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

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

1
MENARD, 2 rue Gutenberg, 91620 Nozay, France. jerome.racinais@menard-mail.com
 The reduction of settlement provided by the
reinforcement induces a significant reduction of
the bending moment in the slab. However, the
non-uniform distribution of stress reaction in a
reinforced soil creates an additional stress in the
slab on a different pattern from the stress
reaction distribution of the loads and of the
joints.
It should be noted that slab-on-grades are the
only concrete structure in a building where
tension stresses are allowed and thus require a
precise estimation of the stresses.
The optimization of the design of the slab
becomes a complex problem with three
intertwined patterns (loading, joints, and rigid
inclusions) that can move relatively to one
another.
2 SEPARATION OF VARIABLES
In terms of deformation, the soil reinforced with
rigid inclusions can easily be represented by an
equivalent soil profile, each layer being affected
by an equivalent Young modulus E* and a
Poisson ratio ν (see Figure 1).
This equivalent soil profile can be deducted
from an elementary axial-symmetrical
calculation, centered on one single inclusion (see
figure 2), where an equivalent average uniform
load is applied.
Figure 1. Equivalent uniform soil profile
By defining, for any of the possible type of
loading, the following parameters:
- ES(NJ): bending moments distribution in a
continuous slab (without any hinged joints)
over an equivalent homogeneous soil profile
- ES(JT): bending moments distribution in a
slab with hinged joints over an equivalent
homogeneous soil profile
- RI(NJ): bending moments distribution in a
continuous slab over a soil reinforced with
rigid inclusions,
- RI(JT): bending moments distribution in a
slab with hinged joints over a soil reinforced
with rigid inclusions.
We can combine those parameters in order to
decompose this complex problem (consisting of
calculating RI(JT) for any possible
configuration) in three separated-variable
problems:
RI(JT) = [ma] + [mb] + [mc]
2.1 Parameter [ma]
Parameter [ma] = ES(JT) represents the impact of
the loadings configuration on a slab with joints,
without any impact from the non uniform
reaction of the inclusions. This parameter
directly is calculated by the structural engineer
for all the configurations and relative positions
between the loads and the hinged construction
joints according to applicable codes of practice
and regulation.
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,
alternate, punctual) (see 3.2).
As a consequence, [mb] can be estimated
from an elementary axial-symmetrical
calculation, centered on one single inclusion,
where an equivalent average uniform load is
applied.
Figure 2. General principle of axial-symmetrical models
In term of bending moment in the slab, this
calculation results in a positive bending moment
+Msup at the vertical of the inclusion and a
negative bending moment −Minf in the middle of
the grid (see figure 3).
For the range of applied loading of this type of
structure, the bending moments Msup and Minf can
be considered proportional to the loading.
Figure 3. bending moment in the slab resulting from
elementary axial-symmetrical calculation
As a consequence, parameter [mb] is always
included in the interval [+Msup; −Minf].
2.3 Parameter [mc]
Parameter [mc] = [RI(JT)−ES(JT)] − [RI(NJ)
−ES(NJ)] represents the interaction of the rigid
inclusions with the joints, without any impact
from the distribution of loading or from the non
uniform reaction of the inclusions. Deducting
[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
curve around the joint by the corresponding
value (see figure 4 around x = 3 m and x = 15
m)).
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
Bending Moment (kN.m/m)
6.0
4.0
2.0
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)
As a consequence, when we look at the
interaction between the joints and the inclusions
(represented by parameter [mc]), the maximum
effect of the joint can only be to bring the
bending moment created by the inclusions to
zero at position of the joints. The bending
moment in the slab around the joints is thus
“shifted” by the corresponding value. The
bending moment created by the inclusion being
[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

Figure 6. 3D FEM model for calculation of RI(JT) for load
case LC3
Figure 7 shows, for each load case (LC1 to
LC3) the corresponding bending moment
distribution calculated with the 3D model from
ASIRI program for:
- ES(NJ): equivalent soil profile without any
hinged joints
- RI(NJ): rigid inclusions without any hinged
joints
- [mb]=[RI(NJ)−ES(NJ)]
Although the 3 load cases create very different
bending moment RI(NJ) in the slab in terms of
intensity and distribution, the [mb] parameter is
very similar for all cases and the curves show a
common profile with a maximal value +Msup at
the location of a rigid inclusion and a minimal
value −Minf at the centre of a grid mesh. Values
of the bending moments are completely similar
to the elementary cell results under equivalent
average load q = 15.6 kPa.
The 3D analysis thus confirms that [mb] is
independent of the loading configuration and
depends only on the equivalent average load q.
This parameter is thus always included in the
interval:
[mb] = [+Msup; −Minf]
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
common profile with a maximal value +Minf and
a minimal value –Msup located at the position of
the joints.
Those finite element models show that
parameter [mc] does not depend on the loading
configuration and moreover, calculations leads to
the conclusion that [mc] is always included in the
interval:
[mc] = -[mb] = [+Minf ; −Msup]
We can look in details at the value of [mb]
and [mc] compared to the relative position of the
joints and of the inclusions (see figures 7 and 8
−LC1−RI(NJ), LC1−RI(JT) and LC1−[mc]):
- at x = 15 m, the inclusions are positioned
under the joint, the bending moment without
joint was equal to +Msup and the addition of
joint bring it to 0. At this location, the
interaction between rigid inclusion and joint
is given by [mc] = –Msup
- at x = 9 m, the joint is positioned exactly in
between 2 inclusions. The bending moment
without joint was equal to −Minf and the
addition of the joint bring it to 0. At this
location, the interaction between rigid
inclusion and joint is given by [mc] = +Minf
Figure 7. Parameter [mb]

Figure 8. Parameter [mc]

- at x = 3 m, the closest rigid inclusion is
located at 0.50 m from the joint. At this
location, [mb]= +0.9 kN.m/m. When we
look at the bending moment curve from the
elementary cell calculation (see figure 9),
and in particular the value of the bending
moment at 0.5 m from the center of the
inclusion, the value is also +0.9 kN.m/m
which is normal since [mb] represent the
effect of the inclusion on a continuous slab
which can be directly calculated from the
elementary cell (see §3.2). At this location
also, [mc]= −0.9 kN.m/m= −[mb].
Figure 9. Bending moment profile from elementary cell
Depending on the distance between rigid
inclusions and joints, we are able to determine
[mc].
Figure 10. Parameter [mc]
Finally, as illustrated in Figure 10, the method
allows for different levels of precision depending
on the knowledge of the designer concerning the
relative position between rigid inclusions and
hinged joints:
1. If the position of hinged joints is not known,
there is no possibility of optimization. The
most conservative values +Minf and –Msup
have to be considered. This range covers all
the possible positions of the hinged joints
and rigid inclusions.
2. If the position of the hinged joints is known
but not the position of the rigid inclusions, it
is possible to consider the range limited by
the upper bound curve and the lower bound
curve. Range of [mc] is well-known at the
location of a joint [+Minf ; −Msup] and the
effect of a joint is 0 at a sufficient distance ;
we can draw a hyperbolic curve between
two consecutive hinged joints. These two
curves take into account all the relative
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.
4 CONCLUSIONS
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 :
[(Msup+Minf) ; −(Msup+Minf)]
We can note that parameter [mc] is not needed
if there is no hinged construction joints in the
slab.
For a defined load intensity, the terms [mb]
and [mc] do not depend on the loads
configuration, contrary to the term [ma].
Parameters [mb] and [mc] can be easily deduced
from an elementary cell analysis subjected to an
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.