Fundamentals of Design of

Residential Slabs Complying to

AS2870-2011
Emad Gad
September 2015

Content

Basic assumptions

Design requirements

Recommended methods of design

Design examples

Swinburne University of Technology

Assumptions

Assumptions

Swinburne University of Technology

Assumptions

Assumptions

Control, but not prevention, of shrinkage cracking

Control, but not prevention, of cracking due to footing

movement

Design life is 50 years

Swinburne University of Technology

Design Actions

Design actions to be considered for serviceability and

safety against structural & bearing failures are:

Permanent
Imposed

action (G)

action (Q)

(in acc. to AS/NZS 1170.1)

Foundation

movement

(characteristic movement with less than 5% chance of being exceeded in 50 years in acc.
to AS 2870.11)

Load Combinations

For slab failure, reactive soil movements & settlement

G+0.5Q

Design bearing strength

0.33*ultimate

Swinburne University of Technology

bearing capacity of soil

Causes of Movement

Foundation movement happens if reactive soil is

subjected to changes in moisture content which could
be due to:

Seasonal and regular climatic effects

Irregular climate effects such as droughts

Trees

Unusual moisture conditions caused by leaks, drains,

channel, ponds, swimming pools & etc.

10

Moisture changes and foundation movement

50% VMC

Cover

50% VMC

37% VMC

Idealised moisture content profile

Cover

Modelled idealised ground heave

Swinburne University of Technology

Idealised Edge Heave & Edge Settlement Conditions

11

EDGE SETTLEMENT

EDGE HEAVE

Lytton Model

Swinburne University of Technology

12

Lytton Model

Mitchell Centre Heave Model

13

14

Edge settlement

Swinburne University of Technology

Mitchell Edge Heave Model

Effects of Movements

15

16

Excessive slab deformation results in wall cracking, door/window jamming and other damages

Swinburne University of Technology

17

Slab Strength Requirements

<

Where the section ultimate moment capacity

be obtained in accordance to AS3600-2009

Capacity reduction factor shall be obtained from

Table 2.2.2 of AS3600-2009

shall

Design bending moment and also stiffness

requirement (EI) are to be obtained from soil-slab
interaction analyses

18

Slab Strength Requirement

A reduced modulus of elasticity is to be used for

concrete to account for creep effect and concrete
cracking as per AS2870-11, i.e.
15000

(for

20

the recommended value is less than the value

calculated in accordance to Clause 3.1.2 of AS36002009

Swinburne University of Technology

as per AS3600-2009 , Branson formula

19

Slab Ductility Requirement

To ensure the ductility of cross section:

1.2
Z

Where

As per the recommendation by AS2870-2011

.

2.7

( for sagging) &

Sagging (edge heave)

1.8

(for hogging)

Hogging (edge settlement)

Serviceability Requirements

20

Max design differential deflection of slabs has to be

limited as per Table 4.1, AS2870-11 for different types
of construction

Swinburne University of Technology

10

Slab Differential Deflection (interpretation)

21

22

Acceptable Slab Design Methods

DEEMED-TO COMPLY (Chapter 3)

DESIGN BY ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES

(Chapter 4, simplified / graphical method)

WALSH METHOD

MITCHELL METHOD

Swinburne University of Technology

11

Deemed to Comply

Design of waffle slab based on the deemed to comply is done with reference to
Figure 3.4 of AS2870-2011

Example 1: Work out the minimum section depth & reinforcement requirements
for a waffle slab supporting an articulated masonry veneer building of the
dimensions of 12m*15.6m on a Class H2 site

23

Min required depth: 385mm. Required rebar: 3N16 (Edge beam, bottom), 1N16
(Internal beam, bottom), SL82 (slab mesh, top)

Design by Eng. Principles

24

Simplified or graphical method is done by reference to

the relevant design graph (Figure 4.1, AS2870-2011)
and limited to:

Swinburne University of Technology

12

Design by Eng. Principles

25

Figure 4.1
movement vs. unit
stiffness ratio

Design Graph- Development Background

Swinburne University of Technology

26

13

27

Design Graph- Development Background

28

Process of Slab Design Using Design Graph

1)
2)

Find

given the site class (refer Table 2.3, AS2870-2011)

Work out allowable slab differential deflection ()

given the type of construction and slab length (refer Table
4.1, AS2870-2011

3)

Read off the required unit stiffness corresponding to

(from Figure 4.1, AS2870-2011)

4)

Work out the required section depth (D) for slab

Swinburne University of Technology

14

Example: Design by Eng. Principles

29

Example 1 (by Eng. Principles): Work out the minimum section depth &
reinforcement requirements for a waffle slab supporting an articulated masonry
veneer building of the dimensions of 12m*15.6m on a Class H2 site

For H2 site class:

(from Table 2.3, AS2870-2011)

(from Table 4.1, AS2870-2011)

2.5 (if there is no further information we take 2.5 conservatively)

Example: Design by Eng. Principles

Swinburne University of Technology

30

=8.90

15

Example: Design by Eng. Principles

number of beams running in long (15.6m) direction,

10 1 & corresponding
12
/
11

=10

=8.90
.

~460

=8.90

Use the same process to check

the adequacy of the slab depth for
the other direction of slab; use
relevant parameters , i.e.
14 &
15.6

Walsh Method - Background & Assumptions

It followed the Lytton model

Mound is based on Winkler springs

Mound shape is primarily flat with the edges modelled

as parabolic over the edge distance e (mound height
)
Edge Heave
Edge Settlement

Swinburne University of Technology

/12 =8.90

8.4
8.4

31

32

0.5
0.7

16

Walsh Method- Background & Assumptions

Edge distance e

33

34

For edge settlement in (m)

For edge heave in (m)

0.2

where

0.6
is in (mm) and e is in meters in both

equations

Swinburne University of Technology

17

Walsh Method- Theoretical background

Edge distance &

Swinburne University of Technology

Factor for Walsh Mound

35

36

18

Mound shape &

factor for Walsh Method

The
is 0.67 for
120
on normal soil
profiles (from Figure F2, AS2870-2011)

Edge Distance Estimation- Example

37

38

Work out the edge distance given the following design

parameters:
20

Slab Length: L=14m,

, &

2.3

for edge settlement:

= 0.84m

for edge heave:

0.2 14

0.6

1.4m

Swinburne University of Technology

19

39

Mound Shape-Walsh method

Plot of mound shape for edge heave condition based on Walsh

method for a range of from 10 to 90 mm (
2.3

Ym (mm)

100

Heave profiles -Walsh Method

90

Ym=10mm

80

Ym=20mm

70

Ym=30mm

60

Ym=40mm

50

Ym=50mm

40

Ym=60mm

30

Ym=70mm

20

Ym=80mm

10

Ym=90mm

0
-10

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5
2.0
Edge distance (m)

2.5

3.0

3.5

Process of Analysis - Employed in Walsh Method

Analyse trial raft to determine stiffness properties

Perform an iterative analysis of the edge effects to find the limit

of the support provided

Carry out structural analysis of the raft slab based upon the
support conditions which were derived from the earlier analysis

Check if the section has cracked. If so, then analyse as cracked

section

Swinburne University of Technology

40

20

Moment M and Stiffness EI-Walsh

Simplified equations for analysis of rafts to be used

together with tabulated support indices by Walsh
(CSIRO-1978)

Walsh produced tabulated values for C1 and C2 which

are function of footing geometry and soil properties.

CORD http://www.fmgengineering.com.au/our-services/design-software.html

41

42

Code Oriented Raft Design by Walsh method

Swinburne University of Technology

21

Mitchel Method (Assumptions)

Mound is based on static equilibrium

Weight of house must equal stiffness forces provided by the foundation as the
ground soil system settles under the house load

In Mitchell method free shape of mound caused by moisture changes is

required (i.e. unloaded mound shape, similar to Walsh s method)

Gravity forces (house & raft slab loads) are equal & opposite to the soil forces
after equilibrium is reached

Bending moments from house & slab forces are equated to bending moments

43

corresponding to assumed raft slab curvature (

Mound shape is exponential over a distance X from raft centreline

Footing displacement=soil displacement at all points of contact

Mitchel Method Process

44

Notes by P Uno

Swinburne University of Technology

22

Mitchel Method Process

45

Notes by P Uno

Mitchel Method Process

46

Notes by P Uno

Swinburne University of Technology

23

Mitchel Method

47

Notes by P Uno

Mitchel Method Process

48

Notes by P Uno

Swinburne University of Technology

24

Mitchel Method Process

49

Notes by P Uno

Mitchel Method Process

50

Notes by P Uno

Swinburne University of Technology

25

Mitchel Method Process

51

Notes by P Uno

Mitchel Method Process

52

Notes by P Uno

Swinburne University of Technology

26

Mitchel Method Process

53

Notes by P Uno

Mitchel Method Process

54

Notes by P Uno

Swinburne University of Technology

27

Mitchel Method Process

55

Notes by P Uno

Mitchel Method Process

56

Notes by P Uno

Swinburne University of Technology

28

Example: Design a waffle slab supporting a full masonry

building on a Class H2 in Melbourne

12

Foundation Length

B 8.4m Foundation width

1

/m

70 mm

0.7

2.3

(i.e. 1 KPa produces 1mm of soil settlement)

(Table 2.3, AS 2870-2011)
49

(Appendix F, AS 2870-2011)
(Table 2.4, AS 2870-2011)

10mm

(Table 4.1, AS 2870-2011)

0.2

0.122 (say 0.1 conservatively)

2.29

Critical depth &

0 embed. Depth

= 7.86 [~8 approximately]

58

Example cont.

57

0.1,

0.2,

For hogging condition

0.85

For sagging condition

~0.79

Since the smaller value of would produce greater bending

moment and stiffness requirements, the sagging condition in this
example (edge heave) would govern the design (i.e.
0.79 is
employed)

Swinburne University of Technology

1-

29

Example cont.

Example cont.

Swinburne University of Technology

59

60

30

61

Bending moment and stiffness

1-

190.5 (Say 200

1-0.79

Divided between 8 beams running in long direction 25KNm is the required bending
moment to be carried by each internal/edge beam of the waffle slab

110mm
B=8.4m

1090mm

L=12m

Required Moment of Inertia

25 10

30 10
15000

62

Swinburne University of Technology

30 10

(as per AS2870 for 20MPa)

2000 10

(required)

31

63

Design-Internal Beam for Sagging

50

50

(1N16)

E = 15000 MPa (AS2870)

20MPa Concrete
16

13.33

0.0044

110

0.0594

)+

0.0594)+

2 0.0594

0.0594

0.29 410

119

13.33 201 410

900 10

0.290

depth to neutral axis

8 SL82 Mesh Reo

410

201

1200

(cover to bottom steel)

85

460

Try

375

119

Revised the section depth up

2000 10

64

Design-Internal Beam for Sagging

50

50

(1N16)

E = 15000 MPa (AS2870)

20MPa Concrete
16

13.33

0.0026

110

0.0348

)+

0.0348)+

0.0348

0.231 700

8 SL82 Mesh Reo

700

201

1200

(cover to bottom steel)

85

Try

665

Swinburne University of Technology

162

2 0.0348

0.231

depth to neutral axis

n
13.33 201 700

2476 10

you may refine

the depth
slightly down

162

2000 10

32

65

Example cont.

Use the same process to check the trial design for the
edge beam under sagging with:
600

Repeat the same process to check the adequacy of the

design under hogging

for this case the required

& are to be obtained
based on the relevant moment correction factor (in
this example 0.85 )
110

SLOG

(effective width of beam)

66

http://www.slog.net.au/

For design of slabs and residential footings (developed by Peter Mitchell)

Swinburne University of Technology

33

67

Thank you

Swinburne University of Technology

34