Licensed copy: BUROHAPP, Buro Happold Ltd, 04/09/2019, Uncontrolled Copy, © Concrete Society

A single copy of this

Concrete Society

publication is licensed to

BUROHAPP
on
04/09/2019

This is an uncontrolled copy - not for contract use

Buro Happold Ltd

This is an uncontrolled copy. Ensure use of the most current version of this document
by searching the Construction Information Service at http://uk.ihs.com
 CONCRETE ADVICE No. 51

Cracking in pile-supported ground slabs

Deryk Simpson, BSc CEng MICE
Licensed copy: BUROHAPP, Buro Happold Ltd, 04/09/2019, Uncontrolled Copy, © Concrete Society

Many industrial ground floors are constructed as pile-supported slabs due to high floor
loadings and/or poor ground conditions. These slabs are designed assuming no
structural support from the ground, the ground only acting as in-situ formwork.
Significant surface cracking has been experienced on some pile-supported slabs; the
risk of such cracking is discussed.

1 Structural design of pile-supported

slabs

Pile-supported slabs can be designed as

either steel fibre reinforced (with or without
additional bar reinforcement) as per the
guidance given in Concrete Society Fig 1. Conventional sawn jointed ground
(1)
Technical Report 34 or as fully supported slab on slip membrane.
suspended elevated flat slabs with bar
reinforcement, in accordance with
(2)
Eurocode BS EN 1992-1-1 . Generally
the steel fibre reinforcement option is
chosen for pile-supported ground slabs
because it is typically a quicker and more
economical form of construction.

2 Why pile-supported slabs are

different from ground-supported
and elevated suspended slabs
Cracking in ground floors is usually a result
of restraint to concrete movement where
the tensile capacity is overcome by tension
that develops in the concrete.
Restraint
A conventional jointed ground supported
slab relieves restraint by cracks opening at
the sawn joints i.e. cracks at predefined
locations. A typical pile-supported ground
slab does not have frequently spaced
joints and therefore the build-up of restraint
to movement can be higher.
Fig 2. Pile-supported ground slab on slip
membrane.
Typically, the restraint developed in steel
fibre reinforced ground supported and pile-
supported slabs are very similar, as the
slab in both cases sits on a slip membrane
and is not tied to ground beams or to the
piles.
For these ‘jointless’ slabs the restraint to
movement may be lower than that for bar
reinforced slabs.
 Page 2 of 4
The restraint to movement in ground and pile-
supported slabs reinforced with bar can be very
high as the slab may be continuous and tied to
ground beams and piles, in addition to interface
restraint.
Licensed copy: BUROHAPP, Buro Happold Ltd, 04/09/2019, Uncontrolled Copy, © Concrete Society
Fig 3. Tied pile-supported slab on ground.
void
Fig 4. Elevated pile-supported slab.
In comparison to fully suspended elevated slabs the
restraint to thermal and moisture movements
offered by piles, ground/slab interface friction, etc.
is greater in ground and pile-supported slabs.
Differential Shrinkage
Compared to an elevated slab, a slab on ground
(pile- or ground-supported) can only dry out from
the top surface. This will give a moisture gradient
with depth and the slab will try to warp/curl. With
conventional jointed ground-supported slabs the
relatively close spaced sawn joints (typically 6m
spacing) will provide a high degree of relief to
warping strains.
However with pile-supported ground slabs, the lack
of frequent joints, the slab thickness (usually
greater than ground supported slabs) and the
restraint provided by interface friction (and possibly
ground beams and piles) can result in restrained
warping. This can generate high tensile strains in
the top surface that increase the risk of surface
cracking.
CONCRETE ADVICE NO. 51
Overall shrinkage
Fully suspended elevated slabs have a degree of
movement as columns can ‘flex’ as the structure
moves. A conventional ground-supported slab with
limited fabric reinforcement in the bottom will have
frequent joints that reduce the restraint to overall
drying shrinkage. Pile-supported ground slabs
generally have only a few wide spaced movement
joints (if any) and the slab may also be tied to the
supporting piles, hence the restraint to overall
contraction tends to be high, increasing the tensile
strains generated by shrinkage and increasing the
risk of cracking.
It is not normal practice to provide close spaced
joints to reduce restraint in pile-supported ground
floors, due to the problems joints give in the
structural design. Where slabs are tied to piles or
ground beams it is suspected that the wide spacing
of movement joints sometimes provided in slabs will
have only a limited effect in reducing the risk of
cracking associated with the restraint generated.
Many pile-supported ground slabs are designed not
to be tied to the supporting piles, e.g. when a slip or
gas membrane is present under the slab. This type
of slab should have a lower level of restraint to
overall shrinkage. These slabs will tend to behave,
as far as overall contraction is concerned, as
relatively thick ‘jointless’ ground supported slabs.
Combined differential and overall shrinkage
These two mechanisms can between them give
high levels of tensile strains in the slab, particularly
in the top, with an attendant high risk of cracking.
As pile-supported slabs are normally thicker than
ground-supported slabs they will take longer to dry.
In practice this means that initially cracking due to
restrained warping will occur with the cracks most
probably not propagating to the bottom of the slab.
As drying proceeds there is a risk that overall
restrained shrinkage may cause some of the
restrained warping cracks to propagate deeper and
become wider at the surface. This effect can
sometimes be seen as two superimposed patterns
of random fine and close spaced interconnected
cracks overlaid with wider cracks at wider spacing.
Load induced stresses
Stresses induced due to loading in a pile-supported
ground slab may be much lower than the slab
design predicts, as inevitably the underlying ground
will provide some (but unquantifiable) support. In
practice the ground has to support the self-weight
of the slab during construction and therefore load
induced deflections will not usually occur until the
slab is loaded. This partial support from the ground
means that the actual bending moments and shear
forces in the slab could be much less than the
structural design predicts, at least initially.
 Page 3 of 4
The dominant stress in the top of a ‘suspended’
ground slab could be the restrained contraction
stress, resulting in lower compression in the top of
the slab at mid-span than the structural design
predicts. Support moments caused by bending
would also be lower than predicted, so reducing the
combined tension at supports due to the
Licensed copy: BUROHAPP, Buro Happold Ltd, 04/09/2019, Uncontrolled Copy, © Concrete Society
combination of bending and restrained contraction.
Cracking
There is a high risk of cracking in pile-supported
slabs for the reasons discussed above. Generally
the cracking has no structural significance.
However where the slab is left uncovered, e.g. a
power trowelled warehouse slab, the cracks will be
visible and may represent a serviceability problem
with crack edge breakdown under traffic.
With continuous bar reinforced concrete pile-
supported slabs some cracking is inevitable.
Designers and clients cannot expect these types of
slabs to remain virtually free of significant cracks,
unlike well designed and constructed conventional
ground supported slabs where the ‘cracking’
actually occurs at the sawn joints.
Bar reinforced pile-supported ground slabs are
likely to have more cracks than similar elevated flat
slabs. The cracks cannot be totally eliminated but it
may be possible to control them by the design and
detailing of the floor.
The risk of cracking in steel fibre reinforced floors
depends on whether or not the floor is tied to the
piles and the types and locations of joints in the
floor.
Experience indicates that continuous bar reinforced
pile-supported ground slabs tend to exhibit close
spaced narrow cracks, whereas steel fibre
reinforced pile-supported ground slabs may exhibit
fewer but wider cracks.
3 Suggestions for slab designers
Inform the client
Firstly, the designer must inform his client that
when pile-supported ground slabs are specified,
some cracking is virtually inevitable in the slab. The
designer can only endeavour to control the cracking
by the slab design and detailing.
Assess effect of cracking
The designer should discuss with the client the
potential effects of any cracks on the use of the
slab and the cost of the various options to reduce
the risk of any cracking or control any cracks which
occur.
CONCRETE ADVICE NO. 51
4 Slab Design Procedures
Bar reinforced slabs – design for applied loads
The slab should be proportioned and designed in
(2)
accordance with EC2 for the applied loading, as if
it were a normal elevated slab.
Movement joints should be provided in accordance
(3)
with the guidance given in CIRIA Report C734 or
the Manual for the design of reinforced concrete
(4)
building structures .
Bar reinforced slabs – Crack control
reinforcement
When detailing the slab, check that an adequate
percentage of top reinforcement is provided in both
directions for crack control purposes. Note that the
top reinforcement areas required for bending and
direct tension (if any) can be included for crack
control purposes, i.e. the crack control
reinforcement percentages include the bending top
reinforcement areas and do not have to be added
to the bending reinforcement areas.
The crack control reinforcement should be provided
in both directions continuously over all the top of
the slab between movement joints. Higher
percentages of reinforcement than needed for the
crack control reinforcement may be required locally
if the flexure design indicates that it is necessary.
It is suggested that the non-structural crack width
calculations are undertaken, say using the
(5)
procedures outlined in CIRIA Report C660 , or
EC2. Unfortunately the results obtained from the
crack control design approach are very much
dependent on the values assumed for thermal and
shrinkage contraction strains and restraint factors.
These can be difficult to quantify. So at best, the
crack control design approach provides only a
guide. A design crack width of 0.3 mm, as
recommended in EC2, should be satisfactory for
industrial floors.
It is suggested that a minimum slab reinforcement
percentage of 0.25% should be provided in both
directions in the top half of the slab, or top 200mm if
the slab is over 400mm thick.
It must be remembered that in general terms high
reinforcement percentages will tend to give narrow
cracks at close centres, as compared to low
reinforcement percentages which will tend to give
wide cracks at wide centres. Thus providing high
percentages of reinforcement to control crack
widths could result in large numbers of fine cracks.
 Page 4 of 4 CONCRETE ADVICE NO. 51

Steel fibre reinforced slabs

Many pile-supported industrial ground floors are
designed and constructed with steel fibre
reinforcement or a combination of steel fibre and
bar reinforcement. Guidance on the design of piled-
supported steel fibre reinforced slabs is given in
(1)
TR34 .
Licensed copy: BUROHAPP, Buro Happold Ltd, 04/09/2019, Uncontrolled Copy, © Concrete Society
5 Alternative Design Strategies
If the client wishes to have minimal random
cracking a post tensioned slab could be used.
Alternatively a conventionally jointed unbonded
overslab could be provided over the structural slab.

However this option is expensive, due to the high

Steel fibre ground floor slabs are generally overall thickness of the floor, high pile loads and the
designed by specialists and it is recommended that additional construction operations required.
the structural designers for the scheme should
discuss with the steel fibre floor specialist what
measures have been included in the floor design for
the control of cracking due to differential and
restrained contraction. Experience indicates that
steel fibre reinforced piled slabs may have fewer
but wider cracks than bar reinforced piled slabs.

References
1. THE CONCRETE SOCIETY, Concrete industrial ground floors: A guide to design and construction,
Technical Report 34, Fourth Edition, The Concrete Society, Camberley, 2013.
2. BRITISH STANDARDS INSTITUTION. BS EN 1992-1-1:2004, Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures
– part 1-1; General rules and rules for buildings.
3. CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND INFORMATION ASSOCIATION, Design for movement
in buildings, Report C734, CIRIA, London, 2014.
4. INSTITUTION OF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS, Manual for the design of reinforced concrete building
structures, Second Edition, The Institution, London, 2002.
5. CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY RESEARCH AND INFORMATION ASSOCIATION, Early-age thermal
crack control in concrete, Report C660, CIRIA, London.

Impartial advice can be sought from The Concrete Society. Members are entitled Contacts
to substantial discounts on services and products including site visits and
investigations, dependent on status. For publications and information, The The Concrete Society 01276 607140
Concrete Society Bookshop holds a wide range of books and pamphlets along Bookshop 07004 607777
with an extensive library stock. We provide many services such as literature www.concrete.org.uk
searches and notification of new references to our extensive catalogue www.concretebookshop.com

Issued Oct 2014

CONCRETE Advice Sheets are produced and published by The Concrete Society. The information and advice
contained in the Advice Sheets is based on the experience and knowledge of the Concrete Society’s
Technical Staff. Although The Society does its best to ensure that any advice, recommendation or information
it gives is accurate, no liability or responsibility of any kind (including liability for negligence), howsoever and
from whatsoever cause arising is accepted in this respect by The Concrete Society, its servants or agents.
Readers should also note that all Concrete Society publications are subject to revision from time to time and
should therefore ensure that they are in possession of the latest version