DESIGN OF WAFFLE RAFT SLAB SYSTEMS IN EXPANSIVE

SOIL


S. Sivanerupan
1
, E. F. Gad
2
and J. L. Wilson
3




ABSTRACT:
Roughly 30% of Australia is covered with expansive and swelling soils, mostly clays, which expand or shrink as
they go through cycles of wetting and drying. Consequently slabs designed in expansive soil are subject to
ground movement due to moisture variation. Differential slab movements in low rise buildings can cause
damage to walls, ceilings and plumbing. Majority of new houses in Victoria are built on Waffle raft slabs
designed using Standard deemed-to-comply provisions.

There have been damage reports due to soil heaving in the last couple of years in Melbourne western suburbs.
There is anecdotal evidence that damage to houses with larger slabs found to be more common compared to
smaller houses. In this paper, the design of waffle raft in accordance to AS 2870 is discussed. Progressive heave
profiles were defined under Waffle raft slabs. Detailed finite element analyses were undertaken to verify the
Waffle raft slab performance under different heave profiles. Recommendations are made in relation to
improving the expected performance of such large span slabs in heave.

KEYWORDS: Waffle raft slab, Expansive soil, AS 2870, Cracking in houses, Damage in residential structures
and Slab movement



1
S. Sivanerupan, Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology.
Email: ssivagnanasundram@swin.edu.au
2
E. F. Gad, Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology.
Email: egad@swin.edu.au
3
J. L. Wilson, Department of Civil and Construction Engineering, Swinburne University of Technology.
Email: jwilson@swin.edu.au


1 INTRODUCTION
In recent times there has been some anecdotal
evidence suggesting some new house slabs were
failed to satisfy differential deflection under
expansive soil heave. Differential slab deflections
in low rise buildings cause damage to walls,
ceilings and plumbing when the deflection capacity
of such elements is exceeded. Damage due to edge
dropping (settlement due to soil shrinkage) was
reported during the drought period in 2000s and
more recently in the last two years with higher
rainfall. In late 2011, it was estimated that more
than 1,000 new houses could be damaged in the
Western suburbs of Melbourne due to slab heave
[1].
Roughly 30% of Australia is covered with
expansive clays, which expand or shrink as they go
through cycles of wetting and drying. Slabs
founded on these soils are subject to ground
movement due to moisture variation. Site
classifications and corresponding design of
residential slabs are performed using the provisions
of the Australian Standard for residential slabs AS
2870-2011 [2]. The process of site classification
aims to characterise the ground behaviour and to
provide simplified parameters for design purpose.
The classification is based on ground movement
limits which are defined in terms of the
characteristic surface movement (known as y
s
).

For a highly reactive site (H2) y
s
can be between
60 and 75mm. Alternatively, AS2870 also offers a
classification of a site based on the performance of
similar nearby houses in similar soil types. In H2
sites the maximum differential movement along the
perimeter of a house can be up to 45-55 mm.
Obviously, with such differential movement some
significant cracking to unarticulated walls would be
expected [3].
Walsh and Cameron [4] who were involved in the
research leading to the first AS2870 (published in
1986) state that house slabs are not expected to
perform in the same way as conventional concrete
or geotechnical structures. In the event of failure
there is no risk to life nor are the failures generally
expensive to repair; therefore, AS2870 does not
seek to prevent all cracking of houses due to slab
movement, but it aims to control the severity of
cracking. Hence the performance expectation in
AS2870 is modest.
Crack width is the main factor by which damage to
walls is categorized in AS 2870. The width may be
supplemented by other factors, including
serviceability, in assessing category of damage. It
states that some minor cracking and movement
will occur in a significant proportion of houses,
particularly those on expansive clays. However, it
is generally accepted that a single isolated crack
less than 5mm or few cracks less than 3mm in
width would be considered minor and within the
acceptable design and construction limits.
The classification of damage with reference to the
cracking in walls in accordance to AS 2870 is
shown in Table 1. In addition, the Standard
specifies that, if the cracking occurs in easily
repaired plasterboard or similar clad-framed
partitions, the crack width limits may be increased
by 50% for each damage category. Damage
Categories 3 and 4 as defined in AS2870 require
structural repairs and/or stabilisation of the
foundations.
Table 1: Classification of damage with reference to
walls AS 2870
Description of
typical damage
and required
repair
Approximate
crack width
limit (mm)
Damage
Category
Hairline cracks <0.1 0
Negligible
Fine cracks that
do not need repair
<1 1 Very
slight
Cracks noticeable
but easily filled
<5 2 Slight
Cracks can be
repaired, a small
amount of wall
may need
replacement
5mm to 15mm
(or a group of
cracks> 3mm)
3
Moderate
Extensive repair
work. Doors and
windows distort.
Walls lean /bulge.
15mm to
25mm (also
depends on no.
of cracks)
4 Severe

Slabs can be designed based on AS 2870
engineering principles or deemed-to-comply design
solutions. AS 2870 provides deemed-to-comply
solutions for stiffened raft, waffle raft and strip
footings. The majority of new slabs in Victoria are
waffle raft slabs based on the deemed-to-comply
provisions. Waffle raft slabs have advantages over
other slabs due to ease of construction, lesser
concrete required, improved thermal comfort as it
has voids underneath encapsulated by polystyrene
pods, shrinkage joints are not required as they sit
above ground. Figure 1 shows a typical waffle raft
slab under construction. Recently built houses have
a typical land frontage in the range of 10 to 16m
and slab widths in the range of 8 to 14m
respectively. There is anecdotal evidence that
damage is more common in wider houses. The slab
contours extracted from damage reports show that
most of these slabs failed to satisfy the deflection
criteria specified in AS 2870.

Figure 1: Waffle raft slab under construction
Due to the reported damage and concerns raised
about the performance of Waffle raft slabs this
paper compares Waffle raft slab design based on
the deemed-to-comply provisions and engineering
principles found in AS 2870. Furthermore, finite
element analysis was conducted to examine the
performance of typical Waffle raft slab when
subjected to number of different heave profiles.
2 DESIGN OF WAFFLE RAFT IN
ACCORDANCE TO AS 2870
In AS 2870 the maximum differential deflections
for super structure are limited as shown in Table 2.
For the most common articulated masonry veneer
wall construction the slab deflection is limited to
the lesser of 30mm and L/400, where L is the
effective span over which the deflection occurs.

In this section, typical Waffle raft design example
is presented for a H2 site with corresponding 60 to
75mm design surface movement (y
s
) using the AS
2870 deemed-to-comply provision and engineering
s principles in Section 4 of AS2870 , 2011.
Table 2: Limits for differential deflection AS 2870
Type of
construction
Maximum
differential
deflection, as a
function of span,
mm
Maximum
differential
deflection,
mm
Clad frame L/300 40
Articulated
masonry
veneer
L/400 30
Masonry
veneer
L/600 20
Articulated
full masonry
L/800 15
Full masonry L/2000 10


2.1 DESIGN USING DEEMED-TO-COMPLY
PROVISIONS
In the deemed-to-comply provisions, once the site
is classified the design engineer can adopt a
suitable Waffle raft slab configuration from Figure
3.4 Waffle raft in AS 2870. Details extracted
from the standard for a H2 site are shown in Figure
2. For H2 site the slab is recommended to be
minimum 85mm in thickness with 110mm wide
beams at a spacing of 1.2m and overall depth of
beams are 385mm. SL82 mesh is required for the
slab and 3N16 bars are required for the beam
bottom. In this design the site has to be maintained
as a normal site and it is assumed that the site
classification throughout the life time remain the
same. Slab systems designed and constructed in
accordance with AS 2870, 2011 on a normal site
are expected to experience usually no damage, a
low incidence of damage category 1 and an
occasional incidence of damage category 2.

Figure 2: Typical H2 Waffle raft slab beams and
slab configuration as per AS 2870
2.2 DESIGN BY ENGINEERING PRINCIPLE
Generally for Waffle rafts thickness of the slab,
beam width and the spacing between beams are
kept constant. The design engineer would normally
vary the depth of the beams to achieve the desired
performance. AS 2870 provides a chart for design
engineers to estimate the depth of beams as shown
in Figure 3.

If the y
s
or the site classification and the type of
wall construction is known, y
s
/ value can be
calculated; where is the limit for differential
deflection of slabs as shown in Table 2. Using the
y
s
/ as an input the value of *(

)+ can
be estimated as shown in Figure 3. In this Figure
b
w
is width of the beams in millimetres and d is
the overall depth of the beam in millimetres and
w is the overall width of the slab in meters. The
chart provides estimation for both normal soil
profile and deep-seated movement profile.

In this example, the overall beam depths were
calculated for H2 site classification range y
s
=
60mm and y
s
= 75mm and the calculated beam
depths were 375mm and 460mm respectively. To
correspond with the standard polystyrene pod sizes
the design engineer would typically recommend a
385mm overall beam depth for y
s
= 60mm and
460mm overall beam depth for y
s
= 75mm.

Figure 3: Extract from AS 2870 for design of Waffle
raft slabs based on engineering principles
However, the standard deemed-to-comply
provision recommends 385mm overall beam depth
for H2 site classification regardless of the y
s
value
as discussed in Section 2.1. This suggests that the
deemed-to-comply provision is less conservative if
the site is at the upper end of the H2 classification.
As such, the slab performance may be lower than
expected.
3 FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING
The deemed-to-comply provisions and designs
using engineering principles provided in AS 2870
are based on mound profiles proposed by early
researchers in the 1970s [5 & 6]. Initially the
mound profiles were used for slab on ground and
stiffened raft slabs. It appears similar models were
adapted for Waffle raft slabs. If the soil profile and
the slab details are known the slab performance can
be analysed using detailed finite element analyses.
Similar studies were performed by Rifat Bulut in
the US [7] with known ground movement profiles
for US conditions. In this section soil profiles were
predefined based on standard mound profiles [8]
and assumptions. ANSYS [9] commercial software
was used to model the soil - Waffle raft slab
interaction. Again H2 site and deemed-to-comply
H2 Waffle raft slab was considered.
3.1 MODEL DESCRIPTION
The concrete Waffle raft slab and soil beneath the
slab were modelled using solid elements (ANSYS
SOLID65). Youngs modulus of concrete was
taken as 15GPa as specified in AS 2870 and a
Poissons ratio of 0.2 was used. In the analysis the
effective moment of inertia I
e
should be used to
represent the cracked sections rather than the gross
sectional properties I
g
. The use of I
g
instead of I
e

would potentially lead to a substantial
underestimate of the slab deflection.

Paulay and Priestley [10] recommended 0.40I
g
for
beams and 0.60I
g
for normal columns as effective
moments of inertia in concrete building drift
analysis. In this study an average 0.50I
g
has been
used to provide a reasonable estimate of the slab
deflection. Stiff compression-only spring elements
(ANSYS COMBIN39) were used to create contact
between soil surface nodes and the waffle raft
beams bottoms nodes. The model was limited to a
single strip which is 11.3m in length as shown in
Figure 4. The width of the model was kept to 1.2m
which is the typical centre to centre beam spacing.
A 0.5kPa dead load and 0.75kPa live load (0.5Q)
was applied to the slab in addition to self-weight.
The edge line load was not applied as it will not
affect the results when use predefined heave
profiles.

Analysis was performed using two load steps. Load
step 1 was processed with gravity loads applied.
Load step 2 was processed with the displacement
profile (heave profile) applied incrementally
through small steps to observe the soil-Waffle raft
slab interaction. The shape of the profiles was kept
constant and was only amplified up to the
maximum heave. Analyses were carried out with
four different soil heave profiles namely; (a) edge
lift; (b) e-distance heave; (c) asymmetrical edge
lift; and (d) asymmetrical e-distance heave.

Figure 4: Finite element model of 11.3m long H2
Waffle raft slab
3.2 SOIL HEAVE PROFILES APPLIED
For design purpose, the Australian Standard AS
2870 recommends the heave could occur up to the
e-distance and it could be estimated using the slab
span L and the active depth h. In this study, it
was assumed the soil heave initiates under the edge
beam and progresses towards the internal beams as
shown in Figure 5. However, there is anecdotal
evidence from slabs investigated with heave issues
in recent years still had very dry soils within 1.5m
inside from the edge beams up to a 2m depth. Void
spaces under internal beams were also reported
similar to Figure 5. In addition, slab contours
reported in damage reports failed to satisfy the
deflection criteria specified in AS 2870 and in most
cases differential deflection found to happen within
a small portion of the slab close to edge beams
instead of over the full span.
Therefore, it was assumed in this analysis that
heave could happen at the edge in the short term or
throughout the e-distance in the long term under
Waffle raft slabs. There are possibilities of edge lift
or e-distance heave happening only on one side of
the Waffle raft slabs and these two options were
named as asymmetrical edge lift and asymmetrical
e-distance heave. There has been a number of
reports on this type of heave occurrence in the
Melbournes western suburbs. A typical case could
be in a house where one side of the house is paved
and not the other or courtyard on only one side of
the house.

Figure 5: Progressive heave under a Waffle raft
slab
3.2.1 Edge lift profile
Under this scenario, the soil beneath the edge beam
is assumed to have heaved and in turn it lifts the
edge beams only. This means that the slab would
span between edge beams. The soil beyond the
edge beams towards the centre of the slab is
assumed not to heave sufficiently to push up the
centre of the slab.
Maximum edge lift was taken as 0.7y
s
to represent
the differential deflection measured during recent
investigations in most of the houses with damage to
internal walls and ceilings. Therefore, the
maximum heave will be 42mm for y
s
= 60mm and
53mm for y
s
= 75mm. Edge lift taken in this study
is higher than what assumed in the AS 2780 for
edge heave scenario. When the edge lift applied to
the slab, almost 2/3 of the mid span soil was
restrained in the vertical direction to create a flat
surface assuming where soil does not heave as
shown in Figure 6.


Figure 6: Edge lift heave profile used in the FE
analysis
3.2.2 e-distance heave profile
The e-distance 2.6m was estimated using Mitchell
method [2] by conservatively assuming the slab
and the soil will be in contact up to e-distance.
Equation 1 by Mitchell [7] was used to generate the
soil profile under the e-distance.

(1)
Where; x is the horizontal distance, L is the
overall width of the slab, and is the allowable
slab deflection. In this example was taken as
28mm being the lesser of 30mm and L/400. The
profile was created for 11.3m width of slab with y
m

= 53mm as shown in Figure 7. In this case the
maximum heave will be y
m
= 53mm being the same
as edge lift case. However, the slab has additional
support on either side due to the e-distance heave
2.6m compared to the edge lift scenario.

The soil profile and the expected slab deflection
profile is shown in Figure 7. Once again the mid
span soil nodes were restrained in the vertical
direction to maintain as reference.
1
X
Y
Z

FEB 12 2014
16:51:08
ELEMENTS
MAT NUM
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
V
e
r
i
t
c
a
l

m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Slab span (11.3m)
Expected slab
profile
Soil profile

Figure 7: e-distance heave profile used in the FE
analysis
3.2.3 Asymmetrical edge lift profile
There are possibilities of edge lift heave happening
only on one side of the Waffle raft slabs.
Symmetrical edge lift profile was modified as
shown in Figure 8 to consider the worst case
asymmetrical edge lift.


Figure 8: Asymmetrical edge lift heave profile used
in the FE analysis
3.2.4 Asymmetrical e-distance heave profile
The symmetrical e-distance heave profile was also
modified as shown in Figure 9 to consider the
worst case asymmetrical e-distance heave.


Figure 9: Asymmetrical e-distance heave profile
used in the FE analysis
3.3 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSES
RESUTLS
3.3.1 Edge lift profile
When symmetrical edge lift profile was applied in
small incremental steps the differential deflection
of the slab was linearly increased until y
m
= 53mm
as the mid span of the slab remained in contact with
soil. The results indicate if y
m
is greater than 28mm
the slab does not satisfy the deflection criteria as
the slab is too flexible to span between the two
edges as shown in Figure 10. Therefore, this design
fails to satisfy the deflection criteria for both for
both y
m
= 42mm and y
m
=53mm.



Figure 10: Deformed slab and soil profile results for
symmetrical edge lift condition at ym = 53mm
3.3.2 e-distance heave profile
When the symmetrical e-distance heave profile was
applied in small incremental steps, the differential
deflection of the slab was less than the edges lift
case. The pre-defined soil profile reduced slab
differential deflection. The results indicated the
slab satisfies the deflection criteria for both y
m
=
42mm and y
m
=53mm as shown in Figure 11.


Figure 11: Deformed slab and soil profile results for
symmetrical e-distance heave condition at ym =
53mm.
3.3.3 Asymmetrical edge lift profile
When asymmetrical edge lift profile was applied in
small steps the differential deflection of the slab
was linearly progressive until y
m
= 53mm as the
mid span of the slab is in contact with soil. The
results indicate if the y
m
is greater than 28mm the
slab does not satisfy the deflection criteria.
Therefore, slab fails to satisfy the deflection criteria
for both y
m
= 42mm and y
m
=53mm. The results
indicate if y
m
is greater than 28mm the slab does
not satisfy the deflection criteria as the slab is too
flexible to span between the two edges as shown in
Figure 12.

Figure 12: Deformed slab and soil profile results for
asymmetrical edge lift condition at ym = 53mm
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
V
e
r
i
t
c
a
l

m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Slab span (11.3m)
e = 2.6m
Expected slab
profile
Soil profile
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
V
e
r
i
t
c
a
l

m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Slab span (11.3m)
Expected slab
profile
Soil profile
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
V
e
r
i
t
c
a
l

m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
Slab span (11.3m)
e = 2.6m
Expected slab
profile
Soil profile
1
X Y
Z

-.218006
5.63955
11.4971
17.3547
23.2122
29.0698
34.9273
40.7849
46.6424
52.5
FEB 12 2014
16:38:02
NODAL SOLUTION
SUB =1
TIME=2
UZ (AVG)
RSYS=0
DMX =52.6725
SMN =-.218006
SMX =52.5
1
X Y
Z

0
5.88889
11.7778
17.6667
23.5556
29.4444
35.3333
41.2222
47.1111
53
FEB 14 2014
16:36:41
NODAL SOLUTION
STEP=2
SUB =35
TIME=2
UZ (AVG)
RSYS=0
DMX =53.0448
SMX =53
= 53mm
Heave = 53mm
Slab deflection
= 28mm
= 53mm
3.3.4 Asymmetrical e-distance heave profile
When asymmetrical e-distance heave profile was
applied in small incremental steps the differential
deflection of the slab was linearly increased until
y
m
= 53mm. The results indicate if y
m
is greater
than 28mm the slab does not satisfy the deflection
criteria as the slab is too flexible to span 11.3 as the
end span remained in contact with soil as shown in
Figure 13. The results indicate if the y
m
is greater
than 28mm the slab does not satisfy the deflection
criteria. Therefore, this design fails to satisfy the
deflection criteria for both for both y
m
= 42mm and
y
m
=53mm.


Figure 13: Deformed slab and soil profile results for
asymmetrical e-distance heave condition at ym =
53mm.
4 DISCUSSION
The finite element analysis results suggest that the
deemed-to-comply H2 Waffle raft slab satisfies the
deflection performance only under symmetrical e-
distance heave profile. Edge lift, asymmetrical edge
lift and e-distance heave within the same
magnitude of ground movement produced further
differential and greater net deflection.
AS 2870 does not appear to provide any
information on the asymmetrical heave conditions
which could realistically happen. Deflection
calculated based on the serviceability loads indicate
the same configuration of Waffle raft slab can span
up to 7m under any heave conditions considered in
this study as they become fully suspended between
edges. Design calculations and the finite element
analyses in this study were focused only on single
strip Waffle raft slab under heave conditions.
5 CONCLUSIONS
Design of the Waffle raft slabs using Standard
deemed-to-comply provision and engineering
principles were discussed with typical design
examples for H2 site. The standard deemed-to-
comply provision recommends 385mm overall
beam depth for H2 site classification regardless of
the y
s
value. This suggests that the deemed-to-
comply provision is less conservative if the site is
at the upper end of the H2 classification. As such
the expected performance may be lower than
expected.

Finite element analyses were performed on Waffle
raft slab on four types of soil heave profiles
namely; (a) edge lift; (b) e-distance heave; (c)
asymmetrical edge lift; and (d) asymmetrical e-
distance heave. The standard deemed-to-comply
H2 Waffle raft slab satisfied the deflection
performance only under symmetrical e-distance
heave profile. Edge lift and asymmetrical heave
within the same magnitude of y
m
produced further
differential and greater net deflection. The
following recommendations are made based on the
findings so far for symmetrical and asymmetrical
heave conditions:
a) H2 deemed-to-comply waffle raft slab under
symmetrical heaves
7m span satisfies all deflection and
strength criteria
Greater than 7m span does not satisfies
the deflection under edge lift
Greater than 11.3m span does not satisfies
the deflection under e-distance heave
b) H2 deemed-to-comply waffle raft slab under
asymmetrical heaves
7m span satisfies all deflection and
strength criteria
Greater than 7m span does not satisfies
the deflection under both edge lift and e-
distance heave
Further field and analytical evidence are required to
generalise the heave profiles considered in this
paper. Researchers at Swinburne University of
Technology are conducting on-going field
monitoring and laboratory experiments. Field data
and experimental results will be used to obtain
reliable soil profiles and further analytical studies
are underway to assess the performance of Waffle
raft slabs in both heave and settlement.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research is funded by ARC linkage Project -
LP100200306. The authors gratefully acknowledge
the financial and technical support provided by the
collaborating organizations, namely; Victorian
Building Authority (VBA), Victorian Office of
Housing (OoH), Foundation and Footings Society
of Victoria (FFSV), Association of Consulting
Structural Engineers Victoria (ACSEV) and
Housing Engineering Design and Research
Association (HEDRA).
REFERENCES

[1]. The Age, Owners find homes are cracking
under pressure. The Age, 2011.
http://theage.domain.com.au/home-owning-
tips/owners-find-homes-are-cracking-under-
pressure-20111221-1p5or.html, last accessed
14 February 2012.
[2]. AS 2870, Residential slabs and footing,
Australian Standard. 2011, SAI Global
Limited: 476, Sydney, NSW 2001.
1
X Y
Z

-.011748
5.87845
11.7686
17.6588
23.549
29.4392
35.3294
41.2196
47.1098
53
FEB 14 2014
14:23:05
NODAL SOLUTION
STEP=2
SUB =31
TIME=2
UZ (AVG)
RSYS=0
DMX =53.0272
SMN =-.011748
SMX =53
= 53mm
[3]. Gad, E.F., S. Sivanerupan, and J.L.
Wilson, Damage potential to residential
structures due to ground movement.
Australasian Structural Engineering
Conference, Perth, 2012.
[4]. Walsh, P. and D. Cameron, HB 28, The
Design of Residential Slabs and Footings.
1997, Standards Australia.
[5]. Lytton, R. L. (1970). Design Criteria for
Residential Slabs and Grillage Rafts on
Reactive Clay, Report for the Australian
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organization, Division of Applied
Mechanics, Melbourne, Australia.
[6]. Walsh, P. F. (1978). The Analysis of
Stiffened Rafts on Expansive Clays, CSIRO
Division of Building Research, Technical
Paper No. 23, Melbourne, Australia.
[7]. Bulut, R., Finite Element Methdo Analysis
of Slabs on Elastic Half Space Expansive Soil
Foundations. PhD thesis, Texas A & M
University, 2001.
[8]. W, M.P., The Structural Analysis of
Footings on Expansive Soil. Kenneth W. G.
Smith & Associates Reserach Report No. 1,
1980.
[9]. ANSYS14.1, ANSYS 14.1 release,
Structural Mechanics Solutions. Southpointe,
275 Technology Drive, Canonsburg, PA
15317, U.S.A., 2010.
[10]. Paulay, T. and M.J.N. Priestley, Seismic
Design of Reinforced Concrete and Masonry
Building. 1992, John Wiley and Sons, New
York.