creep
coefficient, φ, equal to zero.
wcr,t = ψ ⋅(h − x) (19)
2. The long-term rotation, ψ LT, and tension stiffening curvature, χ TS, are
The maximum opening of the radial crack wcr,r can be obtained from calculated by assuming: (i) cracked stiffness EI1, (ii) shrinkage strain,
the curvature χ t and the crack spacing srm, by adopting the Eq. (20): εcs and (iii) creep coefficient, φ at the time considered.

10
S. Ravasini et al. Engineering Structures 284 (2023) 115926

Fig. 11. Comparison between experimental and NLFEA normalised deflections vs time curves for all the slabs investigated.

The proposed coefficient kδ becomes: overestimate the vertical deflection due to deformability of supporting
[ ] columns. The shrinkage strains and the creep coefficients referred to the
δLT ψ LT EI0 χ ⋅rs ⋅EI1
kδ = = = 1 − 2⋅π ⋅ 2TS (23) test duration (Table 1) are referred to the Appendix of this work and are
δST ψ ST EI1 q⋅l ⋅(rs − rc )
given in Table 2.
where for the tributary area, l2 is assumed. In the comparisons below, For the tests by Gilbert and Guo [26,27], the measured long-term
the following nomenclature is adopted for the analytical framework: deflections and the numerical results were several times the initial
short-term elastic deflections, due primarily to the loss of stiffness
1. Detailed analytical approach: calculation of the vertical deflection associated with time-dependent cracking under the combined influences
according to Eq. (22) based on the rotation in Eq. (17) and the crack of applied load and drying shrinkage (according to NLFEA, the ratio kδ
width expression in Eq. (19) for both short- or and long-term was in the range between 6.55 and 8.55 as shown in the Table 3). This
deflections. effect is not adequately considered in the evaluation of deflection sug­
2. Simplified analytical approach: calculation of the load multiplier kδ gested in the majority of the current codes (significantly smaller values
according to Eq. (23). of kδ are obtained, see Table 3) - except for SIA 262:2013 -, demon­
strating that all the time-dependent parameters that affect deflection
Table 2 shows the short- and long-term deflections by using NLFE should be considered. Both the proposed detailed and simplified
analyses and the proposed detailed analytical approach. Good agree­ analytical approaches can consider the modulus of elasticity, the
ment between analytical and numerical results for both short- and long- compressive and tensile strengths of concrete, the reinforcement ratios
term deflections can be observed. The elastic FE analyses tend to slightly and creep and shrinkage effects due to ambient air humidity. In addi­
tion, the effect of the effective depth (considered with parameter (h/d)3

11
S. Ravasini et al. Engineering Structures 284 (2023) 115926

Fig. 12. (a) Comparison between experimental and NLFEA deflections vs time curves measured for slab S7 at position #4, (b) long-term deflection components of
slabs detected by NLFEA at the end of the analysis at position: #4, #5 and #8 for slabs S2, S4, S6 and S7.

Fig. 13. Long-term deflection components at the end of the analysis normalized with respect to the calculated elastic uncracked deflection at position: #4, #5 and #8
for slabs S2, S4, S6 and S7.

in Eq. (4) and (5)), which is particularly significant in thin slabs as the
ones tested by Gilbert and Guo [26,27], is accounted for.
6.4. Summary of comparisons between analytical proposal and
experimental results
In Table 4, the maximum deflections obtained from the NLFEA and
with the detailed analytical approach (applying Eq. (22)) are compared
with the experimental outcomes for slabs S2, S4, S6 and S7 (tests with
constant sustained loading). In addition, the analytical rotation obtained
by using the Eq. (17) is compared with the rotation according to NLFEA
recorded along the diagonal direction as shown in Fig. 16. In general,
good agreement can be observed with an average value of the ratio
measured/calculated close to 1.0 and small coefficients of variation. In

12
S. Ravasini et al. Engineering Structures 284 (2023) 115926

Fig. 14. Critical Shear Crack Theory: (a) cracking at a slab–column connection, (b) quadrilinear moment–curvature relationship.

Fig. 15. Load-rotation relationship of column C5 of slab S4.

Fig. 16. Rotation vs deflection curves obtained from NLFEA for slabs subjected to constant loading.

Table 2 Table 3
Short- and long-term displacements from NLFE and analytical approach. Ratio of total to elastic uncracked instantaneous deflections.
Tools & Slabs Tool S2 S4 S6 S7 Code, FE & Code, FE S2 S4 S6 S7
Parameters Slabs
kδ, Eq. (#)
Short-term Elastic uncracked FEA 1.58 3.80 2.85 3.13
deflection Detailed analytical 1.13 2.84 1.90 2.02 Eq. (2) AS-3600 [10] 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00
δST [mm] approach Eq. (3) ACI 318-19 [2] 1.50 1.70 1.55 1.55
Long-term NLFEA with creep & 13.5 32.7 19.2 20.4 Eq. (4) SIA 262:2013 [12] 8.50 8.85 10.28 10.28
deflection shrinkage Eq. (5) Draft EC2 [11], ζ = 1 5.48 4.77 5.16 5.16
δLT [mm] Detailed analytical 12.7 28.0 20.1 21.1 – NLFEA 8.55 8.61 6.77 6.55
approach Eq. (23) Simplified analytical 11.21 9.86 10.53 10.49
Shrinkage strain, εcs [με] * 933 874 692 692 approach
Creep coefficient, φ [/] * 3.00 3.60 2.75 2.75
*
Values from the numerical results in the Appendix.

13
S. Ravasini et al. Engineering Structures 284 (2023) 115926

Table 4
Comparison between numerical, analytical, and experimental values of the rotation ψ near to column C5 and maximum slab deflection δmax.
Rotation, ψ [rad] Maximum deflection, δmax [mm]

Slab NLFEA Detailed analytical approach NLFEA Detailed analytical approach Exp. δmax,Exp /δmax,Analyt δmax,Exp /δmax,NLFEA

S2 0.0100 0.0097 13.5 12.7 13.2 1.04 0.98

S4 0.0223 0.0215 32.7 28.0 26.0 0.93 0.80
S6 0.0155 0.0153 19.2 20.1 19.6 0.98 1.02
S7 0.0165 0.0162 20.4 21.1 20.6 0.98 1.01
Average, μ: 0.98 0.95
Standard Deviation, σ: 0.05 0.11
Coefficient of Variation [%]: 4.66 11.1

Table 5
Comparison of tangential crack widths, wcr,t, around internal column C5 at the end of the test.
wcr,t, neglecting wcr,t, with creep and wcr,t, with creep and shrinkage
creep and shrinkage neglecting shrinkage

TC1 / TC2 [mm] TC1 / TC2 [mm] TC1 / TC2 [mm]

S2 Detailed analytical approach 0.07 0.39 0.60
NLFEA 0.06 / 0.05 0.25 / 0.21 0.45 / 0.41
Experimental – – - / 0.40
S4 Detailed analytical approach 0.16 0.98 1.23
NLFEA 0.20 / 0.17 0.79 / 0.76 0.89 / 0.86
Experimental – – 1.35 / 1.35
S6 Detailed analytical approach 0.11 0.76 0.97
NLFEA 0.14 / 0.13 0.47 / 0.45 0.54 / 0.52
Experimental – – 0.75 / 0.62
S7 Detailed analytical approach 0.12 0.82 1.01
NLFEA 0.15 / 0.13 0.50 / 0.48 0.55 / 0.56
Experimental – – 0.83 / 0.88

Note: “-” means that the crack width has not been measured.

Table 6
Comparison between average numerical, analytical, and experimental crack width, wcr,t, around internal column C5 at the end of the test.
Tangential crack width, wcr,t [mm]

Slab NLFEA Detailed analytical approach Exp. wcr,T,Exp /wcr,T,Analyt wcr,T,Exp /wcr,T,NLFEA

S2 0.46 0.60 0.40 0.67 0.87

S4 0.87 1.23 1.35 1.10 1.55
S6 0.53 0.97 0.68 0.70 1.28
S7 0.55 1.01 0.85 0.84 1.55
Average, μ: 0.83 1.31
Standard Deviation, σ: 0.20 0.32
Coefficient of Variation [%]: 23.7 24.4

Table 5, the tangential crack widths obtained analytically and by means
of NLFEA are compared with experimental outcomes observed at the end
of the tests. The crack widths from the numerical model were measured
on the top layer of the elements nearby the column edges correspon­
dence of the TC1 and TC2 directions, as shown in Fig. 4(b). The results
show the importance to account for the long-term effect of creep and
shrinkage in the crack width prediction. Numerical and analytical out­
comes are in line with the experimental results, although tend to provide
smaller and greater crack widths, respectively, in correspondence of
both positions TC1 and TC2, refer to Fig. 4.
On the other hand, the NLFE analyses tend to underestimate the
crack widths expect for slab S2. In general, the numerical and proposed
analytical procedures can be useful for the evaluation of the crack width
in hogging regions near columns, as shown in the Table 6.
7. Conclusions
The deflections and cracking of flat slabs in reinforced concrete at
serviceability limit state have been investigated using a non-linear finite
element model and compared to the flat slab test results by Gilbert and
Guo [26,27]. For this purpose, appropriate models for creep and
shrinkage have been implemented in the numerical model. On that
basis, a simplified mechanical model has been developed allowing to
develop rational analytical expressions. The main novelty of the
research presented in this paper is related to the capacity of the proposed
numerical and analytical approaches to reasonably reproduce the long-
term behaviour of RC flat slabs subjected to sustained loadings in terms
of crack width and maximum mid-span deflection which can be used for
a numerical or analytical (simplified or detailed) verification of the
serviceability limit state.
The main conclusions are:
• NLFE analyses capable of accounting for creep and shrinkage effects
are crucial for the serviceability limit state verification of complex
RC structures, such as continuous flat slabs. In this work, good
agreement is observed between the numerical simulations and
experimental results.
• It is shown that simplified multiplicative factors for the linear elastic
deflection implemented in current codes - to account for long-term
effects - tend to underestimate the long-term deflections of flat

14
S. Ravasini et al. Engineering Structures 284 (2023) 115926

slabs, except for the current SIA 262:2013. Indeed, long-term
deflection depends on modulus of elasticity and the strength of
concrete, creep, shrinkage, the hogging and sagging reinforcement
ratios, the ratio effective depth / total depth of the slab and the
environmental conditions.
• A detailed analytical method based on the Critical Shear Crack
Theory and validated with the numerical simulations and the
experimental test results is proposed to evaluate the maximum de­
flections at mid-span of flat slabs and the crack width in hogging
regions near the columns where the widest cracks are localised. In
addition, a simplified analytical proposal for the multiplicative kδ
coefficient of the elastic uncracked deflection is evaluated to obtain
long-term deflections in a simpler way. Both detailed and simplified
approaches should be applicable to different reinforcement layouts,
which deserves nevertheless further investigations in future studies.
It is worth noting that the experimental tests considered in this work
were conducted on scaled specimens, whose geometrical features and
reinforcement layouts may not entirely reflect those of real-scale
structures. Such aspects can affect the localization, the number of
cracks and crack widths and deserve to be in-deeply investigated in
future research.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Simone Ravasini: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Valida­
tion. Francesca Vecchi: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Vali­
dation. Beatrice Belletti: Supervision, Methodology, Writing – review
& editing. Aurelio Muttoni: Supervision, Conceptualization, Method­
ology, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Data availability
Data will be made available on request.

Appendix

In this study, the creep and shrinkage strains used in the NLFE analyses and in the analytical formulation have been calculated using the Model
Code 2010 [29] formulae which have been calibrated on the basis of the batch specimens test results [26,27] (refer also to Belletti et al. [24,32]). The
creep strain was adjusted by coefficient K1, refer to Eq. A(1):
φ(t, t0 ) = [φbc (t, t0 ) + φdc (t, t0 )]⋅K1 (A1)
The coefficients βdc(t,t0) were adjusted as follows by using K2, refer to Eq. A(2) and Eq. A(3):
[( )2 ]
30
βbc (t, t0 ) = ln + 0.035 ⋅K2 ⋅(t − t0 ) + 1 (A2)
t0

[ ]γ(t0 )
K2 ⋅(t − t0 )
βdc (t, t0 ) = (A3)
βh + K2 ⋅(t − t0 )
The total shrinkage strain was adjusted as follows by using K3 and K4, refer to the Eq. A(4):
εcs (t, ts ) = εcbs (t)⋅K3 + εcds (t, ts )⋅K4 (A4)
The time functions for autogenous and drying shrinkage were modified by using K5 and K6 coefficients, refer to Eq. A(5) and Eq. A(6):
( √̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅ )
βbs (t) = 1 − exp − 0.2⋅ t⋅K5 (A5)

( )0.5
K6 ⋅(t − ts )
βds (t − ts ) = (A6)
0.035⋅h2 + K6 ⋅(t − ts )

The obtained coefficients are shown in Table A1 for the investigated slabs and the corresponding results in terms of shrinkage strains and creep
coefficients are compared with the experimental results in Fig. A1 and Fig. A2, respectively.
The effect of the coefficient calibration on the results in terms of load–deflection for slabs S2 and S7 are presented in Fig. A3, where both the
responses using the original Model Code 2010 [29] formulae and the calibrated ones are shown. For more details, refer to Belletti et al. [24,32].

Table A1
Calibrated coefficients [24,32] based on batch specimens [26,27].
#Batch (Slabs) K1 K2 K3 K4 K5 K6

#1 (S1) 1.07 2.80 1.80 1.80 0.5 0.5

#2 (S2) 1.20 3.10 2.40 2.40 2.50 2.50
#4 (S4) 1.00 1.30 2.25 2.25 0.80 0.80
#5 (S6, S7) 0.70 0.85 1.00 2.40 0.30 0.30

15
S. Ravasini et al. Engineering Structures 284 (2023) 115926

Fig. A1. Calibration on batch specimens for shrinkage strain: (a) #1, (b) #2, (c) #4, (d) #5.

16
S. Ravasini et al. Engineering Structures 284 (2023) 115926

Fig. A2. Calibration on batch specimens for creep coefficient: (a) #1, (b) #2, (c) #4, (d) #5.

Fig. A3. NLFEA with and without coefficient calibration: (a) Slab S2, (b) Slab S7.

17
S. Ravasini et al. Engineering Structures 284 (2023) 115926

References [23] Belletti B, Scolari M, Vecchi F. PARC_CL 2.0 crack model for NLFEA of reinforced
concrete structures under cyclic loadings. Comput Struct 2017;191:165–79.
[24] Vecchi F, Franceschini L, Belletti B. PARC _ CL 2.1: Modelling of the Time-
[1] Martinelli P, Colombo M, Ravasini S, Belletti B. Application of an Analytical
Dependent Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Slabs. Euro-C Conf. Vienna, Austria,
Method for the Design for Robustness of RC Flat Slab Buildings. Eng Struct 2022;
2022.
258.
[25] Abaqus Theory Manual 2018.
[2] American Concrete Institute. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete
[26] Gilbert IR, Guo XH. Time-Dependent Deflection and Deformation of Reinforced
(ACI 318-19). 2019.
Concrete Flat Slabs-An Experimental Study. ACI Struct J 2005;102:363–73.
[3] Acker P, Bažant ZP, Chern JC, Huet C, Wittmann FH, Alou F, et al. Measurement of
[27] Guo XH, Gilbert RI. An Experimental Study of Reinforced Concrete Flat Slabs under
time-dependent strains of concrete. Mater Struct Constr 1998;31:507–12.
Sustained Service Loads. UNICIV Report No. Sydney, Australia: The University of
[4] Taha MMR, Hassanain MA. Estimating the error in calculated deflections of HPC
New South Wales; 2002.
slabs: A parametric study using the theory of error propagation. ACI Symp Publ
[28] Muttoni A. Punching Shear Strength of Reinforced Concrete Slabs without
2003;SP-210:65–92.
Transverse Reinforcement. ACI Struct J 2008;105.
[5] Ghali A, Azarnejad A. Deflection prediction of members of any concrete strength.
[29] fib. fib Model Code for Concrete Structures 2010. 2013.
ACI Struct J 1999;96:807–16.
[30] Favre R, Beeby AW, Falkner H, Koprna M, Schiessel P. Cracking and deformations.
[6] Hossain TR, Vollum R, Ahmed SU. Deflection estimation of reinforced concrete flat
Lausanne, Switzerland: CEB Manual; 1985.
plates using ACI method. ACI Struct J 2011;108:405–13.
[31] Belletti B, Muttoni A, Ravasini S, Vecchi F. Parametric analysis on punching shear
[7] Gilbert RI. Calculation of Long-Term Deflection. CIA Semin - Control Long-Term
resistance of reinforced-concrete continuous slabs. Mag Concr Res 2019;71:
Deflection 2008:22.
1083–96.
[8] Nejadi S. Time-dependent cracking and crack control in reinforced concrete
[32] Belletti B, Muttoni A, Vecchi F, Halimi M. Modelling of Time-Dependent Effects of
structures. Sydney Australia: University of New South Wales; 2005. PhD Thesis.
Reinforced Concrete Flat Slabs. Ital Concr Days 2020, 2020..
[9] Kilpatrick AE, Gilbert RI. Simplified calculation of the long-term deflection of
[33] Ravasini S, Calcavecchia B, Belletti B, Bonati N. Long-Term and Corrosion Effects
reinforced concrete flexural members. Aust J Struct Eng 2018;19:34–43.
on the Punching Shear Resistance of RC Flat Slabs Subjected to Sudden Column
[10] AS-3600:2018. Concrete Structures. Sydney: Standards Australia; 2018.
Loss. Accept Publ ACI Spec Publ “Punching Shear Concr Slabs Insights from New
[11] CEN. FprEN_1992-1-1:2022: Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures — Part 1-1:
Mater Tests. Anal Methods” 2022.
General rules — Rules for buildings, bridges and civil engineering structures. CEN/
[34] Glanville WH, Thomas FG. Studies in reinforced concrete IV. Further investigation
TC250/SC2, Brussels; 2022.
on creep or flow of concrete under load. Build Res Tech Pap 1939;21.
[12] SIA 262:2013. Betonbau. Schweizer Ingenieur- und Architektenverein. Zurich:
[35] Illston JM. The creep of concrete under uniaxial tension. Mag Concr Res 1965;17:
2013.
77–84.
[13] Pillai SU, Menon D. Reinforced concrete design. New Delhi: Tata McGraw Hill;
[36] Rossi P, Tailhan JL, Le Maou F. Comparison of concrete creep in tension and in
2017.
compression: Influence of concrete age at loading and drying conditions. Cem
[14] Gilbert RI. Shrinkage, cracking and deflection - The serviceability of concrete
Concr Res 2013;51:78–84.
structures. Electron J Struct Eng 2001;1:15–37.
[37] Li H, Wee TH, Wong SF. Early-age creep and shrinkage of blended cement concrete.
[15] Chong KT, Foster SJ, Gilbert RI. Time-dependent modelling of RC structures using
ACI Mater J 2002;99:598.
the cracked membrane model and solidification theory. Comput Struct 2008;86:
[38] Kristiawan SA. Strength, shrinkage and creep of concrete in tension and
1305–17.
compression. Civ Eng Dimens 2006;8:73–80.
[16] Bazant ZP, Prasannan S. Solidification theory for concrete creep I: formulation.
[39] Shu J, Belletti B, Muttoni A, Scolari M, Plos M. Internal force distribution in RC
J Eng Mech 1989;115:1691–703.
slabs subjected to punching shear. Eng Struct 2017;153:766–81.
[17] Bazant ZP, Prasannan S. Solidification theory for concrete creep II: verification and
[40] Cen-ec2. en,. Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures - Part 1–1: General rules
application. J Eng Mech 1989;115:1704–25.
and rules for buildings. Brussels: European Committee for Standardization; 1992.
[18] Bazant ZP. Prediction of concrete creep effects using Age-Adjusted Effective
p. 2004.
Modulus Method. ACI J Proc 1972;69:212–9.
[41] Keyvani L, Sasani M, Mirzaei Y. Compressive membrane action in progressive
[19] Motter CJ, Scanlon A. Modeling of Reinforced Concrete Two-Way Floor Slab
collapse resistance of RC flat plates. Eng Struct 2014;59:554–64.
Deflections due to Construction Loading. J Struct Eng 2018;144:1–10.
[42] Belletti B, Walraven JC, Trapani F. Evaluation of compressive membrane action
[20] Maekawa K, Soltani M, Ishida T, Itoyama Y. Time-dependent space-averaged
effects on punching shear resistance of reinforced concrete slabs. Eng Struct 2015;
constitutive modeling of cracked reinforced concrete subjected to shrinkage and
95:25–39.
sustained loads. J Adv Concr Technol 2006;4:193–207.
[43] Einpaul J, Fernández Ruiz M, Muttoni A. Influence of moment redistribution and
[21] Hasan NMS, Visintin P, Oehlers DJ, Bennett T, Sobuz MHR. Time dependent
compressive membrane action on punching strength of flat slabs. Eng Struct 2015;
deflection of RC beams allowing for partial interaction and non-linear shrinkage.
86:43–57.
Mater Struct Constr 2019;52:1–15.
[22] Sirico A, Michelini E, Bernardi P, Cerioni R. Simulation of the response of shrunk
reinforced concrete elements subjected to short-term loading: a bi-dimensional
numerical approach. Eng Fract Mech 2017;174:64–79.

18