Development of Design Charts For Concrete Pavements and Industrial Ground Slabs

2.
Development of design charts for

concrete pavements and industrial
ground slabs
H. G. Poulos and J. C. Small
2.1. Introduction
This chapter describes the development of a design procedure for concrete pavements
and ground slabs subjected to various forms of vertical applied loading, with particular
reference to industrial floors. The procedure is based on solutions from the theory of
elasticity, where the supporting soil is characterised by equivalent values of Young’s
modulus and Poisson’s ratio, and where the primary design criterion is the allowable
flexural tensile stress in the slab.
Three types of loading are considered, namely wheel loads, post loads and distributed
strip loads. In each case, design charts are provided for both interior and edge loading.
These charts are based on an extensive series of elastic finite element analyses in which
the slab is modelled by a thin plate and the soil is idealised as an equivalent homoge-
neous isotropic layer underlain by a rigid base [2.1]. A standard set of parameters was
selected for the main analyses, and then correction factors were derived to take account
of variations from the standard values of soil stiffness and layer depth, and from the
standard loading.
There are four main steps in the design process:
(a) assessment of loading;

(b) assessment of subgrade and soil conditions;
(c) assessment of design tensile strength of the slab;
(d) use of design charts to assess the required slab thickness.
Examples illustrating the design procedure are also given. The charts form the basis of
the current design guidelines for industrial pavements published by the Cement and
Concrete Association of Australia [2.2]. In particular, they avoid many of the shortcom-
ings of a previous document T34 [2.3] that was based on modelling the soil as a uniform
series of unconnected (Winkler) springs to give a modulus of subgrade reaction.
2.2. Basic assumptions

In developing the design charts presented in this chapter, the following assumptions have
been made.
Downloaded by [ ETH Zurich] on [20/09/16]. Copyright © ICE Publishing, all rights reserved.
40 D ESIG N AP PLIC A TIO NS OF RA FT FOU N DA TIO N S
Concrete slab
Loading
Ec,νc
Soil layer
H Es,νs
Rough rigid base
Figure 2.1. Analytical model used in elastic analysis of ground slab
1. The soil is modelled as an equivalent homogeneous isotropic elastic layer of

uniform thickness, underlain by a rough horizontal rigid base.
2. The concrete ground slab or pavement is characterised as a thin elastic plate
located at the surface of the soil layer.
3. The loadings are represented as uniformly distributed vertical loads acting over an
appropriate area on the surface of the floor or pavement.
It is recognised that the assumption of linear elastic behaviour is an over-simplifica-
tion of the complex behaviour of both soil and concrete. Nevertheless, elastic theory
provides a consistent and coherent framework for analysis, and has been successfully
used for a wide variety of geotechnical and structural problems, provided that due care
has been taken in selecting the equivalent elastic parameters. Elastic theory has a major
advantage over the theory of subgrade reaction because the elastic parameters (Young’s
modulus and Poisson’s ratio) have physical meaning and are scale-independent, unlike
the modulus of subgrade reaction.
For all load cases, it is further assumed that the primary design criterion is to limit the
flexural tensile stresses in the slab to the specified allowable values. For cases such as
post loading (e.g. arising from storage racks), it is assumed that the possibility of
punching shear is addressed separately by the designer and that a base plate of adequate
size will be provided to cater for punching shear.
Figure 2.1 illustrates the analytical model adopted in the present investigation. Both
the concrete slab and the soil are characterised by three parameters:
(a) thickness (t for slab, H for soil layer);
(b) equivalent Young’s modulus (Ec for concrete, Es for soil);
(c) equivalent Poisson’s ratio (vc for concrete, vs for soil).
The details of the loadings are discussed in section 2.3.1.
DE VEL OPM ENT OF DE SIG N CH AR TS FO R CO NC RET E PA V EMEN TS 41
Slab edge Slab edge
S S
b
b b b b
b S
b b b b
b
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 2.2. Representation of wheel loading: (a) interior loading; (b) edge loading,
case 1; (c) edge loading, case 2
2.3. Method of analysis

After consideration of the available options for analysing the behaviour of the slab–soil
system, it was decided to employ the computer program FEAR (Finite Element Analysis
of Rafts) as the main computational tool [2.4]. This program utilises the finite element
method to analyse the slab, in conjunction with an efficient finite layer technique to
analyse the soil layer.
2.3.1. Representation of loading

Three types of loading are considered herein; wheel loading, post loading, and distrib-
uted loading. In each case, two extreme loading locations are analysed:
(a) interior loading, where the loads are sufficiently distant from the edges of the
slab that the edges do not influence slab behaviour;
(b) edge loading, where the loads are applied at an edge of the slab, and which is
generally a more critical condition than interior loading.
2.3.1.1. Wheel loading

In the T34 document, the design charts for wheel loading are based on the representation
of each wheel as an equivalent rectangular contact area with a length-to-width ratio of
1:1.45, and a tread width of 0.83 %&A , where A is the contact area. Calculations indicate
that there are only small differences (of the order of 5%) between the stresses developed
in a slab loaded by a square or a 1:1.5 rectangular area, and such differences are not
considered to be significant, given the uncertainties involved in the selection of other
parameters.
In addition, only single wheel axles have been considered, since it has been found that,
for a given axle loading, the maximum stresses below dual wheels are slightly less than
those below single wheels. Figure 2.2 illustrates the cases of wheel loading analysed. As
is evident, two cases of edge loading need to be considered.
Slab edge
y y
b y b y
b b
x x x x
(a) (b)
Figure 2.3. Representation of post loading: (a) interior loading; (b) edge loading
Slab edge Slab edge
W W W
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 2.4. Representation of distributed loading: (a) interior loading; (b) edge loading,
case 1; (c) edge loading, case 2
2.3.1.2. Post loading

To represent post loading, a series of nine square equally loaded areas has been consid-
ered, as shown in Figure 2.3. The possibility of different spacings in the x and y
directions has been allowed for. It has been assumed that the effect of additional loads
(beyond nine) on the maximum stresses in the concrete slab will not be significant, and
this has been verified by an analysis of selected typical cases.
2.3.1.3. Distributed loading

Figure 2.4 shows the representation of distributed loading as a single uniformly distrib-
uted strip loading of width W. This represents directly the conditions below a single
loading row of width W, but, if the loading is taken as being negative, it can also be
considered to represent the conditions in an aisle of width W between two very wide
loaded rows.
2.3.2. Jointed slabs

In the T34 document, it is stated that the thickness design procedures for interior loads
can be used for jointed slabs, provided that at least 75% load transfer is provided
between adjacent slabs, either through aggregate interlock or the use of appropriate load
transfer devices such as dowels or keyways. At isolation joints, or at other joints where
no load transfer devices are provided, it is also stated that the slab edges adjacent to the
joint should be thickened to prevent local over-stressing of the concrete.
To investigate further the influence of joints on the bending moments and stresses
developed in a slab, a limited number of analyses have been carried out in which shear
loading has been applied to the edge of a slab, in order to represent a joint with shear
resistance but no bending stiffness. The results of these analyses have been used to
assess the requirements for shear transfer capacity of the joint to enable the interior
loading case to be used in design.
2.3.3. Accuracy checks

Because closed-form solutions do not exist for the problem of a slab on an elastic layer,
the absolute accuracy of the computer program FEAR cannot be determined. However, it
is possible to make some assessment of the consistency of the FEAR solutions by
comparing them with corresponding solutions from other analyses. For this purpose,
comparisons have been made with the following alternative analyses:
(a) computer program FLEA (Finite Layer Elastic Analysis), which can analyse the
behaviour of an extensive slab on a layered soil profile [2.5], and can therefore
be used for interior loadings;
(b) analytical solutions presented by Selvadurai [2.6] for concentrated loading
within an extensive raft, and also near the edge of an extensive raft.
For the two cases illustrated in Figure 2.5, solutions have been compared for the
maximum bending moment Mmax and maximum deflection qmax beneath the loaded area.
Typical comparisons are listed in Tables 2.1 and 2.2. For the case of interior distributed
loading (case A), there is reasonably close agreement between the solutions from FLEA
and FEAR. For interior dual wheel loading (case B), the slab flexure given by FEAR,
FLEA and Selvadurai agree well. As shown in Figure 2.5(c), the distributions of
bending moment from the FEAR and Selvadurai solutions for case B also agree very
well; here Mx denotes the moment per unit length in the x-direction, and similarly for
My .
Zhang and Small [2.7] have carried out a series of comparisons between solutions for
a loaded raft foundation, and have concluded that the FEAR analysis gives results which
agree well with previously published solutions. These comparisons, together with those
presented herein, suggest that the program FEAR is capable of producing results of
adequate accuracy for most practical purposes. This program has therefore been selected
as the tool for obtaining the solutions which are used in this chapter to develop the design
charts for industrial ground slabs.
Ec = 30 000 MPa
νc = 0·16 W=2m
t p = 1 MPa
Es = 20 MPa
H=6m
νs = 0·3
(a)
S =1·2 m
Ec = 30 000 MPa
νc = 0·16
D = 0·3 m D = 0·3 m
t p =1 MPa p =1 MPa
Es = 20 MPa
H=6m
νs = 0·3
(b)
CL
0·028
Selvadurai
0·024 } Results from FEAR
Moment per unit length: MNm/m
y
0·020
x
Centre CL
0·016 of
wheel
0·012 Loaded My
diameter
0·008
Mx
0·004
t = 0·3 m
0
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1·0 1·2 1·4 1·6 1·8 2·0
Distance from centre line: m
(c)
Figure 2.5. Accuracy check on flexure of extensive ground slab: (a) uniform strip
loading, case A; (b) uniform circular loading, case B; (c) bending moment distribution,
case B
Table 2.1. Comparisons between alternative solutions for test case A
t: m qmax: m Mmax: MNm/m
FLEA FEAR FLEA FEAR
0.2 0.088 0.090 0.48 0.50

0.5 0.052 0.056 1.53 1.59
Table 2.2. Comparisons between alternative solutions for test case B
t:m qmax: mm Mmax: kNm/m
FEAR FLEA Selvadurai FEAR FLEA Selvadurai
0.2 1.78 1.32 1.77 23.0 21.4 21.9

0.5 0.76 0.58 0.80 32.6 30.7 32.4
2.4. Procedure for development and use of design charts

In developing the design charts, the following objectives were pursued:
(a) the charts should incorporate as many relevant variables as possible;
(b) the values of the variables should cover the range likely to be encountered in
practice;
(c) the charts should be straightforward to use.
The design charts in document T34 are in the form of nomograms, but this form of pres-
entation was considered to have some limitations with respect to items (a) and (b) above.
A more versatile approach was therefore developed in which the slab thickness is related
to the maximum stress developed in the slab by the loading, via a stress factor which can
incorporate such variables as:
(a) the nature and magnitude of the loading;
(b) the soil characteristics, such as stiffness and layer depth;
(c) the location of the loading.
The procedure for developing these charts was as follows.
1. A ‘standard’ set of parameters was selected for the main analyses, including:
(a) soil Young’s modulus (10 or 15 MPa) and Poisson’s ratio (0.30);
(b) soil layer depth (5 m);
(c) concrete Young’s modulus (30 000 MPa) and Poisson’s ratio (0.16);
(d) loading details, such as tyre pressure (700 kPa), wheel spacing (1.5 m), or
aisle width for distributed loading (2.5 m).
2. For these standard parameters, the program FEAR was used to compute the
maximum value of bending moment in the slab, for a range of slab thickness of
100–600 mm.
3. From the maximum bending moment so computed, the maximum stress in the
slab was calculated. For the cases of distributed and post loading, the maximum
stress was expressed in dimensionless form by dividing by the applied loading.
4. A plot of maximum stress F, against slab thickness was prepared.
5. The problem was re-analysed for the ‘standard’ parameters and for a typical slab
thickness (usually 200 mm), varying in turn:
(a) soil Young’s modulus;
(b) soil layer depth;
(c) loading details.
6. For each parameter varied, a correction factor was obtained by dividing the
computed stress for the ‘standard’ value of the parameter by the computed stress
for the value of that parameter used in the analysis. For example, the correction
factor FE for the soil Young’s modulus Es was computed as
Max. stress for ‘ standard’ value of Es

FE = (2.1)
Max. stress for actual value of Es
7. In this way, the following correction factors were derived:

FE (for soil Young’s modulus)
FH (for soil layer depth)
FL (for loading details)
8. Each of these correction factors was then plotted against the relevant parameter.
9. The actual stress f was then estimated as follows:
f = F/(FE FH FL) (2.2)
where F = stress for the ‘standard’ parameters; FE, FH, FL = correction factors.
10. In using the charts to assess the required slab thickness, the objective is to limit
the maximum stress f to the specified design tensile strength fall, so that
f ≤ fall (2.3)
Thus, the equivalent value of the stress F can be computed as
F = fall FE FH FL (2.4)
11. From the chart relating F to slab thickness t, the required value of t can be found
using the value of F computed in equation (2.4). In the charts to be presented later
in this chapter, F will have subscripts 1, 2 or 3 to represent the three types of
loading considered.
Thus the design procedure for determining slab thickness involves four main steps:
(a) assessment of loading;
(b) assessment of subgrade and soil conditions;
(c) assessment of design flexural tensile strength of slab;
(d) computation of required slab thickness.
Step no. Broad procedure Detailed assessments required
Assessment of 1.1. Type and configuration

1.
loading of loads.
1.2. Magnitude of loads.
1.3. Number of load repetitions.
Assessment of 2.1. Thickness of each soil layer.

2. subgrade and soil 2.2. Young's modulus of each
conditions layer.
2.3. Thickness and Young's
modulus of equivalent
uniform layer.
Assessment of 3.1. Design life.

3. design tensile 3.2. Concrete flexural strength.
strength of slab 3.3. Material factor.
Use of design charts 4.1. Stress factor F for

4. to compute required appropriate loading type
slab thickness and condition (interior or
edge loading), using assessed
design tensile strength and
correction factors for
loading, soil modulus and
soil layer thickness.
4.2. Required slab thickness from
appropriate design charts.
4.3. Minimum edge distance for
wheel loading case; thicken
slab progressively from this
distance, to the edge.
4.4. If necessary, modification of
slab thickness for construction
joints.
Figure 2.6. Summary of design procedure to determine thickness of ground slab
In some cases, an assessment of the deflections may also be required e.g. for long-term
distributed loading. The design procedure is summarised in Figure 2.6. Each stage of
assessment is discussed in detail in the following sections.
2.5. Assessment of loading

As outlined in section 2.3.1, three types of loading have been considered:
(a) wheel loading, represented by two square uniform loads at a centre-to-centre
spacing of S;
(b) post loading, represented by a series of nine equally loaded square areas;
(c) distributed loading, represented by a single uniformly distributed strip loading of
width W.
Consideration is not given herein to combined loading, although there may be circum-
stances where, for example, a combination of distributed loading and wheel loading
could occur. In that case, however, the effects of the two loadings are likely to be
compensating rather than additive. In other cases e.g. a combination of post loads with
wheel loads, the two loadings may have a cumulative effect on ground slab stresses. In
such cases, the designer should exercise appropriate judgement in selecting the magni-
tude and configuration of design loading.
2.5.1. Wheel loading

There are several common axle configurations which may be used in commercial vehi-
cles including:
(a) single axle with single wheels;

(b) single axle with dual wheels;
(c) tandem axle with dual wheels;
(d) triple axle with dual wheels.
As stated previously, the design charts in this chapter are for the case of a single axle
with single wheels; for a given axle load, this representation of loading will be slightly
conservative if dual wheels are present.
Hodgkinson [2.8] provides details of axle configurations and wheel loads for vehicles
using public roads. Table 2.3, reproduced from document T34, gives details of a 1983
survey of manufacturers’ data for forklift trucks.
Table 2.3. Loading characteristics of typical forklift trucks
Average wheel spacings: mm
Single wheels Dual wheels

TC TC
WS WC
Front axle load: Approx. rated
tonnes capacity: tonnes WC TC
4 2 750
6 2.5 800
8 3.5 850
10 4.5 900 1450 250
20 9 1050 1750 300
30 13 1150 2000 350
40 17 2200 400
50 22 2350 450
60 26 2450 500
70 30 2550 550
80 35 2600 550
90 40 2600 550
2.5.1.1. Traffic estimation

Document T34 emphasises the importance of estimating the traffic for industrial floor
slab design. The required traffic information includes the load magnitudes, wheel config-
urations, and frequencies of loading for the heaviest vehicles that will use the floor.
Traffic and load data for past and future factory or warehouse operating conditions can
be gathered from several sources, including plant maintenance and engineering depart-
ments, planning and operations departments, and manufacturers’ data. Special
consideration should be given to areas where the heavy load traffic is likely to be chan-
nelled, such as aisles, loading docks and doorways.
Table 2.4 gives values of the total load repetitions for typical design lives of up to 50
years. These are based on the estimated daily load repetitions, over a five-day week and
a 52-week year.
Table 2.4. Total number of load repetitions
Design life: years

Estimated daily
repetitions 20 30 40 50
1 5 200 7 800 10 400 13 000

5 26 000 39 000 52 000 65 000
10 52 000 78 000 104 000 130 000
20 105 000 156 000 208 000 260 000
50 260 000 390 000 520 000 650 000
100 520 000 780 000
150 780 000
2.5.2. Post loading

Document T34 suggests that the post loads and spacings for permanent storage racks
should be obtained from the manufacturer of the particular rack system to be used. It is
also emphasised that an appropriate size of base plate under each post should be selected
to ensure that concrete bearing and shear stresses comply with appropriate code
requirements.
2.5.3. Distributed loading

In document T34, consideration is given to two cases of distributed loading:
(a) a ‘variable storage layout’, in which the aisle and storage layout is not predict-
able or permanent;
(b) a ‘fixed storage layout’, in which the layout of loads is known at the time of
design and will remain fixed throughout the service life of the floor.
In the present chapter, the above distinction is not made, but allowance can be made for
the ‘variable storage layout’ case by adopting the most conservative value of the aisle or
load width for design purposes.
2.6. Assessment of subgrade and soil conditions

In any design procedure involving interaction between the soil and the overlying slab, it
is essential to develop an appropriate geotechnical model to represent the behaviour of
the underlying soil. Implicit in the development of such a model is a knowledge of:
(a) the stratigraphy of the natural soils and rock at the site;
(b) the strength and stiffness characteristics of the soil;
(c) the characteristics of any fill to be placed at the site.
The approach described in this chapter assumes such knowledge, and relies on the devel-
opment of an equivalent uniform soil layer whose behaviour represents that of the actual
soil profile. Because a purely linear analysis is utilised, and an elastic model of soil
behaviour is assumed, the key parameter which must be assessed for each soil layer is
the equivalent Young’s modulus of the soil; an assessment of Poisson’s ratio of the soil
is also necessary. Recommended procedures for such assessment are outlined in section
2.6.1, while the procedure for developing an equivalent simple uniform layer is
described in section 2.6.2.
2.6.1. Assessment of soil Young’s modulus

Because soil is a non-linear multi-phase (solid, water, air) material rather a linear
single-phase material, it is important to recognise that:
(a) Young’s modulus of the soil is not a unique property but is dependent on such
factors as initial stress state, stress change and previous stress history;
(b) different values of Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio will be applicable to
short-term (or rapid) loading conditions and to long-term (or sustained) loading
conditions.
Thus, in applying elastic theory to soils, it is implicit that the Young’s modulus and
Poisson’s ratio values to be used are those relevant to the particular stress and loading
conditions for the problem at hand.
For sandy or gravelly soils, there is little difference between Young’s modulus and
Poisson’s ratio values for short-term and long-term loading. However, for clay and silty
soils, there may be a significant difference, with Young’s modulus for long-term loading
being less than for short-term loading.
In the case of slab design for wheel loading, it is likely that short-term values of
Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio are relevant, while for distributed or post loading,
long-term values should be used.
Three broad approaches may be pursued for assessing Young’s modulus of a soil:
(a) in-situ testing;
(b) laboratory testing;
(c) correlations with other, more readily measured, parameters.
For the purposes of industrial ground slab design, appropriate in-situ tests may include
pressuremeter tests, plate loading tests, and screw-plate tests.
100
80
Long-term Young's modulus Es: MPa
60
40
20
0
1 2 4 6 8 10 20 40 60 80 100
CBR: %
Figure 2.7. Approximate correlation between CBR and long-term Young’s modulus
Appropriate laboratory testing usually requires triaxial testing of soil samples with a
stress history, and over a range of stress, similar to that to be experienced by the soil
under field conditions; see, for example, Davis and Poulos [2.9].
The most useful geotechnical data with which to correlate Young’s modulus are:
(a) California Bearing Ratio (CBR), which is readily measured for compacted soil
samples;
(b) standard penetration test (SPT) data;
(c) static cone penetration test (CPT) data.
Document T34 reproduces a correlation between CBR and subgrade reaction modulus,
derived by Austroads [2.10]. Assuming that the subgrade reaction modulus values corre-
spond to a 760 mm diameter plate, the foregoing correlation can be re-interpreted (via
elastic theory) to produce a correlation between CBR and soil Young’s modulus; the
correlation so obtained is shown in Figure 2.7.
The values of Young’s modulus from this figure are generally lower than simple linear
correlations commonly used for pavement design e.g. Es (MPa) = 5 to 10 times CBR. It
is recommended that the values of Es derived from Figure 2.7 be considered as long-term
modulus values. In the case of wheel loadings, it is generally appropriate to use a
short-term value of Es. The relationship between the short-term and long-term values can
be expressed as
Es (long-term) = b Es (short-term) (2.5)
and typical values of b are shown in Table 2.5.
Table 2.5. Correction factor for long-term Young’s modulus of soil
Soil type Factor b
Gravel 0.9
Sand 0.8
Silt, silty clay 0.7
Stiff clay 0.6
Soft clay 0.4
Typical presumptive values of CBR are reproduced in Table 2.6, from Austroads
[2.10], where USC refers to the Unified Soil Classification system; see, for example,
Lambe and Whitman [2.11]. Ideally, the CBR values should be selected on the basis of
local experience.
Table 2.6. Typical presumptive design CBR values
Description of subgrade Typical CBR values: %
Material USC classification Well drained Poorly drained
Clay, highly plastic CH 5 2–3

Silt ML 5 2–3
Silty clay CL 6–7 4–5
Sandy clay SC 6–7 4–5
Sand SW, SP 15–20 —
Based on the work of Stroud and Butler [2.12], Figure 2.8 presents a correlation
between short-term Young’s modulus, SPT-value, and soil plasticity index PI. The ratio
Es/N (in MPa) ranges from 3.5 for sands and gravels (PI = 0) to about 0.5 for heavy
clays, where N denotes the standard penetration resistance (blows/300 mm). It is recom-
mended that, when applied to clays, Figure 2.8 be used only for relatively stiff clays and
not for very soft clays. It has been suggested that an approximately linear correlation can
be derived between the short-term Young’s modulus and the static cone penetration
resistance qc, namely
Es = aqc (2.6)
Recommended values of the correlation factor a are shown in Table 2.7 as a function of
soil type.
Both Figure 2.8 and Table 2.7 refer to the soil Young’s modulus for short-term
loading. If long-term loading is being considered, the long-term value may be derived
from the short-term value, via equation (2.5), using the correction factor b shown in
Table 2.5. Finally, typical values of soil Poisson’s ratio vs are shown in Table 2.8.
3
Es/N : MPa
0
0 20 40 60 80
Plasticity index: %
Figure 2.8. Suggested correlation between short-term Young’s modulus, N-value and
plasticity index
Table 2.7. Modulus correlation factor
Soil type Factor (a)
Sand – loose 5
– medium dense 8
– dense 10
Silt 12
Silty clay 15
Clay – highly plastic 20
Table 2.8. Typical values of Poisson’s ratio for soil
Poisson’s ratio vs
Soil type Short-term loading Long-term loading
Gravel 0.30 0.30

Sand 0.35 0.30
Silt, silty clay 0.45 0.35
Stiff clay 0.45 0.25
Soft clay 0.50 0.40
Compacted clay 0.45 0.30
Soil surface
zi
Layer i hi Esi ≡ H Ese

H
Layer n hn Esn
(a) (b)
Figure 2.9. Assessment of equivalent uniform soil layer: (a) actual layered soil profile;
(b) equivalent uniform soil layer
2.6.2. Assessment of equivalent uniform soil layer

In developing the slab design charts, it is only feasible to consider the simplified case of
a homogeneous soil layer supporting the slab. In reality, soil profiles are almost invari-
ably layered and non-uniform, and it is therefore highly desirable to develop a procedure
for converting a layered soil profile to an equivalent uniform soil layer. The principle of
the process is shown in Figure 2.9.
The criterion for obtaining this equivalent uniform layer is that the surface deflection
should be equal to that of the actual layered profile. The total depths of the equivalent
and layered profiles are assumed to be the same, and the equivalent Young’s modulus of
the uniform profile, Ese, is given by
n
∑Wi =1
fi hi
Ese = n (2.7)
∑W
i =1
fi hi / Esi
where hi = thickness of layer i

Esi = Young’s modulus of layer i
Wfi = weighting factor for layer i
n = total number of layers in layered profile.
The weighting factor Wfi depends on the depth of layer i below the surface, zi, and the
type of loading, and may be derived from elastic theory. Values of Wf are plotted in
Figure 2.10 as a function of the type of loading, and the relative depth of the centre of the
layer below the ground surface. The normalising dimension X also depends on the
loading type, and is defined as follows:
(a) wheel loading; X = S (wheel spacing)

(b) post loading; X = x (average post spacing)
(c) distributed loading; X = W (aisle or loading width).
Weighting factor: Wf
0 0·2 0·4 0·6 0·8 1

0
Wheel loading
(X = S )
2
Distributed loading
(X = W )
4
Post loading
(X = x )
Relative depth: z /X
10
12
Figure 2.10. Weighting factor for estimation of average soil modulus
2.7. Assessment of design tensile strength

A detailed discussion of the assessment of the design tensile strength of the concrete slab
is outside the scope of this chapter. Document T34 gives an outline of the factors which
influence concrete properties. The design tensile strength of the slab will depend on:
(a) the concrete design flexural strength;
(b) the type of loading;
(c) the number of load repetitions to be applied.
In using the charts presented later in this chapter, the design tensile strength of the
concrete, fall, should be computed as
fall = k1 k2 f ct′ (2.8)
where k1 = material factor, which accounts for differences between site and laboratory
strengths, etc; k2 = load repetition factor; f ct′ = characteristic flexural tensile strength of
concrete.
The value of k1 typically ranges between 0.7 and 1.0. For wheel loading, values of k2,
based on document T34, are shown in Table 2.9.
Table 2.9. Load repetition factor
Total load repetitions Factor k2
Unlimited 0.50
400 000 0.51
300 000 0.52
200 000 0.54
100 000 0.56
50 000 0.59
30 000 0.60
10 000 0.64
2 000 0.70
1 000 0.73
As outlined in AS 3600 [2.13], f ct′ may be estimated from the characteristic compres-
sive strength of the concrete, f c′, as follows:
f ct′ = 0.6 f c′ (MPa) (2.9)
For post loading, the recommendations of document T34 for the design tensile strength
are less specific, the decision being left to the design engineer.
2.8. Design charts for slab thickness

Using the finite element analysis outlined in section 2.3, and the procedure detailed in
section 2.4, design charts for slab thickness have been developed for the three loading
cases considered, and for both interior and edge loading. These design charts are
discussed in detail below for each of the loading cases.
2.8.1. Design charts for wheel loading

Figures 2.11 and 2.12 present the design charts developed for wheel loadings at the inte-
rior and edge of a slab, respectively. In these charts, the tyre pressure is assumed to be
700 kPa, and the basic curves plot slab thickness t against a stress factor F1, for a range
of values of axle load 2P (in kN). The factor F1 is computed as follows:
F1 = fall FE1 FS1 FH1 (2.10)
where fall = design tensile strength of concrete (see section 2.7), in MPa
FEl = factor for soil Young’s modulus, Es (of equivalent uniform layer)
FS1 = factor for centre-to-centre spacing of wheels, S
FH1 = factor for depth of soil layer, H
P P
t
Es H
F1 = fall FE1 FS1 FH1

(fall in MPa, P in kN)
1·4
600 1·3
800 Axle load 2P 1·2

Slab thickness t : mm
400 600
1·1
400 FE1
1·0
200
200 0·9
100
0·8
0 0·7
0 1 2 3 4 5 10 15 0 10 20 30 40 50
F1 Soil Young's modulus Es: MPa
1·2 1·1
FS1
FH1
1·0 1·0
0·8 0·9
1 1·5 2 3 0 5 10 20
Wheel spacing S : m Soil layer depth H : m
Figure 2.11. Design charts for interior wheel loading
The factors FE1, FS1 and FH1 are plotted on Figures 2.11 and 2.12, noting that the
short-term value of Es is usually appropriate.
Once the factor F1 has been computed from equation (2.10), the required slab thick-
ness t for the given axle load can be determined from the main plot of t versus F1 in
Figures 2.11 and 2.12.
The case of edge loading requires a greater slab thickness than does interior loading.
For this case, the critical edge-loading pattern occurs when the axle is perpendicular to
P P
t
Es H
F1= fall FE1 FS1 FH1

(fall in MPa, P in kN) 2·0
600
1·5
400 Axle load 2P
FE1
800
600 1·0
200 400
200
100
0 0·5
0 1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 0 10 20 30 40 50
1·2 1·1
FH1
FS1
1·0 1·0
0·8 0·9
1 1·5 2 3 0 5 10 20
Wheel spacing S : m Soil layer depth H : m
Figure 2.12. Design charts for edge wheel loading
the edge of the slab i.e. case 1 in Figure 2.2. Consequently, if edge loading is likely to
occur, the slab thickness in the vicinity of the edge will need to be increased. Guidelines
for the distance over which such an increase should occur are given in section 2.8.4.
2.8.1.1. Influence of other factors

The influence of Young’s modulus of the slab, tyre pressure, and shape of the wheel
print have been examined for typical cases. None of these factors has a significant influ-
ence on the required slab thickness, as indicated by the following examples.
1. Changing the modulus of the slab by ± 10 000 MPa (from the adopted value of
30 000 MPa) causes the F1 factor to change by about 5%.
2. Changing the tyre pressure by ± 200 kPa from the adopted value of 700 kPa
causes the F1 factor to change by about 1.5%.
3. If the wheel print is changed from a square to a 1:1.5 rectangular shape, the factor
F1 is decreased by about 5%.
Within the uncertainty of the estimation of design loads and soil properties, the three
factors considered above do not appear to be of major importance.
2.8.2. Design charts for post loading

Figure 2.13 presents the design charts for post loading. It is found that the edge loading
case is more critical than interior loading.
The basic chart plots slab thickness t against a stress factor F2, for both interior and
edge loading, where F2 is computed as
f all
F2 = 1000 FE2 FS2 FH2 (2.11)
P
where fall = design tensile strength of concrete (see section 2.7), in MPa
FE2 = factor for soil Young’s modulus, Es (of equivalent uniform layer)
FS2 = factor for post spacing in x-direction
FH2 = factor for depth of soil layer, H
P = magnitude of loading on each post (in kN).
The factors FE2, FS2, FH2 are plotted in Figure 2.13, and are similar for both edge and
interior loading. In most cases, use of the long-term value of Es is appropriate.
The factor F2 is relatively insensitive to the area of the base plate below each post. The
curves in Figure 2.13 have been computed for a base plate area of 25 000 mm2, but a
reduction of 5000 mm2 only reduces F2 by about 6%, while an increase in area to
50 000 mm2 leads to an increase in F2 of about 7%.
For post spacings which are not equal in both the x- and y-directions, an average value
of spacing can be used, with sufficient accuracy, to obtain the factor FS2 in Figure 2.13.
From the value of F2 computed from equation (2.11), the required thickness can be
read from Figure 2.13.
2.8.3. Design charts for distributed loading

Figure 2.14 presents the design chart for distributed loading at the interior of the slab. In
this instance, the interior loading case is generally more critical than the edge loading
case, and can be used as the basis for slab design.
The basic chart plots slab thickness against a factor F3, computed from
f all
F3 = F F F (2.12)
p E3 W3 H3
x x
P P P t
Es H
F2 = 1000 (fall/P) FE2 FS2 FH2

(fall in MPa, P in kN)
600
1·5
Edge loading Interior

400 loading
FE2
Interior 1·0
200 loading Edge loading
0 0·5
0 10 20 30 40 50 75 100 125 0 10 15 20 30 40 50
1·5 1·2
FH2
FS2
1·0 1·0
0·5 0·8
1 1·5 2 3 0 5 10 20
Average spacing between posts S : m Soil layer depth H : m
Figure 2.13. Design charts for post loading
where fall = design tensile strength of concrete (see section 2.7)

p = magnitude of applied distributed loading (in same units as fall)
FE3 = factor for soil Young’s modulus, Es (of equivalent uniform layer)
FW3 = factor for width W of aisle or loaded area
FH3 = factor for depth of soil layer, H.
and where the long-term value of Es is usually appropriate. Using the value of F3
computed from equation (2.12), the required thickness slab t can be read from Figure 2.14.
p t
Es H
F3 = (fall/p) FE3 FW3 FH3 2·0

(fall and p in same units)
600
1·5
400
FE3 1·0
200
0 0·5
30 50 70 90 110 0 10 20 30 40 50
1·8 1·3
1·6 1·2
1·4 1·1
FW3
FH3
1·2 1·0
1·0 0·9
0·8 0·8
0 1 2 2·5 3 4 5 0 5 10 20
Width of aisle or loaded area W : m Soil layer depth H : m
Figure 2.14. Design charts for interior distributed loading
2.8.3.1. Slab deflections

Under long-term loading conditions, it may be desirable to estimate the order of magni-
tude of the deflections of the slab beneath the distributed loading. From the finite
element analyses, theoretical solutions have been obtained for the settlement beneath the
centre of a loaded area of width W. These solutions are plotted in dimensionless form in
Figure 2.15, and are applicable to cases in which W is not greater than about 0.7 times
the soil layer depth.
1·8
W
1·6
p t
Ec, νc
1·4 Es, νs H
1·2
1·0
ωs
H: m
20
0·8
10
0·6
5
0·4
2·5
0·2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Characteristic length lc: m
Figure 2.15. Central deflection of slab for interior distributed loading
The solutions are expressed in terms of a characteristic length, lc, defined by

1/ 3
 Ec 
lc = t   (2.13)
 Es (1 −
2
s )

where Ec = Young’s modulus of slab
t = slab thickness
Es, vs = Young’s modulus and Poisson’s ratio of soil.
The settlement q below the centre of the loaded area is
pW (1 − 2
s)
q= zs (2.14)
Es
where zs denotes a dimensionless deflection factor. Values of zs are plotted in Figure

2.15 as a function of lc and soil layer thickness.
2.8.4. Slab thickening near edges

For wheel loading, the slab thickness required for edge loading will be greater than that
required for interior loading. Some assessment of the distance from the edge of the slab
at which such thickening should commence may be obtained by examining the ‘radius of
influence’ of the loads. On this basis, Table 2.10 gives a guide to this distance as a func-
tion of the general support conditions and the typical average value of Young’s modulus
below the slab associated with these conditions.
Table 2.10. Distance (e) from edge of slab at which slab thickening should commence
(t denotes thickness of slab required for internal loading)
Typical average Young’s Distance e from

General condition of soil support modulus: MPa edge of slab
Very weak 2 20t

Weak 5 15t
Medium 15 10t
Stiff 30 8t
Very stiff 80 6t
For distributed loading, as discussed previously, the interior loading case is generally
the critical one, and therefore edge thickening is not necessary.
2.8.5. Jointed slabs

In jointed slabs, it may be necessary to thicken the slab in the vicinity of the joints. In the
extreme case, if no shear connection is provided at a joint, then it should be treated as a
free edge and the thickness then assessed as described in the sections above.
If shear reinforcement is provided in the slab at the joint, recent research suggests that
the slab thickness can be designed for the interior loading case, provided that the dowels
or other load transfer devices provide for at least 50% load transfer across the joint.
Limited theoretical analyses carried out suggest that a joint will behave in a manner
similar to the interior of a slab if the available shear resistance per unit length is equal to,
or greater than, the maximum shear force per unit length imposed by the design loading.
2.9. Worked example: slab design for wheel loading

A concrete slab is to be designed to support loading from a forklift truck with an axle
load of 200 kN and a wheel spacing of 1.8 m. All parts of the slab are assumed to be
accessible to the truck. The slab is to be designed for a life of 20 years, and is estimated
to have an average of 50 daily repetitions of loading.
The profile of the supporting soil is illustrated in Figure 2.16, together with the avail-
able geotechnical data, noting that the clays have a plasticity index of 20.
The four design steps are presented below.
1. Assessment of loading
The relevant load case is wheel loading, for an axle load of 200 kN and a 1.8 m
wheel spacing. Both interior and edge load cases need to be considered.
Concrete slab t
Fill CBR = 5 1·5 m
Sand N = 12 2·5 m
Stiff clay N = 22 2m
Very stiff clay N = 35 3m
Shale
Figure 2.16. Soil profile used in worked example of slab design for wheel loading
2. Assessment of subgrade and soil conditions

The correlations presented in section 2.6 are used to assess values of Young’s
modulus of each layer shown in Figure 2.16. Table 2.11 shows the modulus
values so derived, together with the calculations to obtain the Young’s modulus of
the equivalent uniform layer. A value of Ese = 31.8 MPa, for a 9 m deep layer, is
obtained. The values of Young’s modulus are for short-term loading, which is
considered to be relevant to the case of a forklift truck.
3. Assessment of design tensile strength of slab
From Table 2.9, 50 daily load repetitions over 20 years gives a total of 260 000
repetitions over the design life.
The concrete compressive strength is assumed to be 50 MPa, and from equation
(2.9) the flexural tensile strength is 4.2 MPa. From Table 2.9 it is therefore found
(by interpolation) that for 260 000 repetitions, the design tensile strength fall is
about 2.22 MPa, if the factor k1 is taken as 1.0.
4. Application of design charts to assess slab thickness
(a) Interior loading
Referring to Figure 2.11, the stress factor F1 is
F1 = fall FEl FS1 FH1
From the charts, FEl = 1.25 for Es = 31.8 MPa, FS1 = 1.05 for S = 1.8 m, FHl = 0.98
for H = 9 m. Thus
Fl = 2.22 × 1.25 × 1.05 × 0.98
= 2.86
From the main chart, for a 200 kN axle load, the required thickness is
t = 270 mm
65
Table 2.11. Assessment of Young’s modulus of equivalent soil layer used in worked example of slab design for wheel loading
Young’s Depth zi to
Thickness hi modulus Esi layer centre Weighting
Soil layer (m) CBR (%) SPT (MPa) (m) zi /X(1) factor Wf i(2) Wfi hi Wfi hi /Esi
Fill 1.5 5 – 20 0.75 0.42 0.86 1.29 0.0645
Sand 2.5 – 12 42 2.75 1.53 0.52 1.30 0.0310
Stiff clay 2.0 – 22 37.4 5.0 2.78 0.34 0.68 0.0182
Very stiff clay 3.0 – 35 59.5 7.5 4.17 0.25 0.75 0.0126
Total 4.02 0.1263
Average: Ese = 4.02/0.1263 = 31.8 MPa

Notes: (1) X = S = wheel spacing = 1.8 m
(2) From Figure 2.10
D ESIG N AP PLIC A TIO NS OF RA FT FOU N DA TIO N S
(b) Edge loading

From Figure 2.12, FEl = 1.33, FSl = 1.04, FHl = 0.99, so that Fl is found to be 3.04.
From the main chart in this Figure,
t = 385 mm
From Table 2.10, for stiff soil support, e/t = 8. Therefore, the 385 mm thick edge
of the slab needs to grade to a thickness of 270 mm at a total distance
8 × 270 = 2160 mm from the edge.
It is interesting to compare the above slab design with that derived from document
T34. For an average Young’s modulus of 31.8 MPa, the equivalent CBR value would be
about 13. Hence, for a single wheel forklift truck with an axle load of 200 kN, the slab
thicknesses required would be 235 mm and 370 mm for interior and edge loading,
respectively. These values are slightly less than the values of 270 mm and 385 mm
obtained from the present design charts.
2.10. Worked example: slab design for post loading

A slab is to be designed to support interior post loads of 70 kN spaced at 2 m centres in
one direction and 1.5 m centres in the perpendicular direction. The underlying soil
profile consists of a residual soil deposit, 5 m deep, underlain by rock. The average
long-term Young’s modulus of the residual soil is assessed to be 30 MPa.
From equation (2.11), the stress factor F2 for post loading is
f all
F2 = FE2 FS2 FH2
P
Assuming that the concrete compressive strength is 30 MPa and that the factors k1 and k2
in equation (2.8) are 0.8 and 1.0 respectively, the design tensile strength from equations
(2.8) and (2.9) is 2.62 MPa.
From Figure 2.13, the various factors for interior loading are as follows:
(a) for Es = 30 MPa, FE2 = 1.27;

(b) for average spacing = 1.75 m, FS2 = 1.14;
(c) for soil layer depth = 5 m, FH2 = 1.0.
Thus, for a post loading of P = 70 kN, substitution into the above equation gives
F2 = 54.2; and from the main graph in Figure 2.13, the required slab thickness is about
205 mm.
For the purpose of comparison with the design charts from document T34, a
soil Young’s modulus of 30 MPa is equivalent to a modulus of subgrade reaction k
(for a 0.76 m diameter plate) of approximately 58 kPa/mm. Thus the required thick-
ness is found to be 200 mm, which is almost identical to the value obtained from the
present chart.
2.11. Worked example: slab design for distributed loading

A storage warehouse slab is to be constructed on a soil profile consisting of 2 m of
compacted fill overlying 5 m of natural medium-stiff clay, which in turn overlies rock.
The fill is essentially granular, with an average CBR-value of 12 under soaked condi-
tions (assumed to be relevant for long-term loading conditions). The average static cone
penetration resistance of the natural clay is 1.5 MPa.
The loading consists of stacked rolls of reinforcing mesh, 4 m wide, with an aisle
width of 2.5 m between adjacent stacks. The design distributed loading due to each stack
is 50 kPa. It is assumed that over the life of the structure, the stacks may be removed and
replaced about 1000 times.
It is required to design a suitable thickness of floor slab and to estimate the long-term
settlement below each stack.
1. Assessment of loading
The specified distributed loading is 50 kPa, and it is assumed that, over the life of
the structure, there may be 1000 load repetitions. It will be necessary to consider
stresses both beneath the rolls and in the unloaded aisles, to find the more critical
case. Only the case of interior loading need be considered, as the slab stresses due
to edge loading are less severe (see section 2.8.3).
2. Assessment of subgrade and soil conditions

From the correlations presented in section 2.6, for CBR = 12, the long-term
Young’s modulus of the fill is about 30 MPa. The short-term Young’s modulus of
the natural clay can be approximated as 20qc (where qc denotes the static cone
penetration resistance) i.e. 30 MPa. To convert this to a value for long-term condi-
tions, the factor b in Table 2.5 is about 0.6, so that the long-term Young’s modulus
is 0.6 × 30 = 18 MPa.
Applying equation (2.7) and referring to Figure 2.10, the average long-term
Young’s modulus of the 7 m thick soil layer is found to be 20.7 MPa for a width
W of 4 m (the same average modulus will be assumed to apply both beneath the
rolls and in the unloaded aisles).
3. Assessment of design tensile strength of slab

It will be assumed that the 28-day compressive strength of the concrete is 50 MPa
and that the factor k1, in equation (2.8), is 0.85. For 1000 load repetitions, from
Table 2.9, the factor k2 is 0.73.
From equations (2.8) and (2.9),
f ct′ = 0.6 f c′
= 4.24 MPa, and
f all = k1 k 2 f ct′
= 0.85 × 0.73 × 4.24
= 2.63 MPa.
4. Application of design charts to assess slab thickness

Both the requirements below the roll stacks (W = 4 m) and below the aisles
(W = 2.5 m) will be examined. Only interior loading need be considered, as the
stresses in the slab for this case are generally higher than for edge loading.
Referring to Figure 2.14, the stress factor F3 is given by
fall
F3 = –— FE3 FW3 FH3
p
From the charts in Figure 2.14, FE3 = 1.22 for Es = 20.7 MPa and FH3 = 0.96
for H = 7 m. For the roll stacks (W = 4 m), FW3 = 0.88, while for the aisles
(W = 2.5 m), FW3 = 1.0.
Substituting into the last equation (with p = 0.05 MPa), it is found that
F3 = 54.2 for the roll stack areas
and
F3 = 61.6 for the aisles.
From the main chart in Figure 2.14, the required thickness is 440 mm below the
roll stacks, and 380 mm for the aisles. Thus, in this case, the critical condition is
the stress (due to sagging bending moment) beneath the roll stacks, and the
required slab thickness is therefore 440 mm.
For the estimation of long-term settlement below the roll stacks, Figure 2.15 may
be used. The characteristic length of the slab, lc, is given by
1/ 3
 Ec 
lc = t  2 
 s −
E (1 
s )
Substituting Ec = 33 000 MPa, Es = 20.7 MPa, vs = 0.3, and t = 0.440 m, it is

found that lc = 5.30 m.
The ratio W/H = 4/7 = 0.57, and therefore Figure 2.15 can be used to estimate
the long-term settlement, which is given by
pW (1 − 2
s)
q= zs
Es
For H = 7 m and lc = 5.30 m, zs = 0.62.

0.05 × 4 × (1 − 0.32 ) × 0.62
Therefore q =
20.7
= 0.0055 m = 5.5 mm
Using document T34, the relationship between required slab thickness and modulus of
subgrade reaction k is shown in Figure 2.17 for the case of variable storage layout. For a
760 mm diameter plate and a soil Young’s modulus of 20.7 MPa, the modulus of
subgrade reaction would be about 48 kPa/mm. The use of this value with document T34
800
600
Value from present design charts

400
From document T34

200
0
0 10 20 30 40
Modulus of subgrade reaction k : kPa/mm
Figure 2.17. Relation between slab thickness and modulus of subgrade reaction
would give a slab thickness of only 90 mm, substantially less than the 440 mm computed
from the present charts. To obtain the same thickness as that computed from the present
design charts, the value of k would need to be about 8 kPa/mm. The relationship between
k and Young’s modulus of the soil is, at best, uncertain for distributed loadings. Clearly
the volume of soil influenced by the distributed loading is larger than for wheel and post
loadings, and therefore a smaller value of k than the value for a 760 mm diameter plate
would be appropriate for the distributed loading case.
The use of the present design charts removes the need to assess k-values for different
types of loading, by using a more fundamental measure of soil compressibility, the
Young’s modulus.
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful to the Cement and Concrete Association of Australia for
permission to publish the material in this chapter. The support of R. Potter is
particularly appreciated.
2.12. References
2.1. POULOS, H. G. and SMALL, J. C. Development of new design charts for concrete industrial slabs.
Proc. Int. Conf. Concrete 95, Toward Better Concrete Structures, Brisbane, Australia, Sept.
1995, 2, 615–624. Concrete Institute of Australia, 1995.
2.2. CEMENT AND CONCRETE ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA. Industrial pavements: guidelines for design,
construction and specification. C&CAA, Sydney, T48, 1997.
2.3. CEMENT AND CONCRETE ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA. Concrete industrial floor and pavement
design. C&CAA, Sydney, T34, 1985.
2.4. SMALL, J. C. Computer program FEAR (Finite Element Analysis of Rafts). Sydney Univ.,
Australia.
2.5. SMALL, J. C. Computer program FLEA (Finite Layer Elastic Analysis). Sydney Univ., Australia.
2.6. SELVADURAI, A. P. S. Elastic analysis of soil–foundation interaction. Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1979.
2.7. ZHANG, B. and SMALL, J. C. Analysis of rafts on foundations of variable stiffness. Proc. 7th Int.
Conf. Comp. Meth. Adv. Geomech., Cairns, Australia, May 1991, 2, 1103–1108. A. A. Balkema,
Rotterdam, 1991 (eds G. Beer, J. R. Booker and J. P. Carter).
2.8. HODGKINSON, J. R. Thickness design for concrete road pavements. Cement and Concrete Associ-
ation of Australia, 1982, Tech. Note TN46.
2.9. DAVIS, E. H. and POULOS, H. G. The use of elastic theory for settlement prediction under
three-dimensional conditions. Géotechnique, 1968, 18, 1 (Mar.), 67–91.
2.10. AUSTROADS. Pavement design: a guide to the structural design of road pavements. Austroads,
Sydney, 1992.
2.11. LAMBE, T. W. and WHITMAN, R. V. Soil mechanics, SI Version. Wiley, New York, 1979.
2.12. STROUD, M. A. and BUTLER, F. G. The Standard Penetration Test and the engineering properties
of engineering materials. Proc. Symp. Engng Behaviour of Glacial Materials, Univ. Birmingham,
England, 1978, 117–128.
2.13. STANDARDS AUSTRALIA. Concrete structures. Standards Australia, Sydney, 1994, AS 3600.

Development of Design Charts For Concrete Pavements and Industrial Ground Slabs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Development of Design Charts For Concrete Pavements and Industrial Ground Slabs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2.

Development of design charts for

(a) assessment of loading;

2.2. Basic assumptions

Rough rigid base

Figure 2.1. Analytical model used in elastic analysis of ground slab

1. The soil is modelled as an equivalent homogeneous isotropic elastic layer of

Slab edge Slab edge

(a) (b) (c)

2.3. Method of analysis

2.3.1. Representation of loading

2.3.1.1. Wheel loading

Slab edge Slab edge

(a) (b) (c)

2.3.1.2. Post loading

2.3.1.3. Distributed loading

2.3.2. Jointed slabs

2.3.3. Accuracy checks

Table 2.1. Comparisons between alternative solutions for test case A

t: m qmax: m Mmax: MNm/m

FLEA FEAR FLEA FEAR

0.2 0.088 0.090 0.48 0.50

Table 2.2. Comparisons between alternative solutions for test case B

t:m qmax: mm Mmax: kNm/m

FEAR FLEA Selvadurai FEAR FLEA Selvadurai

0.2 1.78 1.32 1.77 23.0 21.4 21.9

2.4. Procedure for development and use of design charts

Max. stress for ‘ standard’ value of Es

7. In this way, the following correction factors were derived:

Step no. Broad procedure Detailed assessments required

Assessment of 1.1. Type and configuration

Assessment of 2.1. Thickness of each soil layer.

Assessment of 3.1. Design life.

Use of design charts 4.1. Stress factor F for

Figure 2.6. Summary of design procedure to determine thickness of ground slab

2.5. Assessment of loading

2.5.1. Wheel loading

(a) single axle with single wheels;

Table 2.3. Loading characteristics of typical forklift trucks

Average wheel spacings: mm

Single wheels Dual wheels

2.5.1.1. Traffic estimation

Table 2.4. Total number of load repetitions

Design life: years

1 5 200 7 800 10 400 13 000

2.5.2. Post loading

2.5.3. Distributed loading

2.6. Assessment of subgrade and soil conditions

2.6.1. Assessment of soil Young’s modulus

and typical values of b are shown in Table 2.5.

Table 2.5. Correction factor for long-term Young’s modulus of soil

Soil type Factor b

Table 2.6. Typical presumptive design CBR values

Description of subgrade Typical CBR values: %

Material USC classification Well drained Poorly drained

Clay, highly plastic CH 5 2–3

Table 2.7. Modulus correlation factor

Soil type Factor (a)

Table 2.8. Typical values of Poisson’s ratio for soil

Soil type Short-term loading Long-term loading

Gravel 0.30 0.30

Layer i hi Esi ≡ H Ese

2.6.2. Assessment of equivalent uniform soil layer