Design of slab-on-grades supported with soil

reinforced by rigid inclusions

J. Racinais1 and C. Plomteux
MENARD, Nozay, France

ABSTRACT
The design of industrial and logistic building’s slab-on-grades is a complex exercise. The design needs to consider the different
loading types and configurations (uniform or alternated loading, racks, live loadings…) together with the relative positions from
the hinged constructions joints to the loads, whose position and intensity can vary during the life of the structure. The non-
uniform stress reaction distribution in the soil reinforced with rigid inclusions creates an additional stress in the slab with a
different pattern than the ones of the loads and of the joints. The optimization of the design of the slab becomes a complex
problem with three different intertwined patterns (loading, joints, and rigid inclusions) that can move relative to one another
with usually no typical symmetry conditions. Existing code of practice dedicated to slab-on-grades are only able to consider
uniform soil conditions and the typical size of those structures forbid the modelling of the full extent of the slab. Through the
decomposition of this complex problem into the sum of three unit variable-separated problems, this paper presents a simple and
comprehensive method to take into account all the parameters of the equation. This method is a powerful solution which is easy
to use while allowing for the precise optimization of the design of slab-on-grades. The approach has been validated and
calibrated with an extensive number of finite element calculations and has been integrated in the French ASIRI national research
program in France.

Keywords: design, slab, rigid inclusions, subgrade reaction, load transfer platform, bending moment

1 INTRODUCTION structure. Their relative position from the hinged

construction joints thus varies, highly influencing
Slab-on-grades are used in industrial and logistic the stress distribution in the slab.
buildings for heavy storage which usually The design of those slabs is typically based on
consists of several loading types and the soil profile, which is represented either by an
configurations from uniform (noted Load Case 1 equivalent vertical reaction coefficient KZ or an
as LC1 in the following) and alternated loading equivalent deformation modulus ES.
(noted LC2) to storage racks (noted LC3) When potential settlement of the slab is a
inducing multiple punctual loadings. problem, an efficient and cost-effective solution
While usually keeping an equivalent consists of reinforcing the soil with a dense grid
maximum contractual average value (typically 3 of vertical rigid or semi-rigid inclusions. In this
to 8 t/m²), the position and intensity of the loads, scenario, a granular Load Transfer Platform is
coming from temporary storage, can vary greatly installed between the slab and the rigid
during the life (and change of user) of the inclusions.

1
MENARD, 2 rue Gutenberg, 91620 Nozay, France. [email protected]
 The reduction of settlement provided by the - ES(NJ): bending moments distribution in a
reinforcement induces a significant reduction of continuous slab (without any hinged joints)
the bending moment in the slab. However, the over an equivalent homogeneous soil profile
non-uniform distribution of stress reaction in a - ES(JT): bending moments distribution in a
reinforced soil creates an additional stress in the slab with hinged joints over an equivalent
slab on a different pattern from the stress homogeneous soil profile
reaction distribution of the loads and of the - RI(NJ): bending moments distribution in a
joints. continuous slab over a soil reinforced with
It should be noted that slab-on-grades are the rigid inclusions,
only concrete structure in a building where - RI(JT): bending moments distribution in a
tension stresses are allowed and thus require a slab with hinged joints over a soil reinforced
precise estimation of the stresses. with rigid inclusions.
The optimization of the design of the slab We can combine those parameters in order to
becomes a complex problem with three decompose this complex problem (consisting of
intertwined patterns (loading, joints, and rigid calculating RI(JT) for any possible
inclusions) that can move relatively to one configuration) in three separated-variable
another. problems:
RI(JT) = [ma] + [mb] + [mc]
2 SEPARATION OF VARIABLES
2.1 Parameter [ma]
In terms of deformation, the soil reinforced with
Parameter [ma] = ES(JT) represents the impact of
rigid inclusions can easily be represented by an
the loadings configuration on a slab with joints,
equivalent soil profile, each layer being affected
without any impact from the non uniform
by an equivalent Young modulus E* and a
reaction of the inclusions. This parameter
Poisson ratio ν (see Figure 1). directly is calculated by the structural engineer
This equivalent soil profile can be deducted for all the configurations and relative positions
from an elementary axial-symmetrical between the loads and the hinged construction
calculation, centered on one single inclusion (see joints according to applicable codes of practice
figure 2), where an equivalent average uniform and regulation.
load is applied.
2.2 Parameter [mb]
Parameter [mb] = [RI(NJ)−ES(NJ)] represents the
impact of the rigid inclusions on a slab without
joints and doesn’t depend on the loading
distribution. [mb] has typically the same value
for LC1, LC2 and LC3 as long as their average
surface loading are the same. As deducting
ES(NJ) from RI(NJ) allows us to remove the
effect of the distribution of the loads over the
surface of the slab, this parameter only depends
on the equivalent average loading and doesn’t
depend on its type and configuration (uniform,
Figure 1. Equivalent uniform soil profile
alternate, punctual) (see 3.2).
As a consequence, [mb] can be estimated
By defining, for any of the possible type of from an elementary axial-symmetrical
loading, the following parameters: calculation, centered on one single inclusion,
where an equivalent average uniform load is uniform reaction of the inclusions. Deducting
applied. [RI(NJ)−ES(NJ)] that represents the impact of the
rigid inclusions on a continuous slab from
[RI(JT)−ES(JT)] that represents the impact of the
rigid inclusions on a slab with hinged joints,
allows us to isolate the sole impact of the relative
position of the joints from the inclusions and
remove the effect of both the surface distribution
of the loads, and the direct impact of the
inclusion on the slab itself. This combination
gives the same results for any loading
configuration with same surface average value
(see 3.3) and depends only on the geometry of
the joints and of the inclusions.
By construction, hinged joints cannot transmit
bending moments but can only transmit shear
forces. The effect of the joints is thus to bring the
bending moment in the slab to zero at position of
the joint and to “shift” the bending moment
Figure 2. General principle of axial-symmetrical models curve around the joint by the corresponding
value (see figure 4 around x = 3 m and x = 15
In term of bending moment in the slab, this m)).
calculation results in a positive bending moment
+Msup at the vertical of the inclusion and a 14.0

negative bending moment −Minf in the middle of

12.0

10.0
the grid (see figure 3). 8.0
Bending Moment (kN.m/m)

For the range of applied loading of this type of 6.0

structure, the bending moments Msup and Minf can 4.0

2.0
be considered proportional to the loading. 0.0
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0
-2.0
-4.0

-6.0
-8.0

-10.0 No joint
Distance (m) With joints

Figure 4. comparison of bending moment in the slab with and

without joints (position of joints are represented by bold
green lines)
Figure 3. bending moment in the slab resulting from
elementary axial-symmetrical calculation As a consequence, when we look at the
interaction between the joints and the inclusions
As a consequence, parameter [mb] is always (represented by parameter [mc]), the maximum
included in the interval [+Msup; −Minf]. effect of the joint can only be to bring the
bending moment created by the inclusions to
2.3 Parameter [mc] zero at position of the joints. The bending
Parameter [mc] = [RI(JT)−ES(JT)] − [RI(NJ) moment in the slab around the joints is thus
“shifted” by the corresponding value. The
−ES(NJ)] represents the interaction of the rigid
bending moment created by the inclusion being
inclusions with the joints, without any impact
from the distribution of loading or from the non [mb] = [+Msup; −Minf], the maximum impact of
parameter [mc], representing the interaction
between the joints and the inclusion is [mc] = - Load Case 3 (LC3) : storage racks (59 kN
−[mb] = [+Minf; −Msup]. point loads) in 1 m x 3 m spacing and 2.7 m
wide unloaded alleys
2.4 Conclusion
The main principle of the additional bending
moment method proposed in this article is then to
decompose the problem in three separated-
variable problems, namely [ma], [mb] and [mc],
that can be easily calculated separately.
Since that RI(JT) = [ma] + [mb] + [mc], that
[mb] is always included in the interval [+Msup;
−Minf] and that [mc] is always included in the
interval [+Minf; −Msup], the provided method
allows the two correcting terms [mb] and [mc] to
be added to parameter [ma] normally calculated
by the structural engineer:
RI(JT) = ES(JT) + [(Msup+Minf); −(Msup+Minf)]
The following paragraphs illustrate how these Figure 5. top view of 3D FEM model with dimensions
correcting terms can be easily assessed with the
help of simple FEM calculation and how the Analysis of the bending moment is made in
precision of those intervals can be minimize both principal directions from cross-sections A to
provided information on the geometry of the H (in X direction) and 1 to 6 (in Y direction).
joints and of the rigid inclusions. Simple stress distribution consideration confirms
that those directions are the most critical in terms
of bending moments.
3 FINITE ELEMENT MODELISATION By convention, positive bending moment
tends to create tension in the upper fiber of the
3.1 Preliminaries slab and negative bending moment tends to
create tension in the lower fiber of the slab.
In the course of the French ASIRI research
program, extensive FEM calculation have been
carried out with several FEM codes (PLAXIS 3.2 Parameter [mb]
3D, FLAC 3D, COSMOS/M) in order to validate Parameter [mb] corresponds to the additional
the proposed calculation method. bending moment induced by the non-uniform
The 3D FEM model that has been used for reaction created by the rigid inclusions on a
those calculations is 15 m x 15 m, with 6 m continuous slab (without any hinged joints).
spacing between the joints and 2.5 m spacing In terms of bending moment in the slab,
between the inclusions. elementary axial-symmetrical calculation where
Different load cases have been considered, but an equivalent average uniform load (15.6 kPa) is
for comparison, those load cases have been applied results in a positive bending moment of
chosen with the same average surface loading: +Msup = +5.7 kN.m/m at the vertical of the
- Load Case 1 (LC1) : uniform load at 15.6 inclusion and a negative bending moment −Minf =
kPa −3.0 kN.m/m in the middle of the grid.
- Load Case 2 (LC2) : alternated loading with
2.3 m wide loaded strips (34 kPa) and 2.7 m
wide unloaded alleys
 3.3 Parameter [mc]
Figure 8 shows, for each load case (LC1 to
LC3) the corresponding bending moment
distribution calculated with the 3D model from
ASIRI program for:
- RI(NJ) : rigid inclusions without any
- hinged joints
- RI(JT) : rigid inclusions with hinged joints
- [mc]=[RI(JT)- ES(JT)]-[RI(NJ)- ES(NJ)]
Positions of hinged joints are indicated by bold
green lines.
Once again, as expected, although the three
load cases create very different bending moment
RI(JT) in the slab in terms of intensity and
distribution, the [mc] parameter is exactly the
same for all cases and the curves show a
Figure 6. 3D FEM model for calculation of RI(JT) for load common profile with a maximal value +Minf and
case LC3 a minimal value –Msup located at the position of
the joints.
Figure 7 shows, for each load case (LC1 to Those finite element models show that
LC3) the corresponding bending moment parameter [mc] does not depend on the loading
distribution calculated with the 3D model from configuration and moreover, calculations leads to
ASIRI program for: the conclusion that [mc] is always included in the
- ES(NJ): equivalent soil profile without any interval:
hinged joints
- RI(NJ): rigid inclusions without any hinged [mc] = -[mb] = [+Minf ; −Msup]
joints We can look in details at the value of [mb]
- [mb]=[RI(NJ)−ES(NJ)] and [mc] compared to the relative position of the
Although the 3 load cases create very different joints and of the inclusions (see figures 7 and 8
bending moment RI(NJ) in the slab in terms of −LC1−RI(NJ), LC1−RI(JT) and LC1−[mc]):
intensity and distribution, the [mb] parameter is - at x = 15 m, the inclusions are positioned
very similar for all cases and the curves show a under the joint, the bending moment without
common profile with a maximal value +Msup at joint was equal to +Msup and the addition of
the location of a rigid inclusion and a minimal joint bring it to 0. At this location, the
value −Minf at the centre of a grid mesh. Values interaction between rigid inclusion and joint
of the bending moments are completely similar is given by [mc] = –Msup
to the elementary cell results under equivalent - at x = 9 m, the joint is positioned exactly in
average load q = 15.6 kPa. between 2 inclusions. The bending moment
The 3D analysis thus confirms that [mb] is without joint was equal to −Minf and the
independent of the loading configuration and addition of the joint bring it to 0. At this
depends only on the equivalent average load q. location, the interaction between rigid
This parameter is thus always included in the inclusion and joint is given by [mc] = +Minf
interval:
[mb] = [+Msup; −Minf]
Figure 7. Parameter [mb]

Figure 8. Parameter [mc]

- at x = 3 m, the closest rigid inclusion is the possible positions of the hinged joints
located at 0.50 m from the joint. At this and rigid inclusions.
location, [mb]= +0.9 kN.m/m. When we 2. If the position of the hinged joints is known
look at the bending moment curve from the but not the position of the rigid inclusions, it
elementary cell calculation (see figure 9), is possible to consider the range limited by
and in particular the value of the bending the upper bound curve and the lower bound
moment at 0.5 m from the center of the curve. Range of [mc] is well-known at the
inclusion, the value is also +0.9 kN.m/m location of a joint [+Minf ; −Msup] and the
which is normal since [mb] represent the effect of a joint is 0 at a sufficient distance ;
effect of the inclusion on a continuous slab we can draw a hyperbolic curve between
which can be directly calculated from the two consecutive hinged joints. These two
elementary cell (see §3.2). At this location curves take into account all the relative
also, [mc]= −0.9 kN.m/m= −[mb]. positions possible of the rigid inclusions
with respect to the known locations of the
hinged joints.
3. The knowledge of the relative position
between rigid inclusions and joints allows
one to draw the actual curve mc from the
exploitation of the bending moment
distribution deduced from the elementary
cell.
Figure 9. Bending moment profile from elementary cell

Depending on the distance between rigid

inclusions and joints, we are able to determine 4 CONCLUSIONS
[mc].
Design of slabs-on-grade supported with soil
reinforced by rigid inclusions can be completed
by adding the results of:
- [ma] model over an equivalent soil profile
- [mb]: effect of the rigid inclusions on a
continuous slab bounded by the range [+Msup
; −Minf]
- [mc]: interaction between rigid inclusions
and hinged joints bounded by the range
[+Minf ; −Msup]
In the general case, the effect of the rigid
inclusions interacting with joints is bounded by :
Figure 10. Parameter [mc]
[(Msup+Minf) ; −(Msup+Minf)]
Finally, as illustrated in Figure 10, the method We can note that parameter [mc] is not needed
allows for different levels of precision depending if there is no hinged construction joints in the
on the knowledge of the designer concerning the slab.
relative position between rigid inclusions and For a defined load intensity, the terms [mb]
hinged joints: and [mc] do not depend on the loads
1. If the position of hinged joints is not known, configuration, contrary to the term [ma].
there is no possibility of optimization. The Parameters [mb] and [mc] can be easily deduced
most conservative values +Minf and –Msup from an elementary cell analysis subjected to an
have to be considered. This range covers all equivalent average load q.
 The proposed approach has been well tested
using detailed 3D finite element analyses
confirming its accuracy. The developed approach
is conservative and simple as compared to the
completion of full 3D FEM analyses.
Finally, this approach allows for the beneficial
separation of the geotechnical design and the
structural design, which greatly optimizes all
aspects of the design phase. Geotechnical design
consists in providing an equivalent soil profile
and the values of [mb] and [mc]. Structural
design consists of calculating the bending
moments distribution in the slab over the
equivalent soil profile (classical calculation
based on existing code of practice) and adding at
the end the values of [mb] and [mc] to take into
account the rigid inclusions interacting with
joints.