1076

Influence of longitudinal reinforcement strength

on one-way slab deflection
Jijun Tang and Adam S. Lubell

Abstract: The CSA A23.3 standard for reinforced concrete design provides both an implicit check of deflection control
based on minimum member thickness requirements and a direct computation method for deflection. This paper reports on
an analytical study that compared maximum span-to-depth ratios from the implicit deflection provisions against ratios de-
termined from direct deflection calculations. Emphasis was placed on the deflection performance of lightly reinforced one-
way slabs, including those with high-strength steel reinforcement. The results indicated that maximum span-to-depth ratios
should decrease as the span length increases, as the design load increases or as the cracking moment decreases. In contrast
to the current implicit provisions, the design strength of the longitudinal reinforcement did not have a significant effect on
the minimum slab thickness required to satisfy common deflection criterion. Design aids were proposed, with implications
for design presented through a case study of a multispan one-way slab system.
Key words: reinforced concrete, slabs, reinforcement, deflection, stiffness, bending, cracking.
Résumé : Le code de pratique CSA A23.3 concernant le calcul des ouvrages en béton armé fournit une vérification impli-
cite, basée sur le contrôle de la flexion, des exigences minimales de l’épaisseur des membrures et une méthode de calcul
directe de la flexion. Le présent article aborde une étude analytique qui comparait les rapports maximaux de travée-profon-
deur provenant des provisions implicites de la déflexion contre les rapports déterminés par le calcul direct de la flexion.
Le rendement en flexion des dalles unidirectionnelles légèrement armées, incluant celles comportant une armature en acier
à haute résistance, a été principalement examiné. Les résultats indiquent que les rapports maximaux de travée-profondeur
devraient diminuer lorsque la longueur de la travée augmente, la charge de calcul augmente ou lorsque le moment de fis-
suration diminue. Par rapport aux provisions implicites actuelles, la résistance de calcul des renforcements longitudinaux
n’a pas d’effet important sur l’épaisseur minimale de dalle requise pour répondre adéquatement au critère de flexion com-
mun. Des aides à la conception ont été proposées et des conséquences pour la conception sont présentées dans une étude
de cas d’un système à travées multiples de dalles unidirectionnelles.
Mots-clés : béton armé, dalles, armature, déflexion, rigidité, flexion, fissuration.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Introduction at the service condition. Thus, it is generally believed that

Reinforced concrete flexural members must be designed
with acceptable deflections at the serviceability limit state
(SLS) and with adequate strength at the ultimate limit state
(ULS). The SLS requirements ensure that deformations of
structural members are appropriate for their intended use
and that potential damage to nonstructural elements, includ-
ing incremental deflection effects from sustained loads, is
minimized. As the longitudinal reinforcement ratio for a
one-way spanning slab is mainly based on ULS require-
ments for flexural strength, the use of higher or lower
strength reinforcement would alter the required reinforce-
ment ratio and hence, the corresponding member curvature
Received 13 August 2007. Revision accepted 26 April 2008.
Published on the NRC Research Press Web site at cjce.nrc.ca on
25 September 2008.
J. Tang and A.S. Lubell.1 Department of Civil &
Environmental Engineering, University of Alberta, 3-028 NREF,
Edmonton, AB T6G 2W2, Canada.
Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be
received by the Editor until 28 February 2009.
1Corresponding author (e-mail: alubell@ualberta.ca).
the minimum slab thickness must change as a function of
reinforcement strength, to maintain adequate deflection con-
trol. However, this relationship must be adequately under-
stood for practical design cases, where rapid selection of
member thickness is desired while permitting member de-
sign for efficiency and economy.
Deflections of concrete members are dependent on a num-
ber of factors including the degree of cracking at specified
load levels, pre-existing cracking due to earlier construction
loads, creep and shrinkage characteristics of the concrete,
mechanical properties of the materials, and support and
loading conditions (ACI Committee 435 2003). The CSA
A23.3–04 design standard for reinforced concrete (CSA
2004) provides two approaches to satisfy deflection require-
ments for reinforced concrete members. A similar two-
approach model with comparable formulations is also in-
corporated into other design standards and codes including
the ACI 318–05 code of practice (ACI Committee 318
2005). In the first approach, an implicit evaluation of
member deflection is utilized, whereby a member with suf-
ficiently large overall depth, h, is deemed to comply with
the deflection requirements. Minimum member thickness is
based on member type (e.g., slab, beam) and support con-
figuration (e.g., simple span, continuous), with an adjust-

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 35: 1076–1087 (2008) doi:10.1139/L08-050 # 2008 NRC Canada
Tang and Lubell
ment coefficient to increase the minimum value of h for
the same span length as the reinforcement yield strength
increases. In the second approach, member deflection is di-
rectly evaluated using an effective moment of inertia Ie
technique developed by Branson (1977). It has previously
been demonstrated that predictions using Branson’s formu-
lation for Ie will underestimate deflections for lightly rein-
forced members (Bischoff 2005a, 2005b; Gilbert 2007). An
alternate formulation for Ie presented by Bischoff (2005a,
2005b) has been shown to provide better correlation for
all practical reinforcement ratios (Bischoff and Scanlon
2007a; Gilbert 2007). Note that due to the greater simplic-
ity of the deemed-to-comply approach to deflection control
via specified minimum member thickness, this method is
typically used for member size selection in design practice.
Thus, it is important that the deemed-to-comply approach
yields members that would also satisfy deflection control
criterion under the direct calculation technique.
Several studies have attempted to correlate simple expres-
sions for deemed-to-comply minimum slab thickness for de-
flection control requirements against direct deflections
calculations using Branson’s formulation for Ie. For deflec-
tion limits of L /240 or L /480, Scanlon and Choi (1999)
showed that minimum slab thickness could be reduced as
the span length decreased and as the applied live load de-
creased. Choi et al. (2002) used a Monte Carlo simulation
to calibrate a proposed simplified expression for maximum
L /h. Gardner (2001) compared maximum L /h relationships
for deflection control from published literature and from
several standards and codes of practice. Gardner recom-
mended maximum L /h values that decreased as the rein-
forcement ratio increased, as the concrete strength
decreased, and as the ratio of maximum sustained moment
to ultimate moment capacity increased. Based on computer
simulations, Grossman (1981) provided a simple expression
for minimum slab thickness that considered the maximum
permitted deflection and a measure of the relative live and
dead load magnitudes. Using a layered nonlinear finite ele-
ment model, Gardner and Zhang (1996) approximated the
required increase in L /h ratio as inversely proportional to
the cube root of the service moment to ultimate moment ra-
tio. The limiting L /h ratio was also identified as increasing
as the concrete strength increased, as the flexural tension re-
inforcement ratio increased, and as the flexural compression
reinforcement ratio increased. Ospina and Gross (2005)
showed that the maximum L /h ratio for members reinforced
with fibre-reinforced polymers should decrease as the maxi-
mum permitted deflection limit decreases and as the service
strain in the reinforcement increases. Ospina and Gross also
noted that a decrease in maximum L /h is required as the ra-
tio of service moment to cracking moment increases, due to
reduced tension stiffening.
Few studies have specifically examined the influence of
reinforcement strength on deflection control. Rangan and
Sarker (2001) analytically studied the variation in flexural
stiffness as the reinforcement strength increases from 400 to
500 MPa, according to Branson’s formulation for Ie. The an-
alytical model implemented for the study defined the service
reinforcement stress at a fixed fraction of fy. Little change of
flexural stiffness occurred below a reinforcement ratio of
about 0.3%, and a relatively constant drop of about 15% oc-
1077
curred for reinforcement ratios between 1.0% and 3%, for
commonly used concrete compressive strengths. Lightly re-
inforced members showed greater sensitivity to shrinkage
strains, with greater loss in relative stiffness as the shrinkage
strain increased, due to a corresponding decrease in cracking
moment.
Research significance
As members with high-strength steel reinforcement will
typically have low reinforcement ratios, it is important to
understand whether the specified L /h ratios used to implic-
itly comply with SLS deflection criterion are also appropriate
for members with high-strength reinforcement. Further-
more, one-way slabs are often designed with the calcula-
tion assumption of a smaller than actual magnitude for the
design yield strength fy of the longitudinal reinforcement.
This computation-oriented change results in additional lon-
gitudinal reinforcement area beyond the ULS strength
requirement, and permits thinner members according to re-
inforcement strength adjustment factors in the CSA A23.3–04
deemed-to-comply method (CSA 2004). There is concern
that this design approach may not be consistent with de-
flection predictions using the direct calculation technique.
This paper reports on an analytical study conducted to
validate and improve the deemed-to-comply maximum
span-to-depth ratio provisions in CSA A23.3–04. Parametric
studies were completed using the direct deflection calcula-
tion technique from CSA A23.3–04 [based on the formula-
tion for Ie from Branson (1977)] and the alternative Ie
formulation proposed by Bischoff (2005a, 2005b). The
objective of the study was to investigate the influence of
significant design parameters, including reinforcement
strength, on maximum L /h ratios for adequate deflection
control of one-way slabs. Graphical design aids were devel-
oped for use in rapid selection of member thickness in place
of current member thickness requirements for the deemed-
to-comply deflection control provisions in CSA A23.3–04.
Implications for minimum member thickness requirements
based on reinforcement strength are presented through a de-
sign example of a multispan one-way slab system.
Deflection of reinforced concrete slabs
For slender, one-way spanning reinforced concrete mem-
bers, deformations are assumed to follow the well-known
hypothesis that plane sections before bending remain plane
after bending. Thus, a linear distribution of axial strains is
assumed over the height of the cross section from which the
curvature and member deflection can be determined. The in-
stantaneous deflection of a flexural member subjected to
uniform transverse loading can be computed with the well-
known relationship:


5 ML2
½1

i ¼ K
48 Ec Ie
where Di is the instantaneous deflection, M is the maximum
characteristic service moment from the loading considered
(e.g., midspan location for simple beams, support location
for cantilever), L is the span length, Ec is the secant modu-
lus of elasticity of concrete, Ie is the effective moment of
inertia of the transformed crosssection, and K is a coeffi-
# 2008 NRC Canada
1078
Table 1. Maximum L /h ratio for deemed-to-comply deflection control [adapted from Table 9.2 of CSA
A23.3–04 (CSA 2004)].
Static configuration
Member type Simply supported One end continuous
Solid one-way slab 20 24
Beam or ribbed slab 16 18
cient based on the static system (1.0 for simple span; 0.738
for fixed–pin; 0.6 for fixed–fixed).
Predictions of member deflection must also consider time-
dependent influences, such as creep, shrinkage, and the tran-
sient or sustained nature of applied loads. According to the
CSA A23.3–04 provisions (CSA 2004), an estimate of the
total long-term deflection from sustained loads can be deter-
mined by scaling the corresponding immediate deflection
obtained from eq. [1] with the relationship:


s quired for flexural strength at the ULS. According to CSA
½2

L ¼
s
i ¼ 1 þ
i
1 þ 500
where zs is the deflection multiplier for sustained load, s ac-
counts for the time duration considered, and r’ is the com-
pression reinforcement ratio. The magnitude of coefficient s
is based on the time duration: 1.0, 1.2, 1.4, and 2.0 for loads
sustained for 3, 6, 12, and more than 60 months, respec-
tively (CSA 2004).
CSA A23.3–04 deflection provisions limit the immediate
deflection from transient loads to L /180 or L /360 for roofs
or floors, respectively, when not supporting or attached to
nonstructural items likely to be damaged by large deflec-
tions. An immediate deflection limit of L /480 applies when
damage to nonstructural elements is likely. Deflection limits
of L /240 and L /480 are utilized for the portion of deflection
that occurs after the installation of the nonstructural items if
they are not likely or are likely, respectively, to be damaged
by large deflections. The deflections occurring after the in-
stallation of these items include a fraction of the time-de-
pendent effects determined from eq. [2], and the immediate
deflection of other transient loads according to eq. [1]. Ac-
cording to Gardner (2001), there is general agreement that
this incremental long-term deflection after installation of
nonstructural items is typically the more critical case com-
pared with immediate transient live load deflections.
Flexural stiffness
An integral part of the deflection calculations defined in
the previous section is an evaluation of an appropriate mo-
ment of inertia for the cross section, to reflect the variable
cracked nature along the member length. Three approaches
to determining flexural stiffness were examined: a deemed-
to-comply minimum member thickness technique and two
analytical approaches that directly determine an effective
moment of inertia, Ie.
CSA A23.3–04 ‘‘deemed to comply’’ with deflection limits
Table 9.2 in CSA A23.3–04 (CSA 2004) provides mini-
mum thickness values for members that are deemed to com-
ply with deflection requirements for one-way members not
supporting or attached to elements likely to be damaged by
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 35, 2008
Both ends continuous Cantilever
28 10
21 8
large deflections. By this deflection control specification,
members sized using this technique would be expected to
limit the total incremental long-term deflection after installa-
tion of nonstructural items to L/240 (CSA 2004). Values for
minimum thickness h as a function of the span length L are
provided, based on the member type and the static configu-
ration. These thickness requirements are summarized in Ta-
ble 1 according to the corresponding maximum L /h ratios.
It is recognized that changes in the reinforcement yield
strength will alter the longitudinal reinforcement quantity re-
A23.3–04, the maximum permitted L /h ratios in Table 1
should be adjusted for reinforcement strengths other than
fy = 400 MPa through the relationship:
ðL=hÞ400
½3
ðL=hÞfy ¼
½0:4 þ ðfy =670Þ

where (L /h)400 is a value from Table 1.
For members conforming to Table 1, eq. [3], and the
L /240 deflection limit specification noted above, the
flexural stiffness need not be directly determined. CSA
A23.3–04 does not require direct checks of the predicted
deflection for these members. However, Branson (1977)
suggested that this technique was suitable for initial mem-
ber proportioning, but recommended that direct deflection
calculations be completed for all members.
Other design standards and codes that also incorporate
deemed-to-comply deflection provisions vary in the overall
requirements in comparison with the CSA A23.3–04 provi-
sions. ACI 318–05 (ACI Committee 318 2005) contains
deemed-to-comply deflection provisions that are similar to
CSA A23.3–04. Deemed-to-comply deflection provisions in
the BS 8110–85 standard (BSI 1985) dictate the same L /h
ratios for beams or slabs, but provide adjustment factors
based on the flexural tension reinforcement stress, the com-
pression reinforcement ratio, and for span lengths exceeding
10 m. Limiting L /h ratios from the Eurocode2 standard
(CEN 2004) deemed-to-comply provisions are dependent on
concrete strength, and the provided flexural tension and
flexural compression reinforcement ratios in relation to the
reinforcement ratios needed for ULS requirements. Euro-
code2 modifies the limiting L /h ratio for spans greater than
7 m. Note that among all design standards and codes, differ-
ences in load and resistance factors and in the allowable de-
flection criteria will result in variations in limiting L /h
ratios.
Branson’s method for bending stiffness
Branson (1977) developed a deflection calculation techni-
que based on an effective moment of inertia concept. In a
reinforced concrete slab subject to transverse loading, the
portion of the member in the high-moment region may have
# 2008 NRC Canada
Tang and Lubell
flexural cracks while low-moment regions remain un-
cracked. Branson estimated a transition from the uncracked
flexural stiffness EcIg to a fully cracked stiffness EcIcr
through an empirically derived expression:

3 "
3 #
Mcr Mcr
½4
Ie ¼ Ig þ 1  Icr
Ma Ma
where Mcr is the cracking moment; Ma is the maximum
characteristic moment under the load being considered; Ig is
the moment of inertia of the gross section about the centroi-
dal axis, neglecting the reinforcement; and Icr is the cracked
moment of inertia of a singly reinforced section, given by
eq. [5]:
1
½5
Icr ¼ bðkdÞ3 þ nAs ðd  kdÞ2
3
where b is the member width; k ispthe coefficient for solving
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
cracked section dimensions (¼ 2n þ ðnÞ2  n); d is
the effective depth of the reinforcement from the compres-
sion face; h is the modular ratio (= Es / Ec); As is the area
of flexural tension reinforcement, with reinforcement ratio
evaluated as r = As/bd.
According to CSA A23.3–04 (CSA 2004), the cracking
momentpM ffiffiffifficr can be related to the modulus of rupture
fr ¼ 0:6 fc0 and the gross section properties through the ex-
pression:
fr Ig
½6
Mcr ¼
yt
For simple spans with a prismatic cross section, the effec-
tive moment of inertia is determined based on the midspan
conditions for member geometry, reinforcement detailing,
and applied moment. A weighted average of the effective
moment of inertia can be utilized for continuous members:
Ie,avg = 0.7Iem + 0.15(Ie1 + Ie2) when both ends are continu-
ous or Ie,avg = 0.85Iem + 0.15Iec for one end continuous,
where Iem is the midspan condition and Ie1, Ie2, and Iec are
the conditions at the continuous ends.
Bischoff’s method for bending stiffness
Bischoff (2005a, 2005b) developed an alternative formu-
lation for effective moment of inertia. The model in this ap-
proach assumed that the effective stiffness was influenced
by tension stiffening, which arises from tension carried by
the concrete between the flexural cracks. The concrete con-
tribution to flexural stiffness was modelled with a tension
stiffening factor that decreased with increasing load once
the member had cracked. Under Bischoff’s method, the ef-
fective moment of inertia can be calculated as:
Icr
½7
Ie ¼
1  ½1  ðIcr =Ig Þ
ðMcr =Ma Þ2
where symbolic notation and the parameters Mcr, fr, and Icr
are as per Branson’s method. A weighted average of Ie is
also utilized for continuous members. Bischoff (2005a,
2005b), Bischoff and Scanlon (2007a), and Gilbert (2007)
have all shown that improved predictions of short-term de-
flections are achieved using eq. [7], across a wide range of
1079
Fig. 1. Variation in maximum span-to-depth ratio based on longitu-
dinal reinforcement ratio.
steel-reinforced member configurations, but especially for
lightly reinforced members having r less than 1%.
Comparison of deflection methods
Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between the maximum
L /h ratio and r for simply supported members subjected to a
uniformly distributed load according to Branson’s method
(eq. [4]) and Bischoff’s method (eq. [7]). A longitudinal re-
inforcement yield strength of fy = 400 MPa was utilized,
whereby the service moment Ma was 73% of the factored
moment, Mf, for the case of equal live load and dead load.
A reinforcement stress at the service condition of approxi-
mately 250 MPa would apply, based on CSA A23.3–04 re-
sistance factors (CSA 2004). No compression reinforcement
was included. A deflection limit of L/240 was applied to the
total incremental dead-load deflection (from 28 d to 5 years),
the long-term deflections to 5 years from superimposed dead
loads and 70% sustained live loads (applied at 28 d), and the
immediate deflection from the transient live load. Additional
assumptions for the configuration are described in Fig. 1.
For each member thickness considered (h = 300 and
600 mm), the maximum permitted L for an acceptable de-
flection of L/240 was evaluated, and the result plotted in
terms of a maximum L /h ratio. The maximum L /h ratio cor-
responding to the flexural capacity was also determined ac-
cording to CSA A23.3–04 provisions. A valid member
design should have a L /h ratio below the corresponding
deflection-controlled and flexural-capacity-controlled curves.
Figure 1 shows that as the longitudinal reinforcement ra-
tio decreases, the maximum L /h ratio that satisfies the de-
flection criterion will increase for members evaluated by
both Branson’s method and Bischoff’s method. As ‘‘slabs’’
and ‘‘beams’’ typically have reinforcement ratios of about
0.3%–0.7% and 1.0%–2.0%, respectively, it can be identi-
fied that variations in the L /h ratio by member type in Ta-
ble 1 can be justified. However, the maximum L /h ratios
from the current CSA A23.3–04 deemed-to-comply provi-
sions do not reflect L /h limits obtained from the direct de-
# 2008 NRC Canada
1080 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 35, 2008

flection calculations. For the design criteria depicted for Fig. 2. Design procedure for optimized thickness of slabs according
specified member thickness, the span length of both beams to deflection control.
and slabs according to the deemed-to-comply approach ex-
ceeds the corresponding maximum span lengths determined
from direct deflection calculations. For very lightly rein-
forced members, flexural capacity governs minimum mem-
ber thickness. For direct deflection calculations of slabs
with a moderate reinforcement ratio r of about 0.4%,
Bischoff’s method predicts more flexible members than
Branson’s method, thus requiring shorter spans for the same
member thickness. Also note that for this magnitude of r,
the maximum L /h ratio decreases as h increases. Further-
more, the trend lines in Fig. 1 are very steep for lightly re-
inforced slabs according to both formulations for Ie, making
the maximum L /h quite sensitive to the actual reinforcement
ratio and hence, the corresponding flexural strength require-
ments. When r is greater than about 0.7%, Bischoff’s
method predicts a similar maximum L /h ratio to Branson’s
method, and both predict similar L /h ratios regardless of
member thickness.
As numerous design parameters affect the reinforcement
quantity required for the ULS criterion and the correspond-
ing stress in the reinforcement at service loads, these influ-
ences must be systematically studied when validating
maximum L /h ratios for deemed-to-comply provisions that
provide adequate deflection control. This paper focuses on
lightly reinforced one-way slabs, where there is the greatest
sensitivity in predicted deflections to the member geometry,
reinforcement parameters, and deflection calculation
method. Further analysis reported in this paper used Bis-
choff’s method.

Typical design sequence for one-way slabs

To adequately validate deemed-to-comply deflection re-
quirements for slabs, it was necessary to consider member
configurations, geometries, and loading consistent with con-
ditions encountered in design practice. This study evaluated
deflections in one-way slabs for building-type structures
subjected to uniform floor loading. Loading consisted of
member self-weight, superimposed loading to account for
mechanical systems or partitions, and typical occupancy
loads defined in the National Building Code of Canada
(NBCC-2005) (NRCC 2005).
It is required that all structural elements should satisfy
strength requirements at the ULS. The members must also
be designed to ensure that deflections are within acceptable
limits for their intended use under service load conditions. A
flowchart to describe the typical design sequence used in in-
dustry practice is provided in Fig. 2, and is briefly described
as follows. Initially, a member thickness must be selected strength requirement at the ULS is evaluated and the longi-
(Step 1). For one-way slab construction in building-type tudinal reinforcement is proportioned accordingly (Step 2).
structures, it is common practice to first select a cross sec- The shear capacity of the slab is evaluated at the ULS and
tion that is expected to satisfy deflection requirements ac- is compared with the loading demand (Step 3). In this study,
cording to the deemed-to-comply L /h ratios (Table 1). If a the ‘‘Simplified Method’’ of shear design from CSA A23.3–
reinforcement strength other than fy = 400 MPa is utilized, 04 (CSA 2004) is utilized, but is adjusted to account for
the minimum value of h must be adjusted as per the rela- varying longitudinal reinforcement strengths according to
tionship in eq. [3]. However, if h is directly determined in the procedure from Bentz and Collins (2006). If the member
later steps from the governing case of explicit deflection cal- satisfies the requirements of the deemed-to-comply method,
culations or strength requirements, eq. [3] is not directly ap- including adjustment for fy, no further check of deflection is
plicable. Next, for the member size selected, the flexural required (Step 4a). Alternatively, the member deflection is
# 2008 NRC Canada
Tang and Lubell
evaluated using Branson’s method (Step 4b) according to
current CSA A23.3 provisions, or by using Bischoff’s
method (Step 4c) that better reflects the deflection of lightly
reinforced members. The deflection of a member satisfying
Step 4a could also be evaluated by Step 4b or 4c, to allow
optimization of h. Also note that to satisfy the strength or
deflection criterion at Steps 2, 3 or 4, the slab thickness at
Step 1 can be increased. Whereas actual slab designs in
practice should have convenient increments in thickness to
permit practical construction, this study focused on opti-
mized slab thicknesses that just satisfied the most stringent
criterion from Steps 2, 3 or 4c.
Parametric influences on deflection
It is noted that the maximum L /h values corresponding to
the deemed-to-comply technique (Table 1) are given as con-
stant values for each member type (slab or beam) and for
each static system (simply supported, etc.). Only variations
in reinforcement yield strength are given additional consid-
eration through eq. [3]. However, the design equations for
strength (Steps 2 and 3 in Fig. 2) and for detailed deflection
computations (Steps 4b or 4c in Fig. 2) will be influenced
by numerous parameters applicable to each particular design
case. These can be broadly classified as: (i) parameters in-
fluencing the service moment magnitude and its fraction rel-
ative to the ultimate moment and (ii) parameters influencing
the proportion of the member that will be cracked in flexure.
In this context, r should not be selected, as was done for
Fig. 1, but instead r should be determined according to the
corresponding ULS. Note that adjustments to the required r
can also be made through variations in fy, which is consid-
ered as a separate third classification in this paper. A sys-
tematic evaluation of the influence on deflection from
significant parameters in these three primary classifications
was completed to validate appropriate simplifications for
the development of improved maximum L /h relationships
for the deemed-to-comply approach. The limiting L /h ratios
were developed for each case by considering the incremental
deflection from 28 d (time of application of sustained live
load and superimposed dead load) until 60 months (i.e., s =
2) combined with the immediate deflection of the transient
live load fraction. Only flexural tension reinforcement was
assumed.
Factors affecting serviceability limit state and ultimate
limit state moments
The deflection of a one-way slab will be related to the
magnitude of the service moment Ma, and the corresponding
ultimate moment, Mf. The moments are related to the span
length, the support configuration, and the applied loading.
As Mf is used for determining the flexural reinforcement
quantities, a higher Mf will result in an increased r for a
constant slab thickness, thereby increasing Icr. However, if
the slab thickness is allowed to adjust, the ratio of dead
load to live load will change. As the NBCC-2005 (NRCC
2005) utilizes basic load factors of 1.25 and 1.5 applied to
dead load and live load, respectively, the Ma/Mf ratio will
change. Furthermore, as the superimposed dead load for
items such as partitions increases as a fraction of the total
load, the Ma/Mf ratio will also change. In both cases, this
1081
change in ratio will affect Ie as well as the service condition
against which deflections must be validated.
The relationship between the maximum L /h ratio and the
slab span L according to Bischoff’s method is illustrated in
Fig. 3a for different live load intensities. It is observed that
the maximum L /h ratio for adequate deflection control will
decrease as the span length increases. Furthermore, the max-
imum L /h ratio decreases as the applied live load increases
(Fig. 3a) or as the superimposed dead load intensity in-
creases (Fig. 3b). Lightly loaded slabs are observed to be
more sensitive to the span length, as the slope of the maxi-
mum L /h to span relationship decreases as the live load in-
creases. Note that for the cases presented, thinner slabs can
be used for short spans or for light loading conditions than
would be suggested by the deemed-to-comply L /h ratios
from CSA A23.3–04 (CSA 2004).
A fraction of the live load gLL may be sustained, giving
rise to long-term amplification of deflection (eq. [2]). Since
this fraction may differ depending on the occupancy load for
the structure, this parameter was also considered for influ-
ence on minimum slab thickness. However, as demonstrated
in Fig. 4, the influence was minor and the slope of the L /h
to gLL relationship was almost flat. While a sustained live
load fraction of 40% to 70% would be typical for many
building occupancy conditions, a sustained live load fraction
of gLL = 100% (the worst condition for deflection) was used
for later analysis reported in this paper for development of
revised deemed-to-comply L /h limits. Note that gLL =
100% is consistent with Bischoff and Scanlon’s (2007b)
recommendation to use the magnitude of Ie corresponding
to full dead and full live loads for deflection calculations
at all intermediate load stages, as a simplified technique to
consider influences from early age loading during construc-
tion and subsequent changes in member stiffness arising
from sustained loading.
Factors affecting degree of concrete cracking
Under both Branson’s method and Bischoff’s method of
evaluating Ie, the cracking moment pffiffiffiis
ffi directly related to the
modulus of rupture, and hence, fc0 . Thus, as the concrete
strength increases, Mcr will also increase. From eq. [4] or
[7], it is observed that Ie will tend towards Ig as Mcr in-
creases as a fraction of Ma, thus permitting thinner sections
for a given span length. On the other hand, a change in slab
thickness would also alter the corresponding Mcr (eq. [6])
and the corresponding loads and reinforcement quantities,
thereby altering Icr (eq. [5]). The relationship between f ’c
and maximum L /h using Bischoff’s method can be conven-
iently determined from Fig. 5. Within the practical range of
concrete strengths for members designed by the deemed-to-
comply deflection technique of CSA A23.3–04 (CSA 2004),
it is observed that using a constant value of f ’c of about
25 MPa would provide preliminary values of maximum L /h
limits that are in reasonable agreement with optimized cross-
sections for most members.
It is also identified that Ie will be sensitive to the expres-
sion used for evaluating modulus of rupture, fr. Modulus of
rupture is used to relate f ’c to the cracking moment (eq. [6]).
Several researchers (Scanlon and Murray 1982; Rangan and
Sarker 2001; Gilbert 2007; Bischoff and Scanlon 2007a)
have identified the importance of accounting for shrinkage
# 2008 NRC Canada
1082
Fig. 3. Influence of applied loading on maximum span-to-depth ratio: (a) span; (b) superimposed dead load.
Fig. 4. Influence of sustained live load on maximum span-to-depth
ratio.
strains, which will reduce the maximum flexural tensile
stress in the concrete before flexural cracking occurs. These
researchers have proposed revised expressions for Mcr to ac-
count for this effect. However, the actual concrete mix and
curing conditions are seldom known during initial design.
Instead, a normalized cracking stress parameter gcr could be
implemented as a scalar coefficient to eq. [6]. For example,
Bischoff and Scanlon (2007b) suggested that a reduction by
1/3 from the code fr value, corresponding to gcr = 0.67,
could adequately account for the effects of restrained shrink-
age. Figure 6 illustrates the relationship between gcr and
maximum L /h for adequate deflection control. Thicker slabs
are required as gcr decreases, but little variation in L /h oc-
curs for gcr < 40%. In the example shown for a live load of
2.4 kPa, the use of Bischoff and Scanlon’s recommendation
of gcr = 0.67 would require a slab that is about 23% thicker,
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 35, 2008
Fig. 5. Influence of concrete strength on maximum span-to-depth
ratio.
for the same span, than for a slab with thickness determined
using Bischoff’s method and the implied CSA A23.3–04
value of gcr = 1.0. The value gcr = 0.67 is adopted during
development of improved deemed-to-comply maximum L /h
ratios later in this paper.
Influence of reinforcement strength
As the reinforcement yield strength increases, the required
reinforcement quantity to satisfy the flexural capacity at the
ULS can be decreased for constant h. Such a change will
lower Icr and result in a more flexible member. According
to CSA A23.3–04 (CSA 2004) deemed-to-comply provi-
sions, small changes in the reinforcement yield strength will
require substantial changes in the maximum L /h ratio for
slabs that are assumed to have adequate deflection control
(eq. [3] and Fig. 7). As fy increases from 400 to 600 MPa,
# 2008 NRC Canada
Tang and Lubell
Fig. 6. Influence of cracking moment on maximum span-to-depth
ratio.
the slab thickness would need to increase by about 30% ac-
cording to eq. [3]. However, slab designs using direct de-
flection calculations based on Branson’s method (i.e., CSA
A23.3–04 provisions) were found to have minimal sensitiv-
ity to the reinforcement strength, where a change in fy from
400 to 600 MPa would require a 1% reduction in maximum
L /h for the case of a 6.0 m span subjected to a live load of
2.4 kPa. Note that as the fy increases, r will decrease for a
constant cross-section size, and Bischoff’s method of deflec-
tion prediction is expected to provide better agreement with
actual deflections. Slab designs according to Bischoff’s
method, shown in Fig. 7, will require smaller maximum L /h
ratios than Branson’s method, but again, relatively low
sensitivity of maximum L /h with reinforcement yield
strength is observed (i.e., a 3% reduction in maximum L /h
as fy goes from 400 to 600 MPa). Indeed, the L /h to fy re-
lationship is nearly flat for fy greater than 300 MPa accord-
ing to direct deflection calculations using Bischoff’s
method, in contrast to the sharply dropping curve for the
existing deemed-to-comply method (Fig. 7). Figure 7 also
illustrates that the maximum L /h value should reflect the
magnitude of the imposed live load, which is not consid-
ered in the existing deemed-to-comply approach in CSA
A23.3–04.
Recommended preliminary L /h design
charts
Current deemed-to-comply deflection provisions in CSA
A23.3–04 (CSA 2004) are based on maximum L /h ratios
for different member types and static configuration, with an
adjustment for the reinforcement strength (Table 1 and
eq. [3]). On the other hand, the parametric studies presented
in this paper have shown that the maximum L /h ratio to
achieve satisfactory deflection control is sensitive to the
span length, imposed load, concrete cracking moment, and
maximum incremental deflection limit. There was limited
sensitivity between maximum L /h and the reinforcement
1083
Fig. 7. Influence of reinforcement yield strength on maximum
span-to-depth ratio.
yield strength or the percentage of live load that is sus-
tained. Thus, design aids suitable for rapid thickness selec-
tion of one-way slabs should directly include the parameters
of live load, span, and deflection limit. Suitable assumed
values for the sustained fraction of live load, concrete
strength, normalized shear cracking parameter, and rein-
forcement yield strength can be incorporated. It is recom-
mended that Bischoff’s method for calculating Ie in eq. [7]
be utilized, as it better reflects the bending stiffness over a
broad range of reinforcement ratios, including lightly loaded
slabs.
Different design aids can be established for each common
design case, where Fig. 8 represents a suggested design aid
for office occupancy loading above the first floor, with a
live load of 2.4 kPa according to NBCC-2005 (NRCC
2005). A superimposed dead load of 1.0 kPa for partitions
and finishes is included. All calculations reflect the incre-
mental deflection to an age of 5 years. Consistent with the
parametric study results presented in this paper, Fig. 8 was
developed to include a cracking stress parameter gcr = 0.67,
a sustained live load load ratio gLL = 100%, and concrete
strength f ’c = 25 MPa. Only flexural tension reinforcement
has been considered. Figure 8 is consistent with current
CSA A23.3–04 factors (e.g., long-term deflection multi-
pliers, load and resistance factors), but would require review
if these factors change in future editions of the design stand-
ard. Note that the vertical scale differs for each plot in
Fig. 8, for ease of practical use. The relationship between
maximum L /h and span is steepest for the fix–fix condition
and flattest for the cantilever configuration. It was noted ear-
lier that fy has only a small influence on the maximum L /h
ratio for deflection control. Curves for three values of fy are
provided in Fig. 8 to emphasize this concept in a later sec-
tion of this paper. For standardized design aids, it is recom-
mended instead that a single value of fy be adopted, and
multiple curves be constructed on each plot to represent dif-
ferent applied load combinations and different deflection
limits. A base value of fy = 400 MPa is recommended.
# 2008 NRC Canada
1084
Fig. 8. Suggested design aids for office occupancy loading above the first floor.
In preliminary member sizing, the maximum L /h ratio
can be determined from Fig. 8, based on the static system,
span, and deflection criterion. From this L /h ratio, a suitable
initial slab thickness h can be determined, as a replacement
for Step 1 in Fig. 2. Note that candidate slab thicknesses are
at typical increments of at least 10 mm, and thus a thicker
and stiffer slab than required would normally result. How-
ever, it is recommended that deflection calculations be com-
pleted for all designs (Step 4c in Fig. 2), and simple
computer spreadsheets can be developed for this purpose.
Design example
Whereas the reinforcement grade supplied in Canada is
typically fy = 400 MPa, a common design practice for one-
way slabs is to reduce the effective design strength for cal-
culation purposes to only fy = 300 MPa. According to Ta-
ble 1 and eq. [3] from the existing CSA A23.3 (CSA 2004)
deemed-to-comply deflection provisions, a maximum L /h
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 35, 2008
ratio of 23.6 can be used for a simply supported slab for the
case of fy = 300 MPa, in place of L /h = 20 that would apply
for the same member designed with fy = 400 MPa. The re-
sult would be a reduction in h of 18%, but with about one-
third more flexural reinforcement for fy = 300 MPa as the
relationship between As and fy is approximately linear to sat-
isfy the ULS. This may represent a more economical design
based on relative material costs. An overall savings in the
structural system may also result from reduced forces for
the gravity- or lateral-force-resisting systems, due to lower
self-weight of the thinner slabs.
Figure 9 and Case A in Table 2 summarize a typical two-
span prismatic slab design for suspended slabs with office
occupancy loading (above the first floor) using this approach
and current CSA A23.3–04 deemed-to-comply deflection
provisions. For the specified 8.0 m spans, the minimum slab
thickness when fy = 300 MPa is computed as (L /24)(0.4 +
300/670) = L /28.3 = 283 mm. Whereas this would be
rounded up to perhaps 290 mm for practical construction, h
# 2008 NRC Canada
Tang and Lubell 1085

Fig. 9. Design example for slab heights with deemed-to-comply approach for varied reinforcement strength.

Table 2. Design example summary.

Case A Case B Case C Case D

Table 1 + eq. [3] [CSA Figure 8 Table 1 + eq. [3] Figure 8
Design method for ‘‘h’’ A23.3–04 (CSA 2004)] (Proposed) (CSA A23.3–04) (Proposed)
fy (MPa) 300 300 500 500
h (mm) 283 307 382 329
d (mm) 245 269 344 291
As1 (mm2/m) 994 950 764* 658*
r1 (%) 0.41 0.35 0.22 0.23
As2 (mm2/m) 1819 1732 926 998
r2 (%) 0.74 0.64 0.27 0.34
Ie,avg (mm4/m) 532106 706106 2333106 733106
Dinc (mm) 40.2 31.7 11.0 31.9
Dlimit (mm) 33.3 33.3 33.3 33.3
Acceptable deflection? NOT OK OK OK OK
Note: Rows in bold typeface indicate main parameters changed for each Case.
*Governed by minimum specified reinforcement in slabs of 0.002Ag.

is established as 283 mm to emphasize an optimized thick-
ness approach in this example. Table 2 also summarizes the
flexural reinforcement requirements for the ULS under the
simple case of uniform loads on all spans (i.e., ignoring live
load patterns). No moment redistribution is assumed. The
fraction of bottom reinforcement that may be continuous
through the central column region is ignored, and all cross
sections are treated as singly reinforced. The corresponding
overall Ie for the fix–pin span is utilized in subsequent de-
flection calculations. As the member thickness satisfies the
deemed-to-comply criterion of CSA A23.3–04, no specific
check on slab deflection is required. However, direct deflec-
tion calculations according to Bischoff’s method indicate ex-
pected long-term incremental deflection (i.e., Dinc = 2Di,DL +
3Di,(SDL+LL)) near midspan would be about 40.2 mm (Case
A). This predicted deflection exceeds the criterion of L/240
by 21%, indicating that the existing deemed-to-comply pro-
visions can result in overly flexible slabs when a low design
strength for the reinforcement is utilized. The same two-
span prismatic design was repeated using the design aid de-
veloped in Fig. 8 (Case B in Table 2). The maximum L /h
ratio was established as 26.1 from Fig. 8. This corresponds
to h = 307 mm, or about 8% thicker than the slab in Case
A. Table 2 summarizes the significant design results, where
the expected incremental deflection was predicted as only
31.7 mm, which is 5% below the L/240 design requirement.
This confirms the ability of the proposed design aids to de-
termine member thicknesses that comply with deflection re-
quirements.
A similar design comparison is provided in Table 2 for
members with fy = 500 MPa (Cases C and D). This rein-
forcement strength is readily available in the marketplace
and is permitted by CSA A23.3–04. It is observed that exist-
ing CSA A23.3–04 deemed-to-comply provisions (Case C)
will require a slab thickness that is 16% greater than those
conforming to the proposed design aids in Fig. 8 (Case D).
Note that Case C and D designs are both governed by mini-
mum specified longitudinal reinforcement requirements of
0.002Ag for slabs in the positive moment region, and have
similar reinforcement area requirements in the negative mo-
ment region. Thus, Case D requires less reinforcement due
to a smaller h. Cases C and D are both predicted to have
adequate deflection control, where the incremental deflec-
tion is 67% and 4% smaller than limiting deflections, re-
spectively. Clearly Case D, using the proposed design aid
from Fig. 8, represents a design solution with greater econ-
omy and efficiency of materials when utilizing high-strength
reinforcement in design practice.
Recommended changes to deflection
provisions
The current deemed-to-comply maximum L /h ratios for
deflection control have been shown to be in poor agreement
with direct deflection calculations for a large range of com-
mon design parameters. Thus, it is recommended that Clause
9.8.2.1 and Table 9.2 in the CSA A23.3–04 (CSA 2004) de-
flection provisions, which establish the deemed-to-comply
method, be withdrawn. L /h ratios based on Table 9.2 should
only be utilized when they are part of an overall design ap-
proach that includes direct calculation of expected deflec-
tions and thus, could be included within the nonmandatory
requirements of the CSA A23.3–04 Commentary.
The design aids developed in Fig. 8 were demonstrated to
permit rapid selection of h for members that would conform
to deflection control criteria. Additional design aids can also
# 2008 NRC Canada
1086
be produced for other loading or deflection limit criteria
commonly used by design practitioners. It was identified
that within practical ranges, the concrete strength and rein-
forcement strength can be assumed as 25 and 400 MPa, re-
spectively, when developing these aids. Furthermore, the
normalized cracking ratio and the fraction of live load sus-
tained can be taken as gcr = 67% and gLL = 100%, respec-
tively, consistent with recommendations from Bischoff and
Scanlon (2007b). As there are parameter assumptions inher-
ent in any simplified design aid, it is recommended that up-
dated CSA A23.3–04 provisions require deflection control
verification through direct calculation of deflections for all
designs. Simple spreadsheets or analysis software can be de-
veloped using the formulations presented in this paper.
Conclusions
This analytical study identified the influence of design pa-
rameters on the deflection response of lightly reinforced
slabs, to validate and improve deemed-to-comply deflection
control provisions. The following conclusions were identi-
fied:
(1) The maximum L /h ratio for lightly reinforced slabs was
demonstrated to be sensitive to the reinforcement ratio,
span length, applied loading, and static system. By in-
adequately accounting for all of these influences, maxi-
mum L /h ratios determined with the deemed-to-comply
provisions of CSA A23.3–04 (CSA 2004) were shown
to be in poor agreement with maximum L /h ratios deter-
mined from direct deflection calculations.
(2) There was minimal influence on the maximum L /h ratio
for adequate deflection control of members from the
concrete strength and reinforcement strength. A normal-
ized cracking ratio and fraction of live load sustained
can be taken as gcr = 67% and gLL = 100%, respectively.
(3) Existing CSA A23.3–04 deemed-to-comply deflection
control provisions were demonstrated to result in overly
flexible slabs when reinforcement strengths below fy =
400 MPa were utilized, and thicker slabs than required
when high-strength reinforcement was utilized.
(4) Design aids were developed that could be used for rapid
member thickness selection based on applied load, mem-
ber span, and static system. The results obtained using
the design aids were demonstrated to be in good agree-
ment with deflection predictions using a direct calcula-
tion approach.
Acknowledgements
The research described in this paper was funded by the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Can-
ada and by the University of Alberta. Discussions with P.
Bischoff during the preparation of this paper were greatly
appreciated.
References
ACI Committee 318. 2005. Building code requirements for struc-
tural concrete and commentary. ACI 318–05 and 318R–05.
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich.
ACI Committee 435. 2003. Control of deflection in concrete struc-
tures. ACI 435R–95. American Concrete Institute, Farmington
Hills, Mich.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 35, 2008
Bentz, E.C., and Collins, M.P. 2006. Development of the 2004 ca-
nadian standards association (CSA) A23.3 shear provisions for
reinforced concrete. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering,
33(5): 521–534. doi:10.1139/L06-005.
Bischoff, P.H. 2005a. A rational proposal for predicting beam de-
flection. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the
Canadian Society for Civil Engineering, Toronto, Ont., 2–
4 June 2005. Canadian Socety for Civil Engineering, Montréal,
Que. Paper No. GC-299–1/10.
Bischoff, P.H. 2005b. Reevaluation of deflection prediction for
concrete beams reinforced with steel and fiber reinforced poly-
mer bars. Journal of Structural Engineering, 131(5): 752–767.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2005)131:5(752).
Bischoff, P.H., and Scanlon, A. 2007a. Effective moment of inertia
for calculating deflections of concrete members containing steel
reinforcement and fiber-reinforced polymer reinforcement. ACI
Structural Journal, 104(1): 68–75.
Bischoff, P.H., and Scanlon, A. 2007b. Deflection control by calcu-
lation of deflection. Concrete International, In press.
Branson, D.E. 1977. Deformation of concrete structures. McGraw
Hill, Toronto, Ont. 546 pp.
BSI. 1985. Structural use of concrete. Part 1: Code of practice for
design and construction. Standard BS 8110. British Standards
Institute, London, UK.
CEN. 2004. Design of concrete structures- Part 1–1: General rules
and rules for buildings. Eurocode 2 (EN1992–1-1). European
Committee for Standardization, Brussels.
Choi, B.-S., Oh, B.H., and Scanlon, A. 2002. Probabilistic assess-
ment of ACI 318 minimum thickness requirements for one-way
members. ACI Structural Journal, 99(3): 344–351.
CSA. 2004. Design of concrete structures. CAN/CSA standard
A23.3-04. Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ont.
Gardner, N.J. 2001. Span/thickness limitations for deflection con-
trol. In SP-203: Code Provisions for Deflection Control In Con-
crete Structures. Edited by E.G. Nawy, and A. Scanlon.
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich. pp. 95–
114.
Gardner, N.J., and Zhang, J. 1996. Controlling deflection service-
ability by span/depth limits and long-term deflection multipliers
for reinforced concrete beams. In SP-161: Recent developments
in deflection evaluation of concrete. Edited by E.G. Nawy. Amer-
ican Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich. pp. 165–195.
Gilbert, R.I. 2007. Tension stiffening in lightly reinforced concrete
slabs. Journal of Structural Engineering, 133(6): 899–903.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9445(2007)133:6(899).
Grossman, J.S. 1981. Simplified computations for effective mo-
ment of inertia Ie and minimum thickness to avoid deflection
computations. ACI Journal Proceedings, 78(6): 423–439.
NRCC. 2005. National building code of Canada 2005. Vols. 1 and
2. National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, Ont.
Ospina, C.E., and Gross, S.P. 2005. Rationale for the ACI 440.1R–
06 indirect deflection control design provisions. In SP-230: 7th
International Symposium on Fiber-Reinforced (FRP) Polymer
Reinforcement for Concrete Structures. Edited by C.K. Shield,
J.P. Busel, S.L. Walkup, and D.D. Gremel. American Concrete
Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich. pp. 651–669.
Rangan, B.V., and Sarker, P.K. 2001. Bending stiffness of concrete
flexural members reinforced with high strength steel. In SP-203:
Code Provisions for Deflection Control in Concrete Structures.
Edited by E.G. Nawy, and A. Scanlon. American Concrete Insti-
tute, Farmington Hills, MI., pp. 143–156.
Scanlon, A., and Choi, B.-S. 1999. Evaluation of ACI 318 mini-
mum thickness requirements for one-way slabs. ACI Structural
Journal, 96(4): 616–621.
# 2008 NRC Canada
Tang and Lubell 1087

Scanlon, A., and Murray, D.W. 1982. Practical calculation of two- Ma maximum service moment
way slab deflections. Concrete International, 4(11): 43–50. Mcr cracking moment
Mf factored moment
List of symbols n modular ratio
s time duration parameter
Vc shear capacity
Ag gross area of cross-section
Vf factored shear force
As longitudinal reinforcement area
wDL dead load
b width of slab
wLL live load
d effective depth of flexural tension reinforcement
wSDL superimposed dead load
db reinforcement bar diameter
yt distance from centroid to flexural tension face
dv effective shear depth
a1 rectangular stress block parameter
Ec secant stiffness of concrete
b1 rectangular stress block parameter
Es Young’s Modulus of steel reinforcement
gcr normalized cracking stress parameter
f ’c concrete compressive strength from cylinders
gLL fraction of live load sustained
fr modulus of rupture

deflection
fy yield strength of longitudinal reinforcement

i immediate deflection
h overall member height

inc incremental deflection
Icr cracked, transformed moment of inertia

L long-term deflection
Ie effective moment of inertia

limit limit for maximum deflection
Ie,avg weighted average of effective moment of inertia

max maximum deflection
Iem midspan condition, effective moment of inertia
3x axial strain parameter for shear capacity
Ie1, Ie2, Iec conditions at the continuous ends, effective moment
zs deflection multiplier for sustained loads
of inertia
r longitudinal reinforcement ratio
Ig gross moment of inertia
r’ compression reinforcement ratio
k coefficient, for solving cracked section dimensions
fc resistance factor for concrete
K deflection coefficient based on static system
fs resistance factor for steel reinforcement
L span length
M characteristic moment

# 2008 NRC Canada